Trump bracing for a longer Ukraine war
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | May 30, 2025
One of the mysteries of the Ukraine endgame is that President Donald Trump did not issue an executive order on January 20 withdrawing all support for Ukraine. That would have been the easiest way to end the war.
The conditions were propitious — Candidate Trump didn’t mince words that it was a hopeless war that cost the US dearly in treasure; he thought poorly of President Volodymyr Zelensky as a shameless free rider; he saw the war as impeding his foreign-policy priority of the US’ transition to a multipolar world order; and, he felt no compulsion to inherit ‘Biden’s war’.
But instead, Trump plunged himself with gusto into the Ukraine question, although Washington lacked the means to leverage Russia to compromise on its core interests in what Russian people regarded as an existential war.
Quite possibly, some of Trump’s advisors prevailed upon him to undertake the theatrical diplomatic effort on the basis of a flawed reading of the state of play in the war. Trump believed that western sanctions lethally weakened the Russian economy; that Russia’s casualty figures ran into hundreds of thousands and such a high level of attrition was unsustainable; that Zelensky would sign up on the dotted line; that an improvement in Russian-American relationship would be a ‘win-win’ with massive economic benefits accruing to both sides and so on.
But all these premises turned out to be wrong notions. Putin has steered the economy to a state of permanent western sanctions (which was the Soviet experience, too). Russian entrepreneurs have successfully replaced the fleeing western businesses in the wake of sanctions and will now resist any re-entry by the latter.
Russia’s casualty figures are much lower than the self-serving western estimates put it, as the high level of recruitment to the army suggests. Zelensky is bent on prolonging the war with support from European powers per Biden’s script to ‘Trump-proof’ the war. Europeans not only have a Plan B but have collaborators within the US some of whom may even be in Trump’s team.
Suffice to say, Trump has been on a learning curve, as he began sensing that the Kremlin is determined to realise the objectives it had set for itself (as outlined in Putin’s historic speech last June at the foreign ministry). According to a Reuters report two days ago, “Putin wants a ‘written’ pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the US-led NATO alliance eastwards — shorthand for formally ruling out membership to not only Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova and other former Soviet republics as well.”
“Russia also wants Ukraine to be neutral, some Western sanctions lifted, a resolution of the issue of frozen Russian sovereign assets in the West, and protection for Russian speakers in Ukraine” — per Reuters.
Europeans will scoff at such demands. Therefore, as things stand, a breakthrough at the Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul on June 2 seems unlikely. Unsurprisingly, Russia is pressing ahead with an offensive campaign in all directions, throwing in all its forces with a culmination planned for summer or early autumn.
The least bad option
Trump has three options under the circumstances. One is to simply refuse to own responsibility for the war and walk away for good. But then, can Trump deny his own part in it in his first term? While the Trump administration identified its approach to foreign policy as ‘principled realism’, late Joseph Nye’s characterisation of Trump as an “idiosyncratic realist” was perhaps closer to the truth.
The official administration policy on Ukraine during Trump’s first term was a continuation of the policy pursued by the Obama administration. It recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine, condemned Russia’s occupation and eventual annexation annexation of the peninsula; it underscored Russia’s primary responsibility for the instigation, continuation and conduct of the conflict in eastern Ukraine; it even identified the Russian interference in Ukraine as part of a wider pattern of aggression towards other states and as proof of Moscow’s challenge to the fundamental principles of international order.
For these reasons, the Trump administration maintained that the US should help Ukraine to defend itself and should penalise Russia both through sanctions and diplomatic isolation (eg., membership of the G7). Curiously, shades of this thought process resurface even today occasionally in Trump’s Truth Social outbursts. Trump seems unaware he’s carrying a can of worms as his Ukraine legacy.
So, the second option today is to convey Trump’s dissatisfaction over Russia’s perceived intransigence in dictating terms for settlement and its alleged lack of interest in peace talks. Trump even hinted at Russia’s hidden agenda to conquer Ukraine. Trump is hinting at punishing Russia both through sanctions and supplying weapons to Ukraine. German chancellor Friedrich Merz’s provocative announcement of giving long-range weapons to Zelensky was probably green lighted by some people in Trump’s team. After all, Merz is no stranger to Wall Street.
However, this is a recipe for an extremely dangerous NATO – Russia confrontation. If long range German missiles hit Russia, Russia will retaliate in a way that could potentially cripple NATO’s operational readiness in a hypothetical war. Belarus State Secretary of Security Council Alexander Volfovich has said that the Oreshnik missile system is “planned to be stationed in Belarus by the end of the year. The locations for its deployment have already been determined. Work is under way.” The spectre of World War III may seem a bit of a stretch, but Trump will have to consider the dangers of climbing the escalation ladder, which could destroy his MAGA presidency.
Washington has no means to intimidate the Kremlin. The bottom line is, Trump is actually left with only a third option, the least bad option — viz., walking away from the Ukraine conflict at this point and return when the war has been lost and won, possibly by the end of the year. This will not damage Trump’s reputation.
Trump may already be displaying his credentials as ‘peacemaker president’ if the US-Iran talks, which seem to be making progress, results in a nuclear deal. Besides, US-Russia normalisation needs more time to gain traction. Senator Lindsey Graham’s hard-hitting sanctions bill against Russia with 81 co-sponsors in the senate signals that Russia is a very toxic subject in the US domestic politics.
Also, Russia-Ukraine talks is only one track. The Russians have sensitised Trump’s team that while Moscow engages with Kiev, the root cause of the war — absence of a European security architecture — still remains to be addressed, which is something that only Russia and the US can work out jointly. The US shouldn’t shirk its responsibility, being both the original instigator of NATO expansion and sponsor of the Ukraine war.
The reaction by the US special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg has been positive when he told ABC News in an interview that the US understands that it is a matter of national security for Russia that NATO may stop accepting new Eastern European countries into its ranks — ie., not only Ukraine but Moldova and Georgia as well.
Kellogg said he considered the Russian side’s concerns to be justified. He did not rule out the possibility of reaching an agreement during negotiations between the US and Russia. This is a big step forward.
Col. Jacques Baud: Russia Pursues Military Solution as Diplomacy Fails
Glenn Diesen | May 29, 2025
Colonel Jacques Baud is a former military intelligence analyst in the Swiss Army and the author of many books. Colonel Baud argues that American indecisiveness and European irrationality have undermined negotiations, and Russia is now convinced it must pursue a military solution.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Why Merz’ comments show he is two steps down the escalation ladder from Putin
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 29, 2025
Russia has established escalation dominance in Ukraine in November 2024 by raising the bar on the military capabilities that it is willing to use. Merz’s comments on western cruise missile use haven’t changed that calculus and, instead, have illustrated German weakness in Russia’s eyes.
For some time now, western media outlets have pushed the argument hard that Zelensky should be free to use longer-range weapons deep inside Russia. In his bid to offer a tougher line on Ukraine’s war effort during his honeymoon period in office and ahead of Zelensky’s visit to Berlin today, Friedrich Merz announced a lifting of restrictions on the use of western missiles within the territory of Russia. In doing so, he showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Russian strategy.
I have seen at critical points over the past decade that Russia seeks escalation dominance, a Cold War concept holding that a state can best contain conflicts and avoid escalation if it is dominant at each successive rung up the “ladder of escalation,” all the way to the nuclear rung.
Since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Russia has sought to dominate each step up the escalation ladder. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 were major escalations that NATO didn’t meet head-on. This strategy is also seen in the diplomatic sphere, for example, Russia escalated a dispute with the U.S. in 2017 when it kicked 755 American diplomatic staff out of Russia. When Moscow over-escalates, it makes a gamble that its adversary will not be willing to step another rung higher on the escalation ladder.
There is a hard-wired view in Moscow that Russia will always overmatch a divided and morally weak Western alliance when push comes to shove. Russia has something that the West does not have — the sovereign power and the political will to act unilaterally. Putin had been subject to criticism from hardliners in Russia that he hasn’t responded to the slow ratcheting up of military support to Ukraine from the West.
What was surprising about Merz’s comments were their blindness to recent events. On Nov. 21, 2024, Vladimir Putin presented a huge escalation challenge to the West: are you ready for Russia to strike NATO facilities anywhere in Europe with hypersonic munitions that you don’t possess?
At that time, much as now in Berlin, bombastic British ex-military saber rattlers had been at the forefront of calls that such weapon systems as Scalp, Storm Shadow, U.S. ATACMS missiles could make on the battlefield in Ukraine.
On Nov. 19, the first salvo of ATACMS was lobbed at a military facility in Bryansk — outside the area in which Ukrainian forces were battling in Kursk. The following day, British Storm Shadow missiles were fired into Kursk, with the jubilant approval of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, no less. These strikes elicited widespread attaboy jingoism from the Western media, with hardly a word of caution.
On Nov. 21, Russia over-escalated. Specifically, they deployed a more powerful and destructive hypersonic Oreshnik missile at a well-fortified Ukrainian weapons facility in Dnipropetrovsk. This is the first time an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile has been used in combat. The claimed range of Oreshnik is 16 times greater than ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles. Its deployment put any NATO targets within Europe in the scope of a conventional strike.
This represented a major escalation in destructive capabilities. Russia had been trying unsuccessfully to destroy the Yuzhmash weapons facility since 2022 using the battlefield weapons at its disposal. Built during the Soviet era, Yuzhmash has workshops buried deep underground to protect them from attack. Among other purposes, the facility is thought to be where Rheinmetall had set up a plant to repair German Leopard tanks. It was also used in missile and long-range drone production. The Oreshnik strike levelled it.
The destruction of valuable Western repair facilities at Yuzhmash will have satisfied Kremlin hawks that Oreshnik has taken Russia two steps up the escalation ladder. Putin also sent a clear message to military planners from the U.S. and UK who supported the deployment of the ATACMS, that a more specifically NATO target may be next.
Carefully described by Putin at the time as a “test” the Oreshnik is now a deployed capability far beyond those that Western powers have allowed Ukraine to use, namely ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles. And also beyond the capabilities that Zelensky had requested — namely Tomahawk cruise missiles — that the U.S. has so far refused to sanction. Putin has left the door open for further “tests” of the Oreshnik.
Following Merz’s surprise announcement, speculation quickly mounted that Germany would finally relent on allowing Ukraine to use German Taurus cruise missiles. Even if supplied, Taurus offers nothing Ukraine doesn’t already have, as its range is slightly lower than the British Storm Shadow and its payload only slightly higher. The U.S. ATACMS has more destructive capability.
So, all that Merz did by grand-standing was to put Germany and Ukraine in a position where a more devastating weapon i.e. Oreshnik – may be used against strategic or battlefield targets that would overmatch the theoretical use of Taurus missiles. Taurus is therefore a battle-losing capability. To make matters worse, the new German Chancellor has already backtracked on supplying Taurus, following blowback from members of his coalition government.
Following the first deployment of ATACMS and Storm Shadow at targets in Bryansk and Kursk, western powers deescalated and placed greater restrictions on their tactical use. This made both Joe Biden and Keir Starmer look weak in President Putin’s eyes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the pro-ATACMS advocates largely fell silent, at least for a little while. Ukraine has gone on to lose further territory in the Donbass since that time.
So, the question for Merz when he meets Zelensky today is, what escalation card is he empowered to play next to overmatch a future Oreshnik strike at a target in Germany? If he hasn’t thought that through, and I suspect that he has not, Merz should reconsider his rhetoric, or risk looking weak and feckless, as Biden and Starmer did in November of last year.
Following the Oreshnik deployment, Prime Minister Starmer conceded in his December Manion House speech that Britain needed to help Ukraine get into the strongest position to secure a negotiated settlement to the war. That sill hasn’t happened. Perhaps Merz might consider a negotiated end to the conflict, rather than more empty sabre-rattling that he cannot deliver upon.
The Media Is Falsely Labeling Ukraine-Russia Talks a ‘Failure’
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 28, 2025
On May 16, Russia and Ukraine held their first direct talks since the first months of the former’s invasion. Despite the pessimistic evaluation by Ukrainian and European leaders, the return to diplomacy is itself a major achievement and step forward. The talks lasted an hour and forty minutes.
Western leaders and Western media have given the first round of talks a failing grade. They have dismissed it for three reasons. They claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin first suggested direct negotiations and then did not show. They claim that he sent an insultingly low-level delegation. And they claim that nothing was accomplished.
All three of these claims are false.
Putin did suggest direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, but he did not say that those talks would take place at the leadership level. Putin said, “We are proposing that Kiev resume direct negotiations without any preconditions…We offer the Kiev authorities to resume negotiations already on Thursday, in Istanbul.” Putin referred to the Kiev authorities and never to the two presidents.
It was unlikely that Russia would resume talks for the first time at the presidential level. Customarily, before presidents meet, a great deal of preparation and negotiation takes place at lower levels. Then, typically, the foreign ministers would meet to iron out most of the details prior to a presidential meeting.
It is also misleading to present the meeting as Putin not showing up while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did. Zelensky did arrive in Turkey, but he declined to agree to direct talks with Putin unless Putin first agreed to a thirty-day ceasefire, posting that “We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire – full, lasting, and reliable – starting tomorrow, May 12th, and Ukraine is ready to meet.” Ukraine’s Head of the office of President, Andriy Yermak, confirmed, “First a ceasefire for 30 days, then everything else.” According to White House officials, Trump “never agreed” that that a ceasefire was a precondition to the direct talks.
But Zelensky’s precondition was an annulment. Russia was never going to agree to a ceasefire prior to negotiations for two reasons. First, they do not want a ceasefire empty of a settlement because that would maintain the conditions that would likely lead to future war, as happened in the ceasefire in Donbas from the end of the coup in 2014 to the start of the war in 2022. Second, they do not want a ceasefire without a settlement that would allow Ukraine to rest, regroup, rearm and dig trenches simply to return to war thirty days later like the Minsk deception that stung Russia earlier.
Russia has insisted that these negotiations resolve the “root causes” of the war. The Western media continues to deceptively define that insistence as the determination to deflate Ukraine’s sovereignty and calls it a delaying tactic. There is nothing on the historical record to suggest that Putin has ever identified that as a root cause of the war. Russia has always identified the root causes of the war as NATO’s encroachment toward their border and into Ukraine and the need for the protection of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
The security proposal that Russia presented to the United States and NATO in December 2021 in the days before the war had as its central point that NATO not expand to Ukraine. Then-NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has confirmed that the “promise [of] no more NATO enlargement… was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine.” Ukraine’s chief negotiator in the Belarus and Istanbul talks with Russia has also said that stopping NATO from expanding to Ukraine and Russia’s borders was the “key point” for Russia and that “[e]verything else was simply rhetoric and political ‘seasoning.’” Zelensky, himself, has said that the promise not to join NATO “was the first fundamental point for the Russian Federation” and that “as far as I remember, they started a war because of this.”
Russia is not asking for something unimaginable or new. They are asking for what they were promised. Not only did NATO promise to stay out of Ukraine, but Ukraine promised to stay out of NATO. Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance: that included NATO.
Russia is not going to agree to a ceasefire without resolving this root cause of the war for the same reason that it went to war to resolve it.
The second reason for giving the first round of direct talks a failing grade is that Putin sent an insultingly low-level delegation. This is not only unfair for the reasons already discussed—that initial talks are usually conducted at a low level—but also because it ignores who Putin sent to conduct the talks. The Russian delegation is led by Vladimir Medinsky, the same person who led the Istanbul talks at the beginning of the war. Those talks nearly succeeded, and the nomination of Medinsky is a signal both that Russia is serious and that Russia sees the current round of talks as a continuation of the previous round. Putin said, “It was not Russia that broke off negotiations in 2022. It was Kiev. Nevertheless, we are proposing that Kiev resume direct negotiations without any preconditions.”
The third reason is that nothing of substance was accomplished. That, too, is untrue. The very resumption of direct talks is a major breakthrough. But, beyond that, some things of substance were accomplished.
The first is an agreement to exchange 1,000 prisoners each. Though prisoner exchanges have occurred during the war, this would be the largest exchange agreed to yet. It may also represent a goodwill gesture on the part of Russia, since it has been suggested in the Ukrainian press that Ukraine may not have 1,000 Russian prisoners of war.
The second is that the two sides each agreed to present a detailed document on its vision for a ceasefire. This is a significant achievement for a first round of talks.
The third is that, once the documents are presented and discussed, Medinsky said that “we think it will be reasonable to continue our negotiations.” Agreeing on a second round of talks is another positive and significant achievement.
Undercutting the negative assessment of Western officials and Western media, the Ukrainian delegation told The Washington Post that, “despite the heated exchanges… the talks eventually became constructive.” The Russian delegation agreed that they were “satisfied” with the first meeting.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the next round of talks could take place in mid-June, though their location is in doubt. Originally reported to be taking place in the Vatican, the Kremlin has suggested that the Vatican may not be the ideal location for two Orthodox Christian nations.
For the next round to get past the “heated exchanges” and continue to progress, key compromises will need to be made by both sides. Ukraine will have to agree not to join NATO. This is a big concession but should not be a deal breaker. Russia was promised this at the end of the Cold War, and Ukraine agreed to it during the Istanbul talks at the beginning of the war. If it was acceptable to Ukraine then, it should not be a fatal obstacle now.
In return, Russia will have to agree to real security guarantees for Ukraine. They will not agree to NATO nations as guarantors of the peace but could be open to countries from the Global South who have not sanctioned Russia or condemned its invasion of Ukraine but who also have not condoned it and would not want to see a ceasefire broken.
The West could agree to allow Ukraine to be armed, but not allow it to be armed with long-range weapons capable of striking Russia. The guarantors could agree to come to Ukraine’s aid if Russia breaks the ceasefire and attacks but not agree to come to Ukraine’s aid if they provoke Russia in hopes that they will come to Ukraine’s aid, much as China has been willing to promise Pakistan help if they are attacked but not if they irresponsibly cause the attack.
Both sides will need to make concessionary moves from their current territorial demands. Ukraine will never agree to Russia’s claim on more territory than it has conquered. Russia has hinted at some willingness to compromise on this. Russia will never agree to Ukraine’s demand to return territory to the prewar, or even pre-2014, borders. Ukrainian insistence on this condition for peace will guarantee that there will be no peace. And no peace will mean only that Ukraine will cede more territory to Russia. It is practical, then, for both sides to agree to negotiations beginning along the current line of conflict.
The recent return to direct talks between Russia and Ukraine can only be positive. And they accomplished more than the Western media and European leaders have suggested. Continued progress will require compromise and a genuine desire to build a peace that is workable and lasting.
Russia to respond to West’s attempted restrictions in Baltic Sea – Putin aide
RT | May 26, 2025
Russia is readying response measures to potential hostile NATO acts in the Baltics, Nikolay Patrushev, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said. The military bloc’s heightened activity in the area increasingly resembles acts of piracy, he told the government’s Maritime Board meeting on Monday.
A set of measures has already been coordinated and agreed with the president, Patrushev said, without revealing the steps Moscow plans to take in response to what it calls a threat to its security and interests in the area. The presidential aide said the Russian Baltic Fleet is currently “strengthening its positions” in the Baltic Sea to ensure the safety of navigation and prevent any “provocations” by “unfriendly” nations.
“The threats posed by NATO are rapidly growing,” the presidential aide said, claiming that the bloc has effectively dismantled the international security architecture established after World War II. NATO is now “stepping up its presence” in the Baltic region and expanding its “combat and reconnaissance capabilities,” Patrushev warned.
He added that these actions are part of a broader effort by Ukraine’s Western backers to increase pressure on Russia. According to Patrushev, Western countries are preparing legislation that would allow them to inspect vessels operating in Russia’s interests in international waters. They are also considering measures to restrict the navigation of these ships in the Baltic Sea or even block their passage through international straits.
“Against this background, the Western nations are de facto committing acts of piracy,” he said, citing an “attempt by the Estonian Navy, backed by NATO aircraft, to detain a civilian vessel in the Gulf of Finland.”
Patrushev was referring to an incident on May 13 involving the Jaguar, a Gabon-flagged ship en route to a Russian port, which the Estonian Navy tried to detain.
Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna later claimed that the vessel was unflagged and uninsured, and said the navy attempted to “inspect” it.
He also acknowledged that Estonia “has started to harass” what he described as Russia’s “shadow fleet” – a term used in the West to refer to tankers operating outside Western insurance systems.
Last month, Patrushev warned that EU and UK plans to tighten maritime restrictions on Russia “increasingly resemble a naval blockade.” He added that if diplomatic and legal means fail, Russia would be ready to deploy its navy to safeguard navigation.
West’s Long-Range Missiles to Ukraine All Essentially the Same & Russia’s Shooting Them Down
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 26.05.2025
Germany, the UK, France, and the US have removed range restrictions on weapons for Ukraine, Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed on May 26.
Whether it’s the Taurus, Storm Shadow, or SCALP, Russia will just keep knocking them out of the sky, Yevgeny Buzhinsky, Chairman of PIR-Center Think Tank Executive Board, Professor of Higher School of Economics who served as the Russian military’s top arms control negotiator from 2001 to 2009, told Sputnik.
The real issue with Germany’s Taurus missile isn’t its 500 km range, but rather what Merz rightly pointed out -without the Bundeswehr, Ukrainians can’t launch them, pointed out the pundit, adding:
“Which makes this a case of direct German involvement [in the Ukraine conflict], plain and simple.”
Germany, the UK, France and the US are no longer imposing restrictions on how far Ukraine can strike with Western-supplied weapons, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz revealed on May 26.
“There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine — not by the British, not by the French, not by us, not by the Americans. This means that Ukraine can now defend itself, including, for example, by striking military positions on Russian territory. Until a certain point, it could not do this,” Merz said in an interview with the WDR TV channel.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that any Taurus missile strike on Russian targets will be seen as Germany entering the war on the side of the Zelensky regime.
Moscow maintains that Western arms deliveries only escalate the conflict and drag NATO deeper into the quagmire.
How Peace-Oriented Norway Learned to Stop Worrying and Love War
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | May 26, 2025
Norway identifies itself as a model of a liberal and tolerant peace-oriented nation. Yet, a collective mindset has developed with intense distrust and loathing of anyone who deviates from the government’s official truth and war narratives.
Here is a social experiment to test the claim above. I am a professor of political science, but I am also a politician running for Parliament. My recently established political party is primarily an anti-war party, and we started a poster campaign on public transportation in Oslo. The core message was that we are for negotiations and against weapons for the war in Ukraine. This seemed like a reasonable position as Norway previously had a policy of not sending weapons to countries at war (as it escalates and can make us a participant), and our country used to advocate for diplomacy and negotiations as the path to peace. Norway has abandoned these policies and unified under the new mantra that “weapons are the path to peace”, and we have boycotted basic diplomacy with Russia even as hundreds of thousands of young men died in the trenches. Was our peace-oriented nation ready to at least consider the argument that we should return to our former policies of negotiating instead of fueling the war with more weapons to fight the world’s largest nuclear power?
The country lost its collective mind… Politicians called it a dangerous Russian influence operation. I had taken the side of Russia in supporting the invasion. I am an agent for Russia spreading Russian propaganda. It was argued that the national intelligence services should get involved, as I am likely financed by the Russian state. Soon thereafter, the national intelligence agency, PST, reassured the public that they are looking into people who may, at the behest of a foreign power, attempt to make Norwegians critical of the government’s policies on sending weapons to Ukraine.[1] Almost every media outlet in the country framed the issue on the premise that I am “pro-Russian” and “anti-Ukrainian”. People began tearing down the posters, and some compared their political vandalism with liberating the country from Hitler during the Second World War. People were intoxicated with self-righteousness and moral superiority as the tribe united in virtue and the fight for freedom. Their hatred of the evil “other” was celebrated as evidence of their righteousness as they formed a resistance against us, fascist agents of Russia who support the destruction of Ukraine and would like to see Russia conquer Europe.
At this point, it should be noted that I consider myself a friend of Ukraine. I have warned against war in Ukraine for the past 20 years, and I have obviously not supported the invasion of Ukraine. Much like many political leaders across the West have argued over the past 30 years, I believe that NATO expansion triggers a security competition and eventually war, much like it would if Russia established its military infrastructure in Mexico. My argument is that Russia considers NATO expansion an existential threat and responds based on these convictions, irrespective of NATO not agreeing with Russia’s threat assessments. I therefore argue for diplomacy and against sending weapons, as it will only escalate the war, destroy Ukraine, and take us closer to nuclear war.
I consider this to be a pro-Ukrainian position and a pro-Western position, to speak in the language of my tribal countrymen who do not care for arguments about security competition. It should be noted that our own Prime Minister argued after the Russian invasion that it was “out of the question” to send weapons, yet this position has since been criminalised and reserved for agents of Russia. I discovered that my position is not sufficiently anti-Russian, since I believe the broken security architecture is the source of the war, and the discourse in Norway is reduced to basic tribal loyalties of picking one side or the other. Norwegian society only tolerates arguments that are based on the premise that we are not to blame and our solidarity must be based on condemning the “other”. The premise of an “unprovoked invasion” is therefore sacred. Consequently, enhancing our security by mitigating the security competition with Russia is impossible, as we are not allowed to discuss Russian security concerns. War predictably becomes the only path to peace.
The political campaign resulted in a televised public debate where our former defence minister / foreign minister was represented on the other side. In what resembled a show from Jerry Springer rather than a debate, her tactic was to be condescending and accuse me of being a propagandist for Russia. Whatever could have resembled an actual argument was premised on the idea that I am “pro-Russian”, while the government is “pro-Ukraine”. My dissent was thus a threat to national security. The purpose was never to discuss whether Russia is pursuing an empire or responding to what it considers to be an existential threat, and the purpose was certainly not to discuss whether weapons and boycott of diplomacy are the path to peace.
Then the media, functioning as a branch of government, stepped in to “fact-check” the debate. Or more precisely, the media only “fact-checked” one side, while the obvious lies told by our former defence minister / foreign minister went unchecked. Also, the “fact-checkers” were more like narrative checkers, as I was accused of “using several arguments that fit Russia’s most important narratives about the war in Ukraine”.[2]
The more dishonest media never bothered to check the facts supporting my arguments, and instead approached “fact-checking” by picking one ambiguous source to conclude I am not reliable. For example, I made the argument that Boris Johnson sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement at the behest of the US and UK, yet the newspaper then only picked Davyd Arakhamia as an ambiguous source. Why did they not mention the two mediating sides, the Turkish (the foreign minister and President Erdoğan) or the Israeli (former Prime Minister Bennett), who confirm the negotiations were sabotaged to use Ukrainians to weaken a strategic rival? Why did they not cite the former head of the German military, General Kujat, who says the same? Why not reference interviews with American and British leaders who argued that the only acceptable outcome was regime change in Moscow? Why did they not cite the words of Boris Johnson himself as he expressed his disdain for the negotiations and warned against a “bad peace”?
The more honest media had the decency to at least publish the facts I presented, although they still had to muddy the waters. For example, I argued that the West knew that we backed the coup in Kiev in 2014 and pushed NATO expansion, despite knowing that only a small minority of Ukrainians (about 20%) wanted NATO membership and despite knowing it would likely trigger a war. The evidence cannot be disputed, so the fact-checker argues the Ukrainians were “ignorant” of NATO’s mission and had been propagandised, and points out that after the Russian invasion, there has been a majority support. This information and these claims have absolutely nothing to do with the argument that we knew only a small minority wanted NATO membership in 2014, and we knew it would likely result in war. All the “fact-checking” was intended to discredit.
The considerations of the rational individual have been defeated in Norway by the tribal mindset and groupthink. The government’s policies and war narratives represent virtue and truth, and all opposition is thus immoral and deceptive. The premise of every argument from politicians and their stenographers in the media was that they were on the side of the innocent Ukrainian victim, and I represented the evil Russian aggressor. There is no interest in engaging with arguments; rather, there is an obsession with exposing the hidden evil intentions of their opponents. Toward this end, anything is permitted in the “good fight”. The national intelligence services warned, with a not-so-subtle hint to me, that they are aware of efforts to polarise the public. Not only is it completely unacceptable for me to enter Parliament as I allegedly represent Putin, but my employment as a professor at a Norwegian university is also problematic, as I repeat “Russian narratives. How did Norway become authoritarian and gung-ho about war?
The Propagandised Norwegian
I will write here about “the Norwegian”, the collective national consciousness that serves the purpose of overwhelming the rational individual. Sigmund Freud famously recognised that the individual is rational, although human beings are also influenced by an irrational group psychology. Human beings have throughout their entire history organised in groups for security and meaning, and adjusting to the group is one of the dominant instincts in human nature. Carl Jung famously wrote about the limits of reason: “Free will only exists within the limits of consciousness. Beyond those limits there is mere compulsion”.[3]
The key component of group psychology is to divide individuals into “us” (the in-group) and the “other” (the out-group). When human beings are exposed to uncertainty and fear, there is an instinct to demand internal solidarity and denounce the out-group. Authoritarian tendencies tend to thrive when exposed to external threats.
The literature on political propaganda originates primarily from Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who built on his uncle’s work. Bernays recognised that manipulating the stereotypes of what represents “us” and the “other” diminishes the relevance of objective reality and the considerations of the rational individual. When we use military force, is it for freedom, and when our adversaries do the exact same thing, it is to advance empire and destroy freedom. The core of propaganda is therefore to present the world as good versus evil, and as superior versus inferior. The Western political propaganda that previously framed the world as the civilised versus the barbaric has been recast as the struggle of liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. If the public accepts this basic premise, the complexity of the world is simplified and dumbed down to the extent that dissent is immoral and dangerous. All that matters then is that you display loyalty to the in-group.
Walter Lippmann famously argued that political propaganda had the benefit of mobilising the public for conflict, yet it had the disadvantage of preventing a workable peace. When the public has bought into the premise that they are in a struggle between good and evil, how could they accept mutual understanding and compromise? The propagandised public reaches the conclusion that peace depends on the good defeating the evil. In almost every conflict and war of the West, the opponent is presented as a reincarnation of Hitler, and the Western political-media establishment lives perpetually in the 1930s as negotiations are appeasement and war is peace. This is profoundly problematic as the first step in reducing the security competition is recognising mutual security concerns.
Carl Schmitt, the scholar from Hitler’s Nazi Party, argued that organising politics along the friend-enemy binary also enabled governments to purge dissent. Schmitt’s concept of the enemy within strengthens political unity by purging those who do not display in-group loyalty and fail to conform to the beliefs and behaviour of the social order. The Norwegian has now experienced a decade of non-stop obsession with the Russiagate Hoax, Covid and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fear and the search for enemies within to purge has exhausted the rational individual. We have now outsourced our critical thinking to the government and seek comfort in Orwell’s two-minute hate, in which we join the media-fuelled moral outrage against the enemies of the state. The moral indignation gives safety, meaning and unity.
The problem is spreading across Europe. In France, the main opposition leader has been arrested in what is seemingly a politically motivated attack. In Germany, the largest political opposition party has been labelled an “extremist organisation”, which enables the intelligence agencies can go after members. It is likely also a first step to banning the opposition party. In Romania, the election results in the presidential election were cancelled, and the winner was not allowed to run again. In the do-over of the Romanian elections, France and the EU were accused of interfering in the election to make sure the Romanians would [not] vote the wrong way again. Interference in Moldova and Georgia was also done under the banner of defending democracy from Russia. The irony is that the internal solidarity of the West as a “liberal democratic community” is, to a large extent, reliant on the Russian “other” playing the role of the bogeyman, which creates the groupthink that tears away at the liberal character of the West.
People tend to exaggerate what they have in common with the in-group, and exaggerate the differences with the out-group. The Norwegian has some contempt for America when compared with Norway, especially when they vote the wrong way. The Norwegian can, for example, not understand why the Americans would vote for Trump. This is because the Norwegian does not actually know why Americans voted for Trump, since the Norwegian media functioned as a campaign manager for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It is common to portray Americans as stupid, aggressive, and under Trump, it is not uncommon to introduce the word fascism. However, when in conflict with Russia, the American transforms into the in-group. With the simplistic division of good versus evil, the American is cast as the good guy. The US has a security strategy of global primacy, yet the Norwegian is suspicious of arguments that the US security strategy does not consist of advancing liberal democratic values. By extension, NATO is a “force for good”, and you would not question it unless you are seeking to sow divisions to undermine our goodness. NATO occupied Afghanistan for 20 years in a strategic part of Central Asia so small girls would be allowed to go to school, Libya and Syria were destroyed to defend human rights, and the expansion of the military bloc is solely motivated by the goal of offering protection to other peoples. Moscow could not possibly think the US would ever attack Russia, while ignoring the current proxy war and the continuous talk of possible wars with Iran and China. The Norwegian must refer to NATO as a defensive alliance even whilst it is bombing countries that never threatened a NATO country. Leading NATO countries are now complicit in genocide in Gaza, yet the benign liberal democratic identity we have assigned to ourselves is impervious to reality. If you criticise the West, it is not because you advocate for course correction, but because you stand with our enemies.
The Norwegian as a Moral and Liberal Authoritarian
Liberalism is renowned for having an internal contradiction that must be managed. Liberalism is based on tolerance to accommodate the rights of the individual to deviate from the group, yet liberalism is also based on the assumption of universalism in terms of all societies conforming to the liberal ideals.
The Norwegian accepts that all people are different and tolerate diversity, yet his liberal convictions are universal and more developed in Norway, others must thus follow the same path. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. The Norwegian has embraced liberal principles such as mass immigration, radical secularism, gay marriage, gender ideology and humanitarian wars, and will ostracise and crush anyone who does not follow the same conviction. For example, believing that marriage is between a man and a woman was an acceptable opinion 15 years ago, but today it makes you intolerant and there is no tolerance for your intolerance. The Norwegian politician may not know the first thing about China, with its thousands of years of history and population of 1.4 billion, yet the Norwegian politician has a remarkable confidence in knowing exactly how China should be run as a country.
The Norwegian has been trained to speak in the language of morality to suppress factual discussion. Framing all arguments as moral implies that the opponents are immoral. Critical debate and open debate suffer as rational arguments, and nuance is replaced with moral righteousness and condemnations.
“Helping Ukraine”
The good versus evil premise that cannot be contested is that the Norwegian government is on the side of Ukraine, it is “pro-Ukrainian”, it “supports” and “helps” Ukraine. In contrast, dissidents such as myself who criticise the government’s policies are “anti-Ukrainian” who legitimise or support the invasion in solidarity with Russia. For the Norwegian, even a democratic debate between the two sides is morally repugnant as it gives voice to Russian propaganda.
I usually counter the false premise by arguing that NATO’s “help” entailed supporting the toppling of Ukraine’s government in 2014, which did not have the support of the majority of Ukrainians or their constitution. This was largely done to “help” Ukraine join NATO, but only about 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO in 2014. The US merely “helped” when it took control over key governmental positions in Ukraine and had to rebuild Ukrainian intelligence services from scratch as an ally against Russia, from the first day after the regime change in 2014.
When 73% of Ukrainians voted for the peace platform of Zelensky in 2019, NATO decided to “help” destroy the popular peace mandate as it represented “capitulation”. Nationalists, supported by the “NGO” Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, presented “red lines” that Zelensky was not allowed to cross.[4] Zelensky had his life threatened repeatedly and publicly if he dared to cross these red lines, and he eventually abandoned his peace mandate. Several Western governments, including the Norwegian government, finance this “non-governmental organisation”.[5] There is an abundance of evidence that the US sabotaged the Istanbul peace negotiations in April 2022 and wanted a long war that uses Ukrainians to bleed Russia, yet the proxy war is fought under the banner of solely “helping” Ukraine. Criticising the idea that NATO, the world’s largest military alliance and an important instrument to advance US global hegemony, is solely preoccupied with helping Ukraine, is a key premise that cannot be challenged. Anyone attempting to question it is met with vicious attacks and accusations of standing with the enemy.
To ensure that the groupthink is managed, “democratic institutions” such as government-funded NGOs are tasked to herd the masses. The government-funded Norwegian Helsinki Committee, another “non-governmental organisation”, is also financed by the US government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Reagan and the CIA Director established NED in 1983 as a “human rights organisation” to manipulate civil society in other countries. It is an ideal propaganda arm for the government, as competing power interests in the world and subsequent conflicts can be sold to the public as a struggle between good and evil. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee, a government-financed “non-governmental organisation”, writes regular hit-pieces on me, smears me non-stop on social media as a Putin-propagandist, attempts to cancel my invitations to speak, and attempts to have me fired by always shaming the university for giving me credentials that I allegedly abuse to spread propaganda. This includes calling and sending letters to the university. I must hide my address and phone number as the public is regularly told I am “anti-Ukrainian”, while an employee at this “human rights organisation” posted a picture of the sales advertisement of my house on social media. The leader of this NGO that has spent more than four years to smear, intimidate, censor and cancel me explained to the media that it was done as a nice gesture to help me sell my house. When I compared their intimidation to the intimidation of the brownshirts at universities, the scandal was that I compared this virtuous “democratic institution” to the brownshirts.
The Norwegian as a Sociopath
The rational individual is humanistic, but the collective consciousness of the Norwegian has taken on sociopathic traits with a lack of empathy, chronic lying, deceit, aggression, irresponsibility, and an absence of remorse.
The Norwegian is taught to express empathy for Afghans when it justifies occupation, Syrians when it justifies regime change, Libyans when it justifies military intervention, etc. However, once the strategic objective is achieved, there is no attention or empathy expressed. As we leave behind death and destruction, there is no remorse, as our alleged intentions were good. In Ukraine, the Norwegian is taught to have great empathy when it comes to advancing the war efforts. In contrast, the Norwegian will react with suspicion and anger if anyone mentions the suffering of the people in Donbas over the past decade, “military recruiters” dragging people off the streets and out of their homes, the attacks on the media, the denial of political rights, language rights, cultural rights or religious rights. The empathy for Ukrainians is instrumental, it is evoked or suppressed based on the purpose it serves.
Ukrainians who want to fight the Russians make the headlines, while Ukrainians such as former Western-backed presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko have disappeared from the media after she accused the West of using Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Ukrainians who fail to play the role of wanting to fight to the last man are also met with suspicion and should not be allowed to speak on behalf of their country. The narrative must be defended from facts, and in the good fight, it is virtuous to lie and deceive. Irresponsibility is now framed as being principled, as, for example, Russia’s nuclear deterrent must be referred to as an unacceptable nuclear blackmail that must be rejected. Insisting on continuing to fight a losing war in which Ukrainians lose more men and territory every day is “pro-Ukrainian”, because the alternative is a Russian victory that is “pro-Russian”. The deeper the belief in the righteousness of the cause, the easier it becomes to love the war that serves it.
[1]
PST snakker om utenlandsk påvirkning etter FOR-debatten
[2]
Faktasjekk: Partiet Fred og rettferdighet (FOR) og russiske påstander om krigen i Ukraina
[3] Jung, C.G., 1973. Letters 1: 1906-1950. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p.227.
[4]
[5]
How Russia Quietly Revolutionised Warfare
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | May 25, 2025
On May 23rd, The Times published an extraordinarily candid probe into how militarised drones have irrevocably revolutionised warfare in the 21st century, with Russia far at the forefront of this radical shakeup of how conflicts are waged. Meanwhile, there is little indication NATO members even vaguely comprehend this battlefield reality, let alone a single one of them is undertaking any serious measures whatsoever to prepare for conflict such as that currently unfolding and evolving daily throughout Ukraine’s eastern steppe.
The Times piece is a first-person report of a visit to the assorted headquarters of Kiev’s 93rd Mechanised Brigade, in basements of abandoned buildings and homes throughout the Donetsk city of Kostiantynivka. It’s a devastating picture of the realities of war in the era of drones, which has “[altered] the physical make-up of the front line, the tactics of the war and the psychology of the soldiers fighting it,” while “having a devastating impact on Ukraine’s logistical ability.”
At one stage, The Times reporter was warned they were standing nine kilometres – 5.5 miles – from the nearest Russian position, and thus “well inside the kill range.” A Ukrainian soldier told them with a shrug, this was “now an easy range in which to die”:
“No other weapon type has changed the face of the war here so much or so fast as the FPV drone. Almost any vehicle within five kilometres of the front is as good as finished. Anything moving out to ten kilometres is in danger. Drone strikes at 15 or 20 km are not that unusual.”
Since the proxy war erupted, both Ukraine and Russia have innovated in the field of FPV drones to an unprecedented degree. Kiev has become so reliant on drones, they are her “weapon of choice.” Yet, as The Times records, Russia has now decisively “taken the lead in the drone race, outproducing Kyiv in the manufacture and use of medium-range FPV drones and fibre optic variants that have changed the shape of the entire 1,200 km front line.”
Not only are FPVs “dramatically” striking ever-deeper into Ukrainian territory, but fibre optic FPV drones have gained “dark prominence over the killing fields.” While emulating the quadcopters equipped with munitions typically deployed by both sides previously, this “highly manoeuvrable killer drone” is connected directly to pilots by “a gossamer thin fibre optic thread.” This makes the contraptions difficult to track, and impervious to electronic jamming. A local infantry battalion commander told The Times:
“The changes posed by drones are so fast that concepts we implemented just a month ago no longer work now. We live in a space of perpetual fast adaptation. In the past week alone, Russian drone strike ranges have increased by four kilometres.”
These developments have sent Ukrainian forces scurrying en masse to regroup at regular, abrupt intervals ever-further away from the front line (also known as “zero point”), while logistical convoys to Kramatorsk – “long considered the bastion of Ukraine’s defence of the Donbas region” – have been repeatedly struck. One lieutenant recorded how Russian drones “swarm our armoured vehicles whenever they get near the zero point,” obliterating them and their crews. He believes drones represent such a world-changing military hazard, “the days of the tank are truly over.”
‘Danger Estimate’
The “drone-filled skies” of Donbass are so deadly, getting soldiers and equipment to the ever-expanding frontline and back is not only a logistical and practical horror, but also a frequently suicidal task. The Times reports that until late 2023, Ukrainian infantrymen “were usually carried to a position near the front in armoured personnel carriers, walking the last few hundred metres on foot.” Today, they are dropped off up to eight kilometres away at night, walking “meandering routes through trees to avoid detection, just to take up their positions.”
Rotations from the frontline have also vastly extended in length. While at the start of 2024 Ukrainian soldiers spent “a week or two” at zero point, now they’re routinely trapped there for months at a time, “often devoid of almost any other human contact, resupplied with water, rations and ammunition by agricultural drones.” Resultantly too, “casualty evacuation has become a nightmare.” Wounded fighters are “commonly” rescued at night, and “even then the operation is fraught.” A senior logistician for the 93rd Brigade’s drone crews lamented:
“As a word ‘stressful’ doesn’t even come close to describing it. Every mission I think, ‘God forbid we get a casualty and have to work out how to get them back’.”
Ukrainian soldiers always keep shotguns close, to attempt to blast attacking drones out of the sky
Each night too, the Brigade’s frontline drone crews are resupplied with batteries, drone frames and munitions. Logistics teams are dropped off up to seven kilometres from the frontline, then carry up to 36 kilograms of equipment forward on foot. The risk to these crews is “enormous”. One driver was quoted as saying he conducted three missions nightly, “and I never know if each one will be my last, if I’m going to make it there and back in one piece.”
The Times records how a logistics vehicle was recently struck by a Russian drone while returning from a resupply mission. The driver lost an arm, but there were so many drones buzzing nearby, he couldn’t be evacuated from the position for five hours, so bled to death. Five Ukrainian armoured vehicles were destroyed by drones in the same sector the next day. However, none of this is seeping out to the world via the mainstream media, which once published videos of Ukrainian strikes on Russia daily.
As The Times notes, drones have adversely affected a core component of Kiev’s war effort – “media communications”. The 93rd Brigade was once “renowned for allowing reporters good access to…the war from the front.” Now though, “access for journalists has been dramatically reduced,” with “many media organisations…reluctant to commit reporters into areas within 15 km of the front.” Ukrainian brigades are likewise “wary” of the risks “they expose their own troops to in taking journalists by vehicle to the front.”
The Times reports that in 2023, the 93rd Brigade’s press officer “organised hundreds of visits to the front by reporters.” The number of visitors has now “dwindled to a trickle”. Since the proxy war’s eruption, the psychological field of battle has been where Ukraine has performed most effectively, eagerly assisted in its propaganda efforts by a media apparatus reflexively reporting the fantastical claims of officials in Kiev and their Western proxy backers as fact. Now, those days are long over. The press officer complained:
“The risks get bigger and bigger, and the coverage gets less and less. We get a journalist’s request to go to the front now and we wonder how rational is it? What is the danger estimate? What is the benefit?”
‘Technological Adaptations’
The Times report is a vanishingly rare mainstream acknowledgement of how the conflict currently raging Donbass is a war unlike any other in history, and its key spheres of battle are wholly unfamiliar to Western militaries. Despite this media omertà, the proxy conflict’s unparalleled operating environment, and obvious lessons, have not gone entirely unheeded in certain elite quarters. Nonetheless, despite alarm bells ringing accordingly, they are clearly falling on deaf ears in American and European centres of power.
In September 2024, Britain’s House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee published a bombshell report, Ukraine: a wake-up call. It found the proxy war had “exposed fundamental weaknesses” in the “military strength” of both Britain and NATO, concluding London was effectively defenceless, with its “small” military reliant on unaffordable “status symbols” such as non-functional aircraft carriers. The country lacks the ammunition, armour, equipment, industrial capacity, personnel and vehicles to withstand a Donbass-style conflict for more than a few weeks at absolute most.
Amidst relentless condemnation of the state of Britain’s armed forces, the report contained a dedicated section on how “the use of drones in Ukraine” had “exposed the sheer variety of possible drone threats in a conflict scenario, ranging from disposable and commercially available drones to high-end, sophisticated ones.” It noted the development has “inserted an extra layer of weaponry between the land and air domains” and augmented “existing capabilities that both sides have, particularly offering new defensive options in the absence of air superiority.”
As such, the House of Lords Committee called for London to “invest in research and development to maintain a strategic edge in drone technology (including amphibious drones), and support the rapid development of new technologies that can compete in contested environments.” It urged decisionmakers to constantly consider and monitor “the pace of technological adaptations on and off the battlefield,” and the Ministry of Defence “to support continuous adaptation,” such as “[incorporating] learning on the use of drones in Ukraine across all domains.”
The report went entirely unremarked upon by the media contemporaneously, and today there is no sign of its multiple urgent calls to action having produced any meaningful results in any tangible regard in Britain’s armed forces. Similarly, despite NATO officials warning the alliance is wholly dependent on US electronic warfare capabilities, which in any event are woefully inferior to Russia’s own, public indications of Western leaders or militaries taking the drone warfare revolution seriously are unforthcoming. Should they end up in direct conflict with Russia, they’ll be in for quite a shock.
The West pressures Moldova’s president to launch a blitzkrieg against Transnistria
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 24, 2025
As Russia celebrated Victory Day on May 9 – honoring the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War – tensions in Europe, particularly in Moldova and Romania, have reached a boiling point.
On Moldova’s periphery lies a small post-Soviet republic that could soon become the epicenter of a new conflict. Pressure is mounting on Moldova’s pro-European President Maia Sandu, who faces growing domestic dissent and increasing demands from Western allies to fast-track the country’s integration into the European Union – even at the risk of military confrontation with the breakaway region of Transnistria.
Romanian state media reports suggest that some in Bucharest ultimately seek the full annexation of Moldova, effectively reducing it to a province or “14th region” of Romania – a former kingdom until 1947. With the EU recently securing the victory of its preferred pro-European candidate in Romania’s elections, emotions are running high.
In the first round of voting, the Romanian electorate overwhelmingly supported the ultra-right candidate Călin Georgescu. Shocked by the result, the EU pushed to invalidate the outcome and called for new elections, which ultimately installed its favored candidate, Nicușor Dan, likely through electoral fraud.
Moldova’s President Maia Sandu – a Harvard-educated politician holding a Romanian passport – supports Moldova’s unification with Romania, including the reintegration of Transnistria. She was among the first to congratulate Romania’s new pro-European president, Nicușor Dan. Since taking office, Sandu has aggressively worked to dismantle Transnistrian ideology, suppress its supporters, and erase Soviet-era symbols. Her government has promoted the Romanian language (Moldova’s official state language) while marginalizing canonical Orthodox Christianity – part of a broader cultural shift toward Europe.
But in Transnistria, residents have long rejected Chișinău’s authority, wary of rising Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiment from the Moldovan capital. Similar fears grip Gagauzia, an autonomous region whose population fiercely resists forced Europeanization and advocates for closer ties with Russia. Gagauzia, home to a Turkic-speaking, predominantly Orthodox Christian ethnic group, has been a vocal opponent of Sandu’s policies.
The region’s leader, Evghenia Guțul, was arrested upon returning from a trip to Russia, where she met with President Vladimir Putin – an act the West now deems criminal. Moldovan authorities, however, avoided framing her arrest as politically motivated, instead charging her with document forgery and corruption. Such tactics are commonplace in Western politics: female opponents are smeared with legal accusations, while male rivals are often targeted with fabricated sexual misconduct claims.
Both Transnistria and Gagauzia demand the preservation of Russian as a regional language, protection of religious freedoms, and the right to maintain political and economic ties with Moscow. Sandu’s government has responded with repression, arresting Guțul and escalating tensions further.
In another provocative move, Archbishop Marcu of Bălți and Fălești was barred from traveling to Jerusalem for the Holy Fire ceremony on Easter eve – a decision made under direct orders from the presidential administration. Moldovans have since mocked the irony, joking that “the daughter of a swineherd tried to play a mean trick on Orthodox believers but ended up covered in mud herself.” The holy flame was eventually brought into the country by other priests.
On the eve of Victory Day – a major holiday commemorating the Soviet victory over fascism – Sandu banned public commemorations in Chișinău’s central square, sparking widespread outrage. Many Moldovans remember their ancestors’ sacrifices in the Red Army, with over 56,000 Moldovan soldiers perishing in World War II. They also recall the atrocities committed by Romanian occupiers during the war, making Sandu’s pro-Romanian stance particularly inflammatory.
Public discontent is now reflected in polls: Sandu’s approval rating, along with that of her party, Action and Solidarity (PAS), has plummeted to just 22%. Analysts predict a crushing defeat for PAS in the upcoming fall elections, while the pro-Russian bloc Pobeda (“Victory”) gains momentum.
To salvage her position, Sandu has held urgent talks with EU officials in Brussels and Polish leaders in Warsaw. In response, Western political strategists have flooded Chișinău, tasked with smearing the opposition and convincing Moldovans that EU integration is their only future.
Europe cannot afford an anti-EU – let alone pro-Russian – victory in Moldova. Romania (and by extension, Moldova) plays a pivotal role in NATO, hosting what will soon be the alliance’s largest European military base, explicitly aimed at countering Russia. Construction began in 2024.
Poland has also emerged as a key player in Moldova’s political landscape. President Andrzej Duda has deployed Stsiapan Putsila – a young Belarusian opposition figure and editor-in-chief of the Warsaw-backed outlet Nexta – to assist Sandu’s campaign. Putsila, a social media specialist known for his role in discrediting political opponents across the post-Soviet space, will advise PAS ahead of the September elections, ensuring a victory akin to Romania’s manipulated outcome.
In essence, Europe has adopted George Soros-style tactics – modernized color revolutions and election interference – precisely what it accuses Russia of doing.
Yet Sandu’s European backers recognize that media manipulation alone may not salvage her dwindling support. Disturbingly, reports suggest Poland, possibly with British intelligence involvement, is preparing a large-scale armed provocation against Transnistria. Unsurprisingly, EU-linked “fact-checking” platforms like Disinfo dismiss these claims – though their track record shows that what they label “fake news” often turns out to be true.
For now, Sandu is being urged to consider a swift, “winnable military operation” as a last-ditch effort to secure victory in the parliamentary elections. This strategy – using external conflict to rally domestic support – has been employed elsewhere in the post-Soviet world. Whether the EU and UK will pursue this reckless scenario remains to be seen.
The critical question is whether Sandu will take such a suicidal gamble – for both her country and herself.
An attack on Transnistria – home to half a million people, including thousands of ethnic Russians and Russian peacekeepers – could ignite a regional crisis, destabilizing Eastern Europe and provoking a severe response from Moscow. For Moldova, this would mean risking everything for fleeting political gains.
The current turmoil in Moldova is more than a local power struggle. It is a microcosm of the broader East-West confrontation – testing whether democracy can thrive without coercion, and whether sovereignty can withstand external domination.
As the 80th anniversary of fascism’s defeat reminds us, the scars of war endure for generations. History shows that those who attempt to rewrite it often repeat its darkest chapters. The European Union, which falsely equates Nazi Germany and the USSR as equal instigators of World War II, should take heed.
Eurovision: NATO Psychological Warfare Tool
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | May 24, 2025
The 2025 Eurovision Song Contest ended May 17th mired in controversy. The Zionist entity’s entrant, Yuval Raphael, finished second. Her performance, “New Day Will Rise”, received 297 points via public televote – the highest garnered by any act in the competition’s Grand Final, with 13 countries giving Raphael the maximum score of 12 points. This helped “Israel” almost clinch victory, despite coming last among participants in national jury votes. Immediately, state broadcasters across Europe demanded an investigation into flagrant, industrial scale rigging in “Israel’s” favour.
The Zionist entity’s participation in the Contest was the subject of much controversy in its leadup. On May 5th, 72 former Eurovision contestants – including previous winners – cosigned a letter to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) demanding “Israel” and its national broadcaster be banned from the contest, over the country’s “genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and the decades-long regime of apartheid and military occupation against the entire Palestinian people”. Their call was echoed by Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez.
Then, on May 19th, an EBU probe revealed the Israeli Government Advertising Agency conducted a vast, cross-platform online campaign to encourage support for Raphael’s entry. Detailed instructions on how to vote for her via text and phone in countries as far afield as Australia were widely circulated, along with a reminder that individuals could vote up to 20 times each. A dedicated YouTube channel – @Vote4NewDayWillRise – was launched to support the effort, garnering over 8.3 million views. Its videos were widely amplified across social media.
Separate investigations suggest Zionists could’ve further connived to fudge the Contest’s results via “VPNs, automated scripts (bot farms), and bulk SIM card purchases”. It is not the first time Tel Aviv has engaged in brazen fraud to skew Eurovision’s results in its favour. When “Israel” triumphed in the 2018 Contest, speculation widely abounded their victory resulted from meddling by now-defunct online Zionist astroturf effort Act.IL. On top of unambiguous voting irregularities, winning meant the 2019 Contest would be convened in “Israel”.
A June 2018 Knesset hearing spelled out this windfall’s strategic significance. Multiple Zionist entity lawmakers and ministers spoke of how “holding the Eurovision song contest in “Israel” is a gift” that could be exploited to boost and improve “Israel’s” international image, and counteract the burgeoning Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement’s successes. BDS had recently compelled Argentina to cancel a World Cup ‘friendly’ match with the entity, after Tel Aviv attempted to host the bout in illegally occupied al-Quds.
‘Opinion Leaders’
Similar Zionist entity-orchestrated social media and televote chicanery boosted “Israel” to fifth place in the 2024 Contest, which was likewise prefaced by widespread calls to bar Tel Aviv’s participation, and for other participating countries to boycott the event. While falling far short of victory, the public relations utility of “Israel’s” performance was abundantly clear. Entity officials, Western news outlets and pundits eagerly leaped upon the results as proof that despite the ongoing 21st century Holocaust in Gaza, a “silent majority” of Europeans still supported “Israel”.
At the time, journeyman Israeli government “public diplomacy” apparatchik David Saranga gushed to Ynet, “we knew that the situation was less serious than it is reflected in the demonstrations on the streets of Europe, but we did not expect such overwhelming support”. He added, “the fact that even countries where public opinion is critical of “Israel”, such as Sweden or Ireland, gave “Israel” a high score” indicated there were “underground currents” of pro-Zionist sentiment throughout the West.
However, Saranga also admitted the entity’s Foreign Ministry “acted among friendly audiences to increase voting”. Ynet subsequently detailed this effort, which included Tel Aviv’s entrant that year, Eden Golan, recording personal video addresses to foreign audiences in their own languages, referencing a supposed “wave of hatred” being whipped up against “Israel” by “Muslims”. Extensive analysis was conducted to ensure her message reached “Eurovision-loving audiences such as the LGBT community in Europe, members of fan clubs, journalists covering the contest and opinion leaders in the field.”
Following Yuval Raphael coming second this year, a familiar chorus erupted, with numerous prominent figures claiming her televoting preeminence was indicative of concealed Zionist sentiment the world over, and that ever-growing Palestine solidarity actions were not representative of wider public opinion. This is despite her performances being met with such intense booing, some European broadcasters resorted to piping in pre-recorded cheers and applause to drown out the mass jeering. Meanwhile, polls amply indicate the overwhelming majority of Europeans hold “unfavourable” views of Tel Aviv.
That the Zionist entity has so consistently invested enormous time, energy, and money into attempting to ‘game’ Eurovision over so many years is a testament to its redoubtable international propaganda potency. Up to 200 million people worldwide routinely tune in to the tournament every year, and Tel Aviv is not alone in seeking to weaponise the tournament for political reasons. In fact, Eurovision was secretly created as a psychological warfare tool by NATO to manipulate and control public opinion for this explicit purpose.
‘Psychological Action’
In January 2015, an extraordinary, hitherto secret document drawn up by NATO’s Committee on Information and Cultural Relations in March 1955 was published for the first time. It outlined the practical and ideological foundations of Eurovision, which was first convened next year, with just seven participants. A section of “aims” of the Contest states NATO’s objective was to “make the most” of TV, which “gives mankind at long last, the possibility, through the visual image, of conquering time and distance”, reaching vast global audiences simultaneously:
“Television has enabled sight to triumph over time and space, and this is the aspect which struck us most forcibly and led us to believe that it was our duty to break through the narrow boundaries which confined our programmes to spectators clustered around our respective capital cities, and to travel the world. There is no point in having a wonderful instrument in our hands if all we are going to do…is show the suburbs of Paris, London or Milan in France, England or Italy.”
The document went on to state “the thrill” of TV “lies in ranging as far afield as possible… [using] this marvellous instrument’s capacity for the instantaneous transmission of an event taking place elsewhere.” NATO contended “television transcends the frontiers of our European countries,” and thus the military alliance “held within [its] grasp a unique instrument for social and psychological action”. In sum, a “nervous system” of Europe could be constructed, “far more powerful than the telephone” or radio, to “animate the…general public.”
The document concludes with its author, Jean d’Arcy, then-senior director of French state broadcaster Radiodiffusion Française, expressing his sincere hope that the “social significance of Eurovision will become ever more apparent as it progresses along the lines which… it is destined to follow”. The file was a summary of remarks he made at a dedicated NATO conference “of senior information officials” in Paris two months earlier. His talk was described in a subsequent alliance newsletter as “most interesting”.
At that conference, Hastings Ismay, NATO’s first secretary general – who notoriously declared the alliance’s purpose was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” across Europe – “reiterated his steadfast conviction of the importance of a profounder and more widespread understanding of NATO’s aims and achievements”. Eurovision provided an ideal opportunity to insidiously achieve those goals in a non-military context, propounding European unity and cultural superiority over the Soviet Union while the Cold War was in its infancy.
The collapse of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union’s subsequent dissolution, vastly increased Eurovision’s pool of contestants. It was not until 1994 that Russia first appeared at the Contest. On February 25th 2022, one day after the Ukraine proxy war erupted, Moscow was banned from participating, which has remained in place ever since. In that year’s competition, Kiev prevailed, with The Kalush Orchestra’s song “Stefania” – interpreted in some quarters as an ode to Ukrainian ultranationalist mass-murderer Stepan Bandera – securing first place.
NATO deputy secretary general Mircea Geoana praised Ukraine’s victory and its “beautiful song”, linking Kiev’s triumph “to its bravery in fighting Russia”, and “immense public support all over Europe and Australia” for the proxy war. A Reuters report on Geoana’s comments commenced by declaring, “Eurovision and NATO might not usually be associated” – the international newswire’s writers apparently unaware that the military alliance was from inception, and remains, absolutely fundamental to the international tournament’s operation.
Russian Ambassador Slams UK-German Missile Scheme As Militarization of Europe
Sputnik – 23.05.2025
The recent development of a new precision weapon with a 2,000-kilometer range—announced on May 15 by the UK and Germany—represents another setback for arms control, following the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), Russian Ambassador Andrei Kelin told Sputnik.
“This is part of a new wave of militarization in Europe under the pretext of a threat from Russia. This is another blow to the regime established 30 years ago by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. This treaty was destroyed by the Americans,” Kelin said.
The high-precision weapon development plan, it was noted, seeks “to strengthen NATO’s deterrent capabilities.”
“When these missiles were banned, Europe’s security as a whole was at a much higher level. Now, unfortunately, another blow will be struck by the Europeans,” the ambassador emphasized.
In July 2024, the British press reported that London was considering a joint missile development project with Berlin, featuring a range of up to 3,200 kilometers. It is believed that these missiles could eventually replace American cruise missiles stationed in Germany.
In early 2019, the United States announced its unilateral withdrawal from the INF Treaty, accusing Russia of violations, a claim Moscow rejected. In July 2019, the Russian president signed a law suspending the treaty, and by August of that year, the pact officially ceased to be in effect. Russia has consistently maintained that it fully complied with the INF’s terms.
Meanwhile, Moscow emphasized that Russia has serious concerns regarding Washington’s implementation of the treaty and pointed out that the allegations of Russian violations are baseless.
Russia outlines ceasefire conditions in Istanbul talks with Ukraine
Al Mayadeen | May 17, 2025
The Russian Ministry of Defense has revealed the conditions presented by Moscow during the Istanbul negotiations with Kiev, as shared by the Clash Report platform on social media.
The outlined terms reflect Russia’s position on a potential settlement in Ukraine, with an immediate ceasefire as the primary demand.
Russia’s ceasefire conditions
Neutrality modeled on Austria
The first condition proposed by Moscow is that Ukraine adopt a neutral status, similar to Austria’s model. This would prohibit the presence of foreign troops or non-Ukrainian military bases on Ukrainian territory, effectively excluding NATO or other military alliances from operating within the country.
No foreign troops or bases in Ukraine
Moscow emphasized that neutrality must be comprehensive, with Kiev legally committing to reject the stationing of foreign forces and equipment.
Territorial demands and border recognition
Among the key demands, Russia requires Ukraine to formally recognize its constitutional claims over five regions: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and the Crimean Peninsula.
The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the immediate ceasefire is contingent upon the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all five regions claimed by Russia.
Renunciation of war compensation claims
Moscow is also seeking a mutual legal renunciation of any compensation claims related to war losses, including economic damage and human casualties.
Protection of Russian-speaking citizens
Russia demands that Ukraine commit to European standards on minority rights, specifically to safeguard the rights of Russian-speaking citizens. In addition, Moscow calls for an end to what it terms “nationalist propaganda” within Ukrainian society.
Russia, Ukraine agreed to exchange ceasefire conditions
Later on Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia and Ukraine have agreed to exchange the lists of ceasefire conditions, noting that the Russian side is working on the matter.
The Russian side has prepared such a list and will hand it over, with exchange with the Ukrainian side,” he told reporters.
At the same time, the work on the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine has just started and it will be continued, he added.
Change in Russian delegation to negotiations not being discussed
Peskov pointed out that a change in the composition of the Russian delegation to the negotiations with Ukraine is not being discussed, emphasizing the importance of implementing the agreements reached during the recent Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul.
The Kremlin spokesperson also asserted that the ongoing negotiations “are and should be held in a closed format.”
Putin-Zelensky meeting possible if certain agreements reached
The Russian diplomat highlighted that a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky is possible if delegations of both countries reach certain agreements.
“Such a meeting as a result of the work of the delegations of the two sides is possible when certain agreements of these delegations are reached,” he said.
Elsewhere, Peskov also said that Moscow considers the candidacy of Kiev’s signatory as the main and fundamental thing when signing documents between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations during the negotiations.
First direct talks since 2022
Russia and Ukraine held their first direct peace talks in over three years on Friday in Istanbul, reaching a key agreement on a large-scale prisoner exchange but making little headway on a ceasefire or broader political settlement.
The 90-minute meeting marked the first direct diplomatic engagement between Moscow and Kiev since 2022 and came amid continued hostilities and mounting international calls for a de-escalation of the conflict.
Both sides emerged from the session expressing cautious openness to further dialogue, though no immediate breakthrough was achieved on halting the war, now in its third year.
Ukraine entered the talks seeking an unconditional ceasefire, hoping to bring relief to areas devastated by the conflict and to ease the humanitarian crisis affecting millions.
Russia, however, dismissed the demand, and both sides instead agreed to present their respective “visions” for a potential ceasefire at a later stage, according to Russian lead negotiator Vladimir Medinsky.
Prisoner exchange agreement reached
The only concrete outcome of the talks was an agreement to exchange 1,000 prisoners from each side. Both delegations hailed the deal as a positive humanitarian step.
Ukrainian Defense Minister and chief negotiator Rustem Umerov described the agreement as a “great result”, noting that it set the stage for further negotiations.
Ukraine pushes for Putin-Zelensky summit
Kiev pushed for a direct meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Georgiy Tykhy stressed that progress would require “a meeting of leaders.”
Russia acknowledged Ukraine’s request for a summit but did not commit. Putin declined to attend the talks in Turkey, instead dispatching a lower-level delegation. Zelensky accused Putin of being “afraid” to engage directly and said Moscow was not approaching the talks “seriously”.
Rubio urges ‘peaceful end to the war’
Ahead of the negotiations, Ukrainian representatives met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg, and national security advisors from Britain, France, and Germany.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said Rubio had urged “a peaceful end to the war” and emphasized that “the killing needs to stop.”
Speaking at a European summit in Albania, Zelensky called on the international community to impose further sanctions on Russia if the talks failed to yield results, warning of global consequences should diplomatic efforts collapse.
Featured Video
An Open Letter To President Donald Trump (My Response)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Guatemala: A Test Tube of Repression
By Robert Parry | Consortium News | October 3, 2010
Last week’s grotesque revelation about American public health doctors infecting nearly 700 Guatemalans with venereal disease to test penicillin from 1946-48 marked just the start of the U.S. government’s post-World War II abuse of that Central American country.
Indeed, as troubling as the VD experiments were, U.S. administrations from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan would do much worse, treating Guatemala as a test tube for Cold War counterinsurgency experiments that led to the slaughter of some 200,000 people, including genocide against Mayan Indian tribes. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- An Open Letter To President Donald Trump (My Response) | Candace
- Arms industry given direct influence over university courses
- Another Trump Flip Flop: From ‘Kill FISA’ to ‘Clean Renewal’
- AIPAC ‘slimeball’ Eric Swalwell leaves the stage
- UAE to close its flagship Burj Al Arab hotel for 1.5 years after Iranian strikes
- US-Israeli Mideast war damage to energy infrastructure may cost $58bln
- ‘Normalization Talks’: Lebanon No Longer Has A Government
- US Navy Confirms ‘mishap’ to $250 million spy drone downed by Iran
- Students, professors martyred in US-Israeli war of terror targeting universities and research institutes
- We Are the Barbarians
- If Americans Knew
- Commentary: take away Israel’s biggest weapon
- The Myth of Israel as ‘US Aircraft Carrier’ in Middle East
- Israeli Media: ‘Diseases Are Everywhere’: Gaza’s ‘Catastrophic’ Healthcare Crisis Is Worsening
- Declassified Files Expose Jewish Pre-state Underground Militia’s Contacts With Nazi Germany
- No diapers, no relief: Gaza’s infants face growing hygiene crisis because of Israeli restrictions
- More US troops head into harm’s way, as cost of (Israel’s) war climbs – Daily Update
- ‘Not Acceptable’: President of Iran Condemns Trump For His ‘Desecration of Jesus, the Prophet of Peace’
- We Are the Barbarians
- Netanyahu Says the Trump Administration Gives Him Reports on Iran Talks Every Day
- Second Contractor Steps Forward to Blow the Whistle on Israeli Attacks at Gaza Aid Site
- No Tricks Zone
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
Aletho News 
