Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UK ‘preparing for war’ with Russia

By Lucas Leiroz | June 4, 2025

The UK is continuing to escalate its military measures, taking all sorts of irrational actions under the guise of “preparing the country for war”. London’s Russophobic madness is reaching truly worrying levels as local authorities appear willing to face the ultimate consequences of an all-out escalation with Russia – even though there is no chance of victory for the UK in such a scenario.

UK Defense Secretary John Healey has announced that the country will invest an extra 2 billion dollars package for the opening of new military factories. The aim is to advance an accelerated rearmament project, meeting the government’s previously set targets for expanding the production of weapons and military equipment.

The plan includes building factories capable of producing at least 7,000 more long-range weapons than the country’s current average output. Healey also said the UK will be meeting the mark of 3% of GDP in defense industry investment.

As expected, Healey justified the UK’s bellicose measures with the situation in Ukraine. According to him, Russian military actions have taught London a lesson, showing that it is necessary to strengthen the army through industrial development. He believes that the future of the British armed forces depends heavily on drastic changes in the current British military-industrial landscape, allegedly requiring the production of more and more weapons.

“The hard-fought lessons from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine show a military is only as strong as the industry that stands behind it (…) We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries and make the UK secure at home and strong abroad (…) This is a message to Moscow as well. This is Britain standing firm – not only strengthening our Armed Forces, but also reinforcing our industrial base. It’s part of our readiness to fight, if required,” he said.

The defense chief’s bellicose stance is boosted by Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself, who recently said the UK was heading towards a “war situation”. He revealed part of the UK’s strategic planning for the coming years when he presented his cabinet’s Strategic Defense Review. Under the project led by Starmer, the UK must prioritize NATO in all foreign policy issues and remain on combat readiness for any possible escalation in the current tensions.

”We are moving to war-fighting readiness (…) Our defense policy will always be NATO first (…) [The UK will be a] battle-ready, armor-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come,” Starmer said.

Like some other European nations, the UK is undergoing a process of restoring its military capabilities after years of absolute reliance on the American defense umbrella. The rise of Donald Trump and the “realistic turn” in American foreign policy have shown to the Europeans that Washington will not necessarily intervene on their behalf in the event of an all-out war resulting from the irresponsible actions of the EU and the UK. For this reason, London and Brussels are encouraging militarization projects that put Europe on “combat readiness,” as they allegedly believe that Moscow will expand the objectives of its operation in Ukraine to other European countries.

Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that it has no strategic or territorial interests in Europe, and that the operation in Ukraine is the result of specific circumstances on Russia’s borders and not an expansionist project. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia would be interested in engaging in hostilities with other European nations, which is why the alleged “need” for combat readiness is nothing more than a fallacy.

There would be no problem in the UK and Europe investing in two defense industries to become more independent from the US. Taking care of national and regional security is a legitimate interest of any state. The problem is that it is not a desire for security that is motivating the current European actions, but precisely the opposite: an irrational, anti-strategic and truly suicidal enthusiasm for total war.

If London and its European allies continue to escalate their military policies, this situation of “imminent war” with Russia will cease to be merely imaginary and will become a real possibility in the face of the threat that is being created against Moscow.

Russia will not tolerate impositions from the Europeans and will use any means necessary to prevent enemy bellicosity from threatening its security. It remains to be seen whether the British and Europeans are truly aware of what could happen to them in a worst-case scenario.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

George Beebe: Negotiations & Attack on Russia’s Nuclear Forces (fmr CIA Director of Russia Analysis)

George Beebe and Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | June 3, 2025

George Beebe is director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute. Beebe was the former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis and a staff advisor on Russia matters to Vice President Cheney. Beebe outlines why Trump should not walk away from negotiations, and why the attack on Russia’s nuclear forces (possibly with NATO support) was extremely dangerous.

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Was the U.S. Government Involved in Ukraine’s Drone Attack on Russia?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 3, 2025

As the media is reporting, Ukraine just launched a massive drone attack that wreaked major destruction deep inside Russia. Ukrainian officials smuggled the drones in trucks into Russia and launched them from inside the country. U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press are praising the attack as a brilliant maneuver. They are hoping that the attack will force Russia to the negotiating table with the aim of bringing an end to the war.

One thing is clear: the attack now escalates the conflict in a major way. Ukraine has now shown that it can attack military installations, towns, and cities deep inside Russia,

An important question that is not being asked is: Did Pentagon or CIA officials serve as secret advisors or directors in the drone operation? Since Congress is effectively owned by the U.S. national-security establishment, it’s a question that unfortunately is not going to be asked by any congressional committee. Given the longtime deference to the national-security establishment by the mainstream media, the question is unlikely to come from them either and even if it did, there is no doubt that the Pentagon and CIA would deny it even if they were involved.

Why is the question important? Well, think about it: The U.S. government furnishes weaponry to the Ukrainian government to use against Russian forces. But let’s assume that it goes one step further than that. Let’s assume that it also assists, advises, and directs Ukrainian officials in the use of such weaponry.

That would mean, as a practical matter, that it was the U.S. government that launched that drone attack and was simply using Ukraine as its agent — in order to preserve “plausible deniability.” It would mean, as a practical matter, that it is the U.S. government that is using its weaponry to kill and injure Russian soldiers and destroy Russian armaments, not only in Ukraine but also deep inside Russia.

Ukraine and U.S. officials are hoping that Ukraine’s drone attack will force Russia to end the war. But what they are ignoring in this calculus is the big elephant in the room — NATO. It was because of NATO’s expansion eastward and its threat to absorb Ukraine that caused Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place.

After considerable sacrifice of men, money, and armaments, how likely is it that Russia would agree to a peace treaty that leaves NATO on Ukraine’s border and ready to absorb Ukraine on a moment’s notice? I say: Not likely at all. Even if a peace treaty promised that NATO would not absorb Ukraine, everyone knows that the U.S. government cannot be trusted to keep its word. After all, let’s not forget that U.S. officials promised that NATO would not move eastward, and it broke that promise.

Thus, with NATO still in existence and still on Ukraine’s border, why would Russia be interested in settling the war, given that that’s what motivated Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place? And yet we all know that U.S. officials would not think of dismantling NATO or even just moving it back to Western Europe as part of a peace treaty.

Given these intractable positions, the war will inevitably continue, notwithstanding the fondest hopes of U.S. and Ukrainian officials. But the problem is that the longer it goes on, the more dangerous it is becoming. What if U.S. officials actually are secretly assisting, advising, and directing Ukrainian attacks on Russia? Wouldn’t this be sufficient importantly that Congress, not the Pentagon and the CIA, should decide it? Isn’t that why the Constitution places the decision to go to war against another nation-state in the hands of Congress rather than the Pentagon and the CIA?

One of the big problems with war is its unpredictable nature. How long will Russia put up with U.S. armaments being used to kill and maim Russian soldiers and destroy Russian armaments and property without attacking the armaments before they reach Ukraine, especially if Russia concludes that it is actually the Pentagon and the CIA who are waging the war using Ukraine as their agent? If Russia were to attack such armaments before they arrived in Ukraine, say in staging grounds in NATO member Poland, we all know what that would mean — all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Even if the U.S were to “win” such a war, the United States would cease to exist as a viable nation.

All this is simply to show that the U.S. national-security establishment, operating through its Cold War dinosaur NATO, is getting the United States ever close to the possibility of the nuclear destruction of our nation. Would “winning” a nuclear war with Russia be worth it? Is NATO worth it? I say no. I say it’s time to throw not only NATO into the dustbin of history but also the U.S. national-security state form of governmental structure that was foisted upon our land in the 1940s to protect us from the supposed international communist conspiracy that, U.S. officials claimed, was based in Moscow.

June 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK preparing for war – PM

RT | June 2, 2025

Britain is going on a war footing with the launch of a major rearmament campaign, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a keynote address on Monday.

Starmer unveiled his cabinet’s Strategic Defense Review, which includes an expansive armaments program mirroring similar efforts across NATO. Last week, UK Defense Secretary John Healey said London was sending “a message to Moscow” by allocating billions of pounds for new munitions plants, long-range missile systems, and other capabilities. Russia has accused Western nations of using alarmist rhetoric to justify shifting public funds toward military spending.

”We are moving to war-fighting readiness,” Starmer said at a shipyard in Govan, Glasgow, adding that “our defense policy will always be NATO first.” He vowed to transform the UK into “a battle-ready, armor-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come.”

According to Starmer, the overhaul will enable Britain to make its “biggest contribution to NATO since its creation.” He also pledged that the country would become “the fastest innovator in NATO,” with defense research operating at a “wartime pace.” The reforms are expected to make the British military “ten times more lethal by 2035,” he claimed.

The prime minister reaffirmed his government’s goal to increase defense spending to 3% of GDP. He framed the effort as replacing the post-Cold War “peace dividend” with a “defense dividend” through the creation of thousands of new jobs in weapons manufacturing, including production of nuclear arms.

Starmer blamed Moscow for what he called a series of provocations, accusing Russia of “menacing” the UK, demonstrating “aggression” in British waters, and “driving up the cost of living here at home,” harming British workers.

Russian lawmaker Aleksey Pushkov has accused the UK of planning an “ice war” with Russia, noting that “there is no difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party” in their attitude.

Commenting on Starmer’s pledge to build additional nuclear submarines, Pushkov asserted that no British investments could bring the country to an equal footing with Russia, the US, and China. However, “Starmer needs them [those boats] to report his achievements” to domestic and international players who stand to benefit financially from the project, Pushkov claimed.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Poland’s New Prez Nawrocki: Not Your Typical Pro-Ukraine Hero

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 02.06.2025

Opposition candidate Karol Nawrocki has been elected as the president of Poland, according to data published on the official website of the election commission. Nawrocki received 50.9% of the votes, just ahead of Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski (49.1%), Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s ally.

Poland’s stance on the Ukrainian crisis may change after the presidential election, as the country’s politicians and ordinary people alike seem increasingly reluctant to support Zelensky’s regime.

Here is a closer look at where Karol Nawrocki stands on Ukraine and other major issues.

No Free Pass for Ukraine

Nawrocki does not see it in either the European Union or NATO until bilateral issues like the 1943 Volyn massacre committed by Ukrainian nationalists during WWII are addressed.

  • While promising support, he blasted Volodymyr Zelensky for “ingratitude”.
  • Accused “European elites” (plus their “butler” Tusk) of fueling the war.
  • Unequivocally will not deploy Polish troops to Ukraine.
  • Accused Ukrainian refugees of taking advantage of Polish generosity, vowed to shield Polish farmers and truckers from unfair Ukrainian competition.
  • Opposes any Ukraine-EU trade liberalization.

On Russia

Karol Nawrocki swerved from telling Radio ZET that maintaining diplomatic ties with Russia was “not good for Poland,” to claiming he was ready to sit down at the negotiating table with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As former head of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), he oversaw demolition of Soviet war monuments—earning himself a spot on the Russian Interior Ministry’s “wanted” list of Polish nationals in 2024.

Skepticism Towards EU

  • Karol Nawrocki called the EU weak and chaotic, citing its exclusion from Ukraine peace talks.
  • He pledged to not allow the liberalization of trade between the EU and Ukraine.
  • Nawrocki vowed to keep Poland on the zloty, not the euro.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe punching above weight for nothing

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – June 1, 2025

Recent European (UK plus EU) sanctions on Russia amid ongoing US-backed efforts to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine aim to assert Europe’s perceived ability to “correct” the course of events.

However, the continued reliance on sanctions also underscores the limits of what Europe can—and cannot—achieve in ultimately shaping geopolitical outcomes.
Sanctions amid Talks

In geopolitics, timing is often more telling than the event itself. Such is the case with the European Union’s and the UK’s recent decision to impose fresh sanctions on Russia—announced just a day after former President Donald Trump held a two-hour “serious” conversation with Vladimir Putin. This is not the first time European states have sanctioned Russia, nor will it be the last. But this round is different, not in content but in context. The timing sends a clear message: Europe is uneasy, not just about Russia’s actions in Ukraine, but also about the growing strategic vacuum left by an increasingly disengaged United States.

Despite the recent round of dialogue between Ukrainian and Russian officials—and other rounds expected to follow—European leaders remain skeptical of where this path may lead. Their fear? That a negotiated settlement—particularly one brokered without robust Western unity—could leave Russia in a stronger position than before the conflict began.

That anxiety is compounded by waning American commitment to NATO under the Trump administration. In the absence of a coherent transatlantic front, European powers are trying to assert their own leverage. This latest sanctions package, targeting Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and the financial networks enabling sanctions evasion, is as much a political statement as it is an economic measure.

According to German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, the sanctions are a response to Russia’s refusal to agree to an “immediate ceasefire without preconditions.” But here’s the strategic problem: Europe acted alone. Washington, notably silent, announced no corresponding measures. In fact, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that threatening sanctions now could derail ongoing talks rather than advance them. “The president … believes that right now, you start threatening sanctions, the Russians will stop talking,” Rubio told lawmakers in the US.

This divergence reveals a deeper strategic disconnect between Europe and the US. Despite intense lobbying from European capitals, the Trump administration remains hesitant to jeopardize fragile diplomatic progress. In the eyes of many analysts, this marks a foreign policy failure for Europe, unable to rally its closest ally at a critical juncture. Still, the broader implication is troubling: these sanctions are unlikely to shift Moscow’s calculus or alter the trajectory of ceasefire negotiations. Instead, they may highlight Europe’s limited influence in the absence of American backing—and underscore a growing realization that, in the new era of great power politics, Europe may have to fend more for itself. If the goal is to contain Russian power and shape the post-war regional order, sanctions without transatlantic unity are unlikely to suffice. Without Washington on board, Europe’s message is loud—but not necessarily strong.

Anatomy of Sanctions

As the conflict in Ukraine drags into its fourth year, Europe finds itself in a strategic bind. While its leaders continue to voice solidarity with Kyiv, the reality beneath the rhetoric is unmistakable: Europe’s message is not strong enough. But the more pressing question is—why is this message so weak?

The answer lies not in a lack of compassion or political will, but in the cold calculus of power, capability, and consequence. After years of bloodshed, destruction, and stalemate, European leaders increasingly grasp the sobering truth: hard military power has its limits. In this war, force has not produced victory and may never do so. But sanctions, Europe’s go-to instrument in lieu of military engagement, have proven even weaker. Despite wave after wave of economic penalties imposed on Russia—freezing assets, targeting oligarchs, cutting trade—Moscow has adapted.

Faced with this double bind—military impotence on one hand, economic ineffectiveness on the other—some European policymakers have flirted with the idea of escalating their involvement. The suggestion of deploying troops or enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine has crept into public discourse. Yet such options bring their own dangers, dangers that many in Europe are not prepared to face. The reality is stark: without the United States, neither NATO nor any coalition of European powers has the muscle to militarily confront Russia directly.

Moreover, sending European troops into Ukraine or deploying aircraft over Ukrainian skies risks a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed state. It is a step that would almost certainly invite retaliation on European soil. The conflict, in other words, would no longer be something happening “over there”—it would be an immediate, domestic reality. And this, more than anything else, is the psychological wall European leaders are reluctant to breach.

This is the heart of Europe’s dilemma: a conflict it cannot win, a peace it cannot broker, and a strategic imperative it cannot fulfill without paying a heavy cost. Until Europe reconciles its ambitions with its capabilities, its message will remain what it is today—resolute in tone, but tragically weak in substance.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

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.  

May 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

May 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

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.

May 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

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.

May 28, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

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.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

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.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »