North Korea and Russia Smash West’s Hopes
Sputnik – 28.04.2025
North Korean forces added significantly to liberating Russia’s Kursk region from Ukrainian units, Alexey Leonkov, a veteran Russian military analyst, tells Sputnik.
North Korea’s ground and special force troops acted in coordination with Russian command, tackling both Ukrainian militants and highly skilled foreign mercenaries who fought on Ukraine’s side.
Fighting in the Kursk region, North Korean soldiers received invaluable combat experience, which will contribute to the North Korean army’s defense capability.
North Korean forces were deployed to the Kursk region in line with the Russia-North Korea Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, which is seen by the North Korean side as a military alliance.
The document stipulates that if there are attempts by foreign countries to act against North Korea, Russia will help it with all its military might, including nuclear weapons.
The treaty will restrict the US’ push to expand its clout in the Asia-Pacific.
North Korean soldiers added to another defeat of the proxy army of Ukraine that the West uses to fight against Russia.
It also means a defeat for the West itself, which failed to achieve anything in the Kursk region except the destruction of Ukraine’s the most combat-ready units.
The Kellogg framework is a disaster for Trump
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 28, 2025
Political warfare in Washington is endemic. But the body count at the Pentagon has started to rise precipitously. Three of Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s top advisors were placed on leave, and then fired. The war continues, with the Secretary now in the firing line.
Why this matters is that the Hegseth attrition comes amid fierce internal debates in the Trump administration about Iran policy. Hawks want an definitive elimination of all Iran’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, whilst many ‘restrainers’ warn against military escalation; Hegseth reportedly was amongst those warning against an intervention in Iran.
The recent Pentagon dismissals have all been identified as restrainers. One of the latter, Dan Caldwell, formerly Hegseth’s Top Adviser and an army veteran, wrote a post slamming the ‘Iran Hawks’ – and subsequently was fired. He was later interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Notably, Caldwell describes in scathing terms America’s wars in Iraq and Syria (“criminal”). This adverse sentiment concerning America’s earlier wars is a rising theme, it seems, amongst U.S. Vets today.
The three Pentagon staffers essentially were fired, not as ‘leakers’, but for talking Hegseth out of supporting war on Iran, it would appear; the Israeli-Firsters, have not given up on that war.
The inflamed fault lines between hawks and traditionalist ‘Republicans’ bleed across into the Ukraine issue, even if the faction membership may alter a tad. Israeli-Firsters and U.S. hawks more generally, are behind both the war on Russia and the maximalist demands on Iran.
Conservative commentator Fred Bauer observes that when it comes to Trump’s own war impulses, they are conflicted:
“Influenced by the Vietnam War of his youth … Trump seems deeply averse to long-term military conflicts, yet, at the same time, Trump admires a politics of strength and swagger. That means taking out Iranian generals, launching airstrikes on the Houthis, and boosting the defence budget to $1 trillion”.
Hegseth’s potential exit – should the campaign for his removal succeed – could cause the struggle to grow fiercer. Its first casualty is already apparent – Trump’s hope to bring a quick end to the Ukraine conflict is over.
This week, the Trump team (including both warring factions, Rubio, Witkoff and General Kellogg) met in Paris with various European and Ukrainian representatives. At the meeting, a Russian-Ukrainian unilateral ceasefire proposal was mooted by the U.S. delegation.
After the meeting, at the airport, Rubio plainly said that the ceasefire plan was ‘a take-it-or-leave-it’ U.S. initiative. The various sides – Russia, Kiev and the European members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – had only days to accept it, or else the U.S. was ‘out’, and would wash its hands of the conflict.
The framework presented, as reported, is almost (maybe 95%) unadulteratedly that previously proposed by General Kellogg: i.e. it is his plan, first aired in April 2024. It appears that the ‘Kellogg formula’ was adopted then as the Trump platform (Trump was at the time in mid-campaign, and unlikely to have been following the complicated minutiae of the Ukraine war too closely).
General Kellogg is also the likely source for Trump’s optimism that the ending to the Ukraine war could come with a click of Trump’s fingers – through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats on both belligerents by Trump – and with the timing decided in Washington.
In short, the plan represented a Beltway consensus that the U.S. could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.
Kellogg’s implicit assumptions were that Russia is highly vulnerable to a sanctions threat (its economy perceived as being fragile); that it had suffered unsustainably high casualties; and that the war was at a stalemate.
Thus, Kellogg persuaded Trump that Russia would readily agree to the ceasefire terms proposed – albeit terms that were constructed around patently flawed underlying assumptions about Russia and its presumed weaknesses.
Kellogg’s influence and false premises were all too evident when Trump, in January, having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war) then went on to say that “Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal, adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’”. He further claimed that Russia’s economy is in ‘ruins’, and most notably said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.
All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. And despite Steve Witkoff’s subsequent three lengthy personal meetings with President Putin, in which Putin repeatedly stated that he would not accept any ceasefire until a political framework had been first agreed, the Kellogg contingent continued to blandly assume that Russia would be forced to accept Kellogg’s détente because of the claimed serious ‘setbacks’ Russia had suffered in Ukraine.
Given this history, unsurprisingly, the ceasefire framework terms outlined by Rubio this week in Paris reflected those more suited to a party at the point of capitulation, rather than that of a state anticipating achieving its objectives – by military means.
In essence, the Kellogg Plan looked to bring a U.S. ‘win’ on terms aligned to a desire to keep open the option for continuing attritional war on Russia.
So, what is the Kellogg Plan? At base, it seeks to establish a ‘frozen conflict’ – frozen along the ‘Line of Conflict’; with no definitive ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, (but rather, envisaging a NATO membership that is deferred well into the future); it places no limits on the size of a future Ukrainian army and no restrictions on the type or quantity of armaments held by the Ukrainian forces. (It foresees, contrarily, that after the ceasefire, the U.S. might re-arm, train and militarily support a future force) – i.e. back to the post-Maidan era of 2014.
In addition, no territory would be ceded by Ukraine to Russia, save for Crimea which alone would be recognised by the U.S. as Russian (the unique sop to Witkoff?), and Russia would only ‘exercise control’ over the four Oblasts that it currently claims, yet only up to the Line of Conflict; territory beyond this line would remain under Ukrainian control (see here for the ‘Kellogg map’). The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant would be neutral territory to be held, and managed, by the U.S. There is no mention made of the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson that have been constitutionally incorporated into Russia, but lie beyond the contact line.
Nothing about a political solution apparently was outlined in the plan, and the plan leaves Ukraine free to pursue its claim to all Ukraine’s former territories – save for only Crimea.
Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper River however, would be divided into three zones of responsibility: British, French and German zones (i.e. which NATO forces would manage). Finally, no American security guarantees were offered.
Rubio subsequently passed details of the plan to Russian FM Lavrov, who calmly stated that any ceasefire plan should resolve the underlying causes to the conflict in Ukraine as its first task.
Witkoff flies to Moscow this week to present this ‘pig’s ear’ of a plan to Putin – seeking his consent. The Europeans and Ukrainians are set to meet next Wednesday in London to give their riposte to Trump.
What’s next? Most obviously, the Kellogg Plan will not ‘fly’. Russia will not accept it, and likely Zelensky will not either, (though the Europeans will work to persuade him – hoping to ‘wrong-foot Moscow’ by presenting Russia as the essential ‘spoiler’). Reportedly, Zelensky already has rejected the Crimea provision.
For the Europeans, the lack of security guarantees or backstop by the U.S. may prove to be a killer for their aspiration to deploy a tripwire troop deployment to Ukraine, in the context of a ceasefire.
Is Trump really going to wash his hands of Ukraine? Doubtful, given that the U.S. neo-conservative institutional leadership will tell Trump that to do so, would weaken America’s ‘peace through strength’ narrative. Trump may adopt supporting Ukraine ‘on a low flame’ posture, whilst declaring the ‘war was never his’ – as he seeks a ‘win’ on the business front with Russia.
The bottom line is that Kellogg has not well-served his patron. The U.S. needs effective working relations with Russia. The Kellogg contingent has contributed to Trump’s egregious misreading of Russia. Putin is a serious actor, who says what he means, and means what he says.
Colonel Macgregor sums it up thus:
“Trump tends to view the world through the lens of dealmaking. [Ending the Ukraine war] is not about dealmaking. This is about the life and death of nations and peoples. There’s no interest in some sort of short-fused deal that is going to elevate Trump or his administration to greatness. There will be no win for Donald Trump personally in any of this. That was never going to be the case”.
Europe’s Downfall
Col. Jacques Baud & Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | April 27, 2025
Colonel Jacques Baud is a former military intelligence analyst in the Swiss Army and the author of many books. Colonel Baud argues that Europe no longer has a strategy in terms of grand objectives to achieve that correspond with its means. Europe is without direction, which results in destructive policies, self-harm, fragmentation, and eventually its downfall.
Macron snubbed during Trump–Zelensky meeting in Vatican
RT | April 27, 2025
French President Emmanuel Macron was sidelined when his US counterpart Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky met before the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday. Footage from the Vatican showed him being left out despite the Ukrainian leader’s apparent expectations that he would join.
Trump and Zelensky last met in February in the Oval Office. The meeting, where they’d intended to finalize a US-Ukraine minerals agreement and discuss a potential ceasefire with Russia, ended abruptly amid a heated exchange involving Vice President JD Vance, which led to the Ukrainian leader’s early departure from the White House.
Video footage from the Vatican showed Zelensky walking toward the seating area with Trump. He glanced back several times, reportedly expecting Macron to join. Three chairs were set up, suggesting plans for a three-way discussion. As the French president approached, Zelensky greeted him warmly with a smile and a hand gesture, inviting him to join.
However, just moments later, a staff member discreetly removed the third chair before the meeting began. Footage shows Trump gesturing openly while maintaining a firm posture, signaling the conversation would be strictly between him and Zelensky. Macron eventually stepped back as the two engaged directly.
Visuals captured Zelensky’s expression changing from confident to visibly tense upon realizing he would face Trump alone. The 15-minute meeting took place against a backdrop of growing tensions; the US president has pressured Kiev to accept what media outlets have termed his “final offer” to end hostilities. Reports suggest that Washington’s proposal involves freezing the conflict along the existing front lines and recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, a condition the Ukrainian leader has firmly rejected.
Trump stated in an interview with Time magazine on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia.” Before 2014, the peninsula was part of Ukraine, but it joined Russia after a referendum which followed a Western-backed coup in Kiev. Trump also recently reiterated that Zelensky “has no cards to play,” echoing what he told him during their last White House meeting.
Macron has been among Zelensky’s most steadfast supporters, and has consistently emphasized that any peace agreement must ensure Ukraine retains its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Russia has stressed, however, that any deal to end hostilities must not only acknowledge territorial reality but also address the conflict’s root causes, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations.
Trump voiced satisfaction with negotiations between Washington and Moscow after Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday.
Rhetorical deterrence at the heart of US foreign policy
By Mohamed Lamine KABA | New Eastern Outlook | April 27, 2025
Weakened by its role in the proxy conflict in Ukraine and hampered by its trade war against China, the United States is moving toward purely rhetorical deterrence without any real evidence of its power.
This strategy proves not to be a lever of intimidation, but an implicit admission of powerlessness on the international stage.
As global dynamics are characterized by the return of the military state, implying the return of the state of war, Michael Kratsios’s declaration of a mysterious and overpowering weapon raises questions about the United States’ communication strategy regarding deterrence. This three-part, interrelated analysis highlights the dangers of deterrence lacking evidence and likely to undermine Washington’s international credibility. While effective deterrence relies on material displays of power, the evasive communication of the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is a sign of weakness that incites provocations and calls into question American supremacy.
This strategy – consisting of reassuring oneself that this or that adversary is fearful –can generate diplomatic tensions, shake the confidence of allies, particularly within NATO, and potentially provoke an escalation in the Cold War-style arms race of 1947-1991. If the goal of Kratsios‘s statement is to intimidate actors such as China or Russia, the lack of tangible evidence could be interpreted as an attempt at manipulation that could lead to a surge in their military capabilities in response. Rhetorical deterrence without concrete support is therefore a perilous strategy. It risks compromising the United States’ strategic position and generating unpredictable geopolitical dynamics. This highlights the importance of clear and informed communication in maintaining a stable balance of power on the international stage.
Incidentally, in a context of major geopolitical transformation, we are witnessing an erosion of the once unchallenged American hegemony. This development is the result of the rise of the BRICS, a questioning of American leadership, and the growing ineffectiveness of traditional deterrence strategies.
The United States, faced with a challenge to its supremacy, is confronting the emergence of powers such as China and Russia, which are developing alternatives to Western structures and reshaping strategic alliances. The adoption of rhetorical deterrence by the United States, without tangible evidence of its military strength, raises concerns about its equally strategic credibility. At the same time, the reshaping of international alliances, with blocs such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, is reducing American influence and encouraging many countries to diversify their diplomatic and economic relations. This is undoubtedly the era of the shift of global power towards the Global South. Neither Washington, nor Brussels, and certainly not London, can stop this global power transition.
Deterrence without evidence is a risky bet for the United States
Historically, deterrence has relied on a palpable show of force, ranging from nuclear weapons to cyber capabilities to dis-constrained military superiority. However, the current US tendency to favor a rhetorical deterrence strategy, preferring statements over tangible actions, raises questions about the credibility of its power and the repercussions on its geopolitical positioning as indicated above in the introduction.
This once unshakeable credibility is crumbling on the international stage, with strategic dominance compromised by rhetoric unsupported by verifiable evidence. Kratsios’ mention of a weapon, without concrete evidence, already diminishes the perception of American strength, especially in the face of formidable adversaries such as China and Russia, who might see it as a sign of weakness and call into question the robustness of American deterrence. This strategy also impacts diplomatic relations, particularly with U.S. NATO allies, who may question Washington’s transparency and the reality of this alleged weapon, creating diplomatic tensions and eroding the trust of strategic partners.
Furthermore, such communication could stimulate an arms race, pushing other nations to develop military technologies in the face of an ambiguous threat. If the intention is to intimidate adversaries, as mentioned above, this strategy could backfire on the United States. In the absence of material evidence, powers such as China or Russia, as well as many others in the Global South, could perceive this announcement as a bluff and strengthen their military capabilities in response. Moreover, the media and analysts could seize on this rhetoric to criticize U.S. defense policy, highlighting a strategy perceived as uncertain and unreliable. Bluntly put, rhetorical deterrence is a high-risk strategy that, without strong evidence, could not only weaken the United States’ international stature but also generate unpredictable geopolitical dynamics.
A strategy that weakens the United States and impacts its alliances and diplomacy
At the heart of contemporary geopolitics undergoing a complete reshaping, the United States’ rhetorical deterrence strategy, recently highlighted by statements from the director of the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, raises questions about the robustness of international alliances and Washington’s diplomatic credibility. This tactic, characterized by evasive and unsubstantiated statements, threatens to profoundly disrupt America’s geopolitical stature.
Allied trust, essential to collective security, is being tested by ambiguous announcements about hypothetical weapons. This sows doubt and potentially weakens transatlantic cooperation. Partners could be encouraged to diversify their alliances and strengthen their defensive autonomy. At the same time, American diplomacy, traditionally anchored in the projection of force and leadership, is being shaken. Rival powers, such as Russia, China, and a host of others, could take advantage of this uncertainty to further challenge the reliability of the United States while consolidating their regional influence and presenting themselves as stable alternatives.
Moreover, this uncertainty could fuel an arms race, exacerbating global tensions and increasing the risk of conflict, while eroding alliance cohesion. This purely rhetorical US deterrence strategy is a dangerous game with potentially far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for diplomacy and international relations.
The dangers of rhetorical deterrence, a strategy that can backfire on the United States
The rhetorical deterrence strategy put forward by figures such as Michael Kratsios is proving to be a bold gamble with potentially destabilizing repercussions for the American superpower. By relying on evasive statements lacking solid foundations, the United States is exposing itself to highly complex geopolitical issues that could undermine its global supremacy. This tactic risks having a boomerang effect on its international credibility, as historical geopolitical adversaries such as China and Russia, as well as the growing number of emerging adversaries in the European Union, NATO, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, may perceive this rhetoric as a lack of firmness or an attempt at disinformation.
The absence of concrete evidence could encourage these adversaries to challenge the resilience of American deterrence, potentially leading to an escalation of tensions internationally. Moreover, this approach could be interpreted as strategic arrogance, generating hostility among both emerging nations and historic allies. The policy of rhetorical deterrence also runs the risk of losing control of geopolitical dynamics. Faced with uncertainty about the true scope of this strategy, US rivals could intensify the development of their military and technological capabilities, increasing the risk of armed conflict. China, for example, could redouble its efforts in technological innovation, while Russia could seek to consolidate its alliances with countries in the Global South. This armed escalation, fueled by unverifiable rhetoric, is likely to further weaken global stability and diminish US influence in major international negotiations.
Furthermore, Kratsios’s remarks could negatively affect public and media perceptions of the United States. Critical media coverage could erode the United States’ image as a global leader and raise questions about the validity of its defensive policy and geopolitical strategy. This altered perception could influence public opinion in allied countries, diminishing their support for American initiatives and weakening established alliances. Verbal deterrence practiced by the United States therefore proves to be a risky strategy that, in the absence of material evidence, could reverse its international credibility, compromise its alliances, and fuel unpredictable geopolitical dynamics. This approach, far from consolidating the American position, could paradoxically precipitate its decline on the global stage.
The lesson to be learned is that the illusion of supremacy is crumbling as the United States reels in the face of a world that no longer dances to its rhythm. In this new order in the making, history no longer bends to old dominations, but to the realities of a power that eludes those who believed it was eternally acquired.
Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in Geopolitics of Governance and Regional Integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
Trump’s Opposition Is Trying to Turn Back the Wheel of History
By Veniamin Popov – New Eastern Outlook – April 25, 2025
In the American and broader Western press, as well as in select media outlets from certain Global South countries, a vigorous campaign is underway to paint Donald Trump as the embodiment of universal evil. Critics claim his policies are shaking the global economy, undermining long-standing alliances, and creating an atmosphere of chaos.
U.S. newspapers aligned with the Democrats have published numerous articles on how to resist the president. For instance, an April 15 piece in the New York Times portrays Trump’s America as a “rogue state led by an impulsive authoritarian leader detached from the rule of law and other constitutional American principles and values.”
Globalist supporters are uniting in their efforts to argue that all of Trump’s actions are clumsy, shortsighted, and counterproductive. Notably, current Western European leaders—seeing the U.S. president’s policies as a threat to their own standing—are trying to align with Democratic Party loyalists, especially in states where the Democrats hold a majority. Meanwhile, discontent is being deliberately stoked within the U.S. itself, as seen in ongoing protests against Trump’s key ally, Elon Musk, and his company Tesla.
Democratic Senator and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, along with progressive star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has launched a fierce campaign under the slogan, “Down with Billionaire Power!” Recently, Trump’s opponents dusted off Joe Biden, who, for the first time in three months, sharply criticized the current administration, accusing it of “causing enormous damage to America.” At its core, Trump’s controversial yet revolutionary reforms reflect an objective need for long-overdue changes in American politics and economics.
Growing Divisions in the West
The U.S. president’s push to normalize relations with Russia and seek a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict has drawn particularly harsh criticism. The current leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, closely cooperating with Zelensky, are doing everything they can to block efforts to establish a formula for ending hostilities and securing long-term peace.
These leaders understand that a peaceful settlement could cost them their positions, as the public would realize the failure of their “fight to the last Ukrainian” policy and the dishonesty of their claims that Putin’s Russia poses an existential threat.
Trump is by no means a pro-Russian politician—he defends U.S. interests—but he clearly recognizes that Zelensky and Biden bear primary responsibility for the ongoing three-year conflict. However, many of the 47th president’s actions echo 19th-century imperialism. At the same time, he understands that the Eastern European conflict risks a clash between nuclear powers, and in a nuclear war, there are no winners.
Recent polls show that most Americans view Trump’s policies favorably.
As for Russia, the U.S. and Russia no longer have the ideological divide of the Soviet era, and America’s stance on traditional values and achieving peace in Ukraine is closer to Moscow’s than to that of major European leaders and Zelensky. The U.S. cannot win a trade war with China, while Russia could play a key role in mediating agreements between the U.S. and China, as well as the U.S. and Iran. Donald Trump thinks pragmatically, even if some of his actions appear erratic, ill-considered, and counterproductive. Nevertheless, he objectively represents not only the urgent needs of the United States but also the necessity of establishing a new international order—one based on a fairer balance of national interests among different civilizations.
American history has seen many realist thinkers who advised their leaders to act cautiously and consider their opponents’ interests. Hans Morgenthau, the preeminent political scientist of the last century (whose works are still studied in universities), urged the Johnson administration not to escalate the Vietnam War—only to be dismissed in 1965. George Kennan, one of the architects of U.S. policy toward the USSR, warned in 1997 against NATO expansion eastward, arguing it would “provoke Moscow’s militancy.”
No one listened. Similarly, Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to George H.W. Bush, insisted that invading Iraq would be a grave mistake. Afterward, he was treated as an outsider. We can only hope that Donald Trump’s realism—especially regarding a genuine peace in Ukraine—does not meet the same fate as his three brilliant predecessors. Today, a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict has become a bifurcation point that will shape the course of history and reveal who is truly on the right side of it.
NATO Chief to Lobby Trump Not to Pressure Ukraine to Make Peace with Russia
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 24, 2025
The head of the North Atlantic Alliance is traveling to the US for meetings with top officials in the Donald Trump administration. Secretary General Mark Rutte is expected to push the White House not to force Ukraine into a peace deal with Russia.
According to the Financial Times, “Rutte will urge President Donald Trump’s administration not to force Ukraine to accept a peace deal against its will,” during meetings with embattled Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz on Thursday.
Trump and Rubio recently stated that they expect both Russia and Ukraine to quickly move towards a peace agreement. The White House proposed a deal that would require Kiev to recognize Moscow’s permanent control over Ukrainian territory held by the Russian military, including the Crimean Peninsula.
On Wednesday, Trump slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for rejecting the idea of Ukraine. “This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“[Zelensky] can have Peace, or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” he added. “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE,”
A NATO official told FT, “The key message is making the Americans understand what’s at stake.”
Throughout the conflict, Western and NATO leaders have claimed that they are defending the international world order by arming and supporting Ukraine. However, many Western countries, primarily the US, have engaged in a number of unlawful invasions in recent decades. Additionally, NATO states have backed Israel as it conducted a genocide in Gaza.
Trump has not raised the issue of international law, and said his priority is ending the war to stop people from dying.
Rutte is not the only European leader planning to lobby Trump to continue the proxy war against Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen plans to speak with Trump at Pope Francis’s funeral on Saturday.
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha responded to Trump’s recent peace proposals by saying Kiev cannot make concessions and the US must increase pressure on Russia.
On Thursday, Trump denounced a Russian strike on Kiev. “I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing,” he wrote on Truth Social. “Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!”
The Russians Are Coming!
By Hans Vogel | April 24, 2025
Thirty years after the end of the Cold War, European elites are shouting once again that the Russians are coming. Why would they bother invading European NATO states when everything that makes life possible in Europe is collapsing?
“The Russians can be here at any moment! The Russians have a huge army, ready to invade. We need to be prepared to fight and resist them, because if we don’t, they will destroy our country and kill our families!” That is what our lieutenant used to tell us in the 1970s during military service. I was then stationed somewhere between Bremen and Hamburg in the North German plains. Both cities had been flattened during the Second World War. Not by the Russians, but mostly by the English, our NATO ally. Yet we were constantly being reminded by the officers, noncoms and military and state propaganda that the Russians would do exactly the same and worse. The Russians, always the Russians! At that very moment, the Americans, our NATO bosses, were still busy destroying Vietnam, but that seemed to bother nobody.
“If the Russians are truly so superior as you say they are, why aren’t they here yet?” I asked the Lieutenant.
One day we were taken to the nearby exercise grounds to learn how to deal with a nuclear attack. We heard an explosion and saw a convincing mushroom cloud in the distance. “That is a tactical nuclear bomb,” we were told as we were instructed to put on an olive-drab handkerchief as a face mask so as not to breath “radioactive particles.” Then we were given little brushes to take the “radioactive dust” off our battle dresses. I asked the officers if this would not bring more of those particles into the air we were breathing. Nope, it was protocol, was the answer. At any rate, I thought this entire procedure was so amateurish as to be absolutely ridiculous. Then and there I stopped believing in the existence of nuclear bombs. Why would the Russians use tactical nuclear bombs if they wanted to conquer and occupy Western Europe, as was being claimed? Wouldn’t they make the conquered territory uninhabitable for themselves?
The “Russians” (which then was used to indicate the inhabitants of the Soviet Union) were always depicted in the darkest hues (which in those days still was considered unfavorable, even by the politically correct), and with idiotic exaggeration. So much so that, in a dialectical reaction, many of us soldiers were inclined to think those Russians were actually really nice guys. Such can be the unexpected result of fanatical propaganda, when the narrative is just too one-sided and unrealistic. It will eventually produce the opposite of what the authorities and their presstitutes want.
Most soldiers could not care less. The propaganda would enter through one ear, only to leave right away through the other. Each night, they would enjoy their beers, brag about their girlfriends and watch a movie in the 2,000 seat barracks theater. Those movies came basically in two varieties: documentaries on African wildlife, with giraffes and lions parading across the screen, and third-rate action movies from Israel, in which grinning zionist fighters would engage in bloody massacres of Arabs. It was the worst imaginable pornography of violence.
In the end, the Russians never showed up. Nor did they ever plan to come and visit us. A few years later between 1989 and 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came down. To the surprise of many, however, NATO was not dissolved. Quite the contrary: many new states were welcomed as NATO members. Yet the Russian “danger” was no longer there. As the remnants of the Soviet Union were cannibalized by Western capitalist raiders and looters, it was obvious there was no longer any Russian threat.
For a brief period, Western elites had a hard time identifying other imaginary dangers with which to keep the citizens subdued. Still during the “Cold War” they came up with acid rain, but it did not quite do the trick. The anthropogenic climate change narrative needed further elaboration. In 1992 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change laid the groundwork for this, strengthened by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, promoted worldwide was a small step for Al Gore, but a big step for the Climate mafia. Clamors by the UN and NGOs demanding sacrifices from the public in order to “save the planet” were becoming ever more obnoxious.
Meanwhile in 2001 after the demolition of three WTC towers in New York City, the US government and its vassals asserted that Arabic and Islamic terrorism were so absolutely terrifying that henceforth all airline passengers worldwide were to be subjected to ridiculous and humiliating security checks. Mind you, it was decided not just to check Arabs or muslims (that would be discrimination!), but ALL passengers, including babies and small children.
Anthropogenic climate change soon replaced the terrorism scare and became the core of official scare mongering. Nevertheless, all those “climate scientists” agreeing that climate change was caused by human activity and trying to convince us that the weather gods needed to be pacified by all sorts of sacrifices, somehow did not convince most of us. The speech that Greta Thunberg gave in the UN in July 2019 was the best speech to the UN General Assembly ever given by a 16-year old autistic girl, but it failed as it did not bring about the expected universal clamor for sacrifices to the weather gods.
Right then, at the end of 2019 the Great Covid Show was launched. Without doubt this was the most successful fear campaign ever, benefiting from the vast reservoir of knowledge gleaned from the MK Ultra program. Billions of people, believing the official narrative and naively trusting their governments and the assembled presstitutes, duly took the “vaccinations” that were pushed in all corners of the planet.
As the Great Covid Show proceeded, which was actually a US Deep State and WHO-sponsored holocaust in entire nations that were turned into “extermination camps,” Vladimir Putin launched the Special Military Operation against the Ukraine. Since this was a US neo-colony (just like Cuba was from 1902 to 1959), howls of indignant protest were heard all over the West. Western state media and presstitutes duly enhanced and increased the volume of the howling and wailing to deafening levels.
“You can’t just invade another country!” a friend of mine with whom I studied history told me. “Sure you can,” I answered, “that is what NATO did in Yugoslavia, and the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. That is what Turkey did in Cyprus in 1980, Morocco in 1975 invading the Sahara. And what about Israel always invading and harassing its neighbors since 1948? That was all fine and dandy. Why would Russia not be allowed to invade the Ukraine?” My friend could not see the logic, but reluctantly shut up, since he had no arguments.
Now that the Ukraine, together with its Western overlords, is facing final defeat, the old myth of an imminent Russian invasion has been dusted off. Putin is the “New Hitler” of the moment while Russia is allegedly the reincarnation of the former Soviet Union.
NATO’s hermaphrodite-in-chief, cabinet ministers of NATO member states, an entire armchair army of “experts” and all the state media and presstitutes in the West are repeating constantly that the Russians are coming and that we must all prepare for a war that will come inevitably. They are all repeating what our Lieutenant used to say during the Cold War: “The Russians can be here at any moment! The Russians have a huge army, ready to invade. We need to be prepared to fight and resist them, because if we don’t, they will destroy our country and kill our families!”
Yeah, right!
Bulgaria denies joining Croatia, Albania and Kosovo in encircling Serbia
By Ahmed Adel | April 22, 2025
Bulgarian Foreign Minister Georg Georgiev denied that Bulgaria is interested in joining a military alliance to encircle Serbia, comprising Croatia, Albania, and the Albanian-majority breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo. Bulgaria’s disinterest was expected, considering it would not want to join a localized alliance with Albania, the country serving as Turkey’s gateway into the Balkans to pursue irredentist ambitions, including against Bulgaria.
Georgiev responded in writing to MPs Djipo Djipov and Elisaveta Belobradova that Bulgaria is aware of the initiative of Croatia, Albania and Kosovo and that it is carefully analyzing the text of the Joint Declaration signed by the defense ministers of the three countries in Tirana on March 18.
“The information in the public suggesting that Bulgaria has expressed an unofficial interest in joining the declaration is incorrect,” Georgiev stressed.
The anti-Serbia coalition resembles a mini-NATO within the Balkans and is backed by Turkey, which is militarily present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, North Macedonia, and Kosovo. Turkey has greater ambitions after achieving successes in Syria and the South Caucasus and has now turned their attention to the Balkans too.
Former Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu wrote in “Strategic Depth,” his comprehensive and influential work on Turkish foreign policy and geopolitics strategic doctrine, that Serbia and Greece, or the Belgrade-Athens axis, are the main obstacles to the Turkish return to Europe. NATO and the European Union, except for Greece, do not oppose Turkey’s ambitions in the Balkans as the Turks can challenge Russian influence in the region.
However, the West does not want a war between Greece and Turkey to break out. Despite being NATO member states, this is a real possibility, especially as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not hidden his ambitions for the Greek islands and northern Greece. Nonetheless, conflicts could very easily be provoked at several points within the former Yugoslavia, and then Turkey and a number of other sponsors would be involved, where Greece would support the opposing side, just as happened in Bosnia in the 1990s.
A big problem in the EU is that unelected technocrats are leading the bloc into a war against Russia, and in that sense, the Balkans could be one of the peripheral points of that crisis. For this reason, Serbia needs a quick Russian victory in Ukraine to turn the tide of events in their strategic favor. If not, Serbia would be in a very unfavorable position, surrounded by NATO countries with weak alliances. Serbia has partnerships with only two regional countries, ironically also in NATO: Greece and Hungary.
Bulgaria has been in a transition phase for 30 years, practically under Western occupation, and it cannot be said that it has an independent foreign policy. Therefore, if Brussels or Washington ordered them to join an alliance against the Serbs, the Bulgarians would do so. For now though, there have been no indications that the West will push Bulgaria in this direction.
At the same time, Turkey is also Bulgaria’s biggest strategic challenge, especially considering that more than 8% of the country is ethnic Turks who can be weaponized against Sofia. Therefore, Bulgaria will face pressure to join the anti-Serbian military alliance of Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo, especially since Turkey is the main military patron of Albania and Kosovo.
To deal with Turkey as a rising challenge, military departments in Bulgaria have begun distributing mass mobilization calls to military conscripts. Citizens are sharing photos on social media of the documents they received. Some documents show a call from the Military Department in Varna, dated April 9, 2025, and the exact time to report. Mobilization calls for reservists in Bulgaria have not been issued for more than 30 years.
The Bulgarian military recently received its first American F-16 fighter jet. Although the Bulgarians announced that they had received a new one, this is not true because it is a second-hand aircraft that has been overhauled. Bulgaria otherwise does not have large quantities of weapons and military equipment because they emptied their warehouses at the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine.
Bulgaria also gave Ukraine most of its T-72 tanks and some Mi-8 transport helicopters, which ended in 2023. Bulgaria’s last deliveries from its stocks were more than a hundred BTR 60 armored personnel carriers that belonged to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and were extremely well preserved.
Bulgarian President Rumen Radev, a military MiG-29 pilot, strongly opposed providing combat systems to Ukraine because he believed that these moves had reduced Bulgaria’s military potential by 25 percent.
Now with Bulgaria significantly weakened for the sake of Ukraine’s futile war against Russia, the Balkans country cannot consider any military adventures against the Serbs, even if they do have historical territorial issues, and must instead rebuild its depleted forces, reservists and military equipment in face of a growing Turkish threat in the region.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Where have Europe’s pacifists gone – the ones who once opposed NATO?
By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 22, 2025
Where are they now—Europe’s pacifists? Why do they no longer gather in Belgium, in Brussels, NATO’s headquarters, where large demonstrations against the alliance once took place? These protests, led by pacifists, denounced NATO, war, militarization, and nuclear arms.
The Belgian newspaper Le Soir recently posed an intriguing question: Why have the pacifists vanished? “The arms race has begun,” the article argues. “Like its European neighbors, Belgium is preparing to significantly increase military spending this year—without facing any opposition.”
“We keep our word,” declares Francken, Belgium’s former Defense Minister. “Belgium will become a solidary ally with extra defense budgets for personnel, equipment, and infrastructure.” He claims the spending will also boost jobs and innovation. Belgium, after all, is a NATO founding member, alongside the Netherlands.
Some Belgian (former) pacifists have reacted sharply to the government’s plans: “Retirees must accept lower pensions, unemployment benefits are being slashed, the sick languish in poverty, nurses earn less and work longer for diminished pensions, hospitals lose subsidies—all to enrich that corrupt Zelensky gang in Kiev.” The same measures, they note, are being imposed in the Netherlands.
But as the article points out, criticizing NATO now invites ridicule. Or does it go further than mockery? Across Western Europe—Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany—and in the Baltic states and Poland, dissent is met with more than scorn. People are arrested, elections are overturned, and societies drift toward totalitarianism—or worse, a resurgence of militarism and fascism unseen since 1945.
Europeans once insisted America should not meddle in their affairs. But it’s too late for that. EU governments, radicalized by waning U.S. interest in Europe, have already been co-opted. They should have spoken up years ago, when it became clear Europe was being used to wage wars in distant lands its citizens barely knew. Instead, they absorbed refugees (often unwillingly) and fell under what some call American colonization.
Yet America wasn’t entirely wrong. In Munich last February, Vice President J.D. Vance called Europe a “totalitarian society,” singling out Germany. I can confirm his assessment was accurate—but it barely scratched the surface. The reality is far worse and deteriorating daily.
Consider these examples:
- A 16-year-old German girl was expelled from school by police for posting a pro-AfD TikTok video featuring the Smurfs (the right-wing party’s color is blue).
- An AfD politician was fined for stating that migrants commit more gang rapes than German citizens. (The court didn’t dispute her facts but ruled they incited hatred.)
Germany once had a robust pacifist movement. In the 1970s and 80s, activists—many from what is now the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)—protested NATO and nuclear weapons. Today, those same Greens, led by Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck, champion war and arms shipments.
Their party program declares Germany must lead Europe, offering a “global counterweight” to China and Russia. The anti-war, anti-NATO movement has been absorbed into a party now pushing for war—especially against Russia, as Baerbock’s rhetoric makes clear.
Or take a 2023 case where the EU’s High Representative expressed concern over “extrajudicial sentences against Serbs” who protested NATO in Kosovska Mitrovica. Kosovo’s Foreign Minister defended the arrests, claiming police had “clear evidence” the demonstrators participated in an “attack on NATO.”
So where have Europe’s pacifists gone—the ones who marched against war, militarization, and nuclear arms for decades? The Friedrich Naumann Foundation (banned in Russia) claims to have the answer. In an article, they declare: “The end of pacifism (as heard in a Bundestag debate) was historic. Hopefully, it marks the end of a moral and political error.”
Has pacifism become a “political mistake”? Millions who oppose war have been misled for years by their own politicians—like the Greens, who traded peace for militarism. The world is upside down, yet Europe’s docile masses seem content as their pensions fund weapons.
New Eastern Europe takes it further, arguing “Pacifism kills.” The outlet claims: “The problem isn’t pacifism itself, but its manipulation for purposes contrary to its ideals. While pacifist appeals to Russia (the aggressor) are justified, targeting Ukraine or both sides aids Moscow.”
In short: Pacifism helps Russia. The “hippies” of the 1960s live in a fantasy where peace is impossible, Russia is the villain, and Europe must defeat it. The campaign against pacifism mirrors the EU’s push for militarization.
Europe is silencing pacifists—and dissidents—just as pre-WWII Germany did under fascism. New laws are emerging. In Germany, the proposed CDU/CSU-SPD coalition plans to “fight lies,” per their “Culture and Media“ working group. If you “lie” by government standards—say, by advocating peace with Russia or denying its “aggression”—you risk jail, fines, or online erasure.
“The deliberate spread of false claims isn’t covered by free speech,” they assert.
Le Soir asked: Where are the pacifists? They’re still here—for now. But once Germany’s new government takes power, once the digital ID and CBDC (mandatory across Europe) launch this October, protests—online or in streets—will be surveilled. Small demonstrations in Germany and Amsterdam show resistance lingers. But soon, fear will silence them: fear for jobs, pensions, benefits, even children.
Because CBDC and Digital ID mean governments can monitor “fake news” and freeze dissenters’ funds. Europe is birthing the very totalitarianism it accuses Russia, China, or America of. Militarization, fascism’s revival—all while Europeans dread a war that isn’t theirs, yet one their leaders enable.
UK advancing military measures
By Lucas Leiroz | April 22, 2025
Despite current US’ efforts to reduce the diplomatic crisis between the West and Russia, the UK and the EU are not following in the American footsteps and continue to escalate their military actions as much as possible. Increasing arms production and expanding troops have been some of the measures adopted to prepare for the supposed “imminent conflict with Russia”. In the case of London, the current focus seems to be on creating an autonomous explosives and artillery industry, eliminating dependence on the US.
In a recent article, The Times revealed that the UK plans to “drastically” increase its explosives production to reduce imports of this type of material from the US. The newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported that London is concerned about the future of its alliance with the US, considering the recent changes in American foreign policy, which is why the country aims to become completely independent in all sectors of the military industry, with the explosives segment being a top priority.
The article states that British military scientists are using containers at sites across the country to manufacture RDX, an explosive vital for 155mm artillery shells. In addition, BAE Systems, the only British company currently specializing in the production of these artillery shells, is also planning to build new facilities with the aim of expanding the production of explosive materials for its rockets.
“In an effort not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and in acknowledgment of Britain’s inability to produce shells for Ukraine, BAE is increasing munitions production in the United Kingdom substantially. The company is establishing multiple sites for explosives manufacture to increase resilience and eliminate dependence on supplies from America and other countries. This will also help insulate the UK from restrictions on the use of US hardware”, the article reads.
As can be seen, the issue of explosives has become central to Britain’s arms production strategy as the country finds it difficult to supply its Ukrainian ally with sufficient UK-made artillery shells. The weakness of the military industry is hampering London’s plans to remain a key supporter of the Kiev regime – especially after the Trump-led reduction in US aid, which is why expanding the production of explosives that enable the projectiles to work has become a priority for the country.
However, Britain’s concerns are not limited to artillery. The UK is starting a major renovation of its strategic policy, trying as much as possible to nationalize the production of critical military materials. The Times article also expressed concern about the US control over other sectors of the British military, stating, for example, that the country’s air force needs to become independent of American technology. In other words, London no longer trusts Washington and is preparing for a scenario where the two countries could simply cut relations.
“The Royal Air Force is especially exposed to US technology. While the Royal Navy and the army field more homegrown and European systems, the RAF relies on US airborne early warning and maritime patrol aircraft and the F35 stealth fighter. The latter’s software is under US control and, in truth, it is not a sovereign system. Nowhere, however, is Britain’s dependence on the US deeper than in the nuclear field. While the UK builds the submarines and warheads for its deterrent, it relies on America’s Trident missile for delivery. The UK draws its Tridents from a joint stockpile held and serviced in the US. While Britain can fire its missiles independently, a withdrawal of US support following a rupture in relations would result in Tridents in British possession gradually becoming unusable. The UK should reshore missile maintenance,” the article adds.
In fact, making its military production fully sovereign is an interesting goal for any country. Dependence on foreign technology is an uncomfortable situation and creates instability for the country that imports defense hardware. The problem in the current case is that the UK is seeking this “strategic sovereignty” for the wrong reasons.
The UK’s move comes amid a current wave of militarization in European countries as a response to Trump’s “isolationism.” The UK and EU are trying to become “independent” of American military technology because they believe that they must not only continue to arm Ukraine in the long term, but also that they must prepare for a possible direct conflict with Russia in the future.
If London were planning to become truly “independent from the US,” the right thing to do would be to adopt a policy focused on internal development and to leave NATO. But Britain’s interest is simply to react to Trump’s diplomacy and pursue an even more aggressive and bellicose foreign policy. It remains to be seen whether the declining British economy will have enough strength to complete this “remilitarization” project without generating serious social side effects.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
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- Fact-Checking the “Placebo Control” Fact Checkers
- 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
- 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 