Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Cover-ups, lies, smears and fake news from Ursula could be EU’s own suicide pill

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 12, 2025

Previous disparaging comments about the past of European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and her grandparents’ role in the second world war might have seemed truculent by Russian commentators. And yet, as each month passes, we seem to be witnessing VDL’s political identity – and her vision of the role of the EU – more and more in line with Nazi Germany. The total annihilation of the free press in Brussels was not her doing, as she inherited the draconian system when she took office. But her efforts to broaden the silencing of journalists right across Europe is telling as it becomes even more an act of desperation to stamp out any free and feral reporting while her own team are pumping out these entirely fake narratives every day. The Russians are planning on invading Baltic states. Russia is the new threat to a democratic Europe. And the latest blag, EU is a bastion of peace and democracy “which doesn’t invade other countries”.

The lies and hypocrisy are at an all-time high and so it seems fitting that the draconian measures of arresting or detaining journalists, like Chay Bowes attempting to cover the Romanian elections, is understandable.

And yet there is no evidence at all to back up the preposterous claim that Moscow has eyes set on invading Baltic countries; there is also no evidence to back up the claim that Russia is the real threat to European democracy, which, in fact is being destroyed each day by the EU and its elites themselves. And as for the EU being this example of a peaceful trading bloc which doesn’t have any intention of attacking its own members… that might have been true. Until now.

These days the EU elite in Brussels are panicking about losing their relevance. It is looking at though the anti-EU candidate in Romania might well win the presidential elections there. If that happens, this means an alliance of three rebels in the pack – Hungary, Romania and Slovakia – are going to give the EU, let alone NATO a real headache. It might be overzealous to say it could be the end of the EU, but it may well certainly be the end of the EU as we know it. The extraordinary elitist dictatorship which has no accountability to its own mercurial ambitions and acts, might have to learnt a thing or two about democracy and start respecting a few of its principles. NATO, arguably, might be hit even harder as three members holding back the EU’s dream of organizing an EU army in Ukraine will have longer-term ramifications to the prestige and relevance of both those Brussels based institutions.

Have the cracks already started? Are these elitists like VDL losing their grip with reality? The threat by Estonia to “shoot down” any planes flying from Slovakia to Moscow is a good sign of the lunatics running the asylum as this WTF moment naturally is not reported by mainstream media and so the Slovakian PM himself had to stream a piece to camera for X just to confirm the madness.

Yet Ursula is really losing her mind. She’s out of control and this obsession with fighting Russia at any cost may well provide the defining moment where she and the EU project falls on its own sword. The election meddling, arrests of journalists and sheer scale of the fake news coming from the EU is starting to get noticed and seen for what it is – not only in these three recalcitrant EU member states but right across Europe. This is evident in the rise of far-right movements in France, Britain and Germany. It’s plain to see. More and more people are simply no longer buying the BS that comes to their TV screens by these leaders in Brussels on immigration, COVID, LGBT and of course boosting EU defence budgets to new giddy heights. In the UK for example, the government is looking at how to cut disability benefits to its own citizens as the national coffers are empty due to 7.5 illegal migrants receiving state benefits, free housing and health care.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Just recently we read that the EU accuses Hungarian populist leader of pouring cash into a number of media outlets to boost his popularity. And yet HUNDREDS of journalists in Brussels each day working for all of Europe’s main broadcasters, even the BBC when the UK was a member, receive free productions services saving them possibly hundreds of millions of euros each year. We don’t know the figure because it’s all shrouded in secrecy, naturally, but the laughable accusation made by the EU must be noted for the pot calling the kettle black.

Hungary, Slovakia and soon Romania will all be targets for smear campaigns by Brussels-based so-called journalists as part of the new objective of VDL and her cronies. This is coming on a grand scale and the more this is intensified, you can literally watch the popularity of the far-right parties in ‘Old Europe’ rise each day. The model has an autodestruct facility built into it which fools like VDL can’t even see as they are too fixated with power grabbing and the dirty tricks which are needed therein. But the whole machinery is fed on lies which still too many gullible Europeans believe whether it be about Russia’s “threat” or electric cars, alternative energy and of course vaccines. All these areas represent hundreds of billions of euros being transferred from the public coffers to the private ones and there are still, sadly, a good number of ignorant Europeans who can’t join up the dots.

May 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

US House Approves MEGOBARI Act to Pursue in Georgia More Ukraine-style Intervention and Conflict with Russia

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | May 9, 2025

We have seen this play out before, the United States government relentlessly acting to control the government in a former Soviet Union republic bordering Russia and then proceeding to support that government in war against Russia. That course of action has led to devastation in Ukraine, including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals, in a US proxy war against Russia. Through Monday approval in the United States House of Representatives of the Mobilizing and Enhancing Georgia’s Options for Building Accountability, Resilience, and Independence Act (MEGOBARI Act) by a vote of 349 to 42, the House took a big step toward a replay of this disaster in Georgia.

The MEGOBARI Act (HR 36) is overflowing with repetition of the type of justifications that were brought out in support of the US government’s disastrous intervention in Ukraine. “[T]he consolidation of democracy in Georgia is critical for regional stability and United States national interests,” proclaims the bill before declaring it is “the policy of the United States” to “support the constitutionally stated aspirations of Georgia to become a member of the European Union and NATO,” to “continue supporting the capacity of the Government of Georgia to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity from further Russian aggression or encroachment within its internationally recognized borders,” and to ensure several other listed developments occur in Georgia that would increase the nation’s connection to the US and European Union (EU) while creating antagonism between Georgia and Russia. US policy is also listed as including “to combat Russian aggression, including through sanctions on trade with Russia and the implementation and enforcement of worldwide sanctions on Russia.” Even included, as happened before with Ukraine, is a demand for reduced trade ties between Georgia and Russia.

The statement of US policy in the bill further includes a recounting of USAID-style manipulation of a foreign government, depicted as democracy promotion, that has been well exposed in the last few months through the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). For example, the MEGOBARI Act declares it is US policy “to continue supporting the ongoing development of democratic values in Georgia, including free and fair elections, freedom of association, an independent and accountable judiciary, an independent media, public-sector transparency and accountability, the rule of law, countering malign influence, and anti-corruption efforts and to impose swift consequences on individuals who are directly responsible for leading or have directly and knowingly engaged in leading actions of policies that significantly undermine those standards.” That may sound nice — though seriously buttinski — out of context (as is its propaganda intent). But, this is standard US regime changer language for “the US has decided to run the show in your country.”

Right after declaring it is US policy for the US to impose its will on Georgia and harm Russia, the bill moves on to mandating the delivery to congressional committees of a specially prepared classified report “examining the penetration of Russian intelligence elements and their assets in Georgia, that includes an annex examining Chinese influence and the potential intersection of Russian-Chinese cooperation in Georgia.” Got to keep track of the competition. But, really, the main purpose is probably to help the politicians and their media supporters justify the continuing ramping up of intervention in Georgia and antagonism toward Russia and China. The classified information, it will be asserted, shows the “bad guys” are doing such dastardly things in Georgia that would really shock the American people if the details didn’t just have to be kept secret. This will support intervention in Georgia and the fearmongering behind the US government’s resurrected cold war.

Beyond stating US policy supporting exercise of control over Georgia, opposition to Russia and China, and, potentially, war, the MEGOBARI Act calls for the creation of a five-year plan by that old regime change pro USAID — still alive and well — in coordination with other unnamed US government departments. That plan would be purposed to turn into action the stated interventionist US policy.

The bill also calls on President Trump to start slinging the go-to interventionist weapon of sanctions against Georgians from Parliament members to government and political party officials who Trump determines “knowingly engaged in significant acts of corruption, or acts of violence or intimidation in relation to the blocking of Euro-Atlantic integration in Georgia.” Their family members can also be sanctioned. You can ignore the fluff about “corruption” and “violence or intimidation.” That is not what the US is interested in stopping. Otherwise, the remainder of the sentence describing who should be sanctioned would not have been included. The US via these sanctions will be acting to advance “Euro-Atlantic integration.” Oppose that in Georgia and the “corruption” or “violence or intimidation” determination regarding you can be expected to be tagged on as justification for sanctions. This fits right in with the US routinely failing to condemn terrorism and human rights abuses by people, organizations, and governments acting in line with US foreign policy.

The MEGOBARI Act also gives the president an additional broad sanctions direction that he “determine whether there are foreign persons who, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, have engaged in significant corruption in Georgia or acts that are intended to undermine the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Georgia for the purposes of potential imposition of sanctions pursuant to powers granted to the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).” Rest assured, though, efforts to “undermine the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Georgia” will be judged A-OK as long as those efforts are US supported.

Near the end of the bill comes the language that gives away what is seen as a likely outcome of the intervention the bill puts in place: war with Russia. The president, the bill states, “in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, should maintain, and as appropriate, expand military co-operation with Georgia, including by providing further security and defense equipment ideally suited for territorial defense against Russian aggression and related training, maintenance, and operations support elements.”

House members who voted for the MEGOBARI Act are setting up expanded intervention in Georgia that follows the Ukraine model. Even preparation for another proxy war against Russia is included in the process the bill sets up.

The MEGOBARI Act is not the beginning of US intervention in Georgia. That has been ongoing for many years. But, the bill is a significant step forward. The timing of the bill’s approval is also important. Even as President Donald Trump talks of ending the Ukraine War and removing sanctions on Russia as part of a peace deal, the MEGOBARI Act signals that the US is preparing for a replay of the entire catastrophic policy of intervention in another former Soviet republic on Russia’s border.

A Monday press release issued by MEGOBARI Act megasupporters Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Richard Hudson (R-NC) and Marc Veasey (D-TX) upon House approval of the bill, states the MEGOBARI Act “is fully negotiated between House and Senate, Democrat and Republican leaders and is expected to move quickly.” Those Republican and Democratic leaders make a fuss about their disagreements on some things. But, when it comes to major interventions abroad, they tend to be fully supportive.

The press release goes on to note in its next sentence that “MEGOBARI means ‘friend’ in Georgian.” People in Georgia would do well to look at how the Ukraine and US governments being “friends” has worked out for Ukrainians.

May 10, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

‘A lot of people know’ who blew up Nord Stream – Trump

RT | May 6, 2025

US President Donald Trump has dismissed claims that Russia was behind the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines and suggested that the true culprit is widely known – without naming names.

Speaking at a White House press event, Trump said there was no need for a formal investigation to uncover who carried out the attack, which crippled a key energy route between Russia and Western Europe.

Three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, built to deliver Russian gas to Germany and the rest of Western Europe, were damaged by blasts at the bottom of the Baltic Sea in September 2022.

On Tuesday, a correspondent for libertarian financial blog ZeroHedge, which has been admitted to White House press events under the new administration, noted that Trump had previously rejected the Western narrative that Russia blew up its own pipelines, and asked the president if he was planning to initiate a probe to find out who was actually behind the attack.

“If you can believe it, they said Russia blew it up,” Trump responded. “Well, probably if I asked certain people, they would be able to tell you without having to waste a lot of money on an investigation. But I think a lot of people know who blew it up,” he added, without elaborating.

ZeroHedge suggested that Trump’s comment meant that “based on classified intelligence he knows exactly who was behind” the destruction of Nord Stream. It also “should put the ‘Russia destroyed its own vital and economically lucrative pipeline’ storyline to rest,” the outlet insisted.

In early February 2023, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a report claiming that then US President Joe Biden had given the order to destroy Nord Stream. According to an informed source who talked to the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, the explosives that were detonated on September 26, 2022 had been planted at the pipelines by US Navy divers a few months earlier under the cover of a NATO exercise called ‘Baltops 22’. The White House denied the report, calling it “utterly false and complete fiction.”

Senior Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have previously pointed the finger at the US as the possible culprit behind the Nord Stream explosions. They have argued that Washington had the technical means to carry out the operation and stood to gain the most, considering that the attack disrupted Russian energy supplies to the EU and forced a shift to more expensive US-supplied liquefied natural gas.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Economics, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Aggressive Rhetoric of NATO, EU Hinders Russia, US’s Risk Mitigation Efforts – Shoigu

Sputnik – 30.04.2025

Militarization of Europe and aggressive rhetoric on the part of NATO and the EU hinder the success of Russia and the United States’ efforts to reduce strategic risks, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu said on Wednesday.

“Today we continue to consistently convey to the Americans the need to work together on comprehensive reduction of strategic risks, which should have positive impact on the international security. However, militarization of Europe and aggressive rhetoric of NATO and the EU hinder achievement of positive results in this area,” Shoigu said at the meeting of high representatives of BRICS countries in charge of security issues, which is taking place in Brasilia.

Using Terrorist Proxies for Geostrategy

Some European countries are increasingly using terrorist groups for their geostrategic purposes, and the most prominent example is Ukraine, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu said on Wednesday.

“Some European states are increasingly using terrorist groups for their geostrategic purposes, primarily in confrontation with countries that do not recognize dominance,” Shoigu said at a meeting of the BRICS countries’ high representatives in charge of security issues, adding that the most striking example is Ukraine because Kiev uses NATO weapons to shell residential neighborhoods, commits sabotage and political assassinations.

The most serious challenges to global security come from ISIS and Al-Qaeda, because they are quickly adapting to changing geopolitical conditions, Shoigu added.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

West ‘delirious with nuclear apocalypse scenarios’ – Putin aide

RT | April 29, 2025

European NATO members are risking nuclear war by escalating military tensions with Russia, according to Nikolay Patrushev, national security adviser to President Vladimir Putin.

Patrushev accused Western powers of “deploying their military machine against Russia and becoming delirious with nuclear apocalypse scenarios.” The destabilization is originating from Brussels, Berlin, Paris and London, the senior official told TASS in an interview published on Tuesday.

”For a second consecutive year, NATO is conducting exercises at our borders at a scale unseen in decades,” Patrushev said. “They are training for conducting a broad offensive from Vilnius to Odessa, seizing [the Russian exclave] Kaliningrad Region, imposing a naval blockade in the Baltic and the Black Seas, and executing preventive strikes on the staging locations of Russian nuclear deterrence forces.”

Patrushev, who formerly served as secretary of Russia’s Security Council, described the world as teetering on the brink, facing either a “new bloodbath” reminiscent of World War II or the emergence of “a fair world order where every nation enjoys sovereignty and security.” He attributed the actions of Western politicians to their refusal to accept the decline of a system centered around their nations.

The EU intends to borrow hundreds of billions of euros to fund a substantial militarization of its member states, justifying the move with claims of impending Russian aggression within the coming years.

Moscow has denied having any aggressive intentions towards the US-led military bloc, and has accused it of encroaching on Russian borders in violation of promises made to the USSR. Russian officials view the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war aimed at undermining their nation’s development.

April 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Fyodor Lukyanov: Forget land – this is Russia’s main demand from the West

By Fyodor Lukyanov | RT | April 28, 2025

Everyone is expecting news on a Ukrainian settlement this week. The diplomatic activity is real and intense, and the visible signs suggest something significant is underway. There is little point in trying to guess which of the leaked plans are genuine and which are misinformation. What is clear is that Russia is being offered a choice between “a bird in the hand and two in the bush.” The trouble is, the elements necessary for any sustainable agreement are still scattered among the various birds.

Currently, discussions naturally revolve around territory. This is a sensitive subject, particularly since the territories under consideration are already under Russian control. The bird’s wings are clipped, however: legal recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over these lands seems unrealistic, at least in the near term. De facto recognition, with a pledge not to attempt to return them by force, could be the achievable result. In today’s global atmosphere, it is naive to view any legal agreement as genuinely final.

Yet territory was not the true cause of this conflict. The deeper issue was decades of unresolved security contradictions. ‘Demilitarization’ – so prominently featured in Russia’s original demands – encompasses both Ukraine’s neutral status and the broader limitation of its military capabilities, whether through curtailing domestic production, cutting off external supplies, or reducing existing forces.

This demand is far from cosmetic. Fulfillment would overturn the international order that has reigned since the end of the Cold War – an order based on NATO’s unchecked expansion across Europe and Eurasia, without regard for Moscow’s objections. The military campaign thus became a way of exercising a “veto” that the West had long denied Russia. True demilitarization of Ukraine would, in effect, force international recognition of that veto. But many in the West remain unwilling to accept such a precedent.

As discussions have moved toward territorial issues, the central problem of military security seems to have been relegated to the background. Perhaps US President Donald Trump’s administration – more skeptical of NATO itself – views it as less fundamental. Or perhaps it simply finds it easier to force Ukraine to cede territory than to make Western Europe recognize Russia’s security rights. Nevertheless, for Moscow, military security remains a matter of principle. Even if Washington offers major concessions – lifting sanctions, formalizing territorial changes – Russia cannot abandon this core demand.

This creates a divergence in diplomatic tempo. Washington wants a quick deal; the Kremlin believes that haste will not produce a reliable settlement. Yet Moscow also knows that the political stars – especially in Washington – have aligned in a uniquely favorable way, and it does not want to miss the moment.

The outcome will be known soon enough. However, some important lessons from history should be remembered.

First, achieving political goals often takes more than one campaign. A pause in fighting is not necessarily a resolution.

Second, there is no such thing as an open-ended, unchangeable agreement. If a deal does not truly satisfy all parties, it will eventually collapse. The struggle will resume – though not necessarily through military means.

Third, Ukraine is only one piece of a much larger process of global transformation in which Russia intends to play a central role. These changes are already underway, and will continue to deepen. Reaching some degree of understanding with the United States is important. Interestingly, the NATO issue might resolve itself over time, not because of Russian pressure but due to the alliance’s own growing irrelevance.

But for now, that remains a matter for the future. In the immediate term, Russia faces a choice between the imperfect birds on offer – and must weigh carefully which to catch and which to let fly.

Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

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.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

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”.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

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

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

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.

April 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »