Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany acting irresponsibly by sending troops to Lithuania

By Lucas Leiroz | April 3, 2025

Germany is moving forward with its remilitarization process amid ongoing tensions with the Russian Federation. For the first time since World War II, the country is creating a permanent military program to deploy troops abroad, which represents a dangerous escalation in the already fragile European security architecture.

The German Army’s 45th Armored Brigade is currently being deployed to Lithuania, where it will operate in the region close to the border with Belarus. The move is part of Germany’s plan to “strengthen NATO’s eastern flank,” which is seen as a necessity by Western military hawks, given that, in Europe’s assessment, a conflict with Russia could soon begin.

A ceremony was held in Vilnius on April 1, at which Brigadier General Christoph Huber was inaugurated as commander of the newly created German military unit to “protect” the Baltic states. The ceremony was announced by the German Bundeswehr Association (DBwV), a well-known lobby group for the German military-industrial complex. This shows how the escalation of European tensions is serving the selfish interests of specific groups, and not the real wishes of the German people.

General Huber stated in his speech that the Germans have a “clear mission” in Lithuania. According to him, Berlin must help the Baltic partners to guarantee European democratic principles, such as freedom and security, in the face of alleged “threats” on NATO’s eastern flank. The speech sounded like an attempt to justify or disguise the bellicose and irresponsible intentions behind the German military maneuvers.

“We have a clear mission. We have to ensure the protection, freedom, and security of our Lithuanian allies here on NATO’s eastern flank,” the official said

In fact, this German move is the result of a long process of expanding the actions of the country’s defense and security services abroad. Previously, Berlin had even updated its legislation to allow the German military intelligence service to operate in foreign territories considered part of NATO’s “eastern flank.” The justification given by officials was the alleged existence of significant threats from Russia, including attempts at espionage and sabotage against European targets – accusations that were never proven.

“The amendment grants the Military Counterintelligence Service the necessary powers to protect the Bundeswehr against espionage and sabotage by foreign powers, as well as against extremist attempts at infiltration from within its own ranks, even during foreign missions,” a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defense said at the time.

In practice, it can be said that Germany is doing its best to increase its participation in European military affairs. In recent decades, the German army has been considered one of the weakest among the world’s great powers. Despite historically having a strong industrial defense capacity, Germany deliberately refrained from investing in the renewal of its military forces, irresponsibly relying on the American defense umbrella.

This situation has changed since 2022. Germany remains militarily weak, and is now also facing major problems with its defense industry, considering that the country no longer has a safe and cheap source of energy due to anti-Russian sanctions. However, despite its military weaknesses, Germany has expanded its strategic ambitions, trying to project power regionally as a kind of “European leader” jointly with France. Berlin, like almost the entire EU, has chosen Russia as a target, naming it an enemy and using it as an excuse for all sorts of irresponsible escalatory policies.

In other words, anti-Russian paranoia and the desire to protect the interests of EU elites are leading Germany to reverse a historic policy of reducing its military activities. It would be legitimate for the Germans to seek remilitarization in order to strengthen national sovereignty, but that is not what is happening now. Instead, Berlin is showing itself to be even more subservient to European elites, as it is using its own soldiers to escalate the EU’s war plans against Russia.

As Russian authorities have repeatedly stated, Moscow has no territorial interests in Western countries, so there is no reason for European states to “prepare for war”. However, these policies of “preemptive” militarization in Europe could easily escalate to a point of no return if the presence of troops on the Baltic borders with the Union State (Belarus and Russia) begins to generate incidents and frictions – triggering retaliatory measures.

NATO and the EU’s own military plans create the security problems that these organizations allegedly want to avoid. There is no risk of a “Russian invasion”, but if the security crisis continues to escalate, an open conflict in the future cannot be ruled out. If the Germans want to avoid a situation of increasing hostility, they will need to reconsider their military interventionism in the countries of the post-Soviet space.

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.

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

Serbia, Hungary sign military agreement in response to Croatia’s Tripartite Pact

By Ahmed Adel | April 3, 2025

Hungary and Serbia signed a military agreement following the joint declaration of cooperation on defense by Albania, Croatia, and Kosovo on March 18 in Tirana. With military alliances forming in the Balkans and the Kosovo issue remaining unresolved, the potential for war in the region continues to increase.

The defense ministers of Serbia and Hungary, in the presence of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, signed a Bilateral Military Cooperation Plan for 2025 on April 1. Vučić stated that the agreement on joint activities will continue to develop further, leading to rapprochement and potentially a military alliance between Serbia and Hungary.

“We aim to forge the closest strategic relations in the field of defense, and we believe that this agreement on joint activities will pave the way for a military alliance or union between Serbia and Hungary,” the Serbian leader emphasized.

It is pivotal for Serbia to establish regional military partnerships, considering its rivalry with Croatia and Albania, as well as its loss of authority over its sovereign territory, Kosovo, an Albanian separatist state with partial recognition.

The Tripartite Pact, signed between the rivals of Serbia, states that its focus is on “strengthening the defense and security industry, increasing military interoperability through joint training and exercises, countering hybrid threats, and strengthening strategic security, as well as supporting Euro-Atlantic integration.” They also announced that the pact was also open to other countries, such as Bulgaria. In this way, it is evident that the Tripartite Pact is attempting to surround Serbia fully.

Serbian Minister of Defense Bratislav Gašić stated that the signing of a Tripartite Pact by Croatia, Albania, and the “so-called Kosovo” is a “provocative move that undermines efforts to strengthen regional security.”

“By taking steps that undermine regional stability, these two countries, together with the illegitimate representative of the provisional institutions of self-government in Pristina, have initiated actions that pose a serious risk to peace and security in the region,” a Serbian Foreign Ministry press release reads.

According to Vučić, the pact was a “violation of the Agreement on Sub-Regional Arms Control” signed by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia in 1996.

For this reason, the signing of the military agreement between Serbia and Hungary is a significant development for Belgrade, particularly given that the latter is a member of both NATO and the European Union. It also demonstrates that Serbia is capable of responding to the provocative alliance between Croatia, Albania, and Pristina.

Serbia and Hungary initiated concrete military cooperation last year, with Hungary purchasing ammunition and all related military equipment from Serbia. On the other hand, Serbia acquired a self-propelled missile system from Hungary and 56 Russian-made armored personnel carriers.

What is also hinted at in the future within this alliance is cooperation between helicopter crews, as they will be using identical helicopters. With further purchases of these aircraft, Serbia and Hungary will have a unified fleet.

Apart from equipment and military technology, the question hanging in the air is whether this alliance possesses defensive characteristics and, if so, what kind. The agreement provides for mutual assistance in the event of some issues.

Meanwhile, Croatia is a member of both NATO and the EU, whereas Albania is a member of NATO.

Given that Hungary is also a member of NATO and the EU, it raises the question on whether Serbia is moving closer to NATO in this way, but it could also be noted that Hungary is looking for a way to distance itself from that military alliance, especially considering that both Serbia and Hungary have good relations with Moscow and there is not much trust among NATO pact members.

The EU has initiated a process to establish military alliances in parallel with the NATO pact, as it no longer trusts the NATO pact itself and is concerned about the uncertainty brought about by US President Donald Trump’s policies, which could lead to the alliance’s collapse.

Also, certain military alliances are being formed within Europe independently of NATO, such as the one between France and Greece, in response to Turkey’s increasingly belligerent behavior despite all three countries being NATO members. Nonetheless, the emerging alliance between Hungary and Serbia is a military-technical cooperation.

Croatia has a significant and historical rivalry with Serbia. It is no coincidence that Zagreb deployed combat vehicles on the tri-border area of Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia following the signing of the bilateral military agreement. The deployment of the combat vehicles is evidently a message from the Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo alliance to Serbia and Hungary, suggesting that the Balkans could once again erupt in war as military alliances are formed and the Kosovo issue remains unresolved.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

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

Here’s why the West has so far failed to start World War III

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 31, 2025

Under the title ‘The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine’, the New York Times published a long exposé that has made a splash. It is a long article advertised – with a lumbering clunkiness that betrays cramping politics – as the “untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia’s invading armies.”

And it clearly aspires to be sensational: A revelation with a whiff of the famous Pentagon Papers that, when leaked to the same New York Times and the Washington Post in 1971, revealed what a mass-murderous fiasco America’s Vietnam War really was.

Yet, in reality, this time the New York Times is offering something less impressive by magnitudes. And the issue is not that the Pentagon Papers were longer. What really makes ‘The Partnership’ so underwhelming are two features: It is embarrassingly conformist, reading like a long exercise in rooting for the home team, the US, by access journalism: Based on hundreds of interviews with movers and shakers, this is really the kind of ‘investigation’ that boils down to giving everyone interviewed a platform for justifying themselves as good as they can and as much as they like.

With important exceptions. For the key strategy of exculpation is simple. Once you see through the rather silly group-therapy jargon of a tragic erosion of ‘trust’ and sad misunderstandings, it is the Ukrainians that get the blame for the US not winning its war against Russia, in their country and over their dead bodies.

Because one fundamental conceit of ‘The Partnership’ is that the war could have been won by the West, through Ukraine. What seems to never even have entered the author’s mind is the simple fact that this was always an absurd undertaking. Accordingly, the other thing that hardly makes it onto his radar screen is the crucial importance of Russia’s political and military actions and reactions.

This, hence, is an article that, in effect, explains losing a war against Russia without ever noticing that this may have happened because the Russians were winning it. In that sense, it stands in a long tradition: Regarding Napoleon’s failed campaign of 1812 and Hitler’s crash between 1941 and 1945, all too many contemporary and later Western observers have made the same mistake: For them it’s always the weather, the roads (or their absence), the timing, and the mistakes of Russia’s opponents. Yet it’s never – the Russians. This reflects old, persistent, and massive prejudices about Russia that the West cannot let go of. And, in the end, it is always the West which ends up suffering from them the most.

In the case of the Ukraine conflict, the main scapegoats, in the version of ‘The Partnership’, are now Vladimir Zelensky and his protégé and commander-in-chief General Aleksandr Syrsky, but there is room for devastating side swipes at Syrsky’s old rival Valery Zaluzhny and a few lesser lights as well.

Perhaps the only Ukrainian officer who looks consistently good in ‘The Partnership’ is Mikhail Zabrodsky, that is, the one – surprise, surprise – who worked most closely with the Americans and even had a knack of flatteringly imitating their Civil War maneuvers. Another, less prominent recipient of condescending praise is General Yury Sodol. He is singled out as an “eager consumer” of American advice who, of course, ends up succeeding where less compliant pupils fail.

Zabrodsky and Sodol may very well be decent officers who do not deserve this offensively patronizing praise. Zelensky, Syrsky, and Zaluzhny certainly deserve plenty of very harsh criticism. Indeed, they deserve being tried. But constructing a stab-in-the-back legend around them, in which Ukrainians get blamed the most for making the US lose a war that the West provoked is perverse. As perverse as the latest attempts by Washington to turn Ukraine into a raw materials colony, as a reward for being such an obedient proxy.

With all its fundamental flaws, there are intriguing details in ‘The Partnership’. They include, for instance, a European intelligence chief openly acknowledging – as early as spring 2022 – that NATO officers had become “part of the kill chain,” that is, of killing Russians who they were not, actually, officially at war with.

Or that, contrary to what some believe, Westerners did not overestimate but underestimate Russian abilities from the beginning of the war: In the spring of 2022, Russia rapidly surged “additional forces east and south” in less than three weeks, while American officers had assumed they would need months. In a similar spirit of blinding arrogance, General Christopher Cavoli – in essence, Washington’s military viceroy in Europe and a key figure in boosting the war against Russia – felt that Ukrainian troops did not have to be as good as the British and Americans, just better than Russians. Those daft, self-damaging prejudices again.

The New York Times’ “untold story” is also extremely predictable. Despite all the detail, nothing in ‘The Partnership’ is surprising, at least nothing important. What this sensationally unsensational investigation really does is confirm what everyone not fully sedated by Western information warfare already knew: In the Ukraine conflict, Russia has not merely – if that is the word – been fighting Ukraine supported by the West but Ukraine and the West.

Some may think the above is a distinction that doesn’t make a difference. But that would be a mistake. Indeed, it’s the kind of distinction that can make a to-be-or-not-to-be difference, even on a planetary scale.

That’s because Moscow fighting Ukraine, while the latter is receiving Western support, means Russia having to overcome a Western attempt to defeat it by proxy war. But fighting Ukraine and the West means Russia has been at war with an international coalition, whose members have all attacked it directly. And the logical and legitimate response to that would have been to attack them all in return. That scenario would have been called World War III.

‘The Partnership’ shows in detail that the West did not merely support Ukraine indirectly. Instead, again and again, it helped not only with intelligence Ukraine could not have gathered on its own but with direct involvement in not only supplying arms but planning campaigns and firing weapons that produced massive Russian casualties. Again, Moscow has said this was the case for a long time. And Moscow was right.

This is why, by the way, the British Telegraph has gotten one thing very wrong in its coverage of ‘The Partnership’: The details of American involvement now revealed are not, actually, “likely to anger the Kremlin.” At least, they are not going to make it angrier than before, because Russia is certain to have long known about just how much the US and others – first of all Britain, France, Poland, and the Baltics – have contributed, directly and hands-on, to killing Russians.

Indeed, if there is one important takeaway from the New York Times’ proud exposé of the extremely unsurprising, it is that the term ‘proxy war’ is both fundamentally correct and insufficient. On the one hand, it perfectly fits the relationship between Ukraine and its Western ‘supporters’: The Zelensky regime has sold the country as a whole and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives to the West. The West has used them to wage war on Russia in pursuit of one overarching geopolitical aim of its own: To inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia – that is, a permanent demotion to second-rate, de facto non-sovereign status.

The above is not news, except perhaps for the many brainwashed by Western information warriors from historian-turned-war-apostle Tim Snyder to lowlier X agitators with Ukrainian flags and sunflowers in their profiles.

What is also less than stunning but a little more interesting is that, on the other side, the term proxy war is still misleadingly benign. The key criterion for a war being by proxy – and not its opposite, which is, of course, direct – is, after all, that major powers using proxies limit themselves to indirect support. It is true that in theory and historical practice that does not entirely rule out adding some limited direct action as well.

And yet, in the case of the Ukraine conflict, the US and other Western nations – and don’t overlook the fact that ‘The Partnership’ hardly addresses all the black ops also conducted by them and their mercenaries – have clearly, blatantly gone beyond proxy war. In reality, the West has been waging war on Russia for years now.

That means that two things are true: The West almost started World War III. And the reason it has not – not yet, at least – is Moscow’s unusual restraint, which, believe it or not, has actually saved the world.

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the US fighting Canada and Mexico (and maybe Greenland) and learning that Russian officers are crucial in firing devastating mass-casualty strikes at its troops. What do you think would happen? Exactly. And that it has not happened during the Ukraine War is due to Moscow being the adult in the room. This should make you think.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

The EU, the USSR, and the architecture of collective security in Eurasia

By Alexander Tuboltsev | Al Mayadeen | March 31, 2025

In July 1966, an important event took place in the Romanian city of Bucharest. The Warsaw Pact countries (USSR, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania) adopted a Declaration on Strengthening Peace and Security in Europe. This document, signed by the leaders of the listed countries, stipulated the following:

1. The Warsaw Pact participants officially declared that they have no territorial claims to any European state.

2. The signatories of the Declaration proposed the simultaneous dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and NATO in order to ease tensions.

3. The Declaration proposed the withdrawal of all foreign troops from European countries.

4. The Warsaw Pact countries proposed to develop mutually beneficial cooperation between all countries of the continent based on the principles of equality and non-interference in internal affairs.

And so, it was 1966. It had been less than five years since the Berlin crisis of 1961, when Soviet and American tanks faced each other in a standoff near the checkpoint (between West and East Berlin).

At the height of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed their own project for a collective, common, mutually beneficial security architecture in Europe.

10 years later, in November 1976, a new meeting of the Warsaw Pact Political Advisory Committee was held in Bucharest. As a result, a new Declaration was adopted. In my opinion, it can be called the prototype of the modern concept of a multipolar world. In the Declaration of 1976, the Warsaw Pact countries published the following program for the collective security system:

1. Ending the arms race.

2. Development of interstate relations with respect for the principles of sovereignty and mutual assistance.

3. Emphasis on the development of mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation between different states.

4. Support the struggle against neocolonialism in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

5. Support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

6. Restructuring of international economic relations based on the principles of justice and equality.

A few months later, in October 1976, the Soviet government sent a detailed Statement to the UN Secretary General on the topic of restructuring world economic relations. The Statement proposed to support the economic interests of Asian, Latin American, and African countries, to fight against neocolonial economic practices, and to limit the activities of global financial monopolies.

What do these historical facts tell us? In the 60s and 70s of the last century, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed to Europe to create a system of collective security and make a choice in favor of cooperation rather than confrontation. At the same time, they proposed to make world trade, economic ties, and political relations more pluralistic and more equal. These projects, outlined in the two Bucharest Declarations of 1966 and 1976, could once have significantly changed the geopolitical situation. But that didn’t happen, because there was one problem.

The military and political establishment of Western Europe and the United States had no intention of building a joint security architecture in Europe with the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The situation was quite the opposite: after 1991, NATO began its waves of expansion to the east. Since the Brussels summit in January 1994, an active process has begun to involve the countries of the former Warsaw Pact in NATO: in 1999 Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary joined the alliance. In the following years, the process of NATO expansion in Europe became continuous, spreading to the post-Soviet space (Baltic countries). The United States used this expansion as a tool to realize its hegemonic ambitions and to maintain the American unipolar dictatorship.

As the years passed, the EU countries continued to turn into a platform for NATO bases, which appeared closer to the borders of Russia. At the same time, the Russian Federation has always expressed its readiness for constructive dialogue, including on the architecture of collective security in Europe. Let’s recall 2008, when Russia took the initiative to create a Treaty on European security. In 2009, a draft of this agreement was presented, which mentioned, among other things, the following aspects:

1. Mutual cooperation between countries based on the principles of indivisible and equal security.

2. An agreement that the countries participating in the Treaty will not carry out actions affecting the security of other participants.

3. The openness of the Treaty for the accession of participants from all over the Eurasian and Euro-Atlantic area.

Western countries did not support this initiative. Moreover, they continued to expand the NATO military infrastructure in Europe, building new bases and accepting new countries into the alliance (Albania, Croatia).

The historical review I have given shows that for decades (since the 20th century), the EU countries have rejected all Soviet and Russian initiatives to create a European collective security architecture. The European Union did not want to enter into a dialogue on this topic and turned the idea of an equal security system into ruins.

Here is a typical example illustrated by Finland. Since 1948, when the Soviet-Finnish Friendship Treaty was signed, the USSR has been one of Helsinki’s most important economic partners. Finland actively bought oil from the Soviet Union at relatively low prices and then re-exported it to other European countries at a higher price. Due to its neutral position during the Cold War, Finland maintained political and economic relations with both the European Economic Community and the Warsaw Pact countries.

And what is happening now? In 2023, Finland joined NATO, becoming another springboard for the alliance’s military expansion. The country closed its border with Russia and began to massively reduce bilateral trade ties, which negatively affected the Finnish economy itself (especially the Finnish border settlements, many of which received most of their income through trade relations with the Russian Federation).

In the 2010s, many EU countries (Italy, Germany, and others that previously had active trade relations with Russia) began to break off bilateral contacts and impose sanctions, thereby undermining the very essence of the idea of free trade. What is the reason for this?

First, the EU countries have been actively using Russia’s resources for decades, buying oil and natural gas at favorable prices. But at the same time, Western European countries showed disrespect for Russia’s national interests and ignored its constructive proposals on the subject of collective security architecture. Instead of an equal dialogue, the EU showed arrogance.

Secondly, since the 90s, the EU has considered the former Warsaw Pact countries and the post-Soviet space as a market for its products and businesses. The EU imposed strict requirements and interfered in the economic processes in the states of Eastern and Central Europe, which began to join it. For example, in Latvia in 2006-2007, due to the agrarian reforms of the EU, the sugar industry of the republic was actually disbanded. This was unprofitable for the Latvian economy, but it was in line with the interests of the larger European sugar producers. Similar reductions in the sugar industry occurred at that time in Bulgaria, the former socialist country. And this is just one example of such EU interference in the economy of former Warsaw Pact members.

Also, the EU, within the framework of the “Eastern Partnership”, began its active economic expansion in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in the 2000s. The EU’s political and economic interference in the affairs of the CIS countries, along with NATO’s eastward expansion, posed a direct threat to Russia’s security. In turn, Russia has responded to this threat by strengthening its security and sovereignty, including in the economic sphere.

Thirdly, back in the 1990s, the EU countries became one of the main springboards of the Western hegemonic unipolar dictatorship led by the United States. The so-called “Western world” tried in every way to prevent the emergence of multipolarity, combining sanctions threats with neocolonial practices in the Global South. The number of international political contradictions grew every year, and the EU constantly refused equal dialogue.

Now, the year is 2025, and the EU has become a clone of NATO in its essence and actions. Like the North Atlantic Alliance, the EU is a vestige of the Cold War era. Instead of solving internal problems (for example, the inequality of economic development in Northern and Southern Europe, rising unemployment, and the European energy crisis), EU leaders are using aggressive Russophobic rhetoric, provoking new escalation stages, and imposing new sanctions packages. They are increasing military spending, sponsoring the militarization of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States, and continuing their neo-colonialist expansion in Africa. Berlin, Brussels, Paris, and Warsaw are now the instigators of conflicts that are pushing the whole of Europe into the abyss in the name of globalism and destructive neoliberalism.

This tendency of the EU establishment to escalate once again confirms that the situation on the continent is tense to the limit. The idea of a collective security architecture is once again becoming relevant to prevent larger and more numerous conflicts. However, this can no longer be a concept of European collective security. Similar projects are a thing of the past. The world has changed, and in recent decades, the role of Asian countries has increased significantly. Countries such as China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are showing high rates of economic development, and their regional and international influence is growing. Therefore, in my opinion, the collective security architecture should be considered as a possible future project for the whole of Eurasia, built on the basis of equality and mutual respect. It is especially important to take into account the national interests of the countries of the Global South, which have suffered from Western European colonialism and interference for centuries.

To prevent further confrontation, it is necessary to eliminate the root causes that eventually led to the escalation. One of the main security problems in Europe is the expansion of NATO to the east and the concentration of NATO military bases near the borders of Russia and Belarus. Brussels, Paris, and Berlin should clearly understand that such actions (along with the bellicose rhetoric and policies of the current EU leadership) lead to an even more serious confrontation. Moscow and Minsk have repeatedly stressed that they will defend their territory and sovereignty in the event of a direct threat from the West.

It seems to me that, in the future, the most favorable option for reducing tensions in Europe and starting a dialogue on a new Eurasian collective security architecture could be the complete withdrawal of NATO troops from the EU countries bordering Russia (Finland, the Baltic states). If EU countries want to restore relations with Russia in the future, they should stop their hostile anti-Russian actions.

In the emerging multipolar world, there will be neither metropolises nor unipolar hegemonies. Europe is not the center of the world, but a political and geographical region like Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Therefore, future global security can only be based on an equal and mutually respectful relationship between countries and continents, that is, between all poles of a multipolar world order. And there is no place in this system for such destructive practices as the neocolonial paradigm of thinking and Western arrogance towards other peoples.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Thousands march in Paris against military aid to Ukraine

RT | March 29, 2025

Thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of Paris on Saturday, protesting French President Emmanuel Macron’s and NATO’s militaristic approach to the Ukraine conflict.

On Wednesday, Macron announced a new €2 billion ($2.16 billion) military aid package for Ukraine, after weeks of attempting to drum up support for his initiative to send Western troops as peacekeepers to the country. The new arms will include surface-to-air missiles, armored vehicles and drones, the French leader said.

Saturday’s anti-war rally was organized by former right-wing National Rally politician Florian Philippot and his party, The Patriots.

Thousands of protesters could be seen marching through the French capital, chanting slogans such as “Macron, we don’t want your war!” and “Let’s quickly leave NATO!” in video captured by RT.

Many could also be seen waving placards with the motto “Macron, we will not die for Ukraine.”

“A mad crowd for #Peace… Thousands and thousands of French people are shouting ‘Macron, resign!’ in the streets of Paris right now!” Philippot wrote on X on Saturday.

The Patriots protested in the French capital earlier this month after Macron proposed deploying France’s nuclear weapons in other European allied states, citing uncertainty over Washington’s commitment to the continent.

On Thursday, following an international summit in Paris, Macron announced a French-British plan to push for the deployment of troops to Ukraine as a “reassurance force” in the event of a ceasefire between Kiev and Moscow. Macron first touched on the idea of sending Western troops into Ukraine last February.

Russia has categorically ruled out agreeing to NATO troops being deployed to the conflict zone. Troops from the US-led military bloc, even under the guise of peacekeepers, would amount to direct NATO participation in the conflict, according to Moscow.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

UK, France involved in Kiev’s latest attack on Russian energy infrastructure – Moscow

RT | March 28, 2025

France and the UK actively aided Kiev in a strike on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has told journalists. Earlier the Russian Defense Ministry said that a metering facility was “de facto destroyed” in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack.

“[We] have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles],” Zakharova said, commenting on the strike.

“The command came from London,” she said, branding the attack part of a Ukrainian “terror” campaign targeting Russian energy infrastructure. The spokeswoman added that such actions demonstrate that Kiev is “impossible to negotiate with.”

Although Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “publicly supported” a temporary suspension of strikes on energy infrastructure agreed by Moscow and Washington, he “did nothing to observe it,” according to Zakharova.

Moscow ordered that attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure cease on March 18, following a phone call between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Russia and the US also agreed on a list of energy facilities that should not be targeted as part of a truce earlier this week. The list included gas facilities.

Kiev also agreed to a US-proposed 30-day partial ceasefire following talks between Ukrainian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia on March 15. Zelensky hailed the development and even described it as a diplomatic “victory” for Ukraine, but did not publicly mention any relevant orders to the Ukrainian military.

The Russian Defense Ministry has regularly reported on Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure over the past few weeks. Earlier on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that the strike suggested that the Ukrainian military no longer follows Kiev’s orders due to a “total lack of supervision.”

Paris and London have emerged as the staunchest supporters of Ukraine in the face of a gradual shift in Washington’s position under the new Trump administration. In early March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron said that their nations were ready to lead a “coalition of the willing”—a group of pro-Ukrainian countries prepared to support Kiev with troops and aircraft.

Russia has vehemently rejected any possibility of NATO-aligned European troops deploying to the conflict zone. It has accused France and Britain of hatching plans for “military intervention in Ukraine,” which could lead to a direct armed clash between Russia and NATO.

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Macron and Starmer’s coalition of the killing amid Europe’s insane war footing

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 28, 2025

If there were a prize for Orwellian-named conferences, then the one held this week in Paris would surely be a top contender.

Over the past month, there has been a slew of such gatherings in London, Brussels, and Paris. They have been conducted in a frenzy to thwart peace and prolong war – under the guise of “seeking security” against Russia.

Some 30 nations attended the latest Paris summit, convened by France’s Emmanuel Macron, and entitled “Building a Robust Peace for Ukraine and Europe”.

Europe is being gaslighted to view war as peace and accept that all economic resources must be dedicated to militarism. It is an insane war footing that is beyond any democratic or moral rationale.

European Union member states participated as well as NATO and non-EU nations Britain, Norway, and Canada. We should clarify that it was the elitist leaders of these countries who were present. Their lack of democratic mandate and authority is all too obvious to the people of Europe.

Some EU nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, have protested commendably about the unwavering belligerence and obscene waste of public resources for fueling a proxy war in Ukraine.

Notably, too, the United States was not represented at the Paris summit. Coincidentally, this week, a leaked private group conversation between senior members of the Trump administration revealed their contempt for “loathsome” European leaders. One can understand why.

In the grandeur of Élysée Palace, Macron hailed the non-entity gathering as the “Coalition of the Willing”. With this self-appointed virtue, the French leader was referring to countries that are willing to deploy military forces to Ukraine or maintain the supply of weapons.

Macron has been assiduously supported in this military venture by Britain’s Prime Minister Kier Starmer.

The French and British leaders have intensified their efforts to directly insinuate Europe and NATO militarily in the three-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Their efforts are a result of American President Donald Trump engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia.

Trump’s diplomatic overtures with Moscow have sidelined the European states and have left them with an acute political problem of how to justify continuing military support for a failing Ukraine Project.

The French, British and other European Russophobes do not want the war to end. That’s because they are wedded to the false narrative about defending Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. They are also committed to strategically defeating Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.

In Orwellian fashion, the European and NATO warmongers cannot openly state their nefarious objective. That would be politically fatal. Hence, they are cynically dressing up their motives with virtuous-sounding schemes, such as deploying “peacekeeping troops” in the event of any ceasefire deal that the Americans and Russians might negotiate.

The relentless demonizing of Russia as a threat to Europe is amplified by a near-constant drumbeat of war. European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

This week, the EU began urging citizens to stockpile emergency rations in their homes. Russia was not explicitly invoked as a threat, but it was palpably obvious that fear of war was being inculcated. While European states are slashing billions in social welfare, their elitist, Russophobic leaders are ramping up billions for militarism. Europe is on a war footing based on paranoia and the pathological fears of a ruling clique.

Macron and Starmer are also pushing the idea of integrating Ukraine into a first line of defense against alleged future Russian aggression toward Europe. In reality, this is about reconfiguring offense.

Their pretensions of “building a robust peace for Ukraine and Europe” are a reckless gambit to prolong the war. At its worst, the conflict could explode into an all-out world war.

It is cringe-making that failed European politicians who are mired in internal political and economic messes are seeking to aggrandize their images through high-stakes posturing against Russia.

Macron has said that his coalition of willing wants to have American backing for security. He added this week that if European troops in Ukraine come under fire from Russian forces, they will retaliate.

Moscow has already stated categorically that no European or NATO troops deployed to Ukraine are acceptable. They will be targeted as combatants.

That means that if Paris and London go ahead with their military venture in Ukraine, a wider war is almost inevitable.

It is alarming that Macron has lately said that European troops may be dispatched to Ukraine “with or without American support.”

Laughably, though, neither the French nor the British have the military power for a serious intervention. French forces have been serially kicked out of several African countries that were former colonies. Meanwhile, British military chiefs have warned Starmer that his deployment plans are ill-conceived and amount to “political theater”.

Even the much-vaunted summit in Paris this week showed open cracks between allies. Several European states have stated they are not willing to join any military intervention in Ukraine. Italy, Poland, and Greece have expressed deep concern about where Macron and Starmer’s logic is leading.

It seems that the extreme delusions of grandeur harbored by former imperialist powers are beginning to unnerve even supposed partners.

Hopefully, it is becoming transparent that Britain and France are gambling with world security to satisfy their own egos.

Two world wars in the last century stemmed from European intrigue and duplicity.

Has-been European powers are at it again with their Orwellian doublespeak about ensuring “lasting peace”.

The reality is Russia has won the proxy war that NATO instigated. Even the normally gung-ho Americans realize that.

NATO has been caught with blood on its hands as the culprit of an epic war crime against Russia, using Ukraine as a pawn. Trump seems to want to extricate the Americans from the debacle. He can try to offload the blame onto the previous Biden administration.

However, the European elitist leaders can’t do that. They are the same lackeys who promulgated the criminal proxy war. Their only perceived option is to keep it going… until the European public wakes up and takes retribution on their criminal leaders.

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Putin’s Senior Aide Patrushev Shared Some Updates About The Arctic & Baltic Fronts

By Andrew Korybko | March 23, 2025

Putin’s senior aide Nikolai Patrushev, who ran the FSB for nearly a decade (1999-2008) before chairing the Security Council for over 15 years till recently (2008-2024), shared some updates about the Baltic and Arctic fronts of the New Cold War in a recent interview with Russia’s National Defense magazine. He began by blaming the Brits for orchestrating Baltic tensions in order to disrupt the incipient Russian-US normalization process and associated talks on Ukraine.

In connection with that, he also warned that some NATO members (presumably led by the British) are practicing cyberattacks against Russian ships’ navigation equipment and suggested that they might have been responsible for recent claims of sabotage in the Baltic, which prompted a larger naval presence. This same expanded presence poses a threat to Russia’s interests and could manifest itself through terrorist attacks against its underwater pipelines, tankers, and dry cargo ships.

Russia plans to defend against this through unmanned underwater systems and strengthening its Baltic Fleet. As for one of the worst-case conventional threats, that of Finland and Estonia teaming up to blockade Russia inside the Gulf of Finland, Patrushev expressed confidence that his country could overcome that plot and punish the aggressors. This segued the conversation into a discussion about Finland, which Patrushev said has a friendly population, unlike its government.

He mentioned how the authorities there distort history to avoid talking about the goal of “Greater Finland”, which took the form of occupying Northwestern Russia, placing its inhabitants into concentration camps, and exterminating the Slavs there. Just like Finland was used by the Nazis as a springboard for aggression against the USSR, so too did Patrushev warn that plans might be afoot for NATO to use it as a springboard potential aggression against Russia.

He then said a few words about how the Arctic is opening up as a new front of competition, mostly due to its resources, but reaffirmed that Russia wants peace and cooperation there instead of rivalry. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which commemorates its 500th-year conceptualization this year, can help bring that about. Russia will continue developing regional infrastructure and building ice-class vessels for facilitating transit through these waters year-round. It was on that note that the interview ended.

Reviewing Patrushev’s briefing, the first part about blaming the Brits for tensions in the Baltic aligns with what Russia’s Foreign Spy Service (SVR) recently claimed about how the UK is trying to sabotage Trump’s envisaged “New Détente”. It might therefore very well be that they’re attempting to open up this front for that purpose, first through unconventional acts of aggression like “plausibly deniable” terrorist attacks and then possibly escalating to a joint Finnish-Estonian blockade of the Gulf of Finland.

Exposing these plots and expressing confidence in Russia’s ability to overcome them were meant to respectively ensure that the Trump Administration is aware of what the UK is doing and to deter the UK’s regional proxies from going along with this since the US and even the UK might hang them out to dry. Patrushev’s words about Finland were important too in the sense of reminding everyone that governments don’t always reflect the will of the people on the foreign policy front.

At the same time, however, everyone should also be aware of the Finnish government’s historical distortions and the threat that its reckless foreign policy poses to its own people. Wrapping everything up, Patrushev pointed to the Arctic’s importance in Russia’s future planning, and his reaffirmation of its peaceful intentions could be interpreted as a willingness to partner with the US there like their representatives discussed last month in Riyadh. The NSR can also become a vector for cooperation too.

Putting everything together, the Arctic front of the New Cold War is thawing a lot quicker than the Baltic one since the first is where the US could prospectively cooperate with Russia while the second is where the UK could try to provoke a crisis with Russia, but it remains to be seen whether any of this will unfold. Russian-US cooperation in the Arctic is likely conditional on a ceasefire in Ukraine whereas a Russian-NATO conflict in the Baltic orchestrated by the Brits is conditional on them misleading the US about this.

Putin’s interest in a lasting political solution to the Ukrainian Conflict bodes well for the Arctic scenario just like Trump’s criticism of NATO bodes ill for the Baltic one so both ultimately come down to their will. They’re the two most powerful people on the planet so their ties will greatly determine what comes next on those fronts and every other one too. It’s precisely for this reason why the British want to ruin their relations, but after Patrushev just exposed their Baltic plot, that’s a lot less likely to succeed than before.

March 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Serbia between political destabilization and a new military front in the Balkans

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 24, 2025

Bosnia’s dysfunctional political system, the result of the 1995 Dayton Accords that divided the country into two entities jointly governed by Serbs, Croats (a Catholic majority) and Muslims, with a rotating presidency under international supervision, is inexorably collapsing. In Serbia, protests against corruption and for regime change have been going on for months, and last weekend’s protests were the most impressive to date. Images of the human tide that invaded the streets of Belgrade went around the world in no time at all, but also caused a lot of confusion about the events.

In Bosnia, recent tensions have arisen from the issuance of arrest warrants by the central authorities against the president of the Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik, his prime minister and the president of the parliament. The measures stem from their refusal to comply with the directives of the “high representative” Christian Schmidt, whose appointment in 2021 by the Biden administration was not approved by the UN Security Council. Consequently, neither Dodik nor Russia recognize his authority, believing that his requests aim to reduce the autonomy of the Republika Srpska in order to favor the centralization of the Bosnian state for the political advantage of the Islamic component.

One of Schmidt’s main objectives would be to eliminate the Republika Srpska’s veto on Bosnia’s entry into NATO, which would explain the international pressure on Dodik and the attempt to remove him. Despite the differences between the Biden and Trump administrations, the latter does not seem to actively oppose this strategy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has accused Dodik of undermining the stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina, stating that the country should not fragment; simultaneously, Dorothy Shea, the US chargé d’affaires at the UN, has expressed support for EUFOR (European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina), hinting at the possibility of intervention against the leadership of Republika Srpska. Nothing new from the western Atlantic front.

In response to these unpleasant provocations, Dodik invited Rubio to a dialogue to present the Serbian point of view and made an interesting proposal: to grant American companies exclusive rights to extract rare earth minerals from the Republika Srpska, a deal with an estimated value of 100 billion dollars, which could attract the attention of the Potus, and emphasized that US policy in the Balkans is still influenced by the so-called Deep State, in particular by elements of the American embassy in Bosnia, historically hostile to Trump.

British involvement in Bosnian tensions cannot be ruled out, considering that the Russian Foreign Secret Service, the SVR, recently denounced the UK’s role in sabotaging Trump’s policy of rapprochement with Russia, almost coinciding with the accusation that Nikolai Patrushev, Putin’s advisor, made towards London, saying that he tried to destabilize the Baltic countries, hinting that he could act in a similar way in the Balkans.

Things are not much better in Serbia

The situation in Serbia is equally delicate. The country has been shaken by protests, which began after a train station incident in Novi Sad last November, fueled by discontent over corruption, with demands for accountability that could lead to a change of government. However, the protest movement is heterogeneous, including both Western-linked groups and Serbian nationalists.

Globalist liberals accuse President Aleksandr Vucic of being too pro-Russian for not having imposed sanctions on Moscow, while Serbian patriots consider him excessively pro-Western for his ambiguous positions on Kosovo, Russia and Ukraine. Vucic, for his part, claims that the protests against him are part of a Western strategy to destabilize him, and Russia itself has allegedly confirmed a supposed plot for a coup against him.

Despite accusations of Western interference, Vucic has maintained cooperation with NATO, signing a “Partnership for Peace” agreement in 2015 allowing the Alliance to transit through Serbia and in August 2024, while facing large-scale protests, he signed a three billion dollar deal with France for the supply of warplanes, raising doubts about the West’s real hostility towards him. Throughout all this, the United States continues to exert pressure on him through various channels.

The tensions in Bosnia and Serbia are not unrelated: the Western objective seems to be for Bosnia to join NATO and for Russian influence in the Balkans to be reduced. If Trump does not oppose the current policy or does not accept Dodik’s offer on rare earths, the risk of an escalation in Bosnia could increase.

Geopolitically speaking, the American doctrine of division and control continues to prevail in the Balkans, seeking to exclude any possible reunification of Bosnia and Serbia.

The only chance for the Serbs to improve their position will be close coordination between Serbia, the Republika Srpska and, if possible, Russia, to counter Western pressure and obtain the best possible result.

NATO takes advantage of the situation

Throughout all this, NATO doesn’t miss the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. The Secretary General, Mark Rutte, has declared that the actions of the Republika Srpska are unacceptable and that the United States will not offer any support to Dodik, a position also reiterated by the American Embassy in Bosnia.

EUFOR has announced that it will reinforce its contingent to deal with the growing tensions, sending reinforcements by land through the Svilaj and Bijaca passes and by air to Sarajevo airport. An excellent excuse to deploy a good number of soldiers to guard what increasingly seems to be a color revolution involving two countries.

Despite growing international pressure, the Republika Srpska can count not only on the support of Moscow and Belgrade, but also on the diplomatic support of Budapest and Bratislava, who have expressed their support for a peaceful resolution of the situation, avoiding participating in veiled military threats.

On March 10, the Chief of Staff of the Serbian Armed Forces, Milan Mojsilović, met his Hungarian counterpart, Gábor Böröndi, in Belgrade and they discussed regional and global security, as well as joint military activities aimed at strengthening stability in the area. The intensity of bilateral military cooperation was reaffirmed, with the intention of expanding it further. Particular attention was paid to joint operations between the land and air components of the two armies, as well as to the contribution of Hungarian forces to the international security mission in Kosovo and Metohija.

It seems clear that the only way for NATO to put an end to Serbian-Bosnian sovereignty is to trigger a new internal conflict, using local armed groups along the lines of what happened in Syria, or a sort of Maidan based on the 2014 Ukrainian model.

The military risk fueled by KFOR

The Kosovo Force (KFOR) is an international mission led by NATO, established in 1999 with the aim of ensuring security and stability in Kosovo, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244.

At the beginning of the operation, it had over 50,000 soldiers from 20 NATO member countries and partner nations. Over time, the presence has been reduced. As of March 2022, KFOR consisted of 3,770 soldiers from 28 contributing countries. ​

To give an idea of the type of deployment, consider that there are:

– Regional Command West (RC-W): unit based at “Villaggio Italia” near the city of Pec/Peja, currently consisting of the 62nd “Sicilia” Infantry Regiment of the “Aosta” Brigade. RC-W also includes military personnel from Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, North Macedonia, Poland, Turkey, Austria, Moldova and Switzerland.

Multinational Specialized Unit (MSU): located in Pristina and commanded by Colonel Massimo Rosati of the Carabinieri, this highly specialized unit of the Carabinieri has been present in Kosovo since the beginning of the mission in 1999. The regiment has been employed mainly in the northern part of the country, characterized by a strong ethnic Serbian population, particularly in the city of Mitrovica.

The main operational activities of KFOR include:

– Patrolling and maintaining a presence in Kosovo through regular patrols;

The activity of the Liaison Monitoring Teams (LMT), which have the task of ensuring continuous contact with the local population, government institutions, national and international organizations, political parties and representatives of the different ethnic groups and religions present in the territory. The objective is to acquire information useful to the KFOR command for the carrying out of the mission;

– Support for local institutions, in an attempt not to give in to Serbia’s demands.

These are forces that are deployed and ready to intervene. This is a detail that must be taken into consideration. NATO is not neglecting the strategic importance of that key area of the Balkans.

With their backs to the wall, the governments of Serbia and Republika Srpska don’t have many options: they will soon have to face difficult choices, which could radically change the face of the Balkans.

In short, we are once again at risk of seeing the Balkans explode, as happened just over 100 years ago. Who will be responsible for the explosion this time?

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Serbia Will Not Join NATO or CSTO – Deputy Prime Minister Vulin

Sputnik – 24.03.2025

BELGRADE – Serbia will not become a member of NATO or the CSTO, it must ensure its own security, although this is difficult, Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin told Sputnik.

“Serbia strictly adheres to the policy of military neutrality. This means that we will not expand our participation in any military bloc. And we will try to maintain the best relations with everyone, first of all — with the countries in our neighborhood. So Serbia will not become a member of NATO, will not be a member of the CSTO,” Vulin said.

He admitted that for a country the size of Serbia, this is the hardest path.

“We must guarantee our own security, which is not easy. But this is the most honest path — to make decisions about ourselves,” he emphasized.

Currently, the parliament of Serbia is an observer in the CSTO Parliamentary Assembly.

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

‘Nazis’ in Ukraine ‘nurtured’ by Europeans – Lavrov

RT | March 24, 2025

European NATO members are willfully ignoring the “Nazi” character of the Ukrainian government, which they have empowered as an anti-Russian instrument, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has asserted.

On Monday, the senior diplomat expressed concern over the “demons of neo-Nazism, Russophobia, and other hateful ideologies” spreading across multiple EU nations. Member states are deliberately overlooking Kiev’s misconduct, even as it persecutes ethnic Russians and violates human rights, he stressed.

“Ukraine – ‘that’s different.’ Those Nazis have been nurtured for the latest attempt to unite all of Europe under racist, Nazi banners for a war against the Russian Federation,” Lavrov stated.

The minister was speaking in his capacity as a trustee of the Gorchakov Fund, a Russian NGO aimed at enhancing public diplomacy. He emphasized the organization’s mission of presenting an authentic view of Russia and contrasted it sharply with the West’s approach to public messaging that “portrays itself as infallible and suffers from an exceptionalism complex.”

The EU is pursuing a multibillion-dollar rearmament plan, justified by what Brussels labels a growing Russian threat. European officials have warned that a direct NATO confrontation with Moscow may break out within the next few years. Russia, however, denies any hostile intentions toward the US-led military bloc.

Tensions between European NATO members and Washington resurfaced after President Donald Trump assumed office in January. The new US administration has sought a swift resolution to the Ukraine conflict and intends to shift security responsibilities onto Europe once a truce is achieved.

Moscow’s goal of ‘denazification’ remains central to its stance on the Ukraine conflict. Russian officials have denounced the Ukrainian government as a “neo-Nazi regime” due to its discriminatory domestic policies, alleged war crimes against Russian citizens, and veneration of historical nationalist figures who collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II.

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

A new vision for US global power under Trump

By Batool Subeiti | Al Mayadeen | March 23, 2025

Trump’s approach to global affairs diverges sharply from the American establishment’s traditional strategy. Trump does not see America as a “police state.” He is sceptical of NATO, does not support war with Russia, and believes the US military presence in West Asia primarily serves to protect Arab allies. In his view, they should bear the financial burden of that protection.

The American establishment, represented by institutions like the Pentagon and the White House, follows a long-term strategic vision. It maintains hundreds of military bases worldwide and pursues a structured political strategy across various regions.

Trump, by contrast, envisions American leadership within a multipolar world order. He is less concerned with imposing the American system on other nations and more focused on fostering economic alliances that benefit the US. He also seeks to counter the rise of BRICS and prevent alternative economic blocs from challenging the dollar’s dominance. Rather than waging ideological battles, his strategy revolves around economic leverage.

A key example of establishment influence has been USAID, which has historically functioned as a covert tool for advancing American unipolarity. By using soft power tactics, it has helped destabilize nations through coups and colour revolutions. However, under Trump, funding for such initiatives has been slashed, allowing the US to save billions. His approach is more direct—rather than relying on NGOs to influence societies, he prefers sanctions as a means of coercion. This shift weakens American influence at the grassroots level, creating a vacuum that local movements and other powers can exploit.

Trump aims to strengthen the American economy through relative stability rather than confrontation. He opposes prolonged war with Russia, favouring investment over sanctions. Rather than spending $350 billion on Ukraine, he sees greater economic potential in working with Russia, which he does not view as a direct economic competitor. His broader goal is to retract costly foreign commitments and consolidate American economic dominance, using economic leverage—such as tariffs and sanctions—to maintain control. This was evident in his approach to Zelensky, where he set clear conditions for support.

This stance starkly contrasts with that of Europe, which remains deeply hostile toward Russia and relies on US backing to counter it. Trump’s push for increased tariffs on European imports will likely reduce demand for European goods in the US, stimulating domestic manufacturing and bolstering the dollar. His retreat from NATO further exposes contradictions within the alliance, creating strategic openings that others may exploit.

Trump operates like a political tsunami. In Gaza, he has positioned himself as the real power behind the war, stopping it on his terms. Even his controversial depopulation proposal was more of a bargaining tool than a concrete plan. He sees West Asia as secondary to regions like Mexico, Panama, or Greenland. When asked about Iran’s strength, he acknowledges Iran is very strong—suggesting he prefers to focus on nuclear containment rather than military confrontation, much to Netanyahu’s frustration.

Trump also has a tendency towards withdrawal when he sees American involvement as a financial drain. While “Israel” has expanded its influence in Syria, if its actions provoke widespread resistance, and it becomes clear that “Israel” is a source of ongoing conflict, Trump may reconsider US support.

In contrast to the deep state’s approach—where a weakening “Israel” prompts the search for regional substitutes—Trump’s stance is more transactional. If there is no significant opposition, he will stamp “Israel’s” territorial gains. But if the costs outweigh the benefits, he is willing to incrementally remove support from the occupation entity.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »