Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

All the pressure is now on Zelensky after ceasefire offer – don’t believe the British spin

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 12, 2025

I assess that Russia will agree with the U.S. on a proposed ceasefire in Ukraine. This would put the ball back in Zelensky’s court to sign a peace deal that could destroy him politically and may give President Putin the security assurances he has sought for over seventeen years.

In a quite remarkable turn of events, the BBC announced that Britain had helped the U.S. and Ukraine agree on the need for a 30-day ceasefire. This is spin of the most disingenuous kind.

The UK has done everything in its power to prevent the possibility of ‘forcing’ Ukraine into negotiations on ending the three-year war. Indeed, just last week, a prominent UK broadsheet reinforced this point in a searing editorial. The British narrative for three years has been that, with sufficient support and strategic patience, Ukraine could impose a defeat on Russia. To use a British military phrase, that plan ‘didn’t survive contact with the enemy’.

Ukraine’s sudden collapse in Kursk, after Russian troops crawled ten kilometres through a gas pipeline that President Zelensky had, with much fanfare, shut down in January, was an astonishing defeat. It was astonishing because it revealed what many western commentators had said since August 2024, that seizing a small patch of land in Russia would turn out to be a strategic blunder for Ukraine. Since the Kursk offensive was launched, Russia has occupied large tracts of land in southern Donetsk, including several important mines and one of Ukraine’s largest power stations. The basic maths show a significant net loss to Zelensky over the past six months. The bigger picture proves that the overall direction of the war has been moving in Russia’s direction since the failed Ukrainian counter-offensive in the summer of 2023.

In Ukraine itself, the vultures are already circling in the sky as the body of Zelensky’s now six-year presidential term approaches its final breath. Arestovich was quick to call for Zelensky to resign after the damaging shoot-out at the Oval Office. Poroshenko has come out to say Ukraine has no choice but to cut a deal. Even Zelensky’s former press spokeswoman has called for peace and implied that the Ukrainian government tries to limit free speech on the subject of a truce. Team Trump is apparently talking to the egregiously corrupt former Prime Minster Yulia Tymoshenko about the future, heaven help us. The domestic political space for Zelensky to keep holding out with meaningless slogans like ‘peace through strength’, and ‘forcing Russia to make peace’ is rapidly closing around him.

That Ukraine has come to the negotiating table at all is a sign that it has been given no choice, since America paused the military and intelligence gravy train. There is nothing in the Jeddah meeting that suggests any change in the U.S. position towards Ukraine.

All that the ceasefire does, if Russia agrees to it, is pauses the fighting. Indeed, it goes further than the unworkable Franco-Ukrainian idea to pause the fighting only in the air and sea, allowing Ukraine to keep fighting on the ground. Ironically, the Jeddah formulation favours Russia, as a partial ceasefire would have provided succour to the Ukrainian army which does not enjoy strategic air superiority, despite its mass drone attack on Moscow and other parts of Russia.

The joint U.S.-Ukraine statement calls for Ukraine and others to ‘immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security’.

If Russia agrees to a ceasefire, the clock will start on 30-days of intensive talks aimed at delivering a durable peace. Russia has said consistently that it will not agree to a ceasefire only; it wants the big questions addressed front and centre. These include Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO, the status of the four oblasts annexed by Russia since the start of the war and the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.

The latter should be easier to tick off, at least in theory, although it will face resistance from ultranationalists in Ukraine. The second will be harder, as there is no military route for Ukraine to reclaim occupied lands, so may require some diplomatic finesse in allowing for a freezing of the line. By far the most bitter pill for Ukraine and its European sponsors will be the NATO issue.

Just moments after U.S. Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth said at the Munich Security Conference that Ukraine’s NATO aspiration was unrealistic, Keir Starmer told Zelensky that it was irreversible. There is simply no way in which Britain will be able to finesse the point that a core plank of its strategy on Ukraine will be shattered, at U.S. and Russian insistence. Nor is it likely that Russia will agree to any UK proposal for a NATO-lite peacekeeping force in Ukraine, even if it is in Lviv or some place hundreds of kilometres from the line of contact.

Moreover, Russia will expect some movement in any peace talks on the issue of economic sanctions. Before arriving in Jeddah, the Guardian newspaper published an OpEd from Andriy Yermak calling for more sanctions on Russia as part of any peace plan. This is beyond idiotic. What person with an ounce of political savvy thinks that Russia will sign up a peace process that punishes it for ending a war that it is winning on the battlefield?

While I doubt that Russia expects to achieve a complete lifting of all 20,000 sanctions, they will want many to fall away immediately as part of a longer-term plan. This will also force a reckoning with the issue of the $300bn in seized Russian sovereign reserves, most of which are held in Brussels. Ignoring the issue or hoping that western nations can simply give the money to Ukraine, simply won’t work; detailed thinking needed here too, as I have said several times before.

From my perspective, Ukraine’s readiness to go for a ceasefire illustrates how weak its hand of cards has become. Many on the western side are crowing that Russia will be forced to accept a ceasefire on Ukrainian terms, but this is nonsense. I predict President Putin will see this as an opportunity for NATO to provide him with the longer-term security reassurances on NATO enlargement that he has sought for the past seventeen years, without heed.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Has NATO Supported or Destroyed Ukraine’s Sovereignty and Democracy?

Prof. Glenn Diesen | March 9, 2025

I outline how NATO countries supported the removal of the democratically elected government, recreated Ukrainian intelligence services as a proxy of the CIA and MI6, and backed the purge of the independent media, political opposition, culture and the Church. Civil society was hijacked by “NGOs”, and right-wing militias were financed and trained to have veto power over Ukrainian democracy. Now that the war is ending, the Europeans want the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and the Americans want to end the war. Ukraine has been demoted to a proxy and has little influence.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia, Iran

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 10, 2025  

Through the past three year period, Moscow claimed that it faced an existential threat from the US-led proxy war in Ukraine. But in the past six weeks, this threat perception has largely dissipated. The US President Donald Trump has made a heroic attempt to change his country’s image to a portmanteau of ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ with whom Moscow can be friendly despite the backlog of a fundamental dislike or suspicion. 

Last week, Trump turned to the Iran question for what could be a potentially similar leap of faith. There are similarities in the two situations. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian are quintessential nationalists and modernisers who are open to westernism. Both Russia and Iran face US sanctions. Both seek a rollback of sanctions that may open up opportunities to integrate their economies with the world market. 

The Russian and Iranian elites alike can be described as ‘westernists’. Through their history, both Russia and Iran have experienced the West as a source of modernity to ‘upgrade’ their civilisation states. In such a paradigm, Trump is holding a stick in one hand and a carrot on the other, offering reconciliation or retribution depending on their choice. Is that a wise approach? Isn’t a reset without coercion possible at all? 

In the Russian perception, the threat from the US has significantly eased lately, as the Trump administration unambiguously signalled a strategy to engage with Russia and normalise the relationship — even holding out the prospects for a mutually beneficial economic cooperation. 

So far, Russia has had a roller coaster ride with Trump (who even threatened Russia with more sanctions) whose prescriptions of a ceasefire to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end creates unease in the Russian mind. However, Trump also slammed the door shut on Ukraine’s NATO membership; rejected altogether any US military deployment in Ukraine; absolved Russia of responsibility for triggering the Ukraine conflict and instead placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration; openly acknowledged Russia’s desire for an end to the conflict; and took note of Moscow’s willingness to enter into negotiations — even conceded that the conflict itself is indeed a proxy war. 

At a practical level, Trump signalled readiness to restore the normal functioning of the Russian embassy.  If reports are to be believed, the two countries have frozen their offensive intelligence activities in cyber space. 

Again, during the recent voting on a UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, the US and Russia found themselves arrayed against Washington’s European allies who joined hands with Kiev. Presumably, Russian and American diplomats in New York made coordinated moves. 

It comes as no surprise that there is panic in the European capitals and Kiev that Washington and Moscow are directly in contact and they are not in the loop. Even as the comfort level in Moscow has perceptively risen, the gloom in the European mind is only thickening, embodying the confusion and foreboding that permeated significant moments of their struggle. 

All in all, Trump has conceded the legitimacy of the Russian position even before negotiations have commenced. Is an out-of-the-box thinking conceivable with regard to Iran as well?  

In substantive terms, from the Russian perspective, the remaining ‘loose ends’ are: first, a regime change in Kiev that ensures the emergence of a neutral friendly neighbour; second, removal of US sanctions; and, third, talks on arms control and disarmament attuned to present-day conditions for ensuring European and global balance and stability. 

As regards Iran, these are early days but a far less demanding situation prevails. True, the two countries have been locked in an adversarial relationship for decades. But it can be attributed entirely to the American interference in Iran’s politics, economy, society and culture; an  unremitting mutual hostility was never the lodestar, historically. 

A constituency of ‘westernists’ exists within Iran who root for normalisation with the US as the pathway leading to the country’s economic recovery. Of course, like in Russia, super hawks and dogmatists in Iran also have vested interests in the status quo. The military-industrial complex in both countries are an influential voice. 

The big difference today is that the external environment in Eurasia  thrives on US-Russia tensions whereas, the intra-regional alignments in the Gulf region are conducive to US-Iran detente. The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, a steady and largely mellowing of Iran’s politics of resistance, Saudi Arabia’s abandonment of of jihadi groups as geopolitical tool and its refocus on development and reform as national strategies — all these mould the zeitgeist, which abhors US-Iran confrontation. 

This historic transformation renders the old US strategy to isolate and ‘contain’ Iran rather obsolete. Meanwhile, there is a growing realisation within the US itself that American interests in West Asia no longer overlap Israel’s. Trump cannot but be conscious of it.   

Equally, Iran’s deterrence capability today is a compelling reality. By attacking Iran, the US can at best score a pyrrhic victory at the cost of Israel’s destruction. Trump will find it impossible to extricate the US from the ensuing quagmire during his presidency, which, in fact, may define his legacy. 

The US-Russia negotiations are likely to be protracted. Having come this far, Russia is in no mood to freeze the conflict till it takes full control of Donbass region — and, possibly, the eastern side of Dniepr river (including Odessa, Kharkhov, etc.) But in Iran’s case, time is running out. Something has to give way in another six months when the hourglass empties and the October deadline arrives for the snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA to reimpose UN resolutions to “suspend all reprocessing, heavy water-related, and enrichment-related activities” by Tehran. 

Trump will be called upon to take a momentous decision on Iran. Make no mistake, if push comes to shove, Tehran may quit the NPT altogether. Trump said Wednesday that he sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, calling for an agreement to replace the JCPOA. He suggested, without specifics, that the issue could quickly lead to conflict with Iran, but also signalled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future.

Later on Friday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US is “down to the final moments” negotiating with Iran, and he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. As he put it, “It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon. 

“You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem. We’re at final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump aims at generating peace dividends out of any normalisation with Russia and Iran, two energy superpowers, that could give momentum to his MAGA project. But cobwebs must be swept away first. Myths and misconceptions have shaped contemporary Western thinking on Russia and Iran. Trump should not fall for the phobia of Russia’s ‘imperialistic’ ambitions or Iran’s ‘clandestine’ nuclear programme.

If the first one was the narrative of the liberal-globalist neocon camp, the second one is a fabrication by the Israeli lobby. Both are self-serving narratives. In the process, the difference between westernisation and modernisation got lost. Westernisation is the adoption of western culture and society, whereas, modernisation is the development of one’s own culture and society. Westernisation can at best be only a subprocess of modernisation in countries such as Russia and Iran.

Trump’s ingenuity, therefore, lies in ending the US’ proxy wars with Russia and Iran by creating synergy out of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. If the US’ proxy wars only has drawn Russia and Iran closer than ever in their turbulent history as quasi-allies lately, their common interest today also lies in Trump’s ingenuity to take help from Putin to normalise the US-Iran ties. If anyone can pull off such an audacious, magical rope trick, it is only Trump who can,   

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Much ado about nothing – Macron proposed nuclear umbrella for Europe

By Uriel Araujo | March 10, 2025

France’s President Emmanuel Macron announced last week his intention to extend the French nuclear shield to its European partners, and there are now talks about French-British nuclear deterrence. Germany’s Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz has urged France and Britain to share their nuclear weapons to “supplement” (not “replace”) the American nuclear shield.

The premise here is that a “pro-Russian” Trump is going to “abandon” Europe and thus leave it vulnerable to Moscow’s “aggression” – and so it is necessary to build an alternative shield. While various analysts and journalists put on serious faces while talking about these issues, underneath the rhetoric, the whole narrative lacks any substantiality, to the point of being laughable.

Let us briefly touch the premisses:

While the situation with borders is indeed far from being a settled matter in the post-Soviet space (with a number of frozen conflicts), there is of course no Russian appetite for attacking, or much less, “conquering” portions of Europe. The whole crisis in Ukraine has in fact more to do with the ethnocratic contradictions of nation-building in the new independent state of Ukraine, and with NATO’s enlargement, a policy denounced by the likes of the late Henry Kissinger himself, George Kennan, and a number of scholars and authorities who predicted it could cause the Ukrainian war since the late nineties.

Albeit partially bent on a kind of “reverse Kissinger” strategy to stop Biden’s dangerous “dual-containment” approach” (of antagonizing both China and Russia simultaneously), Trump is hardly pro-Moscow in any sense beyond that of avoiding an escalation. Moreover, his rhetorical attacks on NATO have more to do with burden sharing than with “ending” the Alliance.

The truth is that Europe embarked on an America’s proxy attrition war, and now that an overburdened Washington is retreating from its very war, puzzled Europeans do not know what to do. Now, let us delve into the idea of European deterrence, as proposed by Macron.

Europe has stayed under Washington’s wings long enough, and Trump does have a point when he says most NATO countries fail to meet the agreed expenses’ goal of using at least 2 percent of their GDP in military spending (which overburdens the US). And now that the Atlantic superpower is really signing its intent on pivoting to the Pacific, partially withdrawing from Eastern Europe, and shifting NATO’s burden onto its European allies, there is weeping and gnashing of teeth amongst Europe and Britain’s political elites.

European powers today are simply not what they once were. Consider the United Kingdom, for instance: it might even lack the capacity to maintain its own nuclear arsenal without American help, as experts have been warning, in the context of Trump’s “burden shift” threats to “abandon” or to leave the American transatlantic allies on their own. In January last, a British “Trident” nuclear missile embarrassingly failed (for the second time) during a test launch, which led to speculations about the realities of Britain’s nuclear deterrence.

Long story short, Paris and London are the only nuclear powers in Europe – and it is unclear however to what extent they would be capable of replacing the so-called American “nuclear umbrella”.

According to Astrid Chevreuil (a visiting fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies – CSIS – in Washington, D.C.) and Doreen Horschig (a fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues at CSIS), there are “significant strategic, doctrinal, and logistical obstacles” to that. More to the point, they add: “in the current situation, the French and British nuclear forces are a complement to US extended deterrence, but they would not constitute a viable solution in the event of an abrupt withdrawal of U.S. nuclear forces.” Elaborating on it, Chevreuil and Horschig argue that:

Both the British and French arsenals are designed, in their size, to respond to attacks “based on their vital interests”: Paris counts on less than 300 nuclear warheads, and London, in turn, possesses less than 250 (Washington in contrast has “a total of 1,700 deployed warheads”).

Moreover, American nuclear weapons stored in Europe today are “airborne capabilities” (and not ground-based or seaborne systems). Only France has such an airborne nuclear component, and “replacing” the US would require enormous efforts from European allies.

Finally, the two experts conclude, Britain and France lack a nuclear doctrine compatible with the very idea of “extending their nuclear deterrence through stationing their weapons in other countries.” Paris does not even participate in NATO’s nuclear planning groups, as the French doctrine “insists on the independence of its nuclear decision making.”

I’ve written before on the challenges Europe faces when it comes to “rearming” itself – they range from de-industrialization to lack of a common legal and bureaucratic framework, or a common EU defense market – according to Sophia Besch (a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace fellow), and Max Bergmann (a former member of the US Policy Planning Staff and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies).

One should also keep in mind that Paris’ own relationship with NATO is historically complex, to say the least. Under De Gaulle, France withdrew from the organization’s integrated military structure in 1966, and even expelled all of its headquarters and units on French territory. It was French President Nicolas Sarkozy who finally ended Paris “estrangement” from NATO as recently as 2009 – so it took 43 years for Paris to change its course. To this day, France has not given up “nuclear independence” with regards to NATO, as mentioned. It is hard to change things overnight.

In addition, French ambition’s aside, a quick look at Africa is enough to demonstrate how much of a declining power France really is today: one just needs to consider the French failures in Chad, Niger, Mali, and elsewhere – the French military was basically kicked out of their main bases in the African continent.

Lastly, there is also an element of a power struggle going on. If the overburdened American superpower is partially retreating from a number of theaters, the outcome of it could be a local power vacuum (in Europe) and some actors might have an appetite for filling such a void. Even Poland has eyes on that, as I wrote before. Much of the French rhetoric we are now seeing has a lot to do with that.

To sum it up, Macron is offering Europe something he does not have to counter a threat that does not really exist the way he describes it. He is doing so because of something Trump will not actually do. To put it another way, it is “words, words, words”.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Thousands protest in Paris against Macron’s defense policies

RT | March 9, 2025

Thousands of protesters marched through Paris on Saturday to oppose what they see as French President Emmanuel Macron’s militaristic approach to foreign policy and his lack of interest in achieving peace in the Ukraine conflict.

The demonstration was organized by Florian Philippot and his party, The Patriots. Chanting slogans and carrying signs such as “We don’t want to die for Ukraine,” and “Macron, we don’t want your war,” the crowd moved from the Place du Palais Royal to the Place Pierre Laroque.

Macron on Wednesday proposed expanding France’s nuclear deterrent to protect EU nations and urged European members of NATO to take more responsibility for their own defense. He cited uncertainty over Washington’s commitment to Ukraine, especially as relations between Kiev and US President Donald Trump’s administration experienced a setback after Vladimir Zelensky rejected calls to negotiate peace with Russia.

Macron has argued that continued aid to Ukraine was crucial, warning that if Russian President Vladimir Putin succeeded in Ukraine, he wouldn’t stop there – a claim that Moscow has repeatedly dismissed as nonsense. Russia has identified NATO’s expansion toward its borders and the US-led bloc’s promise of eventual membership for Ukraine as being among the key reasons for the conflict.

Many demonstrators at the Paris rally criticized Macron for prioritizing military matters over domestic issues. “When you declare war, it’s to erase all the other failures,” one protester said. Another accused Macron of pursuing conflict while leaders such as Trump and Putin are talking about peace.

Addressing the crowd, Philippot condemned Macron’s approach, declaring that the president “absolutely does not want peace.” Philippot, formerly a member of the National Front, has been a vocal critic of Macron’s administration and EU’s policies. His party opposes what it perceives as unnecessary military interventions and advocates for a more independent French foreign policy.

Macron’s push for increased defense spending faces hurdles as France grapples with a budget deficit and pressure to rein in spending. Approval of the 2025 budget has been delayed due to a divided parliament. In January, Budget Minister Amelie de Montchalin announced plans to cut €32 billion ($34.6 billion) in public spending while raising taxes by €21 billion.

Critics argue that these measures would burden middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees already struggling with rising costs. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has rejected calls for public consultation on major defense policies, insisting such decisions are the government’s responsibility. When asked on Friday whether the French people should have a say in increased military spending and a shift toward a “war economy,” Bayrou was firm: “The government’s responsibility is to say, no, we can’t let the country be disarmed. It’s vital.”

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

U.S. admits Ukraine proxy war defeat while European elites persist in self-destruct delusions

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 7, 2025

In an interview on Fox News this week, America’s top diplomat Marco Rubio made a damning admission. He called the conflict in Ukraine a proxy war between the United States, its NATO allies and Russia.

Stop the press. In one fell swoop, the narrative justifying the NATO-backed war for the past three years was exposed as a naked lie. It is not about “defending Ukraine” from alleged Russian unprovoked aggression. It is a proxy war. That means it has deeper causes and responsibilities.

This is what Moscow and many other international observers have been saying all along. To recognize the conflict as a proxy war is to begin admitting wider culpability for it and to start addressing the root causes for a genuine peaceful settlement.

Secretary of State Rubio went on to emphatically call for an end to the war to spare lives. He claimed the conflict was in a stalemate, not quite bringing himself to utter the word, “defeat”. But defeat is what this debacle is.

Rubio decried how the previous Biden administration and Congress (including himself as a Senator) had fueled the conflict along with other NATO members in a futile campaign. It is now time to bring the conflict to an end, he said.

Appropriately, the U.S. foreign minister appeared on television with a prominent Lenten cross of ash marked on his forehead. Christians around the world begin preparations for Easter by donning ashes as a sign of repentance. Rubio’s “confession” of a failed U.S. policy of proxy war against Russia in Ukraine may be seen as a belated recognition in Washington that it needs to cease, desist and make amends for peace.

Not so the European leaders, however, who this week persisted in their lies about a noble purpose in Ukraine.

Following the humiliating rebuke of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky by U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, the European politicians have been rallying their support for the Kiev regime.

Trump aides ejected Zelensky from the White House last Friday because he testily refused to comply with a U.S. initiative for peace in Ukraine. This week, the chastened Zelensky wrote a letter to Trump appealing for forgiveness – and more U.S. military aid. It’s not clear if the Ukrainian redundant president has convinced the Trump administration that he is ready to sign a peace deal.

In the meantime, the White House has now cut off military aid and intelligence sharing with the Kiev regime. Again, proving the reality of a proxy war.

That move has thrown the European allies into a quandary and existential crisis. It is a crisis of their own making.

An emergency EU leaders’ summit was convened to drum up more military support for Ukraine. The EU 27 could not agree on a package because Hungary vetoed it. Another summit is to be called on March 20,  when it is intended to bypass Hungarian objection to funding the war in Ukraine.

European leaders are desperate. The about-turn in U.S. policy to walk away from the failed proxy war in Ukraine has left them holding a dead-end hand of cards. Rather than folding, they are doubling down on their worthless chips.

Trump upbraided Zelensky in the Oval Office by telling him, “You don’t have the cards” to keep this war going.

The same advice can be leveled at the European governments, including the British, who strangely have wormed their way back into calling shots in Europe despite exiting the bloc five years ago.

This war has been lost with appalling losses. Three years of the biggest war in Europe since World War Two has resulted in over one million deaths – mainly on the Ukrainian military side – and hundreds of billions of dollars and euros wasted, which the American and European public will pay over generations through debts.

This war is an abominable crime perpetrated by Washington and its European allies. All the more so because it could have been avoided if Russian diplomatic efforts in late 2021 had been reciprocated to deal with Moscow’s legitimate security concerns over NATO’s expansion. But no, the Western imperialists wanted to strategically defeat Russia and they used a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine as their pawn following the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 against an elected president.

Western leaders must be held to account for their nefarious machinations and the colossal damage in Ukraine and Russia. Russian civilians have been killed by NATO weapons and over $300 billion in Russian assets have been confiscated. Russia has the right to seek massive war reparations.

At least, to their credit, the Trump administration has realized that the evil of this fraudulent war must stop.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy on Ukraine, also this week referred to the war as a proxy war that needs to end.

The Americans are calling on the Europeans to stop funding the war with military aid. This is an amazing turn around. Since WWII, the Americans have been the diehard warmonger with the European lackeys following suit. Now it’s the other way around. The European elites want the war in Ukraine to continue – albeit with the lie that they are seeking “lasting peace.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently said that if the Western powers stopped funneling weapons into Ukraine, the conflict would quickly stop. And then diplomacy could begin for dealing with the root causes and establishing mutual, sustainable peace.

Vice President Vance rightly pointed out that the Europeans by puffing up Zelensky as a hero “freedom fighter” are prolonging the slaughter and destruction of Ukraine as well as provoking the risk of a wider war.

The problem is that whereas the Americans have adopted realism and common sense (at last), the Europeans are continuing to persist in the lies and delusions about the proxy war against Russia.

This week, French President Emmanuel Macron echoed other European political figures by calling Russia a threat to Europe. The French, British and others are insisting on fueling the dead-end war by racking up astronomical debts and proposing to send “peacekeeper” troops to Ukraine. Moscow has warned that such a move would mean direct war.

So desperate is Macron that he is engaging in nuclear saber-rattling, offering to deploy French nuclear weapons to “defend” Europe. Why don’t Macron and other European elites simply engage in diplomacy like the Americans?

The insane recklessness of the Europeans stems from multiple sources: their incorrigible Russophobia, ties to the military industrial complex, chagrin over their American patron dumping the Ukraine war mess on them, and in their existential need to keep lying about the war as some noble cause instead of it being a sordid proxy war against Russia.

The Europeans are so full of lies, duplicity, guilt, and ultimately impotence that they will likely persist in their delusions of grandeur. To repent would be politically fatal. Thus persisting in their lies, the European Union and its military arm NATO are being destroyed.

Napoleon, Hitler, and now the elitist European leaders have all fallen into oblivion from miscalculations over Russia.

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Polish PM plans to double size of army

RT | March 8, 2025

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has unveiled plans to more than double the size of the country’s military to 500,000. Speaking in the Polish Parliament on Friday, Tusk said Poland must be prepared for future conflicts and strengthen its defenses.

Tusk reiterated his earlier claims that Russia poses a threat to Europe, saying Moscow could launch a “full-scale operation” against a “larger” target than Ukraine within three to four years – which Russia has repeatedly dismissed as unfounded. He argued that Poland must serve as a “bastion” to protect NATO’s eastern flank and should expand its military capabilities.

“We’re talking about the need to have an army of half-a-million in Poland, including the reservists,” he stated, noting that Poland’s current armed forces number around 200,000, which he compared to Russia’s estimated 1.3 million troops. Tusk said his government is drafting legislation that would require every adult male in Poland to undergo “large-scale military training” to prepare for a potential conflict with Russia.

“We will try to have a model ready by the end of this year so that every adult male in Poland is trained in the event of war, so that this reserve is comparable and adequate to the potential threats,” he said. He added that Polish women may also be required to undergo military training, though “war is still to a greater extent the domain of men.”

Tusk’s remarks came a day after EU leaders approved a major military spending plan to unlock billions of euros to build up defense capabilities. The initiative – ReArm Europe – which was adopted following an emergency summit in Brussels, hikes defense spending by up to €800 billion ($840 billion) – twice the total EU defense expenditures in 2024. The Kremlin condemned the bloc’s “militarization” plan, calling it a path towards confrontation that hinders peace efforts with Ukraine.

In addition to a larger army, Tusk said Poland must enhance its military capabilities, including through the acquisition of nuclear and “modern unconventional weapons.” Tusk’s speech followed his recent accusations that Moscow is fueling a new arms race, and calls for fellow EU nations to ramp up defense spending.

The Kremlin has criticized Tusk’s rhetoric as confrontational and militaristic. Moscow has rejected accusations that it poses a military threat to Europe, with President Vladimir Putin dismissing the claims as “nonsense” designed to justify increased military budgets.

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Recycling ‘Russiagate’ in Romania

By Drago Bosnic | March 8, 2025

Romania has been going through unprecedented instability in the last several months, with the Brussels-run neoliberal dictatorship effectively taking over the country. It could even be described as a “soft coup” orchestrated to nullify the will of the Romanian people. The unelected bureaucrats are determined to ensure that Bucharest remains firmly in the EU/NATO orbit, particularly now that their war in Ukraine is not exactly going as planned, to put it mildly.

To that end, last year’s election was effectively stolen after the second round was canceled based on blatant lies. In the meantime, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship even bragged about “doing it in Romania” while threatening to “do it in Germany”. You’d think millions across the “old continent” would be outraged by such undisguised tyranny. However, things only got worse from then on.

On February 26, Romanian sovereigntist Calin Georgescu was arrested on trumped-up charges that boil down to him supposedly being a “Kremlin puppet”. It’s so obvious what’s the goal of all this that even the new US administration condemned such moves. Trump and his team certainly understand what Georgescu is going through, as he’s exposed to nearly identical persecution.

With the election less than two months away, the EU bureaucratic dictatorship is looking to ensure that Georgescu is eliminated before the race begins. The latest events demonstrate that the Deep State is now trying to recycle the so-called “Russiagate” hoax and use it to make sure Romania stays under NATO occupation. Namely, on March 6, six people were arrested and charged with “treason for colluding with Russia to undermine the country”.

If you think this is ridiculous, just wait until you hear the names of the “evil pro-Russian group” and one of its “masterminds”. Namely, according to the Financial Times, they were “named ‘Vlad the Impaler Command’ after Romania’s medieval ruler who served as inspiration for Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, with one of the members being a 101-year-old retired General Radu Theodoru.

The subliminal messaging is so evident that it’s questionable whether we can even call it that. There’s the mandatory “evil Vlad” (you’re probably “wondering” who it reminds you of) who also “served as the inspiration” for Lord Dracula, a vampire. The word “command” can be interpreted as indicating both a “military structure” and a “team” (команда in Russian). In other words, you have a “paramilitary team working for Vlad the Vampire“.

Considering the endless funding the Deep State-run institutions get, you’d think they would come up with something a bit more original and less obvious. And yet, it gets worse, because the accusations are all copy-pasted from the “Russiagate” hoax. According to SRI (NATO-run domestic intelligence agency), the “pro-Putin conspirators” were supposedly “seeking Russian help for a plot to overthrow the government in Bucharest” and “repeatedly contacted agents of a foreign power, located both on the territory of Romania and the Russian Federation”.

The EU-controlled regime in NATO-occupied Romania (ab)used the fake “plot” as an excuse to expel several high-ranking Russian diplomats from Moscow’s embassy in Romania, including a military attaché and his deputy who were accused by the SRI of “being in contact with the plotters”.

“The two Russian diplomats carried out intelligence gathering actions in areas of strategic interest and took actions to support the group’s anti-constitutional actions,” the SRI report claims.

FT says that the arrests and expulsions “come as authorities in Bucharest step up efforts aimed at curtailing Moscow’s attempts to meddle in its domestic politics after the unprecedented move in December to cancel a presidential vote because of Russian influence”. This is yet another indicator that the mainstream propaganda machine is laser-focused on beating a dead horse (although they’d never admit that the “Russiagate” hoax is precisely that).

The Kremlin pointed out that this is essentially an attempt to shift focus from the actual undermining of Romanian sovereignty by the EU/NATO. Obviously, this is also an attempt to justify the persecution of Georgescu who is accused of supposed “links to fascist groups and attempting to subvert the constitutional order”. If sentenced, Georgescu is faced with a decade in prison.

He still hasn’t been accused of having anything to do with the alleged “plot” by the aforementioned “Vlad the Impaler Command” group. However, this could easily be the next step in the smear campaign targeting Georgescu, who has been criticizing NATO’s crawling aggression in Europe for years.

The “evil Vlad” group is accused of similar “crimes”, including supposedly “discussing Romania’s withdrawal from NATO with Russian spies, the removal of the current constitution and the constitutional order, the dissolution of political parties, as well as the removal of all employees from state institutions … the change of the country’s name, flag, and anthem.” If this sort of “connection” is fabricated, it would likely happen just ahead of the presidential election, either for new indictments or another smear campaign.

The Romanian people are furious that the most popular candidate is being subjected to persecution and that their sovereignty is being infringed upon by the unelected bureaucratic dictatorship in Brussels. Numerous mass protests have been held in Bucharest and elsewhere in NATO-occupied Romania. The country’s strategic importance only grew with the advent of the political West’s crawling “Barbarossa 2.0” and the Romanian people could be the next in line to be used as cannon fodder against Russia.

They understand that the EU/NATO wants them to play this extremely unflattering role and, as anyone remotely sane would do, they effectively told NATO to go pound sand (as evidenced by last year’s election results). However, the world’s most vile racketeering cartel won’t give up that easily, so we’re likely to see more instability in Romania.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Illegal Occupation, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

How viable is Macron’s nuclear umbrella proposal?

By Drago Bosnic | March 7, 2025

As the United States and Russia are engaging in talks to avoid the possibility of an uncontrollable escalation, the European Union and NATO keep doing the exact opposite. Brussels wants the war to continue, including by pushing for the deployment of its troops in Ukraine. Worse yet, as the diverging interests of the new Trump administration and the EU/NATO become more evident, the latter is now trying to appease Washington DC by portraying this as a “peace initiative”.

On the other hand, Trump and his team understand that the world is drastically different to what it was in the aftermath of the (First) Cold War. This is precisely why they’re far less belligerent toward Moscow (at least in terms of rhetoric) than was the case with the previous administration.

The EU/NATO is terrified of the prospect of being left to face Russian military power in Ukraine (and possibly beyond) on its own. To prevent that, Western European powers are now looking to escalate tensions in hopes of drawing the US back into a crawling confrontation with the Kremlin. However, as the Trump administration is still showing no interest to get involved, the EU/NATO is now pushing for a strategic escalation.

This is particularly true for French President Emmanuel Macron who is now talking about placing the “old continent” under the French nuclear umbrella. On March 5, he tried to justify this by claiming that “[President Vladimir] Putin is now threatening all of Europe” and declared that “Russian aggression knows no borders”.

“We are entering a new era. If a country can invade its neighbour in Europe and go unpunished, nobody can be sure of anything. Beyond Ukraine, the Russian threat is real – it affects the European countries,” Macron stated in a televized address, adding: “President Putin is violating our borders to assassinate opponents, manipulate elections.”

For decades, “evil dictator and bloodthirsty tyrant Putin” has been the political West’s go-to bogeyman for both foreign and domestic policy issues. Whether it’s elections, political instability, price hikes or even personal problems, look no further than Vladimir Putin. The “evil, bear-riding Russians” are coming for you and “the only way” to prevent it is to go to war with them, preferably thermonuclear.

According to the mainstream propaganda machine, if you think this sounds like total madness, you must be a “Putin troll”. Unfortunately, this is how the EU/NATO is trying to portray the ongoing crisis, which is why it’s effectively impossible for Russia to find anyone remotely reasonable to talk to in Europe. And they keep proving this each passing day.

Macron insists that the EU/NATO “need to prepare”. It would seem he’s trying to fill the power vacuum as the US is looking to shift its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific. The endemically and pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom seems to be supporting this initiative, as it falls perfectly in line with its strategy of pushing continental powers against each other.

This is why there have been numerous meetings and conferences in support of not only continuing but also escalating the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. However, conventional capabilities of Western European powers are nowhere near enough to match that of Russia (not even in Ukraine, let alone when the entire Russian military is taken into account).

“I want to believe that the US will stand by our side, but we have to be ready for that not to be the case,” Macron complained, adding: “France has to recognize its special status – we have the most efficient, effective army in Europe.”

He then stressed that his country “has nuclear weapons to provide to the broader Western alliance if called upon”. Macron went on to explain that he’s considering the possibility of expanding the French nuclear umbrella to all of Europe. He also cited the words of Germany’s (most likely) upcoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who recently stated that he wanted to discuss the possibility of extending French and British nuclear umbrellas to also include Germany.

It should be noted that Berlin already has American nuclear weapons stationed on its territory as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing policy. However, with the recent shift initiated by the new US administration, European member states still loyal to the anti-Trump Deep State seem to be looking for viable alternatives.

“We need reforms, we need to make choices, and we need to be brave,” Macron stated, adding: “[Merz] has called for a strategic debate on providing that same protection to our European allies… whatever happens the decision will be in the hands of the president of the Republic and the heads of the army.”

He also said there will be a meeting of the EU/NATO army chiefs in Paris next week, hinting this could be one of the matters they will be discussing. Besides the US, the UK and France are the only member states who have their own nuclear weapons. It should be noted that this initiative also means that the EU/NATO is fully aware that nuclear weapons are the only way to “even the playing field” with Russia’s conventional military power.

However, what this also means is that Moscow would be forced to respond with its own nuclear arsenal – by far the largest and most powerful in the world. In fact, the difference between the number of thermonuclear warheads in Russia and the US is larger than the combined arsenal of the UK and France (around 500).

London and Paris both have SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), with the latter also operating nuclear-capable aircraft. This is a lower level of deterrence than in countries like Russia, China, India and the US who have nuclear triads (aircraft, submarines and land-based missiles), without even considering the size of Moscow’s strategic arsenal which is upwards of a dozen times larger than the combined Franco-British stockpile.

It’s still unclear what exactly Macron has in mind when talking about extending this arsenal to the rest of the EU/NATO. If he’s talking about replicating (or even replacing) the US nuclear sharing policy, the Kremlin might not react immediately, as this would change little in terms of the strategic balance of power.

However, if Macron wants to deploy these weapons close to Russian borders, this changes the calculus entirely, as it would force Moscow to either reactivate some of the non-deployed warheads or make new ones (if not both, depending on how far the EU/NATO would go). What’s more, the Russian military also operates non-nuclear strategic weapons, specifically hypersonic missiles such as the new “Oreshnik”.

The entire political West lacks remotely similar systems, including the US (which, as previously mentioned, is slowly shifting its strategic focus away from Europe). In other words, the EU/NATO cannot match Russia even on a tactical or operational level, let alone strategic. However, it keeps poking the Bear and pushing for escalation on all three fronts.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

March 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin reacts to Macron’s ‘war’ speech

RT | March 6, 2025

French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech focusing on Russia earlier this week was “highly confrontational,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday, arguing that it signals an intent to further escalate tensions.

In his address to the nation on Wednesday, Macron labeled Russia “a threat” to the EU and called for a significant increase in defense spending to counter the perceived danger posed by Moscow. He also said that France would be prepared to deploy troops to Ukraine should a truce be reached in the conflict.

Commenting on the remarks during a regular press briefing, Peskov stressed that it hardly conveyed a message of peace: “France apparently is contemplating war, a continuation of war.” This stance naturally elicits a negative reaction in Moscow, he suggested.

Macron’s address adhered to the conventional Western narrative portraying Russia as the unprovoked aggressor in the Ukraine conflict and claimed that Moscow has ambitions of conquest in Ukraine and beyond. However, according to Peskov, the French leader selectively ignored crucial events and circumstances that contributed to the current Ukraine crisis.

Among these, he pointed to NATO military infrastructure “encroaching, or rather making seven-mile strides” towards Russia’s borders, creating significant security concerns for Moscow. Peskov stated that Russia had no choice but to respond to this growing threat.

He also refuted Macron’s claims that Russia violated the Minsk Agreements, citing former French President Francois Hollande’s acknowledgment that the West never genuinely intended for them to succeed.

In 2015, Hollande and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel co-mediated a roadmap purportedly aimed at peacefully reintegrating the then-breakaway regions in Donbass back into Ukraine. Following the 2022 escalation, both politicians admitted that the purpose of the accord from the West’s perspective had merely been to buy time for Kiev to strengthen its military with NATO support.

Peskov also remarked that in 2014 France and other European nations “deceived” then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich by endorsing his power-sharing agreement with Western-backed militants, who violated the deal within hours and forcibly removed the democratically elected leader, all without any protest from Paris.

The EU is currently promoting a substantial military buildup that would cost some $840 billion and be funded through debt. Brussels asserts that European security risks have been intensified by the shift in Washington’s policy under President Donald Trump, who is seeking a resolution to the Ukraine conflict while urging Europe to assume responsibility for future security guarantees for Kiev. Peskov observed that while this does not make the US a friend of Russia, it at least opens avenues for normalizing bilateral relations.

March 6, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

EU ‘rearmament’ plan has no funding – Euractiv

RT | March 5, 2025

The EU’s new rearmament strategy, outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, lacks funding and shifts the financial burden to member states, Euractiv writes, citing senior EU officials.

Von der Leyen has proposed that EU nations spend about $840 billion on defense, calling it a response to “the most dangerous of times” and “grave” security threats. Her so-called ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ calls for more than double the EU’s 2024 defense expenditures. However, the ambitious proposal depends largely on borrowed funds and loosened fiscal rules rather than existing reserves, sparking concerns regarding its economic feasibility and long-term impact.

The plan “includes close to no fresh money,” leaving member states to secure “the real cash” themselves, Euractiv reported on Wednesday.

The $840 billion figure is based more on “hopes and guesses” than concrete reforms addressing the EU’s defense under-investment and production shortages, the report argued.

The goal is to “support achieving a rapid and significant increase in investment in Europe’s defense capabilities now and over this decade,” an unnamed senior EU official said, noting that the money would help “reduce costs.”

Von der Leyen has proposed less controversial financial tools, including joint borrowing of up to $158 billion. The European Commission plans to raise funds through capital markets and lend them to member states, provided that they purchase weapons together which were manufactured within the bloc or its regional allies. The requirement could involve at least three EU countries or two EU countries plus Ukraine. However, loan approval criteria and the prioritization of EU-made equipment remain undecided, the report pointed out.

Another measure includes easing EU budget rules via a national “escape clause” for defense spending, allowing governments to shift funds within EU accounts “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.

While increased deficits could generate nearly $700 billion, it’s uncertain if the measure applies to all countries or only those meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target. Another senior EU official told Euractiv that over time, governments must offset spending by raising taxes or cutting costs.

Von der Leyen’s push for increased defense spending comes amid growing pressure from Washington. US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from supporting Ukraine while urging the EU to take greater responsibility for its defense.

The shift intensified this week, with news agencies’ reports on Monday suggesting that Trump had ordered a pause in military aid to Kiev. The US president has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain.

EU leaders will discuss von der Leyen’s proposals at a special summit on Thursday. According to a senior EU official, the measures should work “very fast and very efficiently” and require only a majority vote for adoption.

Some experts, however, warn that increasing military spending could strain national budgets already under pressure.

March 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

How Does Trump Resume Shipments of Arms to the Regime that Started the War?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 5, 2025

Imagine if war had broken out between the United States and Soviet Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let’s assume that two American cities — New York and Washington, D.C., and two Russian cities —Moscow and St. Petersburg — were destroyed by nuclear missiles before a peace agreement was entered into.

Who would the U.S. mainstream press, the U.S. national-security establishment, and U.S. public officials today be saying started the war?

There is no doubt that the official narrative would be that it was Russia that started the war when it installed its nuclear missiles in Cuba and then refused to remove them. If Russia had not installed those missiles, their argument would be, the U.S. government would not have had to attack and invade Cuba in order to remove them.

But what if someone were to point out that Cuba had the legitimate authority under international law to invite the Russians to install nuclear missiles in Cuba? After all, even though Cuba is only 90 miles away from the United States, it is a sovereign and independent country. As such, it had the authority to install whatever missiles it wanted in its own country.

Nonetheless, even conceding the legalities of the situation, the official U.S. narrative would have been that as a practical matter, Russia started the war by provoking it with its installation of nuclear missiles pointed at the United States from only 90 miles away and its refusal to remove them.

Undoubtedly, it is this type of reasoning that President Trump had in mind when he recently declared that Ukraine, under the presidency of Volodymyr Zelensky, started the Ukraine-Russia war.

But to be more exact, it was the U.S. national-security establishment, in complicity with Zelensky, that started the war by provoking Russia into invading Ukraine, just as it would have been Russia that started the war by provoking the United States into invading Cuba back in 1963.

Provoking war is what U.S. officials were doing when they were violating U.S. promises not to move the old Cold War dinosaur NATO eastward toward Russia after the end of the Cold War. Knowing full well that Russia was objecting to the violation of those U.S. promises, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA used NATO to absorb former members of the Warsaw Pact, which enabled U.S. and German tanks, missiles, armaments, and troops to get ever closer to Russia’s border.

It was President Biden and the U.S. national-security establishment, operating in complicity with Zelensky, that pulled the final trigger to start the war by suggesting that NATO intended to absorb Ukraine, which would enable U.S. and German missiles, tanks, troops, bases, and weapons to be placed on Russia’s border. They knew that Russia would react with an invasion, just as the U.S. would have invaded Cuba had Russia not removed its nuclear missiles from that nation.

What many Americans do not want to confront is the fact that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was precisely what the U.S. national-security establishment wanted, given that this would convert Russia into a renewed Cold War enemy, would avoid a critical examination of the 20-year-long U.S. war in Afghanistan, would “degrade” Russia by having hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers killed, injured, or maimed, and, it was hoped, would result in the removal of Russian president Vladimir Putin from power and his replacement with a pro-U.S. stooge.

The fact is that Zelensky was not forced to participate in this political game. He chose to do so. He chose to sacrifice his country and his countrymen in order to please U.S. officials by having Ukraine join NATO, the old Cold War dinosaur. If he had chosen differently and declared no intention of having Ukraine join NATO, there would have been no deadly and destructive Russian invasion of his country.

Trump obviously gets this. Even though the U.S. mainstream press and the national-security establishment continue to mindlessly repeat the same tiresome official narrative, their mindsets are quite irrelevant. What is relevant is Trump’s mindset, which clearly sees Zelensky, especially with his NATO machinations, as having started the war.

Today, there are many people, including Zelensky, who are exhorting Trump to cancel his suspension of U.S. arms to Ukraine. But how can Trump do that, given his conviction that Ukraine was the one that started the war? How could he possibly justify to himself helping a regime that started the war to kill soldiers in a regime that did not start the war?

March 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »