Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia’s Kursk Region Becomes Final Resting Place for NATO’s Top Tech

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – March 15, 2025

The near-total collapse of Ukraine’s operations in Kursk region has highlighted the folly of Zelensky’s obsession with throwing his best troops and materiel into a hopeless campaign. Here’s a selection of NATO equipment that has “found its peace in Kursk’s ground” over the past month, complete with photo and video evidence.

Russia’s Defense Ministry estimates that Ukraine has lost nearly 400 tanks, almost 2,800 armored vehicles and over 1,000 guns and mortars in fighting in Kursk region to date, and says over 85% of territories once occupied by Ukrainian forces have been freed.

Liberated areas contain scores of wrecked, burned out, damaged or abandoned vehicles, including some of NATO’s most advanced equipment:

M2A2 Bradley: Over 300 of these do-it-all American infantry fighting vehicles have been sent to Ukraine, with nearly half confirmed lost by Oryx. They’ve been spotted among other wrecked NATO equipment in Kursk region.

M1 Abrams: 31 of these custom-made monkey model American main battle tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. 20 lost to date. One recently spotted being towed away intact in Kursk region. Australia plans to send 49 more.

Leopard 1 AVLB Biber: Armored vehicle-launched bridge built on a German Leopard-1 tank chassis. 30+ sent to Ukraine. One recently found abandoned, in mint shape, in a Kursk village.

M777: A third of the 180 US-made 155mm howitzers sent to Ukraine have been lost, damaged, or abandoned to date, with several recently captured almost intact in Kursk region.

Stryker: Over 400 of these Canadian-built armored fighting vehicles have been transferred to Ukraine. At least 55 destroyed, some caught on Russian MoD FPV drone videos moments before meeting their fate.

BMC Kirpi II: 200 of these Turkish MRAPs have been sent to serve in Ukraine’s elite units. Scores destroyed, damaged or captured by Russian forces, including in Kursk.

HMMWV: 5,000 of these ubiquitous US vehicles, better known as Humvees, have been delivered to Ukraine. Scores captured on Russian FPV drone cam footage in Kursk region.

Roshel Senator: Over 1,700 of the Canadian-built armored cars have been delivered to Ukraine. Also spotted in Russian FPV drone videos.

MAXXPRO: About 440 these Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) have been sent to Ukraine by the US, with at least 197 lost to date, including in fighting for Kursk.

M113: 1,000+ of these ancient tracked APCs have been sent to Ukraine by the US and allies, with nearly 300 destroyed to date, including in Kursk region.

BATT UMG: Ukraine has received 116 of these US-made vehicles. Rarely seen, some are known to have met their fate on the battlefields of Kursk.

Bushmaster PMV: About 120 of these Australian-made Protected Mobility Vehicles have gone to Ukraine, some ending up in Kursk region, and at least 25 lost to date.

M240: Besides heavy equipment, an array of NATO small arms has also been destroyed or captured in Kursk as well, among them the FN M240 7.62mm machinegun, delivered to Ukraine by the US and France. In February, a Russian trooper in Kursk captured an M240 after storming a Ukrainian position and bringing the gun back to friendly lines.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The ball is in Russia’s court? Russia is winning a war, not playing tennis

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 14, 2025

The ball is in Russia’s court, according to the Trump administration regarding a proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine.

The proposed truce was announced following discussions on Tuesday in Saudi Arabia between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and representatives of the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime. Rubio said it was now up to Russia to reciprocate with the Ukrainian side’s purported willingness to hold a ceasefire.

In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin tactfully said that Russia was open to a ceasefire but only if it led to a complete and comprehensive peace settlement. Putin repeated that any durable resolution must address the root causes of the conflict and Russia’s fundamental strategic security concerns.

The Russian leader then met with Trump’s special envoy on Thursday. Following the discussions in Jeddah between the U.S. and the Kiev regime, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff travelled to Moscow where he met with Putin. The details of their conversation were not disclosed. But it was reported that Witkoff delivered “additional information” from Trump to Putin regarding the proposed ceasefire. It was reported that Witkoff returned to Washington with details from Putin. It may be surmised that the Russian position on its terms was reiterated. Trump hailed the discussions as “productive.”

Herein lies the rub. The essential underlying issues are the aggressive expansion of NATO and its weaponizing of a NeoNazi Ukrainian regime. The United States and its NATO partners instigated the conflict in Ukraine over several decades since at least the end of the Cold War in 1991. The past three-year war in Ukraine is but a symptom of a longer and systematic hostility. Trump seems to be cognizant of those issues.

The Trump administration has abandoned the false war-propaganda of the Biden administration. It is now acknowledged in Washington that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO axis and Russia.

As the spectacular military defeat of the NATO proxy forces in Kursk this week demonstrates – as well as the rapid gains Russia is making against the crumbling Kiev regime – the U.S.-led “Ukraine Project” has been vanquished. Russia has all but won the proxy war.

The Americans (factions within) and their NATO surrogates are trying to avoid the admission of defeat by contriving a superficial peace process that only ends up as a “frozen conflict” on Russia’s borders.

The best way to bring the war to an end is for the United States to stop arming the Kiev regime and supplying it with intelligence and logistical support.

This week Trump resumed military and intelligence supplies to the Kiev regime to coincide with the apparent offer of a ceasefire from the Ukrainian regime. That amounts to one step forward, two steps back.

It was rather risible to hear Marco Rubio, the U.S.’ top diplomat, affecting the image of an honest peace broker telling Russia that the ball was in its court to reciprocate for peace as “a compromise” with Ukraine.

The Trump administration has a misplaced view of the conflict if it thinks Russia can be pressured according to U.S. one-sided and pretentious demands.

Russia is winning a momentous war, not playing tennis.

In any case, the ball, so to speak, is and will remain firmly in the United States’ court until it accepts defeat and Russia’s victory terms. It is the U.S. and not its European vassals nor its catspaw Kiev regime that will have to make that call.

Those terms have been repeatedly stipulated by Moscow: a lasting security treaty in Europe consonant with Russia’s just and basic demands for NATO to roll back and desist from its aggressive tendencies; for Ukraine to be a neutral state in perpetuity never being a member of NATO; for the NeoNazi regime to be eradicated and the cultural rights of ethnic Russian people to be guaranteed and respected; and for the historic Russian territories of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporozhye and of course Crimea to remain intact as part of the Russian Federation.

Moscow reserves the right to change the terms per conditions on the ground if the conflict persists, such as reclaiming its historic territory of Odessa, Kharkiv, Nikolaev, and enforcing a no-fire zone in Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast from where the failed NATO Kursk offensive was launched last August.

On Russia’s successful recapture of Kursk, as Putin points out, there are serious contingencies that need to be dealt with even before a ceasefire is contemplated. The invaders, including NATO mercenaries, committed war crimes against civilians. Are they expected to be let go freely? This is no doubt a reason why the U.S. and Ukraine are suddenly pushing the idea for a ceasefire as a way to salvage failure and rearm.

Trump will have to deal with the reality of Russia’s dominant position: its military victory and its historically righteous cause to confront NATO aggression.

It remains to be seen now how Trump responds. He needs to disabuse arrogant misconceptions that Washington is acting as a peace broker. The U.S. is the main protagonist in a proxy war against Russia. The Kiev regime is but a bit player. Moscow has no need or inclination to engage with a corrupt NeoNazi regime headed up by a puppet president who no longer even has the semblance of legitimacy after cancelling elections last year and ruling by martial law.

If Trump is serious about ending the proxy war in Ukraine, he can do so promptly by ending the weapons flow to that country. His resumption of weapons supplies this week does not bode well.

Trump should also ignore the bleating of the European lackeys, in particular the British, who have nothing positive to offer. London was “intimately” involved in the latest ceasefire proposal from the U.S. and Ukraine, according to the BBC. That should be seen as a warning of a dirty trick.

It is a negative sign that the U.S.-Ukraine joint statement this week in Saudi Arabia peddled vile lies about Russia abducting Ukrainian children. It was also contemptible that the statement called for “future security guarantees for Ukraine” (the aggressor!) while saying nothing about Russia’s security concerns. The absence of the latter indicates the U.S. side has little understanding about “root causes” of the conflict.

Moreover, the U.S.-Ukrainian joint statement called for the involvement of European partners in peace talks. The present crop of European leaders has no intention or capability of negotiating a lasting peace with Russia. They insist on Ukraine becoming a future member of NATO and they want to insinuate themselves into the dialogue to scupper a peace deal by deploying “peacekeeping” troops. The British and French reportedly want the U.S. to provide air cover for what would be their trip-wire troop presence, thereby escalating the war.

Will Trump be duped by the perfidious British, French and other European Russophobes? Perhaps with a false-flag provocation?

American and European political leaders have negligible credibility for offering a ceasefire to Russia, never mind a durable peace. They started this war and surreptitiously want to continue it by other means under the guise of a peace process that does not address the root causes of conflict.

That implies that the only way to deal with the root causes and to establish a lasting peace is for Russia to defeat the NATO enemy with an explicit, unconditional surrender. Can Trump’s ego handle that?

Peace begins when the guns cease, but for true peace to last, the U.S.-led NATO war on Russia must be defeated. Can the U.S. imperial deep state handle that?

Either way, we will soon see.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO countries should restore ties with Russia – bloc chief

RT | March 14, 2025

Europe and the United States should gradually normalize relations with Russia once the Ukraine conflict is over, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said.

The statement comes a day after the head of the US-led military bloc met President Donald Trump at the White House and amid ongoing efforts by Washington to establish a ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev.

Trump has also expressed interest in restoring economic ties with Russia, an idea that was supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Friday, Rutte recalled that he had “many dealings” and “many negotiations” with Putin while prime minister of the Netherlands.

“Long-term, Russia is there, Russia will not go away,” he said. “It’s normal if the war would have stopped for Europe somehow, step by step, and also for the US, step by step, to restore normal relations with Russia,” he argued.

Ukraine’s possible membership of the bloc is off the table in the current peace process, Rutte confirmed, a point Moscow has insisted upon.

Most EU leaders, with the notable exceptions of Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, have advocated for continued confrontation with Russia, despite the ongoing peace process.

European NATO countries have been supplying weapons to Kiev since the escalation of the conflict in 2022. Some bloc members, such as France, have floated the idea of deploying troops in Ukraine to monitor a truce. Russia has denounced the idea and insisted that any NATO contingent in Ukraine deployed without a UN mandate will be considered a legitimate target.

Moscow has accused the EU of militarizing against Russia, after the bloc’s leaders backed €800 billion ($860 bn) in debt and tax-breaks for its military industrial complex.

As NATO’s biggest financial contributor, Trump has consistently criticized the bloc’s European members for not meeting the defense expenditure targets.

NATO has maintained a hostile position towards Moscow since Crimea joined the Russian Federation in 2014 and the subsequent escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The developments led to the suspension of practical cooperation and a significant military buildup in NATO countries on Russia’s borders.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s presidential diplomacy is surging

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 14, 2025

The US President Donald Trump by far outstrips any of his predecessors in post-cold war diplomatic history in the transparency both in connecting the public opinion with his America First ideology and in his presidential diplomacy.

Trump’s media briefings have become a daily occurrence and are an absolute ‘must’ for any serious analyst / observer of world affairs.

Trump’s press conference at the White House on Thursday during the visit of the NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte, a 48-minute event, stood out for the following signposts in his foreign policy agenda:

One. Whereas the expectation was that this was just the right occasion for Trump to reclaim the leadership of the transatlantic alliance system and “to project American power” (Rutte’s words), he was instead simply uninterested in NATO — although Rutte praised him sky-high for his contribution to making the alliance a “strong” organisation by boosting its budget.

Two. On the contrary, Trump spoke at length on the Ukraine peace process and expressed hope that the war is ending, taking even a swipe at NATO for having squandered its budget wastefully under the Biden presidency by intervening in a war that should not have happened.

By the way, Rutte is known to be a super hawk on Russia (which actually inspired President Biden to handpick him for the present job late last year.) Rutte was a prominent fixture in the family photos of the recent string of EU summits that were pioneered by French President Emmanuel Macron to choreograph the future trajectory of the Ukraine war the downstream of the perceived US retrenchment,

Three. Trump taunted Rutte openly by proposing a potential role for NATO in his major foreign policy venture to make the Greenland and integral part of the US. Trump severely questioned the basis of the claim by Denmark, a NATO member, to Greenland. Rutte tried to change the topic but Trump would have none of it and reminded him of NATO’s “relevance”. To be sure, NATO finds itself like a cat on a hot tin roof if Trump’s strong hint of a likely boost in the US troop presence in Greenland goes ahead. Trump spoke in the presence of Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Four. Trump point blank rejected the narrative that Russia posed a military threat to Europe. It not only knocks the bottom out of the legitimacy of the NATO and Europe’s intervention in Ukraine but also casts doubts on the raison d’être of the NATO. (Earlier in his remarks, Rutte had spoken forcefully of the imperative need to build up Europe’s defence industry to meet the threat from Russia.)

Five. Trump hinted that he may resume talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, which he began in the first term but got derailed as his presidency came under siege from the deep state and the neocon lobby with the support of the Democratic Party.

Six. Most important, Trump disclosed that behind the scene, much serious discussion has been taking place with Russia on the various aspects of the Ukraine crisis, including the seemingly intractable territorial issues, and the future status of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in southeastern Ukraine, which is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and among the 10 largest in the world, and has been under Russian control since 2022.

Trump flagged that the White House and the Kremlin as interlocutors are rather familiar by now with each other’s respective stances and the parameters of the Ukraine crisis, which has created conditions for serious negotiations going forward.

Specifically, Trump commented that the Russian reaction to the US’ offer this week of a thirty-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict is incomplete and he hopes to meet Putin in this connection. This disclosure enables us to read between the lines the various contrarian pronouncements emanating from Moscow and put in proper perspective the tenor of Putin’s statement of March 13.

There is no question that Trump spoke with great deliberation in Rutte’s presence, knowing that European capitals would be keenly listening. Trump left them in no doubt that without US participation, Europeans will chicken out no matter their rhetoric in recent days.

The ‘Trump effect’ is no longer restricted to Hungary and Slovakia. On Tuesday, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced that “We will not send Italian soldiers to Ukraine .” She announced that Italy, a major NATO member country, shall not be taking part in any future European summits held in this connection. Meanwhile, Meloni’s predecessor Giuseppe Conte told Euronews that the European Commission (read Ursula von der Leyen) “is exaggerating the Russian threat” to boost military expenditure and is “throwing money away to allow all the member states to continue increasing military spending in an uncoordinated and disorderly manner.”

The bottom line is that the misadventure spearheaded by the UK and France and the EU bureaucracy in Brussels to create a “coalition of the willing” to carry the war forward in Ukraine is crash landing even before it got under way. Trump has shown no interest in Western troop deployment in Ukraine in any peacekeeping role; nor does he envisage any European participation in the US-Russia dialogue.

Above all, Trump sees this as a deal between Putin and him. He sounded confident that Russia’s concerns can be properly addressed.

Indeed, in his remarks, Trump never once mentioned Zelensky whose continuance in power Russia regards as the single biggest impediment to peace.

The video of Trump’s press conference is below:

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Collapse of Kursk: Narratives versus Reality

Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 11, 2025

The Ukrainian army’s invasion of Kursk, backed by NATO, likely had rational and tangible objectives such seizing the Kursk nuclear power plant, creating a buffer zone, diverting Russian troops, and giving Ukraine a bargaining chip in future negotiations. However, it was also a battle for narratives. Exploring why the military operation failed also provides some lessons for why the war to control the narrative failed. … continue reading

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

New findings on the Nord Stream attacks — a deep dive

By Maike Gosch | Nach Denk Seiten | March 7, 2025

The Nord Stream pipelines are currently back in the headlines. After rumours of a US takeover of the pipelines recently caused a stir, the Bild newspaper reported on March 4th that Germany is currently intensively examining what levers it has at its disposal to prevent a comeback of Nord Stream 2. Just when you think the absurdity can’t get any worse, someone turns the screw a little further. But I guess these are the times we live in.

However, there is also other news, namely the publication of very interesting research findings on the attack on the pipelines, which may shed new light on the modus operandi and the possible perpetrators. As expected, these do not come from the official investigative bodies, but from an independent journalist from France.

Every crime fiction reader knows that one of the most important steps in solving a case is to ask the right questions. One question that has been bothering me for some time in relation to the Nord Stream attacks is why some of the deepest places in the Baltic Sea, which is shallow in many places, were chosen for the attacks.

Why was the so-called Bornholm Basin chosen as the crime scene, which is around 80 to 100 metres deep, and not other areas that have a water depth of only around 20 to 30 metres and would have had the additional advantage that the two twin pipes of Nord Stream 1 and those of Nord Stream 2 run very close to each other, so that it presumably would have been easier to blow up both pipelines or all four strings?

This question and a possible answer to it are the focus of new research findings by French investigative journalist Freddie Ponton, which appeared last week in the online newspaper 21st Century Wire.

He explores a possible, very simple answer to this question, which can be summarised in one word: submarines.

After rumours of a Russian submarine in the vicinity of the crime scene made the rounds in the very first hours after the attack, a possible commission of the crime with the help of submarines has strangely played a very subordinate to non-existent role in the theories and speculations since then. Seymour Hersh does not mention this possibility either — even though highly experienced German defence expert Thorsten Pörschmann, for example, stated in an interview on October 10, 2022, shortly after the attacks, that he considered the use of submarines equipped for laying ground mines to be the most likely scenario. Here are his comments on this in full (from about minute 14:37):

There are explosive charges that are specially designed for these depths and that can be laid with submarines. That’s the exciting thing. And in terms of weight, they also match the explosive force that was measured. The whole thing is called a bottom mine. They are cylindrical and can be carried in the torpedo tubes of submarines. […] A torpedo tube on a submarine is not only there to fire torpedoes. It can also transport combat swimmers in it and let them out, but these torpedo tubes can also be used as a mine-laying device by sneaking somewhere and laying bottom mines there. Every mine is only supposed to explode when you drive over it or when it’s triggered, but every mine is also an effective explosive, which means you can also use it as an explosive. This is often done with anti-tank mines, that is, if I have nothing else, I use an anti-tank mine as an explosive. That would also work with a bottom mine.

But back to Freddie Ponton’s new findings for 21st CenturyWire: he first points out an important point, namely that these deep places in the Bornholm Basin would be ideal for the use of submarines, both in terms of their manoeuvrability and the possibility of acting undetected.

Another point Ponton highlights is the fact that some of the areas where the attacks took place are even specially designated NATO submarine exercise areas, which are marked as such on nautical charts (as shown in documents from the Danish Energy Agency, which issued the licence for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in October 2019, which he shows in his article). Another important piece of information is that submarine operations in the Baltic Sea are managed and coordinated by the German Navy’s Submarine Operating Authority, or SubOpAuth, in cooperation with NATO and the Baltic states.

So, we have sites that are partly in the middle of areas designated for submarine manoeuvres and whose submarine activities are coordinated by a subdivision of the German Navy. Ponton next sets out to investigate more about NATO’s submarine activities in the period around the attack at the end of September 2022.

In his February 2023 report, the American journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that US Navy divers were involved in the sabotage of Nord Stream and used the NATO naval exercise BALTOPS 22 — one of NATO’s largest maritime manoeuvres, which took place in the Baltic Sea between June 5 and 22, 2022 — to place explosives at various locations along the pipeline. Unlike Freddy Ponton, however, Seymour Hersh did not assume that submarines had been used to commit the offence, but that deep-sea divers had planted the explosives on the pipelines.

Ponton also deals with BALTOPS 22, but focusses on the submarine activities. As he reports, it is naturally difficult to obtain more precise information about the planning, content and command structures of the military exercise. But a stroke of luck helped him: Danish journalists from the TV2 channel were filming a report on the activities of the Danish navy, and the picture showed a screen on which the organisational structure of the BALTOPS 22 exercise was visible. It showed that BALTOPS 22 was led by an American, but that a German military officer was in charge of the submarine exercises which were part of the manoeuvre.

However, around the time of the attacks, there were other exercises in the Baltic Sea in addition to BALTOPS 22, which many are familiar with from Seymour Hersh’s article. Of particular interest for our investigation is the German-led naval exercise Northern Coasts 2022, which began on August 29, 2022 and ended on Wednesday September 28, 2022, two days after the Nord Stream explosions, and which was planned and conducted with the help of NATO’s Allied Naval Command (MARCOM) and other NATO partners. As Freddie Ponton points out in his long and detailed article:

The fact that the Nord Stream explosions occurred under the watch of the German Navy and MARCOM during German-led Northern Coasts 2022 is of great concern. Not only it is unthinkable that Germany wasn’t aware of the air, surface and subsurface activities taking place in the Baltic Sea around that time but, it is even harder to believe, if not inconceivable, that MARCOM was left in the dark.

Ponton’s article thus argues that it is unlikely that anyone outside NATO could have carried out attacks on such a large scale in the “NATO Lake”, as the Baltic Sea is also called, unnoticed during this period, while manoeuvres were taking place in parallel. It also shows the extent to which the naval activities of NATO member states are already coordinated with each other.

Of course, without being an expert in this field, this is difficult to judge. Do these latest investigations and research already provide clear evidence of responsibility by a particular state or actor? No, unfortunately not, but they do provide interesting and relevant context that can help to assess the situation and clarify the probabilities of who the possible perpetrators are most likely to be. These investigations can also provide an answer to the question of who most likely had the means to carry out the attack.

Unfortunately, we are still waiting for final results from the German investigators, so citizen journalism will have to fill this gap. The arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national named Volodymyr Z., who allegedly planted the explosives on the pipelines with other suspects while diving from the sailing yacht “Andromeda”, seems more and more like a red herring, just as the whole yacht story is rather unlikely from the point of view of many experts.

Freddie Ponton’s article is only the first in a series. According to the author, the second part is expected to be published around June 2025. We can look forward to seeing what else will come out of it. In an interview with Patrick Henningsen on X about his findings, the author already mentioned that he will explain, among other things, why there was a 17-hour gap between the various explosions, which is one of the many still unsolved mysteries that this attack — the largest terrorist attack (luckily without human victims) in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany — presents us with.

In his article he furthermore announces:

The idea that a covert operation utilizing an ExMCM Unit [Note by MG: ExMCM stands for Expeditionary Mine Countermeasures. This term is used in military and maritime contexts for special units that specialise in detecting, defusing or removing mines under water] was carried out with the support of an Amphibious Ready Group and a submarine(s) (or mini-subs) during NATO naval exercises may appear unlikely at first glance. However, our investigation into the Nord Stream sabotage now provides compelling evidence for the existence of Seabed Mine Warfare and Underwater Demolition Operations. These activities were conducted during maritime exercises led by NATO member states, thereby aligning squarely with the principles of Maritime Irregular Warfare.

It is a well-established fact that the United States Navy engages in covert, unacknowledged, and unscheduled operations during NATO Mine Countermeasures (MCM) and Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) maritime exercises in Europe. This assertion is supported by publicly available information, and also further corroborated by off-the-record conversations by our investigative team with both former and active duty NATO officers, and EOD commanders.

It is worth reading Freddie Ponton’s extremely detailed and comprehensive article in full — it contains a great deal of information about developments in the military sector that are unfortunately rarely critically scrutinised by the media, such as the extremely close integration of the German military with NATO structures. There is also very interesting information about the means and methods of the extensive clean-up operation on the bottom of the sea that took place stealthily after the attacks.

However, it is very difficult for me to imagine that German marines were involved in the Nord Stream blast or were even in on it, but let’s wait and see how things develop. In any case, there is still a lot to be discovered beneath the surface.

Translated from German for Thomas Fazi on March 10, 2025.

March 13, 2025 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »