Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

NATO to expand military pipelines in Eastern Europe – Spiegel

The bloc supposedly plans to extend pipelines from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic for rapid jet fuel supply in potential war with Russia

RT | February 22, 2025

NATO is supposedly set to extend its Cold War-era fuel pipeline system from western Germany into Poland and the Czech Republic, according to Der Spiegel citing an internal memo from the Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces. The move comes as the bloc makes “operational plans for a possible Russian attack on the eastern states”, the newspaper wrote on Friday.

NATO’s Central European Pipeline System was built in the late 1950s and was designed “to meet operational needs in central Europe in times of peace, crisis and conflict.” It transported large volumes of kerosene, gasoline, and diesel fuel through Germany, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and was also used by the United States.

The plans include “storing fuel as far east as possible near the potential area of ​​operations,” according to an internal memo. Now the fuel distribution is limited to NATO’s eastern flank, the existing pipeline network currently ends in western Germany.

The project is to cost €21 billion ($22 billion) and is expected to be largely completed by 2035, according to the report. Germany is ready to contribute more than €3.5 billion ($3,7 billion) to the project, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told Der Spiegel. “For our soldiers, a reliable fuel supply is one of the essential requirements for their operational readiness,” he added.

A senior NATO official told Der Spiegel that while ammunition and spare parts could be airlifted, fuel transport by plane would be nearly impossible due to “immense consumption”. He told Der Spiegel there are “significant problems in the sustainable supply of fuel to the forces that would have to be relocated to the eastern border if necessary”. “The demand is gigantic,” the official claimed.

However, some factors could delay construction and increase costs, Der Spiegel added. The pipeline is to be laid under several rivers, including the Weser and Elbe, that should be “protected from possible accidents”.

In addition, there might appear “land issues” with the authorities and land owners that should be “clarified”, the newspaper wrote.

Russia has repeatedly argued that the Ukraine conflict was provoked by NATO expansion towards its borders, Kiev’s aspirations to join the US-led military alliance, and Ukraine’s policies toward the Russian-speaking Donbass region. Western officials have suggested that Russia could pose a threat to NATO amid the Ukraine conflict, but Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed these claims as ‘nonsense,’ arguing they are used to justify Western military spending.

In December 2024, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov stated that Russia must be prepared for any scenario, including a possible military conflict with NATO in Europe within the next decade.

February 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US to propose own UN resolution on Russia-Ukraine conflict

Press TV – February 22, 2025

For the first time since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the US has refused to cosponsor a United Nations General Assembly resolution put forward by Europe and Kiev, saying it will instead propose its own resolution.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on his X account that on February 24 (the anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war) his country will submit to the UNGA a resolution on the settlement of the issue.

“The US will propose to the United Nations a landmark resolution the entire UN membership should support in order to chart a path to peace.”

A statement from the US State Department attached to the announcement said that US President Donald Trump is seeking “a resolution to the conflict that would ensure long-term peace.”

According to the US State Department, the resolution is consistent with Trump’s position, and with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined in the UN Charter.

According to media reports, the language of the resolution has been significantly softened towards Russia compared to the wording used in earlier documents.

For the first time since the start of the military operation, the resolution does not describe Russia as the original aggressor.

The text of the document expresses grief over the tragic conflict and calls for a speedy end to it.

It “reaffirms the urgent need to end the war this year and redouble diplomatic efforts to reduce the risks of further escalation and achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace on the Ukraine.”

In response to years of military and political provocations by the US and European countries, Russia began its special military operation in Ukraine in 2022.

Russia has managed to gain control of a fifth of Ukraine and has been slowly advancing in the east for months. Ukraine’s military, supported by the US and European countries, grapples with manpower shortages and tries to hold a chunk of territory in western Russia.

Russia has demanded an end to the West’s military and political provocations on its borders and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality under any peace deal. Ukraine on the other hand has demanded Russia’s withdrawal from the captured lands and wants NATO membership.

February 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some Sins Will Not Wash Away

By William Schryver – imetatronink – February 20, 2025

I disagree strongly with those who seek to exonerate the Trump 45 administration of culpability for the war in Ukraine.

I submit it is indisputable that the trend line of US/NATO preparations of the #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine began to go parabolic during the 2017-2021 period.

Sure, the US/NATO had not yet provided the AFU with artillery, armor, or air defense systems — but the AFU didn’t NEED that kind of stuff at the time. They had, by far, the largest and most potent army and air defense array in Europe (ex-Russia).

They were provided with and trained on the use of US/NATO ATGMs (Javelin / NLAW). And it is obvious, in retrospect, that select AFU contingents were already being trained in the use of systems such as the American M-777 howitzer and HIMARS MLRS, both of which were introduced on the battlefield within about 90 days of the beginning of major warfare.

Most importantly — and I believe many are now conveniently overlooking this crucial element — the AFU was provided with and trained on advanced US/NATO secure communications systems and battlefield management software applications.

AFU command and operations were integrated with the US/NATO command structure, and comprehensive access was provided to US/NATO ISR — satellite, airborne, and “on the ground” personnel.

During the Trump 45 period, US “on the ground” intel bases numbering in the double-digits were operated throughout eastern Ukraine — manned by covert and “volunteer” NATO-affiliated personnel.

As I have argued repeatedly, it was precisely this access to US/NATO ISR capabilities that elevated the AFU from “potent” to “very formidable” in this war. And the training and preparation for this aspect of war-fighting rose in a steady crescendo in the five years preceding February 24, 2022.

Perhaps President Trump himself was “kept in the dark” regarding these preparations. I doubt it, but I consent to that possibility. In any case, it does not alter the fact that these developments occurred during his tenure, and constituted the final stages of the preparation for open warfare against Russia that ultimately commenced in early 2022.

Attempting to mitigate the culpability of the Trump 45 administration while simultaneously heaping all the blame on Biden and Zelensky is not only disingenuous, it is historically erroneous.

The empire carefully orchestrated and choreographed “Project Ukraine” over the course of many years spanning multiple US presidential terms, and there was no discernible diminution of their focus and efforts at any point along the time line.

February 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

In ominous post, left-liberal MEP Verhofstadt says Trump is ‘NATO’s greatest threat’

Remix News | February 20, 2025

In an incendiary post on X, Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt called U.S. President Donald Trump the “greatest threat” to NATO, marking a sharp escalation in rhetoric, and potentially a threat to Trump himself.

“Trump is Putin’s puppet, and he’s making it clear: NATO’s greatest threat isn’t abroad, it’s sitting in the White House. Blaming Zelensky for Russia’s war is outright Kremlin’s propaganda. He’s not just betraying the Atlantic alliance—he’s working to dismantle it. Europe, wake up NOW before it’s too late,” wrote Verhofstadt.

The remarks come after an increasing war of words between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who Trump has now labeled a “dictator.” The U.S. president is seeking a peace deal to end the war in Russia and has sharply turned against Zelensky. Trump said he had “4% support” in the country and needed to call new elections. He has also raised questions about what he says is $350 billion in missing funds.

Zelensky was known to keep offshore accounts before the war and was named in the Pandora Papers. Accusations have swirled about Zelensky’s assets but much of it remains hidden in offshore bank accounts. Officially, he has approximately $4 million in assets.

As for Verhofstadt, the very wealthy left-liberal politician is known for his deep hatred of politicians who oppose his agenda, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán one of his top targets.

In 2022, for instance, Verhofstadt called Orbán a “traitor” for his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

However, labeling Trump the “biggest threat” of NATO has borderline militaristic implications and calls into question what Verhofstadt thinks Europe should do about what he believes to be the biggest “threat” to the largest military alliance in history.

February 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Zelensky Forgets the First Rule of Crisis Management — If You’re in a Hole, Stop Digging

By Larry C. Johnson | Sonar21 | February 19, 2025

Gotta confess, I did not see this coming. Yes, I believed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was miffed at not getting an invite to Saudi Arabia or to be part of the negotiating team, but it never entered my mind that he would kill himself in public. Suicide ain’t a good look. Zelensky reacted to Trump’s post by going after the Donald. Not a smart move.

While Zelensky did not put a loaded gun to his head and press the trigger, that may have been a better option than what he did — i.e., verbally attack and insult Donald Trump. If Trump truly was the King of the Realm, Zelensky would have arrived hogtied before Trump and the Donald would have cut his tongue out. Such were the pleasantries of the Middle Ages.

Here are a couple of Zelensky’s verbal tirades today criticizing Trump for excluding the Z-man from the negotiations:

Zelensky said Ukraine “did not know anything about” the meeting between Putin and Trump, and said his country will not accept a peace deal brokered without Ukrainian participation.

Zelensky told reporters he “would like Trump’s team to be more truthful” about the war and accused the president of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.”

If Zelensky thinks that public criticism of Trump is a winning strategy to win over the Donald, he has not paid attention to Trump’s method of handling critics and opponents during the past ten years. While Zelensky enjoys the full support of the Washington neocons and those politicians who have been paid under the table by Ukraine, picking a fight with Trump guarantees that further aid to Ukraine is DOA (i.e., dead on arrival).

Trump has the memory of an elephant. He has not forgotten the role that Zelensky played in Trump’s first impeachment drama. Zelensky could have spoken out in defense of Trump at the time, but he chose to remain silent. Zelensky did not buy himself any good karma with Trump.

Then there is the matter of missing billions of US taxpayer dollars. Elon Musk, as well as some folks outside of DOGE, are auditing the more than $300 billion sent to Ukraine. I know from a close friend that $50 billion already has been tracked to bank accounts in the Caribbean. Sometime within the next month or two, the world will learn some specifics of Zelensky’s theft of some of these funds. When that happens, Zelensky is burnt toast.

Don’t be surprised in a few months when Attorney General Pam Bondi announces criminal indictments against Zelensky for theft of US government property. Assuming that Zelensky is not assassinated or jailed by disgruntled Ukrainian military officers, his chances of finding a safe haven outside of Ukraine will dim dramatically. Zelensky fails to understand that he is nothing more than a pawn in a Western-led game of global chess. He ain’t essential, he’s expendable.

It appears that Trump’s goal in reviving relations with Russia has little to do with Ukraine and its future. As a result of Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russian delegations, there was agreement on forming six working groups that will address the following issues:

  1. Group on Strategic Security and Arms Control. Arms control is one of the topics where dialogue between Moscow and Washington continues even in the crisis. The New START Treaty expires in 2026, and the United States is interested in extending it, but will try to impose new restrictions on Russian hypersonic weapons and tactical nuclear forces. Russia, in turn, will seek a revision of the balance of power, taking into account NATO’s non-expansion, and demand restrictions on the deployment of new missile systems in Europe.
  2. Group on the Review of the Global Security Architecture.
    The issues of global security architecture, delimitation of spheres of influence, including possible mechanisms for monitoring developments in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and autonomous combat systems will be discussed separately. It is likely that this is the area where the contradictions will be most acute. Moreover, other significant powers, including China, will need to be involved in the process.
  3. Group on bilateral diplomatic interaction.
    Both sides are interested in the return of the embassies to full operation, within the framework of which mutual restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions will be lifted, and broad channels of communication will be established, including, in part, issues of economic ties.
  4. Energy and Sanctions Group.
    Russia is interested in lifting American sanctions, and the Americans will be offered some joint economic projects. However, the American side will try to link any concessions with demands concerning other areas, including Russian-Chinese relations, so a compromise will not be easy. Plus, Trump will be wary of accusations from hawks among the Republicans about the “excessive” easing of the sanctions regime.
  5. Group for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
    Within its framework, the parameters of a peace agreement on Ukraine will be agreed upon. There is already agreement on a number of issues. Ukraine is a non-aligned state, the EU will not be an actor influencing the negotiations, elections will be held in Ukraine and then a full-fledged agreement will be concluded, which will be adopted by the UN, there will be no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine. Russia will also insist on retaining the liberated territories along the front line and guarantees for the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The full scope of the concessions that Washington is ready to make and their price are still unclear.
  6. International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).
    The situation in the Middle East requires coordination of efforts by major players, including to prevent the Israeli-Palestinian truce from collapsing, to make a decision on the Syrian case, and others. Russia continues to actively interact with Turkey, Iran, and the Persian Gulf countries, which makes it an important participant in any negotiation processes in the region. Also on the agenda are issues of cooperation in the Arctic, where Russia maintains strategic superiority.

Ending the war in Ukraine is not necessarily a top priority. Trump’s team has made it clear that this is a problem for the Europeans and the Ukrainians to resolve if they are intent on continuing the war. Trump is looking at a bigger picture and keeping Zelensky happy is not part of that vision.

I discussed this today with Danny Davis:


Video Link

February 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU keeps trying to escalate Ukrainian conflict

By Lucas Leiroz | February 20, 2025

While the US and Russia are engaged in an incipient diplomatic process, taking the first steps towards a peaceful future, European countries continue to try to escalate the Ukrainian conflict, taking provocative measures to worsen tensions. Recently, European leaders announced a new aid package to the neo-Nazi regime, which shows how the EU is not interested in any diplomatic negotiations – despite hypocritically complaining about not being part of the talks in Riyadh.

Western media recently reported that a new pro-Ukrainian military aid package is being prepared by the EU. The aid is valued at more than 6 billion euros, making it one of the largest packages in the entire European support campaign for Kiev since 2022. The plan is believed to involve the supply of weapons such as artillery shells, missiles and air defense systems, among other lethal equipment. The approval of the package is expected to be announced on February 24, during the three-year anniversary of the special military operation – when a delegation of EU’s high officials will be in Kiev.

“EU countries are preparing a military aid package worth at least €6 billion for Ukraine as it seeks to shore up Kiev’s strategic position at the outset of U.S.-led talks with Russia, according to three EU diplomats. The package, which should include everything from 1.5 million artillery shells to air defense systems, would mark one of the EU’s largest military aid packages since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 and could be unveiled ahead of a highly symbolic visit by European commissioners to Kiev on Feb. 24,” Politico reported.

The EU is not only sending more weapons to Ukraine, but it is also further tightening anti-Russian measures. The bloc has agreed on a new package of coercive measures against Moscow – the 16th since the start of the special military operation. Even though all the sanctions imposed on Russia have so far proven futile, Europe continues to pursue a boycott strategy against Moscow, thus damaging its own strategic interests – as the sanctions obstruct energy cooperation, affecting industry and several other important sectors.

It is important to remember that, in parallel to all this, European countries continue to hold discussions about “sending troops to Ukraine”. Even though Moscow has made it clear many times that it will not accept the presence of Western forces in the conflict zone, considering any foreign soldiers as legitimate targets – the EU insists on worsening the scenario.

In fact, the entire European aid campaign for Ukraine is useless. Kiev does not gain any strategic benefit with the arrival of new European weapons, since this equipment will not be enough to reverse the tragic military situation of the Ukrainian forces – which are rapidly losing ground due to the strong Russian advance. Like all NATO weapons previously sent to Ukraine, the new European artillery systems will most likely be quickly destroyed by Russian high-precision bombings, generating zero impact on the battlefield.

In the same sense, after three years of repeated sanctions against Russia, it already seems clear that Moscow knows how to deal with this situation, circumventing the effects of coercive measures and making the economy grow despite Western aggression. The country is definitely growing, with the economy reaching increasingly better numbers, which is why new sanctions are not a cause for concern for the Russians, but rather for the Europeans themselves, who are more and more being harmed by the side effects of their own measures.

Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that any Western military presence in Ukraine will be seen as direct intervention by Russia. Moscow has already repeatedly said that European soldiers on the battlefield will be legitimate targets for Russian troops. In practice, any Western military operation in Ukraine will be a real suicide, since foreign soldiers will be priority targets for the Russian armed forces.

Instead of trying to escalate the war, Europe should take advantage of the current situation of diplomatic progress to reverse the mistakes made over the past three years. European countries now have the opportunity to lift sanctions, stop engaging in the war and re-establish ties with Russia. Previously, the Democrats were pressuring Europe to get involved in the war. With Trump and the Republicans, this pressure no longer exists, and the EU can simply change everything it has done so far.

However, unfortunately, the Europeans seem to be much more aggressive than the Americans themselves. The EU’s goal seems to be in taking the conflict to its ultimate consequences, even if European own interests are harmed by such irresponsible measures.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on X and Telegram.

February 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Can We Really Cut Half of The Military Budget? You Bet!

By Ron Paul | February 17, 2025

The wailing sound you heard last Thursday was the chorus of the Beltway warmongers shrieking in despair at President Trump’s suggestion that there was no reason for the United States to be spending one trillion dollars on “defense.”

“… [O]ne of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half. And we can do that, and I think we’ll be able to do that,” the President told reporters.

With this statement, President Trump blew up one of the biggest myths of our time, particularly among Republicans, that spending more on the military is essential to keeping us safe. There is a vast and well-funded network of political and industrial interests that depend on maintaining that myth, from the weapons manufacturers to the mainstream media to the think tanks and beyond. Why? Because most of what is called “defense spending” has little to do with defending this country and a lot to do with enriching the politically well-connected.

Maintaining that global military empire has bankrupted the United States while making us less safe and less free. President Trump seems to understand this. But the military-industrial complex and its cheerleaders have for decades pushed the idea that we could not survive without continuously increasing their budgets.

Thanks to the work of the “Department of Government Efficiency” we are learning that much of what has been sold as “essential spending” is nothing of the sort. Take USAID, for example. We were led to believe that this agency was feeding the poor while promoting the best kind of American values overseas. Thanks to DOGE, we learned that the money was going to absurdities like funding transgender puppet shows in Peru.

We are also learning that a great deal of USAID money was going to actually overthrow democratic governments overseas – as well as manipulate foreign media and promote censorship of “dissident” voices at home and abroad. Not only was USAID not helping countries overseas – it was actually harming them!

Just as with USAID, when we are able to see just where that one trillion military budget is going Americans are going to fully realize that they have been lied to for decades. That is why we need a full audit of the Pentagon and full transparency of the results.

We also need a change in policy. Americans are beginning to understand the economic costs of maintaining a global military empire. US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabers at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defense? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defense of rich Europeans? Haven’t we had enough of this?

I very much hope that President Trump follows through with his plan to drastically reduce our bloated military budget. We can start by closing the hundreds of military bases overseas, bringing back our troops from foreign countries, and eliminating our massive commitments to NATO and other international organizations.

We will be richer, safer, and happier.

February 18, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Munich conference ‘a nightmare’ – organizer

RT | February 17, 2025

Christoph Heusgen, chairman of the Munich Security Conference (MSC), has described the results of last week’s gathering as a “nightmare” for Washington’s European allies. He claimed that the US under President Donald Trump “lives on another planet,” referencing comments made by American Vice President J.D. Vance at the Germany-hosted event.

Vance criticized EU nations for increasingly mirroring the USSR in their suppression of dissent and the detachment of elites from voters. He cautioned that if the trend continues, the US could withdraw its support for its European allies.

During an interview with ZDF on Sunday — his final day as MSC chairman — Heusgen noted that, at the very least, Europeans now have clarity about the Trump administration’s stance. He added that while some Republican senators expressed commitment to “trans-Atlantic unity” in contrast to Vance, they were also cautious in their public statements.

EU officials reaffirmed their pledges to support Kiev at the MSC, while Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky called for a united European army, asserting that Ukraine could play a significant role in such an initiative. Heusgen advised Europeans to “do what Zelensky says” and stand together. However, skepticism remains among certain EU member states, such as Poland, regarding the concept of a transnational military force to serve as a European counterpart to NATO.

The Trump administration has signaled no intention of involving either NATO or the US in any future security arrangements in Ukraine following a potential ceasefire with Russia. Additionally, Washington has expressed interest in recouping expenditures related to the Ukraine conflict through privileged access to mineral resources under Kiev’s control.

Zelensky has previously advocated various forms of security for Ukraine that even his staunchest supporters deem exceedingly ambitious — from full NATO membership to deploying a 200,000-strong foreign military contingent, the mass placement of Western missiles, and even a Ukrainian nuclear capability.

As he concluded his closing remarks at the MSC on Sunday, Heusgen became emotional, having to cut himself short. He was addressing the mounting pressures on the “rules-based order,” urging EU politicians to uphold it despite a visible rift with the US.

February 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Macron trying to boycott peace process

France calls for European meeting to respond to Trump’s initiatives

By Lucas Leiroz | February 17, 2025

While Washington is adopting a more diplomatic stance in the conflict with Russia, the European Union is insisting on a hostile policy. French President Emmanuel Macron is reacting quite negatively to the diplomatic advances, trying to consolidate a unified European position on the issue. The French goal is clearly to boycott any peace process, thus trying to prolong the conflict – even if this harms European strategic interests.

Recently, Macron called for an emergency summit of European leaders to discuss the Ukrainian issue. He believes that it is necessary for the EU to show an alternative to the initiatives taken by the US, otherwise European countries will end up being excluded from all the peace talks.

The meeting of the leaders is expected to take place in Paris at the same time as Russian and American diplomats meet in Saudi Arabia. There are not many details available on the subject yet, but it is known that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski was one of the first to be invited by Macron – which is natural, considering that Poland is one of the countries with the highest military and political involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.

It is important to understand the context in which Macron made his decision. While, on the one hand, the US engaged in direct dialogue with Russia and excluded Europe from the process, on the other, the Europeans met at the Munich Security Conference to discuss relevant issues regarding the main geopolitical developments, but failed to reach any fruitful consensus on the issue of peace in Ukraine.

In addition, US special envoy Keith Kellogg categorically stated that the EU will not be included in the peace negotiations, which further aggravated the Europeans’ anger – certainly motivating Macron to call the meeting in Paris. In fact, it seems clear that the EU feels “betrayed” by the US by being excluded from the talks. European states seem desperate to prevent Donald Trump’s initiatives from succeeding, which is why the EU is expected to continue endorsing the war even if the US changes its stance.

All these moves were expected. While Trump has a more realistic and pragmatic stance, most European leaders are aligned with the Democrats’ policies, which are marked by a strong ideological influence. In other words, the Democrats-EU axis is interested in doing everything possible to protect the unipolar liberal order because it is ideologically linked to Western agendas. On the other hand, Trump and the Republicans have a more de-ideologized approach, simply seeking what is best for American strategic interests at the moment.

The main problem in this balance is that Macron has bold ambitions for Europe that clash with current American interests. He does not want the EU to be left out of major geopolitical decisions, hoping that the bloc’s countries will be able to deliberate on what they consider best for themselves and the entire region.

Macron seems not to have understood yet that Europe is suffering the consequences of its own past decisions. The EU chose to be excluded from major international discussions precisely at the time when it adopted a policy of alignment with the US. Now, the bloc is simply having to adapt to every change that occurs in the White House, without any right to a sovereign position, and simply accepting orders from Washington.

There is nothing Europe can do to change this, other than through a profound review of the bloc’s entire foreign policy. Europeans need to break with the idea of ​​a “unified West” and start defending their own interests as an independent power. For this to happen, European states would have to undergo serious changes, such as leaving NATO, since the Atlantic alliance is nothing more than an international army controlled by Washington. Without these deep changes, the EU will have to continue obeying American decisions.

The efforts of Macron and other European leaders will be completely fruitless when it comes to Ukraine. It is possible that the peace negotiations will fail and the conflict will continue, but this will be due to the inability of the US itself to meet Russian strategic interests, as European opinion will have no impact on the diplomatic process.

On the other hand, it is highly possible that France and other European countries will adopt a dissident stance in the Trump-led Collective West and continue supporting Kiev with weapons and money, even if the US stops any participation in the conflict. Macron is trying to project European power in Ukraine through an aggressive and bellicose stance, so his decisions are expected to worsen the hostilities.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

February 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump To Force Ukraine Peace on Europe

John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 15, 2025

The Trump administration has been clear that peace in Ukraine will entail no NATO membership, no return of Ukrainian territories, and no US security guarantees. Furthermore, the US is preparing to leave both Ukraine and Europe. The Europeans are outraged about the US preparedness to make peace with Russia, yet they have presented no other alternatives than sending more weapons. The Europeans and Ukrainians also oppose that a deal is being made behind their backs, yet they have boycotted all diplomacy for the past three years. Europe is waking up to a realist reality as the terms for a peace agreement will be decided in Moscow and Washington.

February 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

End of the American Empire?

Professor Glenn Diesen with Colonel Douglas Macgregor
Glenn Diesen | February 14, 2025

I had a conversation with Colonel Douglas Macgregor about the state of the US empire and what Trump attempts to do to reverse the relative decline of the US. Trump has been very aggressive against the deep state, which has become wasteful and ideological over the past decades. Trump is making huge moves to get the US out of Ukraine, which will also enable the US to get out of Europe. The greatest weakness in Trump’s foreign policy appears to be his approach to the Middle East, where he risks unleashing a major regional war. Trump’s tactic of bluster and noise to disrupt the status quo and create greater room for manoeuvre will trigger huge movements in the region that cannot be controlled.

February 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Munich Security Conference shows the West has come to a reluctant reckoning with reality

By Warwick Powell | Global Times | February 15, 2025

The annual Munich Security Conference serves as a crucial forum where global leaders, policymakers and analysts converge to discuss pressing security and geopolitical issues. The 2025 iteration of the conference, themed around “Multipolarization,” represents a significant, albeit reluctant, recognition by the collective West that the era of American unipolarity has come to an end. The conference’s annual report openly acknowledges this shift, noting that power is now diffused among a greater number of actors, influencing key global issues in ways that unipolar decision-making cannot accommodate. This shift, while long predicted by some, has taken decades to be acknowledged within Western strategic thought.

In 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech that has since proven prophetic. He warned against the dangers of unipolarity, cautioning that a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a single global sovereign, namely the US, would lead to instability. He criticized the West’s tendency to impose rules on others while exempting itself from those same rules.

At the time, Western policymakers largely dismissed Putin’s warnings as revanchist rhetoric. The US and its allies, still intoxicated by the “sugar high” of post-Cold War unipolarity, assumed that their dominance would persist indefinitely. They expanded NATO, pursued military interventions in the Middle East and dismissed the concerns of rising powers like Russia and China. However, 18 years later, as the Munich Security Conference convenes once more, the world finds itself in a different reality.

The most telling sign that unipolarity is over is the rhetorical and strategic shift within American foreign policy. Rather than embracing a multilateral world order, underpinned by multilateral institutions and practices of diplomatic and inclusive consensus-building, Washington appears to be consolidating its influence through a conventional great-power lens – one that prioritizes spheres of influence.

Simultaneously, the US administration seeks an exit strategy from the war in Ukraine. Faced with mounting costs and diminishing strategic gains, Washington is recalibrating its position. The theme of the Munich Security Conference 2025 reflects this reality: The West is no longer in a position to dictate terms to the rest of the world, and it must now navigate a landscape where multiple centers of power shape global affairs.

While Washington’s response to multipolarity leans toward traditional power balancing, other actors have long envisioned a different kind of global order – one rooted in multilateralism, peaceful coexistence and economic interdependence. BRIC, for instance, has evolved into BRICS, incorporating South Africa and a handful of other full members.

The BRICS organization, alongside other initiatives such as the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and ASEAN-led regional frameworks, represents a multipolar order that prioritizes economic cooperation and security arrangements independent of Western hegemony. These initiatives draw on a diverse array of traditions and historical precedents. China’s advocacy for multipolarity is deeply rooted in its millennia-old governance principles, emphasizing the pursuit of harmony amid the presence of difference. The discourse also reflects principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, which emerged from the Bandung Conference in 1955, advocating for sovereignty and self-determination beyond Cold War bipolarity.

Furthermore, the idea of “indivisible security,” which found expression in the Helsinki Accords but was never truly operationalized in Western security architecture, is being revived in contemporary multipolar discourse. Putin has repeatedly emphasized that the security of one nation cannot come at the expense of another – a principle that challenges NATO’s expansionist logic and Western unilateral interventions.

The 2025 Munich Security Conference represents another step in the West’s reluctant confrontation with reality. The world is no longer unipolar. The conference’s theme, “Multipolarization,” signals an implicit acknowledgment that power is now distributed among multiple actors and that the West must adapt to this new environment.

Yet, the response from Western policymakers remains mixed. While some political figures acknowledge the shift, their rhetoric and policies indicate an attempt to retain influence through traditional great-power competition. European leaders are grasping for new bearings, as the risk of the US administration pulling out of Ukraine (and perhaps even Europe altogether) grows. In contrast, alternative models of multipolarity, articulated by Russia, China and the broader Global South, emphasize multilateralism, economic interdependence, and security arrangements that move beyond hegemonic frameworks.

The question now is whether the West will fully embrace this new reality or continue to resist it through strategies of containment and competition. This year’s Munich Security Conference may not offer definitive answers, but it marks a crucial moment in the ongoing transition from unipolarity to a multipolar world. What remains certain is that the era of American dominance, which shaped global affairs for over three decades, is now over. The future of international relations will be defined not by a single sovereign power, but by a complex and dynamic interplay of states, regions and institutions navigating the challenges and opportunities of a multipolar world.

The author is an adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology, senior fellow at Taihe Institute and former advisor to Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment