Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

By Alexander Tuboltsev | Al Mayadeen | March 31, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Ending the arms race.

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

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

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

5. Support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thousands march in Paris against military aid to Ukraine

RT | March 29, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT | March 28, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 28, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Andrew Korybko | March 23, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things are not much better in Serbia

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATO takes advantage of the situation

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

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

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

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

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

The military risk fueled by KFOR

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

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

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

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

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

The main operational activities of KFOR include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sputnik – 24.03.2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT | March 24, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new vision for US global power under Trump

By Batool Subeiti | Al Mayadeen | March 23, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scorch Marks in the Sand

Yemeni Warrior Rejoicing over a Slain MQ-9 Reaper
By William Schryver – imetatronink – March 22, 2025

Javelin, Stinger, M-777 howitzer, HIMARS, Excalibur, Switchblade, all manner of electronic warfare gizmos and counter-battery radars, Bradley IFVs, Stryker, Leopard, Challenger, Abrams, Patriot, JDAMs, HARMS, Storm Shadow, ATACMS … I’m sure I’m forgetting some.

Oh, yeah … remember in early 2022 when the unveiling of the Bayraktar strike drones was hailed with great fanfare? They were predicted to be the bane of the Russian army. Instead, it was a major embarrassment for the Turks.

Turkish Bayraktar TB2 Surveillance and Attack Drone

That said, over the past year or so, those “savage barbarians” down in Yemen have shot-down a baker’s dozen of the once-vaunted US MQ-9 Reaper drones – supposedly vastly superior to the Bayraktar TB2.

US MQ-9 Reaper Surveillance and Attack Drone

In any case, all of these things represent top-shelf front-line US/NATO war stuff that has been objectively proven inferior in the crucible of protracted high-intensity warfare. Many are simply ill-suited for the current state-of-play in the military realm, as it has been revealed over the course of the war in Ukraine.

Before this war began, the almost-universal belief was that US/NATO weaponry and equipment were far and away superior to anything the Russians could put on the battlefield.

That unfounded faith in the unrivaled supremacy of western arms has now been shattered — although we already see the think-tank apologists fashioning their strained rationalizations.

Nevertheless, when one examines in aggregate the implements of war the US/NATO have provided to Ukraine, the overwhelming majority consists of the very stuff every military in NATO would field in a war against Russia, or anyone else, for that matter.

Here is a sobering truth: if the Armed Forces of Ukraine could make one wish, it would be to respawn as the army and abundant quantities of effective and durable Soviet equipment they had in February 2022. That was, all things considered, the strongest army they would ever have. And it was, in great measure, squandered on the altar of a misguided commitment to NATO field doctrines that repeatedly proved misconceived and ill-adaptive to the war that actually ensued, as well as the war as it has subsequently evolved.

So, in the case of the Ukraine War, we see attested two now-indisputable facts:

1) US/NATO weaponry and equipment is FAR LESS FEARSOME than was previously believed by the supposed “military experts” in the world. It has either failed abysmally or vastly underperformed in virtually every case.

2) US/NATO war doctrine has been demonstrated to be something quite a bit less than the greatest expression of the martial arts since Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz. The disastrous NATO/AFU “counteroffensive” in Zaporozhye in summer 2023 and the catastrophic blunder of the Kursk Kamikaze Incursion in summer 2024 have laid waste to the mythology of US/NATO military prowess.

Napoleon at Austerlitz Accepting the Surrender of Francis II

Now, here in the early spring of 2025, we see the United States, with Donald Trump again at the helm, trying to soothe the sting and obfuscate the reality of the resounding defeat its strategic designs and battlefield arms have suffered against Russia.

And, after weighing all options and considerations in the balance, the Masters of Declining Empire have decided beating up on Iran is the right medicine for what ails them.

I mean, after all, the Russians never had to face them, and the Iranians certainly cannot pose a credible threat to our decades-old F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-22s, F-35s, B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, Tomahawks, etc., not to mention the almighty US Navy.

Everybody KNOWS this to be true. Right?

And even though the Iranians have already proven to be able to defeat all manner of US and Israeli air defenses with their upper-tiers of ballistic missiles … well, if we just have Pete Hegseth give them a proper pep-talk, those interceptors that failed during the reign of the imbecile Joe Biden will strike down every single Muslim Missile they see. American air defense interceptors will be made great again. Hail to the Chief!

As for the Iranian air defenses … well, everyone also knows the Israelis already destroyed them. Right? They told us all about it – how the heroic Israeli F-35s and F-15s stormed across the Tigris into the heart of Iran and blew to smithereens all those S-300s and missile factories. They even showed pictures of scorch marks in the sand to prove it.

Anyway, the point is that America needs to go to war again in an attempt to erase the stain of having lost to the Russians, just as going to war against the Russians was meant to erase the stain of having lost to the Afghanis, just as going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan was meant to erase the stain of having lost to the Vietnamese. And … well, you know the drill by now.

You should also know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men. Nothing ever goes as planned. And I strongly suspect the next war of American redemption will not be a reversal of the prevailing trend.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘They need new eyes’: IAEA accused of bias over strikes at Europe’s largest NPP

RT | March 22, 2025

A group of international journalists that recently toured Russia’s Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) have accused Ukraine of being the one targeting the facility. They also questioned the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) persistent refusal to identify the source of the attacks.

The ZNPP, Europe’s largest nuclear power station, has been under Russian control since March 2022 and is located in a region that later voted to join Russia following a public referendum. The plant’s operations are now overseen by Russian state-owned nuclear power company Rosatom. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the facility and nearby city of Energodar have come under frequent attacks by Ukrainian drones and artillery. Despite this, the IAEA, which has maintained a permanent monitoring mission at the site since September 2022, has consistently declined to name the party responsible for the shelling.

Speaking with RT after touring the facility, reporters from a number of countries, including India, Serbia and Slovenia, voiced concerns over what they said was a clear distortion of facts by Western media and the IAEA’s refusal to acknowledge the reality on the ground.

“We should never trust any Western sources… Ukrainians are playing with nuclear fire,” said Serbian journalist Miodrag Zarkovic, who criticized the IAEA’s insistence on neutrality. Indian journalist Manish Kumar Jha said the evidence he saw contradicted everything he had read in Western outlets.

“According to Western media, the Russians are attacking the plant. But when I visited, I saw the Russian security forces positioned to keep the plant safe,” Jha said, noting that he saw a fragment of a US-supplied missile near the plant. “It was a 180-degree shift. The reality is very different from the story the Western media tells.”

Slovenian journalist and blogger Mohar Borut Iztok criticized the IAEA’s stance, noting the presence of NATO-supplied 155-millimeter shells with clear markings among those that have recently struck the facility.

“I’d like to say to Mr. [Rafael] Grossi and his crew – if they need an extra set of eyes, we can help them because it’s very interesting how they cannot see what is going on,” he stated sarcastically.

“I know what the problem is. They have an agenda, a narrative to follow, so they try to stay neutral,” he added.

March 22, 2025 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Latest Statements on Ukraine ‘MOSTLY TRUE’ – The Hill

Sputnik – 19.03.2025

POTUS’ remarks come amid a “steady diet of disinformation” about Ukraine that Western audiences have been fed for more than a decade, The Hill’s contributor, Alan Kuperman, underscores.

He points to an array of Ukraine-related facts that the Western public should have known:

  • Right-wing Ukrainian militants were the ones who triggered the 2014 Maidan violence which led to resignation of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
  • Zelensky added fuel to the fire of “a wider war” by violating the Minsk peace agreements and seeking NATO military aid and membership
  • Zelensky campaigned in 2019 on a pledge to prevent further war, but reneged after winning the elections, “apparently less concerned about risking war than looking weak on Russia.”
  • The subsequent increase in weapons imports from NATO countries by the Zelensky regime proved the last straw for Russian President Vladimir Putin
  • Former US President Joe Biden “contributed crucially” to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict by failing to force Zelensky to comply with Putin’s request to implement the Minsk accords
  • If Trump had been the US president at the time, he wouldn’t have provided Zelensky with “such a blank check”, which emboldened Ukraine and further sparked the standoff.

March 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »