AfD delegates reject motion condemning Putin
RT | January 12, 2025
The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has overwhelmingly voted against including in its 2025 election manifesto a condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the conflict in Ukraine.
The delegates gathered for a conference in Riesa, Saxony on Saturday to decide on the platform for the snap parliamentary elections, which will be held next month.
Albrecht Glaser, a member of the Bundestag, proposed to accuse Russia of failing to protect civilians in Ukraine and to state that “AfD condemns the behavior of President Putin and once again calls on all warring parties to propose an immediate ceasefire and hold peace talks.”
According to news channel N-tv, 69% of the delegates voted to reject the motion. The draft program approved by the party leadership only briefly mentions the conflict, saying that “the war in Ukraine has disturbed the European peaceful order,” the news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported.
The draft reportedly says that AfD “sees Ukraine’s future as a neutral state outside of NATO and the EU,” and calls for the restoration of “undisturbed trade” with Russia.
Known for its anti-immigration stance, AfD is the second-most popular party in Germany, according to the polls. The party has been often accused of parroting Russian narratives about the conflict, given that its position on Ukraine mostly aligns with Moscow’s demands to Kiev.
The party has rejected the “pro-Russian” label, insisting that continuing military support for Kiev and sanctions on Russian trade and energy exports are against Germany’s national security.
During her recent conversation with tech billionaire Elon Musk, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel argued that the EU has abandoned diplomatic efforts in favor of dangerous confrontation with Russia. The conflict could “escalate big time towards a nuclear exchange,” she warned.
Early elections were called after Germany’s ruling three-party coalition collapsed in late 2024 due to disagreements over the budget.
Swiss People’s Party Demands Resignation: Defense Minister Under Fire for Security Policy Failures
Sputnik – 12.01.2025
According to the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), Switzerland is incapable of guaranteeing internal and external security because of its arms deliveries to Ukraine and its rapprochement with NATO.
The Swiss People’s Party, Switzerland’s largest political force, has called on the head of the country’s Defense Ministry, Viola Amherd, to resign over her failed security policy.
“The fact that Switzerland can no longer guarantee its internal and external security is the result of political mistakes – and a consequence of wrong appointments,” a statement read.
Viola Amherd is also blamed for the country’s rapprochement with NATO.
“Those who are gradually tying Switzerland to NATO are accepting that young Swiss are dying abroad and that Switzerland is being dragged into foreign conflicts,” the Swiss People’s Party said.
According to the SVP, Amherd prefers to deal with gender issues in the armed forces rather than military equipment.
“She allows weapons ordered for Switzerland to be delivered to Ukraine. These are the wrong priorities, Federal Councillor,” the SVP said in a statement.
In late October 2024, Amherd said that Bern should ease restrictions on the re-export of Swiss weapons because of the country’s arms business. She cited the fact that the Netherlands had already decided to stop buying weapons from the nation because of the current ban on re-exports, and that Germany could follow suit.
Russia believes that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder a settlement and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia. According to Lavrov, the United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict, not only by supplying weapons, but also by training personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy, and other countries. The Kremlin stated that the West pumping Ukraine with weapons does not contribute to negotiations and would have a negative effect.
Multipolar world’s tech edge grows, leaves political West trailing behind
By Drago Bosnic – January 10, 2025
The end of last year saw some pretty incredible breakthroughs in military technologies, the most impressive among which is the first “Oreshnik” strike, demonstrating Russia’s growing dominance in hypersonic weapons. Apart from the “Oreshnik”, Moscow also started the large-scale deployment of its unrivaled S-500 SAM/ABM (surface-to-air missile/anti-ballistic missile) systems that can track and down all sorts of targets (including hypersonic). Multiple sources are also reporting that the Eurasian giant is speeding up its “sixth generation” program, with both the Sukhoi and MiG developing their own designs. In the meantime, existing and proven Russian fighter jets, such as the Su-30 (multirole), Su-34 (strike fighter), Su-35S (air superiority) and Su-57S (next-generation multirole) are not only conducting regular missions, but in the case of the Su-35 are also helping countries like Iran maintain security amid constant US/NATO threats.
Then we have China, which presented not one, but two working “sixth-generation” jet prototypes, named Chengdu J-36 and Shenyang J-50 by the media, respectively. The two aircraft show what can only be described as a quantum leap for Beijing, which is now ahead of Washington DC in jet technologies, an unimaginable prospect until just a few years ago. In fact, this was such a shock for the US-led political West that the mainstream propaganda machine is now openly engaging in a rather pathetic denial, claiming that the Pentagon supposedly “flew its own prototype years ago”, something for which there’s zero evidence. However, this development sent Lockheed Martin’s stocks crashing as concerns for the troubled F-35’s future in the USAF started emerging. However, to make matters worse for Washington DC, there are also reliable reports that China also flew the H-20, its first stealthy strategic bomber.
In addition to this aircraft, which the Pentagon expects to enter service in the next five years, Beijing also inducted a number of other weapon systems, including the KJ-3000 AEW&C (airborne early warning and control) aircraft and Type 076 carrier (named “Sichuan”). What’s more, China is also helping several other countries to strengthen their armed forces in the wake of the US-led aggression against the world. This includes Algeria, which got a license to locally produce the Chinese Type 056 corvettes, as well as Serbia, whose HQ-22 SAM systems acquired from Beijing just became fully operational. Thus, just like in the case of Russian Su-35 fighter jets for Iran, these Chinese systems will help others maintain security and sovereignty, which is greatly contributing to global peace by deterring war criminal organizations such as NATO, by far the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel.
To that end, North Korea is also updating its already impressive arsenal, including the “Hwasong-16B” IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile) armed with an HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle). The weapon was test launched on January 6, demonstrating that Pyongyang is still ahead of the US in hypersonic technologies. Just like in the case of Chinese next-generation jets, the mainstream propaganda machine is also engaging its coping mechanisms with ludicrous claims that the Pentagon will “soon outpace” Russia and China in hypersonics, a laughable (and extremely unlikely) prospect given just how far behind the US is. In the meantime, North Korean Russian-derived ATGM (anti-tank guided missile) systems, specifically the “Bulsae-4”, are obliterating Western weapons in NATO-occupied Ukraine, which is yet another embarrassment and humiliation for the political West which regularly mocks Pyongyang.
India is also upgrading its armed forces with Russian missile technologies, specifically the “BrahMos” supersonic cruise missile which is set to be updated and deployed on a ground-based launcher. The weapon is based on the Russian P-800 “Onyx” supersonic cruise missile, one of the deadliest in its class, as proven by its superb performance during the special military operation (SMO). Inspired by Chinese advances, Delhi is also expected to invest heavily in next-generation aircraft, likely in cooperation with Moscow, while supporting and helping its domestic military industry. This also includes hypersonic technologies, based on both Russian and homegrown designs.
All these developments stand in stark contrast to America’s growing technological ineptitude. It turns out that its much-touted ABM systems aren’t exactly working as marketed.
Namely, military sources report that the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system deployed in Israel failed to intercept Houthi missiles fired from Yemen. In addition, the Pentagon is reconsidering the future of its V-22 “Osprey” tiltrotor aircraft amid numerous crashes and operational faults. However, such failures don’t seem to deter the US and its vassals and satellite states from engaging in threats of more aggression against the world. There are numerous reports that Washington DC is preparing to attack Iran, with both the outgoing Biden and upcoming Trump administrations poised to do so regardless of their supposed differences in foreign policy approach. What’s more, there’s talk of the US annexing not just Canada, but also Greenland and even attacking Panama. What started out as a “joke” turned out to be anything but, once again confirming America’s aggressive nature.
Such developments demonstrate that expecting groundbreaking changes in American foreign policy is overoptimistic, to put it mildly. The outgoing Biden administration is making sure that some of the worst people on the planet, including unrepentant war criminals such as Hilary Clinton and Victoria Nuland still have major influence in US politics even after Trump takes office.
Namely, Clinton was recently awarded the so-called “Presidential Medal of Freedom”, along with the no less infamous George Soros. Individuals like Clinton, Nuland, Soros, etc. are extremely dangerous for sovereigntist nations and the multipolar world as a whole. Their activities, much akin to political (and, in many cases, literal) terrorism, aim to destabilize non-compliant countries that want to break free from the political West’s extremely malignant influence. All this makes the development of adequate defenses all the more important.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
NATO pledges $2 billion in military aid for Ukraine at Ramstein meeting
By Ahmed Adel | January 10, 2025
Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said in Germany that participants in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group had approved a plan for eight areas of military cooperation with Kiev until 2027. Austin’s announcement was followed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s claim that he had secured an additional $2 billion in military assistance to help continue the futile war effort against Russia.
As Zelensky said after the meeting in Ramstein, home to a NATO Airpower headquarters, 34 countries had pledged support in different aspects to continue the 34-month-old war, including covered air defence, information technology, demining, naval forces, air forces and artillery.
“We had a very good meeting, a very good result. There was $2 billion in additional packages of support to Ukraine,” he said in a video posted on the Telegram account. “Earlier today, a meeting of the coalition leaders’ group was held with the participation of representatives of 15 countries. They approved a plan for ‘coalitions of opportunity’ until 2027. This way, partner countries can continue to provide assistance to Ukraine on the battlefield.”
As revealed in a joint statement released by the Pentagon ahead of the Ramstein meeting, the Western allies and Kiev intended to define how to meet Ukraine’s goals and military needs in the short and long term through contributions, procurement, investments, and efforts to expand defence capabilities.
In this regard, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated ahead of the session’s start that the Atlantic Alliance should do everything in its power to allow Ukraine to continue fighting.
“We need to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs, in terms of training and equipment, to prevail in this fight,” Rutte stressed.
According to him, it is also important to demonstrate at the session the involvement of all NATO countries in providing support to Kiev.
“The global context is that we have to bring Ukraine in the best possible position. That one day, when talks would start, at the initiative of Ukraine, on how to resolve this conflict, that they are in the best possible position to do that. And then when these talks end, it will be looked at, in a sense, whether there’s a good deal or not […] The whole world is watching. So, we have to make sure that Ukraine is in the best possible position. And we should not forget that there is this geopolitical context at stake here,” said the NATO Secretary General.
For his part, Zelensky, during his address at the session, asked the allies for air defence systems and the deployment of a Western military contingent.
“Last year, France came up with the idea of deploying a contingent of partners in Ukraine to bring peace closer […] That is why our goal is to find as many instruments as possible to force Russia to peace. I believe that such a deployment of partners’ contingents is one of the best instruments. Let’s be more practical in making this possible,” he said.
According to him, representatives of Great Britain have also spoken out in favour of deploying a foreign contingent in Ukraine. Zelensky did not mention any specific names or positions.
It is recalled that on February 26, 2024, after an international meeting on support for Ukraine held in Paris, Macron said he did not rule out the possibility of European troops being deployed in Ukraine. Then, three days later, during the grand opening of the Olympic Village, Macron emphasized that his position on the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine was balanced and well-thought-out. Nonetheless, nearly a year later, nothing has progressed from Macron’s suggestion, and it is unlikely that the British will act alone or convince partners to embark on such a reckless initiative.
Although Zelensky urged his Western allies to “not to drop the ball” and to continue providing long-term military support to his embattled country, he acknowledged that “a new chapter starts for Europe” once Donald Trump returns to the White House on January 20.
Zelensky securing only $2 billion in military aid once again demonstrates how Western support for Ukraine is waning, despite the rhetoric at the Ramstein meeting of supporting the country until victory over Russia is achieved.
Realistically, $2 billion will make absolutely no difference to Ukraine’s war effort, especially as Russia continues its slow but methodical advance across the front, with Ukrainian forces unable to mount any serious defence, making the whole meeting at Ramstein nothing more than performative that has achieved nothing substantial.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Europe isn’t the real threat to Ukraine peace but UK
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | January 7, 2025
The Biden Administration has not given up on Ukraine war. A meeting of the Ramstein Format Meeting is scheduled to take place in Germany on Thursday, chaired by the outgoing US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, to address Ukraine’s defence needs, which the Ukrainian President Zelensky will also address.
Meanwhile, Kiev typically launched an attack in the Kursk region on the eve of the Ramstein Format event as the “curtain-raiser”. The operation, although played up in the British press, is spearheaded by just 2 tanks and fifteen armoured carriers and will no doubt be crushed by the Russian drones and its highly lethal Ka high-performance combat helicopters with day and night capability, high survivability and fire power.
Typically, Zelensky won’t give up on any occasion for grandstanding in front of the Western audience. He hopes to display on Thursday that there is still some spunk left in the Ukrainian armed forces. Tragically, he is sacrificing a few dozen Ukrainian soldiers in this melodrama which may distract some attention from the front-line as Russian forces have entered Chasiv Yar and reached the suburbs of Pokrovsk in an operation to surround that city.
With the fall of Chasiv Yar and Pokorovsk, the Battle of Donbass is nearing home stretch. It sets the stage for a massive Russian push to the Dnieper River if the Kremlin is left with no other option but to end the war on its terms. (See a recent article on the future map of Ukraine by the top Moscow strategic analyst Dmitry Trenin titled What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory.)
Indeed, the hopes of Donald Trump bringing the war to an end in the first day of his presidency on January 20 have withered away. The Ramstein meeting is a defiant act by Zelensky and his European associates, as Trump is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin soon.
On December 18, Zelensky met in Brussels with NATO chief Mark Rutte and huddled with several European leaders to discuss war strategy. His European interlocutors are also seeking to develop their own plans if Trump, who has pledged to bring a swift end to the war, pulls the plug on the Kiev regime or forces it to make concessions.
The key topic of the Brussels meeting was security guarantees, Zelensky’s office said. Zelensky highlighted his “detailed one-on-one discussion” with French President Emmanuel Macron that focused on priorities to further strengthen Ukraine’s position “regarding the presence of forces in Ukraine that could contribute to stabilising the path to peace.”
Prior to the Brussels meeting, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told reporters that the priority was to secure the “sovereignty of Ukraine and that it will not be forced to submit to a dictated peace.” But, he cautioned, any discussion of boots on the ground would be premature.
Rutte himself counselled that Kiev’s allies should focus on ramping up arms supplies to ensure Ukraine is in a position of strength. Rutte estimated that Ukraine needs 19 additional air-defence systems to protect the country’s energy infrastructure.
Interestingly, Rutte announced that the proposed new NATO command in the German city of Wiesbaden is now “up and running” which will henceforth coordinate Western military aid for Ukraine as well as provide training for Ukraine’s military. Trump is unlikely to preserve the Ramstein Format.
Simply put, Europe, including the U.K., lack the capacity to replace the US military assistance to Ukraine. For the EU to replace the US, it would need to double its military aid to Ukraine. But the current political situation in Europe, along with the real military capabilities of individual European countries, makes this an impossible objective. (See an analysis, here, by Samantha de Bendern at the Chatham House.)
Germany, Europe’s largest military donor to Ukraine, has plunged into political chaos with the collapse of the Scholz-led coalition. Macron, a staunch defender of Ukraine, has lost control over France’s domestic politics since the June parliamentary elections, where he lost his majority. Elsewhere in Europe, political parties on the far right and far left, with pro-Russian sympathies, are rising.
Europeans are running around like headless chickens. The surprise visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Florida to meet Trump and watch a movie with him at this critical juncture of the Ukraine war shows that the smart lady has no confidence in the likes of Macron.
Meloni has a warm equation with Trump’s close aide Elon Musk and is seeking to strengthen business ties with the US. “This is very exciting. I’m here with a fantastic woman, the prime minister of Italy,” Trump told the Mar-a-Lago crowd and added expansively, “She’s really taken Europe by storm.”
Italy, an important NATO power that overlooks the Mediterranean is a vociferous supporter of trans-atlanticism, and pursues a nuanced policy on the Ukraine war that may be of use to Trump to build bridges with Europe. Meloni is positioning herself.
Italy resolutely condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s subsequent involvement in Eastern Ukraine and joined the EU sanctions against Russia. It demonstrated its military support for Ukraine with significant military aid packages within the framework of an agreement on security cooperation (under a previous government headed by Prime Minister Mario Draghi).
That said, Rome has often sought to balance EU responses with its national interests towards Russia. Thus, Meloni’s foreign minister reaffirmed recently, even as Biden authorised Ukraine to deploy long-range American missiles against military targets inside Russia, “Our position on Ukraine’s use of (Italian) weapons has not changed. They can only be used within Ukrainian territory.”
In the final analysis, it is the course of the war that will decide the terms of peace in Ukraine. Europe’s swing toward right-wing governments — Austria is the latest example — may help Russia. However, the crux of the matter is that so long as the spy agencies of Britain and US work in tandem to manipulate the governments in power in White Hall — Labour and Conservative alike — the Trump administration has a serious problem on its hands.
Of course, Trump is well aware of the UK’s pivotal role in hatching the “Russia collusion” plot, which hobbled his presidency. Downsizing Britain’s role can be a game changer for peace in Ukraine.
But the MI6’s capacity to influence the Kiev regime is not to be underestimated. Former UK prime minister Boris Johnson played a seminal role in torpedoing the Russia-Ukraine deal negotiated at the peace talks hosted by Turkey in March-April 2022 just weeks into the conflict. Even if Trump strikes a deal with Putin, which in itself is highly problematic as things stand, London is sure to undermine it one way or another at the first available opportunity, given its Russophobic obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.
Possibly, Trump is savouring Elon Musk’s relentless assault on the British government. “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government,” Musk wrote on X. But British politicians have the skin of rhino. Sir Keir Starmer is giving as good as he gets. Trump’s challenge lies in mothballing the special relationship with the UK.
Over 2,600 UK Troops to Take Part in Exercises on NATO’s Eastern Flank
Sputnik – 04.01.2025
More than 2,600 UK troops and 730 vehicles will take part in exercises on NATO’s eastern flank, the country’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.
“Leading from the front, the UK is providing the largest contribution of forces with over 2600 personnel, and 730 vehicles deploying to NATO’s eastern flank,” the ministry said.
According to the statement, the UK’s 1st Division will command all of NATO’s land forces during Exercise Steadfast Dart 25 in Bulgaria and Romania to practice the deployment of the new Allied Reaction Force, which can “rapidly reinforce” NATO’s eastern flank.
Russia has pointed to NATO’s unprecedented activity near its western borders. The alliance is expanding its initiatives and says this is being done to contain “Russian aggression.” The Kremlin has noted that Moscow is not threatening anyone, but will not ignore actions that are potentially dangerous to its interests.
After NATO’s Romanian Coup, Where Next?
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | December 29, 2024
On December 6th, Romania’s constitutional court made an extraordinary decision to inexplicably overturn first round results of the country’s November 24th presidential election. Conveniently, the ruling was made mere days before a runoff that, according to polls, would’ve seen upstart outsider Calin Georgescu win via landslide. In the process, citizens of all NATO member states were provided with a particularly pitiless, real-time crash course on what could now happen in their own countries, should the ‘wrong’ candidates be elected fair and square.
Georgescu’s stunning victory in the first round caught Romania’s political elite and their Western sponsors off guard, while leaving him the most popular political figure in the country. Campaigning on a traditionalist, nationalist platform, he extolled views some might consider unsavoury, but also advocated nationalisation, and state investment in local industry. Perhaps predictably, the Western media has universally smeared him as “far-right”, “pro-Putin” and a “conspiracy theorist”, among other now-familiar sobriquets commonly levelled at political dissidents.
Georgescu’s greatest crime is to determinedly oppose continued Romanian involvement in and backing for the Ukraine proxy war. As Kiev’s Black Sea-facing neighbour, Bucharest has offered significant financial, material and political succour since February 2022, all along running the risk of getting caught in the crossfire. But in interviews with Western news outlets, Georgescu boldly proclaimed any and all “military or political support” would be reduced to “zero” under his watch:
“I have to take care of my people. I don’t want to involve my people… Everything stops. I have to take care just about my people. We have a lot of problems ourselves.”
No official reason has been given for Romania’s constitutional court voiding November’s vote, despite days earlier signing off on the results. Nonetheless, in the intervening time, Bucharest’s security apparatus released declassified reports intimating – without making direct accusations or providing any evidence whatsoever – Georgescu’s victory may have resulted from a wide-ranging, Moscow-sponsored influence campaign, delivered via TikTok. Details provided instead pointed to a rather mundane – albeit successful – social media marketing effort.
The plot further thickened in late December, when it was revealed the TikTok campaign that purportedly boosted Georgescu was in fact financed by Romania’s National Liberal party. This backing helped propel the hitherto obscure candidate to national prominence, the objective potentially being to harm the National Liberal party’s arch nemesis Social Democrats. No evidence of Muscovite funding, let alone support, for Georgescu has ever emerged. Nonetheless, despite these disclosures, the narrative of Russian destabilisation catapulting him into power has since been invincibly minted.

NATO’s grand and ever-expanding military base in Romania
Bucharest’s sprawling territory is home to multiple US missile facilities, and a giant NATO military base, scheduled to soon be greatly expanded, explicitly in service of decisively changing the region’s “balance of power” in the West’s favour. Meanwhile, Romanian presidents wield significant clout in domestic and international affairs. They dictate foreign policy, serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and appoint prime ministers. All of which points to a far more likely rationale for the presidential election’s abrogation than “Russian meddling”.
‘Without Hope’
On December 10th, the BBC published a striking report on how Romanians were “stunned by the eleventh-hour cancellation of their presidential election.” The British state broadcaster was at pains throughout to justify the vote’s unprecedented, despotic annulment as proper, reasonably motivated by a “massive” and “aggressive” malign meddling campaign on TikTok – whether of Russian origin or not – improperly skewing the result. However, the BBC evidently had little choice but to admit Georgescu was enormously, and organically, popular.
For example, NATO veteran Mircea Geoana, Bucharest’s former foreign affairs minister who ran for president in November and finished sixth, was quoted as saying “Romania dodged a bullet” and “came very close” to an all-out coup. “If Moscow can do this in Romania, which is profoundly anti-Russian, it means they can do it anywhere,” he ominously cautioned. Still, Geoana conceded there was “a whole cocktail of grievances in our society,” and it would be “hugely mistaken to believe” Georgescu’s success “was just because of Russia.”
The BBC acknowledged immense “fatigue” with Romania’s doggedly pro-Western political establishment widely abounds among the local population, who harbour an ever-growing number of completely legitimate grievances, entirely unaddressed in the mainstream. By contrast, the British state broadcaster recorded, Georgescu not only spoke openly and passionately about these manifold problems, but offered tangible solutions for tackling them. And a great many average citizens “liked what he said.” Several Georgescu supporters were duly quoted in the article, issuing effusive praise. One evangelised:
“He’s like a preacher, with a Bible in his hand, and I thought he spoke only the truth… He talks about rights and dignity. Romanians go to other countries for work, but we have so many resources here. Wood, grain – and our soil is very rich. Why should we be vagrants in Italy?”
The BBC further noted Georgescu’s “pledge to Make Romania Great Again helped him perform particularly strongly among the vast Romanian diaspora.” Given Bucharest’s mass depopulation in recent years, significantly assisted by EU membership, this is hardly surprising. “Many who left because life was so tough are now getting by abroad rather than prospering,” the British state broadcaster observed. Meanwhile, in Bucharest, costs of basic goods are “climbing at the fastest rate in Europe.” An expat supporter of Georgescu forcefully declared:
“He’s corrupt? He’s with Putin? No, he’s not. He’s with the people. With Romania. Georgescu is a patriot. He wants peace, not war, and we want that too. Someone wants something good for his country and they won’t allow him to do that… Maybe he’ll be in prison in months and for what? For nothing… We feel lost right now, without hope.”
‘Allied Solidarity’
To date, no concrete evidence directly implicating NATO powers in the invalidation of Romania’s presidential election has emerged. We do not – and may never – know what might have been said behind closed doors to members of Bucharest’s Western-bought political, judicial, security and military establishment, and by whom. But there is a clear precedent for such backroom conniving. In the final months of 1989, Communism across the Warsaw Pact, the Cold War-era constellation of Central and Eastern European Soviet satellite states.
The sole exception was Romania, then led by Nicolae Ceausescu. On December 4th that year, he privately met with then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, to discuss the fall of longstanding Communist governments in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary and Poland. Gorbachev, to all intents and purposes a Western puppet, assured Ceausescu his position was secure, he would “survive”, and they would meet again in mere weeks. That summit never came to pass though, as on December 25th, Ceausescu was executed by military firing squad.

The 1989 Romanian revolution
This followed violent mass protests across Romania. Years later, it was revealed high-ranking US officials secretly met with Gorbachev that month, imploring him to deploy the Red Army to oust Ceausescu. These entreaties were apparently rebuffed. Yet, subsequent research indicates that throughout December 1989, a profusion of KGB operatives were conducting uncertain, covert missions across the country, in coordination with Ion Iliescu, who succeeded Ceausescu. Suspicions he personally ordered the very security service crackdowns that ignited the insurrectionary anti-Ceausescu demonstrations endure to this day.
Whatever the truth of the matter, Romania’s outsized geopolitical importance to the Empire then and now couldn’t be clearer. In the weeks since Georgescu’s victory was vetoed, it has been announced that further scores of foreign NATO troops will be dispatched to Bucharest, in explicit response to “the evolution of the security situation in the Black Sea region.” Meanwhile, Romanian officials talk a big game on “allied solidarity”, and look forward to “extensive joint training exercises” over the year ahead.
Furthermore, on December 12th, the Romanian government abruptly greenlit long-mooted, highly controversial legislation providing for the country’s military and all its “weapons, military devices and ammunition” to come under total foreign control and direction at any time, without a formal state declaration of emergency, siege, or war. In other words, NATO would have unilateral power to commandeer Bucharest’s armed forces, at its behest. A useful capability indeed, as the nearby Ukraine proxy war careens towards total collapse, and overt foreign involvement is openly mulled.
The aforementioned BBC article reported that local “suspicion” about whether unseen foreign forces may have swayed “the judges’ ruling to cancel the vote” is such, “even those who feared a president Georgescu – and believe Russia was backing him – now worry about the precedent just set for Romanian democracy.” We are left to ponder where next an illiberal coup of the kind that just went down in Bucharest might be replicated, as the Empire’s surging contempt for democracy and public will becomes writ ever-larger.
Nonetheless, one might draw some solace from the fact that even those who endorsed Romania’s autocratic putsch are well-aware it was a blunt-force, short-term solution to a panoply of deeply complex, likely intractable socioeconomic and political problems. Former NATO high-ranker Mircea Geoana told the British state broadcaster that nullification of Georgescu’s victory had delivered at best transitory reprieve to Western powers, and their chosen puppets in Romania. Moreover, he feared the move could spectacularly boomerang, should elites continue to ignore citizens’ concerns:
“We bought ourselves some time. But there is real fury here. And if we don’t do something, we might have a repeat.”
Ex-NATO boss made head of Bilderberg Group

Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg © Getty Images / Omar Havana
RT | December 27, 2024
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who was at the helm the bloc for the past decade, has officially joined the secretive Bilderberg Group as co-chairman of the annual closed-door meetings involving the world’s most powerful and wealthy individuals.
The elite club was founded in 1954, officially to improve dialogue between Europe and the US. Every year, some 130 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, intelligence, labor, academia and the media are invited to the gathering.
The forums are generally not announced in advance and are held beneath a veil of secrecy, with attendees forbidden from disclosing any information derived from discussions. This has sparked a number of conspiracy theories as to the nature of the group’s activities and its influence on global events.
According to an update on the group’s website, Stoltenberg, who attended his first Bilderberg summit in 2002, has now been made the head of the group’s “steering committee,” which decides the agenda and who gets to participate.
Media outlets, including the Daily Mail, have speculated that the move could be a sign the group is undergoing a leadership transformation ahead of the presidency of Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized NATO and has hinted at cutting US funding of foreign conflicts after he enters office next month.
As head of NATO, Stoltenberg played a key role in the bloc’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict, which first started not long after he took office in 2014. He has proudly noted that during his tenure he oversaw “the largest reinforcement of our collective defence in a generation,” and that “defence spending is on an upward trajectory across the alliance.”
The Daily Mail reported that many of Stoltenberg’s friends at Bilderberg have directly benefited from this uptick.
The Guardian has hailed Stoltenberg’s appointment, saying it “cements the group’s role at the heart of transatlantic strategy,” particularly as the former NATO chief is also set to take over as chairman of the Munich Security Conference, which has also played a key role in shaping Western defense policy and diplomacy.
“Combined with the Munich Security Conference, this is a good platform for collaborating with leaders from politics, business, and academia. It is also an important meeting place for strengthening ties between Europe and the US. I look forward to contributing to Bilderberg’s work,” Stoltenberg told the DN.no news outlet.
Russia shot down Ukrainian F-16 – official
RT | December 26, 2024
One of the F-16 jets donated to Ukraine by NATO has reportedly been downed while attempting to launch missiles at Russia’s Zaporozhye Region.
Preliminary information from the front line was reported on Thursday by Vladimir Rogov, the co-chair of Russia’s Coordinating Council for the Integration of New Regions.
“The F-16 aircraft was in position to launch a missile strike on the region, and it was shot down,” Rogov wrote on Telegram.
Several European NATO members delivered a “small number” of the US-made fighters to Ukraine in July. Advertised by Kiev as a game-changer in challenging Russian air superiority, the planes ended up never being used in air-to-air combat.
A number of F-16s were reportedly used to defend against incoming Russian missiles in August, but one of the jets was lost. A Ukrainian lawmaker later revealed that it had been shot down by a Patriot air defense battery, which was also donated by NATO.
Private Russian company Fores has offered a reward of 15 million rubles ($170,000) to whoever shoots down the first Ukrainian F-16.
Zaporozhye is one of the four former regions of Ukraine that joined Russia after a referendum in September 2022. Around 70% of the region is under Russian control and was the target of Kiev’s 2023 “summer counteroffensive.”
McCarthyism, European style: The elite crackdown on Ukraine dissent
Experts lambasted as Kremlin mouthpieces turned out to be right
By Eldar Mamedov | Responsible Statecraft | December 12, 2024
As the war between Russia and Ukraine is framed by the ruling politicians and commentators in Europe and America as part of a purported global struggle between democracies and autocracies, the quality of democracy in the West itself has taken a hit.
The dominant voices advocating for Ukraine’s victory and Russia’s defeat, both defined in maximalist and increasingly unattainable terms, are intent on snuffing out more thoughtful and nuanced perspectives, thus depriving the public of a democratic debate on the existential questions of war and peace.
In a familiar pattern throughout the West, respected academics who correctly predicted the quagmire Ukraine and the West now find themselves in have been smeared and delegitimized as Kremlin mouthpieces, subjected to harassment, marginalization and ostracism.
The situation is particularly alarming in Europe. While the Ukraine debate in the U.S. is, to a worrying extent, shaped by pro-militarist think tanks, such as the Atlantic Council, hawkish politicians and neoconservative pundits, a countervailing movement consisting of pro-restraint voices has been growing. They include Defense Priorities, the CATO Institute, publications like The Nation on the left, and The American Conservative on the right, and academics like Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, and Jeffrey Sachs, among others. There is more space for alternative voices in American discourse.
In Europe, by contrast, foreign policy debates tend to simply echo the most hawkish voices inside Washington’s Beltway.
Sweden is a particularly telling illustration of that trend. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Swedish government and political class swiftly moved to join NATO. Yet, as one of the leading Swedish international relations scholars Frida Stranne told me in an interview, “No proper debate was held on the key questions, like whether Russia’s aggression against Ukraine indeed was such an immediate security threat for Sweden that it had to ditch the neutral status it enjoyed even during the Cold War?” (I can testify myself, from my work as a senior foreign policy adviser in the European Parliament in early 2022, that even some members of the then-ruling Swedish social-democratic party were aghast at the government running roughshod over alternative views on NATO).
Further, in a conversation with me, Stranne, while acknowledging that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “an egregious breach of international law,” pointed to U.S. policies since 2001, such as the invasion of Iraq, noting that they “have helped to undermine international legal principles and set the precedent for other countries acting ‘preemptively’ against perceived threats.”
In the same interview, she also warned that “a refusal to countenance a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine is leading the world perilously close to the brink of a major military conflict between NATO and Russia.”
While such points are routinely made by fairly mainstream scholars in the U.S., in Sweden they triggered a vicious campaign against Stranne and made her nearly untouchable by the media and in foreign policy circles. Leading media outlets vilified her as a U.S. hater and a “Putinist.”
Germany is another example of how enforced groupthink led to a marginalization of dissenting perspectives in political debates. What is particularly noteworthy is the speed and radicalism with which the hawks in think tanks, media, and political parties managed to redefine the debate in a country previously known for its now-defunct Ostpolitik, a policy of pragmatic engagement with the Soviet Union and later Russia.
One of Germany’s most prominent foreign policy experts, Johannes Varwick of the University Halle-Wittenberg, has long defied the trend and advocated for diplomacy. In December 2021, together with a number of high-ranking former military officers, diplomats and academics, he warned that a massive deterioration in relations with Russia could lead to war — due, in part, to the West’s refusal to take seriously Russia’s security concerns, chiefly related to the prospects of NATO’s eastward expansion.
Yet such views earned Varwick accusations of “serving Russian interests.” As a result, as he told me in an interview, his “ties with the political parties and ministries responsible for conducting Germany’s foreign and security policy were severed.”
Experts in neutral countries were not spared marginalization as well. Austrian Prof. Gerhard Mangott, one of the most eminent experts on Russia in the German-speaking world, pointed to a “shared responsibility” of Russia, Ukraine, and Western countries for the failure to resolve the post-2014 Ukrainian conflict peacefully. Such analysis, as Mangott told me, led to his “prompt excommunication by the German-speaking scientific community which turned quickly to political activism and became party to the war.”
The tragic irony, of course, is that these ostracized voices have proved to be correct in most respects about this war.
When, despite his warnings, the Russian invasion of Ukraine did occur, Varwick, who condemned it as illegal and unacceptable, called for further efforts to find a realistic negotiated solution to the conflict. As he told me, this should “firstly include a neutral status for Ukraine with strong security guarantees for the country. Secondly, there would be territorial changes in Ukraine that would not be recognized under international law but must be accepted as a temporary modus vivendi, and thirdly, the prospect of suspension of some sanctions in the event of a change in Russia’s behavior must be on offer.”
In March 2022, both Ukraine and Russia were close to a deal broadly along these same parameters. It did not work, because, among other reasons, the West encouraged Ukraine to believe that a military “victory” was possible. The role of then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in undermining the talks is now generally acknowledged. What is, however, particularly striking is that Johnson recently himself admitted that he saw the war in Ukraine as a proxy war against Russia — a claim made by Stranne and the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi in their 2023 book, in Swedish, “The Illusion of American Peace,” for which they were lambasted for purportedly pushing Russian narratives.
Fast forward to late 2024, and, faced with growing difficulties on the battlefield, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is now signaling that he could go along with some of the elements outlined by Varwick; namely, accepting some de facto territorial losses to prevent even bigger ones should the war continue.
Today, Ukraine is farther away from achieving anything remotely resembling a military victory than at any point since February 2022. Contrary to the expectations in the U.S. and EU, sanctions neither tanked Russia’s economy nor changed its policies in the ways the West sought.
In the West itself, political forces that urge negotiations to end the war are ascendant, as evidenced by the election of Donald Trump as president in the United States and the rise of anti-war parties in Germany, France and other EU countries. Public opinion surveys consistently show a preference of the majority of Europeans for a negotiated end to the war.
The reality is, irrespective of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, a modus vivendi between the West and Russia will have to be reestablished to ensure, in Varwick’s words, “their coexistence in a Cold War 2.0 without a permanent escalation.” Restoring an open democratic debate about this vital issue is long overdue.
Listening to the experts who have a proven track record of correct analysis would be a necessary first step.
Eldar Mamedov is a Brussels-based foreign policy expert.
The Case for Dismantling the Rules-Based International Order
By Professor Glenn Diesen | December 23, 2024
The so-called “rules-based international order” aims to facilitate a hegemonic world, which entails displacing international law. While international law is based on equal sovereignty for all states, the rules-based international order upholds hegemony on the principle of sovereign inequality.
The rules-based international order is commonly presented as international law plus international human rights law, which appears benign and progressive. However, this entails introducing contradictory principles and rules. The consequence is a system devoid of uniform rules, in which “might makes right”. International human rights law introduces a set of rules to elevate the rights of the individual, yet human-centric security often contradicts state-centric security as the foundation of international law.
The US as the hegemonic state can then choose between human-centric security and state-centric security, while adversaries must abide strictly by state-centric security due to their alleged lack of liberal democratic credentials. For example, state-centric security as the foundation of international law insists on the territorial integrity of states, while human-centric security allows for secession under the principle of self-determination. The US will thus insist on territorial integrity in allied countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Spain, while supporting self-determination within adversarial states such as Serbia, China, Russia and Syria. The US can interfere in the domestic affairs of adversaries to promote liberal democratic values, yet the US adversaries do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US. To facilitate a hegemonic international order, there cannot be equal sovereignty for all states.
Constructing the hegemonic rules-based international order
The process of constructing alternative sources of legitimacy to facilitate sovereign inequality began with NATO’s illegal invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999 without a UN mandate. The violation of international law was justified by liberal values. Even the legitimacy of the UN Security Council was contested by arguing it should be circumvented as Russia and China veto of humanitarian interventionism was allegedly caused by their lack of liberal democratic values.
The efforts to establish alternative sources of authority continued in 2003 to gain legitimacy for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, called for establishing an “Alliance of Democracies” as a key element of US foreign policy.[1] A similar proposal suggested establishing a “Concert of Democracies”, in which liberal democracies could act in the spirit of the UN without being constrained by the veto power of authoritarian states.[2] During the 2008 presidential election, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain argued in favour of establishing a “League of Democracies”. In December 2021, the US organised the first “Summit for Democracy” to divide the world into liberal democracies versus authoritarian states. The White House framed sovereign inequality in the language of democracy: Washington’s interference in the domestic affairs of other states was “support for democracy”, while upholding the West’s sovereignty entailed defending democracy.[3] The aforementioned initiatives became the “rules-based international order”. With an imperialist mindset, there would be one set of rules for the “garden” and another set for the “jungle”.
The rules-based international order created a two-tiered system of legitimate versus illegitimate states. The paradox of liberal internationalism is that liberal democracies often demand that they dominate international institutions to defend democratic values from the control of the majority. Yet, a durable and resilient international system capable of developing common rules is imperative for international governance and to resolve disputes among states.
International law in accordance with the UN Charter is based on the Westphalian principle of sovereign equality as “all states are equal”. In contrast, the rules-based international order is a hegemonic system based on sovereign inequality. Such a system of sovereign inequality follows the principle from George Orwell’s Animal Farm that stipulates “all animals [states] are equal but some animals [states] are more equal than others”. In Kosovo, the West promoted self-determination as a normative right of secession that had to be prioritised above territorial integrity. In South Ossetia and Crimea, the West insisted that the sanctity of territorial integrity, as stipulated in the UN Charter, must be prioritised over self-determination.
Uniform rules replaced with a tribunal of public opinion
Instead of resolving conflicts through diplomacy and uniform rules, there is an incentive to manipulate, moralise and propagandise as international disputes are decided by a tribunal of public opinion when there are competing principles. Deceit and extreme language have thus become commonplace. In 1999, the US and UK especially presented false accusations about war crimes to make interventionism legitimate. British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the world that Yugoslav authorities were “set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War. It is no exaggeration to say that what is happening is racial genocide”.[4]
The rules-based international order fails to establish common unifying rules of how to govern international relations, which is the fundamental function of world order. Both China and Russia have denounced the rules-based international order as a dual system to facilitate double standards. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Xie Feng, asserted that the rules-based international order introduces the “law of the jungle” insofar as universally recognised international law is replaced by unilateralism.[5] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov similarly criticised the rules-based international order for creating a parallel legal framework to legitimise unilateralism:
“The West has been coming up with multiple formats such as the French-German Alliance for Multilateralism, the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, the Global Partnership to Protect Media Freedom, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, the Call for Action to Strengthen Respect for International Humanitarian Law—all these initiatives deal with subjects that are already on the agenda of the UN and its specialised agencies. These partnerships exist outside of the universally recognised structures so as to agree on what the West wants in a restricted circle without any opponents. After that they take their decisions to the UN and present them in a way that de facto amounts to an ultimatum. If the UN does not agree, since imposing anything on countries that do not share the same ‘values’ is never easy, they take unilateral action”.[6]
The rules-based international order does not consist of any specific rules, is not accepted internationally, and does not deliver order. The rules-based international order should be considered a failed experiment from the unipolar world order, which must be dismantled to restore international law as a requirement for stability and peace.
Article based on excerpts from my book: “The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order”
[1] I. Daalder and J. Lindsay, ‘An Alliance of Democracies’, The Washington Post, 23 May 2004.
[2] G.J. Ikenberry and A.M. Slaughter, ‘Forging a World of Liberty Under Law: U.S. National Security in the 21st Century’, Princeton, The Princeton Project on National Security, 2006.
[3] White House, ‘Summit for Democracy Summary of Proceedings’, The White House, 23 December 2021.
[4] N. Clark, ‘Fools no more’, The Guardian, 19 April 2008.
[5] Global Times, ‘US ‘rules-based intl order’ is ‘law of the jungle’ to contain others: Chinese vice FM tells US envoy’, Global Times, 26 July 2021.
[6] S. Lavrov, ‘Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 29th Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (CFDP)’, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2 October 2021.
Pro-Western party funded anti-NATO candidate in EU state – media

RT | December 22, 2024
Allegations that Russia was behind a Romanian social media campaign that helped independent presidential candidate Calin Georgescu win a first round vote, and which contributed to the country’s constitutional court canceling the entire election, are false, an investigation has found.
Georgescu’s campaign was not funded by Russia but in fact by the pro-Western National Liberal Party (PNL), the media outlet Snoop has reported, citing the probe’s findings.
A critic of NATO and the EU and a staunch opponent of sending aid to Ukraine, Georgescu topped the first-round vote in Romania with 22.94%, beating other liberal leftist and democrat candidates.
Romania’s Constitutional Court promptly annulled the election ahead of the second-round vote, citing intelligence documents alleging ‘irregularities’ in Georgescu’s performance.
The documents claimed Georgescu’s candidacy was improperly promoted online, including on TikTok, by paid influencers and extremist right-wing groups, and that his campaign may have benefited from Russian interference – an allegation that Moscow has denied as “absolutely groundless.”
According to Snoop, Romania’s tax authorities analyzed financial flows and discovered that the campaign that promoted Georgescu on TikTok was in fact paid for by the PNL and run by Kensington Communication, a company which provides political marketing services, as well as online campaigns.
The briefs delivered to influencers were aimed at promoting “a responsible attitude and a mature choice” among Romanians that would help the country continue its “democratic path,” wrote Snoop.
Influencers were reportedly given a script to describe the qualities of a future president without giving a name. Some of them however left comments below the videos, providing Georgescu’s name.
“It is a shock to everyone that the public money that taxpayers had provided to the PNL was used to promote another candidate,” one expert involved in the investigation told the publication.
Kensington Communication has issued a statement alleging that its campaign had been “hijacked” or “cloned” and said it would file a criminal complaint.
The leak came on Friday, a day before the expiration of Romanian President Klaus Iohannis’ term, and just days before the supreme court is scheduled to hear the case initiated by Georgescu. Iohannis himself had earlier refused to leave office, citing the country’s legislation.
Georgescu, who was labelled “pro-Russian” by his critics, filed a lawsuit with the supreme court to challenge the annulment of the election results. The candidate’s lawyer described the situation as “a flagrant violation of the constitution” and “a coup d’état.” The first hearing is scheduled for December 23.
