Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

At The Munich Security Conference, AOC Gets It Wrong On Foreign Policy

The Dissident | February 13, 2026

Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently appeared at the Munich Security Conference- supposedly to showcase her foreign policy knowledge- in what many believe may be the lead up to an eventual presidential run in 2028.

Unfortunately, what AOC showcased was that, while being critical of aspects of U.S. foreign policy, she gets it dead wrong on issues ranging from NATO to USAID to Iran to Ukraine.

Calling To Fund A CIA Cutout

While AOC called out some U.S. hypocrisy around the claim of a “rules-based international order”, she still gave credence to the idea that such a thing even exists, or that the U.S. is concerned with human rights and democracy around the world.

At one panel, she said , “That does not mean that the majority of Americans are ready to walk away from a rules-based order and that we’re ready to walk away from our commitment to democracy.”

This apparently includes support for so-called U.S. “democracy promotion” initiatives such as the CIA cutout USAID, which AOC called to support at two different conferences.

When asked at the aforementioned panel, “Are there any particular institutions that a democratic administration would want to save?”, AOC replied, “ first and foremost, I think we need to revisit our commitments to international aid not just USAID but the the dozens of global compacts that the current secretary of state and President Trump have withdrawn from” adding, “They are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarianisms of authoritarians that can carve out the world where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox where Putin can saber rattle around Europe and and try to bully around our own allies there.”

At another panel, AOC complained that the Trump administration was playing “hokey pokey with USAD”.

In reality, USAID and other “aid organizations” such as the National Endowment for Democracy are used to meddle in the domestic affairs of countries that do not bow down to U.S. demands, including by attempting to undermine democratically elected governments.

Foreign Policy magazine wrote in 2014 , “Foreign governments have long accused the U.S. Agency for International Development of being a front for the CIA or other groups dedicated to their collapse. In the case of Cuba, they appear to have been right.”

The magazine added, “In an eye-opening display of incompetence, the United States covertly launched a social media platform in Cuba in 2010, hoping to create a Twitter-like service that would spark a ‘Cuban Spring’ and potentially help bring about the collapse of the island’s Communist government” adding, “It was a digital Bay of Pigs, but it was funded by USAID, an arm of the government dedicated to doing good work in bad places, not by the CIA.”

The outlet noted that this was far from the only time USAID has been used as a tool of U.S. regime change, writing:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez frequently and famously accused the United States of covertly trying to overthrow him, but only after his death did evidence emerge to support his seemingly paranoid claims. A WikiLeaks cable released in 2013 outlined the U.S. strategy for undermining Chavez’s government by “penetrating Chavez’s political base,” “dividing Chavismo,” and “isolating Chavez internationally.” The strategy was to be carried out by USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives, the same office responsible for developing “Cuban Twitter,” and involved funding opposition organizations in Venezuela.

USAID has also played a role in funding the 2004 coup against Haiti’s elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the 2014 coup against Ukraine’s elected president Viktor Yanukovych, the 2018 coup attempt against Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, and the 2024 judicial coup against Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu.

Claiming NATO Stops Regime Change Wars

At one of the Munich Security panels, AOC claimed that the “Trans-Pacific Partnership”, later clarifying that she meant transatlantic partnership, i.e., alliances like NATO would somehow stop, “the installation of regional puppet governments”.

AOC claimed, “it actually is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is our global alliances that can be a hard stop against authoritarian consolidation of power, particularly in the installation of regional puppet governments.”

In reality, the “transatlantic partnership” through NATO, since the end of the Cold War, has done nothing but regime change wars to overthrow unfriendly governments and install puppets.

In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia and Kosovo in what was billed as a humanitarian intervention to save Albanians in Kosovo from the Serbian authorities, but in reality, it was an orchestrated regime change war against Slobodan Milosevic.

As James Bissett, the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, explained , “Media reports have revealed that as early as 1998, the central intelligence agency assisted by the British Special Armed Services were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. The KLA terrorists were sent back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and do everything possible to incite murder and chaos. The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene and in so doing, not only overthrow Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian strong man, but more importantly, provide the aging and increasingly irrelevant military organization with a reason for its continued existence.”

Following this, NATO intervened in Afghanistan and did exactly what AOC claimed it would prevent: it occupied the country and propped up a puppet government.

Journalist Seth Harp meticulously documented in his book “The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces” that the NATO propped up government led by CIA asset Hamid Karzai was “the world’s leading narco-state, with an economy almost entirely dependent on the drug trade”.

NATO then overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, one of the key planks in the greater Zionist/Neo-Con clean break plan for greater Israel.

While the intervention was billed as a humanitarian intervention to stop Muammar Gaddafi from slaughtering innocent civilians and to support moderate rebels, a 2015 UK parliament report later admitted that “the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence” and “It is now clear that militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards”.

The CIA then used Gaddafi’s weapons stockpile to further the next regime change war on the “clean break” hit list in Syria with journalist Seymour Hersh reporting that following the fall of Gaddafi, the CIA “authorised a rat line in early 2012” which was “used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition” noting that, “Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida”.

Repeating CIA/Mossad Talking Points About Iran

While AOC did oppose bombing Iran at the behest of Israel, she repeated CIA and Mossad talking points without giving vital context before doing so.

When asked, “Would you support direct U.S. military strikes on Nuclear facilities if direct negotiations fail with Iran?” AOC responded, “I think that that is a dramatic escalation that no one in the world wants to see. Right now what the Iranian regime is doing particularly with respect to protesters is a horrific slaughter of some estimates have tens of thousands of people.”

The claims of “tens of thousands of people” killed by the Iranian government during protests comes from biased sources openly supporting war with Iran, such as Amir Parasta a German-Iranian eye surgeon who is a lobbyist for the Israeli opposition puppet Reza Pahlavi and the outlet Iran International, which Israeli journalist Barak Ravid said , “the Mossad is using… quite regularly for its information war”.

In other words, AOC opposing war with Iran but repeating the claim of “tens of thousands dead” is akin to saying in 2002, “I oppose war with Iraq, but Saddam definitely has WMDS”.

Furthermore, AOC missed an opportunity to give some vital context on the protests in Iran.

For one, she did not mention that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent twice boasted that the protests in Iran were caused by U.S. sanctions on the country’s economy, saying:

President Trump ordered treasury and our OFAC division, (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked because in December, their economy collapsed, we saw a major bank go under, the central bank has started to print money, there is a dollar shortage, they are not able to get imports and this is why the people took to the streets.

and

What we can do at treasury, and what we have done, is created a dollar shortage in the country, at a speech at the Economic club in New York in March I outlined the strategy, it came to a swift -and I would say grand- culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under, there was a run in the bank, the central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded and hence we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.

(Emphasis: Mine)

Furthermore, AOC missed an opportunity to list the mountains of evidence that the CIA and Mossad infiltrated the protests to turn them in a violent and pro-regime change direction.

This includes:

  • A Mossad-connected X account in Persian boasting, “Let’s all come out to the streets. The time has come. We are with you. Not just from afar and verbally. We are also with you in the field.”
  • Former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo wishing a “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
  • Israel’s Channel 14 reporting that “foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed.”
  • Former head of the Military Intelligence Directorat in Israel, Tamir Hayma, saying, “There is currently a very significant influence operation by the US” in Iran.
  • The Financial Times reporting that, “Another witness in western Tehran told the FT he saw about a dozen fit men, ‘looking like commandos’, dressed in similar black clothing, running through the area and calling on people to leave their homes and join the protests. ‘They were definitely organised, but I don’t know who was behind them,’ he said.”
  • Mossad connected Israeli journalist Yonah Jeremy Bob cryptically writing , “Only after the air is clear will the full story of the Mossad’s involvement likely be cleared to be told. But when it comes to the Mossad and Iran, there is always far more than meets the eye”.
  • Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu boasting , “When we attacked in Iran during ‘Rising Lion’ we were on its soil and knew how to lay the groundwork for a strike. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now”.

Supporting The Ukraine Proxy War

When asked about the proxy war in Ukraine, AOC said, “there’s no conversation about Ukraine that can happen without Ukraine, and so they of course lead in terms of setting their terms on this, but I think that overall as a principle, we shouldn’t reward imperialism. And I don’t think that we should allow Russia to continue or any nation to continue violating a nation’s sovereignty and to continue to be rewarded”.

This was a strong signal in support of continuing the proxy war in Ukraine.

At no point did AOC mention that in 1997, veteran diplomat George F. Kennan warned that NATO expansion eastward would “be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking” a view he said was “not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters.”

Nor did she mention that former U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, warned in 2008 that, “Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.

AOC did not mention the Maidan coup in 2014, which, as Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko noted, was carried out because “The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia this was why Western politicians, diplomats, and civil society representatives actively supported the Euromaidan (coup against Yanukovych) as a mechanism for overthrowing Yanukovych, even going as far as providing financial support for the ‘revolutionary’ process”.

She similarly ignored the recent bombshell admission from Biden Administration official Amanda Sloat, who said :

We had some conversation even before the war started, about what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion,’ which at that point it may well have done.

I guess if you want to do an alternative version of history, one option would have just been for Ukraine to say in January of 2022, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, we will stay neutral.’ Ukraine could have made a deal around March/April of 2022 around the Istanbul talks

There is certainly a question, almost three years on now, would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks, it certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life.

Nor did AOC mention the fact that Russia and Ukraine agreed to end the war in April of 2022, but the deal was blocked by then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the behest of the collective West.

Through all of her answers, AOC showed she is not serious about being anti-war and will undoubtedly give in to the foreign policy establishment on many issues.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Europe Decided to Go to War With Russia by 2030, Already Preparing – Orban

Sputnik – 14.02.2026

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Saturday that Europe has decided to go to war with Russia by 2030 and that preparations are already underway in certain European countries.

“Europe has decided that it will go to war [with Russia] by 2030. Not that it wants to, might, or plans to – it has decided. It has made the decision,” Orban said.

Preparations for war are being carried out across Europe, except in Hungary and Slovakia, he added.

“Nine [European] countries already have compulsory military service. In some places, it also applies to women. The population is being sent instructions on what to do in the event of war. Military spending has risen sharply. Agreements have been signed to send troops to Ukraine,” he said.

In recent years, Russia has noted unprecedented NATO activity near its western borders. The alliance has expanded its initiatives, describing them as measures to deter alleged Russian aggression. Russian authorities have repeatedly expressed concern over the buildup of NATO forces in Europe. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that Russia remains open to dialogue with NATO on an equal footing, provided that the West abandons its course toward militarizing the continent.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO plotting maritime blockade of Russia – Moscow

RT | February 14, 2026

NATO countries are plotting an illegal maritime blockade of Russia, particularly in the Baltic and the Arctic regions, Moscow’s ambassador to Norway, Nikolay Korchunov, has said.

In an interview with RIA Novosti published on Saturday, Korchunov accused the bloc’s members, including Norway, of “putting the Baltic-Arctic region on a barrack-like footing” by holding a series of exercises. This, he added, is aimed at “restricting freedom of navigation and violates international law norms.”

According to the envoy, NATO is also developing plans for “a partial or complete naval blockade” of Russia. In addition, such NATO members as Norway, Sweden, and Finland “are working together to increase military mobility through the development of transport and logistics corridors from west to east, as well as through cross-border use of bases and other military infrastructure.”

These preparations increase tensions and represent a direct threat to Russia’s national security and would force Moscow to take countermeasures, Korchunov warned.

His remarks come after Bloomberg reported on Friday that UK Defense Secretary John Healey had met with counterparts from Baltic and Nordic nations on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference to discuss seizing Russia-linked oil tankers.

In recent months, Western countries have detained several Russia-linked cargo vessels under various pretenses. Moscow has consistently condemned the seizures as “piracy” and a blatant violation of international maritime law.

Last year, Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev warned that NATO is seeking to undermine Moscow’s economy by considering a blockade of the country, including by paralyzing Russian ports in the St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad regions. He also pointed out that the bloc is seeking to turn the Black and Baltic Seas into “internal waters of the alliance,” adding that Moscow is preparing countermeasures in response.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia more adapted to contemporary military technology than NATO

By Lucas Leiroz | February 13, 2026

Apparently, NATO officials are beginning to admit that the organization is not in a position of military superiority over the Russian Federation. In a recent statement, a senior NATO official admitted that Russia has an advantage in adapting to new forms of warfare and military technology, warning of the Western alliance’s obsolescence.

The warning was issued by Admiral Pierre Vandier, who holds the position of NATO’s technological transformation commander. He commented on how world powers adapt to ever-changing military technologies and made it clear that Russia has greater adaptive capacity than NATO.

Vandier described NATO as “static and predictable.” According to him, the bloc fails to perceive in time the constant changes in the global military and geopolitical scenarios. He draws special attention to the issue of military technology, warning how the bloc is still bound to an outdated mentality about combat technology – which proves useless on the battlefield in contemporary conflicts. Meanwhile, Russia is perfectly adapted to the new reality of war, knowing how to use technology satisfactorily in the pursuit of its strategic objectives.

“Russia is very good at adapting and probably better than we are today (…) We have been very static, very predictable,” he said.

In fact, Vandier is merely admitting something that has already been commented on by many military analysts over the past four years: NATO’s inability to understand how to correctly use military technology in a combat context. What appears to be happening is a conflict of mentalities and ideologies. Russia prioritizes the military objective and how technology can help achieve it, while, on the other hand, NATO prioritizes profit and the impact on public opinion generated by technological development.

This logic is strongly aligned with the military, political, and economic principles that guide Russia and NATO. As a pragmatic state focused on achieving its strategic interests, Russia is concerned with developing military technology aimed at ensuring the rapid neutralization of the enemy and sparing as many Russian soldiers’ lives as possible. This is deeply aligned with the illiberal mentality of the Russian Federation at the political and economic levels.

On the other hand, the Collective West continues to guide its decision-making process with a mentality typical of the post-Cold War period, when neoliberal ideology became hegemonic. At that time, without worthy competitors, the West no longer prioritized clear strategic objectives, but rather technological development for financial and media purposes.

Since then, Western countries have developed extremely expensive military hardware, often designed by civilian specialists with no connection to the military sphere, with the sole objective of generating an impact on public opinion, inflating the price of the equipment and selling it to client states, creating relationships of economic dependence and indebtedness.

This has been a recurring issue in Ukraine in recent years. The fascist regime in Kiev has imported Western military technology described as “advanced,” when in fact it is merely overpriced hardware, fueled by Western financial economies. These technologies are designed to impress and sell, not to defeat the enemy in a real combat situation. The result is being seen in the special military operation: cheap Russian drones obliterating tanks, missile launch systems, and all types of “sophisticated” equipment imported from the West.

The warning issued by Vandier is important for Western countries if they truly want to adapt to the circumstances of an increasingly polycentric and multipolar world. The 1990s are over, the neoliberal era no longer exists, and the West now has worthy enemies. Russia, China, Iran, India, and other emerging countries maintain strong industrial economies capable of producing military technology on a massive scale – and they are not guided by liberal principles that prioritize profit and media impact.

However, despite the warning, it is unlikely that this situation will change. The West is not governed by politicians interested in what is best for their countries, but by transnational financial elites interested only in their own selfish gains and unconcerned with any strategic issues. For these elites, the more useless military technology is produced, overpriced, sold and discarded, the better – since this way they will continue to profit, regardless of the real military benefit to the West and its client states.

The best thing that can be done in the West is to dismantle NATO and decouple individual states from these transnational elites, creating sovereign governments focused on their real strategic interests.

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

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

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Germany puts caveat on more missiles for Ukraine

RT | February 13, 2026

Germany is willing to supply five interceptor missiles for US-made Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine, but only if other European countries agree to provide 30 more, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has said.

It usually takes two Patriot missiles, priced from to $3.5 to $5 million each, to intercept a single target. Russia deploys dozens of missiles and hundreds of drones in its airstrikes on Ukraine.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov asked for more munitions for the air defense systems during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, also known as the Ramstein group, in Brussels on Thursday.

Vladimir Zelensky previously blamed the lack of supplies by Kiev’s Western backers for Ukraine’s inability to repel Russian attacks on military and dual-use infrastructure, which led to rolling blackouts in major cities. “There will be no light because there are no missiles for defense,” he said.

Following the meeting in the Belgian capital, Pistorius told journalists that he made a “spontaneous proposal” to his European partners to provide 35 additional Patriot interceptors to Ukraine.

The European governments have not yet approved the 30+5 formula, the minister said, but added that he is “very optimistic” about it.

If it’s accepted, “it’s a matter of days and not a matter of weeks or months” before Kiev receives the missiles, he added.

UK Defense Minister John Healy said members of the group agreed a total of $35 billion in new military aid to Kiev. The UK will also allocate £500 million ($682 million) for urgent supplies of air defense systems, he added.

The Russian military said on Thursday that it conducted another attack on Ukraine, hitting 147 targets, including an airfield, military infrastructure facilities, bases, and foreign mercenary camps.

The strike was a response to Kiev’s “terrorist attacks” inside Russia, it stressed. It came a day after the Ukrainian military launched hundreds of drones as well as US-made HIMARS missiles and glide bombs targeting civilian infrastructure in several Russian regions.

Moscow has warned against Western weapons deliveries to Kiev, arguing that they will not prevent Russia from achieving its goals in the conflict, but will only prolong the fighting and increase the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Japan to Sign Up For NATO’s Ukraine Arms Pipeline

Sputnik – February 10, 2026

Japan has allegedly pledged significant financial support for Ukraine, and committed to providing specialized equipment, with reports indicating long-term assistance.

Doubling down on its US-pushed militarization drive, Japan is moving closer to NATO by signing on to the alliance’s Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) program, which facilitates the flow of military equipment to Ukraine, according to NHK.

Sources cited by the outlet claim Japan will soon officially announce its participation in the initiative, announced during the NATO Summit in July 2024 and headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany.

The equipment that Japan is expected to procure for Ukraine reportedly includes body armor, vehicles, and, potentially, radar systems.

The NSATU mechanism coordinates the donation of military equipment from Allied and partner nations to Ukraine’s armed forces, aligning their capabilities with NATO standards.

Russia has repeatedly argued that Western weapons shipments to Ukraine undermine any prospects for a negotiated settlement and amount to NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict. Russia has also warned that convoys delivering arms to Ukraine would be treated as legitimate military targets.

February 10, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Türkiye-NATO: Strategic Security Or Strategic Revision?

By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – February 9, 2026

Currently, Turkish interests and NATO logic are diverging increasingly. Turkish society and expert circles are actively discussing both the prospects of maintaining NATO membership and the possibility of leaving the bloc.

Historical roots of the Turkish dilemma

Türkiye’s complex relations with Western powers have deep historical roots. During World War II, demonstrating inconsistency in choosing a strategic partner, Türkiye effectively supported Hitler’s Germany. Hoping for German military success against Russia – as in World War I – Ankara was forced to hastily join Great Britain and the USA in February 1944 to avoid direct military conflict with the USSR. Joseph Stalin characterized Türkiye’s policy during that period as “hostile neutrality,” denounced the Soviet-Turkish treaty, and put forward territorial claims, including control over the Black Sea Straits and Western Armenia.

Thanks to flexible diplomacy, Türkiye managed to restore its strategic alliance with Great Britain and the USA. However, this required accepting Washington’s political conditions: transitioning from a one-party to a multi-party system of governance, becoming NATO’s “southern anchor,” and entering into a diplomatic alliance with the West against the USSR. As a result, Türkiye was able to curb the Soviet threat, obtain security guarantees under the US nuclear umbrella, and become a full member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in February 1952.

Ankara’s geopolitical ambitions and the price of NATO membership

The alliance with the West, however, significantly limited Türkiye’s economic and political sovereignty, drawing it into a tenacious dependence on US diktats. Ankara, like many European capitals, lost the ability to independently determine its allies and adversaries – these decisions were made in London and Washington. The West dictated the parameters of Türkiye’s strategic security, determined the pace of its economic development, and controlled its domestic politics. All military coups that occurred in Türkiye in the second half of the 20th century (in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997) were the result of US interference through the Turkish General Staff in the country’s internal political affairs under the pretext of protecting the secular regime.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the “Soviet military threat,” Türkiye’s strategic significance for NATO began to decline. The NATO accession of Black Sea countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, as well as Georgia and Ukraine looking to integrate with the West, is shifting the focus in the Black Sea basin. In the Middle East, the main ally of the USA and NATO besides Türkiye is Israel. Furthermore, the US gained operational room for maneuver in Iraq, Syria was destroyed by years of civil conflict, Iran was weakened under American-Israeli pressure, the Palestinian issue shifted towards the reconstruction of Gaza, and the resource-rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf remain in financial and military dependence on the West.

Ankara’s geopolitical ambitions are not widely supported by the US and Europe: none of these powers are interested in the emergence of a strong and independent Türkiye as a new geopolitical center. Türkiye’s plans to revive the Turkish golden age by controlling parts of North Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia (the doctrines of Neo-Ottomanism and Neo-Pan-Turkism), are viewed by the West, led by the USA, merely as a tool for penetrating these regions, especially the post-Soviet space, via Turkish hands.

Intra-bloc contradictions and searching for a policy orientations  

Intra-bloc contradictions are a common phenomenon for NATO. A striking example is Turkish-Greek disagreements and the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus in 1974. It is worth noting that this event did not occur without the consent of the US, which sought to punish Greek nationalists and Archbishop Makarios III for their pro-Soviet orientation.

Relations between the two NATO allies, Greece and Türkiye, are still far from ideal today. The difficult relations between these two NATO members are also reflected in Greek Minister of National Defense Nikos Dendias’ speech before the Greek parliament, who believes that Türkiye represents a geostrategic risk for Greece. During a discussion of the 2026 budget at the end of December, the minister stated that Türkiye is the main and fundamental threat to Greece. To support his thesis, Dendias cited statistical data: Türkiye spends 28.7 billion euros annually on its defense industry, while Greece has a military budget of 5-7 billion euros. Reminding Athens of its participation in European military plans, Dendias stated that the European defense structure is inadequate. The US has moved away from its historical role as a security guarantor in the region and insists on a compromise end to hostilities in Ukraine, including territorial concessions by Kiev. Meanwhile, Europe continues to militarize without the protection of a reliable guarantor.

Türkiye at a crossroads between the multipolar world and NATO

During the years of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rule, Türkiye, by developing mutually beneficial partnerships with key Eurasian powers such as Russia and China, has significantly strengthened its economic and political sovereignty.

The idea of a multipolar world where Türkiye will be one of the key geopolitical centers, possibly leading a “Turkic pole,” is actively discussed in Ankara. Calls for the creation of a new military alliance, a “Turan Army” led by Ankara, are increasingly common within Turkish expert and political circles. Some politicians, such as the leader of the opposition Vatan Party, Dogu Perincek, and the head of the ultranationalist Nationalist Movement Party, Devlet Bahceli, openly call for Türkiye’s withdrawal from NATO.

 NATO from the view of the Turkish military and Ankara’s ambitions

Retired Rear Admiral Cem Gurdeniz, who held important positions in the Navy from 1987 to 1991 and is considered the ideologist of the Blue Homeland concept, argued that the US and NATO have repeatedly dragged Türkiye into local conflicts against its interests, for example, in Libya in 2011. According to the admiral, the unipolar world led by the US has ceased to exist, and NATO, as a relic of the Cold War, should become a thing of the past. Gurdeniz is convinced that the world is moving towards a multipolar system, where Türkiye is destined to become an important geopolitical center. In an interview with the Tele-1 TV channel, he emphasized the need to revise Türkiye’s security strategy and withdraw from the crisis-ridden NATO.

Another retired lieutenant general, former head of the General Staff Intelligence Department, Ismail Hakki Pekin, in an interview with a Russian publication, also criticized NATO, accusing the alliance of insufficiently helping Türkiye in the fight against international terrorism, implying Kurdish armed groups in Syria.

Türkiye sees obvious contradictions between the US and the EU related to the creation of a European NATO Bureau. In this context, Ankara does not exclude the possibility of creating an Asian NATO Bureau with Türkiye’s simultaneous participation in the European strategic security system. However, despite public discussion of this idea, the Turkish elite so far presents it as a way to expand NATO eastward and strengthen the alliance through an Asian (Turkic) bureau.

Despite all its revanchist ideas, the Turkish elite maintains a realistic view of things. It understands that it cannot alone create and lead a combat-ready and self-sufficient military alliance, as it lacks modern military technologies and production capacities comparable to the West and Israel. To this day, Türkiye cannot launch production of the 5th-generation KAAN fighter jet due to the lack of its own engines and the US refusal to supply them. The Turks still hope for a military deal on modernized F-16s and F-35s or the purchase of Eurofighters. Finally, Türkiye realizes that a premature exit from NATO could entail serious geopolitical costs for the country’s territorial integrity in the event of intervention by the US and Europe.

Thus, Türkiye is in a difficult geopolitical situation, balancing between wanting to strengthen its influence in a multipolar world and the need to maintain pragmatic relations with existing alliances. Ambitions to create its own military bloc clash with objective technological and production limitations, as well as potential risks to national security in the event of a sharp break with NATO. The idea of an Asian NATO Bureau can be seen as Ankara’s attempt to find a compromise solution that would allow it to strengthen its regional influence without leaving the Western military-political bloc.

Alexander Svarants – PhD in Political Sciences, Professor, Expert in Turkish Studies and Middle Eastern Countries

February 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

General Harald Kujat: NATO’s Attempt to Defeat Russia Destroys Ukraine

Glenn Diesen | February 6, 2026

General Harald Kujat is a former head of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) and the former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee. Having held the top military position in both Germany and NATO, General Kujat offers his expertise on how the West and Russia ended up fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. General Kujat warns that NATO’s obsession with defeating Russia will result in the destruction of Ukraine.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s ‘Agent Rutte’ in blatant sabotage of Ukraine peace negotiations

Strategic Culture Foundation | February 7, 2026

NATO chief Mark Rutte declared in a high-profile address to the Ukrainian parliament this week that alliance troops would be deployed in Ukraine immediately on signing any peace deal with Russia.

He asserted that the NATO forces would be British and French, deployed “on the land, in the air, and at sea.” He added that the coalition would have the “crucial backstop” of a U.S. security guarantee if “Russia tried to subjugate Ukraine again.”

It seems more than a coincidence that three days after Rutte spoke in the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament), there was an assassination attempt in Moscow on a top Russian general. Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseev, the deputy commander of Russian military intelligence (GRU), was shot several times in the back by a gunman.

This was while delicate negotiations were being conducted in Abu Dhabi to find a peace settlement to the nearly four-year war in Ukraine. Russian delegates met with American and Ukrainian counterparts for a second round of talks this week.

Rutte’s speech in Kiev and the assassination attack in Moscow appear to be calculated moves to sabotage the negotiation efforts that the Trump administration has been pushing.

First, the NATO chief knows full well that Russia is adamant that any settlement in Ukraine will not involve the presence of NATO troops, whether they are called “peace monitors” or “coalition of the willing.” Moscow has repeatedly expressed in the clearest terms that such a contingency is out of the question and non-negotiable.

So, Rutte’s forcing the issue of deployment can only mean that the real aim is to make any agreement with Russia impossible. This is while the mealy-mouthed former Dutch prime minister was also saying that he backed efforts by Trump to end this “terrible conflict”.

“Some European Allies have announced that they will deploy troops to Ukraine after a deal is reached. Troops on the ground, jets in the air, ships on the Black Sea. The United States will be the backstop; others have vowed to support in other ways… The security guarantees are solid, and this is crucial – because we know that getting to an agreement to end this terrible war will require difficult choices,” said Rutte with double-think.

Moreover, in his latest pronouncements, Rutte dispensed with the deceptive terms of NATO forces supposedly acting as “peacekeepers”. His gung-ho rhetoric of troops “on the land, jets in the air, and ships at sea” sounded more like a stealthy plan for NATO military intervention to escalate the confrontation from a proxy one to a full-on war.

Significantly, too, Rutte declared that NATO was gearing up to increase military supplies to Ukraine. He said that an additional $15 billion was earmarked by the European members to buy weapons sourced from the U.S. He concluded his speech with the World War Two fascist slogan “Slava Ukraini!” (Glory to Ukraine!). It was a rallying call for the Kiev regime and its NeoNazi adherents to keep fighting.

As with the assassination plot on the GRU deputy commander, the objective seems to be to frustrate any negotiations to end the war. The head of the Russian security delegation in Abu Dhabi is reportedly GRU Director, Admiral Igor Kostyukov. That his deputy was shot several times in his Moscow home as talks were taking place outside the country would appear to be a calculated provocation.

The irony is that the European NATO members constantly accuse Russia of not wanting to make peace. They make the preposterous claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is intent on conquering the rest of Europe when Ukraine is defeated. The fact is, Moscow has consistently called for a diplomatic process to resolve the root causes of the conflict (NATO’s historic expansion) and to formulate a new collective security treaty for Europe based on indivisible security for all. Russia also wants to keep the territories that are historically Russian.

It is the transatlantic axis of U.S. and European NATO hardliners who don’t want a diplomatic settlement. They want the proxy war against Russia to persist indefinitely. It was they who instigated the hostilities with the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014, and, before that, with numerous color revolutions after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

It is not clear what Trump’s agenda is. Is he an inconsequential maverick, or is the deep state pulling his chain? He talks about making peace with Russia, yet his administration is sanctioning Russia’s vital oil exports, seizing cargo ships in international waters, coercing India and other nations to halt trade with Russia, and threatening its allies like Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. Is his Ukraine diplomacy a guise for continuing aggression in another form? Or is it muddled thinking? Moscow appears to be giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and is engaging in talks to explore a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.

That said, however, a red line for Moscow is the proposals to deploy NATO troops in Ukraine. That’s not ending root causes. It is fertilizing them.

The transatlantic imperialist nexus (the U.S. and European ruling class, the CIA and its intelligence counterparts, and the military-industrial complex) is driven by hegemonic goals. Russia, China, and the non-Western multipolar world must be contained or rolled back, as during the Cold War.

The proxy war in Ukraine demonstrated that Russia could not be strategically defeated, as the Western hegemons desired. Their next best option is to keep Ukraine militarized and to keep Russia on guard to drain its resources. It still amounts to a war agenda.

Mark Rutte’s performance this week is that of a minion for the war agenda. His every word and deed speak of deliberately inciting aggression while he duplicitously talks about supporting peace. Eight decades ago, the Nuremberg Trials defined such aggression as the “supreme crime”.

Even some mainstream European politicians have taken note of Rutte’s sinister psychology. Charles Michel, the former European Council President, said in a media interview last week: “I want to be clear, Mark Rutte is disappointing and I’m losing confidence… I’m not expecting [him] to be an American agent.”

Agent Rutte should be in a modern-day dock. He and his masters want to push the world into catastrophe.

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

OSCE on verge of self-destruction – Lavrov

RT | February 6, 2026

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is in a “profound” crisis and close to unraveling, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned on Friday during talks with the body’s leadership.

Speaking to OSCE Chairman-in-Office Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis and OSCE Secretary-General Feridun Sinirlioglu, who arrived in Moscow on Thursday for what they described as dialogue on the Ukraine conflict, Lavrov suggested that there are too many examples to mention of how the organization has “come close to the real threat of self-destruction.”

The reason for this is “very simple” and is due to the “radical departure of most Western countries” from the foundational principles and declarations of the organization, Lavrov added.

The OSCE, a 57-member body that includes Russia, the US, Canada, and most European and Central Asian states, was created in 1975 to promote security and cooperation across the region. However, Moscow has repeatedly accused the organization of being hijacked by its NATO and EU members to advance Western interests at the expense of pan-European goals.

In December, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko said the OSCE was effectively being turned into an instrument of “hybrid war and coercion” against sovereign states, who are “subjected to threats, blackmail, and the harshest pressure using the lowest methods,” for pursuing their national interests.

He also condemned what he called the total “Ukrainization” of the agenda of the OSCE, saying it had narrowed the organization’s work and reduced cooperation to “tiny islands” of engagement.

Talks between Lavrov and the OSCE officials continued on Friday. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously explained that the discussions are focused on “searching for ways to overcome the current deep crisis of the OSCE” and restoring its operations in the “military-political, economic-environmental, and humanitarian, security dimensions.”

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

NATO member blasts bloc chief’s ‘pro-war’ remarks in Kiev

RT | February 6, 2026

Hungarian officials have accused NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte of overstepping his authority and making “pro-war” statements that put the bloc on course for a military clash with Russia.

Rutte visited Kiev this week in a show of support, saying member states would maintain military aid to Ukraine, possibly including troop deployments on Ukrainian soil. Moscow has repeatedly called such a scenario unacceptable.

“We call on the NATO secretary-general not to make pro-war statements,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Thursday, adding that NATO leaders have long agreed not to provoke direct conflict with Russia. Rutte’s comments contradict that policy, he asserted.

Rutte suggested troops deployments could be approved by Moscow as part of a US-backed peace deal. Budapest fears pro-Kiev nations – including France, Germany, and the UK – would push to send troops despite Russian objections. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reiterated his concerns Friday, calling the potential move a threat to his country.

“If the Western plan is implemented, then the war will come closer to Hungary, we will be much more directly affected by this,” he said. “Then not only the economic effect, but also the physical destructive effect could reach Hungary.”

Orban’s government has opposed Brussels’ Ukraine policy, arguing that bankrolling Kiev and imposing sanctions on Russia have damaged the EU’s economy while pursuing an unwinnable cause.

That stance and Budapest’s resistance to the Ukrainian bid to join the EU has strained relations with Kiev. Ukrainian forces have targeted Hungarian oil supplies from Russia, and Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly verbally attacked Orban. At last month’s World Economic Forum, Zelensky said the Hungarian leader should be “smacked” for purportedly “liv[ing] off European money while trying to sell out European interest.”

Budapest says Zelensky is interfering in Hungarian politics ahead of April’s parliamentary election, and that Kiev is hoping for a more compliant government to take power.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Idea of strategically defeating Russia an ‘illusion’ – Lavrov

RT | February 5, 2026

European leaders have “changed their tune” toward Russia, moving from calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Moscow to cautious reassessment, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told RT.

Speaking with RT’s Rick Sanchez ahead of Diplomats’ Day on Wednesday, Lavrov noted how many European politicians had initially “spoken in unison, demanding firmness, insisting on unwavering support for Ukraine, continued arms shipments, sustained financing – all to ensure Russia’s defeat, a strategic defeat on the battlefield.”

Over time, European leaders “realized it was all an illusion,” he said in a wide-ranging interview. Western military strategists, who orchestrated the Ukraine conflict and “prepared Ukrainians to fight and die advancing European interests against Russia,” are finally recognizing that their plans had collapsed, the top diplomat stated.

Lavrov added that Western governments had learned nothing from history, citing Adolf Hitler and Napoleon’s failed attempts to defeat Russia. He said Europe had once again rallied nearly the entire continent under the same ideological banners, “only this time, unlike Napoleon and Hitler, not yet as soldiers on the battlefield, but as donors, sponsors, arms suppliers.” He said this attempt had produced outcomes similar to the failures of Napoleon and Hitler, adding that the West, particularly Germany, “learns history poorly.”

Lavrov noted that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had “lifted constitutional restrictions on military spending, then declared this was necessary for Germany to once again – I emphasize that word, once again – become Europe’s dominant military power.” The minister said the stance “speaks volumes” about Merz’s mindset, arguing that in practice it amounts to preparation for war.

Lavrov also noted Russia’s status as the largest country in the world, but highlighted its place in Eurasia, saying “every attempt so far to establish security in this space has focused exclusively on the western part of Eurasia – so-called Europe.” He criticized NATO as a US-led structure, asserting that Americans never intended to leave Europeans to act independently while maintaining oversight of their allies.

European countries portray Russia as militarily and economically exhausted, he said, yet immediately assume they must prepare for an attack from the same Russia, calling this approach “pathetic diplomacy.”

According to Lavrov, Europe has “walked into their own trap by adopting this uncompromising stance” toward Russia, and “all they’re doing now is trying to sabotage” peace negotiations on Ukraine that “finally began taking shape between Russia and the United States, and now are joined by Ukrainian representatives.”

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »