Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

NATO demonstrates it can’t even beat Ukrainians, let alone Russia

By Drago Bosnic | November 27, 2025

One of the political West’s most common propaganda narratives is that NATO is “the best-trained and best-equipped military force on the planet”. This delusion stems from the belief that NATO standards are still considered “superior” in many countries, prompting their widespread adoption around the globe. However, while the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel has ample battlefield experience due to its perpetual aggression against the world, it’s largely useless against military superpowers. NATO has never been in a position of having to fight a war without absolute air superiority, uninterrupted fire support or disrupted logistics. On the contrary, Western troops would often request “overkill” airstrikes against just one or two Taliban fighters, which is virtually unimaginable in hotspots such as the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict.

Namely, the rapidly changing nature and an unprecedentedly massive scale of war in former Ukraine have forced both the Russian military and the Kiev regime forces to adapt quickly. Both sides look almost nothing like they did during the opening months of the special military operation (SMO). Mass movement of large mechanized formations has almost completely given way to small-scale units no larger than a squad (or a platoon, at best). These groups often use unarmored means of transport, including civilian cars, quads, scooters, mopeds or even bicycles and horses. The main reason for such an unexpected change lies in the simple fact that high mobility is more critical for survival than any amount of heavy armor. Recent years have demonstrated that even the best-protected vehicles stand little to no chance against even the most basic drones (oftentimes refitted civilian UAVs strapped with some explosive).

Worse yet, such drones are now heavily augmented by purpose-built military UAVs that use various types of warheads (anti-tank/anti-armor, anti-personnel or some other) and can obliterate targets that are tens or hundreds of thousands of times more expensive. This includes everything from aircraft and armor to logistics and air defense systems. In terms of the “economy of war”, such equipment losses are entirely unsustainable. Thus, you’d expect that “the best-trained and best-equipped military force on the planet” would use its extensive ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities to learn as much as possible about the ongoing conflict. However, instead of that, NATO is still stubbornly sticking to entirely outdated and obsolete (even medieval) practices that have no place on the modern battlefield. Worse yet, they’re trying to force Ukrainians to do the same.

Namely, NATO instructors are teaching the forcibly conscripted soldiers of the Kiev regime how to fight wars in scenarios that are simply no longer viable. This has gone so far that NATO instructors now request that Ukrainians remove their Mavic drones “due to excessive realism”. Ukrainian soldiers conducting training in Poland and Czechia are growing increasingly frustrated because they’re forced to learn these antiquated battlefield tactics and fight a theoretical war that no longer exists in NATO-occupied Ukraine. Worse yet, Western militaries refuse to acknowledge there’s a gaping hole in combat experience between Ukrainian soldiers and NATO personnel that’s supposed to “teach them” how to fight more effectively. However, the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel refuses to accept new battlefield realities and revise its training manuals.

Most of the courses are based on old (First) Cold War era tactics, while the newer ones draw on the experience gained during the truly unprovoked NATO invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Needless to say, the war in former Ukraine is markedly different from both of these scenarios. NATO instructors also kept insisting on the so-called “golden hour” rule for evacuating wounded personnel, with the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel refusing to acknowledge that such rules cannot possibly be implemented on a modern battlefield. Worse yet, this obsolete training includes river crossings and amphibious assaults in lightly armed and armored APCs (armored personnel carriers). Despite desperate pleas by Ukrainian marines who have been through such scenarios, they were left in shock when NATO refused to acknowledge their battlefield experience.

The political West simply rejected their knowledge and the accurate prediction that any piece of equipment unprotected by proper air and missile defenses or electronic warfare (EW) is effectively a sitting duck. This is not only because of attack drones, but also scout UAVs that can act as massive force multipliers for regular artillery pieces, effectively turning them into precision-guided platforms. Ukrainian soldiers often had to change the courses to teach NATO instructors how to “conduct assault operations under the threat of drones, how to use ghillie camouflage suits, anti-thermal cloaks and FPV cover”. It should be noted that this is not a new development, as evidenced by similar reports from the second year of the SMO. Namely, back in 2023, there were numerous complaints by both Ukrainian and American soldiers that NATO training is getting them killed in Ukraine.

Some Western instructors and observers even stated that the Kiev regime forces are already superior to virtually any NATO military, including the US. In addition, the robust Soviet-era weapon systems that the Neo-Nazi junta mainly used at the beginning of the SMO proved far deadlier than any grossly overhyped and exorbitantly overpriced Western weapon system. This certainly doesn’t bode well for either the Pentagon or Brussels.

If hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened Ukrainians have such an unprecedented casualty ratio of losses fighting the Russian military, but are still beating Western instructors even in basic tactics, then what chance could NATO possibly have against the Eurasian giant? Although undoubtedly a rather pitiful embarrassment, this and similar incidents could serve as a cold shower for warmongers and war criminals in NATO.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

European leaders are desperate for the war in Ukraine to continue

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 27, 2025

Left to their own devices, European leaders would be happy for the war in Ukraine to continue, with little regard for the enormous human cost involved, the continued destruction of infrastructure, nor the increasingly corrupt and repressive tendencies of Zelensky and his government.

It came as little surprise, therefore, that the Europeans have been working hard to derail President Trump’s efforts – which are already enormously challenging – to bring the war to an end. The U.S. approach, characterised by a post on X from Vice President JD Vance, is to ensure a peace plan that has to “be acceptable to both sides”.

That is a basic principle of diplomacy. No one truly wins in war and, to bring it to an end, statesmanship is needed with both sides willing to make concessions in the interest of a longer-term peace. Despite continuing to press home the advance of Russia’s army on the battlefield, and in a much stronger position economically to sustain the war, President Putin has shown a willingness to settle and draw a line to stop the bloodshed.

Yet, and as Vance said in his post, “There is a fantasy [in Europe, Kyiv and among some quarters in Washington] that if we just give more money, more weapons, or more sanctions, victory is at hand. Peace won’t be made by failed diplomats or politicians living in a fantasy land. It might be made by smart people living in the real world.”

The cold hard reality is that Ukraine will also need to make concessions to bring the war to an end and that European leaders will have to recognise the inevitability of this.

And yet, after the U.S. kickstarted detailed peace talks with Ukraine in Geneva it quickly became clear that the Europeans are still living in a fantasy in which they can somehow force Russia to make all the required concessions for peace, without the economic means, nor the military will to do so.

Following publication of an initial draft 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, western media were quick to circulate a new version that had been edited by the National Security Advisers of Germany, France and the UK. (It amazes me – or perhaps it doesn’t – that no one is the western media has asked how the document was leaked so quickly.)

The initial 28-point U.S. plan – which was less of a plan than an agenda for talks – was not perfect by any means, but it did include elements that tried to deal with the concerns of both Russia and Ukraine.

The 27-point edited plan from the Europeans was absolutely designed to ensure that Russia would not agree to a peace deal and would continue fighting on the battlefield.

By far the biggest reason for this centred around NATO. The U.S. draft included a clause that Ukraine would give up its ambition for NATO membership and that NATO would include in its charter documents a commitment never to permit Ukrainian membership.

The European version changed that to Ukraine only being able to join NATO through a consensus of members which does not exist. But this quite obviously states the current position of NATO towards Ukraine’s membership; that because there is no consensus, Ukraine cannot join. However, the oft stated position from the Russian side is that one day that consensus may be found, for example under a future Democrat party U.S. President. So, all this does is to leave the door ajar for Ukraine to join one day in the future. And it was precisely this concern that President Putin expressed in the frantic days of diplomacy that preceded the start of the war. “If not tomorrow, then what about the day after tomorrow?” Notably, clause 3 in the draft U.S. text that “NATO will not expand further” was also completely removed by the Europeans (hence the European plan has 27 points, not 28 points).

Moreover, other language in the U.S. draft was watered down. Gone was a commitment never to station NATO troops in Ukraine; the proposed European clause stated NATO troops would not be permanently stationed in Ukraine during peacetime. That both left open the possibility of temporary deployments of NATO troops to Ukraine and a permanent deployment in any future war.

On the basis that the proposal is to bring peace to Ukraine, adding in a text that allows for the temporary deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine when peace breaks out seems designed to ensure that peace won’t happen. Not least as the U.S. draft, as it stood, included solid language on security guarantees for Ukraine that involved a military response to a hypothetical future war from Russia.

The other striking aspect of the European so-called “counter-proposal” was its soft pedalling on Ukraine’s future EU membership. While the U.S. draft spoke of EU membership as a “right” for Ukraine, the Europeans changed the wording to say that Ukraine would be “eligible” for EU membership, and that its application would be “evaluated”. This is diplomatic weasel wording for “membership is not guaranteed”. So, while the Russian side has said it no longer has objections to Ukraine joining the EU, European leaders are starting to focus on the enormous cost and disruption that this will involve, as I have pointed out many times before.

Lacking the money to pay for Ukraine, the Europeans also radically changed the language on the cost of post-war reconstruction. Out, the U.S. language to divide and invest some part of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets. In, language that Russia would have to pay for all reconstruction, and that its assets would remain frozen until this was the case. Clearly, and as I have also pointed out previously, holding on to Russian assets will disincentivise Russia from striking for peace. Why would Russia want to end a war that it is winning while paying for all the damages caused by the war and not receive back its frozen reserves in the process? It would arguably be less expensive to keep fighting.

There were other curious additions by the Europeans too. One addition removed the U.S. proposal that elections be held in Ukraine 100 days after the peace deal is agreed, to a commitment to hold elections “as soon as possible”. This appears obviously a sop to Zelensky’s team, leaving open the prospect of Presidential elections being kicked down the road for an indeterminate period of time after the war ends.

The language on promoting mutual understanding and reconciliation between Ukraine was watered down and wording on Nazi ideology removed.

On paper, the U.S. 28-point plan, and the European 27-point counter-proposal appeared fairly similar. Yet, read closely, the U.S. plan appears one for peace, while the European is one for more war.

Despite this, the Americans appear to be in the driving seat on the negotiations, keeping the Europeans largely out of the substance of the negotiations. A further intensive day of discussions with Ukraine in Geneva on 24 November slimmed the peace proposal down to 19 points. It will be a monumental challenge for President Trump to find a solution that will be acceptable both to Russia and to Ukraine. But he has a far greater chance than anyone in Europe.

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Russia ready to provide Europe with written security guarantees – Putin

RT | November 27, 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin has rejected Western claims that Russia plans to attack European countries, saying Moscow is prepared to formalize this in a written security guarantee.

EU leaders are inflating the “Russian threat” for domestic political gain and in the interests of their defense industries, Vladimir Putin told a press conference on Thursday, following his visit to Kyrgyzstan.

“To say that Russia is planning to attack Europe – for us, that sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? We’ve never planned anything like that,” he noted. “But if they want to hear it from us, well, fine, we will write that down, no problem.”

The Russian president suggested that European leaders might be “trying to create an illusion for their populations” or “catering to defense companies.”

“Maybe they’re trying to prop up their domestic political ratings, given the lamentable state of their economies. But in our eyes, of course, it’s just nonsense – complete lies,” he said.

Noting that such ideas are “hyped up in the Western public consciousness,” Putin added that if Europe wants a formal reassurance that Russia has no aggressive plans, “then we’d be willing to do this.”

Moscow has repeatedly rejected claims that it plans to attack EU countries, saying any such allegations are being used by European politicians to scare the population and justify growing military spending. Russia has also said it is defending itself in the Ukraine conflict, accusing NATO of provoking the hostilities. Putin said earlier that those in the West who keep promoting “nonsense” about alleged aggressive intentions by Moscow are either “incompetent or dishonest.”

Despite the ongoing peace process in the Ukraine conflict mediated by US President Donald Trump, the EU has pledged to continue to provide weapons to Kiev and has taken steps to militarize itself, including by approving the €800 billion ($910 billion) ‘ReArm Europe Plan.’

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Lavrov denounces leak of Trump’s draft peace proposal

Western officials are trying to torpedo Washington’s mediation efforts, the top Russian diplomat has said

RT | November 25, 2025

The leak of a US proposal for ending the Ukraine conflict was designed to derail President Donald Trump’s peace efforts, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday.

Reports that the White House had drafted a document outlining a path towards ending Kiev’s hostilities with Russia initially came from the US media, with a Ukrainian MP and Axios later publishing what they said were the full 28 points of the roadmap.

“It was leaked on purpose to fan the media hype,” Lavrov said. “Those who direct this hype certainly want to undermine Donald Trump’s efforts, to distort the plan according to their wishes.”

He said the diplomatic sabotage appears to be coming from European leaders backing Kiev, particularly French President Emmanuel Macron, who he argued do not have “the best intentions.”

Lavrov said Moscow never received any texts from Washington through official channels, but obtained it unofficially. Regardless, Russia will only discuss whatever the US eventually submits, and will do so confidentially, without resorting to “megaphone diplomacy,” the minister added.

Macron and other Western officials have rejected any agreement that would cross what Kiev proclaimed as its red lines, such as its bid to join NATO, its ability to host foreign troops, or territorial claims.

Lavrov noted that Moscow is willing to discuss “specific wording” of a possible peace deal, but will not compromise on any of the core objectives that President Vladimir Putin outlined to Trump personally during their meeting in Alaska earlier this year. Should “the spirit of Anchorage be erased” from the proposal that the US shares with Russia, “the situation would be radically different,” he added.

November 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Arms industry investors in panic over Ukraine peace talks

RT | November 24, 2025

The prospect of a possible peace in Ukraine has caused “panic” among investors in the German defense industry, sending stocks of arms manufacturers such as Rheinmetall tumbling.

The US reportedly handed Kiev a 28-point peace proposal last week and gave it until Thursday to respond. The framework was discussed in Geneva on Sunday, with US President Donald Trump saying afterwards that “something good” may be happening.

The peace push immediately unnerved investors, triggering a fierce sell-off of shares in Rheinmetall, Germany’s largest arms manufacturer and a key supplier of military equipment to Kiev. Rheinmetall stock has fallen by over 14% over the past five days, with defense-electronics producer Hensoldt recording a similar drop.

“Investors fear that an end to hostilities could also mean the end of the “super-cycle” for defense stocks,” Boerse-Express wrote.

Germany has become Kiev’s second-largest arms provider after the US, and Rheinmetall, which produces tanks, artillery systems, and ammunition, recently reported surging profits for the first nine months of 2025, alongside a record order backlog driven by the conflict and rising EU military budgets. Company shares have climbed nearly 2,000% since fighting escalated almost four years ago.

During the previous US attempt to broker peace in February, Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger argued that even if the fighting were to end, it would be “wrong” for Europe to assume “a peaceful future.” In 2024, the company announced plans to build four manufacturing plants in Ukraine.

The broader European defense sector has been expanding at roughly three times its pre-2022 pace, Financial Times reported in August. Western leaders claim the accelerated buildup is needed to meet NATO readiness targets, maintain arms deliveries to Kiev, and deter what they describe as a potential Russian threat.

Moscow has called such claims “absurd” fearmongering aimed at justifying increased military spending and condemned what it calls the West’s “reckless militarization.”

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

Ukraine Has Lost the War – Part 32 of the Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | November 20, 2025

The Ukraine War is rarely covered by western corporate media anymore except for occasional stories about evil Russians killing civilians with missile strikes. Western politicians describe the war as a stalemate, even though Russian forces advance several kilometers at several places each week. Russian forces recently captured four small cities and have nearly surrounded four more. Thousands of trapped Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered the past two months.

Russia’s war industry outproduces NATO nations while Ukraine has shortages of air defense missiles and artillery munitions. Russian losses are manageable and the war enjoys strong support at home. President Putin seems to enjoy this slow war because he is winning, while NATO nations suffer from energy shortages, budget deficits, and popular unrest.

In October, Russia began striking Ukrainian energy facilities with missile and drone attacks, knocking out half the power in Ukraine. This is huge problem in winter and affects Ukraine rail system since most is electric rail. Heat and food shortages prompted a new wave of Ukrainians fleeing to Western Europe. This caused major political headaches since Europeans are angry at the cost to support this mindless war and housing millions of refugees. Poland recently announced that it has over a million Ukrainian refugees and can accept no more. 2026 will be an interesting year in Europe that hopefully allows a rational settlement of this conflict.

____________________________________________________

Related Tale: “A Resurrection of the Austro-Hungarian Empire”;    • A Resurrection of the Austro-Hungarian Emp…  
“Military Summary” channel; YouTube; daily war updates;    / @militarysummary  
“Pokrovsk Offensive”; Russia just captured a key city detailed in a great moving map; War Maps; November 19, 2025;    • Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Pokrovsk Offe…  
Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”;    • The Anglo-American War on Russia

November 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin: Trump’s New Peace Plan May Become Foundation of Ukrainian Conflict’s Resolution

Sputnik – 21.11.2025

US President Donald Trump’s new peace plan could form the basis for a final settlement in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday.

Earlier this week, the Financial Times published a 28-point US peace plan for Ukraine that includes a reduction in US military aid, official recognition of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, granting the Russian language state status in Ukraine, reducing Ukraine’s armed forces, and banning foreign troops and long-range weapons on Ukrainian soil.

“I believe that it [Trump’s plan] can be the basis for a final peaceful settlement,” Putin said during a meeting with permanent members of the Russian Security Council today.

He also mentioned that Russia has the text of US President Donald Trump’s plan for Ukrainian settlement.

“We received it through the existing channels of interaction with the US administration,” Putin said.

Russia agreed to show flexibility in its approach to the Ukrainian settlement during the Anchorage meeting, Putin added.

“The main point of the meeting in Alaska, the main purpose of the meeting in Alaska, was that during the negotiations in Anchorage we confirmed that despite certain difficult issues and difficulties on our part, we nevertheless agree with these proposals and are ready to show the flexibility offered to us,” Putin said at a meeting with the permanent members of the Russian Security Council.

The United States, during discussions on the settlement in Ukraine, asked Russia to make certain compromises, Putin added.

“President Trump’s peace plan to resolve the situation in Ukraine was discussed before the Alaska meeting. And during this preliminary discussion, the American side asked us to make certain compromises, to show, as they said, flexibility,” he elaborated.

He added that after his talks with Trump in Alaska, the United States took a pause caused by Ukraine refusing the deal.

The US plan for the settlement in Ukraine has not been discussed publicly, only in general terms, he noted.

“We have hardly discussed it publicly [the US plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine], only in the most general terms,” Putin said at a videoconference meeting with permanent members of the Russian Security Council.

He did note, however, that the United States has so far failed to secure the consent of the Ukrainian side on a peace settlement plan.

“The reason, I believe, is the same — the US administration has so far failed to secure the consent of the Ukrainian side. Ukraine is against it. Apparently, Ukraine and its European allies are still under illusions and dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield,” Putin said.

Neither Ukraine nor Europe understands what a lack of understanding of the situation on the front line can lead to, he noted.

“This position is due to the lack of objective information about the situation, the real state of affairs on the battlefield. And, apparently, neither Ukraine nor Europe understands what this may eventually lead to,” Putin said, adding that Kiev has no objective information about the real situation on the battlefield, which is why it refuses a peaceful settlement.

If Kiev does not want to discuss Trump’s proposals, then they and Europeans should understand that events like in the city of Kupyansk will be repeated, Putin said.

Meanwhile, all of Russia’s friends and partners, including China, India, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and the countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), support the potential agreements between Russia and the United States on a Ukrainian settlement, which were discussed at the Anchorage summit, Putin added.

“We have thoroughly briefed all of our friends and partners in the Global South on all these issues, including China, India, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and many other countries, as well as the CSTO countries, of course. All of our friends and partners — I want to emphasize this, every single one of them — all supported these potential agreements,” he said.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Either the difficult 28 points or a very hard winter – Zelensky

RT | November 21, 2025

Vladimir Zelensky has said Ukraine must brace for a tough choice between accepting the “28 difficult points” of the US peace plan or risk losing a key backer. His comments come after the submission of a proposal and the leaking of its purported text by a Ukrainian MP.

According to Reuters, the administration of US President Donald Trump has threatened to cut off Ukraine from intelligence and military aid, should Kiev reject it.

In a video address to Ukrainians on Friday, Zelensky stated that the country is going through “one of the most difficult moments in our history.”

While not directly mentioning the US-proposed peace roadmap, he said that failure to accept the “difficult 28 points” would likely result in the “most difficult… winter” for Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022. Kiev confirmed receiving the newly proposed peace plan from Washington on Thursday, but stopped short of revealing its contents.

According to media reports, the roadmap features 28 points, including but not limited to the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the parts of Russia’s Donbass it still controls, downsizing the country’s military, and giving up on NATO aspirations. Kiev would also reportedly be required to make Russian an official language. In exchange, it would presumably be offered Western security guarantees.

In his Friday address to the nation, Zelensky said that Kiev would be working “calmly” and “quickly” with Washington and its European backers to ensure that “Ukraine’s national interests are taken into account.”

The Ukrainian leader vowed to present unspecified “alternatives,” while trying to avoid the impression that he “does not want peace.”

Zelensky also mentioned his latest phone call with a number of EU leaders, expressing confidence that “Europe will be with us.” He further claimed that Ukraine is “now the only shield” protecting Europe from Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed as “nonsense” claims made by some EU officials, who have accused Moscow of planning an attack on the bloc’s members.

In recent months, Russian forces have been steadily advancing in the Donetsk People’s Republic, making significant gains. The Ukrainian military, by contrast, is facing severe personnel shortages.

While Zelensky stopped short of directly acknowledging this in his latest speech, he did say that although Ukrainians are “made of steel… any metal” may eventually break under pressure.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian MP publishes purported terms of new peace deal

RT | November 20, 2025

Ukrainian opposition MP Aleksey Goncharenko has published the text of a purported peace plan reportedly presented to Kiev by the US administration this week.

The lawmaker posted on social media what appeared to be screenshots of a Ukrainian-language electronic document detailing the 28-point peace plan to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev.

Earlier in the day, Vladimir Zelensky’s office confirmed the US presented Kiev with its new draft plan. The Ukrainian administration did not elaborate on its contents, only expressing a willingness to discuss it and stating that “in the American side’s assessment” the plan “could help reinvigorate diplomacy.”

Here’s the full text of the post:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be considered resolved.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and that NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to (6)00,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that it will not accept Ukraine in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to deploy troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter aircraft will be stationed in Poland.

10. US Guarantees: The United States will receive compensation for the guarantee. If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of new territories and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked. If Ukraine without cause launches a missile at Moscow or Saint Petersburg, the security guarantee will be considered invalid.

11. Ukraine retains the right to EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while the issue is under consideration.

12. A powerful global package of measures for the reconstruction of Ukraine, including but not limited to:
a. Creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in high-growth sectors, including technology, data-processing centres, and artificial intelligence.
b. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine on the joint reconstruction, development, modernization, and operation of Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
c. Joint efforts to restore war-affected territories, including the reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.
d. Infrastructure development.
e. Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
f. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon gradually and on an individual basis.
b. The United States will conclude a long-term economic cooperation agreement aimed at mutual development in the fields of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data-processing centres, rare-earth mining projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
c. Russia will be invited to return to the G8.

14. Frozen assets will be used in the following way: $100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking. Europe will add another $100 billion to increase the total investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European assets will be unfrozen. The remaining frozen Russian assets will be invested in a separate American-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint American-Russian projects in areas to be determined. This fund will be aimed at strengthening bilateral relations and increasing shared interests in order to create strong motivation not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to facilitate and ensure the fulfilment of all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will legislatively enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms control, including START-1.

18. Ukraine agrees to remain a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant will be restarted under IAEA supervision, and the generated electricity will be split equally between Russia and Ukraine (50:50).

20. Both countries undertake to introduce educational programmes in schools and society that promote understanding and tolerance of different cultures and the elimination of racism and prejudice:
a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and protection of linguistic minorities.
b. Both countries agree to lift all discriminatory measures and to guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
c. All Nazi ideology and activity must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:
a. Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk will be recognized de facto as Russian, including by the United States.
b. Kherson and Zaporozhye will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
c. Russia renounces other territories (probably referring to parts of Kharkov, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts – Ed.) that it controls outside the five regions.
d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast they currently control; this withdrawal zone will be regarded as a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

22. After future territorial arrangements are agreed, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of violation of this commitment.

23. Russia will not obstruct Ukraine’s commercial use of the Dnepr River, and agreements will be reached on the free transportation of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be created to resolve outstanding issues:
a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on the “all-for-all” principle.
b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
c. A family reunification programme will be implemented.
d. Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of conflict victims.

25. Ukraine will hold elections 100 days after the agreement is signed.

26. All parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for actions committed during the war and will undertake not to file claims or pursue complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council headed by President Trump. Predetermined sanctions will apply in the event of violations.

28. Once all parties have agreed to and signed this memorandum, the ceasefire will enter into force immediately after both sides withdraw to the agreed positions so that implementation of the agreement can begin.

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

NATO has turned Baltic Sea into ‘confrontation zone’ – Moscow

The bloc’s attempts to oust Russia from the region will fail, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said

RT | November 20, 2025

NATO has turned the Baltic Sea into an area of military confrontation, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said, lamenting that the bloc is unwilling to discuss de-escalation in the region.

Her remarks come amid rising anti-Russian rhetoric and military activity among NATO members, especially Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which all border Russia and the Baltic Sea.

Zakharova said the region had long been a space of trade and peaceful cooperation, but that the balance has been dismantled by NATO’s military buildup.

“This part of Europe has been turned into a zone of confrontation, which sharply escalated as a result of Finland and Sweden joining the bloc,” she told Russian media on Thursday.

The diplomat pointed to NATO’s 2025 launch of the ‘Baltic Sentry’ mission, calling it an attempt to impose new navigation rules and turn the sea into the bloc’s “internal waters” – ambitions she said are doomed to fail. She insisted that Russia will remain a full-fledged member of the “Baltic community.”

NATO claims ‘Baltic Sentry’ protects critical undersea infrastructure after recent incidents involving energy and communications cables. It has deployed warships, submarines, and aircraft to the region, conducting regular patrols and drills. Moscow views the buildup as a direct threat.

”It is very difficult to see any potential for dialogue aimed at reducing tensions. And NATO countries… are not showing openness to an honest discussion on ways to de-escalate,” Zakharova said.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have adopted an increasingly confrontational stance toward Russia since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Officials such as EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who is a former Lithuanian prime minister, continue to invoke an alleged Russian threat to justify soaring military spending. Kubilius warned this week of a possible conflict with Russia within two to four years.

Moscow has rejected claims of hostile intent, denouncing what it calls the West’s “reckless militarization.” Zakharova stressed that Russia will use all available legal instruments to safeguard its national security and interests.

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

EU rejects US-proposed Ukraine peace plan

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. © Getty Images / Thierry Monasse / Contributor
RT | November 20, 2025

The European Union has pushed back against the latest US-proposed plan to end the Ukraine conflict, saying any settlement must reflect the positions of both Brussels and Kiev.

The 28-point draft framework agreement, which Western media claim was developed in coordination with Moscow, would reportedly require Ukraine to withdraw from the parts of the new Russian regions in Donbass still under Kiev’s control, cut its armed forces by at least half, surrender some weaponry and abandon its NATO ambitions. Kiev on Thursday confirmed receiving the proposal, with Vladimir Zelensky saying he hopes to discuss it with US President Donald Trump “in the coming days.”

The draft plan has drawn criticism from Kiev’s supporters in the EU, who appear to have been caught off guard and convened a meeting in Brussels on Thursday. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas insisted that any peace arrangement must reflect the positions of both the bloc and Ukraine, arguing that the US proposal offered “no concessions” from the Russian side. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was quoted by Reuters as saying that any agreement must not amount to a “capitulation,” while several other ministers reportedly said they had not seen the document and would need clarification before commenting.

Moscow has repeatedly accused the EU of obstructing US-Russian diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, arguing that the bloc is instead working to prolong the hostilities by supplying weapons, military equipment, and open-ended pledges of support to Kiev.

According to Germany’s Kiel Institute, the EU has committed over €65 billion ($75 billion) in aid to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, with total pledges nearing €98 billion.

The Kremlin says it “remains open” to peace talks but says Kiev “is only seeking to keep the fighting going,” encouraged by the EU, which has severed any meaningful dialogue with Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that EU states are now trying to elbow their way into the peace process despite what he called their openly hostile stance toward Russia – a “position of revanchism” that he believes should preclude the bloc from having a seat at the negotiating table.

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

Russia Communicates Consistently, But the West Won’t Listen

By Bryan Anthony Reo – New Eastern Outlook – November 15, 2025

Russia consistently states its interests, goals, and security concerns, but the West often ignores these statements, considering them irrelevant and refusing to consult on issues directly affecting Russia. This attitude reflects hubris and folly and risks disastrous consequences, as it is both unjust and historically unsound.

Over the last several decades, Russia has consistently communicated a clear stance to the West, a stance that has largely been ignored or even ridiculed. As I say, “over the last several decades,” it becomes clear I am going to pick a starting point for a divergence or breakdown of East/West communications, and I must necessarily pick some point. I could go back to the Crimean War and show how Britain and France were engaged in imperialist interventions to try to harm Russia as far back as 1854 (and very few British patriots who honor the glory of the Light Brigade ever think to inquire as to why the British Army was in Crimea in the first place), or I could even go back to 1054 with the East-West Schism, but for the sake of simplicity, brevity, and precision, let’s focus around 1989-1991 as the starting point. It is necessary to pick a point, so I choose 1989-1991 for the purpose of this writing.

The Decline of the Soviet Empire and NATO’s Promises

As the Cold War was winding down and Soviet Premier Gorbachev tacitly conceded that Marxism-Leninism had not prevailed in the competition of ideas with the Western nations, agreements were made, understandings were reached, and terms were established for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Central Europe and from the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact member territories. Then US Secretary of State James Baker promised guarantees: “NATO jurisdiction or forces will not move eastward” regarding the possibility of NATO eastward expansion. Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow available in the National Security Archive.

There was also the follow-up conversation with President Gorbachev (held the same day as the initial conversation with Mr. Shevardnadze), where Baker told Gorbachev, “Not one inch to the east.”

Consequences and Lessons of the Eastern Bloc

It was on this basis that the Soviet Union consented to German reunification under Western auspices favorable to the FRG, by which the DDR was essentially absorbed. The Soviets also withdrew, in peace, throughout the Warsaw Pact nations, and nowhere did they use violence to oppose the popular mass demonstrations occurring throughout 1989-1990 across in the Eastern Bloc; not even in Romania, where the demonstrations were not only not peaceful, but morphed into a bloody revolution. As an aside, Brussels technocrats might do well to ponder what the Romanian people did to Ceausescu and the simple fact that when people are pushed to the breaking point, they snap, and that no technocratic tyranny is immune to being brought down by its own working class. In the end, Ceausescu was at least as out of touch with the reality of his own population as most of the empty suits in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London are with their respective populations, and only time will tell if those empty suits in those cities meet a similar fate.

The Russians (previously Soviets) had communicated clearly to their Western counterparts and obtained promises and assurances that they thought were as good as gold. The only thing we can fault President Gorbachev for is that he trusted the words of Western so-called statesmen, and he actually believed what they told him. They would later cynically proclaim, “Those promises were never in writing,” as though a verbal guarantee means nothing and it would only matter if it were written on paper. Ask the American Indians how valuable American government written guarantees were in the 19th century, or ask the Czechs and Slovaks what they think of British written guarantees from 1938 and 1939. The West would have violated even written guarantees, because it is now obvious that the West had the intention to betray Russia from the start.

History Lessons: Why Russia Will Never Forgive NATO Expansion

The West occasionally maintains the position that no guarantees were ever given to Russia, a position I do not support. The available evidence strongly indicates that the guarantees were made, and common sense would suggest that seasoned Soviet/Russian statesmen would have procured such guarantees before undertaking the steps to dismantle the Warsaw Pact and shift forces back to the Soviet Union. However, even if the guarantees were not made, good neighborliness and political reality would dictate that the prudent course of action would be to respect Russian interests and not expand NATO, as such expansion is a needless provocation that risks much and gains little.

Russia has clearly communicated, repeatedly, “Do not expand NATO to the east,” “Do not expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact members,” and finally, “Do not expand NATO into former Soviet Republics.” The standard response the West gives Russia has come from people such as John McCain, who dismiss Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country,” which they say isn’t worthy of listening to or taking seriously. I urge my fellow Americans, only adopt Mr. McCain’s attitude if you do not value peace and if you wish to test that hypothesis in a knock-down, drag-out fight with Russia, a fight that might end in nuclear fire.

Suffice to say, Russia is a great and historical power and cannot be flippantly dismissed as a “gas station” simply because a pseudo-statesman like John McCain said so. Such remarks are as constructive to international dialogue as a Russian dismissing the USA as a “Super Walmart pretending to be a country,” which, as far as I know, has not happened, because Russian diplomats are actually classically educated and know how to behave themselves. One-liner insults or verbal jabs are best left to comedians, not aspiring statesmen hoping to go viral while sounding “cool” for a younger audience.

The Russians seldom speak of Americans or America in the sort of denigrating or insulting terms Americans use to describe them, because it is not how mature statesmen dialogue with partners or even competitors or rivals; childish insults are generally not a tool in the box of statecraft, unless you are Bismarck trying to start a war with France in 1870. The Russians don’t seem to have the American penchant for starting unnecessary wars.

In fact, the Russians have shown incredible restraint and forbearance in an attempt to keep the peace and avoid escalation to war. Russia reluctantly accepted NATO expansion in 1999, which saw the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland incorporated into NATO, although it was in clear violation of the prior assurances made by Western leadership. It is likely that the Western powers, looking at the dire situation in Russia in the late 1990s, decided, “Russia is in crisis, the situation is terrible, we can violate the prior agreements with impunity, and Russia won’t be in any position to oppose us.”

One more round of expansion of NATO in the former Warsaw Pact and even in the former Soviet Republics occurred, and that was in 2004.

Putin at the Helm: How the Change of Power in Russia Coincided with a New Wave of NATO Expansion

Something dramatic and historically significant had happened in Russia around that time; that was the ascension to the presidency of Vladimir Putin, who was appointed prime minister in 1999 and then elected president in 2000.

The 1999 NATO expansion happened prior to the beginning of his administration, and the 2004 expansion happened while he was still stabilizing the situation in Russia and was working to resolve the internal issues of the Second Chechen War (the jihadi groups in Dagestan likely had support of CIA/Western-organized global jihadi networks such as Al Qaeda, which the CIA had formed and organized to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, which ultimately turned and bit its American master).

In 2004 the Russians very reluctantly witnessed the expansion of NATO into the Baltic States and the rest of the former non-Soviet Warsaw Pact members who were not included in the 1999 expansion, but red lines were drawn; the message was clear: “Do not ever attempt to expand NATO into a former Soviet Republic again.”

The West went away hearing what its delusional technocratic rulers wanted to hear and what its thoroughly dishonest corporate press wanted to report: “Russia is unreasonable and threatens a peaceful military alliance simply for expanding right to its front door.” They also convinced themselves Russia was weak and could be subdued or subverted.

Two Failures of the West: Lessons of 2008 and the Fate of the Puppets

The West has only dared try to expand into former Soviet Republics on two more occasions, one in 2008, where the Western/Soros-backed pawn Mikheil Saakashvili (emboldened by ultimately empty Western guarantees of support) foolishly and recklessly ordered his military to attack Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and found out the hard way that Western guarantees aren’t always reliable and that Russia was not as weak as his Western handlers doubtlessly assured him. Saakashvili is presently a naturalized Ukrainian citizen who claims a right to the leadership of Georgia, but he is incarcerated for his crimes against Georgia and the Georgian people. Readers may ponder on such things and contemplate the worthiness of Western guarantees, something Saakashvili will have many years to ponder on from his prison cell, where he may also contemplate that his treason against Georgia and aggression against Russia came with high price tags.

2008 was different from 1999, as Russia now had President Putin at the helm, Russia’s recovery was proceeding at full speed, and what NATO was able to get away with in 1999, it found it couldn’t manage in 2008.

I said there were “two more occasions” where the West tried to expand NATO into former Soviet Republics. One was in Georgia in 2008. The other is right now; it is history we are living in and watching unfold. We are part of a generation that is watching (in some instances writing) this history. I speak, of course, of Ukraine.

In 2008 NATO affirmed, “Ukraine will one day become a member,” and President Putin warned them not to try, not to do it; he warned of a forceful response if such a thing was attempted. NATO ignored Putin, at its own peril, and proceeded forward with operations in the Ukraine, first subverting the lawful government with the illegal (and immoral) Maidan Coup of 2014, and then turning the Ukraine into an armed camp with tens of billions of dollars of weapons from 2014 to 2022 and then finally hundreds of billions of dollars since 2022.

Russia communicated clearly, “Do not expand NATO in this manner,” and the NATO response was essentially demonstrated by deed, “We don’t care what Russia says or does, Russian responses are not relevant, and we don’t factor Russia into our calculations.”

Why does NATO seek to expand? Why does NATO even exist in the post-Cold War era? Perhaps the NATO leaders understand well something Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “An alliance which is not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value.” So NATO exists to wage war; this much is clear. The question then is, “Against whom does NATO seek to wage war?” A question whose answer is also obvious. NATO is an aggressive dagger aimed at the heart of Russia.

Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations.

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »