Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture

RT | September 15, 2026

Throughout the summer, a major scandal has been brewing in Lithuania. In late July, the country suffered a landmark defeat in the European Court of Human Rights in a case brought by Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national held in secret detention and brutally tortured for four years in CIA black sites around the world – including Lithuania. While Western governments and news outlets have ignored the judgement, the ECHR’s conclusions produced bitter political division locally, with the opposition calling for a new investigation into the CIA’s use and abuse of the country during the US-led ‘War on Terror’.

Lithuania’s ruling coalition, in keeping with previous governments, is resistant to any further damaging light being shed on their territory hosting criminal operations of American intelligence for many years in total secret, with perpetrators of horrendous torture insulated from any legal repercussions or professional consequence. Their resistance is understandable. On top of not wanting to offend their colossal US ally, Lithuania’s ruling elites are keen to conceal from the local population, and the world, how their ‘independence’ under Western hegemony comes with unseen strings attached. When those strings entail intimate collusion in grave crimes, it’s Lithuania that suffers the consequences.

How did the ECHR rule against Lithuania?

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is accused of being the mastermind of the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, and heading Al Qaeda in the Persian Gulf. He was captured by the CIA in November 2002. Over the next four years, he was held in nine separate CIA black sites, and brutally tortured every step of the way. Five months of his ordeal were spent at a specially constructed facility in Lithuania, named ‘Detention Site Violet’ in internal CIA memos, from November 2005 to March 2006. Lithuania denied any responsibility for al-Nashiri’s maltreatment, and contested the evidentiary basis of his claims. The ECHR found Vilnius’ culpability was “proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

During his incarceration in Lithuania, al-Nashiri was held incommunicado in solitary confinement and denied any contact with the outside world. His removal from the country was conducted with the Lithuanian government’s full knowledge he could face “a flagrant denial of justice and the death penalty” if extradited to the US, where he has remained in Guantanamo Bay until today. The ECHR unanimously found Vilnius violated numerous Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights through the country’s complicity with the CIA’s treatment of al-Nashiri, including right to a fair trial, right to respect for private and family life, right to life, and inhuman or degrading treatment.

Is this Lithuania’s first run in with the ECHR over CIA torture?

The ruling on al-Nashiri’s treatment is the third ECHR judgement against Lithuania over its involvement in the CIA torture program. In May 2018, the court ruled state authorities conspired with the CIA and subjected high-profile prisoner Abu Zubaydah to inhuman treatment, sensory isolation, and violation of his fundamental rights to liberty and security. Vilnius was ordered to pay him €100,000 in damages, which he has been unable to collect due to his ongoing detention in Guantanamo Bay. It was just the beginning of Lithuania’s major legal woes over its part in the CIA’s torture program.

In January 2024, the ECHR ruled Lithuania was responsible for arbitrarily detaining Saudi national Mustafa al-Hawsawi. Like Zubaydah, he was held in Detention Site Violet, exposing him to arbitrary detention and ill-treatment, and failing to conduct an effective local criminal probe into his incarceration and torture. Lithuania was ordered to pay €100,000 to al-Hawsawi in damages and €30,000 in costs. It’s not just the ECHR which has sought to hold Lithuania accountable, either. In 2022, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found Vilnius was complicit in torture and secret detention of alleged terrorists on the CIA’s behalf.

All along, the ECHR has condemned the Lithuanian authorities for the country’s involvement in the CIA’s torture program, which saw many ‘high value’ detainees – including accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – pass through Detention Site Violet’s secret doors. The court has also harshly criticized Vilnius for its stubborn refusal to conduct serious criminal and/or public investigations into the secret CIA prison network constructed on Lithuania’s soil, and the involvement in and knowledge of these operations on the part of the country’s security, intelligence, and policing apparatus. But it’s abundantly clear the microscopic Baltic state was heavily complicit.

What are the Lithuanians hiding?

Despite the conspiracy of silence in Vilnius, numerous local investigations in the US and at the EU level have created damning trails of breadcrumbs leading straight from Detention Site Violet to the highest levels of the Lithuanian state. It is confirmed the CIA obtained approval from the country’s political leaders before constructing the black sites. One Lithuanian official was reportedly “shocked” by the proposals, but agreed anyway – it was an offer they couldn’t refuse. The CIA offered $1 million to its Lithuanian ‘partner’ agencies to “show appreciation” for their support, with the cash funneled through “complex mechanisms” to conceal the payments.

The Lithuanian parliament’s own Committee on National Security and Defence (CNSD) found the country’s State Security Department (SSD) accounting of funds it received for the operation was “inappropriate.” The construction of two separate CIA black sites was also concluded to have been “blessed by the top officials of the State.” The first was abandoned due to its small size limiting how many detainees could be held there at one time. This led to Detention Site Violet being built, with Lithuanian officials including then-President Rolandas Paksas kept in the loop regularly on its progress by the CIA. High-ranking SSD directors were also well-aware.

Meanwhile, SSD staff were highly active participants in the torture program on-the-ground from 2002 onwards, structuring and equipping the covert facilities according to CIA specifications and requirements.

Lithuania’s domestic spying agency enjoyed “unrestricted access to all the premises” of the two prisons, although the CIA was largely allowed to act without supervision there. Detention Site Violet was constructed in a former horse riding school located just 15 miles from Vilnius, the property having been bought by a CIA front company based in Panama, called Elite LLC. Coincidentally, this purchase was completed in March 2004, right when Lithuania became a NATO member. ABC News reported:

“On a series of thick concrete pads, [the CIA] installed what a source called ‘prefabricated pods’ to house prisoners, each separated from the other by five or six feet. Each pod included a shower, a bed and a toilet. Separate cells were constructed for interrogations… The prison pods inside the barn were not visible to locals. They describe seeing large amounts of earth being excavated during the summer of 2004. Locals who saw the activity at the prison and approached to ask for work were turned away by English-speaking guards. The guards were replaced by new guards every 90 days.”

How were CIA prisoners tortured in Lithuania?

Despite plentiful open source details on Detention Site Violet and the Lithuanian state’s cognizance and culpability in the torture program, the crucial question of what happened to CIA prisoners in the country has never been satisfactorily resolved. However, it has been confirmed Mustafa al-Hawsawi was denied medical treatment after suffering severe health issues from repeated rectal rehydration – a form of sexual abuse – while in CIA detention. An Inspector General report found Detention Site Violet – in keeping with other black sites – did not have resources for treating serious mental or physical conditions inflicted by the torture, despite both being common.

Under the CIA’s own guidelines, “in situations where a detainee’s medical condition cannot be adequately treated at the detention facility, detention facility staff and local CIA station personnel arrange access to the host country’s health care system.” However, Lithuanian officials “reneged on previous assurances that they would arrange inpatient treatment or have declined to become involved in providing medical treatment for CIA detainees.” Ultimately, al-Hawsawi was transferred to a third country for treatment, with the CIA covering the costs. Difficulties with the Lithuanian authorities over al-Hawsawi’s treatment ultimately resulted in Detention Site Violet’s March 2006 closure, when its remaining prisoners were transferred to Afghanistan.

Lithuania’s stonewalling of serious investigations into the country’s involvement in the CIA torture program means we do not know for sure the torture techniques to which detainees were subjected there. However, in light of the ECHR’s ruling on al-Nashiri, it may be relevant to consider how he was treated at a CIA black site in Poland.

This included being forced into excruciating standing stress positions for days – which resulted in a medical officer intervention, over fears his shoulders could dislocate – mock executions with a handgun, and the use of a cordless power drill. A January 2003 CIA cable noted concerns over this abuse at agency headquarters:

“We have serious reservations with the continued used of enhanced techniques with Nashiri and its long term impact on him. Subject has been held for three months in very difficult conditions, both physically and mentally… Continued enhanced methods may push subject over the edge psychologically.”

The very same day, the CIA’s chief of interrogations announced his early retirement. “I will no longer be associated in any way with the interrogation program due to serious reservation I have about the current state of affairs,” he wrote. “Instead, I will be retiring shortly. This is a train wreak [sic] waiting to happen and I intend to get the hell off the train before it happens.”

Is Lithuania the only NATO country implicated in CIA torture?

Today, much remains concealed and uncertain about the CIA’s torture program. But it is clear Lithuania was far from alone in assisting the CIA commit horrendous crimes against humanity on its territory, without political or public oversight. In 2007, the Council of Europe published a detailed report on “secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees” involving EU member states. Poland and Romania were also found to have eagerly abetted the CIA’s demonic activities, despite government denials of knowledge and/or culpability. The CoE found “the key arrangements for CIA clandestine operations in Europe were secured on a bilateral level.”

In Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, formal agreements with local governments and the CIA covered all manner of cooperation, including building the prisons, material support, and operational security, along with cast-iron promises of “non-interference” in the CIA’s criminality. This extended collusion to airport staff, which helped falsify flight records to conceal the arrival and departure of CIA detainees, and prevented customs and border officials from inspecting planes carrying prisoners. However, EU and NATO countries assisted the CIA’s torture program in more low-key ways throughout its operation. One notorious example is the rendition of Khaled El-Masri from North Macedonia.

Two-and-a-half decades on, the events of 9/11 and all that followed still casts a long shadow on every corner of the world, and justice continues to be denied to an unknown number of people – many of them completely innocent – who fell victim to the CIA’s global torture conspiracy. The ECHR’s latest ruling against Lithuania should, one might think, trigger a long-overdue public inquiry into how officials in Vilnius knowingly colluded in an operation that was completely illegal and unethical, along with appropriate punishments for the figures involved. As 9/11’s silver anniversary has just been marked, it’s never been more vital that the truth be finally told.

September 15, 2026 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Comments Off on How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture

‘Russophobia a national sport’ – Polish party rallies against push to war

RT | September 7, 2026

Polish protesters have accused Warsaw of whipping up anti-Russian hostility and dragging the country toward war as the government continues to arm Ukraine and deepen confrontation with Moscow.

Supporters of the Confederation of the Polish Crown party marched through Gniezno on Sunday behind a banner reading “Poland for Peace,” carrying Polish and party flags.

“They’re trying to turn Russophobia into our national sport. But we won’t give in,” activist Marta Czech told the crowd, urging “prudence” as tensions with Russia continue to rise.

Another speaker, Lukasz Pakulski, accused the authorities of frightening Poles with talk of tanks, nuclear weapons, and a wider conflict. “They are pushing us into war,” he said, declaring that “Poles stand for peace.”

The Crown is a traditionalist, Euroskeptic party founded by MEP Grzegorz Braun. It campaigns for tighter immigration controls, less power for Brussels, and Poland’s withdrawal from the EU, while opposing deeper Polish involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

The protest comes as Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government has continued to support Kiev, arguing that Ukraine’s security is inseparable from Poland’s own. Warsaw has provided around $6.8 billion in aid to Kiev since 2022, including more than $5 billion in military assistance. Poland also hosts around 961,000 Ukrainians under temporary protection.

However, public enthusiasm for the policy has been fading, with a July poll finding that 52% of Poles opposed accepting more Ukrainian refugees, while another survey showed 67% backed deporting unemployed Ukrainian men of military age.

Another survey found 27% believed Western aid to Ukraine was too large, compared with 22% who wanted more, while opposition to Ukrainian EU membership reached a record 40%.

Relations between Warsaw and Kiev have also recently deteriorated over historical grievances after Vladimir Zelensky named a military unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which Poland holds responsible for massacring up to 100,000 ethnic Poles during World War II.

President Karol Nawrocki later stripped Zelensky of Poland’s highest state honor, while other politicians have called for an end to free weapons deliveries to Kiev.

Moscow has consistently accused Warsaw of deliberately stoking anti-Russian sentiment while supporting Kiev’s war effort.

Russian officials have also highlighted the Kiev-Warsaw UPA dispute, arguing that even one of Ukraine’s strongest backers can no longer ignore Kiev’s embrace of neo-Nazi ideology and glorification of figures linked to wartime atrocities.

September 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on ‘Russophobia a national sport’ – Polish party rallies against push to war

Pfizer Freezes Air Traffic Control Funds Over COVID Vaccine Contract Dispute With Poland, Romania

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 30, 2026

A vaccine contract dispute between Pfizer and the European Union (EU) has resulted in Pfizer freezing billions of dollars in funds earmarked for air traffic control in Poland and Romania.

Eurocontrol, an intergovernmental organization that coordinates air traffic control management across Europe, notified Poland and Romania’s air traffic control agencies earlier this month that it was freezing the funds after Pfizer enforced an April court ruling in Brussels.

The April 1 ruling requires Poland and Romania to pay Pfizer about $1.5 billion and $640 million, respectively, plus interest and fees, for additional vaccine doses, per a 2021 contract signed between the European Commission — the EU’s executive branch — and Pfizer.

Poland and Romania refused further COVID-19 vaccine deliveries in 2022, citing falling demand for the shots, according to Bloomberg. Poland also cited financial pressures it was facing after taking in refugees fleeing the conflict in Ukraine.

Brussels Signal reported Poland sold or donated some of its surplus vaccine doses. According to Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldovean, “Romania was among the European countries with the lowest COVID-19 vaccination rates.”

These actions led Pfizer to sue the countries in 2023, resulting in the April 1 ruling.

In a statement provided to The Defender, the Warsaw Enterprise Institute (WEI) said that the case, which is still ongoing pending the two countries’ appeal, is being heard in Belgium because the EU’s contract is governed by Belgian law.

Polish and Romanian authorities have said they will appeal the ruling. Polish public broadcaster TVP World reported that Poland sought a delay in the enforcement of the April 1 ruling pending its appeal, but that the Belgian court rejected this request.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst, who is not involved in the lawsuit, called Pfizer’s actions “outrageous and unethical,” arguing that “it could potentially endanger the safety of flights to or from Poland and/or Romania” by depriving those countries’ air traffic control authorities of funding required for their operations.

Łukasz Wojdyga, director of the WEI’s Center for Strategic Studies, took a different view. He said that while Pfizer is exercising its rights under the law, which allow it to freeze the disputed funds even despite the expected appeals, the focus should be on the flaws in the EU’s contract. He said:

“Even if this form of enforcement is allowed under Belgian law, targeting the main source of funding for an institution responsible for air-traffic safety strikes me as disproportionate and irresponsible.

“At the same time, a creditor has the right to enforce a court judgment and protect the interests of its shareholders through any lawful means.

“For that reason, the main focus should not be on blaming Pfizer for pursuing its claim. It should be on how the contract was negotiated, approved, and signed in the first place.”

Some legal and policy experts who spoke with The Defender suggested that Pfizer had other options available to it rather than immediately freezing the two countries’ funds held in Belgium. Other experts suggest that the EU’s contract with Pfizer is, itself, invalid, as it was signed through a dubious and potentially illegal process.

EU hasn’t revealed Pfizer CEO text messages, despite ruling

The EU-Pfizer contract has long faced scrutiny. For Wojdyga, the central question isn’t whether Pfizer is entitled to collect what it is owed. It’s how European and national authorities allowed such a “large, expensive and one-sided agreement to be signed, leaving taxpayers to carry most of the risk.”

According to Brussels Signal, the 35 billion euro ($40 billion) contract between the EU and Pfizer “was one of the largest in EU procurement history.” It was signed amid “claims that the EU may have paid up to fifteen times the production cost per dose, raising concerns that billions in taxpayer funds were overpaid.”

There are also questions about how European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen negotiated the contract with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and about potential conflicts of interest between the two parties.

Last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Commission violated EU law by denying The New York Times’ request to review text messages related to the contract between von der Leyen and Bourla.

The European Commission claimed it didn’t have the text messages. But according to the ruling, the commission did not provide “plausible explanations” to justify “the non-existence or non-possession” of the documents. The commission previously claimed the texts didn’t qualify as documents, according to Politico.

In 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled that the commission’s decision to heavily redact key portions of COVID-19 vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic violated transparency rules.

In 2023, the European Parliament blocked an attempt to cross-examine von der Leyen regarding the text messages. The previous year, Bourla refused to testify before the European Parliament about the contract terms.

According to Brussels Signal, “scrutiny has been directed at potential conflicts of interest involving von der Leyen’s family,” as her husband Heiko “is the medical director at Orgenesisi, a biotech company that received EU funds and partnered with Pfizer.”

According to activist Frederic Baldan, CEO of CEBiz:

“Ursula von der Leyen, without any mandate, bypassed the committees and negotiated directly with Albert Bourla via Signal messages programmed to self-destruct. She thus circumvented the anti-corruption safeguards of her own Commission. The price increased in an inexplicable manner and the quantities ordered became insane.”

Wojdyga noted that the commission did not appeal the 2025 ruling in time, “making the ruling final.” Yet, the text messages still haven’t been released. Gheorghe Piperea, a member of the European Parliament, said that “the content of those messages remains secret to this day.”

Documents leaked in 2022 showed that U.S. and EU officials pressured European drug regulators to rush approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine despite safety concerns.

According to Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldoveanu, questions remain over how the parties determined the number of doses each country would receive under the contract.

“Romania ordered 120 million doses of the vaccine, based on a ‘strategy adopted at the EU level,’ even though Romania’s population is less than 20 million people,” Moldoveanu said.

For Piperea, the EU-Pfizer contract “ought never to have existed” in the first place, because the EU took on powers it doesn’t have under the treaties of the European Union.

“The Commission violated the principle of subsidiarity that governs the shared competences of the Commission and the member states. Health policy falls within the competence of the member states, not of the Commission. The member states may be supported in these health policies, but they may not be supplanted by the Commission,” Piperea said.

This also means that if Pfizer believed the contract terms were violated, it should have sought damages from the EU, not from individual states like Romania and Poland.

However, suing the EU would have revealed “that the exceedingly narrow circle of persons who conducted the negotiations — von der Leyen … together with two or three anonymous directors from the European Medicines Agency — possessed neither the competence nor the mandate to bind the member states to payments,” Piperea said.

Wojdyga said all 27 EU governments were represented on the steering board, while the joint negotiating team with Pfizer “included the Commission and seven member states, including Poland.”

The member states were responsible for placing orders, making payments and accepting delivery under the terms of the deal.

However, “the decision-making process matters,” Wojdyga said. “Once the terms of an agreement were presented, a member state had only five working days to opt out,” after which its acceptance was considered legally binding.

He added:

“So, governments technically had a choice. In reality, they had only a few days to assess complex, multiyear financial commitments in the middle of a pandemic, under intense political pressure and amid fears of vaccine shortages. That put national governments under considerable time pressure and limited their ability to carry out a full legal, financial, and public health review.”

Baldan, who initiated a 2023 criminal case against Pfizer challenging the contract, said that in closed session, lawyers for Hungary and Poland confirmed they had “never given any negotiating mandate to von der Leyen” and that the vaccine orders were placed at the EU level and were “inexplicable” to them.

Baldan said the case resulted in a 1,000-page report by the Belgian Federal Police’s anti-corruption unit, finding that “there are sufficient elements to establish the offenses.”

However, the Belgian police handed over the investigation to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which moved to have it annulled.

“This is what allowed Pfizer to resume its civil proceedings and obtain judgments against the member states that refused to pay,” Baldan said.

Has Pfizer endangered air traffic and public safety in Poland and Romania?

Questions remain over whether Pfizer’s freezing of Poland and Romania’s air traffic control funds held by Eurocontrol will put air travel and public safety in question.

According to TVP World, the frozen funds “are critical” because they make up more than 80% of the revenue of the country’s air traffic control agency, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA, or PAZP).

Without the funds, the agency “could quickly lose financial liquidity, making it impossible to pay hundreds of air traffic controllers, whose work is essential for every passenger aircraft taking off, landing or safely flying through Polish airspace,” Brussels Signal reported.

PANSA could also lose the ability to maintain critical infrastructure, including radar installations and communication systems. “For ordinary citizens, this could mean cancelled flights and even the closure of Poland’s airspace,” Brussels Signal reported.

Romania Insider reported that the frozen funds equate to 0.2% of its GDP, posing “a significant burden at a time when the government is attempting to reduce the fiscal deficit.”

Piperea said the April ruling “arrived at a most inopportune moment in Romania, in the midst of recession and a major budgetary deficit.”

“Pfizer places the public in danger by leaving without funds the air-traffic control agency ROMATSA, and the state budget, which is already insufficient and cannot meet pensions, allowances, indemnities for persons with disabilities, and the like.”

Wojdyga said Pfizer’s actions are legal — but raise questions.

“I would not automatically equate the freezing of funds owed to Poland’s and Romania’s air navigation agencies with an immediate threat to passenger safety. Both agencies are still operating, and both governments have said they will protect their financial stability and keep services running. Pfizer also has the right to enforce its claims through lawful means.

“That said, targeting the main source of funding for agencies responsible for air traffic safety is bound to raise concerns, especially since neither agency was a party to the vaccine contract.”

“Pfizer is unlikely to close Poland’s airspace. By targeting PAZP’s revenue, however, it has shown how a poorly designed public contract can create problems far beyond the original subject of the agreement,” the WEI wrote.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , , | Comments Off on Pfizer Freezes Air Traffic Control Funds Over COVID Vaccine Contract Dispute With Poland, Romania

US Eyes Spreading its Nuclear Footprint Deeper into Europe – Report

Sputnik – 02.06.2026

The US is weighing whether to expand NATO’s nuclear-sharing framework by inviting more alliance members to host American dual-capable aircraft—warplanes configured to deliver nukes, reports the Financial Times.

At present, the arrangement includes Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkiye and the UK.

Under its terms, the US retains full custody of the nuclear warheads, which are stored at select European bases, while allied air forces train for nuclear deterrence missions using aircraft such as the F-35, F-15, and Tornado.

The discussions are reportedly driven in part by a need to reassure European allies of Washington’s enduring commitment to NATO’s nuclear deterrent—even as the US scales back some conventional troop deployments on the continent and pushes allies to shoulder more defense responsibility.

The talks remain at an early, highly confidential stage, with no imminent decisions anticipated.

Nevertheless, nations on NATO’s eastern flank—notably Poland and several of Russia’s neighbors—have already signaled interest in a possible expansion of the nuclear-sharing deal.

Russia has repeatedly cautioned that any deployment of nuclear-capable assets close to its borders would be seen as a destabilizing factor, and a direct threat to its national security.

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on US Eyes Spreading its Nuclear Footprint Deeper into Europe – Report

France’s New Nuclear Strategy to Weaken Security in Europe – Russian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 20.04.2026

The security of non-nuclear European countries will ultimately be weakened by France’s plans to deploy nuclear weapons on their territory, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said in an interview with Sputnik.

“As a result, instead of the French declaring a strengthening of the defense of their allies, to whom, incidentally, they are not promising any ironclad guarantees, the security of these countries is actually weakening,” Grushko said.

France reportedly possesses 280 nuclear warheads. Denmark has already concluded a strategic nuclear deterrence agreement with France, which is intended to complement NATO’s deterrence mechanisms. Poland is also negotiating with France to join this initiative.

In his March speech on France’s nuclear deterrence policy, French President Emmanuel Macron said that his country must strengthen its nuclear doctrine in the face of new threats. Therefore, he ordered an increase in the number of French nuclear weapons. According to Macron, France should also consider expanding its nuclear strategy to all of Europe, but must also preserve its sovereignty.

April 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on France’s New Nuclear Strategy to Weaken Security in Europe – Russian Foreign Ministry

Europe’s Drone Pipeline to Ukraine Could Soon be in Russia’s Crosshairs – Analyst

Sputnik – 16.04.2026

The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement on Europe’s plan to scale up drone production for Ukraine contained an explicit warning, says military analyst Ivan Konovalov speaking to Sputnik : Europe is turning into a “strategic rear base.”

The term applies to infrastructure that, while located outside the battlefield, directly sustains combat operations.

Under this logic, European hubs supplying Ukraine with drone components, data systems, FPV drones and heavy fixed-wing UAVs are no longer a “civilian facility in a peaceful country.”

“Once the production cycle on their territory is integrated into Ukraine’s strike capabilities against Russia, the line is crossed – they become a target deep within the enemy’s operational structure,” remarks the analyst.

After Russia’s strikes dismantled Ukraine’s centralized drone production, a workaround emerged: assembly lines were set up in Bavaria and the UK, using foreign-made components, while the finished systems were marketed as “Ukrainian.”

However, European production creates a long, predictable supply chain via Poland or Romania, exposed to disruption, insurance risks, and logistical bottlenecks, says the pundit.

Large shipments are visible to reconnaissance and potentially easier to disrupt at critical junctions, he argues.

For the European economy, it will entail growing risks for cargo insurance, airspace restrictions in border regions, and potentially forced relocation of production into underground or highly dispersed facilities.

“All this is fraught with massive non-productive costs for EU taxpayers, while Russia has long adapted to counter such challenges.”

April 16, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Europe’s Drone Pipeline to Ukraine Could Soon be in Russia’s Crosshairs – Analyst

Poland rules out sending Patriot missiles to US/Israel amid war on Iran

Al Mayadeen | March 31, 2026

Poland will not provide the United States with its Patriot missile defense systems, Polish National Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said on Tuesday, rejecting a reported US request to transfer the batteries to the Middle East.

Earlier in the day, the Rzeczpospolita newspaper reported that the United States was demanding that Poland transfer one of its two Patriot batteries to the region, where the US-Israeli war on Iran has now entered its fifth week.

“Our Patriot batteries and their missiles are being used to protect Polish airspace and NATO’s eastern flank. In this regard, nothing has changed, and we do not plan to relocate them anywhere,” Kosiniak-Kamysz wrote on X.

Security first, Poland says

The United States understands the Polish position, the defense minister claimed. “Our allies know and understand how important missions we have here are. Poland’s security is our absolute priority.”

Kosiniak-Kamysz’s position was confirmed by Polish Deputy Defense Minister Cezary Tomczyk.

“Polish Patriots remain in Poland. They have their own tasks in the country: the protection of Poland and the eastern flank of NATO,” Tomczyk wrote on X.

A pattern of allied reluctance

Poland’s refusal is not an isolated incident. Since the US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28, Washington has struggled to rally its NATO allies behind the campaign. Several member states have reportedly refused to send naval forces to the region or allow the US to use their military bases as launch points for strikes against Iran.

President Trump has openly criticized NATO allies over their stance. In a post on Truth Social, he accused them of being “cowards” and warned that “without the United States, NATO is just a paper tiger.” He claimed NATO countries were unwilling to assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, describing it as a “simple military maneuver,” while complaining about rising oil prices.

Trump’s frustration reflects a broader reality: the US-Israeli war on Iran has found little support among Washington’s traditional allies. Switzerland, citing its policy of neutrality, said it will not approve weapons export licenses to the US for the duration of the conflict. France reportedly gave a “no” to joining a US-led coalition to patrol the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has warned the UK that allowing the US to use its military bases constitutes “participation in aggression.”

Poland’s decision to keep its Patriots at home, then, is one data point in a larger trend. As the war enters its fifth week with no clear end in sight, the US is finding itself increasingly isolated, unable to secure the backing of its closest allies for a conflict Washington initiated and continues to escalate alone.

March 31, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Poland rules out sending Patriot missiles to US/Israel amid war on Iran

SAFE Debt Trap: Poland’s €43.7 Billion Bet on Unipolar Illusion

By Adrian Korczyński – New Eastern Outlook – March 23, 2026

For Poland—already one of NATO’s most heavily militarized economies—SAFE is therefore not merely a financial instrument but a strategic decision about how deeply the country wishes to anchor itself within the EU’s emerging defense architecture, and at what price.

Introduction: A “Turning Point” Built on Debt

In early 2026, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk described Poland’s €43.7 billion request under the European Union’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) programme as “a turning point for the security of Poland and Europe.” The statement was vintage Tusk—confident, sweeping, and designed for a headline. Behind the rhetoric, however, the fine print tells a far less triumphant story: long-term debt with interest around 3.17%, repayment schedules stretching toward the 2070s, and procurement rules that effectively redirect part of borrowed funds into specific defense supply chains—including those involving Ukrainian producers.

SAFE, officially presented as a major European defense investment programme, allows the European Commission to raise up to €150 billion on financial markets and lend the funds to member states for military spending. The loans come with relatively favorable terms: maturities of up to 45 years and a ten-year grace period before repayment of principal begins. On paper, the arrangement appears manageable. In practice, it represents a profound long-term commitment. Today’s political leaders can borrow vast sums for weapons systems, drones, and fortifications, while the financial burden will be carried by taxpayers decades into the future.

For Poland—already one of NATO’s most heavily militarized economies—SAFE is therefore not merely a financial instrument but a strategic decision about how deeply the country wishes to anchor itself within the EU’s emerging defense architecture, and at what price.

SAFE: The EU’s New Security Architecture

The SAFE programme was introduced by Brussels in late 2025 as part of a broader effort to strengthen Europe’s defense industrial base in the aftermath of the war in Ukraine. The mechanism is relatively straightforward. The European Commission raises funds on capital markets and redistributes them to participating states as long-term loans earmarked strictly for defense spending. Eligible projects include weapons procurement, ammunition production, and industrial modernization within the defense sector.

Yet SAFE also contains structural conditions that significantly shape how the money can be spent. One of the most consequential provisions is the so-called 65 percent rule: at least 65 percent of components used in projects financed under SAFE must originate from the European Union, the European Economic Area, or Ukraine. In practice, this requirement reinforces specific supply chains and pushes European defense industries toward deeper integration with Ukrainian production networks.

European Commission documents openly describe this as a strategic goal. SAFE, according to the Commission, will help “deepen Ukraine’s integration into the European security ecosystem” and allow member states to purchase defense products from Ukrainian manufacturers within joint procurement frameworks. This reflects the broader process of integrating Ukraine’s wartime defense industry into Europe’s defense economy since 2022.

Poland’s €43.7 Billion Bet

Among all EU member states, Poland has emerged as the most ambitious participant in SAFE. Warsaw submitted a request worth approximately €43.7 billion, by far the largest share of the programme’s €150 billion envelope. If fully implemented, the funds would finance dozens of projects, including air-defense systems, artillery production, drones, and modernization of military infrastructure. The first tranche—roughly €6.5 billion, representing about 15 percent of the total—could arrive as early as spring 2026 once all domestic legal procedures are completed.

Prime Minister Tusk has framed the programme primarily as a financial opportunity. According to the government, SAFE offers “long-term capital without pressure on the budget today,” with borrowing costs significantly below commercial rates. Yet even under favorable terms, the sheer scale of the loan carries long-term consequences. Over several decades, total repayments could exceed €60 billion, effectively committing future governments to financial obligations extending well into the second half of the century. The issue is therefore less about immediate affordability than about the cumulative strategic and fiscal trajectory that such borrowing sets in motion.

The Fiscal Context: Poland’s Expanding Military Burden

Poland has already undertaken one of the most rapid military expansions in modern Europe. By 2026, defense spending is projected to reach approximately 4.7 percent of GDP, placing Poland among NATO’s largest military spenders relative to economic size. Major procurement contracts have been signed with the United States and South Korea, including tanks, fighter aircraft, missile systems, and advanced artillery.

At the same time, Poland has been one of Ukraine’s most significant supporters since the beginning of the war in 2022. When military aid, refugee support, and financial assistance are combined, the cumulative cost is estimated at roughly 4.9 percent of Poland’s GDP over several years. Taken together, these commitments mean that nearly one tenth of national economic output has been linked—directly or indirectly—to defense and war-related expenditures.

Against this backdrop, the addition of another €43.7 billion in long-term borrowing inevitably raises questions about fiscal priorities and sustainability. Unlike Hungary, which maintains diplomatic channels open with all parties while negotiating exemptions from EU financial guarantees, Warsaw’s rigid moralism increasingly translates into a balance sheet item: billions in interest payments for weapons that may become obsolete before the loans mature. The demographic pressures, rising housing costs, and uncertain European economic outlook only deepen the gamble.

Ukraine’s Industrial Link: Strategic Integration and Structural Risks

One of the most controversial elements of the SAFE framework is its implicit integration of Ukrainian defense industries into European procurement chains. Because the programme allows member states to purchase equipment produced in Ukraine as part of joint projects, some portion of the funds borrowed by EU governments may ultimately flow to Ukrainian manufacturers. In strategic terms, Brussels presents this as a logical extension of Europe’s security policy: strengthening Ukraine while simultaneously expanding Europe’s industrial base.

However, the policy also intersects with a persistent and widely documented problem—systemic corruption within Ukraine’s wartime economy. A notable example emerged in November 2025, when Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) uncovered a major bribery scheme within the state-owned nuclear company Energoatom. Investigators alleged that contractors were forced to pay kickbacks of 10 to 15 percent in order to secure contracts, with total illicit gains estimated at around $100 million. Although the scandal did not directly involve the SAFE programme, it reinforced concerns among European observers about the governance environment surrounding large public contracts in wartime Ukraine.

For countries borrowing tens of billions under SAFE, this raises an unavoidable question: can European auditors trace billions in loans through a wartime economy where, as recent NABU cases show, contract values can include a 15 percent “risk premium” for local intermediaries?

The Domestic Political Clash: Tusk vs. Nawrocki

Poland’s participation in SAFE has also triggered a significant domestic political dispute. Although parliament has approved legislation necessary to implement the programme, the final step requires the signature of President Karol Nawrocki. Without it, Warsaw cannot fully activate the financial mechanism needed to access the loans.

Nawrocki has expressed skepticism about the programme, arguing that the structure of SAFE risks limiting Poland’s economic sovereignty and binding national defense policy too tightly to decisions taken in Brussels. In response, he has proposed an alternative financing mechanism known informally as “SAFE 0%.” The proposal, developed with the National Bank of Poland, would mobilize roughly 185 billion zloty (about €43 billion) from the country’s foreign currency reserves and gold holdings. As Nawrocki explained: “We have a concrete, Polish, safe and sovereign alternative that will not involve any financial interest costs—this is SAFE 0%.”

Yet while the proposal removes interest payments, it does not eliminate the underlying scale of the commitment. Drawing heavily on central-bank reserves could weaken Poland’s financial buffers and limit future monetary flexibility. The dispute therefore reflects not a disagreement over the scale of defense spending, but over the method—whether the burden should take the form of long-term EU loans or internal financial restructuring, and whether either path truly accounts for the opportunity cost of locking Poland into a single geopolitical silo.

A Regional Contrast: The Visegrád Divide

Poland’s expansive participation in SAFE contrasts sharply with the more cautious stance adopted by several of its Central European neighbors. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have either minimized their involvement in the programme or avoided it entirely. At a European summit in late 2025, these countries also negotiated exemptions from certain financial guarantees tied to EU support packages for Ukraine.

Their governments argue that national budgets must retain greater flexibility and that European security policy should not become overly dependent on large-scale borrowing mechanisms. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó summarized this skepticism in early 2026, remarking that the European Union appeared “not prepared for peace.” Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the divergence underscores an increasingly visible strategic divide within Central Europe. While Warsaw doubles down on loyalty to Brussels and Washington, its neighbors quietly preserve room to maneuver.

Multipolar Reality and Strategic Alignment

The debate surrounding SAFE unfolds at a moment of profound shifts in the global balance of power. Emerging economies grouped within BRICS+ now account for a rapidly expanding share of global economic output in purchasing power parity terms. Trade corridors across Eurasia continue to expand, while new financial mechanisms challenge the dominance of traditional Western institutions.

In response, many mid-sized states increasingly pursue strategies of strategic hedging—maintaining economic and diplomatic relations across multiple geopolitical blocs rather than aligning exclusively with any single center of power. Poland has chosen a different path: a deep and explicit anchoring within the Euro-Atlantic security framework. For Warsaw, geography and historical experience remain powerful arguments for such alignment. Yet the financial scale of initiatives like SAFE inevitably raises questions about how much strategic flexibility the country is willing to sacrifice in exchange for security guarantees, and whether future generations will thank today’s leaders for betting so heavily on a single vision of the world.

The Generational Question

Beyond geopolitics and fiscal policy lies a more fundamental issue: time. SAFE loans can extend for up to forty-five years, meaning that the financial consequences of today’s decisions may last until the 2070s. The immediate beneficiaries of the programme will be defense industries and military planners in the 2020s and 2030s. The final repayments, however, may fall on taxpayers decades later—many of whom were not yet born when the decisions were made.

For this reason, some economists increasingly frame the programme as an intergenerational transfer, in which present security priorities are financed by future public budgets. Whether that trade-off ultimately proves justified will depend less on today’s political narratives than on whether Europe’s security environment in the 2070s will remember, or care about, the promises made in 2026. For Poland, the gamble is not merely financial. It is a test of whether strategic rigidity can ever truly pay off in a world that increasingly rewards those who adapt, hedge, and keep their options open.

March 23, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on SAFE Debt Trap: Poland’s €43.7 Billion Bet on Unipolar Illusion

German leader of EU’s largest faction sounds the alarm of possibility of right-wing forces coming to power in France, Poland

Manfred Weber, a vocal critic of any EU state that pushes back against a more powerful Brussels, has openly embraced Orbán’s opponent in Budapest

Remix News | February 23, 2026

German politician Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), spoke on ZDF about a common European army, saying, among other things, that the European Union must “draw conclusions from its own experiences, including in military matters.”

Weber spoke about the danger to the EU establishment posed by the presidential elections in France and the parliamentary elections in Poland, both to be held in 2027. Weber is concerned that there is a high probability of victory for forces that do not support the continuation of the EU’s centralization; forces that instead advocate for a Europe of sovereign nations. He said that EU must have the strength necessary, even by way of a common military, to presumably counter such possible outcomes.

Specifically mentioning Poland’s Law & Justice (PiS) leader, Jarosław Kaczyński, and France’s National Rally (RN) leader, Jordan Bardella, he said: “I hope that we now have the strength… to create a Europe that cannot be destroyed and that will weather the storms of the world order together… Now we need the same approach on the military front. We must prepare for scenarios in which Bardella becomes president of France and Kaczyński returns to power in Poland.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has repeatedly asserted that the European People’s Party (EPP) is an ardent supporter of the war in Ukraine against Russia, a war Orbán has maintained Hungary will not be drawn into. Notably, Orbán’s Fidesz party used to belong to the EPP grouping before parting ways to found the Patriots for Europe faction, with members committed to EU member states that want to preserve their sovereignty and traditional, conservative values. Now, Weber has been a strong promoter of the opposition leader, Péter Magyar, ahead of Budapest’s April parliamentary election.

During his interview, Weber was vocal about his concerns that the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) may come to power in Germany. “During a visit to the Greek parliament, someone asked me, ‘What would happen if Germany built the largest land army, and at the same time the AfD had 25-30 percent?’” he told the station.

February 23, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on German leader of EU’s largest faction sounds the alarm of possibility of right-wing forces coming to power in France, Poland

German calls for nukes are ‘madness’ – veteran politician

Sahra Wagenknecht at the BSW party congress in Magdeburg, Germany, December 6, 2025. © Jens Schlueter / Getty Images
RT | February 2, 2026

German politician Sahra Wagenknecht has condemned growing calls for her country to take part in nuclear rearmament, calling the proposals “madness.”

Germany is prohibited from developing nuclear weapons under international law, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Two Plus Four Treaty, the 1990 agreement that enabled German reunification in return for limits on its military capabilities, including renouncing nuclear arms.

Earlier this month, Kay Gottschalk, the parliamentary finance policy spokesman for Alternative for Germany (AfD), said that Berlin “needs nuclear weapons,” arguing that Europe can no longer rely on US protection.

In a post on X on Sunday, Wagenknecht, who previously served in the Bundestag and founded the Bundnis Sahra Wagenknecht party, said that “the cross-front for the nuclear rearmament of Germany is growing.”

“Following advances by AfD politicians for a German nuclear weapon, CDU warmonger Roderich Kiesewetter and former Green foreign minister Joschka Fischer are now also calling for Germany’s participation in a European atomic bomb. What madness,” she wrote.

Fischer said last week that Europe must pursue nuclear rearmament, with Germany taking the lead. Kiesewetter proposed in turn that Berlin could instead “contribute financially” to a European nuclear umbrella that Finland, Sweden, and Poland are planning to develop.

Wagenknecht argued that Germany’s proposed acquisition of nuclear weapons would constitute a serious violation of Berlin’s international legal obligations and would undermine the global system of nuclear arms control. She also warned that US intermediate-range missiles planned for deployment in the Federal Republic, which are capable of striking targets deep inside Russian territory, pose a major security risk.

“The missile deployment undermines the nuclear balance between the US and Russia and massively increases the danger for Germany to become the target of a nuclear strike in the event of conflict,” she wrote.

Instead, Wagenknecht called for Germany to lead a diplomatic disarmament initiative and demanded the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from German territory. “US atomic bombs out! No US intermediate-range missiles in Germany!” she added.

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

President Karol Nawrocki Vetoes Poland’s EU Digital Services Act Enforcement Bill, Citing Censorship Concerns

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 12, 2026

President Karol Nawrocki has blocked a government proposal meant to enforce the European Union’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), in Poland, arguing that it would turn state regulators into online censors.

His decision halts one of Warsaw’s most significant attempts to bring national law in line with EU digital rules.

“As president, I cannot sign a bill that effectively amounts to administrative censorship,” Nawrocki stated. “A situation in which a government official decides what is permitted on the Internet is reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.”

The bill, approved by parliament in November, was presented as a way to protect users from online abuse and falsehoods.

It gave two regulatory bodies, the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) and the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT), the power to order the removal or blocking of digital content judged to contain criminal threats, child exploitation, hate speech, incitement to suicide, or copyright violations.

The plan also allowed complaints to originate from a wide range of sources, including the police, prosecutors, border guards, or tax authorities. Content authors would have been notified and granted a two-week window to object before any blocking took effect.

Supporters of the proposal pointed to new appeal mechanisms for users who felt wronged by platform decisions, calling the bill a step toward transparency and accountability.

Nawrocki, however, saw the measure differently.

In a detailed explanation posted on the Chancellery’s website, as reported by Notes From Poland, he wrote that the safeguards were superficial: “Instead of real judicial review, an absurd solution has been introduced: an objection to an official’s decision, which citizens must file within 14 days.” He accepted that “the internet poses many threats, especially to children,” but insisted that the government’s draft was “indefensible and simply harmful.”

“The proposed solutions create a system in which ordinary Poles will have to fight the bureaucracy to defend their right to express their opinions. This is unacceptable,” he said, adding that “the state is supposed to guarantee freedom, not restrict it.”

The government, which has often clashed with the president, condemned the veto. Digital affairs minister Krzysztof Gawkowski said Nawrocki’s action would weaken online protection efforts.

Gawkowski argued that the rejected bill would have strengthened user rights, guarded families from “hate” and “misinformation,” and countered the spread of foreign propaganda.

The Polish Media Council also voiced disappointment, warning that the veto “will hinder the fight against online disinformation, especially at a time when almost every day brings new lies from across the eastern border.”

By rejecting the bill, Poland now remains one of several EU countries yet to implement the DSA, exposing it to possible sanctions from Brussels. The European Commission referred Poland and four others to the Court of Justice of the European Union last May over non-compliance.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Why rich ‘refugees’ flock to Ukraine from impoverished Europe for Christmas

By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 2, 2026

Anger is boiling over in German and Dutch cities – and rightly so. While many Europeans are having to count every euro twice in this crisis of Europe’s own making, convoys of Ukrainian cars are heading east during the Christmas holidays. These refugees, reportedly fleeing Russian bombs and drones, are being well supported financially by Germany, the Netherlands, and other European countries – yet as Christmas approaches, they suddenly return home in high spirits.

At the Polish-Ukrainian border, cars are stuck in traffic jams for kilometers. Journalists report hours-long waits, and the flow of returning travelers shows no signs of abating. Families registered as war refugees are heading back to Ukraine for the Christmas and New Year holidays. While air raid sirens supposedly never cease in Ukraine, the fear of missiles and drones appears to fade. The contradiction is stark. Mainstream outlets like Deutsche Welle, whose reporter Christopher Wanner covered the border traffic, have reported on these queues (the report can be viewed here).

Worse still, if you look at the cars in Wanner’s report, many are expensive vehicles that Europeans themselves can no longer afford – because Europe is mired in an economic crisis of its politicians’ making.

Is this still fleeing war? Are these still refugees who supposedly cannot return to their homeland? Or is it simply vacation travel at the expense of the European taxpayer? Calls are growing for every refugee to be thoroughly screened. Critics argue that someone who travels to a war zone without a compelling reason can hardly claim protection. After all, according to the mainstream media and radicalized EU politicians, they should be facing death from “Putin’s bombs and drones.”

Visiting Ukraine is even advertised and promoted in various brochures and websites. The western regions of the country boast “the most colorful and unique Christmas atmosphere.” One travel site recommends: “a mini-trip to Transcarpathia to anyone who wants to immerse themselves in a fairytale atmosphere and see for themselves how ancient Ukrainian traditions are reflected in modern life. Find more New Year’s and winter trips to Ukraine here.”

These so-called Ukrainian refugees are among the approximately 6.5 million people who have sought refuge across Europe. Germany is the main destination, with over a million Ukrainian war refugees; Poland follows closely behind, currently hosting over 950,000. But are they really refugees? No, of course not. The majority come from western Ukraine, where there is no war. The people of the Donbas – now part of Russia – should be the real refugees. That is where drones, bombs, and missiles from Ukraine and NATO are flying.

But the majority of people from the Donbas, which has been Russian territory since the 2022 referendum, are evacuated by Russia when fighting approaches, as recently happened in Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) or Dimitrov (Mirnograd).

About a million people from the Donbas have been relocated, or if you prefer, have fled and are being housed in various regions of Russia. Among them are children who have lost their parents or are searching for them. Europe calls this “child stealing,” an absurd claim. Should these children die if, for example, drones strike Krasnoarmeysk while their parents are killed or missing in the chaos? Ukraine and Europe label this “child abduction” and have issued arrest warrants through the International Criminal Court (ICC) for President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Russia.

The European population is slowly waking up, perhaps too late. Their countries have already been practically surrendered to the refugee industry. It is rampant across Europe and worsening daily. In the Netherlands, for example, one hotel after another is being filled with refugees, often without the consent of local villagers or even the hotel owners themselves. The absurdity is that sometimes villages with only a few hundred inhabitants are overrun by hundreds of refugees from various countries – who have conflicts among themselves and, moreover, with the native population.

Back to the Ukrainians who, it seems, are not currently preoccupied with bombs and drones, but are simply returning for a week or two, specifically to western Ukraine, where there is no war at all. These are the profiteers of European taxpayers. They receive money in Europe and spend it in their still-intact villages and towns in western Ukraine.

Ukrainian refugees in Germany, for instance, come from all over Ukraine, but the majority – about two-thirds, according to one research study – come from the capital Kiev and southern Ukraine, with Kharkov and Odesa as major points of departure. Lvov is considered a transit hub. According to official German data, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia has received the most Ukrainians. In July 2024, 232,252 Ukrainians lived in this region.

The region is known for major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Dortmund, where life has become unbearable. No-go areas have emerged due to high crime rates. Many remnants of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, or so-called Arab clans (mafia), brought there by the UN after the fall of Aleppo, Syria in 2016, reside there. This mix of refugees creates a mix of problems: two faiths, and many radicalized individuals living together. The real Germans fled these areas and cities long ago.

On social media platforms like X, discussions about the so-called Christmas holidays of Ukrainian refugees are intensifying. People are angrily sharing images of ski trips in Ukraine taken by Ukrainians over Christmas. Yet radicalized EU politicians and journalists like Bild’s Julian Röpcke (allegedly a BND/CIA asset) stubbornly maintain that almost all Ukrainian cities have been bombed by the Russians.

Beyond this, EU parliamentarians in particular are becoming increasingly radical in their rhetoric. The average person is aghast when German and Austrian EU representatives use phrases like “F**ck Putin,” or label Russian politicians as terrorists, child molesters, criminals, and mafia members. If you examine their CVs, they are graduates of renowned universities where such language was presumably not taught…

Of course, EU politicians and their brainwashed journalists continue to insist that Christmas in Ukraine is now celebrated on December 25 and 26 (since 2024). However, the reality in Ukraine is quite different. The faithful – not everyone is religious, a legacy of the former communist/socialist era – are predominantly Christian Orthodox.

Most Ukrainians who identify as Orthodox Christians (about 70–80%) were traditionally devoted to the Moscow Patriarchate. But Ukraine has banned that patriarchate and declared a new church. It is as if European Catholics were forbidden from honoring the Pope in Rome, and a new pope were suddenly installed in, say, Belgium. That is the simplest explanation. But believers, of course, remain followers of Moscow or Rome.

Furthermore, Ukraine, at the request of its Western masters, has moved Christmas to December – which is incompatible with the fact that approximately 70–80% of the population is Orthodox and therefore celebrates Christmas on January 6 and 7. Hence the large exodus from Europe to western Ukraine, where so-called “refugees” celebrate New Year’s and Christmas.

Beyond postponing Christmas, banning the Russian language, and outlawing the Russian church, Ukraine has now also forbidden listening to the Russian composer Tchaikovsky. “Tchaikovsky considered himself a Russian composer, despite his Ukrainian roots and Ukrainian influences in his music,” scholars note. Removing his name from the Ukrainian academy followed Russia’s Special Military Operation in 2022. Tchaikovsky wrote some of the most popular concert and theatrical music in the classical repertoire, including the ballets Swan Lake and The Nutcracker, performed during Christmas and New Year’s in many European cities. One wonders: will this too be banned in Europe?

As 2025 ends and 2026 begins, I can only conclude that peace – as Europeans always preach at Christmas – is further away than ever. Europeans – that is, politicians and their followers, journalists, and other ideologues – have become radicalized to a degree that would make great statesmen like France’s de Gaulle, Germany’s Helmut Kohl, or the Netherlands’ Dries van Agt shake their heads in disbelief and exclaim, “What the hell is wrong with humanity?” How did we reach the point where fools rule the people? Well, there is a saying: every country gets the leaders it deserves. Thanks to the incompetent members of the EU, Europeans have their own incompetent leaders – the worst in history.

January 2, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries