Burevestnik and Poseidon: Russia’s New Double Deterrent Against First Strike Aggression
Sputnik – 01.11.2025
President Putin has announced the back-to-back successful testing of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered, nuclear-capable unlimited range cruise missile, and the Poseidon nuclear-powered, nuclear-capable unmanned underwater vehicle. Sputnik asked a seasoned US Army vet and military analyst to comment on Russia’s new twin deterrence potential.
“The Burevestnik and the Poseidon are very interesting weapons… pretty much designed as defensive in nature,” retired US Army Lt. Col. Earl Rasmussen told Sputnik, characterizing the pair of nuclear doomsday scenario strategic systems as an effective new “counter strike type of capability.”
Touting the twin systems’ miniaturized nuclear engines as their key standout capability, Rasmussen noted that nuclear power essentially means unlimited range and loitering.
The weapons fundamentally enhance Russia’s nuclear deterrence, according to the observer. “There are some crazy generals out there that think they can win, do a preemptive strike and win a nuclear war, which is insane, essentially,” Rasmussen recalled, alluding to ideas like the Prompt Global Strike (PGS). Burevestnik and Poseidon are designed to nullify them.
With a system like the Poseidon, “you don’t have to strike anything. You could detonate it, probably flood and wipe out the entire British Isles or the entire east coast of the United States. So the impact could be quite devastating,” and far beyond the ‘acceptable loss’ calculations of any PGS-style planners.
“Like I said, I don’t look at Russia using them as a pure offensive-type weapon. I look at them as more of a defensive weapon and as a counterstrike type of capability. But it really, really enhances that capability to counter an adversary’s offensive actions against Russia,” Rasmussen summed up.
Kupyansk and Krasnoarmeysk Encirclements Make Ukraine’s Defeat ‘Too Big to Hide’
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 01.11.2025
Volodymyr Zelensky and his Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrsky are infamous for sacrificing Ukrainian lives to prolong fighting, Mikael Valtersson, former officer of the Swedish Armed Forces and Air Defense, tells Sputnik, commenting on the Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) and Kupyansk encirclements.
“[Their] policy has left up to 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers in a very precarious position. They are left with two bad alternatives, either being eliminated defending hopeless positions or taking heavy losses during a very hard withdrawal. In both cases Ukraine will lose invaluable military units,” Valtersson notes.
There is a little, if any, chance that Zelensky could order a surrender, as “the worst thing that could happen from Kiev’s point of view would be thousands of retreating or surrendering Ukrainian soldiers,” according to the pundit.
Zelensky’s team has put on a brave face, insisting there are no encirclements, while barring foreign journalists from the area.
“Such journalists would only expose Kiev’s lies about the situation and crush Ukrainian credibility,” Valtersson says.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s defeat is a thing too big to hide, the military expert notes, projecting that Russia’s advance in November and December would lead to Ukraine losing several cities.
“Large cities like the Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Konstantynivka urban area, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov might be up for grabs,” the pundit suggests. “The worst is yet to come for Ukraine in 2025. We are now witnessing the final fall of Krasnoarmeysk and Kupyansk.”
US Atomic Tests Could Open Pandora’s Box for ‘New Arms Race and Nuclear War’
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 31.10.2025
A nuclear war risk is growing and Washington’s apparent readiness to resume nuclear tests is making it more grave, warns Professor Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, in an interview with Sputnik.
“All nine nuclear powers are modernizing their nuclear arsenals, making them more efficient and more deadly. On top of that, there’s pressure to expand the nuclear arsenals,” Kuznick tells Sputnik.
To complicate matters further, other countries – including South Korea and Ukraine – are flirting with the idea of developing their own nuclear weapons, the professor notes.
The world is going the wrong direction and becoming more dangerous.
US Unready for Nuclear Tests
If the US resumes nuclear tests, Russia and China will follow suit, according to the professor.
“They actually have more to gain from this than the US does,” he says, adding that it would probably take years before the US would be able to conduct new nuclear tests, as the Nevada test site has effectively atrophied.
At the same time, it would mean the end of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which have not been ratified by the majority of nuclear powers. Up until now, the US, Russia and China have abided by it: the last Russian nuclear test took place in 1990, China’s – in 1996.
Reaction to Russian Wonder-Weapon?
The idea of resuming nuclear tests followed Russia’s trials of its cutting-edge weapons. Could the US boast anything like that? Not yet — and it would take years to catch up, according to the pundit.
“The Burevestnik and the Poseidon [missiles] are new science fiction-like, new generation of nuclear delivery systems. You add that to the Oreshnik test back in November 2024,” Kuznick notes.
Give Peace a Chance
The most logical response to Washington’s breaking the de facto moratorium on nuclear tests should be “the United States is out of control,” Kuznick says.
“That would be what [Russia and China] should say and do and call for new talks to end this expansion, intensification of the nuclear arms race,” the professor underscores.
US President Donald Trump in the meantime said that it will be known soon whether the United States will resume underground nuclear testing.
“You will find out very soon,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he traveled to Palm Beach, Florida, as quoted by Reuters.
Pressure against Venezuela as hybrid war against Russia and China
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 31, 2025
A common vice found among geopolitically anti-imperialist analysts and journalists is the attempt to explain all international conflicts by the “single cause” of the imperialist quest for natural resources — almost always oil. This is how the Iraq War is classically explained, for example: “Big Oil” would have used the Bush administration to open markets, once closed, through bombing and territorial occupation.
This type of clearly materialist explanation stems from an evidently Marxian premise, insofar as it aims to treat all social, cultural, and political phenomena as epiphenomena before the preponderant and structural reality of economic transformations and interests.
Like a good part of the 19th-century pseudo-scientific efforts to reduce reality to a single principle (as was the case with Freudianism and Positivism), this economist materialism also does not hold up under the hammer of critical analysis.
Just as an example, in the Iraqi case, the generic materialist explanation does not withstand the empirical discovery that the major U.S. oil companies were, in fact, already on a path of dialogue with the counter-hegemonic countries of the Middle East and, precisely for that reason, tried unsuccessfully to pressure for non-intervention and the pacification of American-Iraqi relations.
Nonetheless, the “oil myth” persists in the study of the Middle East. So we are not surprised that it is appealed to once again to explain the U.S. pressure on Venezuela. The narrative says that Trump’s pressure on Maduro, and the threats to overthrow his government, are due to Trump’s interest in Venezuela’s 300 billion barrel reserves — the largest in the world.
The problem with this narrative, however, is that according to all indications, Maduro would have offered to close extremely advantageous partnerships with the U.S. for the exploitation of Venezuelan oil, given that the current level of extraction in Venezuela is minimal. From a material perspective, the deal would be quite interesting for the U.S. oil industry, as the country consumes a vast amount of oil and its reserves are “only” the ninth largest in the world.
Everything indicates, however, that Trump would have rejected the offer of a deal.
The U.S., apparently, wants something that is worth more than the largest oil reserve in the world.
This is where geopolitical science comes in.
Generally, geopolitics is confused with “geo-economics,” in the sense that many people believe they are seeing a “geopolitical analysis” when they see an attribution of economic causes to some international conflict. But geopolitics is, fundamentally, the science that studies the correlation between geography and power. In this sense, resources can enter into geopolitical analyses, but only as part of a general context.
And in the Venezuelan case, even the very important and abundant oil is of secondary importance in the conflict with the U.S.
More important than oil, for the U.S., is to guarantee hemispheric hegemony — especially in the Americas. It is about, as defined in an arrogant and classic manner, the U.S. “backyard,” a space in which the U.S. elite in the 19th century decided to no longer tolerate any European presence.
Let’s fast forward 200 years. How are the international relations of Ibero-American countries?
China is the main commercial partner for most countries in the region, several of which have joined the Belt & Road Initiative (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, etc.). Some countries in the region (Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba) have also joined BRICS, which works towards the de-dollarization of international trade. Specifically Russia, in turn, has developed military ties — which consist of supplying equipment and conducting exercises — especially with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, with a military rapprochement also with Bolivia and, to a lesser extent, Peru and Brazil.
In a context where pressure on the U.S. in other regions of the world is growing, it is dangerous for U.S. hegemony to see the growth of Russian-Chinese influence in its “backyard.”
Venezuela is a significant and priority target there because it is precisely the country with the deepest strategic relations with Russia and China. Venezuela is one of the main sources of oil for China, while at the same time Caracas seems to play a relevant role in the multifaceted Russian strategy of “pushing” for multipolarity by strengthening countries around the world that try to challenge the hegemonic order.
To confirm this thesis, we would need to analyze U.S. relations with the rest of the continent to verify if there is any movement by the U.S. to try to pull countries in the region away from Russia and China.
And it seems very clear: the strategy of rapprochement with Brazil is based precisely on an effort to pull the country out of the “Chinese orbit.” The U.S. also pressured Mexico to remain outside the New Silk Road. The U.S. increased its presence in Ecuador and pressured Milei to abandon plans for a Chinese base in its territory. Examples abound to indicate that we are facing a broad continental offensive whose goal is to update the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century.
It is not, therefore, about oil, but about hegemony.
Eurasian Integration as an Anti-Hegemonic Economic System
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | October 30, 2025
We are living in an era of economic disruptions as US-centric globalisation is replaced by a more decentralised format of globalisation spearheaded by the Greater Eurasian continent. The consequence of these disruptions during this transition period is instability in economics, politics, and international security, as economic coercion escalates into war.
The disruptions to the international economy were predictable—and indeed predicted—for decades. When immense economic power is concentrated in a hegemon, the hegemon has incentives to build trust in an economic architecture under its administration. This translates into an open international economic system with access to technologies, industries, energy, food, physical transportation corridors, banks, currencies, and payment systems. This is referred to as a benign hegemon, as building trust in an open system ensures that alternatives are not developed and the world becomes immensely dependent on the hegemon. Subsequently, globalisation meant Americanisation.
Hegemons are, however, inherently temporary. Over the years, the US economy became excessively rent-seeking, financialised, and debt-ridden as its competitive edge declined. A hegemon makes mistakes and fails to prioritise strategically, as it can absorb the costs—until it reaches a breaking point. Around the world, other countries climbed up global value chains and grew concerned about the fiscal irresponsibility and unsustainability of the hegemonic system.
A declining hegemon will predictably behave very differently. It will use its administrative control over the global economy to prevent the rise of rival centres of power. Economic coercion is the new normal—for example, restricting China’s access to key technologies, seizing Iranian tankers and preparing the establishment of maritime choke points, stealing Russia’s sovereign funds, etc. Trust collapses, and efforts to create a more decentralised international economic system only intensify.
The declining hegemon will also attempt to divide rival centres of power: Germany must be severed from Russia, Russia must be split from China, China should be kept at a distance from India, India should reduce its economic connectivity with Iran, Iran should not resolve its disputes with the Gulf States etc. Markets are captured as the declining hegemon, for example, pushes Europe to reduce cooperation with Chinese technology and Russian energy. As the Europeans and other allies develop excessive reliance on the US, economic and industrial power can be transferred to the US. Eventually, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Europe will recognise that hitching their wagon to a declining hegemon to preserve a unipolar order that is already gone, is inherently destructive. The option is to either diversify their economic connectivity for prosperity and political autonomy, or become captured markets that can be cannibalised by the declining hegemon.
The declining hegemon has—much like its adversaries and allies—strong incentives to embrace multipolar realities. New political forces within the declining hegemon will recognise that pursuing hegemonic policies under a multipolar international distribution of power will be punished by the international system. Exhausting its remaining resources and incentivising the rest of the world to collectively balance against the declining hegemon is unsustainable. The ideal strategy for the declining hegemon is to accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, reducing collective balancing and enabling socio-economic recovery to rebuild former strength.
The rise of Eurasia marks the end of 500 years of Western leadership and dominance in the world, since European maritime powers began connecting the world in the early 16th century. While some panic in the West is therefore understandable, there are nonetheless great opportunities.
Adam Smith famously wrote: “The discovery of America, and that of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, are the two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of mankind… By uniting, in some measure, the most distant parts of the world, by enabling them to relieve one another’s wants, to increase one another’s enjoyments, and to encourage one another’s industry, their general tendency would seem to be beneficial”.
However, Adam Smith also recognised the problems of the skewed power distribution between the Europeans and the rest of the world. Adam Smith wrote: “To the natives however, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from those events have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned… At the particular time when these discoveries were made, the superiority of force happened to be so great on the side of the Europeans that they were enabled to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries”.
Adam Smith argued that a more even distribution of power could create a more harmonious international economy: “Hereafter, perhaps, the natives of those countries may grow stronger, or those of Europe may grow weaker, and the inhabitants of all the different quarters of the world may arrive at that equality of courage and force which, by inspiring mutual fear, can alone overawe the injustice of independent nations into some sort of respect for the rights of one another. But nothing seems more likely to establish this equality of force than that mutual communication of knowledge and of all sorts of improvements which an extensive commerce from all countries to all countries naturally, or rather necessarily, carries along with it”.
I conclude that the aspiration of Eurasian integration should be to make it anti-hegemonic but not anti-Western by descending into bloc politics.
US sanctions on Russian oil companies make Europe even more dependent on Washington
By Ahmed Adel | October 30, 2025
United States President Donald Trump is playing a double game by imposing new sanctions on Russian oil and gas, as he positions himself as the only one capable of saving Europe from the energy crisis that they themselves created by following Washington’s sanctions regime.
The US imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies Rosneft and Lukoil and their respective subsidiaries on October 22, a move aimed at continuing pressure on Russia amid its special operation in Ukraine. The measure, however, had serious side effects for countries allied with Washington, especially Germany.
Berlin began a frantic race against time to exempt Rosneft subsidiaries in the country that have been under German state administration since 2022, including refineries, an action denounced as illegal by the Russian controlling group. Germany argued to the Trump administration that Rosneft’s German subsidiaries are independent of the Russian parent company.
On October 27, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche reported that she had obtained a “Letter of Comfort” (a document that provides guarantees) from Washington acknowledging that the operations of Rosneft’s subsidiaries in Germany are completely separate from the Russian company and exempting them from the new sanctions.
“The US has confirmed in writing that the assets in Germany are completely separate from Russia,” Reiche emphasized.
This case once again exposes the energy crisis affecting Europe, which depends on imported gas and oil for power generation and has entered an economic crisis since suspending Russian supplies of these resources and aligning itself with the White House’s sanctions policy. The sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, which hold stakes in oil and gas projects in several European countries, are likely to worsen the already critical European economic situation.
A potential closure of Rosneft and Lukoil subsidiaries in Europe will further increase energy prices on the continent, which are already impacted by the replacement of Russian gas with American gas and by high winter demand. The heating of homes, the energy used by industries, and the increased costs of these processes will lead to an inflationary crisis in European prices, in a situation that is already not very favorable to these countries.
In the German context, the high disapproval rating of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, currently at 60%, reflects the economic crisis triggered by Europe becoming a subsidiary of US interests, which, in turn, are playing a double game. By sanctioning Russia and exacerbating the crisis in Europe, Europeans are forced to turn to the Americans. The US becomes the only possible savior of Europe within this crisis scenario that they themselves created.
By replacing Russia, which supplied these fuels at relatively low cost via long-range pipelines from Russia to Central Europe, there is now a much more expensive, much more inefficient form of supply via ships.
Furthermore, shifting energy dependence from Russia to the US leaves Europe vulnerable to market whims, since Russian contracts came with prearranged prices, while American imports are priced at market rates. And in recent days, with these sanctions, prices there have risen by 5% to 6% in a single week. The Europeans are facing a rather critical situation, and this crisis should not be considered only in the short term. It is likely to extend over the coming years and decades if this distancing from Russia is not reversed.
Although it has granted exemptions to Rosneft’s subsidiaries under German control, Germany is not among the White House’s concerns. Trump understands that the multipolarization of the international system is already a reality and is now seeking to regain Washington’s lost power. To this end, unlike past US leaders, he has abandoned Europe. Trump even thinks that Europeans should organize themselves and a European bloc leadership should emerge, because the US will no longer play that role.
The Germans are being seriously affected by embarking on the complete delirium of believing that Russian President Vladimir Putin has a project to conquer Western Europe. This led Germany to join the US sanctions and to abandon the purchase of petroleum products from Russia. Many German companies could not handle the energy price hikes and went bankrupt, while the strongest ones moved to the US. As a result, the German economy sank, with a very high unemployment rate and deindustrialization.
Even in the face of economic deterioration, Europeans remain determined to confront Russia because, at this point, they have no way to retreat, having created a mystique that Ukraine would be Russia’s first obstacle to a supposed plan of military expansion on the continent. Due to this ludicrous belief, Europe spent enormously, exhausted its weapons stockpile, followed Washington in this, and now finds itself alone, watching Trump negotiate directly with Putin, in which the latest US sanctions package is a part of.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Kremlin vows response if US violates nuclear moratorium
RT | October 30, 2025
Russia will respond “accordingly” if the US violates a moratorium on testing nuclear weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump said he had ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing, citing strategic competition with Russia and China. “That process will begin immediately” in response to “other countries’ testing programs,” he said.
When asked about the issue by journalists later in the day, Peskov noted “the statement by [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, which has been repeated many times, that, of course, if someone abandons the moratorium [on nuclear testing], then Russia will act accordingly.”
“The US is a sovereign country and has every right to make sovereign decisions,” he stressed.
Responding to Trump’s claims of other countries carrying out nuclear tests, Peskov said “we are so far not aware of this.”
“If it is about Burevestnik, then it is not a nuclear test,” he insisted. “All nations are developing their defense systems, but this is not a nuclear test.”
The Burevestnik is a new Russian state-of-the-art nuclear-capable cruise missile, powered by a small nuclear reactor that gives it a virtually unlimited range. The Russian military successfully tested the missile last week.
Washington test-fired an unarmed, nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile in February and launched four Trident II missiles from a submarine in September.
Russia last tested a nuclear weapon during the Soviet period in 1990. The US halted its testing in 1992 under a Congress-mandated moratorium.
According to a recent estimate by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US has 5,177 nuclear warheads, Russia has 5,459, and China is projected to reach 1,500 by 2035.
Russia reacts to NATO state minister’s threat to ‘wipe Moscow off the map’
RT | October 29, 2025
Russia has accused Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken of irresponsible rhetoric after he suggested that NATO could “wipe Moscow off the map.”
In an interview with De Morgen newspaper published on Monday, Francken brushed off concerns that the currently shelved delivery of US-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine could trigger an all-out war between Russia and NATO. He argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not use nuclear weapons because the US-led alliance “will wipe Moscow off the map.” Francken added that he did not fear a conventional attack on Brussels since it would result in Moscow getting “flattened.”
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko told the Russian daily RBC on Wednesday that Francken’s words were in line with “the atmosphere of military psychosis” prevalent in Western Europe.
The Russian Embassy in Belgium condemned Francken’s “provocative and irresponsible” statements as “sheer absurdity and total disconnect from reality.”
“Francken’s escapades are the most glaring manifestation of the militarist frenzy that is increasingly consuming the European war party,” the embassy said. It added that EU officials like Francken are “posing a threat to the continent’s future and [are] capable of plunging it into a new war.”
Moscow has repeatedly stated that the flooding of Ukraine with Western weapons would not stop its troops but only cause further escalation.
Sanctioned Russian oil giant to sell foreign assets
RT | October 28, 2025
Russian oil major Lukoil has announced plans to divest its foreign assets following the imposition of Western sanctions on the company and its subsidiaries.
Lukoil, along with Russia’s other major oil producer, Rosneft, was targeted by US sanctions announced last week by President Donald Trump, which followed similar UK sanctions against the two firms. The announcement triggered a spike in global oil prices.
Under a US Treasury license, the two companies are allowed to complete ongoing operations until November 21.
Lukoil is Russia’s second-largest oil producer, accounting for around 2% of global output. Founded in 1991 by Soviet decree and spearheaded by then deputy oil and gas minister Vagit Alekperov, who remains a co-owner, the company employs more than 100,000 people globally. It operates projects in the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, several EU countries, and the United States. By the end of 2024, Lukoil maintained a retail network of some 2,500 fuel stations in 20 countries, exporting 730,000 barrels of crude per day and around 300,000 bpd of petroleum products. The company reported a 2024 net profit of $10 billion.
Lukoil has started considering bids from potential buyers, according to a press release issued late on Monday. The divestment process is being conducted under the wind-down license, which the company said it may seek to extend if needed “to ensure uninterrupted operations of its international assets.”
Trump cited Moscow’s alleged “lack of” commitment to the Ukraine peace process for imposing the sanctions. Moscow has maintained it is seeking a lasting solution to end the conflict. Kiev and its Western backers have repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire, while Moscow says this would only allow Ukraine to regroup its military and receive more arms.
Russia has long said that Western sanctions are illegal and are backfiring on those who impose them. President Vladimir Putin described Washington’s move as “unfriendly,” but said it would not have a significant impact on the economy.
While visiting the US this week, Putin’s aide Kirill Dmitriev stated that “the language of pressure does not work with Russia” and that only constructive dialogue could “bear fruit.”
New Encirclements Deal ‘Painful’ Blow to Zelensky – Ex-Ukrainian Opposition Leader
Sputnik – 29.10.2025
Zelensky can still spare the lives of his soldiers encircled in Pokrovsk and Kupyansk by issuing an order for them to lay down their arms, former Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk said.
The ongoing encirclements [tightening around Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk) and Kupyansk] is especially painful for Zelensky, coming on the heels of his recent trip to Washington, during which he trotted out maps detailing a so-called forthcoming Ukrainian “counteroffensive”, said the former opposition leader.
This clearly demonstrates Zelensky’s glaring incompetence concerning military matters, rendering any discussion of strategy with him futile—a point underscored by President Trump’s own experience, Medvedchuk stressed.
Furthermore, he castigated Zelensky for publicly denying the encirclement even as Ukrainian propagandists peddle the narrative that such information is merely a “Russian ploy” to sway US opinion and create what the Kiev regime claims is the “impression” that Russia is winning.
According to the ex-politician, the nature of modern warfare, with its space-based surveillance and unmanned systems, makes it remarkably difficult for a force to get trapped in an encirclement.
According to Medvedchuk, Zelensky ignored Washington’s counsel by refusing to withdraw from Donbass and declining to begin negotiations. He is now, Medvedchuk added, surrendering the remainder of the region with disgrace and unnecessary casualties.
Zelensky can still save the encircled Ukrainian soldiers by ordering them to lay down their arms. This would give a huge boost to the negotiation process, and those who are captured would return home to their families and loved ones, he said.
However, Medvedchuk concluded, Zelensky’s personal ambition and lust for power outweigh the lives of his soldiers. His zealous belief in his own exceptionalism and invincibility makes him a danger to Ukraine, since these proclivities will only lead to further national suffering.
The Russian Regret
By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • October 29, 2025
The Russians are disappointed with Trump’s policy towards Russia. They have long given up hoping to partner with the US in building a just world order, and they are now giving up the hope that they might be treated fairly. The last person in Russia (if not in the world) still hoping to get along with Mr Trump is President Putin.
One can understand him. There is a great need for geopolitical and geo-economic cooperation between the US and Russia, both in resolving the Ukrainian crisis (taking into account Russia’s interests) and in interacting throughout the Arctic, Caribbean, Africa and all the other global ‘hot spots’. That would be international cooperation, not American Hegemony, as many US politicians prefer. The US should step away from the abyss of nuclear war, while this is still possible. Last week, the Russians carried out nuclear exercises, of a magnitude never done previously. The exercises involved Russia’s full nuclear triad—land-based, sea-based, and airborne assets, according to the statement reported by Russia’s state RIA news agency on Telegram. During the exercise, a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome and Tu-95MS strategic bombers conducted air-launched cruise missile strikes, the Kremlin said. A strategic submarine cruiser launched a ballistic missile from the Barents Sea. And then there was the launch of Burevestnik, a brand-new cruise missile with nuclear reactor onboard, that can fly anywhere for as long as it takes. The Pentagon has revealed that they are worried about these new developments, and have asked the Russians to show them how they make their new devices, the Burevestnik and Poseidon. It is good that President Putin prefers peace, not war.
However, President Putin is not a free agent. There is a strong demand in Russian politics for a nuclear response to Western provocations, not stopping at the Western border of the Ukraine, but going all the way west. For the present, Putin prevails, but it’s likely to change if the US continues its drift toward war and sanctions. And the US invasion of Venezuela is likely to be met with force. The Russian soldiers of Wagner PDC are supposedly already there.
Such sentiments were recently expressed by Sergey Karaganov (a prominent political scientist and honorary representative of The Council on Foreign and Defence Policy) on TVC television, quoted by a PolitNavigator correspondent:
“Europeans – we are dealing with insane morons, excuse me, these are unpleasant words. Well, brutalised morons. They really are morons – the current generation of degenerate European elites, who have also ceased to fear God… and have lost their fear of death.
This is an animal instinct that needs to be restored; they have nothing else left, because they have no intellectual function, no sense of homeland, no sense of gender or love. Of course, I am exaggerating; there are wonderful people there. But that’s how it is [those who are in the governing circle] — they are the scum of humanity.
There is no leader there yet, figuratively speaking, no ‘Hitler’. But, in principle, they are moving towards this. And they are driving their peoples to slaughter. We must stop this movement – in order to save ourselves and these peoples, by the way. Maybe something will come of them someday, although they are degrading very quickly.
They are now being targeted for a massive confrontation with Russia. By the way, we underestimate this, because total propaganda is turning masses of Europeans into potential cannon fodder.
So, we must save them, and at the same time save the world. This is our historical task, but we must realise this historical task. Moreover, we have no other option. Either we destroy ourselves, then destroy the world, or we win and save humanity.
The program’s host Dmitry Kulikov noted that historically, ‘we act best when we understand that we have no other option.’ This feeling permeates Russian political circles. They more and more often repeat Putin’s words from 2018: We shall go to heaven, and they will just croak.
This is indeed regretful, for Putin and Trump have in common real enemies, namely the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, the European Union and the ultra-liberal stateless intelligentsia. Can it be that a grown man, a US President, falls for flattery of the cheapest kind delivered by the likes of Keith Starmer, Macron, Friedrich Merz et al? Doesn’t he understand that they despise him? What do they want? Do Fritz (German Chancellor Friedrich Merz) and Ursula have good memories of the free Russian soup the Germans were fed by the Russian soldiers in 1945, and perhaps they dream of tasting it again? Does Starmer hope to distract his voters so that they might forget his support for Gaza Genocide and Israeli football hooligans? Does Macron think it better to send Frenchmen to die in the Ukraine so they won’t join the Yellow Vests? Does Swedish Ulf Kristersson think that it’s better to keep up the venerable tradition of hosting the Russian occupation force at least once in a century? Which of these plans fit into Trump’s vision?
We may ask – why would President Trump lift a finger to help Vladimir Zelensky, the man who supported the Democratic Party candidate during the US presidential election and played a role in launching the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump?
In case Trump forgot, the Russian envoy Dmitriev reminded the American public (in his interview with journalist Lara Logan) that Zelensky campaigned in support of Kamala Harris, who represented the Democratic Party in the 2024 election and was Trump’s main rival. ‘Let’s not forget that,’ he added. Dmitriev then noted that Zelensky was one of the factors that influenced the initiation of the first impeachment process against the then US president.
The investigation that preceded the impeachment of US President Donald Trump began on 24 September 2019 at the initiative of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The impeachment was sparked by a statement by an anonymous informant (probably Zelensky himself) who claimed that in July 2019, Trump pressured Vladimir Zelensky for personal political gain. According to the anonymous report, Trump demanded that Kiev investigate the activities of Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, in exchange for providing Ukraine with financial and military aid.
After these allegations surfaced, the White House was forced to publish a memorandum containing a transcript of the telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky. The document showed that Trump did indeed ask the Ukrainian president to ‘look into’ the matter concerning the Biden family. At the same time, a week before the aforementioned conversation, Trump had ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine. Representatives of the Democratic Party viewed this decision as a possible attempt to put pressure on Kiev in order to achieve an investigation that would be beneficial to Trump. The president himself was forced to publicly deny these allegations.
On 31 October 2019, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution to formally begin impeachment proceedings. On the 18th of December, the final debates took place, during which two articles of impeachment against Trump were put to a vote: abuse of power and obstruction of a congressional investigation. Both articles were approved, resulting in the president’s impeachment, making him the third head of state in US history to be subject to such a decision by the House of Representatives.
On 15 January 2020, a vote was held to send the indictment to the Senate, where the articles of impeachment were sent the following day. After reviewing the case, on 5 February 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on both counts. And now Trump wants to help the man who saddled him with that mess?
Not only that, but Trump’s policy of arming Europe and providing military aid to Ukraine is against US interests. Forcing Europe’s NATO members to increase defence spending to two per cent and then to five per cent will, in the near future, turn the EU into a military monster comparable to the Third Reich. A militarily strong EU would immediately break its economic dependence on the United States, both in terms of oil and gas and technology. And then it would begin to impose its own agenda on other countries, including America itself. Trump’s course towards the militarisation of Europe is suicidal for the future of the United States; it is feeding the crocodile that the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition seemed to have destroyed forever in 1945.
One might understand Trump’s decisions if building up a Ukrainian statelet were a winning move for the West. But it is not. It’s like feeding money to a slot machine in one of the casinos belonging to Trump’s benefactor, Sheldon Adelson. You give it money, and it gives you jolly music, noise, colourful figures move across the screen; then – nothing. Drop more money, you surely will win the next round, says the croupier. A wise man would not throw good money after bad, but a gambler would, down to his last penny. NATO’s Ukrainian morass is like a Kyiv Casino – they tell you that you are about to win big, you just have to invest another hundred billion! Billions have gone down this drain with nothing to show for it except more Miami palaces for Mr Zelensky and his friends.
The Trump’s renovation of the east wing of the White House is not just a random project – the so-called ‘Trump Ballroom’ is just a cover story for the construction of a secret bomb shelter and presidential bunker. But how long would he be able to sit there under a rain of Oreshnik and other fabulous Russian missiles? They will reach the deepest bunker and burn it out.
No, the only salvation for America is an honest alliance with Russia and the transformation of the Ukraine from Europe’s military springboard into a ‘bridge of cooperation’ between the West and the East. Thank God it is still possible.
NATO expansion has never benefited Europe. It was always a way to keep US troops on the job throughout the Cold War. NATO was deliberately expanded to keep up pressure on Russia. It always put Europe at risk, and there was never any corresponding benefit for the average European. Now, with the US about to drastically reduce its troops in Europe, the nations of Europe are on the brink of running NATO by themselves. Does Europe really want to recreate the Cold War and become a testing ground for Russia’s new cruise missiles? Are they really ready to face such an implacable enemy on their doorstep? Does Europe really want to make an enemy of a European country sitting on most of Europe’s natural resources, including its natural gas, oil, coal, palladium, aluminium and iron ore? How could this enmity benefit the average European family?
And President Trump will be remembered for Gaza Genocide that was not stopped by his 3000 years peace (lasted just two days!), for submission to the European clowns and to Bibi Netanyahu; now for leading the US into final Armageddon.
Building European Security Without Russia ‘Unrealistic’, Warns Hungary’s Top Diplomat
Sputnik – 28.10.2025
Building the architecture of European security without Russia is unrealistic, Foreign Minister of Hungary Peter Szijjarto said on the sidelines of the 3rd International Conference on Eurasian Security in Minsk.
Szijjarto also said he hopes for success of the talks between Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and US President Donald Trump and hopes Washington will understand the position of Budapest, whose energy security is impossible without Russia.
“Our energy security is based on our honest and reliable energy cooperation with Russia. Our historical experience shows that this cooperation has always been reliable and effective. Therefore, we hope that our energy security will not be violated. We hope that the conversation between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States in the second half of next week will also be successful from this point of view,” Szijjarto told reporters on the sidelines of the 3rd Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security.
The Hungarian side “will talk in great detail about our energy supply situation and hopes that it will be treated with respect,” the minister said.
Hungary hopes that the Russian-US summit in Budapest will take place, the question is about timing of preparations, he added.
“We were looking forward to the phone call between [US] President [Donald] Trump and [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin announcing the possibility of a peace summit. We are happy to host it. We understand that neither side has abandoned this plan. The question is the timing and the content. Therefore, we hope that preparations will move forward and the summit will ultimately take place,” Szijjarto told reporters on the sidelines of the third Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security.


