Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Venezuela Has Right to Have Relations With China, Russia, Cuba, Iran – Acting President

Sputnik – 16.01.2026

Venezuela has the right to relations with all countries of the world, including China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran, and will exercise this right in compliance with international norms, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodriguez said on Thursday.

Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez said the country’s energy dialogue with the United States is not new, but stressed that it is now taking place amid “aggression and a fierce threat.”

“Venezuela has the right to relations with China, with Russia, with Cuba, with Iran — with all the peoples of the world,” Rodríguez said while presenting the government’s 2025 annual report.

She said Caracas is shaping energy cooperation based on “decency, dignity and independence,” rejecting both internal and external constraints aimed at influencing Venezuela’s foreign policy.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Attacks in the Black Sea aim to destabilize relations between Russia and the Turkic world

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 16, 2026

The recent indirect offensive against vessels and assets belonging to Russia’s partner countries in the Black Sea reveals a strategy that goes far beyond the immediate military dimension of the Ukrainian conflict. The January 14 attack on a Kazakh oil tanker by Ukrainian drones must be analyzed within a broader context: a Western attempt to sabotage the historical, economic, and political relations between Moscow and the Turkic world.

The vessel that was struck was operating on behalf of KazMunayGas, transporting oil from the Russian port of Novorossiysk as part of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). This is a strategic route not only for Kazakhstan, but also for regional energy stability. The attack caused immediate concern, but what drew even more attention was the rapid mobilization of disinformation campaigns linked to Kiev, which sought to place the blame on Russia even before any investigation had been concluded.

This pattern has already become recurrent. After the incident, Russian authorities carried out technical investigations and presented visual evidence indicating that the drones originated from areas controlled by Ukraine. In light of this, the silence of the Ukrainian government was telling. Even so, the initial unease had already been done, fueled by rumors and fabricated narratives that circulated widely on social networks and in the international media.

The case of the Kazakh oil tanker is not an isolated one. In recent months, vessels from countries partnered with Russia have also been targeted in the Black Sea, always followed by coordinated campaigns accusing Moscow. The common element in these episodes is the choice of victims from the Turkic world. Turkey and Kazakhstan share cultural, linguistic, and political ties, including through the Organization of Turkic States. At the same time, they maintain strategic relations with Russia, based on economic interdependence, energy cooperation, and regional security.

Turkey is an emblematic example. Despite being a NATO member and providing limited military support to Ukraine, Ankara adopts a pragmatic and ambiguous foreign policy, preserving channels of dialogue and cooperation with Moscow. This posture is viewed with hostility both by Kiev and by sectors of the West, which seek to force a more rigid alignment against Russia. Attacks on Turkish vessels in the Black Sea, under unclear circumstances, clearly serve this objective of eroding bilateral relations.

Outside the maritime environment, the ethnic logic is similar. The episode involving Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 in December 2024 illustrates how poorly clarified incidents can be politically exploited. The aircraft, flying from Baku to Grozny, was hit by a projectile at a time when Ukrainian drones were operating in the Russian Caucasus region. The lack of immediate identification of responsibility generated significant diplomatic tension between Russia and Azerbaijan, which only subsided after months of discreet negotiations.

These events should not be seen as mere “collateral effects” of the war. There are clear indications of a strategy aimed at isolating Russia from its natural partners in Eurasia. Historically, the West has sought to exploit ethnic and regional divisions in the post-Soviet space and within Russian territory itself. Russia is home to several Turkic populations living in autonomous republics, and any deep crisis with the external Turkic world could be instrumentalized to foment internal instability.

In this context, information warfare is as relevant as military action. Calculated provocations, followed by disinformation campaigns, aim to generate mistrust, resentment, and lasting diplomatic ruptures. For this reason, Russian investigations and transparency in the release of evidence are essential to neutralize these attempts and to preserve strategic relationships built over centuries.

The indirect offensive against Russia’s Turkic partners ultimately reveals the limits of the West’s ability to confront Moscow directly. Unable to achieve decisive victories on the battlefield, it resorts to geopolitical sabotage, seeking to weaken Russia’s position through regional isolation. Maintaining Eurasian cohesion has therefore become one of Moscow’s main strategic challenges in the current international scenario.

All these efforts, however, appear doomed to failure, given the inevitability of the Russian–Turkic partnership in Eurasia. Despite fluctuations and periods of tension over time, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia share a solid history of cooperation that certainly cannot be shaken by futile provocations.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

The Ukraine Snare Still Beckons

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | January 14, 2026

Despite the widespread expectation that President Donald Trump would end Washington’s entanglement in NATO’s proxy war using Ukraine against Russia, it is increasingly evident that the fundamental features of U.S. policy remain unaltered. Trump personally has sent an array of mixed signals about his intentions. Although he has pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept the reality that Kiev must be willing to make territorial concessions to Moscow in any peace accord, he also has been receptive to Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine be given reliable “security guarantees” in such a settlement. Indeed, during the recent summit meeting between the two leaders, the main point of disagreement appeared to be that Zelensky wanted a commitment lasting fifty years, whereas Trump was prepared to offer only fifteen years.

Not only is Kiev insisting on a firm, detailed guarantee of protection, but also Ukraine’s European supporters in NATO are doing so. Worse, Trump seemed to sign onto a new 20-point “peace plan” being pushed by Zelensky and his European backers. Only Russia’s curt rejection of the scheme has so far prevented it from further consideration.

A potentially deadly snare lies in wait for the United States which our leaders must avoid at all costs. Throughout the years of the Ukraine crisis, most attention has focused on Kiev’s desire for formal membership in NATO and Russia’s repeated refusal to tolerate that option. Indeed, the principal cause of the current war was the clash between Russia and NATO regarding that issue.

However, the substantive issue has never been merely the prospect of Ukraine’s formal membership in NATO. Instead, the real threat to Russia’s security, from Moscow’s viewpoint, has been NATO’s attempt to turn Ukraine into a significant military asset for the alliance. It matters little whether that development occurs because of Kiev’s official membership in NATO or because of new, separate Western security guarantees.

Indeed, the ties would not have to be all that formal to constitute a dangerous provocation toward Moscow. Several NATO governments have repeatedly engaged in loose talk about sending their troops as “peacekeeping personnel” to Ukraine to enforce a settlement. Indeed, some of those countries appear willing to incur such a risky commitment to implement a mere “truce” between the feuding parties. Both Great Britain and France have stated that they intend to establish “military hubs” across Ukraine with their forces. In one of his more reckless, irresponsible moments, President Trump expressed his willingness to consider having the United States “backstop” such European efforts.

Washington must emphatically reject any attempted ploys of that nature. Even a paper security guarantee to Kiev would put any and all guarantor powers at risk. A decision to deploy so-called peacekeeping forces would be even worse. The Kremlin has made it emphatically clear that the presence of any troops by a NATO member in Ukraine is intolerable. Moscow likely would view a troop presence by NATO’s European contingent, much less the United States, as an existential threat to Russia’s security.

It would be folly for U.S. policymakers to rely excessively on the language contained in the North Atlantic Treaty to limit the danger of an undesirable military entanglement. Article 5 obliges NATO signatories to regard an act of aggression against any NATO member state as an attack against them all. The actual language regarding the obligation under Article 5, though, is so vague as to be meaningless, if a member seeks to evade taking serious action. The provision merely requires allies to render (undefined) assistance to the victim of aggression. Crucially, there is no commitment to launch military strikes against the alleged aggressor or to send troops into combat to aid the beleaguered ally. Merely providing logistical aid could fulfill a member’s obligation. The NATO countries that have sent weaponry or provided targeting and other intelligence data to Ukraine have easily met or exceeded any implied Article 5 obligation, even if Kiev had been a member of the alliance.

But in the real world, multiple NATO governments would seek to inflate the U.S. commitment under Article 5 to deepen Washington’s entanglement in the Alliance’s proxy war against Moscow. A pervasive myth persists in America and the rest of the world that the United States has an official treaty obligation to go to war if another NATO country comes under attack. Giving Ukraine a security guarantee would consolidate and strengthen that myth. In other words, U.S. leaders would find themselves under enormous pressure to launch a direct military intervention to support NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine regardless of the actual language contained in Article 5.

That is why any NATO troop presence in Ukraine, or any official security guarantee to Kiev, would be so dangerous. Given the enormous political and military pressures that would be coming from Kiev’s fan club throughout the West, it is highly improbable that U.S. leaders could avoid an armed clash with Russian forces merely by citing the limited, conditional language in Article 5. Legalistic quibbling is not the way events proceed when raw, wartime emotions are in play.

Trump administration officials need to spurn proposals for any alliance security guarantee to Ukraine, much less a deployment of NATO peacekeepers. Washington must emphatically reject schemes that would include a U.S. military presence of any size or nature in Ukraine. President Trump’s casual musings about supporting a NATO peacekeeping contingent not only are irresponsible, but also constitute a betrayal of his political supporters in the last election. They believed that their candidate was committed to extricating the United States from an unnecessary and debilitating geopolitical venture. Unfortunately, Donald Trump appears to be on course to disappoint advocates of a more prudent U.S. foreign policy yet again.

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

Rare Earths—or Arctic Control? Greenland’s Riches May Just Be Excuse

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 13.01.2026

Greenland holds the world’s eighth-largest rare earth reserves—1.5 million tons—but US interests extend far beyond minerals, Ruslan Dimukhamedov, chairman of the Association of Producers and Consumers of Rare and Rare-Earth Metals, tells Sputnik.

Greenland is rich in iron ore, graphite, tungsten, palladium, vanadium, zinc, gold, uranium, copper, and oil. It also hosts two of the world’s largest rare earth deposits—Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled US ambitions to secure leadership in rare earths to advance semiconductors, AI, and robotics. Against this backdrop, it seems like it’s no coincidence that he set his sights on Greenland.

“That means permanent magnets—for electric vehicles, drones, and robotics,” Dimukhamedov says. “If we’re talking about the so-called magnetic group, that includes dysprosium and terbium. If we look at lanthanum and cerium, those are used in petrochemicals and optics.”

Greenland’s rare earths are technologically complex and relatively poor deposits, located in challenging conditions—not just climatically, but geographically as well, in mountainous terrain, the pundit explains.

“If we’re talking about commercial extraction—that is, mining that is economically viable at today’s price levels, rather than production for appearances’ sake,” Greenland’s rare earths hold limited appeal for US companies, according to Dimukhamedov.

His experience in the rare earth industry shows that the conditions of these deposits indicate that rare earth metals themselves are not the main object of the US’ interest. What is it then?

“Territorial control? Yes. Control of the Arctic? Yes. Preventing Russia from freely using the Northern Sea Route, making our lives difficult with military bases? Yes,” the expert says.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Drone hits Kazakh tanker en route to Russian port

RT | January 13, 2026

An oil tanker commissioned to transport crude from an internationally-owned terminal located at a Russian Black Sea port has been attacked by a drone, Kazakhstan’s state-owned oil company KazMunayGas (KMG) reported on Tuesday.

The ship ‘Matilda’ was hit earlier in the day on its way to pick up cargo at the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) terminal this coming Sunday, the statement said. No crew members were hurt, KMG added, noting that the tanker remains seaworthy.

Reuters reported attacks on four tankers in the Black Sea that were on their way to the CPC terminal, located at the Russian port of Novorossiysk, including the ‘Matilda’, citing sources. The report suggested that Ukraine may have been responsible for the attacks, citing Kiev’s history of targeting the consortium’s assets in Russia, but said that Ukrainian officials have not commented on the situation.

CPC is a pipeline operator owned by Kazakh, Russian, and Western private firms and the government of Kazakhstan, which transports crude from the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan to the Novorossiysk terminal. The Russian military has in the past reported Ukrainian attacks on the infrastructure, as Kiev seeks to undermine Moscow’s international oil trade.

Although Kiev does not officially claim credit for attacks on civilian infrastructure, the role of Ukrainian special services in several incidents has been broadly reported in domestic and international media. Moscow has described them as an element in a global Ukrainian campaign of sabotage and terrorism targeting Russian interests.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

EU admits it will have to talk with Putin

RT | January 12, 2026

The EU will have to resume dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the Ukraine conflict, the European Commission’s chief spokesperson has admitted.

The bloc reduced its contacts with Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 in an effort to “isolate” Russia. This approach led to the EU being virtually sidelined from the negotiating table since last February, when US President Donald Trump launched efforts to mediate peace between Moscow and Kiev.

“Obviously, at some point, there will have to be talks also with President Putin,” Paula Pinho stated on Monday, claiming that the EU was “working very, very hard for peace.” She also blamed Moscow for the slow progress of the peace talks by asserting that Brussels was “not seeing any signs” of Russia engaging in any negotiations.

Russian officials have met their US counterparts at various levels on numerous occasions since February, including a summit between Putin and Trump in Alaska last August. The American president said last month that the peace talks were in the “final stages.”

Russian and Ukrainian negotiators also held several rounds of direct talks in Türkiye last year, after early negotiations between the parties stalled in spring 2022 after Kiev withdrew.

Moscow has also repeatedly stated it is ready to engage in peace talks with Kiev and its European backers. In December, presidential aide Yury Ushakov told journalists that Western leaders were welcome in Moscow for talks, but maintained that “the Europeans are refusing all contacts.”

Several European leaders have changed their rhetoric on Russia over the past months. In December, French President Emmanuel Macron stated it would be “useful” to reengage in talks with Putin. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni supported the idea last week by saying it was time for the EU to talk to Russia.

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

UK believes it can seize any tanker under Russia sanctions – BBC

RT | January 12, 2026

The British government believes it has found a legal way for its military to seize any vessels in UK waters that it suspects of being part of a so-called ‘shadow fleet’, state broadcaster BBC has reported.

The move is expected to target Russia, Iran and Venezuela, all of whom the UK claims use third-party vessels to circumvent Western sanctions, according to the report.

Britain’s 2018 Sanctions and Money Laundering Act initially allowed London to impose sanctions in line with UN Security Council resolutions but was later expanded to allow entities London has accused of human rights violations to be targeted.

The law states that the government can detain “specified ships” in its territorial waters or prevent them from entering. This can affect vessels going through the English Channel – one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. It also says that any ships can be targeted, except for those of the navies of foreign nations. The legislation does not explicitly mention the use of military force, though.

According to BBC, it is unclear when the UK could launch an operation targeting a foreign vessel. The British military have not boarded any vessels so far, the broadcaster said, adding that the UK did aid the US in seizing the ‘Marinera’ oil tanker last week.

The ship was intercepted in international waters northwest of Scotland. Moscow, which granted the tanker a temporary sailing permit, condemned the seizure as a gross violation of international rules.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Western governments have imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia, targeting its oil trade and what they call its “shadow fleet” in particular.

According to BBC, London has imposed restrictions against more than 500 suspected “shadow fleet” vessels. The UK also imported oil products from refineries processing Russian crude worth £3 billion ($4.04 billion) over a period between 2022 and the second quarter of 2025, according to a June report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). That generated £510 million ($687 million) in revenue for Moscow.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Pirates of the Caribbean

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026

So many things are happening in such a short space of time that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Certainly, one of the most “entertaining” is the return of piracy, which the United States of America inaugurated at the beginning of 2026.

We are talking about a new and particularly controversial phase of their economic and strategic pressure policy: the direct seizure of oil tankers on the high seas, believed to be involved in the transport of crude oil on behalf of states subject to unilateral U.S. sanctions, in particular Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. This practice, which Washington presents as a legitimate enforcement activity against illegal trafficking, is raising profound questions about international maritime law and the balance between state sovereignty, freedom of navigation, and the use of force.

From the Caribbean to the icy North Seas, the most emblematic case is that of the oil tanker Mariner, seized a few days ago after a long chase in the North Atlantic by the U.S. Coast Guard, while the ship was being joined by Russian naval forces. According to U.S. authorities, the ship was part of the so-called shadow fleet, an informal network of oil tankers that operate through frequent changes of name, flag, and management company in order to evade sanctions regimes. This operation is accompanied by other significant seizures or interceptions, including the tankers Sophia, Skipper, and Centuries, stopped in various maritime areas on similar charges of sanctioned oil trafficking and fraudulent use of flags of convenience. In short, a cinematic-style raid. Donald “Sparrow” Trump has found a new hobby.

As for the Mariner, to be fair, it is a VLCC oil tanker built in 2002. Its gross tonnage is over 318,000 tons, making it one of the largest types of oil tankers used in the global crude oil trade. In terms of age and technical characteristics, it is an ordinary working ship, designed to operate for 25-30 years, provided it passes inspections. Since its construction, the ship has not had a stable “nationality.”

Over the course of more than twenty years, it has changed its name, flag, and owners several times, a practice typical of tankers operating in sanctioned and semi-sanctioned segments of the market. The ship was successively named Overseas Mulan, Seaways Mulan, Xiao Zhu Shan, Yannis, Neofit, Timimus, Bella 1, and finally Marinera. Each name change was accompanied by a change of jurisdiction or management company. The flags also changed regularly. The ship flew the flags of the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Palau, and Panama. According to international databases, there was a period when the ship flew the flag of Guyana, indicating an incorrect or unconfirmed registration. This episode was subsequently used as a formal pretext for intervention by the U.S. Coast Guard.

After the persecution began, the ship obtained temporary registration under the flag of the Russian Federation with Sochi as its port of registry, as recorded in official ship registers. The history of the ship’s ownership and management also indicates its commercial rather than state nature. Over the years, the ship has been managed by companies registered in Asia and offshore jurisdictions, including structures linked to Chinese and Singaporean operators. Between 2022 and 2023, the owner and manager of the ship was Neofit Shipping Ltd, then Louis Marine Shipholding ENT. Since the end of December 2025, the owner and commercial operator of the ship has been the Russian company Burevestmarin LLC. This is a private entity, not linked to state-owned oil companies and not part of any “state fleet.”

In recent years, the ship has been used in the classic sanctions evasion scheme linked to the Iran-Venezuela-China routes. A crucial turning point came in mid-December 2025, when the United States announced an effective maritime blockade of Venezuela. The tanker, then called Bella 1, had left the Iranian port in November and was approaching the Venezuelan coast just as these measures were introduced. The attempt to enter the port was interrupted by the U.S., after which the ship set course for the Atlantic Ocean. The composition of the crew also clearly shows the commercial nature of the ship. Most of the sailors on board are Ukrainian citizens, while there were also Georgian citizens and only two Russians on board. The Mariner proved to be a convenient demonstration target for the U.S. as part of its new strategy of forcibly disrupting Venezuelan oil routes.

The owner’s attempt to hide under the Russian flag was a logical commercial move, but it did not change the intentions of the U.S. Russia was formally involved in the situation as the flag state and because of the presence of Russian citizens in the crew. The ship was not of strategic value to Russia and was not part of its oil logistics. Any escalation around a private tanker, which had been operating for decades on gray routes, would have made no rational sense.

From Washington’s point of view, the legitimacy of such actions rests on two main pillars. The first is the extraterritorial application of U.S. sanctions: seized tankers are considered assets directly involved in violations of Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations and are therefore subject to confiscation. The second pillar is the doctrine of the stateless vessel, according to which a ship that cannot credibly prove its nationality—due to irregular registrations, false flags, or contradictory documentation—loses the legal protection guaranteed by the flag state and can be stopped by any other state on the high seas.

Bye-bye Law of the Sea

It is precisely this second point that is the focus of much of the legal debate. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes that, on the high seas, a ship is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state. Exceptions to this principle are limited and strict: piracy, slave trade, unauthorized radio transmissions, absence of nationality, or express authorization from the UN Security Council. The extension of these exceptions to the application of unilateral sanctions, not approved by the United Nations, is a highly contested interpretation.

Russia and China have reacted harshly to the seizures, calling them a blatant violation of international law and, in some cases, an act comparable to state piracy. Moscow argues that the seized tankers were flying regular flags and that the use of force against commercial vessels in peacetime, outside a UN mandate, constitutes a breach of the maritime legal order. Beijing, for its part, has emphasized the illegitimate nature of unilateral sanctions and the risk that such practices create dangerous precedents, normalizing the armed interdiction of commercial shipping.

The implications of this new phase are significant. On the legal front, there is growing tension between a law of the sea based on the neutrality of routes and freedom of navigation, and a power practice that tends to transform economic sanctions into instruments of military coercion. On the geopolitical front, there is a risk of maritime escalation, with possible countermeasures by the affected states and a progressive militarization of global energy routes.

On the other hand, all this is consistent with what the U.S. administration is doing: creating rapid chaos that distracts the world, while surgically targeting certain elements within the American system and, on the other hand, applying the Donroe Doctrine and establishing control over the Western Hemisphere.

The seizure of oil tankers is not just an isolated episode of conflict between states, but a sign of a deeper transformation of the international order. The U.S. has set out with conviction and has no intention of stopping. If this practice were to become established, international maritime law would risk being very quickly stripped of its fundamental principles, leaving room for a logic of force in which naval supremacy replaces shared legality. The issue, therefore, is not only about the seized ships, but the entire future of global maritime governance.

The U.S. has said it: Venezuela is American property and from now on will be its new backyard. Greenland will be next.

Piracy elevated to the rank of military strategy and international relations.

And remember: in just 11 months of government, since the beginning of his second term, Donald Trump has bombed seven sovereign countries: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. He has kidnapped one head of state (Maduro) and threatened to kill three others: Khamenei, Petro, and Rodriguez. He has threatened to invade five countries: Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Greenland (i.e., Denmark). He has done everything in his power to prevent the international community from passing resolutions against Israel and its prime minister Netanyahu during and after the massacres in Gaza.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense, who is not misled by political preconceptions, can draw the most basic conclusions from these actions.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Coalition of the Willing has achieved nothing

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 11, 2026

The war in Ukraine happened because western nations insisted that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO but were never willing to fight to guarantee that right.

That reality has never changed. This week’s latest Summit of the Coalition of the Willing has confirmed that it will not change any time soon.

The only countries that appear remotely willing to deploy troops to Ukraine in a vague and most certainly limited way are the British and French.

Both would need parliamentary approval which can’t be guaranteed. Reform Leader Nigel Farage has already come out to say that he wouldn’t back a vote to deploy British troops to Ukraine because we simply don’t have enough men or equipment. And even though Keir Starmer has the parliamentary numbers to pass any future vote on deploying British troops, it would almost certainly damage his already catastrophic polling numbers.

Macron is clinging on to his political life and would probably face a tougher tussle to get his parliament to approve the French sending their troops to Ukraine, potentially leaving the UK on its own.

In any case, it is completely obvious that Russia won’t agree to any deployment in Ukraine by NATO troops. This shows once again that western leaders have learned absolutely nothing over the past decade. It will never be possible to insist that Russia sues for peace under terms which is has long made clear are unacceptable at a time when it was winning on the battlefield, and European nations refuse to fight with their own troops.

Hawkish British journalist Edward Lucas, with whom I disagree on most things, summed it up well in an opinion in the Times newspaper when he said:

We are promising forces we do not have, to enforce a ceasefire that does not exist, under a plan that has yet to be drawn up, endorsed by a superpower (read the U.S.) that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary that has far greater willpower than we do.

President Putin has shown an absolute determination not to back down until his core aims, namely to prevent NATO expansion, are achieved. And as I have said many times, the west can’t win a war by committee.

All of these pointless Coalition of the Willing meetings happen in circumstances where Europe refuses to talk to Russia upon whom an end to the war depends. Peace will only break out after Ukraine and Russia sign a deal, and the west appears deliberately to be doing everything possible to ensure that Russia never signs.

Instead, we entertain Zelensky with hugs and handshakes, reassuring him that we will do anything he wants for as long as he needs, only to offer insufficient help all of the time.

And, as Zelensky is in any case unelected, not likely to win elections in Ukraine as and when they happen, overseeing a corrupt regime that is adopting increasingly repressive tactics to keep a losing war going, it is not in his interest to see the war end anyway.

His calculus continues to be that, if he clings on for long enough, the west will finally be dragged into a direct war with Russia. So, he’s happy to drag out an endless cycle of death by committee in which European leaders never agree to give him exactly what he wants and he uses that as a pretext not to settle.

Zelensky went on from Paris to Cyprus where, among other things, he has been pushing for more sanctions against Russia. At no point since 2014 have sanctions looked remotely likely to work against Russia, for reasons I have outlined many times.

The European Commission is now planning its twentieth round of sanctions to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the war on 24 February 2026. So with peace talks ongoing, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas as always are doing their bit to ensure that nothing gets agreed.

None of this brings the war any closer to an end nor does it provide any security guarantees to Ukraine. As always, the biggest security guarantee should be the offer by European allies to intervene militarily in Ukraine should Russia decide to reinvade after any future peace deal.

But that was not agreed in Paris. Instead, the Paris Declaration said, ‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’

In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to ‘finalise commitments that may include’ basically means that nothing has been agreed.

The declaration also said:

We stand ready to commit to a system of politically and legally binding guarantees. However, the final communique gave individual countries opt outs from those guarantees by saying that any guarantees would be, ‘in accordance with our respective legal and constitutional arrangements’.

So, again, in diplomatic parlance, what this means is that some coalition members may be able to opt out of the security guarantees if they decide that their domestic framework does not allow for such an arrangement, thinking here in particular of Hungary, Italy and Spain, for example.

What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.

Even though these are Ukrainian troops, not European, Russia will undoubtedly see EU funding of a large Ukrainian army on its border as a form of NATO lite. Which, of course, Zelensky would welcome.

So the process of holding near weekly Coalition of the Willing summits is entirely pointless, though perhaps that is the point. Since 2022, western leaders have been completely unable to say no to Zelensky, either through guilt or stupidity, or both.

Yet at some point, if only for their own political survival, Starmer and others will have to politely decline to offer more support and make it clear to Zelensky that he has no choice but to sue for peace. To me, at least, the European offer to Zelensky follows these lines:

Ukraine cannot join NATO (sorry we lied to you about that) but you can join the European Union and we will help you make the reforms you need to do so.

You will get significant investment when the war ends that boosts your economy. As your people return home, we believe Ukraine has potential to grow quickly and reconstruct.

However, it may still be many years before you receive EU subsidies on the level of other European Members, and you possibly may not receive them at all.

And you will have to become financially sustainable, including meeting the EU’s fiscal deficit like other EU member states.

I’m afraid that means that you won’t be able to maintain an army of 800,000 people at Europe’s expense (sorry we reassured you that you could).

But, as a European Union member you would have a security guarantee by virtue of your membership of this community, even though only Macron’s France has said it would send you troops (je m’excuse).

You should also be aware that Europe sees benefit in a normalised economic relationship with Russia, that includes purchasing cheap Russian energy. We can’t go on buying massively expensive U.S. LNG just to avoid hurting your feelings.

Sanctions may have been a policy or war, but they won’t be a policy of peace, and you will need to accept that we will drop them too.

We have now reached the limit of the financial support that we can provide to you so we have reached the point of now or never in your signing a peace deal.

That requires you to make hard choices about de facto recognition of land on the lines of the peace deal that the U.S. is trying right now to finalise with Russia.

Without that, he will simply continue this charade of endless pointless Summits and the war will drag Europe even further into the mire.

That’s a lot to take in and we’ve already apologised enough as it is. Look, we lied to you okay, but everyone makes mistakes.

Somehow, though, I predict the Europeans will continue to drift in circles. I wonder where the next Coalition of the Willing Summit will be? I hope it’s soon, as Zelensky might actually have to spend some time inside of Ukraine if there’s a delay. And he likes it in Europe as it’s the only place where everyone seems to love him.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Larry Johnson: End of Negotiations & Launch of Oreshnik

Glenn Diesen | January 10, 2026

Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses provocations, end of negotiations and launch of the Oreshnink.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia carries out three evacuation flights from Israel in under 24 hours

MEMO | January 9, 2026

Russian authorities have reportedly carried out three evacuation flights from Israel in less than 24 hours, transporting officials and their families to Russia, according to Hebrew and regional media.

Israel’s Channel 14 reported on Thursday that the flights were conducted without any official explanation from Moscow. Separate reports in Russian and Iranian media said the evacuations were carried out under what appeared to be an urgent mandate, involving officials and their families.

The reports suggested that the pace of the evacuations was faster than usual, fuelling speculation that Moscow may have received sensitive or significant information prompting the move. However, no details were provided regarding the nature of the alleged information or the identities of those evacuated.

The Kremlin has not issued any official statement clarifying the reasons behind the evacuation flights, and Russian authorities have so far declined to comment on the reports.

January 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US Boarding of Marinera Vessel in Open Waters Violates UN Convention – Russia’s Transport Ministry

Sputnik – 07.01.2026

US navy forces boarded the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera at around 12:00 GMT, after which the contact with the vessel was lost, the Russian Transport Ministry said on Wednesday.

“Today around 3:00 p.m. Moscow time, in open seas outside the territorial waters of any state, US navy forces boarded the vessel, and the contact with the ship was lost,” the ministry said in a statement.

On December 24, 2025, Marinera received a temporary permit to sail under the Russian flag, issued on the basis of Russian legislation and norms of international law, the ministry added.

“In accordance with the norms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, freedom of navigation applies on the high seas, and no state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered under the jurisdiction of other states,” the ministry said.

January 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »