Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

New evidence on the Bucha Massacre

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 25, 2026

The Bucha Massacre, which occurred in March 2022, remains one of the main tragedies of the Ukrainian conflict. Shortly after the Russian strategic retreat and the entry of Ukrainian troops, the narrative quickly began to spread that Russian soldiers had committed a massacre in the city, murdering hundreds of people.

The news spread around the world and was broadcast by all major media aligned with the Atlantic West. Even in spaces that declare themselves neutral, such as Wikipedia, the entry on the Bucha Massacre narrates it as a slaughter perpetrated by Russian soldiers before they retreated from the city. This is, therefore, the “official version” of the story in the Western world and its satellites.

Ukrainian authorities speak of 509 innocent civilians who were allegedly assassinated by the Russians, and indeed Bucha has been used as one of the main arguments to vilify the behavioral standard of the Russians in the special military operation. It seems peculiar to us, however, from the outset that this event was so singular. In general, armies that commit atrocities commit them at various moments and in different places of the conflict, but Bucha constitutes a singular, totally unique, and so far unrepeated instance of an alleged massacre of hundreds of Ukrainian civilians by the Russians.

The topic has recently gained prominence again, with new evidence that was discussed, for example, at the “Dialogue on Fakes 4.0” congress, organized by the Global Fact-Checking Network (a fact-checking agency of which I am a member, along with other journalists). There, Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned the findings of the report “Heirs of Goebbels: Falsification of the Events in Bucha and Staged Bloody Performances by the Kiev Regime,” produced by a team from the International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, and published on September 17, 2026, on the Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs site. (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/reports/2142212/)

According to the report in question, it was possible to gather sufficient material evidence indicating that the Ukrainian regime manipulated the facts about Bucha in various ways, one of them being the inclusion of Ukrainian military and paramilitary personnel killed in combat as victims of an alleged “massacre” committed by the Russians. Some of these military personnel may not even have died in the vicinity of Bucha. Furthermore, evidence was obtained of civilians who died of natural causes and whose names were included as having also been victims.

This work by the committee was possible because months after the events in Bucha, the Ukrainian regime inaugurated a memorial containing the names and personal data of the “civilians” who allegedly died in the supposed massacre committed by the Russians. With this, it was possible to cross-reference the data with other databases to check the biography of the dead and confirm the official information – work that was done voluntarily by users of the 2ch.su forum. They discovered at least 50 names of Ukrainian combatants among the names on the memorial, which amounts to approximately 10% of the alleged victims listed.

Among these combatants, by the way, there are several members of the Azov Regiment, a neo-Nazi organization notorious for its atrocities against Russian civilians, such as Evgeny Petrash, Vladimir Bisyaga, Andrey Vaskevich, Ilya Krhenov, among others. Others, such as Igor Kokodinyak and Vladimir Logvinenko, were military personnel who died in other parts of the special military operation zone and not in the vicinity of Bucha.

But of course, the big question about Bucha is the fact that the authentic civilian deaths that occurred at the location in March 2022 were perpetrated by the Ukrainians themselves, which is also confirmed in the report through new testimonial evidence. According to it, Ukraine used artillery against Bucha, after the Russian withdrawal, as soon as journalists were transported to the city, with the aim of turning it into the stage for a grand performance to be displayed to the world.

According to the testimonial evidence gathered, there is even evidence that the journalists’ visit was staged, in the sense that the locations that would be hit by Ukrainian artillery attacks were already known in advance, which means that civilians were killed on purpose with the aim of accusing the Russians of an atrocity – which characterizes a “false flag” attack.

Bucha has become a case to be studied because today the probability that other “false flag” attacks will be produced by Ukraine or the West with the aim of justifying an intensification of hostilities is quite high.

September 25, 2026 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Comments Off on New evidence on the Bucha Massacre

How Russia is Rewiring the Global South

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – September 25, 2026

The West may have pushed Russia out of its orbit, but it cannot push Russia out of the world.

Russia’s Diplomatic Blitz

Over the past two weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has staged a remarkable diplomatic blitz. Across three major gatherings in Bishkek, Vladivostok and New Delhi, as well as during Vietnamese leader To Lam’s state visit to Moscow, Putin met a succession of heads of state from across Asia and the wider Global South. Among them were the leaders of China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia and Turkey.

The sheer intensity of this diplomacy is difficult to reconcile with the notion—aggressively propagated by Western political elites and the media—that Russia has been internationally isolated. Moscow may be estranged from Washington and most European capitals, but its diplomatic and economic relationships elsewhere have been expanding. More importantly, Russia is increasingly operating at the centre of a network of states that are seeking greater strategic autonomy from the Western-led international order.

That does not make these countries a Russian bloc per se. India continues to maintain close relations with the United States; China has its own global ambitions; Turkey is a NATO member; and the BRICS countries have yet to develop a common framework of global action. But it does demonstrate that Russia’s post-2022 so-called “isolation” exists only in the Western perspective. The reality outside of this perspective is totally different.

Moscow’s Reorientation

The Western strategy towards Russia after the start of the military conflict in Ukraine was built partly around economic and diplomatic isolation. The United States and European Union imposed extensive sanctions, restricted access to Western technology and finance, and dramatically reduced many forms of economic engagement with Moscow. Russia responded by accelerating a pivot that had already begun towards Asia and other non-Western regions.

The transformation is particularly visible in trade. Asia accounted for 73.4 percent of Russia’s trade turnover in 2025. China and India have become particularly important destinations for Russian energy exports, while Moscow has simultaneously expanded commercial and strategic relationships across the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

India is perhaps the clearest illustration of this adjustment. Despite its increasingly close strategic relationship with Washington, New Delhi has sharply expanded its economic engagement with Moscow. Reuters reported this month that India and Russia have developed payment arrangements using the rupee and rouble that facilitate the overwhelming majority of bilateral trade. Bilateral trade reached roughly $70 billion in 2024, with both sides targeting $100 billion by 2030. The significance lies not simply in the volume of trade. It is the development of mechanisms that allow countries to maintain economic relationships despite restrictions imposed by Western financial systems.

This is an important distinction. The Global South is not necessarily seeking to replace the West. Many of its governments remain deeply integrated into Western markets and institutions. What they increasingly seek is the ability to maintain alternative relationships when their interests diverge from those of Washington or Brussels. Russia has not only become one of the principal beneficiaries of that preference, but it’s actively cultivating ties on its own too—something clearly evident from the diplomatic blitz mentioned above.

BRICS And the Search for Strategic Autonomy

The most important arena for this transformation is BRICS. The grouping has expanded substantially from its original membership and now includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Its members represent a substantial share of the world’s population and economic output. Although member countries apparently have different geopolitical and national interests, this diversity is not a weakness but BRICS’s defining characteristic.

The grouping provides a political space in which countries can discuss reforms to international institutions, alternative financial mechanisms, trade arrangements and greater representation for emerging economies without having to accept a common ideological position. This is different from Washington’s demands for conformity from its allies in Europe and North America. But BRICS agenda increasingly overlaps with Russia’s own interests.

At the BRICS summit in New Delhi, member states called for greater influence over international economic governance and raised concerns about unilateral trade and financial measures. India has also promoted mechanisms that could eventually facilitate greater use of alternative payment systems. New Delhi has proposed linking central-bank digital currencies among BRICS countries, although substantial technical and political obstacles remain.

For Moscow, these discussions have obvious significance. Western sanctions have made Russia deeply interested in payment mechanisms, financial arrangements and trading networks that are less vulnerable to Western restrictions. But Russia is not creating these demands by itself. It is benefiting from a broader transformation in the preferences of major non-Western states. The result is an unusual convergence. Russia wants alternatives because it has been subjected to Western restrictions. Other Global South governments want alternatives because they do not want their economic and diplomatic options constrained by decisions taken in Washington or Brussels. Therefore, even though the motivations are different, the direction of change is not.

The Geopolitics of a Networked World

This is why the most important consequence of Russia’s diplomatic reorientation may not be the survival of the Russian economy. It may be the emergence of a different geography of globalisation. Energy provides the clearest example. Russia has redirected large volumes of oil and gas towards Asian markets, while expanding nuclear-energy cooperation with countries beyond the West.

Transport infrastructure is developing alongside these commercial relationships. The International North-South Transport Corridor, linking Russia through Iran towards the Indian Ocean, is one example of efforts to create alternative routes between Eurasia and global markets. Russia’s expanding economic engagement with China, India, Iran and other Asian states is gradually creating overlapping networks of energy, transportation, finance and trade.

Vietnam illustrates the same pattern from another direction. During To Lam’s September visit to Moscow, Russia and Vietnam discussed cooperation in energy, science and technology, infrastructure and other sectors. Hanoi, like many Southeast Asian capitals, has little interest in choosing permanently between China, Russia, the United States, Japan, Europe and other partners. Its preference is diversification. That may ultimately prove to be the defining characteristic of the emerging international system.

Russia’s current diplomatic activism should therefore be understood in this larger context. Moscow is not simply looking for countries willing to circumvent sanctions or purchase its commodities. It is building relationships that can survive the political distance between Russia and the West.

The more the West defines its relationship with Russia through separation, sanctions and exclusion, the greater the incentive for Moscow to invest in a world beyond Western institutions, and the greater the incentive for other countries to make sure that such a world remains available. The irony is that the attempt to isolate Russia may therefore be contributing to something larger than Russia’s own diplomatic resilience: a global system in which isolation itself becomes increasingly difficult to impose.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Russia is Rewiring the Global South

Hackers From US, France, Singapore Tried to Disrupt Russian Elections – Internet Provider

Sputnik – 25.09.2026

MOSCOW – Hackers from the United States, France and Singapore attempted to disrupt the remote electronic voting process during the recent State Duma elections, with malicious web traffic originating from IP addresses in over 30 countries, including the UK and Ukraine, Russia’s largest digital services provider Rostelecom said on Friday.

“The most intense attacks originated from networks in unfriendly countries. Malicious traffic came from IP ranges in more than 30 countries, including the UK and Ukraine. Notably, the US, France and Singapore were identified among the primary sources of attacks on the electronic voting infrastructure,” the statement read.

Rostelecom maintained secure communication channels and infrastructure at polling stations during the three-day voting period last week. It set up video surveillance across 89 regions and ensured the cybersecurity and uninterrupted operation of the federal remote electronic voting platform.

Tech experts repelled more than 3,000 waves of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks reaching speeds of up to 1.7 Tbps, blocked over 170 million malicious attempts targeting web services, and prevented unauthorized access to the infrastructure. Efforts focused primarily on preventing voting results from being altered or disclosed prematurely.

The intensity and volume of the attacks exceeded those seen during the previous electoral process in 2024, Rostelecom said. The primary targets were e-government systems, including the Unified System of Identification and Authentication (ESIA) and the Gosuslugi state service portal, as well as Rostelecom’s infrastructure, the remote electronic voting (DEV) system, and the Central Election Commission (CEC).

September 25, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | Comments Off on Hackers From US, France, Singapore Tried to Disrupt Russian Elections – Internet Provider

IAEA inspectors cannot return to Iran amid US threats: Russia

Press TV – September 24, 2026

Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna says the return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Iran is not possible amid continued US threats against the country.

Mikhail Ulyanov said the United States has never provided guarantees that it will halt missile attacks on Iranian territory. “On the contrary, they are practically issuing threats every day, and sometimes several times a day,” Ulyanov said, according to RIA Novosti.

“In such circumstances, what meaning can there be in talking about the presence of IAEA inspectors?” he added.

Ulyanov’s remarks come against the backdrop of a fundamental security problem surrounding the resumption of inspections. In June, Israeli and US strikes targeted Iranian nuclear facilities that had been under IAEA safeguards.

The US and Israel attacked Iran while nuclear negotiations were underway, using the talks as a cover for aggression under the illusion that the attack would eliminate Iran’s nuclear program and eventually topple the Islamic Republic.

The bombing has killed the bilateral framework for cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, which has so far refused to condemn the aggression, thus failing in its commitment and now demanding Iran to go out of its way and cooperate with aggressors—amounting to awarding the aggressors.

The attacks forced the Agency to halt its field verification activities and withdraw its inspectors from Iran for safety reasons. The IAEA itself reported that its inspectors had been withdrawn from the country by the end of June because of the security situation.

That history provides an important context for Tehran’s refusal to immediately restore unrestricted access. Iran is being asked to facilitate the return of international inspectors while the military threat that forced their withdrawal has not been conclusively removed.

From Tehran’s perspective, the question is therefore not simply whether inspectors should have access, but whether the conditions exist for them to operate safely and independently without their presence becoming entangled in an active military confrontation.

The IAEA has also acknowledged the exceptional circumstances created by the attacks. In its reporting, the Agency stated that attacks against nuclear facilities can have serious consequences for nuclear safety, security, safeguards and international peace and security, and recalled that nuclear facilities must not be attacked because of the risks to people and the environment.

This is particularly significant because the facilities targeted in the strikes were not outside the safeguards system. Russia has argued that the affected Iranian sites had been subject to regular Agency monitoring before the attacks.

In a 2025 statement, Ulyanov said the facilities at Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan and Arak had been regularly inspected and that the strikes damaged both nuclear infrastructure and IAEA equipment.

The attacks therefore created a difficult contradiction for the international verification system: facilities under international monitoring were struck militarily, inspectors were subsequently withdrawn for security reasons, and Iran then faced intensified demands to restore access under conditions in which it continues to regard itself as exposed to further attack.

The Agency has reported unresolved questions concerning uranium particles and has said that it requires further information from Iran before it can provide broader assurances about the exclusively peaceful nature of the country’s nuclear program.

At the same time, the current dispute cannot be separated from the security environment in which verification is being demanded. A sustainable inspection arrangement would require more than simply instructing Iran to open its facilities.

It would require credible security arrangements for inspectors, protection for safeguarded nuclear installations, and a mechanism that prevents inspections from becoming a source of additional military or political escalation.

Tehran’s position is that inspectors should not simply return under the same conditions that existed before the attacks. There are several concrete reasons for that position.

First, the safety of inspectors has become a direct issue. The IAEA withdrew its personnel because of the security situation after the attacks.

Without credible assurances that inspectors and their equipment will be protected from further military action, Iran can argue that an immediate return would expose Agency personnel to risks that are beyond the Agency’s ability to control.

Second, Iran’s nuclear facilities have themselves become potential military targets. The IAEA has repeatedly stressed the dangers of attacking nuclear installations.

Allowing inspectors to return without addressing the possibility of renewed strikes would leave them operating in an environment where the facilities they are monitoring could again come under attack.

Third, the previous monitoring framework was disrupted by military action rather than simply by a disagreement over access. The IAEA’s own records state that verification activities stopped following the attacks and that Iran subsequently enacted legislation suspending cooperation with the Agency.

Fourth, the dispute now involves a question of reciprocity and confidence. Iran maintains that it cannot be expected to provide extensive access while simultaneously facing threats of additional military action.

The dispute has intensified following a September resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors reporting Iran’s case to the United Nations Security Council.

Iran has rejected the move as politically motivated and has stressed that the military strikes and subsequent diplomatic pressure have fundamentally changed the circumstances surrounding the nuclear dispute.

Russia and China have opposed efforts to escalate the matter through the Security Council.

At the same time, Iranian officials have warned that continued military and political pressure could lead Tehran to reconsider its position within the nuclear non-proliferation framework.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Iran’s recent experience could encourage other countries to reconsider participation in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

September 24, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on IAEA inspectors cannot return to Iran amid US threats: Russia

China condemns US extortion of Iranian airlines, rejects Washington’s ‘illegal’ sanctions threats

Press TV – September 22, 2026

China has fiercely rejected the United States’ latest attempts to ground Iran’s aviation sector, dismissing Washington’s threats of secondary sanctions as “illegal” coercion that lacks any basis in international law.

The rebuke from Beijing signals growing global resistance to the Trump administration’s failing “Economic D-Day” campaign against Iran.

The diplomatic clash erupted after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent boasted in a televised interview that “all the Iranian airlines will be shut down around the world” within days.

Bessent threatened global aviation hubs and foreign firms with exclusion from the US dollar system if they provide fuel, landing services, or ticket sales to Iranian carriers.

Beijing, a primary economic and diplomatic partner of Tehran, swiftly condemned the maneuver.

“China consistently opposes illegal unilateral sanctions that lack a basis in international law or authorization from the UN Security Council,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told reporters.

The friction arises just days before a scheduled summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, and shortly after Bessent met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng for economic talks.

Collapse of ‘Economic D-Day’

Bessent’s threats against Iranian airlines are a hallmark of what he previously dubbed “Economic D-Day”, a sweeping, draconian sanctions regime intended to force Iran’s capitulation.

However, analysts note that the campaign has largely collapsed on the global stage.

Despite Washington’s demands, key global powers, including China and Russia, as well as Iran’s regional neighbors, have refused to enforce the illegal embargo.

The US attempt to isolate Iran has backfired, exposing the severe limitations of American financial hegemony when wielded without international consensus.

The US resort to extreme economic coercion against civilian aviation follows the catastrophic failure of its broader military objectives.

Since launching an unprovoked US-Israeli war of aggression in late February, Washington has failed to achieve its stated goals.

Instead of capitulating, Iran has seized the strategic initiative. By asserting sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran has effectively expelled the US from the Persian Gulf region.

September 22, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on China condemns US extortion of Iranian airlines, rejects Washington’s ‘illegal’ sanctions threats

Black Sea grain crisis puts global wheat supplies under pressure

Al Mayadeen| September 21, 2026

The disruption of grain shipments from the Black Sea is deepening concerns over global food security, with Russia and Ukraine’s reduced wheat exports threatening to push prices higher and intensify inflation pressures.

The two countries account for more than a quarter of global wheat trade, making the Black Sea a critical route for grain shipments to some of the world’s largest importers. However, escalating attacks on ports, grain terminals, storage facilities, and vessels have severely disrupted exports since July.

The crisis comes as markets remain focused on energy disruptions and rising oil prices linked tothe US and Saudi aggressions in West Asia, while food supply risks have received less attention from investors.

“We can think of the Black Sea as important for global wheat trade as the Strait of Hormuz is for global oil trade,” Caitlin Welsh, a food security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. “The world is underestimating the impact of these attacks.”

Black Sea grain routes face mounting pressure

Tue Vuong, chief executive officer of Golden Wheat, a milling company based in Ho Chi Minh City, secured four cargoes of wheat from the Black Sea region, accounting for about a fifth of the company’s annual supply.

However, after the summer escalation in the Russia-Ukraine war, he was informed that some shipments would not be delivered.

“I was very panicked,” Vuong said. He received replacement offers for two cargoes from Bulgaria but spent weeks searching for additional supplies to avoid shortages.

“We were too exposed to a crisis in the Black Sea,” he added.

Golden Wheat eventually switched two vessels to load Bulgarian wheat from Burgas, located about 500 kilometers from the Ukrainian port of Odesa. Vuong also monitored shipping movements, insurance conditions, and developments in the Red Sea, where vessels face additional security concerns.

“Although the vessels were insured, if they had been attacked, we would have faced shortages,” he said.

The company later turned to US wheat supplies at a significantly higher cost, while prices continued to climb.

Russia and Ukraine wheat exports disrupted

Russia and Ukraine are among the world’s largest wheat exporters, while also accounting for major shares of sunflower oil and corn shipments.

Combined Russian and Ukrainian wheat exports are expected to reach roughly half last year’s level during the July-September harvesting period, according to researcher SovEcon.

Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer, has not received Black Sea grain shipments for about a month. Russia’s exports have been affected by Ukrainian drone attacks, while Ukraine has struggled to move grain after damage to ports and disruptions to shipping routes.

Ukraine has attempted to redirect exports through Romania’s Constanta port and alternative routes along Romania and Bulgaria’s coastlines, but these channels are facing congestion.

A backlog of around 80 mostly smaller vessels has formed around Ukrainian Danube ports as traffic moves away from major Black Sea terminals, according to ship-tracking data compiled by Kpler and Bloomberg.

September 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Black Sea grain crisis puts global wheat supplies under pressure

Russia Voted Under Fire. Washington Is Loading the Tankers.

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | September 20, 2026

Two things happened this weekend that belong in the same frame, though you will not see them connected anywhere in the Western press. Russia held a national election under a hail of drones and cyberattacks — and came through it. And overnight, the United States began signaling that it is about to widen the war in the Middle East. They are not separate stories. The same barrage that tried to break the Russian vote also tore a piece out of Russia’s refining capacity, and that connects directly to the fuel crisis Washington is about to make worse. Take them in order.

An election under attack

Russians voted over three days, September 18 through 20, to seat the ninth convocation of the State Duma, their national legislature — all 450 seats. What made the final day extraordinary was the effort, backed by the West, to disrupt it by force.

Overnight, Ukraine launched the largest drone assault of the war. Moscow’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, reported that air defenses brought down more than 1,600 drones across Russia since Saturday, roughly 450 of them bound for the capital region; the Russian Defense Ministry put the single-night intercept figure at 1,110, the highest it has ever reported. I will be candid: I woke up Sunday morning with no idea any of it had happened. The overwhelming majority were destroyed well before they reached Moscow. A handful got through — two people were killed and about twenty injured in the Moscow region. For those who lost their lives, and for their families, it is a tragedy. But set it against the scale: some seventeen million people live in the Moscow region, and their day went on. Then, through the voting hours, came waves of cyberattacks on the electronic voting system — another attempt to break the election that failed to break it.

Now the numbers that matter. Official turnout, per the Central Election Commission, came in around 56.7 percent over the three days. Ten parties qualified for the ballot. And in the four newly constituted republics — Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson — turnout ran dramatically higher than the national figure, despite those regions being under active attack. People who face drones on their way to the polling station and vote anyway are telling you something about how much the franchise means to them.

The election was watched by international observers — independent-minded people, some of them frankly sympathetic to Gennady Zyuganov’s Communists, no friends of the ruling party. I spoke with several. Their verdict was the same: this was a free and fair election. I saw nothing to contradict it — no signs going up and being torn down, no one dragged away for campaigning.

Now, I know exactly what the Western press will wave in reply, so let me meet it head-on. Yes: the Supreme Court struck the federal list of Yabloko, the one small party that campaigned against the war, and Boris Nadezhdin was kept off the ballot and has since left the country. Those are the two names you will hear over and over as proof that the whole exercise was theater. It is not much of a case. Yabloko has polled below the five-percent threshold for the better part of two decades; the position it staked out — abandoning the four republics and the men fighting for them — is one almost no Russian holds. Excluding a marginal faction that stands where the West stands is not the same thing as crushing dissent, and it does not turn a three-day, ten-party election with 56.7 percent turnout into a fraud. The real spectrum of Russian politics does not run from pro-war to anti-war. It runs from those who support the special military operation to those who want it fought harder — and inside that spectrum the parties went at each other in the open, and the observers, including men who would sooner see a Communist in the Kremlin, judged the contest fair. On the evidence in front of me, the endless claim that Putin simply crushes all opposition is a fabrication.

Here is what the West consistently misreads. Russia’s parties argue fiercely about domestic policy — income inequality, taxes, education, health care, the ordinary business of any democracy. But on foreign policy they are united, something on the order of 95 percent behind the President and the special military operation. If the ruling bloc’s share slips, it will not be because Russians want the war to end. It will be because they want it prosecuted harder. That is the opposite of the war-weariness Western capitals keep predicting.

The refinery, and the squeeze

Here is the hinge the Western coverage misses entirely. In that same overnight barrage, a drone reached the Gazprom Neft refinery on Moscow’s southeastern edge — a plant that processes on the order of 245,000 barrels a day and supplies fuel to the capital region — and set it ablaze. Strip away the election framing for a moment and look at what that means for the world’s fuel balance. Every refinery knocked offline, in Russia or in the Gulf, tightens the same global distillate market. Ukraine, prodded and supplied by the West, is not only trying to break a Russian election; it is degrading Russian refining capacity at the precise moment the world can least afford to lose a barrel of diesel or jet fuel. That is the thread running straight into the second half of this story.

Washington reaches for the matches

The second development arrived overnight as well, and it points the other direction — toward escalation.

Late Saturday, September 19, the State Department sharpened its travel guidance, telling Americans outside the Middle East to seriously reconsider any travel to or through the region and warning those already there to brace for airspace closures and canceled flights. That advisory is confirmed and public. Alongside it came reports — which I have not been able to independently confirm, so I flag them as reports — that personnel manning Central Command’s operations centers are being recalled to duty, and that aerial refueling tankers are up and flying over the region. Anyone who has watched these sequences knows what airborne tankers usually precede.

The open question is the target. It could be Yemen and the Houthis — Ansar Allah — who have been trading strikes with Saudi Arabia and just put a plume of black smoke over Riyadh’s King Khalid airport. It could be Iran. It could be both. I cannot rule out any of the three. As I write this Sunday night, there is no sign that strikes are actually under way. So we will learn soon enough whether this is saber-rattling or whether Donald Trump means to escalate.

What we already know is that the global diesel and distillate crisis is getting worse, not better, and nothing on the horizon reverses it. The EIA now expects U.S. distillate inventories to sit below the five-year low through much of 2027; industry veterans reckon the world has lost something like seven million barrels a day of refining capacity to this year’s fighting. Last night’s strike on the Moscow refinery subtracts a little more. This is the box Trump has built for himself. He wants gasoline and diesel cheaper and inflation tamed — and every move he has made around the Persian Gulf, Iran, the Gulf states and now the Houthis guarantees tension stays high and the distillate squeeze stays on.

The market has been whipsawing on every on-again, off-again ceasefire rumor; crude actually eased into Friday’s close, near $104 Brent, on hopes that Saudi Arabia could restore pipeline flows. But if fresh American strikes land this week, expect that to reverse hard — crude spiking, equities selling off, the pump price and the diesel crack climbing right back up. These signals went out on a Sunday evening. Come Monday morning in New York, the odds favor a market moving the wrong way for a President who says he wants the opposite.

So that is where we stand. Trump, for all his talk of ending wars and lowering prices, keeps doing the one thing that makes both harder: pouring fuel on the fire. I will have more once the real shape of the Russian result is clear and once we know whether the tankers meant anything.

For now, the democracy that is Russia did more than survive this weekend. It was attacked, and it voted anyway. Thanks for reading.

Video interview

September 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Russia Voted Under Fire. Washington Is Loading the Tankers.

Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine

Sputnik – 18.09.2026

Russia’s overnight attack on the De Novo data center in Kiev “will significantly affect operations, particularly in the realm of intelligence data processing,” military expert Yan Gagin told Sputnik.

“Intelligence agencies relied on this center to process info gathered through their agent networks. It was utilized to facilitate strikes against our facilities, including deep within our rear areas,” with “every target logged into a specific system and database, processed and assigned a strike priority.”

This digital kill chain network “will now face certain operational difficulties,” Gagin believes.

“While they have redundancy measures involving other data centers, including in Europe, the fact that this specific facility has been partially disabled will have a serious impact on operations, particularly in the realms of data processing and potentially, target designation.”

Crucially, this includes targeting data received by Ukraine from its “NATO partners,” the observer emphasized.

“For instance, we have become accustomed to the fact that prior to strikes on Crimea, Sevastopol, Novorossiysk, and elsewhere along our coastal zone, reconnaissance aircraft – primarily belonging to the US and Britain – appear near our territorial waters. They loiter over the Black Sea close to our shores, gathering and refining information, which is then relayed to the Ukrainian military. Subsequently, targeting is adjusted based on this data – mapped to specific coordinates, and attacks are executed.”

“Strikes against the European part of Russia are conducted in exactly the same way. Therefore, this system for transmitting this intelligence data will also be – let’s put it this way – if not paralyzed, then at least significantly hampered in its operation,” Gagin summed up.

September 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine

Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support

Al Mayadeen | September 18, 2026

Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned UK Chargé d’Affaires in Moscow Danae Dholakia on Friday, lodging a formal protest over London’s growing supply of drones and other weapons to Kiev.

The ministry said in a statement that by continuing to arm Ukraine with long-range weapons, the UK is placing itself in the position of “accomplice to Kiev’s atrocities.” Dholakia was presented with a list of international obligations Russian officials say London is violating through its military backing of Ukraine.

Moscow said it reserves the right to take retaliatory measures under its right to self-defense, warning that the UK “bears full responsibility for any further unfavorable development of the situation.” The ministry said the UK side “has been required to abandon its escalatory course and bring its actions in line with its relevant international obligations.”

The ministry added that UK military facilities inside Ukraine used to carry out strikes on Russian territory “are a legitimate target for the Russian armed forces.” The ministry stressed that British actions in Ukraine “clearly aim at prolonging and escalating the armed conflict.”

UK’s expanding drone production support

The summons comes as Britain deepens its role in manufacturing weapons for Ukraine rather than simply supplying them. London has pledged to deliver more than 150,000 drones to Kiev by the end of 2026 and has committed roughly £16 billion in military support since the war began.

Separately, the UK has also become a manufacturing base for Ukrainian-designed weapons.

Under Programme Lyra, a bilateral framework launched after the UK and Ukraine signed a 100-year partnership in January 2025, British manufacturers have begun building Ukrainian-designed drones under license, for delivery back to Ukraine’s armed forces.

A Ukrainian-designed interceptor drone, the Octopus, entered licensed production in the UK late last year, with output expected to reach several thousand units a month. A dedicated factory in Suffolk, opened earlier this year, is now producing roughly 2,000 drones a month for transfer to Ukraine.

Wider diplomatic tensions

Friday’s summons follows a similar move by Moscow against Germany’s charge d’affaires earlier this month.

On September 2, Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned the German diplomat to reject Berlin’s allegations linking Russia to a drone incident at Leipzig Airport. Moscow responded to the broader wave of European summonses by expelling its consulate general from Bonn and shutting down the Russian House in Berlin.

September 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support

China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill

Sputnik – 17.09.2026

BEIJING – China’s cooperation with other countries should not be subject to interference by third parties, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Thursday, commenting on the US bill on sanctions against Russia.

“China has always pursued normal trade and economic cooperation with countries around the world on the basis of equality and mutual benefit,” Guo Jiakun told reporters, adding that “this cooperation is not directed against third parties and does not tolerate interference or coercion by third parties.”

Earlier in the day, the US House of Representatives secured the required number of votes to approve the Senate version of the bill spearheaded by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (listed as a terrorist and extremist in Russia) on imposing new sanctions against Russia. The final document will be sent to President Donald Trump for signature.

September 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , | Comments Off on China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill

Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov

Sputnik – 15.09.2026

MOSCOW – Russia wants to end the Ukrainian conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday.

On Ukraine

“We want to resolve this conflict and appreciate our friends’ willingness to help in this effort,” Lavrov said at the embassy roundtable on the situation around Ukraine, adding that if the US had not abandoned the Anchorage agreements, we would have been living in peace already for one year.

Russia is always ready for negotiations on Ukraine and has never delayed them or tried to complicate them, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, commenting on the prospects for the imminent convening of a new round of negotiations.

“We are always ready for negotiations. We have never delayed these negotiations or tried to complicate them,” Lavrov said.

If Ukraine is ready to resume negotiations, Russia agrees to them and has something to say, the minister said, adding that Russia has never changed its position on talks on Ukraine.

“We are ready to seek reasonable compromises within the framework of this position, but fundamentally, we have not changed our goal: to ensure our security, to prevent NATO from appearing on our borders, and to safeguard the legitimate rights of Russians and Russian‑speaking people who have lived on these lands for centuries,” Lavov added.

On Russia-US Relations

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that he plans to meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

“I have a meeting with secretary Rubio scheduled in New York on the sidelines of the General Assembly,” Lavrov said.

September 15, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov

Is the Noose Tightening on Iran?

By Bryan Anthony Reo – New Eastern Outlook – September 11, 2026

The Western takeover of Syria, the weakening of Hezbollah, and now the capitulation of Hamas signal that Western/American/Israeli penetration of Iranian outer defenses is essentially complete. The only remaining coherent and unassailed bastion outside of Iran is found among the Houthi. There remains Iran itself, which has weathered six months of American and Israeli aggression.

Western Encroachment on Russia from the South and West

Over the last fifteen or sixteen years, I have followed and analyzed certain developments across the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Central Asia, and I have noticed a pattern, a theme, a trend — that trend being the dismantling of certain sovereign states aligned with Russia and Iran, or at least committed to their own sovereignty in resistance (or perhaps rather, ‘defiance’ is a better term) to the attempts at policy imposition by Western nations (usually the USA, sometimes France or the UK or Israel).
Iraq went down in 2003.

Then in the recent modern era, Libya was one of the first to be dismantled with the toppling and murdering of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011.

Syria followed in 2024, but fortunately Assad and his family were able to leave safely.

Lebanon was fractured and crippled decades ago and limps along on life support, with only Hezbollah holding the line to protect Lebanese national sovereignty.

Jordan was bought off and is a pathetic satellite of the USA, as is Egypt, with both of those nations having puppet governments that have betrayed their people and their regional partners for American dollars and Western approval.

It is now increasingly obvious and apparent that the Arab Spring was nothing more than a color revolution aimed at the Arab world, the way color revolutions occurred in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and were attempted elsewhere (i.e., Belarus). The Arab Spring was intended to plunge the Arab/Islamic world into chaos and allow the replacement of the post-Cold War era Arab nationalist strongmen with weak, fractured coalition parliaments and fractured states or simply outright chaos (Libya) or Israeli/American puppet regimes.

In some sense, it would be reasonable to label the American advance across the Arab world, from North Africa to the Middle East, as long-term strategic “shaping operations” to remove genuinely sovereign and pro-Moscow governments from the board, so that American and Israeli positions throughout the region become almost unassailable and Russia is denied easy access to the Mediterranean and Iran is denied outer defensive bastions. This advance has been so blatant it is almost impossible not to notice, and attention must be called to it.

Iran Alone Defies America in Central Asia/Middle East

Iran and a few partners (Hezbollah, Houthi, etc.) throughout the region are all that remain in defiance of the Israelis and their American muscle/enforcers.

Syria has become a puppet satellite of the USA/Israel and has effectively ceded a large portion of southwestern Syria to the Israeli “security zone” that has resulted from Israel’s advance from the Golan Heights.

It should be increasingly obvious that Israel will never leave the territory it has occupied in Syria; it will move soldiers in, construct more permanent outposts, and then move settlers in.

Meanwhile, the Damascus branch of Al Qaeda, installed by the CIA and Mossad, is more concerned with trying to provide a legal basis by which they can murder former Syrian President Assad than with maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria against Israeli expansionism.

Across the border in Lebanon, Israel and the USA are working hard to plunge Lebanon into a renewed civil war, as that is the most probable outcome from the policy being foisted on Beirut, specifically the “disarm Hezbollah at all costs” policy. Any significant armed attempt by the anemic, corrupt, Western-aligned government in Beirut to disarm Hezbollah will likely result in a civil war.

While this is happening in the near periphery of Israel, closer to home, in Gaza, it appears that Hamas has capitulated, or at least their senior leaders are prepared to cut and run and toss their fighters under the bus so long as they have personal security guarantees and are able to depart Gaza with their families and wealth.

The disarmament of Hamas will begin the final chapter in the story of the Palestinian people, and this chapter will end with their permanent mass expulsion from the remnants of the Palestinian territories and the formal annexation of those territories into the state of Israel and their population by Zionist settlers.

It will also mean that in regard to the regional chessboard, the only pieces remaining on the board in opposition to Israel and America are essentially Hezbollah, the Houthi, and Iran itself.

Westerners, especially Atlanticists, are great at advocating for the setting of wildfires, and for starting those wildfires, but they seldom give much thought to what happens once they set a conflagration in motion

Despite American Propaganda, Iran is Actually Winning

CNN claims “80% of all traffic transiting Hormuz is going through the American route,” which, on its face, is plausible and is likely the case.

However, the CNN article does not tell the actual story: that traffic transiting Hormuz is down at least 90-95%.

Thus the notion that “80% of all traffic transiting Hormuz uses the American route via Oman” becomes far less impressive when one analyzes it through the lens of the traffic being 95% reduced from where it had been before the war.

I once had a potential client ask me to take a loser of a case on contingency; he even said, “You can have 100% of the money,” after which I told a colleague, “One hundred percent of zero is still zero.”

80% of 5% is a minuscule 4%, which means 4% of the pre-war traffic is using the American route via Oman. This is hardly something to brag about and it is not evidence that Iran is days from collapse or that the USA has won or is in the process of winning.

By the very nature of the situation, Iran wins by default if the US fails to maintain Hormuz open and freely available for maritime commerce. If the USA is unable to subdue Iran, then Iran prevails. All Iran has to do is avoid losing. It is similar to how in a lawsuit the plaintiff has the burden to prosecute a claim against the defendant in order to succeed and prevail; if the defendant simply avoids losing, then the defendant wins. If Iran is able to avoid botching the defense of their country and come through the war with their regime intact and while maintaining control over the Strait, or at least effectively maintaining area denial of the Strait, then Iran wins.

The Americans can sink some Iranian ships and try a repeat of Operation Praying Mantis, but this isn’t the 1980s, and Iran is a much harder target.

The US can likely even manage commando raids and strikes on Kharg Island, but it won’t be able to take and hold the island. Likewise, the USA is not capable of taking and*holding Qeshm Island (something likely necessary to exercise any significant long-term control over the Strait of Hormuz). An American operation to seize Qeshm Island, unless it has a plan for how to resupply the occupying forces with food and water in the face of drone and missile attacks interdicting the supply craft, is essentially an operation in “how long can these men hold out until they have to surrender to Iran due to hunger and thirst.” In short, an American invasion and occupation of Qeshm Island would be extremely ill-advised, unless President Trump has some secret logistical weapon, or a “trump card” that the American public is simply not aware of.

Negotiations with Iran are the Only Way Forward (But Iran Has NO Reason to Trust Americans Now)

It is painfully obvious that the only way forward for the United States in regard to Iran is to enter into negotiations, negotiations that would have to be fair, reasonable, sincere, and honest. However, given the American tendency to engage in direct strikes and targeted killings (assassinations) of the people they are negotiating with, it is doubtful if the Iranians are going to believe anything the Americans have to say at this stage.

Negotiations with Iran would also require (at least implicitly) the recognition of Iran as having legitimate national and regional interests if not indeed being an actual regional power in Central Asia and the Middle East, something the United States appears unwilling to do, largely because of Israeli/Zionist influence being exerted on American policy.

How can any sincere American diplomat go to Iran and ask, in good faith, that they trust him? How can he suggest, in good faith, that they work with American envoys? We have an established record of murdering diplomats during breaks in diplomatic sessions. How does any nation recover and come back from this reputation?

Neo-Con Provocations and Delusions Hinder Negotiations

At the present time it seems the United States is living in a fantasy land where it can endlessly sustain and support Ukraine in its war against the Russian people in Donbas and Crimea (using Ukraine as a NATO puppet to advance NATO/American interests in Eastern Europe), escalate on the Korean Peninsula against North Korea; continue to aggress against Iran in the Persian Gulf and wider region; support Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah; support the Saudis against the Houthi; and pivot forces from Europe to the Pacific and East Asia as part of a long-term program to contain and curtail China as a prelude to attempting to dominate China.

It is a very ambitious American grand strategy, and while lacking the resources to be successfully pursued, it also lacks any coherent overarching worldview that would string it all together and explain the motive, reasoning, or the telos. At present, it seems America is a mediocre chess-player simply moving pieces back and forth across the board, without any rhyme or reason, although that is the conclusion one reaches at a casual glance. A more thorough analysis would reveal that America’s policy in regard to Iran is primarily aimed at fulfilling long-term Zionist ambitions in the region and providing a puppet government in Tehran amenable to the stationing of American military assets (including nuclear weapons) that would be used to coerce and threaten Russia for the purpose of pursuing the long-term American neo-con goal of causing the collapse of the Russian Federation as a coherent, centralized polity.

America is presently trying to escalate with Iran and Russia, and is always eager and willing to unnecessarily confront, provoke, or escalate with the DPRK and China as well.

What is the American End Goal? Short-Sighted Regime Change?

Let us suppose that American/Zionist goals are accomplished in Iran, and Iran collapses; at that point the USA will have opened a southern front against Russia, with the ability to threaten Russia by projecting power across the Caspian and by escalating provocations throughout the Caucasus region as a way to distract, divide, weaken, and strain Russian resources.

But to what end? For what purpose? Why? While attending recent seminars at the University of Oxford in Aristotle’s Politics and Nuclear/Particle Physics, I had the opportunity to discuss ongoing geopolitical matters with a variety of European classmates. The vast majority (80%) had the standard mainstream EU/UK/Atlanticist line, and some were militantly anti-Russian. One (a man born in the Latvian SSR in 1986) openly said he wanted to see “democracy” rise up in Iran, topple the Islamic Republic, and to see “Putin toppled” in Moscow, and Western liberal democracy take over Russia.

My challenge to all of that was multi-faceted, but one aspect I consistently hammered home was “Why? What comes next? The US has a very bad track record of collapsing regimes and dealing with the aftermath… Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria… Why would we want to collapse stable states such as Iran and Russia? Even if we could, why would we want to collapse those states? What about the aftermath? What about thinking five years or ten years down the road instead of just thinking about the next six months or twelve months? The leaders in Iran and Russia are reasonable and rational, and those powers being intact and stable are crucial to regional stability; why remove them and have them replaced with, well, who really knows, some unknown quantity that might be a lunatic or a zealot or something unreasonable.”

I have very little appetite, and no sympathy, for the view that the USA should lead the way in toppling all non-Western governments so they can be replaced by what would presumably be Western-aligned parliamentarian democracies of the plutocratic variety. Westerners, especially Atlanticists, are great at advocating for the setting of wildfires, and for starting those wildfires, but they seldom give much thought to what happens once they set a conflagration in motion.

Many of the Russophobes cannot see past their own hatred of Russia and of President Putin, and they cannot wrap their minds around the simple truth that the West is fortunate to be able to deal with and interact with a Russia that has historically strong and visionary leadership in the form of true statesmen such as Putin and Lavrov, who are well-educated, experienced, and have coherent and sensible worldviews shaped by a proper and true classical education, whereas most Western leaders are fungible, interchangeable bureaucrats educated in technocratic parliamentary procedure and institutional rules.

Much like we are with Iran, we in the West are squandering golden opportunities for historic cooperation and mutual benefit with Iran and Russia because we are pursuing absurd policies based on, well, frankly, crap beliefs, garbage intelligence, and an incoherent worldview formed in the crumbling and decaying ruins of post-modernity.

Whether or not the US is actually succeeding in tightening a noose against Iran, it is certainly expending significant resources in an effort to do so, although it presently seems to have very little to show for all the effort.

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

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Is the Noose Tightening on Iran?

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »