MOSCOW – The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretariat is effectively ignoring daily Ukrainian attacks on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and the killing of Russian citizens by Ukrainian forces, Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom CEO Alexey Likhachev said on Saturday.
“The IAEA Secretariat is effectively ignoring daily Ukrainian attacks on the ZNPP, civilian infrastructure, and the killing of Russian citizens by Ukrainian forces, limiting itself solely to public statements about the threat of drones flying at a distance from Ukrainian nuclear power plants,” he said.
He added that the topic of escalation in the ZNPP area will be key during upcoming consultations with IAEA leadership, tentatively scheduled for mid-July.
“Regarding the issue of ensuring reliable power supply to the power units, let me remind you that for more than two months now, the plant has been supplied via only one power line instead of two. During this time, we have repeatedly faced situations of complete blackout of the ZNPP and the launch of reserve, or in other words, emergency, diesel generators,” the Rosatom CEO said.
On New Strike
A Ukrainian kamikaze drone has hit a pipeline running along the turbine halls of the ZNPP, Likhachev also said.
“Today, a kamikaze drone struck a pipeline running along the ZNPP turbine halls and, without detonating, fell near Power Unit 1,” Likhachev said.
More drones hit two gas stations in the city of Energodar, disabling them, he added.
“Drones are targeting trucks and buses, effectively preventing the delivery of food and essential goods,” Likhachev said.
This is sowing panic and making normal life in the city impossible, he also said.
“People are afraid to leave their homes. These intimidation tactics are also aimed at ZNPP employees, directly undermining the nuclear safety of the plant,” Likhachev added.
Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Dmitry Polyanskiy warned that NATO’s growing involvement in the conflict with Russia is pushing Europe toward a dangerous threshold.
“I would advise against testing the limits of our patience and the limits of our self-restraint,” Polyanskiy said on Deep Dive.
He stressed that Russia has avoided harsher steps not out of weakness, but because it is thinking about the consequences for civilians in Europe.
“They confuse it with weakness,” he said. “No, Russia doesn’t react because Russia is humane.”
Europe is already directly involved by providing weapons, missiles, airspace and production facilities for Ukraine, Polyanskiy stressed.
“They have already crossed all the red lines,” he warned, adding that if this continues, Russia’s response could be “harsh” and “resolute.”
Russia’s allegations that the US funded clandestine biological laboratories near its borders – claims denied until recently by Washington – have remained a persistent flashpoint in the steadily deteriorating relationship between Russia and the West for nearly a decade.
The biolabs affair was revealed in a 2017 exposé by RT that questioned a shady US military tender seeking the genetic material of living Russians. Over the years, Moscow has raised allegations against Washington of conducting clandestine bio-research, including potential WMD development and illicit human testing, in a network of labs located across multiple nations, the bulk of which operated in Ukraine. The claims were met with a blanket denial in the West, which repeatedly dismissed them as “Russian propaganda.”
This abruptly changed the past week when US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that her department had identified more than 120 US-funded biological laboratories in 30 countries, with over a third of them located in Ukraine. The agency is now working to “identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain, and what ‘research’ is being conducted to end dangerous gain-of-function research that threatens the health and wellbeing of the American people and the world,” according to Gabbard.
RT looks back at the timeline of the biolabs saga and the US denial of its existence until now.
2017 RT report
The US-funded bio research made international headlines in July 2017, when RT published an investigative report revolving around a tender issued by the US Air Education and Training Command (AETC). The command was seeking to procure genetic material samples that “shall be collected from Russia and must be Caucasian.” The Air Force explicitly said that it did not want samples from Ukraine, for reasons not explained.
The harvesting of genetic samples in the country did not escape the attention of the Russian leadership. President Vladimir Putin stated later that year “that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions.”
“The question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally. We are a kind of object of great interest,” the president said. “Let them do what they want, and we must do what we must,” he added.
The attention this garnered from the Russian leadership prompted a vague explanation from AETC, which claimed the samples were needed for research on the musculoskeletal system and Russia had been picked as the source of the samples for no particular reason.
Georgia revelations
Another bombshell on the clandestine US-funded biolabs was dropped by a former Georgian minister for state security, Igor Giorgadze, in late 2018. He claimed he had obtained some 100,000 pages of data pointing to questionable practices at the US-funded Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research near the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
The documents published by Giorgadze were examined by the Russian Defense Ministry, which suggested the laboratory in Georgia may have concluded bioweapons research under the guise of a drug test. The research resulted in the deaths of at least 73 subjects over a short period of time, the Russian military’s investigation indicated.
The tests appeared to involve “a highly toxic chemical or biological agent with a high lethality rate,” the commander of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces (RKhBZ), Igor Kirillov, said at the time. Kirillov, who had spearheaded the Russian military’s probe into the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine and beyond, was assassinated in late 2024 in a bombing staged by Kiev’s intelligence.
The Pentagon flatly denied the allegations, with then-spokesman Eric Pahon dismissing the Russian ministry’s statements as a part of “a Russian disinformation campaign directed against the West.” The US and Georgian governments also dismissed the claims made by Giorgadze, describing them as “absurd.”
Ukraine conflict
The escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022 marked a new turn in the biolabs saga. While Moscow seized additional evidence of questionable research activities conducted in secretive facilities dotting Ukraine, the West entered a full-denial mode, bluntly dismissing any Russian statement on the matter as “propaganda.”
Early in the conflict, Russian troops seized thousands of pages of documents from labs in the Donetsk, Lugansk, and Kherson regions. The Russian military has been releasing the materials in batches while continuing an internal investigation and ultimately concluding in 2023 that “the US, under the guise of ensuring global biosecurity, conducted dual-use research, including the creation of biological weapons components, in close proximity to Russian borders.”
“The credibility of information provided by the Kremlin is in general very doubtful and low,” EU foreign affairs spokesman Peter Stano said at the time. “Russian disinformation has a track record of promoting manipulative narratives about biological weapons and alleged ‘secret labs.’”
The Biden administration took a similar defensive stance, with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki calling the allegations “preposterous” and accusing Moscow of plotting to use “chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine or to create a false flag operation using them.” John Kirby, then-Pentagon spokesman, also branded the Russian allegations “absurd,” “laughable,” and a “bunch of malarkey.”
“There’s nothing to it. It’s classic Russian propaganda,” Kirby told reporters at the time.
MOSCOW – Russia does not rule out that the West is preparing another “bloody hoax” in Ukraine similar to the one arranged in the city of Bucha in 2022, Yulia Zhdanova, the head of the Russian delegation at the Vienna talks on military security and arms control, said on Wednesday.
NATO representatives have held three meetings with directors, screenwriters and producers working in the cinema industry in Brussels, Los Angeles and Paris, and planned a next meeting with members of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain, Zhdanova said.
“The letter received by those invited to these events mentions ‘three projects’ that are already in development. Perhaps NATO countries are once again preparing for another bloody hoax? For instance, like the one staged in Bucha in April 2022,” Zhdanova said at the 1136th meeting of the OSCE Forum for Security Cooperation.
The Russian Defense Ministry said in April 2022 that the footage of Bucha published by Kiev was a provocation. The ministry said that not a single local resident was subject to violence during the time that the town was under Russian control.
All Russian troops withdrew from Bucha by March 30, 2022, leaving the northward roads to and from the town open to traffic, while Ukrainian troops shelled the southern outskirts with large-caliber artillery, tanks and multiple launch rocket systems.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia rejected any accusations of involvement in the alleged deaths in Bucha and warned world leaders against jumping to conclusions without first considering Moscow’s arguments.
Springtime in Ukraine melted snow turning farmland and dirt roads into deep slush that vehicles could not cross. The ground has dried and Russian forces quicken their advance and will reach the big Dnieper River this summer. The most likely crossing point is the city of Zaporizhzhia with a population of 700,000.
It is unclear if Ukraine will fight to defend Zaporizhzhia or fall back behind the Dnieper River. If Ukraine evacuates this city, its big buildings could provide a great fortress. But Ukraine has nowhere for its 700,000 people to live and not enough transport to move them anyway. In addition, as Russian forces soon approach, their drones will patrol Zaporizhzhia bridges and attack any transport, effectively blockading the city. Ukrainian forces could become trapped on the east side of the river.
It will be interesting to see if NATO can destroy all the Dnieper bridges despite opposition from many Ukrainians, who may disrupt plans with police and military units. The Russians want them to support major forces once they cross the river. The Ukrainians know these bridges are vital national assets and not easily replaced. If all bridges are destroyed, this can delay the Russian advance for months.
NATO was always destined to be a temporary military alliance, united by a common enemy and threat during the Cold War. Once that threat disappeared with the end of the Cold War and thereafter the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main question asked in the 1990s was: What would be NATO’s new reason to exist? The answer to this question was to pursue unipolarity / collective hegemony in the post-Cold War era through NATO expansionism and military interventionism (“out of area or out of business”).
Russia was implicitly given the ultimatum: be a compliant civilizational student or a counter-civilizational force. Russia could accept NATO’s hegemonic role as a “force for good,” or it could resist, and then NATO would return to its former role of confronting Russia. The NATO-backed regime change in Ukraine—aimed at transforming the country from a Russian partner into a frontline state aligned against Russia— triggered the war in 2014. NATO thus began reverting to its former role of confronting Russia, yet it happened as the hegemonic era had come to an end.
Now that the former collective hegemony has been balanced and a multipolar world has emerged, NATO has yet again lost its purpose and will disintegrate. European leaders want to restore NATO’s original purpose: containing Russia. This will fail because it is based on the fraudulent narrative that Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union, rather than balancing NATO expansionism and military interventionism.
The US will, however, not return to the original purpose of NATO as the distribution of power has shifted, and will therefore not play along with the fake narratives of Europeans leaders. The US is in relative decline and cannot sustain simultaneous strategic dominance in Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. The US cannot be everywhere in a multipolar world, and it will pivot to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia. A US presence in Europe consumes too many resources and pushes Russia toward China, its main rival. However, the US is happy to outsource the conflict with Russia to the Europeans. Europe remains obedient, and Russia is weakened.
If Europe had rational leaders, they would have adjusted to the new international distribution of power by shutting this war down, making peace with Russia, establishing a common pan-European security architecture (35 years too late) that also saves Ukraine by removing it from the front lines of a re-divided Europe, and diversifying their economic ties to avoid excessive dependence on any one foreign power. However, Europe does not have rational leaders, and even arguing that weapons are not the path to peace or arguing in favour of diplomacy is smeared and censored as “pro-Russian” treason. Europe’s political class remains committed to Russophobic narratives and policies that intensify confrontation and prolong the conflict.
The trajectory now appears increasingly clear: NATO will continue to disintegrate, and the Europeans will compensate by further escalating the war against Russia. This will happen at a time when Russia is desperate to restore its deterrence by retaliating against Europe (most predictably against Germany), while the US commitment and protection of Europe are waning. The predictable consequence is that European leaders will eventually provoke a powerful response from Russia, which will rapidly escalate to what will hopefully only be a limited nuclear strike.
Russia has accused NATO of significantly expanding its military operations in the Baltic Sea, particularly near the Kaliningrad region, warning that the alliance’s growing presence poses risks to regional stability and international navigation.
Artem Bulatov, special envoy at the Russian Foreign Ministry, stated that NATO is intensifying efforts to enhance its combat capabilities and infrastructure in areas adjacent to Kaliningrad, pointing to a sustained military buildup under various operational frameworks.
He added that the scale and frequency of NATO drills have increased, alongside provocative actions by member states targeting vessels involved in transporting goods to and from Russia.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko warned that these activities are creating “serious threats” to international shipping routes and economic operations in the region, suggesting that NATO’s mission is effectively aimed at controlling key logistical corridors.
Grushko further argued that the alliance’s operations are designed to restrict the movement of goods linked to Russia, raising concerns in Moscow over the militarization of maritime routes in the Baltic.
Russia warns of Western shift on nuclear weapons role
Russia has expressed concern over a shifting Western approach to the role of nuclear weapons, senior diplomat Andrey Belousov said last week.
Speaking in an interview with RIA Novosti, Belousov said Moscow is increasingly alarmed by developments within what he called the “collective West,” particularly ahead of the upcoming review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The Eleventh Review Conference of the NPT is scheduled to take place in New York City from April 27 to May 22.
“Currently, a number of issues in the context of the NPT are causing us serious concern. First and foremost, this concerns a trend that could soon take on an avalanche-like nature: the widespread declaration by a number of states — primarily from the ‘collective West’ camp — of a new view on the role and place of nuclear weapons,” Belousov said.
The reckless reliance on a blitzkrieg to eliminate Iran’s political and military leadership has left Israel and the United States in an extremely precarious situation, where Tehran’s key trump card in the conflict turned out to be control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Alexander Yakovenko, deputy director of Sputnik’s parent company Rossiya Segodnya and head of the Committee on Global Issues and International Security of the Russian Security Council’s Scientific-Expert Board, has addressed the standoff around the Strait of Hormuz.
Analysts in Israel are already writing of a complete failure, with the prospect of “returning to the issue” sometime in the future. Judging by published reports, everything was planned for June this year, but, as the saying goes, the devil intervened, and Benjamin Netanyahu succumbed to the temptation of a final solution through “regime change.” The scapegoats will be the Mossad division responsible for Iran and the military command responsible for Lebanon.
Donald Trump faces a far more difficult predicament: he has been drawn into a war that is neither his own nor in America’s interest. But the main issue is that the Strait of Hormuz problem now rests squarely on his shoulders. Aside from acceding to all of Iran’s demands, there appear to be no viable options for resolving the blockade – including the resumption of military action, which, according to observers, would have catastrophic consequences for the region, the global economy, and the Trump administration.
In terms of the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East, a complete geopolitical reconfiguration has taken place, including a shift in Turkiye’s role (it was Ankara that effectively killed the plans to bring Iraqi Kurds into the “march on Tehran,” which was intended to bolster the confidence of those whom Israeli intelligence believed were ready to take to the streets of Iranian cities).
The destruction of the region’s extraction and logistics infrastructure prompted the UAE to withdraw from OPEC and OPEC+, which will only intensify Abu Dhabi’s contradictions with Riyadh and accelerate the political realignment of smaller players toward Ankara, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.
Iran’s agency has grown qualitatively: from a pariah state burdened by sanctions, Iran has genuinely become a regional power (in contrast to Netanyahu’s claim that Israel is a regional power and “in some ways even a global one”). Everything now depends on Iran – a fact understood by those at the helm in Tehran, namely, by general consensus, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And all this is aside from the most pressing issue on the regional agenda: the restoration of extraction and logistics infrastructure, especially given that the damage has a cumulative effect – in other words, “time is money.”
Russia, Pakistan, and China have become even more deeply involved in the affairs of the region, while the United States has demonstrated its inability to provide military protection for its allies. In other words, the role of external players has grown, whereas control over the region had been in American hands since the Baghdad Pact at the beginning of the Cold War. Now it can be said that the entire institutional structure in the region is collapsing – even in the OPEC format – and the region is opening up to an entirely new architecture.
In terms of geoeconomics, Tehran now holds a powerful lever of influence over the global economy and world trade through its control over the Strait of Hormuz. Moreover, this is not only direct control but also the ability to destabilize the situation around the Strait at any point in the future, regardless of any agreements that might be reached regarding its possible reopening as part of a ceasefire. In other words, everyone understands that things will never return to how they were before.
The only thing that matters for the global economy and the international financial system – including the dollar’s linkage to oil trade – is the stability of commercial traffic through the Strait. With no indication of it being reopened, the world is losing between 8 and 15 million barrels of oil and petroleum products per day, as well as up to 20% of global LNG supplies. This also includes a range of industrial goods in the petrochemical sector and derivatives for the agricultural sector. Experts expect a monthly shortfall of 300 million barrels, which amounts to three-quarters of the released strategic reserves of developed countries. Moreover, by early May, both strategic reserves and the advantages of unlocking Russian and Iranian oil, along with the balancing buffer of floating storage, will be nearly exhausted. In short, in every respect, a moment of truth is approaching in a conflict that is difficult to restart now that military action has been paused.
Not only have the United States and Israel handed Iran, on a silver platter, escalation dominance in the conflict – the ability to manage escalation if Washington and Tel Aviv launch another round – but Tehran will also gain additional revenue from selling its 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, which economists estimate at 2–3 billion per month, or 24–36 billion per year. Essentially, even without the unfreezing of Iranian assets in Western countries, Iran will have the resources to rebuild what has been destroyed. To this should be added the fees collected from commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
It is also worth noting a direct geopolitical consequence of the Iranian conflict: the discord within the Western alliance along the line of Trump’s America versus liberal-globalist Europe. The recent visit of the British monarch to the United States, during which he called in his address to Congress for the collective “defense of Ukraine” invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (despite the fact that Kiev is not a NATO member), indicates that the lack of allied support for the Iranian adventure is a clear appeal to restore Western unity specifically on an anti-Russian basis – everything else is secondary. In Europe, they no longer hide the fact that they intend to “wait out” Trump, if that is what it takes, but under no circumstances will they agree to a settlement of the Ukrainian conflict.
As such, it is not denied that Ukraine is merely the opening move in yet another war of the West against Russia, and that Western elites are determined to make it a decisive, final confrontation of a civilizational nature. This presents an interesting situation for Russia, which could be resolved one way or another very soon. If Russia participated in two world wars, in which, albeit in different ways, relations between groups of Western countries were contested, and in the Cold War we faced a united West, then now we see a disunited West, weakened militarily and in terms of domestic political development. Its consolidation is only possible at our expense.
Charles III quite opportunely mentioned the burning of the White House by the British in 1814, as it reminds us – and perhaps Washington – of positive moments in our shared history, including Russia’s support for the American Revolution and the Union side in the Civil War. The decision rests with the Americans, but it is curious how the Middle East references an era before the ideologization of international relations in the 20th Century.
As the US intensifies its inhuman sanctions and seeks to stifle Iran’s economy through an illegal naval blockade, Tehran has made strategic adjustments.
Pakistan formally activated a new transit corridor through Iran on Friday, announcing that the inaugural shipment including frozen meat bound for Tashkent, Uzbekistan had been dispatched via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Iranian overland routes.
The country designated six transit routes, including multiple key corridors connecting ports and border points inside Pakistan, forming a wide network for overland trade into Iran in a bid to bypass the maritime trade routes in the Persian Gulf.
The order, which took effect on April 25, aims to ease the logjam at Karachi Port and Port Qasim, where more than 3,000 Iran-bound containers have been stuck due to the ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports.
By using the new corridor, officials estimate travel time to the Iranian border will drop from 18 hours to just three hours, which in turn will lower logistics costs for regional traders.
The designated routes create a land bridge between Pakistan’s deep-sea ports and the Iranian border, offering a lifeline for third-country goods that would otherwise be vulnerable to US naval piracy at sea.
For China, the world’s largest oil importer and the destination for an estimated 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports before the current war, the opening of overland alternatives carries acute strategic significance.
With the US Navy enforcing an illegal cordon at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman since April 13, the maritime route that once carried one-fifth of global petroleum has been hijacked by an armed naval raid and subjected to systematic plunder.
The blockade’s primary target has always been as much about Beijing as Tehran. China purchases roughly 13 to 15 percent of its crude oil imports from Iran, volumes that before the war exceeded 1.38 million barrels per day.
Iranian crude, often trans-shipped through Malaysia and other intermediaries, feeds China’s independent “teapot” refineries and helps underpin Beijing’s energy security.
The Trump administration has made no secret of its intent to sever this flow. On April 23, Washington imposed sanctions on Hengli Petrochemical’s Dalian refinery, one of China’s largest independent processors, with 400,000 barrels per day capacity, alongside roughly 40 shipping companies and tankers involved in Iranian oil transport.
In a draconian announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that the US would constrict “the network of vessels, intermediaries and buyers Iran relies on to move its oil to global markets”.
Yet even as the American piracy tightens, the physical blockade is showing gaps. Satellite imagery and tracking data have revealed that several Iranian-flagged vessels under sanctions had sailed out of the Persian Gulf.
While tankers maneuver, Iran’s top diplomat has been building the political architecture for overland alternatives. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi embarked on a high-stakes tour on April 23, travelling twice to Pakistan for consultations and to coordinate the corridor activation before heading to Oman and finally to Russia.
In Islamabad, the discussions reportedly focused on key issues, the details of which are not specified. But the tangible outcome was the corridor itself.
Pakistan’s new transit routes, connecting Gwadar, Karachi and Port Qasim to the border crossings of Gabd and Taftan, provide Iran with immediate access to CPEC’s road and rail infrastructure.
Gwadar was built with Chinese loans and Chinese labor precisely as a hedge against maritime chokepoints. Now, with the Sea of Oman effectively closed, goods moving overland from Iran to Gwadar can connect to Chinese markets via the CPEC network, bypassing the US Navy entirely.
On April 27, Araghchi met with President Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg for talks lasting more than 90 minutes. The Iranian foreign minister described the discussions as covering “all issues, both in bilateral relations and regional issues, as well as the issue of war and aggression by the US and Zionist regimes”.
According to media reports, the Russian president said Moscow “will do what it can to support the interests of Iran and other regional countries and help bring peace to West Asia as soon as possible”.
He added that “not only Russia, but now the whole world is admiring the Iranian people for their resistance against America”.
While Russia and Iran signed framework agreements on the International North-South Transport Corridor years ago, the current crisis has given those plans new urgency.
Araghchi used the St Petersburg meeting to reaffirm that Tehran views its relationship with Moscow as a “strategic partnership” that will continue “with greater strength and breadth”.
For China, Russia’s role is complementary. The INSTC offers a route from Mumbai to Moscow via Iranian rail links, a path that, if fully operationalized, would give Chinese goods another overland alternative to maritime shipping.
More immediately, Russia’s diplomatic cover complicates any US effort to pressure Pakistan or other neighbors into closing their borders to Iranian trade.
The central question for Washington is whether maritime piracy can achieve what missiles and airstrikes failed to deliver. After the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, it became clear that bombing alone would not bring down the country to its knees.
The blockade represents a shift to economic suffocation aiming to squeeze Iran’s oil revenues. But the strategy carries costs. Global oil prices remain elevated near $120 per barrel, stoking inflationary pressures across the US, Europe and beyond.
More fundamentally, the blockade’s success depends on land routes remaining closed. Pakistan’s activation of the transit corridor, Russia’s support, and China’s quiet integration of Gwadar into its supply chain collectively suggest that Tehran is building an overland escape hatch that the US Navy cannot interdict under any circumstance.
“Whenever there are sanctions or blockades, there will also be workarounds, whether informal channels or other flexible arrangements,” Wang Yiwei, director of Renmin University’s Institute of International Affairs, told The Straits Times. “The key question we should be asking is: can this blockade actually be sustained?”
For now, the answer appears uncertain but with each new overland corridor, Iran is proving impossible to seal and China unlikely to be starved.
On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounced that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is sabotaging any and all peace initiatives and is now creating conditions for a potential nuclear conflict.
“The diplomat drew attention to Zelensky’s earlier remarks that Ukraine should be given both NATO membership and nuclear weapons as security guarantees,” TASS reported.
“In fact, he continues to provoke a nuclear conflict with such statements. Moreover, Western Europe risks becoming the first victim of this very nuclear blackmail,” Zakharova stated.
“Zelensky clearly does not want peace. He seeks to prolong the fighting indefinitely and is ready to risk a dangerous escalation of the conflict,” she added.
Putin Accuses Ukraine of Resorting to Terrorist Tactics
On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced that Ukraine is resorting to terrorist actions against the civilian population and infrastructure because it is unable to stop the advance of Russian forces. During a meeting on ensuring security in the upcoming elections, he stressed that the risks of terrorist attacks on Russia are growing.
“The Kiev regime, unable to stop Russia from advancing along the line of engagement, has resorted to overt terrorist methods with the help of its patrons. Ukraine is losing territories day after day and is staking on terror because of its inability to change the situation,” Putin stated, adding that Zelensky hopes that acts of terrorism against Russia will change the situation.
Putin also denounced that the Kiev regime will try to meddle in the 2026 Russian parliamentary elections. More specifically, Ukraine will try to prevent elections from being held in Donbass and Novorossiya.
By MANUEL R. GÓMEZ | CounterPunch | February 27, 2015
… As far back as 1809, Jefferson tried to purchase Cuba. In 1820 he went further; he told Secretary of War J.C. Calhoun that the U.S. “ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba.” As President, John Quincy Adams predicted that Cuba would fall “like a ripening plum into the lap of the union.” These are but two of many prominent examples of a widespread ambition to annex Cuba, or at least to control its destiny, from very early in U.S. history. After “the West,” Cuba figured as a prominent second place in U.S. expansionist aims from the beginning of the Republic. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 