Moscow has dismissed Poland’s latest claim that Russian drones breached the country’s air space. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said no evidence has been provided linking the UAVs to Russia.
On Wednesday, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated that the country’s military had shot down a “huge number of Russian drones.” Warsaw has described the incident as an “unprecedented violation of Polish airspace” and an “act of aggression.”
However, Peskov has dismissed the accusations, pointing out that “The EU and NATO leadership accuse Russia of provocation on a daily basis. Most often, without even trying to provide any arguments.”
Meanwhile, Russia’s charge d’affaires in Warsaw, Andrey Ordash, told RIA Novosti that when he was summoned to the Polish Foreign Ministry on Wednesday, the Polish authorities did not provide any evidence that the downed UAVs belonged to Russia. He noted that the drones had flown into Poland from Ukraine.
Tusk has claimed, however, that the aircraft came from Belarus rather than Ukraine, and characterized the incident as a Russian “provocation.”
The Belarusian military had previously reported giving Poland early warning that some drones used by Ukrainian and Russian forces for mutual attacks “lost their track as a result of the impact of the parties’ electronic warfare assets.”
After announcing the alleged airspace violation, Tusk formally invoked Article 4 of NATO’s founding treaty, which provides for consultations in case one of the bloc’s members believes its security is threatened.
Last week, former Polish President Andzej Duda referenced a November 2022 incident in which a Ukrainian missile landed on Polish territory. Kiev insisted it was an intentional Russian attack and called for NATO-level retaliation. Duda said that Ukrainian authorities were trying to get the US-led bloc into a direct confrontation with Russia, describing such a scenario as a “dream” for Kiev, but unacceptable for Poland.
Sputnik – 10.09.2025
Poland has allegedly detected 19 drones entering its aerospace at night, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Wednesday.
There were no targets of Russia’s this night’s mass strike on the Ukrainian military enterprises were located in Poland, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.
“There were no intentions to engage any targets on the territory of Poland,” the ministry said on Telegram.
The flight range of Russian drones used in the strike on the Ukrainian military complex does not exceed 700 kilometers (435 miles), the ministry said.
“The maximum flight range of the Russian UAVs used in the strike, which allegedly crossed the border with Poland, does not exceed 700 km. Nevertheless, we are ready to hold consultations on this subject with the Polish defense ministry,” the statement said.
Strikes On Ukraine’s Military
- Russia launched massive strike overnight on Ukrainian defense industry enterprises in the Ivano-Frankovsk, Khmelnytsky, and Zhytomyr regions, as well as in the cities of Vinnytsa and Lvov
- These enterprises produced and repaired armored vehicles, aviation equipment for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as well as engines and drones
- The strike hit the Lvov Armored Vehicle Factory and the Lvov Aircraft Repair Plant (LDARZ), where long-range drones were manufactured
- The objectives of the massive strike were achieved, and all designated targets were hit
Poland has allegedly detected 19 drones entering its aerospace at night, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Wednesday.
“Nineteen violations of Polish aerospace have been recorded,” Tusk said. “At the moment, we have confirmation that three drones have been shot down. It is likely that the fourth object was shot down,” Tusk added.
At the same time, the Polish prime minister did not rule out the appearance of information about a larger number of downed objects. Verification of such information “will take some time.” Now, the search for the wreckage of the downed drones and their identification is underway.
September 10, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Poland, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia strongly condemns attempts by the West to remove Milorad Dodik, president of Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from power.
“We strongly condemn attempts to remove Serbian leaders disliked by the West from power through fabricated criminal cases. In particular, our interlocutor today, our friend, the legally elected, legitimate president of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik,” the Russian foreign minister said at a press conference on Tuesday.
Sergey Lavrov said he considers the upcoming October 25 referendum on confidence in Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik to be an honest initiative.
“I want to mention the referendum that Republika Srpska, under President Dodik, is planning for October 25, asking citizens whether they support the republic’s leadership or not. I consider this an honest step,” Lavrov said.
Lavrov added that Russia will raise the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina during its October chairmanship of the UN Security Council.
“As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and one of the guarantors of the Dayton Accords, Russia will continue efforts to support this key document and the forces that defend the preservation and unconditional respect of Dayton principles in practice. We will pay special attention to this topic in October, when Russia will chair the Security Council, and the next meeting on Bosnia and Herzegovina is scheduled for October 31,” Lavrov said following talks with Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik.
The foreign minister emphasized that Russia will carefully prepare for the upcoming meeting. “Our colleagues will have to answer uncomfortable but entirely legitimate questions,” he said.
Lavrov also noted that “the West does not like referendums; Kosovo’s independence was declared without any referendum at all.”
September 9, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Republika Srpska, Russia, Serbia |
Leave a comment
The latest allegations by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that a Russian airstrike targeted civilians are completely false, a source with the Ministry of Defense in Moscow told RIA Novosti on Tuesday.
Zelensky shared extremely graphic footage from the Ukrainian-controlled village of Yarovaya, in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic. He claimed a Russian “guided aerial bomb” killed more than 20 “ordinary people who were collecting their pensions.”
The allegation does not hold water, a military source told the news agency, pointing out that the latest strikes in the area – not on the village itself but in its vicinity – were conducted on September 7. The damage shown in the video does not correspond with an aerial bomb strike, the source noted, suggesting the incident was “yet another false flag staged by the Kiev regime.”
“The crater shown does not match in shape and size of what would be left by an actual aerial bomb. The most common Russian bomb in the special military operation zone is the FAB-500, which contains about 200 kilograms of explosives,” the source said. The smallest munition used, FAB-250, contains around 100 kg of explosives and also leaves a massive crater on impact, he added.
The lack of any reporting on the incident prior to Zelensky’s post, after which the news spread all across “Ukrainian propaganda outlets,” also suggests the affair had been carefully orchestrated, the source pointed out.
“The false flag is supposed to demonstrate Kiev’s ‘concern’ for the population of the [Donbass] territories under its control and, simultaneously, to show the ‘cruelty’ of Russia,” the source suggested.
The incident appears to be a part of a broader campaign backed by Kiev to derail any potential negotiations to settle the conflict, as well as to justify its refusal to withdraw from the parts of the formerly Ukrainian regions it still controls, the source claimed, apparently referring to the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, and Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions.
September 9, 2025
Posted by aletho |
False Flag Terrorism | Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The possibility of Irish peacekeepers being deployed to Ukraine is “categorically unacceptable” because “Ireland cannot be considered a neutral state,” the Russian Embassy has said.
In a statement issued today, the Embassy said it was monitoring the Irish Government’s rhetoric closely and “considers it categorically unacceptable and unsustainable.”
“It is important to emphasize that Ireland cannot be considered as a neutral state with regard to the conflict in Ukraine,” the Embassy remarked. “Given its openly Russophobic and pro-Ukrainian position, as well as its assistance to the Kiev regime, including military aid.”
The Embassy also argued that any attempt to justify the proposal under a United Nations Security Council mandate “would be deemed inadmissible.”
“Ireland is a member of the European Union and follows its foreign policy approaches,” the statement continued. “The EU is rapidly moving away from its originally strictly peaceful integrative agenda, while losing its independence in the decision making process and rapidly militarizing itself, turning in essence into a NATO appendage.”
Russia warned that it would reject any scenario involving Western military forces being deployed to Ukraine, claiming such a move could cause escalation.
“Russia categorically rejects any scenarios which envisage the deployment of the Western military contingents in Ukraine,” the Embassy said. “Peacekeeping services of ‘neutral’ Dublin, even if they are indeed genuine, should start first and foremost with the rejection of the rabid anti-Russian rhetoric.”
The statement concluded with a call for the Irish Government to avoid what it called attempts to “inflate its ‘peacekeeping’ reputation” at Russia’s expense.
“We call on the Irish leadership to stop any attempts to undermine the efforts to achieve comprehensive, just and sustainable settlement of the conflict over Ukraine,” the Embassy said. “And to refrain from cynical attempts to inflate its ‘peacekeeping’ reputation on account of the crisis in the provocation of which Dublin, along with other countries of the collective West, played no small role.”
The remarks follow comments earlier this week by Taoiseach Micheál Martin, who told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Ireland was “open” to participating in a peacekeeping mission if it was appropriately mandated under the UN Charter.
As reported by Gript yesterday, Russia has already dismissed wider European proposals for a multinational deployment as “absolutely unacceptable.” Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said her country had “no plans to discuss a foreign intervention in Ukraine in any form or format.”
Since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, Irish politicians have repeatedly asserted that Ireland is “not neutral” in relation to the conflict. Notably, in 2022, then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar asserted: “In this conflict, Ireland is not neutral at all. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering and unconditional”.
Ireland’s Defence Forces have a long history of UN service, including missions in southern Lebanon since 1978. Under the State’s current “Triple Lock” policy, troops cannot be deployed overseas without UN Security Council approval. Critics argue this allows powers such as Russia and China to block Irish deployments, and the Government has proposed abolishing the mechanism. Proponents of the Triple Lock argue that it helps to ensure military neutrality.
September 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | European Union, Ireland, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines could not have been carried out without Western commandos, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed, singling out Britain as the likely culprit.
German prosecutors have attributed the explosions in international waters in September 2022, which disabled the twin pipelines supplying Russian gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea, to a group of Ukrainian nationals.
In an article published Sunday in Kommersant, the former head of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), Nikolay Patrushev, argued that Ukrainians lack the expertise to carry out this complex operation independently.
The sabotage was likely “planned, overseen, and executed with the involvement of highly trained NATO special forces,” Patrushev wrote, adding that the perpetrators were experienced in deep-sea operations and familiar with working in the Baltic.
“Few armies or intelligence services have divers capable of executing such an operation correctly and, above all, covertly. One unit with the necessary skills is the British Special Boat Service,” he said. Founded during World War II, the SBS is the Royal Navy’s elite squad specializing in amphibious warfare.
Russia has criticized the German investigation for a lack of transparency and for not including the Russian authorities. In 2024, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claimed it had “credible information” that the US and UK were directly involved in the sabotage, a claim denied by both London and Washington.
September 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Economics, False Flag Terrorism | Germany, Russia, UK |
Leave a comment
MOSCOW – It would be easier to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis if the “hawks” in Brussels stopped fueling the conflict, the Russian Embassy in Belgium said on Sunday.
“It is obvious that if the ‘hawks’ in Brussels and other Western capitals stop fueling the war and support peace efforts, including those undertaken by US President [Donald] Trump, then it will become much easier to achieve peace,” the embassy wrote on Telegram.
Instead, the Belgian government is becoming more and more Russophobic, misleading its citizens about Russia’s alleged intent to attack Brussels, the embassy added.
Earlier in September, Belgian Defense Minister Thomas Francken said that Moscow was capable of “infiltrating” one of the NATO member states by 2030 under the pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking minority in it, while at the same time attacking Brussels, “the capital of diplomacy,” with drones and missiles.
“The flawed logic offered to ordinary citizens confirms that the current Belgian leadership is rapidly moving away from its previously declared moderation in foreign affairs and is increasingly joining the ranks of the most Russophobic part of the EU and NATO, pursuing an extremely dangerous course of inciting confrontation with our country,” the statement read.
The Russian embassy dismissed the allegations, adding that the policies pursued by the Belgian government result in significant economic and social costs, which Belgian citizens are forced to pay.
September 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | Belgium, Russia |
Leave a comment
The shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces is exerting psychological pressure on the staff of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, Yevgenia Yashina, the plant’s communications director, told Sputnik.
On Saturday, the Ukrainian armed forces were reported to attack the training center of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant using drones, with the strike hitting the roof. A fire and critical damage were avoided. The limits and conditions for the safe operation of the nuclear power plant were not violated, and the background radiation remains normal.
“Daily shelling exerts significant psychological pressure on the nuclear power plant staff, creating a tense and unstable environment that hinders the performance of their professional duties,” Yashina said.
The safety of the nuclear power plant primarily depends on the human factor, on the coordinated and precise actions of the staff, she said, adding that “the mentioned threats directly undermine this fundamental principle.”
The nuclear power plant is located on the left bank of the Dnepr River near Energodar. It is the largest nuclear plant in Europe in terms of the number of units and installed capacity. The plant has six power units, with a capacity of 1 gigawatt each, all of which are currently in a state of so-called cold shutdown. In October 2022, the nuclear power plant came under Russia’s control and has since been routinely targeted in Ukrainian attacks.
September 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Nuclear Power | Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) summit in Beijing, marked by both symbolism and substance, underscored the slow erosion of Western financial dominance. While mainstream coverage focused on China’s military parade, the real significance lies in the economic agenda advanced by SCO members. Discussions of a potential SCO Development Bank, expanded use of local currencies, and closer coordination with BRICS initiatives point to a growing determination across Eurasia and the Global South to challenge the monopoly long exercised by the United States and its allies through the IMF, the World Bank, and the dollar system.
For decades, these Western-controlled institutions have functioned as instruments of geopolitical leverage. Structural adjustment programs dismantled social protections, imposed privatization, and locked countries into cycles of debt dependency.
The dollar, presented as a neutral global currency, has been repeatedly weaponized through sanctions, financial exclusion, and manipulation of international payment systems. In this context, the SCO’s economic discussions must be seen for what they are: not technical proposals, but acts of resistance. By seeking alternatives to dollar-based finance and conditional lending, SCO members are asserting that the age of Western financial coercion is no longer uncontested.
China and Russia, the central actors in this process, have both experienced the coercive use of Western financial power.
Sanctions on Russia and tariffs on China have reinforced the urgency of building parallel institutions. For smaller states, particularly in the Global South, the stakes are even higher. Access to credit that is not tied to Washington’s geopolitical priorities could mean the difference between austerity and investment, between dependency and sovereignty. The SCO’s proposals are embryonic, but they point toward a broader trend: the emergence of multipolar finance as a shield against unilateral domination.
Critics in the West have rushed to dismiss these efforts, portraying them as impractical or politically motivated. But such dismissals miss the point. The very fact that alternatives are being openly discussed and partially implemented signals the weakening of Western monopoly. The creation of the BRICS New Development Bank, the use of local currencies in trade between Russia, China, and India, and now the SCO’s initiatives all mark a shift from rhetoric to practice. Each new mechanism reduces the ability of the United States to dictate terms unilaterally.
This does not mean China or Russia will replace Washington as the new hegemons. Rather, it means that unipolarity is ending. The world is moving toward a multipolar order in which no single state can control the flows of finance, trade, and development. For Global South nations, this creates both opportunities and risks. It offers the possibility of diversifying partnerships and rejecting conditionality, but it also requires vigilance to avoid reproducing dependency under new patrons. Multipolarity is not a guarantee of justice, but it is a necessary precondition for breaking the cycle of Western domination.
The SCO summit should therefore be understood as part of a larger civilizational struggle over the architecture of world order. Western hegemony has rested not only on military alliances and cultural influence, but on financial coercion. By weaponizing the dollar, Washington has sought to enforce compliance far beyond its borders. The SCO’s economic agenda represents an attempt to reclaim sovereignty in the face of this coercion, to create breathing space for states that refuse to align with U.S. geopolitical priorities.
What emerges from Beijing is not a fully formed alternative, but a direction of travel. Multipolar institutions are being built step by step, challenging the illusion that Western institutions are eternal or indispensable. For countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, this is a call to action. It is an invitation to participate in the shaping of a world where development is not dictated from Washington or Brussels, but negotiated among equals.
The mainstream media will continue to focus on parades and symbols, but the real revolution is occurring in the realm of finance. The SCO summit was a reminder that the West’s monopoly on money and credit is cracking, and that the future of global order will be defined not by a single hegemon but by the collective efforts of states refusing to submit. For those seeking peace, justice, and sovereignty, this is a development to be welcomed, nurtured, and defended.
Peiman Salehi is a Political Analyst & Writer from Tehran, Iran.
September 6, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics | China, European Union, IMF, Iran, Russia, SCO, UK, United States, World Bank |
Leave a comment
The European Union must permanently cut off all Russian energy imports, Commissioner for Energy and Housing Dan Jorgensen has declared.
Most EU countries have halted direct imports of Russian crude and gas under sanctions over the Ukraine conflict. However, Brussels continues to push for a full phase-out of Russian energy by the end of 2027 under its RePowerEU Roadmap. The plan calls for ending spot gas contracts, suspending new deals, limiting uranium imports, and targeting the so-called Russian “shadow fleet” of oil tankers allegedly used to bypass sanctions.
Jorgensen, who has championed the plan for months, said the bloc must urgently agree on its framework and stick to it even after the Ukraine conflict ends.
“For us the objective is very, very clear. We want to stop the import as fast as possible,” he told reporters in Copenhagen on Friday. “And in the future, even when there is peace, we should still not import Russian energy… In my opinion, we will never again import as much as one molecule of Russian energy once this agreement is made.”
Jorgensen noted that the US has backed Brussels’ plans. President Donald Trump, frustrated with slow Ukraine peace talks, urged European allies on Thursday to halt Russian energy imports. The July trade deal between Washington and Brussels also included a pledge that the EU would replace Russian oil and gas with American LNG and nuclear fuel.
Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily dependent on Russian supplies, have been the strongest opponents of the phase-out, arguing it would undermine the bloc’s security and raise prices. On Friday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto accused the EU of “hypocrisy,” saying many members still buy Russian crude through intermediaries even as they call for a phase-out. Jorgensen said he was in talks with Budapest and Bratislava but noted the plan can be approved without them, as it requires only a qualified majority.
Moscow considers any restrictions targeting its energy trade illegal and has warned that abandoning its energy will drive up prices and weaken the EU’s economy by forcing it to rely on costlier alternatives or indirect Russian imports.
September 6, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Russophobia | European Union, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
The West risks facing an asymmetrical response to its illegal restrictions on shipping. Unlike Russia, most developed countries depend on the stable and secure functioning of maritime trade routes. The application of the measures used by the West against itself could trigger a crisis in maritime supply chains due to disruptions in the delivery of strategically important goods and raw materials.
A difficult dependency to manage
Unlike Russia, the West bases its economy and strategic security on a widely interconnected and stable global maritime trade system, established as a founding principle of the maritime power of sea-faring civilizations (Seapower, in the classical geopolitics of Mackinder and Mahan). Most developed Western countries are heavily dependent on the smooth and secure functioning of maritime trade routes to ensure the continuous supply of strategic goods, raw materials, and energy products. Maritime trade is an irreplaceable and essential pillar of Western supply chains, with the increasing complexity and vulnerability of these systems due to geopolitical and environmental dynamics.
This dependence means that illegally imposed restrictions on navigation, or pressure on key maritime routes such as the Suez Canal or the Red Sea passage, can have significant not only economic but also geopolitical impacts. The West as a whole, unlike Russia, which has developed an autonomous strategy to diversify its trade routes, does not have established and functional alternatives for many of its maritime supply lines. And this is a problem that is not easily solved.
In military science, the term ‘asymmetry’ refers to the use of strategies, tactics, and tools that do not mirror those of the enemy, but aim to exploit differences in capabilities, organization, and objectives to strike at the enemy’s weak points. Applied to the maritime domain, asymmetry describes how an actor, often weaker in conventional terms, can challenge a superior naval power by avoiding a head-on confrontation and instead seeking to destabilize its freedom of maneuver, logistics, and route security.
In the current geostrategic context, in fact, a crucial aspect concerns the risk that the West will face asymmetric responses to its illegal restrictions on navigation. This concept of asymmetry is central to the theory of contemporary maritime threats: Western powers, by unilaterally imposing restrictions on the routes or maritime activities of other states (e.g., through sanctions, blockades, or “no sail zones”), could generate unconventional reactions that are difficult to manage structurally, especially now that dominance of the seas is no longer the exclusive preserve of the old Atlantic empires.
The case of Russia is emblematic: despite being heavily affected by sanctions and restrictions on global maritime traffic, it has developed a maritime strategy aimed at building autonomous infrastructure and new routes—such as the development of the Northern Sea Route—to bypass Western restrictions and ensure internal and external economic continuity. The West, on the other hand, despite having provided important regulatory and military tools to ensure freedom of navigation, finds itself exposed to more damaging forms of retaliation precisely because it is unable to easily circumvent the key routes on which it depends.
The application of the same restrictive measures used by the West against itself would, in perspective, result in a potentially acute crisis in maritime supply chains. Disruptions in access to and passage through key trade routes would cause delays in the delivery of strategic raw materials and essential goods, with knock-on effects on industry, agriculture, energy, and final consumption.
The consequences of blockages or restrictions on strategic passages such as the Suez or Panama Canals include not only higher costs due to longer and more expensive alternative routes (with additional costs for fuel, insurance, and sailing time) but also port congestion, increased emissions, and misalignments between supply and demand in global chains. Furthermore, insecurity in maritime routes can raise insurance premiums, contributing to increased international transport costs and fueling market volatility.
Structural differences between the West and Russia and growing instability
Western vulnerability must be viewed in light of the structural differences in maritime management and strategy between the West and Russia.
Russia is gearing up to become a major maritime power, investing in infrastructure, shipbuilding, and new logistics hubs on its territory, aiming for more direct control of its export routes for resources (natural gas, coal, agricultural products) to non-Western markets such as Asia, which are becoming geopolitical and economic priorities.
For example, the Navy’s key role in Arctic routes is already a global excellence, for which the collective West lags far behind. The West, on the contrary, relies on an international maritime trade network that is increasingly subject to high interdependence and multilateral cooperation, and has not yet developed an equivalent system of autonomous routes and infrastructure capable of circumventing unilateral restrictions. This creates an imbalance that can result in asymmetric risk: while Russia can tolerate or circumvent certain restrictions due to its alternative shipping options, the West cannot do the same without serious disruption in terms of trade flows and costs.
Current geopolitical trends increase the likelihood that illegal restrictions on navigation, applied for political reasons, will translate into significant crises in Western supply chains. The effects manifest themselves in:
- Increased delays and misalignments in the delivery of raw materials and finished products (e.g., critical materials, energy, agricultural products);
- Higher costs for maritime transport and insurance, reflected in higher prices and potential pass-through to end consumers;
- Risk of port congestion and logistical disruptions that can trigger temporary regional or global economic crises;
- Increased geopolitical tensions in key regions, with exposure to maritime conflicts or asymmetric actions by state and non-state actors.
The application of restrictive Western measures on oneself is not only a technical challenge, but also a factor that could trigger chain reactions that are difficult to control, as other maritime powers and regional actors could adopt asymmetric strategies, including the militarization of routes, piracy, and targeted sabotage.
A war of maps
But how did the West construct these restrictions? This corresponds to a ‘war of maps’: whoever controls cartography and security warnings dominates the very perception of freedom of navigation.
Three types of restrictive measures have been applied: economic sanctions, maritime exclusion zones (mainly in areas of open or potential conflict) and the updating of maritime charts. And when sailing, maps are essential.
The map war is a cognitive and regulatory domain, in which the representation of space becomes a weapon, more or less directly. Those who control the maps, i.e., decide what to show, what to obscure, and which routes are safe or prohibited to follow, effectively exercise strategic dominance that influences many actors.
The map war at sea is played out on several levels:
Cartographic: updates to official charts (e.g., NOAA for the US, UKHO for Great Britain) can delimit restricted areas, minefields, and training areas. This forces civilian and military ships to change their routes, even if the sea remains physically free.
Digital: ECDIS and AIS systems, which are mandatory in commercial navigation, receive updates from Western sources (Navtex, Inmarsat, IMO). By adding or removing “digital layers,” the West can channel traffic.
Narrative-legal: maps are never neutral; they reflect a vision of the law of the sea. A NATO map will show as “international waters” areas that Russia or China consider “territorial waters.” It is a form of “cartographic lawfare.”
Operational: navies reinforce on the ground what the map represents. If an area is marked as “restricted” and is patrolled by frigates or naval drones, the cartographic representation becomes reality.
Cognitively controlling space means dominating representation, i.e., conditioning the movements of commercial and military fleets, driving up insurance and logistics costs, legitimizing a certain view of maritime law and, most importantly, transforming the sea into a sort of “mosaic” made up of mandatory corridors and prohibited areas. In other words, it is no longer just the strength of ships that determines control, but also the use of the power of representation, which constrains reality geopolitically speaking.
The problem is that the West, with its maritime powers of glorious memory, cannot be denied, is still convinced that it has immeasurable and unchallenged power. However, this perception does not correspond to the truth. Western leaders have promoted sanctions and restrictive policies, driven by the desire to maintain control that has long since ceased to belong to them, and have ended up compromising their own economies and damaging their interests. The schizophrenia seems never-ending.
Even sanctions have not worked
Economic sanctions and export controls are now the main weapons of US national security. With a simple administrative act, Washington can exclude its adversaries from the dollar-dominated international financial system and limit their access to advanced technology supply chains. These tools, designed to reinforce foreign policy and defense objectives, are often used as an intermediate response: more effective than diplomacy alone, but less risky than direct military intervention. Their apparent low cost and ease of use have encouraged their frequent use, with the risk of gradually reducing their effectiveness and raising doubts about the stability of the dollar as a global reserve currency.
Over the past two decades, these tools have been applied against a growing range of adversaries. The campaign against Iran saw intensive use of financial leverage, in particular through pressure on European banks to sever ties with Tehran, a model that inspired the approach towards Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014: targeted sectoral sanctions were introduced, calibrated to affect future growth prospects without causing immediate shocks to energy markets. Subsequently, attention shifted to China, with technological restrictions directed at giants such as Huawei and ZTE in an attempt to slow down the development of advanced capabilities in areas such as artificial intelligence and defense.
After 2022, with the start of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the measures became more complex, with oil price caps and new controls on the export of advanced semiconductors introduced in addition to financial and trade blockades, the result of coordination with European and Asian allies. This combination of instruments showed how economic measures can be integrated into a single strategy, even if they fail to produce positive effects. Arrogant rhetoric clashed with harsh reality: sanctions are no longer as effective a deterrent as they once were, and their effect is much less controllable and predictable.
Behind every sanctions package lie intricate decision-making processes, in which coordination with allies and calculation of the effects on global markets play a decisive role, and, above all, a discreet sense of masochism. Countless hours of work, commissions, discussions, and proclamations in the media have produced only an unprecedented accumulation of disadvantages.
Because, to be honest, the sanctions system simply does not work. On the one hand, sanctions have evolved in response to increasingly sophisticated threats, combining financial, commercial, and technological levers, but entirely in a self-congratulatory sense, as they are not pragmatically effective. on the other hand, they have rarely produced significant political change in the affected states on their own, instead generating side effects on the global economy and tensions with the private sector or with Western partners themselves, creating a disastrous boomerang effect.
If the West does not decide to stop, it will be forced to pay the price for all its misdeeds, a price that is much higher and more painful than it can imagine. And then it will be too late to turn back.
September 6, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Militarism | European Union, Russia, UK, United States |
Leave a comment
Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman stated on 5 September that New Delhi will continue importing Russian oil, in defiance of US tariffs and repeated demands from President Donald Trump to halt these purchases.
“Where do we buy our oil from, especially since it’s a very expensive commodity, we pay a very high price for it and it’s the highest import, so we’ll have to decide what suits us best,” Sitharaman told News18 TV. “We will definitely buy it,” she stressed.
According to Bloomberg, her remarks indicate that New Delhi views the energy issue as a purely economic decision, with purchases of Russian crude to continue as long as they benefit the country financially.
Earlier in the day, industry sources told Reuters that Indian Oil Corporation, the country’s largest refiner, excluded US crude from its latest tender. Instead, it purchased two million barrels of West African oil and one million barrels from West Asia.
In the past months, Trump has escalated his trade war with New Delhi, raising tariffs on Indian imports from an initial 25 percent in August to 50 percent the same month, after accusing India of bankrolling Moscow through energy purchases.
Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that India “buys most of its oil and military products from Russia, very little from the U.S.” He added that New Delhi had offered to cut its tariffs “to nothing, but it’s getting late.”
India rejected accusations of war profiteering, highlighting the hypocrisy of the US and EU, both of which continue commercial exchanges with Russia.
Russian oil accounted for 38 percent of India’s imports in 2023 and 2024, and remains at 36 percent in 2025. In 2024 alone, New Delhi spent more than $47 billion on Russian crude, making it the largest buyer of Moscow’s seaborne oil.
September 5, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics | India, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
India found itself in an uncomfortable situation like a cat on a hot roof at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation event in Tianjin, China, with the Western media hyping up its unlikely role in a troika with Russia and China to chariot the world order toward a brave new era of multipolarity.
The plain truth is, the real obsession of the Western media was to vilify the US President Donald Trump for having “lost” India by caricaturing a three-way Moscow-Delhi-Beijing partnership as an attempt to conspire against the United States. The target was Trump’s insecure ego, and the intention to call out his punitive trade tariffs that caused mayhem in the US-Indian relationship. Prime Minister Narendra Modi savoured momentarily in Tianjin the role of a key player at the high table, which plays well before his domestic audience of hardcore nationalists, but a confrontation with the US was the last thing on his mind.
In Tianjin, Modi took a hour-long limo ride in Putin’s custom-made armoured vehicle that created a misperception that the two strongmen were up to something really sinister big. The extravagant display of “Russia collusion” Modi could have done without.
To be fair to Putin, he later made ample amends (after Modi returned to Delhi) to make sure Trump was not put out. In front of camera, when asked about an acerbic aside by Trump in a Truth Social post on September 3 wondering whether Putin was “conspiring against the United States of America,” Putin gave this extraordinary explanation:
“The President of the United States has a sense of humour. It is clear, and everyone is well aware of it. I get along very well with him. We are on a first name basis.
“I can tell you and I hope he will hear me, too: as strange as it may appear, but during these four days, during the most diverse talks in informal and formal settings, no one has ever expressed any negative judgment about the current US administration.
“Second, all of my dialogue partners without exception – I want to emphasise this – all of them were supportive of the meeting in Anchorage. Every single one of them. And all of them expressed hope that the position of President Trump and the position of Russia and other participants in the negotiations will put an end to the armed conflict. I am saying this in all seriousness without irony.
“Since I am saying this publicly, the whole world will see it and hear it, and this is the best guarantee that I am telling the truth. Why? Because the people whom I have spoken with for four days will hear it, and they will definitely say, “Yes, this is true.” I would have never said this if it were not so, because then I would have put myself in an awkward position in front of my friends, allies and strategic partners. Everything was exactly the way I said it.”
Modi has something to learn from Putin. But instead, no sooner than Modi returned to Delhi, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had lined up the most hawkish anti-Russia gang of European politicians to consort with in an ostentatious display of distancing from the Russia-India-China troika.
In the entire collective West, there is no country today to beat Germany in its hostility toward Russia. All the pent-up hatred toward Russia for inflicting the crushing defeat on Nazi Germany that has been lying dormant for decades in the German subconscious has welled up in the most recent years.
The German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said Putin “might be one of the worst war criminals of our era. That is now plain to see. We must be clear on how to deal with war criminals. There is no room for leniency.”
Merz whose family was associated with Hitler’s Nazi party, has been repeatedly flagging that a war between Germany and Russia is inevitable. He is threatening to hand over long-range Taurus missiles to the Ukrainian military to hit deep inside Russia.
But all this anti-Russian record of Germany didn’t deter Jaishankar from inviting Merz’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul to come to India on a 3-day visit on Monday. Wadephul seized the opportunity to rubbish both Russia and China. He was particularly harsh on China during his joint press conference with Jaishankar.
Wadephul said in Jaishankar’s presence, “We agree with India and many other countries that we need to defend the international rules-based order, and that we also have to defend it against China. At least that is our clear analysis… But we also see China as a systemic rival. We don’t want that rivalry. We increasingly note that the number of areas is increasing where China has chosen this approach.”
Wadephul flouted protocol norms and violated diplomatic decorum by making such harsh remarks from Indian soil so soon after Modi and Xi decided to stop viewing each other as adversaries and instead work in partnership. But Jaishankar didn’t seem to mind and Modi received the outspoken German diplomat.
The sequence of events suggest that Delhi is in panic that Modi went overboard in Tianjin. Trump’s close aide Peter Navarro actually used a crude metaphor that Modi “got into bed” with Putin and Xi in Tianjin. Apparently, the poisoned arrow went home.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to pile pressure on Modi to terminate oil trade with Russia and has threatened that a third and fourth tranche of secondary level tariffs could be expected. He is also putting pressure on the European Union to move in tandem to bring India down on its knees.
Possibly, Wadephul carried some message from Brussels. At any rate, after receiving Wadephul, Modi made a joint call with the President of the European Council Antonio Costa and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday to emphasise his government’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict.
Jaishankar himself called his Ukrainian counterpart Andrii Sybih also to discuss “our bilateral cooperation as well as the Ukraine conflict.”
Dumping the “Tianjin spirit” so soon is a huge loss of face for India. But the blowback from the West unnerves the government. The point is, the future is still being written. The Global South whose mantle of leadership India claims is also watching. Governments in Asia, Europe and elsewhere still have choices to make, and those will be shaped by India’s actions as much as China’s.
Why is India’s diplomacy so clumsy-footed? In medical parlance, such clumsiness and foot drop could actually be a nerve condition. So it could be in the practice of strategic autonomy where nerves of steel are required. The Modi government freely interprets national interests to suit the exigencies of politics. And it takes ambivalent attitudes without conviction or due deliberation that are unsustainable over a period of time.
The Indian policymakers do not seem to have the foggiest idea where exactly the country’s long-term interests lie at the present juncture when an epochal transition is under way in the world order, as five centuries of western hegemony are drawing to a close. The great lesson of history for us is that resolve brings peace and order, and vacillation invites chaos and conflict.
September 5, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | China, European Union, Germany, India, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 