Western media admits humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | July 23, 2025
Western media is finally admitting that Ukraine is lying about its official casualty figures. A recent article published by Le Monde revealed that there is ample evidence that military casualties in Ukraine are much higher than official figures indicate, given the growing demand for cemetery space for new burials.
According to Le Monde, all cemetery areas in Ukraine reserved for soldiers are already fully occupied. The overload is forcing authorities to use common cemetery space, which is normally reserved for civilians, as well as to establish various projects to expand current cemeteries and create new ones. The demand for burial space is enormous as more and more dead bodies arrive from the front lines.
“Sections reserved for soldiers are at capacity. Across the country, teams of architects have been working on memorials that reflect not only the scale of the ongoing carnage but also the evolving ideas about national identity,” the article reads.
The journalists interviewed several local Ukrainian architects involved in cemetery construction. Currently, this is one of the country’s main demands, with projects in several regions to build cemeteries exclusively for the burial of soldiers killed on the battlefield. The new cemeteries being built are truly large, with space for approximately ten thousand dead or more. This is consistent with a growing number of casualties, revealing a contradiction between this and the official data published by the Ukrainian government.
The article describes one of the projects, commenting on a cemetery being built along the highway connecting Kiev to Odessa. The project is said to be particularly sensitive, considering that the cemetery will destroy rural communities in the region, causing environmental problems such as deforestation.
“It’s a sandy track, well-hidden among the pines, off the highway connecting Kiev to Odesa in the Hatne region. (…) This is the highway exit that will serve as Ukraine’s future national military memorial cemetery. The project is enormous, highly sensitive and not just because environmental activists and residents of the small village of Markhalivka – 40 kilometers from the capital, but right at the base of the future cemetery – worry about deforestation and the loss of their rural quiet. In the village, only a new brown sign, the color used to mark national sites, marks the road that leads trucks to the site. It reads in English: ‘National Military Memorial Cemetery.’ The first section, designed to hold 10,000 graves and already laid out with broad granite paths, benches and lime trees, is due to receive its first burial this summer. But in the long term, ‘130,000 or even 160,000’ people will be laid to rest at this future burial ground, explained architect Serhi Derbin,” the text adds.
The scale of these cemeteries contrasts sharply with Kiev’s repeated claims of minimal losses, exposing a growing gap between official discourse and the physical reality of war. While government spokespeople continue to insist on controlled casualty rates, the magnitude of the planned cemeteries suggests a conflict with a much greater human cost. The death toll clearly highlights the Kiev regime’s absolute military bankruptcy. There is no way a country can maintain this level of casualties and continue to have “control” over the military situation. If casualties continue at this level, there will soon simply no longer be enough people to fight in the ranks of the neo-Nazi regime.
As is the case in every conflict situation around the world, both sides avoid publishing their real figures. However, there is abundant evidence of the humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine. For example, there have recently been several rounds of body swaps. The difference in numbers was alarming, with a few hundred Russians bodies compared to thousands of Ukrainians. This, combined with information about cemeteries, shows that there are undoubtedly many more Ukrainians dead than Russians—a vital information for assessing which side will win this war.
Until recently, Western media was complicit in hiding the Ukrainian reality. However, the situation has reached an unsustainable point. No one believes narratives like “military stalemate” or “Russian failure” anymore. It’s clear to everyone that the Ukrainian military crisis is irreversible and that Kiev has no future in this conflict. So, to maintain credibility, Western outlets are gradually beginning to admit that the situation in Ukraine is catastrophic.
What these newspapers fail to admit, however, is that the cause of this tragedy is the Kiev regime’s irrational insistence on continuing to fight an unwinnable war. To stop hostilities, Ukraine simply needs to accept Russian peace terms. The quicker the capitulation, the fewer Kiev’s human and territorial losses will be.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
West Doubles Down on Failed Wars in Ukraine & Middle East
Glenn Diesen | July 22, 2025
Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA, who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses why the West is doubling down on the failed wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
More Reckless Than Ever: NATO’s Proxy War with Russia
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2025
The strategy that the United States and its European allies have adopted to use Ukraine as their military proxy in a war to weaken Russia has always involved a sizable element of risk. At some point, Russian leaders might no longer be content with just attacking the puppet that NATO members were using to torment their country. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues could decide to attack one or more of the puppeteers. The chances of such an escalation are increasing. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s principal deputy, issued a warning on July 17 that his country might launch “preemptive strikes” if the Western powers continued to boost their support for Ukraine’s military efforts.
Medvedev’s statement occurred just after President Donald Trump executed a major U.S. policy reversal regarding Ukraine. Instead of phasing out military aid to Kiev, the administration announced a resumption of weapons shipments, including Patriot air defense missiles that other NATO members would purchase from the United States. Such a stance was reminiscent of President Joe Biden’s enthusiastic support for Ukraine’s war effort, and it stood in stark contrast to Trump’s rhetoric throughout the 2024 presidential election campaign and the initial weeks of his second term that indicated a determination to end Washington’s entanglement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Unfortunately, the new sale of Patriots is just the latest in a long series of provocations that the United States and NATO have conducted against Russia since full-scale fighting between Moscow and Kiev began in February 2022. Both Medvedev and Putin have contended previously that NATO is already at war with their country, given the extent of military assistance that alliance members have extended to Kiev—especially the provision of long-range missiles. Medvedev specifically raised the prospect of Russian retaliatory strikes on NATO bases.
Their charge has merit. Not only have NATO members collectively provided a tsunami of weapons to their military proxy, but also several of them have assisted Ukraine’s war effort in other crucial ways. There is credible evidence that both British and American intelligence agencies (and possibly those of other NATO countries) have provided crucial data to Ukrainian forces attacking Russian military transport planes and other targets. A similar form of assistance apparently was given to Ukrainian forces that attacked Russian naval vessels in the Black Sea.
Providing such assistance to one party in an ongoing war could quite reasonably be interpreted as an act of war against the opposing party. Yet several alliance members are incurring such risks. A German general justified his country’s decision to send long-range missiles to Ukraine. But as one critic noted, what the general conveniently left out “is that these weapons will be operated by German personnel from Wiesbaden. In other words, Germany is turning one of its own cities into a legitimate target for Russian retaliation.”
Although the evidence of committing an act of war is less definitive in other cases, there were strong indications that one or more NATO member states were involved in the destruction of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The accounts that American and European media propaganda campaigns circulated certainly lacked even minimal credibility. The original cover story that Russia (for reasons that remained both vague and implausible) destroyed its own multi-billion-dollar pipeline did not even pass the proverbial laugh test. Even U.S. and other NATO officials quickly backed away from that attempted explanation. However, the substitute version was even more preposterous. That iteration asserted that a band of Ukrainian activists (but activists who had absolutely no connection to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government) conducted the sabotage raid using a civilian yacht manned by divers not in the country’s military.
Since those attempts at a plausible cover story flopped, NATO officials and their pet media outlets have gone strangely silent. Hopes by the transatlantic foreign policy “blob” that the pipeline story will just go away are understandable, since Moscow would have grounds for regarding the attack on its pipeline as a brazen act of war.
More recently, murkiness surrounds Ukraine’s bold move deploying swarms of drones to attack Russia’s strategic bomber fleet stationed at four air bases deep inside Russia. Kiev understandably bragged about such a military and propaganda victory. However, Washington’s possible role in this episode remains a matter of conjecture. Media outlets friendly to Ukraine asserted that the United States knew about the operation and expressed no objection. The White House initially contended that Ukraine had given no advance notice, but the U.S. account has become less clear with the passage of time.
It is an important detail. It seems unlikely that Ukrainian forces could have carried out such a complex operation so deep inside Russian territory without intelligence information similar to that given to Kiev in its earlier assaults against Russian troop transports and warships. The probable conclusion is that Kiev likely was aided by either U.S. intelligence operatives or operatives from another NATO. In either case, it would be yet another act of war committed against the Russian Federation. One can readily imagine the reaction from the United States if Russia (or any other adversary) waged an attack on the U.S. strategic bomber fleet and destroyed a significant portion of the fleet.
Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine acted totally alone, that scenario would mean that NATO’s proxy had gone rogue and is now acting on its own. In mid-July, President Trump raised tensions with the Kremlin even more. With typical Trumpian verbal incontinence, he asked Zelensky if (apparently in light of the successful raid on the bomber bases), Ukraine could strike a target such as Moscow deep inside Russia. It appeared to be an unsubtle hint that the United States would not be displeased by such a move. Trump did say many hours later that he was not calling on Ukraine to attack Moscow, but that poisonous idea was now firmly planted. On July 20, Ukraine launched a drone assault on Moscow.
The United States and its NATO allies are engaging in irresponsible behavior that could turn the already dangerous Ukraine proxy war against Russia into a direct armed conflict between the Alliance and Russia. Even during the worst days of the Cold War, Soviet and American leaders had the good sense to implicitly keep their respective homelands off limits. The current crop of “leaders” on the Western side are not exercising such wisdom or basic prudence. They are playing the international equivalent of Russian roulette.
E3 violated JCPOA, lost right to reinstate UN sanctions against Iran: Russian envoy
Press TV – July 21, 2025
A senior Russian diplomat says Britain, France, and Germany, known as the E3, have repeatedly violated the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal, and thus forfeited their right to trigger the snapback mechanism that would re-impose all UN Security Council sanctions on Iran.
Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, made the remarks in an interview with Izvestia newspaper on Monday, days after the E3, in coordination with the US, threatened to initiate the 30-day snapback process if there is no progress on Iran’s nuclear talks by the end of August.
“As for the threats of Westerners to initiate a mechanism for restoring sanctions, it is quite rightly noted that this idea is illegitimate,” Ulyanov said.
“The Americans themselves withdrew from the JCPOA, renouncing the rights and obligations of a participant in the nuclear deal, and the United Kingdom, Germany and France are violators of both the JCPOA and UN Security Council resolution 2231. This means that they have also deprived themselves of the right to initiate a ‘snapback.’”
He was referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the official name of the Iran nuclear accord, which the US ditched in 2018 before returning the illegal sanctions that it had lifted against Iran and launching the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign.
Following the US withdrawal, the European signatories to the JCPOA failed to uphold their commitments and made no efforts to save the agreement.
Also in his remarks, the Russian envoy criticized the Europeans and Americans for using “the tactics of forceful pressure” against Tehran, saying such an approach has no chance of success.
“The habit of Europeans and Americans to set certain deadlines all the time is quite counterproductive,” he said, citing the negotiations aimed at restoring the JCPOA in 2021-2022 as an example.
In an X post on Sunday, Ulyanov emphasized that the E3 “has no legal or moral right” to activate the snapback procedure.
Earlier, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sent a letter to the UN chief, the Security Council president, and the top EU diplomat, saying the E3 have relinquished their role as “participants” in the JCPOA, rendering any attempt to trigger the snapback mechanism “null and void.”
Is Azerbaijan Considering Hosting a Turkish Military Base?
By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – July 21, 2025
As Azerbaijan-Russia relations cool, discussions emerge in Baku about the potential deployment of a Turkish military base. Is this a random development — or is chance merely revealing an underlying pattern?
Between Iran and Russia, Azerbaijan chooses Turkey. At one point, when describing the political geography of modern Azerbaijan, Geidar Dzhemal — a Russian Islamic political and public figure, philosopher, and poet — characterized it as extremely vulnerable, considering its southern border with Iran and northern border with Russia. At the time, the Karabakh issue remained unresolved for Baku, and the goal of regaining full control over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory was still pending. In other words, despite being technically at war with Armenia, Baku did not perceive it as an existential threat.
Dzhemal’s assessment reflected Azerbaijan’s geopolitical choice to align with NATO-member Turkey, and to build partnerships with the UK, Israel, and the US. These allies, carefully selected by Baku, have political and economic agendas that are at odds with those of Russia and Iran.
Despite historical ties with Iran and its shared Shia Islamic heritage, Azerbaijan opted in the 1990s for an alliance with Sunni-majority Turkey. Turkey became a key facilitator in the implementation of the so-called “contracts of the century” in the oil and gas sector, with Britain playing a leading role.
Recognizing the deep-rooted tensions between Israel and Iran, Baku forged a pragmatic partnership with Tel Aviv. Azerbaijani oil — making up 60% of Israel’s overall oil imports — in exchange for Israeli weaponry and military technologies laid the foundation for robust bilateral relations. Israel, for its part, assisted Azerbaijan in strengthening ties with the US and Europe, both directly and through lobbying by the Jewish diaspora.
In return, Azerbaijan did not hinder the activities of Israeli intelligence services on its territory, particularly when directed at Iran. Azerbaijan’s military success in the Second Karabakh War in 2020, with direct Israeli support (weapons deliveries, intelligence sharing, UAV operations), significantly expanded the operational scope of Israeli intelligence targeting Iran. The results of the twelve-day Israel-Iran war in June 2025 have once again raised questions about Israeli security structures potentially using Azerbaijani territory.
Today, Tehran is unlikely to escalate tensions with Baku. On one hand, both sides have only recently emerged from a serious diplomatic crisis (following the terrorist attack at Azerbaijan’s embassy in Iran, the withdrawal of Baku’s ambassador, and the later restoration of ties). On the other hand, Iran’s conflict with Israel remains unresolved and without a peace agreement.
Azerbaijan’s relationship with Russia in the post-Soviet era has fluctuated — swinging between partnership and hostility. Moscow initially adopted a neutral stance in the Karabakh conflict, trying to retain both Armenia and Azerbaijan within its sphere of influence, and took the lead in conflict resolution efforts. Indeed, both Karabakh wars ended under Russian mediation, but with radically different outcomes. From the 2000s onwards, Russia began pursuing a more pragmatic approach in the South Caucasus, shifting toward a strategic partnership with Baku. As a result, Azerbaijan secured access to $5 billion worth of modern Russian weapons, expanded its business presence in Russia, and acted as a mediator — particularly after the 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 by Turkish forces — in restoring and advancing Russian-Turkish ties.
Russia’s distant approach during the Second Karabakh War and the Azerbaijan-Armenia tensions of 2021–2023 allowed Baku to achieve military success and regain lost territories in Karabakh. Following its pragmatic logic, Azerbaijan did not join anti-Russian sanctions and, like Turkey, has maintained business ties with Russia, receiving considerable benefits from transit and re-export arrangements.
However, despite its strategic partnership with Russia, Turkey has not hastened to implement the Russian-proposed gas hub project in Eastern Thrace. Ankara continues to demand favorable financial terms (lower gas prices, deferred payments, joint trade) and also seeks Russian consent for its plans to access Central Asia via the Caspian Sea and tap into Turkmen gas.
Since autumn 2020, the “Turan Project” has begun to take more tangible shape. Ankara envisions the creation of an alternative alliance to the EAEU and the EU, involving Turkic states and Pakistan.
Iran opposes the Zangezur Corridor, Russia — due to Armenia’s position — cannot establish control over the project, and Azerbaijan may reconsider its support for the North–South International Transport Corridor, possibly obstructing Russia’s access through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. This scenario could trigger new diplomatic — or worse, military-political — crises in the South Caucasus.
Amid all this, Azerbaijan is placing its hopes on Turkish military bases. Following the latest escalation in Azerbaijan-Russia relations — sparked by Baku’s harsh reaction to the tragic downing of a civilian aircraft and the detention of Azerbaijani diaspora members in Yekaterinburg (with investigations still ongoing) — former presidential aide Eldar Namazov raised the prospect of hosting a major Turkish military base in Azerbaijan. He even suggested that part of the base could be leased to the Pakistani Air Force as a potential deterrent against alleged provocations from Russia and Iran.
Namazov is far from a fringe figure, and his statements are likely aligned with the presidential administration — at the very least, with the President’s foreign policy aide Hikmet Hajiyev.
In fact, Turkey has long been involved in Azerbaijan’s defense and security — from the two Karabakh wars to military reforms and personnel training. Joint military drills are held regularly. After the Second Karabakh War, a Turkish-staffed monitoring center operated in Aghdam from November 2020 (Russian peacekeepers have since left the region, but no official information suggests Turkish forces have followed suit). Turkish military advisers remain active in Baku. The 2021 Shusha Declaration explicitly provides for mutual military assistance upon request. Iran is acutely aware that any attack on Azerbaijan would trigger Turkish intervention.
Should Azerbaijan decide to host a Turkish NATO base on its territory, it would usher in a new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus. This would compel Russia and Iran to take additional security measures, plunging the region into uncertainty. Baku, while not necessarily hoping for a repeat of its Karabakh victory, risks forfeiting significant advantages — namely, threats to transit routes vital to its economy, and potentially even the loss of its hard-won control over Karabakh.
In chess, logic demands the elimination of reckless moves that may lead to failure. In political chess, the stakes are even higher: a miscalculated diplomatic move can result not only in defeat, but in far more serious consequences — human, material, and strategic. Sadly, history has shown that wars often spell the downfall of some states, while paving the way for the birth of others. President Aliyev, a diplomat by training with years of presidential experience and a cool, calculated approach, is unlikely to let the Azerbaijan–Russia crisis escalate unchecked. Most likely, this period of tension will soon give way to renewed cooperation — perhaps even in the form of a formal declaration of alliance.
Alexander Svarants – Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, expert on the Middle East
Russia, China, and Iran to hold nuclear talks – Tehran
RT | July 21, 2025
Russia, China, and Iran will hold talks on Tuesday to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program, Esmaeil Baghaei, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, has announced. He noted that a separate round of talks with European nations is scheduled for later this week.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Baghaei said that the trilateral talks would also focus on the threats by Britain, France, and Germany to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. In particular, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned of a potential sanctions snapback next month if no meaningful progress is made in limiting Iran’s nuclear activities.
Baghaei noted that Russia and China remain members of the 2015 nuclear deal and hold significant influence in the UN Security Council. He added that Iran had had “good consultations” with the two countries regarding the potential sanctions snapback. “Legally and logically, there is no reason for the return of sanctions lifted under the [nuclear deal],” he stressed.
The spokesman also confirmed that Iran would hold a separate meeting at the deputy foreign minister level with Britain, France, and Germany in Istanbul on Friday, adding that Tehran has “no plans to talk with the US” at this time.
One of the key stumbling blocks has been Iran’s decision to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was monitoring Tehran’s nuclear program. Tehran has accused the IAEA of releasing a biased report, which was allegedly used as a pretense by Israel to launch a 12-day war against Iran.
The Israeli attack came after Iran-US nuclear talks ended up at an impasse due to Washington’s demand that Tehran fully abandon uranium enrichment. While the US has argued that Iran could use the capacity to create a nuclear bomb, Iran has dismissed any plans of doing so, insisting that it needs enrichment to fuel its civilian energy industry.
Both Russia and China maintain that the Iranian nuclear crisis can only be resolved through political and diplomatic means.
Losing the War in Ukraine – Part 29 of the Anglo-American War on Russia
Tales of the American Empire | July 17, 2025
Last year, Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago explained to crazed warmonger Piers Morgan that Ukraine had lost its war with Russia and should seek a peace deal with major concessions. Otherwise, Russian forces will continue to advance, killing hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians and devastating Ukraine in the process. His rational thought was ignored by neocon warmongers who run NATO and control Ukraine’s government. Russian forces continue advancing and Russia recently warned that it may annex four more historically Russian provinces if forced to conquer them. Russia cannot be stopped without NATO intervention, but that would lead to World War III. Ukraine is still ruled by Volodymir Zelensky, whose term as President ended in 2024, yet he remains in power and refuses to discuss a peace deal as instructed by his NATO handlers.
_________________________________
Related Tale: “Trump’s Circus in Ukraine”; 
• Trump’s Circus in Ukraine – Part 27 of the…
Related Tale: “Urban Warfare Tales”; • Urban Warfare Tales – Part 28 of the Anglo…
“Russian military objectives with Stanislav Krapivnik”; The Duran; May 4, 2025; • Russian military objectives w/ Stanislav K…
“Russian Military Lava Flow Approaches the Dnieper”; The Duran; July 2, 2025; https://theduran.com/russia-military-…
“Military Summary”; YouTube; daily war updates; / @militarysummary
Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”; • The Anglo-American War on Russia
Trump’s ultimatum to Russia is bluster and bluff to hide proxy war defeat
Strategic Culture Foundation | July 18, 2025
What’s behind Trump’s angry ultimatum to Russia this week? The short answer: failure and frustration. Donald Trump promised American voters that he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours upon his election in November 2024. Six months into his presidency, Trump has failed to deliver on his boastful promises.
This week, Trump flipped his pacemaker image by pledging billions of dollars worth of new American weaponry to Ukraine. He also issued a warning to Russia to call a ceasefire within 50 days or else face severe secondary tariffs on its oil and gas exports. The tariffs, quoted at 100 percent, will be applied to nations purchasing Russian exports, primarily Brazil, China, and India. The latter move indicates that the U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is really part of a bigger geopolitical confrontation to maintain American global hegemony.
In any case, Moscow dismissed Trump’s ultimatum. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Moscow would not comply with pressure and that Russia would not back down from its strategic goals in Ukraine to counter NATO’s historic aggression.
It is clear that Trump and his administration have failed to understand Russia’s strategic position and the root causes of the conflict.
Trump’s supposed diplomacy is seen to operate on a superficial basis more akin to showbiz, with no substance. He wants a peace deal with Russia to show off his vaunted skills as a business negotiator and to grab the limelight, headlines, and adulation.
Resolving a conflict like Ukraine requires deep historical understanding and genuine commitment to due diligence. Moscow has repeatedly stated the need to address the root causes of the conflict: the expansion of NATO on its borders, the CIA-sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014, and the nature of the NATO-weaponized Neo-Nazi regime over the past decade.
Trump and his administration have failed to appreciate Russia’s viewpoint. Thus, expecting a peace deal based on nothing but rhetoric and vacuous claims about “ending the killing” is futile. It won’t happen.
This failure, based on unrealistic expectations, has led Trump to adopt an increasingly bitter attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. Ironically, Trump has accused Putin of duplicity and procrastination when, in reality, it is Trump who has shown no serious commitment to resolving the conflict.
Now, with chagrin and bruised ego, Trump has reacted with frustration over what are his own failings by issuing ultimatums to Russia. Trump’s 50-day deadline for a Russian response to his demands has a similarity to the 60-day deadline he threatened Iran with, after which he carried out a massive bombing attack on that country. Trump’s aggression towards Iran has turned out to be a fiasco and failure. Threatening Russia is even more useless.
This proclivity for threatening other nations has the hallmark of a Mafiosa megalomaniac. It is also causing Trump to lose support among his voter base, who believed he was going to end “endless wars.” It’s shambolic. Biden’s war is becoming Trump’s war because, at the end of the day, it is the U.S. imperial deep state that rules.
Trump’s mercurial switch from professing peace in Ukraine to ramping up the promise of weapons shows that his previous aspirations were always hollow and contingent on other interests.
It seems that the 47th American president did not want peace after all. What was driving his apparent desire to end the conflict in Ukraine – what he deprecated as “Biden’s war” – was simply to cut American financial costs.
What has appealed to Trump is that the proposed new supplies of American weapons to Ukraine will be paid for by Europe. Money and profit are all that matter to him. It is significant that when Trump announced the new arms racket scheme, he was sitting beside NATO chief Mark Rutte in the Oval Office. Rutte has a knack for wheedling, previously referring to Trump as “daddy” and this week absurdly praising the U.S. as the world’s policeman for securing peace. It seems that the NATO and transatlantic ruling establishment have found a way to manipulate Trump. Tell him that the Europeans will henceforth directly subsidize the U.S. military-industrial complex.
The trouble for Trump and the NATO establishment is that it is all an unworkable bluff. For a start, the U.S. arsenal of Patriot missiles and other munitions has been depleted and destroyed by Russia over the past three years in Ukraine. There are no “wonder weapons” that can alter the battlefield dominance of Russia.
Secondly, the European economies are broke and can hardly sustain the proposed purchase of U.S. weapons for Ukraine, even if such supplies were feasible, which they are not. At least four European states, including France, the Czech Republic, Italy, and Hungary, have said they will not engage in any scheme of buying American weapons for Ukraine.
Thirdly, Trump’s threat of secondary sanctions against Brazil, China, India, and others for doing business with Russia is a blatant assault on the BRICS and Global South that will only garner international contempt. Trump’s bullying is neither viable nor credible. His earlier trade war against China has already failed and shown that the United States is an impotent giant whose power is a thing of the past. Trump had to climb down from his hobby horse towards China.
So, threatening to hit China and others with 100 percent tariffs for doing business with Russia is like a former prizefighter shaking a feeble fist while sitting in a wheelchair. He is liable to incur more self-harm.
Lastly, Russia is decisively winning the NATO-led proxy war in Ukraine. The Kiev regime’s air defenses are non-existent at this stage. Therefore, Russia can and will press its strategic terms to end the conflict because it is the military victor.
Trump’s ultimatum to Russia is nothing but bluster and bluff. He once mocked Ukraine’s puppet president Zelensky, that he had no cards to play. Trump, for all his bravado, has only a couple of deuces himself.
In 50 days, Trump will have a serious amount of egg on his face when Russia’s defeat of the NATO proxy war becomes more evident.
Want To Wipe Out Patriot Systems? Ask The Russians How
Sputnik – 18.07.2025
US-made Patriot air defenses aren’t a magic fix for Ukraine — and Russia’s arsenal has already exposed their weaknesses.
“Patriot is ineffective against hypersonic missiles,” retired Russian Colonel Viktor Litovkin tells Sputnik.
- The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, a Russian hypersonic missile that reaches speeds up to Mach 10 and ranges of 3,000 km, easily destroys Patriots.
- Iskander-M’s single-stage solid-fuel guided missile 9M723 boasts a quasi-ballistic trajectory. With a striking range up to 500km it is another effective tools against Patriot systems.
- Both the Iskander-M and Kinzhal systems demonstrate high precision.
- Not by hypersonic alone: Geran dones + Kalibr missiles is a killer combo. A swarm of Geran drones forces Patriots to waste missiles. Then, while it’s reloading, a cruise missile, like a Kalibr, is fired.
Patriot’s Achilles’ heels
- “Dead Zones”: The Patriot has dead zones, like up to 100m altitude where it can’t detect targets, per Litovkin.
- So drones flying low can evade it. This is exactly how Houthi drones overcome air defenses in the Middle East, and Patriots couldn’t stop them.
- Easy to detect: The Patriot system has a radar station that emits radio waves. By detecting these waves, you can determine where they come from and pinpoint the coordinates of the source. So, in this case, reconnaissance is technically quite simple.
Ukraine’s Layered Defense Dream
The Kiev regime aims to build a layered system, says Yuriy Knutov, a military expert and air defense historian, which would include:
- long-range Patriots
- mid-range SAMP/T
- short-range NASAMS or IRIS-T
- plus Gepard guns
Who gets protection:
- Knutov believes that new Patriot systems will protect Western military plants in Ukraine.
- They’ll also be deployed around Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa, and Lichevsk — key hubs for weapons.
- Ukrainian troops at the front lines? Just cannon fodder.
The Patriot is the core — so it must be precisely targeted, he says.
Germany, UK to deliver long-range weapons to Ukraine under new pact
Al Mayadeen | July 17, 2025
Ukraine is set to receive new long-range weapons systems developed through joint efforts by British and German defense industries, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced Thursday. The deliveries are expected to begin within the next few weeks and continue over the coming months.
The statement followed the signing of a new bilateral agreement between Germany and the United Kingdom. Chancellor Merz and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer formalized what they described as a “historic” treaty focused on friendship and enhanced defense cooperation during a joint appearance in Berlin.
Speaking at a press conference alongside Starmer, Merz stressed the expanded scope of military assistance to Ukraine. “We had a detailed discussion about military support for Ukraine, and this is not only about air defense, but also about Ukraine’s ability to better defend itself with long-range systems. We call this long range fire,” he said during the event, which was broadcast by Germany’s Phoenix TV.
He added that “Ukraine will soon receive significant additional support in this area, including through the industrial cooperation that we have established with Ukraine.”
Arming Ukraine
The delivery of these advanced systems comes in light of a deepening of European defense collaboration in support of Ukraine, amid ongoing hostilities with Russia. The weapons transfer is part of a broader framework outlined in the Kensington Treaty, signed on July 17, 2025, in London, the first post-WWII bilateral defense treaty between the UK and Germany. The pact not only strengthens joint military production but also facilitates financing and technological cooperation with Ukraine’s domestic arms industry.
Germany has already committed approximately €5 billion to support Ukraine’s production of long-range strike capabilities and has lifted previous range restrictions on German-supplied weapons, enabling Kiev to strike targets within Russian territory. British-German collaboration is also laying the foundation for future deep-precision systems with ranges exceeding 2,000 km, designed to ensure sustained deterrence capabilities in Eastern Europe.
These moves reflect a decisive shift in European defense policy amid increasing urgency to counter growing Russian military pressure.
Provocative Escalation
Moscow has responded with sharp warnings. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned Germany’s posture, suggesting it reveals the true intentions behind Western support for Kiev.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov criticized the deepening UK-Germany military alignment as a destabilizing factor for European security. Former President Dmitry Medvedev went further, cautioning that continued Western arms deliveries to Ukraine may provoke preemptive Russian strikes.
In a statement reported by TASS, he described the expanding range and sophistication of Western weapons as justification for escalating Russia’s own military posture.
Russian officials argue that this latest escalation marks a direct provocation, framing the treaty and weapons transfer as an existential threat that could draw Europe into broader conflict.
500+ Chemical Attacks: Russia Details Ukraine’s Use of Toxic and Poisonous Agents
Sputnik – 17.07.2025
Major General Alexey Rtishchev, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops, stated that more than 500 instances of Ukraine using chemical and toxic substances have been documented during the special military operation.
“Throughout the special military operation, over 500 cases have been recorded where the Ukrainian side employed riot control agents (chloroacetophenone, CS gas), as well as toxic substances with psychotropic (BZ) and general poisonous effects (cyanogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide),” Rtishchev said during a briefing on Ukraine’s and Western countries’ violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
“Since the beginning of 2025, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been systematically using copter-type drones to drop containers filled with CS gas and improvised munitions containing chloropicrin on Russian military positions,” he added.
Kiev is planning a provocation involving the release of ammonia at a facility near Novotroitsk in the DPR, says Major General Alexey Rtishchev, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops. The goal is to accuse Russia of intentionally causing a man-made disaster.
“With the support of Western handlers, the Kiev regime has not abandoned its long-developed barbaric tactic of warfare—the ‘chemical belt’ method, which involves placing and detonating containers with toxic chemicals in areas where Russian troops operate. Available evidence indicates preparations for another such provocation,” Rtishchev said during a briefing on Ukraine’s and Western countries’ violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
“On July 3, 2025, operational measures confirmed that Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel had installed antenna-mast equipment at a major ammonia distribution facility near the settlement of Novotroitsk. The plant is a first-class hazard facility, and if struck, it could release over 550 tons of liquid ammonia into the environment. The plan is to subsequently accuse our country of deliberately causing a man-made disaster and inflicting reputational damage,” Rtishchev added.
He presented the original letter from the deputy director of the Kiev-controlled “Ukrkhimtrans-ammiak” enterprise to the head of the regional military administration, confirming the placement of military equipment at the site.
“I remind you that using a high-risk facility for military purposes violates international humanitarian law,” the head of the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Troops emphasized.
According to the documents disclosed by Rtishchev, the incident concerns the village of Novotroitsk in the Kramatorsk district of the DPR.
Western countries will continue to use the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as an instrument of political pressure on Russia, without taking into account objective facts, head of the Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops of the Russian armed forces Major General Aleksei Rtishchev said on Thursday.
Last week, Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans informed the country’s parliament that Russia, according to Dutch intelligence services, allegedly intensified the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, which is a violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC).
“It is obvious that the West will continue to use the OPCW as an instrument of political pressure on Russia, without taking into account objective facts. The Russian side will continue to work to counter this policy and to inform the world community about the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Kiev regime and its curators,” Rtishchev told a briefing.
The activities of the OPCW have become highly politicized due to pressure from Western states, which, at their whim, impose unilateral sanctions, make unfounded accusations against undesirable countries, and abuse the provisions of the Convention, the military said.
Additionally, the military said that Russia had recently asked the OPCW head to send a team of experts from the organization’s technical secretariat to Russia to assist in the investigation of Kiev’s crimes, as well as a draft agreement between Russia and the OPCW on organizing and conducting visits for the purpose of such assistance.
“This step is due to the fact that all previously presented documentary evidence and expert opinions have not received the proper response from the organization. About 40 verbal notes from the Permanent Mission of Russia to the OPCW still remain without a meaningful response. At the same time, unsubstantiated requests from the Ukrainian side receive immediate support from the bureaucratic structures of the OPCW with the involvement of accredited laboratories,” Rtishchev said.
Taking advantage of its preferences, Ukraine has repeatedly involved the OPCW technical secretariat in legitimizing incidents falsified by Ukrainian and Western intelligence services regarding the alleged use of chemical means of riot control by Russian military personnel on the line of combat contact, he added.
Featured Video
How The Nordic Countries Turned From Peace To War
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How Europe’s New Political Class Began Rejecting Reality
By Glenn Diesen | October 26, 2024
Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turn what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able to even suggest such a solution publicly. Why? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust… seversonebcfb985d9 on Scott Ritter Hiding the Domina… Richard Ong on Europe Economic Panic Kate on Bird Flu Outbreak 40 Miles Fro… loongtip on US announces Gaza ‘Board of Pe… Richard Jones on Peaceful Finland? Think Twice:… Richard Jones on Bird Flu Outbreak 40 Miles Fro… loongtip on Bird Flu Outbreak 40 Miles Fro… loongtip on Scott Ritter says he was … loongtip on Eilat port faces worst crisis… loongtip on British minister dreams of kid… loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje…
Aletho News- UNRWA under attack: Ben-Gvir directs demolition in al-Quds
- Israeli agricultural export collapse amid Gaza genocide boycott
- Europe is ‘run by German war troika’ – Orban
- ‘Macron Is Trapped’: Double Standards in French President’s Davos Speech
- Ukraine aid critic quits as president of EU country
- What happens when START-3 expires, and US doesn’t want to prolong it?
- How did the EU get hooked on American gas?
- Why EU ‘Has No Alternative’ But to Return to Russian Gas Imports Sooner Than Later
- NATO without America: Europe’s trial run ends in a reality check
- US’ European Vassals Taught Bitter Lesson With Greenland Crisis
- If Americans Knew
- Over 1,200 Israeli truce violations in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 102
- Trump has created a monster: Gaza Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 101
- As world leaders squabble over controlling Gaza, another baby freezes to death – Not a ceasefire Day 100
- Trump “Board of Peace” for Gaza is stacked with Israel supporters – Not a ceasefire Day 99
- Iran Does Not Hate Americans… But It Has Legitimate Reasons to Do So
- How an Israeli Firm Spreads Lies and Chaos Around the World
- ADL ‘Helping’ Ted Cruz and Ben Shapiro ‘Take Down’ Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, CEO Suggests
- Israel is Destroying Hope for the Future: Reproductive Violence in Gaza
- J Street is the new AIPAC in the Democratic Party
- The fate of Gaza’s disappeared remains unknown
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
Aletho News 