Iran Hits Back; Big Missile Strike, Israel/US Face Long Attrition War; Zelensky Rejects Peace Talks
Alexander Mercouris | June 14, 2025
0:00 – Introduction and overview of the Israel-Iran conflict
0:29 – Initial assessment of Israeli strikes on Iran
1:31 – Discussion on Iranian military leadership and nuclear facilities
3:01 – Iranian missile response to Israeli strikes
5:21 – Analysis of Iranian air defense system effectiveness
7:59 – Implications of the ongoing conflict for Israel and Iran
12:00 – Israel’s inability to sustain a prolonged conflict with Iran
14:34 – Concerns about Israel’s air defense capabilities
18:20 – Potential Iranian strategies in response to Israeli actions
20:14 – Gulf States’ diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict
23:29 – Russian response to Israeli strikes and diplomatic mediation
25:02 – Summary of international reactions to the conflict
30:07 – Discussion of the U.S. role and internal dysfunction regarding the conflict
49:30 – Predictions about the future of the Israel-Iran conflict
52:44 – Conclusion and call for diplomatic resolution
Putin Holds Phone Conversation With Trump
Sputnik – 14.06.2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin has conversed with US President Donald Trump by phone today.
The conversation lasted for about an hour, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov told journalists. “50 minutes, to be precise,” he clarified.
Ushakov also revealed that:
- The conversation was useful, with the two leaders discussing the escalating situation in the Middle East.
- Putin informed Trump about his recent phone contacts with the president of Iran and the prime minister of Israel.
- Putin reminded Trump of Russia’s proposal to seek mutually acceptable agreements on the Iranian nuclear issue.
- Trump assessed the situation in the Middle East as highly alarming.
- The presidents did not rule out a return to the negotiating track on the Iranian nuclear program.
- Putin also informed Trump about the implementation of the Istanbul agreements reached in Turkiye on June 2
- Russia is ready to continue negotiations with the Ukrainian side, Putin said.
- Putin informed Trump that Russia is ready to resume negotiations with Ukraine, as agreed, after June 22.
Putin congratulated Trump on his birthday and Flag Day, Ushakov added.
During the conversation, the leaders noted the wartime brotherhood of the two countries during World War II and expressed satisfaction with their current relationship, which allows for addressing pressing issues.
Israeli strikes on Iran ‘completely unprovoked’ – Moscow
RT | June 14, 2025
Russia’s envoy to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, has condemned Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Speaking at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Friday, the diplomat said West Jerusalem was acting with impunity, backed by the West.
Israel has launched strikes on uranium enrichment sites in Iran and killed several senior commanders and scientists in targeted assassination operations, claiming the moves were preemptive steps to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran, which denies pursuing a military nuclear program, responded with multiple volleys of ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv.
Nebenzia said the Israeli military action appeared intended to sabotage indirect US-Iran nuclear talks scheduled to resume Sunday. Tehran has declared that the strikes have effectively ended any diplomatic pathway.
“This is a completely unprovoked attack – whatever Israel may claim to the contrary – and it constitutes a gross violation of the UN Charter and international law,” Nebenzia said. “Responsibility for all the consequences of these actions rests entirely with the Israeli leadership and those who condone them.”
He noted that Iran has the right to defend itself and pointed to Tehran’s previous commitment to the 2015 UN-backed nuclear deal, which the US abandoned during President Donald Trump’s first term. Iran denied accusations of secretly violating the agreement at the time but has since ramped up uranium enrichment.
The US and its allies “have been doing everything possible to fuel the escalation, and, essentially, they incited it,” Nebenzia argued, adding that Western support had “spurred Israel to take radical steps.” He also raised alarms over the risk of radiation leaks from the targeted Iranian facilities and warned that “no military solution can be either legitimate or viable.”
Iran’s UN envoy, Amir-Saeid Iravani, described Israel’s attacks as “a chilling display of calculated aggression” that “amounted to a declaration of war.” He called for international action to disarm Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, which the Israeli government neither confirms nor denies.
Israeli envoy Danny Danon defended the strikes, saying Israel was a “democracy under siege” and had acted to “prevent its destruction” by Iran. He urged the council to reflect on the potential consequences had the Iranian missiles been equipped with nuclear warheads.
Full statement:
Madam President,
We would like to thank Rosemary DiCarlo, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, and Rafael Grossi, IAEA Director General. We are grateful for their briefings. First of all, we would like to express our condolences to the people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) regarding the numerous victims, including among civilians, as a result of Israel’s strikes.
Before our very eyes, Israel’s actions are triggering an extremely dangerous escalation in the Middle East region, which is something that requires the Council’s urgent attention. We are grateful to Guyana’s presidency for convening this meeting so expeditiously. It is symptomatic that initially the Council was supposed to consider today, at this very time, the humanitarian consequences of inhumane actions by Israel against the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. Instead, we are compelled to discuss yet another dangerous and irresponsible West Jerusalem’s misadventure liable to end up in a large-scale nuclear catastrophe in the region.
In the early hours of June 13, Israel delivered a number of massive strikes against the territory of IRI. The attacks targeted peaceful sleeping cities, civilian infrastructure, and peaceful nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. We’ve heard from the briefers today that there have been victims among civilians. This is a completely unprovoked attack (whatever Israel may claim to prove otherwise), and it constitutes a gross violation of the UN Charter and international law. The Israeli leadership seems to be convinced that it has a “free hand” in the region and apparently believes that Israel can flout all legal foundations and replace all international structures, including the UN Security Council and the IAEA.
The Russian Federation strongly condemns this action by West Jerusalem, whose military adventures are pushing the region to the brink of a major war. Responsibility for all the consequences of these actions lies entirely with the Israeli leadership and those who condone them. Of particular concern here are the possible radiological consequences of hitting nuclear installations. For a number of years, Russia has warned against trying to solve issues related to Iran’s nuclear program militarily, as it is unacceptable and fraught with dire consequences not only for the Middle East region but for the entire world. However, these calls of ours were not heeded, and the situation is unfolding according to the most negative and unpredictable scenario.
Madam President,
Israel’s actions are aimed at undermining the negotiating efforts, which are ongoing now in various formats and aimed at finding solutions to reduce tensions surrounding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. While the whole world is anticipating with hope the outcomes of the next round of indirect contacts between Iran and the US (which were previously scheduled for June 15), Israel decided to preempt them in a way it deems the best and began bombing Iran’s nuclear energy infrastructure, demonstrating contempt for laws, norms, agreements, rules – everything that forms the basis of civilized interaction between states.
However, responsibility for what happened lies not only with the Israel but also with its closest allies. This is a direct consequence of the connivance on the part of Western countries, which for months knowingly and methodically pumped up anti-Iranian hysteria both in the UN Security Council and in the IAEA Board of Governors. These states did not even try to come up with a constructive solution to the crisis surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Security Council Resolution 2231 which endorsed it. They had a completely different objective, namely to exert pressure on Iran by any means possible, to paint it as the source of all evil in the region and baselessly present Tehran’s legitimate response measures – such as the use of the protective mechanisms under the JCPOA – as a violation of the non-proliferation obligations. At the same time, the Iranians were patient for years and did not refuse to interact with the IAEA nor engage in dialogue to find negotiated solutions.
We would like to remind you – and this fact is now of fundamental importance – that all the problems having to do with the JCPOA began after the US unilateral withdrawal from the “nuclear deal” in 2018, and due to the principled unwillingness of the UK, France, and Germany to comply with the obligations they have under the JCPOA, including the obligations to create conditions for Tehran to reap material yield from lifting unilateral sanctions by the European Union that were in force until 2015. Later, these countries reimposed unilateral sanctions, which violates Article 25 of the UN Charter. The EU also joined in exerting pressure, thus disregarding its obligations as an impartial coordinator of the JCPOA Joint Commission.
The latest glaring example here is the biased resolution adopted yesterday by the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna. The document is completely divorced from reality and refers to some fictitious “threat to international peace and security” allegedly posed by Iran’s nuclear program. This happened despite the fact that Iran strictly complies with its obligations under the NPT and the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement; moreover, it remains the most strictly inspected IAEA state with the Agency’s reports clearly indicating the absence of proliferation risks.
In other words, the Western parties to the JCPOA have been doing everything possible to fuel the escalation, and, essentially, they incited it. They artificially created tension on international platforms, which only spurred Israel to take radical steps and fostered the feeling of impunity with West Jerusalem.
In the context of Israel’s current strikes there is something that merits our particular attention. I refer to reported possible coordination of actions between Israel and British special services – immediately after the Israeli strikes on Iran the British sheltered the Israeli aircraft involved in the operation at their base in Cyprus. We have also noted the remarks by the Israeli side who claimed that they warned Germany, which is a JCPOA participant, and Italy of its attacks. It also has come to the fore that our American colleagues were also notified of the strikes. The Israeli strikes were also supported by the French, who were clearly aware of them beforehand. In this regard, we would not be surprised if the members of this “group of like-minded countries” start condemning Iran for its retaliatory actions, which were undertaken fully in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter.
In the current situation, we are closely following the actions of the IAEA Secretariat – the lives and health of its personnel have been put at risk as a result of Israel’s military adventure. We expect the IAEA Director General to provide objective assessments and analysis of the developing situation, including in terms of radiological consequences.
Madam President,
Unprovoked attacks against the territory of sovereign Iran and targeted strikes on peaceful nuclear facilities cannot be justified in any way. The international community cannot and must not stand idly by when provocations occur. Condoning such actions is a path to a major war in the region and a serious threat to global security.
We are convinced that the UN Security Council must give an unambiguous legal and political assessment of what was done by Israel, and call for an immediate halt to any use of force and for a rejection of unilateral military steps. We need to support any and all diplomatic efforts aimed at de-escalation and a return to negotiations.
Let me underscore once again that settling the issues related to Iran’s nuclear program is only possible through peaceful, political, and diplomatic means. No military solution can be either legitimate or viable here. By the way, it is precisely what the United States itself has repeatedly stated, substantiating the readiness to continue negotiations.
Russia remains committed to strengthening international law, abiding by the UN Charter, and finding solutions that will prevent the region from sliding further into another destructive war. We are ready to cooperate with all those who will advocate diplomacy and seek peaceful ways to resolve differences.
Thank you.
Dmitriy Polyanskiy: US-Russia Talks Can Transform Relations
Dmitriy Polyanskiy and Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | June 12, 2025
Dmitry Polyanskiy is the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. Polyanskiy outlines that talks with the US, which have been moving slowly after many difficult years, can potentially transform relations.
Putin holds phone conversations with Israeli PM and Iranian president
RT | June 13, 2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin has held phone conversations with his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the escalation in the Middle East following the Israeli strike against Iran.
Israel launched a major attack on Iran overnight targeting nuclear facilities and various military installations. The strikes continued into the day, inflicting considerable material damage and casualties on Iran’s top military leadership and, reportedly, high-profile nuclear scientists.
“The Russian president expressed his condolences to the leadership and people of the Islamic Republic of Iran in connection with the numerous human casualties, including civilians, resulting from the Israeli strikes,” the Kremlin press service said in a statement on Friday.
Russia “condemns Israel’s actions, which violate the UN Charter and international law,” Putin stressed, according to the statement. At the same time, the Russian leader expressed a readiness to mediate and to “continue to contribute to the de-escalation of the conflict between Iran and Israel.”
Putin also underscored the importance of “returning to the negotiation process and resolving all issues related to the Iranian nuclear program exclusively through political and diplomatic means.” The ongoing escalation “is fraught with the most disastrous consequences for the entire region,” he warned.
The Israeli attack comes after five rounds of US-Iranian talks about Tehran’s nuclear program that effectively stalled and failed to produce any tangible result. The sixth round of negotiations was expected to take place in Oman on Sunday.
Iran has vowed to retaliate for the attack, insisting that it “cannot have been carried out without the coordination and authorization of the United States.” US President Donald Trump claimed he knew about the impending strikes beforehand, describing them as “very successful.” Trump also suggested Tehran brought the attack upon itself through its alleged reluctance to strike a nuclear deal.
“We gave them a chance and they didn’t take it. They got hit hard, very hard. They got hit about as hard as you’re going to get hit. And there’s more to come. A lot more,” he said, commenting on the attack.
Israel publicly confirms its military involvement in Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 13, 2025
While global attention remains focused on the rising tensions between Israel and Iran, a significant development has been largely ignored by Western media in recent days: the revelation of Israel’s involvement in the arming campaign for Ukraine.
Despite publicly maintaining an appearance of military neutrality in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, the State of Israel has quietly deepened its collaboration with Western military interests in Ukraine. Recent statements from Israeli diplomatic representatives make it clear that Tel Aviv not only politically supports Kiev but also directly participates in the military effort against Russia.
In an interview with Ukrainian media, the Israeli ambassador in Kiev confirmed that air defense systems originally supplied by the United States to Israel were transferred to Ukraine. According to him, the delivery was deliberately kept secret and away from international headlines, demonstrating Israel’s attempt to participate in the conflict without attracting negative consequences.
The omission of logistical details about the delivery reveals a clear attempt to preserve an appearance of neutrality before the public. It remains unclear whether the equipment was sent directly by Israel or through third parties, suggesting an internationally coordinated operation to avoid diplomatic friction with Moscow.
Until recently, Tel Aviv claimed a stance of non-involvement in the Ukraine conflict, citing concerns about potential Russian retaliation—particularly in Syria, where Russian forces maintain a strategic presence. However, this justification is becoming increasingly obsolete in light of Israel’s actual behavior.
Historically, Russia has acted as a stabilizer in Syria, preventing clashes between Israel and anti-Zionist groups from escalating into a broader regional war. However, the regime change in Damascus — with the new government composed of former Al-Qaeda members — shifted the balance of power in the region, favoring Israeli interests. In a sense, this change emboldened Israel to take more provocative military actions, not only regionally, but also in conflicts outside its immediate sphere of interest.
The recent neutralization of Shiite militias in Syria, which were aligned with Tehran, and the rapprochement between the new Syrian government and Israel have created a more favorable environment for Tel Aviv’s foreign military maneuvers. Feeling less vulnerable to indirect retaliation, Israel now appears more willing to expand its involvement in conflicts beyond the Middle East, such as the one in Ukraine.
It’s important to recall that the first signs of Israeli military involvement in Ukraine emerged after U.S. missiles were withdrawn from Israeli territory and transferred to bases in Eastern Europe — specifically Poland, from where they were expected to be sent to Ukraine. At the time, some newspapers reported the story, but the absence of official confirmation left the issue unresolved and debatable. Now, with official admission, it is evident that Israel’s collaboration in the Western military campaign in Ukraine is a consolidated reality.
In the face of this hostile posture from Tel Aviv, Russia is likely to strengthen its regional alliances as a way to counterbalance Israeli actions. The partnership between Moscow and Tehran — recently reinforced through security and defense cooperation agreements — represents a strategic response to Western provocations against both countries and may also serve as a way to rein in Israel’s increasing “boldness,” both in the Middle East and abroad.
While Israel ignores the risks of regional destabilization by engaging in NATO-sponsored conflicts, Moscow has chosen to solidify ties with regional powers that share a multipolar vision of world order. Russian support for Iranian military development could serve as a clear warning that Israel’s involvement in proxy wars might carry a high price.
Israel’s decision to more openly support the Kiev regime marks a significant shift in its foreign policy, abandoning previous caution in favor of a stance more aligned with the interests of the Collective West. However, this move may bring unforeseen consequences — not only at the regional level but also in the structure of its bilateral relationship with Moscow.
Rather than seeking to preserve diplomatic channels with a major power like Russia, Israel appears willing to sacrifice this strategic relationship to appease its Western allies. In the long run, this gamble could prove to be a major geopolitical miscalculation — especially if Russia responds by deepening its military support for Tel Aviv’s most feared regional adversary: the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is also the political and military brain behind Hezbollah, the Houthis, and key Palestinian Resistance movements.
Iran condemns ‘biased’ IAEA, announces enrichment countermeasures
Al Mayadeen | June 12, 2025
Iran has sharply rejected a resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors, accusing it of being “politically driven” and “biased”. In a joint statement released Thursday by the Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Iranian officials condemned the resolution and unveiled a series of countermeasures aimed at accelerating the country’s nuclear program.
This comes shortly after the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution against Iran on Thursday, claiming Iran was in breach of non-proliferation obligations. The vote passed with 19 countries voting in favor, 3 opposing, and 11 abstaining, according to diplomats cited by Reuters. Two countries were absent and thus did not vote.
The resolution, marking the first formal accusation in nearly two decades that Iran has violated its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, was passed during a closed-door session of the 35-member board. The move, described as “politically motivated” by Iranian officials, was initiated by the United States along with the E3, Britain, France, and Germany.
IAEA resolution lacks ‘neutrality’
The joint statement asserted that Iran remains committed to its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement, adding that no IAEA report to date has ever confirmed any deviation or non-compliance. Iranian authorities described the IAEA’s latest move as lacking “neutrality” and being manipulated by Western powers, particularly the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, to pursue geopolitical goals.
In a direct response, Iran announced the activation of a new uranium enrichment facility at a secure site and plans to upgrade the Fordow nuclear plant by replacing older centrifuges with sixth-generation advanced models.
Iran blasts Western double standards on nuclear disarmament
Iranian officials criticized the IAEA and its Western backers for what they described as selective enforcement of nuclear obligations. The joint statement accused the US and its European allies of reviving “25-year-old allegations” that had already been settled under the 2015 nuclear deal, while turning a blind eye to “Israel’s” undeclared nuclear arsenal and refusal to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“The United States, Britain, and France have failed to comply with Article VI of the NPT regarding nuclear disarmament,” the statement read, adding that Germany remains in possession of “inhumane weapons of mass destruction.”
Iran further warned that continued political maneuvering within the IAEA would render any future engagement futile. “This political approach toward Iran, which has always honored its obligations and cooperated extensively with the Agency, forces us to conclude that the path of engagement and cooperation is futile,” the statement asserted.
Iran thanks allies opposing the resolution
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, strongly condemned the resolution passed Thursday by the IAEA Board of Governors, calling it a politically motivated effort by Western powers to undermine the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
Baghaei specifically denounced the role of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, accusing them of exploiting the IAEA to “cast doubt on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”
He firmly rejected the allegations outlined in the resolution, which he said were based on “baseless and unfounded claims” and stemmed from a political report by the IAEA Director General. The resolution, jointly submitted by the four Western states, was described as “an unjustified, groundless, and cruel move,” aimed at exerting “maximum pressure on Iran to deviate from the legitimate rights and interests of the Iranian people in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”
Baghaei warned that those behind the resolution will be held accountable for its repercussions. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will take proportionate measures in response to this move to secure and protect the interests and inalienable rights of the Iranian nation in benefiting from peaceful nuclear energy,” he said.
He also expressed deep concern over the conduct of the IAEA Director General, criticizing his public statements and what he described as provocative interviews on Iran’s nuclear activities. Baghaei accused the agency chief of undermining the organization’s neutrality, stating that he “must adhere to his missions and duties in accordance with the Agency’s statute.”
Furthermore, the Iranian diplomat extended gratitude to China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Belarus for issuing a joint statement rejecting the resolution. He praised their “responsible and legal positions” and reaffirmed the Iranian nation’s determination to defend its rights and interests as outlined in the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran’s IAEA representative Najafi slams politicized resolution
Iran’s representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Reza Najafi, strongly criticized the agency’s recent resolution against Iran, denouncing it as politically motivated and based on unreliable sources. Speaking on Thursday, Najafi warned that such moves undermine the IAEA’s credibility and threaten the rights of member states under its founding charter.
Najafi emphasized that any draft resolution brought forward by the Board of Governors should rely strictly on unbiased, verifiable evidence, not intelligence supplied by specific states with vested interests. “Basing reports on questionable or politicized information undermines the agency’s objectivity,” he stated, in clear reference to data provided by Western governments and the Israeli occupation.
US current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent
He warned that the United States’ current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent, one that could erode trust and cooperation between the agency and its member states. Najafi asserted that such behavior contradicts the IAEA’s stated commitment to impartiality and transparency.
Reaffirming Iran’s position, Najafi made it clear that the Islamic Republic would not tolerate any attempt to erode its sovereignty through international pressure.
“Iran categorically rejects any pressure or mediation that seeks to undermine its sovereignty. We will defend our national interests, independence, and dignity,” he declared.
Politicized resolution in disguise
Najafi also expressed Iran’s outright rejection of what he described as a politicized resolution disguised as a technical safeguard concern, echoing Tehran’s longstanding understanding that the IAEA is being used as a tool for Western geopolitical agendas.
In a pointed warning to the E3, Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the United States, Najafi made it clear that Iran’s response would be firm. “These measures will not pass without consequences. They must take full responsibility for the repercussions and Iran’s strong reaction,” he said.
Kamalvandi: Political pressure will escalate Iran’s nuclear program
Behrouz Kamalvandi, Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization, reinforced the government’s defiant tone, declaring that political pressure would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“It is a strategic mistake to think that political pressure will push Iran to abandon its legitimate positions,” Kamalvandi said, warning that the current approach would “backfire”.
He confirmed that Iran would soon launch a third uranium enrichment facility, in addition to boosting enrichment capacity at existing sites. “We will develop sixth-generation centrifuges and increase uranium enrichment significantly,” he stated.
More Western pressure, more Iranian countermeasures
Iran’s latest response underscores its growing rejection of Western pressure and marks a new phase in the country’s nuclear trajectory, one increasingly independent of multilateral negotiations and oversight mechanisms perceived by Tehran as compromised.
This development comes just days ahead of the sixth round of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, set to take place this Sunday in Muscat, Oman. The announcement was confirmed by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who wrote in a post on X: “I am pleased to confirm the 6th round of Iran-US talks will be held in Muscat this Sunday, the 15th.”
Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to carve a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump unilaterally withdrew from during his first term in 2018.
Secret British plans to ‘defeat entire Russian Black Fleet’ revealed in leaks
By Kit Klarenberg · The Grayzone · June 11, 2025
Leaked files reviewed by The Grayzone expose the covert war waged by British intelligence against Russia in the Black Sea, outlining Ukrainian “honey trap” plots along with blueprints for blowing up the Kerch Bridge.
Sensitive documents reviewed by The Grayzone indicate that the United Kingdom is the central architect behind Ukrainian military operations targeting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Among other explosive findings, the files reveal high-ranking British military and intelligence figures drew up detailed plans to “maximize attrition of [Moscow’s] Black Sea Fleet,” plotted to blow up the Kerch Bridge connecting Crimea to mainland Russia with fertilizer bombs, and even devised blueprints for a series of submersibles which would allow Ukrainian divers to plant mines on Russian ships and infrastructure.
Further machinations include an explicit “honey trap” plan which called for establishing a brothel secretly run by British intelligence in Crimea. There, Russian-speaking female Ukrainian agents would ply “drunken sailors” from the Russian navy for information.
The schemes were assembled by Project Alchemy, a secret British military planning cell whose existence was first exposed by The Grayzone.
Alchemy’s intelligence-aligned director, Dominic Morris, once embedded with British special forces in Afghanistan while serving as a “political officer” for the UK embassy. The first of the relevant files was sent on April 14, 2022 — the same day Ukraine achieved its most spectacular naval success of the war when it sank Russia’s flagship in the region, the Moskva.
That feat was cheered by Western media, with the New York Times heralding the ship’s destruction as a “signal triumph – a display of Ukrainian skill and Russian ineptitude.” As the previously-unpublished files show, admirers of the operation also included Project Alchemy’s Dominic Morris, who saw an opportunity to “defeat the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet” and immediately began crafting plans to sink the rest of Moscow’s warships.
The destruction of the Moskva purportedly both surprised and panicked the Biden administration, as they apparently didn’t believe Ukraine possessed missiles capable of striking such a target and, according to one mainstream report, “hadn’t intended to enable the Ukrainians to attack such a potent symbol of Russian power.” But the attack apparently convinced the White House and Pentagon to double down on their military support for Kiev – and as the documents show, it had the same effect across the pond.
In response to an April 23, 2022 brief authored by a fellow cell member on the importance of Western powers supporting Ukrainian “land” operations, Morris declared “the sinking of Moskva” meant Kiev should focus predominantly on “maritime” operations instead. After complaining that “apart from a little bit of moving tanks and planes around a peaceful Europe,” NATO was “not doing any fighting,” Morris wrote that he saw a chance for the UK to eliminate every Russian vessel in the region without even going to war.
“You could defeat the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet” with “subthreshold options,” he wrote, referring to gray zone tactics which the British military has officially defined as “all activity up to, but not crossing, the legal definition of armed conflict.” Morris specifically proposed “commando raids” as “a fab subthreshold activity that will scare the shit out of” Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The attack on the Moskva appeared to serve as a catalyst for Alchemy’s “Black Sea Operations,” which were already being assembled within a few hours of the news breaking. In a document dated the same day as the ship sank, Morris boasted that the “current situation in Ukraine gives the West an ideal opportunity to degrade Russian military capability by destroying as much Russian equipment as possible,” and went on to outline a series of multi-pronged and phased operations targeting Russia across the Black Sea. “Inflicting a high casualty rate must continue,” because “lots of dead soldiers returning to the mainland will have a big impact on public opinion” in Russia, Alchemy’s Morris declared.

Project Alchemy also proposed a joint UK-Ukrainian intelligence operation in which “female agents” were surreptitiously inserted into Russian navy “admin posts.” In phase one of the operation, Morris proposed “setting up a bar and brothel” in Crimea to “gain intelligence from drunken sailors,” and serve as a “honey trap” for military and intelligence officers. “The agents must be Russian speakers and attractive, able to manipulate, playing to the weakness of the average Russian male,” he stressed.

In the second phase, Morris proposed an “unconventional option” for blowing up Kerch Bridge, in which “a hijacked Russian flagged bulk carrier loaded with fertiliser rigged with explosives” would be parked under the Bridge and detonated. Morris “assessed this will be a significant kinetic event that will be able to blast four – six pillars on the bridge, rendering it unusable for a long period of time.” Given Kerch Bridge “was Putin’s crowning glory after taking Crimea,” he suggested its total destruction had the potential to foment a palace coup in the Kremlin.

The Kerch Bridge’s collapse, and the infiltration of spies into Crimea, would lay foundations for the third phase: the “main offensive” of seizing the peninsula. Alchemy’s previously established “honey traps” could establish covert “safe houses and weapon stores” in advance of the mission, Morris suggested. Next, “a direct attack against Sevastopol using a tanker fully laden with fuel into Strilets Bay.” This would be “in essence a fire ship creating further panic” and “sending a strong signal to the Russian Navy [that] nowhere is safe in the region.”

Finally, Morris advocated that Ukraine pursue a strategy of “containment” by seeking to “disrupt” and “capture/reflag the [Black Sea Fleet.]” The idea, the Alchemy chief explained, was “to target the Black Sea Fleet with the aim of destroying as many ships as possible,” as Moscow’s warships were “trapped with little places to hide” there. He urged the “use of civilian vessels retrofitted” with British-supplied weaponry, and proposed “ambushes using hijacked Russian ships to lure in a warship to be attacked by portable anti-ship missiles.”

While no such operation ever materialized, Sevastopol has been a consistent target of Kiev’s drone and missile blitzes throughout the conflict. In fact, the “Black Sea Operations” memo identified the Nakhimov Naval Academy in the Crimean capital as an ideal target for such attacks. The institution has been repeatedly rocked by Ukrainian strikes during this period. An incendiary strike on Kerch Bridge did come to pass in October 2022 – and as The Grayzone revealed at the time, it was almost certainly the outcome of blueprints prepared by Project Alchemy.
In a secret memo one month later, Alchemy leader Dominic Morris stated approvingly that the “attack on Kerch” had “hurt” the Russians. Noting that a relatively high-ranking Russian politician was personally dispatched to oversee the Bridge’s reconstruction, Morris claimed this underlined the attack’s political significance to the Kremlin, and added: “It is not an easy repair, they need to replace road [sic] in each direction (ie the one that wasn’t hit) and bad weather is slowing them.”
On April 16, just two days after the Moskva went under, Alchemy’s plans had already morphed into a “CONOPS” – military jargon which the US Department of Defense defines as a “statement that clearly and concisely expresses what the joint force commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using available resources.” The document, which is entitled “Building Ukraine [sic] Maritime Raiding Capability” and closely matches a secret British presentation previously exposed by The Grayzone, describes the Moskva’s sinking as “a significant blow to Russian naval capability” that left the rest of the Black Sea Fleet “vulnerable to missile attack.”

According to Alchemy, the sinking of more ships would “force the Russian navy farther away from the Ukraine coast or into port, opening the potential for the Ukrainian Navy to launch littoral, inshore, coastal and riverine raiding operations.” The cell noted “the exploitable sea area” was “relatively small” – “just 160 nautical miles from Odessa to Sevastopol as an example,” which was “well within the range of small assault crafts.”
Ukrainian marines and naval forces were to be equipped and trained by the British to allow for “ambushing… Russian engineer and Spetsnaz reconnaissance teams” and “harassing Russian forces in hit and run operations from the waterways.” These teams would also be charged with “[taking] out coastal radar stations,” and thus “blinding Russian forces.” As these stations were “likely to be well defended,” such attacks would “have to be well planned and hit at lightning speed to ensure success and escape,” Alchemy wrote, insisting that “agent[s] already inserted into Crimea” from mainland Russia would “provide intelligence for the naval commandos.”

The battle plans specifically called for Ukrainian commandos to “Hunt and destroy any Russian patrol craft operating in Dniprovska Gulf and conduct beach reconnaissance from Kilburn [sic] Spit to Yahorlyk Bay to identify good landing locations for a larger assault force for a future counter attack.”
The Kinburn spit, a narrow sandbar which comprises the far western end of the Crimean peninsula, has been a frequent target of Ukrainian raids since Russia’s seizure of the territory.
In the document, Alchemy suggested “specialist training for chosen men” who spoke Russian to carry out “covert undercover missions.” They would also receive training in the use of small arms, sabotage “to disrupt civil installations such as electrical substations, railways, cyber, hacking skills, locksmith training, advanced unarmed combat,” and how “to identify high ranking military officers for assignation while off duty in Crimea.”

Ukraine trained in planting limpet mines
A leaked Project Alchemy proposal from September 2022 outlined an elaborate scheme based on input from three unnamed British companies to target Russia’s Black Sea Fleet while harbored in Sevastopol, strike “civilian vessels” used by Russia to move troops and equipment in the Dnipro River, and carry out night-time raids on “other maritime environment [sic] being used” by Russian forces. The planned military campaign was known as “The Tauris Project.”
The document noted that Russia’s Navy “need to refuel and reprovision in-between deployments,” and Sevastopol “is the primary port” for this purpose. According to Alchemy, Sevastopol was the one place Moscow’s Kilo Class submarines were “vulnerable to attack,” because in other areas the crafts were “able to operate with impunity as Ukraine does not possess the subsurface capability to counter the threat.”
In Sevastopol, however, the Black Sea Fleet could “easily be destroyed by combat swimmers delivered covertly” via crewed submersibles that allow divers to deploy underwater covertly, which are known in military parlance as Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (SDVs). As Alchemy explained, “Once the combat swimmers are in the port they can attach limpet mines to [Russian] ships and submarines before slipping silently back to Chornomorsk.”

Alchemy and its unnamed confederates thus designed an SDV “specifically for operating in the coastal area of Ukraine,” with “a superior range to reach Sevastopol from Chornomorsk.” The file suggested these vehicles could also be deployed along riverbanks to “destroy shipping and hit targets out of range of conventional weapon systems” and “provide intelligence on enemy movements.” Dubbed the Tauris 1, it purportedly boasted “state of the art” technology, and was “capable of operating surfaced or submerged.”
The Tauris 1 would reportedly transport “one pilot and navigator plus four combat swimmers to remote locations on covert missions to include, surveillance, infiltration, mine clearance & mine laying,” with a system “designed to be fast when operating on the surface” – at up to 30 knots – and “ultra-quiet when submerged… with a very low radar signature when operating sub-surface at snorkeling depth.” Meanwhile, it could be parked on sea and riverbeds, or automatically surfaced via “a coded ping sequence.”
“We believe that the SDVs will give the Ukrainian Navy a huge advantage in disrupting, destroying key [Russian] assets and wider forces deployed in the south,” the document bragged. It foresaw 24 – 48 Ukrainian Marines and naval personnel being trained over “an eight-week course in a secret location in the UK,” overseen by a technical team and instructors comprising “former SDV pilots and navigators who served in the UK Special Forces community.” This would include “tactical training and limpet mine training.”

Britain exploits Ukraine for Black Sea control
The document predicted it would take a year to construct the Tauris 1 SDVs, at an eye-popping price of £6 – 8 million per vehicle. While there is no evidence that Kiev took Alchemy and its partners up on the proposition, there have been numerous examples of kamikaze Ukrainian commando raids on Russian-held territory, often using jet skis. In addition to the Kinburn Spit, the Tendra Spit, which sits 20 kilometers to its south, has also been a repeat target.
A typically ill-fated raid which took place on February 28, 2024 saw five Ukrainian assault boats immediately come under intensive Russian fire as they approached the Tendra Spit, leaving dozens dead and just one watercraft able to escape the scene.
Even doggedly anti-Russian news outlets in Britain were forced to acknowledge the debacle, with The Telegraph lambasting the operation as a “failure” and noting that it was “not clear what the Ukrainian forces were attempting to achieve.” The suicidal raids have drawn comparisons to Kiev’s calamitous attempt to capture Krynky, which as The Grayzone revealed, was planned and directed by Project Alchemy.
Elsewhere, British-backed attacks on Russia’s forces in the Black Sea have been more successful. In March 2024, following a series of well-publicized sinkings of Russian warships, the UK’s then-Defence Minister Grant Shapps boasted that drones and missiles supplied by London had helped Kiev “lay waste to nearly 30 per cent” of the Russian Navy stationed there. On top of weaponry, it’s likely the Ukrainian strikes relied heavily on targeting intelligence provided by Britain’s RC-135 spy planes, which ramped up surveillance of Russia assets in the Black Sea following the proxy war’s outbreak.
Today, London remains determined to neutralize Russia’s presence in the Black Sea. In January 2025, a defense contractor and British government-funded think tank known as the Council on Geostrategy floated the idea of deploying a British naval task force to the region, to “reshape” its “geopolitics.” The Ministry of Defence then invited “industry partners from NATO, Ukraine, and Five-Eyes countries” to submit designs and plans for “the development of a versatile, fast, and low-observable maritime system designed for operations in Ukraine and beyond.”
Before the month was over, a UK minister confirmed in parliament that in an attempt “to support Ukraine,” the Ministry of Defence had developed two “new uncrewed maritime [systems]” that were “undergoing final testing,” which it dubbed ‘Snapper’ and ‘Wasp.’ The uniquely British obsession with exploiting the proxy war to obliterate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet may seem peculiar, given its relative lack of impact on the battlefield.
However, the true motivation was clearly spelled out in a March 2022 Council on Geostrategy report, which declared that the hostilities in Ukraine meant London’s “stake in the Black Sea region has been elevated.” The paper detailed how control of the region was essential for Britain’s intended “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific, which was laid out in the official July 2021 “integrated review” of UK security and defense strategy. As the Council on Geostrategy explained, “any power controlling the Black Sea would be able to exert significant pressure on the key maritime communication lines from Europe to the Indo-Pacific.”
This February, a spate of explosions was reported on tankers in the Mediterranean which had recently stopped at Russian ports. Italian investigators suspect Kiev was responsible for carrying out at least one of these incidents using limpet mines — the same weapon they were trained to use by British intelligence.
Three years after the Moskva’s sinking, Russia still maintains several naval assets in the Black Sea. However, its fleet is unable to leave the confines of Moscow-controlled waters in the east. Just how much responsibility Britain bears for this feat remains unclear, but Project Alchemy’s files demonstrate a substantial role for the UK since the onset of the war.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.
Kiev’s Mendacious Pretext to Disown Its Fallen Soldiers
By Arnaud Develay | 21st Century Wire | June 12, 2025
Commentators are wont to pin the proverbial ‘turning point” of any given conflict on the outcome of a particular battle, the advent of a new weapon system, or even some palace coup which sees the new authorities realizing that the time to negotiate in good faith has finally come to ensure there’s a country left for them to rule over.
What has transpired these past few weeks in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, in relation to questions bearing on humanitarian law, might just swell into a tidal wave which will ultimately see the obliteration of the clique hunkered down in Kiev.
Istanbul 2.0
Against the backdrop of drug-induced contradictory statements on the need for an unconditional thirty-day ceasefire, the green camouflage-clad Ukrainian delegation finally showed up, with a fresh new memorandum in hand, which on its face demonstrated a complete disconnect from reality in relation to the current military situation.
To make a long story short, the parties stand miles apart on almost every point, be it territories, NATO membership, NATO troops deployment, post-war army size, respect for Russian-speaking minorities etc.
As a way to ingratiate themselves to Donald Trump, the Ukrainian delegation agreed to at least engage in discussions bearing on prisoner swaps. To that effect, Russia offered a 3 day lull in the fighting so as to be able to retrieve the countless bodies that have littered the battlefield.
The Graveyard on Wheels
As per discussions held in ISTANBUL on June 2nd, Ukraine relented on the basic premise to negotiate with Russia on issues pertaining to humanitarian law.
MOSCOW proceeded to provide KIEV with a list of names referring to UKRAINE’s fallen soldiers. KIEV then refrained from making any statement – a deafening silence, but a tacit approval (as is usually the case in ALL TYPES of legal matters).
MOSCOW then proceeded to inform KIEV that it could retrieve its dead at an agreed-upon rendez-vous point near the border where an estimated 1200 bodies would be awaiting in refrigerated motorized storing units.
On June 8th, the agreed-upon date for the retrieval as suggested by MOSCOW (again with tacit silent approval from KIEV), four eighteen-wheelers were parked waiting to deliver their grisly cargo…. except that KIEV never sent anyone!
Eventually, Kiril BUDANOV, UKRAINE’s all-powerful intelligence chief lamely conceded that the retrieval would occurr sometimes “next week”.
As of this writing, RUSSIA has gone on record saying it holds an estimated 6,000 corpses.
At the rate of attrition and based on testimonies from volunteers (from Ukraine) whose job was to collect the bodies, it could be more.
The Worst-Kept Secret This Side of the Dnieper
Many have wondered aloud about the reasons behind KIEV’s stubborn refusal to even communicate on the matter.
One reason is that KIEV fundamentally feels that these exchanges would dramatically contradict the official version that UKRAINE has lost a grand total of just 43,000 troops, and only 370,000 wounded, when numerous reports clearly exhibit a whoppingly disproportionate ratio of attrition.
Another reason has to do with the potential for social unrest if the Ukrainian population was to be informed via word of mouth that a substantial cargo of their loved ones is inside the country.
Would KIEV risk facing popular discontent at the collection centers? Not likely if one understands that ZELENSKY has completely cut off the country from outside news sources and predicated his political survival on complete control of the narrative.
Last but not least, KIEV is simply not able and/or willing to pay compensation to the families of soldiers killed in action. If the government ever pays out compensation to the families, the total amount for just this 6,000 dead Ukrainians, in US dollars would be in the hundreds of millions, or billions. Likewise, if the true total of dead soldiers throughout the conflict is ever calculated, the financial numbers would be staggering, and easily enough to bankrupt the state for decades to come.
Undoubtedly for KIEV, suppressing its conflict’s casualty count is essential in order to keep much of the Ukrainian public on board with the war effort. By the same token, promises of large payouts to families of dead and injured soldiers is a strong recruiting tool in order for families to evaluate the risks of offering up their young men to the frontlines. This means that the ZELENSKY government is heavily incentivized, both politically and financially, not to immediately verify all dead Ukrainian soldiers from the battlefield. Suffice to say, this issue would require a major public inquiry or tribunal in order to ascertain all the facts.
UKRAINE is notorious for its corruption and to the extent some monies were initially allocated to cover these types of expenses, it is likely that most of it has simply vanished in luxury purchases cars, jewellery and swanky homes abroad. This could easily evolve into one of the biggest scandals of this conflict, and certainly a public relations nightmare for Zelensky and his inner circle.
The Tacit Complicity of the ICRC
As of this writing, 21st CenturyWire has solicited the Ukrainian branch of the International Red Cross Committee for a statement of condemnation of the blatant violations by KIEV of its own obligations to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention and customary Humanitarian law, including preserving the “dignity of the dead” and “informing the families about the fate of their loved ones”. So far, we have been met with a wall of silence.
Update: On Wednesday June 11th, the transfer of 1,212 Ukrainian dead soldiers took place. In exchange, the Russian Federation recovered a total 27 of its own fallen. The ICRC was present during the exchange. From this, one may note the incredible disparity in the ratio of dead Ukrainian and Russia soldiers is no less than 45 to 1, lending further credence to the probability that there are in fact many more underreported battlefield losses on the Ukrainian side – which could amount to one of the largest political cover-ups in the history of modern conflict.
***
Author Arnaud Develay is a lawyer specializing in international criminal law. He began his career in 2005 under the mentorship of former US Attorney General RAMSEY CLARK, representing former Iraqi President SADDAM HUSSEIN and his companions before the Tribunal set by the US Occupation of the country. He went on to part in the defense of ILITCH RAMIREZ SANCHEZ (AKA CARLOS), former Moldovian Vice-Prime Minister Iurie ROSCA and certain figures in the YELLOW VEST movement. He finally spent over two years in the Syrian Arab Republic, reporting on the deleterious effects of the sanctions regime imposed on this country following the publication of the so-called CESAR “report” in the USA, and the insertion of a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020. See his archive here.
A Message to Georgians: America Will Not Protect You
No offense, but Georgia’s interests are just none of my affair. It’s such a long way from here.
I know my government has been messing around there since the 1990s, picking winners and losers, making big promises and causing lots of trouble.
Keeping Russia out of their former sphere of influence was thought by Washington to be its most important goal.
Under the Bill Clinton administration, it was decided that building the BTC Pipeline across Georgia was the highest priority – to prevent Azeri gas from flowing north through Russia or south through Iran.
Under George W. Bush, it was decided that the government of Edward Shevardnadze was too close to Russia, compromising with them over Abkhazia, making deals with Gazprom, and joining the CIS, and had to go.
USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the rest of the regime change industry poured in tens of millions of dollars to support the groups supporting Mikhail Saakaashvili’s rise and the Rose Revolution of 2003, which installed him in power. This included a Soros front called the Liberty Institute – not to be confused with the Libertarian Institute, I assure you.
As I’m sure you all know, former President Salome Zourabichvili was born in France, not Georgia, and was just parachuted in by the new regime to take over as Finance Minister after the overthrow of 2003. She later explained that:
“These institutions were the cradle of democratization, notably the Soros Foundation. … The NGOs which gravitate around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. However, one cannot end one’s analysis with the revolution and one clearly sees that, afterwards, the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.”
Soros’s business partner Kaka Bendukidze became the new economy minister. Alexander Lomaia, the director of Open Society Georgia, was made education minister. At the same time, Giga Bokeria, co-founder of the Liberty Institute, became the leader of the National Movement party in the parliament. In the name of fighting against corruption, they stayed on Soros’s payroll. Saakashvili too.
“I’m delighted by what happened in Georgia, and I take great pride in having contributed to it,” Soros told the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
How y’all let her become the president of the country is a mystery. Oh yeah. All the foreign money.
I sure hope that Mr. Saakashvili’s trial was more fair than his opponents received while he was in power. And that Saakashvili is not being tortured in prison the way his regime tortured people. No human deserves to be treated in such a barbarian fashion.
Do I believe Georgia country is better off under the domination of Russia or any other significant power?
Of course not. But I do mean that American intervention is not in the interest of either country.
I’ve read that current Georgian leaders have expressed frustration that they have not been able to reach the new Trump administration to see if they can get a reset in America’s Georgia policy. Be careful what you wish for. Georgians are more likely to be better off when America does not have a Georgia policy at all than even a favorable one, with strings attached.
As far as the difficulties Georgia may face in maintaining full independence as a small country in a world of major competing powers and Georgia’s advantageous or disadvantageous geographic position relative to important resources, I could not say what your best solution must be.
I could say that at the end of the day, America will not guarantee Georgia’s independence, which is why there is no major U.S. troop presence there, and why NATO membership has not moved forward since W. Bush’s foolish declaration at Bucharest in April 2008.
Perhaps maintaining Tbilisi’s neutrality in these major contests could be the path to maintaining independence from outright control.
Even after Russia intervened to reverse Saakashvili’s attempt to forcefully reintegrate South Ossetia in 2008, Moscow did not sever the BTC, nor roll its tanks into Tblisi, thank goodness. Though Putin and Medvedev had plenty of counter-incentives, they certainly had the pretext to go that far if they had chosen to do so.
President Bush, in his lame-duck year, had already chosen not to intervene, despite the protests of then-Vice President Cheney, who insisted on strikes against Russian forces coming through the Roki tunnel, risking World War III.
Thank goodness the cool, patient wisdom of George W. Bush, relative to Cheney anyway, prevailed that day.
Surely Russia would have escalated in kind, and Tbilisi would have lost its independence to the Federation after Bush had inevitably backed down. Thank goodness it did not come to that.
Making sure the Russians continue to feel like such a move would be unnecessary and unreasonably costly would probably be the best course of action.
Of course, USAID, NED, IRI, NDI, and all the usual suspected Soros-backed groups have spent a ton to keep the current ruling party out of power. I’m sure the permanent professional protestors — analyst Brad Pearce calls their rallies an “organized labor protest by the foreign influence industry” — have some real concerns, just as I’m sure that any protestor receiving the backing of a foreign regime can only be taken so seriously by anyone else.
Again, ultimately, America is too far away and has too little to lose if Tbilisi’s status were to truly change to truly be motivated to do anything about it. When Russia came across the mountains in 2008, many Americans were terrified – they thought that our Georgia was under attack, the state between South Carolina and Florida. They either had never heard of your country, or they could not fathom why it being invaded should be top news in Colorado or Illinois. That Russia would attack America out of the blue seemed to them more plausible, at first glance, at least.
That being the case, Georgians are almost certainly better off choosing the proper course forward for their country with that in mind. Because chances are that if worse comes to worst, no one over here is coming to intervene over there.
Long live Georgia and its independence, good luck.
And may liberty always remain your highest political goal.
Thank you.
US silent on Russia’s missile moratorium proposal – Lavrov
RT | June 9, 2025
The US has so far ignored Moscow’s call to impose limits on its deployment of intermediate-range missiles, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Speaking at the Future Forum 2050 on Monday, Lavrov stated that Washington had not responded to an offer Putin had made to establish reciprocal moratoriums after the collapse of the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
“It’s already clear they will not react to our call, in the absence of the treaty, to establish two parallel, non-interlinked moratoriums,” he said.
The INF Treaty, signed in 1987 by the US and the Soviet Union, banned land-based ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Washington withdrew from the deal in 2019, citing alleged violations by Moscow.
Russia has denied the claims, accusing the US of developing the banned missiles, but pledged not to deploy such systems unless the US did so first.
Last year, the US announced that it would field the multipurpose Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, and a hypersonic weapon that is still in development in “episodic deployments” in Germany starting in 2026. The two systems would have been banned by the INF Treaty, assuming they were deployed on land.
Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov signaled that Russia would not be constrained by any limitations if it ends its self-imposed moratorium. “One way or another, Russia will have to respond to NATO’s expansionist and aggressive actions,” he explained.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov also noted that Moscow would soon be forced to walk back its current policy. “Russia’s restraint in the post-INF period was not appreciated by the US and its allies and was not met with reciprocity,” he said. “We have openly and directly stated that the unilateral moratorium is approaching its logical end.”
He also rebuked the US for an apparent reluctance to alter its course. “We do not see any fundamental change, let alone reversal, in US plans to forward-deploy ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles in various regions,” he said. “On the contrary, practical steps taken by the US military have convinced us that such activity will only intensify.”
Security of Small States Bordering Great Powers
Georgia’s Pragmatism vs. Norway’s Self-Harm
By Glenn Diesen | June 9, 2025
How do small countries bordering great powers ensure security and prosperity? States rarely constrain themselves, and the smaller states near great powers such as the US and Russia have historically had their sovereignty violated. If the smaller state invites a rival great power onto its territory for security, it can trigger an intense security competition. This is evident from the Cuban Missile Crisis and the war in Ukraine. What is the solution for smaller countries such as Georgia?
Norway and Georgia share this security dilemma as both are small states bordering Russia. The security dilemma suggests that states can either refrain from arming themselves and become vulnerable to foreign aggression, or they can arm themselves but then provoke a response from the opponent. States can similarly join military alliances for security, although they can be seen as a frontline in a great power rivalry.
During the Cold War, Norway aimed to mitigate the security dilemma by balancing deterrence with reassurance. It was a member of NATO but did not accept foreign troops stationed on its soil and limited military activity near the Russian border in the high north. Sweden and Finland were neutral and thus also enjoyed decades of peace, stability, and prosperity.
The Unipolar Era
However, the balance of power ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was replaced by a unipolar—or hegemonic—world. This was problematic, as states do not constrain themselves, and a new security system was established based on dominance. The balance between deterrence and reassurance subsequently disappeared, as there was no longer a perceived need to accept constraints to reassure a weakened Russia. Norway agreed to host US military bases and accommodate more NATO activity in the Arctic, while more recently, Sweden and Finland joined NATO. The hegemonic security architecture was accompanied by a liberal ideology suggesting that NATO was a liberal democratic “force for good.” The security dilemma itself is dismissed as the ideology demands that NATO is referred to as a “defensive alliance”, even as it attacks other countries. Any calls for considering Russian security concerns threaten the ideology of a benign hegemon.
Georgia adjusted to the unipolar world by recognising that there was only one game in town. As NATO expanded, it became the only security institution in Europe, and the option was either to be on the inside or the outside. The return to bloc politics revived the zero-sum logic of the Cold War, and the most vulnerable states were those placed on the new dividing lines of Europe – Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Russia became increasingly insecure and defensive. When a great power begins to fear for its security and existence, its neighbours will likely suffer. Georgia’s pursuit of NATO partnership was a contributing factor in the war in the summer of 2008, which resulted in the loss of 20% of its territory.
Countries such as Georgia and Norway have the same freedoms as Mexico—they can form political and economic partnerships as they wish, but cannot host the soldiers and weapon systems of a rival great power such as the US.
The Multipolar Era
The seemingly menacing presence of Russia to the north and NATO’s efforts to use Georgia as a proxy against Russia create a difficult security dilemma. Avoiding excessive dependence on a more powerful foreign actor is important to enhance political sovereignty. Multipolarity incentivises small states in Europe to diversify foreign partnerships to mitigate the security dilemma. Georgia can avoid becoming a vassal of either Russia or the West in a divided Europe by diversifying its economic partnerships and also linking itself with other centres of power, such as China.
Realist theory recognises that states must respond to the international distribution of power to increase their sovereignty and security. In the current era, small states must adjust from unipolarity to multipolar. The US has fewer resources relative to other powers, and its priorities will shift from Europe to Asia. This requires small states to restore the balance between deterrence and reassurance.
The Norwegians are not adjusting to the new international distribution of power. Norway has doubled down on their excessive dependence on the US and abandoned reassurance by increasing the provocative posture of the unipolar era, including participation in the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. As Norway-Russia relations deteriorate and the US shifts its focus elsewhere, Norway may find itself on a path to conflict and destruction unless it changes course.
Georgia, by contrast, has chosen a pragmatic path that recognises the international distribution of power. Georgia is diversifying its economic partnerships to avoid excessive dependence, and has withstood pressure to be used as a second front against Russia. As a connecting point between East and West, and between North and South, the emergence of multipolarity presents Georgia with both challenges and opportunities to its security and prosperity. To make the right choices, rational and realist analysis must prevail over ideology.

