Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Senators Push Trump to Endorse Major Sanctions Bill

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 3, 2025

A bipartisan coalition of Senators is lobbying President Donald Trump to endorse legislation that will add new sanctions on Russia. The bill has sweeping bipartisan support in the Upper Chamber with over 80 co-sponsors.

According to The Hill, Senators are prepared to pass the legislation that would place a 500% tariff on countries that import Russian energy. Republicans in the Upper Chamber are waiting for Trump’s endorsement before moving forward with the bill.

Trump has used the bill as a threat to ramp up the economic war on Russia if the Kremlin does not reach an agreement with Ukraine to end the war. However, Trump has not explicitly given his support for the legislation.

The Guardian reports that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has played a key role in prodding Trump to take a more aggressive stance towards Russia in private meetings. “Senator Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin,” said John Hardie, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish think tank. “Carrots clearly haven’t worked, so it’s time to start using some sticks, including by going after Russia’s oil revenue. This economic pressure should be paired with sustained military assistance for Ukraine.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the bill could receive a vote this month. “[The White House is] still hopeful they’ll be able to strike some sort of a deal, but … there’s a high level of interest here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle in moving on it,” he said. “I think a genuine interest in doing something to make clear to Russia that they need to come to the table … I think that would have a big impact.”

The White House is considering instructing Republican Senators to vote according to their conscience on the legislation. Such a move would give the GOP lawmakers the ability to vote for the bill without Trump giving an explicit endorsement.

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic leadership is demanding immediate action on the bill. “The single best thing President Trump can do to strengthen Ukraine’s hand right now is to show that the U.S. stands firmly behind them and squarely against Russia. But so far, Trump has not done that,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said.

The legislation also has support in the House. Republican Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday, “There’s many members of Congress that want us to sanction Russia as strongly as we can. And I’m an advocate of that.”

If passed into law, the legislation would represent a significant escalation in the US economic war with Russia, and a break from Trump’s campaign pledge to end the war in Ukraine and improve ties with Moscow.

Graham has described it as “the most draconian bill I’ve ever seen in my life in the Senate.”

The bill would also spike tensions with China and India, as the two Asian giants would be slapped with 500% tariffs for importing Russian oil. The Senators hope that the threat of tariffs would lead Delhi and Beijing to end imports from Moscow and bankrupt the Russian war machine.

“I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow’s energy products. The consequences of its barbaric invasion must be made real to those that prop it up.” Graham wrote last week, “If China or India stopped buying cheap oil, Mr Putin’s war machine would grind to a halt.”

The European Union believes its members will avoid the tariffs even as some of its members still import Russian gas and nuclear fuel. The bill has the endorsement of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, President Joe Biden claimed a western economic war would cripple the Russian economy and prevent Moscow from waging war. However, the Kremlin has weathered a number of Western economic measures, including having its assets frozen, sanctions, and price caps, while increasing the size of its military.

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

George Beebe: Negotiations & Attack on Russia’s Nuclear Forces (fmr CIA Director of Russia Analysis)

George Beebe and Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | June 3, 2025

George Beebe is director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute. Beebe was the former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis and a staff advisor on Russia matters to Vice President Cheney. Beebe outlines why Trump should not walk away from negotiations, and why the attack on Russia’s nuclear forces (possibly with NATO support) was extremely dangerous.

June 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Was the U.S. Government Involved in Ukraine’s Drone Attack on Russia?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 3, 2025

As the media is reporting, Ukraine just launched a massive drone attack that wreaked major destruction deep inside Russia. Ukrainian officials smuggled the drones in trucks into Russia and launched them from inside the country. U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press are praising the attack as a brilliant maneuver. They are hoping that the attack will force Russia to the negotiating table with the aim of bringing an end to the war.

One thing is clear: the attack now escalates the conflict in a major way. Ukraine has now shown that it can attack military installations, towns, and cities deep inside Russia,

An important question that is not being asked is: Did Pentagon or CIA officials serve as secret advisors or directors in the drone operation? Since Congress is effectively owned by the U.S. national-security establishment, it’s a question that unfortunately is not going to be asked by any congressional committee. Given the longtime deference to the national-security establishment by the mainstream media, the question is unlikely to come from them either and even if it did, there is no doubt that the Pentagon and CIA would deny it even if they were involved.

Why is the question important? Well, think about it: The U.S. government furnishes weaponry to the Ukrainian government to use against Russian forces. But let’s assume that it goes one step further than that. Let’s assume that it also assists, advises, and directs Ukrainian officials in the use of such weaponry.

That would mean, as a practical matter, that it was the U.S. government that launched that drone attack and was simply using Ukraine as its agent — in order to preserve “plausible deniability.” It would mean, as a practical matter, that it is the U.S. government that is using its weaponry to kill and injure Russian soldiers and destroy Russian armaments, not only in Ukraine but also deep inside Russia.

Ukraine and U.S. officials are hoping that Ukraine’s drone attack will force Russia to end the war. But what they are ignoring in this calculus is the big elephant in the room — NATO. It was because of NATO’s expansion eastward and its threat to absorb Ukraine that caused Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place.

After considerable sacrifice of men, money, and armaments, how likely is it that Russia would agree to a peace treaty that leaves NATO on Ukraine’s border and ready to absorb Ukraine on a moment’s notice? I say: Not likely at all. Even if a peace treaty promised that NATO would not absorb Ukraine, everyone knows that the U.S. government cannot be trusted to keep its word. After all, let’s not forget that U.S. officials promised that NATO would not move eastward, and it broke that promise.

Thus, with NATO still in existence and still on Ukraine’s border, why would Russia be interested in settling the war, given that that’s what motivated Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place? And yet we all know that U.S. officials would not think of dismantling NATO or even just moving it back to Western Europe as part of a peace treaty.

Given these intractable positions, the war will inevitably continue, notwithstanding the fondest hopes of U.S. and Ukrainian officials. But the problem is that the longer it goes on, the more dangerous it is becoming. What if U.S. officials actually are secretly assisting, advising, and directing Ukrainian attacks on Russia? Wouldn’t this be sufficient importantly that Congress, not the Pentagon and the CIA, should decide it? Isn’t that why the Constitution places the decision to go to war against another nation-state in the hands of Congress rather than the Pentagon and the CIA?

One of the big problems with war is its unpredictable nature. How long will Russia put up with U.S. armaments being used to kill and maim Russian soldiers and destroy Russian armaments and property without attacking the armaments before they reach Ukraine, especially if Russia concludes that it is actually the Pentagon and the CIA who are waging the war using Ukraine as their agent? If Russia were to attack such armaments before they arrived in Ukraine, say in staging grounds in NATO member Poland, we all know what that would mean — all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Even if the U.S were to “win” such a war, the United States would cease to exist as a viable nation.

All this is simply to show that the U.S. national-security establishment, operating through its Cold War dinosaur NATO, is getting the United States ever close to the possibility of the nuclear destruction of our nation. Would “winning” a nuclear war with Russia be worth it? Is NATO worth it? I say no. I say it’s time to throw not only NATO into the dustbin of history but also the U.S. national-security state form of governmental structure that was foisted upon our land in the 1940s to protect us from the supposed international communist conspiracy that, U.S. officials claimed, was based in Moscow.

June 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran and Russia: Three steps into strategic convergence

By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | June 2, 2025

As Iran prepares for an official state visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin, the political signal could not be clearer: Iran and Russia are intent on formalizing their deepening partnership amid a global order in flux.

Iranian officials have confirmed that preparations are underway, even if the Kremlin has yet to set the date. For both countries – under siege from western sanctions and entangled in regional flashpoints – this visit is more than a ceremony; it marks an intensifying convergence of strategic purpose.

Putin’s trip follows a string of high-level engagements with his Iranian counterpart, President Masoud Pezeshkian, who took office in July of last year. Since then, the two leaders have met three times: in Ashgabat in October, in Kazan at the BRICS summit, and in January in Moscow to ink a long-term defense agreement. In the post-Ukraine war calculus, few relationships carry the same weight as the Islamic Republic in Russia’s pivot eastward.

Economic convergence through the EAEU

Ties between Tehran and Moscow have never advanced in a straight line. Even in their most frictionless periods, progress required determined effort. Still, three crucial milestones passed over the past year suggest that their bilateral relationship is set to accelerate.

The first milestone came on 25 December 2024, when Iran joined the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as an observer member state. Initially seen as a post-Soviet mechanism to deepen regional economic ties, the bloc’s broader ambitions – particularly from Moscow’s perspective – quickly became clear. Iran’s accession had been a long-standing Russian objective since at least the mid-2010s.

The path to membership began in 2018 with a provisional agreement, but was drawn out by two key factors. The first was Israel’s negotiations with the bloc over free trade zones – launched despite a 2016 framework deal – which appeared designed to sabotage Iran’s entry. They largely succeeded.

The more substantive obstacle was internal. Under former Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, whose administration tilted westward, the EAEU was seen more as leverage in western talks than a genuine priority. By contrast, late Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, a strong advocate of Iran’s ‘Look East’ policy, placed higher strategic value on deepening ties with Russia, propelling Iran’s EAEU bid forward.

By 2023–2024, trade between Iran and EAEU states hovered around $3.5 billion. The new agreement slashed tariffs: Iranian duties on EAEU goods dropped to 4.5 percent, while the bloc’s tariffs on Iranian exports fell from 6.6 to 0.8 percent.

Within five to seven years, trade volume is projected to hit $18–20 billion – a substantial gain for a petro-economy whose $60 billion in exports are more than 80 percent oil and gas. The bloc may also serve as a conduit to third-country markets.

Iran’s membership holds political as well as economic value for Moscow. Chief among these is the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-kilometer route connecting St. Petersburg to Mumbai via Iranian territory. Completion of the Chabahar–Mumbai leg depends on India-Iran ties; the corridor’s viability also requires modernizing the Caspian Sea route–a project that gained urgency post-2022.

BRICS … and a whopping strategic partnership

Politically, the Kremlin’s need to forge a multipolar alliance structure – not a full-fledged global bloc, but a web of regional coalitions – has grown as confrontation with the west intensifies.

In this context, Iran’s accession to BRICS on 1 January 2025 marked the second major milestone. BRICS remains politically disjointed – a union of unequals – but its economic logic is compelling. It enables preferential access to massive markets and encourages bilateral flexibility between members.

Though it may not directly shape Iran–Russia relations, BRICS allows both states to expand cooperation in media, culture, and tourism – deepening their ties beyond traditional economic or military frameworks.

But the most consequential event of the year was the signing of a comprehensive strategic cooperation agreement between Tehran and Moscow. As with Iran’s drawn-out EAEU accession, the talks revealed lingering distrust. Negotiations began after Russia’s February 2022 military intervention in Ukraine.

Russia’s motives were transparent: Boxed in by NATO, Moscow sought to strengthen military alliances with regional powers and reap associated economic benefits.

The model agreement was the “comprehensive strategic partnership” signed with North Korea, which included commitments to scale up trade and a mutual defense clause. If either party is attacked or drawn into war, the other pledges to assist “by all means.”

A similar clause was expected in the Iran–Russia agreement, but never materialized. Instead, the pact reads more like a memorandum of understanding than a military alliance. The gap between its title and substance suggests unresolved disagreements during talks.

Two issues caused the rift. First, Moscow demanded that any military assistance be predicated on Tehran’s position being legally airtight under international law – lest Russia be entangled in a nuclear conflict with Tel Aviv. The definition of “aggression” became a flashpoint: What Tehran labels a provocation, Moscow feared Tel Aviv could call a justified “response.”

Second, the scope of assistance – especially the categorical exclusion of nuclear weapons – sparked further discord.

Though a compromise may have been within reach, unconfirmed reports indicate Moscow proposed the transit of Russian personnel or military preparation on Iranian soil – something the deeply sovereign Tehran outright rejected. This categorical refusal ultimately ensured the deal would remain declaratory.

The weight of history

Historical and ideological factors underpin Iran’s caution. Since the Caucasus wars of the 19th century – especially the 1826–1828 conflict – securing Iran’s northern frontier has been a persistent concern.

That anxiety intensified under the Pahlavi dynasty’s staunch anti-communism, compounded in the 1940s by two events: Soviet occupation of northern Iran until 1946, and the Soviet-backed, Kurdish-secessionist Mahabad Republic, widely viewed as an attempt to partition the country.

Simultaneously, Soviet Azerbaijani territorial demands and communist agitation in Iranian Azerbaijan further soured ties. Though these events belong to a pre-revolutionary era, the Islamic Republic’s early years were no less wary of Moscow – fueled in part by Iranian communists’ strategic missteps. The USSR, much like in Turkiye, was branded the “lesser Satan,” and anti-communism fused with inherited Russophobia.

These sentiments persist and are fueled by pro-west propaganda outlets. Among Iranian elites, accusations that Russia has “stabbed Iran in the back” are a common rhetorical tool for western-aligned factions. In 2023, a diplomatic crisis erupted after the Russian Foreign Ministry’s equivocal stance on sovereignty over contested Persian Gulf islands and muddled comments about the waterway’s name.

This blunder – unfolding as Iran’s EAEU talks progressed – not only inflamed Iranian Russophobia but handed ammunition to domestic pro-west voices, reinforcing the trope of “colonial Russia” as an unreliable partner.

What lies ahead

Even so, the Iran–Russia strategic pact is far from toothless. Though it omits a mutual defense clause, it commits both states to deepen security and defense ties and explicitly pledges cooperation to counter external destabilizing forces in the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia. The emphasis is timely – especially in the wake of Syria’s devastation.

Today, Tehran faces heightened threats. Analysts and officials alike debate whether Israel will launch direct strikes against Iran, whether the US will try – or even be able – to restrain such moves, and whether US forces will intervene if Tel Aviv provokes open conflict. No clear decisions have emerged.

This uncertainty may prompt caution in the short term. But in the long run, only the alliances forged today will determine whether Tehran can deter tomorrow’s wars.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Details of Russian peace proposal revealed

RT | June 2, 2025

The peace memorandum developed by Russia and presented to the Ukrainian delegation during the talks in Istanbul, Türkiye, on Monday calls on Kiev to withdraw its troops from the former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia and confirm its neutral and non-nuclear status, according to the text of the document seen by RT.

The proposal consists of three parts, which include the conditions for a comprehensive settlement of the Ukraine conflict, steps toward achieving a ceasefire, and a peace roadmap that includes some unilateral steps by Russia.

The “final settlement” of the conflict would require international recognition of the former Ukrainian territories as parts of Russia. The two Donbass republics, as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, officially joined Russia following a series of referendums in autumn 2022. Crimea voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 in the wake of the Western-backed Maidan coup in Kiev.

Ukraine would also have to withdraw all its forces and armed groups from those territories, the document said.

Kiev would have to reaffirm its neutral status and introduce a ban on any military activities of third-party states on Ukrainian territory, as well as to withdraw from international treaties incompatible with such a status. It would also have to reaffirm its nuclear-free status and prohibit the acquisition, transit, or deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory.

The memorandum expects Ukraine to set certain limits on the size of its armed forces, as well as military equipment, but does not provide any fixed numbers. All Ukrainian nationalist armed groups within the armed forces and the National Guard would have to be disbanded, according to the document.

Under the peace proposal, Kiev would have to guarantee the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine and grant Russian the status of an official language, stop the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, ban Nazi propaganda and any nationalist groups, as well as lift sanctions imposed against Moscow. Both Russia and Ukraine would renounce claims to compensation of damage linked to the conflict.

The document suggests two options for reaching a ceasefire. One of them requires Kiev to start withdrawing its troops from the territories that have joined Russia and pulling them away from the Russian borders to a certain distance. This process would have to be completed within 30 days.

The second option – the “package option” – would include a ban on any Ukrainian troop movements (except for the withdrawal of forces) and the cessation of the Ukrainian mobilization campaign and Western military aid to Kiev, including arms shipment and intelligence sharing. The sides would then establish a bilateral monitoring center and release each other’s citizens held by the other side.

Ukraine would also have to lift martial law and set a date for presidential and parliamentary elections. All the steps listed within this option would also have to be completed within 30 days, according to the document.

According to the proposal, the final peace treaty between Moscow and Kiev would be signed after the elections in Ukraine and endorsed by a legally binding UN Security Council resolution.

Last week, Reuters published what it called the details of Ukraine’s peace proposal where Kiev reportedly rejected Moscow’s demands for the recognition of Ukraine’s former territories as parts of Russia, and also ruled out abandoning its ambition to join NATO. The Ukrainian memorandum also demanded reparations from Russia.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

What Russia and Ukraine Agreed in 2nd Round of Istanbul Talks

Sputnik – June 2, 2025

Russian delegation head Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, reported the key outcomes of the negotiations with Ukrainian representatives in Istanbul.

Key statements:

  • Russia handed Ukraine a draft memorandum on settlement, which Kiev took for study
  • The Russian settlement memorandum is in two parts and is detailed and well-developed
  • The first part focuses on how to achieve genuine long-term peace
  • The second part outlines steps for a full ceasefire, allowing for flexibility and multiple paths to that goal
  • Russia will unilaterally transfer 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers to Kiev next week, having identified all the deceased
  • The parties agreed on the largest-yet prisoner exchange
  • The total exchange will be at least 1,000 prisoners, possibly more
  • Sick and seriously wounded prisoners will be exchanged on an “all for all” basis
  • Moscow and Kiev will create a commission to exchange seriously wounded troops without political decisions
  • The sides will exchange soldiers under the age of 25
  • Russia offered Ukraine a concrete ceasefire for two to three days in certain frontline sectors
  • Moscow and Kiev agreed to a ceasefire in specific areas so commanders can retrieve the bodies of their soldiers
  • The Ukrainian armed forces promised to work out the ceasefire proposal for those areas soon
  • Kiev turned the issue of ‘child abductions’ into a ‘show for sentimental Europeans’
  • No children have been kidnapped by Moscow, only rescued by Russian soldiers
  • Russia received a list of 339 children from Ukraine who are in difficult situations due to the conflict
  • Moscow returns children to Kiev if their parents or legal guardians are present
  • Russia is working on reuniting families separated by the Ukraine conflict
  • The negotiations with Ukraine were conducted in Russian

The Russian delegation was satisfied with the results of the second round of talks with Ukraine, Medinsky said.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Kiev comments on latest round of negotiations with Moscow

RT | June 2, 2025

Moscow and Kiev have agreed to exchange the bodies of thousands of fallen soldiers, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov announced on Monday following the second round of direct talks in Istanbul, Тürkiye.

Speaking to the press after the negotiations, Umerov, who led Kiev’s delegation, stated that the two sides had discussed a number of topics, including a ceasefire, humanitarian issues, and a potential meeting between Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On the question of prisoner exchanges, Umerov said Moscow and Kiev had agreed to “focus on specific categories, not numbers.” Both sides have reportedly reached an agreement to exchange all seriously wounded and seriously ill prisoners of war in an “all-for-all” format.

“The second category is young soldiers aged 18 to 25. Also all for all. We also agreed to return 6,000 for 6,000 bodies of dead soldiers,” Umerov said.

Umerov added that Kiev has proposed holding a third round of talks at some point between June 20 and 30.

Monday’s talks mark the second time Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have met directly to discuss the resolution of the Ukraine conflict since Kiev abandoned peace efforts back in 2022. The first round of the renewed talks was held at the initiative of Putin on May 16.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

North Korea slams ‘hostile’ Western report on ties with Russia

RT | June 2, 2025

North Korea has slammed a report by a Western sanctions monitoring group’s on its ties with Russia, calling it a “political provocation.” Cooperation with Moscow is a “legitimate exercise of the DPRK’s sovereign rights,” Pyongyang has insisted.

The report was released last week by the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Group (MSMT), created by the US and South Korea to monitor enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea.

It alleges “illegal” military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, including purported arms transfers from North Korea to Russia, troop deployments and training, excess petroleum shipments, and financial coordination.

Citing data from its 11 members and open-source intelligence, the report claims these actions violate UN Security Council resolutions aimed at curbing North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.

Pyongyang considers the MSMT report a “hostile act” and the organization a “ghost group without any legitimacy” and a “political tool” operating “according to the geopolitical interests of the West.”

“The hostile acts of the MSMT… are a flagrant violation of the international legal principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs and a mockery of the fair and just international community,” the country’s Foreign Affairs Ministry said in its statement on Sunday, as cited by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). The ministry called the report a fabrication and denounced it as politically biased and “provocative.”

Military cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang is “aimed at protecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security interests” of the countries and “ensuring peace and stability in the Eurasian region,” the ministry claimed. It stressed that it is a “legitimate exercise of sovereign rights” of both countries in accordance with the UN Charter.

Moscow has not yet commented on the MSMT report.

In June 2024, Russia and North Korea signed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement, which includes a clause providing for military and other assistance in the event of armed invasion of either side. Several weeks later, South Korean and US media reported the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia’s Kursk Region, which at the time was under Ukrainian attack. Moscow and Pyongyang confirmed the military presence in late April after Russian forces declared the region fully liberated.

The MSMT group was created last October after the disbandment of the UN Panel of Experts on DPRK, which had monitored the implementation of UN sanctions on North Korea until a Russian veto ended its mandate. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova at the time called MSMT “illegal,” saying it was created by “uninvited enthusiasts bypassing the UN Security Council” who “demonstrate blatant disregard for international law.”

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Alice Weidel: German Ukraine policy is “complete madness”

May 30, 2025

What is Germany doing in the war in Ukraine? In Patriot Extra, Máté Gerhardt’s guest is Alice Weidel, co-chair of the AfD and leader of the party’s Bundestag faction.

June 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Russian Cybersecurity Gains Traction in Global South and East – Deputy Foreign Minister

Sputnik – 01.06.2025

Russian cybersecurity solutions have become increasingly sought after by countries in the Global South and East amid the growing discreditation of most leading Western IT firms, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin told Sputnik.

“In the field of information and communication technologies, we possess significant capabilities — from legislation and law enforcement practices to extensive experience and developments in ensuring ‘digital sovereignty,’” he said.

According to the senior diplomat, Russian companies are offering cybersecurity solutions that are in high demand among nations in the Global South and East.

“This is largely due to the fact that many leading Western IT corporations have discredited themselves,” Vershinin noted.

He pointed out that there have been recurring revelations about Western companies ignoring the laws of the countries in which they operate, embedding hidden “backdoors” in their products — often for the benefit of intelligence agencies — and carrying out politically motivated directives from Western governments.

“All of this is, of course, being noticed by our partners in developing countries, who are increasingly leaning toward supporting our depoliticized and impartial approaches and initiatives in the ICT sphere on multilateral platforms,” he emphasized.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe punching above weight for nothing

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – June 1, 2025

Recent European (UK plus EU) sanctions on Russia amid ongoing US-backed efforts to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine aim to assert Europe’s perceived ability to “correct” the course of events.

However, the continued reliance on sanctions also underscores the limits of what Europe can—and cannot—achieve in ultimately shaping geopolitical outcomes.
Sanctions amid Talks

In geopolitics, timing is often more telling than the event itself. Such is the case with the European Union’s and the UK’s recent decision to impose fresh sanctions on Russia—announced just a day after former President Donald Trump held a two-hour “serious” conversation with Vladimir Putin. This is not the first time European states have sanctioned Russia, nor will it be the last. But this round is different, not in content but in context. The timing sends a clear message: Europe is uneasy, not just about Russia’s actions in Ukraine, but also about the growing strategic vacuum left by an increasingly disengaged United States.

Despite the recent round of dialogue between Ukrainian and Russian officials—and other rounds expected to follow—European leaders remain skeptical of where this path may lead. Their fear? That a negotiated settlement—particularly one brokered without robust Western unity—could leave Russia in a stronger position than before the conflict began.

That anxiety is compounded by waning American commitment to NATO under the Trump administration. In the absence of a coherent transatlantic front, European powers are trying to assert their own leverage. This latest sanctions package, targeting Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and the financial networks enabling sanctions evasion, is as much a political statement as it is an economic measure.

According to German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, the sanctions are a response to Russia’s refusal to agree to an “immediate ceasefire without preconditions.” But here’s the strategic problem: Europe acted alone. Washington, notably silent, announced no corresponding measures. In fact, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that threatening sanctions now could derail ongoing talks rather than advance them. “The president … believes that right now, you start threatening sanctions, the Russians will stop talking,” Rubio told lawmakers in the US.

This divergence reveals a deeper strategic disconnect between Europe and the US. Despite intense lobbying from European capitals, the Trump administration remains hesitant to jeopardize fragile diplomatic progress. In the eyes of many analysts, this marks a foreign policy failure for Europe, unable to rally its closest ally at a critical juncture. Still, the broader implication is troubling: these sanctions are unlikely to shift Moscow’s calculus or alter the trajectory of ceasefire negotiations. Instead, they may highlight Europe’s limited influence in the absence of American backing—and underscore a growing realization that, in the new era of great power politics, Europe may have to fend more for itself. If the goal is to contain Russian power and shape the post-war regional order, sanctions without transatlantic unity are unlikely to suffice. Without Washington on board, Europe’s message is loud—but not necessarily strong.

Anatomy of Sanctions

As the conflict in Ukraine drags into its fourth year, Europe finds itself in a strategic bind. While its leaders continue to voice solidarity with Kyiv, the reality beneath the rhetoric is unmistakable: Europe’s message is not strong enough. But the more pressing question is—why is this message so weak?

The answer lies not in a lack of compassion or political will, but in the cold calculus of power, capability, and consequence. After years of bloodshed, destruction, and stalemate, European leaders increasingly grasp the sobering truth: hard military power has its limits. In this war, force has not produced victory and may never do so. But sanctions, Europe’s go-to instrument in lieu of military engagement, have proven even weaker. Despite wave after wave of economic penalties imposed on Russia—freezing assets, targeting oligarchs, cutting trade—Moscow has adapted.

Faced with this double bind—military impotence on one hand, economic ineffectiveness on the other—some European policymakers have flirted with the idea of escalating their involvement. The suggestion of deploying troops or enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine has crept into public discourse. Yet such options bring their own dangers, dangers that many in Europe are not prepared to face. The reality is stark: without the United States, neither NATO nor any coalition of European powers has the muscle to militarily confront Russia directly.

Moreover, sending European troops into Ukraine or deploying aircraft over Ukrainian skies risks a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed state. It is a step that would almost certainly invite retaliation on European soil. The conflict, in other words, would no longer be something happening “over there”—it would be an immediate, domestic reality. And this, more than anything else, is the psychological wall European leaders are reluctant to breach.

This is the heart of Europe’s dilemma: a conflict it cannot win, a peace it cannot broker, and a strategic imperative it cannot fulfill without paying a heavy cost. Until Europe reconciles its ambitions with its capabilities, its message will remain what it is today—resolute in tone, but tragically weak in substance.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian Arctic region under drone attack – governor

RT | June 1, 2025

Russia’s Murmansk Region, located mostly north of the Arctic Circle, is being targeted by drones, local governor Andrey Chibis has said.

Air defenses have been intercepting incoming UAVs in the region, Chibis wrote on Telegram on Sunday.

“Enemy drones have attacked the territory of Murmansk Region,” he wrote.

The governor urged the population to remain calm and report all incidents to the authorities.

Also on Sunday, several drones targeted a military installation in Irkutsk Region, central Russia. Local Governor Igor Kobzev said it is the first UAV raid in Siberia.

The attack occurred in the settlement of Sredny, some 150km from Lake Baikal, Kobzev wrote on Telegram. He added that the drones were launched from a tractor-trailer. “The source from where the UAVs came had been blocked,” he said.

Kiev has significantly intensified drone raids into Russia in recent weeks, targeting Moscow and other regions. Russia has responded by launching a series of large-scale missile and UAV strikes against Ukrainian military-related infrastructure.

Russian officials suggest that the drone incursions are an attempt by Ukraine to derail a US-brokered peace process between Moscow and Kiev. The attacks in Murmansk and Irkutsk regions come a day ahead of a scheduled meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian negotiators in Istanbul, during which the sides are expected to discuss each other’s proposals on ways to settle the conflict.

June 1, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »