Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukrainian drone strikes passenger bus – Donbass officials

RT | April 1, 2025

At least 16 people were injured in the Russian frontline city of Gorlovka when a Ukrainian kamikaze drone struck a bus early on Tuesday morning, Mayor Ivan Prikhodko has reported.

The incident marks the latest assault on the beleaguered residents of the city, which is located in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic. The mayor took to social media to share images showing the destruction.

The Russian Investigative Committee stated that Ukrainian forces deployed a kamikaze drone to target a bus near a central stop. The strike also caused damage to a nearby administrative building, the law enforcement agency added, describing the event as attempted murder.

Local health officials reported that five of the victims are currently in serious condition at local hospitals.

A regional watchdog that regularly posts updates on Ukrainian strikes in Donbass reported that several artillery shells landed in Gorlovka on the same day.

A similar drone strike targeted a passenger bus near Gorlovka in mid-March.

Last week, Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large overseeing investigations into alleged war crimes, highlighted a rising number of civilian casualties resulting from Ukrainian attacks on vulnerable locations such as Gorlovka. He suggested that this trend, occurring amid US-backed discussions for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, indicates Kiev’s intent to obstruct mediation efforts.

The administration of President Donald Trump is advocating for a negotiated ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia as part of its strategy to normalize relations with Moscow. While the Russian government has welcomed this shift in Washington’s stance, it has expressed deep skepticism toward the Ukrainian authorities, claiming that Kiev is not engaging in negotiations in good faith.

April 1, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Trump-Putin parley is a bit under the weather

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 31, 2025 

The Kremlin apparently came to the conclusion last week that it was about time to do some plain-speaking that US president Donald Trump’s quest for a 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine war was a non-starter. Over the weekend, in a series of remarks, Trump reacted sharply that he’s “very angry” with President Vladimir Putin over his approach to the proposed ceasefire and threatened to levy tariffs on Moscow’s oil exports if the Russian leader does not agree to a truce within a month. 

Trump is either incapable or unwilling to accept that neither Russians nor Ukrainians have their heart in the ceasefire deal (for different reasons, though) even while paying lip service to it, as each wants to have Trump on its side.  

Unlike Ukrainians who are blasé about their desire to continue to wage the war until Russian forces vacate their territories in the east (knowing that may never happen), Russians are savvy operators who prioritise the unfinished business of the war while playing their part in the diplomatic circuit. 

Actually, Russians are in two minds whether the war could end once their military gains total control over Donbass, or, should they also take control of Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, etc. to create a security zone roughly, along the Dniepr River, and, let the UN figure out the future of the rump state of Ukraine. (See my blog A Third Way to end the war in Ukraine, Indian Punchline, March 29, 2025.)  

Such is the backlog of the West’s betrayals and repudiation of agreements, including during first term, that Russia may come to estimate that its best security guarantee for durable peace lies in creating solid facts on the ground. 

Trump will do well to read the extraordinary report featured in the New York Times dated March 29, 2025 titled The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine. It is a doctored version of the untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia but the main thing is that it confirms the Russian allegation that this has been a proxy war kick-started by the US with great deliberateness. 

Suffice to say, Trump’s claim to be a good Samaritan with a bleeding heart who wants the war to end, et al, won’t fly. On the other hand, Putin is nonetheless keen on establishing a good personal rapport with Trump and anchor a meaningful US-Russia partnership on it, realistic enough to accept that Trump is as good an American president as Russia would ever get. 

That said, Putin is also unwavering that in order for peace to be durable, conditions must be created first where he needs Trump’s understanding, although Russian people are deeply sceptical about any US mediation. 

Trump refused to say if there was any deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, but he told reporters on board Air Force One yesterday, “It’s a psychological deadline. If I think they’re [Russians] tapping us along, I will not be happy about it.” 

On the contrary, Russians have been as transparent as they could in the prevailing climate of deep distrust — and no real effort has yet begun to address the root causes of the conflict. 

The Russian negotiator Grigory Karasin, an accomplished career diplomat and deputy foreign minister and currently a senator heading the foreign affairs committee of the upper-house Federation Council, who was the negotiator at the expert group negotiations at Riyadh last Monday, said over the weekend with great candour on Russia’s national television that the 12-hour talks “haven’t led to any radical breakthrough yet, but the opportunities are there. It would have been naive to expect any breakthroughs.”

Karasin claimed that the US negotiators, including senior National Security Council director Andrew Peek and State Department policy planning chief Michael Anton, initially presented “proposals that are unacceptable to Russia.”

“But then, in my opinion… they realised that a team of civilised, reasoned interlocutors was sitting in front of them,” he said, describing the talks as having had a “good atmosphere” despite the lack of progress. 

Importantly, Karasin said he expects US-Russian negotiations on Ukraine to continue at least until the end of 2025 or beyond.

We will never know how accurate was the feedback Trump received from the inconclusive negotiations in Riyadh. Clearly, the US has since resiled from the understanding given to the Russian side in regard of waiving the sanctions for the export of Russian food and fertilisers to the world market, facilitate the payments system and provide other underpinnings needed. 

Karasin’s glasnost was apparently not music to Trump’s ears. Nonetheless, good sense prevailed finally, as Trump signalled his intentions to talk to Putin. 

Will that help? Putin said as recently as last week that Russia’s interests will not be bartered away. Even if Trump were to now decide to join hands with the UK and France to lead the “coalition of the willing” to continue the Ukraine war, it is unlikely Putin will budge on Russia’s core interests. 

However, Trump’s real predicament is something else. He had a choice to decouple the US from the war. But then, he was also swayed by the Wall Street’s obsessive interest in Ukraine being a honeypot, which of course is incompatible with his known aversion to assuming the obligations and responsibilities of a de facto colonial power in a faraway land 10,000 kms away. 

The result is, Ukrainians have lost respect for him. Zelensky hit out on Friday, saying, “Ukraine has received the new draft agreement on natural resources from the US, which is totally different from the previous framework agreement. Ukraine will not recognise the United States military aid as a debt. We are grateful for support but it’s not a loan.” 

Wall Street Journal reported on the new revised draft document sent to Kiev from Washington, which insists on Zelensky signing an agreement giving the American companies control over key economic projects. In particular, the US seeks the right to be the first to participate in Ukraine’s infrastructure projects and mining programs, including rare-earth metals and construction of ports. 

The fund, managed primarily by US representatives, will channel the profits to pay off the cost of military aid provided by Washington to Kiev. If the agreement is signed, Ukraine will have 45 days to submit a list of projects for consideration by the fund.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported that under the latest version of the deal, the US would control half of Ukraine’s oil and gas reserves, its metals and much of its infrastructure, including railways, ports, pipelines and refineries, through a joint investment fund. The US plans to receive all profits until Ukraine pays it at least $100 billion in compensation for military aid, with a 4% surcharge. Kiev will start receiving 50% of the profits only after the debt is repaid.

The newspaper added that the new fund will be registered in the state of Delaware but will operate under the jurisdiction of New York. And the US will have the right to veto the sale of Ukrainian resources to third countries and the prerogative to check the accounts of any Ukrainian agency involved.

Trump has fallen between two stools. Ukraine is highly unlikely to accept the deal with the US. Also, trust Russian ingenuity to make a counter offer in business relationship to Trump that he can’t refuse. In sum, Trump’s attempt to enhance trust with Putin was indeed the right approach. And Putin reciprocated in earnestness.

Indeed, their parley made some headway until it came under weather, thanks to the mercantile considerations in play regarding Ukraine’s resources, which require that the war must be put to sudden death. Whereas, such wars have their own dynamics too. 

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The EU, the USSR, and the architecture of collective security in Eurasia

By Alexander Tuboltsev | Al Mayadeen | March 31, 2025

In July 1966, an important event took place in the Romanian city of Bucharest. The Warsaw Pact countries (USSR, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania) adopted a Declaration on Strengthening Peace and Security in Europe. This document, signed by the leaders of the listed countries, stipulated the following:

1. The Warsaw Pact participants officially declared that they have no territorial claims to any European state.

2. The signatories of the Declaration proposed the simultaneous dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and NATO in order to ease tensions.

3. The Declaration proposed the withdrawal of all foreign troops from European countries.

4. The Warsaw Pact countries proposed to develop mutually beneficial cooperation between all countries of the continent based on the principles of equality and non-interference in internal affairs.

And so, it was 1966. It had been less than five years since the Berlin crisis of 1961, when Soviet and American tanks faced each other in a standoff near the checkpoint (between West and East Berlin).

At the height of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed their own project for a collective, common, mutually beneficial security architecture in Europe.

10 years later, in November 1976, a new meeting of the Warsaw Pact Political Advisory Committee was held in Bucharest. As a result, a new Declaration was adopted. In my opinion, it can be called the prototype of the modern concept of a multipolar world. In the Declaration of 1976, the Warsaw Pact countries published the following program for the collective security system:

1. Ending the arms race.

2. Development of interstate relations with respect for the principles of sovereignty and mutual assistance.

3. Emphasis on the development of mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation between different states.

4. Support the struggle against neocolonialism in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

5. Support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

6. Restructuring of international economic relations based on the principles of justice and equality.

A few months later, in October 1976, the Soviet government sent a detailed Statement to the UN Secretary General on the topic of restructuring world economic relations. The Statement proposed to support the economic interests of Asian, Latin American, and African countries, to fight against neocolonial economic practices, and to limit the activities of global financial monopolies.

What do these historical facts tell us? In the 60s and 70s of the last century, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed to Europe to create a system of collective security and make a choice in favor of cooperation rather than confrontation. At the same time, they proposed to make world trade, economic ties, and political relations more pluralistic and more equal. These projects, outlined in the two Bucharest Declarations of 1966 and 1976, could once have significantly changed the geopolitical situation. But that didn’t happen, because there was one problem.

The military and political establishment of Western Europe and the United States had no intention of building a joint security architecture in Europe with the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The situation was quite the opposite: after 1991, NATO began its waves of expansion to the east. Since the Brussels summit in January 1994, an active process has begun to involve the countries of the former Warsaw Pact in NATO: in 1999 Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary joined the alliance. In the following years, the process of NATO expansion in Europe became continuous, spreading to the post-Soviet space (Baltic countries). The United States used this expansion as a tool to realize its hegemonic ambitions and to maintain the American unipolar dictatorship.

As the years passed, the EU countries continued to turn into a platform for NATO bases, which appeared closer to the borders of Russia. At the same time, the Russian Federation has always expressed its readiness for constructive dialogue, including on the architecture of collective security in Europe. Let’s recall 2008, when Russia took the initiative to create a Treaty on European security. In 2009, a draft of this agreement was presented, which mentioned, among other things, the following aspects:

1. Mutual cooperation between countries based on the principles of indivisible and equal security.

2. An agreement that the countries participating in the Treaty will not carry out actions affecting the security of other participants.

3. The openness of the Treaty for the accession of participants from all over the Eurasian and Euro-Atlantic area.

Western countries did not support this initiative. Moreover, they continued to expand the NATO military infrastructure in Europe, building new bases and accepting new countries into the alliance (Albania, Croatia).

The historical review I have given shows that for decades (since the 20th century), the EU countries have rejected all Soviet and Russian initiatives to create a European collective security architecture. The European Union did not want to enter into a dialogue on this topic and turned the idea of an equal security system into ruins.

Here is a typical example illustrated by Finland. Since 1948, when the Soviet-Finnish Friendship Treaty was signed, the USSR has been one of Helsinki’s most important economic partners. Finland actively bought oil from the Soviet Union at relatively low prices and then re-exported it to other European countries at a higher price. Due to its neutral position during the Cold War, Finland maintained political and economic relations with both the European Economic Community and the Warsaw Pact countries.

And what is happening now? In 2023, Finland joined NATO, becoming another springboard for the alliance’s military expansion. The country closed its border with Russia and began to massively reduce bilateral trade ties, which negatively affected the Finnish economy itself (especially the Finnish border settlements, many of which received most of their income through trade relations with the Russian Federation).

In the 2010s, many EU countries (Italy, Germany, and others that previously had active trade relations with Russia) began to break off bilateral contacts and impose sanctions, thereby undermining the very essence of the idea of free trade. What is the reason for this?

First, the EU countries have been actively using Russia’s resources for decades, buying oil and natural gas at favorable prices. But at the same time, Western European countries showed disrespect for Russia’s national interests and ignored its constructive proposals on the subject of collective security architecture. Instead of an equal dialogue, the EU showed arrogance.

Secondly, since the 90s, the EU has considered the former Warsaw Pact countries and the post-Soviet space as a market for its products and businesses. The EU imposed strict requirements and interfered in the economic processes in the states of Eastern and Central Europe, which began to join it. For example, in Latvia in 2006-2007, due to the agrarian reforms of the EU, the sugar industry of the republic was actually disbanded. This was unprofitable for the Latvian economy, but it was in line with the interests of the larger European sugar producers. Similar reductions in the sugar industry occurred at that time in Bulgaria, the former socialist country. And this is just one example of such EU interference in the economy of former Warsaw Pact members.

Also, the EU, within the framework of the “Eastern Partnership”, began its active economic expansion in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in the 2000s. The EU’s political and economic interference in the affairs of the CIS countries, along with NATO’s eastward expansion, posed a direct threat to Russia’s security. In turn, Russia has responded to this threat by strengthening its security and sovereignty, including in the economic sphere.

Thirdly, back in the 1990s, the EU countries became one of the main springboards of the Western hegemonic unipolar dictatorship led by the United States. The so-called “Western world” tried in every way to prevent the emergence of multipolarity, combining sanctions threats with neocolonial practices in the Global South. The number of international political contradictions grew every year, and the EU constantly refused equal dialogue.

Now, the year is 2025, and the EU has become a clone of NATO in its essence and actions. Like the North Atlantic Alliance, the EU is a vestige of the Cold War era. Instead of solving internal problems (for example, the inequality of economic development in Northern and Southern Europe, rising unemployment, and the European energy crisis), EU leaders are using aggressive Russophobic rhetoric, provoking new escalation stages, and imposing new sanctions packages. They are increasing military spending, sponsoring the militarization of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States, and continuing their neo-colonialist expansion in Africa. Berlin, Brussels, Paris, and Warsaw are now the instigators of conflicts that are pushing the whole of Europe into the abyss in the name of globalism and destructive neoliberalism.

This tendency of the EU establishment to escalate once again confirms that the situation on the continent is tense to the limit. The idea of a collective security architecture is once again becoming relevant to prevent larger and more numerous conflicts. However, this can no longer be a concept of European collective security. Similar projects are a thing of the past. The world has changed, and in recent decades, the role of Asian countries has increased significantly. Countries such as China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are showing high rates of economic development, and their regional and international influence is growing. Therefore, in my opinion, the collective security architecture should be considered as a possible future project for the whole of Eurasia, built on the basis of equality and mutual respect. It is especially important to take into account the national interests of the countries of the Global South, which have suffered from Western European colonialism and interference for centuries.

To prevent further confrontation, it is necessary to eliminate the root causes that eventually led to the escalation. One of the main security problems in Europe is the expansion of NATO to the east and the concentration of NATO military bases near the borders of Russia and Belarus. Brussels, Paris, and Berlin should clearly understand that such actions (along with the bellicose rhetoric and policies of the current EU leadership) lead to an even more serious confrontation. Moscow and Minsk have repeatedly stressed that they will defend their territory and sovereignty in the event of a direct threat from the West.

It seems to me that, in the future, the most favorable option for reducing tensions in Europe and starting a dialogue on a new Eurasian collective security architecture could be the complete withdrawal of NATO troops from the EU countries bordering Russia (Finland, the Baltic states). If EU countries want to restore relations with Russia in the future, they should stop their hostile anti-Russian actions.

In the emerging multipolar world, there will be neither metropolises nor unipolar hegemonies. Europe is not the center of the world, but a political and geographical region like Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Therefore, future global security can only be based on an equal and mutually respectful relationship between countries and continents, that is, between all poles of a multipolar world order. And there is no place in this system for such destructive practices as the neocolonial paradigm of thinking and Western arrogance towards other peoples.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

EU ‘preparing for war’ – Hungarian FM

RT | March 29, 2025

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused Brussels bureaucrats of clinging to a “failed pro-war policy” in a desperate attempt to delay the moment when European taxpayers begin asking where the money spent on bankrolling Kiev has gone.

The European Union recently advised its 450 million inhabitants to stockpile essential supplies for at least 72 hours, with EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib warning on Wednesday that the Ukraine conflict threatens the bloc’s overall security.

Szijjarto said he initially thought the warning was some kind of joke or “trolling,” after Lahbib posted a bizarre video showing Europeans what to pack in a 72-hour survival kit.

“But why, in the 21st century, should EU citizens prepare a survival kit? There’s only one explanation: Brussels is preparing for war,“ Szijjarto wrote in a post on X on Friday. “At a time when there’s finally a real chance for a ceasefire and meaningful peace talks with [President Donald Trump’s] return to office, Brussels is going in the opposite direction, clinging to a failed pro-war policy.”

“Why? Because as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine?”

EU institutions in Brussels and individual member states have spent over €132 billion over the past three years supporting Kiev, and have pledged an additional €115 billion that has yet to be allocated, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute.

Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has pushed for a diplomatic resolution and sought to recoup what he estimates to be over $300 billion in US taxpayer money that his predecessor “gifted” to Kiev. Washington recently brokered a limited ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, placing a moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure. Kiev, however, has repeatedly breached the ceasefire terms, according to Moscow.

Despite the ongoing peace process, the EU has continued to push a hawkish agenda. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently unveiled an €800 billion plan to ramp up military spending through loans.

Meanwhile, France and the UK continue to advocate for the deployment of a military contingent to Ukraine. Speaking after a summit in Paris on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that a so-called “coalition of the willing” will seek to deploy a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after a peace deal with Russia is reached.

The proposal to send troops has already been rejected by several EU members. The “coalition of the willing” – a phrase originally coined by the US in 2003 to describe countries backing the invasion of Iraq – now mostly refers to states that have pledged to continue supporting Kiev militarily, without necessarily committing to troop deployments.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

UK, France involved in Kiev’s latest attack on Russian energy infrastructure – Moscow

RT | March 28, 2025

France and the UK actively aided Kiev in a strike on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has told journalists. Earlier the Russian Defense Ministry said that a metering facility was “de facto destroyed” in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack.

“[We] have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles],” Zakharova said, commenting on the strike.

“The command came from London,” she said, branding the attack part of a Ukrainian “terror” campaign targeting Russian energy infrastructure. The spokeswoman added that such actions demonstrate that Kiev is “impossible to negotiate with.”

Although Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “publicly supported” a temporary suspension of strikes on energy infrastructure agreed by Moscow and Washington, he “did nothing to observe it,” according to Zakharova.

Moscow ordered that attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure cease on March 18, following a phone call between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Russia and the US also agreed on a list of energy facilities that should not be targeted as part of a truce earlier this week. The list included gas facilities.

Kiev also agreed to a US-proposed 30-day partial ceasefire following talks between Ukrainian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia on March 15. Zelensky hailed the development and even described it as a diplomatic “victory” for Ukraine, but did not publicly mention any relevant orders to the Ukrainian military.

The Russian Defense Ministry has regularly reported on Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure over the past few weeks. Earlier on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that the strike suggested that the Ukrainian military no longer follows Kiev’s orders due to a “total lack of supervision.”

Paris and London have emerged as the staunchest supporters of Ukraine in the face of a gradual shift in Washington’s position under the new Trump administration. In early March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron said that their nations were ready to lead a “coalition of the willing”—a group of pro-Ukrainian countries prepared to support Kiev with troops and aircraft.

Russia has vehemently rejected any possibility of NATO-aligned European troops deploying to the conflict zone. It has accused France and Britain of hatching plans for “military intervention in Ukraine,” which could lead to a direct armed clash between Russia and NATO.

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Possible new Black Sea agreement likely to fail again

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 26, 2025

The recently initiated negotiations between the Putin and Trump administrations to de-escalate the conflict in the Black Sea and reform the regional maritime security architecture represent a pragmatic move by both leaders. While Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks stability to protect Russia’s economic and geopolitical interests, U.S. President Donald Trump, with his well-known commercial interests in the region, sees an opportunity to ease tensions and restore crucial trade flows. However, despite the seemingly conciliatory intentions of both powers, the failure of this diplomatic effort is almost certain due to the Kiev regime’s insistence on perpetuating and escalating the conflict.

The Black Sea is a vital strategic route for Eurasian trade, especially for Russia, whose exports of goods such as grain and manufactured products rely on secure and operational maritime corridors. Putin, aware of the economic and military implications of continued escalation, has once again shown a willingness to negotiate a reduction in hostilities and establish clear rules for navigation and security in the region.

Similarly, Donald Trump, whose administration demonstrated a pragmatic approach toward Russia, has a direct interest in Black Sea stability. Trump sees the de-escalation of violence as an opportunity to strengthen trade ties, reduce logistical costs, and ensure safer commodity flows, directly benefiting the global supply chains.

For Trump, a ceasefire and a renewed security architecture would not only bring stability to the region but could also open space for new profitable trade agreements — even between American/Western and Russian companies. It is also important to emphasize that a Black Sea ceasefire agreement would further enhance Trump’s international image as a diplomatic leader and “peacemaker.”

Despite these converging interests, the biggest obstacle to peace is the Kiev regime, which continues to reject any possibility of de-escalation. Despite peace efforts led by Trump, the Ukrainian government remains uncompromising, fueled by bellicose rhetoric and the unconditional support of irresponsible European states. Rather than seeking peace, Kiev seems determined to intensify the war, driven by hopes that the conflict’s continuation will ensure the survival of the Maidan Junta.

The Ukrainian government sees any agreement as an unacceptable concession to Russia, especially regarding sovereignty over Crimea and the New Regions. Kiev, therefore, sees a possible ceasefire not as an opportunity to negotiate but as a threat to its alleged “strategic and self-defense objectives.” This stance not only undermines diplomatic efforts but also serves to perpetuate a cycle of violence and instability, hampering any effort toward fruitful diplomatic dialogue.

Kiev’s insistence on fueling military escalation is not merely a reactive stance to the negotiations—it is a calculated strategy to maintain Western financial and military support, even if only from European countries. Zelensky and his allies believe that by keeping tensions high, they can secure more weapons, additional sanctions against Russia, and possibly more direct Western military intervention. This approach makes any serious attempt to establish lasting peace impossible, no matter how willing Putin and Trump may be to compromise.

Proof of this scenario lies in the fact that Putin and Trump recently spoke by phone and agreed on a 30-day ceasefire on infrastructure targets. Even after Kiev accepted the terms, the regime violated the agreement just hours later—making it practically clear that it does not recognize the legitimacy of any Russian peace guarantee.

Since 2014, Kiev has repeatedly sabotaged all international agreements in which it has participated. The regime has been unable to properly implement the demands of the Minsk Agreements and caved under British pressure to continue the war in the summer of 2022—in addition to sabotaging all Russian-American bilateral negotiations.

Ultimately, the possible failure of the negotiations will be the inevitable consequence of Ukraine’s stance. As long as Kiev insists on terror as a strategy to achieve its goals, any diplomatic effort between Russia and the United States will be doomed from the start. Kiev’s rhetoric, driven by a desire for confrontation and Western political support, is incompatible with peace.

Black Sea stability is vital not only for Russia but for the security and economic prosperity of the entire region. However, as long as Kiev insists on perpetuating the conflict, Putin’s and Trump’s aspirations for lasting peace will remain nothing more than an “illusion”—a hope frustrated by Ukrainian belligerence and insistence on turning the Black Sea into yet another geopolitical battleground.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU rejects US-mediated Black Sea ceasefire deal

RT | March 27, 2025

The EU will not fulfill Russia’s demand to lift sanctions on the country’s main agricultural bank as part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed between Moscow and Washington, European Commission Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Anitta Hipper has said.

During the talks between Russian and US experts in Riyadh on Monday, the sides agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers. The maritime ceasefire is seen by Moscow and Washington as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict.

In her interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday, Hipper insisted that “the end of the Russian unprovoked and unjustified aggression in Ukraine and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine would be one of the main preconditions to amend or lift sanctions.”

“The EU’s main focus remains to maximize pressure on Russia, using all tools available, including sanctions, to diminish Russia’s ability to wage its war against Ukraine,” she insisted.

US President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that his administration is considering lifting some curbs against Moscow, saying that “there are about five or six conditions. We are looking at all of them.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed later that Kiev did not agree to the maritime truce due to it representing “a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions” against Russia.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to fold up its obligations.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that the maritime truce could take effect only once certain conditions set out by Russia are met. “Of course, this time justice must prevail, and we will continue our work with the Americans [on the Black Sea Initiative],” Peskov stressed.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Kiev keeps breaking energy ceasefire – Moscow

RT | March 27, 2025

Ukrainian forces have targeted Russian energy infrastructure on three occasions over the course of 24 hours in violation of a US-mediated moratorium on such attacks, the Defense Ministry in Moscow reported on Thursday.

The incidents included a drone strike in Bryansk Region that disabled a high-voltage power line, an artillery strike on a transformer station in the same part of Russia, as well as what the military believe to be an attempted kamikaze drone strike targeting an underground natural gas storage facility in Crimea. In the latter episode, the Ukrainian aircraft was intercepted as it neared the target, the statement read.

On March 18, the Russian military was ordered to refrain from attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure under a deal that was agreed upon by President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has publicly supported the 30-day partial ceasefire, which should involve a reciprocal suspension of attacks by Kiev’s forces.

The Russian Ministry of Defense, however, has reported multiple Ukrainian violations of the agreement, which it described as aimed at undermining Trump’s mediation efforts between Moscow and Kiev. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that the Kremlin will honor its obligations despite Ukrainian actions, since the agreement represents positive diplomatic engagement with the Trump administration.

Earlier this week, US officials met separately with Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia. Following the talks, Moscow said it was willing to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative, an arrangement that was originally mediated by the UN and Türkiye and expired in 2023.

The original deal was meant to facilitate Russian and Ukrainian exports of grains and fertilizers. Moscow, however, pulled out of the arrangement, citing a lack of progress in the lifting of Western sanctions on its commerce, which it expected to get under the initiative. Moscow is prepared to reinstate the initiative if these commitments are honored, Peskov has said.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

‘The resistance must continue’ – Macron hands Zelensky €2 billion in military aid

Remix News | March 27, 2025

French President Emmanuel Macron hosted the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a working dinner ahead of a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing tomorrow, but Zelensky was there for more than just a free meal.

“France sends a message of friendship and support. We are and will remain on Ukraine’s side,” Macron said at a joint press conference with Zelensky, announcing that his country would provide €2 billion in military aid to Ukraine.

“We must continue to provide immediate support to Ukraine. The resistance must continue. I have announced an additional €2 billion in support,” Macron said, writes Magyar Nemzet. The support still includes Milan anti-tank missiles, air defense systems, such as the previously delivered MICA missiles mounted on Mirage aircraft, and Mistral surface-to-air missiles.

Ukrainian forces will also receive VAB armored vehicles and AMX–10 RC tanks, as well as a wide range of ammunition, some of which is remotely controlled, and drones. The French president added that there are ongoing discussions surrounding satellite and intelligence cooperation involving Ukrainian manufacturing, “thanks to partnerships with our defense companies.”

“We have entered a new era, and Russia’s aggressiveness not only poses a challenge to global order and world stability, but also has a very direct impact on our European security,” Macron stressed, adding that he expects Russia to also commit to the 30-day unconditional ceasefire Ukraine agreed to.

For his part, Zelensky remarked on sanctions, saying: “Sanctions against Russia must remain in place and be strengthened as long as the Russian occupation lasts.” Moscow understands no other language than the language of force, that is a fact.”

He also touched on the possibility of deploying foreign soldiers in Ukraine, which will be discussed at the Coalition of the Willing in Paris, which will be held tomorrow.

Zelensky also highlighted France’s “unwavering support” for Ukraine, adding that he believes “much can and should be done for the security of Europe.”

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

President Putin: 25 Years of Resisting the US Deep State and European Globalists

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – March 26, 2025

Since winning on March 26, 2000, Putin has fought to protect Russia’s sovereignty—standing up to George Soros, the Rothschilds, and Western elites. Read more to see how he did it.

2025: Putin signaled readiness for dialogue with the US administration on Ukraine, while Donald Trump exposed USAID‘s financial abuses and vowed to target US deep state actors and globalists.

2016: Putin signed a law banning the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Russia, as well as the import of products containing or produced using GMOs.

2015: Russia declared the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and other major USAID grant recipients as “undesirable organizations.”

2012: USAID was banned from operating in Russia. Additionally, Russia introduced its “foreign agents” law to regulate foreign-funded NGOs.

2003: Russian oligarch and Yukos owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested for embezzlement and tax evasion, ending Western-backed oligarchic influence in Russia. Later, he revealed Lord Jacob Rothschild as his powerful backer and Yukos’ “protector.”

2003: George Soros, who condemned Khodorkovsky’s arrest, shut down his Russia funds. His exit coincided with a surge in color revolutions, but Putin’s Russia resisted the globalist push.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s GDP exceeds $2.3tn in 2024, almost doubling in 4 years

Al Mayadeen | March 26, 2025

Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin stated that Russia’s GDP reached 200 trillion rubles ($2.3 trillion) in 2024, nearly doubling over the past four years.

Addressing the State Duma, he said, “GDP breached the 200 trillion rubles mark in nominal terms in 2024 for the first time, having almost doubled since 2020.”

“Domestic demand, both investment and consumer, fueled growth,” the premier said, adding that “fixed investment gained almost 7.5% in a year.”

On a related note, Russia’s crude oil exports have surged to their highest level in five months, even as US-led negotiations continue to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine.

According to recent data revealed on March 25, Russian crude oil flows from all ports rose to 3.45 million barrels per day in the four weeks ending March 23, marking the highest level since October 20. This increase came despite a weekly decline in shipments, primarily due to lower flows from the Baltic and Black seas.

Russian GDP grows by 5%

Last year, Mishustin announced on July 12 that the GDP of Russia has grown 5% in the first five months of the year – higher than expected.

During a meeting on economic issues, he said, “Today, we will discuss the current situation in the economy. The dynamics remains high – in May growth accelerated slightly compared to April to 4.5%.”

He added, “If we take the statistics for five months, the gross domestic product increased by 5% compared to the same period last year. This is significantly higher than forecasts, despite all attempts from outside to stop us.”

Mishustin revealed his belief that the data in the real sector of the economy are also positive as he stated that from January to May, the manufacturing sector grew by nearly 9%, citing machine building as one of the key factors in this area, “which showed double-digit growth rates.”

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Western support won’t secure victory for Kiev – US intelligence

RT | March 26, 2025

Western military aid to Kiev and sanctions against Russia cannot shift the balance of power in the Ukraine conflict, according to the US Intelligence Community’s 2025 Annual Threat Assessment.

The intelligence community’s official coordinated evaluation of an array of threats lists Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as countries which represent a challenge to US interests.

Moscow holds the advantage on the battlefield, having adapted to outside efforts to assist Ukraine, the report’s authors explain. The “grinding war of attrition” is expected to further weaken Kiev, “regardless of any US or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.”

While the conflict has taken a significant toll in terms of manpower, the assessment notes that it has also afforded Moscow “a wealth of lessons regarding combat against Western weapons and intelligence in a large-scale war.”

This experience probably will challenge future US defense planning, including against other adversaries with whom Moscow is sharing those lessons learned.

Russia has proven to be “adaptable and resilient” during what it views as a Western proxy war, enhancing its military capabilities across several domains, including unmanned systems, electronic warfare, and the integration of cyber operations with conventional military maneuvers, the report explains.

It warns that Western efforts to undermine the Russian economy “have accelerated its investments in alternative partnerships and use of various tools of statecraft to offset US power, with China’s backing and reinforcement.”

Beijing considers the US use of unilateral sanctions illegal under international law and rooted in a “Cold War mentality.” The US assessment states that major non-Western nations are poised to align with Russia in order to pursue policies that challenge American dominance, such as de-dollarization.

The continuation of the Ukraine conflict risks unintentional escalation, the document cautions. Russia is prepared for such scenarios, armed with a substantial strategic arsenal that includes both conventional and nuclear weapons, as well as cyber-warfare and anti-satellite operations capabilities.

“Russia’s air and naval forces remain intact, with the former being more modern and capable” than at the start of direct hostilities, the report states.

The US intelligence community posits that both Moscow and Kiev may have reasons to avoid a hasty resolution on unfavorable terms. Russian President Vladimir Putin perceives that “positive battlefield trends allow for some strategic patience,” while Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky likely fears that a clear defeat could “prompt domestic backlash.”

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »