Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Zelensky reverses hardline position on peace talks

RT | March 4, 2025

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has said that Kiev is ready to engage in peace negotiations with Russia, to be brokered by US President Donald Trump. The statement comes after the White House reportedly stopped all military aid to Kiev following a disastrous meeting in the Oval Office between the two leaders, for which US officials have demanded Zelensky apologize.

Zelensky made a concession-filled post on X on Tuesday, saying his public feud with Trump in the Oval Office was “regrettable.”

“We are ready to work fast to end the war,” Zelensky wrote. He has frequently said in the past that Ukraine would fight as long as necessary and that peace talks could only happen on Ukraine’s terms.

He proposed the release of prisoners and establishing “truces” on both the air and sea fronts, echoing suggestions by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in a meeting with him in London on Sunday. The French-UK plan envisages a temporary, month-long “truce in the air, on the seas, and on energy infrastructure.” Moscow has repeatedly ruled out a temporary ceasefire with Kiev, insisting on a permanent, legally binding peace deal that addresses the root causes of the conflict.

On Monday, Trump reportedly ordered a temporary halt to all US military aid to Ukraine, aiming to pressure Zelensky into negotiations to end the conflict with Russia. An unnamed senior administration official told Fox News that military assistance would stay suspended until the Ukrainian leadership demonstrates a genuine commitment to peace talks.

“Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer,” Zelensky continued on X, offering his appreciation for Washington’s support. “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts,” he added.

“’Ready’ is good, it is positive,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reacted to the statement.

During the Friday meeting, Trump accused Zelensky of ingratitude and “gambling with World War III” by refusing to work towards a halt to hostilities.

On Sunday, Zelensky told reporters that “an agreement to end the war is still very, very far away, and no one has started all these steps yet.” Trump condemned his statement on social media, promising that “America will not put up with it for much longer.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated Moscow’s readiness to resolve the Ukraine conflict through peaceful means. He emphasized Russia’s aim of establishing an international system that ensures a balanced and mutual consideration of interests, creating a long-term, indivisible European and global security framework.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Here’s the apocalyptic Trump choice facing the EU

By Fyodor Lukyanov | Rossiyskaya Gazeta | March 1, 2025

Friday night’s dramatic events at the White House, featuring Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, have placed Western Europe in an extremely difficult position. Many of the region’s leaders, who range from moderate to intense skeptics of US President Donald Trump, have nonetheless attempted to preserve the traditional transatlantic alliance. They have pushed Washington to find a resolution to the Ukraine conflict that aligns with European interests. But the now-public rupture between Zelensky and Trump has stripped them of that opportunity.

Whether by design or by accident, Zelensky has forced the United States to clarify its stance: Washington is a mediator, not a combatant, and its priority is ending escalation, not taking sides. This marks a stark departure from the previous position, in which the US led a Western coalition against Russia in defense of Ukraine. The message is clear – American support for Kiev is not a matter of principle but merely a tool in a broader geopolitical game.

Western Europe’s Limited Options

The EU has loudly declared that it will never abandon Ukraine. But in reality, it lacks the resources to replace the United States as Kiev’s primary backer. At the same time, reversing course is not so simple. The price of trying to defeat Russia is too high, and the economic toll too severe, but a sudden shift in policy would force Western European leaders to answer for their past decisions. In an EU already grappling with internal unrest, such a reversal would hand ammunition to the political opponents of the bloc’s leaders.

Another key reason Western Europe remains on this path is its post-Cold War reliance on moral arguments as a political tool – both internally and in its dealings with external partners. Unlike traditional powers, the EU is not a state. Where sovereign nations can pivot and adjust policies with relative ease, a bloc of more than two dozen countries inevitably gets bogged down in bureaucracy. Decisions are slow, coordination is imperfect, and mechanisms often fail to function as intended.

For years, Brussels attempted to turn this structural weakness into an ideological strength. The EU, despite its complexity, was supposed to represent a new form of cooperative politics – a model for the world to follow. But it is now clear that this model has failed.

At best, it may survive within Western Europe’s culturally homogeneous core, though even that is uncertain. The world has moved on, and the inefficiencies remain. This makes the dream of an independent, self-sufficient “Europe” – one capable of acting without American oversight – an impossibility.

Adapting to Washington’s New Reality

Western Europe may attempt to endure the turbulence of another Trump presidency, just as it did during his first term. But this is not just about Trump. The shift in US policy is part of a deeper political realignment, one that ensures there will be no return to the golden age of the 1990s and early 2000s.

More importantly, Ukraine has become the catalyst for these changes.  The EU does not have the luxury of waiting things out. Its leaders must decide – quickly – how to respond. Most likely, they will attempt to maintain the appearance of unity with Washington while adapting to new US policies. This will be painful, especially in economic terms. Unlike in the past, modern America acts solely in its own interests, with little regard for the needs of its European allies.

One indicator of Western Europe’s shifting posture may be the upcoming visit of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Washington. At present, Merz presents himself as a hardliner. But if history is any guide, he may soon shift positions, aligning more closely with Washington’s new direction.

The alternative: Europe vs. America?

There is, of course, another possibility – the EU could attempt to unify and resist Trump’s America. But given the lack of capable leadership and the deep divisions within the bloc, this seems unlikely. Ukraine could serve as a rallying point for European solidarity, but public sentiment within many EU nations makes this improbable.

At the same time, the aggressive way in which Washington now interferes in European domestic politics – actively supporting populist movements sympathetic to Trump – could create an unexpected effect. Western European elites may find themselves forced to consolidate in response, while nationalists, who have long railed against external influence, may struggle to position themselves against this new reality.

Regardless of the outcome, what we are witnessing is an internal crisis within the so-called “collective West.” The very notion of Western unity is at stake. Historically, the political West is a recent construct, largely a product of the Cold War. And even then, the relationship between the Old World and the New was often uneasy. In the 1940s and 1950s, despite its rivalry with the Soviet Union, the US actively encouraged the dismantling of European colonial empires, asserting its own dominance in the process.

The answer to Western Europe’s diminishing global influence back then was deeper integration. Trump now calls the European project a failure, but for decades, Washington saw it as a useful means of streamlining Western politics and economics under American leadership. Today, that calculus has changed. The US no longer views a strong, unified EU as an asset, and it is not shy about making that clear.

If Western European leaders do decide to confront America, it will mark the beginning of a new chapter – one that could signal the definitive end of the Cold War framework that has shaped Western politics for decades.

Russia’s perspective

For Russia, a unified and coordinated EU holds no strategic value. The era in which Moscow entertained the idea of continental integration – including Russia – is long gone. Experience, more than time, has put an end to those illusions.

Moscow’s focus is now on pragmatic opportunities. The internal struggle within the West should be viewed solely from the perspective of what tangible benefits can be derived. Long-term strategic plans are irrelevant in a time of such rapid geopolitical shifts. Right now, the priority is to act decisively, capitalize on the ongoing fractures, and secure Russia’s interests amid the changing global order.

Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RT team

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Let’s Not Forget JFK’s Attitude Toward Russia

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 4, 2025

In the aftermath of the tirade at the White House among President Trump, Vice-President Vance, and Ukrainian President Zelensky, both conservatives and liberals (i.e., “progressives” or leftists) are going ballistic over Trump’s friendly attitude toward Russia. They are pointing out that since at least the end of World War II, the official attitude of the U.S. government has always been that Russia is to be considered a threat to U.S. “national security” as well as an official enemy, rival, opponent, or competitor of the United States. They say that Trump’s positive overtures to Russia are unprecedented.

For example, consider a March 2 article in the New York Times entitled “Trump Is Doing Real Damage to America” by David French, which states that after World War II, “both parties saw the Soviet Union as the grave national security threat it was. For decades, both parties were more or less committed to a strategy of containment that sought to keep Soviet tyranny at bay.” French also suggests that America’s “fundamental identity” lies to this very day in a continued commitment to NATO and a continuous antipathy toward Russia.

French’s mindset is pretty much mirrored in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in a March 3 article entitled “Trump’s Embrace of Russia Rocks NATO Alliance” by Daniel Michaels. The article states: “The American president’s embrace of Russia, an adversary that has worked for years to undermine U.S. global leadership, runs counter to decades of Western policy. The U.S. and its allies founded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 75 years ago as protection against Soviet Russia.”

There is one notable omission from both articles, however, an omission that occurs in other articles along these same lines in the mainstream press. That omission is President John F. Kennedy and, specifically, Kennedy’s move toward peaceful, friendly, and normal relations with Soviet Russia and, for that matter, with the rest of the communist world.

Why would members of the mainstream press fail to point out this one important exception to the official policy of perpetual hostility and antipathy toward Russia? After all, they have to be familiar with Kennedy’s June 10, 1963, commencement address at American University — a speech that became known famously as Kennedy’s Peace Speech.

My hunch is that the reason the mainstream press omits this major exception to its official anti-Russia historical narrative is twofold: (1) It would cause them to have to explain why Kennedy was trying to change America’s direction, something that the mainstreamers would prefer not to do and (2) It would cause them to have to address the uncomfortable subject of the JFK assassination, something the mainstream press has always been loathe to do.

By the time JFK delivered his speech, he had achieved a “breakthrough’ that enabled him to see that the Cold War was just one great big racket, one that was not only extremely dangerous but also one that was being used to justify the conversion of the federal government from its founding system of a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a totalitarian type of system in which the federal government wields omnipotent powers, including assassination, torture, and indefinite detention. He had achieved this breakthrough after experiencing the national-security establishment’s perfidy in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, its advocacy of a surprise first-strike nuclear attack on Russia, its infamous Operation Northwoods proposal, and its highly dangerous and irresponsible actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

To get a sense of the dramatic and revolutionary shift JFK was taking America, it is necessary to read or listen to the entire speech, which can be done here. To get a sense of why there was so much anger, hatred, and distrust for Kennedy within the U.S. government and the mainstream press, consider the following excerpts from his speech:

I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude–as individuals and as a Nation–for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward–by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable–that mankind is doomed–that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade–therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable–and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal….

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union….

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements–in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland–a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago….

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history–but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

While JFK did not formally declare an end to the Cold War, every official within the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — as well as their Operation Mockingbird assets within the mainstream press — fully understood that that was the import of his Peace Speech. Thus, it is not difficult to see why U.S. officials deemed Kennedy to be a grave threat to “national security.” The president who they considered to be a naive, incompetent, traitorous womanizer was not only taking America down a road to communist defeat in the Cold War, he was also implicitly challenging the need for a totalitarian-like national-security state for America. JFK’s Peace Speech was effectively a declaration of war by the executive branch of the U.S. government against the national-security branch.

JFK’s Peace Speech left the national-security establishment with a deeply discomforting choice: Sit back and let Kennedy take the country down or keep America “safe” by eliminating Kennedy. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board and JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. Also see The Kennedy Autopsy and An Encounter with Evil by Jacob Hornberger.

Do you see why the mainstream press would prefer to airbrush John Kennedy’s decision to end the Cold War racket and move America toward peaceful and harmonious relations with Russia out of America’s history? If they include that major exception in their official historical narrative, they would have to explain the reasons for Kennedy’s decision as well as delve into the national-security establishment’s motive for eliminating him. They then have to explain how his assassination restored things to “normal” — with the continuation of the Cold War, the war in Vietnam, which ended up sacrificing more than 58,000 American men for nothing, the never-ending support of the Cold War dinosaur known as NATO, and the perpetual anti-Russia mindset that pervades America today.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Russia ready to facilitate US-Iran negotiations – Kremlin

RT | March 4, 2025

Russia is ready to broker talks between the US and Iran, including on Tehran’s nuclear program and its regional proxy network, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Bloomberg on Tuesday.

Trump expressed interest in talking to Iran about those issues, both in his phone call to Putin in February and via representatives at the high-level US-Russian meeting in Riyadh just days later, the news agency wrote, citing anonymous officials.

“Russia believes that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through negotiations,” Peskov told Bloomberg when asked about such contact.

Moscow “is ready to do everything in its power to achieve this,” he added.

US President Donald Trump returned to his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran last month, just weeks after Moscow and Tehran signed a landmark strategic partnership agreement. Trump’s executive order said that Washington would ramp up sanctions on Iran, aiming to disrupt its nuclear program, conventional missile deployment, and network of regional proxy groups.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has said the country is building up its defenses, citing regular threats from US ally Israel.

“The Israeli regime’s FM and other officials keep threatening Iran with military action while the West continues to blame Iran for its defense capability. This is outrageous & irrational,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said last week. Given that Israel is “addicted to aggression and lawless behavior,” it is “responsible and essential to maximize our defense capabilities,” he stressed.

The day before, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warned that a “military option” should be on the table to stop the potential weaponization of Tehran’s nuclear program.

Israel and the West have long seen Iran’s uranium enrichment activities as a secret attempt to develop nuclear weapons – allegations that Tehran has repeatedly denied.

While Trump has touted harsher sanctions, he has also signaled that he is interested in signing a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Tehran.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stressed that talks with the US are unlikely to bear fruit, citing the prior nuclear deal Trump unilaterally left during his first presidency.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Resurgence and the Evolving US-Russia Relations

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – March 4, 2025

Since World War II, Russia and the US have been fierce rivals, but with Donald Trump’s re-election and Russia’s rise as a superpower, the US is now shifting toward fostering cordial ties.

Russia’s Resurgence and the Evolving US-Russia Relations

The Cold War resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union, creating a unipolar world order led by the United States. Since the culmination of the Cold War, the US has been following a more hardline foreign policy towards its rivals and allies, tarnishing its soft image around the globe. However, its economic and military supremacy helped it to sustain its position as the sole superpower of the world for almost 3 decades. The United States has been alluring third-world countries through economic aid to achieve its geopolitical interests in different regions. It also coerced weak countries militarily to support its foreign policy interests.

Nonetheless, the rapid rise of Russia and China has provided third-world countries with new military and economic giants, transforming the global geopolitical landscape. Russia’s influence is rapidly rising among the Muslim and African countries. It is also known as the leading country of the BRICS organization. Moscow is also leading the de-dollarization movement under the banner of the BRICS. Global oil trade in non-US dollar currencies has already reached 20 percent in 2020-23 from a mere 2 percent in 2000-2010. More than 40 countries are demonstrating their interest in the BRICS membership, signaling the decline of the US-led unipolar world order. The rise of BRICS has significantly enhanced Russia’s diplomatic influence. Most third-world countries seek to establish cordial relations with Moscow due to its policy of noninterference and its inclusive foreign policy.

The Strain in US-Israel Relations and Russia’s Global Stature

On the other hand, the US support to Israel in its war crimes in Gaza and its veto of the UN ceasefire resolutions have ruptured its international image. Israel has been the largest recipient of US aid since its creation. Despite all international condemnations and appeals, the Biden administration provided billions of dollars of US aid, both military and financial, to Israel. It also provided diplomatic support to Israel, further deepening the international resentment against the United States. Meanwhile, the Putin administration proved to be a staunch supporter of human rights and justice by speaking for the rights of Palestinian citizens. In the past few years, President Putin has become one of the strongest voices against Islamophobia.

Due to his vision, Russia has regained its position as the superpower of the world. Russia’s soft image has risen to an unprecedented level under his presidency. Moreover, the failure of the US sanctions to bankrupt Russia is often attributed to his leadership skills. It is also due to his leadership that the United States has been unable to isolate Moscow diplomatically. The Biden administration’s policy of weakening Russia by ensnaring it in an invincible conflict with Ukraine also seems to be collapsing due to the victories of the Russian forces.

US and Russia’s Changing Relations

The incumbent US President Donald Trump has always admired the leadership skills and personality of President Putin. He has consistently criticized Ukraine’s unwarranted provocation of Russia. President Trump is aware that the U.S. is not in a position to defeat or compete with Russia’s rise. The recent summit between Sergei Lavrov, the Secretary of State of Russia, and his American counterpart, to lay a foundation for the meeting of the leaders of the two countries and Trump’s aggressive rhetoric towards Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a big diplomatic win for Moscow. President Trump has also praised President Putin for his seriousness to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. All these developments have further elevated the diplomatic stature of Russia internationally.

In a surprising move, the United States voted against a Ukrainian resolution, blaming Moscow for its invasion, in the United Nations, marking a significant shift in the US policy under President Trump. Instead, the U.S. introduced a new resolution, titled The Path to Peace, which featured neutral language and called for a lasting peace. This sent a chill down the spines of the European leaders, as they knew that Ukraine could not win against Russia without the US support. This development holds immense significance and can be seen as a diplomatic win for Russia and Washington’s acceptance of defeat as a global hegemon. It is this sense of defeat that encourages the US to foster ties with Moscow.

Although President Trump has repeatedly threatened the BRICS nations about the de-dollarization campaign, the growing interest of the middle powers in the BRICS membership and their tilt towards Russia indicates that the US needs to establish cordial ties with Moscow to avoid isolation in the new multipolar world order. Washington stood victorious in the first Cold War, but the current developments demonstrate that it has already lost the Cold War 2.0. Russia, as always, seems to be open to diplomatic negotiations with the United States and is also ready for a peaceful solution to its conflict with Ukraine, but it will never compromise on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

War and Peace in Ukraine

John Mearsheimer, Glenn Diesen & Pavel Shchelin with Diana Panchenko
Glenn Diesen | February 27, 2025

I had the great pleasure to participate in a discussion on a Ukrainian political program on the topic of “War and Peace”. Why did the war start, and how can it end? The war began as a result of the Western-backed coup in 2014 that stripped Ukraine of its neutrality, and peace will unavoidably depend on restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. A humiliating peace entails no NATO membership, painful territorial concessions, and no security guarantees – although this is also the best possible option.

  • Host: Diana Panchenko – Ukraine’s “Journalist of the Year” in 2020 and listed among Ukraine’s top 10 influential women
  • Guests: John J. Mearsheimer, Glenn Diesen and Pavel Shchelin

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Video | , , | Leave a comment

US puts firewall to protect Ukraine deal with Russia

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 3, 2025 

The verbal shootout at the Oval Office last Friday brought out President Vladimir Zelensky’s fury that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are very close to a deal on Ukraine, while the conclave in Lancashire House in London on Sunday involving 18 European leaders messaged that Zelensky is in good company. 

Connecting the dots, the incisive mind of Stephen Bryen, a leading expert on security, strategy and technology who previously held senior positions in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, wrote on Substack: “Trump invited [French president] Macron and [UK prime minister] Starmer to Washington to brief them, which he apparently did. The French went away fairly unhappy, but Starmer seemed to be in general agreement. Starmer made a pitch to include Article 5 and NATO in any deal; Trump rejected that appeal. Putin, meanwhile, talked to [Chinese president] Xi by telephone and sent Sergei Shoigu (who heads Russia’s Security Council, something like the NSC) to Beijing to meet with Xi.

“Trump invited Zelensky. The cover for Zelensky’s appearance in Washington was the “Minerals Deal” which the two leaders were supposed to sign… The real reason for the Zelensky visit was to brief him on the Putin negotiations and to gain his support.”

In the event, Trump could neither brief Zelensky on the Ukraine deal nor sign the “Minerals Deal” because the Ukrainian president took great exception to any negotiations with Putin. He did this in public, to Trump’s face, and in front of the press. The result was there was no private meeting and Trump told Zelensky, “he would be welcomed back only when he was ready for peace.” 

This is where things stand. The strategy session that Trump is due to take later today with his top advisors will signal what happens next. There is a strong likelihood that Trump may cut off arms deliveries and/or financial assistance to Ukraine. 

Now that the Rubicon has been crossed, Trump is unlikely to change course on Russia — unless, of course, Zelensky falls in line in abject surrender, which seems unlikely too. Russians of course welcome his ouster. 

It is highly unlikely that Trump will be cowed by the temper tantrums of the EU or impressed by Britain’s grandstanding. Germany is without a government for the next several weeks; it  weakens the Europeans’ punch. 

Indeed, the back channel communication between Moscow and Washington has gained traction. Moscow assesses that Trump has the upper hand. This is reflected in the growing optimism in Putin’s remarks last Thursday while addressing the Board of the Federal Security Service (collegium of Russia’s top foreign intelligence officials.) 

Putin began by saying that the world and the international situation are changing rapidly and “the first contacts with the new US administration inspire certain hopes.” 

He said: “There is a reciprocal commitment [with Trump] to work to restore interstate relations and to gradually address the enormous amount of systemic and strategic problems in the global architecture which once provoked the crises in Ukraine and other regions… Importantly, our partners demonstrate pragmatism and a realistic vision of things, and have abandoned numerous stereotypes, the so-called rules, and messianic, ideological clichés of their predecessors.”

Putin estimated that conditions exist for a dialogue “on bringing a fundamental solution to Ukraine crisis… a dialogue on creating a system that will truly ensure a balanced and mutual consideration of interests, an indivisible European and global security system for the long term, where the security of some countries cannot be ensured at the expense or to the detriment of the security of other countries, definitely not Russia.”

However, Putin also flagged that sections Western elites “are still committed to maintaining instability in the world, and these forces will try to disrupt or to compromise the newly resumed dialogue” and, hence it is vital that “every possibility offered by dialogue and special services to thwart such attempts” needs to be leveraged. 

Indeed, the New York Times disclosed today that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia “as part of a larger re-evaluation of all operations against Russia.” Equally, reports have appeared that Putin has given similar instructions restraining the Russian agencies. 

What lends enchantment to the view is that many of the US’ most sophisticated operations against Russia are run out of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, the storied intelligence agency that broke the Enigma codes in World War II. Suffice to say, the US seems to be cutting itself free from longstanding joint operations with Britain directed against Russia. 

A Guardian newspaper report has separately corroborated the Times disclosure of a shift in the US policy. It added that the warming of US-Russia relations is apparent also in certain recent other incidents which indicate that the US is “no longer characterising Russia as a cybersecurity threat.” 

The paper claimed that analysts in the super secret Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) of the United States spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity that they  were “verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.” 

Quite obviously, a crisis of confidence has arisen in the US-UK “special relationship” — or, to put it differently, the Trump administration is taking steps to sequester the Cisa from rogue operations. 

There is a Cold War history of rogue operations by spy agencies. One of the most celebrated cases was the incident on 1st May, 1960 when an American U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers flying [‘unbeknownst’ to Eisenhower] at an altitude of 80,000 feet was shot down over Soviet air space triggering a diplomatic crisis that caused the collapse of a summit conference in Paris between then US president Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev — and the sudden death of the two leaders’ closely nurtured dream of détente. 

An analogical situation exists today. Both Washington and Moscow are conscious of it. The need for such a veil of secrecy around the high level dialogue between the Kremlin and the White House is self-evident. There are too many detractors in the collective West who won’t settle for anything short of a Russian defeat in Ukraine and would rather keep the war going. 

In such a fraught scenario, on the Russian side, the Kremlin’s writ ultimately prevails despite whatever dissenting voices exist in the military-industrial complex or amongst super hawks with revenge mentality. But that is not the case in the US where remnants of the old regime still hold sensitive positions, as the Guardian report vividly brings out. In the final analysis, therefore, it may well turn out that — to quote Stephen Bryan — Trump “will let Ukraine collapse but may seek a deal with Putin on Ukraine once Zelensky is gone.”  

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin says rapid US foreign policy shift largely aligns with its vision

Al-Manar | March 2, 2025

The Kremlin said that the United States’ dramatic shift in foreign policy largely aligns with its own vision.

“The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely coincides with our vision,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a reporter from state television.

“There is a long way to go, because there is huge damage to the whole complex of bilateral relations. But if the political will of the two leaders, President Putin and President Trump, is maintained, this path can be quite quick and successful,” Peskov added.

Peskov made the comments on Wednesday, but the remarks were only made public today, AFP news agency reported.

US President Donald Trump has sought to build ties with Moscow since taking office in January, reaching out to President Vladimir Putin and siding with Russia at the United Nations.

Trump has since even further aligned himself with Moscow, rebuking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a stunning televised confrontation at the White House on Friday.

Moscow, which launched a full-scale military offensive against its neighbor in February 2022, had railed against former US president Joe Biden’s unconditional support for Ukraine.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Perestroika then and now

By Přemysl Janýr | March 3, 2025

Vienna – In the 1980s, Eastern Europe was caught in the tension between the inflexible ideological framework of the Communist Party and the burgeoning desires of the populace for economic and political transformation. For those entrenched in power, it was about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival was at stake, as the legitimacy of their rule was precarious and the societal mood was increasingly inhospitable.

These rulers sought solace in ideological manipulation and censorship. The state-controlled media cast the West as the ultimate adversary, perpetrating ideological subversion through the dissemination of bourgeois propaganda spread by enemies of the socialism with the goal of toppling the socialist regime by violent means. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s allure lay in its exemplary living standards, relative freedom, and human rights and its intentions to overthrow the socialist system was substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.

Then, in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev emerged as the General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, introducing Perestroika — a sweeping set of economic and political reforms aimed at making the Soviet Union and the broader Eastern Bloc competitive with the West. This sparked widespread anticipation among the populace, yet also stirred anxiety among the Eastern European power structures: Gorbachev’s initiatives contained elements that threatened their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the hitherto adversary as ally.

The social divide grew more profound. The hopes of the populace in satellite nations were pinned on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures that he had previously established. Yet, from the perspective of the Eastern European elite, Gorbachev had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.

Within four years, the Eastern Bloc crumbled, and two years later, the Soviet Union followed suit. The previously dominant CPSU was outlawed, and its remnants in Eastern Europe swiftly switched allegiance to the former adversary.

History, it seems, has a peculiar way of repeating itself. In the early 21st century, a parallel schism is forming in Western societies. The very elements that made the West appealing for four decades — traditional values, social welfare, peace, human rights, liberty, and democracy — have been ruthlessly curtailed. The ruling establishments are embroiled in the spread of panic over COVID-19 and are actively participating in the Ukraine war and the genocide in Gaza.

Western Europeans are increasingly placing their trust in emerging populist parties, spanning both the right and left wings of the political spectrum. For the entrenched establishment, it is about more than just holding onto their cushy positions; their very survival is at stake. Their grip on power and the pathways that lead to it are laden with activities that could be unequivocally deemed criminal. The evolving societal climate does not appear promising for them either.

Their salvation, they believe, lies in media manipulation and censorship. The mainstream narrative consistently vilifies Russia and China as ominous dictatorships, wages campaigns against disinformation, the Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism spread by agents of Putin. The West, it claims, faces an imminent attack from Russia. Yet, this narrative had limited traction; the West’s credibility has been eroded by its own actions, and the notion of a Russian attack is substantiated by nothing but vacuous rhetoric.

In 2025, Donald Trump re-entered the political arena as the US President, initiating MAGA, a movement to combat the deep state and cleanse American society of obscure financial and power structures. This stirred great hope among many Americans, but also significant apprehension among the established elite. MAGA represented not just a challenge to their power, but also a sudden shift in allegiance, redefining the West’s adversary as potential ally.

The social rift grew wider. The residents of Western satellites pinned their hopes on the current hegemon, now perceived as an ally against the rigid domestic power structures. Yet, from the perspective of those structures, Trump had committed an act of treachery, deserting them and leaving them to face their fate alone.

The trajectory seems clear: the eventual disintegration of the Atlantic bloc and the shift of its remnants to the former adversary. Will the collapse of the hegemonic power come next? It’s a reasonable prediction.

But let’s go a step further. The euphoria of the Cold War’s end and the unbridled optimism for a future of comprehensive peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights were soon overshadowed by their gradual erosion. In retrospect, the new hegemon had only its own global world domination in mind from the beginning. This led to new conflicts across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

Can we expect history to repeat itself after the fall of the Atlantic bloc? Not necessarily. The emerging superpowers of China, India, and Russia do not share the western legacy of colonialist exploitation. The BRICS+ coalition presents itself as a multipolar community of equals, emphasizing cooperation over competition.

Still, we must remain cautious, for the 1990s taught us that optimism can be fleeting. A society that neglects its history is destined to repeat it. Over the past 25 years, we have amassed a treasure trove of tragic lessons to learn from and be vigilant against.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The Sea Change

By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • February 20, 2025

A huge, heavy ship, loaded to the brim, is turning around in narrow straits amid perilous waters. Thus, the world is performing a rare volte face under the daring captainship of Donald Trump and his breakneck mates Elon Musk and JD Vance. They couldn’t have cut it any closer – already we felt the breath of our doom. Whether the peril be nuclear mushrooms or pandemics crafted in Pentagon biolabs, or some other totally unpredicted collapse concocted by Schwab and his ilk – our new captain seems to recognize Scylla and Charybdis. Our fragile life was about to collapse when the young programmers of DOGE dove into deep cellars of hidden data and uncovered the pearls: millions of dollars earmarked for broken Haiti to make a dream home for Chelsey Clinton; millions of social security checks being sent to beneficiaries 150 years old and older; millions earmarked for regime change, for neutering boys and girls, for planting tempest and reaping storm all over the world. And after this brief but tempestuous overture rung, above the furious sounds of battle, the telephone; the telephone call of captain Trump to captain Putin.

God revealed His mercy and tender caring for us, calming the storm at the very last moment. It is a perfect replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis multiplied by a factor of one hundred. The voices calling for global nuclear holocaust were becoming increasingly frequent and shrill recently. Now one can hope they will be pushed back to the fringe. US and Russian delegations meeting again in Riyadh have agreed to restore the normal civilized diplomatic routine: appoint ambassadors, open missions, increase tenfold the embassy staff. Since Obama’s days the embassies had been run down to the bare minimum.

Immediately the Economist and similar rags have tried to spoil the mood. The Ukrainian crisis has not been solved yet, the war still goes on, they cry. Trump can’t be relied upon, they fume impotently. I always rely upon the Economist as a perfect inverse barometer; whatever they say we may consider pure enemy hasbara. They show Trump talking to Putin with the text “The worst nightmare of Europe”. For me, the worst nightmare would be ruins of Gaza or nuclear waste of Hiroshima, for them, peace would be the worst.

Our enemies do not want us to rejoice ever, but these are the days we could and should be glad. The Ukrainian war is a minor event compared with such a worldwide tectonic shift. The West has tried to isolate, break and consume Russia for many years, once it became aware that Putin is not a new Yeltsin, that he is a stubborn, strong-willed leader, a man like Hamlet: though you can fret him, you cannot play upon him. And ever since that time, over many years, Russia has suffered in isolation, while all the world press blamed Putin and incited legions of tiny dogs from Estonia to the Ukraine to bite him. Such conflict was inevitable because Russia and the West had different interpretations of 1991. For the West, it was the final defeat of Russian independence. For Russia, it was a lesson learned. Never again will Russia attempt to play by Western rules. So how could anyone solve such an intractable divergence of opinion? It took just one call from Donald Trump.

The Ukraine war is a small thing in comparison: Russia wants its seat at the table with the big boys, it wants to be safe, not besieged. Russia wants Western troops and arms as far from its borders as was promised to Gorbachev, this is important. The Ukraine war will be terminated in due time by diplomatic negotiations between civilized adversaries, as it should be. NATO’s war policy has revealed that the majority of the European states, governed by enemies of Trump, are also enemies of democracy. JD Vance was right: they forgot they should listen to their people instead of dictating to them.

In the UK, the popular leader Jeremy Corbyn had been dismissed on the phony accusation of anti-Semitism, and replaced by an extremely pro-Jewish and anti-Russian PM. He is, of course, pro-war. He also detains hundreds and thousands of his citizens for the terrible crime of a post in the social network, or a demonstration, or even worse: a silent prayer. In England, a silent prayer in your own house is a crime, too. France continues to be ruled by Macron, an ex-Rothschild banker, also (of course) warlike. In Germany, there are elections coming soon, but mainstream German politicians are all liberal-left and of course pro-war. In liberal Germany, prison waits for anybody stepping beyond the red line. They imprisoned and amputated the legs of the brilliant and daring lawyer Horst Mahler for a gesture. However, the fresh wind of Trump’s populist revolution blows over Germany as well.

Not only does the far-right AfD call for peace, so does the far-left BSW! The German civil society association Kulturtreff held two rallies in Berlin and Frankfurt under the slogan «No vote for NATO vassals, immediate peace for Europe!». The protesters demanded immediate peace negotiations, an end to the war in the Ukraine, an end to arms supplies to the Ukrainian state, and the restoration of economic and political cooperation between Germany and Russia. Kulturtreff states that «the current main opposition party CDU/CSU wants as does the ruling left-liberal coalition for the war in Europe to continue. The leading political parties of Germany do not have a single new solution in their program». The speakers supported the point of view of US Vice President Vance at the Munich Conference, who pointed out that the political elite of Europe is deeply disconnected from the real interests of the European people.

In Munich, there was a big demo, organised by followers of Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek socialist. They are called DiEM25, and they also call for peace and friendship with Russia.

Bear in mind that all calls for peace are forbidden in Europe; if you look for “Germany peace demo” in Google it shows you rallies for climate, or a rally for migrants, or some rally against a local version of Donald Trump; but no peace demo will be shown, unless it is full of blue-and-yellow banners demanding more war. In the UK and Germany, you might get a visit from the local gestapo if you click a cautious *like* under an anti-war post in your social network. In Sweden, a minister explained why the people are not allowed to decide their NATO status: “Membership in NATO is too important to ask the people to approve of it.” A Swedish journalist wrote in the Facebook:

In Russia, the anti-Putin and pro-Western opposition, as run by Navalny and ilk, relocated abroad claiming hatred of war. But they couldn’t retain that pretence for long. At first, they supported Israel’s war against the Palestinian people, and this was important because some 70 per cent of Russian oppositionists who left Russia after February 2022 landed in Israel. Obviously, they considered themselves Jewish, and Israel recognised them as Jews. It may be true that not everyone who opposes Putin is a Jew, but to a great extent it was true and to a great extent Jews continue to finance anti-Putin organizations in Russia. And now, with the first sight of Trump’s international thaw and the possibility of terminating the war in the Ukraine, these emigres have collectively called for more war. This was the end of the anti-war movement in the Russian World, in the archipelago of Russian-speaking communities – it seems that Russia’s counter-elites will not be happy until they see the Russian army defeated. They dream of US Abrams tanks rolling through Red Square, with Putin executed like Saddam Hussein, but instead those Abrams tanks (30 or 31 delivered to Zelensky) burned in the fields of Novorossia, far away indeed from Moscow.

However, many people, including first of all the parents of Russian teenagers, were excited by Trump’s call for peace, as the war in the Ukraine was a big bloodletting for Russians and Ukrainians alike. Although Russia’s fighters are all well-paid volunteers, there is no doubt that the Russian people will be happy when this war is concluded.

For the Russian leadership, the most important goal was defined in the so-called “Putin’s Ultimatum” of December 2021 (I wrote about it at length here: To Make Sense of War). Putin’s draft treaty called for an immediate end to NATO’s drive Nach Osten, keeping all Western armies and weapons out of former USSR republics. Now it seems this goal will finally be obtained.

It seems that we are at the brink of a great sea change. President Donald Trump has already given us a basket of blessings. There is a song Jews sing at Passover: if He would give us only this, it would be enough, Dayeinu. It is perfectly suitable in this case. If Trump only saved us from World War III, it would be enough. If he only disclosed the dark secrets of USAID, it would be enough. But let’s not forget to thank him, even if it be just for a moment while we think of what we want next. Such as a drawback is his policy towards Palestine. Let’s hope that it will remain just silly talk.

The Atlantic Magazine gives us reason for some hope: it claimed Trump is building the most anti-Semitic cabinet in decades. It certainly has fewer Jews than the Biden’s cabinet, and less belligerence coming with fewer Jews.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To Encourage Talks With Moscow, DoD Will Halt Cyber Attacks on Russia

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 2, 2025

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered his agency to halt offensive cyber operations against Russia as the White House is attempting to engage the Kremlin in talks to end the war in Ukraine.

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia, according to a current official and two former officials briefed on the secret instructions,” the New York Times reports. “The move is apparently part of a broader effort to draw President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into talks on Ukraine and a new relationship with the United States.”

After the invasion of Ukraine, the Joe Biden administration announced a multi-pronged warfare policy to degrade Russia, including arming Ukraine, sanctions, cyber attacks, and seizing Russian assets.

Since returning to office, President Trump has prioritized improving ties with Russia and ending the war in Ukraine. US and Russian officials have agreed to normalize ties and work toward ending the conflict in Ukraine.

The scope of the order is unclear, but it will not apply to the National Security Agency or intelligence collection. Hegseth issued the order before President Zelensky’s heated exchange with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday. Following the meeting, Trump considered cutting all military aid to Ukraine.

The Times notes that Trump’s decision to halt offensive cyber operations is a policy shift. During his first administration, he expanded cyberwarfare.

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

OSCE shared intel with Ukraine before 2022 – ex-Greek ambassador

RT | March 2, 2025

During the armed standoff between the Ukrainian government and the two breakaway Donbass republics between 2014 and 2022, observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) secretly shared intelligence with Kiev, former Greek ambassador to Ukraine, Vasilios Bornovas, has claimed.

In an interview with Greece’s Hellas Journal last Monday, Bornovas said that during his visits to the conflict zone he had witnessed the “use of classified information [by Kiev’s forces] sent by observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) regarding the positions of weapons” belonging to the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The diplomat recounted that “since these positions were immediately hit by Ukrainian fire, it was obvious that the observers’ reports first went through to the Ukrainian services.”

Commenting on the apparent decision by the US and Russia to sideline the European Union from negotiations on Ukraine, the former envoy argued that the bloc “has reached an impasse” due to multiple internal crises. Bornovas remarked that having long “uncritically” toed Washington’s line on the conflict, Brussels is finding it “extremely difficult to extricate itself from this policy” now that President Donald Trump has apparently changed course.

According to the diplomat, the EU is suffering “from a deficit of visionary leaders with will and personality,” with its foreign policy being largely directed by the Baltic states and Poland.

As for Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s handling of the conflict, Bornovas said that the hostilities with Moscow are “decimating his people and destroying the productive fabric of his country.” The former official argued that the current conflict had been in the making for some time before February 2022, suggesting that Zelensky may have abandoned his original pro-peace platform under pressure from former US President Joe Biden’s administration.

According to Bornovas, the Ukrainian leader may also have hoped to distract his population’s attention from internal problems, such as widespread corruption, with the help of an armed conflict.

Since the escalation of the hostilities, Moscow has called out OSCE’s supposed failings on multiple occasions, both in the conflict zone and further afield.

Last October, Russia claimed that the organization had covered up irregularities in the Moldovan presidential election, which saw pro-Western President Maia Sandu squeak by a relatively small margin.

In March and February 2024, Moscow accused OSCE of failing to denounce the killings of Russian civilians by Ukrainian forces during their raids in border regions in what Russia characterized as hypocrisy that “goes beyond all possible boundaries.”

March 2, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »