Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

A dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat: What now for the humiliated Zelensky?

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 1, 2025

“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington.

And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine.

“A disaster” and “bitter chaos” (The Economist ); a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “historic escalation” (Spiegel ); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” (Le Monde ); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky (New York Times ) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.

And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986.

The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines.

Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky.

For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious.

Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long ago have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.

Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding.

In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev.

And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.

Yet let’s not get distracted. Schadenfreude is not important. And neither are probably misguided speculations about Trump and the gang “setting traps,” staging “ambushes, or dishing out “payback.” Because even if they did, any leader worth his salt has to be able to deal with such baiting. One way or the other, this was yet another painful-to-watch display of Zelensky’s complete inadequacy.

The really interesting questions concern the consequences of this cluster-fiasco. No one knows the future. Currently, Zelensky is debasing himself even more – I know, hard to imagine, but leave it to the man who pretended to play piano with his genitals, in public – by trying to angle for mercy. Trump, as of now, seems in no mood to offer any. Not only was the Ukrainian satrap literally shown the door, but the irate American overlord also made a point of letting the media know that despite Zelensky’s begging it won’t be open again soon.

Hence, one consequence, let’s assume, is a long-term, deep falling out between Washington and the Zelensky regime that may well be irreparable. This is all the more remarkable as what led up to this turn of events was the almost-final-signing of an essentially colonial raw materials deal handing over Ukraine’s resources to America. And yet still not good enough.

The Trump administration is brutally frank about seeking material advantage; this, it seemed, was a done deal. What happened? We can only speculate, but one possibility is that Trump’s team is taking seriously the recent statements by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

In an important interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin – the real meaning of which has mostly escaped Western mainstream media, as is their wont – Putin explained that Moscow is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits everywhere in Russia. Including, as he stressed, territories recently conquered from Ukraine. You can extrapolate from here concerning other raw materials as well. Russia will, of course, not roll over Zelensky-style, but very much money can be made in fair deals, too.

Zelensky, hence, may have overestimated his negotiating position: although he is ready to sell out Ukraine’s raw materials to the US the way he has already sold its people, he has so little control that an offer of access with and through Moscow may have become attractive enough to neutralize his leverage. If that is so, then Washington has now even less interest than before in helping Kiev recover (impossible anyhow) or even keep territory.

Another possible consequence is obvious: Long before Trump, the US has had an impressive record of first using and then abandoning or even liquidating puppets, including, to name only a few, Ngo Dinh Diem of former South Vietnam, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, a badly backfiring Cold War terror puppet.

There can be no doubt that Zelensky should worry about a similar fate. Exile may be the best option available left for him in reality. He may also be cooped away in Ukraine. Or even be forced to obey the constitution and hold elections, which he is certain to lose, most likely against Valery Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief and Zelensky’s arch-nemesis. Make no mistake: Zaluzhny is a bullheaded and narrowminded nationalist and militarist and, as of now, a Western puppet no less than Zelensky. Any scenarios involving Zelensky’s replacement remain hard to predict.

Especially because, and this brings us to a third possible consequence, Washington’s European vassals seem to be choosing the worst possible moment to finally rebel: Having helped drive the insane proxy war forward and Ukraine into an abyss with fanatic, self-destructive submissiveness to prior US rulers, it is the NATO-EU Europeans who are now trying to obstruct the search for peace. In that, they are even ready to diverge from Washington. That is the meaning, once again, behind the many messages of shlocky “solidarity” they are now demonstratively addressing to the Zelensky regime.

It is as perverse as you can imagine, but it is real: the hill that NATO-EU Europe has chosen to die on is to be even more warmongering and destructive than the US. Say what you will about these European “elites,” but they still manage to surprise: whenever you think they have done their very worst, they upstage themselves.

The war may well continue, even without the US. It would be insane. But the “elites” of NATO-EU Europe and Kiev are just that, of course, insane. We may even end up in a world where a Russian-US détente will unfold (as we should hope), while the Ukraine War becomes a fight between Russia and the US’ abandoned European vassals.

What will not change is the outcome: Ukraine and the West – in whatever rump shape – will lose. And the longer the war, the worse for both of them. Let’s hope that something will give. Ukrainians, another Maidan perhaps to finally stop the bloody clown who promised you peace and then betrayed you? Europeans, how much longer are you going to tolerate leaders obsessed with getting to World War III?

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

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

Russia proposes resuming direct flights with US

RT | February 28, 2025

Moscow has proposed restoring direct air travel with the US as part of ongoing efforts to revive bilateral relations, according to a statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry on Friday following a new round of talks in Türkiye.

The US suspended flights and closed its airspace to Russian airlines in 2022, along with other Western nations, in response to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Since then, travelers have relied on connecting flights through hubs such as Istanbul and Dubai.

In response, Moscow banned flights from 36 ‘unfriendly nations’, including EU member states and Canada. This forced Western airlines to reroute flights, leading to higher fuel consumption and increased costs. Some European carriers have since criticized the EU’s sanctions on Moscow, citing “unfair” competition from Chinese airlines, which continue to freely cross Russian airspace.

According to the ministry, the Russian proposal to resume flights was made during a meeting with the US delegations in Istanbul on Thursday. The talks, which were aimed at mending the diplomatic rift that deepened under the previous administration, focused on reinstating regular operations at diplomatic missions and ensuring favorable conditions for their functioning.

Moscow described the Istanbul talks as “substantive,” with both sides agreeing to continue dialogue.

“Specifically, the US was invited to consider the possibility of restoring direct air services,” the Russian ministry stated.

Some experts, however, are skeptical about the possibility of an immediate resumption of direct flights between Russia and the US, pointing out that European airspace remains closed to Russian airlines, making direct routes challenging.

The meeting in Türkiye follows high-level talks in Saudi Arabia and a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump earlier in February. Trump has since signaled that Washington could lift the sanctions against Russia “at some point” as part of broader peace negotiations to resolve the Ukraine conflict.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Three years on… Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine is vindicated

Strategic Culture Foundation | February 28, 2025

This week marks the third anniversary of Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, launched on February 24, 2022.

Moscow has consistently explained the conflict in Ukraine to be a manifestation of a bigger geopolitical confrontation brought about by U.S. and NATO aggression using Ukraine as a proxy. That aggression was latent for decades going back to the end of the Second World War.

Russia’s emerging military victory against a NeoNazi regime armed to the teeth by an array of Western enemies has not just defeated a nefarious proxy war. It is demolishing the charade of supposed Western moral authority. This is an epoch-making watershed. It is significant that this event comes at a time when U.S. and Western global power is failing and flailing, and a new multipolar order is evolving, one where Russia’s international esteem and influence are increasing.

The United States, its European allies and the Western corporate-controlled news media have tried to depict Ukraine as an innocent victim of “unprovoked Russian aggression”.

Three years on, the Western narrative has collapsed in a pile of propaganda lies. The United States, under the new administration of President Donald Trump, has abandoned the erstwhile claims made against Russia. This week, the United States tabled a resolution at the United Nations Security Council which calls for peace in Ukraine and refrained from accusing Russia of aggression.

As many as one million Ukrainian soldiers have been killed over the past three years on the battlefield. Russia has not disclosed how many of its troops have died. Some estimates put the death toll at around 100,000.

The conflict in Ukraine is the biggest on the European continent since the end of World War II. It is a tragedy of epic proportion, especially given that the conflict could have been avoided by diplomacy.

The Trump administration is now pushing for peace negotiations with Russia. The American president has also acknowledged some of the “root causes” of the conflict, namely the provocative and unacceptable idea of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance advocated by his predecessor, and the longer-term threat posed by NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s.

In other words, the U.S. administration has now moved to a point for diplomacy that the previous Biden White House rejected.

It is important to recall that in the weeks before hostilities erupted at the end of February 2022, Moscow had presented a detailed and comprehensive proposal for a mutual security treaty between Russia and the U.S.-led NATO military alliance. That diplomatic initiative was dismissed by Washington and its European allies. The rejection of negotiations made the conflict and the ensuing death and destruction inevitable. That is a diabolical shame on the heads of the Western powers.

In our weekly editorial on February 25, 2022, it was stated: “Moscow had warned that if its reasonable security proposals were not reciprocated, then there would be ‘military-technical measures’. Having exhausted the initiative for dialogue and mutual respect, the next phase is the use of more ‘physical language’ to convey meaning to people who seem unresponsive to normal dialogue. It is the Western powers and their arrogant presumption of superiority that are responsible for the impasse and now the repercussions.”

Russia was fully justified in taking military action against NATO’s relentless threats. The conflict was never about merely Ukraine, it was about facing down the entire U.S.-led Western bloc and its incorrigible aggression towards Russia.

Again, in our editorial from three years ago we stated: “Russia has for years warned that U.S. and NATO aggression was posing a critical danger to international security and had to stop. The revoking of arms control treaties by the U.S. (the ABM, INF, Open Skies Treaty) and the expansion of missile threats near Russia’s borders were no longer tolerable. Ukraine is really just one element of the bigger picture. But this week, Russia has moved finally to stop the aggression. It is a historic watershed.”

This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed hope that sanity and diplomacy may prevail under the Trump administration to negotiate a peace settlement in Ukraine. Putin also warned of the danger that diplomacy could be sabotaged by Western powers who would rather that their proxy war against Russia continues – no matter how many deaths it inflicts nor the risks of all-out nuclear war.

It is not clear if the Trump administration can be a reliable party. Trump this week extended economic sanctions on Russia for another year – which is not a good sign. Yes, he has expressed recognition of Russia’s deep concerns but this American president is fickle and mercurial. He seems prone to flip-flopping on his positions. Last week, he called Ukraine’s expired president, Vladimir Zelensky, a “dictator” (which is arguably correct). But this week, Trump denied the disparagement while inking a major mining deal with Zelensky in Washington.

Let’s not forget, too, that Trump during his first administration was complicit in instigating war when in 2019 he approved Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian regime – the first time the taboo of supplying lethal weapons was broken. Trump also ripped up the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, gravely provoking tensions with Russia.

Fair enough, this time around, Trump has, in a good way, upended relations with European allies by snubbing their involvement in peace talks with Russia. The rupture in the transatlantic alliance has cast a huge shadow of doubt that the NATO bloc can hold together after 76 years of existence.

At the very least, Trump has created a space for dialogue and potential peace. However, it remains to be seen if his administration delivers on resolving the systematic causes of conflict.

It could turn out that Washington is merely moving to save face for the United States from an embarrassing defeat in Ukraine, aiming to dump the costs on its European lackeys, rather than forging a genuine security treaty as demanded by Moscow.

Washington’s belated dropping of the narrative about “Russian aggression” proves that the narrative was baseless. The Western-backed war in Ukraine with hundreds of billions of dollars and euros has been fueled on lies and deception. That is monstrously criminal.

Russia launched its special military operation to protect the ethnic Russian population that had come under relentless, murderous attacks by the NATO-backed Kiev regime that the CIA had installed in the 2014 coup.

Russia has regained historic territories through referenda in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Other historic territories are also up for reclaiming, including Kharkiv and Odessa, the port city founded by Russian empress Catherine the Great in the 18th century.

Russia will continue its military campaign to eradicate the Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.

And Russia will ensure that the NATO bloc (if it continues to exist, which is doubtful at this time) never acquires a foothold in the rump Ukrainian territory. That includes rejecting any spurious notion by Britain and France of deploying “peacekeeping troops”.

The debacle among the U.S. and its European allies is proof of Russia’s vindication and why it was wholly justified in taking military action against NATO in Ukraine.

The enemies of Russia are in no position to trade. They have nothing to trade.

Russia’s vindication means there can be no shoddy deal – or compromises as Trump fancifully reckons. Russia is right to insist on all its demands for security and respect.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Defense Budget Proposal to Russia & China Aims to Give US Military Edge

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 26.02.2025

President Donald Trump floated offering Russia and China to join the US in slashing their defence budgets in half when speaking to reporters at the White House on earlier in February, adding that he hoped to take this up with President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping “when things calm down”.

Washington hopes to drag Moscow and Beijing into “deceptive” 50% military spending cuts, staking on their desire to “avoid appearing disinterested in peace overtures by the US,” geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic told Sputnik.

The proposal is a ruse by Donald Trump aimed at rectifying the “disparity between the bloated US military budget” and the “more efficient ones of Moscow and Beijing,” noted the former US Marine.

“A genuine agreement would not be based on a percentage cut, but an equal reduction in […] explicitly capabilities the US has used for decades to project power abroad, including its global-spanning network of military bases, its membership in aggressive blocs like NATO, its sea and airlift capabilities, and various types of missiles and drones (both naval and aerial) the US is right now developing to menace nations like Russia and China along, and within their own borders,” he said.

Even if the US, Russia, and China were to slash military spending by 50%, proportionately America would “still enjoy greater overall spending than both nations combined, speculated the pundit.

Despite this proposal sounding promising at face value, he added, without further details from the US government’s side, it “appears to be an attempt to provide the US an overwhelming military advantage all while appearing to pursue global peace.”

US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States, Russia, and potentially China each reduce their defense budgets by 50%, saying: “One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say: ‘Let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that.”

Following this proposal, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin indicated Moscow’s openness to negotiations: “We are not against it. The idea is good: the US cuts by 50%, we cut by 50%, and if China wants, they can join later.”

China’s defense spending “is completely out of the need of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests, and the need of maintaining world peace,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated at a press conference on February 25.

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

US open to economic cooperation with Russia – Rubio

RT | February 26, 2025

The US and Russia could restore economic ties once the Ukraine conflict is resolved, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested.

Speaking in an interview with Breitbart on Tuesday, Rubio noted that Moscow and Washington could discuss the economic and business domain, but only after they have ensured the smooth operations of each other’s diplomatic missions and have resolved the Ukraine crisis.

“We have to invite them and see, okay, if you guys are serious about ending this thing, let’s sit down and talk about it,” Rubio said. “I think step three is, if we can end this conflict, what does US-Russian relations look like in the 21st century? Are there things we can work on together geopolitically or maybe even economically?”

According to Rubio, Russia and the US have “opportunities to work together” to achieve a “reset” in relations which will “entail talking about not just Russian assets that have been seized by America, by the Europeans… but also American companies that have been hurt.”

He cautioned, however, that such negotiations remain distant. “We’re not at that step yet… We can’t even really talk about those things or fix those things until we bring this war at least to some sort of enduring ceasefire – hopefully permanent.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree in 2023 allowing for the temporary takeover of assets belonging to Russia-based foreign companies from “unfriendly” countries, with several Western companies affected. In October 2024, Russia temporarily nationalized the assets of Glavproduct, a major US-owned food producer.

However, while US-Russian relations sank to historic lows under the administration of US President Joe Biden, his successor Donald Trump has signaled interest in restoring ties. Earlier this month, the two sides held high-profile talks in Saudi Arabia that focused on paving the way for resolving the Ukraine conflict and restoring bilateral ties.

Trump has since indicated that Washington might explore joint ventures in Russia’s mineral sector and suggested that sanctions on Moscow could be lifted “at some point” as part of the broader Ukraine conflict settlement process.

Putin said on Monday that Russia and the US are in talks about “major” joint economic projects, adding that Moscow is open to cooperating with American private companies and government agencies to develop its rare-earth industry.

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

Merz adopts nationalist rhetoric to legitimize his anti-Russian plans

New German leader may be more bellicose than his predecessor

By Lucas Leiroz | February 26, 2025

The European sovereignty agenda is being hypocritically used by liberal leaders to fight Donald Trump’s policies. In Germany, the potential new chancellor is publicly advocating for Berlin’s “independence” from the US. Although such independence is indeed necessary, European liberals have anti-sovereign intentions in adopting these agendas.

Friedrich Merz is indicated by preliminary data as the winner of the German parliamentary elections. Leading the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Merz is expected to receive around 28,5% of the vote, becoming the country’s prime minister. His victory means that Germany will continue to be governed by a warmongering and anti-Russian political elite, with no significant change in Berlin’s foreign policy.

Merz, however, often seems to have an even more aggressive stance than Olaf Scholz. He has made it clear that he does not intend to engage in dialogue with Russia, which represents a setback for Germany, since Scholz himself, who is one of the most warmongering leaders of the EU, had taken the initiative to talk directly to Trump.

The possible new German chancellor has also been harshly critical of the US and Donald Trump. He has described American interference in European affairs as “outrageous” and “dramatic”. Merz believes that Trump is indifferent to Europe, not caring about the stability of his own allied countries. For this reason, he has called on Germany to achieve “independence from the US”, freeing itself from the negative external influence of Washington.

“The interventions from Washington were no less dramatic, drastic, and ultimately outrageous than the intervention we saw from Moscow (…) The Americans, at least those in the current government, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe (….) (Germany must) gradually achieve independence from the US (…) I would have never thought that I would have to say something like that on a TV show,” he said.

It is curious to see pro-war European leaders using this kind of narrative, since the struggle for European sovereignty contradicts the entire Western agenda advocated by the EU. It seems that the liberal politicians of the European bloc are trying to change their rhetoric towards the US just to react to Donald Trump’s nationalist and isolationist policies.

It is impossible to talk about sovereignty in Europe and support the continuation of the war against Russia at the same time, since NATO’s anti-Russian campaign was supported by the EU precisely in a gesture of subservience to Washington. The anti-Russian economic sanctions, for example, were imposed by the US and adopted by the Europeans even though it has been proven that such measures harm European strategic interests.

Europe has been harmed in all areas of its economy and diplomacy since the beginning of the special military operation. If it had adopted a sovereign and neutral stance, respecting Russia’s right to protect its people in the neighboring country, Europe would have avoided the serious economic crisis it is currently experiencing.

Without sanctions and preserving its strategic ties with Russia, the EU would have become a relevant power in the multipolar world. However, instead of acting sovereignly, European liberals have taken all sorts of irresponsible actions, dipping the continent into an unprecedented crisis.

Until then, there was almost complete alignment between all American and European decisions, but now this situation has changed. Trump fulfilled his promise to resume diplomatic dialogue and simply excluded the belligerent European countries from the talks. EU leaders are outraged by such an American decision – not because they feel their sovereignty is being compromised, but simply because they are against ending the war with Russia.

Europeans and Americans are falling out of alignment simply because Europeans do not agree with the American decision to pursue diplomacy and peace. By speaking of “German sovereignty,” Merz is not advocating the historical struggle of Europeans to end American influence. He is simply saying that Germany must continue to fight Russia regardless of American involvement.

It is possible to say that liberals are trying to co-opt a nationalist rhetoric typical of European conservative groups. The aim is to use the genuinely sovereigntist sentiments of ordinary Germans and Europeans to legitimize the advancement of an even more “globalist” and anti-sovereigntist agenda – which internationally materializes in even more military interventionism, aid to Ukraine and escalation of hostilities against Russia.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X and Telegram.

February 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Miscalculation: An Autopsy of NATO’s Failed Strategy for a Long War

Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 18, 2025

To preserve the international system based on US hegemony, the US has to prevent the rise of other centres of power. The China-Russia partnership has become the key challenge to US hegemony. The strategy by the Biden administration was to use Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia to knock it out from the ranks of great powers, so the US could focus on China. As NATO lost the proxy war, the US began shifting toward a new strategy of winning Russia over to its side of the ledger and creating some divisions between Russia and China.

February 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran rules out nuclear talks with US amid ‘maximum pressure’ campaign

Press TV – February 25, 2025

Iran will not engage in negotiations with the United States on its nuclear program unless the White House steps back from a recently reinstated “maximum pressure” campaign, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says.

Araghchi was addressing a press conference on Tuesday alongside his visiting Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.

The foreign minister said Iran will address the nuclear issue in coordination with its allies – Russia and China.

“On nuclear negotiations, Iran’s stance is very clear: we will not negotiate under pressure, threat, and sanctions.”

“Therefore,” the Iranian foreign minister stated, “there is no possibility of direct negotiations between us and the United States on the nuclear issue as long as maximum pressure continues to be applied in its current form.”

Araghchi highlighted his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Lavrov on a broad range of topics, particularly concerning the Caucasus, Asia, and Eurasia.

The Iranian foreign minister praised the rapid progress in economic cooperation between Tehran and Moscow, citing collaborations in energy, railways, and agriculture.

On Palestine, Araghchi said they discussed Trump’s “unacceptable” forced displacement plan targeting Gaza residents.

Regarding Syria, he underlined the alignment of Iranian and Russian positions.

“Stability, peace, territorial integrity, and progress in Syria based on the will of its people are priorities for Iran. We support establishing peace and stability in this country.”

Room for diplomacy on nuclear issue

Lavrov also elaborated on his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Araghchi during the press conference.

The Russian foreign minister said both sides agreed to enhance cooperation within the framework of BRICS.

Lavrov drew attention to a notable increase in trade between Iran and Russia despite Western sanctions.

“Trade exchanges between Iran and Russia have increased by more than 13%, and we hope this trend will continue.”

The Russian minister also expressed satisfaction with the progress on the Rasht-Astara railway project.

“Construction has begun, supported by a Russian government loan, which is an important step toward establishing the North-South Corridor,” he stated, referring to a trade route connecting India to northern Europe.

Lavrov pointed to Tehran’s successful hosting of the Caspian Economic Forum and expressed optimism about convening a joint economic cooperation commission later this year.

Addressing Iran’s nuclear program, Lavrov put a premium on diplomacy.

“We believe there is still diplomatic capacity to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue, and we hope a solution can be found. This crisis was not created by Iran.”

Iran has long been subjected to Western sanctions over its nuclear activities, human rights issues, and other pretexts.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has escalated these measures since taking office, reinstating the so-called maximum pressure policy, a campaign of hybrid warfare targeting Iran.

Similarly facing sanctions over its military operations in Ukraine, Russia has deepened its cooperation with Iran in recent years.

In January, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Moscow and signed a strategic partnership agreement with President Vladimir Putin to bolster economic and military collaboration.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian auto-giant cites billion dollar Renault re-entry price tag

RT | February 25, 2025

Renault will have to compensate Russian carmaker AVTOVAZ up to $1.3 billion if it wishes to re-acquire its former business and re-enter the market, having previously quit the country, CEO Maxim Sokolov said on Tuesday.

In 2022, AVTOVAZ purchased Renault’s share in the joint enterprise for a symbolic sum of 1 ruble with an option to return within six years.

Renault joined other foreign corporations that succumbed to international pressure and left Russia in the wake of the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

A return is only possible if the French automaker reimburses the investments made in its absence to develop the business, Sokolov told journalists, specifying that they would top 112 billion rubles ($1.3 billion) in 2023-2025.

“They [the investments] exceed the average annual investment volumes that were made by the previous shareholder, Renault, in the early 2020s,” the top executive said.

“Therefore, it’s clear that these investments will need to be reimbursed upon return,” he added, stressing that the price of return wouldn’t equal the price of exit.

Renault sold its 100% stake in Renault Russia and its 68% stake in Russian carmaker AvtoVAZ in 2022. Renault’s assets were later transferred to Russian state ownership.

In November 2022, Russia launched production of an updated version of the iconic Soviet-era car brand Moskvich at Renault’s factory in Moscow, which used to produce cars under the Renault and Nissan brands.

The car giant reported a write-down of over $2 billion as a result of the withdrawal from its second-biggest market.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

Three years of a cruel and destructive NATO proxy war in Ukraine

By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | February 25, 2025

The end of February marks three years since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and 11 years since the ‘Euromaidan’ coup of February 2014. The coup was the main cause of the current military conflict.

The war in the now-former eastern territories of Ukraine could have been avoided had two successive presidencies in Kiev (Petro Poroshenko, 2014-2019 and Volodomyr Zelensky since 2019) complied with the Minsk 2 peace agreement of February 2015. Minsk 2 (text here), was agreed by Kiev and the pro-autonomy forces in the Donbass region on February 12, 2015. France, Germany, and Russia co-signed the agreement as guarantors. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by no less than the UN Security Council on February 17, 2015.

Minsk 2 envisioned the return of Lugansk and Donetsk (the two rebellious ‘peoples republics’ of the industrialized Donbass region) to the fold of the Ukrainian constitution, this time as semi-autonomous oblasts (provinces). Kiev also agreed to a neutral status for Ukraine. It could apply for membership in the European Union if it chose, but membership in the NATO military alliance was for Russia a non-starter.

EU membership increasingly became a goal of Western-oriented business interests in Ukraine during the decade of the 2000s. That decade followed 10 years of sharp economic decline following the dissolution in 1989-90 of Soviet Ukraine and of the Soviet Union (USSR, of which Soviet Ukraine was a key constituent).

Tragically for the people of post-Soviet Ukraine, the Western countries, particularly the leading powers of NATO, quietly and deceptively opposed Minsk 2. They worked quietly from the get-go to sabotage the agreement.

Deception of Ukrainians by the West

On February 12, 2025, the deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, Aleksey Shevtsov, spoke on the ninth anniversary of the signing of Minsk 2, explaining once again to those who would listen that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine would never have happened had the West honored the agreement. He stressed that the people of Ukraine today have every right to demand an accounting for the deceptions that took place in 2015 and after.

On the same day, the Ukrainian online publication Strana published a lengthy commentary in its Telegram messaging service headlined, ‘Why did the Minsk agreement fail?’ Strana wrote, “Russia says that Kiev deliberately refused to fulfill the conditions of the Minsk 2 agreement and instead proceeded to rearm its army and restart armed attacks against the people of Donbass. The Russian government says it can no longer trust the government in Kiev and so there is no possibility of a ‘Minsk 3’.” (‘Minsk 1’ was a first attempt, in September 2014, by the pro-autonomy forces of Donbass to reach a peace agreement with the new administration in Kiev.)

Strana wrote further, “Russia did not launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014 or 2015. Perhaps it wanted to, who knows, but it could not do so because it would have been hit with harsh economic sanctions similar to those levied against it by the Western powers beginning in February 2022. It would have faced economic sanctions worse than those initially levied against it following the Crimea referendum of March 2014. The Russian economy was in no shape to easily withstand such sanctions, in contrast to the situation in 2022.

“Additionally, although the Ukrainian army back then was much weaker compared to 2022, this was also the case for the Russian army.”

In their recollections of the events of those years, leaders of today’s Donetsk Peoples Republic (today a constituent of the Russian Federation) say that the main opponent of a major military response to Kiev’s continued military provocations and sabotage of Minsk 2 was the Russian military. Russian military leaders said at the time that the Russian Federation did not have enough combat-ready troops to take on such a large and industrial country as Ukraine.

“From a purely military point of view, the rapid success of Russia in Crimea in the spring of 2014 was due to the fact that Russian troops were already present on the Crimean peninsula [by virtue of a 1997 agreement between Russia and Ukraine; see Wikipedia on the subject]. They needed no time to deploy, and they prevented armed attacks being threatened by the paramilitaries of the new administration in Kiev. At the time, there were no large military formations of the Russian Federation along the lengthy Russian-Ukrainian border. Donbass’s self-defense forces only began to form in the late spring of 2014 and it was several years before they were integrated as auxiliaries of the Russian armed forces.”

As Russian sources stated at the time, the initial military defense that arose in the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts of Ukraine against the paramilitaries of the 2014 coup bore the markings of a military adventure and were not at all coordinated with the political leadership of the Russian Federation. The self-defense forces hoped to convince or pressure Russia to join a war of defense for which Russia was not ready, not politically, economically nor militarily.

What the Western-incited war in Ukraine has wrought

In the lead-up to and since the 2014 coup, western and central Ukraine has been living the fate of a battering ram to be used by the Western imperialist powers to weaken Russia, regardless of the tragic human consequences and of the prospect of Ukraine being cast off once it is no longer needed for such a role. The results of this cruel and heinous policy are increasingly evident as graveyards continue to spread on Ukraine’s territory with each passing day.

The Politnavigator media outlet explained (as reported on Telegram on February 1) the consequences of such policy for the mortals conscripted into war, many against their will. The report cites Anton Cherny, an officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He explains, “We are being lied to about the value of our soldiers’ lives. I watched the speech of our commander-in-chief that every soldier is valuable to Ukraine and worth his weight in gold. That’s what they tell the people, but it’s not true.”

Cherny says that 90% of the soldiers who die or succumb to injuries on the battlefields are simply buried there and then officially listed as missing. “Everyone there knows perfectly well what is happening.” And the indignities do not end there. The families of those reported as ‘missing’ do not receive the financial compensation to which they are entitled.

Cherny also explains that it is extremely difficult for surviving fighters to exit the grim fighting along the front lines. “It’s hard to get out of there by yourself, it’s unrealistic. How lucky it would be if there were fog, very big snow or some other bad weather.” He explains that Ukrainian lines are under constant surveillance from drones flying overhead. As soon as evacuation vehicles approach from the Ukraine side, the drones threaten to strike them, making it very difficult to evacuate the injured or the dead from the various battlefields.

Politnavigator continues its report:

‘The army doesn’t provide guidelines or instructions for soldiers to somehow make their tasks easier. Its words to this effect are just talk. Soldiers are told to go here or there and ‘do’ something, but as to what, where and why, you have to be some kind of superman to figure it out. It’s unreal,’ Cherny says indignantly.

Provoking the sleeping bear of Russia

Radical nationalist and neo-Nazi paramilitaries operating under the control of Kiev’s police and special services waged nine years of military conflict and terrorist attacks against civilians in Donbass from 2014 to 2021. This was bound to provoke a reaction from the Russian Federation sooner rather than later, as any serious commentator knew and reported.

Ukrainian commentators were writing more than three years ago that Kiev’s deployments of paramilitaries in Donbass and its turning a blind eye to their crimes, backed by promises of weapons by belligerent Western governments, would inevitably provoke Russia into responding, as though provoking a bear with a stick. The weapons of Ukraine, many provided by the West, did indeed, predictably, awaken the bear, and angrily.

In early February 2025, the prime minister of neighboring Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze, told journalists that back in 2022, his country’s then-government was being encouraged by the West to open a ‘second front’ against Russia. The country was to be used just as Ukraine was being used. According to the Kobakhidze, Georgian officials of the day were told a fable by the Western powers to convince them to act. “They said Ukraine is winning the war; you should not miss this chance to strike against Russia.”

Kobakhidze believes it will now take Ukraine 100 years to return to a state of development comparable where it was prior to the 2014. He asks, “Why was all this done? No one is offering a clear answer to this question. However, there is an answer: some global interests, evil interests, have sacrificed our friendly country Ukraine.”

Full-fledged dictatorship

The eleven years that have elapsed since the Euromaidan coup of 2014 have been years of Ukraine sliding inexorably towards dictatorship, all the while accompanied by rosy phrases from EU leaders claiming that a ‘triumph of democracy’ was taking place. The ideology of Nazism from the World War II era has been officially rehabilitated, while opponents of this course have been targeted by armed, ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis.

All left-wing parties in Ukraine have been banned. Some of their members and leaders have been killed, while many more have been forced into exile. Protests against, and critics of, the ‘pro-European’ dictatorship in Kiev have been targeted for repression. The Western powers have turned a blind eye to the crimes being committed, while United Nations officials have occasionally issued toothless resolutions expressing ‘concern’ about the civil rights being violated.

In 2021, Zelensky banned more political parties critical of his government, and he closed all television channels deemed non-compliant with his policies. No court or other legal reviews of these decisions have taken place.

With the outbreak of war in February 2022, Zelensky imposed martial law and then canceled national elections for the presidency and the legislature (Rada). These were to take place no later than April 2024, according to the Ukraine constitution. Zelensky has said that Ukraine cannot hold elections until it has fully regained control over its former territories. Since this would be impossible to achieve, his statements on the matter mean that for all intents and purposes, elections will not take place in the remaining territories held by Kiev. Period.

Alexander Dubinsky, a former associate of Zelensky jailed by his administration, writes that the war became for Zelensky an escape from the social explosion building up inside the country and appearing inevitable by the end of 2021. “I think this largely determined why Zelensky promoted military rhetoric in every possible way, and why in March 2022 he ceded to Western government pressures to draw back from a political settlement with the Russian Federation.”

For Dubinsky, the end of the war would mean a loss of political power by Zelensky and his cohorts, and this, in turn, would expose them to direct conflict with all the enemies he has managed to make. He may be able to protect himself from the widows and mothers of the deceased, reasons Dubinsky, but not from the violent, ‘serious men’ who have proliferated under his government.

Detention camps using torture methods under Zelensky

Every day, more and more facts are emerging in Ukraine about the detention camps that Zelensky has created in order to sustain its power and continue the NATO proxy war.

In January, legislator Oleksandr Dubinskyy urged Ukrainians to report to U.S. authorities about the detention camps that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has organized, notably for the purpose of forcing accused conscription evaders to confess to accusations of state treason. According to him, the SBU detention camps are prototypes of what Ukraine as a whole has become under Zelensky.

Dubinskyy has been detained since November 2023 under accusations of financial crimes and treason. He has recently announced from detention his intention to run for president of Ukraine if and when a national election takes place.

Another former associate of Zelensky, legislator Artem Dmytruk, wrote on Telegram on January 30 that the entire special corps of the Lukyanivske pre-trial detention center in Kiev should be called a concentration camp and named ‘Zelensky’s Factory’. Legislators Oleksandr Dubinsky and Yevhen Shevchenko are among those imprisoned there. “90|% of detainees in this center face charges by the office of the expired president Zelensky.”

Dmytruk fled to Britain in August 2024 shortly after he was the only deputy in the Rada to speak and vote against a new law banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which he is a subdeacon.

The Ukrainian magazine Liberal published a lengthy report in February saying that individuals and political formations connected to the Zelensky administration are the only ones in Ukraine not talking about political repression prevailing today in the country.

The authors claim that extensive political repression was being prepared and carried out well before the start of the Russian military intervention in February 2022. According to the publication, thousands of SBU employees were sent to border regions on the eve of the Russian intervention to monitor troop morale and other measures of the military situation.

At the same time, Kiev began to address its shortages of police and prison personnel in Kiev and other regions by recruiting ‘trained athletes’ into the ranks of the SBU after completing three-month courses in western Ukraine. ‘Trained athletes’ is a euphemism in Ukraine for members of criminal gangs.

“Thousands of bone-crackers performing police functions inside the country spread out without the slightest remorse to beat testimony out of Ukrainians using the most brutal forms of violence and creating torture institutions such as the famous ‘Sports Hall’ on Volodymyrska Street [in the center of Kiev],” writes Liberal.

“People were lying on floors, deprived of the right to move and subjected to constant beatings and humiliation. The Ukrainian anthem and nationalist songs were played continuously from loudspeakers. The eyes of the prisoners would be taped shut with duct tape or tied with rags, and they were taken to the toilet only once a day. They were also fed very sparingly, once per day.”

The authors note that political prisoners now account for about half of the prisoners in Ukraine. The main motives for many SBU officers, Liberal notes, have not been security concerns but the robbery of suspects. Detainees have been forced to surrender their personal wealth upon arrest and detention.

Two reports in English on prison conditions in Ukraine were published in 2024, one by a Danish government agency (110 pages) and one by an agency of the Council of Europe (46 pages). Both reports skirt incendiary accusations such as the one published by Liberal and the many ones appearing widely on social media.

On February 12, a German court for the first time approved the extradition of a conscientious objector to military service who had fled Ukraine. Ukraine prohibits men of military age (age 25 to 55, 60 for officers) from leaving the country. Many of the fugitives from Ukraine’s compulsory conscription have chosen to flee to Germany, attracted by Germany’s claimed liberal values. This court decision is the first warning sign that the authorities of European Union countries may begin to conduct forced deportations of the Ukrainian men who have managed by hook or by crook to escape from their homeland’s military conscription. It is reported that in 2024, there are some 200,000 Ukrainian men residing in Germany alone.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How President Trump is well placed to secure a deal with Russia to end the war

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 25, 2025

Media coverage of America’s recent talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia focussed almost exclusively on the prospects for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Russia and the U.S. probably want different outcomes from the talks. But President Trump is better placed to reach a deal with President Putin that he was in his first term.

The speed with which America has moved to reestablish diplomatic contact with Russia has left European leaders breathless and flatfooted. Zelensky has also been damaged by a needless public fight with President Trump that he could not win, after accusing him of living in a Russian disinformation bubble.

Donald Trump has arrived in the White House, for the second time, following a collapse in U.S.-Russia relations under a preceding Democratic Party President. What seems different today is that the politics of Washington have made it easier for him to engage with President Putin.

In 2017, Russia undoubtedly hoped for a potential reset of relations with the United States after a general collapse in engagement under President Obama. In Obama’s final foreign policy fling on 29 December 2016, he expelled 35 Russian diplomats, in response to the so-called Russiagate allegations.

In my view, Obama hoped these expulsions would make it harder for President Trump to engage with President Putin, if Russia retaliated with reciprocal diplomatic expulsions. But, Putin deliberately paused on retaliating, waiting to see what Trump might offer.

The real obstacle to engagement in 2017, which doesn’t seem to exist today, was the bipartisan resistance in Washington to President Trump improving relations with Russia in any way.

Just one day after Obama expelled the Russian diplomats, the rabidly anti-Russian late Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) were in Kyiv. There, they pressed for even tougher sanctions against Russia, and more support for Ukraine.

Even before President Trump had been sworn in, moves were being made by representatives of his own political party, to hem him in. The vehicle to achieve this was the Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which imposed sweeping new sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea.

This sanctions act was so punitive, allowing the U.S. to sanction European countries that did business with Russia, that several EU leaders were furious and lobbied hard for it to be watered down.

On 31 July 2017, within days of Congress approving the CAATSA act, President Putin finally chose to retaliate, evicting seven hundred fifty five staff from U.S. diplomatic missions.

Two days later, when President Trump signed the CAATSA Act into Law, he noted that the bill was ‘seriously flawed.. because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.. This bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together.’

Whether or not you agree with sanctions against Russia, it would take a confident person today, to say that Russia, China and North Korea weren’t closer now than they were eight years ago.

Back in 2017 the CAATSA Act was a hammer blow to President Trump’s efforts to reengage. President Putin’s retaliation gutted America’s diplomatic network in Russia.

I was Charge d’Affaires at the British Embassy at the time and took the short walk most days to the U.S. Embassy to help the Deputy Chief of Mission as he grappled with the dreadful choice of which of his diplomats to send back to America.

I could have taken a car, but I wanted to walk in and out each day, under the watchful gaze of the Russian state apparatus, as a small sign of solidarity.

The main U.S. Embassy site in Moscow sits behind the White House, which the Russian army famously fired at by Russian army tanks during the 1993 parliamentary rebellion. In 2017, a cavernous new, glass and steel Consular Services building had recently erected which even today sits largely empty, as the U.S. shut down practically all visa processing in Russia.

I recommended a plan – successful as it turns out – to prevent closure of the Anglo-American school of Moscow, under the cover of the mass expulsions. The school had first opened in 1949, as a place for the children of American, British and Canadian diplomats to get an education. That school finally closed it doors in May 2023, having supported diplomatic children – including my two – for seventy-four years without interruption.

Both are small signs of just far low U.S.-Russia day to day diplomatic ties have fallen.

The talks that took place between in Saudi Arabia on 18 February between Secretary Rubio and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov focused in significant part on a process gradually to return diplomatic relations to a more normal footing.

In my experience, Russia places considerable value on day-to-day diplomatic collaboration across social, cultural, scientific and other fields. Even NASA had a liaison in Moscow while I was there.

It is no great secret that the intelligence services of both sides work relentlessly to spy on the other. But this softer diplomatic engagement is a huge help in moderating some of the ‘bad stuff’.

President Trump would like the war to end, but Russia holds the upper hand on the battlefield and can play for time in suing for peace. Russia would undoubtedly like a more normalised diplomatic relationship with the United States of America.

Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov has said he is not interested in a quick ceasefire that allows Ukraine to rearm and come back later for another war.

Any negotiation depends on knowing what both sides want and what you can offer without diminishing your own goals. There is little appetite on the Hill to pump further billions into the Ukraine war effort. With over 20,000 sanctions imposed on Russia already and with its economy still robust, there is no benefit in pushing more sanctions.

Taking small steps to redress the awful day-to-day diplomatic relations between both countries seems a good place to start as both sides look to broker a lasting peace. And with President Trump not held back by dissenters in his own party, he appears strongly placed to agree a deal with President Putin.

February 25, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »