Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump’s Foreign Policy – Strategy Behind the Noise?

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 5, 2025

Trump’s actions in the international system are defined by the aims to remake US foreign policy, and the tendency to make noise that keeps him in the headlines. A key challenge for analysts is therefore to distinguish between the strategy and the noise. Some of Trump’s messaging has a deliberate purpose while at other times he is seemingly improvising.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dropped a bombshell by arguing that the unipolar world order is over and the natural condition is multipolarity. Does this represent Trump’s decision to retire the “hegemonic peace” in Europe through NATO expansion (that triggered a war in Ukraine), or was it simply an independent commentary by Rubio? Trump wants peace with Russia and recognises that NATO provoked the war, but he also attempts to threaten Russia to accept US terms. Trump wants to end the wars in the Middle East, but he also sends 2000-pound bombs to Israel and casually suggests ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza. Trump wants to get along with China, but also to end China’s technological leadership. What is foreign policy and what is noise?

February 6, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Did Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Just Leak?

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2025

A leaked document has given us a first glimpse at President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian online newspaper Strana, U.S. officials handed the plan to European diplomats who then passed it on to Ukraine.

The existence of the plan has not been verified, and Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has said “no ‘100-day peace plan’ as reported by the media exists in reality.”

If the plan is real, and if it is being put on the table by the Trump administration as a finished product that, if rejected, will lead to more sanctions on Russia and more weapons for Ukraine (as Trump has threatened), then the war will go on, and Trump’s promise to quickly end the war will vanish in a puff of delusion. But if the plan is real, and if it is put on the table as a starting point for negotiations, then there is hope. And there is suggestion that it is a starting point.

Here is an item by item analysis of what each side may consider acceptable in the supposed plan and what each side may insist on negotiating further.

The process begins with an immediate phone call between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed by discussions between Washington and Kiev. That the plan may be intended as a starting point for negotiations is suggested by the fork in the schedule that negotiations will continue if common ground is found or pause if it is not. Further negotiations would lead to an Easter truce along the front line, an end of April peace conference, and a May 9 declaration of an agreement.

Russia has said that the Istanbul agreement could still be “the basis for starting negotiations.” In June 2024, Vladimir Putin set out a peace proposal based on the Istanbul agreement, but adjusted for current territorial realities. Putin’s proposal had four points: Ukraine must abandon plans to join NATO, they must withdraw from the four annexed territories, they must agree to limits on the size of their armed forces, and they must ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

The alleged Trump plan can be evaluated by comparison to Putin’s proposal and to recent statements made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

  1. Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Kursk at the time of the April Truce. This would be acceptable to Russia, who would insist on Ukrainian troops leaving its territory. But for Ukraine, this would be a difficult concession; not because of the withdrawal but because of the timing. Aside from the strategically catastrophic hope that the Kursk invasion would divert Russian troops away from the Donbas, the point of taking Russian territory was to use it to barter for the return of Ukrainian territory. Giving up the bargaining chip before the negotiations begin would nullify Ukraine’s hope of using it to force the return of more of its land.
  2. Ukraine must end martial law and hold presidential elections by the end of August and parliamentary elections by the end of October. This could be a bitter pill for Zelensky. Recent polling has shown that he could well lose that election. Elections would be welcomed by Russia, who see Zelensky’s government as intransigently hostile and anti-Russia. This would legally transfer hope for regime change to Ukrainians.
  3. Ukraine must declare neutrality and promise not to join NATO; NATO must promise not to expand into Ukraine. Ukraine was willing to abandon its NATO hopes in Istanbul. Though accepted by Kiev as inevitable, it would now be a painful concession. In the absence of NATO membership. It would be a hard sell to Ukrainians that the war after the Istanbul talks was worth the devastation. For Russia, this point is key, and there can be no negotiations without it. It would be the key accomplishment to get the two-sided promise that Ukraine will not ask for membership and NATO will not offer it.
  4. Ukraine will become a member of the European Union by 2030. This item is acceptable to both. EU membership will be necessary for Zelensky to present to Ukrainians as something that was worth fighting for. Ukraine is now free to pursue its ambitions to turn west and join Europe. Though Russia had concerns in 2014 with the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine because of its implied integration of Ukraine into the European security and military architecture, Putin has long left EU membership on the table for a postwar Ukraine, and that was specifically agreed to in the Istanbul agreement.
  5. Ukraine will not reduce the size of its armed forces and the United States will continue modernizing the Ukrainian military. While Ukraine will welcome this, it may not be enough. Russia will have a hard time with this one. This is like “the Israeli model” that then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Putin and Zelensky were both open to in the early days of the war. But, in the absence of NATO, Zelensky has been adamant about American supported security guarantees. And, already by Istanbul, Russia was demanding limits on Ukraine’s armed forces. At the very least, modernized Ukrainian weaponry would have to be defensive and with a cap on firing into Russian territory.
  6. Ukraine refuses military and diplomatic attempts to return the occupied territories, but does not officially recognize Russian sovereignty. This item does not go far enough for Russia and too far for Ukraine. Zelensky has accepted that “De facto, these territories are now controlled by the Russians. We don’t have the strength to bring them back.” So, he will accept not attempting to return the occupied territories militarily. He has also insisted that Ukraine would never officially recognize Russian sovereignty over those lands. But the added clause, that he will not attempt to return them diplomatically, may be going further than Zelensky has been willing to go. In the case of Crimea, he has reserved the right to try to bring territory back diplomatically. For Russia, the de facto recognition of the territory it occupies will likely be enough. In his proposal, Putin insisted on the complete withdrawal from the territories while saying nothing about Ukraine officially recognizing Russian sovereignty over them. However, though Russia may be willing to negotiate over Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, they are less likely to accept only the lands east of the current front without it including all of the Donbas.
  7. Some sanctions on Russia will be lifted, including European Union bans on Russian oil. This item will likely be acceptable to Ukraine, especially since temporary duty on sales of oil will be used to restore Ukraine. It will likely be acceptable, at least as a starting point, for Russia.
  8. Parties that support Russian language and peaceful relations with Russia can participate in Ukraine’s elections. State actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Russian language must cease. Though difficult for Zelensky and some forces in Ukraine to accept, protection of language, religious and cultural rights is the second key Russian demand along with NATO.
  9. The idea of a European peacekeeping force is to be discussed separately. The recognition that security guarantees are both key and difficult for both parties is realistic. Neither side will agree to a European security force: Russia because it goes too far, Ukraine because it goes not far enough.

If this possible plan is a final draft whose rejection means negotiations end, then the war will not end. But if Donald Trump’s plan is intended as a starting point to negotiations—the most difficult of which may be the security guarantees — then there is hope.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Moscow welcomes Trump’s stance on Kiev’s NATO bid

RT | February 5, 2025

Russia welcomes the statements made by US President Donald Trump regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Trump is the first Western leader to admit that it was wrong to support Kiev’s plans to join the military bloc, the diplomat said on Wednesday.

Trump stated last month that he understands the Russian stance that Ukraine should not be part of NATO. Speaking to reporters in Florida, the US president said Moscow’s position had long been “written in stone,” but that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had ignored it, which contributed to the current conflict.

“Somewhere along the line, Biden said, ‘[Ukraine], they should be able to join NATO.’ Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I can understand their feelings about that,” Trump added.

Speaking at an ambassadors’ roundtable on Ukraine, Lavrov said Trump’s comments suggest Washington may finally be ready to address issues linked to Ukraine’s NATO bid and the bloc’s eastward expansion.

“President Trump bluntly said that one of the main mistakes was drawing Ukraine into NATO, and that if he had been in power the past four years, the conflict would not have happened,” Lavrov noted.

“For the first time, a Western leader… the leader of the entire Western world, uttered these words, which we welcome because for the first time the problem of NATO was identified as something that the US is ready to discuss seriously,” he added. Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were a root cause of the current conflict, saying that warnings not to encourage these aspirations either fell on deaf ears or were met with “duplicity” and “hypocrisy” by Western politicians.

“The root cause is the conscious, long-term desire and… practical steps of the West to create direct military threats to Russia on our borders, on the territory of Ukraine, and drawing it into NATO. We have raised this issue repeatedly, demanding NATO honor its pledge not to expand eastward, but all was in vain,” Lavrov said. He suggested Trump’s remarks could signal a shift in US policy, which he called crucial as “Washington is the one who will ultimately make the decisions” regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Moscow has long opposed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, insisting any settlement of the ongoing conflict must include Kiev’s neutrality and demilitarization. Ukraine, however, considers its membership a strategic foreign and security policy objective, and has recently claimed that it sees its admission to the US-led military bloc as a security guarantee to agree to a ceasefire with Moscow. While NATO last year declared that Ukraine was on an “irreversible” path to joining the bloc, its members warned that Kiev would have to meet certain conditions first, such as resolving the conflict with Moscow.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky a ‘maniac’ to demand NATO nuclear weapons – Moscow

RT | February 5, 2025

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s statements on obtaining nuclear weapons are cause for serious concern, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. In a social media post on Wednesday, she branded Zelensky a “maniac [gripped by] sick delusions” who could seek a ‘dirty bomb’.

Zelensky reiterated his nuclear aspirations in an interview with British television host Piers Morgan on Tuesday, in which he lamented that Kiev traded Soviet-era deterrence “for nothing” in the 1990s.

“Will we be given nuclear weapons? Then let them give us nuclear weapons,” Zelensky told Morgan. “What missiles can stop Russia’s nuclear missiles? That is a rhetorical question.”

He called on NATO to deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine as a stopgap measure while Kiev awaits accession to the US-led military bloc.

Responding on Wednesday, Zakharova wrote: “Zelensky’s latest statements that he wants to possess a nuclear capability expose him as a maniac, who considers the planet as an object for his sick delusions. They also prove that for him nuclear power stations are not a source of peaceful energy, but a dirty weapon that the Kiev regime needs for blackmail.”

Ukrainian nuclear rhetoric predates the outbreak of hostilities with Russia. Zelensky suggested that Kiev could build atomic weapons in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022, days before the escalation of the conflict.

Russian officials have expressed concern over Ukraine potentially developing a dirty bomb amid its battlefield setbacks. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has reported no diversion of declared radioactive materials in the country.

Ukraine inherited a well-developed civilian nuclear industry from the USSR, and currently operates three nuclear power plants and two research reactors.

Contrary to Zelensky’s assertion, independent Ukraine lacked a true nuclear deterrent as it did not possess the unilateral capability to launch Soviet weapons deployed on its soil in response to an attack. The disarmament of Ukraine, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, was part of a broader nuclear reduction initiative in the 1990s. Western nations incentivized the host nations with aid programs.

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Kremlin comments on talks with ‘illegitimate’ Zelensky

RT | February 5, 2025

Moscow is ready for talks with Kiev even though Vladimir Zelensky currently has no legal right to lead Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

On Tuesday, Zelensky told British journalist Piers Morgan that he could hold talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The comments marked a significant shift from Zelensky’s stance adopted in the autumn of 2022, when he signed a decree banning any negotiations with the Russian leadership.

“If that is the only setup in which we can bring peace to the citizens of Ukraine and not lose people, definitely we will go for this setup, for this meeting,” Zelensky told Morgan.

Asked to comment on Zelensky’s remarks on Wednesday, Peskov said there is “no place for emotions” when it comes to the settlement of the Ukraine conflict. “What is needed here is legal analysis and absolute pragmatism… Zelensky has significant de jure legitimacy issues within his own country,” the spokesman pointed out.

Peskov referred to the Ukrainian leader’s refusal to hold a presidential election and the fact that his term expired last May. Moscow maintains that the legitimate power in Ukraine now lies with the parliament and its speaker.

“Despite this, the Russian side remains open to negotiations,” Peskov stressed, arguing that Moscow’s successes on the battlefield “clearly suggest that Kiev should be the one to demonstrate openness and interest in such negotiations.”

Peskov also weighed in on Zelensky’s suggestion that the West could give Ukraine nuclear weapons as a substitute for NATO membership to guarantee its protection.

“In general, such statements are borderline madness. There is a nuclear non-proliferation regime,” the spokesman said. Peskov suggested that EU politicians, despite their flaws, should understand the “absurdity and potential danger of discussing such a topic.”

Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK as part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine has repeatedly accused Moscow of violating the deal after Crimea voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Russia has argued that the deal was fundamentally undermined by NATO’s expansion towards its borders.

Putin has said that Russia would not allow Kiev to create or obtain nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.”

February 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US special envoy says Ukraine should hold elections this year

By Ahmed Adel | February 4, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said that elections should be organized in Ukraine. This is another message to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Washington will no longer sign him blank checks and fund his failed war efforts on Russia.

Zelensky’s claims that the constitution does not allow elections to be held during a state of emergency are meaningless because the Ukrainian constitution also does not allow the president to serve after his term expires. The powers of the president should have been taken over by the parliament, which did not express an opinion on this because it is in the pocket of Zelensky.

It is doubtful that Zelensky fears losing the elections since he has already banned all legitimate opposition parties. The only person he might be afraid of is the four-star general Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who is currently serving as Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Kingdom, as he could return from London and be the opposing candidate because he is more popular, according to some indicators there.

Nonetheless, it does not matter what the results of those elections will be since it will be a farce like the rest of the Ukrainian state administration. The essence of the story is that this is a message to the Ukrainian people that Zelensky, an unelected usurper, cannot sign anything in anyone’s name. Ukrainians must have some legitimate authority, at least on paper, to be able to sign a capitulation. It will not be a truce or a peace agreement but a surrender because the Kremlin said this is the only way to end the conflict.

The US is trying to soften the situation by creating a narrative that it has defended democracy in Ukraine and that the Ukrainians have democratically decided to capitulate.

Russia is not interested in negotiating with a puppet but with the one who pulls the strings. This means that Russia will negotiate directly with the Americans. The Ukrainian delegation, whatever it may be, will be present but will not be relevant to the discussions and will only be symbolic – they will just put their signature on what is agreed.

The Americans have always been the bosses in Ukraine; the difference now is that a new boss has arrived in Washington and is now telling them what to do, and they will have no choice but to agree with it. Their options are capitulation with American oversight or trying to reach an agreement with the Russians separately.

Zelensky unfortunately cut off the second option as a possibility by issuing a decree banning direct negotiations with the Kremlin. He will have to withdraw that decree because it is absolutely clear that the Americans are in a hurry to end this as soon as possible. After all, this conflict no longer suits Washington, and they want to deal with other things, such as opposing the rise of China.

The Russians are unlikely to be satisfied with anything other than their announced goals: the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, the country’s neutral status, and recognition of Russia’s new territories.

US President Donald Trump’s team believes that elections must be organized in Ukraine so that the winner can engage in dialogue with Russia. Reuters sources say White House officials and Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, have recently discussed how to persuade Kiev to hold elections in the initial phase of a ceasefire with Moscow. They also discussed whether a ceasefire should be achieved before trying to reach a longer-term agreement.

Kellogg said that holding elections in Ukraine is important.

“Most democratic nations have elections in their time of war. I think it is important they do so. I think it is good for democracy. That’s the beauty of a solid democracy, you have more than one person potentially running,” Kellogg said.

Reuters cited two people with knowledge of those conversations and a former US official briefed about the election proposal as saying that the Trump plan for peace “is still evolving and no policy decisions have been made” but that Kellogg and other White House officials discussed pushing Kiev to agree to elections as part of an initial truce with Russia.

Zelensky’s five-year term was supposed to end in May 2024, but he has clung to the excuse that presidential and parliamentary elections cannot be held under martial law, which Ukraine imposed in February 2022. According to sources cited by Reuters, the White House raised the issue of elections with senior officials in Zelensky’s office in 2023 and 2024 during the Biden administration, and US officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that elections were critical to uphold international and democratic norms.

Given that Zelensky has no viable opposition to challenge him, besides perhaps Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the question still remains why he refuses to uphold the democratic norms that he supposedly champions and defends.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

February 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine has lost – ex-Zelensky adviser

RT | February 3, 2025

Ukraine has lost the armed conflict with Russia, primarily due to the inability of the Ukrainian people to take personal responsibility for their failures, Aleksey Arestovich, a former aide to Vladimir Zelensky, has argued. He expects the US, Russia, and China to decide on a resolution without consulting Kiev.

Arestovich resigned from his government post in early 2023 after contradicting the official narrative around a missile incident. Now a sharp critic of the Zelensky administration, he argued in a Telegram post on Sunday that the changing tone of Western discourse about Ukraine has signaled a significant policy change.

US President Donald Trump will sort things out with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping “without consulting us, because engaging with those who deny reality is futile,” he wrote.

“We have lost the war due to our own stupidity, pride and stubbornness. In truth, we have defeated ourselves,” Arestovich added. “We have created a society of mutual hatred and intolerance, in which every individual is right and everyone collectively is to blame.”

He cited several recent news stories, calling them a wakeup call for Ukrainians to acknowledge defeat and their role in it.

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for the Ukraine conflict, has called on Kiev to resume presidential and parliamentary elections, which Zelensky suspended under martial law. Conservative US political commentator Tucker Carlson branded the Ukrainian leader “a dictator” during a debate with British television host Piers Morgan. Additionally, Washington’s decision last month to suspend foreign aid programs has forced many Ukrainian NGOs and media outlets to solicit for private donations to avoid shutdown.

Public statements and media reports suggest that the Trump administration seeks a freeze of the Ukraine conflict along existing frontlines. Moscow has said that it won’t accept an outcome that would allow Kiev to rebuild its military and renew hostilities in the future. The core causes of the conflict, including NATO’s expansion in Europe, need to be addressed in order for a sustainable peace agreement to be reached, Russian officials have asserted.

The Ukrainian military is reportedly plagued by large-scale desertion and poor morale, while Russia continues to advance. Zelensky, meanwhile, has called on Kiev’s Western backers to deploy at least 200,000 troops as “peacekeepers.” He has also urged Trump to adopt a “peace through strength” approach to pressure Moscow into accepting truce terms favorable to Kiev.

February 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Why USAID was kicked out of Russia

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 03.02.2025

President Trump has promised to “make a decision” on USAID’s future after getting rid of the “radical lunatics” running it after DOGE chief Elon Musk said it was time for the “criminal” agency “to die.” Russia banned Washington’s long-favored soft power tool in 2012. Here’s why.

Russia knew about the US Agency for International Development’s “criminal” nature long before Elon Musk’s epiphany.

USAID was expelled from the country after post-election street protests in Moscow verging on an attempted color revolution, with the agency accused of using its grant network to try to influence politics and civil society after the 2011-2012 Russian parliamentary and presidential elections.

USAID’s mission in Russia was narrowed to political influence operations in the 2000s, including funding for civil society groups like the Golos election watchdog, the Memorial and Moscow Helsinki Group rights organizations, and others.

These organizations engaged in increasingly sharp criticism of the Russian government prior to the US aid agency’s ouster, helping to radicalize a portion of the population toward more pro-Western opposition views through the popularization of their positions.

20 Years of ‘Democracy Promotion’

USAID first entered Russia in 1992, immediately after the USSR’s collapse, and spent nearly $3 bln over 20 years on ‘democracy, human rights and civil society promotion’ programs.

In reality, USAID’s work in the 90s was aimed at cheerleading the gutting of Russia’s social and economic system during the painful transition to a market economy, and meddling in politics in support of liberal, pro-West politicians against conservative, populist and neo-communist forces.

Nowhere was this more evident than during the 1993 constitutional crisis and the 1996 elections, which saw radical opposition to liberal reforms crushed and the voting rigged, with USAID-backed “independent media,” publishing houses and NGOs cheering on the processes.

The US amassed a literal journalistic empire during its stay in Russia. Up to the year 2000 alone, its National Press Institute held 2,300 briefings and seminars attended by over 57,000 journalists, provided training for 2,700 media specialists, management and consulting services for 84 newspapers, and support for other print, TV and internet media.

On the economic front, USAID provided “technical advisory services and material support” for the infamous voucher privatization scheme. This program cemented immense wealth transfers worth hundreds of billions of dollars from the state to private and foreign coffers.

In the 90s, USAID ambitiously outlined 14 “strategic objectives” for Russia, from fiscal, monetary, social service and energy reforms to US “joint ventures,” civil and legal training, environmental programs and even women’s reproductive health.

Political stabilization and the maturing of the modern post-Soviet Russian state ultimately sealed USAID’s fate.

But perhaps the greatest damage done by USAID to Russia has been in its backyard, where billions of dollars spent over the past 35 years helped to put neighbors on a path to NATO and EU membership, and literally rewrite history books to cast Russia as an enemy. Nowhere has this effort paid off more than in Ukraine.

February 3, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Kiev and Western backers trying to undermine Moscow’s ties with neighbors – FSB

Nikolay Kochmarik posing with a Ukrainian armored vehicle. FSB
RT | February 1, 2025

Ukrainian intelligence services and their Western handlers are creating fake online content in an attempt to spoil Russia’s relations with neighboring countries, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has alleged.

The agency announced in a statement on Saturday that it had identified a Ukrainian national who had offended the people of Uzbekistan while posing as a Russian blogger. The controversial clip had been uploaded to a YouTube channel “controlled by the Lithuanian special services,” it added.

A video featuring a man who claims to be a Russian citizen made headlines last month for comparing Uzbeks to dogs, sparking outrage among commentators in both Central Asia and Russia.

At the time, Rasul Kusherbaev, an advisor to the Uzbek ecology minister, urged the country’s foreign ministry to “take action” in response to the insults. “Our cooperation with Russia is based on the principles of equality and mutual respect. Discrimination is unacceptable in interstate relations,” Kusherbaev told the media outlet Daryo.

According to the FSB, the offensive blogger is a citizen and current resident of Ukraine named Nikolay Kochmarik, who has been actively supporting Kiev’s military during the conflict with Moscow.

“This incident is evidence of deliberate actions by the Ukrainian and Lithuanian special services as well as by their foreign handlers to create provocative content aimed at undermining relations between Russia and its partners in the CIS,” the FSB stressed. With such clips, Kiev and its Western backers are “attempting to form anti-Russian sentiment abroad,” it added.

The CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) is an intergovernmental organization comprised of many former Soviet Republics, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

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

How Ukrainians became cannon fodder in British military’s Krynky debacle

By Kit Klarenberg | Press TV | February 1, 2025

In November 2024, Ukrainska Pravda published a little-noticed investigation, documenting in frequently disquieting detail the catastrophic failure of Ukraine’s long-running effort to capture the village of Krynky in Russian-controlled Kherson, October 2023 – June 2024.

That it was to all intents and purposes a British operation, from deranged inception to miserable conclusion, was perhaps the most shocking revelation.

As the proxy war teeters on collapse, it’s high time London’s covert role in fomenting relentless escalation, and getting enormous numbers of Ukrainians pointlessly killed, is critically scrutinized.

In June 2023, the Kakhovka Dam’s destruction almost completely submerged large swaths of Kherson, a key proxy war frontline, depopulating these areas in the process. In the wake of this incident, responsibility for which remains a point of significant contention, Kiev decided to secure a beachhead on Russian territory on Dnipro’s Russian-held left bank.

As Ukrainska Pravda notes, the initiative was and remains “one of the least publicized operations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” despite lasting as long as the Battle of Bakhmut.

This omertà endures today, with many “experienced officers” involved in and aware of the operation unwilling to answer any questions put to them by Ukrainska Pravda.

One pseudonymous marine quoted “was so concerned about the privacy” of his conversations with the outlet that he contacted them “from different numbers almost every time.”

The rationale for this conspiracy of silence is obvious. The Krynky operation’s failure was so egregious that it easily ranks among the uppermost tier of the biggest and worst modern military calamities.

Moreover, though, the effort had a supremely grand ultimate purpose, in which the surviving Ukrainian marines involved in the operation believed so strongly that several of them spoke of Kiev’s failed Krynky incursion in the same terms as the June 1944 Normandy landings – D-Day.

Ukrainska Pravda reveals it was hoped securing the Krynky beachhead would be a “game-changer”, opening a second front in the conflict, allowing invading marines to march upon Crimea and all-out victory in the proxy war.

This fantastical objective has hitherto never been publicly divulged. A December 2023 BBC article nonetheless hinted at intended greatness. It discussed the horrendous experiences of Ukrainian soldiers who “spent several weeks on the Russian-occupied side” of the Dnipro, as Kiev sought to establish its Krynky “bridgehead”.

Along the way, the British state broadcaster noted parenthetically, “President Volodymyr Zelensky has been keen to talk up this offensive, framing it as the beginning of something more [emphasis added].”

‘Constant Fire’

Per Ukrainska Pravda, Krynky’s foundations were laid in February 2023, when it was announced London, “perhaps Ukraine’s most active and determined ally”, would begin a training program for Ukrainian marines and pilots. Behind closed doors, Britain – “a naval power” – concurrently began lobbying Kiev to “start using marines for waterborne operations.”

However, the proposal “did not resonate… for a long time” with Zelensky, or then-Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi. So the British took the “radical step” of dispatching an “official delegation” to Kiev, to convince the pair.

“The British team persuaded Zaluzhnyi, and he said: that’s it, we’re creating the Marine Corps,” a source informed the outlet. London then instituted five-week-long training programs.

Ukrainians were taught on British territory “how to overcome water obstacles: to cross a river, land on the shore and conduct operations on land.” Survivors of the operation told Ukrainska Pravda, “They realized they were being prepared for something big and different from their previous tasks during their stay in the UK.”

Come August, almost 1,000 Ukrainian marines had reportedly been tutored “in small-boat landing operations and amphibious assaults”, in training environments identical to where they would land in and around Krynky.

The stage was thus set for seizing the beachhead, which commenced two months later. “Almost immediately” though, “the operation’s biggest flaw – its planning – began to work against the Marines,” producing “huge losses”.

Ukrainska Pravda acknowledges the mission “wasn’t fully thought through in every aspect,” which is quite the understatement.

Ukrainian marines reaching Krynky required them to travel across the Dnipro via boat or be dropped off at numerous small islands nearby and swim to land. Resupply was also supposed to be conducted via boat deliveries.

In the aforementioned December 2023 BBC article, a marine participating in the catastrophe revealed it was expected by the operation’s British planners that once the Ukrainians landed, their adversary “would flee and then we could calmly transport everything we needed.”

Alas, “it didn’t turn out that way”:

“The entire river crossing is under constant fire. I’ve seen boats with my comrades on board just disappear into the water after being hit, lost forever to the Dnipro River… When we arrived on the [eastern] bank… they knew exactly where to find us. They threw everything at us – artillery, mortars and flamethrower systems. I thought I’d never get out.”

To make matters worse, “a lot of young guys” with zero combat experience were being fed into Krynky. “It’s a total nightmare… some of our marines can’t even swim,” the embattled marine bitterly relayed to Britain’s state broadcaster.

Fearing “things will only get worse,” he added “no one” dispatched to the “hell” there knew “the goals” of the operation in which they were engaged. “Many” believed their commanders had “simply abandoned” them, and “our presence [has] more political than military significance.”

‘Almost Impossible’

Ukrainska Pravda gravely notes, “not all [marines] made it” to Krynky, and “not all who did return.” Even those who survived the perilous journey “frequently sustained injuries or were killed” upon arrival, “because the Russians immediately targeted them with artillery.”

During landings, “every second mattered”, to the extent the Ukrainians quickly “abandoned the use of life jackets” for their river crossings, as detaching one onshore took half a minute, “and there [could] be casualties during that time.”

Fatal operational blindspots and blunders didn’t end there. Resupply boats were likewise relentlessly targeted by Russian forces, making it virtually impossible to equip marines with even the most basic essentials, including ammunition, bandages, food, medicine, and water.

The Ukrainians resorted to using hexacopter drones “to deliver all sorts of things” to the frontline, “even blood for transfusions.”

Meanwhile, one marine bitterly informed Ukrainska Pravda, “heaps” of artillery and rocket support “that would work in our favor” promised by their superiors never materialized.

“HIMARS will fire like machine guns!” they were told, “but we were deceived in the end.”

Regardless, marines were still expected to carry out extraordinarily grand missions once – if – they reached Krynky. For example, three marine brigades were tasked with capturing a 30-kilometer-long beachhead around the village, on foot and without heavy equipment, “using units already exhausted from fighting in Donbas,” within just four days.

This also necessitated thrusting up to seven kilometers inland, into Russian territory.

“The order seemed insane to everyone at the time,” a participating marine told Ukrainska Pravda, “we warned that it would be a massacre, but we were told to keep pushing.”

Their dire predictions were proven completely correct, the mission abruptly failing after “a considerable number of highly valued personnel” were blown to bits by Russian airstrikes, missiles, and tank fire. Yet, this senseless turkey shoot paled in comparison to the disaster and insanity of Britain’s plot for Kiev to march on Crimea.

A survivor of the Krynky operation said this “ultimate goal” was “almost impossible.” To accomplish it, Ukrainian marines “needed to cover a vast distance” – 80 kilometers – into territory that had been under heavy Russian occupation for 18 months.

Furthermore, it was “impossible to establish a foothold” in many of the areas where marines landed, which were “nothing but swamp”. Unable to dig shelters or trenches in the terrain, they were forced to hide from Russian bombardment in craters left by previous attacks.

Some marines intentionally “got lost” on islands near Krynky to avoid the river crossing. Others tried to reach the area and return floating “on car tyres”.

At least two “heroes” involved in the operation “refused to act” on certain orders from their commanders, “as doing so would have been suicidal.”

Some wounded soldiers literally took their own lives, “because there was no evacuation.” These were just a few of the “tragic stories” to result from Britain’s futile, covert proxy push on Crimea.

‘Remain Silent’

The onset of winter was “when the situation on the [Dnipro’s] left bank started to really deteriorate.”

The Russians transferred significant assault forces to the area, used glide bombs “to destroy a large part” of Krynky, and “figured out how best to target Ukrainian forces’ river routes, especially at the turns, where the boats had to slow down, and landing points.” Moscow’s artillery onslaught left the area “cratered like the moon.” A reconnaissance officer told Ukrainska Pravda:

“Each time our battalion entered [Krynky], the situation got worse and worse. People got there, only to die. We had no idea what was going on. Everyone I knew who was deployed to Krynky is [sic] dead.”

The situation further “took a dark turn” in early spring 2024. Not a single boat could enter or leave the area. “By May, the situation was a disaster” – but it was not until July the last of Ukraine’s marines withdrew from the area, being forced to swim back.

“Most people” Ukrainska Pravda interviewed about Krynky “are convinced the operation dragged on for at least several months longer than it should have.” One despaired:

“We had to withdraw in spring at the latest, during the foggy season. We could have got all of our soldiers out at that point. It would’ve saved people’s lives. But instead, we waited until nothing could be done any longer. Until the very last moment.”

During the operation’s entire nine months, Krynky never came under full control of Kiev’s British-trained and directed marines. They managed to capture, recapture, and hold “about half of the village” at most, per Ukrainska Pravda.

“As of late 2024, all of Dnipro’s left bank in Kherson Oblast is under Russian control,” the outlet concludes. No wonder that today, neither Ukrainian nor Western officials are “particularly vocal about Krynky, preferring to remain silent on the issue.”

Zaluzhnyi “has never issued a public statement about the operation.” In May 2024, he was appointed ambassador to Britain. Lieutenant General Yurii Sodol, Ukraine’s former Marine Corps commander who oversaw Krynky, was dismissed from the armed forces in November 2024, ostensibly after failing a military medical exam.

Total killed and wounded figures for the operation remain concealed, although Ukrainska Pravda learned just one brigade lost around 700 personnel during the nine-month-long debacle.

Had it been wave after wave of poorly prepared, ill-equipped and militarily unsupported British marines dispatched in large numbers to certain death in Krynky, one might expect their commanders and anyone responsible for planning the operation to face severe censure.

As it was Ukrainians doing the fighting and dying in an unwinnable, literal quagmire, British officials are likely to remain immune from repercussions.

In a bitter irony, Zelensky may well be joining them in London in due course.

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

Did the US Declare the End of the Unipolar World Order?

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 31, 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview with Megyn Kelly on 30 January 2025 which could signal the beginning of the end of America’s hegemonic security strategy. Rubio recognised that unipolarity, having one centre of power in the world, was a temporary phenomenon that has now passed:

“it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet”.

Rubio suggested that the hegemonic position of the US resulted in a weakening of the Westphalian system based on sovereign states, and replaced it with a globalist system where the US claimed the role of a world policeman:

“And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem”.

Rubio is referring to the end of the unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War, and the need for the US to adjust to multipolar realities.

What is multipolarity?

If unipolarity is over, what is the multipolar system that is returning? The modern world order since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 has been based on the principle of multipolarity and a balance of power to constrain expansionist and hegemonic ambitions of states. A multipolar distribution of power dictates what produces security and the purpose of diplomacy.

Security when there are many centres of power entails managing the security competition between states. Conflicts derive from security competition as the efforts by one state to enhance its own security by for example expanding its military power, will reduce the security of other states. “Indivisible security” is therefore the key principle in a multipolar system, which suggests that security cannot be divided – either it is security for all or there will be security for none. Any effort by a state to become dominant will therefore trigger great power conflicts as it compels other powers to collectively balance the aspiring hegemon.

Diplomacy in a multipolar system aims to enhance mutual understanding about competing security interests and reach a compromise that elevates the security of all states. It is imperative to put oneself in the opponent’s shoes and recognise that if the opponent’s security concerns are resolved, then that also enhances one’s own security.

Unipolarity

Unipolarity was celebrated after the Cold War as it was premised on some good intentions. The idea was that great powers would not engage in rivalry and security competition if the benign hegemon of the US could not be contested. US security strategy was based on global primacy, and it was expected that there was no possibility and need to compete with the benign hegemony of the US. Furthermore, US global primacy would also ensure that liberal democratic values would be elevated. Yet, unipolarity would depend on keeping down rising powers that would therefore have an interest to collectively balance the US. Liberal democratic values would be corrupted as they would be used to legitimise the sovereign inequality required to interfere in every corner of the world. Even Charles Krauthammer who coined and celebrated the term “unipolar moment”, recognised it was a temporary phenomenon that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Security under the unipolar system did not entail managing the security competition. On the contrary, security was dependent on dominating to such an extent that no rivals could even aspire to challenge the US. In 2002, the US Security Strategy explicitly outlined that global dominance would “dissuade future military competition” and that the US therefore had to perpetuate “the unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence”. The hegemonic strategy is why the West abandoned all agreements for an inclusive pan-European security architecture with Russia, and instead returned to bloc politics by expanding NATO toward Russian borders. It would threaten Russian security, but there would be no security competition as Russia would be too weak. The sentiment was that Russia would have to adjust to new realities or be confronted by NATO that had encircled it.

Diplomacy under unipolarity also came to an end. Diplomacy no longer meant to recognise mutual security concerns to find solutions for indivisible security. Rather, diplomacy was replaced with the language of ultimatums and threats as other states would have to accept unilateral concessions. In the past, Western politicians and media would discuss the security concerns of adversaries to mitigate security competition. After the Cold War, Western politicians and media largely stopped discussing the security concerns of adversaries, as there was no desire to “legitimise” the notion that Western hegemony as a “force for good” could be considered a threat. When the West placed its military forces on the borders of other countries, it was claimed to bring democracy, stability and peace. Furthermore, conflicts could not be resolved by diplomacy if they challenged the dominance of the West. For example, taking into account Russian security concerns about NATO’s incursion into Ukraine would represent a rejection of the hegemonic system. While NATO rejected diplomacy for three years as hundreds of thousands of men died on the front line, Rubio now suggests that diplomacy and negotiations must start as “We just have to be realistic about the fact that Ukraine has lost”.

A reason for optimism

In the late 1920s, Antonio Gramsci wrote about the troubling times as a period of interregnum. Gramsci wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”.

The great power conflicts in the world today are largely a result of the world being in a transition between unipolarity and multipolarity. The West attempts to defeat its rivals to restore the unipolarity of the 1990s, while the vast majority of the world seeks to complete the transition to multipolarity. As the US worries about unsustainable debt, the collective balancing by adversaries and the rising possibility of nuclear war – it appears that there is a growing willingness to retire the temporary project of unipolarity.

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

Russian media reach soars as NATO eyes countermeasures – report

RT | January 30, 2025

A fresh NATO report highlights a sharp increase in the reach of Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, where the news outlets have gained millions of new followers.

The report, published on Tuesday by the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom COE), examines how Russian media operations have expanded their influence after the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict in early 2022. With Russian state-backed media subjected to blanket bans in the West, the outlets diverted their resources elsewhere.

According to the report, RT Arabic saw its audience grow by ten million users since the breakout of fighting between Ukraine and Russia. Sputnik Arabic also significantly increased its content output, posting 30–35% more frequently, while the news agency’s engagement on social media surged by 80%. Russian embassies in Africa also saw a 41% rise in social media followers, reflecting a broader trend of growing Russian media influence in non-Western regions, the report notes.

It also claims the outlets have been capitalizing on “anti-colonial narratives” and overall frustration with Western policies, particularly in Africa, and blames this on historical ties to the Soviet Union that still shape public perceptions there. In some cases, the narratives have resonated strongly with audiences already skeptical of Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the International Criminal Court, the report notes.

While StratCom COE projected its findings to the entirety of the Global South, the report actually examined the work of Russian media – as well as social media activities it had linked to Russia without any solid evidence – in Egypt, Mali, Kenya, South Africa and the UAE.

The authors of the report appeared to struggle with terminology, rejecting the ‘Global South’ over an “increasing pushback” against the name, and shot down the term ‘majority countries,’ claiming it has been promoted by assorted “malign actors” to push their agenda. Instead, the report uses the term ‘Multi-aligned Community,’ vaguely defining it as “states existing outside of the Western environment who have exhibited a preference for aligning or partnering with chosen states depending on specific spheres or issues.”

In response to the expanding reach of Russian media, the NATO report proposes new countermeasures aimed at reducing Moscow’s ever-growing influence. One recommendation is to establish a NATO-led initiative to engage with audiences in Africa and the Middle East, improving direct communication and addressing concerns about Western policies.

The report also suggests that NATO should work with local media outlets to “counter disinformation” and to bankroll local “independent journalism.” It also calls for stronger partnerships with civil society organizations to promote diverse viewpoints and counter what it describes as “one-sided narratives” from Russian state media.

January 31, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment