Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia honoring energy strike truce despite Ukraine’s violations – Kremlin

RT | March 24, 2025

Russia will continue to uphold the moratorium on strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, despite Kiev’s numerous violations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Peskov stated that Moscow is still abiding by the partial ceasefire deal, despite Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy facilities.

“There have been no new commands from [Russian President Vladimir Putin]. Our armed forces are following all instructions from the commander-in-chief,” he said.

The suspension of strikes was agreed to following a phone call last week between Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, during which the two discussed a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict.

While Russia did not agree to a full truce, citing the need for a monitoring mechanism and for Kiev to cease its rearmament and mobilization, Putin approved a month-long pause on strikes against energy facilities. Ukraine also signed on to the agreement.

Moscow, however, accused Kiev of violating the deal almost immediately. Russian officials said Ukrainian forces destroyed a gas metering station while retreating from the town of Sudzha in Kursk Region and struck an oil depot in Russia’s Krasnodar Region. Additionally, on Monday night, an armed Ukrainian drone was shot down near an oil pumping station in the same area. The targeted facility is managed by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, which is co-owned by American investors.

Addressing the incidents, Peskov stated: “We are monitoring the situation very closely. Our American counterparts also have the opportunity to observe and draw appropriate conclusions.”

On Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that if “the Kiev regime continues this destructive course,” Russia “reserves the right to retaliate, including symmetrically.”

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

A new vision for US global power under Trump

By Batool Subeiti | Al Mayadeen | March 23, 2025

Trump’s approach to global affairs diverges sharply from the American establishment’s traditional strategy. Trump does not see America as a “police state.” He is sceptical of NATO, does not support war with Russia, and believes the US military presence in West Asia primarily serves to protect Arab allies. In his view, they should bear the financial burden of that protection.

The American establishment, represented by institutions like the Pentagon and the White House, follows a long-term strategic vision. It maintains hundreds of military bases worldwide and pursues a structured political strategy across various regions.

Trump, by contrast, envisions American leadership within a multipolar world order. He is less concerned with imposing the American system on other nations and more focused on fostering economic alliances that benefit the US. He also seeks to counter the rise of BRICS and prevent alternative economic blocs from challenging the dollar’s dominance. Rather than waging ideological battles, his strategy revolves around economic leverage.

A key example of establishment influence has been USAID, which has historically functioned as a covert tool for advancing American unipolarity. By using soft power tactics, it has helped destabilize nations through coups and colour revolutions. However, under Trump, funding for such initiatives has been slashed, allowing the US to save billions. His approach is more direct—rather than relying on NGOs to influence societies, he prefers sanctions as a means of coercion. This shift weakens American influence at the grassroots level, creating a vacuum that local movements and other powers can exploit.

Trump aims to strengthen the American economy through relative stability rather than confrontation. He opposes prolonged war with Russia, favouring investment over sanctions. Rather than spending $350 billion on Ukraine, he sees greater economic potential in working with Russia, which he does not view as a direct economic competitor. His broader goal is to retract costly foreign commitments and consolidate American economic dominance, using economic leverage—such as tariffs and sanctions—to maintain control. This was evident in his approach to Zelensky, where he set clear conditions for support.

This stance starkly contrasts with that of Europe, which remains deeply hostile toward Russia and relies on US backing to counter it. Trump’s push for increased tariffs on European imports will likely reduce demand for European goods in the US, stimulating domestic manufacturing and bolstering the dollar. His retreat from NATO further exposes contradictions within the alliance, creating strategic openings that others may exploit.

Trump operates like a political tsunami. In Gaza, he has positioned himself as the real power behind the war, stopping it on his terms. Even his controversial depopulation proposal was more of a bargaining tool than a concrete plan. He sees West Asia as secondary to regions like Mexico, Panama, or Greenland. When asked about Iran’s strength, he acknowledges Iran is very strong—suggesting he prefers to focus on nuclear containment rather than military confrontation, much to Netanyahu’s frustration.

Trump also has a tendency towards withdrawal when he sees American involvement as a financial drain. While “Israel” has expanded its influence in Syria, if its actions provoke widespread resistance, and it becomes clear that “Israel” is a source of ongoing conflict, Trump may reconsider US support.

In contrast to the deep state’s approach—where a weakening “Israel” prompts the search for regional substitutes—Trump’s stance is more transactional. If there is no significant opposition, he will stamp “Israel’s” territorial gains. But if the costs outweigh the benefits, he is willing to incrementally remove support from the occupation entity.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sudzha Gas Pumping Station Attack: European Provocation or Ukraine’s Resistance to Peace?

Sputnik – 22.03.2025

The Ukrainian Army is increasingly divided, with one faction still operating normally, while the other is spiraling out of control, French war correspondent Laurent Brayard said, commenting on the recent attack on the Sudzha gas pumping station in Russia’s Kursk region.

“Ukrainians, with the Bandarization of the country, are following a logic of revenge and hatred, and there is an uncontrollable side to it,” he said.

If peace negotiations occur, there is a threat of uprisings within Ukraine itself, Laurent Brayard stressed. Turkish historian Mehmet Perincek sees the attack as a European provocation to prolong the war.

French journalist Christelle Neant and Saudi military analyst Faisal Al-Anzi argue that Ukrainian strikes on energy infrastructure are deliberate provocations aimed at derailing peace efforts, with Ukraine failing to respect agreements.

Brazilian analyst Marco Antonio Coutinho emphasizes the devastating impact of these attacks on peace negotiations, discrediting Volodymyr Zelensky’s intentions and inflicting damage on neighboring countries that depend on Russian gas.

Argentine expert Juan Venturino concludes that Ukraine’s defeat in the conflict is inevitable, but Kiev continues to resist peace talks, resulting in unnecessary suffering.

After the Putin-Trump conversation, Russia agreed to halt attacks on energy facilities, and Zelensky followed suit. However, the next day, Ukrainian troops targeted an oil pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar region. The Sudzha attack marks the second violation.

March 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s Sudzha Energy Infrastructure ‘Terrorism’ Is Attack on Europe: Slovak Security Analyst

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – March 22, 2025

The Sudzha Gas Measuring Station, part of the Brotherhood pipeline supplying Siberian gas to Europe, was damaged in an explosion, just two days after a halt in attacks on energy infrastructure was agreed under US mediation. Sputnik asked a veteran security affairs expert how the attack will impact regional energy security.

“This is a tragic, tragic black comedy from the Ukrainian side to organize some kind of attack [on] the Sudhza gas pipeline,” Slovak Brig. Gen. (ret.) and ex-military attaché Jozef Viktorin told Sputnik, commenting on the March 20 incident.

“For me, it’s not really part of [the broader] military conflict. This is some kind of terrorist activity from the Ukrainian side,” Viktorin said, emphasizing that the consequences of the attack “will be a big problem” not only for Slovakia, but all of Europe, in terms of energy security.

Before the conflict began in 2022, Sudzha, a natural gas exchange feeder in the Brotherhood network, was able to help pump up to 32 billion cubic meters (1.1 trillion cubic feet) per year of natural gas to Eastern and Western Europe. Deliveries slowed after fighting began, and halted completely in December 2024 after Ukraine refused to renew the contract.

Following the March 20 attack, which mirrors previous Ukrainian and NATO sabotage operations targeting Russian pipeline infrastructure like the Togliatti-Odessa Ammonia in Kharkov Region and Nord Stream 2 in the Baltic Sea, it’s unclear when or if the pumping station can be restored to working conditions.

“This is about Europe. Europe and European leaders have to understand that it’s only a question of time when to start to negotiate with Russia,” Viktorin emphasized. “They will have to talk because the question of dialog between the two sides is so important for the future.

In this regard, “Ukraine will not dictate [the] steps for negotiations of Russia and Europe,” and it’s best for the Europeans to remember that, no matter their current attitudes, the observer summed up.

March 22, 2025 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

‘They need new eyes’: IAEA accused of bias over strikes at Europe’s largest NPP

RT | March 22, 2025

A group of international journalists that recently toured Russia’s Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) have accused Ukraine of being the one targeting the facility. They also questioned the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) persistent refusal to identify the source of the attacks.

The ZNPP, Europe’s largest nuclear power station, has been under Russian control since March 2022 and is located in a region that later voted to join Russia following a public referendum. The plant’s operations are now overseen by Russian state-owned nuclear power company Rosatom. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the facility and nearby city of Energodar have come under frequent attacks by Ukrainian drones and artillery. Despite this, the IAEA, which has maintained a permanent monitoring mission at the site since September 2022, has consistently declined to name the party responsible for the shelling.

Speaking with RT after touring the facility, reporters from a number of countries, including India, Serbia and Slovenia, voiced concerns over what they said was a clear distortion of facts by Western media and the IAEA’s refusal to acknowledge the reality on the ground.

“We should never trust any Western sources… Ukrainians are playing with nuclear fire,” said Serbian journalist Miodrag Zarkovic, who criticized the IAEA’s insistence on neutrality. Indian journalist Manish Kumar Jha said the evidence he saw contradicted everything he had read in Western outlets.

“According to Western media, the Russians are attacking the plant. But when I visited, I saw the Russian security forces positioned to keep the plant safe,” Jha said, noting that he saw a fragment of a US-supplied missile near the plant. “It was a 180-degree shift. The reality is very different from the story the Western media tells.”

Slovenian journalist and blogger Mohar Borut Iztok criticized the IAEA’s stance, noting the presence of NATO-supplied 155-millimeter shells with clear markings among those that have recently struck the facility.

“I’d like to say to Mr. [Rafael] Grossi and his crew – if they need an extra set of eyes, we can help them because it’s very interesting how they cannot see what is going on,” he stated sarcastically.

“I know what the problem is. They have an agenda, a narrative to follow, so they try to stay neutral,” he added.

March 22, 2025 Posted by | Environmentalism, Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Deliberately Blows Up Sudzha Gas Distribution Station on March 20

Sputnik – 21.03.2025

The Ukrainian armed forces deliberately blew up the Sudzha gas distribution station on March 20, leaving the facility significantly damaged, Russian Investigative Committee spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko told Sputnik on Friday.

“A criminal case has been opened in connection with the explosion of the Sudzha gas distribution station by the Ukrainian armed forces’ servicepeople. The Main Military Investigative Department of the Russian Investigative Committee has opened a criminal case on the grounds of a crime … [over a terrorist act],” Petrenko said.

On March 20, Ukrainian servicepeople, who illegally invaded the territory of Russia, carried out a deliberate explosion of the Sudzha gas distribution station, as a result of which the facility received significant damage, the spokeswoman said.

The investigation will identify and hold accountable all those involved in this crime, the Investigative Committee emphasized.

There were no casualties or injuries among the civilian population from the explosion, clarified an emergency services representative to Sputnik. He added that experts have already begun assessing the consequences of the terrorist attack.

Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov noted that the bombing of the Sudzha station revealed how much faith can be placed in the words of Vladimir Zelensky and his team.

Gas transit through the Sudzha station continued until the beginning of this year, when it stopped due to Kiev’s refusal to extend the transit agreement. This route remained the last one for Russian gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine.

On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone with his American counterpart, Donald Trump. According to the Kremlin press service, they discussed resolving the Ukrainian conflict and expressed mutual interest in normalizing relations. Among other things, Putin responded positively to the idea of a mutual 30-day halt to strikes on energy infrastructure and gave the corresponding order to the military.

Later, Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Ukraine would support the proposal to cease attacks on energy infrastructure. However, just hours after the talks between the Russian and US leaders, the Kiev regime attacked the Kavkazskaya oil pumping station in Russia’s Krasnodar region with three drones. The station is involved in transferring oil from railway tankers to the pipeline system of the international Caspian Pipeline Consortium.

The Ministry of Defense noted that such actions by the Ukrainian leadership are aimed at deliberately undermining Trump’s peace initiatives. Peskov stated that this attack is the best proof of the Kiev regime’s lack of willingness to negotiate, and this raises concerns.

Russian forces, following Putin’s command, ceased all strikes and even shot down seven of their own drones that were already en route to attack targets in the Nikolayev region of Ukraine.

March 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

American Efforts to Separate Russia from China are Doomed to Fail

By José Niño | The Libertarian Institute | March 20, 2025

Since Donald Trump returned to the White House on January 20, 2025, there was an initial sense of hope that he would wind down the conflict in Ukraine. However, continued flows of military aid to Ukraine and slow progress in the negotiations still make a lasting peace settlement a distant prospect.

The Trump administration’s preference would be to conclude the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine and shift its geopolitical gaze to Asia to contain China. The icing on the cake would be for the United States to have Russia break its “no limits partnership” with China to isolate the East Asian giant. In effect, Trump is attempting to pull a “reverse Nixon” strategy in its foreign policy approach. This strategy aims to improve relations with Russia to balance against China, in contrast to then-President Richard Nixon’s original approach of engaging with Communist China to counter the Soviet Union.

U.S. foreign policy, idealistic grandstanding notwithstanding, is suffused with cynical geopolitical plays. The Trump administration looks to use this sleight of hand against China by playing Russia off against it, even to the point of tricking both Eurasian heavyweights into protracted conflicts. Such a scenario would be every DC strategist’s dream—a Eurasian plane mired in conflict while the United States sits on the sidelines waiting for the moment to waltz in as the dominant power in the Eurasian domain. All of this done without firing a shot.

Heading back to reality: U.S. foreign policy strategists will find that prying Russia from China, much less baiting it into an open conflict with China, will be a tall order. The numerous factors that led to Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972, wherein Sino-American relations were subsequently normalized and exploited to serve as a counterweight against the Soviet Union, are simply not there in the present.

For one, relations between the Soviets and Chinese were already fraught prior to Nixon and his trusty sidekick Henry Kissinger using clever statecraft to woo over the Chinese. Enter the Sino-Soviet split, in which relations between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union (USSR) deteriorated, starting in the late 1950s and intensifying throughout the 1960s.

This rupture in Sino-Soviet relations was brought about by a combination of factors. Following the death of Soviet strongman Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev initiated a de-Stalinization agenda and moved towards peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West, which Chinese leader Mao Zedong perceived as an ideological betrayal and “revisionism.” On Mao’s end, his Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution polices clashed with Khrushchev’s more moderate approach to communism.

The twentieth century split between the two Eurasian giants was not exclusively ideological; it had a geopolitical component as well. China’s growing assertiveness under Mao led to tensions over leadership in the communist world. The USSR’s decision to cut aid to Maoist China in 1960, coupled with the Soviet’s support for India during the Sino-Indian War of 1962, further strained Sino-Soviet relations. Border clashes between the Soviets and Chinese in 1969 underscored their rivalry, as U.S. foreign policy strategists looked from afar with great interest.

Internally, China was also reeling from the disastrous effects of the Great Leap Forward—economic collapse and famine—and growing political intrigue brought about by the Cultural Revolution’s numerous purges of the Chinese political structure. Against this backdrop of heightened tension on the domestic and international fronts, prominent leaders such as Minister of National Defense Lin Biao insisted that China maintain hawkish relations toward both the Soviets and the United States. Lin perceived both the United States and Soviet Union as imperial powers that threatened Chinese interests, standing in contrast to Mao and Premier Zhou Enlai’s efforts to pursue diplomatic ties with the United States to counterbalance Soviet hostility.

However, Lin’s death in 1971 in a suspicious plane crash cleared the way for China’s leadership class to pursue a rapprochement with the United States. Shortly thereafter, China’s positive overtures to the United States culminated in President Richard Nixon’s historic visit in 1972. In turn, the “Chimerica” project was forged with China as the workshop of the world in the liberal economic order.

However, this arrangement in the international order would begin to disintegrate after the United States prosecuted unpopular nation-building ventures in the Middle East and was at the center of the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. This series of events discredited the U.S.-led liberal order among many of the resurging actors on the world stage such as China and Russia. The United States’ penchant for being “agreement incapable” on issues regarding NATO expansion and the Iran nuclear deal lent further credence to the idea that Washington is an erratic diplomatic actor that can’t be trusted to abide by international norms.

As the forces of nationalism and great power competition returned, the very notion of the preeminent powers of the Eurasian plane submitting to the whims of DC seemed fantastical at best. The previously mentioned intricacies of Cold War geopolitics and the United States’ bungled economic and foreign policies of the past three decades makes the realization of a “reverse Nixon” strategy a pipe dream at best. Dialing down tensions with Russia is fine but it should be done without ulterior motives.

Perhaps the United States should start treating countries like Russia as normal political entities as opposed to geopolitical playthings for American strategists to exploit to their heart’s content.

March 20, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

US scraps monitoring of alleged ‘Russian sabotage’ – Reuters

RT | March 19, 2025

The US has halted a multi-agency program set up to detect and counter potential “sabotage, disinformation, and cyberattacks” it claims Russia could launch against the West, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing current and former officials.

The outlet says it could not verify if the order came from US President Donald Trump.

The program, initiated under former President Joe Biden and led by the country’s National Security Council, involved at least seven US security agencies and the EU, to counter alleged Russian “hybrid activities,” the outlet said.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Western officials have accused Russian intelligence agencies of conducting a covert campaign to weaken US-led support for Kiev. They claimed that Moscow has been “escalating a shadow war against Western nations” allegedly involving arson attacks, assassination attempts, election interference, damage to undersea cables, and other plots.

Russia has repeatedly dismissed the accusations as “unfounded,” with the Kremlin describing the allegations of so-called “Russian sabotage” as “empty and ephemeral.”

Since assuming office for the second time, Trump has diverged from Western efforts to isolate Russia, and instead opened direct communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin, while publicly clashing with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, the article noted.

Trump administration officials ignored calls to continue the monitoring effort, the outlet claimed, adding that “much of the work has come to a standstill” since Trump took office in January.

Asked about Washington’s suspension of a “hybrid warfare campaign” monitoring, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters that the Trump administration was trying to get rid of “everything ineffective, corrupt and implausible,” something he said was “understandable.”

Over the past several months, there have been multiple cases in which telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea were damaged by vessels operating from Russian ports, triggering speculation that Moscow was behind the damage. However, an investigation carried out by NATO prosecutors has failed to find any evidence connecting the incidents to Moscow.

Peskov has previously stated that “it is quite absurd to continue to blame Russia for everything without any grounds.”

March 19, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Latest Statements on Ukraine ‘MOSTLY TRUE’ – The Hill

Sputnik – 19.03.2025

POTUS’ remarks come amid a “steady diet of disinformation” about Ukraine that Western audiences have been fed for more than a decade, The Hill’s contributor, Alan Kuperman, underscores.

He points to an array of Ukraine-related facts that the Western public should have known:

  • Right-wing Ukrainian militants were the ones who triggered the 2014 Maidan violence which led to resignation of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
  • Zelensky added fuel to the fire of “a wider war” by violating the Minsk peace agreements and seeking NATO military aid and membership
  • Zelensky campaigned in 2019 on a pledge to prevent further war, but reneged after winning the elections, “apparently less concerned about risking war than looking weak on Russia.”
  • The subsequent increase in weapons imports from NATO countries by the Zelensky regime proved the last straw for Russian President Vladimir Putin
  • Former US President Joe Biden “contributed crucially” to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict by failing to force Zelensky to comply with Putin’s request to implement the Minsk accords
  • If Trump had been the US president at the time, he wouldn’t have provided Zelensky with “such a blank check”, which emboldened Ukraine and further sparked the standoff.

March 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin releases Putin-Trump phone call summary (FULL STATEMENT)

RT | March 18, 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump have held a phone conversation lasting over two hours, discussing a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.

The Kremlin reported that the two leaders spoke about a suggested 30-day ceasefire, a prisoner exchange, and maritime security, with Putin responding positively to Trump’s proposals. Both leaders expressed interest in normalizing US-Russia relations, agreeing to continue discussions on global security, economic cooperation, and even cultural exchanges like NHL-KHL hockey matches.

The Kremlin has published a summary on the outcome of the call:

A phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place on March 18, 2025.

Reaffirming his commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, President Putin expressed readiness to work closely with American partners on a thorough and comprehensive settlement. He emphasized that any agreement must be sustainable and long-term, addressing the root causes of the crisis while considering Russia’s legitimate security interests.

Regarding President Trump’s initiative for a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side highlighted key concerns, including effective monitoring of the ceasefire across the entire front line, halting forced mobilization in Ukraine, and stopping the rearmament of its military. Russia also noted serious risks due to Kiev’s history of undermining previous agreements and drew attention to terrorist attacks carried out by Ukrainian militants against civilians in the Kursk region.

It was emphasized that a crucial condition for preventing further escalation and working toward a political-diplomatic resolution is the complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

In response to Trump’s recent request to ensure the safety of Ukrainian troops encircled in Kursk Region, Putin confirmed that Russia is guided by humanitarian considerations. He assured his counterpart that Ukrainian soldiers who surrender will be granted safety and treated in accordance with Russian laws and international humanitarian norms.

During the conversation, Trump proposed a mutual agreement between both sides to refrain from striking energy infrastructure for 30 days. Putin welcomed the initiative and immediately instructed the Russian military to comply.

Putin also responded constructively to Trump’s proposal regarding maritime security in the Black Sea, and both leaders agreed to initiate negotiations to further refine the details of such an arrangement.

Putin informed Trump that on March 19, Russia and Ukraine would conduct a prisoner exchange involving 175 detainees from each side. Additionally, as a goodwill gesture, Russia will transfer 23 severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers who are currently receiving medical treatment in Russian hospitals.

Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to continuing efforts toward resolving the Ukraine conflict bilaterally, incorporating the proposals discussed. To facilitate this, Russian and American expert groups will be established.

Putin and Trump also discussed broader international issues, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. They agreed to coordinate efforts to stabilize crisis areas and enhance cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security, which, in turn, would improve the overall state of US-Russia relations. A positive example of such cooperation was their joint vote at the United Nations on a resolution regarding the Ukraine conflict.

Both leaders expressed mutual interest in normalizing bilateral relations, recognizing the shared responsibility of Russia and the United States in ensuring global security and stability. In this context, they explored various areas for potential cooperation, including discussions on mutually beneficial economic and energy partnerships.

Trump supported Putin’s idea of organizing hockey matches in the US and Russia between players from the NHL and KHL.

The presidents agreed to remain in contact on all discussed matters.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump, Putin agree on ‘energy and infrastructure ceasefire’ – White House

RT | March 18, 2025

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed that the first step towards ending the Ukraine conflict should be an “energy and infrastructure ceasefire,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has revealed. The leaders reached the agreement during a 2.5 hour phone conversation on Tuesday.

According to the readout of the phone call published on X by Leavitt on Tuesday, both leaders concur that the conflict must conclude with a lasting peace. They also emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral relations.

“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the transcript reads.

The Kremlin has confirmed that Putin supported Trump’s proposal for Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, and instructed his military accordingly.

According to the readout, Moscow and Washington have agreed to hold relevant negotiations “immediately in the Middle East.”

Aside from Ukraine, the two heads of state are said to have discussed the situation in the Middle East as well as potential cooperation with a view to preventing future conflicts in the region.

Another topic high on the two leaders’ agenda was the “need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons” globally, according to the White House press secretary.

“The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside,” including but not limited to “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability,” the readout concludes.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

What Do Trump and Putin Really Have in Common?

By Glenn Diesen | March 18, 2025

There are many rational and pragmatic reasons for ending the conflict in Ukraine as the proxy war has effectively already been lost, further escalation could result in nuclear war, and Russia is aligning itself ever closer with China. However, is a personal affinity with Putin contributing to Trump’s desire to end the war and improve US-Russia ties?

During the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office, Trump expressed an affinity toward Putin based on a shared struggle against shared adversaries. Trump argued that “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt, where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, you ever hear of that deal? … It was a Democrat scam. He had to go through it. And he did go through it”. Trump argued that if Putin broke any deals, then it was with Obama and Biden, as Putin never broke any deals with him due to mutual respect.

It is reasonable to deduce from Trump’s statements that he feels he shares something with Putin. Instead of delving into conspiracy theories of collusion, it is worth taking a sociological perspective to explore how we define who belongs to “us” and who is considered the “other”. Human beings are social animals that instinctively organise into groups, in which the in-group “us” is usually defined by the mirror image of the out-group “other” as the diametrically opposite. What defines “us” versus “them” is often constructed to ensure group solidarity and is thus typically presented as good versus evil or superior versus inferior.

Russia has historically been assigned the role of Europe’s “other”, which makes it difficult to find compromise as Russia’s otherness and negative identity reaffirms Europe’s own positive identity. The relationship has historically been framed as the West versus the East, the civilised versus the barbarian, the European versus the Asiatic, and during the Cold War it was the capitalist versus the communist. When it was decided to revive the dividing lines in Europe after the Cold War by expanding NATO, the “us” versus “them” was recast as liberal democracies versus authoritarian. Every aspect of relations must be interpreted through this lens, in which the West can take the role of the good guys versus Russia as the perpetual bad guy.

Nationalism versus Cosmopolitanism

It is convenient and lazy to portray Trump’s possible affinity for Putin as a friendship between authoritarians. The argument is that Trump is not part of the free world, and his authoritarian tendencies allegedly explain his affinity to Putin. This is a poor analysis, but it exposes how human beings instinctively preserve group solidarity by punishing individuals who stray from the group, and efforts to reach out to the other side and move beyond the stereotypes that define “us” and “them” are met with suspicion and accusations of treason. The free world versus the alliance of authoritarians is a framing that serves the purpose of demonising Trump and Putin and also reaffirming “our” good values. To borrow the language of Bush, they hate us because of our freedoms.

This is a deeply flawed framing, as Trump (or Putin) does not define himself and his in-group (“us”) in the unfavourable terms of authoritarianism versus freedom. Trump views the world as divided between patriotism and globalism or as nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.

The liberal identity as the foundation for the collective identity of a unified Political West after the Cold War contributed to creating a schism within the liberal nation-state. The excesses of liberalism under globalisation and an identity relying excessively on liberalism created a split between liberalism and nationalism that laid the foundation for the liberal nation-state. Over the past decades, liberalism began divorcing itself from the nation-state as the idea of unity through common history, traditions, faith and culture was rejected. In 2004, Samuel Huntington predicted that the rise of a neo-liberal elite would eventually create a conservative backlash:

“The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability–within acceptable conditions for evolution–of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism”.[1]

Translated into international politics, Russia transitions away from the out-group “them” as an authoritarian state, and into the in-group of “us” as a traditional Christian European state that rejects the excesses of liberalism and subsequent moral decadence. It is also evident that Trump sees himself as having much in common with Viktor Orban of Hungary, who defines Europe by its traditional Christian-cultural heritage. In contrast, there is a contempt for the German definition of Europe, which relies excessively on liberal and post-national ideals that translate into woke ideology, open borders, globalism and cosmopolitan identity to the extent they are not capable of defending basic national interests. Europe’s identity as liberal nation-states used to accommodate both nationalism and liberalism, yet liberalism has to a large extent liberated itself from the nation. Consequently, the liberals and the nationalists see each other as their respective out-group, threatening the in-group. This is now influencing the relations between the great powers.

Russiagate and the Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal

Trump’s reference to the Russiagate hoax and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal during the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office reveals that he considers these events as relevant to understanding the collapse of US-Russia relations.

There has been very little if any reflection on how the Russiagate hoax damaged US-Russia relations, which is why understanding is absent for Trump’s argument. The Democrats used Russia as a bogeyman to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election, then to undermine his first presidential administration, and yet again during the 2020 election. The actual collusion revealed was between the Democratic Party, the intelligence agencies and the media.

The US embraced a new anti-Russian McCarthyism to cleanse its opposition, in which everyone had to castigate Russia as an ideological enemy of the US. Trump’s desire to improve relations between the US and Russia was treated as a threat to the envisioned liberal democratic-authoritarian divide of the world that sustains NATO, and it was treated as a smoking gun that delegitimised his entire political platform. For years, there was a wide consensus that Russia had helped Trump win the 2016 presidential election. During the presidential race in 2020, the scandal of the Hunter Biden laptop was censored by the media following false accusations that it was a Russian disinformation campaign on behalf of Trump. There were also fake accusations that Russia offered bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, and Trump’s unwillingness to respond forcefully against Russia was treated as evidence of being in the pocket of the Kremlin. America’s domestic political squabbles evidently contributed to the collapse of US-Russia relations, which also cemented the non-compromising position and provocations by the US that triggered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Should we be surprised that Trump considers himself and Putin to have faced many of the same enemies to the extent it shaped his view of the in-group versus out-group? Russiagate was intended to sell a worldview of authoritarians at home and abroad conspiring against freedom. This narrative has been debunked as it was based on fraudulent evidence, yet the Democrats and the Europeans still hold on to the narrative to preserve their assigned identity as the good guy and their opponents as the bad guy. From the viewpoint of Trump, this was an attack by the Democrats on democracy and the political system that also devastated relations with Russia and undermined peace in the world.

Can we blame Trump for seeing the world as divided between pragmatic and rational nationalists seeking to put their countries first, versus a cosmopolitan and globalist elite that undermines national interests, democracy and international peace?

German version of the article: “Was Trump und Putin verbindet” in De Weltwoche.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »