Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

John Mearsheimer: U.S. Already Lost Iran War – No Off-Ramp in Sight

Glenn Diesen | March 10, 2026
Prof. John Mearsheimer explains why the war against Iran has already been lost, and why there is no off-ramp. John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

March 10, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Mearsheimer: U.S. Already Lost Iran War – No Off-Ramp in Sight

Blackmail and death threats, Zelensky embarrasses the EU, but there’s no condemnation

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 9, 2026

The money-laundering Kiev regime has gone from cutting off oil supply for EU member states to now issuing death threats to heads of state – and all that the regime’s patrons in Brussels can do is squirm with embarrassment.

The latest twist in the corrupt regime of Vladimir Zelensky is his death threat to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

That was then followed by the Hungarian authorities impounding an armed convoy transporting $100 million in cash and gold bullion from Austria over Hungary’s borders to Kiev – no doubt as part of the war mafia operating under Zelensky.

You couldn’t make this up. A comedian actor who used to dress up in high heels and played a soap-opera hero president is now ruling by decree as a dictator propped up by EU taxpayers, and only because of Brussels indulging in the largesse of their Russophobic obsessions. And now this fictive creation is threatening the assassination of elected leaders.

Zelensky didn’t mention Orbán by name, but in a press briefing last Thursday, he said that “the address of the person” (Orbán) who has blocked a proposed €90 billion loan from the EU to Ukraine was being given to “our military guys” who would “speak in their own language.”

The Hungarian prime minister denounced Zelensky’s words as a “threat to my life”. The country’s foreign ministry condemned the Ukrainian leader for “crossing all limits.”

Yet the European Union has not condemned Zelensky. A junior spokesman for the European Commission merely released a perfunctory statement, saying “that type of language is not acceptable… There must be no threats against EU member states.”

Where is a full-throated denunciation from European leaders like Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, or Kaja Kallas, the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs?

Let’s get this straight. Ukraine’s nominal president tells a head of an EU state that his name is on a hit list, and the bloc’s highest officials say nothing about that. They leave it to some low-level press officer to make a bland statement about it “not being acceptable.”

This shows how deeply corrupted the EU leadership has become in the proxy war racket in Ukraine against Russia. Threats of assassination are being made and played down out of embarrassment, not because such threats are a grave violation of international law.

The background is even more damning. Hungary and Slovakia are being subjected to energy blackmail by the Ukrainian regime because the countries have refused to terminate buying their oil supplies from Russia, as demanded by Brussels and Zelensky.

On January 27, the oil supply to Hungary and Slovakia was cut off after the Kiev regime claimed that a Russian drone strike damaged the Drushba pipeline carrying the oil over Ukrainian territory from Russia. Budapest and Bratislava have accused the Kiev regime of “energy blackmail.”

A Russian air strike did not hit the pipeline. Why would Russia deprive its customers? It doesn’t make sense, and Moscow rejected the claim.

As always, the question is: Who gains?

The Kiev regime has unilaterally cut the supply as a way to pressure Hungary and Slovakia into lifting their opposition to the EU donating more loans and military aid to Ukraine.

Tellingly, Ukraine has delayed supposed “repairs” to the Drushba pipeline. Hungary and Slovakia are facing a critical shortage of oil supply, which is destabilizing their economies. Kiev is even refusing to allow independent inspectors to assess the alleged damage. It’s obvious this is a set-up. There’s probably not even any physical damage other than turning off the pumps.

Last month, Orbán’s government caused a major upset in the European Union when it vetoed a proposed €90 billion loan from Brussels to Ukraine. The loan is seen as a vital lifeline to prop up the Kiev regime and extend the war. Budapest’s refusal was partly in response to the “energy blackmail.”

The block on the money supply has put Kiev and its EU sponsors in a quandary. The regime will not be able to keep fighting the war against Russia without more purchases of military equipment from NATO. Just as important, the block on the loan by Hungary means an obstacle to the money racket that the West has been running under the Zelensky regime, whereby billions of taxpayer funds get laundered into profits for corporations with a hefty cut for the Kiev mafia.

This would explain the bizarre convoy of cash and gold bullion that Hungarian authorities busted and impounded last Thursday. Two armoured vehicles were apprehended carrying $80 million in cash and $20 million in gold bars on their way to Ukraine from Austria. Among those detained were former Ukrainian intelligence officials.

The physical transport of such large amounts of funds, rather than by electronic bank transfer, indicates that the funds were meant not to be traced. The finding exposes once again the illicit money laundering by Zelensky’s regime. This is not in the least bit surprising, given the repeated scandals of corruption and embezzlement in Kiev under Zelensky and his circle, who have acquired luxury portfolios of overseas properties over the last four years.

Hungary and Slovakia are the only EU members out of 27 nations that have shown any principles about stopping the proxy war in Ukraine and ending the racket of robbing European citizens and saddling future generations with astronomical debts.

For taking that stand, the Brussels leadership has turned a blind eye to the Kiev regime’s cutting off oil supplies and using energy blackmail. Now the regime has gone even further to issue death threats to a European head of state, and the Brussels elite has effectively said nothing.

What the EU’s proxy war sponsors seem more concerned about is that their overindulged, corrupt puppet in Kiev is a public relations embarrassment. The blatant criminality of terroristic blackmail and death threats betrays the complicity of the EU’s leadership.

Von der Leyen, Kajas and the Brussels elites are more worried that Zelensky’s mafia threats might rebound by galvanizing Hungarians to vote for Orbán’s party in parliamentary elections next month.

Their message is: you can launder millions, use blackmail and issue death threats. Just don’t make it obvious.

March 9, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Blackmail and death threats, Zelensky embarrasses the EU, but there’s no condemnation

Are the Jews indigenous to Palestine?

By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | August 3, 2022

There is a rising tide of claims from apologists for the crimes of Zionism that they have been misunderstood. Palestinians might be indigenous to Palestine, but the Jews definitely are. What is called the ‘Israel-Palestine’ conflict, they say, is competition over the same small piece of land by two rival groups of indigenous people. But are the Jews indigenous to the Levant? And what are the consequences of the argument?

In fact, most of the power structure of the Zionist state is dominated by Ashkenazi Jews who have no ancestral link to Palestine. Overall despite very significant financial and infrastructural contributions from Western European countries (especially the US, UK and France, for example via the Rothschild family), Eastern European Ashkenazim have been at the centre of the Zionist power structure since the early years of the 20th Century.

Ukraine and the origins of Zionism

For example most members of the Jewish National Council in Palestine prior to the founding of the Zionist state in 1948 were Ukrainian. As is well known key leaders of the Zionist movement hailed from Ukraine.  Many, but not all, Ukrainian Zionists were close to the Ukrainian nationalist movement.

For example, the far right Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Yevgenyevich Jabotinsky (later renamed Ze’ev Jabotinsky) was himself a direct descendant of Ukrainian Jewish settlers in Odessa. He famously consorted with the leader of the Ukrainian nationalists, Symon Petliura, a proto-Nazi responsible for pogroms against the Jews and others. As the Polish political scientist and Zionist, Shlomo Avineri has written, “throughout his life”, Jabotinsky “harbored an affinity for Ukrainian nationalism despite its shades of anti-Semitism”.

Arguably Zionism and Ukrainian nationalism share certain commonalities, which perhaps helps to contextualise the Zionist regime’s ongoing support for Zelensky today. As early as January 2022, “Israel” began planning to transfer Ukrainian Jews to become colonists in the land of the Palestinians. “Israel’s” Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption proclaimed: “We call on the Jews of Ukraine to immigrate to Israel – your home.” But of course, it is not their home.

Another Zionist colonist from Ukraine, was Golda Mabovitch (later known as Golda Meir),  who was Prime Minister of the Zionist entity from 1969-1974. She once claimed ‘I’m a Palestinian’ but also denied that the Palestinian people ever existed.

Eastern European origins of the Zionist leaders

All in all, seven of the fourteen Zionist Prime Ministers, so far, came directly from Russia, Poland, Ukraine or Belarus.  The other seven were children of parents from modern Ukraine and/or Belarus (Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Yitzhak Rabin), Lithuania (Ehud Barak), Poland (Benjamin Netanyahu) Hungary/Romania (Yair Lapid) or Poland, and America (Naftali Bennet). All presidents of the Zionist entity, bar three, came directly or indirectly from Poland, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, or in one case Austria.

The obsession with proving that the Jews, all the Jews, are indigenous to Palestine flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the settler colonial nature of Zionism and the fact that most of those in charge originate in Eastern Europe.

Even the Zionist paper Haaretz has published an article claiming that the argument that Jews are indigenous to Palestine ‘swims in fascist waters’.

The fantasy of the ‘decolonised Judean’

The term ‘decolonized Judean’ is used by Zionists, often white European settlers, to describe themselves. But is there any remnant of the original ‘Jewish people’ which inhabited the Levant two millennia ago amongst the two major groups of Jews in the world today?

The dominant group, massively over-represented at all levels of the power structure in what is called ‘Israel’ today are Ashkenazi Jews. They are conventionally said to be the “Jews of France, Germany, and Eastern Europe and their descendants.” The adjective “Ashkenazic” is  said to be “derived from the Hebrew word ‘Ashkenaz,’ which is used to refer to Germany.”

Recent research in linguistics and genetics shows that the ‘Rhineland hypothesis’ which suggests that Ashkenazim come originally from the Levant and that Yiddish originates in Germany is unable to explain the genetic, linguistic and cultural data now available. It suggests instead an Iranian-Turkish-Slavic origin for Ashkenazi Jews and a Slavic origin for Yiddish.

A killer detail in the argument is the existence along the ancient Silk Road trade route, in northeastern Turkey, of four primeval villages whose names resemble “Ashkenaz:” such as İşkenaz. Ashkenazi Jews, then, appear to have no historical connection to the original Jews of Palestine.

The Arab Jews

The Sephardi Jews, are the second main group of Jews in the world. The standard vision is that they are the Jews of ‘Spain, Portugal, North Africa and the Middle East and their descendants’. The adjective “Sephardic” is said to be derived from the Hebrew word “Sepharad,” which refers to Spain. So-called ‘Sephardim’ are increasingly populous and according to some accounts now make up a majority of Jews in occupied Palestine. But they also face a well known pattern of discrimination by the white European Ashkenazi Jews.

When they arrived in occupied Palestine  – mostly after 1948 – these Sephardic Jews often spoke a kind of Arabic and were sometimes referred to as ‘Arab Jews’. This was a threat to Zionism which made sure to discourage their use of Arabic and assiduously worked to “de-racialise” them. As Lital Levy notes: “These were indigenous communities… whose unique syncretic cultures have since been completely expunged as a result of emigration… to Israel, where they were subjected to a systematic program of deracination and resocialisation”.

Some left Zionist or anti Zionist groups try to present the Sephardim as a benighted ethnic minority. But, if the aim is to wean Sephardim away from ultra-Zionism, this is a strategy doomed to failure. Once they became settler colonists and their connections with the Arabs were severed, their primary loyalty came to be with the Zionist project. But, this cannot erase the fact that the “Sephardim” are Arab Jews as is widely accepted in the humanities and social science research literature. Even more pointedly linguistic and genetic research shows that contrary to the idea that they are so-called indigenous Jews of the Levant, in fact they are predominantly descended primarily from North African Berbers and Arabs.

The truth is that Ashkenazi Jews come mostly from Eastern Europe, with origins in the Caucasus, Turkey and Iran. Sephardim, are mostly of Arab and Berber origins. They are ‘Arab Jews’ with perhaps as little connection to Palestine as the Ashkenazim. There is, in other words, no unitary ‘Jewish people’ with any historically continuous claim to the land of Palestine.

March 7, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Comments Off on Are the Jews indigenous to Palestine?

The myth of military ‘decapitation’

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2026

The recent escalation in the Middle East has brought back to the center of strategic debate a recurring concept in Western military doctrine: the so-called “decapitation strike.” The idea is simple in appearance and politically seductive – eliminate the leadership of an adversary state in order to trigger institutional collapse, military disorganization, and ultimately regime change. However, historical reality shows that such an approach is far from the magic solution its proponents often imagine.

The bombings carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran, culminating in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were clearly conceived under this logic. The expectation seemed to be that by removing the main political and religious authority of the Islamic Republic, the system would either collapse outright or face sufficient internal unrest to enable a forced transition. At the same time, it was assumed that Iran’s response would remain limited, as in previous confrontations.

That calculation proved mistaken. Instead of disintegration, there was internal consolidation. Thousands of Iranians took to the streets across the country, even under bombardment, to support the Islamic Republic and chant “death to America.” Moreover, there was no strategic paralysis among Iranian decision-makers, who promptly responded by striking targets throughout the Middle East.

This gap between expectation and reality stems from a structural characteristic of contemporary Western military thinking. Washington, accustomed to rapid interventions against fragile states, has consolidated a culture of short-duration warfare, marked by overwhelming initial destructive power followed by swift disengagement. Tel Aviv, due to its territorial dimensions and demographic limitations, developed a doctrine based on preventive strikes and the rapid neutralization of enemy leadership. However, this model tends to fail when applied against states with national cohesion, solid institutional frameworks, and mobilization capacity.

Iran is not a collapsed state, nor a fragmented tribal structure. With more than 90 million inhabitants and a political order consolidated since 1979, the country built mechanisms of succession and redundancy within its command structure. Khamenei’s advanced age had already made the question of transition an internal matter. Thus, the “decapitation” attempt did not strike at the functional core of Iranian power. On the contrary, it strengthened patriotic sentiment and expanded popular support for the government.

The strategic lesson is clear: complex political systems do not depend exclusively on a single individual. When institutions are deeply rooted and chains of command are distributed, eliminating a symbolic figure may generate martyrdom and cohesion rather than collapse.

This understanding helps explain why Russia did not adopt, in its conflict with Ukraine, a systematic policy of targeted assassinations against the political leadership in Kiev. Since the beginning of the special military operation, Moscow has demonstrated technical capacity to strike command centers and critical infrastructure. Even so, it has not prioritized the physical elimination of President Vladimirr Zelensky or other central figures of the Ukrainian government.

This choice does not stem from incapacity, but from strategic calculation. First, Zelensky’s removal could have produced the opposite of the intended effect, transforming him into an international symbol and further consolidating Western support for Kyiv. Second, the Ukrainian state structure – sustained by intense NATO assistance – does not depend exclusively on one individual leader. A replacement could occur rapidly without fundamentally altering the conflict’s dynamics.

Furthermore, Russian strategy has been characterized by a prolonged war of attrition focused on the gradual degradation of the adversary’s military and logistical capacity. This model stands in direct contrast to the logic of decapitation. Moscow appears to understand that in conflicts between organized states, victory is rarely achieved through a single spectacular blow, but rather through the systematic erosion of the enemy’s material conditions.

The myth of decapitation persists because it offers a simplified and politically marketable narrative: remove the “head,” and the body will fall. Yet recent experience demonstrates that this assumption ignores the resilient nature of modern states. Leaders can be replaced; institutions, when consolidated, tend to endure.

Ultimately, the obsession with decapitation strikes reveals more about the strategic limitations of those who execute them than about the vulnerability of those who suffer them. Recent history suggests that wars between powers or structured states are not decided by dramatic gestures, but by prolonged processes in which internal cohesion and industrial capacity weigh more heavily than the elimination of individual figures.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on The myth of military ‘decapitation’

Zelensky issues military threat to Orban

RT | March 5, 2026

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has issued an apparent military threat to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban over his blocking of EU aid for Kiev.

Orban last month vetoed Brussels’ planned €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan for Kiev in response to Ukraine preventing Russian oil supplies to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline.

Speaking at a press conference in Kiev on Thursday, Zelensky stated: “We hope that one person in the EU will not block the €90 billion… Otherwise, we will give the address of this person to our armed forces, to our guys, so that they call him and communicate with him in their own language.”

The diplomatic dispute between Hungary and Ukraine has escalated in recent weeks, spilling over into personal barbs. Zelensky launched a string of attacks against Orban, including fat-shaming him during the Munich Security Conference last month.

The Hungarian prime minister has long opposed Ukraine’s push to join the EU, and has repeatedly refused to send it weapons or approve EU military aid, calling for diplomacy instead.

Orban, meanwhile, has taken to social media to issue his own warning.

“There will be no deals, no compromise. We will break the Ukrainian oil blockade by force,” he wrote on X on Thursday, adding that oil will soon flow to Hungary again through the Druzhba pipeline.

The Soviet-era pipeline, part of which runs through Ukraine, went offline in January after Kiev claimed it had been damaged by Russian strikes – accusations Moscow denies. Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily reliant on Russian energy, have accused Kiev of deliberately cutting them off for political reasons and inventing obstacles for restarting oil flows.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Zelensky issues military threat to Orban

Ukraine blocks EU mission to inspect Russian oil pipeline – FT

RT | March 4, 2026

Ukraine has rejected a proposed EU mission to inspect the Soviet-era pipeline that transports Russian oil through Ukrainian territory to Central Europe, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing diplomats and officials.

Hungary and Slovakia have accused Ukraine of deliberately blocking the flow through the Druzhba pipeline, while Ukraine said the infrastructure was damaged by Russian strikes in January.

The EU is pressuring Ukraine to restore the operation of the Soviet-era pipeline that transports Russian oil through Ukrainian territory to Central Europe, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, citing diplomats and officials.

Hungary and Slovakia have accused Ukraine of deliberately blocking the flow through the Druzhba pipeline, while Ukraine claimed the infrastructure was damaged by Russian strikes in January.

According to FT, some pro-Ukrainian EU member states and the European Commission are now asking Kiev to allow a visit to demonstrate that it is working to restore oil flows. Last week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa personally requested access to the pipeline for inspection but were denied, FT said.

One of the newspaper’s sources argued that by blocking the inspection, Ukraine scored an “own goal” and gave Hungary an excuse to veto the planned $106 billion emergency loan for Ukraine and the EU’s 20th round of sanctions against Russia.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said he had sent a letter to von der Leyen calling for enforcement of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which “obliges Ukraine to allow oil shipments to Hungary.”

“As confirmed by recently published satellite evidence, there is no technical or operational reason preventing the pipeline from reverting to normal operations immediately,” Orban stated.

Orban said that Hungary and Slovakia had proposed dispatching a “fact-finding mission” to inspect the pipeline, but their “efforts were rejected.”

In August, Hungary imposed sanctions on Ukraine’s top drone commander Robert Brovdi after attacks on sections of the Druzhba pipeline in Russia. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has called on Hungary to stop purchasing energy from Russia.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that some EU members, including France and Germany, oppose the idea of granting Ukraine fast-tracked accession to the bloc, citing “rampant corruption.”

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine blocks EU mission to inspect Russian oil pipeline – FT

Ukrainian drone attacked Russian LNG tanker in Mediterranean Sea

RT | March 4, 2026

Ukraine has carried out a drone attack on a Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker in the central Mediterranean off the coast of Malta, the Transport Ministry in Moscow has said.

Kiev has for months been attempting to target Russia-linked shipping both in the Black Sea and beyond, with Moscow accusing Kiev of “terrorism.” The attack on the tanker in Mediterranean waters represents a clear escalation in Ukraine’s war on Russian shipping.

In a statement on Wednesday, the ministry confirmed the raid on the Russia-flagged Arctic Metagaz vessel, which had been en route from Murmansk “with cargo processed according to all international rules” when Ukrainian unmanned boats launched from the Libyan coast struck the vessel.

All 30 Russian crew members abandoned the ship and were saved thanks to a rescue operation mounted by Russian and Maltese emergency services.

“We believe the incident to be an act of international terrorism and maritime piracy, a gross violation of the fundamental norms of international maritime law,” the ministry said.

It suggested that such “criminal actions” had been committed in part because EU members had turned a blind eye to Ukrainian policies, adding that they “should not remain without assessment by the international community.”

The explosions following the impact on the 277-meter Arctic Metagaz in international waters, were visible for some 40 nautical miles, images show.

The strike was apparently the first instance of Ukraine targeting an LNG instead of an oil-laden tanker. While a complete destruction of a gas carrier could produce less long-term environmental impact, an LNG blast would likely result in pool fires with far greater heat radiation than oil blazes – along with the risk of vapor cloud explosions capable of causing casualties at considerably greater distances.

Ukraine has for months sought to undermine Russia’s oil trade. In December 2025, Kiev acknowledged striking the Qendil, a Russia-linked and Omani-flagged oil tanker, in the eastern Mediterranean off Libya’s coast. At the time, Euronews cited a Ukrainian intelligence source describing the attack as “an unprecedented special operation.”

Kiev’s Western backers have also sought to crack down on Russia-linked vessels. In January 2026, the French navy boarded the oil tanker Grinch in the western Mediterranean. In light of the crackdown, Russian officials have accused NATO of seeking to impose an illegal maritime blockade, warning of potential countermeasures.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Comments Off on Ukrainian drone attacked Russian LNG tanker in Mediterranean Sea

Brazilian mercenaries say they learned ‘guerrilla warfare’ in Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 3, 2026

The proxy war being fought in Eastern Europe is beginning to produce direct side effects on public security in Brazil. A recent report by the television program Fantástico, aired by TV Globo, revealed that Brazilian citizens with no prior military experience traveled to fight in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia after being lured by misleading financial promises. Upon returning, they bring with them practical knowledge of irregular combat learned on the battlefield – knowledge that, in a country already marked by heavily armed criminal factions, can easily be absorbed by organized crime.

The case of Marcos Souto, a businessman from the state of Bahia who adopted the codename “Corvo” (“Crow”), is emblematic. Having never served in the Brazilian Armed Forces, he claims to have learned everything he knows about guerrilla warfare in Ukraine. His account highlights two central elements: the precarious recruitment of foreign fighters and the brutality of the operational environment. According to him, combatants were attracted by promises of a salary of “50,000” – a figure many interpreted as Brazilian reais, but which in practice corresponded to 50,000 hryvnias, a much smaller amount. Upon reaching the front lines, they encountered not only extreme combat conditions but also internal coercion. Souto reports that those who attempted to abandon their positions were detained and tortured.

This is not an isolated episode. Other Brazilians mentioned in the report describe hunger, logistical abandonment, and even clashes with Ukrainian soldiers during escape attempts. Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs records 19 Brazilians killed and 44 missing since the beginning of the war, although analysts generally agree that the real numbers likely amount to hundreds of Brazilian fatalities. Even so, four years after the start of the conflict, new mercenaries continue to enlist.

The central issue, however, is not merely humanitarian. The strategic concern lies in the return of these individuals to Brazilian territory. Unlike conventional conflicts, the war in Ukraine is characterized by the intensive use of irregular, modern warfare tactics: operations with drones, urban ambushes, use of improvised explosive devices, infrastructure sabotage, and decentralized coordination in small units. The government in Kiev has long since lost much of its regular operational capacity and is compelled to rely on guerrilla tactics to continue fighting. It has become a contemporary laboratory of unconventional warfare.

When individuals without formal military training acquire this type of practical knowledge in a real combat environment and return to Brazil, the risk of diffusion of these techniques is evident. The country already faces structural challenges with criminal organizations that exert territorial control in urban areas and dominate international drug and weapons trafficking routes. The introduction of tactics learned in an active war theater could raise the operational level of these factions.

Historically, Brazilian organized crime has demonstrated a capacity for rapid adaptation. Factions have incorporated restricted use weapons, encrypted communication technologies, and sophisticated money-laundering methods. Absorbing knowledge about drone warfare, construction of improvised explosive devices, or urban fortification techniques would not require large structures to implement. The presence of just a few trained individuals willing to share their experience would suffice.

There is also a relevant psychological component. Combatants return after prolonged exposure to extreme violence, often without any state monitoring or social reintegration. The combination of trauma, financial frustration, and contact networks established abroad may facilitate involvement in illicit activities.

The Ukrainian embassy in Brazil states that it does not formally recruit Brazilians and that those who enlist assume the same duties as Ukrainian citizens. However, the existence of intermediaries, vague financial promises, and the absence of monitoring mechanisms in Brazil reveal a regulatory gap. There is no clear policy for dealing with citizens who participate in foreign conflicts and return with irregular military training.

The phenomenon should not be treated as a media curiosity but as a matter of national security. Brazil is not formally involved in the conflict in Eurasia, yet it is beginning to absorb its indirect effects. The internationalization of combat experience and its possible internalization by criminal networks represent a risk vector that requires coordinated attention among intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and diplomatic authorities.

Ignoring this dynamic may mean allowing techniques developed in one of the most intense conflicts of the present day to be reconfigured within Brazil’s urban context. A distant war ceases to be an external event and begins to produce concrete consequences for the country’s social structures and internal stability.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism, War Crimes | , | Comments Off on Brazilian mercenaries say they learned ‘guerrilla warfare’ in Ukraine

Ukraine Given $43Bln in Proceeds From Russian Assets Frozen by G7 Since 2024 – Estimates

Sputnik – 27.02.2026

The G7 nations have issued $3.8 billion in loans to Ukraine in 2026 using proceeds generated by frozen Russian state assets, bringing the total amount of loans given to Kiev since 2024 to almost $43 billion, according to calculations by Sputnik based on data from the Ukrainian Finance Ministry and national agencies.

In 2024, the G7 countries approved a $50-billion loan to Ukraine, funded by revenues from frozen Russian assets. By late February 2026, the countries had allocated $42.7 billion to Ukraine under this scheme.

The first billion was transferred to Ukraine by the United States in late 2024. Since then, Washington has not provided any new funding to Kiev from Russian asset proceeds. The other members of the G7 gave Ukraine $37.9 billion in 2025 and $3.8 billion in 2026.

Overall, the European Union has contributed $32 billion in funding to Ukraine as part of the loan secured by Russian assets. Canada has contributed $3.6 billion, while Japan and the United Kingdom have each contributed approximately $3 billion.

February 27, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine Given $43Bln in Proceeds From Russian Assets Frozen by G7 Since 2024 – Estimates

Ukrainian military analyst praises use of drones against ‘Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship’

Remix News | February 27, 2026

Ukrainian analyst Valery Savchuk spoke in a video about Ukraine’s geopolitical pressure on Hungary by shutting down the Friendship oil pipeline, calling it a correct strategy. He added that drones should also be used to strike at the “Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship,” writes Hirado, based on a video the analyst published.

“I personally like this Ukrainian position: the position of a serious player who uses all opportunities to achieve his goals. Blackmail? Yes, geopolitics. It’s time for us to play these games too — on the condition that this game leads to the desired result for us.”

He then went on to say that Ukraine should also use drones against the Hungarians and Slovaks. “Now we will wait for the decision of the European Union. We will wait for the effective work of our diplomats, and most importantly: We will wait for new devastating blows of our drones to this Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship,” he said, presumably referring to the Friendship oil pipeline.

Ukraine has been blamed for various attacks on the Friendship pipeline and Russian energy producers, including a massive wave of drone strikes in Russia territory that destroyed the Kaleykino pumping station.

Meanwhile, Parliamentary State Secretary Balázs Hidvéghi posted his own video message on the importance of a new national petition, where Hungarians can say “no” to financing the Russian-Ukrainian war, 10 years of support for Ukraine, and a rise in utility costs.

The Fidesz politician stressed that “Brussels is planning €1.5 trillion in aid for Ukraine and wants its membership by 2027. Given the events of recent days, it is especially important now for Hungarians to make their voices heard: Ukraine has not resumed oil shipments to Hungary for political reasons, while the Brussels leadership has sided with Ukraine.”

“Hungary has become the target of serious threats and pressure, and therefore it cannot remain silent now. He added that the government is calling on Hungarians to stand up against the Brussels-Ukraine-Tisza Pact and join the national petition,” he added.

The petition can be filled out until March 23, and according to estimates, the number of returned forms could exceed one million.

February 27, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Ukrainian military analyst praises use of drones against ‘Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship’

Von der Leyen warns Hungary: We have ways of making you talk

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 26, 2026

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen arrived in Kiev this week empty-handed, and she was pissed. She had been planning to mark the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war on February 24 with a new €90 billion loan to prop up the corrupt Kiev regime.

At the last minute, Hungary announced that it was vetoing the “Ukraine Support Loan.” So, von der Leyen, the former German defense minister and arch Russophobe, had nothing to show the puppet regime. The big anniversary occasion was an embarrassing flop. Hungary was accused of “betraying” European solidarity.

Putting a brave face on the debacle, von der Leyen made a promise, with menacing tone, about delivering the €90 bn “one way or another.” She said: “Let me be clear, we have different options, and we will use them.”

Those options would seem to include inciting regime change in Budapest. Hungary is going to the polls on April 12 for parliamentary elections. It is no secret that the European Union leadership would dearly like to see incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán being turned out of office, and replaced by Péter Magyar, of the opposition Tisza party, who is more amenable to Brussels’ policy of supporting the Kiev regime in the proxy war against Russia.

Orbán’s government vetoed the €90 bn loan – 60 per cent of which is for military aid – because it accuses the Kiev regime of blocking vital oil supplies to Hungary. Slovakia has also joined Budapest in making the accusation. Both countries claim that Ukraine is using energy “blackmail” simply because they refuse to discontinue buying oil supplies from Russia, and because they are opposed to the ongoing war.

On January 27, Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia transiting Ukraine via the Drushba pipeline were suddenly stopped. The Kiev regime claims that the pipe was hit by a Russian drone.

However, Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has bluntly accused Ukraine of lying. He disputes that a Russian attack on the infrastructure even took place. It doesn’t make sense that Russia would harm its customers.

The suspicion is that the Ukrainian regime is using a purported Russian strike as a pretext to cut off the oil supply. The suspicion is deepened by the fact that the Kiev regime has refused requests by Hungary and Slovakia for their inspectors to assess the alleged technical damage. And neither is the EU leadership putting any pressure on Kiev to prove its claims of Russian sabotage.

Ukraine’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, who is mired in allegations of massive fraud, financial corruption, and racketeering, has for a long time been threatening to cut off Russian oil supplies to Hungary and Slovakia. He accuses Budapest and Bratislava of supporting Russia’s war machine by buying its oil. Hungary and Slovakia say that it is their sovereign right to continue obtaining vital energy imports from Russia. The Soviet-era Drushba (“Friendship) pipeline has been supplying Europe since 1964.

The European Union has also been pressuring Hungary and Slovakia to terminate the purchase of Russian crude oil and get in line with the rest of Europe to source alternative, more expensive American energy exports.

Last year, Zelenksy delivered on his threats when the NATO-backed Kiev regime bombed sections of the Drushba pipeline in Russian territory. Those attacks temporarily disrupted supply to Hungary and Slovakia. At the time, the European Union leadership did not condemn the Ukrainian attacks. In other words, Von der Leyen and the Brussels administration were effectively siding with a non-EU member that was harming the interests of two member nations. That indifference was tantamount to greenlighting more sabotage attacks.

The Kiev regime has a record of using attacks on energy as a political weapon against Hungary and Slovakia. It is therefore logical that it has taken such practice to a new level by blocking infrastructure that it can easily control on its own territory. There is no need to bomb the Drushba pipeline in Russia, hundreds of kilometers away. The Kiev regime can handily turn off the pumps of the pipeline section running through its territory – and then blame Russia for “drone strikes”.

Hungary and Slovakia have both accused Zelensky of “slow-walking” the alleged repairs to the pipeline. Zelensky claims that the repairs can’t be carried out because Russia keeps attacking the repair crews.

The Kiev regime has a habit of lying. It has been claiming that Russia is shelling the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant under its control, when in reality it is the  Kiev regime that has been carrying out the attacks, which Moscow has condemned as “nuclear blackmail”. Again, the European Union has indulged Kiev’s lies by ignoring the blatant evidence.

On the energy blackmail against Hungary and Slovakia, the knock-on effect has been a growing shortage of fuel and increasing prices for energy and transport.

Hungary’s European Affairs Minister Janos Boka has accused Ukraine and the European Union of deliberately disrupting oil supply to influence the upcoming election. He said: “Ukraine has clearly been reaching for the energy weapon for political reasons, interfering in the ongoing Hungarian elections… to create uncertainty and chaos, and thereby helping the [opposition, pro-EU] Tisza party to power.”

At a closed-door summit in Brussels this week for EU foreign ministers, it was notable that Ukraine’s top diplomat, Andrii Sybiha, was afforded the extraordinary privilege of being permitted to join the conference via video link. How is it that a non-EU member is allowed to participate in a private ministerial summit?

Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó reportedly complained that EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, prevented him from grilling the Ukrainian on the specific damage to the Drushba pipeline. Szijjártó said that the “mumbling response” from the Ukrainian official and his abrupt disconnection from the summit demonstrated guilty responsibility.

What the whole saga illustrates is the dictatorship that has emerged in the European Union. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia are not allowed to have independent positions on their energy trade or their opposition to the war in Ukraine.

The Kiev regime is using the disruption of vital energy supply to EU members as a form of blackmail to coerce those members into handing over tens of billions of euros to prolong a bloody conflict, a conflict that could spiral into a nuclear world war. And the EU leadership is effectively supporting this terrorist tactic against its own members to enforce subordination.

When von der Leyen warns that “we have other options,” the inimical image conjured up is that of a Gestapo interrogator twirling pliers in hand.

The strategic defeat of Russia is paramount for the European Russophobic elites, even if it means gouging out the democratic rights of its own member states and endangering international peace.

February 27, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Comments Off on Von der Leyen warns Hungary: We have ways of making you talk

EU manipulating polls in bid to oust Orban – German opposition leader

RT | February 27, 2026

The EU is desperately attempting to engineer “regime change” against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in next month’s parliamentary election, employing tactics such as poll manipulation and energy blackmail, German opposition leader Alice Weidel has claimed.

In a post on X on Wednesday, the co-chair of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party accused Brussels of using “their puppet,” Hungarian opposition leader Peter Magyar, in a bid to remove Orban.

“They want Orban gone, and they are willing to use any means to achieve it,” Weidel wrote, pointing to the ongoing “blockade of oil supplies” from Ukraine to Hungary through the Druzhba pipeline, and “manipulation of election polls.”

Weidel was responding to a recent survey by Hungarian pollster Median showing Magyar’s opposition Tisza Party with a 55% to 35% lead over Orban’s ruling Fidesz-KDNP alliance. Irish economist Philip Pilkington dismissed the figures as “really crazy polls,” comparing them to surveys in Georgia ahead of elections in 2024, which were followed by unrest.

Hungarian opposition pollsters have a track record of significant inaccuracies. In 2022, left-leaning polling firm Publicus was wide of the mark by 20 points, while Median itself underestimated Fidesz by 7 points in its final pre-election survey. Orban ultimately secured a 20-point victory.

Budapest and Brussels have been in an escalating standoff over Hungary’s continued opposition to EU policy on Ukraine and Russia. Budapest has repeatedly blocked or vetoed EU initiatives, including a recent €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan for Kiev and the bloc’s latest sanctions package against Moscow.

Orban has also vehemently opposed Ukraine joining the EU, arguing that Brussels’ support for Kiev draws the bloc closer to direct war with Russia and ignores Ukraine’s failure to meet requirements for candidates.

The Hungarian leader has described recent attempts to offer Kiev a form of ‘membership lite’ as “an open declaration of war against Hungary,” accusing Brussels of disregarding the will of the Hungarian people and being “determined to remove the Hungarian government by any means necessary.”

Orban has also accused Brussels of using “censorship, intervention, and manipulation” to undermine his government, framing the upcoming April 12 election as a choice between “war or peace.”

February 27, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , | Comments Off on EU manipulating polls in bid to oust Orban – German opposition leader

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »