Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Moscow outlines why Zelensky wants to meet with Putin

RT | July 6, 2025

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is seeking a personal meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to defend his claims to legitimacy and resist Western attempts to push him out of power, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, and Moscow views him as illegitimate.

In an interview with First Sevastopol TV released on Saturday, Zakharova was asked why she believes the Ukrainian leader is so insistent on meeting with Putin. “Because he needs to reaffirm his legitimacy, not through legal procedures, but by any other means to prove that he is in power,” she stated.

Zelensky’s five-year presidential term ended in May 2024, but he refused to hold a new election, citing martial law. Moscow has declared him illegitimate, insisting that under Ukrainian law, legal authority now rests with the parliament.

According to Zakharova, Zelensky also seeks a meeting with Putin because he is driven by “a monstrous fear of being consigned to oblivion.”

“He is insanely afraid of being forgotten, of becoming unnecessary for the West. That somehow the West will sideline him. And you can see he doesn’t step away from the microphones. I think he already sleeps with a webcam,” she said.

Zelensky has on numerous occasions insisted that he wants to meet with Putin, describing this as a prerequisite for peace.

In May, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky could be possible, but only after negotiations between Moscow and Kiev reach “specific arrangements” on various diplomatic tracks. This year, Russia and Ukraine held two rounds of direct talks, which did not result in a breakthrough with regard to ending the conflict, but led to several prisoner exchanges.

In June, Putin said he was open to meeting with Zelensky, but suggested that the Ukrainian leader lacks legitimacy for signing binding agreements. “I am ready to meet with anyone, including Zelensky. That’s not the issue – if the Ukrainian state trusts someone to conduct negotiations, by all means, let it be Zelensky. The question is different: Who will sign the documents?”

In autumn 2022, Zelensky signed a presidential decree banning talks with the current Russian leadership, after the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye voted in referendums to join Russia. Though Zelensky has not canceled the decree, he has since insisted that it only applies to other Ukrainian politicians, not to himself.

July 6, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 1 Comment

Putin drops truth bomb on Macron

Strategic Culture Foundation | July 4, 2025

NATO started the conflict in Ukraine, but Russia will end it on its terms, Russian President Vladimir Putin told his French counterpart this week in a wake-up call.

It’s always refreshing and necessary to bring reality into a conversation, assuming, of course, that the purpose of the dialogue is genuinely to resolve a problem.

France’s Emmanuel Macron requested the phone call with Putin this week. It was the first time the two leaders had spoken in nearly three years. The long absence was due to Moscow claiming that Macron breached diplomatic protocol after the last phone call in 2022 by leaking details to the media.

In any case, Putin showed magnanimity and a willingness to engage diplomatically by taking the call this week from Macron. The two leaders talked for over two hours.

Apart from Ukraine, another topic discussed was the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites. Macron agreed with Putin that Iran has the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy production, and both appealed for diplomacy to prevent escalation, according to the Kremlin’s statement on the phone conversation.

Critics might note, however, that France, Britain, Germany, and the other European states have played a double game with Iran, undermining Iran’s legitimate rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and giving political cover for the unlawful Israeli and US aggression against Tehran. Therefore, Macron’s concern for peace in the Middle East sounds hollow, if not hypocritical.

The Ukraine conflict was also discussed. But here, there was no pretense of diplomatic accord.

Macron urged Putin to “call a ceasefire as soon as possible” and to proceed with peace talks, said the Elysee Palace, as reported by French media.

For his part, Putin rebuffed the trite talk. He reminded Macron of some necessary reality.

According to the Kremlin’s statement: “When discussing the situation surrounding Ukraine, Vladimir Putin reiterated that the conflict was a direct consequence of the policies pursued by the Western countries, which had for years been ignoring Russia’s security interests, creating an anti-Russia staging ground in the country, and condoning violations of rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking citizens, and at present were pursuing a policy of prolonging hostilities by supplying the Kiev regime with a variety of modern weaponry. Speaking about the prospects of a peaceful settlement, the president of Russia has confirmed Moscow’s stance on possible agreements: they are to be comprehensive and long-term, provide for the elimination of the root causes of the Ukraine crisis, and be based on the new territorial realities.”

In other words, Russia will end the conflict that Macron and other NATO powers started illegally, and the ending of it will be on Russia’s terms.

Who does Macron think he is? Telling Russia to call a ceasefire as soon as possible? Earlier this year, in March, Macron gave a televised nationwide address declaring Russia to be an existential threat to Europe. He even made the madcap suggestion of France using its nuclear weapons to protect all of Europe. Such crazed talk by Macron is irresponsible and reprehensible.

Macron, along with Britain’s Starmer and Germany’s Merz, are prolonging the more-than-three-year war in Ukraine by pledging more military aid to the NeoNazi Kiev regime.

That regime owes its existence to an illegal coup d’état that the Americans and Europeans orchestrated in 2014. The ongoing conflict, which has slaughtered more than one million Ukrainian soldiers and burdened Europe with huge immigration costs, is the responsibility of Macron and other NATO states. They are the instigators, not Russia.

If Macron genuinely wants peace in Ukraine, there is a straightforward solution. Stop arming the NeoNazi regime and stop telling lies about “defending democracy in Ukraine” from alleged “Russian aggression.” Macron and his gang of NATO war criminals could end the bloodshed promptly if they dropped the evil charade.

U.S. President Donald Trump also had a phone call with Putin this week. That was on Thursday, two days after Macron’s.

As with the French leader, Putin told his American counterpart that Russia was insisting on achieving its aims in Ukraine: removing the root causes of the conflict and retaining all territories. Like Macron, Trump sounded impatient for a quick peace deal and later complained to the American media, “he had made no progress” with Putin in his phone call this week.

What Trump, Macron, and other Western leaders need to understand is that Russia wants a permanent peace based on its legitimate strategic security interests. This conflict is not a localized one between two parties. It is a proxy war between Russia and NATO, engendered by NATO. Pretending otherwise, as Macron is doing by conceitedly calling for a quick ceasefire, is a deception.

At least Trump seems to recognize that the supply of weapons to Ukraine has to stop if there is any chance of ending the conflict. This week, the Pentagon announced it was halting the flow of munitions. A big part of the reason is practical reality: the U.S. has depleted its arsenal after three years of weaponizing the Kiev regime.

The European leaders need to come to their senses too, and stop fueling the war machine that is the Kiev regime. It is a lost cause. Russia is winning the war and will eventually eradicate the regime and NATO’s threat to its national security. Europe does not have the capability or the resources. The grand deception projected by Macron and others, including EU top officials Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and NATO’s Mark Rutte, is destroying Europe.

Therein lies the fatal dilemma. What Putin said to Macron is the truth. If the conflict has any chance of being resolved peacefully, then the starting place is to recognize the historic causes of the conflict, not the delusional stuff that Macron is peddling.

But for Macron and all the NATO states to do that would be to admit their culpability for creating the biggest war in Europe since the Second World War. The political and legal repercussions would be explosive for Macron and the entire Western leadership. They are caught in the web of a Big Lie that they have spun.

July 5, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

“NATO cannot disguise Ukraine’s plight”: FT reveals diminishing Ukrainian morale

By Ahmed Adel | July 3, 2025

Active missile strikes on targets of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in different cities undermine the morale of Ukrainians and sow a sense of hopelessness in the country, the Financial Times writes. Combined with Ukraine’s NATO membership hitting another roadblock, it seems that there is no chance of Ukrainian morale ever recovering.

“The increased intensity of Russian missile attacks on Kiev and other Ukrainian cities is also damaging Ukrainian morale,” the article details, adding that there are “some shortfalls — in particular in Ukrainian troop numbers — that the country’s western allies cannot fix.”

According to the London-based newspaper, without a clear outline of victory, there is a risk that Ukraine will fall into despair.

The author of the article also notes that following the meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the end of June, there was renewed hope for the supply of Patriot anti-aircraft systems, which are necessary due to the depletion of Ukraine’s air defense capabilities. However, Trump can easily change his mind or forget about it, the newspaper writes.

According to a cited official, Russia’s main goal is now to capture Odessa, as without the city, “Ukraine would lose access to its main port.”

“A group of former European leaders — including Carl Bildt of Sweden and Sanna Marin of Finland — visited Ukraine recently and picked up on the deteriorating mood. They wrote afterwards that ‘while Ukrainians will never stop resisting, without more military support, Ukraine can lose more territory. More cities might be captured’,” Financial Times wrote.

“Off the record, some western officials are even bleaker, warning of a risk of ‘catastrophic failure,’ if the Ukrainian military is stretched to breaking point — and does not receive a significant increase in military and financial aid from its western allies,” the newspaper added.

Responding to FT’s article, Andriy Kovalenko, head of the Center for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, delusionally claimed that Kiev was “planning the destruction” of the so-called “regime” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but without elaborating on how this would be achieved.

“These publications about Putin planning to occupy something — that’s something. Putin actually wants to completely destroy Ukraine, but he can wish for anything he wants. There is no point in writing about his plans to occupy Odessa or anything else. He can plan all he wants, but he won’t succeed,” Kovalenko confidently said.

Nonetheless, despite Kovalenko’s bravado, the diminishing morale within Ukraine cannot be ignored and is now even being reported in Western pro-Ukraine media. What Kovalenko does not note is that Ukrainian morale is set to take another significant hit after Zelensky consistently promised NATO membership, something that is far from happening, if at all.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned that Ukraine’s entry into NATO would be akin to igniting a powder keg amid escalating tensions in Europe.

“Ukraine in NATO? That would mean war with Russia, and World War 3 the very next day. Meanwhile, the EU’s reckless rush to admit Ukraine would pull the frontlines into the heart of Europe. This isn’t diplomacy, it’s insanity – you don’t throw matches on a powder keg,” Orbán wrote on X.

According to Orbán, such an approach must not be allowed to turn Europe into a battlefield.

Orbán’s statement came after Hungary blocked the start of negotiations on Ukraine’s entry into the EU on June 26, with Budapest citing that 95% of Hungarians voted against Ukrainian accession in a recent survey, in which almost 2.3 million citizens participated.

Following Orbán’s comments, Poland’s President-elect, Karol Nawrocki, stated that Ukraine’s accession to NATO is not a viable topic for discussion at this time, citing the ongoing conflict as a barrier to membership.

“Today, there is no possibility for Ukraine to join NATO. It is at war. This would be the reason for all NATO countries to participate in the war. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss in this regard,” Nawrocki said in an interview with Polsat broadcaster on June 30.

In February 2019, Ukraine amended its Constitution to consolidate its strategic course towards EU and NATO membership. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that ensuring Ukraine’s neutral, non-aligned, and nuclear-free status is one of Russia’s conditions for resolving the conflict in Ukraine.

Yet, despite Moscow’s demands being clear since 2022, Zelensky famously announced in February this year that he would be willing to “give up” his presidency and “trade it for NATO membership, if there are such conditions.” However, Ukrainian morale is not being boosted by his performative rhetoric. Only an end to the war, especially before the onset of another difficult winter, will achieve this, since Ukrainians, unlike Zelensky and his regime, have finally accepted the reality that they cannot defeat Russia.

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

July 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

It must surely be time to end Russia sanctions and develop a new plan to bring peace and prosperity to Ukraine

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 2, 2025

Russia can endure the economic pain of war for longer than Europe. On this basis, more sanctions will only ever embolden Russia to keep fighting rather than making peace. Europe should incentivize peace through sanctions relief, although I see zero chance of that happening right now.

This terrible war in Ukraine must end sooner or later. It has claimed over one million people to death or injury, mostly since February 2022, but also, in fact, since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in February 2014.

Clearly, both Russia and Ukraine need to find incentives to end the fighting. One such incentive relates to sanctions. The whole basis of sanctions against Russia is that they will impose a cost on Russia for continuing to wage war in Ukraine.

When the 18th sanctions package was proposed on 10 June, Kaja Kallas announced that ‘we do all this because sanctions work, every sanction weakens Russia’s ability to fight.’ She also said, ‘Russia has lost tens of billions in oil revenues. Its economy is shrinking, and its GDP has dropped.’

And yet, these assertions do not appear to be true.

Firstly, Russia’s economy grew by 3.6% in 2024. That compares to 0.9% growth for the Eurozone and 1.1% for the United Kingdom.

On exports, in the first four months of 2025, Russia exported $39.5 billion more goods than it imported and maintained a healthy overall current account surplus of $21.9 billion. Since its default in 1998, Russia has become an exporting powerhouse and there hasn’t been a single year since that time in which it has not recorded a healthy surplus, including during the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID Pandemic.

There is no evidence that sanctions have had any real effect on Russia’s ability to generate large surpluses of trade each year. This boosts its tax revenues and provides the scope to increase spending without significant reliance on borrowing.

The overall value of Russian exports has fallen from their peak in 2012 when the oil price was consistently above $100 to the barrel. But the point is, Russia also now imports significantly less than it did then, largely out of a drive to import substitution which started in 2014, meaning that its overall balance is comparable.

It is for this reason that Russia’s international reserve position has improved by around $80 billion since the war started, to $680 billion today (which includes the currently frozen assets of around $300 billion).

No sanction imposed on Russia has shifted the fundamentals of Russia’s economic model and, I believe, no sanction ever will. And yet the Europeans have been sanctioning Russia for eleven years already without recognising this.

Yes, Russia has undoubtedly endured economic pain from sanctions. Prior to the Ukraine crisis, the European Union accounted for over 40% of all Russian trade and most of that business has been progressively lost over the past eleven years. That triggered huge shifts in the structure of Russia’s economy, arguably making it more dependant on domestic investment and pivoting its trade decisively away from Europe and towards Asia.

Sanctioning individuals and companies prompted huge changes in the beneficial ownership and board membership of the largest Russian firms. This triggered a bizarre whack-a-mole policy in Europe as it tried to sanction ever changing figures on Russian company structures.

Yet, Russia’s continued strength in trade allows it to keep pumping billions into the war economy each year at a time when Ukraine constantly teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, propped up only by European donations, as I have written many times before.

Europe will never be able to tip to scales so far in favour of Ukraine that it has the economic reserves to outslug Russia, whether the war continued for one year or ten. Only a fantasist would believe that though, unfortunately, there appears no shortage of those in Brussels.

Sanctions have become an end and policy makers are now so invested in sanctions, and so lacking in ideas, that they continue despite the obvious self-harm they are causing to the European project, not only economically, but also politically and culturally.

Politicians in Central Europe are growing increasingly concerned by this direction of policy, because of which a battle is brewing about whether the EU approves the eighteenth package of sanctions against Russia, first proposed on 10 June.

Slovakia and Hungary are currently blocking the package because it would threaten their energy security. At an EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting last week, Peter Szijjarto, Hungary’s Foreign Minister accused Brussels bureaucrats of hypocrisy, claiming that further energy sanctions would ‘cripple Hungary’s energy security’ and increase domestic energy prices by 2-3 fold. Hungary remains heavily reliant on Russian gas in particular for its domestic needs. And a complete ban would have huge consequences for consumers and Hungarian industries, at least in the short-medium term as the economy transitioned.

So, while EU Ministers extended all other EU sanctions against Russia for a year, the 18th sanctions package remains in limbo. German officials appear confident that an agreement can be reached this week, one assumes, by making concessions to Slovakia and Hungary on energy imports. In typical muddling through fashion, a backroom deal will be struck.

But the real question is shouldn’t the EU abandon sanctions altogether?

Sanctions can only succeed if the sanctioning party is willing to accept a level of economic pain comparable to that inflicted on the opponent, such that the opponent decides to back down or at least moderate the actions which prompted the sanctions.

That has never looked likely to happen with Russia. It’s not only that sanctions appear to have caused more pain to European economies than to Russia, most visibly through crippling energy prices. But that Russia has never looked like it would back down in the face of sanctions, and now pressure is growing within the EU for it to back down.

And, not only has Europe had to endure the direct economic cost to itself from the sanctions it has imposed, but also to absorb the additional cost of keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat during wartime. This pressure will only grow as the USA reduces its financial commitment to the war; on current levels, Ukraine needs at least $40 billion in European funding each year just to maintain the current tempo of a war that it is losing.

As we are currently witnessing in the UK with labour Members of Parliament rebelling against planned cuts to welfare benefits, this will have political consequences in Europe too, as anti-war parties gain more support.

Russia only has to maintain its economy from a significantly stronger baseline position. It won’t experience crippling high energy prices, given its self-sufficiency. Nor will it have to reach consensus with other countries on retaliatory measures taken against Europe.

On this basis, imposing more sanctions on Russia will only embolden President Putin to keep fighting. Rather than putting Ukraine is a position of greater strengthen, they are, in fact, putting Europe in a position of ongoing decay.

There may come a theoretical point in the future in which the massive fiscal investment Russia is making to sustain the war overheats its economy to such an extent that it starts to cause unbearable economic and political pressure. But that point does not appear to have been reached, nor does it appear close to being reached anytime soon.

And, amidst all the posturing, there is no real indication that Europe has Ukraine’s best interests really at heart. Ukraine is in most respects now a failed state. While Zelensky maintains the semblance of autocratic rule, he is in fact kept on life support by the continuance of the war. Ending the war would create a moment of both huge economic and democratic opportunity, for Ukraine, but also massive risk, as a disgruntled and defeated army demobilised to find the country bereft of quality jobs and good incomes.

If the Eurocrats in Brussels put all of their energies and resources into ending the war as soon as possible and helping Ukraine to emerge and rebuild in the best possible way, they might just about be able to stave of a much bigger catastrophe for that country. That would begin with setting out a plan to remove sanctions upon the agreement of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

Right now, though, I see zero chance of that happening.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Russia discovers new chemical laboratory in Donbass

By Lucas Leiroz | July 2, 2025

Apparently, Ukrainian armed forces continue to use chemical weapons against Russian citizens. Advancing in the Donetsk region, Russian military personnel discovered an improvised chemical laboratory that was being used by the enemy to produce illegal weapons. This type of situation is not new, considering that since 2014 the Kiev regime has been using chemical weapons against the Russian military and civilians in Donbass.

In the village of Ilyinka, located in the Donetsk People’s Republic, Russian troops discovered a Ukrainian hideout where a military chemical laboratory had been set up. The case is now being investigated by the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia’s domestic intelligence agency. In a preliminary press release, the FSB shared images of equipment that was being used to produce chemical weapons. Vials containing toxic agents can be seen – mainly chloropicrin, an asphyxiant banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The laboratory was being used to produce and manipulate both toxic chemical gas weapons and explosive agents mixed with poisonous materials. The laboratory’s main focus, according to preliminary investigations, was to manufacture chemical weapons capable of being dropped by drones. The FSB found evidence of “substances (…) packaged with plastic explosives and rigged into improvised munitions designed to be dropped from drones.” This shows the concerning levels of complexity and danger of the operations conducted at the site.

“This year we have discovered two caches with munitions intended for drone strikes on Russian positions. These munitions were a mix of chloropicrin and plastic explosives, to maximize the area of effect,” an FSB officer said.

Furthermore, FSB officers told the media that the use of such prohibited methods of warfare has become commonplace in Ukraine. Kiev troops frequently launch explosive weapons containing toxic substances, mainly in the form of poisonous gases, at Russian military positions or civilian settlements. These gases are often not lethal, but they cause serious poisoning effects – causing unnecessary suffering to the victims, without any strategic gain. In some more serious cases, victims end up dying from asphyxiation resulting from prolonged exposure to the poisonous agents.

Since 2022, Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev of employing chemical weapons, always providing material evidence. According to Russian sources, hundreds of soldiers and civilians have exhibited symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic substances, with some cases resulting in death. In 2023, I was invited by the Russian delegation in Geneva to present a media report on Ukraine’s alleged use of chemical weapons against Russians in Donbass during the 52nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council.

My investigation exposed at least sixteen instances, dating back to 2014, in which Russian civilians and military personnel reported symptoms linked to chemical exposure caused by Ukrainian forces. The same report was later presented at an OSCE event. Despite the Russian side’s efforts to raise awareness, international organizations continue to ignore these serious allegations.

In the same vein, in July 2024, footage emerged showing a hidden laboratory used by Ukrainian military scientists to produce illegal chemical weapons. At the time, a Russian soldier documented the scene using a portable chemical analyzer, revealing the presence of toxic substances including sulfuric acid, sodium cyanide, cyanide anions, and hydrogen cyanide – agents historically used in warfare since World War I. The lab, hidden inside military containers amid the ruins of a bombed-out building, contained various colored liquids and what appeared to be a chemical reactor.

Experts warned that these substances were likely being weaponized for use in explosives, drones, and grenades. While the full extent of the lab’s operations remained unclear, several cases of hydrogen cyanide poisoning among civilians in the region were being frequently reported since May that year. Also, traces of the same chemical were found in areas of Russia’s Belgorod region, suggesting possible transportation and use beyond the immediate frontlines.

It is important to remember that while many chemical weapons can be made improvised by simply adding poisonous agents to conventional arms, there is also equipment and materials that are highly controlled and not always available for use by the Ukrainian military. This raises suspicions about the involvement of international actors in the production and use of chemical weapons in Ukraine.

Publicly, the US is the only country in the world to maintain stockpiles of chemical weapons. It is possible that American experts have instructed Ukrainian troops in the manufacture of these weapons – just as it is possible that the US directly delivered such arms during the previous administration of Joe Biden.

The silence of international organizations in the face of these crimes in Ukraine highlights the failure of the current global legal system to combat humanitarian violations, which is due to the Western biases with which these institutions operate. In practice, Russia has no alternative to protecting its citizens from Ukrainian crimes other than military means.

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

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

The West waging ‘centuries-old war’ against Moscow – Russia’s top UN diplomat

RT | June 28, 2025

Western nations are using Ukraine as their proxy in a longstanding confrontation with Russia that is deeply rooted in history, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia told RT’s Rick Sanchez.

In an interview on The Sanchez Effect aired on Friday, the diplomat argued that the conflict “should be seen in a larger context.”

“They do not care about Ukraine. This is not a war between Russia and Ukraine,” Nebenzia said. “Ukraine is a proxy in this war. This is a centuries-old war of the West against Russia, starting with the Polish invasion in the 17th century,” he added.

As examples of earlier confrontations, Nebenzia cited Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, the 1854–1856 Crimean War, Western military intervention during the Russian Civil War, and the invasion by Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II. He emphasized that Hitler’s army included not only Germans, but also units drawn from allied countries and occupied territories.

The Ukrainians and “their sponsors” in the West sabotaged the 2014–2015 Minsk accords, which were aimed at ending the conflict between Kiev and the breakaway Donbass republics, the Russian diplomat said. Former French President Francois Hollande and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel later admitted the agreement was used by Kiev to buy time and rearm, Nebenzia stated. “We are not going [to fall] into the same trap once again,” he said.

He added that politicians like former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson similarly helped derail the 2022 peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Ukraine’s European backers were forced to adjust their position, Nebenzia argued, after US President Donald Trump launched efforts to broker peace and Ukrainian troops began losing more ground.

“They changed their rhetoric from ‘We should inflict strategic defeat on Russia’ to ‘Russia should not win in this war.’ Now they are advocating for a full, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire, which is testimony that they want to shield and protect their proxy, as they are obviously losing on the battlefield,” he said.

At the same time, Nebenzia noted that the resumption of direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations earlier this year provides hope that the conflict could be resolved soon.

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

Cracks in the Alliance: Poland reconsidering Ukraine’s cause?

By Uriel Araujo | June 28, 2025

Poland has long been one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies in Europe, offering unwavering support since the beginning of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian full-scale conflict in 2022. From hosting millions of refugees to providing military aid and championing Kyiv’s integration into Western institutions, Poland’s commitment seemed unshakable to many. Yet, recent developments signal a shift: Poles are growing weary of Ukraine, so to speak, and this “Ukrainian fatigue” threatens to reshape regional dynamics at a time when Kyiv is increasingly isolated.  Albeit a new development, this had been potentially there for a long time.

A recent survey by IBRiS reveals in fact a stark decline in Polish support for the cause of Ukraine’s ambitions. Only 35% of Poles now believe Warsaw should back Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union (EU), with a mere 37% supporting NATO accession. In contrast, 42% oppose Poland’s endorsement of Kyiv’s path to both institutions—a dramatic reversal from 2022, when 85% and 75% favored EU and NATO membership, respectively. Even more concerningly, from Kyiv’s perspective, 46% of Poles now advocate halting or reducing military aid, a significant departure from the early war fervor. These figures reflect a growing sentiment that Poland’s generosity has stretched thin, compounded by domestic pressures and latent historical grievances.

The roots of this shift are multifaceted. Economically, hosting over a million Ukrainian refugees has somewhat strained Poland’s resources. While many Poles initially welcomed their neighbors with open arms, reports of rising anti-Ukrainian sentiment suggest a fraying social fabric. Refugees have faced verbal abuse and discrimination, with some recounting calls to “go back to Ukraine”. This backlash is not merely economic but also deeply rooted in historical tensions.

The legacy of the Volhynia massacres, where the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—today celebrated in post-Maidan Ukraine as national heroes—committed atrocities against Poles, remains a festering wound, as I wrote last year. Kyiv’s refusal to allow exhumations of victims and its glorification of figures like Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator, have fueled tensions and Polish resentment. These historical disputes, often downplayed in the West, are not mere academic debates but visceral issues pertaining to the politics of memory, and to identity; they shape public opinion and policy.

Poland’s domestic politics further complicate its foreign policy toward Ukraine. The return of Donald Tusk’s government has prioritized a pro-EU stance, but it faces challenges from a resurgent nationalist right that capitalizes on anti-Ukrainian sentiment also. This internal polarization threatens Tusk’s ability to maintain Poland’s role as a regional leader in supporting Kyiv.

The nationalist revival in Poland mirrors a broader regional trend involving Ukraine’s neighbors, where ethnopolitical frictions play an important role. For instance, Romania and Hungary have both raised concerns over Ukraine’s treatment of their minorities, while Greece has criticized the plight of its ethnic kin under ultranationalist elements in Ukraine (including those with neo-Nazi links). Kyiv’s post-2014 push for a unified national identity, often at the expense of minority rights, has alienated potential allies at a critical juncture. Far from being a mere “Russian talking point”, this is an issue that, to different degrees, hampers Ukraine’s bilateral relations with virtually all of its neighbors—including Slovakia. Writing in 2023,  GLOBSEC think-tank researcher Dmytro Tuzhanskyi  acknowledges that this “ethnic trap” was a challenge of EU accession talks. The “Ukrainian Question” in fact is a threat to the European bloc itself, as I’ve argued before.

The broader geopolitical context further complicates matters for Kyiv. As Western attention pivots to the Middle East, with conflicts in Gaza and beyond dominating headlines, Ukraine risks fading from the global spotlight. The West’s finite resources—both financial and political—are increasingly stretched, leaving Kyiv to compete for attention and aid. NATO’s expansion, once a “holy cow” topic, finally faces some skepticism in Poland and beyond, in the context of an increasingly divided and scandal-ridden NATO.

The alliance’s eastward push, framed as a bulwark against threats, has not delivered the promised stability. Instead, it has entangled member states in a prolonged conflict with no clear resolution, prompting questions about its strategic value. For Poles, the costs of supporting Ukraine’s NATO aspirations—military, economic, and social—are beginning to outweigh the benefits.

This cooling of Polish support is not an isolated phenomenon but is indeed part of a broader regional fatigue. Ukraine’s aggressive nationalist policies, while aimed at consolidating statehood, have sown discord with neighbors who perceive them as chauvinistic, as mentioned. These tensions, often overshadowed by the larger conflict, play a considerable role in regional dynamics, and Poland, despite its strategic partnership with Ukraine, is not immune to such pressures.

The implications of Poland’s shifting stance are profound. As one of Ukraine’s key advocates in the EU and NATO, a less enthusiastic Poland could weaken Kyiv’s bargaining power in Western capitals. The decline in public support for military aid and integration efforts signals a broader reassessment of Poland’s role in the conflict. If this trend continues, Ukraine may find itself increasingly isolated, caught between a distracted West and strained relations with its neighbors. With Trump attempting to shift the Ukrainian “burden” onto Europe, the EU and NATO (already grappling with internal divisions), may hesitate to keep supporting the cause of Kyiv. Warsaw’s “retreat”, if it comes to that, could really have a domino effect.

This is not to suggest that Poland will “abandon” Ukraine outright. Strategic considerations, including the supposed need for a buffer (and its continental ambitions), should likely keep Warsaw engaged. However, the era of unconditional support is clearly over. Poles are reevaluating their priorities, driven by economic burdens, historical grievances, and a nationalist resurgence that demands a reckoning with the past. For Ukraine, the lesson is clear enough: alienating allies through ultranationalist policies and historical revisionism comes at a steep cost. And Kyiv, by all indications cannot afford to lose allies. Poland’s fatigue is thus a warning—not just for Ukraine but for the broader project of NATO and EU expansion, which risks overreaching in a world of competing crises.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Hungary blocks EU accession talks with Ukraine

RT | June 27, 2025

Hungary has vetoed a joint EU statement on Ukraine at the bloc’s Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, effectively blocking Kiev’s accession talks, according to a communique published on Thursday on the European Council’s website.

The statement, which urged the council to open membership negotiations with Ukraine, was “firmly supported by 26 heads of state” out of 27 EU members, the document read. As unanimous approval is required, talks cannot begin until Hungary reverses its stance. The communique noted that the council will revisit the issue at its next meeting in October.

While the document did not name Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban confirmed the veto in comments to reporters.

“We stopped Ukraine’s EU accession with the votes of Voks2025, and I needed it, because I was almost swept away by the public anger when I announced that Hungary would not agree to start negotiations with Ukraine,” Orban said, referencing the national referendum which concluded on June 20. More than 2 million Hungarians, or 95% of voters, rejected Ukraine’s EU bid, according to the prime minister.

“I had to remind [the council] that the most important criterion [for accession] is that there is in fact a country,” he said. “There must be a defined identity, borders, a population, a territory, and in the case of Ukraine, none of these apply.”

Ukraine made EU accession a national priority in 2019, formally applying in 2022 shortly after the escalation of its conflict with Russia. The EU granted Kiev candidate status later that year and set a 2030 target for membership.

While Brussels supports the move, critics argue that Ukraine’s institutions and economy are unprepared, and the cost would strain the bloc. Budapest opposes EU membership for Ukraine, warning it could escalate tensions with Russia and burden EU taxpayers with decades of military aid. Alongside Hungary, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Polish officials have raised concerns. A recent IBRiS poll shows only 35% of Poles support Ukraine’s EU bid, down from 85% in 2022.

Moscow strongly opposes Ukraine joining NATO, but had previously taken a neutral stance on its EU ambitions, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying in March that Ukraine has the “sovereign right” to join if the bloc remains focused on economics. However, with Brussels ramping up defense spending, Russian officials have recently grown critical. Peskov earlier this week called EU militarization “rabid,” while former President Dmitry Medvedev said the bloc has become “no less of a threat” to Russia than NATO.

“This is a politicized, globalist, and fiercely Russophobic organization,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram on Wednesday. “Thus, the so-called ‘Ukraine in the EU’ is a danger to our country.”

June 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Orbán says Hungary will block Ukraine’s EU accession after 95 percent vote against it

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | June 26, 2025

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has declared that Hungary will not support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, citing an overwhelming mandate from a national vote in which 95 percent of participants opposed Ukrainian membership.

Speaking in Brussels, Orbán revealed that 2,168,431 Hungarian citizens voted against Ukraine joining the EU, out of a total of 2,278,000 valid votes cast. Just 5 percent supported the idea.

“I came here with a strong mandate. My voice has grown deeper — after all, I will speak today in the voice of more than 2 million Hungarians when I say during negotiations that Hungary does not support Ukraine’s EU membership. These are the stark facts,” he said.

Orbán stressed that Hungary cannot be circumvented in this process, noting that EU accession requires unanimous approval from all member states. “Even to open a negotiation cluster, unanimity is required — and that’s not there. So, this won’t happen. Nothing can happen today that would have any legal effect on Ukraine’s accession to the EU,” he said. “People can make statements and talk, but the EU will not have a common position, because Hungary does not support it. Those who disagree with us — 26 or however many there are — can say what they want, that’s also freedom.”

The Hungarian leader also warned that admitting Ukraine into the bloc would mean importing the conflict with Russia into the heart of Europe. “The problem is the war. If we were to integrate Ukraine into the European Union, we would be integrating the war along with it. And we don’t want to be in a community with a country that is at war, which poses an imminent danger to us,” he said. “Because if the EU includes a country at war, then the EU is at war, and we don’t want that.”

Hungary is one of the few EU member states whose government appears to be acting on the popular opinion of its voters when it comes to Ukraine’s EU membership.

A survey published this week from Poland showed just 35 percent of Poles support Ukraine’s accession to the EU, with 42 percent opposing its membership, yet Poland’s liberal government under Donald Tusk continues to adhere to the will of Brussels and Kyiv.

Similarly, polling conducted last year in Germany found 52 percent of citizens were not in favor, with an EU-wide average of 60 percent opposing Kyiv’s accession to the bloc.

Even Slovakia, which is frequently aligned with Hungary on matters related to Ukraine — in particular its opposition to arms sales and its support for immediate peace talks — has green-lighted talks on EU membership.

Speaking earlier this month, Prime Minister Robert Fico told journalists, “The Slovak government wishes Ukraine European development. If Ukraine wants to join the EU, this is its sovereign decision, and we support this decision.”

While he indicated that Kyiv was not yet ready to join, he expressed his support for preliminary accession talks to commence.

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

NATO To Take ‘Quantum Leap’ in Military Spending, Pledging 5% of GDP Baseline

By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | June 24, 2025

Each member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is expected to ink a pledge to raise military spending to 5% of GDP over the next ten years. This is more than double the current 2% goal. Responding to President Donald Trump’s demands for greater spending, member states will agree to the new baseline in the Netherlands during an alliance summit this week. On Monday, the eve before the summit, this proposal was referred to as a “quantum leap” by Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Under the compromise deal, by 2035, each member state will commit a minimum of 3.5% of their GDP to “core military needs,” along with 1.5% to be earmarked for cybersecurity, infrastructure, and other security components.

“The defense investment plan that allies will agree [to] in The Hague introduces a new baseline, five percent of GDP to be invested in defense,” Rutte told reporters.Despite alliance concerns over Madrid’s refusal to commit to the 5% spending figure, which would necessitate a military yearly budget of nearly $90 billion, Rutte emphasized Spain will not be allowed to “opt-out.” He said, “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etcetera, because we all have to chip in.”

Moreover, Rutte insists the new spending will go toward producing thousands of tanks and a five fold increase in the production of air defenses. The NATO chief declared, “Our focus is ensuring that we have all we need to deter and defend against any threat.” Rutte added the summit will see strong support for Ukraine and noted the “most significant and direct threat facing this alliance remains the Russian Federation.”

The alliance has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties with Ukraine losing roughly 20% of its territory.

With the US taking the lead, by 2021, defying Russia’s core security concerns and provoking conflict, Ukraine was being treated as a de facto NATO member. Rutte’s predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that, under his leadership in the lead up to the war, the Washington-led bloc refused to take potential membership for Kiev off the table in negotiations even though Moscow had made clear that would prevent an invasion.

The policy has not changed. “Last year in Washington, NATO allies agreed that for Ukraine there is an irreversible path of Ukraine to enter NATO. And that is still true today, and it will still be true on Thursday after this summit,” Rutte told reporters.

However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly will be “largely sidelined” at the summit’s main event. With Biden gone and Trump now in office, Rutte said Europe will work to cover the difference in US spending on the Ukraine war. He added that Europe and Canada have spent $40 billion on the war thus far this year. Washington is still providing Kiev with military and other aid, along with targeting intelligence.

Rutte’s comments also took aim at Tehran, the NATO chief said his “greatest fear” is Iran gaining a nuclear weapon that would give it a “stranglehold” over Israel. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and prior to Tel Aviv’s unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic, the consensus among US intelligence agencies was Tehran is not trying to build nuclear weapons. Israel – which is not a party to the NPT – has an undeclared nuclear arsenal estimated to contain as many as 300 warheads.

The US carried out an illegal act of war, bombing Iran’s internationally safeguarded nuclear energy facilities over the weekend. This is a blatant violation of the UN charter. Trump ordered the massive attack without congressional authorization as required per the US Constitution. When questioned about the legality of the strikes, Rutte proclaimed “I would not agree that [what the US did] is against international law.”

Trump is demanding a $1 trillion US military budget. While Rutte is currently focused on Moscow and fueling the Ukraine war, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth recently boasted he is preparing the American military to defend the island of Taiwan, to “fight and win — decisively” a war with China.

June 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , , , | 1 Comment

Will Germany initiate compulsory military service?

Remix News | June 24, 2025

Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder has come out with an aggressive plan to prep Germany for war. Support for Ukraine, defense against Russia, and efforts to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons are the priorities.

“Compulsory military and civilian service is the future,” said Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder, according to Magyar Nemzet. “It is not enough to simply send out questionnaires to young people asking if they would be willing to serve; more decisive steps are needed,” he added.

Germany suspended compulsory military service in 2011, but the service could be reactivated via a parliamentary ruling. The German government’s coalition agreement currently only allows for voluntary military service. However, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has already indicated that a much more ambitious bill is in the works, which would allow for the introduction of compulsory military service if necessary.

In addition to the issue of conscription, Söder also urged the maximum deployment of the Bundeswehr —the German army — and again called for the development of a national missile defense system.

“This also requires technology – an Iron Dome system is absolutely necessary to protect not only Berlin, but all of Germany,” he said, emphasizing that urgent action, including more sanctions, is needed to deter Russia.

Söder also called for full support for Ukraine, including supplying the country with arms. Thorsten Frei, the head of the German Chancellery, warned on Monday that the threat to U.S. military bases in Germany had increased significantly after the U.S. air strikes on Iran.

“We stand with the United States and Israel,” Frei stated, adding that German security agencies are doing everything they can to protect American facilities.

Regarding the attacks on Iran, the politician highlighted: “The fact is that it was not only Israel that was in serious danger. If a terrorist regime were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would also pose a serious threat to world peace.”

June 24, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s credibility eroding amid organized crime corruption scandals and internal fractures

By Uriel Araujo | June 20, 2025

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), heralded as the bulwark of Western security, faces a credibility crisis that mirrors the decline of the West. Corruption scandals, internal divisions, and an insatiable appetite for expansion despite unmet commitments have eroded its legitimacy, with the Ukraine crisis as a stark backdrop. As a matter of fact, NATO’s troubles reflect a faltering Western order struggling to maintain global dominance.

Since last month, a sprawling investigation into the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) has revealed that officials sold confidential information to defense contractors, rigging multimillion-dollar arms contracts, including drones critical to Ukraine’s military efforts. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) exposed a sophisticated network of insiders leaking sensitive data for personal gain, undermining NATO’s procurement integrity. Arrests in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain, with investigations in Luxembourg, Italy, and the United States, highlight the probe’s scope, which is expected to widen the more the EU agencies look at NATO’s contracts. This organized crime angle, involving illicit financial flows, remains underreported, which makes one wonder just how deep the rot goes.

The Ukraine crisis certainly amplifies these scandals’ impact. NATO’s support for Kyiv, including massive arms shipments, is tainted by corrupt practices that may have inflated costs or misdirected resources. One may recall that Ukrainian Brigadier General Volodymyr Karpenko admitted in 2022 that nearly 50% of received weaponry was lost, potentially smuggled. Europol’s Catherine De Bolle warned that same year of arms flooding Europe’s black markets. In 2024, Washington admitted failing to track $1 billion in small arms, but claimed it was due to inadequate inventories. This could be just the tip of the iceberg, as the Atlantic organization is increasingly looking like a racketeering ring.

The fact that this scandal remains underreported speaks volumes. That the CIA admittedly infiltrated media outlets, funded journalists and so on to shape narratives during the Cold War is no secret, Operation Mockingbird being just the most famous case. The late Udo Ulfkotte claimed in his 2014 book “Gekaufte Journalisten” that Western intelligence, including the CIA, would often pay journalists to push pro-NATO narratives. Suffice it to say that there’s no reason to assume such practices ceased, especially as narrative wars have intensified – not to mention that in the post-Soviet world NATO just kept on expanding. In any case, The National Endowment for Democracy and, until recently, the USAID are also known to support media globally, typically with a pro-NATO spin. Corruption and propaganda often go hand in hand. But here I digress.

Historically speaking, NATO has been no stranger to organized crime ties. Up until the nineties, Operation Gladio, a NATO clandestine program, collaborated with the Sicilian Mafia and neo-fascist terrorist groups in Europe, as confirmed by parliamentary inquiries. In post-Maidan Ukraine, NATO’s support for groups like the Azov regiment, with neo-Nazi ties, echoes this pattern. Plus, one may recall that Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that Western officials misappropriated $88.5 billion of aid sent to Kyiv. When it comes to the Western alliance, corruption schemes often go hand in hand with far-right paramilitary groups and organized crime.

Corruption is not NATO’s only problem. Many member states fail to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target; in 2024, only 23 of 32 complied, revealing a chronic lack of commitment. In fact, Trump’s rhetoric pertaining to the Alliance largely stems from this fact alone. Internal divisions further weaken the Alliance. The Greek-Turkish rivalry in the Aegean, for one thing, with territorial disputes, threatens NATO’s southeastern flank. These fissures reveal an alliance struggling to maintain unity amid divergent agendas.

NATO’s relentless expansion, despite these challenges, is its most provocative misstep. Its post-Cold War push eastward, absorbing former Soviet states, fueled tensions with Russia, culminating in the Ukraine crisis. Thus, NATO has become a destabilizing force, which provokes rather than deterrs conflict. Fueling conflicts might be good for the defence industry but it certainly does not do much for trans-Atlantic security. Moreover, the 2022 accession of Finland and Sweden, while touted as a triumph, has stretched NATO’s resources and exposed its inability to integrate new members seamlessly (not to mention the way Turkey leveraged it). It has made Europe a less safe place, for one thing.

These scandals and structural issues are emblematic of the West’s decline. The narrative of Western moral superiority is untenable when NATO, its premier security institution, is plagued by shady deals and disunity. NATO’s failure to adapt to a multipolar world, where players such as China, Russia, and even Turkey assert autonomy, further alienates the Global South. The West’s decline is not merely military or economic but a matter of legitimacy, as its institutions falter under their contradictions.

In conclusion, NATO’s corruption scandals are symptoms of a deeper malaise. They expose an alliance that, despite its grandiose ambitions, is fractured by internal divisions, weakened by unmet commitments, and compromised by systemic failures. Turkey’s ambivalence, the Greek-Turkish rivalry, and the Ukraine crisis highlight NATO’s inability to cohere, while its expansionist zeal deepens global tensions. To put it simply, NATO’s troubles reflect the West’s waning influence in a world no longer willing to accept its dominance.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

June 20, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »