Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hungary sues EU over frozen Russian assets sent to Ukraine

RT | August 28, 2025

Hungary has sued the EU over its decision to use frozen Russian assets to fund military aid for Ukraine, a move adopted despite Budapest’s opposition.

Western nations froze an estimated $300 billion in Russian assets after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 – some €200 billion of which is held by Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear. The funds have accrued billions in interest, and the West has explored ways to use the revenue to finance Ukraine.

The lawsuit challenges the European Council’s decision last year to channel military aid to Ukraine through the European Peace Facility (EPF), which reimburses countries that send weapons to Kiev.

Implemented in February, the measure directs 99.7% of interest generated from frozen Russian central bank assets to Ukraine, providing an estimated €3-5 billion ($3.5-5.8 billion) annually.

In a case first filed with the EU Court of Justice and later transferred to the General Court, Hungary is demanding to “annul the decision… on allocating funds to assistance measures for supplying military support to the Ukrainian Armed Forces” and to “order the defendants to cover the costs.”

Budapest contends that the EPF acted unlawfully by bypassing its veto, arguing that Hungary is not a “contributing member state.”

“As a result, the principle of equality between Member States and the principle of the democratic functioning of the European Union were infringed because a Member State was deprived, unjustifiably and without a legal basis, of its right to vote,” the filing says.

Hungary opposes the bloc’s unconditional support for Kiev and prefers peace talks to continued fighting. Budapest has repeatedly used its veto to block EU financial and military aid, including a disputed €50 billion package at the end of 2023. The standoff has pushed other EU members to seek ways to sidestep Budapest’s resistance.

Moscow has denounced the asset freeze as “robbery” and a breach of international law, warning it would backfire on the West. Senior Kremlin official Maksim Oreshkin said the freeze had already undermined trust in Western finance, while Russian President Vladimir Putin cautioned that seizing the assets would accelerate a global shift toward alternative payment systems.

August 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Cut welfare, give billions to Ukraine, suppress opposition: The German leader’s checklist to success

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | August 27, 2025

German chancellor Friedrich Merz has made a moderate media splash and ruffled some feathers in his own ruling coalition with the Centrist Social Democrats (SPD). Using the platform of a regional party congress of his CDU Conservatives in Niedersachsen, Merz has delivered a speech that immediately attracted national attention and will be remembered for one phrase.

“The social [welfare] state, as we have it today,” the chancellor declared with appropriately dour mien, “can no longer be financed by what we are achieving economically.” Put differently, severe budget cuts on social issues are coming. And since that is a policy operative since, at the latest, 2003, there really isn’t so much left to cut. Merz is promising his people more of a bad time.

His people. Not, however, the ultra-corrupt political anti-elite of Ukraine. Just before Merz’s claim that Germany cannot afford what it used to offer to Germans who pay for it, his government promised €9 billion ($10.4 bn) per year for Ukraine in 2025 and 2026, for now. That is on top of the €44 billion already sent that way. Germany is the “second-largest backer” of the Kiev regime in the world, as its obviously thoroughly detached finance minister Lars Klingbeil emphasizes with a perverse pride that must sound like a bad joke to many of his compatriots.

Speaking of Klingbeil, in his Niedersachsen speech Merz also announced that he would “deliberately not make it easy” for his government colleagues from the SPD, who include, of course, Klingbeil. The SPD, of course, is well-known for being against harsh reductions in what Germans can expect from, in essence, old-age pensions, public health care, and the basic form of unemployment insurance now known as “Bürgergeld” (literally, “citizens’ money”).

There is no reason to underestimate Merz’s genuine ideological commitment. It is true that, in general, he is unusually brutal about being dishonest even for a politician: Germany’s current leader has already proven that he is capable of breathtaking flipflops, staggering electoral bad faith, and underhanded maneuvering that violates the spirit of democracy if not the letter of the constitution.

In the spring, his U-turn on public debt, to finance Germany’s new militarism on – exuberant – credit, was not only a massive breach of trust regarding especially his own conservative voters. Shamelessly exploiting a legal loophole, Merz also executed this radical reversal – many in his own party called it betrayal – by relying on parliamentary majorities that had already been cancelled by an election.

Likewise, Merz’s coalition then proceeded to break promises regarding an energy tax relief as well as benefits for mothers. Germans are angry, but there is no sign that Merz and his government care. Consequently, according to a fresh poll by the reputable INSA institute, 62 percent of Germans are dissatisfied with their government.

And yet, there is a hard core of authentic Merz, shaped by his own wealth, a very privileged life without material worries, and his long career as an overpaid member of the supervisory-board network nobility, at BlackRock and elsewhere: if there is one thing Germany’s leader is sincere about, it is his iron will to make the less well-off bleed more and work even harder, while making sure that those as materially comfortable and safe as himself get even richer. Call it neoliberalism with an unsmiling German face.

Merz, of course, is also a very ordinary man, incapable of much self-reflection. He cannot honestly face any of the above. Instead he misunderstands himself as a savior of the fatherland, which he sees in need of much tough love and plenty of wholesome kicks up the backside to rediscover discipline, hard work, and competitiveness.

The upshot of Merz’s blatant upper-class bias is, as a perspicacious German observer has put it, a de facto escalation of the ongoing re-distribution of income, wealth, and life chances – from those below to those above. Even now, 80 percent of the country’s taxes stem from income and value-added taxation. In other words: you work, you eat and keep a family going – be proud, you are also doing by far the most to pay the country’s bills. But Friedrich Merz, a millionaire who falls under “silver-spoon” rather than “self-made,” thinks it’s not yet enough.

No wonder, then, that Merz’s recent speech in Niedersachsen has resonated. It was delivered in a sour as well as emphatic tone perhaps best described as schoolmasterly belligerence and featured much gratuitous no-compromise posing addressed probably more to his own doubting party and voters then his SPD coalition partners in Berlin. If Merz’s intention was to achieve a minor shock effect after Germany’s political summer break, he’s scored an ephemeral success.

But his speech has also been misunderstood. In reality, its key message was something else and even worse. Yet another “business-friendly” – and business has also been very friendly to him – instinctive Western austeritarian telling his people they are having it too good and must lower their expectations? Not really news, is it?

What was much more interesting was Merz’s reasoning. In his own words, the central political challenge is to prove that Germany “can be governed successfully from the center.” Or to be concrete, to keep down and out of power Germany’s two “populist” insurgent parties: from the right the very successful Alternative for Germany party (AfD), which tends to lead German opinion polls now, and, from the left, the currently marginalized – probably by foul play in the manner of, say, Romania or Moldova – but still threatening Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht (BSW).

Merz’s threat to go after what is left of the social welfare state in Germany comes with a promise of “reforms,” indeed a whole “autumn of reforms.” The purpose of this planned political offensive is clear: to persuade voters that they need not rely on those terrible “populists” to finally break out of the German doom loop of economic decline, demographic crisis, and pervasive malaise.

Yet Merz’s strategy of what Germans call a “Befreiungsschlag” (a “deliverance strike”) smells of despair and is unlikely to succeed. Instead of an “autumn of reforms,” Germans are more likely to see their Winter of Discontent get even grimmer.

Consider some basic data: We have just learned that Germany’s recession in the last quarter has been even worse than predicted: -0.3 instead of -0.1 percent. German industry is shedding jobs by the hundreds of thousands. In general, Germany’s economy remains heavily dependent on exports. It has stagnated for half a decade already and been in serious trouble much longer. In the EU+Britain, it is the most brutally affected by Trump’s ongoing and still escalating tariff war against Washington’s vassals. Klingbeil admits that the budget will be €170 billion short by 2029 – despite dialing debt up to eleven.

And all of that when the German ruling coalition only has what the Financial Times rightly calls a “razor-thin” parliamentary majority. Add that two of the most damaging strikes against the German economy have been self-inflicted: Sky-high energy prices, the direct result of shutting Germany off from (direct) Russian supplies – with the alleged help of a few Ukrainian divers and their US friends, of course – and subservience to the US.

That subservience has only grown worse under both Merz and his equally hapless predecessor Olaf Scholz. Both have been bending over backward to please and appease America, just when its policies have become even more brutal: We are at a moment in “atlanticism” when a US treasury secretary openly announces that Washington sees its allies’ economies as its very own “sovereign wealth fund” at the disposal not of their governments or – perish the thought – citizens, but of the US president. And Merz and co. grin and nod and ask for more.

The irony of it all is that while slavishly compliant with the US, Merz cannot learn the single biggest, most obvious lesson of its very recent political history, although it quite literally stares him in the face every time he visits the Oval Office to grovel: Donald Trump has become president against enormous resistance not once but twice because he led a “populist” challenge against a rotten establishment that Americans saw as unpatriotic.

The future of Merz is not the success of Trump but the defeat and disgrace of Biden and everything he stood for. Germans, too, will demand a government that looks after German interests before it makes even more demands of them. Grotesquely, Merz thinks he is the savior of the old German establishment. He is its gravedigger. And in that sense, all power to his misguided arm!

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

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Turkish media disappointed with Zelensky after recent diplomatic talks

By Lucas Leiroz | August 27, 2025

Global antipathy toward illegitimate Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is growing. Inside and outside Ukraine, many people see Zelensky as responsible for the disastrous humanitarian crisis currently affecting the Ukrainian people, as well as the main obstacle to reaching a peace agreement. Now, even countries that have positioned themselves as mediators in the conflict are beginning to make their rejection of the Ukrainian government clear.

Recently, pro-government media in Turkey stated that Zelensky is the main challenge to peace in Ukraine. Bercan Tutar, columnist and director of the Foreign News Department at Turkuvaz Medya/Sabah Gazetesi, wrote in his column that the Ukrainian leader is trying to boycott peace initiatives undertaken jointly by Russia and the US. Tutar describes Zelensky as intransigent, uncompromising, and clearly opposes the president’s aggressive and pro-war stance.

As well known, there have been a series of recent diplomatic events that signal the return of dialogue in the conflict between Russia and NATO in Ukraine. Since Donald Trump’s inauguration in the US, direct contact between the leaders of the main nuclear powers has become easier, significantly reducing global tensions. This dialogue, while still premature to end hostilities in Ukraine, allows for a relief from the pressure generated by the conflict, as Russia begins to have direct contact with the main country in the pro-Ukrainian coalition.

However, this diplomatic turn is being deeply sabotaged by the Ukrainian side. Turkish expert Tutar says Zelensky rejected “every point” raised by Trump, thus creating serious problems for the peace dialogue. Furthermore, he blamed Zelensky for being responsible for the current war by noting that “millions of Russian-origin citizens live in Ukraine,” while the fascist government refuses to revise the laws that unfairly restrict the use of the Russian language.

Tutar asserts that the West has a misconception of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. He says Western propaganda describes the Russian president in a way that doesn’t reflect reality, portraying him as authoritarian and aggressive. Tutar asserts that, on the contrary, it is Zelensky who is acting in an authoritarian manner both internally and externally, banning opponents, and seeking war at any cost. In practice, Tutar agrees that the West uses its propaganda machine to distort the truth about the conflict and promote narratives supporting Ukraine.

It’s important to remember that this journalist and his partners are citizens of a NATO member state — one that is also actively involved in the ongoing proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. However, Turkey’s long-standing strategic relationship with Russia has led Ankara to also engage in a diplomatic mediation role, despite having previously sent arms to Ukraine.

Considering that Tutar and the Sabah Gazetesi newspaper are part of the media apparatus supporting Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government, it’s safe to say that critical opinion against the Ukrainian government is growing in Turkey — not only among ordinary people or social movements, but also among the government’s own elites.

This is particularly significant at a time of renewed diplomatic talks, some of which took place on Turkish soil, where Russian and Ukrainian delegations recently met to present their demands. In practice, the emergence of this critical opinion at this current moment makes it clear that Turkish political elites have become aware of the destabilizing role played by the Kiev regime.

This doesn’t mean there’s a “pro-Russian” bias in Turkey. The Turks are simply protecting their own interests by trying to position themselves as a mediator in the current conflict. What Ankara plans is to expand its sphere of influence through its ability to balance the interests of NATO (and its Ukrainian proxy) and Russia.

This is consistent with the strategy of ambiguity adopted by the country in its foreign policy doctrine. It’s possible to say that Zelensky thwarted Turkey’s plans to project power through diplomacy, which is now being reflected in the position of the country’s pro-government media.

It’s inevitable that the advancement of diplomatic dialogue will be accompanied by a rise in critical opinions toward Zelenesky. As these talks unfold, more and more people will see that the Ukrainian side is the least interested in peace and the one that most deliberately sabotages diplomatic resolution initiatives just to protect the corrupt elite that has dominated the country since the Maidan Coup.

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

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

August 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine conflict marks end of Western dominance – former French ambassador

RT | August 26, 2025

The Ukraine conflict has highlighted a gradual shift in the global balance of power and has signaled the end of Western supremacy, former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud has claimed.

“We are experiencing the end of an era,” Araud wrote in the French magazine Le Point on Sunday, adding that the collapse of the order inherited from the end of WWII means the West no longer dominates international affairs.

He argued that the Ukraine conflict has shown that Western leaders are unable to accept this change, describing it as revealing “to the point of caricature the incomprehension and rejection of the world to come by European leaders.”

Araud suggested that one of the main reasons behind this shift is that the US, under President Donald Trump, no longer wishes to serve as the world’s “policeman,” leader, and “protector.” Trump has scaled down Washington’s involvement in Ukraine, urged European NATO members to take greater responsibility for their own defense, and prioritized domestic issues.

While lamenting the decline of Western power, Araud admitted that global affairs have always been defined by “power relations” in which “the strong imposed their law on the weak.”

Moscow has also repeatedly insisted that Western hegemony has ended and that a multipolar world is emerging, with interests increasingly represented by BRICS and the Global South. Russian officials have argued that the Ukraine conflict confirms this transition.

In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a high-level security forum in Moscow that the “tectonic shift” in world politics reflects the redistribution of power toward Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America.

He also dismissed Western claims that multipolarity would lead to “chaos and anarchy,” stating instead that unipolar dominance, characterized by sanctions, interventions, and economic coercion, had triggered the major crises of recent decades.

Russia has consistently described the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war waged by the West and maintained that any settlement must address Moscow’s security concerns and the root causes of the crisis, including NATO’s continued eastward expansion.

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

Has Ukraine just declared war on Hungary?

By Nadezhda Romanenko | RT | August 26, 2025

In the swirl of the Ukraine war, headlines rarely fail to shock. Yet the latest spat between Kiev and Budapest raises a question that would have been unthinkable two years ago: has Ukraine effectively opened a second front – albeit hybrid, rhetorical, and economic – against an EU state?

The immediate spark was the Druzhba (“Friendship”) oil pipeline that still delivers crude from Russia to Central Europe. Several Ukrainian drone strikes targeted the pipeline in recent weeks, halting supplies to Hungary and Slovakia. A Ukrainian commander, known by the call sign Madyar, publicly admitted involvement.

For Hungary and Slovakia, this was more than an economic disruption. Both countries rely heavily on the pipeline, and in response, their leaders called on the European Commission to guarantee supply security. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, a frequent critic of EU policy on Ukraine, accused Brussels of serving Kiуv’s interests over those of member states. His frustration boiled over further when he described Vladimir Zelensky’s quips about “friendship” as thinly veiled threats.

Zelensky’s gambit

Zelensky’s remark – “We have always supported friendship between Ukraine and Hungary, and now the existence of this ‘Friendship’ depends on Hungary” – was apparently meant as a pun on the pipeline’s name, but to Hungary it sounded like a mafia-style threat. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s reaction was uncompromising: “Zelensky openly threatened Hungary. He admitted that they hit the Druzhba pipeline because we don’t support their EU membership. This proves again that Hungarians made the right decision.”

The timing is telling. Strikes on the pipeline coincided with Zelensky’s Washington visit alongside EU leaders. Either Brussels tacitly encouraged him to punish Orbán, an ally of Donald Trump, or the EU simply looked away as Zelensky acted on his own. Both explanations sound outrageous, but there hardly seems to be a third option. What is clear is that Kiev, facing immense pressure on its eastern front, is choosing a dangerous rhetorical battle with Budapest.

Hungary’s lonely stance

Hungary has made abundantly clear its discomfort with the EU’s unquestioning support for Ukraine. Since the Russian military operation began in 2022, Budapest has resisted sanctions on Russian energy, insisted on continuing imports through the Druzhba pipeline, and refused to send weapons to Kiev. Orbán has shown himself to be a pragmatic outlier: defending Hungarian interests, pursuing cheap Russian energy, and maintaining cordial ties with Moscow.

For this, Hungary has faced isolation within the EU. While Poland, the Baltics, and most of Western Europe rallied behind Ukraine with military and financial aid, Budapest has been resisting this consensus. Orbán’s government was derided as Putin’s Trojan horse in Europe. Yet for Hungarians, this positioning has had a rationale: keep the economy stable, avoid direct confrontation, and retain flexibility in a deeply uncertain geopolitical landscape.

The forgotten refugees

Lost in the heated rhetoric is the fact that Hungary has also quietly carried a humanitarian burden. In 2022 alone, over 1.3 million Ukrainians crossed into Hungary – second only to Poland and Romania. Budapest accepted them with little fanfare, though later tightened its asylum rules to restrict new arrivals to those from active war zones. At the same time, Hungary supplies a significant share of Ukraine’s electricity, a fact Szijjártó reminded Kiev of when rebuffing Ukrainian accusations.

To respond with accusations and pipeline attacks against such a neighbor seems, at minimum, ungrateful. At worst, it risks alienating one of the few EU members that has provided crucial – if unheralded – humanitarian support in a time of war.

War, politics, and overreach

The broader context is sobering. On the battlefield, Ukraine faces mounting setbacks in the Donbass and along the eastern front. Against that backdrop, Zelensky’s rhetoric toward Hungary appears almost surreal – boastful, as if victory against Russia were imminent. The contrast between battlefield realities and diplomatic bravado risks undermining Kiev’s credibility.

In any sane timeline, here is where Brussels should stop and think again about continuing its support for Kiev. Should the EU stand behind Zelensky even when his actions harm member states, or acknowledge that Orbán – despite his many disagreements with Brussels – has a point? Recent history shows that we are not in a sane timeline, though. Open threats, pipeline sabotage (remember Nord Stream?), and insults from Ukrainian officials don’t seem to register with Brussels officials at all.

Kiev’s behavior towards Budapest may not amount to a declaration of war, but it is undeniable that Ukraine has chosen to ramp up its confrontation with Hungary. If the EU wants to sell its support for Kiev as “unity” – a word often used and abused by the likes of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – then letting Zelensky get away with this is a bizarre choice.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Polish president vetoes bill extending aid for Ukrainians

RT | August 25, 2025

Polish President Karol Nawrocki vetoed a bill on Monday to prolong benefits for Ukrainian refugees, arguing the legislation needs a rework. The current system of payments is set to expire in September.

In announcing the decision, the president, who took office earlier this month, reiterated his stance that state benefits should only cover Ukrainians who work in Poland.

“We remain open to providing assistance to Ukrainian citizens – that hasn’t changed. But after three and a half years, our law should be amended,” Nawrocki said in a statement.

The vetoed bill would have extended current benefits for Ukrainians until March 2026. Poland has been one of the top destinations for Ukrainian refugees since the escalation of the conflict between Kiev and Moscow in February 2022. Around one million Ukrainians are believed to have settled in the country since then.

“President Nawrocki does not agree to the privileged treatment of citizens of other countries. That is why he has decided to veto the bill on assistance for Ukrainian citizens in its current form and will present his own legal proposals,” the presidential office stated.

The decision has prompted concerns it could ultimately have grave implications for Ukraine itself, given that funding for Ukraine’s access to Starlink satellite internet was in the same legislation.

“Presidential vetoes are slashing blindly! With his decision, Karol Nawrocki is cutting off Ukraine’s internet, since that is effectively what his veto of the law on assistance to Ukrainian citizens means,” Polish Digital Affairs Minister Krzystof Gawkowski wrote on X.

Nawrocki’s office told Reuters that the payments for Starlink could continue if parliament adopted a bill including the presidential proposals before the end of September.

Starlink is a key command and control element for the Ukrainian military, and has seen direct combat use, with satellite terminals routinely mounted on long-range aerial and naval drones.

August 26, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Are Democrats More Neocon Than Republicans Now?

By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | August 25, 2025

Last week as Donald Trump met separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine head Volodymyr Zelensky to potentially seek an end to the years long war between their countries, Democrats have been very upset.

That peace might happen. They are worried Ukraine might have to make concessions to Russia to reach an agreement, including land.

Never mind that it is Ukrainians who are dying. Never mind that most Ukrainians themselves want to end this war. According to a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Ukrainian respondents want a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, while only 24% said they still want to fight “until victory.”

Democratic voters sitting in the United States, with no imminent bombs or bullets to worry about, insist that this war go on for as long as it takes, and are being loud about it. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) agrees with them. This doesn’t seem to faze Democrats.

This opposition to Trump’s diplomacy seems to be the consensus of many Democrats, shown in spades all over media this week.

This is a position shared by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). This is the position of Bill Kristol. This is the position of virtually every neoconservative hawk in either major party and has been since this conflict started, that Ukraine must “win” at all costs.

Even at the cost of more Ukrainian lives.

Let me be clear about the definition of “neoconservative” I’m using here. I’m not just talking about the narrow and few band of post war, ex-Trotskyites of the Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz variety who stood for a number of things, including the pursuit of a hyper aggressive American foreign policy. I’m talking about Senator Graham, Kristol, the late John McCain, talk host Mark Levin and any other figure on the right who has been rabidly pro-war and hateful toward Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and any other prominent antiwar Republican leader of the last thirty years.

I’m talking about the Republicans who use “isolationist” as a pejorative slur for non-interventionism.

I tend to “neoconservative” as carefully here as those people use “isolationist.”

There have always been neocons in both major parties. But this week it has seemed Democrats have outweighed Republicans on this front. There is no poll on this. There is no hard data. I’m just observing.

President Trump has said he wants the killing to end between Ukraine and Russia. Cheering him on in this effort is Congresswoman and MAGA booster Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and many other GOP members. Also, pundit Tucker Carlson and former Trump aide and talk host Steve Bannon, whose audiences are large and full of MAGA supporters who also endorse Trump’s pledge to end America’s “endless wars.”

There are still plenty of GOP neocon members of Congress and voters within the base, but Trump’s Republican party is a very different one than George W. Bush’s when it comes to hawkish foreign policy.

On the other side, there are progressives like Ro Khanna (D-CA) who have expressed in the past wanting to see Trump help achieve some kind of diplomatic peace.

This week, Khanna has been silent on this, and who could blame him? Because Democrats by and large seem upset that Trump could achieve some sort of deal. They even got mad when Trump shook Putin’s hand during the summit.

Embracing war by avoiding diplomacy is key to neoconservatism. It’s why hawks got so mad in the mid-1980s when President Ronald Reagan met with Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev. It’s why neocons were absolutely irate when Trump met with not only Putin but North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and even Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney, got her and her father Dick Cheney’s endorsement and slammed Trump for “bowing down” to dictators, sending a signal to her neocon friends that she would not be engaging in that kind of diplomacy.

Now the people who voted for Harris are reflecting the same sentiment. Trump’s diplomatic efforts have them fuming.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney said that Russia was the United States “No. 1 political foe.” President Barack Obama mocked Romney at the time, saying in a debate, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for twenty years.”

Romney was clearly representing the neoconservative Bush-Cheney foreign policy legacy that still resonated with so many Republicans at the time, and Obama, the anti-Bush message that had delivered him the White House in 2008. Obama did not remotely live up to that promise, but this was roughly the dynamic in the 2012 election.

Politics change and history happens, but it is feasible today that there are more Republicans, in Congress and in the base, who think constant U.S. hyperventilating about Russia, even now, is overblown and Americans should be more concerned about their own country first.

It’s also feasible that there are more Democrats, in Congress and in the base, for whom Trump and Putin are considered one in the same and those folks are more laser focused on hating both men than any other concern, including the health and security of their own country or any other (Ukraine).

When Barack Obama was a rockstar in 2008, Democrats prided themselves on being the complete opposite of Bush-Cheney neoconservative Republicans. In 2025, it appears that more Democrats than not now staunchly side with Bush-Cheney neoconservatives regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

What changed? That might be a longer discussion. But it wasn’t neoconservatives.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

The End of the Conflict in Ukraine at Sight?

Zelensky and the Europeans in Washington in Search of Saving Face

By Ricardo Martins – New Eastern Outlook – August 25, 2025

Seven European leaders rushed to Washington under the official banner of solidarity with Volodymyr Zelensky. Yet, the real motive was less about unshakable support for Ukraine and more about damage control.

Zelensky and the Europeans in Washington in Search of Saving Face

With negotiations advancing — and with Ukraine’s loss of territories and NATO membership already ruled out by Donald Trump — Europe’s leaders were scrambling to craft a narrative to their domestic audience that could justify defeat without admitting failure.
The Struggle to Save Face

For three years, the European mantra has been that “Russia cannot win.” Yet on the battlefield, it is Moscow that has the upper hand. The tactic, therefore, was to insist that Russia, as the supposed aggressor, must accept the obligations of the loser. But the reality is moving in the opposite direction: Europe now seeks symbolic concessions to sell to its public.

One of these face-saving gestures is the return of “kidnapped” Ukrainian children, based on contested numbers but useful as a talking point. Another is security guarantees for Ukraine — not NATO membership, but something that can be framed as protection. Zelensky, keen to please Trump, asked for $100 billion in arms, to be funded by Europeans but manufactured in the U.S. NATO’s Secretary-General eagerly echoed this line, presenting himself as a loyal messenger to “Daddy” Trump at Europe’s expense.

Meanwhile, territorial concessions remain taboo in European discourse. To admit them would be to acknowledge Putin’s victory, a political sin for leaders who have invested heavily in a narrative of inevitable Ukrainian triumph.

The Casting: Putin Absent, Yet Present

The most striking absence in Washington was also the most palpable presence. Putin was not in the room, but Trump invoked his name repeatedly, even phoning him for 40 minutes while Europe’s leaders waited. Each mention of Putin’s name drew visible discomfort across European faces, an unmistakable reminder of their diplomatic impotence.

As Djoomart Otorbaev, former Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan, put it: “Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Putin didn’t earn Trump’s respect through backroom schemes. He earned it on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. And that reality says more about today’s shifting world order than any rumour.”

Trump’s deference to Putin was not ideological; it was grounded in recognition of Russia’s gains. Western efforts to reverse the war’s trajectory have not succeeded, despite supplying Ukraine with advanced weaponry.

Europe’s Century of Humiliation Has Started

Europe’s frantic arrival in Washington — “like the Middle Ages, to homage their master” — symbolised a humiliating dependency: the continent’s leaders reduced to courtiers around a U.S. president already imagining his Nobel Peace Prize.

The delegation was a tableau of weakness. Ursula von der Leyen, in the name of the European Commission, reconfirmed the one-sided trade arrangements: 15% tariffs on European goods entering the U.S., zero tariffs on U.S. exports to Europe, $750 billion in energy and arms purchases, $600 billion in European investments in the U.S., and €150 billion earmarked for EU rearmament. A transfer of wealth and sovereignty dressed up as transatlantic unity.

The body language told its own story. Giorgia Meloni’s irritation was poorly disguised; Friedrich Merz remained wooden; Emmanuel Macron projected disdain; Keir Starmer hid behind note-taking. Von der Leyen managed only a strained smile, Mark Rutte melted into insignificance, and Zelensky — who should have been the central figure — appeared isolated at the margin, dignified but sidelined. Putin, a former KGB officer, and Trump, a former reality TV star and a real estate millionaire, both despised by the Europeans, loomed as the peace brokers. As put by a French analyst: “Quel cirque”.

The Security Guarantees Conundrum

The question of security guarantees has become the crux of European debate. Openly, leaders say territorial concessions are for Ukrainians to decide. Privately, they know the map is already shifting. What remains is an attempt to provide Ukraine with protections that appear credible, but that does not include NATO membership.

POLITICO reported that the Pentagon’s top policy official made clear the U.S. intends to play only a minimal role in guarantees. “There’s the dawning reality that this will be Europe making this happen on the ground,” admitted a NATO diplomat. In other words, Europe is on its own.

European capitals, however, still plead for U.S. assets: fighter jets stationed in Romania, access to American satellites for GPS and reconnaissance. Russia, through its envoy Mikhail Ulyanov, flatly rejected any foreign troops in Ukraine, while Sergey Lavrov dismissed Western security schemes without Moscow and Beijing as “a road to nowhere.”

Ukraine itself is unimpressed. Ten nations, including France and the U.K., have floated the idea of deploying troops, but Kiev sees such proposals as vague, amorphous, and unlikely to provide real guarantees. Former foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba captured the mood: “The so-called security guarantees are so amorphous. The only news is that the U.S. is willing to take part.”

Europe’s Internal Fractures

Even as leaders paraded unity in Washington, Europe’s internal divisions deepened. The European Parliament announced it would sue the Council over being excluded from negotiations on the €150 billion SAFE defence loan scheme.

In a telling sign of institutional fragility, Parliament was sidelined by Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission in the rush to fund rearmament. As Euractiv reported, 18 member states have already expressed interest in loans totalling €127 billion, but without parliamentary oversight, Europe’s democratic deficit widens.

In sum, the “road to nowhere” that Lavrov mocked may yet prove prophetic, not only for Ukraine’s elusive guarantees but for Europe’s strategic autonomy itself.

Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Friedrich Merz Are You Nuts?

By William Dunkerley | Ron Paul Institute | August 25, 2025

Do you know what German Chancellor Merz did?

Amidst serious negotiations to end the bloody and destructive Ukraine war, this guy’s putting up a veritable roadblock right in front of progress.

Here’s what it is: Merz was in Washington along with several other European leaders for a Ukraine meeting with President Trump. When it came Merz’s turn to talk he expressed, “I can’t imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire.”

Clearly no one in the world with a heart would like to see the fighting go on. So at first glance a ceasefire seems like a quick fix. But Merz’s strongly spoken statement had strings. Pointedly, he wants to delay peace talks until a ceasefire takes hold.

There’s one enormous obstacle to that. There’s a strong reason why Russian President Putin would be very reluctant to accept Merz’s condition. It’s simple to understand:

Earlier in Ukraine hostilities both Germany and France achieved Putin’s agreement to a ceasefire while a negotiated peace agreement was underway. The efforts were called the Minsk Accords.

Doesn’t that sound like what Merz is proposing now? But it turned out in an unexpected way.

After a period of ceasefire and negotiating, the German and French leaders publically admitted they had tricked Putin into the ceasefire. They confessed their real objective was not peace. It was to buy time to better equip Ukraine to fight Russia.

You may have heard the idiom, “once fooled, twice shy.” It’s a modern version of the Old English translation from Aesop’s Fables that goes, “He that hath ben ones begyled by somme other ought to kepe hym wel fro[m] the same.” That’s a position that Putin might well take with regard to Germany’s current leader. Why should he be trusted, particularly when it comes to a ceasefire?

Certainly Merz must know the background of this. He would be remiss not to understand that a ceasefire without a peace agreement might be as unattainable as the end of a rainbow. That’s what leads me to suspect that Merz must be deliberately sabotaging the peace process, as would be any other European leader who joins him in his emphatic request.

It is time to address the significant real obstacles that must be faced if a settlement of territory is to take place.

For instance, Ukrainian President Zelensky claims that his constitution is a roadblock to such a settlement. But he is only partly right.

It is true that the Ukrainian constitution does not allow him to divide territory. He also offered another roadblock in that even changing the constitution would not be a simple matter. It would even require an extensive public referendum he says.

He is right on both points. But he is wrong to represent them as ultimate roadblocks or even something that would result in much delay. In the past, Ukraine, in the view of its leaders, successfully negotiated a way to deal with problematic constitutional provisions that stood in its way.

This happened when leaders found it cumbersome to remove the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych from the presidency. Some reports claimed he was impeached. But the votes weren’t there to do that according to the constitution. Other reports claimed that he removed himself by abandoning his office when he fled for his life amidst immediate threats. But the constitution wasn’t followed there either. Nonetheless, they got rid of Yanukovych.

Here’s how they did it. The Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, simply passed a resolution. It said that the current circumstance was threatening to Ukraine, a mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedom, and a circumstance of extreme urgency. As a result they removed Yanukovych while not observing the constitution.

Now, all Ukraine has to do is to repeat that technique. Is not the current circumstance threatening to Ukraine, a mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedom, and a circumstance of extreme urgency, too?

A straightforward resolution echoing the Rada reasoning above can authorize a reasonable and peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war that involves, as necessary, the trading of territory or the acknowledgment of certain changes that were made militarily. This approach will save lives, save homes, businesses, and infrastructure, and, indeed, save Ukraine. That truly would be standing with Ukraine and its people.

So it’s time to say no to Merz, throw him out of the planning group, if need be, so the more well-intentioned leaders can finally support peace in Ukraine expeditiously and once and for all.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

‘Don’t threaten us’ – EU state to Zelensky

RT | August 25, 2025

Hungary has warned Ukraine to stop disrupting its energy supply from Russia after Kiev targeted a key pipeline delivering oil to Central Europe.

Ukrainian forces struck the Soviet-era Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline three times this month, sparking outrage in both Hungary and neighboring Slovakia. The flow through the pipeline was last halted on Friday.

At a press conference during Independence Day celebrations in Kiev on Sunday, a reporter asked Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky how the attacks relate to Hungary’s opposition to Ukraine’s EU and NATO ambitions.

“We have always supported friendship with Hungary, but now the very existence of this friendship depends on Budapest’s position,” Zelensky replied with a smile, playing on the pipeline’s name.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto issued a sharp rebuke on X. “Zelensky used Ukraine’s national holiday to threaten Hungary. We firmly reject the Ukrainian President’s intimidation,” Szijjarto wrote. He described the attack on Hungary’s energy supply as “an attack on sovereignty.”

“A war to which Hungary has nothing to do with can never justify violating our sovereignty. We call on Zelensky to stop threatening Hungary and to end the reckless attacks on our energy security!” he added.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga responded on X, writing to Szijjarto: “You don’t need to tell the Ukrainian President what to do or say, and when.” He urged Budapest to “diversify and become independent from Russia, like the rest of Europe.”

Szijjarto shot back: “Stop attacking our energy security! This is not our war!”

Unlike many EU countries, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and has heavily criticized Brussels for imposing sanctions on Moscow. The country maintains that Ukraine’s NATO membership could trigger an all-out conflict with Russia.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Holding Captive Over 20 Russian Civilians Kidnapped From Kursk Region – Presidential Aide

Sputnik – 24.08.2025

MOSCOW – Ukraine has been holding captive more than 20 Russian civilians kidnapped by Ukrainian troops during a 2024 raid in the western Russian border region of Kursk, Russian presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky said on Sunday.

“They have been de facto abducted and are being held hostage. Russia has been painstakingly bargaining for these civilians to be returned home. Many have been brought back, including the eight returned today. More than 20 others are estimated to remain [in captivity],” he said on Telegram.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that 146 Russian servicepeople and eight Kursk residents were brought back from Ukraine in a swap on Sunday mediated by the United Arab Emirates.

Medinsky, who was Russia’s chief negotiator at the talks with the Ukrainians in Istanbul, said that most of Kursk residents abducted by Ukrainian troops were the elderly. He said the Ukrainians were handing them back in small groups, “literally trading them” for servicepeople in Russia’s custody that they need the most.

August 24, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Russia Recognizes Zelensky as De Facto Head of Regime, Ready to Meet With Him in This Capacity

Sputnik – August 24, 2025

MOSCOW – Russia sees Volodymyr Zelensky as the de facto leader of the current Ukrainian administration who has the legitimacy to negotiate on Kiev’s behalf but not to sign a truce, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“We recognize him as de facto head of the regime. And in this capacity, we are ready to meet with him… When we come to a stage where you have to sign documents, we would need a very clear understanding by everybody that the person who is signing is legitimate. And according to the Ukrainian constitution, Mr. Zelensky is not, at the moment,” Lavrov told NBC in an interview.

Here are the highlights of the interview:

🟠 The goals of the special military operation in Ukraine will be achieved, Russia must eliminate any security threats coming from there
🟠 The reaction of European representatives to the meeting in Alaska, their visit to Washington, and subsequent actions indicate that they do not want peace
🟠 We have no interest in the territories, we are interested in the fates of the people living in Donbass and Novorossiya
🟠 On Ukraine’s security guarantees, there should be a consensus that takes Russia’s interests into account
🟠 Putin and Trump discussed practical steps and serious issues related to security in Alaska
🟠 Zelensky is not currently a legitimate figure who could sign legal documents when it comes to that
🟠 Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky on the condition that the meeting will truly have a presidential agenda. It is unreasonable to meet with him just for another opportunity to be in the spotlight.
🟠The meeting between Putin and Zelensky was not discussed at the Russia-US summit in Alaska, this topic was raised later, “spontaneously”
🟠 Ukraine and Europe are trying to distort what Putin and Trump discussed in Alaska, especially the issue of security guarantees
🟠 The Russian and Ukrainian delegations have met and will continue to meet in Istanbul to discuss specific military and humanitarian issues
🟠 Russia has never, under any circumstances, deliberately targeted objectives not related to Ukrainian military forces
🟠 The West wants security guarantees for Ukraine to come at Russia’s expense, in violation of the indivisible security principle, and is ready to deploy troops on Ukrainian soil to deter Russia
🟠 Russia has never deliberately targeted sites that are not associated with the Ukrainian military
🟠 Ukraine’s right to exist is contingent on it allowing regions to secede where populations voted for independence in referendums
🟠 Foreign capital in military plants in Ukraine does not grant them immunity from potential attacks or consequences
🟠 The delegations of Russia and Ukraine have met and will continue to meet in Turkey’s Istanbul to discuss military and humanitarian issues

Full interview:

August 24, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »