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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Zenith of Western asymmetric warfare in Iran and Ukraine
By Drago Bosnic | June 16, 2025
Achieving strategic advantage over your opponents has been at the center of every conflict in human history. In modern times, this is accomplished with long-range strike systems and weapons of mass destruction. However, countries that are at a disadvantage in that regard can opt for asymmetric methods to achieve similar or sometimes even more efficient results. Ever since the advent of nuclear weapons, direct conflicts between global powers have been avoided, as all sides understand there would be no winners in such a war (or at least they did until recently).
Thus, the importance of intelligence services and other forms of non-kinetic warfare grew exponentially. The ability to infiltrate your opponent’s state apparatus is of the utmost importance, while maintaining plausible deniability adds to the strategic depth of defense, as the attacker can simply deny the involvement of its special services.
The political West has been at the forefront of such operations for years, targeting all of its opponents through asymmetric means, particularly through proxies. This is especially true for Russia, which still has major issues with the Kiev regime agents infiltrating the country and conducting operations of strategic importance. The latest attacks on Russian strategic aviation are a testament to that. It should be noted that Moscow’s services have been quite successful in detecting Western agents as they have decades of experience in doing so.
However, Ukrainian operatives are a different story. Namely, the vast majority of Ukrainians speak fluent Russian and can easily blend in virtually anywhere in the country. They can also obtain Russian citizenship, meaning they could be largely under the radar for years. It’s exceedingly difficult to uncover such plots, particularly if they’re being conducted over the course of several years.
This also holds true for other countries of the multipolar world, including Iran, which has been heavily infiltrated by foreign agents, as evidenced by the sheer number of assassinations and so-called decapitation strikes on top Iranian commanders. It’s still unclear how exactly Israel managed to create such a large network of its agents within Iran, but their operations have had a strategic impact on the ongoing conflict.
The Mossad had very close ties with the SAVAK, former Iranian secret police and intelligence service during the Shah era, so it’s quite possible that the Israelis maintained contacts with their Iranian associates even after 1979. They could’ve easily played the role of sleeper agents who were activated by Israel at the moment of the strike. In addition, new operatives could’ve infiltrated Iran from neighboring countries, particularly Azerbaijan which maintains a close partnership with Israel.
Apart from being a major client for the Israeli Military Industrial Complex (MIC), which was instrumental in Baku’s takeover of native Armenian lands in Artsakh (better known as Nagorno-Karabakh), Azerbaijan also has irredentist ambitions toward northwestern Iran, where a homonymous area has more ethnic Azeris than the South Caucasus country itself. The regime in Baku certainly sees the ongoing events as a perfect opportunity to achieve its goals, which could be a major factor in Israeli operations.
Numerous observers have also pointed out the many similarities between the actions of the Kiev regime and Israel, as both have been conducting these asymmetric hybrid attacks deep within Russia and Iran, respectively. The drones that were used in attacks on Moscow’s long-range aviation and Iranian air defenses operate in a virtually identical manner, targeting strategic assets from within.
There are two possibilities in this case. Either the Mossad is involved in training the SBU and/or GUR, or they’re all connected into a much larger network run from Washington DC and London. The latter is much likelier, as both SBU and GUR have strong ties with the CIA and MI6, respectively. In other words, the US-led political West is conducting these operations in an attempt to secure a strategic advantage over its rivals.
This is also done through so-called “international” organizations such as the UN, OSCE, IAEA, etc. For instance, after the start of the special military operation (SMO), Russian military intelligence uncovered that OSCE, which is supposed to be a neutral organization monitoring the ceasefire, was actually helping the Kiev regime target Russian forces by giving the former access to its cameras along the frontline. Moscow promptly ordered OSCE personnel to leave after this.
Some sources are reporting that the IAEA also did something similar in Iran, by giving Israel information on the identity of Iranian nuclear scientists. If true, this could explain how the Mossad was so effective in eliminating them virtually on the first day of the attack. In addition to scientists, a large number of high-ranking Iranian military officers were eliminated within the country. This is perfectly in line with the political West’s doctrine of so-called “decapitation” attacks that aim to paralyze the chain of command in a targeted country.
Many of the most prominent warmongers in Washington DC have been calling for such strikes, even against opponents like Russia. And indeed, in the last several years, there have been a number of assassination attempts against top-ranking Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin himself. Once again, this was done through proxies such as the Neo-Nazi junta.
In some cases, this could’ve also worked, as evidenced by disturbing revelations regarding the mysterious death of the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian. The aftermath of Raisi’s death has been disastrous for Iran and its Axis of Resistance. By the end of last year, Syria fell to NATO’s terrorist proxies, while Hezbollah’s long-time leader Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated, followed by a number of high-ranking Iranian and pro-Iranian figures at around a similar time.
The strategic consequences of these events cannot be overstated, meaning that the idea they were purely accidental is extremely unlikely, to put it mildly. By the time Israel attacked Iran, the geopolitical situation in the Middle East shifted dramatically in Israel’s favor. This made launching strategic attacks much easier, as it didn’t have to worry about Syrian air defenses.
Mossad operatives on the ground used not only drones, but also missiles (such as the “Spike NLOS”). Worse yet, it seems they didn’t even have to stay in the country to launch these strikes, as both drones and missiles were controlled remotely, which is yet another indicator of the same modus operandi used by the Kiev regime. Military sources indicate that Israel also used portable electronic warfare (EW) systems to disrupt Iranian air defenses, making it far easier for its missiles to reach targets within Iran.
As previously mentioned, this sort of deep infiltration also enabled Israel to assassinate top-ranking personnel. Reportedly, this includes General Mohammad Bagheri, the Chief of the Iranian General Staff; Hossein Salami, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and David Sheikhian, commanding officer of the IRGC’s air defenses. Many other senior military leaders were also killed.
Although Israeli strikes were far more efficient than those launched by the Kiev regime, it’s impossible not to draw parallels with high-profile assassinations of numerous Russian public and military figures, including Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the late commander of Russian NBC Protection Troops, who was killed in a terrorist attack back in mid-December. It should be noted that he was investigating US involvement in biological warfare in NATO-occupied Ukraine and was in no way connected to military operations against the Neo-Nazi junta forces.
Thus, the only logical conclusion is that his assassination was certainly not conducted by the SBU of their own volition. Namely, such operations require significant resources that would be reserved for important operations to undermine the Russian military. The only thing that was undermined is the investigation into the Pentagon’s massive biowarfare program.
The Kiev regime conducted many similar attacks on Russian scientists, including Daniil Mikheev, a coordinator of new unmanned systems for the Ministry of Defense; Konstantin Ogarkov, an employee of a defense research institute in Voronezh; Igor Kolesnikov, an engineer at a design bureau in the Tula oblast (region); Sergei Potapov, a cybersecurity defense specialist from Nizhny Novgorod; Valery Smirnov, one of the leading experts in programs for radio-electronic protection of strategic facilities.
In January 2024, a car with officers from the electronic intelligence headquarters in the Bryansk oblast was blown up, while on the night of April 17-18, Evgeny Rytnikov, the head of the design bureau of the Bryansk Electromechanical Plant, the developer of the now legendary “Krasukha” EW systems, was also killed. Such assassinations are a testament to the terrorist nature of the Neo-Nazi junta, as all these people were non-combatants.
Among the prominent Iranian scientists killed by Mossad were Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, Dr. Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari, Dr. Abdolhamid Minuchehr, Dr. Amir Hosein Fekhi and Dr. Fereydoun Abbasi. Once again, it’s impossible not to draw parallels, despite the fact that Israeli strikes were far more strategically consequential.
Still, the main conclusion is that the political West continues to use its proxies to wage war on several countries simultaneously, while also maintaining plausible deniability.
The only way to counter such attacks is for the targeted countries to enforce tighter control over communications, as well as enlarge their intelligence apparatus. While these measures could be seen as “totalitarian” (and will no doubt be presented as such by the mainstream propaganda machine), there’s simply no other way to blunt the blade of the political West’s modern asymmetric hybrid warfare.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Col. Jacques Baud: The EU Is Cracking From Within — Can It Survive the Chaos?
Dialogue Works | June 9, 2025
Iran Hits Back; Big Missile Strike, Israel/US Face Long Attrition War; Zelensky Rejects Peace Talks
Alexander Mercouris | June 14, 2025
0:00 – Introduction and overview of the Israel-Iran conflict
0:29 – Initial assessment of Israeli strikes on Iran
1:31 – Discussion on Iranian military leadership and nuclear facilities
3:01 – Iranian missile response to Israeli strikes
5:21 – Analysis of Iranian air defense system effectiveness
7:59 – Implications of the ongoing conflict for Israel and Iran
12:00 – Israel’s inability to sustain a prolonged conflict with Iran
14:34 – Concerns about Israel’s air defense capabilities
18:20 – Potential Iranian strategies in response to Israeli actions
20:14 – Gulf States’ diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict
23:29 – Russian response to Israeli strikes and diplomatic mediation
25:02 – Summary of international reactions to the conflict
30:07 – Discussion of the U.S. role and internal dysfunction regarding the conflict
49:30 – Predictions about the future of the Israel-Iran conflict
52:44 – Conclusion and call for diplomatic resolution
Featured Video
The American Retreat from Vietnam
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran UN ambassador calls for destruction of all nuclear weapons
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo
Press TV – March 29, 2017
Iran’s ambassador to the UN Gholamali Khoshroo has called for the total eradication of nuclear weapons.
Khoshroo reiterated Iran’s call during a UN conference aimed at creating a nuclear weapons ban treaty in New York on Tuesday.
“Iran, as a victim of chemical weapons, strongly feels the danger posed by the existence of weapons of mass destruction and is determined to engage actively in international diplomatic efforts to save humanity from the menace of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Khoshroo stressed that Iran is committed to its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, which include negotiations based on effective nuclear disarmament measures.
He added that several countries continue to ignore international calls and treaties for nuclear disarmament and even continue to increase their nuclear stockpiles. “They do not have political determination to abandon doctrines of nuclear deterrence and nuclear terror,” he went on to say.
Iran’s UN ambassador noted that boycotting the talks by many countries, including the US, shows that the world’s nuclear powers are by no means committed to the eradication of nuclear arms. Britain and France were also among the some 40 countries that did not join the talks.
“We note that prohibition of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by the elimination of such weapons. There can be no doubt that without complete abolition of nuclear weapons, there will be no absolute guarantee against the danger of nuclear war and the use of such weapons,” Khoshroo added.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- India signals rethink over West Asia
- Israeli Ex-Navy Chief admits massive damage from Iran missiles
- The strategic arsenal US lost in war against Iran – and why replenishment will take years
- Documents Suggest Fauci Knew COVID Was Created in Wuhan Lab, and mRNA Vaccines Wouldn’t Work
- No return to pre-war status for Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s top diplomat
- Ex-South Korean President sentenced for trying to provoke conflict with Pyongyang
- US publishes docs on ‘dangerous’ Ukrainian biolabs
- Trump’s ERAM cruise missiles for Ukraine blow up his peace overtures to Russia
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- Watching the World Cup from Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 