Over the past years, NATO has held “peace summits” to which Russia was not even invited, where European leaders such as President Duda spoke about peace in terms of breaking up Russia into smaller states. Now that NATO is clearly losing its proxy war, the EU demands an “unconditional ceasefire”. This is not a peace proposal but an effort to further extend the war. An “unconditional ceasefire” is a conditionality for starting negotiations, which is intended to freeze a conflict that NATO is losing, giving it time to rearm, regroup, and even send in NATO troops as “peacekeepers”.
Why has the EU boycotted diplomacy for 4.5 years and continues to do so? And why will NATO not even take NATO expansion off the table in return for a ceasefire? Would it not be wise to discuss with the other side how we failed to establish a mutually acceptable pan-European security architecture after the Cold War, which has led us into this horrific war? The EU uses smears and censorship to prevent its own public from even discussing this matter, and it will certainly not be discussed with Russia.
The EU cannot allow this war to end, as there is no plan for peace. Fighting with Ukrainians keeps the U.S. in Europe, temporarily preserves European unity, protects an unpopular political elite from the rising opposition that seeks course correction, offers military Keynesianism as an economic model for a de-industrialising Europe, weakens Russia as a strategic rival, and buys the European leaders time to prepare for a direct war with Russia. A peace agreement would require European leaders to repay the funds they have seized and partly stolen from Russia, which they also used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. Victory would give the Europeans a strong U.S. behind them and a battle-hardened Ukraine in front of them, while defeat would leave Europe without a clear role or relevance in a multipolar world. There is no plan for what to do when peace breaks out.
When the Trump administration broke with the NATO consensus of boycotting diplomacy to negotiate an end to the Ukraine War, the main objective of the European leaders was to shut down the talks. The European leaders rushed to Washington to insist that peace entails an “unconditional ceasefire” without even discussing a political settlement, and intensified deep strikes into Russia to sell the idea that Russia can be defeated. The European leaders were successful as the Trump administration began adopting the false narrative that Ukraine had “turned the tide”. While the Trump administration had initially aimed to either end the Ukraine War or outsource it to the Europeans, the proxy war in Ukraine is now Trump’s war.
If the goal was to “help Ukraine”, then NATO would not have toppled the Ukrainian government in 2014 in the effort to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit that only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted; NATO would not have sabotaged the Minsk Agreement between 2015 and 2022; NATO would not have pressured Zelensky to reverse his peace platform that won him the election in 2019; NATO would not have torpedoed the Istanbul agreement in 2022; or at least NATO would have ended the war in November of 2022 on the recommendation of General Mark Milley when Ukraine was at its strongest. Instead, “standing with Ukraine” now entails deporting Ukrainian refugees and financing military recruiters to hunt Ukrainian men on the streets to send them to die in a war that Ukraine cannot possibly win. Proxy wars are ruthless as they use the proxy as cannon fodder, yet proxy wars are always sold to the public as being motivated by empathy and support for the proxy that is unnecessarily sacrificed.
Israel has become a haven for international criminals. Many are dual-nationals who have taken advantage of their ability to move seamlessly between Israel and their second country of citizenship to commit crimes and, in some cases, evade justice.
The scale of the criminality, and the volume of cases (relative to the population of Israel), is astonishing.
Among the most notorious accused criminals being protected from justice by Israel is Timur Mindich, the ultimate financial beneficiary of the Ukrainian drone maker Fire Point. Mindich fled to Israel last year, just days before being charged as the mastermind behind a $100 million embezzlement scheme involving Ukraine’s state nuclear power company. Mindich also happens to be the co-owner of Kvartal 95 Studio, the production company founded by Volodymyr Zelensky.
Mindich, like many in this article, has taken advantage of Israel’s controversial Law of Return which allows any Jew in the world to claim Israeli citizenship without having to renounce their home country passport.
Some of those accused and charged have made minor or international headlines, some haven’t, but the scale of the issue was such that I thought it would be useful to document my research here.
In some cases, Israel has refused to extradite the wanted person despite requests from the country in which the crimes were committed.
Staying on Ukraine and refused extradition requests, we have Oleksandr Dubilet, the former Chairman of the Board of Ukraine’s PrivatBank. Dubilet is currently a fugitive in Israel and the subject of multiple criminal investigations and extradition requests for his role in embezzling at least $100 million dollars following the 2016 privatisation of PrivatBank. To date, Israel has refused to extradite him.
Israel as a bolthole for financial fraudsters is a common theme. One of the most significant SEC fraud cases in recent years involved over 150 Israelis (some with dual US-Israeli nationality, others not), wanted for their role in conducting binary options fraud worth upwards of $100 billion.
Binary options are a type of financial bet where the outcome is essentially all-or-nothing. Instead of buying a stock or currency, you bet on whether the price of a stock or currency will be above or below a certain level at a specific time. While not illegal, the Israeli companies were accused of rigging and manipulating prices and expiry times and using fake identities.
For a decade until 2017, Israel was the global centre for the online binary-options industry. The Israeli police failed to investigate, so hundreds of cases were filed in Israeli courts by people from dozens of countries who had been defrauded.
One of the most notorious fraudsters was Lee Elbaz, the CEO of Yukom Communications, a dual US-Israeli national. She was arrested in 2017 when on holiday in New York and eventually convicted of wire fraud and sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Other prime Israeli movers in the binary options fraud business were Yossi Herzog and Yakov Cohen, both connected with Yukom and other binary options front companies. They were charged with $140 million fraud in 2019 but despite being under a DOJ criminal investigation the US choose not to pursue their extradition, while other Israeli co-conspirators in the Yukom case have joined Elbaz in serving jail sentences.
Other Israeli kingpins in the binary options sector include Ran Amiran and Malhaz Patarkazishvili, also known as Pini Peter. They were charged with $100 million fraud by the SEC for their role managing the fraudulent options trader Spot Option. Because it was a civil case and the DOJ wasn’t involved they weren’t eligible for extradition from Israel and continue to reside in Israel. It was reported in 2021 that Amiran had reached a financial settlement for the damages with the SEC, likely so that he could once again travel to the US. Peter, a friend of Netanyahu’s, remains unrepentant, despite being ordered to pay the US government $87 million, a judgment he has appealed.
Benjamin Netanyahu with financial fraudster Pini Peter
Another hotbed of Israeli fraud is the moving industry, where companies pose as legitimate household goods movers only to steal belongings or withhold items unless additional payment is made. One of the largest “hostage load” prosecutions was of Advanced Moving Systems, an Israeli-run company which lured customers with artificially low moving estimates and then extorted them by holding their household goods hostage until they paid fraudulently inflated prices. Many of the dozens of people behind the scam remain wanted, with their current location unknown. Dozens of other Israelis connected with fraudulent moving companies also remain on the run, and have likely fled to Israel. (Incidentally, the Israelis arrested by the FBI on September 11th and quickly released were working for a Mossad counterintelligence operation using a moving company as cover. But that’s another story).
Penny stock fraud is another rich seam for Israeli crooks. This type of fraud takes place when the stocks of small companies trading under $5 a share are marketed to often older and uniformed people using high pressure sales marketing tactics, with the caller promising guaranteed returns, often claiming to have inside information. One of the largest instances in recent years saw dual US-Israeli citizen Sharone “Barry” Perlstein and numerous Israeli co-conspirators charged with creating at least 15 fraudulent public shell companies to sell millions of dollars worth of penny stocks using fraudulent tactics. Previous penny stock fraud cases had also involved Israeli nationals.
The diamond industry has also attracted a fair share of Israeli swindlers. One of the most well-known is Mordechai “Moti” Ferder, a California-based luxury jeweller at the centre of one of the largest fraud scandals in the American jewellery industry. Ferder was accused of juicing his company’s accounts to boost the valuation before selling to an investment company, while in reality he was racking up liabilities worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2025, with an FBI investigation underway, Ferder fled California for Tel Aviv.
Then there is Gery Shalon, the Georgia-born Israeli responsible for hacking JP Morgan and carrying out the largest theft of customer data from an American financial institution in history.
Outside the fraud cases, Israel also attracts politicians attempting to shield themselves from justice in their home countries. One of the most notorious and ongoing cases is that of Tomás Zerón, the former director of the Criminal Investigation Agency of Mexico. Zerón, who received training in Israel before assuming control of Mexico’s version of the FBI, is accused by Mexican authorities of having direct involvement in the kidnap, torture, and likely murder of dozens of university students.
The Ayotzinapa kidnapping is considered one of Mexico’s most heinous human rights abuse cases. It took place in 2014, when forty-three leftist students were kidnapped and disappeared on their way to Mexico City to commemorate the anniversary of the 1968 Tlatelolco massacre. Zerón is said to have known or ordered the students to be handed over to a cartel group to be murdered and disposed of. The former Mexican top cop promptly fled to Israel after being officially accused of participating in the crime.
Despite an extradition order, an Interpol red notice and numerous requests from Mexico to hand him over, Israel has refused, reportedly as punishment for Mexico’s criticism of Israel at the UN.
Another Mexican diplomat who fled to Israel is Andrés Roemer. Formerly Mexico’s Ambassador to UNESCO based in Paris, and Consul General of Mexico in San Francisco, Roemer fled to Israel in 2021 after being accused by 61 women of rape and sexual assault. While a Jerusalem court has authorized the former diplomat’s extradition to Mexico, he remains in Israel under house arrest.
Roemer is not alone among Jewish sex criminals fleeing from justice in the home countries to Israel. The phenomenon is so prevalent that even CBS News has covered it. Probably the most famous accused sex criminals to have fled to Israel are the Hollywood directors Brett Ratner and Bryan Singer. Rush Hour director Ratner, a good friend of Netanyahu’s, fled to Israel in 2023 after being accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct and assault on set.
Brett Ratner with Benjamin and Sarah Netanyahu, and ultra-Zionist attorney Alan Dershowitz
Israel is a magnet for criminals of all flavors, making this brief compendium just the tip of the iceberg. The Law of Return, known to be policed very lightly, is a gateway allowing Jews to use their dual nationality to commit crimes and then swerve justice under an ethno-supremacist legal regime set up to protect them. Some succeed in avoiding justice, while others are not so lucky.
Rosatom CEO Aleksey Likhachev has accused Ukraine of “piracy” after a civilian container ship belonging to the Russian state nuclear corporation was sunk by a Ukrainian drone strike.
The MV Yanina, a freighter belonging to Rosatom subsidiary FESCO, was attacked by two Ukrainian drones about 130 miles off the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, Likhachev said in a press release on Saturday.
“It was a perfectly ordinary, peaceful container ship sailing in international waters and carrying civilian goods – ranging from frozen foods to construction and finishing materials,” he said. “Such an attack can only be characterized as piracy and maritime banditry.”
Likhachev also thanked the international crew of the container ship Delphinus, captained by an Egyptian national, “who, despite the danger posed by drones, headed to the shipwreck site at night and rescued 16 of our 17 men.”
“The world changes, yet the concept of ‘maritime brotherhood’ remains an enduring value!”
The remaining crew member was saved by Russian Black Sea Fleet aircraft, Likhachev said, adding that all of the sailors are in “satisfactory” condition.
Kiev has escalated attacks on civilian vessels in the Black and Caspian seas in recent months, with Vladimir Zelensky claiming that Ukraine was working to strain Russian military logistics.
Earlier this week, Ukrainian drones struck two tankers carrying cargoes for the international Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) in the Caspian Sea off Kazakhstan. The company, whose shareholders include US and European firms, condemned the strikes as “terrorist attacks.”
In retaliation, Russia escalated strikes on Ukraine’s principal Black Sea port of Odessa, targeting fuel and lubricant storage meant for the Ukrainian armed forces, as well as on ships it said were transporting military cargo.
A July 24 Russian attack on the Ukrainian capital hit a drone factory belonging to Terminal Autonomy – a Delaware-HQ’ed maker of low-cost UAV and AI navigation systems.
The attack deprived Ukraine’s military of a key long-range strike drone capability in the form of AQ-400 Scythe (32kg payload, 750km range) and AQ-100 Bayonet (4kg, 60km) drones.
More importantly, it sent Zelensky’s NATO “partners” an unmistakable message: if they set up shop in Ukraine, their manufacturing facilities will be targeted.
“I do expect that the strikes on Western facilities as and when they are identified will continue and probably intensify,” veteran French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon told Sputnik, adding that he expects “growing dissention and disagreement” within NATO on how to react.
“So far the EU and its allies, particularly the US, have hidden as far as they could any losses and even denied that their facilities or personnel were attacked and hit. That policy will probably continue for as long as possible, but the resolve will also probably be very weakened eventually,” given the difficulty of “selling” it to these countries’ respective populations.
As for immediate consequences, they may include:
the “postponement” of new NATO weapons manufacturing contracts in Ukraine
more production in neighboring countries
most importantly, a blow to Ukraine’s attempt to sell itself as a nascent global manufacturer of drone hardware, including for the conflicts in the Middle East.
July 31, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | NATO, Russia, Ukraine |
Comments Off on Russian Strike on US Drone Factory in Kiev Makes Clear – NATO’s Overseas MIC Footprint Is Fair Game
Prof. John Mearsheimer discusses how the dramatic developments in the Ukraine War conflict with NATO’s “Ukraine is winning” narrative. Prof. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago
The Italian mafia is seeking to buy up some of the 800,000 firearms reportedly missing or stolen from Ukraine since 2022, including drones and other advanced arms, senior prosecutors have warned.
Some 780,465 items sent to Ukraine have reportedly disappeared since the escalation of the conflict, including around 149,000 during the first five months of 2026. The Il Fatto Quotidiano newspaper reported on Wednesday that much of the arsenal consisted of European military supplies intended for Kiev.
The outlet noted that European law enforcement authorities have struggled to track the flow of these arms, given that Western governments conceal the details of their extensive military shipments to Ukraine.
The weapons have since reportedly ended up on the European black market and are now said to have attracted the attention of Cosa Nostra, the Sicilian Mafia, which would like to upgrade its arsenal with military-grade systems.
Palermo chief prosecutor Maurizio de Lucia told Italy’s parliamentary Anti-Mafia Commission this week that the criminal organization was trying to build a “quality arsenal” and has already obtained access to AK-47 rifles and powerful explosives.
De Lucia said that the mafia is also trying to obtain more advanced weaponry, such as mine-dropping drones, warning that Italian security services are not prepared to deal with such weapons systems.
Concerns over weapons leaking from Ukraine into European criminal networks have persisted since the early months of the conflict. Europol reported back in 2022 that arms were being trafficked into the EU for organized crime groups, with several countries, including Finland, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Spain, having since stated that weapons sent to Kiev had reached local criminals.
The latest report comes amid repeated corruption scandals involving Ukraine’s military and state institutions. Recent investigations have uncovered millions of dollars in illicit sales of military equipment and theft from military repair contracts and drone funds, alongside wider schemes involving defense procurement and foreign donations.
Commenting on the Italian prosecutor’s warning, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow had long warned that Western weapons sent to Kiev would spread through illicit markets and eventually threaten Ukraine’s European sponsors.
Zakharova explained that some of the weapons supplied to Kiev never actually reach their stated destination because of corruption, while those that do arrive are divided between the front, black-market buyers, and armed groups in other regions.
Russian officials have also accused Ukraine of supplying weapons and drone expertise to militants in Africa, while Mali has alleged that Kiev provided kamikaze drones to terrorist organizations operating in the Sahel.
Donald Trump entered the July 7th/8th NATO summit having recently condemned the alliance as a “paper tiger” over its collective failure to abet the calamitous Zionist-American war on Iran and repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe, with reveries of Greenland’s annexation still abounding. He left boasting of the intense “love” and “unity” within NATO, while praising member states for their reaffirmed commitment to spending ever-increasing vast sums on ‘defense’. Meanwhile, the Ukraine proxy war’s world-threatening continuation appears assured for potentially years to come.
As such, the NATO summit signifies a significant triumph in Britain’s never-ending battle to exploit the US Empire to further its own objectives. Highly revealing leaked files amply spell out how the alliance is a key mechanism by which Washington’s “interest” in Europe and West Asia is insidiously maintained, via London’s covert and overt machinations. NATO provides an invaluable “umbrella”, by which Britain projects economic, intelligence, military, and political power throughout these regions and the wider world, while countering competitors.
The documents were authored in March 2021 by Chris Donnelly, a veteran British military intelligence apparatchik who masterminded NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. Now an influential Ministry of Defense advisor guiding London and Kiev’s escalatory strategies in the proxy war, he writes in the leaks of Britain’s perpetual struggle to retain the “security” provided by “US military power.” This, combined with access to Washington’s globe-spanning intelligence network, “underpins our own position in the world.”
From Britain’s perspective, “the political solidarity between member nations” within NATO and “the permanent political and military mechanisms that enable collaboration between its members and with its partners,” are as vitally important as the alliance’s capacity for “collective defence and security.” For example, “interoperability” between NATO members is considered “both a political and a military asset” and “a valuable product”, enabling countries “with vastly different political and military systems to operate together.” That includes “[undertaking] complex and stressful military activities,” and other joint functions.
This makes NATO “a civilian-led political organisation… whose main tool is armed force,” intimately entrenched within its 32 members. Lacking any democratic structures internally and accountable to none externally, the alliance exerts enormous, often unseen influence over members’ constituent governments, security and intelligence services, militaries, police forces, and more. These “extensive political collaborative mechanisms” mean states can be corralled into adopting policies or taking actions regardless of local public will, or whether such moves actively harm their safety and/or national interests.
“Without the US, there is no NATO,” Donnelly notes. Hence, to “keep the US interested” in the alliance, Washington “must see a return on its (still very large and disproportionate) investment.” The 2026 NATO summit ended with European leaders pledging to plunge tens of billions into US-made military equipment for Kiev over this year and next, a prospect offering Washington quite some “return”. But the British have other means of encouraging and maintaining US hegemony, for their personal profit.
‘Symmetrical exchange’
Elsewhere, Donnelly writes of the “special relationship” – the “political/military/security/intelligence” alliance between Britain and the US, “which has existed since World War II.” He notes how from inception, Washington was driven “by how much the US needed something from the UK to help the US develop and maintain its superpower status.” In other words, “what the UK could provide the US… the US could not itself produce.” Accordingly, London “traditionally contributed” its historical “knowledge and experience” to Washington’s crusade for global domination.
This frequently entailed “intelligence-gathering and analysis; technical expertise, especially inventiveness, ideas, and scientific information; the experience of having dealt with a situation new to the US.” Meanwhile, “political and military support” was provided by London “wherever this supported US policy interests and to help the US get what it wanted in the world.” While Britain’s methods in every regard have evolved significantly over time, these ultimate underpinning and overriding objectives in so many matters military, intelligence, foreign, and even domestic have not changed:
“Being able to provide something the US wants and needs is still the only reliable way to get US respect and to maintain the ‘special relationship’… Today, this is translated into whatever will help the US maintain its position in the world, promote US interests… and ensure US economic well-being. If we can still provide something useful for the US, something they cannot do for themselves, then they will be prepared to reciprocate very generously.”
Donnelly frames this concord as a perpetual “barter deal” – not a “symmetrical exchange” or “issue of cost and payment,” as “if the US can buy what it is deficient in on the world market, then there is no basis for the ‘special relationship’.” He references Britain’s consistent “willingness and ability to deploy a significant contingent of effective army… to reinforce US military operations… readiness to share casualties… [and] continued readiness to host US forces on UK soil or on overseas dependencies” as historic pull factors.
Britain can also “employ other kinds of power to achieve an effect which supports US policy or interests.” This includes “economic power, political influence, a technical ability, such as cyber-warfare, or a civilian state-building or humanitarian relief capability.” Accordingly, files leaked by Edward Snowden indicate British signals intelligence agency GCHQ is acutely aware it “must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight” by its NSA ‘partner’, to reap vast US funding for elaborate foreign spying operations.
Donnelly concludes, “On balance, the special relationship is of real importance to the UK, but also of some worth to the US… The burden of sustaining the special relationship falls principally to the UK. The US may well lose out if the relationship fails, but it will not notice the loss as much as the UK will. However, the special relationship is neither permanent nor guaranteed. We cannot take it for granted. It needs to be worked at constantly, refreshed and renewed.”
‘Defense capabilities’
On the subject of renewal, Donnelly lamented how London’s utility to the US Empire had been “significantly diminished” over recent years. This resulted from the British Army’s “indifferent military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the “run-down of our intelligence capability,” and “the perception (on the part of the US and other allies) the UK is no longer investing sufficiently in its military to be able to play the leading role it used to do in Europe, both as an operator and as a technical innovator.”
Donnelly moreover noted Britain “used to be at the cutting edge of some aspects of military thinking,” but had in many respects “lost this edge.” For example, “we can no longer instruct the US on how best to conduct counter-insurgency operations.” Furthermore, the “special relationship” was “put under pressure” by President Barack Obama’s “reorientation of US strategy to focus on China.” Instituted in 2011, this “pivot to the Pacific” was sustained under subsequent administrations, with varying degrees of intensity.
Donnelly cheered how “the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts have reawakened US interest a little” in Europe and West Asia, meaning “Russia can no longer be ignored” by Washington. Nonetheless, he warned, “we have not yet turned the corner.” Unmentioned by Donnelly was his personal role in disrupting Washington’s “pivot” toward China by inflaming the Ukrainian war, to ensure the Empire didn’t “ignore” Russia. He openly articulated this malign mission while testifying to a British parliamentary defense committee in July 2014.
Donnelly proposed establishing a permanent British “standing force” in the Baltics, to conduct military exercises on Russia’s border, while serving as a “tripwire” to “dissuade and deter” Moscow. He believed it “very important” for London to pursue this strategy, as “Britain’s leadership… will encourage the Americans to take a greater interest in NATO and reinforce their support of the organisation.” He added, “we have an important role to play in bringing the Americans in more,” as “US eyes” had recently been directed “away from Europe.”
Resultantly, London provocatively dispatched thousands of soldiers to Russia’s periphery. Moreover, Britain took the lead in training Ukrainian forces – including notorious Neo-Nazi paramilitary factions such as the Azov Battalion. At the time, Washington adhered to the “Obama Doctrine”, which stipulated the US should avoid escalation against Moscow and prohibited provision of “lethal aid” and other military assistance to Kiev. A February 2015Kyiv Post report on Britain’s training program quoted Donnelly at length, suggesting his central involvement in its delivery:
“This is just the sort of help Ukraine needs now. The British Army obviously brings considerable operational experience and a pretty good reputation.”
As Donnelly predicted in his defense committee testimony, Britain’s tutelage of Ukrainian forces had the desired effect of “bringing the Americans in more.” In July 2015, it was announced the US would formally begin training Kiev’s military by the end of the year. Still, a State Department spokesperson stressed the effort was merely “small unit training… to help strengthen Ukraine’s internal defense capabilities.” They firmly asserted Washington’s focus in the country remained on “nonlethal aid” and “there is no plan to change that.”
Fast forward to December 2017, and Trump greenlit the provision of weaponry to Kiev. It was among a number of hostile acts during his first term that ratcheted tensions between Washington and Moscow, placing Ukraine firmly on the warpath with Russia. The recent NATO summit, and subsequent pledges by the US to assist Ukraine directly with drone and patriot missile production, show the Empire has “turned the corner” at last. US “interest” in Europe is assured, for at least as long as the proxy conflict endures.
Encouraged by Ukraine’s sustained advances in drone warfare, Western media is abuzz with the idea that Kyiv just might be able to defeat Russia after more than four years of bitter fighting.
In May, TIMEhailed Ukraine’s drone industry as giving Kyiv “the cards to win without U.S. help.” Last month, CNN lauded Ukrainian drone strikes near Moscow as “a likely turning point” in the war. Earlier this month, Defense One even framed the conflict as a settled matter with the headline “How Ukraine won the first great robot war.”
But this isn’t the first time the press has played up Ukraine’s military capabilities, despite repeated setbacks on the battlefield. As experts warn RS, such coverage reinforces the idea that more military aid can still help Ukraine win back all of its territory, thus downplaying the need for a negotiated solution.
Overplaying Ukraine’s hand
As Daniel Davis, a military expert at Defense Priorities, tells RS, “western media narratives claiming Ukraine has ‘turned the tide’ do not survive contact with basic military reality.”
“Tactical Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries and supply hubs — like the recent hits on [Russian retailer] Wildberries near Moscow and St. Petersburg — make for dramatic television,” Davis wrote to RS, citing recent Ukrainian drone attacks within Russia. “They do not disrupt Moscow’s core ability to wage a long-term war of attrition.”
Michael Desch, an international relations professor at the University of Notre Dame, tells RS that drones alone cannot earn Ukraine a military victory. “Best Ukraine can do [with drones] is slow the Russians down a bit,” he said.
“There is no doubt that Ukraine has recently upped its medium- and deep-strike drone operations against Russia and has done some damage,” he shared. “The problem with the [mainstream media] coverage is that it ignores: a) Russia is doing the same [and] b) Russia is still making consistent gains on the ground.”
To Desch’s point, Russian forces continue, albeit slowly, to push westward into Eastern Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine say they have captured villages at the war’s frontlines.
More broadly, as Barry Posen, a political science professor at MIT, tells RS, “the press highlights anything that looks like positive news for Ukraine from the battlefield. And it tends to minimize Ukrainian setbacks.”
Posen cited Ukraine’s 2024 Kursk offensive as an episode where the media overplayed Kyiv’s prospects. “It was clear that this [offensive] was a diversion of scarce Ukrainian combat power to a mission that could not produce important military results. And it ended very badly for Ukraine,” he said.
The media similarly overhyped Ukraine’s unsuccessful counteroffensive in 2023, where Kyiv tried to retake Russian-held territory in southern and eastern Ukraine. “It turned into a horrendous sacrifice of soldiers on minefields and the drone-infested steppe,” Almut Rochowanski, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, said. “No gain to Ukraine at all, but enormous human and material resources were squandered.”
Despite repeated military setbacks, many pro-Ukraine commentators “remain completely unfazed,” said Mark Episkopos, a research fellow in the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia Program.
“Retired U.S. Army officer Ben Hodges predicted that the Russian army will collapse by March 2022, and again by the end of 2022, and that Crimea will be retaken in 2023,” Episkopos said.
In fact, Hodges made a similar prediction just last week, tellingThe Sun that Ukraine was once again working to isolate Crimea. “There will be a significant political problem for Putin when Crimea is finally back under Ukraine’s control,” Hodges said. “Things are moving in the right direction for Ukraine.”
The Western press has also downplayed the fact that many Ukrainians no longer want to fight.
“English-language reports about violent resistance to conscription [in Ukraine] are dwarfed by stories claiming Russia is faltering,” writer Branko Marcetic previously observed in RS. “Some Ukrainian-language reports about the country’s recruitment and demographic crises are simply never translated to English.”
Prolonging the war
But rosy coverage of Ukraine’s wartime prospects helps Western politicians make the case for more military aid, prolonging the conflict.
“The discourse around this war is saturated with the delusion that victory is right around the corner if the West simply does a little more,” Episkopos told RS. “As if one or two fresh aid tranches and sanctions packages will accomplish what $150 billion in military aid [to Ukraine] and the world’s most ambitious sanctions regime with over 25,000 restrictions [against Russia] could not,” he said, citing previous efforts to assist Ukraine.
“Most Western leaders… stand to lose politically from [abandoning the Ukrainian war effort],” he stressed. “Therefore, the only course left is to double down on the alternative information space they’ve created for themselves regardless of how far removed it is from the realities of this war.”
But observers say that doubling down, rather than pursuing diplomacy, has real costs for Ukrainians on the ground.
“By overstating Kyiv’s position, the Western media masks a grim reality: there is no viable military path to a Ukrainian victory,” Davis said. “Continuing to arrogantly pursue one anyway only prolongs the destruction and casualties pointlessly suffered by Kyiv.”
“Ukraine will either have to negotiate the best peace terms available or face complete military defeat,” Davis warned.
Iran has demanded compensation from Ukraine over a deadly strike on a cargo ship after Kiev’s foreign minister initially claimed that “Iran has no standing to pretend to be a victim,” only to call Tehran a day later and assure it that the attack was unintentional and that Kiev did not seek escalation.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Tuesday that he had spoken with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Sibiga, following the attack on the cargo ship Anna in the Caspian Sea last week.
“Was assured by Ukrainian FM that the attack on an Iranian ship was unintentional and Ukraine seeks no escalation,” Araghchi wrote on X. “Iran does not seek escalation either, but made clear any attack on our citizens or interests is unacceptable. There must be restitution for losses.”
Sibiga described the call as a “frank conversation” and said Kiev wanted to “avoid unnecessary escalation.” He maintained that Ukrainian operations were aimed at countering Russia and were “never intended to target civilian vessels or people,” while calling on Tehran to end its alleged support for Moscow.
The conciliatory language marked a sharp shift from Sibiga’s public response a day earlier, when he denounced Iran’s complaints as “unjustified and groundless” and referred to the Iranian government as “the regime in Teheran.”
“Iran has no standing to pretend to be a victim,” Sibiga wrote on Monday, accusing Tehran of supplying Russia with weapons and dismissing its references to the UN Charter as “absurd.” He also claimed that Iran was attempting to divert attention from Russian strikes on Ukrainian shipping in the Black Sea.
In recent weeks, the Russian military has escalated long-range strikes on port infrastructure and shipping targets in the Black Sea, seeking to disrupt the flow of military supplies and weapons to Ukraine. Multiple freighters, combat and auxiliary vessels, and various port installations have been struck, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the attack as “reckless,” summoned Ukraine’s acting chargé d’affaires and warned that it reserved the right to protect the country’s security and national interests.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky subsequently praised the “very strong results” of strikes on vessels he claimed were involved in transporting military cargo. Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel similarly claimed that the Anna had been carrying components for drones and missiles, while Tehran maintained that the vessel and its cargo were entirely civilian.
Before Tuesday’s call, Araghchi had accused Zelensky of attacking the commercial vessel “at Israel’s behest” and attempting to draw Europe deeper into the conflict. He warned that the killing of the Iranian sailor “cannot go unanswered.”
The incident involving the Iranian vessel comes amid growing accusations that Kiev is expanding its activities in the Middle East. Iraq’s national security adviser claimed this week that authorities had arrested several groups that confessed to carrying out attacks on behalf of Ukraine. Kiev rejected the allegations as “unfounded and unsubstantiated.”
On Friday, even as the US President Donald Trump was announcing the end of the latest round of the conflict with Iran, the Pentagon unobtrusively extended the war theatre to the Caspian Sea in a hugely consequential geopolitical thrust. The incident hardly figured in the western news cycle.
But CGTN, perhaps sensing that the US could be stealthily spreading its war to the Caspian region, reported on July 25, “US missiles struck a Revolutionary Guards Navy headquarters in the Ziba Kenar area of the Caspian Sea province of Gilan, according to a security official in Gilan quoted by Iranian media. Provincial authorities said US projectiles had also struck the port city of Bandar Anzali, according to the Iranian Labor News Agency.”
Gilan province has a Caspian coastline that borders Azerbaijan in the west, with which Iran has had a troubled relationship in the recent years following the Transcaucasian region’s geopolitical gravitation towards the western orbit. Unsurprisingly, Russia’s ties with Azerbaijan and Armenia also have suffered a severe erosion following the ascendance of US (and NATO) influence in Transcaucasia.
Trump is the new sheriff in town in Baku and Yerevan with Turkey’s president Recep Erdogan playing the role of undersheriff. To add to the complexity, Azerbaijan is a close ally of Turkey, and Turkey’s ties with Moscow are somewhat under the weather in the most recent years following the covert takeover in Syria by al-Qaeda affiliates backed by Ankara.
On the other hand, Turkey has never been a reliable friend for Iran, either, historically. During the war with Iran last year, Turkey opened its air space to the US aircraft to attack Iran from Azerbaijan, which also happens to be one of Israel’s key operational bases against Iran.
Taking advantage of the Ukraine conflict, western intelligence and NATO have made big inroads into the Caucasus and Caspian regions bordering Russia’s Muslim republics and are challenging Iran’s security when it already faces an existential threat from the US-Israeli alliance.
The western media played down the US air strike on Bandar Anzali last week, which is Iran’s biggest port on the Caspian coast and is a vital transportation hub linked to Iran’s national railway grid. The Caspian Sea makes a strategically vital supply route between Russia and Iran. Bandar Anzali is for Tehran what Odessa Port is for Kyiv where it receives western arms supplies. Indeed, Iran and Russia have a close military relationship.
Therefore, Ukraine’s attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea in Russia’s territorial waters on Saturday, the first such attack since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, is anything but a stray incident. Kyiv claimed responsibility for striking an Iranian vessel, signalling that one of Eurasia’s most stable security zones is now vulnerable to the direct spillover of the Ukraine conflict.
The Kremlin took note and spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked at his daily briefing on Tuesday that the “geography of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities is expanding.” Citing the incident, he added cryptically that all this “again highlights the need for a successful and complete special military operation.”
The attack on the Iranian ship was carried out from a distance of approximately 1,200 kilometres. Moscow has repeatedly alleged that such precise targeting over very long distances is way beyond Ukraine’s military capability and is only possible with the West’s direct participation. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov touched on it again on July 24: “A significant portion of the support provided to Vladimir Zelensky (from the West) comes from the United States. This is not only because the Americans sell weapons to the EU, which then transfers them to Ukraine, but also because the United States provides intelligence and reconnaissance, Starlink remains operational, and advanced technologies that require specialist expertise on the battlefield do not find their way there by accident. That is the way things are.”
Interestingly,the New York Times report on the Ukrainian attack appeared under the headline Ukraine’s Strike on an Iranian ship Could Bring Two Wars Closer. The Wall Street Journalheadline runs as follows: Two Wars Converge in the Caspian Sea as Ukraine Hits Iranian Supply Line to Russia. Al Jazeera gave a further twist saying Ukraine’s Zelenskyy set to meet Trump as Iran and Ukraine wars converge. A BBC report acknowledged that “The incident marked the first direct link between the wars in Iran and Ukraine.” It added, however, “But some experts question the wisdom of Kyiv’s decision to pick a fight with Iran.”
The impact of the Iran conflict initially seemed negative for Ukraine. It threatened to divert Trump’s already wavering attention. However, there has been not only no let-up in US support for Ukraine but in certain ways, the US involvement has only intensified by escalating the covert operations in Russian territory. Admittedly, these tactical advantages may not add up eventually, as Moscow is also stepping up attacks all across the frontline in Ukraine with a view to end the war soon.
The reported likely reassignment of General Sergey Surovikin, who at one time was commander of Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine, would signal a massive offensive going forward. The highly decorated general had previously served in Chechnya and Syria during conflicts that had overtones of proxy wars similar to Ukraine.
The Ukrainian attack on the Iranian ship could well be a calibrated move by Washington. Ukraine acted simultaneously with the US bombing of Gilan province, suggesting a degree of coordination. The Iranian ambassador to Russia disclosed that the ship was hardly 5 miles from the mouth of River Volga when the attack took place.
If the Moscow-led regional concord on the Caspian’s collective security is weakened, extra-regional military and security rivalries could vitiate the region impacting Russia and Iran’s core interests. Tehran views the Caspian Sea incident not as an isolated tactical event but as evidence of a broader shift in its surrounding security environment.
Last August, US-Azerbaijan-Armenia tripartite agreement was signed in the White House that will create a major transit corridor in Transcaucasia to be named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. Plainly put, the US and NATO are seriously contesting Russia’s pre-eminence in the Caspian / Central Asian regions.
Evidently, the Caspian Sea is no longer the conflict-free zone it was once believed to be. A new arena of geopolitical competition, fundamentally reshaping the security landscape of Eurasia and potentially marking the emergence of a new geographic theatre of conflict, has surfaced last weekend.
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are increasingly using the threat of mobilization to pressure journalists, Strana has claimed, citing employees of several Kiev-based outlets.
The report comes as Ukrainian media have documented numerous cases of violent forced conscription, while investigators have uncovered a series of high-profile corruption scandals.
Revoking draft exemptions or conscripting journalists’ relatives has become one of the main tools for pressuring media workers, Strana wrote on Tuesday. One publisher was allegedly told by uniformed officers that his exemption from military service could be revoked within minutes unless he removed several articles from his website, prompting him to comply. In another case, an editor was reportedly threatened with the mobilization of her son if she published an article critical of the leadership of a Ukrainian law enforcement agency.
The allegations follow the detention of investigative reporter Yevgeny Shulgat in Kiev on Monday. According to Hromadske, police stopped the taxi he was riding in, handcuffed him and took him to a recruitment center. Kiev police and conscription officers claimed the reporter had failed to undergo a mandatory military medical examination and issued a summons.
Hromadske insisted that documents in its possession showed Shulgat had not breached mobilization requirements and suggested the detention was linked to his investigative work. Shulgat has authored a series of investigations into alleged corruption involving Ukrainian officials, particularly within the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
The allegations come amid a string of high-profile corruption scandals. Since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, investigators have uncovered procurement schemes involving inflated prices for military supplies, while the authorities have also pursued major graft cases in the energy sector, including two investigations into state nuclear company Energoatom.
Ukraine’s mobilization campaign has also drawn mounting criticism. Videos circulating on social media have repeatedly shown recruitment officers forcibly detaining military-age men, while Ukrainian media have documented deaths at recruitment centers and cases of men with serious medical conditions being declared fit for military service.
The Kremlin has warned that Ukraine is expanding the scope of its “terrorist activities” beyond Europe, citing Kiev’s recent involvement in destabilizing Iraq, attacks on strategic infrastructure in Germany and Kazakhstan, and the attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea.
Speaking at a press briefing on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reported involvement of Ukrainian-linked groups in Iraq demonstrated that “the geography of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities is expanding,” warning that such actions pose a growing threat beyond Europe.
“We see that the Kiev regime continues its terrorist activities,” Peskov said, arguing that the trend “again highlights the need for a successful and complete special military operation.”
The Kremlin spokesman also pointed to attacks carried out by Kiev beyond the battlefield, citing the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, strikes against infrastructure linked to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, and an attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea on Saturday.
Peskov’s remarks came after Iraqi authorities said they had identified and dismantled several sabotage cells responsible for a series of bombings across the country that were planning further attacks with backing and support from Ukraine.
Ukraine has denied involvement, saying Baghdad had presented no evidence to support the claims and had not raised the issue through diplomatic channels before the comments were made public.
Iraq’s National Security Adviser Qasim al-Aboudi, however, said authorities had arrested several suspects who admitted working for Ukraine and carrying out attacks on Iraqi facilities, describing the case as complex and still under investigation.
Ukraine also targeted an Iranian cargo vessel in the Caspian Sea on July 25, killing one sailor and injuring several others. Tehran said the vessel was a civilian ship carrying iron from Russia to Iran, while Ukraine alleged it was transporting Iranian drone and missile components to Russia.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the attack had been carried out at the behest of the Israeli regime in an attempt to draw Europe into the war in West Asia, warning that the strike “cannot go unanswered.” The Foreign Ministry also said that Kiev had sought to spread insecurity by attacking the Iranian commercial vessel.
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
The EU cannot allow this war to end, as there is no plan for peace. Fighting with Ukrainians keeps the U.S. in Europe, temporarily preserves European unity, protects an unpopular political elite from the rising opposition that seeks course correction, offers military Keynesianism as an economic model for a de-industrialising Europe, weakens Russia as a strategic rival, and buys the European leaders time to prepare for a direct war with Russia. A peace agreement would require European leaders to repay the funds they have seized and partly stolen from Russia, which they also used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. Victory would give the Europeans a strong U.S. behind them and a battle-hardened Ukraine in front of them, while defeat would leave Europe without a clear role or relevance in a multipolar world. There is no plan for what to do when peace breaks out.
Aletho News 