Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump, Putin agree on ‘energy and infrastructure ceasefire’ – White House

RT | March 18, 2025

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed that the first step towards ending the Ukraine conflict should be an “energy and infrastructure ceasefire,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has revealed. The leaders reached the agreement during a 2.5 hour phone conversation on Tuesday.

According to the readout of the phone call published on X by Leavitt on Tuesday, both leaders concur that the conflict must conclude with a lasting peace. They also emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral relations.

“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the transcript reads.

The Kremlin has confirmed that Putin supported Trump’s proposal for Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, and instructed his military accordingly.

According to the readout, Moscow and Washington have agreed to hold relevant negotiations “immediately in the Middle East.”

Aside from Ukraine, the two heads of state are said to have discussed the situation in the Middle East as well as potential cooperation with a view to preventing future conflicts in the region.

Another topic high on the two leaders’ agenda was the “need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons” globally, according to the White House press secretary.

“The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside,” including but not limited to “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability,” the readout concludes.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

European Court of Human Rights finds Ukraine guilty of the Odessa massacre

By Uriel Araujo | March 18, 2025

On March 13, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a landmark ruling, finding Ukraine guilty of violating the right to life in the May 2, 2014, Odessa massacre. The court determined that Ukrainian authorities failed to prevent the violence that killed 48 people—mostly anti-Maidan activists trapped in the Trade Unions House fire—and neglected to conduct a proper investigation. The decision awarded €114,700 in compensation to victims’ families and survivors, spotlighting a decade of impunity.

One will have a hard time finding anything about the ECHR ruling if one looks at Western media right now; and this in itself speaks volumes about the nature of Western propaganda (yes, such is a thing).

Let us imagine for the sake of comparison, the following scenario: after a coup followed by an ultra-nationalist revolution, Russia starts rewriting History, and enforcing Russian chauvinism through a number of policies pertaining to minority ethnic groups. Russian far-right paramilitary groups grow increasingly violent while Moscow turns a blind eye to them, as reported by the Freedom House.

Then, one day, a group of far-right hooligans and activists clashed with protesters and things turned ugly, with fighting ensuing. Around 400 such activists retreated and barricaded themselves inside the nearby Trade Unions House, only to find themselves surrounded by the ultra-nationalists, who threw Molotov cocktails. The building then caught fire, flames spread rapidly, trapping those inside. Some desperately jumped from upper floors to escape, only to be beaten by the nationalist crowd below; others suffocated or burned.

Emergency response was slow—firefighters, albeit stationed just 400 meters away, took around 30 minutes to arrive despite frantic calls. By nightfall, 42 people inside the building were dead, bringing the day’s total to 48. The Russian government failed to properly investigate, as denounced by European councils and human rights groups, and, 10 years later, there was still no justice for the victims of nationalist brutality.

Can you imagine the international outrage if such scenario I just imagined were real? Well, this is pretty much what happened in Odessa—just replace “Russian nationalists” with “Ukrainian nationalists”, “Moscow” with “Kyiv”, “Russian government” with “Ukrainian government”, and there you have it.

During my PhD, when I was conducting fieldwork and research in the Rostov-on-Don area in southern Russia, I also visited Luhansk (Donbas) at a time when the Donbas war (which started in 2014 and has not ended) was being described as yet another “frozen conflict”. One of the events I attended, on May 2, was a tribute in memory of the victims of Odessa Massacre, which was also attended by MP Oleg Akimov (with the local “rebel” government) and Anna Soroka, who led an initiative to report Ukrainian state terrorism crimes to international courts.

That day, in 2019, marked the fifth anniversary of the Odessa tragedy, and the location chosen, in Luhansk, to hold the event in honor of the victims was in front of the place, on a road, where Donbas residents, mostly civilians, who perished during a Ukrainian offensive in 2015, are buried.

At that time in 2015, the city was without electricity for several days, so that keeping the bodies in the morgue was impossible (and access to other places was blocked by Kyiv’s attacks), so many of the decomposing bodies, already unrecognizable, were, in that chaotic scenario, buried in a kind of mass grave. Next to it, a chapel was later built in memory of the tragedy. By honoring the dead of Odessa in that particular place, they linked both tragedies, symbolically uniting the relatives of the victims. Some residents held portraits of their deceased relatives, possibly buried there without identification, and, somewhat confusingly, one of the residents who was in Odessa on the day of the massacre gave his emotional account. For them, in a way, Luhansk was Odessa—and Donetsk was Odessa.

One should thus never underestimate the tremendous symbolic and emotional importance that the events in Odessa hold for many in Eastern Ukraine, including the disputed region of Donbas. The Odessa massacre unfolded amid post-Maidan chaos, as pro-Ukrainian nationalists (including football ultras and Right Sector members) clashed with anti-Maidan demonstrators. The former besieged the Trade Unions House, and burned it with Molotov cocktails thereby killing dozens, as mentioned. Police stood by, with evidence of complicity, and subsequent investigations stalled.

Since 2014, Ukraine’s nationalist surge has repeatedly marginalized Russian and pro-Russian communities. The Maidan uprising, while often described as a broad-based revolt against corruption (which it also was), in fact empowered far-right groups like Right Sector and Svoboda, whose fascistic anti-Russian rhetoric and actions gained tacit state tolerance—not to mention the Azov Regiment.

Language laws, such as the 2019 bill mandating Ukrainian in public life, sidelined Russian speakers (about a third of the population), thereby fueling further alienation. It is no wonder the massacre quickly became a grim symbol. Pro-Russian victims were vilified as separatists by post-Maidan Ukrainian media and government, their deaths downplayed, and perpetrators shielded.

This pattern, once again, extends beyond Odessa. Far-right militias like the Azov Battalion, once fringe vigilantes, were folded into the National Guard, their neo-Nazi roots overlooked as they fought “pro-Russia rebels” in Donbas. Public glorification of WWII-era nationalist Stepan Bandera, whose forces collaborated with Nazis and massacred minorities, has surged, with statues and street names proliferating, despite protests from Jewish, Greek, Hungarian, Romanian, and Polish groups, and from Warsaw.

Attacks on Russian cultural sites, harassment of Orthodox Church parishes tied to the Moscow Patriarchate (founded over a thousand years ago, in 988) as well as other religious organizations, and unchecked hate crimes against minorities—often by ultranationalist gangs—signal in all a state unwilling to curb extremism when it aligns with anti-Russian aims.

Kyiv’s blind eye isn’t just strategic; it’s structural. Post-Maidan governments reliant on nationalist support and their military and paramilitary muscle have not just avoided alienating these factions, but have rather embraced and empowered them, in the most cynical and hypocritical way.

The ECHR ruling thus exposes this Faustian bargain: justice for Odessa’s victims was sacrificed to preserve a fragile unity rooted in chauvinism. As Ukraine touts its European aspirations, the verdict demands reckoning—not just with one day’s horrors, but with a decade of pandering to far-right forces at the expense of its own people, Russian-speaking or otherwise.

Until that happens, Odessa remains a wound unhealed, and a warning unheeded. Whatever one’s stance on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is, any fair and balanced assessment of the issue must include topics such as the Donbass war, the Odessa massacre, and the neo-Nazism problem, including but not limited to the Azov Regiment. Those are part of the blind spot within the Western narrative on the matter. With the latest ECHR ruling (largely underreported), a small part of it is finally coming to light.

Uriel Araujo, PhD is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

What Do Trump and Putin Really Have in Common?

By Glenn Diesen | March 18, 2025

There are many rational and pragmatic reasons for ending the conflict in Ukraine as the proxy war has effectively already been lost, further escalation could result in nuclear war, and Russia is aligning itself ever closer with China. However, is a personal affinity with Putin contributing to Trump’s desire to end the war and improve US-Russia ties?

During the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office, Trump expressed an affinity toward Putin based on a shared struggle against shared adversaries. Trump argued that “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt, where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, you ever hear of that deal? … It was a Democrat scam. He had to go through it. And he did go through it”. Trump argued that if Putin broke any deals, then it was with Obama and Biden, as Putin never broke any deals with him due to mutual respect.

It is reasonable to deduce from Trump’s statements that he feels he shares something with Putin. Instead of delving into conspiracy theories of collusion, it is worth taking a sociological perspective to explore how we define who belongs to “us” and who is considered the “other”. Human beings are social animals that instinctively organise into groups, in which the in-group “us” is usually defined by the mirror image of the out-group “other” as the diametrically opposite. What defines “us” versus “them” is often constructed to ensure group solidarity and is thus typically presented as good versus evil or superior versus inferior.

Russia has historically been assigned the role of Europe’s “other”, which makes it difficult to find compromise as Russia’s otherness and negative identity reaffirms Europe’s own positive identity. The relationship has historically been framed as the West versus the East, the civilised versus the barbarian, the European versus the Asiatic, and during the Cold War it was the capitalist versus the communist. When it was decided to revive the dividing lines in Europe after the Cold War by expanding NATO, the “us” versus “them” was recast as liberal democracies versus authoritarian. Every aspect of relations must be interpreted through this lens, in which the West can take the role of the good guys versus Russia as the perpetual bad guy.

Nationalism versus Cosmopolitanism

It is convenient and lazy to portray Trump’s possible affinity for Putin as a friendship between authoritarians. The argument is that Trump is not part of the free world, and his authoritarian tendencies allegedly explain his affinity to Putin. This is a poor analysis, but it exposes how human beings instinctively preserve group solidarity by punishing individuals who stray from the group, and efforts to reach out to the other side and move beyond the stereotypes that define “us” and “them” are met with suspicion and accusations of treason. The free world versus the alliance of authoritarians is a framing that serves the purpose of demonising Trump and Putin and also reaffirming “our” good values. To borrow the language of Bush, they hate us because of our freedoms.

This is a deeply flawed framing, as Trump (or Putin) does not define himself and his in-group (“us”) in the unfavourable terms of authoritarianism versus freedom. Trump views the world as divided between patriotism and globalism or as nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.

The liberal identity as the foundation for the collective identity of a unified Political West after the Cold War contributed to creating a schism within the liberal nation-state. The excesses of liberalism under globalisation and an identity relying excessively on liberalism created a split between liberalism and nationalism that laid the foundation for the liberal nation-state. Over the past decades, liberalism began divorcing itself from the nation-state as the idea of unity through common history, traditions, faith and culture was rejected. In 2004, Samuel Huntington predicted that the rise of a neo-liberal elite would eventually create a conservative backlash:

“The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability–within acceptable conditions for evolution–of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism”.[1]

Translated into international politics, Russia transitions away from the out-group “them” as an authoritarian state, and into the in-group of “us” as a traditional Christian European state that rejects the excesses of liberalism and subsequent moral decadence. It is also evident that Trump sees himself as having much in common with Viktor Orban of Hungary, who defines Europe by its traditional Christian-cultural heritage. In contrast, there is a contempt for the German definition of Europe, which relies excessively on liberal and post-national ideals that translate into woke ideology, open borders, globalism and cosmopolitan identity to the extent they are not capable of defending basic national interests. Europe’s identity as liberal nation-states used to accommodate both nationalism and liberalism, yet liberalism has to a large extent liberated itself from the nation. Consequently, the liberals and the nationalists see each other as their respective out-group, threatening the in-group. This is now influencing the relations between the great powers.

Russiagate and the Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal

Trump’s reference to the Russiagate hoax and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal during the clash with Zelensky in the Oval Office reveals that he considers these events as relevant to understanding the collapse of US-Russia relations.

There has been very little if any reflection on how the Russiagate hoax damaged US-Russia relations, which is why understanding is absent for Trump’s argument. The Democrats used Russia as a bogeyman to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election, then to undermine his first presidential administration, and yet again during the 2020 election. The actual collusion revealed was between the Democratic Party, the intelligence agencies and the media.

The US embraced a new anti-Russian McCarthyism to cleanse its opposition, in which everyone had to castigate Russia as an ideological enemy of the US. Trump’s desire to improve relations between the US and Russia was treated as a threat to the envisioned liberal democratic-authoritarian divide of the world that sustains NATO, and it was treated as a smoking gun that delegitimised his entire political platform. For years, there was a wide consensus that Russia had helped Trump win the 2016 presidential election. During the presidential race in 2020, the scandal of the Hunter Biden laptop was censored by the media following false accusations that it was a Russian disinformation campaign on behalf of Trump. There were also fake accusations that Russia offered bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, and Trump’s unwillingness to respond forcefully against Russia was treated as evidence of being in the pocket of the Kremlin. America’s domestic political squabbles evidently contributed to the collapse of US-Russia relations, which also cemented the non-compromising position and provocations by the US that triggered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Should we be surprised that Trump considers himself and Putin to have faced many of the same enemies to the extent it shaped his view of the in-group versus out-group? Russiagate was intended to sell a worldview of authoritarians at home and abroad conspiring against freedom. This narrative has been debunked as it was based on fraudulent evidence, yet the Democrats and the Europeans still hold on to the narrative to preserve their assigned identity as the good guy and their opponents as the bad guy. From the viewpoint of Trump, this was an attack by the Democrats on democracy and the political system that also devastated relations with Russia and undermined peace in the world.

Can we blame Trump for seeing the world as divided between pragmatic and rational nationalists seeking to put their countries first, versus a cosmopolitan and globalist elite that undermines national interests, democracy and international peace?

German version of the article: “Was Trump und Putin verbindet” in De Weltwoche.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Europe’s Provocation: Interview with Russia’s Deputy FM Alexander Grushko on Potential Escalation in Ukraine

“The conflict has reached a stage where the West suffers a strategic defeat”

Izvestia | March 17, 2025

Kirill Fenin’s interview with Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Alexander Grushko on security guarantees from NATO, prospects for dialogue with the EU, and the future of the OSCE:

Q:  In December 2021, Russia put forward a proposal to the US and NATO on security guarantees. Is it relevant for us to receive these guarantees now? Is the return of NATO infrastructure to the 1997 borders being discussed in the current negotiations with Washington?

Grushko: In 2021, the Russian Federation put forward two initiatives. One was addressed to the United States, the other to NATO countries. But they were not supported. We realized that our so-called partners were not ready to engage in a dialogue on the merits. It became clear that the nature of the alliance’s military construction and the US military preparations were aimed at achieving superiority over the Russian Federation. Moreover, Ukraine was chosen as the main battlefield, the theatre of military operations against Russia.

If we talk about a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, then, of course, it will have an external outline. We will demand that cast-iron security guarantees become part of this agreement. Since only through their formation will it be possible to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine and, in general, strengthen regional security. Part of these guarantees should be the neutral status of Ukraine, the refusal of NATO countries to accept it as a member of the alliance. In fact, this is precisely the provision that was recorded in the drafts of the aforementioned agreements. As for discussions, of course, they are not being conducted today, since there are no negotiations.

Q: There are reports in the media that the Donald Trump administration is considering the possibility of reducing its military presence in the Baltics. Is this issue currently being discussed with the US?

Grushko: Diplomats and military personnel do not feed on rumors. We soberly assess the situation. If we look at the strategic concepts approved by NATO and developed in the European Union, as well as the nature of NATO deployments along our borders, we will see that we are talking about long-term plans that the West is not trying to adapt in any way to a future peace agreement. And we will proceed from this in terms of our policy and in the sphere of military development.

If we compare the current situation with 2019, the number of NATO military contingents on the eastern flank, primarily in Poland, the Baltic states, Bulgaria and Romania, has increased by 2.5 times. The amount of heavy equipment has increased by about the same amount. The so-called military Schengen (free movement zone for military personnel – Ed.) is being implemented. The airfield and port networks are being strengthened and expanded. NATO is creating new rapid response units and increasing maneuverability. We are seeing how the density and scale of exercises are increasing. They are becoming more aggressive, aimed at military operations against a comparable adversary. By this we mean the Russian Federation. This is the reality that we have to reckon with. And until there are real changes in the policies and military development of NATO countries, we will proceed from the existence of significant threats to Russia from the West.

Q: As is known, the dialogue on security guarantees was conducted not only between Russia and the United States but also along the Russia-NATO line. The last time a meeting in this format took place was in January 2022. Against the backdrop of the intensification of dialogue with Washington, are negotiations between Russia and NATO possible?

Grushko: I don’t see any prospects at the moment. Of course, you can’t say never, but what can we talk about if NATO countries refused to consider Russia as a partner even in those areas where our interests objectively coincided, for example, in the fight against terrorism. Today they have designated Russia as a direct and immediate threat to NATO countries, and they are conducting their military policy and the process of military development in such a way as to achieve superiority over us in all theaters of military operations, in all, as they say, operational environments: in space, in the air, on land, at sea, in cyberspace.

We see that they are turning the previously most peaceful region of Europe in military terms – the Baltic – into a zone of military confrontation. I will only say that 32 military facilities have been allocated for the deployment of American military forces in Sweden and Finland. All this is a new reality that contradicts everything that was laid down in the Russia-NATO Founding Act and other documents that were intended to unite efforts to counter common threats and at the same time deal with the consequences of the Cold War. The Western countries made a different choice. Our representation in NATO was closed, since NATO made its further functioning impossible. And now there is only a hotline with NATO headquarters, which is provided on our part by the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Belgium. It has not yet been activated, but we have officially notified the leadership of the alliance about it. They know where to call if necessary.

Q: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow is categorically against the presence of NATO or EU peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory. Does Russia allow the option of deploying peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN? What conditions must be met for this?

Grushko: Peacekeeping and NATO are incompatible things. They brag a lot that it is a defensive alliance, but the real history of the alliance consists of military operations, a series of aggressions without any reason, just to once again emphasize its hegemony in world and regional affairs. Therefore, all this talk is absolutely inappropriate and absurd. And I think that even the average Westerner understands the real price of such penetrations. Secondly — President Vladimir Putin and Minister Sergey Lavrov talked about this — we absolutely do not care under what label NATO contingents can be deployed on the territory of Ukraine: be it the European Union, NATO, or in their national capacity. In any case, if they appear there, it means that they are deployed in a conflict zone with all the consequences for these contingents as parties to the conflict.

Moreover, the very talk of peacekeeping is an attempt to put the cart before the horse. The question of some kind of international support for the agreement can only be approached when this agreement is worked out. And if the parties come to the understanding that the “peace package” needs international support, then the subject of discussion appears. This could include unarmed observers, a civilian mission that would monitor the implementation of individual aspects of this agreement, or guarantee mechanisms. But for now, it’s just hot air.

Q: What is Russia’s attitude to the possible deployment of peacekeepers to Ukraine under the auspices of the OSCE?

Grushko: There are two points that need to be kept in mind. Firstly, the OSCE does not have armed potential, it does not have an “armed hand”, unlike the UN. In particular, it does not have the competence, the staff committee, the structures that could manage such contingents. Secondly, even the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, which was deployed there, failed to cope with its tasks. In fact, it was used by NATO to gain unilateral advantages for the Kyiv regime. Now it has become known that some employees of this mission, who were supposed to be neutral and ensure strict implementation of the mandate, in fact worked in the interests of Kyiv. And it is no secret that many residents of Donbass said: “OSCE observers drove by – expect shelling”. Therefore, we have an extremely skeptical attitude towards the involvement of the OSCE, even theoretically.

It is impossible not to see that the purpose of these rumors about the deployment of Western contingents on Ukrainian territory is to prepare public opinion for the most radical scenarios, part of a campaign to whip up military psychosis and demonize Russia. Let me remind you that just a few months ago, such a prospect was denied by all NATO member states, and the Secretary General repeatedly stated that under no circumstances would the Alliance’s soldiers appear there.

Q: This week, the OSCE Secretary General came to Moscow. How do you assess the results of the talks with him? Are any further contacts possible through this organization?

Grushko: There will be contacts, of course. It is good that the Secretary-General came. For two years, the OSCE leadership has not visited Moscow. The main problem of the OSCE is that the organization, as a result of the West’s actions, has effectively been pushed to the sidelines of political processes. Its main purpose as an instrument of reconciliation between East and West, of mitigating contradictions, has been lost. At that time, this was generally called “détente.”

Almost nothing remains of this legacy.

The OSCE is currently at a crossroads. This summer will mark the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. It depends only on the member states themselves whether this platform will be in demand for some unifying purposes or whether the current crisis state of the organization will become terminal.

Q: Against the backdrop of the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, is a similar negotiating track with Brussels possible?

Grushko: Such a track is possible. But, firstly, the European Union is isolating itself from Russia. It has broken off all political contacts. It is difficult for me to even say with which international structure there was a closer dialogue. Two meetings a year at the highest level, an annual meeting of the government of the Russian Federation and the European Commission. Also more than 20 permanent partnership councils, including the umbrella foreign policy one. Everything has stopped.

In any case, if there are finally signals that Brussels is ready to enter into some kind of dialogue with us, we will not be against it. But today such a prospect is not in sight – on the contrary, the European Union continues to follow the suicidal path of introducing sanctions. If in 2013 the volume of trade between Russia and the European Union was €417 billion, then in 2024 it was at the level of €60 billion.

As for the EU’s insistent demands to sit down at the negotiating table on the Ukrainian conflict, I don’t even know how to characterize this in diplomatic terms. The EU was at these negotiations and was at the center of events starting with the Maidan, where three EU countries acted as guarantors of the agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the “opposition.” And what did they do to implement the Minsk agreements? Absolutely nothing, on the contrary, they encouraged Kyiv to sabotage them. And when they (the Minsk agreements – Ed.) collapsed, when it became clear that Kyiv was leading the matter to a military solution, a conflict, which, in fact, became the trigger for the decision to conduct a special military operation, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande stated that they had no intention of implementing the Minsk agreements. A respite was needed to pump Kyiv with weapons and prepare it for a direct clash with Russia. Against this background, it is not very clear what role the Europeans can play.

Q: Can the EU take a more constructive position towards Russia in the future?

Grushko: If we look at their current positions, they do not in any way suggest any constructive participation in the negotiation process. The statements from the camp of the political elites of the European Union are quite clear. Point 1 — do not let the conflict end quickly, it must continue until 2030, because if it ends quickly, then “Russia will immediately attack the Baltic countries and Poland.” Point 2 — we must achieve the strategic defeat of Russia. And we know what is meant by this. Point 3 — seek guarantees of Ukraine’s security.

In fact, the conflict has reached a stage where the West suffers a strategic defeat. Because in all three components that are counted on – military defeat on the battlefield, economic collapse and, ultimately, as they say, regime change – the result is exactly the opposite. If we look at the economic side, our economy has grown by 4%, in the European Union – approximately 0.1% to 1%, close to the statistical error. And the situation on the battlefield is well known.

One of the most important elements for us is the security interests of Russia. And Europe should understand that if strong international legal guarantees for Russia’s security are created, which will exclude Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the possibility of deploying foreign military contingents on its territory or using it to exert military pressure on Russia, then the security of Ukraine and the entire region in a broader sense will be ensured, since one of the root causes of the conflict will be eliminated.

Q: One of the main initiators of the idea of ​​sending European peacekeepers to Ukraine is French President Emmanuel Macron. In your opinion, what is the reason for the desire to aggravate the situation and lead to a direct clash between Russia and NATO?

Grushko: I think that two factors play a role here. First, France itself is not doing so well in the economic, social and all other spheres. The country is going through a serious crisis, it is being shaken by demonstrations, Emmanuel Macron and the political forces that support him are not in a very strong position. Governments are changing. Therefore, the introduction of such a loud topic as sending a military contingent is intended, among other things, to distract public attention from domestic problems.

Secondly, this is an attempt by France to lead the war party within the EU, thereby emphasizing its leadership in the union. France’s influence has been weakening lately. The link between Germany and France no longer works for many reasons, and Macron has apparently decided to use the military theme to once again bring his country to the epicenter of European politics, abandoning French foreign policy traditions.

In the traditions established by General de Gaulle, France played a balancing role. Its significance and political weight lay precisely in this: France proposed initiatives that united rather than divided. Now France, unfortunately, is becoming more radical than the Russophobic camp consisting of the Baltic countries and Poland.

Q: The head of the European Commission recently came up with an initiative for an €800 billion EU rearmament program. Does Russia see risks in connection with the emergence of this program?

Grushko: We see the risks, they are absolutely obvious. The fact is that the military and political subordination of the European Union to NATO has occurred; this follows not only from the practice of cooperation between NATO and the EU, but also from the documents they adopt. The NATO-EU Joint Declaration quite clearly states the EU’s own aim to become a European support for NATO. The Alliance views Russia as a direct and immediate threat. This postulate has also crept into the EU’s political documents. And we see that the plans to create the so-called autonomous military support for the European Union today are aimed at creating threats primarily to Russia.

Large-scale armament programs have been drawn up: over five years, the growth of arms imports to the EU has increased by 2.5 times, with 64% of military equipment purchased in the United States. At the same time, such systems are being purchased — including, in particular, F-35 aircraft — which are not intended for use in some local crisis situations, but for achieving superiority over a comparable enemy, that is, the Russian Federation. The rearmament program is aimed at preparing Europe for a military clash with Russia. US President Donald Trump is demanding an increase in military spending in the EU countries from 2% to 5%. Many have already stated that they will move in this direction. This is a very significant increase. Today, the amount of military spending by the European Union is several times greater than the military spending of the Russian Federation.

Q: The Dutch parliament has already voted against the country’s participation in the EU rearmament program. Is Europe capable of finding the funds for such a large-scale project?

Grushko: Mario Draghi, former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Central Bank, recently published a report on the economic state of the EU. The report is quite frank and tough; its main conclusion is that if the EU wants to become prosperous in the new global architecture, it needs to find €800 billion annually to invest in industry, new technologies, the “green transition” and other projects. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, added €800 billion to this, which are needed to further arm the European Union.

Let’s not forget that, according to the most conservative estimates, the losses from the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia and the losses from the refusal to cooperate with us, including in the energy sector, amount to €1.5 trillion. More than €200 billion went to military and other support for the Kyiv regime. If we add up these figures, we get a financial hole of at least €3 trillion. They need to be found somewhere. This is a colossal amount of money – more than two annual military budgets of all NATO countries. It is clear that the money will be scraped from the pockets of taxpayers, cutting spending on education, medicine, science, and so on.

It is difficult for me to say whether this project will withstand such a financial challenge. If we remember that the total public debt of all EU countries will soon approach 100% of GDP – which means that the EU countries must work for a year and spend nothing – then the prospects for implementing all these plans are rather vague.

Q: What measures can Russia take to counter these threats?

I will note once again: we cannot relax. We have drafted military planning documents that are designed to reliably ensure the security of our country and its defense capability in all areas. As the president emphasized, we will not get involved in an arms race. And it is good that our military capabilities allow us to reliably mitigate threats without spending crazy amounts of money on them and taking them out of the development sphere.

It is obvious that the negative trends that are being imposed today by both NATO and the European Union are very stable, and we must be prepared for a variety of scenarios. The events in Ukraine have shown that NATO and the European Union underestimated our capabilities and our determination and, by betting on inflicting a strategic defeat on us, made a big mistake.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

With a Ceasefire Imminent, Thousands of Ukrainians Have Died in Vain

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | March 18, 2025

On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with a small force of around 142,000 troops. Not enough to conquer Ukraine, the invading force was sufficient to persuade Ukraine to the negotiating table. Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that was the original goal of the military operation: “[T]he troops were there to push the Ukrainian side to negotiations.”

And it nearly worked. Within weeks, in Istanbul, a negotiated peace was within reach. It was only after the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, and their NATO allies pushed Ukraine off the path of diplomacy and onto the continued path of war that Putin mobilized more troops and more resources.

As Alexander Hill explains in the newly published book, The Routledge Handbook of Soviet and Russian Military Studies, in the initial phase of the war Russia struggled without the advantage of overwhelming numerical superiority and without committing their latest, most advanced equipment. With the United States and its NATO partners providing the Ukrainian armed forces not only with their most advanced weapons systems, but with the intelligence to effectively use them, Ukraine actually had “an overall technological edge during the initial phases of the war.” But the Russian armed forces proved to be very adaptable. They adopted new tactics and a much more methodical approach to the war, introduced advanced weapons systems, and demonstrated a capability to adapt to and destroy the most advanced Western weapons and equipment.

By the time the Ukrainian counteroffensive had failed to meet any of its goals, the tide had turned, and Russia was irreversibly winning the war.

At the beginning of the war in Istanbul, before the inconceivable loss of life, a negotiated end to the war could have been signed. Three years later, after the loss of more land and hundreds of thousands more lives and limbs, a similar negotiated peace will be signed, only adjusted to the current realities on the ground. Ukraine could have had a similar deal but maintained all their territory but Crimea. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died or been injured in vain in pursuit of America’s fantasy of a NATO without limits and a weakened Russia.

Russia went to the negotiating table in Istanbul in a weaker position than it goes to the table today. It has survived the war of sanctions and isolation and won the war against Ukrainian soldiers and NATO weapons on the battlefield. Russia will be willing to enter a ceasefire, but only if they can accomplish without fighting everything they can accomplish with fighting.

Tragically, three years later, the ceasefire talks will pick up where the Istanbul talks left off. Everything in between was in vain. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has said that “[t]here were very, very what I’ll call cogent and substantive negotiations framed in something that’s called the Istanbul Protocol Agreement. We came very, very close to signing something.” He then added that “I think we’ll be using that framework as a guidepost to get a peace deal done between Ukraine and Russia.”

And if you don’t believe that the remaining differences could have been bridged and a peace signed in Istanbul, then get ready for a very long war. Because those are the very same points that will need to be negotiated if the current ceasefire proposal is to succeed.

After all the loss of land and loss of life, Ukraine will still surrender territory and NATO membership. They will not receive a security guarantee that involves a U.S. military commitment. Kursk has collapsed in a costly strategic failure and the Ukrainian armed forces are barely hanging on across the full length of the 1,000-mile front in eastern Ukraine. Russia is not going to stop the war without receiving a signed agreement from the U.S. and NATO that there will be no Ukraine in NATO nor NATO in Ukraine. And they are not going to stop the war without Crimea and at least some of the four oblasts they have annexed and a guarantee in the Ukrainian constitution of the protection of the rights of ethnic Russians in the territory that remains in Ukraine.

Putin has made clear that the idea of a ceasefire and a negotiated peace is “the right one” and that Russia “support[s] it” but that “there are questions we need to discuss” and that any ceasefire negotiations would need to address the “original causes” of the war.

It seems clear that, before the United States pressured Ukraine into expressing a “readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire,” they had already laid the groundwork by discussing with Russia, who can go on fighting to achieve their nonnegotiable goals, what those nonnegotiable goals are.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed, for example, that the Saudi Arabia talks with Ukraine included discussions about “territorial concessions.” On Sunday, U.S. President Trump said that when he next talks to Putin, “we will be talking about land, we will be talking about power plants.” He said “they were already discussing ‘dividing up certain assets’.” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already said that any thoughts of recovering Ukraine’s lost territory is “an unrealistic objective” and an “illusionary goal.”

And, most importantly, Hegseth has also stipulated that Trump “does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO as part of a realistic peace plan.” And Trump has shared that verdict with his NATO allies. On March 14, when NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte was asked if Trump had taken NATO membership for Ukraine off the table in negotiations, he simply replied, “Yes.”

From the time Ukraine was nudged away from the negotiating table in Istanbul to the time it will return to the negotiating table, all the loss of life and land was in vain. It is preestablished that Ukraine will not recover all of its territory, and it is preestablished that they will not become a member of NATO. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died for nothing but the pursuit of American hubris. And that should make Americans very angry.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US to exit EU-led investigation on Russia – NYT

RT | March 17, 2025

The administration of US President Donald Trump is retreating from initiatives aimed at investigating and prosecuting alleged Russian crimes linked to the Ukraine conflict, the New York Times reported on Monday.

According to sources cited by the newspaper, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) will withdraw from the EU-backed International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (ICPA), established to investigate Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and Iran for the alleged crime of international aggression.

The US became the only non-European ICPA member when it joined in 2023. Sources told the NYT that Washington had informed European partners about its imminent exit ahead of a formal announcement.

Administration officials reportedly justified the withdrawal by citing a broader reduction in government expenditures. The DOJ had pledged $1 million to support European investigators when US participation was initially announced.

Additionally, Washington is curtailing operations of a DOJ team known as WarCAT, formed in 2022 to train Ukrainian prosecutors on charging and trying Russians for alleged war crimes, according to NYT sources.

Last week, reports emerged that the US had cut funding for a Yale-based research group searching for Ukrainian children “abducted” by Russia. Moscow has dismissed Kiev’s allegations of state-orchestrated kidnappings of thousands of minors as politically motivated mischaracterizations of its evacuation efforts in war-affected areas.

Trump is aiming to normalize bilateral relations with Russia, viewing a resolution of the Ukraine conflict as a crucial step. He and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to have a direct phone conversation this week.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky issues warning about Europe’s largest nuclear plant

RT | March 15, 2025

The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) cannot exist unless it is controlled by Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky has claimed, without explaining the reasoning. The facility, the largest of its kind in Europe, has been under Russian control since March 2022.

Zaporozhye Region, where the plant is located, eventually voted to join Russia in a referendum, which Kiev does not recognize. Both Moscow and Kiev have accused each other of attacking the facility and endangering its security. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) deployed a monitoring mission to the ZNPP in September 2022, which has been present on the ground ever since.

According to Zelensky, the station poses a problem to both Russia and Ukraine, but in his view, only Kiev can restore its operations. “Without Ukraine, its existence is impossible in principle,” the Ukrainian leader claimed.

He went on to say that “money and specialists” are needed to restore the power plant and it would take a few years before it can be operational again, adding that the station lacks technical water to cool its reactors because of the collapse of the Kakhovka Dam on the Dnieper River. Repairs at the station would involve “lots of capital-intensive processes,” Zelensky said.

“This is our station. Lost money, lost opportunities.”

The power plant has been largely dormant since mid-2023, due to the threat of Ukrainian artillery and drone attacks and the disruption of water supplies. Speaking at a plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum in September 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned of “very dangerous terrorist acts” perpetrated by Kiev’s forces against the facility.

In January, the Russian Defense Ministry stated that Ukrainian forces had sought to strike the station with eight drones. All of the unmanned aerial vehicles were shot down by the Russian air defenses at that time.

The ZNPP is currently controlled by a subsidiary of the Russian state energy corporation, Rosatom. CEO Ramil Galiev stated in December that the company plans to restore the plant’s operation as soon as its security is sufficiently ensured. The plans also involve building a new pumping system to refill the technical water reservoirs near the station.

“There are no unresolvable issues,” Galiev said in December.

March 16, 2025 Posted by | Nuclear Power | , | Leave a comment

Col. Jacques Baud: The Origin and Solution to the Ukraine War

Col. Jacques Baud with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 14, 2025

Jacques Baud, retired Colonel in the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, has published several books on the origin of the Ukraine War, and he presents the conditions to bring the war to an end. Understanding what happened to the Minsk agreement is important to understand what is required to find a solution. Colonel Baud also laments the dangerous geopolitical immaturity in Europe that no longer addresses reality.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Kursk Region Becomes Final Resting Place for NATO’s Top Tech

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – March 15, 2025

The near-total collapse of Ukraine’s operations in Kursk region has highlighted the folly of Zelensky’s obsession with throwing his best troops and materiel into a hopeless campaign. Here’s a selection of NATO equipment that has “found its peace in Kursk’s ground” over the past month, complete with photo and video evidence.

Russia’s Defense Ministry estimates that Ukraine has lost nearly 400 tanks, almost 2,800 armored vehicles and over 1,000 guns and mortars in fighting in Kursk region to date, and says over 85% of territories once occupied by Ukrainian forces have been freed.

Liberated areas contain scores of wrecked, burned out, damaged or abandoned vehicles, including some of NATO’s most advanced equipment:

M2A2 Bradley: Over 300 of these do-it-all American infantry fighting vehicles have been sent to Ukraine, with nearly half confirmed lost by Oryx. They’ve been spotted among other wrecked NATO equipment in Kursk region.

M1 Abrams: 31 of these custom-made monkey model American main battle tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. 20 lost to date. One recently spotted being towed away intact in Kursk region. Australia plans to send 49 more.

Leopard 1 AVLB Biber: Armored vehicle-launched bridge built on a German Leopard-1 tank chassis. 30+ sent to Ukraine. One recently found abandoned, in mint shape, in a Kursk village.

M777: A third of the 180 US-made 155mm howitzers sent to Ukraine have been lost, damaged, or abandoned to date, with several recently captured almost intact in Kursk region.

Stryker: Over 400 of these Canadian-built armored fighting vehicles have been transferred to Ukraine. At least 55 destroyed, some caught on Russian MoD FPV drone videos moments before meeting their fate.

BMC Kirpi II: 200 of these Turkish MRAPs have been sent to serve in Ukraine’s elite units. Scores destroyed, damaged or captured by Russian forces, including in Kursk.

HMMWV: 5,000 of these ubiquitous US vehicles, better known as Humvees, have been delivered to Ukraine. Scores captured on Russian FPV drone cam footage in Kursk region.

Roshel Senator: Over 1,700 of the Canadian-built armored cars have been delivered to Ukraine. Also spotted in Russian FPV drone videos.

MAXXPRO: About 440 these Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) have been sent to Ukraine by the US, with at least 197 lost to date, including in fighting for Kursk.

M113: 1,000+ of these ancient tracked APCs have been sent to Ukraine by the US and allies, with nearly 300 destroyed to date, including in Kursk region.

BATT UMG: Ukraine has received 116 of these US-made vehicles. Rarely seen, some are known to have met their fate on the battlefields of Kursk.

Bushmaster PMV: About 120 of these Australian-made Protected Mobility Vehicles have gone to Ukraine, some ending up in Kursk region, and at least 25 lost to date.

M240: Besides heavy equipment, an array of NATO small arms has also been destroyed or captured in Kursk as well, among them the FN M240 7.62mm machinegun, delivered to Ukraine by the US and France. In February, a Russian trooper in Kursk captured an M240 after storming a Ukrainian position and bringing the gun back to friendly lines.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Expel Soros agents’ — Hungary issues list of demands to EU

RT | March 15, 2025

Brussels should take decisive steps towards denying EU membership to Ukraine and ending the influence of foreign agents linked to billionaire George Soros on the bloc’s policies, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stated. He has called for the absolute national sovereignty of member states over domestic issues.

In a post on X on Saturday, Orban urged Brussels to “expel Soros agents” from the European Commission and “remove corrupt lobbyists” from the European Parliament.

The Hungarian prime minister has a long history of opposing foreign-funded organizations in his country, particularly those sponsored by Soros. Orban has repeatedly accused the Hungarian-American magnate of meddling in Hungary’s domestic affairs, undermining traditional family values, and promoting a globalist agenda.

Orban also called for “a Union, but without Ukraine,” having demanded “peace, freedom, and unity.”

Budapest has strongly opposed the rapid acceptance of Ukraine into the EU, citing the potential harm to the bloc’s economy. Kiev applied for membership shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022 and was granted candidate status within just three months.

The demands voiced by Orban were included in a broader list that contained calls for protecting Europe’s Christian heritage, banning “the unnatural re-education of children,” eliminating debt, and establishing equality before the law for all members of the bloc.

Orban emphasized that the Hungarian people expect Brussels to restore the competencies unlawfully taken from member states. He demanded “national sovereignty” and the right to “a strong veto for national governments.”

He also urged the EU authorities to stop obstructing the Hungarian National Guard from protecting the country’s borders. “Do not bring in migrants, and remove those who have arrived illegally,” he wrote.

Since the 2015 migrant crisis, Orban’s government has taken tough measures to curb the influx of migrants, including building border fences along Hungary’s southern borders with Serbia and Croatia and rejecting EU-mandated refugee quotas. These policies have triggered legal challenges, including a €200-million fine from the European Court of Justice last year for non-compliance with the bloc’s asylum rules.

Four years ago, Budapest updated child protection regulations to ban the promotion of LGBTQ topics in media, advertising, and educational materials accessible to minors. The move sparked outrage in Brussels, which launched legal action against Budapest, referred the case to the European Court of Justice, and froze billions in EU funds intended for Hungary over what it claimed were violations of fundamental human rights.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

The ball is in Russia’s court? Russia is winning a war, not playing tennis

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 14, 2025

The ball is in Russia’s court, according to the Trump administration regarding a proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine.

The proposed truce was announced following discussions on Tuesday in Saudi Arabia between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and representatives of the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime. Rubio said it was now up to Russia to reciprocate with the Ukrainian side’s purported willingness to hold a ceasefire.

In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin tactfully said that Russia was open to a ceasefire but only if it led to a complete and comprehensive peace settlement. Putin repeated that any durable resolution must address the root causes of the conflict and Russia’s fundamental strategic security concerns.

The Russian leader then met with Trump’s special envoy on Thursday. Following the discussions in Jeddah between the U.S. and the Kiev regime, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff travelled to Moscow where he met with Putin. The details of their conversation were not disclosed. But it was reported that Witkoff delivered “additional information” from Trump to Putin regarding the proposed ceasefire. It was reported that Witkoff returned to Washington with details from Putin. It may be surmised that the Russian position on its terms was reiterated. Trump hailed the discussions as “productive.”

Herein lies the rub. The essential underlying issues are the aggressive expansion of NATO and its weaponizing of a NeoNazi Ukrainian regime. The United States and its NATO partners instigated the conflict in Ukraine over several decades since at least the end of the Cold War in 1991. The past three-year war in Ukraine is but a symptom of a longer and systematic hostility. Trump seems to be cognizant of those issues.

The Trump administration has abandoned the false war-propaganda of the Biden administration. It is now acknowledged in Washington that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO axis and Russia.

As the spectacular military defeat of the NATO proxy forces in Kursk this week demonstrates – as well as the rapid gains Russia is making against the crumbling Kiev regime – the U.S.-led “Ukraine Project” has been vanquished. Russia has all but won the proxy war.

The Americans (factions within) and their NATO surrogates are trying to avoid the admission of defeat by contriving a superficial peace process that only ends up as a “frozen conflict” on Russia’s borders.

The best way to bring the war to an end is for the United States to stop arming the Kiev regime and supplying it with intelligence and logistical support.

This week Trump resumed military and intelligence supplies to the Kiev regime to coincide with the apparent offer of a ceasefire from the Ukrainian regime. That amounts to one step forward, two steps back.

It was rather risible to hear Marco Rubio, the U.S.’ top diplomat, affecting the image of an honest peace broker telling Russia that the ball was in its court to reciprocate for peace as “a compromise” with Ukraine.

The Trump administration has a misplaced view of the conflict if it thinks Russia can be pressured according to U.S. one-sided and pretentious demands.

Russia is winning a momentous war, not playing tennis.

In any case, the ball, so to speak, is and will remain firmly in the United States’ court until it accepts defeat and Russia’s victory terms. It is the U.S. and not its European vassals nor its catspaw Kiev regime that will have to make that call.

Those terms have been repeatedly stipulated by Moscow: a lasting security treaty in Europe consonant with Russia’s just and basic demands for NATO to roll back and desist from its aggressive tendencies; for Ukraine to be a neutral state in perpetuity never being a member of NATO; for the NeoNazi regime to be eradicated and the cultural rights of ethnic Russian people to be guaranteed and respected; and for the historic Russian territories of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporozhye and of course Crimea to remain intact as part of the Russian Federation.

Moscow reserves the right to change the terms per conditions on the ground if the conflict persists, such as reclaiming its historic territory of Odessa, Kharkiv, Nikolaev, and enforcing a no-fire zone in Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast from where the failed NATO Kursk offensive was launched last August.

On Russia’s successful recapture of Kursk, as Putin points out, there are serious contingencies that need to be dealt with even before a ceasefire is contemplated. The invaders, including NATO mercenaries, committed war crimes against civilians. Are they expected to be let go freely? This is no doubt a reason why the U.S. and Ukraine are suddenly pushing the idea for a ceasefire as a way to salvage failure and rearm.

Trump will have to deal with the reality of Russia’s dominant position: its military victory and its historically righteous cause to confront NATO aggression.

It remains to be seen now how Trump responds. He needs to disabuse arrogant misconceptions that Washington is acting as a peace broker. The U.S. is the main protagonist in a proxy war against Russia. The Kiev regime is but a bit player. Moscow has no need or inclination to engage with a corrupt NeoNazi regime headed up by a puppet president who no longer even has the semblance of legitimacy after cancelling elections last year and ruling by martial law.

If Trump is serious about ending the proxy war in Ukraine, he can do so promptly by ending the weapons flow to that country. His resumption of weapons supplies this week does not bode well.

Trump should also ignore the bleating of the European lackeys, in particular the British, who have nothing positive to offer. London was “intimately” involved in the latest ceasefire proposal from the U.S. and Ukraine, according to the BBC. That should be seen as a warning of a dirty trick.

It is a negative sign that the U.S.-Ukraine joint statement this week in Saudi Arabia peddled vile lies about Russia abducting Ukrainian children. It was also contemptible that the statement called for “future security guarantees for Ukraine” (the aggressor!) while saying nothing about Russia’s security concerns. The absence of the latter indicates the U.S. side has little understanding about “root causes” of the conflict.

Moreover, the U.S.-Ukrainian joint statement called for the involvement of European partners in peace talks. The present crop of European leaders has no intention or capability of negotiating a lasting peace with Russia. They insist on Ukraine becoming a future member of NATO and they want to insinuate themselves into the dialogue to scupper a peace deal by deploying “peacekeeping” troops. The British and French reportedly want the U.S. to provide air cover for what would be their trip-wire troop presence, thereby escalating the war.

Will Trump be duped by the perfidious British, French and other European Russophobes? Perhaps with a false-flag provocation?

American and European political leaders have negligible credibility for offering a ceasefire to Russia, never mind a durable peace. They started this war and surreptitiously want to continue it by other means under the guise of a peace process that does not address the root causes of conflict.

That implies that the only way to deal with the root causes and to establish a lasting peace is for Russia to defeat the NATO enemy with an explicit, unconditional surrender. Can Trump’s ego handle that?

Peace begins when the guns cease, but for true peace to last, the U.S.-led NATO war on Russia must be defeated. Can the U.S. imperial deep state handle that?

Either way, we will soon see.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Provoking Russian Intervention – Part 26 of The Anglo-American War on Russia

Tales of the American Empire | March 13, 2025

The first parts of this series focus on decades of American provocations that caused the war in Ukraine, which was a plan to weaken Russia. Losing this proxy war was not considered, and no strategy exists to prevent a Russian victory. Recent interviews appeared in American corporate news that exposed even more provocations. The CIA built a series of small bases in Ukraine along Russia’s borders a decade ago to conducted covert operations in Russia.

President Joseph Biden admitted the United States had placed nuclear armed missiles in Ukraine. Russia can cite gross violations of the 1991 Belovezha Accords by Ukraine as a reason to intervene with military forces, or cite its right in the UN Charter to take enforcement actions against enemy states from World War II.

_______________________________________________________

“CIA’s deep partnership with Ukrainian intelligence”; ABC News; January 16, 2025;    • CIA’s deep partnership with Ukrainian…  

“Biden Shares ‘Serious Concern’ for U.S. Democracy”; MSNBC interview; January 16, 2025; https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/w…

“UN Charter, former World War II enemies can be invaded by the USA or Britain”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Enem…

Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”;    • The Anglo-American War on Russia  

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »