Sometimes a surprising statement made almost in passing on a minor occasion can pack a lot of political oomph. And sometimes, it’s just a slip and won’t tell you much about either the present or the future. But how do you know?
That is the challenge posed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s recent – and very unusual – talk about a “compromise” (“Ausgleich” in German) with Russia, which, he also stressed, is “a European country,” indeed “our greatest European neighbor.”
Outside the context of current Western and, in particular, German and EU politics, such a statement may seem almost commonplace. Obviously, it would make sense for Berlin – and Brussels, too – to work toward a peaceful, productive, mutually beneficial relationship with Moscow. Equally obviously, this is not merely an option but, in reality, a vital necessity (as Merz may have been hinting at when emphasizing that Russia is Germany’s greatest European neighbor: Greatest as in indispensable?).
Yet once you add the actual context of escalating German and EU policies toward Russia since 2014 at the very latest, Merz’s sudden insight into the obvious appears almost sensational. For over a decade, German and EU policy toward Moscow has been based on three simple – and self-damagingly insane – ideas: First, Russia is our enemy by default and “forever” (see the refreshingly frank admission by German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul). Second, using Ukraine (and a lot of Ukrainians), we can defeat that enemy with a combination of economic and diplomatic warfare and a very bloody proxy war on the ground. Finally, there is no alternative: it is VERBOTEN to even think about genuine give-and-take negotiations and any compromise that would also be good enough for Moscow.
Merz, moreover, has no record as a doubter of these moronic dogmas. On the contrary, he has been a consistent uber-hawk, combining the requisite constant Russophobic undertone with a long series of hardline initiatives and positions. Just a few months ago, for instance, Merz fought tooth and nail for confiscating Russian sovereign assets frozen in the EU. That he lost that fight was due to resistance from Belgium – which would have been exposed to absurdly irrational risks by permitting that robbery – and France and Italy, whose leaders tripped up their hapless German “ally” at the last minute.
In a similar combination of public belligerence and final futility, Merz had long been a proponent of delivering advanced German Taurus cruise missiles – particularly well-suited for destroying things such as Russia’s Kerch Bridge – to Ukraine, before abandoning that awful idea. Ultimately and wisely, he shied away from involving Germany even more deeply in the proxy fight against Russia, most likely under the impression of very firm warnings from Moscow.
Just this month, the German chancellor declared he is ready to send German soldiers to secure a “ceasefire” in Ukraine. Yes, that would be that ceasefire that Moscow has ruled out as a dishonest half-measure. It is true that Merz hedged this announcement with conditions that make it irrelevant. But, nonetheless, it was not a contribution to de-escalation with Russia.
Yet here we are. Speaking not in Berlin, but the provincial metropolis of Halle in Eastern Germany, Merz used the occasion of a fairly humdrum meeting under the auspices of a regional IHK (Industrie und Handelskammer) meeting to speak about Germany’s relationship with Russia.
The IHK is a chamber of industry and commerce, an economic association of some weight. But it is not the parliament in Berlin or, for instance, even a foreign-policy information war outfit/think tank. Most of Merz’s remarks, unsurprisingly, concerned the German economy, which, he had to admit, is not in a good state, but, he promised, will be better soon. He also gave his word to fight and reduce bureaucracy, not only in Germany but the EU as well. That sort of stuff, nothing special, political potboiler.
But then, in the middle of the absolutely predictable and rather boring meeting, the chancellor suddenly extended a hand to Moscow. Or did he? Merz himself knows that his having anything to say about Russia that comes without foam at the mouth is extraordinary: he took care to assure his listeners that it was not the location “in the East” (that is, the former East Germany) that made him strike such a new tone regarding Russia.
His audience may or may not have been convinced by that all-too-quick denial. Halle is not only a major city in Germany’s East, but also, more specifically, the second-largest conurbation in the Land of Saxony-Anhalt. That is where, polls suggest, the new-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party may well win a crucial election in September, particularly by outdistancing Merz’s own mainstream conservatives (CDU). A similar scenario is possible in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, also in Germany’s East.
In both places, even a relative (not absolute) AfD majority, which seems certain at this point, would expose the traditional parties and especially the CDU to one of their worst nightmares: the end of the so-called “firewall,” that is, the harebrained and undemocratic policy of simply freezing the AfD out of the building of ruling coalitions. Merz personally has been an iron proponent of the “firewall.” Razing it, even regionally, will cost him his political career or force him into a brutal, humiliating 180-degree turn.
One important reason voters in Germany’s East are unhappy with the traditional parties is their policy of relentless, self-damaging confrontation toward Russia and equally relentless, really masochistic support for Zelensky’s regime in Ukraine. Just now, one of Germany’s highest courts has finally, in essence, recognized the fact that Ukraine was deeply involved in the worst vital-infrastructure attack in postwar German history, the destruction of most of the Nord Stream pipelines. Many Germans have had enough, not only but especially in Germany’s East.
That is why Merz knows that any apparent concessions to Moscow will meet healthy skepticism there. He also has a solid and well-deserved reputation for breaking his promises. His listeners in Halle may well have dismissed the new Merz sound as nothing but cheap pre-electoral manipulation.
And perhaps that is all it was. But there are good reasons to keep an open mind. For one thing, Merz has not been the only EU leader striking a more conciliatory note recently. As the Russian government has noted, similar statements have been made in France and Italy. The leaders of both countries, Emmanuel Macron and Georgia Meloni, have been no less bold than Merz in stating the obvious, namely – to summarize – that not even talking to Moscow is a daft policy.
It is not hard to see why EU politicians may be prepared to pursue diplomacy again. Their imperial overlord in Washington has made it clear that the Ukraine war will be their problem and theirs alone, while also displaying a brutality towards the world, including the clients/vassals in Europe, that is unusually open even by American standards.
After the tariff wars, the new US National Security Strategy, Venezuela, and the threats against Denmark over Greenland, could it be that, at very long last, some in Europe are slowly waking up to the fact that the worst threat to the sorry remains of their sovereignty, their economies, and also their traditional political elites is Washington, not Moscow? It would be very rash to assume so. But we can hope.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
January 16, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia | Germany, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
While last year, Ukraine was overwhelmingly dependent on American intelligence, today “two-thirds of those capabilities are provided by France,” revealed French President Emmanuel Macron speaking to BFMTV.
France has readily stepped in to make sure the West’s proxy war doesn’t lose steam — even if the US hesitates.
Last November, reports indicated that US officials had warned the Zelensky regime that intelligence support could be halted if Ukraine rejected Donald Trump’s proposed peace framework.
While Western leaders talk relentlessly about “peace,” in reality France and its allies in the so-called Coalition of the Willing are doubling down on escalation, doing everything to keep the conflict kept alive.
In the event of a ceasefire, Europe’s hawks are planning ‘military hubs’ in Ukraine – even though Russia has repeatedly emphasized any NATO troop presence there is unacceptable and would be viewed as a direct threat.
January 16, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | France, NATO, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The recent indirect offensive against vessels and assets belonging to Russia’s partner countries in the Black Sea reveals a strategy that goes far beyond the immediate military dimension of the Ukrainian conflict. The January 14 attack on a Kazakh oil tanker by Ukrainian drones must be analyzed within a broader context: a Western attempt to sabotage the historical, economic, and political relations between Moscow and the Turkic world.
The vessel that was struck was operating on behalf of KazMunayGas, transporting oil from the Russian port of Novorossiysk as part of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). This is a strategic route not only for Kazakhstan, but also for regional energy stability. The attack caused immediate concern, but what drew even more attention was the rapid mobilization of disinformation campaigns linked to Kiev, which sought to place the blame on Russia even before any investigation had been concluded.
This pattern has already become recurrent. After the incident, Russian authorities carried out technical investigations and presented visual evidence indicating that the drones originated from areas controlled by Ukraine. In light of this, the silence of the Ukrainian government was telling. Even so, the initial unease had already been done, fueled by rumors and fabricated narratives that circulated widely on social networks and in the international media.
The case of the Kazakh oil tanker is not an isolated one. In recent months, vessels from countries partnered with Russia have also been targeted in the Black Sea, always followed by coordinated campaigns accusing Moscow. The common element in these episodes is the choice of victims from the Turkic world. Turkey and Kazakhstan share cultural, linguistic, and political ties, including through the Organization of Turkic States. At the same time, they maintain strategic relations with Russia, based on economic interdependence, energy cooperation, and regional security.
Turkey is an emblematic example. Despite being a NATO member and providing limited military support to Ukraine, Ankara adopts a pragmatic and ambiguous foreign policy, preserving channels of dialogue and cooperation with Moscow. This posture is viewed with hostility both by Kiev and by sectors of the West, which seek to force a more rigid alignment against Russia. Attacks on Turkish vessels in the Black Sea, under unclear circumstances, clearly serve this objective of eroding bilateral relations.
Outside the maritime environment, the ethnic logic is similar. The episode involving Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 in December 2024 illustrates how poorly clarified incidents can be politically exploited. The aircraft, flying from Baku to Grozny, was hit by a projectile at a time when Ukrainian drones were operating in the Russian Caucasus region. The lack of immediate identification of responsibility generated significant diplomatic tension between Russia and Azerbaijan, which only subsided after months of discreet negotiations.
These events should not be seen as mere “collateral effects” of the war. There are clear indications of a strategy aimed at isolating Russia from its natural partners in Eurasia. Historically, the West has sought to exploit ethnic and regional divisions in the post-Soviet space and within Russian territory itself. Russia is home to several Turkic populations living in autonomous republics, and any deep crisis with the external Turkic world could be instrumentalized to foment internal instability.
In this context, information warfare is as relevant as military action. Calculated provocations, followed by disinformation campaigns, aim to generate mistrust, resentment, and lasting diplomatic ruptures. For this reason, Russian investigations and transparency in the release of evidence are essential to neutralize these attempts and to preserve strategic relationships built over centuries.
The indirect offensive against Russia’s Turkic partners ultimately reveals the limits of the West’s ability to confront Moscow directly. Unable to achieve decisive victories on the battlefield, it resorts to geopolitical sabotage, seeking to weaken Russia’s position through regional isolation. Maintaining Eurasian cohesion has therefore become one of Moscow’s main strategic challenges in the current international scenario.
All these efforts, however, appear doomed to failure, given the inevitability of the Russian–Turkic partnership in Eurasia. Despite fluctuations and periods of tension over time, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia share a solid history of cooperation that certainly cannot be shaken by futile provocations.
January 16, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Deception, War Crimes | Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
A report from the Serbian website Vaseljenska has published two leaked documents, purportedly from the Security Service of Ukraine (SZBU), detailing a high-stakes plan to manipulate the upcoming Hungarian elections in favor of the Tisza Party.
According to the report, the Zelensky government established a “Special Working Group for Hungarian parliamentary elections” as early as September 2025 to ensure a victory for the opposition at any cost.
Notably, Hungarians living abroad can vote in Hungary’s national elections, and among those voters are ethnic Hungarians who live in Western Ukraine. This group may play a key role in the upcoming national elections.
The leaked strategy, which cannot be confirmed in regard to its authenticity, allegedly involves aggressive measures against Transcarpathian Hungarians, ranging from alleged electoral fraud to even a “false flag” operation.
The documents suggest that Kyiv views a shift in Hungarian leadership as vital for Ukraine’s strategic interests. Certainly, this is a reality for the Zelensky government.
For one, Hungary currently refuses to ship weapons to Ukraine. Second, Budapest has been instrumental in holding up weapons packages from the EU, while also criticizing the amount of taxpayer money being sent to Kyiv, which has often ended up being used for corrupt purposes. Third, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also blocked Ukraine’s EU membership accession process.
While countries often have a strategic interest in the election outcomes in other countries, Ukraine’s current state of war means the country may pursue its interests more aggressively than a country at peace. In short, even if these leaked documents cannot be authenticated or even if they are outright fabricated, it is clear that Zelensky has a vested interest in seeing Orbán out of power.
One document, reportedly sent to Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko, notes that the Tisza Party “supports Ukraine’s accession to the EU and NATO.” The Ukrainians allegedly believe that “if the [Hungarian] opposition gains 3-4 more seats in the new parliament, it could be a decisive factor and ensure that the forces supporting Ukraine come to power in Hungary.”
To achieve this, the SZBU reportedly recommended conducting three key actions.
The first is voter surveillance, which means identifying Ukrainian citizens of Hungarian descent who cast mail-in ballots in 2022 to “define and control” them.
The second alleged method would involve postal fraud, which means intercepting the mail sent to the Hungarian Central Election Commission, with the intent “to destroy 40% of the letters containing the ballots cast in favour of Fidesz.”
The third method would involve targeted mobilization efforts, which would place political pressure on ethnic Hungarians.
It is also worth noting that support for Orbán has been extremely high in past elections from this population.
Intimidation and “false flag” terror plans
The alleged report further details a campaign of intimidation targeting Transcarpathian Hungarians, whose support for Viktor Orbán was assessed by Ukrainian intelligence as “alarmingly high.” Proposed measures for activists in cities like Beregsász and Ungvár include wiretapping, surveillance, and “further mobilization measures” — often interpreted as a euphemism for sending political opponents to the front lines.
The most shocking revelation involves a potential terrorist act intended to intimidate the population and disrupt the election.
The alleged attack would utilize drones assembled from captured Russian parts to ensure they are identified “as aircraft of the aggressor state.”
The goal would be a strike on a civilian facility near the border to provide a pretext for a stricter state of war in Transcarpathia. This would allow for the closing of borders and the suspension of postal services, effectively blocking the electoral process.
The Serbian report frames these leaks against a backdrop of increasing tension between Kyiv and Budapest. It notes that the Ukrainian security forces have shifted their focus toward ethnic Hungarians because “Kyiv has long distrusted this community because of its proximity to Budapest,” following Viktor Orbán’s refusal to support Ukrainian war efforts at the expense of Hungarian citizens.
Again, this document cannot be verified. However, given that the country is at war and given their willingness to conduct assassinations and other covert operations, Hungarian authorities may be worried about the electoral integrity of the election in Transcarpathia.
Regardless of any potential Ukrainian actions, the role of this ethnic Hungarian population may be significantly diminished in the upcoming election. Before the war, the population numbered approximately 150,000. However, since the war broke out, some estimates indicate the population may have been cut in half, with some dying at the front but many fleeing to other countries, including neighboring Hungary.
January 15, 2026
Posted by aletho |
False Flag Terrorism | Hungary, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Despite the widespread expectation that President Donald Trump would end Washington’s entanglement in NATO’s proxy war using Ukraine against Russia, it is increasingly evident that the fundamental features of U.S. policy remain unaltered. Trump personally has sent an array of mixed signals about his intentions. Although he has pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept the reality that Kiev must be willing to make territorial concessions to Moscow in any peace accord, he also has been receptive to Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine be given reliable “security guarantees” in such a settlement. Indeed, during the recent summit meeting between the two leaders, the main point of disagreement appeared to be that Zelensky wanted a commitment lasting fifty years, whereas Trump was prepared to offer only fifteen years.
Not only is Kiev insisting on a firm, detailed guarantee of protection, but also Ukraine’s European supporters in NATO are doing so. Worse, Trump seemed to sign onto a new 20-point “peace plan” being pushed by Zelensky and his European backers. Only Russia’s curt rejection of the scheme has so far prevented it from further consideration.
A potentially deadly snare lies in wait for the United States which our leaders must avoid at all costs. Throughout the years of the Ukraine crisis, most attention has focused on Kiev’s desire for formal membership in NATO and Russia’s repeated refusal to tolerate that option. Indeed, the principal cause of the current war was the clash between Russia and NATO regarding that issue.
However, the substantive issue has never been merely the prospect of Ukraine’s formal membership in NATO. Instead, the real threat to Russia’s security, from Moscow’s viewpoint, has been NATO’s attempt to turn Ukraine into a significant military asset for the alliance. It matters little whether that development occurs because of Kiev’s official membership in NATO or because of new, separate Western security guarantees.
Indeed, the ties would not have to be all that formal to constitute a dangerous provocation toward Moscow. Several NATO governments have repeatedly engaged in loose talk about sending their troops as “peacekeeping personnel” to Ukraine to enforce a settlement. Indeed, some of those countries appear willing to incur such a risky commitment to implement a mere “truce” between the feuding parties. Both Great Britain and France have stated that they intend to establish “military hubs” across Ukraine with their forces. In one of his more reckless, irresponsible moments, President Trump expressed his willingness to consider having the United States “backstop” such European efforts.
Washington must emphatically reject any attempted ploys of that nature. Even a paper security guarantee to Kiev would put any and all guarantor powers at risk. A decision to deploy so-called peacekeeping forces would be even worse. The Kremlin has made it emphatically clear that the presence of any troops by a NATO member in Ukraine is intolerable. Moscow likely would view a troop presence by NATO’s European contingent, much less the United States, as an existential threat to Russia’s security.
It would be folly for U.S. policymakers to rely excessively on the language contained in the North Atlantic Treaty to limit the danger of an undesirable military entanglement. Article 5 obliges NATO signatories to regard an act of aggression against any NATO member state as an attack against them all. The actual language regarding the obligation under Article 5, though, is so vague as to be meaningless, if a member seeks to evade taking serious action. The provision merely requires allies to render (undefined) assistance to the victim of aggression. Crucially, there is no commitment to launch military strikes against the alleged aggressor or to send troops into combat to aid the beleaguered ally. Merely providing logistical aid could fulfill a member’s obligation. The NATO countries that have sent weaponry or provided targeting and other intelligence data to Ukraine have easily met or exceeded any implied Article 5 obligation, even if Kiev had been a member of the alliance.
But in the real world, multiple NATO governments would seek to inflate the U.S. commitment under Article 5 to deepen Washington’s entanglement in the Alliance’s proxy war against Moscow. A pervasive myth persists in America and the rest of the world that the United States has an official treaty obligation to go to war if another NATO country comes under attack. Giving Ukraine a security guarantee would consolidate and strengthen that myth. In other words, U.S. leaders would find themselves under enormous pressure to launch a direct military intervention to support NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine regardless of the actual language contained in Article 5.
That is why any NATO troop presence in Ukraine, or any official security guarantee to Kiev, would be so dangerous. Given the enormous political and military pressures that would be coming from Kiev’s fan club throughout the West, it is highly improbable that U.S. leaders could avoid an armed clash with Russian forces merely by citing the limited, conditional language in Article 5. Legalistic quibbling is not the way events proceed when raw, wartime emotions are in play.
Trump administration officials need to spurn proposals for any alliance security guarantee to Ukraine, much less a deployment of NATO peacekeepers. Washington must emphatically reject schemes that would include a U.S. military presence of any size or nature in Ukraine. President Trump’s casual musings about supporting a NATO peacekeeping contingent not only are irresponsible, but also constitute a betrayal of his political supporters in the last election. They believed that their candidate was committed to extricating the United States from an unnecessary and debilitating geopolitical venture. Unfortunately, Donald Trump appears to be on course to disappoint advocates of a more prudent U.S. foreign policy yet again.
January 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Ukraine has awarded a major state-owned lithium project to American investors linked to US President Donald Trump. Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko pitched it as the pilot project under last year’s minerals deal between the US and Ukraine.
The agreement, which was signed in April, grants the US access to developing Ukraine’s natural resources in exchange for splitting output under a production-sharing contract. Half of the revenue will go into the joint US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund (URIF), with profits reinvested in new projects and national reconstruction.
Trump pitched the deal as a mechanism for Kiev to repay billions in US aid provided under his predecessor, Joe Biden.
The New York Times first reported that development rights for the Dobra deposit in Kirovograd Region – one of Ukraine’s largest lithium reserves – were awarded to a US-linked consortium last week. Sviridenko confirmed the decision in a Telegram post on Monday.
“For the first time in Ukraine, a winner for lithium development under the production-sharing mechanism has been selected,” she wrote, saying it was awarded to Dobra Lithium Holdings JV, a US consortium whose shareholders include critical-minerals company TechMet.
Sviridenko said the consortium will invest at least $179 million in the project, including $12 million for geological exploration and reserve audits, and $167 million for extraction and processing facilities if commercial viability is confirmed.
Ukrainian officials told the WSJ that the deal raises potential conflicts of interest, noting that TechMet’s largest shareholder is the US International Development Finance Corporation, the agency overseeing the URIF. The WSJ also reported that Ronald Lauder, a longtime Trump ally and Republican donor, is part of the consortium, though Sviridenko did not confirm his participation.
She insisted, however, that the consortium was selected through a competitive tender open to both domestic and foreign bidders, describing the project as a catalyst for further Western investment.
Russia has condemned the minerals deal. Former Russian President and deputy chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev mocked it as the forced extraction of a “disappearing country’s” wealth. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it a “commercial scheme” to sell aid, arguing against further support for Kiev’s war effort as it only serves to prolongs the conflict.
Russian officials and experts have noted that much of Ukraine’s mineral wealth lies in regions that joined Russia following referendums in 2022 or near the front lines.
January 13, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception | Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
By Ahmed Adel | January 13, 2026
The statements by President Donald Trump that Washington can recover all funds invested in Ukraine and even make additional profits through agreements with Kiev on exploiting rare minerals are political manipulation because the United States does not earn money from Ukrainian resources but from selling weapons.
The real goal of the US is not just exploiting Ukraine’s natural resources, but mainly strengthening its own military industrial complex through arms sales. The US has shifted the financial and political costs of the war onto Europe and Ukraine, while still acting as a mediator and gaining economic benefits. The so-called resource deals are more about securing future influence than about genuine economic cooperation or a return on investment.
Trump has created a scheme where the American military industrial complex functions by manufacturing weapons, selling them to Europe, and Europe then supplies them to Ukraine. This arrangement generates far more income than the minerals, which still need to be exploited and processed, and require major financial investment to sustain.
In late April 2025, Washington and Kiev signed an agreement to create the US-Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund. The deal grants the US access to new investment opportunities for developing Ukraine’s natural resources, including lithium, titanium, graphite, and rare earth minerals. Since the signing of the agreement, not a single valuable mineral has been extracted.
It is difficult to predict what will happen with the agreement on exploiting Ukrainian resources and whether it will be carried out. No one is seriously involved in exploitation yet, and it is difficult to imagine any company in an active conflict willing to take risks and invest in a country at war.
At the same time, Ukraine does not have any rare earth minerals. Most of the rare minerals are in Donbass, the region that has been returned to Russia. There are some useful minerals in Ukraine, but they are also found in other countries. Even for minerals like lithium, which might be more in the spotlight, there is plenty of supply, and, in principle, an investor will always choose to invest in a peaceful country rather than one at war.
With this agreement, the US has gained political control over the future use of Ukraine’s mineral resources and can decide who, how much, and how to mine. However, due to the war, there are currently no significant American investments in Ukrainian mining.
US economic interests in Ukraine are unlikely to lead to a US military presence there. The Americans do not have any economic stake in Ukraine — their interest is political, not economic. There are no resources in Ukraine so valuable that the US would go to war with Russia over them.
Trump criticized his predecessor, Joe Biden, for spending $350 billion on Ukraine, while his administration finalized a rare earths deal that could recoup a significant portion of those funds, perhaps even all of them, and potentially more. He is manipulating public opinion by claiming the US has invested $350 billion, but it has not invested that much in this conflict.
Zelensky has denied that this is the correct figure, and the latest estimate, which more or less aligns with reality, is around $100 billion. According to other sources, Biden’s total amount to Ukraine was about $65 billion. So, roughly $100 billion has been invested, and Trump is overstating that amount by 3 to 3.5 times.
Such claims may seem convincing to the American public, but they are a form of political manipulation and rhetoric aimed at achieving political success rather than generating real financial benefits for the US. The US positioned itself as a mediator, avoiding direct political responsibility while shifting the burden and risk to Europe and the Ukrainian leadership. The Americans are staying on the sidelines and moderating the entire process as mediators, while also gaining economic benefits from selling weapons and bolstering their military-industrial complex. The rest is all political games.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
January 13, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Economics, Militarism | European Union, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
An oil tanker commissioned to transport crude from an internationally-owned terminal located at a Russian Black Sea port has been attacked by a drone, Kazakhstan’s state-owned oil company KazMunayGas (KMG) reported on Tuesday.
The ship ‘Matilda’ was hit earlier in the day on its way to pick up cargo at the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) terminal this coming Sunday, the statement said. No crew members were hurt, KMG added, noting that the tanker remains seaworthy.
Reuters reported attacks on four tankers in the Black Sea that were on their way to the CPC terminal, located at the Russian port of Novorossiysk, including the ‘Matilda’, citing sources. The report suggested that Ukraine may have been responsible for the attacks, citing Kiev’s history of targeting the consortium’s assets in Russia, but said that Ukrainian officials have not commented on the situation.
CPC is a pipeline operator owned by Kazakh, Russian, and Western private firms and the government of Kazakhstan, which transports crude from the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan to the Novorossiysk terminal. The Russian military has in the past reported Ukrainian attacks on the infrastructure, as Kiev seeks to undermine Moscow’s international oil trade.
Although Kiev does not officially claim credit for attacks on civilian infrastructure, the role of Ukrainian special services in several incidents has been broadly reported in domestic and international media. Moscow has described them as an element in a global Ukrainian campaign of sabotage and terrorism targeting Russian interests.
January 13, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Economics, War Crimes | Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The EU will have to resume dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the Ukraine conflict, the European Commission’s chief spokesperson has admitted.
The bloc reduced its contacts with Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 in an effort to “isolate” Russia. This approach led to the EU being virtually sidelined from the negotiating table since last February, when US President Donald Trump launched efforts to mediate peace between Moscow and Kiev.
“Obviously, at some point, there will have to be talks also with President Putin,” Paula Pinho stated on Monday, claiming that the EU was “working very, very hard for peace.” She also blamed Moscow for the slow progress of the peace talks by asserting that Brussels was “not seeing any signs” of Russia engaging in any negotiations.
Russian officials have met their US counterparts at various levels on numerous occasions since February, including a summit between Putin and Trump in Alaska last August. The American president said last month that the peace talks were in the “final stages.”
Russian and Ukrainian negotiators also held several rounds of direct talks in Türkiye last year, after early negotiations between the parties stalled in spring 2022 after Kiev withdrew.
Moscow has also repeatedly stated it is ready to engage in peace talks with Kiev and its European backers. In December, presidential aide Yury Ushakov told journalists that Western leaders were welcome in Moscow for talks, but maintained that “the Europeans are refusing all contacts.”
Several European leaders have changed their rhetoric on Russia over the past months. In December, French President Emmanuel Macron stated it would be “useful” to reengage in talks with Putin. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni supported the idea last week by saying it was time for the EU to talk to Russia.
January 13, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | European Union, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The United Kingdom will develop a new Nightfall ballistic missile with a range of over 500 kilometers (310.6 miles) for Ukraine, the UK Defense Ministry said on Sunday.
“The UK will develop new tactical ballistic missiles that boost Ukraine’s firepower … Under Project Nightfall, the UK has launched a competition to rapidly develop ground-launched ballistic missiles with a range of more than 500 kilometres and designed to operate in high-threat battlefields with heavy electromagnetic interference,” the ministry said in a statement.
Missile’s specifications:
- >500 km range
- 200 kg warhead
- $1 million per missile
- Production: < 10/month
Three industry teams will each receive $12 million to design and deliver three test missiles within 12 months, the statement said.
The West’s plan to further militarize Ukraine is far from a peaceful settlement and is rather aimed at escalating and spreading the conflict, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said earlier.
January 12, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | UK, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
The war in Ukraine happened because western nations insisted that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO but were never willing to fight to guarantee that right.
That reality has never changed. This week’s latest Summit of the Coalition of the Willing has confirmed that it will not change any time soon.
The only countries that appear remotely willing to deploy troops to Ukraine in a vague and most certainly limited way are the British and French.
Both would need parliamentary approval which can’t be guaranteed. Reform Leader Nigel Farage has already come out to say that he wouldn’t back a vote to deploy British troops to Ukraine because we simply don’t have enough men or equipment. And even though Keir Starmer has the parliamentary numbers to pass any future vote on deploying British troops, it would almost certainly damage his already catastrophic polling numbers.
Macron is clinging on to his political life and would probably face a tougher tussle to get his parliament to approve the French sending their troops to Ukraine, potentially leaving the UK on its own.
In any case, it is completely obvious that Russia won’t agree to any deployment in Ukraine by NATO troops. This shows once again that western leaders have learned absolutely nothing over the past decade. It will never be possible to insist that Russia sues for peace under terms which is has long made clear are unacceptable at a time when it was winning on the battlefield, and European nations refuse to fight with their own troops.
Hawkish British journalist Edward Lucas, with whom I disagree on most things, summed it up well in an opinion in the Times newspaper when he said:
We are promising forces we do not have, to enforce a ceasefire that does not exist, under a plan that has yet to be drawn up, endorsed by a superpower (read the U.S.) that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary that has far greater willpower than we do.
President Putin has shown an absolute determination not to back down until his core aims, namely to prevent NATO expansion, are achieved. And as I have said many times, the west can’t win a war by committee.
All of these pointless Coalition of the Willing meetings happen in circumstances where Europe refuses to talk to Russia upon whom an end to the war depends. Peace will only break out after Ukraine and Russia sign a deal, and the west appears deliberately to be doing everything possible to ensure that Russia never signs.
Instead, we entertain Zelensky with hugs and handshakes, reassuring him that we will do anything he wants for as long as he needs, only to offer insufficient help all of the time.
And, as Zelensky is in any case unelected, not likely to win elections in Ukraine as and when they happen, overseeing a corrupt regime that is adopting increasingly repressive tactics to keep a losing war going, it is not in his interest to see the war end anyway.
His calculus continues to be that, if he clings on for long enough, the west will finally be dragged into a direct war with Russia. So, he’s happy to drag out an endless cycle of death by committee in which European leaders never agree to give him exactly what he wants and he uses that as a pretext not to settle.
Zelensky went on from Paris to Cyprus where, among other things, he has been pushing for more sanctions against Russia. At no point since 2014 have sanctions looked remotely likely to work against Russia, for reasons I have outlined many times.
The European Commission is now planning its twentieth round of sanctions to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the war on 24 February 2026. So with peace talks ongoing, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas as always are doing their bit to ensure that nothing gets agreed.
None of this brings the war any closer to an end nor does it provide any security guarantees to Ukraine. As always, the biggest security guarantee should be the offer by European allies to intervene militarily in Ukraine should Russia decide to reinvade after any future peace deal.
But that was not agreed in Paris. Instead, the Paris Declaration said, ‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’
In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to ‘finalise commitments that may include’ basically means that nothing has been agreed.
The declaration also said:
We stand ready to commit to a system of politically and legally binding guarantees. However, the final communique gave individual countries opt outs from those guarantees by saying that any guarantees would be, ‘in accordance with our respective legal and constitutional arrangements’.
So, again, in diplomatic parlance, what this means is that some coalition members may be able to opt out of the security guarantees if they decide that their domestic framework does not allow for such an arrangement, thinking here in particular of Hungary, Italy and Spain, for example.
What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.
Even though these are Ukrainian troops, not European, Russia will undoubtedly see EU funding of a large Ukrainian army on its border as a form of NATO lite. Which, of course, Zelensky would welcome.
So the process of holding near weekly Coalition of the Willing summits is entirely pointless, though perhaps that is the point. Since 2022, western leaders have been completely unable to say no to Zelensky, either through guilt or stupidity, or both.
Yet at some point, if only for their own political survival, Starmer and others will have to politely decline to offer more support and make it clear to Zelensky that he has no choice but to sue for peace. To me, at least, the European offer to Zelensky follows these lines:
Ukraine cannot join NATO (sorry we lied to you about that) but you can join the European Union and we will help you make the reforms you need to do so.
You will get significant investment when the war ends that boosts your economy. As your people return home, we believe Ukraine has potential to grow quickly and reconstruct.
However, it may still be many years before you receive EU subsidies on the level of other European Members, and you possibly may not receive them at all.
And you will have to become financially sustainable, including meeting the EU’s fiscal deficit like other EU member states.
I’m afraid that means that you won’t be able to maintain an army of 800,000 people at Europe’s expense (sorry we reassured you that you could).
But, as a European Union member you would have a security guarantee by virtue of your membership of this community, even though only Macron’s France has said it would send you troops (je m’excuse).
You should also be aware that Europe sees benefit in a normalised economic relationship with Russia, that includes purchasing cheap Russian energy. We can’t go on buying massively expensive U.S. LNG just to avoid hurting your feelings.
Sanctions may have been a policy or war, but they won’t be a policy of peace, and you will need to accept that we will drop them too.
We have now reached the limit of the financial support that we can provide to you so we have reached the point of now or never in your signing a peace deal.
That requires you to make hard choices about de facto recognition of land on the lines of the peace deal that the U.S. is trying right now to finalise with Russia.
Without that, he will simply continue this charade of endless pointless Summits and the war will drag Europe even further into the mire.
That’s a lot to take in and we’ve already apologised enough as it is. Look, we lied to you okay, but everyone makes mistakes.
Somehow, though, I predict the Europeans will continue to drift in circles. I wonder where the next Coalition of the Willing Summit will be? I hope it’s soon, as Zelensky might actually have to spend some time inside of Ukraine if there’s a delay. And he likes it in Europe as it’s the only place where everyone seems to love him.
January 11, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | France, NATO, Russia, UK, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Kiev is seeking to block access to Russian music on international streaming platforms inside Ukraine and prevent performers from the neighboring country from appearing in domestic popularity charts, a senior official overseeing sanctions policy has said.
Ukrainian Sanctions Policy Commissioner Vladislav Vlasiuk announced that Kiev was developing “new solutions” aimed at ensuring that those whom authorities describe as Russian “propagandists” do not feature in monthly or annual rankings on streaming services such as Spotify or YouTube music.
He added that more than 100 Russian performers had already been blacklisted by Ukrainian authorities, and that the list would be expanded. Kiev would then “try to persuade streaming platforms so that this content is not available on the territory of Ukraine,” Vlasiuk noted.
A separate push came from the country’s music industry lobby. In December, Aleksandr Sanchenko, president of the All-Ukrainian Association of Music Events (UAME), said that officials were developing mechanisms for a near-blanket ban of Russian performers inside the country.
He noted that while an option to ban all artists using the Russian language was under consideration, it was ultimately ruled out, as it would impede Ukraine’s Eurointegration push.
He said, however, that his group has launched an open Google form and appealed to music media to help compile a list of Russian artists for possible sanctions.
Sanchenko also said that discussions were underway about creating so-called “white lists” for pro-Ukraine Russian performers, but acknowledged that no such artists have been added so far.
Ukraine has steadily tightened curbs on Russian culture and language since the Western-backed coup in 2014, particularly since the escalation of the conflict with Moscow in 2022, extending restrictions affecting everything from books and films to music played in public spaces and online. Ukrainian officials have argued that Russia-linked cultural products could pose a “threat” to national security and identity.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that the crackdown has transcended “all the bounds of good and evil,” adding that “paranoia is becoming the ‘calling card’ of those who have grabbed power in Kiev.”
January 11, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | Human rights, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 