During a meeting with French President Macron, Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a major weapons deal for Rafale fighters and drones. The warplanes will be delivered over the next decade, and Paris said training Ukrainian pilots will take at least three years.
“One of the most productive visits of this year, and certainly a new step in our strategic partnership with France. We have signed a historic agreement providing for a new fleet of fighter jets for Ukraine: 100 Rafales,” Zelensky wrote on X Tuesday.
He continued, “We will also receive highly effective French radars as well as new SAMP/T air defense systems, designed to precisely counter the types of missiles used against Ukraine. We have also agreed on the supply of air-to-air missiles and guided aerial bombs.”
The letter of intent signed by Zelensky will also see the transfer of drones and anti-drone systems to Ukraine.
Marcon and Zelensky did not provide a timeline on the transfer of the Rafales or who would pay for the weapons. Rafales cost over $100 million per plane. A French official said it would take at least three years to train the Ukrainian pilots.
Zelensky said Paris agreed to provide Kiev with some immediate security assistance. “France is additionally preparing a new package of military aid, which we will receive by the end of the year,” the Ukrainian leader wrote on X.
Zelensky was in France to attend a meeting of the “coalition of the willing.” The group is a bloc of European countries working to fill Kiev’s massive budget deficits. On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent a letter to the leaders of the European Union’s member states, arguing that it was essential for the bloc to plug Ukraine’s $157 billion budget gap over the next two years.
Part of von der Leyen’s proposal calls for European nations to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort. Zelensky said he believed the coalition of the willing would be able to come to an agreement on this issue.
“I believe that in the end we’ll reach an agreement to push this topic to the end and be able to use Russian assets for the European defense package, for Ukrainian production, and for the most part for the air defense systems from the United States of America,” he said.
The EU has pledged to spread the financial and legal risks of using Russia’s frozen central-bank assets to fund the government in Kiev, Politico reported on Monday. Belgium, where most of the money is held, has rejected the plan without such guarantees.
The European Commission is seeking to issue a €140 billion ($160 billion) loan secured against the immobilized sovereign assets held at the Euroclear clearing house in Belgium. The scheme is based on the assumption that Moscow will eventually pay reparations to Ukraine, an outcome widely seen as unlikely. Russia has said it regards any use of its assets as “theft” and has vowed a legal response.
According to Politico, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has circulated a memo to EU capitals spelling out how member states would share the risks with Belgium. The document says the bloc is prepared to cover potential legal and financial fallout even if disputes arise years later.
Belgium, which has a bilateral investment treaty with Russia dating back to 1989, has warned it could face lengthy and costly litigation if Moscow mounts a legal challenge. Von der Leyen said the guarantees would also cover obligations stemming from bilateral investment treaties.
Around $200 billion of the roughly $300 billion in Russian sovereign reserves frozen by the West since 2022 are held at Euroclear. The clearinghouse has threatened to sue the EU if the bloc attempts to confiscate the assets.
The memo reportedly also set out two fallback options should governments ultimately decide against using the Russian funds. Both alternatives would require the EU to pony up its own resources to support Kiev, thus shifting the burden onto European taxpayers.
European Commissioner for Economy Valdis Dombrovskis said last week that the bloc cannot continue providing loans to Ukraine in light of growing concerns over Kiev’s ability to repay them.
The Kremlin has warned that channeling Russian funds to Ukraine would “boomerang,” and threatened to target up to €200 billion in Western assets held in Russia in retaliation.
Apparently, the war plans of European countries are far from over. Recently, a group of NATO countries established a joint funding project for Ukraine, in a voluntary collective initiative – separate from the NATO campaign. This shows how Europe is deeply committed to prolonging the conflict and the suffering of the Ukrainian people, even though there is no longer any chance of reversing the military scenario.
Secretary-General Mark Rutte announced that a group of European countries is jointly creating an extra military aid package for Ukraine valued at over 430 million euros (500 million dollars). The participating countries are Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden. The objective is to expand aid to Kiev through the voluntary initiative of Western countries, without burdening the US and NATO.
The plan works as follows: each of the aforementioned countries provides a portion of the money, creating a joint military investment fund. The money is then used to buy American weapons and send them to Kiev through the “Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List” program. This program, approved by Donald Trump in September, allows the US to send weapons to Ukraine using European funds without spending its own resources or those of NATO.
Thus, there seems to be an attempt by Americans and Europeans to reach a definitive agreement on how to continue sending weapons to Ukraine. Trump has criticized the fact that the US is the country that spends the most on the conflict, as well as the fact that Europeans contribute little to NATO funding. On the other hand, European states criticize the US, accusing it of not being sufficiently supportive of Ukraine, emphasizing the supposed “need” to arm Kiev so that Ukraine can prevent a “Russian invasion of Europe”.
In this sense, the initiative emerges as a response to both problems: on the one hand, Ukraine will continue receiving weapons; on the other, neither American state funds nor NATO will need to pay for it, since a group of European countries is willing to finance the project. Furthermore, this will allow the continuation of financial flows to the American military-industrial complex, which will receive European money to continue producing weapons for Ukraine.
Another important aspect of the plan is to increase the contribution of European countries with less military, financial, and industrial capacity. Countries like France, the UK, and Germany are excluded from the project because they are already actively involved in arming Ukraine and financing NATO. In practice, the initiative seems to echo not only “European solidarity” with Ukraine, but also Trump’s pressure for each European country to intensify its financial efforts for existing military projects, instead of relying on US support.
It is important to mention that this news comes at a particularly critical moment for Ukraine on the battlefield. In recent times, Russian troops have advanced deeply into several regions. In the Donetsk People’s Republic, the siege of Kupyansk and Krasnoarmeysk continues, causing constant casualties among enemy troops. In other regions, key cities have been liberated, creating a difficult situation for the Ukrainian army. Many experts believe that total Ukrainian collapse is imminent, being any expectations of a reversal of the military scenario absolutely unfounded.
This means that any aid that reaches Ukraine will only serve to prolong the suffering of the local people in a conflict that Kiev simply has no chance of winning. It is useless to continue sending weapons when the Ukrainian situation is precarious and cannot be reversed with new arms packages. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the main Ukrainian problem currently is a lack of human resources, not weapons. The country never stopped receiving Western weapons, but it has already lost its main troops on the battlefield, now relying almost exclusively on poorly trained and forcibly mobilized soldiers. This situation cannot be solved with new Western aid packages.
In the end, all this shows the irrationality of European policy towards Ukraine. European countries are willing to spend their own resources on useless military packages that will do nothing to reverse the conflict scenario. Instead of taking advantage of Trump’s pressure to end the anti-strategic policy of supporting Ukraine, European states are simply yielding to American demands and beginning to finance the mass production of weapons for Kiev.
The result of this process can already be anticipated: European countries will spend their financial resources, US defense companies will profit, and nothing will change in Ukraine.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy facilities are contributing to rising oil prices in the US, Europe, and Asia, Bloomberg reported on Saturday.
The attacks, combined with outages at key plants in Asia and Africa, have removed millions of barrels of diesel and gasoline from the global market, the outlet said. US sanctions on Russian energy giants Lukoil and Rosneft in October, along with restrictions imposed by the EU, have also helped drive prices higher.
Refining margins in the US, Europe, and Asia are now at their highest levels for this time of year since at least 2018, Bloomberg said, citing its own calculations. Additional pressure has come from shutdowns and outages at refineries in Kuwait and Nigeria.
Ukraine has targeted oil depots, processing plants, and metering stations with drones and missiles, calling them legitimate facilities that support Russia’s “war machine.” Russia, in turn, has struck elements of Ukraine’s power grid, saying the infrastructure supports the Ukrainian military.
In August, Hungary imposed sanctions on Ukraine’s top drone commander, Robert Brovdi, after repeated strikes disrupted the flow of crude through the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline.
Western assistance to Kiev risks ending up in the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian officials, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has warned, citing a major scandal that recently shook Ukraine’s government. He also argued against further military aid, warning that the EU was on “the path of death.”
Salvini spoke as the Italian government approved its 12th package of military support for Ukraine and promised electrical generators for the coming winter. The decision coincided with a major scandal in Kiev over an alleged $100 million energy graft scheme involving Timur Mindich, a close associate and former business partner of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.
Moscow responded to the news by calling it evidence of a “bloody hydra” of Ukrainian corruption reaching beyond the country’s borders and draining Western taxpayers’ money. Politico also reported on Saturday that the EU was also concerned over “endemic corruption” in Ukraine.
“It seems to me that corruption scandals are emerging, involving the Ukrainian government, so I would not want the money of Italian workers and pensioners to be used to fuel further corruption,” Salvini told reporters in Naples on Friday.
He added that ending the conflict depends on “silencing the weapons” and bringing both Moscow and Kiev to the negotiating table. Salvini also argued that it should be in Kiev’s interest to halt the fighting as soon as possible, pointing to continued Russian gains on the battlefield.
“To think that sending weapons to Ukraine means Ukraine can regain the lost ground is naïve, to say the least,” he said, adding that he did not believe “prolonging this path of death will help anyone.”
Salvini has previously criticized what he sees as escalatory rhetoric from other EU leaders. In August, he responded to French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion that EU nations could send troops to Ukraine by saying Macron should go himself. “If Macron wants, he can go – but I think he’ll go alone, because not even one Frenchman would follow him,” Salvini said at the time, prompting a brief diplomatic spat between Rome and Paris.
MOSCOW – Russia and the United States are actively discussing the Ukrainian peace process based on the understandings reached in Anchorage by Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov said on Sunday.
“We are holding active talks on Ukrainian settlement based on the understandings reached in Anchorage,” Ushakov said.
Ushakov added that many comments and signals on Ukraine were coming out of Washington, but he stressed that Russia would continue to rely on those understandings.
“[There are] many signals, some we like, some we do not, but the basis for everything is Anchorage,” Ushakov stated, adding that these understandings are a good path for peaceful settlement in Ukraine.
He added that decisions reached in Anchorage had been conveyed to Ukraine, However, Kiev “did not like it.” Anchorage agreements are opposed by those who want hostilities in Ukraine to continue “to the last Ukrainian,” Ushakov said.
When asked whether the US had moved away from the Anchorage understandings, Ushakov said that the US did not officially say that they were no longer valid. He also said that the next Putin–Trump summit had been postponed, however contacts on this matter were ongoing.
“We agreed on a meeting in Budapest, then the meeting was postponed for some time. Contacts on this matter are ongoing,” Ushakov said.
If both presidents agree on a meeting, many technical and political disagreements would be pushed to the back burner, he added.
“It seems to me that if a principled agreement is reached by Washington and Moscow on a leaders’ meeting in one place or another, then many technical and political difficulties will fade into the background,” he said.
Russia consistently states its interests, goals, and security concerns, but the West often ignores these statements, considering them irrelevant and refusing to consult on issues directly affecting Russia. This attitude reflects hubris and folly and risks disastrous consequences, as it is both unjust and historically unsound.
Over the last several decades, Russia has consistently communicated a clear stance to the West, a stance that has largely been ignored or even ridiculed. As I say, “over the last several decades,” it becomes clear I am going to pick a starting point for a divergence or breakdown of East/West communications, and I must necessarily pick some point. I could go back to the Crimean War and show how Britain and France were engaged in imperialist interventions to try to harm Russia as far back as 1854 (and very few British patriots who honor the glory of the Light Brigade ever think to inquire as to why the British Army was in Crimea in the first place), or I could even go back to 1054 with the East-West Schism, but for the sake of simplicity, brevity, and precision, let’s focus around 1989-1991 as the starting point. It is necessary to pick a point, so I choose 1989-1991 for the purpose of this writing.
The Decline of the Soviet Empire and NATO’s Promises
As the Cold War was winding down and Soviet Premier Gorbachev tacitly conceded that Marxism-Leninism had not prevailed in the competition of ideas with the Western nations, agreements were made, understandings were reached, and terms were established for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Central Europe and from the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact member territories. Then US Secretary of State James Baker promised guarantees: “NATO jurisdiction or forces will not move eastward” regarding the possibility of NATO eastward expansion. Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow available in the National Security Archive.
It was on this basis that the Soviet Union consented to German reunification under Western auspices favorable to the FRG, by which the DDR was essentially absorbed. The Soviets also withdrew, in peace, throughout the Warsaw Pact nations, and nowhere did they use violence to oppose the popular mass demonstrations occurring throughout 1989-1990 across in the Eastern Bloc; not even in Romania, where the demonstrations were not only not peaceful, but morphed into a bloody revolution. As an aside, Brussels technocrats might do well to ponder what the Romanian people did to Ceausescu and the simple fact that when people are pushed to the breaking point, they snap, and that no technocratic tyranny is immune to being brought down by its own working class. In the end, Ceausescu was at least as out of touch with the reality of his own population as most of the empty suits in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London are with their respective populations, and only time will tell if those empty suits in those cities meet a similar fate.
The Russians (previously Soviets) had communicated clearly to their Western counterparts and obtained promises and assurances that they thought were as good as gold. The only thing we can fault President Gorbachev for is that he trusted the words of Western so-called statesmen, and he actually believed what they told him. They would later cynically proclaim, “Those promises were never in writing,” as though a verbal guarantee means nothing and it would only matter if it were written on paper. Ask the American Indians how valuable American government written guarantees were in the 19th century, or ask the Czechs and Slovaks what they think of British written guarantees from 1938 and 1939. The West would have violated even written guarantees, because it is now obvious that the West had the intention to betray Russia from the start.
History Lessons: Why Russia Will Never Forgive NATO Expansion
The West occasionally maintains the position that no guarantees were ever given to Russia, a position I do not support. The available evidence strongly indicates that the guarantees were made, and common sense would suggest that seasoned Soviet/Russian statesmen would have procured such guarantees before undertaking the steps to dismantle the Warsaw Pact and shift forces back to the Soviet Union. However, even if the guarantees were not made, good neighborliness and political reality would dictate that the prudent course of action would be to respect Russian interests and not expand NATO, as such expansion is a needless provocation that risks much and gains little.
Russia has clearly communicated, repeatedly, “Do not expand NATO to the east,” “Do not expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact members,” and finally, “Do not expand NATO into former Soviet Republics.” The standard response the West gives Russia has come from people such as John McCain, who dismiss Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country,” which they say isn’t worthy of listening to or taking seriously. I urge my fellow Americans, only adopt Mr. McCain’s attitude if you do not value peace and if you wish to test that hypothesis in a knock-down, drag-out fight with Russia, a fight that might end in nuclear fire.
Suffice to say, Russia is a great and historical power and cannot be flippantly dismissed as a “gas station” simply because a pseudo-statesman like John McCain said so. Such remarks are as constructive to international dialogue as a Russian dismissing the USA as a “Super Walmart pretending to be a country,” which, as far as I know, has not happened, because Russian diplomats are actually classically educated and know how to behave themselves. One-liner insults or verbal jabs are best left to comedians, not aspiring statesmen hoping to go viral while sounding “cool” for a younger audience.
The Russians seldom speak of Americans or America in the sort of denigrating or insulting terms Americans use to describe them, because it is not how mature statesmen dialogue with partners or even competitors or rivals; childish insults are generally not a tool in the box of statecraft, unless you are Bismarck trying to start a war with France in 1870. The Russians don’t seem to have the American penchant for starting unnecessary wars.
In fact, the Russians have shown incredible restraint and forbearance in an attempt to keep the peace and avoid escalation to war. Russia reluctantly accepted NATO expansion in 1999, which saw the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland incorporated into NATO, although it was in clear violation of the prior assurances made by Western leadership. It is likely that the Western powers, looking at the dire situation in Russia in the late 1990s, decided, “Russia is in crisis, the situation is terrible, we can violate the prior agreements with impunity, and Russia won’t be in any position to oppose us.”
One more round of expansion of NATO in the former Warsaw Pact and even in the former Soviet Republics occurred, and that was in 2004.
Putin at the Helm: How the Change of Power in Russia Coincided with a New Wave of NATO Expansion
Something dramatic and historically significant had happened in Russia around that time; that was the ascension to the presidency of Vladimir Putin, who was appointed prime minister in 1999 and then elected president in 2000.
The 1999 NATO expansion happened prior to the beginning of his administration, and the 2004 expansion happened while he was still stabilizing the situation in Russia and was working to resolve the internal issues of the Second Chechen War (the jihadi groups in Dagestan likely had support of CIA/Western-organized global jihadi networks such as Al Qaeda, which the CIA had formed and organized to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, which ultimately turned and bit its American master).
In 2004 the Russians very reluctantly witnessed the expansion of NATO into the Baltic States and the rest of the former non-Soviet Warsaw Pact members who were not included in the 1999 expansion, but red lines were drawn; the message was clear: “Do not ever attempt to expand NATO into a former Soviet Republic again.”
The West went away hearing what its delusional technocratic rulers wanted to hear and what its thoroughly dishonest corporate press wanted to report: “Russia is unreasonable and threatens a peaceful military alliance simply for expanding right to its front door.” They also convinced themselves Russia was weak and could be subdued or subverted.
Two Failures of the West: Lessons of 2008 and the Fate of the Puppets
The West has only dared try to expand into former Soviet Republics on two more occasions, one in 2008, where the Western/Soros-backed pawn Mikheil Saakashvili (emboldened by ultimately empty Western guarantees of support) foolishly and recklessly ordered his military to attack Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and found out the hard way that Western guarantees aren’t always reliable and that Russia was not as weak as his Western handlers doubtlessly assured him. Saakashvili is presently a naturalized Ukrainian citizen who claims a right to the leadership of Georgia, but he is incarcerated for his crimes against Georgia and the Georgian people. Readers may ponder on such things and contemplate the worthiness of Western guarantees, something Saakashvili will have many years to ponder on from his prison cell, where he may also contemplate that his treason against Georgia and aggression against Russia came with high price tags.
2008 was different from 1999, as Russia now had President Putin at the helm, Russia’s recovery was proceeding at full speed, and what NATO was able to get away with in 1999, it found it couldn’t manage in 2008.
I said there were “two more occasions” where the West tried to expand NATO into former Soviet Republics. One was in Georgia in 2008. The other is right now; it is history we are living in and watching unfold. We are part of a generation that is watching (in some instances writing) this history. I speak, of course, of Ukraine.
In 2008 NATO affirmed, “Ukraine will one day become a member,” and President Putin warned them not to try, not to do it; he warned of a forceful response if such a thing was attempted. NATO ignored Putin, at its own peril, and proceeded forward with operations in the Ukraine, first subverting the lawful government with the illegal (and immoral) Maidan Coup of 2014, and then turning the Ukraine into an armed camp with tens of billions of dollars of weapons from 2014 to 2022 and then finally hundreds of billions of dollars since 2022.
Russia communicated clearly, “Do not expand NATO in this manner,” and the NATO response was essentially demonstrated by deed, “We don’t care what Russia says or does, Russian responses are not relevant, and we don’t factor Russia into our calculations.”
Why does NATO seek to expand? Why does NATO even exist in the post-Cold War era? Perhaps the NATO leaders understand well something Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “An alliance which is not for the purpose of waging war has no meaning and no value.” So NATO exists to wage war; this much is clear. The question then is, “Against whom does NATO seek to wage war?” A question whose answer is also obvious. NATO is an aggressive dagger aimed at the heart of Russia.
Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations.
Nicolai N. Petro is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island, and formerly the US State Department’s special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union. Prof. Petro discusses the pending end of the Ukraine War and why Europe will likely fragment as a consequence of its proxy war against Russia.
Liberal Italian outlet Corriere della Sera has refused to publish an exclusive interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The move comes a week after an Italian journalist was fired by his news agency for questioning EU double-standards on Russia and Israel respectively.
In the interview, Lavrov, Russia’s vastly experienced top diplomat, cited a “Russophobia frenzy” in EU media. Lavrov also commented on the aborted meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump in Budapest, suggesting that Trump had received “behind-the-scenes reports” that led him to cancel the talks.
Below is the full text of Lavrov’s interview, as published on the Russian MFA website:
Question: It has been reported that Vladimir Putin’s next meeting with Donald Trump in Budapest did not happen because even the US Administration realised that you are not ready for talks on Ukraine. What went wrong after the Anchorage summit that inspired hope for the launch of a genuine peace process? Why does Russia remain adherent to the demands that Vladimir Putin put forward in June 2024 and on what issues сould you make a compromise?
Sergey Lavrov: The understandings reached in Anchorage were an important milestone in the search for a long-term peace in Ukraine through overcoming the consequences of the violent anti-constitutional state coup in Kiev organised by the Obama administration in February 2014. The understandings are based on the existing reality and closely bound to the conditions of a just and lasting resolution of the Ukrainian crisis proposed by President Putin in June 2024. As far as we know, those conditions were heard and received, including publicly, by the Trump administration – mainly the condition that it is unacceptable to drag Ukraine into NATO to create strategic military threats to Russia directly on its borders. Washington also openly admitted that it will not be able to ignore the territorial issue following the referendums in Russia’s five historical regions whose residents unambiguously chose self-determination apart from the Kiev regime that labelled them as “sub-humans,”“creatures,” and “terrorists,” and chose reunification with Russia.
The American concept that, at the US President’s instruction, his Special Envoy Steve Witkoff brought to Moscow the week before the Alaska summit was also built around the issues of security and territorial reality. President Putin told Donald Trump in Anchorage that we agreed to use this concept as a basis while proposing a specific step that opens a way for its practical implementation.
The US leader said that he should consult with his allies; however, after the meeting with his allies that took place in Washington the next day, we did not receive a reaction to our positive response to the proposals that Steve Witkoff delivered to Moscow before Alaska. No reaction was communicated during my meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in September in New York when I reminded him that we were still expecting it. To help our American colleagues decide on their own concept, we set forth the Alaska understandings in a non-paper and delivered it to Washington. Several days later, at Trump’s request, he and Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation and reached a preliminary agreement to meet in Budapest after thorough preparations for this summit. There was no doubt that they would discuss the understandings in Anchorage. After a few days, I spoke with Marco Rubio over the phone. Washington described the conversation as constructive (it was indeed constructive and useful) and announced that, after that telephone conversation, an in-person meeting between the Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister in preparation for the top-level meeting was unnecessary. Who and how submitted covert reports to the American leader after which he either postponed or cancelled the Budapest summit, I do not know. But I have described the general timeline strictly based on the facts for which I am responsible. I am not going to take responsibility for bluntly fake news about Russia’s lack of readiness for talks or sabotaging the outcomes of the Anchorage meeting. Please speak to The Financial Times that, as far as I know, planted this misleading version of what happened, distorting the sequence of events, to put the blame on Moscow and lead Donald Trump off the road he suggested – a road to a lasting steady peace rather than the immediate ceasefire where Zelensky’s European masters are pulling him, due to their own obsessive intention to get a repose and inject the Nazi regime with more weapons to continue the war against Russia. If even the BBC produced a fake video that featured Trump calling for assaulting the Capitol, The Financial Times is capable of something similar. In Russia, we say, “they would not scruple to tell a lie.” We are still ready to hold another Russia-US summit in Budapest if it is genuinely based on the well-elaborated outcomes of the Alaska summit. The date is not set yet. Russia-US contacts continue.
Question: Units of the Russian Armed Forces are currently controlling less territory than in 2022, several weeks into what you call a special military operation. If you are truly prevailing why can’t you deliver a decisive strike? Could you also explain why you are not publicising official losses?
Sergey Lavrov: The special military operation is not a war for territories but an operation to save lives of millions of people who have lived on those territories for centuries and whom the Kiev junta seeks to eradicate – legally, by prohibiting their history, language and culture, and physically, by using Western weapons. Another important goal of the special military operation is to ensure Russia’s security and to undermine the plans of NATO and the EU to create a hostile puppet state at our western borders that, by law and in reality, relies on Nazi ideology. It is not the first time we have stopped fascist and Nazi aggressors. That happened during World War II and it will happen again.
Unlike Westerners who have wiped out entire neighbourhoods, we are sparing people – both civilians and military personnel. Our armed forces are acting extremely responsibly and delivering high-precision strikes exclusively at military targets and associated transport and energy infrastructure.
It is not customary to publicise battlefield losses. I can only say that this year, Russia has transferred over 9,000 bodies of Ukrainian personnel in repatriation. We have received 143 bodies of our fighters from Ukraine. You can come to your own conclusions.
Question: Your appearance at the Anchorage summit in a sweatshirt saying “USSR” raised many questions. Some regarded it as a confirmation of your ambition to recreate, if possible, the former Soviet space (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltic countries), if not to restore the USSR. Was that a coded message or just a joke?
Sergey Lavrov: I am proud of my country where I was born and raised, got a decent education, started and continued my diplomatic career. As is well known, Russia is the successor to the USSR, and in general, our country and civilisation dates back a thousand years. The Novgorod Veche emerged long before the West started playing democracy. By the way, I also have a T-shirt with the national coat of arms of the Russian Empire but it does not mean that we want to restore it. One of our greatest assets, of which we are rightly proud, is the continuity of developing and strengthening our state throughout its great history of uniting and consolidating Russian and all other peoples of the country. President Putin recently highlighted that in his remarks on National Unity Day. So, please do not look for any political signals in this. Maybe the feeling of patriotism and loyalty to one’s Motherland is fading away in the West but to us, it is part of our genetic code.
Question: If one of the goals of the special military operation was to return Ukraine under Russian influence, as, for example, it may seem based on your demand to be able to determine the number of its armaments, don’t you think that the current armed conflict, whatever the outcome, gives Kiev a very specific international role and identity that is increasingly distant from Moscow?
Sergey Lavrov: The goals of the special military operation were determined by President Putin in 2022 and remain relevant to this day. It is not about spheres of influence but about Ukraine’s return to a neutral, non-aligned and non-nuclear status, and strict observance of the human rights and all the rights of the Russian and other national minorities – this is how these obligations were stipulated by Ukraine’s Declaration of Independence of 1990 and in its Constitution, and it was precisely in view of these declared obligations that Russia recognised the independence of the Ukrainian state. We are seeking and we will achieve the return of Ukraine to the healthy and stable origins of its statehood, which implies that Ukraine will no longer subserviently offer its territory to NATO for military development (as well as to the European Union, which is quickly turning into a similarly aggressive military bloc), sweep out the Nazi ideology prohibited in Nuremberg, return of all their rights to the Russians, Hungarians and other national minorities. It is indicative that, while dragging the Kiev regime into the EU, the Brussels elites remain silent about the outrageous discrimination of “non-indigenous ethnicities” (as Kiev contemptuously calls Russians who have lived in Ukraine for centuries) and praise Zelensky’s junta for defending “European values.” This is just another proof that Nazism is re-surging in Europe. It is something to think about, especially after Germany and Italy together with Japan recently began to vote against the General Assembly’s annual resolution on the unacceptability of glorifying Nazism.
Western governments do not hide the fact that in reality, they are waging a proxy war against Russia through Ukraine and this war will not be finished even “after the current crisis.” NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Brussels bureaucrats Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and US President’s Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg have spoken about it on many occasions. It is evident that Russia’s determination to protect itself from the threats created by the West using the regime under its control, is legitimate and reasonable.
Question: The US also supplies weapons to Ukraine, and there was a recent discussion on the possibility of delivering Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kiev. Why do you hold different views and assessments of the US’ and Europe’s policy?
Sergey Lavrov: Most of the European capitals currently make up the core of the so called “coalition of the willing” whose sole desire is to keep hostilities in Ukraine running for as long as possible. Apparently, they have no other way of distracting their voters from sharply deteriorating domestic socioeconomic problems. They sponsor the terrorist regime in Kiev using European taxpayers’ money and supply weapons which are used as part of a consistent effort to kill civilians in Russian regions and Ukrainians who are trying to flee the war and the Nazi henchmen. They undermine any peace efforts and refuse to have direct contacts with Moscow; they impose more and more sanctions that have a boomerang effect on their economies; they are openly preparing Europe for a new big war against Russia and are trying to talk Washington into rejecting an honest and fair settlement.
Their key objective is to compromise the position of the current US administration that has from the outset advocated dialogue, looked into Russia’s position and showed willingness to seek a lasting peace. Donald Trump repeatedly said in public that one of the reasons for Russia’s action was NATO’s expansion and the advancement of the alliance’s infrastructure to our country’s borders. That is what President Putin and Russia have been warning against for the past twenty years. We hope that common sense prevails in Washington, that it will hold onto its principled position, and will refrain from actions which can propel the conflict to the next level of escalation.
With all that in view, whether the weapons are coming from Europe or the US makes no difference for our military, and they immediately destroy all military targets.
Question: You were the one who pressed the “reset” button together with Hillary Clinton, even if the events then took a different turn. Can relations with Europe be reset? Can common security serve as a platform for improving the current relations?
Sergey Lavrov: The confrontation which has arisen from the European elites’ thoughtless and stillborn policy is not Russia’s choice. The present situation does not meet our people’s interests. We would like to see the awareness of such a disastrous policy sink in with European governments most of whom are pursuing a rabid anti-Russia agenda. Europe already waged wars [against us] under Napoleon’s flags, and last century also under the Hitler’s Nazi banners and colours. Some European leaders have a very short memory. When this Russophobic obsession – I am at a loss for a better phrase for that – fades away, we will be open for contacts, ready to hear if our former partners are going to do business with us further. And then we will decide if there are prospects for building fair and honest ties.
The West’s efforts have totally discredited and dismantled the Euro-Atlantic security system in its pre-2022 form. In that regard, President Putin came up with an initiative to set up a new architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia. It is open for all the nations of the continent including its European part, but it requires polite behaviour devoid of neo-colonial arrogance, on the basis of equality, mutual respect and balance of interests.
Question: The armed conflict in Ukraine and the subsequent international isolation of Russia might have made it impossible for you to act more effectively in other crisis areas, such as the Middle East. Is that so?
Sergey Lavrov: If the “historical West” decided to fence itself off from someone, it is called self-isolation. However, the ranks there are not solid, anyway – this year, Vladimir Putin has had meetings with leaders of the United States, Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia. Clearly, today’s world cannot be reduced to the Western minority. That is an age gone by since multipolarity emerged. Our relations with the Global South and Global East nations – which make up 85 percent of the Earth’s population – keep progressing. In September, the Russian President paid a state visit to China. In the past few months alone, Vladimir Putin took part in the SCO, BRICS, CIS, and Russia-Central Asia summits, whereas our high-level government delegations attended the APEC and ASEAN summits and are now preparing for the G20 summit. Summits and ministerial meetings in the Russia – Africa and Russia – Gulf Cooperation Council formats are held regularly. The Global Majority countries are guided by their core national interests rather than instructions from their former colonial powers.
Our Arab friends appreciate Russia’s constructive participation in settling regional conflicts in the Middle East. Ongoing discussions at the UN on the Palestine problem confirm that capabilities of all influential external actors must be pooled together, otherwise nothing lasting will come out save for colourful ceremonies. We also share close or convergent positions with our Middle East friends which facilitates our interaction at the UN and within other multilateral platforms.
Question: Do you not think that in the new multipolar world order that you promote and support, Russia has become more dependent on China economically and militarily, which created an imbalance in your historical alliance with Beijing?
Sergey Lavrov: We do not “promote” a multipolar world order as its emergence results from an objective process. Instead of conquest, enslavement, subjugation or exploitation, which was how the colonial powers built their order and went on to bring about capitalism, this process implies cooperation, taking into account each other’s interests, and ensuring the smart division of labour based on the comparative competitive advantages of the participating countries and integration structures.
As for Russia-China relations, this is not an alliance in the traditional sense of the word, but rather an effective and advanced form of interaction. Our cooperation does not imply creating any blocs and does not target any third countries. It is quite common for Cold War-era alliances to consist of those who lead and those who are led, but these categories are irrelevant in our case. Therefore, speculating about any kind of imbalance would be inappropriate.
Moscow and Beijing have built their ties on an equal footing and made them self-sufficient. They did so based on their mutual trust and support, which are rooted in many centuries of neighbourly relations. Russia reaffirms its steadfast commitment to the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs.
Russia-China cooperation in trade, investment, and technology has benefited both countries and fosters steady and sustainable economic growth, while also improving the wellbeing of our people. As for the close military-to-military ties, they ensure that we complement each other, enabling our countries to assert their national interests in terms of global security and strategic stability while also effectively countering conventional and new challenges and threats.
Question: Italy carries the label of an unfriendly country, as you have said so many times, including in November 2024. You made a special point about it. However, in recent months the Italian government has been demonstrating its solidarity with the US administration, even on the Ukraine topic, while Vladimir Putin used the word partner to refer to the United States, even if he did not go as far as call it an ally. Considering the appointment of a new ambassador to Moscow, there are reasons to believe that Rome is seeking some kind of a rapprochement. How would you assess the level of our bilateral relations?
Sergey Lavrov: For Russia, there are no unfriendly nations or people, but there are countries with unfriendly governments. And since this is the case for Rome, the relations between Russia and Italy are going through the most serious crisis in post-war history. We were not the ones who got the ball rolling. The ease and swiftness with which Italy joined those who placed their bets on inflicting what they called a strategic defeat on Russia, and the fact that Italy’s actions run counter to its national interests, really surprised us. So far, we have not seen any meaningful moves to change this aggressive approach. Rome persists in providing its all-round support to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. Its resolute effort to sever all cultural ties and civil society contacts is equally perplexing. The Italian authorities have been cancelling performances by outstanding Russian orchestra conductors and opera singers, and have been refusing to authorise the Verona Dialogue on Eurasian cooperation for several years now, despite the fact that it was established in Italy. Italians have a reputation of art lovers who are open to promoting people-to-people ties, but these actions seem quite unnatural for them.
At the same time, there are quite a few people in Italy who are seeking to get to the bottom of what caused the Ukrainian tragedy. For example, Eliseo Bertolasi, a prominent Italian civil activist, presented documentary evidence of the way in which the authorities in Kiev have been violating international law in his book The Conflict in Ukraine Through the Eyes of an Italian Journalist. I would like to recommend you that you read this book. In fact, finding truth about Ukraine in Europe has been quite a daunting task these days.
The people of both Russia and Italy stand to benefit from equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between our two countries. If Rome is ready to move towards restoring dialogue based on mutual trust and taking into consideration each other’s interests, they must send us a signal since we are always ready to hear what you have to say, including your ambassador.
“Busification” is a well-understood term in Ukraine and refers to the process in which young men are detained against their will, often involving a violent struggle, and bundled into a vehicle — often a minibus — for onward transit to an army recruitment center.
Until recently, Ukraine’s army recruiters picked easy targets. Yet, on October 26, the British Sun newspaper’s defense editor, Jerome Starkey, wrote a harrowing report about a recent trip to the front line in Ukraine, during which he claimed his Ukrainian colleague was “forcibly press-ganged into his country’s armed services.”
This case was striking for two reasons; first, that the forced mobilization of troops is rarely reported by Western mainstream media outlets. And second, that unlike most forced conscriptions, this event took place following the alleged commandeering of the Western journalists’ vehicle by three armed men, who insisted they drive to a recruitment center.
There, Starkey reported, “I saw at least [a] dozen glum men — mostly in their 40s and 50s — clutching sheafs of papers. They were called in and out of side rooms for rubber-stamp medicals to prove they were fit to fight.”
The process has drawn criticism after high-profile incidents where men have died even before they donned military uniforms. On October 23, Ukrainian Roman Sopin died from heavy blunt trauma to the head after he had been forcibly recruited. Ukrainian authorities claim that he fell, but his family is taking legal action. In August, a conscripted man, 36, died suddenly at a recruitment center in Rivne, although the authorities claim he died of natural causes. In June, 45-year-old Ukrainian-Hungarian Jozsef Sebestyen died after he was beaten with iron bars following his forced conscription; the Ukrainian military denies this version of events. In August, a conscript died from injuries sustained after he jumped out of a moving vehicle that was transporting him to the recruitment center.
Look online and you’ll find a trove of thousands of incidents, with most of them filmed this year alone. You can find videos of a recruitment officer chasing a man and shooting at him, a man being choked to death on the street with a recruiter’s knee on his neck. Many include family members or friends fighting desperately to prevent their loved one being taken against his will.
If videos of this nature, on this systemic scale, were shared in the United States or the United Kingdom, I believe that members of the public would express serious concerns. Yet the Western media remains largely silent, and I find it difficult to understand why.
In November 2024, Ukraine’s defense minister Rustem Umerov claimed that he would put an end to busification. It is true that Ukraine has been taking steps to modernize its army recruitment and make enlistment more appealing to men under the age of 25. Yet, there is little evidence that those efforts are having the desired effect. And after a year, busification only appears to be getting worse, yet remains widely ignored by the Western press.
The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War often reports on Russian force mobilization efforts but not on the dark and desperate aspects that lead to busification. You won’t find reports on this in the New York Times, as it conflicts with the narrative that with support from the West, Ukraine can turn the war around. It leans in instead on stories like Ukraine’s points for drone-kills game or the designer who cut the all-black suit that Zelensky now wears. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is softly banging the drum to recruit 18-year-old Ukrainians, despite this being a toxic political issue in Ukraine.
This is because busification is the tip of the iceberg. If the Ukrainians are finding it difficult to encourage young men to join the army voluntarily, then it is proving even harder to make them stay without deserting.
In January 2025, it was reported that around 1,700 troops of the Anna of Kyiv 155th mechanized brigade, trained in France and equipped with French self-propelled howitzers, had gone AWOL — 50 of them while still in France. In June 2024, a Ukrainian deserter was shot dead by a border guard while trying to cross into Moldova.
In the first half of 2025, over 110,000 desertion cases were reported in Ukraine. In 2024, Ukrainian prosecutors initiated over 89,000 proceedings related to desertion and unauthorized abandonment of units, a figure three-and-a-half times greater than in 2023. More than 20% of Ukraine’s one million-strong army have jumped the fence in the past four years, and the numbers are rising all the time.
Desertions appear in part driven by ever-greater shortages of infantry troops at the front line, which means soldiers rarely get rest and recuperation breaks. A lack of sufficient equipment is often blamed. And of course, the widespread and rising desertion rates from Ukraine’s armed forces only seem to provoke more violent recruitment practices and then civilian protests. On October 30 in Odessa, a group of demonstrators against a man’s forced detention overturned the recruitment minibus.
The growth of busification and rising desertions also track with a growth in support among ordinary Ukrainians for the war to end. Support for a negotiated end to the war has risen from 27% in 2023 to 69% in 2025. Likewise, support for Ukraine to “keep fighting until it wins the war” — a wholly deluded proposition — has dropped from 63% to 24% over the same period, according to Gallup poll results.
President Zelensky often claims that Ukraine’s military predicament is linked to a lack of guns, not a lack of people. Hoping to secure Western support to fight on for another 2-3 years, he’s quiet on whether he will have the troops or the political support to do so. For now, the message seems to be, “Don’t mention the press-gangs, in-detention killings, deserters and waning public support: just give me more money.”
Data shows that Ukraine’s ability to shoot down incoming Russian drones has decreased in recent months.
Ukrainian Air Force data analyzed by ABC News shows that in October, it was only able to down 4,200 of the 5,300 drones fired by Russia. At the start of the year, Kiev was able to down 90% of the drones fired by Moscow’s troops. That number decreased to 85% in August and September, before falling to under 80% in October.
In addition to drones, Ukrainian forces are struggling to intercept Russian missiles. “Ukraine’s ballistic missile interception rate improved over the summer, reaching 37% in August, but it plummeted to 6% in September, despite fewer launches,” according to the Financial Times.
The gaps in Ukraine’s air defenses have led to widespread blackouts. “These days, in most regions, repair crews, power engineers, and utility services are virtually working around the clock,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Sunday. “The Russians have increased their striking power.”
Aside from slumping interception rates, Kiev faces other challenges in maintaining its air defences. The Patriot air defense system is the most effective against Russian missiles, but faces supply chain issues.
The US can produce only 600 Patriot interceptors per year. In July, The Guardian reported that the US only had 25% of the interceptors it needed to execute its battle plans. Additionally, there is already a backlog of countries awaiting delivery of Patriot interceptors.
Kiev is also seeking more Patriot systems to fire the interceptors. Washington has already pushed its NATO allies to transfer its systems to Kiev, promising to move any country that sends Patriots to Ukraine to the top of the list for replacement.
Earlier this month, Germany transferred two Patriot systems to Ukraine. However, President Zelensky said that Kiev needed an additional 25 systems.
Cost is another factor that makes sustaining Ukraine’s air defenses increasingly difficult. The Western interceptors are far more expensive than the Russian munitions. Moscow can also produce offensive weapons faster than Kiev’s backers can build interceptors.
Mike Fredenburg argued at Responsible Statecraft that these factors could prove fatal for Kiev. “This distortion obscures the reality that Russia’s cost-effective missile production provides a big advantage in sustainability,” he wrote. “While high Western missile costs, combined with US difficulties in rapidly expanding missile production, is a huge disadvantage in any kind of sustained conflict, and could be a fatal disadvantage in going up against a peer competitor that can throw thousands of missiles at our ships and even attack U.S.-based military facilities.”
In yet another sign of the rampant corruption in Ukraine, Ukrainian security forces raided the apartment of Timur Mindich, a businessman associated with President Volodymyr Zelensky. However, the oligarch had already left the country just hours before, likely after being tipped off by an insider.
Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) says that $100 million is believed to have been siphoned off due to a “money laundering operation,” and other associates were involved. The 15-month investigation featured 1,000 hours of wiretapping and resulted in 70 raids, according to NABU.
There are numerous reports speculating that Mindich, who has close connections to Israel and just celebrated his birthday there, fled to Israel, but so far, most media reports do not disclose his destination country.
In a statement, NABU indicated that several individuals had formed a criminal gang and built “a large-scale corruption scheme to influence strategic enterprises in the public sector, in particular Energoatom.”
The scheme involved forcing Energoatom’s counterparties to pay kickbacks of approximately 10 to 15 percent of contract values in order to avoid having payments for services or goods blocked, or possibly losing their status as suppliers, the bureau reported.
NABU indicated that the raids and arrests were a part of an operation code-named “Midas,” with the initial investigations already launched in 2024.
“Particular attention was paid to cryptocurrencies. Most operations, including cash withdrawals, took place outside Ukraine. For example, during foreign delegations of representatives of state bodies and the management of state-owned energy sector enterprises,” NABU notes.
Mindich, 46, is from the city of Dnipro in central Ukraine. He is a film producer and former business partner of Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.
He reportedly has links to Israel. Mindich celebrated his birthday in Israel in September, returned to Ukraine in mid-October and then went to Israel again, according to Ukrainska Pravda’s sources.
Mindich is also a long-time friend of Zelensky, with whom he co-owned production company Kvartal 95 until Zelensky transferred his stake to partners after being elected president in 2019.
Mindich also co-owns Green Family Ltd, a Cypriot firm that co-founded film production companies in Russia, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).
Kolomoisky told Ukrainska Pravda in 2022 that Mindich had introduced him to Zelensky before he became president.
In 2019, Zelensky drove an armored car provided by Mindich, RFE/RL reported.
Notably, Zelensky ran into serious hot water with the entire European Union when he attempted to eliminate NABU’s independence, which sparked outrage in Brussels. At the time, it sparked the first large-scale protests in the city since the war broke out. Zelensky was forced to backtrack, but the investigation into his associate may have played a vital role in Zelensky’s efforts to neuter NABU.
As part of the investigation, NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) released excerpts from audio recordings featuring conversations between individuals using the pseudonyms “Rakieta,” “Tenor,” and “Karlson.” They discussed investments in the energy sector, the distribution of bribes, and potential personnel changes within the Ministry of Energy and Enerhoatom itself.
According to reports from the website “Ukrainska Pravda,” the suspects include Mindich as well as Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko, whose home was also searched. He previously served as energy minister.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the matter in his evening address, emphasizing the need to hold those responsible accountable.
“All effective measures against corruption are crucial. The certainty of punishment is essential. Enerhoatom currently provides the largest share of energy production in Ukraine. Cleanliness at this company is a priority,” Zelenskyy said.
Already, three in four Ukrainians believe Zelensky is at fault for corruption in the country. This latest case is sure to ramp up pressure on his regime, which refuses to hold elections.
According to a survey conducted by the Foundation for Democratic Initiatives and the Kyiv International Sociological Institute, with the support of the Prague Center for Civil Society, 77.6 percent of Ukrainian respondents blame the Ukrainian leader for endemic corruption.
Notably, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is coming under fire from the EU for refusing to move forward with Ukraine’s EU membership, despite the fact that it is rife with corruption, is currently engaged in a war with Russia, and has abandoned democracy long ago, including canceling opposition parties, refusing to hold elections, and shutting down numerous media outlets.
Russia recognizes how embarrassing the raids on Zelensky’s associate are and how potentially dangerous they are for his continued rule.
Vladimir Rogov, chairman of the Commission of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, stated that “Mindich is one of Zelensky’s main wallets, but not the only one. Now there is a surge of panic and fear in Zelensky’s entourage. And troubled times are coming for Zelensky himself.”
He described “panic” inside Zelensky’s regime, and he said that his entourage is now accusing NABU of working with Russia.
“It will look doubly ridiculous. NABU is a purely American tool for controlling funds and combating Zelensky’s exorbitant thievish appetites,” Rogov said.
By Irfan Chowdhury | Palestine Chronicle | July 18, 2020
… Israel has been carrying out the longest-running military occupation in modern history and the longest-running siege in modern history. These two facts alone render Israel unique in terms of the scope of its brutality and criminality.
There are other respects in which Israel stands out from other countries in its use of terror and violence; for example, it is one of the most aggressive countries in the world, having waged wars of aggression against Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and 2006, and against Gaza in 2004, 2006, 2008/9, 2012 and 2014, killing huge numbers of civilians in the process (all while issuing threats and carrying out various covert attacks against Iran, which are all in violation of the UN Charter). … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 