Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Putin: Trump’s New Peace Plan May Become Foundation of Ukrainian Conflict’s Resolution

Sputnik – 21.11.2025

US President Donald Trump’s new peace plan could form the basis for a final settlement in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday.

Earlier this week, the Financial Times published a 28-point US peace plan for Ukraine that includes a reduction in US military aid, official recognition of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, granting the Russian language state status in Ukraine, reducing Ukraine’s armed forces, and banning foreign troops and long-range weapons on Ukrainian soil.

“I believe that it [Trump’s plan] can be the basis for a final peaceful settlement,” Putin said during a meeting with permanent members of the Russian Security Council today.

He also mentioned that Russia has the text of US President Donald Trump’s plan for Ukrainian settlement.

“We received it through the existing channels of interaction with the US administration,” Putin said.

Russia agreed to show flexibility in its approach to the Ukrainian settlement during the Anchorage meeting, Putin added.

“The main point of the meeting in Alaska, the main purpose of the meeting in Alaska, was that during the negotiations in Anchorage we confirmed that despite certain difficult issues and difficulties on our part, we nevertheless agree with these proposals and are ready to show the flexibility offered to us,” Putin said at a meeting with the permanent members of the Russian Security Council.

The United States, during discussions on the settlement in Ukraine, asked Russia to make certain compromises, Putin added.

“President Trump’s peace plan to resolve the situation in Ukraine was discussed before the Alaska meeting. And during this preliminary discussion, the American side asked us to make certain compromises, to show, as they said, flexibility,” he elaborated.

He added that after his talks with Trump in Alaska, the United States took a pause caused by Ukraine refusing the deal.

The US plan for the settlement in Ukraine has not been discussed publicly, only in general terms, he noted.

“We have hardly discussed it publicly [the US plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine], only in the most general terms,” Putin said at a videoconference meeting with permanent members of the Russian Security Council.

He did note, however, that the United States has so far failed to secure the consent of the Ukrainian side on a peace settlement plan.

“The reason, I believe, is the same — the US administration has so far failed to secure the consent of the Ukrainian side. Ukraine is against it. Apparently, Ukraine and its European allies are still under illusions and dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield,” Putin said.

Neither Ukraine nor Europe understands what a lack of understanding of the situation on the front line can lead to, he noted.

“This position is due to the lack of objective information about the situation, the real state of affairs on the battlefield. And, apparently, neither Ukraine nor Europe understands what this may eventually lead to,” Putin said, adding that Kiev has no objective information about the real situation on the battlefield, which is why it refuses a peaceful settlement.

If Kiev does not want to discuss Trump’s proposals, then they and Europeans should understand that events like in the city of Kupyansk will be repeated, Putin said.

Meanwhile, all of Russia’s friends and partners, including China, India, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and the countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), support the potential agreements between Russia and the United States on a Ukrainian settlement, which were discussed at the Anchorage summit, Putin added.

“We have thoroughly briefed all of our friends and partners in the Global South on all these issues, including China, India, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and many other countries, as well as the CSTO countries, of course. All of our friends and partners — I want to emphasize this, every single one of them — all supported these potential agreements,” he said.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Either the difficult 28 points or a very hard winter – Zelensky

RT | November 21, 2025

Vladimir Zelensky has said Ukraine must brace for a tough choice between accepting the “28 difficult points” of the US peace plan or risk losing a key backer. His comments come after the submission of a proposal and the leaking of its purported text by a Ukrainian MP.

According to Reuters, the administration of US President Donald Trump has threatened to cut off Ukraine from intelligence and military aid, should Kiev reject it.

In a video address to Ukrainians on Friday, Zelensky stated that the country is going through “one of the most difficult moments in our history.”

While not directly mentioning the US-proposed peace roadmap, he said that failure to accept the “difficult 28 points” would likely result in the “most difficult… winter” for Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022. Kiev confirmed receiving the newly proposed peace plan from Washington on Thursday, but stopped short of revealing its contents.

According to media reports, the roadmap features 28 points, including but not limited to the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the parts of Russia’s Donbass it still controls, downsizing the country’s military, and giving up on NATO aspirations. Kiev would also reportedly be required to make Russian an official language. In exchange, it would presumably be offered Western security guarantees.

In his Friday address to the nation, Zelensky said that Kiev would be working “calmly” and “quickly” with Washington and its European backers to ensure that “Ukraine’s national interests are taken into account.”

The Ukrainian leader vowed to present unspecified “alternatives,” while trying to avoid the impression that he “does not want peace.”

Zelensky also mentioned his latest phone call with a number of EU leaders, expressing confidence that “Europe will be with us.” He further claimed that Ukraine is “now the only shield” protecting Europe from Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed as “nonsense” claims made by some EU officials, who have accused Moscow of planning an attack on the bloc’s members.

In recent months, Russian forces have been steadily advancing in the Donetsk People’s Republic, making significant gains. The Ukrainian military, by contrast, is facing severe personnel shortages.

While Zelensky stopped short of directly acknowledging this in his latest speech, he did say that although Ukrainians are “made of steel… any metal” may eventually break under pressure.

November 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

A Mandate for Force: What the UNSC’s Gaza Resolution Means in Practice

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | November 19, 2025

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a regime change resolution against Gaza this Monday, effectively issuing a mandate for an invasion force to enter the besieged coastal enclave and install a US-led ruling authority by force.

Passing with 13 votes in favour and none in defiance, the new Security Council resolution has given the United States a mandate to create what it calls an “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) and “Board of Peace” committee to seize power in Gaza. US President Donald Trump has hailed the resolution as historic, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has stood in opposition to an element of the resolution that mentions Palestinian Statehood.

In order to understand what has just occurred, it requires a breakdown of the resolution itself and the broader context surrounding the ceasefire deal. When these elements are combined, it becomes clear that this resolution is perhaps one of the most shameful to have passed in the history of the United Nations, casting shame on it and undermining the very basis on which it was formed to begin with.

An Illegal Regime Change Resolution

In September of 2025, a United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel to have committed the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip.

For further context, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the most powerful international legal entity and organ of the UN, ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and thus issued orders for Tel Aviv to end specific violations of international law in Gaza, which were subsequently ignored.

Taking this into consideration, the UN itself cannot claim ignorance of the conditions suffered by the people of Gaza, nor could it credibly posit that the United States is a neutral actor capable of enforcing a balanced resolution of what its own experts have found to be a genocide.

This resolution itself is not a peace plan and robs Palestinians of their autonomy entirely; thus, it is anti-democratic in its nature. It was also passed due in large part to threats from the United States against both Russia and China, that if they vetoed it, the ceasefire would end and the genocide would resume. Therefore, both Beijing and Moscow abstained from the vote, despite the Russian counterproposal and initial opposition to the resolution.

It also gives a green light to what the US calls a “Board of Peace”, which will work to preside over governing Gaza during the ceasefire period. The head of this board is none other than US President Trump himself, who says he will be joined by other world leaders. Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who launched the illegal invasion of Iraq, has been floated as a potential “Board of Peace” leader also.

On February 4 of this year, President Trump vowed to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The American President later sought to impose a plan for a new Gaza, which he even called the “Gaza Riviera”, which was drawn up by Zionist economist Joseph Pelzman. Part of Pelzman’s recommendations to Trump was that “you have to destroy the whole place, restart from scratch”.

As it became clear that the US alone could not justify an invasion force and simply take over Gaza by force, on behalf of Israel, in order to build “Trump Gaza”, a casino beach land for fellow Jeffrey Epstein-connected billionaires, a new answer was desperately sought. Then came a range of meetings between Trump administration officials and regional leaderships, aimed at working out a strategy to achieve their desired goals in Gaza.

After the ceasefire was violated in March by the Israelis, leading to the mass murder of around 17,000 more Palestinians, a number of schemes were being hatched and proposals set forth. The US backed and helped to create the now-defunct so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” (GHF) program, which was used to privatize the distribution of aid in the territory amidst a total blockade of all food for three months.

Starving Palestinians, who were rapidly falling into famine, flocked to these GHF sites, where they were fired upon by US private military contractors and Israeli occupation forces, murdering over 1,000 civilians. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and France were busy putting together what would become the “New York Declaration” proposal for ending the war and bringing Western nations to recognize the State of Palestine at the UN.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, here came Trump’s so-called “peace plan” that was announced at the White House in October. This plan appeared at first to be calling for a total end to the war, a mutual prisoner exchange and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in a phased approach.

From the outset, Trump’s “20-point plan” was vague and impractical. Israel immediately violated the ceasefire from the very first day and has murdered nearly 300 Palestinians since then. The first phase of the ceasefire deal was supposed to end quickly, ideally within five days, but the deal has stalled for over a month.

Throughout this time, it has become increasingly clear that the Israelis are not going to respect the “Yellow Line” separation zone and have violated the agreement through operating deeper into Gaza than they had originally agreed to. The Israeli-occupied zone was supposed to be 53% of Gaza; it has turned out to be closer to 58%. Aid is also not entering at a sufficient rate, despite US and Israeli denials; this has been confirmed by leading rights groups and humanitarian organizations.

In the background, the US team dealing with the ceasefire deal that is headed by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has been juggling countless insidious proposals for the future of Gaza. Even publicly stating that reconstruction will only take place in the Israeli-controlled portion of the territory, also floating the idea that aid points will be set up there in order to force the population out of the territory under de facto Hamas control. This has often been referred to as the “new Gaza plan”.

As this has all been in the works, including discussions about bringing back the disastrous GHF, the Israelis have been working alongside four ISIS-linked collaborator death squads that it controls and who operate behind the Yellow Line in Gaza.

No mechanisms have been put in place to punish the Israelis for their daily violations of the ceasefire, including the continuation of demolition operations against Gaza’s remaining civilian infrastructure. This appears to be directly in line with Joseph Pelzman’s plan earlier this year to “destroy the whole place”.

The UNSC resolution not only makes Donald Trump the effective leader of the new administrative force that will be imposed upon the Gaza Strip, but also greenlights what it calls its International Stabilization Force. This ISF is explicitly stated to be a multi-national military force that will be tasked with disarming Hamas and all Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip.

The US claims it won’t be directly involved in the fighting with “boots on the ground”; it has already deployed hundreds of soldiers and has been reportedly building a military facility, which they deny is a base, but for all intents and purposes will be one. Although it may not be American soldiers killing and dying while battling Palestinian resistance groups, they will be in charge of this force.

This is not a “UN peacekeeping force” and is not an equivalent to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon; it is there to carry out the task of completing Israel’s war goal of defeating the Palestinian resistance through force. In other words, foreign soldiers will be sent from around the world to die for Israel and taxpayers from those nations will be footing the bill.

The only reason why Israel has reservations about this plan is because it included a statement claiming that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) – that does not control Gaza and is opposed by the majority of the Palestinian people – undergoes reforms that the West and Israel demand, then conditions “may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” A keyword here is “may”, in other words, it is not binding and was simply added in to give corrupted Arab leaderships the excuse to vote yes.

Hamas and every other Palestinian political party, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah that answers to Israel and the US, have opposed this UNSC resolution. Hamas even called upon Algeria to vote against it; instead, the Algerian leadership praised Donald Trump and voted in favor. Typical of Arab and Muslim-Majority regimes that don’t represent the will of their people, they all fell in line and bent over backwards to please Washington.

It Won’t Likely Work

As has been the story with every conspiracy hatched against the people of Gaza, this is again destined to fail. Not only will it fail, but it will likely backfire enormously and lead to desperate moves.

To begin with, the invasion force, or ISF, will be a military endeavour that will have to bring together tens of thousands of soldiers who speak different languages and have nothing in common, in order to somehow achieve victory where Israel failed. It is a logistical nightmare to even think about.

How long would it take to deploy these soldiers? At the very least, it’s going to take months. Then, how long would this process take? Nobody has any clear answers here. Also, what happens if Israel begins bombing again at any point, for example, if there is a clash that kills Israeli soldiers? What would these nations do if Israeli airstrikes killed their soldiers or put them in harm’s way?

Also, tens of thousands of soldiers may not cut it; if the goal is to destroy all the territory’s military infrastructure, they may need hundreds of thousands. Or if that isn’t an option, will they work alongside the Israeli military?

It is additionally clear that nobody knows where all the tunnels and fighters are; if Israel couldn’t find them, then how can anyone else? After all, the US, UK, and various others have helped the Israelis with intelligence sharing and reconnaissance for over two years to get these answers.

Finally, when Arab, European, or Southeast Asian soldiers return to their nations in body bags, how do their regimes justify this? Will the President or Prime Minister of these nations have to stand up and tell their people… “sorry guys, your sons and daughters are now in coffins because Israel needed a military force capable of doing what they failed to do, so we had to help them complete their genocidal project”. Also, how many Palestinian civilians are going to be slaughtered by these foreign invaders?

As for the plan to overthrow Hamas rule in Gaza, the people of the territory will not accept foreign invaders as their occupiers any more than they will accept Israelis. They are not going to accept ISIS-linked collaborators as any kind of security force either. Already, the situation is chaotic inside Gaza, and that is while its own people, who are experienced and understand their conditions, are in control of managing security and some administrative issues; this includes both Hamas and others who are operating independently of it, but inside the territory under its de facto control.

Just as the Israeli military claimed it was going to occupy Gaza City, laying out countless plans to do this, to ethnically cleanse the territory and “crush Hamas”, the US has been coordinating alongside it throughout the entirety of the last two years. Every scheme has collapsed and ended in failure.

It has been nearly a month and a half, yet there are still no clear answers as to how this Trump “peace plan” is supposed to work and it is clear that the Israelis are coming up with new proposals on a daily basis.

There is no permanent mechanism for aid transfers, which the Israelis are blocking. There is no clear vision for governance. The “two Gazas” plan is not even part of the ceasefire or Trump plan, yet it is being pursued in an incoherent way. The ISF makes no sense and appears as poorly planned as the GHF. Hamas and the other Palestinian factions will not give up their weapons. There is no real plan for reconstruction. The Israelis are adamant that there will be no Palestinian State and won’t allow any independent Palestinian rule of Gaza, and the list of problems goes on and on.

What it really looks like here is that this entire ceasefire scheme is a stab in the dark attempt to achieve Israel’s goals while also giving its forces a break and redirecting their focus on other fronts, understanding that there is no clear solution to the Gaza question for now.

The United Nations has shown itself over the past two years to be nothing more than a platform for political theatre. It is incapable of punishing, preventing, or even stopping the crime of all crimes.

Now that international law has suffocated to death under the rubble of Gaza, next to the thousands of children who still lie underneath it, the future of this conflict will transform. This UNSC vote demonstrates that there is no international law, no international community, and that the UN is simply a bunch of fancy offices, which are only allowed to work under the confines of gangster rule.

If the Palestinian resistance groups feel as if their backs are against the wall and an opportunity, such as another Israeli war on Lebanon, presents them the opportunity, then there is a high likelihood that a major military decision will be made. In the event that this occurs, it will be this UNSC resolution that is in large part responsible.

When the suffering in Gaza finally ends, whether that is because Israel obliterates all of its regional opposition and exterminates countless other civilians in its way, or Israel is militarily shattered, the UN should be disbanded as was the League of Nations. It is a failed project just as that which preceded it. Something new must take over from it.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Saudi F-35s would not erode Israeli air superiority: Report

By Ali Halawi | Al Mayadeen | November 19, 2025

The Trump administration’s move to advance a potential sale of Lockheed Martin F-35s to Saudi Arabia might mark a significant turning point in regional military dynamics. Yet the central question remains: would the acquisition truly grant Riyadh a decisive edge, or will “Israel’s” deeply entrenched air superiority remain firmly intact?

The announcement, made as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) visited Washington, does not itself consummate a transfer. Any sale would require formal notification to, and likely scrutiny by, the US Congress, and would reopen the fraught question of how Washington preserves “Israel’s” qualitative military edge (QME) while exporting one of the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft. While the operational edge of Israeli pilots and aircrew is evident, the US retains the ability to constrain Saudi F-35 capabilities through technical and software-based controls.

The deal on the table and the road to congressional approval

When a US president signals willingness to sell F-35 aircraft, the next formal step is notification under the Arms Export Control Act and a review period during which Congress can raise objections or seek certifications. For decades, US administrations have treated QME for “Israel” as a legal and political constraint on certain arms transfers; that tradition has informed reviews of past F-35 discussions with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Any proposed sale to Riyadh will therefore be judged not only on price and offset packages but on assurances that “Israel’s” operational superiority will remain intact; a determination that is both technical and political and could trigger contentious hearings. Members of both parties have in the past conditioned or slowed high-end sales over human-rights concerns, counter-proliferation assessments, and explicit demands to preserve the QME.

However, competing pressures further complicate Washington’s calculus as the Trump administration attempts to solidify its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, secure a landmark normalization agreement with one of West Asia’s most influential powers, and counter the expanding Russian and Chinese footprint in the Kingdom’s defense and technology sectors.

Who in the region flies fifth-generation aircraft today

As of today, the Israeli Air Force is the only air force in West Asia operating the F-35s.

Abu Dhabi negotiated for the aircraft in 2020 but later suspended the talks; other Gulf air forces operate advanced fourth-generation fighters but not fifth-generation stealth airframes.

The practical consequence is that a US sale to Riyadh would not simply add another modern fighter to the region; it would introduce a category of capability that, until now, has been regionally singular.

Why the airframe is only half the story

It is important to separate the aircraft’s physical attributes from the invisible systems that make it decisive in combat. The F-35’s important advantages include low observable design or stealth, powerful sensors, sensor fusion, and integrated electronic warfare, which enable pilots and commanders to detect, identify, and engage threats at ranges and with a fidelity earlier generations cannot match.

Much of the F-35’s real combat power does not lie in the airframe but in the software stack that governs nearly everything the jet does:

  • Mission-data files (MDFs)
  • Electronic-warfare threat libraries
  • Radar-emitter databases
  • Electronic-attack and jamming profiles
  • Sensor-fusion logic
  • Weapons-employment algorithms

Most critically, the US controls every layer of this ecosystem for all export customers, except “Israel”.

“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” has a special agreement allowing the integration of sovereign Israeli-made sensors, electronic warfare systems, and locally developed software add-ons. While the core flight software remains a US product, “Israel” can add its own “plug-and-play” systems and has the authority for some domestic maintenance and upgrades, giving it a level of independence not afforded to other customers. In practice, the platform’s combat potential is as much a product of data and code as it is of metal and jet engines.

This creates a built-in mechanism for Washington to tilt the operational balance decisively toward “Israel,” even if other states receive the same aircraft on paper.

Update priority, withholding certain mission-data libraries, limiting weapons-integration permissions, and controlling sustainment services are all practical mechanisms to maintain an advantage for one operator over another.

“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” and operational freedom

Israel negotiated an unusually broad set of privileges for the Adir. Unlike most customers, the Israeli regime has been permitted deep customization, integration of indigenous sensors and weapons, unique mission-data development, and a degree of independence from the US sustainment cloud that most operators use.

Those permissions give the Israeli Air Force both practical freedom of operation and a pathway to maintain and evolve its fleet in ways other buyers cannot match.

Israeli mission data files are infused with intelligence drawn from decades of regional aggression. Their electronic-warfare tuning reflects specific threat libraries, and the backlog of locally developed weapons integrations further differentiates the Adir from standard F-35As.

The aircraft can fire the Israeli Python‑5 and Derby/Derby‑ER air‑to‑air missiles, giving it a sovereign engagement capability independent of US munitions. It also carries advanced stand‑off strike weapons such as the SPICE‑1000 and SPICE‑2000 precision‑guided kits and the Delilah loitering cruise missile, enabling deep, accurate attacks against heavily defended targets. Added to this is a bespoke Israeli C4I architecture and a classified electronic‑warfare suite installed directly into the aircraft’s systems, granting the Israeli Air Force full control over threat libraries, jamming profiles, and data links.

The airframe itself has also been adapted to support these systems. The Israelis received rare permission to incorporate custom apertures, access points, and internal wiring channels into the fuselage in coordination with Lockheed Martin, enabling installation and maintenance of its electronics. In addition, “Israel” is the only country known to operate F‑35s equipped with Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), which add 600–800 gallons of fuel along the fuselage without compromising stealth or weapons capacity. These tanks extend the Adir’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and allow longer, deeper-strike missions, providing a level of flexibility and endurance unavailable to any other F‑35 operator.

Software and sustainment

The F‑35’s combat edge lies less in its airframe than in the software, mission-data, and sustainment systems that govern nearly every aspect of its operations. Historically, the US has used software-centric restrictions to preserve the advantage of favored partners, ensuring that certain operators maintain a decisive qualitative edge.

Key instruments include mission-data files (MDFs), which encode threat signatures, radar and SAM profiles, and geospatial threat maps. Operators with richer, bespoke MDFs detect and classify threats more quickly and respond more effectively. Denying or limiting MDF depth to a buyer is therefore a direct mechanism to sustain another operator’s superiority. Similarly, restricting electronic-warfare software, including emitter libraries, advanced jamming and deception modes, and the timing of mission-data updates, can materially degrade an F‑35’s ability to detect, classify, and suppress hostile radars. The operational effect is slower threat identification, narrower jamming envelopes, and less accurate geolocation for Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operations, giving the Israeli Air Force a persistent edge even if both sides operate the same airframe.

These fundamental differences could prove decisive in a theoretical Saudi-Israeli confrontation. An export-restricted Saudi F-35, with its potentially downgraded software, might detect Israeli emitters seconds later and with reduced precision. In contrast, the Israeli F-35I Adir, equipped with bespoke software, proprietary threat libraries, and its electronic warfare systems, could identify, geolocate, and suppress Saudi radar networks first.

These software controls illustrate how the US could maintain Israeli superiority should the Saudi deal move forward. While technically effective, such safeguards carry grave political and operational costs for the buyer, the same concerns Abu Dhabi cited when it stepped back from F‑35 talks in 2021.

Basing, geography, Israeli red lines

Unlike the UAE, whose main airbases are distant from Israeli interests, parts of Saudi Arabia lie relatively close to Israeli settler populations and military centers. Israeli officials have publicly signalled concern that basing F-35s in western Saudi Arabia would materially shorten flight times into Israeli airspace and therefore elevate risk perceptions in Tel Aviv. Reports also indicate “Israel” is pressing Washington to condition any sale on formal normalization and legally binding basing limits.

Those basing preferences are intimately linked to the software and sustainment controls described above. Even if Riyadh accepted software tiering, “Israel” still wants to condition the basing of F-35 jets to be outside Western Saudi Arabia airstrips.

Why Abu Dhabi balked despite normalization

The UAE’s experience is a near-perfect case study for what Riyadh may face. Abu Dhabi negotiated a package in 2020 under a broader normalization agreement but informed US officials in December 2021 that it would suspend discussions, citing “technical requirements, sovereign operational restrictions, and cost-benefit analysis” as reasons.

Three interlocking fault lines explain why. First, as explained, export conditions on software, weapons, and mission systems sharply limit a buyer’s operational autonomy. Doing anything beyond the approved list requires US authorization and often a long, costly certification process. For a state that prizes independent strike options and rapid operational adaptation, those limits impose real political and tactical costs.

Second, sustainment architecture locks customers into US logistics and updates ecosystems. The F-35’s logistics and health-monitoring systems (ALIS originally, now the ODIN framework) and the global sustainment enterprise mean that maintenance and updates become levers Washington can control.

Third, and more prosaically, the practicalities of preserving stealth require specialized sustainment. Low-observable coatings, seam integrity, and specialized repairs demand trained personnel, approved materials, and certified processes; many of those tasks are regulated and performed under Lockheed-approved protocols or at regional hubs designated by the program. Buyers often cannot fully sustain the low-observable characteristics that make the jet survivable without continuing contractor or US support.

Finally, political and geostrategic concerns compounded the technical ones. Washington’s scrutiny of buyers’ ties to third parties, notably China, and congressional insistence on preserving “Israel’s” QME raised further strings the UAE found difficult to accept, from restrictions on sensitive supply-chain partners to conditioned access to high-end sustainment and software features.

“The Americans want to sell the Emiratis the planes but they want to tie their hands,” a Gulf source told Reuters at the time. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said defense deals include requirements for purchasing nations, but that the restrictions in this deal made it unfeasible.

Geopolitical considerations, only amplified by Riyadh’s larger strategic weight and geography, will determine whether Saudi Arabia accepts comparable limits, if imposed by Washington, or walks the same path as Abu Dhabi.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran moves to terminate Cairo agreement with IAEA

The Cradle | November 20, 2025

Iran notified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 20 November that it is terminating the cooperation agreement signed in Cairo in retaliation for the UN nuclear watchdog adopting a new resolution demanding expanded access and information on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran’s envoy to the agency, Reza Najafi, said the resolution “will not add anything to the current situation” and described it as “counterproductive” shortly after the Board of Governors approved the text.

He warned that it would have “a negative impact on the cooperation that has already started between Iran and the agency.”

According to diplomats who attended the closed session, the 35-member board passed the resolution with 19 votes in favor, three against, and 12 abstentions.

The text requires Iran to report “without delay” on the status of its enriched uranium stock and on its nuclear sites that were bombed by Israel and the US during the 12-day war on Iran in June.

It also urges Iran to “comply fully and without delay” with its obligations under UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and to provide all information and access requested by the agency.

Western members of the board stated that “Iran must resolve its safeguards issues without delay” and called for “practical cooperation through access, answers, restoration of monitoring.”

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and had earlier cautioned that the resolution would “adversely affect” ongoing cooperation. Najafi noted that Iran had already granted access to “all undamaged facilities,” while inspectors have not been to sites such as Fordow and Natanz since they were hit in the June war.

The agency says verification of Iran’s uranium stock is “long overdue,” and that it cannot inspect the bombed facilities until Tehran submits updated reports.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the IAEA resolution was “unlawful and politically motivated,” initiated by the US and the European troika, and pushed through despite the 15 members voting against or abstaining.

He said the move ignored Iran’s goodwill, undermined the agency’s credibility and independence, and would disrupt cooperation.

The Foreign Minister had previously said that the Cairo agreement with the IAEA was defunct after Europe triggered snapback sanctions, but added that a negotiated solution remains possible if the opposing side acts in good faith.

Araghchi confirmed that he informed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi in a formal letter that the agreement is now considered terminated.

When Israeli attacks began in June, the IAEA estimated Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent.

Iran and several allied states argued that issuing another resolution would jeopardize efforts to advance dialogue.

Tehran has declared that the September inspection agreement with the IAEA is void, and Najafi said the new resolution “will have its own consequences,” adding that Iran would announce them later.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian MP publishes purported terms of new peace deal

RT | November 20, 2025

Ukrainian opposition MP Aleksey Goncharenko has published the text of a purported peace plan reportedly presented to Kiev by the US administration this week.

The lawmaker posted on social media what appeared to be screenshots of a Ukrainian-language electronic document detailing the 28-point peace plan to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev.

Earlier in the day, Vladimir Zelensky’s office confirmed the US presented Kiev with its new draft plan. The Ukrainian administration did not elaborate on its contents, only expressing a willingness to discuss it and stating that “in the American side’s assessment” the plan “could help reinvigorate diplomacy.”

Here’s the full text of the post:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be considered resolved.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and that NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to (6)00,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that it will not accept Ukraine in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to deploy troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter aircraft will be stationed in Poland.

10. US Guarantees: The United States will receive compensation for the guarantee. If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of new territories and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked. If Ukraine without cause launches a missile at Moscow or Saint Petersburg, the security guarantee will be considered invalid.

11. Ukraine retains the right to EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while the issue is under consideration.

12. A powerful global package of measures for the reconstruction of Ukraine, including but not limited to:
a. Creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in high-growth sectors, including technology, data-processing centres, and artificial intelligence.
b. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine on the joint reconstruction, development, modernization, and operation of Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
c. Joint efforts to restore war-affected territories, including the reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.
d. Infrastructure development.
e. Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
f. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon gradually and on an individual basis.
b. The United States will conclude a long-term economic cooperation agreement aimed at mutual development in the fields of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data-processing centres, rare-earth mining projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
c. Russia will be invited to return to the G8.

14. Frozen assets will be used in the following way: $100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking. Europe will add another $100 billion to increase the total investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European assets will be unfrozen. The remaining frozen Russian assets will be invested in a separate American-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint American-Russian projects in areas to be determined. This fund will be aimed at strengthening bilateral relations and increasing shared interests in order to create strong motivation not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to facilitate and ensure the fulfilment of all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will legislatively enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms control, including START-1.

18. Ukraine agrees to remain a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant will be restarted under IAEA supervision, and the generated electricity will be split equally between Russia and Ukraine (50:50).

20. Both countries undertake to introduce educational programmes in schools and society that promote understanding and tolerance of different cultures and the elimination of racism and prejudice:
a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and protection of linguistic minorities.
b. Both countries agree to lift all discriminatory measures and to guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
c. All Nazi ideology and activity must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:
a. Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk will be recognized de facto as Russian, including by the United States.
b. Kherson and Zaporozhye will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
c. Russia renounces other territories (probably referring to parts of Kharkov, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts – Ed.) that it controls outside the five regions.
d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast they currently control; this withdrawal zone will be regarded as a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

22. After future territorial arrangements are agreed, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of violation of this commitment.

23. Russia will not obstruct Ukraine’s commercial use of the Dnepr River, and agreements will be reached on the free transportation of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be created to resolve outstanding issues:
a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on the “all-for-all” principle.
b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
c. A family reunification programme will be implemented.
d. Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of conflict victims.

25. Ukraine will hold elections 100 days after the agreement is signed.

26. All parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for actions committed during the war and will undertake not to file claims or pursue complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council headed by President Trump. Predetermined sanctions will apply in the event of violations.

28. Once all parties have agreed to and signed this memorandum, the ceasefire will enter into force immediately after both sides withdraw to the agreed positions so that implementation of the agreement can begin.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU rejects US-proposed Ukraine peace plan

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. © Getty Images / Thierry Monasse / Contributor
RT | November 20, 2025

The European Union has pushed back against the latest US-proposed plan to end the Ukraine conflict, saying any settlement must reflect the positions of both Brussels and Kiev.

The 28-point draft framework agreement, which Western media claim was developed in coordination with Moscow, would reportedly require Ukraine to withdraw from the parts of the new Russian regions in Donbass still under Kiev’s control, cut its armed forces by at least half, surrender some weaponry and abandon its NATO ambitions. Kiev on Thursday confirmed receiving the proposal, with Vladimir Zelensky saying he hopes to discuss it with US President Donald Trump “in the coming days.”

The draft plan has drawn criticism from Kiev’s supporters in the EU, who appear to have been caught off guard and convened a meeting in Brussels on Thursday. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas insisted that any peace arrangement must reflect the positions of both the bloc and Ukraine, arguing that the US proposal offered “no concessions” from the Russian side. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was quoted by Reuters as saying that any agreement must not amount to a “capitulation,” while several other ministers reportedly said they had not seen the document and would need clarification before commenting.

Moscow has repeatedly accused the EU of obstructing US-Russian diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, arguing that the bloc is instead working to prolong the hostilities by supplying weapons, military equipment, and open-ended pledges of support to Kiev.

According to Germany’s Kiel Institute, the EU has committed over €65 billion ($75 billion) in aid to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, with total pledges nearing €98 billion.

The Kremlin says it “remains open” to peace talks but says Kiev “is only seeking to keep the fighting going,” encouraged by the EU, which has severed any meaningful dialogue with Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that EU states are now trying to elbow their way into the peace process despite what he called their openly hostile stance toward Russia – a “position of revanchism” that he believes should preclude the bloc from having a seat at the negotiating table.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Legal Nonsense to Justify Non-Judicial Killings

By Jacob G. Hornberger | Future of Freedom Foundation | November 18, 2025

Many years ago, when I was practicing law in Texas, I learned that there were, generally speaking, two types of lawyers when it came to being asked for a legal opinion by a client who wished to pursue a certain course of action.

The first type of lawyer would carefully research the issue and give his honest, independent-minded opinion as to the legality of the proposed action, even if it wasn’t what the client wanted to hear. That type of lawyer had integrity and would not compromise his legal judgment, even if it angered — and risked the loss of — his client.

The second type of lawyer would instead come up with whatever legal reasoning was necessary to please the client, stretching case law and legal analysis in such as way as to justify what the client wanted to do. This type of lawyer had no integrity. His task, as he saw it, was to provide legal cover for his client in case things went the wrong way.

When it comes to President Trump’s and the Pentagon’s extra-judicial drug-war killings in the Caribbean, there is little or no doubt that the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice falls into the second category. Asked to provide a legal opinion as to the legality of such killings, the office has come up with a memorandum containing inane legal justifications, in an obvious effort to provide legal cover for the people involved in the extrajudicial killings. In fact, the still-secret memo expressly assures U.S. military personnel that they will not face future criminal prosecution for their involvement in the killings.

The memo states that the high number of deaths from drug use among American drug consumers constitutes an “armed attack” against the United States. Really? Where are the armaments? Are Latin American drug dealers entering the United States, kidnapping regular American citizens, physically holding them down, and then injecting drugs into their noses, mouths, or other parts of their bodies?

I don’t think so. There is certainly no evidence of that. All of the evidence is that American consumers of drugs are voluntarily buying and ingesting mind-altering substances knowing full well that this isn’t a risk-free endeavor.

Another part of the memo claims that the boats that are suspected of carrying drugs are generating revenue for groups that are supposedly in armed conflict with the United States.

Really? Where are the conflicts? I don’t see any Latin American cartels landing on American shores and killing American citizens. Indeed, I haven’t seen those boats firing at American Naval vessels or at American B-52s. All I’ve seen is massacres of defenseless private individuals in the face of overwhelming U.S. military power.

According to the Intercept: “One senior defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, blasted the opinion. ‘I don’t know what’s more insane – that the ‘President of Peace’ is starting an illegal war or that he’s giving a get out of jail free card to the U.S. military,’ said the official, referencing President Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed moniker. ‘Hopefully they realize there’s no immunity for war crimes. Nor is there a statute of limitations.’”

One of the other justifications on which Trump and the Pentagon are relying is their claim that these boat people are “terrorists.” Apparently that governmental accusation means that they are subject to being exterminated without arrest, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and sentence — that is, without any due process of law for what amounts to an accusation of a criminal-law violation, whether it is drug-war-related or terrorist-related.

For some time, Trump has been claiming that Venezuela immigrants have been “invading” the United States. I guess we should be thankful that the Office of Legal Counsel hasn’t yet opined that the U.S. is repelling an immigrant “invasion” of the United States by killing people in those boats.

One of the most fascinating and revealing aspects of these extra-judicial killings is when U.S. forces took custody of two targeted people who survived the attack on their vessel. What happened afterward reveals what a sham these drug-war killings are. U.S. officials released both men back to their home countries.

What? Yes, they took two supposed “narco-terrorists” into custody and then released them, which means that they are now free to engage in more “narco activity” and more “terrorism.” Does that make any sense whatsoever?

The real interesting question is: When they saw that those men had survived the military attack on their vessel, why didn’t U.S. military personnel simply fire missiles at them or just shoot them while they were bobbing in the water? After all, they had just tried to kill them inside their boat. What’s the difference with killing them outside their boat?

I’ll tell you why. Those military attackers felt sheepish about killing those two survivors. Even more, I will guarantee you that they were scared to do so. They were scared that they would ultimately be put on trial for unlawfully killing people. That’s why they stood down and took custody of them instead of just finishing the job and killing them.

Why not instead bring them back as “prisoners of war”? Isn’t this an “armed conflict” against “terrorism”? Why not imprison them at the Pentagon-CIA prison camp and torture center at Guantanamo? Why not torture them into divulging the secret locations of other “narco-terrorists”?

I’ll tell you why. Because U.S. officials didn’t want to take the chance that those two men might challenge their custody in a federal district court. I will guarantee you that U.S. officials had to have freaked out when those two men survived. “Release those ‘narco-terrorists’ immediately so that our inane legal opinion that justifies our drug-war killings cannot be challenged in court,” we can imagine them exclaiming.

Make no mistake about it: These drug-war killings are the equivalent of legalized murder. They are morally illegitimate, legally illegitimate, and constitutionally illegitimate, no matter the inane legal opinion issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in an obvious effort to provide cover for the people involved in these killings.

November 19, 2025 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

US’s Gaza Plan Designed to Give Palestine’s Subjugation Veneer of UN Legitimacy – Mohammad Marandi

Sputnik – 18.11.2025

The UN Security Council approved the US’s Gaza ceasefire and international stabilization force plans on Monday. Russia and China abstained from the vote. Sputnik asked renowned Iranian-American political analyst Mohammad Marandi for his reaction.

The US Gaza plan is “a fake peace plan that is approved by the UN Security Council will only enhance the strength of the United States and the Israeli regime to further abuse Palestinians and to push Palestinians out of Gaza,” Marandi told Sputnik.

The plan proposes what the observer fears amounts to “an international occupation” of the Strip, with “no mention of Palestinian independence” in the US resolution.

“With this fake mantle of the UN Security Council, they will be able to do a lot of harm in the name of the international community,” Marandi emphasized.

The US “has no intention of allowing the Palestinian people to have a state.” The stabilization force will amount to “international occupation,” according to the observer.

The US is “a party to the holocaust in Gaza, and so are all Western allies of the Israeli regime, even regional countries that have preserved political and economic ties with the regime over the last two years… they’re all complicit in the genocide in Gaza,” Marandi stressed, pointing out that without US support, “the Israeli regime, Netanyahu, would not be able to carry out the mass murders that we saw on a daily basis, [and] continue to see… as we speak now.”

The observer characterized last month’s Gaza Peace Summit in Egypt as a shameful “monkey show,” and suggested that attendees “literally sold out the Palestinian people” to try to get in the US president’s good graces.

Russian representative Vassily Nebenzia said the Security Council resolution on Gaza passed Monday was “reminiscent of colonial practices and the British mandate for Palestine” that was “granted by the League of Nations, when the opinions of the Palestinians themselves were not taken into account whatsoever.”

He also warned that the lack of clarity about the stabilization force’s mandate could make it into an unwitting party to the conflict.

Russia and China abstained from Monday’s vote, but did not veto the resolution outright in light of the desire expressed by the Palestinian Authority and regional countries to avoid a resumption of bloodshed in the besieged Strip.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Slaves aren’t friends to their masters: Damascus traded sovereignty and regional commitments for illusions of survival

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | November 18, 2025

Many were taken aback by the recent visit of Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa to the White House, causing immense debate over whether it should have happened at all, if it benefits either side, and if this new relationship between Damascus and Washington will be significant.

Analysts and commentators from across the political spectrum have attempted to grapple with Syria’s collaboration with the United States. On the one hand, a former ISIS commander who went on to lead Syria’s Al-Qaeda branch, now joining the official US-led coalition against ISIS, has bewildered many. Yet for those who have a depth of knowledge on the course of the Syrian War, this comes as little surprise.

In the United States, there are what can only be labelled as two camps of liars and lunatics: One being a contingent of anti-Muslim advocates who are obsessed with “Islamic Extremism”; the other is the base of die hard supporters of the new regime in Damascus.

The first group used Ahmad Al-Sharaa’s visit to the White House, at the invitation of US President Donald Trump, to fearmonger about some kind of Muslim plot and that the US leader was being fooled. This narrative, spread primarily by paid Zionist propagandists, is simply part and parcel of a campaign designed to attack all Muslims and fear mongers about “Islamic Extremist” plots as a means of channeling right-wing anger away from the Israelis.

The other group consists of a range of figures, some of whom are paid to espouse their propaganda, then there are the delusional types and sectarian minded people whose tribalism rules their political outlet. Paid agents are slaves to their pay masters, whereas the sectarian tribalists are unreachable with logic. Only the misled can be reached from this crowd, which is who needs addressing.

The White House slave

Now is time to reconcile with the fact that Ahmad al-Sharaa is a creation of the West. This statement is not meant to be provocative, nor is it hyperbole. Syria’s current leader is the product of those who own him, hence why I said Ahmad al-Sharaa and not his former alias, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani.

For those of us who covered the horrifying and bloody war in Syria, we know the new President as al-Jolani, the man who led Jabhat al-Nusra. This organisation not only committed countless civilian massacres, allied itself in certain battles with ISIS, ran its own torture centers in Idlib, recruited child soldiers, and committed various other war crimes. To some, however, it later became the “saving grace” of a “blessed revolution” to overthrow a tyrant.

These two narratives evidently don’t have many grey areas, but as often has shown to be the case in Syria, nothing truly makes complete sense. The war revealed that almost anything is possible. At the same time, black and white thinking is very much prevalent amongst many when it comes to this issue.

So instead of arguing the merits of whatever side one chooses to fall on, let us deal in facts as means of dispelling illusion.

There was a reason why the United States launched Operation Timber Sycamore, one of the most costly CIA operations in its history, with the intent of backing anyone to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. There is also a reason why the Israelis began backing at least a dozen Syrian opposition groups, beginning in 2013, including al-Jolani’s Jabhat al-Nusra, with funds, arms, and medical support.

Neither the US, nor the Israelis, cared for the civilian population of Syria. Although their propaganda machines churned out nonsense about their opposition to dictatorship, civilian massacres and mass incarceration, their involvement was never to do with any of this.

You want proof that the US, its Western allies and “Israel” didn’t care? They are all normalising, collaborating with and hosting frequent meetings with a man who is not democratically elected, has built a regime that is more corrupt than his predecessor, and is standing by as sectarian violence takes thousands of lives.

Their goals were clear: They sought to collapse Syria into a number of opposing sectarian groups who rule their own territory based upon ethnicity or religious affiliation; loot its resources; bankrupt the country to tie it to the IMF and World Bank [because Syria was previously self sufficient]; conquer the Golan Heights; permanently destroy its strategic military capabilities; end Syria’s role in backing or facilitating the Palestinian Resistance; stop the flow of weapons to Hezbollah and end Iran’s role in the country; in addition to installing a puppet leadership. All of these goals were achieved.

The narrative that al-Jolani’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (the rebrand of al-Nusra) defeated Bashar al-Assad is false. There wasn’t a battle to take Damascus, there was a deal struck that enabled a handover of power. It wasn’t a “war of liberation”; it was a regime transfer.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, nearly 9,000 civilians have been murdered across the country since the new government came to power. These are considered to be conservative figures also, as other sources put the death toll much higher, especially due to the sectarian mass extermination campaign that targeted Alawites and other minorities along the coast earlier this year.

The cost of living in Syria is getting worse, gangsters and sectarian lunatics parade through the streets, kidnappings are rampant, the murder rate is through the roof, and there is still no long promised democracy in sight. Meanwhile, the Israelis are pushing deeper into southern Syrian lands, occupying more territory, setting up checkpoints, bombing wherever they choose on a routine basis, and are even arming Druze separatist militias.

Washington, for its part, is taking over two air bases, openly collaborates with the Syrian authorities on missions inside the country, and CENTCOM is busy playing basketball with al-Sharaa. Israelis, who would once be executed should they step foot in Syria, are openly arriving in Damascus, getting taken on tours around sensitive military sites for their documentaries.

All this as Damascus has cracked down, kicked out, and disbanded all the Palestinian Resistance groups that once operated in Syria, instead choosing to hand over the body of an Israeli soldier captured in 1982, along with the belongings of infamous Israeli spy Eli Cohen.

Now, the argument that some make in favour of this regime, to ignore all of the facts stated above, is that Ahmad al-Sharaa is doing this to lift the sanctions and repair his country.

To address this, let us ask the question: Has all of this collaboration, selling out the Palestinian cause, collaborating with those committing a genocide in Gaza, and meeting for basketball practice ended the sanctions on Syria permanently, or even triggered economic revival? No, of course not.

So you are now left with two possible explanations: Either Ahmad al-Sharaa is so politically incapable that he believes in this so-called “economic revival” master plan, or he is part of a project used to secure the aims of the US, its Western allies, and the Zionist entity. If you chose option one, he isn’t fit to be a political leader and should perhaps be placed in control of a Shawarma store instead.

Under Ahmad al-Sharaa, there is no Syrian leadership, there is simply a group of slaves who were let into the house; in this case the White House. They aren’t to be compared to other Arab regimes either, as they have no autonomy at all, nothing they do is independent as the sanctions are only ever going to be temporarily lifted in order to keep them in line. Under this model, Donald Trump is Syria’s President, not Ahmad al-Sharaa.

In fact, none of this is even about al-Jolani at all. If Bashar al-Assad would have been willing to invite the Americans in, kick out Iran and the Palestinian resistance, stop the flow of weapons to Hezbollah, negotiate a deal with the Israelis, hand them the Golan Heights, and give over his strategic weapons arsenal, it would have been him in the White House. This is because the Western powers and Israelis have no standards at all, they will deal with anyone of any ideology that bows down to them.

If you argue this all to those who still back the new Syrian leadership, they will come back with deflective arguments such as “we are tired” and notions about “the Syrian people”. The same such sentiments can be heard from Yasser Abu Shabab’s ISIS-linked gangsters in Gaza, who work with the enemy of their people because they want material goods and are willing to fight against their own nation’s causes in order to secure this for themselves.

This argument is the “being a slave in the house isn’t so bad” argument, but discounts the fact that the majority of Syrians don’t qualify for house slave status, they will instead remain field slaves, some of whom will be abused more than others, but are nonetheless field slaves. The same applies to those who choose to be slaves in Lebanon, or Palestine, or wherever else in the region. Everyone is being subjected to the “Greater Israel Project”, which means that the “prosperity” that US envoy Thomas Barrack carries on about is not in the plan for them.

Keep in mind that even when you are a good slave, you are never actually your master’s friend. You need only look to the example of the deposed Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi, who was only granted asylum and later died in Egypt. Despite his closeness to Washington, his value only came from the usefulness of his regime, nothing less and nothing more.

None of this is to say that there are not legitimate grievances from all sides across regional conflicts, this is undoubtedly true as wars bring out the very worst in people. Yet it is simply delusional to conclude that anything good comes out of being a slave. There is a reason why generation after generation across the Arab World has set the Palestinian cause as the litmus test for whether a government or movement is behaving in their interests, it is because it is a proven fact that collaborating with the enemy leads to chaos and destruction.

If the Israelis and US intended to “let Syrians live”, they would have done so since day one of the new regime. Instead, Washington greenlit the largest ever Israeli aerial assault across Syria and the occupation of more Syrian lands. Why? Because this was always the plan from the beginning, and everyone who fell for the promises of the new Syrian leadership were simply deceived.

November 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Western countries insist on failed strategy to defeat Russia – Mearsheimer

The US and its allies want to subordinate Moscow to their interests

By Lucas Leiroz | November 18, 2025

Western countries continue to insist on an irrational strategy of weakening Russia through military encirclement and economic pressure. This type of strategy has proven unsuccessful over the past few years, as Russia has managed to circumvent sanctions and embargoes, and is winning the conflict in Ukraine. Nevertheless, Western countries refuse to change their plans.

According to John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, the goal of defeating Russia is so important to the West that the US and its allies are even risking losing their own status as a global hegemon in this attempt. Moreover, Mearsheimer made it clear that Ukraine is not important to the West, being merely “cannon fodder” in this policy of hostilities against Russia.

He emphasized that Western countries even want to “defeat Ukraine” along with Russia – in other words, they want to neutralize the political and economic potential of a future integration between Ukraine and Russia. In this sense, the Kiev regime works as a junta in service of foreign powers that want the worst for the Ukrainian people – which explains the draconian policies of forced mobilization, which decimate thousands of Ukrainians without any effective military or strategic gain.

Mearsheimer stated that the West wants to “bring the Russians to their knees.” He acknowledges that so far no clear opportunity has arisen to do this, but makes it clear that the US and its allies would immediately take any opportunity to quickly defeat Russia. According to Mearsheimer’s assessment, the intention behind the conflict in Ukraine and the constant economic sanctions is simply to use military and economic pressure to progressively weaken Russia – but, unlike Western propagandists, he admits that these measures have not been sufficient to “finish Russia off as a great power.”

Mearsheimer also acknowledged the legitimacy of the Russian diplomatic position. He states that Russian President Vladimir Putin has sufficient reasons to distrust the intentions of the Collective West during the diplomatic dialogue. He praised Putin’s political abilities, describing him as a smart leader who understands the real international political situation and who acts considering the possibility of a worst-case scenario. Mearsheimer seems to believe that these virtues, which should be typical of any political leader, are currently rare in the West – which insists on strategies that have already proven useless.

“[The goal is] to defeat Russia and Ukraine, wreck the Russian economy with sanctions, and bring the Russians to their knees (…) We’ve been unable to do that, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want to do it, of course, we want to do it (…) If the opportunity to do it popped up tomorrow, we would leap at it in a second, we would love to finish Russia off as a great power (…) [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, the last time I checked, has a triple-digit IQ, and that means he’s figured this out, he understands what he’s dealing with (…) [Putin] is assuming worst case in good realist fashion,” he said.

It is important to remember that Mearsheimer is one of the most renowned authors in the field of International Relations in the West. Until a few years ago, he was widely recognized for his work as an academic, but now he has been frequently rejected and criticized in many Western universities for continuing to conduct realistic analyses and refusing to be a mere NATO propagandist. He does not speak as someone “pro-Russia” or “pro-West,” but as an international analyst trying to understand how states deal with global problems. And that is why he speaks publicly about the West’s real intentions regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

It seems increasingly clear that Ukraine has been used by the West since the beginning of the crisis, with no real intention ever to “militarily defeat Russia.” The Western objective is a long-term strategy focused on extinguishing Russian capabilities as a great power. In this game, Ukraine functions as a proxy whose objective is to “wear down” Russian defenses, but it has always been clear to the West that the Ukrainians would be defeated in this move.

On the “economic front,” the sanctions were similarly an attempt to isolate Russia from its traditional European partners – which failed to have an economic impact on Russia, since it is a self-sufficient country, with all the resources it needs, and a strong presence in the emerging Asian market.

Insisting on failed strategies is a serious mistake that could have an existential cost for the West. The path of pressure, isolation, and escalation can only lead to total war – which, in the case of Russia and NATO, would threaten the entire world. The best course of action, from a realistic point of view, is to negotiate while there is still time and establish mutually favorable terms of coexistence in a multipolar world.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

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