Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Flawed Study Downplays Children’s Risk of Myocarditis From COVID Vaccine

By Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 3, 2025

Readers of The Defender are familiar with the fact that the COVID-19 mRNA shots pose a risk of myocarditis, especially in children. But they may not know that myocarditis is usually permanently disabling, and in adults, it is often fatal within five years.

Tragically, we are now also learning what the trajectory of myocarditis in vaccinated children actually looks like.

This has been a public relations setback for industry and governments that have been advocating, and sometimes mandating, that children as young as 6 months get the vaccines — even though COVID-19 is almost always mild or symptom-free in young people.

This month, 22 British scientists from prestigious universities published a study intended to ease parents’ minds about risks of the vaccine, and simultaneously scare them about the dangers of getting COVID-19.

The message is that yes, there are rare cases — they always use the word “rare” — in which children get myocarditis after vaccination, but hey, no product can be perfect. And it’s better to risk the vaccine than risk getting COVID-19. Also, they claim, kids are more likely to get myocarditis if they get the virus than they are to get myocarditis from the vaccine.

That’s the message — and the authors and publisher have the clout to widely broadcast that message in a press release and in news headlines in Britain and America.

But what does the study actually say? In short, it asks the wrong question — and even so, the answer they get must be buried in the appendix, because it’s inconsistent with the message they want to promote.

Article summary omitted evidence of vaccine risk

The study design is deeply compromised because the 22 authors constructed a complicated model to avoid doing a straightforward comparison (vaccine only versus disease only).

And even after they cooked the books, even after they took data from almost 14 million children and teens under age 18 in England, they got a result that is barely statistically significant, with overlapping error bars for the risk from COVID-19 and the risk from vaccination.

It gets worse.

The results, which marginally favored the vaccination, were trumpeted in a summary at the top of the paper and announced to the press.

But buried in the appendix, published separately online, is a table that shows a more relevant version of the comparison.

The version in the summary is from an early time frame when the vaccine was not available. The appendix shows comparable data for the time frame in which the vaccine was available, limited to the ages for which the vaccine was offered.

In the appendix, the risk of myocarditis from the disease is half that of the risk from the vaccine. This blatantly contradicts the summary and the headlines generated by the article — and this was a response to the deceptive version of the question, not the more straightforward one that the researchers chose not to answer.

Study authors asked the wrong question

The most pertinent question is the simple one: Did vaccinated children have a higher incidence of myocarditis than unvaccinated children?

This is an easy question to answer, given the data that these authors (but not the public) had access to. In a few minutes, they could have calculated a rate of myocarditis among vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

However, if they did the calculation, they didn’t report the results. My guess is that they did the calculation, didn’t like what they saw, so they didn’t include it in the published article.

As I stated above, I believe the study authors “asked the wrong question.” What I mean is that the article compares the risk of myocarditis from COVID to the risk from vaccination.

But this is not the most relevant question. Why?

Because many people got the vaccine and then got COVID anyway, so they were unnecessarily exposed to both risks.

Conversely, many children who didn’t get the vaccine, didn’t get COVID. Or, they get such a mild case that they don’t even notice it. These children avoided both risks.

This is why comparing the risk of myocarditis from COVID to the risk from the COVID vaccine is not really the pertinent question. It’s not a question of “either or.”

Authors ‘muddied the waters’ by analyzing myocarditis in kids who got vaccine and the virus

The message the authors wanted to imply was that, even though the vaccine increased the risk of myocarditis, it decreased the risk of COVID — and since COVID itself can cause myocarditis, the total risk is actually lower with vaccination than without.

If that is their claim, it’s easy to determine if it is true. The simplest calculation they could have done with the data available to them was also the calculation most pertinent to what parents want to know: Is my child better off with or without the vaccine?

The authors chose not to offer us the simple answer to that straightforward question.

But — given that they asked the wrong question — they might have derived a clean answer just by comparing the subset of children who were vaccinated but never got COVID to the subset who got COVID but were never vaccinated.

Because the study included data spanning two years from all over the U.K., there were hundreds of thousands of children in these subcategories — more than enough to do a clean statistical comparison.

But again, the authors chose not to do this. Or, my guess, they did the comparison and didn’t like the result, so they didn’t include it in the publication.

Instead, the authors analyzed myocarditis in the large group of children who got both the vaccine and the disease. This muddied the waters because there is no clear way to determine whether it was the disease or the vaccine that damaged the child’s heart.

Hence, the complicated model, based on timing.

The possibility that seems likely is that children who got COVID after the vaccination had the highest heart risk of all. Of course, there is the logical possibility that children who got COVID after vaccination had a milder case, with a lower risk of myocarditis.

However, if that had been the result, I would think the authors would not only have included that result, but also headlined it.

One more thing — the study looked only at the Pfizer vaccine. Myocarditis risk from the Moderna vaccine is estimated to be three times higher than Pfizer. They had the Moderna data and chose not to look at it.

Or they looked at it, decided they didn’t like what they saw, and decided not to report it.

‘This is public relations masquerading as science’

So, to summarize:

  • The authors asked a complicated question when a simple one was more relevant.
  • Given this wrong question, they did not do the most straightforward analysis to answer it.
  • Even so, they found that the vaccine held almost twice the risk of myocarditis compared to the disease. This result was only in Table S16 of the Supplementary Appendix — but mentioned nowhere in the body of the paper, let alone in the summary at the top.
  • And still they made prominent announcements to the public, claiming that their study confirms that children are better off with the vaccine than without.

This is public relations masquerading as science. For an article like this to be peer reviewed and featured prominently in Britain’s most prestigious medical journal tells us just how deeply the ecosystem of medical research has been corrupted.

And this is the “science” that our U.S. Food and Drug Administration relies on when they approve dangerous vaccines for healthy children who are at almost no risk from the disease itself.

In most statistical articles, the raw data used for a study are published online and linked in an appendix to the article. However, in this case, the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) granted access to the data exclusively to this prestigious group of scientists.

Personally, I would like to see the raw data and perform the analysis that the 22 scientists should have done from the beginning. Children’s Health Defense is in the process of requesting access from the NHS. Stay tuned …

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Hezbollah: Syria not a model for Lebanon, weapons will not be taken to fulfill Israel’s demands

The Cradle | December 13, 2025

Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem declared on 13 December that the resistance is willing to cooperate fully with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) but emphasized that it is not ready “for any framework that leads to surrender to the Israeli entity and the American tyrant.”

“Since the ceasefire agreement was reached, we have entered a new phase … Once the agreement was concluded, the state became responsible for ending the occupation and consolidating the army’s presence, and the resistance has done everything required of it,” Qassem declared during a ceremony organized by Hezbollah’s Women’s Organizations Units.

“The problem facing the state is not exclusively the issue of weapons to rebuild the country; rather, what is being discussed is an Israeli-American demand … With surrender, Lebanon will not survive, and Syria is a model before us,” the resistance leader emphasized.

“We will defend ourselves even if the sky were to close in on the earth. The weapons will not be taken away in implementation of Israel’s demands, even if the whole world unites against Lebanon,” Qassem added.

He also pointed out recent remarks by Diotto Abagnara, the commander of the UN Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL), who told Israeli media that Hezbollah is not rearming, contradicting Tel Aviv’s assertions to justify nonstop ceasefire violations in Lebanon.

During Saturday’s speech, Qassem also urged Lebanese authorities to “stop making concessions and backtracking.”

“Implement the agreement, and then discuss the defense strategy. Do not ask us not to defend ourselves, while the state is unable to protect its citizens. Let the state provide protection and sovereignty, and then we will put everything on the table for dialogue on the defense strategy, and reach a conclusion.”

Qassem’s speech coincided with Israeli threats to bomb a residential building in Yanouh, south Lebanon, hours after a UNIFIL and LAF patrol had inspected it.

According to local sources, the building was inspected at the direct request of the “mechanism committee” overseeing the one-sided ceasefire.

The house was alleged to have weapons, but the patrol found none. As the troops were preparing to leave, an Israeli drone hovered over the site, and UNIFIL received a request to conduct a second search of the house.

Israel has threatened to launch a major offensive against the country unless Hezbollah surrenders its weapons by the end of 2025. Washington has publicly backed Tel Aviv’s threats.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Investigation Into U.S. Military Bioweapons-Origin of Tick-Borne Lyme Disease Successfully Added to 2026 NDAA

By Jon Fleetwood | December 12, 2025

U.S. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) has successfully included his amendment to investigate whether the U.S. military weaponized ticks with Lyme disease into the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The ordeal underscores the national security threat posed by laboratory pathogen manipulation.

Rep. Smith, who is Co-Chair of the Congressional Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Caucus, had offered similar amendments—one in 2019 and the other in 2021—which passed the House, but failed in the Senate.

The successful addition of the amendment follows FDA Chief Dr. Marty Makary’s statements during a November podcast, in which Makary expressed his belief that Lyme disease was created in U.S. military Lab 257 on Plum Island, New York.

A Thursday press release from Smith’s office reads:

A critical amendment authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) to investigate whether the U.S. military weaponized ticks with Lyme disease has been included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26 NDAA) (S. 1071), which has cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, headed to the Senate, and is expected to be signed by President Trump upon its final passage.

Smith’s amendment—now Sec. 1068 of the bill—directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—the Congressional “watchdog”—to investigate the Cold War-era Department of Defense (Department of War) bioweapons program and determine whether they ever used ticks as hosts or delivery mechanisms for biological warfare agents.

In the press release, Smith emphasized that “New Jersey has one of the highest Lyme rates in the United States—the disease is present in all 21 counties.”

“The pervasive presence of Lyme disease in New Jersey not only carries concerns for civilians, but also for the military personnel stationed in the state—especially and including those serving at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, part of which is located within my congressional district,” the republican added.

The press release explained that Smith’s amendments were inspired by Kris Newby’s book, Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons.

The book includes interviews with Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, the federal researcher and U.S. bioweapons specialist credited with discovering Lyme disease.

Dr. Burgdorfer has revealed that “he and other bio-weapons specialists injected ticks with pathogens in order to cause severe disability, disease, and even death to potential enemies in unsuspecting ways.”

Smith’s amendment in the NDAA would compel the Comptroller General of the United States “to conduct an exhaustive review of research conducted by the military, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other federal agencies between the period of January 1, 1945 and December 31, 1972, regarding experiments involving Spirochaetales and Rickettsiales—two forms of tick-borne bacteria.”

Smith says we are now “one step closer to finally determining whether the U.S. government’s bioweapons program contributed to the proliferation of Lyme disease.”

“The hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans suffering from Lyme disease—in addition to the millions across the United States—deserve to know the truth about the origins of their illness. An enhanced understanding of how Lyme came to be will only assist in finding a cure for this debilitating disease,” said Smith.

Rep. Smith’s amendment reads:

SEC. 1068. GAO REVIEW AND REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS EXPERIMENTS ON AND IN RELATION TO TICKS, TICK-BORNE DISEASE.

(a) REVIEW.— The Comptroller General of the United States shall, to the extent practicable, conduct a review of research conducted during the period beginning on January 1, 1945, and ending on December 31, 1972, by the Department of Defense, including by the Department of Defense in consultation with the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture, or any other Federal department or agency on—

(1) the use of ticks as hosts or delivery mechanisms for biological warfare agents, including experiments involving Spirochaetales or Rickettsiales; and

(2) any efforts to improve the effectiveness and viability of Spirochaetales or Rickettsiales as biological weapons through combination with other diseases or viruses.

(b) LOCATION OF RESEARCH.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review research conducted at facilities located inside the United States and, if feasible, facilities located outside the United States, including laboratories and field work locations.

(c) INFORMATION TO BE REVIEWED.—

(1) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review any relevant classified information.

(2) MATTERS FOR REVIEW.— In conducting the review under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall review, among other sources, the following:

(A) Technical Reports related to The Summary of Major Events and Problems, US Army Chemical Corps, FY 1951–FY 1969.

(B) Site Holding: CB DT DW 48158
Title: Virus and Rickettsia Waste Disposal Study.
Technical Report No. 103, January 1969.
Corp Author Name: Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD.
Report Number: SMUFD-TR-103.
Publish Date: 1969-01-01.

(C) Site Holding: CB DT DW 60538
Title: A Plaque Assay System for Several Species of Rickettsia.
Corp Author Name: Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD.
Report Number: SMUFD-TM-538.
Publish Date: 1969-06-01.

(D) Site Holding: CB DW 531493
Title: Progress Report for Ecology and Epidemiology and Biological Field Test Technology, Third Quarter FY 1967.
Corp Author Name: Army Dugway Proving Ground, UT.
Publish Date: 1967-05-08.

(E) Any relevant scientific research on the history of Lyme disease in the United States.

(d) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.— Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives or the Senate a report that includes the following:

(A) A list of the research projects reviewed under subsection (a) and an assessment of the scope of such research.

(B) A finding by the Comptroller General as to whether such review could lead to a determination that any ticks used in such research were released outside of any facility (including any ticks that were released unintentionally).

(C) A finding by the Comptroller General as to whether such review could lead to a determination that any records related to such research were destroyed, and whether such destruction was intentional or unintentional.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.— The report required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

If the GAO does its job and follows the paper trail where it leads, this amendment may finally force the U.S. government to answer a question it has avoided for decades: whether a taxpayer-funded Cold War bioweapons program left millions of Americans paying the price with their health.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Militarism, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

USAID linked to pharma testing on Ukrainians – Russian MOD

RT | December 12, 2025

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) could have been involved in testing pharmaceutical drugs on Ukrainians, a senior Russian military official said on Friday. The agency was officially closed by the administration of US President Donald Trump this summer.

According to Major General Aleksey Rtishchev, the head of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, US officials have acknowledged defense-related work at biological laboratories in Ukraine.

He named, among others, former National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, former senior State Department official Victoria Nuland, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Rtishchev noted that Cornell University organic chemistry professor Dave Collum told American journalist Tucker Carlson in an interview in August that pharmaceutical drugs had been tested on the Ukrainian population in 38 laboratories.

“To ensure secrecy, the customers behind such research are not military agencies but civilian agencies and non-governmental organizations. One such organization is the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was dismantled by a decision of US President Donald Trump,” Rtishchev said.

According to the major general, USAID also provided funding for Event 201, a pandemic simulation exercise that focused on how to respond to a coronavirus outbreak. “I would like to note that these exercises were held in October 2019… shortly before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” he said.

Russia’s claims that USAID was involved in unlawful activity were reinforced, Rtishchev added, by comments made by billionaire Elon Musk, who previously headed a US government efficiency agency and has called USAID a “criminal organization.”

Musk alleged that USAID used taxpayer money to fund bioweapon-related research, and echoed claims that USAID supported gain-of-function coronavirus research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, suggesting that this could have contributed to the emergence of Covid-19.

Russia has raised concerns in the past about Pentagon-backed biological laboratories in Ukraine and other countries near its borders, suggesting that they are involved in bioweapons research.

December 13, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

US-backed regime-change agency funded Nepal coup – media

RT | December 12, 2025

A US-backed regime-change agency funded and guided the September coup in Nepal, an independent US news outlet reports.

K.P. Sharma Oli resigned as prime minister in September amid violent clashes – known as the Gen Z protests – across the Himalayan nation. The clashes killed 77 and injured more than 2,000.

US-based news outlet The Grayzone cited leaked documents revealing that the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) spent hundreds of thousands of dollars tutoring Nepalese young people to stage the protests.

The protests caused more than $586 million in losses to Nepal’s $42 billion economy, a statement from the office of interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki, a former chief justice who succeeded Oli, said on Friday, according to Reuters.

The documents cited by The Grayzone reveal a clandestine campaign organized by an NED division, the International Republican Institute (IRI).

The IRI sought to cultivate a Nepalese network of young political activists explicitly designed to “become an important force to support US interests,” it said.

The documents say the IRI’s program “connects vibrant youth… and political leaders” and “provides comprehensive trainings on how to launch advocacy campaigns and protests,” The Grayzone reported.

The IRI has been accused of funding clandestine activities in Bangladesh as well.

Founded in 1983, the NED is officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit that provides grants to support ‘democratic initiatives’ worldwide. It has faced allegations of covertly influencing political outcomes, with critics arguing that it has taken over covert functions previously handled by the CIA, particularly those aimed at overthrowing foreign governments.

The organization has long faced criticism for its role in supporting political movements that undermine sovereign governments.

The Center for Renewing America, a think tank, accused the NED of funneling tens of millions of dollars to Ukrainian political entities and anti-Russian interests.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Deception | , | Leave a comment

UN says US must lift restrictions on Iranian diplomats

Press TV – December 11, 2025

The United Nations says the US must allow accredited Iranian diplomats to carry out their work freely, affirming the world body’s position that Washington, as host country, is obligated to permit the unrestricted movement of all UN-based diplomatic personnel.

UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq made the remarks at a press briefing on Thursday when asked whether the world body had received a formal communication from the Islamic Republic regarding tightened restrictions on its Permanent Mission.

“Whenever countries have faced restrictions on their diplomatic personnel, they raise that with us, and then we remind the host country of its obligations under the Host Country Agreement to allow the free movement of diplomats accredited to the United Nations,” he said.

Haq reiterated the organization’s “consistent stance,” noting, “Our standpoint with all nations, not just Iran, is that we want to make sure that the host country allows their diplomats to go about their work freely, once they’ve been accredited here.”

Tehran has sharply criticized the United States for escalating pressure on its UN Mission.

In a statement issued earlier in the day, the Foreign Ministry denounced Washington for abusing its “host-country status” by imposing extensive restrictions on the residence, movement, banking access, and even daily purchases of Iranian diplomats.

It said these measures had been designed to disrupt the normal and lawful functions of Iranian representatives.

According to the statement, Washington’s decision to bar three members of Iran’s UN Mission from continuing their work marked “the culmination” of US violations of the Host Country Agreement.

The ministry condemned the move as illegal, politically motivated, and a breach that raised questions about the United States suitability to host the UN Headquarters.

It warned that such actions undermined the UN’s effectiveness, damaged the credibility of the world body’s secretary-general, and violated the principles of the UN Charter.

The statement urged the UN chief to take action to prevent further infringements of the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic rights and cautioned against allowing the normalization of host-country violations.

Tehran emphasizes that it would continue seeking accountability from Washington and defending its sovereign rights under the Headquarters Agreement.

The latest dispute follows Iran’s earlier complaint in September, when its UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani protested US-imposed movement restrictions on President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and other senior officials attending the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

The Great European Asset Heist Will Fail

By Leanna Yavelskaya | Ron Paul Institute | December 12, 2025

Let’s stop pretending Brussels is engaged in noble statecraft. The EU’s rush to steal more than €180 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets held at Euroclear is the most reckless gamble Europe has taken in decades. Moscow’s central bank is not wrong to call the move unlawful; its lawsuit against Euroclear merely underscores a simple truth: weaponizing sovereign reserves violates long-standing norms that have protected global capital flows for half a century. Brussels may dress this up as “solidarity with Ukraine,” but using immobilized reserves as collateral for massive loans crosses a line that Western institutions once treated as sacrosanct.

The political sales pitch — that these are merely Russia’s “war chest” — deliberately ignores an uncomfortable reality: sovereign reserves ultimately underpin a nation’s entire economy, including its citizens’ savings and pensions. Seizing or leveraging them sets a dangerous precedent: any country deemed objectionable by a majority of EU governments could one day see its wealth confiscated. That is not rule-of-law liberalism; it is discretionary power cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric.

Euroclear, one of Europe’s critical financial arteries, now finds itself caught between Brussels’ political ambitions and Moscow’s threats of counterclaims. Belgium knows the danger intimately — its own officials have repeatedly warned that breaching sovereign-immunity doctrines could expose the country to massive liabilities. When even EU member states start raising alarms, you know the legal ground is shaky.

What is truly astonishing is the European Commission’s refusal to confront the broader consequences. Financial systems run on trust, not idealistic speeches. Undermine the principle that sovereign reserves are untouchable, and investors everywhere — not just in Moscow — take note. China, which holds substantial euro-denominated assets, has already condemned the EU’s approach as destabilizing. Beijing may not dump its euro holdings tomorrow, but the EU is actively encouraging major powers to question Europe’s reliability as a financial partner. That alone should alarm anyone who cares about the euro’s long-term viability.

The internal politics are equally explosive. Hungary, Slovakia, and even Belgium itself have raised serious objections on both legal and risk grounds. If Brussels forces the plan through regardless, it will only strengthen the already potent narrative in several member states that the EU is willing to trample national interests and established law in pursuit of ideological crusades. This is the kind of overreach populists dream of — an elite-driven project that can be portrayed, not entirely unfairly, as prioritizing geopolitical theater over the economic security of European citizens.

Then there is the Ukraine question itself. For many Europeans, supporting Kiev is neither a moral nor a strategic imperative. Ukraine’s deep governance problems are real and have been acknowledged by its own officials and Western auditors alike. Pouring unprecedented sums into the country without ironclad safeguards invites legitimate criticism that Brussels is acting on emotion rather than sober judgment.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Washington has every incentive to watch Europe stumble. If investors lose confidence in the euro, the dollar benefits. If European financial institutions face turmoil, American ones expand their reach.

Europe could still choose a wiser path. Instead of prolonging an unsustainable conflict by stealing sovereign Russian assets — a move that virtually guarantees escalation and risks spilling the war into the Eurozone itself, with unimaginable and utterly destructive consequences — European leaders could support genuine peace efforts.

The EU cannot afford to make the wrong choice. Yet that is precisely what it is doing, and for nothing more than short-term political posturing.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Peace Push is Attempt to Save Ukraine From Total Military and Political Collapse: Observer

Sputnik – 11.12.2025

The current moment “is critical for Ukraine as Zelensky’s regime is coming closer to collapse both politically and on the frontline, where Russia is advancing on all fronts,” Armando Mema, a member of the Finnish Freedom Alliance party, told Sputnik.

While Trump inherited the Ukraine mess from Biden, who “provoked this conflict and created this disaster,” he’s trying to prevent “a total defeat of Ukraine” because “it would be a disaster for his administration too,” Mema explained.

But Zelensky “is not interested in peace,” as seen in his recent demands for “security guarantees similar to Article 5 of NATO, [which] he knows… he cannot get,” the observer said.

Knowing that’s impossible, “he uses as an excuse to continue to be in power despite his mandate [ending]. Zelensky has banned all political opposition parties in Ukraine, arrested opponents, including regular citizens who were simply advocating for peace. Zelensky knows that if a regular election were to be held, he will lose immediately and all his administration will be prosecuted for corruption,” Mema emphasized.

As for reports of a US-mediated push to restore Russia’s access to Europe’s energy markets, Mema predicts this will remain “impossible” to achieve as long as the current crop of leaders are in charge.

“But Trump has started to dismantle the EU leadership (Macron, Merz, Ursula, Meloni and so on)” and over time they will be replaced by leaders who take account of their own countries’ interests, the Finnish politician believes.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s Impossible Demands a Roadblock to Peace

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 12.12.2025

Volodymyr Zelensky is deliberately setting conditions Russia can’t accept to portray it as blocking peace talks, Bogdan Bezpalko, a member of the Council for Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, tells Sputnik.

The head of the Kiev regime is also seeking a much-needed breather for his retreating forces.

“In reality, this is Zelensky’s attempt either to buy time or, essentially, to stall the entire process,” Bezpalko explains.

Before his Saturday meeting with French, German and British leaders, Zelensky claimed a ceasefire along the current front line, security guarantees for future elections and a referendum on ceding territory to Russia were needed.

What’s Behind Zelensky’s Ploy?

  • The situation for the Ukrainian forces is dire: They are retreating and losing cities, which hits civilian morale and foreign support
  • Zelensky wants to halt the Russian advance to regroup Ukrainian forces, conscript more troops, get extra Western arms and even seize frozen Russian assets
  • But he also wants to look like a leader ready for peace talks

Why Zelensky’s Conditions are a Non-Starter

Zelensky says he is ready to hold elections and a referendum – but demands that the US and NATO guarantee security. That would effectively mean Ukraine losing its independence, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said.

Russia sees no point in freezing the conflict until its demand for a full withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donbass and other new Russian territories is met

Why Europe is Still Backing Zelensky

  • European leaders still want war with Russia, but they lack forces beyond their Ukrainian proxies, financial resources and guaranteed backing from the US
  • Like Zelensky, they aim to prolong the talks and wait out President Donald Trump—until the mid-term congressional elections or he leaves office

“They are currently in a deadlock,” Bezpalko says.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s National Security Strategy: Rethinking US Policy on Europe and Russia-Ukraine

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – December 12, 2025

The new 33-page National Security Strategy document issued by the US government endorses Russia’s stance on Ukraine, rejecting aggressive European policies.

Trump’s Divergence from European Policies on Russia-Ukraine

Since assuming the presidency for a second non-consecutive term, US President Donald Trump has diverged from the European view on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. President Trump has been highly critical of the European Union and NATO allies of the United States over their controversial policies. The new 33-page National Security Strategy (NSS) announced by the incumbent US government has once again validated the Russian stance over this conflict and has unambiguously rebuffed the European aggressive and violent designs regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

This latest security strategy document acknowledged that the European Union is responsible for prolonging the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The document also condemned the unrealistic expectations of the European officials from this violent conflict, costing hosts of lives on both sides. The US government blamed the EU for blocking several US efforts to end this conflict, stating that the United States has a “core interest” in ending the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Furthermore, the document also accuses the European governments of “subversion of democratic processes” as they remain unresponsive to the desires of their people for establishing peace between Russia and Ukraine. As per the NSS document, it is one of the top priorities of the United States to “re-establish strategic stability with Russia,” which would help stabilize European economies. This new security strategy document is widely seen as the re-evaluation of the US policy towards its European allies.

The Alaska Summit and Peace Negotiations

President Trump has long been critical of European policies. During his election campaigns, he repeatedly claimed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine conflict within a day. After assuming the presidential office in January 2025, he engaged with the Russian President Vladimir Putin to establish peace between Russia and Ukraine. The positive engagement between the two leaders led to a summit between them in Alaska in August 2025. After the summit, US President Donald Trump praised President Putin’s positive attitude towards peace negotiations. He also described President Putin’s observations about the conflict as “profound.”

After the summit between the two leaders in Alaska, President Trump stated, “Many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.” He further stated that he would talk to Zelenskyy and NATO regarding the discussions in the summit, adding that “It’s ultimately up to them.” However, after consulting with the NATO allies, President Trump realised that the European Union has ulterior motives behind procrastinating this violent conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

The European and Ukrainian demand to deploy a NATO-like combined EU force in Ukraine to ensure the latter’s security derailed these peace negotiations. In the past, the European leaders repeatedly thwarted all the peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine to achieve their covert regional strategic interests and to undermine Russian security and sovereignty. The NSS also criticised Europe over “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition.” It further claimed that Europe is confronting the “prospect of civilizational erasure” due to “failed focus on regulatory suffocation” and migration policies. The document also claimed that Europe will be “unrecognisable in 20 years or less” due to its economic issues. The NSS further read, “It is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.”

Implications of the New National Security Strategy

Indeed, the European powers, particularly NATO countries, are heavily reliant on US military power for their survival and security. For years, President Trump has been urging the European nations to pay their fair share in the alliance. However, the European leaders are unable to address US concerns due to the economic issues of their countries. In this new NSS document, the United States has threatened to withdraw its security umbrella from the European nations. It states that the US would prioritise “enabling Europe to stand on its own feet and operate as a group of aligned sovereign nations, including by taking primary responsibility for its own defence, without being dominated by any adversarial power.”

This re-evaluation of the US policies towards Europe and the Russia-Ukraine conflict has astonished many European leaders. Nonetheless, the United States’ new security policy on the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been widely regarded as commendable. European nations and the broader Western world must address Russia’s security concerns to ensure peace and stability between Russia and Ukraine. Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, expressed support for the Trump administration’s newly unveiled security strategy. He stated, “The adjustments that we see correspond in many ways to our vision.” He also encouraged the US to pledge to end “the perception, and prevent the reality, of the NATO military alliance as a perpetually expanding alliance.”

However, he also cautioned that the US ‘deep state’ views the world differently from President Trump. Indeed, the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy document is based on realistic assumptions. However, the mighty US deep state would never allow him to undermine or challenge the long-established status quo in the country. The European Union and Israel have significant influence over the US deep state. Therefore, it would be hard for the Trump administration to diverge from the prior US stance over its alignment with Europe and Israel over the Russia-Ukraine conflict or the Middle East.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s on Trump’s mind as US adjusts to multipolarity

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | December 12, 2025

The world order’s transformation to multipolarity is a work in progress with the variables at work, but its outcome will be largely determined by the alignment of the three big powers — the United States, Russia and China. Historically, the ‘triangle’ appeared as the lid came off the Sino-Soviet schism in the 1960s and a ferocious public acrimony erupted between Moscow and Beijing, which prompted the Nixon administration to moot Henry Kissinger’s secret mission to Beijing to meet up face to face with Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou En-lai and, hopefully, work out a modus vivendii to jointly counter Russia. 

Revisiting the Sino-Soviet schism, it is well understood by now that the US-Soviet – China triangle never really ran the course that Kissinger had envisaged. Kissinger’s failure to consolidate the opening of relations with China was partly due to his loss of power by January 1977 and, in a systemic sense, inevitably so, given the complexity of the boiling cauldron of Sino-Soviet schism where ideology mixed with politics and geopolitics — and realpolitik.  

While the western mythology was that the US built up the foundations of China’s rise, historiography points in another direction, namely, that Beijing always had in mind the dialectics at work and even as a degree of compatibility of Chinese and American interests in checking the expansion of Soviet power existed, Beijing was determined to avoid military conflict with the Soviet Union and concentrated its attention on improving its tactical position within the US-Chinese-Soviet triangle. 

On its part, the Soviet Union also consistently promoted increased exchanges with China despite the bitter acrimony and even military clashes with a view to undercut perceived advantages the US derived from the Sino-Soviet split — and even sought to persuade China to accept the military and territorial status quo in Asia. 

In fact, to retard Sino-US cooperation against them in the early 1970s, the Soviets offered at one point to modify their territorial claims along their border, to sign non-aggression pacts and / or agreements prohibiting the use of force, to base Sino-Soviet relationship on the five principles of peaceful co-existence, and to restore high-level contacts, including party ties, in the interests of their common opposition to the US. 

If China largely ignored these overtures, it was almost entirely due to the great turbulence in its internal politics. Suffice to say, no sooner than Mao, the Soviet Union’s nemesis, died in September 1976 (and the curtain descended on the Cultural Revolution), Moscow followed up quickly with several gestures, including Brezhnev sending a message of condolence (the first CPSU message to China in a decade), followed by another Party message in October congratulating the newly-elected CCP Chairman Hua Guofeng, and shortly thereafter in November sending their chief negotiator for border talks Deputy Foreign Minister Ilichev back to China in an attempt to resume the border talks. But, again, if nothing came of it, that was because of China’s invasion of Vietnam and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan soon thereafter in 1980. 

Indeed, looking back, the main legacy of the 1970s viewed through the prism of the US-China-Russia ‘triangle’ was the reorientation of China’s defence policy and its geopolitical realignment with the West. China made no contribution significantly to weaken the Soviet Union or to aggravate the stagnation and brewing crisis in the Soviet political economy.

Meanwhile, the Sino-US differences over Taiwan and other issues had reemerged by 1980-1982, compelling China to reassess its foreign policy strategy, which manifested in Beijing’s announcement in 1982 of its “independent” foreign policy — plainly put, an attempt to rely less explicitly on the US as a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union — and the move to open “consultative talks” with Moscow, and a growing receptiveness towards the numerous pending Soviet overtures for bilateral exchanges (in sports, cultural and economic areas, etc), the overall direction being to reduce tensions with the Soviets and increase the room for manoeuvre for Beijing within the China-US-Soviet triangle. 

Indeed, a broader detente between China and the Soviet Union had to wait till the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan following the Geneva Accords signed in April 1988. Nonetheless, a basic change in the Sino-Soviet relations through the 1980s appeared, which included regular scheduled summit meetings; resumption of cooperative ties between the CCP and the CPSU; Beijing’s acceptance of the pending Soviet proposals for non-aggression / non-use of force; and resumption of Sino-Soviet border questions at vice-foreign minister level. 

Washington could sense the shift in Chinese policy directions vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Notably, reviewing the marked  shift in the Chinese strategy, a CIA assessment noted:

“More recently, Moscow followed Brezhnev’s call in 1982 for improved relations with China with a halt in most authoritative Soviet statements critical of China. When Sino-Soviet discussions resumed in October 1982, Soviet media cut back sharply on criticism of China. And they have remained restrained on this subject, although occasional polemic exchanges marked Sino-Soviet coverage at the time of Premier Zhao Ziyang’s visit to the United States in January 1984. Moscow has continued to be critical of China through the Soviet-based clandestine radio Ba Yi… China for its part has continued criticism of Soviet foreign policy, although past attention to Soviet “revisionist” internal policies has all but disappeared since China’s own economic policies have been significantly changed after Mao’s death.”  

Succinctly put, with CPSU General Secretary Gorbachev consolidating power circa late 1988 by his election to the chairmanship of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet and on a parallel track, Deng had outmaneuvered political rivals and become China’s paramount leader by 1978 — and had launched the Boluan Fanzheng program to restore political stability, rehabilitate those persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, and reduce ideological extremism —  the door had opened for the two erstwhile adversaries to enter the rose garden of reconciliation. 

Significantly, the timing of Gorbachev’s visit to Beijing to meet up with Deng in 1989 was far from ideal by virtue of the Tiannenmen Square incidents, but neither side proposed to postpone or reschedule the meeting. Such was the intensity of their mutual desire for reconciliation.    

Today, the above résumé has become necessary when we assess the future directions of the Trump administration’s China policies. The common perception is that Trump is attempting to create a wedge between Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China with a view to isolate the latter and thwart it from surpassing the US. But there is no shred of evidence available hinting at the potential for decoupling Russia from China. 

All the signs are to the contrary in the direction of the steady integration of the two countries. Last week, the Kremlin announced a visa-free regime for Chinese citizens to visit Russia. Interestingly, this was a reciprocal move. FT reported recently that a Chinese businessman has been given equity in Russia’s biggest manufacturer of drones which supplies the military — in the first known collaboration in the area of defence industry.

With the Power of Siberia 2 on the anvil, China’s dependence on Russia for its energy security will increase further. Russia’s foreign trade is undergoing a profound shift, with China replacing the EU as Russia’s main trading partner. Overall, Sino-Russian relations are closer today than they have been in decades. 

On the other hand, there is no credible suggestion that the Trump administration is preparing for a war with China. Japan under its new leadership is whistling in the dark. 

So, what is on Trump’s mind? In his revolutionary agenda for the remaking of the new world order, Trump aims at a strategic concord between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other. The recent US National Security Strategy strongly points in that direction, too. The implications of this revolutionary thinking for multipolarity are going to be profound — for partners such as India or allies like Japan or Germany alike.            

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump administration denies existence of leaked strategy that calls for pulling EU apart

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | December 12, 2025

The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy was published last week, setting out the U.S.’s broad foreign policy direction for the remainder of his term. It focused on ending what it calls a “perpetually expanding NATO,” establishing “conditions of stability within Europe,” and encouraging European allies to “stand on [their] own feet” in security matters.

The document also warned that Europe faces “civilizational erasure,” citing migration, censorship of speech, declining birthrates, and what it described as a loss of national identity and self-confidence.

Days after the official release, however, the Defense One website reported that a longer, unreleased version of the NSS had circulated in Washington. According to the site, the unpublished version contained far more explicit political goals for reshaping Europe’s future and reducing the influence of the European Union. Defense One wrote that the extended draft urged the United States to “Make Europe Great Again,” proposing that Washington realign its attention toward a select group of governments ideologically closer to the Trump administration.

The unpublished version, Defense One reported, stated that Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland were countries the United States should “work more with… with the goal of pulling them away from the [European Union].” It also said the United States should support “parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life… while remaining pro-American.”

None of this language appears in the officially released NSS, which focuses instead on broader themes of strategic stability with Russia, the need for Europe to regain its self-confidence, and continued American support for democracy and free expression. The official document argues that Europe’s loss of confidence is particularly visible in its approach to Russia. It states, “Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.” It adds that stabilizing the continent will require “an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine” to prevent escalation, restore stability, and support Ukraine’s survival as a viable state.

The text also warns that the war has increased Europe’s exposure to external dependencies, particularly Germany’s, and criticizes what it describes as unrealistic expectations held by some European officials. It concludes that despite Europe’s internal crises, the continent remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States. America, it says, “encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit,” asserting that the growing influence of patriotic European parties “gives cause for great optimism.”

After the Defense One report appeared, the White House moved quickly to deny the existence of any longer or alternative NSS. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, “No alternative, private, or classified version exists. President Trump is transparent and put his signature on one NSS that clearly instructs the U.S. government to execute on his defined principles and priorities.” She added that “any other so-called ‘versions’ are leaked by people distant from the President who, like this ‘reporter,’ have no idea what they are talking about.” Her reference to leaks suggests that other versions of the report may have been discussed, albeit not endorsed or included in the final publication.

Speaking to the American Conservative website about the strategy report, Krzysztof Bosak, a Polish MP, leader of the right-wing Confederation, and deputy speaker of the Sejm — Poland’s lower parliamentary chamber — said, “I can’t say that I disagree with anything there. It’s a continuation of Vice President J.D. Vance’s Munich [Security Conference] speech, which I agreed with completely.

“Maybe Europe needs a shock from our good old friend America to start a true debate, because there was no debate in the European mainstream. In America, you have both sides of the political spectrum. In Western Europe, there’s only one side. If you have politically incorrect views, you can find yourself in prison, because you said too much, for example, in England or sometimes in Germany,” he added.

Italian newspaper La Repubblica also reported on the Defense One findings, highlighting the claim that the United States planned to use Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Poland “as tools to dismantle the European Union” by drawing them into a broader, ideologically aligned group. It noted Defense One’s summary that the unpublished draft viewed Europe’s immigration policies as driving an “erasure of its civilization,” and that Washington should engage with European actors seeking “sovereignty” and the restoration of traditional ways of life.

La Repubblica separately noted that Matt Schlapp, chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), recently expressed interest in holding a major CPAC event in Italy to promote a sovereignist agenda. While government sources suggested a lack of enthusiasm, Schlapp told the newspaper, “We will get it done.”

CPAC has grown in stature among European conservatives in recent years, most notably in Hungary, where its annual event in Budapest now attracts major players, both from Europe and across the Atlantic.

December 12, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »