Israel’s threat of nukes shows us who is running U.S. foreign policy
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 27, 2025
It is a long-debated subject. Whether it is the U.S. which controls Israel or the other way around. In the 70s, under President Nixon, many analysts firmly believed, despite the JFK assassination, that it was still the U.S. who called the shots and used Israel as a useful tool in the Middle East to keep a rowdy group of Arab states in check and subservient to America’s interests. But it is in recent years where we have to see if Israel has done that effectively and meticulously in America’s interests, given that most analysts agree that Israel and the U.S. are both preparing for war with Iran.
Given that Israel’s main task was to keep the region in order to serve America’s hegemony and its energy needs, one has to ask isn’t it a failure of both U.S. foreign policy and of Israel that a war with Iran is seen as a solution to America’s failing hegemony? And doesn’t this tail wagging the dog scenario show itself in the clear light once and for all?
Recently two startling revelations about Israel’s attacks on Iran in June – otherwise known as the ‘twelve-day war’ have surfaced which should worry Americans as it shows just how far this abusive relationship has become, with Israel playing the role of the spoilt child waving daddy’s pistol as its master. Former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou and the formidable U.S. academic John Mearsheimer have both confirmed that it was Israel who basically threatened Trump that if he didn’t send ‘bunker buster’ bombs to Iran in a bid to destroy the country’s underground nuclear facilities that they, Israel, would bomb Iran with nuclear weapons. Trump rolled over of course and complied.
But this extraordinary act by Israel illustrates just how far this Nabokov-esque relationship between Lolita and her foster dad has got. To the point that world wars involving nukes is now on the table for any U.S. president who thinks he can play hardball with Israel. The twist to this story is that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites was not at all a success as it has become evident that the Iranians knew it was coming and moved out a lot of the nukes days beforehand. And even the bombing itself didn’t have anywhere near the impact that was expected. It was symbolic more than anything in that it sent a message to the Iranians that such an act was possible under the Trump administration.
In many ways the attack was a gift to the Iranians as it focused their minds and made them aware where they needed to improve their defensive capabilities. It was a test run and they learnt from it.
But for the Americans it certainly couldn’t be called a success.
If it were a success, even the laziest two-bit hack in Washington could arrive at the obvious question, when hostilities kick off again, why are we at war with Iran if we’ve taken out their nuclear capability?
The U.S. has been busy in recent weeks sending naval ships and preparing for air-to-air refuelling of Israel’s jets – crucial in any conflict with Iran given the distance between the two countries – which merely confirms two poignant points. Firstly, that Iran’s response the first time round had significant impact on Israel’s military arsenal (many military sites in Israel were taken out completely, barely mentioned by U.S. media); and secondly that even the U.S. had had its own stocks depleted – which is why a pause quickly came about after the twelve-days. U.S. and Israel needed to rearm but also prepare themselves for the second phase, while Iran itself has improved its own air defences and reached out to Russia and China for rearming.
And so what Israel is successfully doing is drawing Trump into a war with Iran which will be on a scale which no military could even imagine was possible, given that this time around Iran is so much better prepared and that the surprise of using Azerbaijani airspace cannot be repeated. The Israelis don’t have any hit-n-run surprise tactics to rely on, which might lead some analysts to believe that a bigger, broader attack is in the making with the U.S. as a key partner rather than chief supplier. Worse, will be any scenario where the Israelis or the U.S. can justify using nuclear weapons if the conventional attack doesn’t quite go to plan. And all this under the watch of Donald Trump whose entire support base was about stopping ‘forever wars’ [for Israel] in the Middle East. How will he explain to his broader support base that he has nothing to do with U.S. troops being sent to their deaths in Iran, that it is Israel who controls such decisions?
Iran demands accountability after US admits role in June strikes
The Cradle | November 27, 2025
Iran’s UN ambassador on November 27 urged the Security Council to act after Washington publicly confirmed its direct role in June’s joint US-Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, calling the operation an unlawful act of aggression that demands full accountability and reparations.
In a letter addressed to the UN secretary-general and Security Council president, Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani said the latest US Air Force admission – acknowledging that US F-35s penetrated Iranian airspace and escorted B-2 bombers to strike Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – confirms “once again” that the US directly participated with Israel in attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities.
He cited the 24 November US Air Force statement announcing that “In June, the 34th was called upon to escort a strike package, including B-2 Spirit bombers, to strike underground nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan during Operation Midnight Hammer,” and that “On 22 June, a formation of F-35s … was the first aircraft to penetrate Iranian airspace.”
Iravani noted that these disclosures align with US President Donald Trump’s earlier remarks openly asserting Washington’s leading role.
The ambassador described the 12-day campaign as an act that targeted Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, adding that the operation included deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian sites.
He wrote that the US is obligated under established international law to provide full reparation, including restitution and compensation for all material and moral damage.
According to Iravani, Washington’s admission also establishes the individual criminal responsibility of US officials involved in the operation.
He reiterated Tehran’s “full and unequivocal” right to pursue all legal avenues to secure accountability and recover losses resulting from what he called an internationally wrongful act.
Iravani urged the Security Council and the wider UN system not to remain silent, saying they must take measures consistent with their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security, ensure accountability of both the US and Israel, and bring those responsible to justice. He requested that the letter be circulated as an official UN Security Council document.
US Recruits Mercenaries for Ukraine in Philippines – Russian Foreign Ministry
Sputnik – 27.11.2025
The United States has launched a campaign in the Philippines to recruit volunteers to fight on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces, with the German Embassy issuing Schengen visas, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.
“According to incoming information, US representatives have launched a campaign in the Philippines to recruit local citizens to fight on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces … Preference is being given to former employees of Philippine security agencies and retired military personnel. Applicants are promised a monthly salary of $5,000,” Zakharova told at a briefing.
The recruitment is carried out by a US security agency from Florida, and before being sent to the conflict zone, the recruits undergo training under the supervision of US instructors and receive a German Schengen visa, the spokeswoman added.
“A work Schengen visa is issued at the consular section of the German Embassy in Manila,” Zakharova said.
The biggest fish caught in China’s “debt trap”
The US is the “victim” as the largest recipient of Chinese official credits and loans
By Hua Bin | November 27, 2025
An Indian by the name of Brahma Chellaney, employed by Center of Policy Research based in New Delhi and funded by US State Department, coined the term “debt trap” to demonize Chinese loans for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) across developing countries.
It’s clear, just by the origin of the term, that it was a smear job by a dimwit sour grape. His argument has since been roundly debunked by researchers and analysts from John Hopkins, Harvard, and the Chatham House. None of them can be described as trolls for China.
For example, research by the New York-based Rhodium Group and John Hopkins University has shown no instance of China seizing strategic assets due to debt defaults, a core claim by Chellaney and the “debt trap” advocates.
Studies done by London-based Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs), a very anti-China outfit by its track record, contrast China’s debt management with that of Western bondholders and institutions.
Their analyses demonstrate China has shown far greater willingness to provide debt rescheduling and relief, while Western lenders such as the World Bank and IMF are quick to resort to legal measures.
Western loans also often come with conditionalities that negatively affect a country’s economic productivity – such as deregulation and privatization.
Ironically, while India sounds the alarm on “debt trap”, the country itself is the largest recipient of loans from the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a financial institution funded primarily by China.
Of course, the Indians are presumably so “smart” that they are immune to any “debt trap”. Their lenders and creditors are the ones who need to worry about being “trapped”.
Very predictably, such a discredited lie is not too low for most Western governments to adopt as the holy script since it fits their geopolitical narrative.
And the term has become a regular in the official lexicon of western governments and media.
A recent study on Chinese official lending done by the College of William and Mary (W&M) in Virginia, the second oldest university in the US, is very telling and goes to show the disparity of Western claims and empirical evidence on the ground.
The AidData research lab at W&M found that China is the largest creditor nation in the world and its global lending since the turn of the century has been “vastly” larger than previously understood, with loans and grants increasingly going to developed countries.
The US is by far the largest recipient – nearly US$202 billion of the US$2.2 trillion disbursed by China’s “official sector” between 2000 and 2023 went to projects in the US.
Note the data excludes China’s purchase of US Treasury bonds.
“Our data demonstrate that the US – a high-income country – is the single largest recipient of official sector credit from China. This finding is both unexpected and counterintuitive,” wrote researchers of the study released earlier this month.
“This is an extraordinary discovery, given that the US has spent the better part of the last decade warning other countries of the dangers of accumulating significant debt exposure to China, and accusing China of practicing “debt trap” diplomacy,” said Brad Parks, AidData’s executive director.
The study, compiled over 36 months using more than 246,000 sources, covered a wide range of Chinese official lenders, including state policy banks, state-owned commercial banks, state-owned companies, state-owned funds, and the central bank.
Some of the Chinese lending in the US involved the construction of “critical infrastructure”, helping to bankroll the construction of major liquefied natural gas pipelines in Rio Grande, Port Arthur and Freeport, the Dakota Access oil pipeline, an electric power transmission line feeding New York City, data centres in Virginia, and airport terminals in New York and California, among other projects.
Official Chinese lenders also financed the merger and acquisition of hi-tech companies in the US and provided liquidity support – via working capital and revolving credit facilities – to a wide array of Fortune 500 companies.
The research lab described most Chinese loans to the US “are guided by the pursuit of profit rather than the pursuit of geopolitical or geoeconomic advantage”.
While China is well known for lending to Global South countries via BRI, the report found that 10 of the 20 largest destinations between 2000 and 2023 were high-income countries, including the UK, Singapore, Germany and Switzerland.
Russia was the second largest recipient after the US, with a cumulative US$171.78 billion in loans and grants over the period, followed by Australia with a total of US$130 billion.
According to AidData, China’s total overseas lending portfolio is two to four times larger than previously published estimates, making China the world’s biggest official creditor by a large margin.
Its lending portfolio has evolved significantly over time – in 2000, 88% of China’s lending went to low-income countries; by 2023, financing going to developed countries rose to 76%.
China had approved loans and grants for more than 30,000 “projects and activities” worldwide between 2000 and 2023. A total of 9,764 of those projects and activities were in high-income countries.
The AidData report claims China offers debt, equity and grants in “flexible, innovative and complementary ways to advance its geostrategic and commercial interests”.
China is increasingly seen as an “international creditor of first – and last – resort”, according to the report summary.
The disconnect between the Western propaganda and the reality on the ground is revealing – the hypocrisy of calling Chinese lending “debt trap” while engaging in a feeding frenzy in a trough of Chinese money.
Western governments and media’s twisted narratives about China live on a hotbed of cynicism and stupidity.
For such narratives to be believed, one of two things must be true – either the readers are so cynical they are willing to swallow patently false narratives to feed their bigotry, or the readers are so dumb that they don’t possess basic faculty for critical thinking.
This reminds one of other similarly ludicrous talking points. For example, Western pundits regularly claim China’s domestic economy precarious because of persistent “deflation”.
While it’s true that prices have been stable or falling slightly in the last 2 – 3 years, how is it a bad thing for consumers?
Why should consumers welcome “rising prices” – as the wide-spread inflation in much of the West?
Shouldn’t prices of goods fall when manufacturing scale and efficiency improve and companies compete for consumers in an open marketplace?
Why are high corporate profit margins as a result of higher prices a good thing for consumers?
In China, average real household income growth in 2024 was 5.4%, 0.2% higher than the nominal growth rate 5.2% due to lower prices. Isn’t this better than negative real income growth in most Western countries?
In China, the effective interest rate for 30-year mortgage is 3.1% on average, and 2.65% for first time buyers. Isn’t this better than paying 6 to 9% as in other countries?
You have to be a real retard or cynically shut down any critical thinking to believe in the garbage from the lying media.
And it’s more than the media. A prime source of such garbage comes from “elected leaders”.
Ted Cruz, the 3-time US Senator from Texas, wrote in a recent op-ed that Chinese AI dominance would mean “state-run surveillance and coercion”, while an American win would guarantee a technology anchored by “liberty, human dignity, and the rule of law”.
If this self-serving propaganda comes from someone with a modicum of credibility, it might carry some weight. But coming from Ted Cruz, one of the most despised men in his home country the US, the irony is overwhelming.
This is Ted Cruz talking. The same Ted Cruz, christened “lyin’ Ted” by the Donald, who became Trump’s most loyal lapdog three months after Trump insulted his wife’s looks (whom Cruz claimed as “the love of my life”) and hinted his father helped kill JFK.
This is the same Ted Cruz who was voted as “the most unlikeable person” by former classmates (including his college roommate) and fellow Republican colleagues.
The same Ted Cruz who fled to a Ritz in Cancun when his voters were frozen to death during the Texas freeze in ’21.
John McCain, late warmonger par excellence and Cruz’s fellow senator, was quoted saying: “if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the senate, and the trial is in the senate, nobody would convict you”.
Even Lindsey Graham, who is a worthy contestant as the most despicable human with Cruz, said “if you shot Ted Cruz, it would be a hung jury”.
For this Ted Cruz, who failed to defend the honor of his own wife and father, to take the moral highroad and defend “human dignity” is the equivalent of a two-peso prostitute to lecture on chastity and virtue.
So, the question is – are those vile creatures like Cruz and Graham going to save the US from China’s “debt trap”?
This Thanksgiving, We’re Being Served ‘Fake China Threats’
By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | November 26, 2025
As a long-time critic of Washington’s obsession with the so-called “China threat”—and having written an entire book debunking it, The Fake China Threat—I could not in good conscience allow this year’s Report to Congress of the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission to pass without comment. If anything, the 2025 edition is an even more sweeping reiteration of the assumptions and exaggerations I have challenged for years. Page after page, the report presents an alarming narrative about Beijing’s intentions and capabilities, while simultaneously insisting that every corner of the globe—and every sector of American life—now constitutes a frontline in a zero-sum geopolitical struggle.
The report opens by accusing Beijing of such dire transgressions as “holding regime security” as “a core interest,” of seeking “control and influence” over “regional spheres,” of cooperating with “authoritarian states” for “geopolitical and strategic benefits,” and of “shaping narratives” through “propaganda, disinformation, and malign influence.” One could easily imagine identical language appearing about the Soviet Union, about Washington itself, or literally any power throughout history—yet when applied to Beijing, these otherwise banal behaviors are transformed into signs of imminent global domination.
Nowhere is this tendency more pronounced than in the section worrying over China’s “electrification drive” and its increasingly important role in global energy markets. More than sixty pages are devoted to the idea that China’s leadership in electric vehicles, solar manufacturing, and critical minerals mining represents a strategic threat. Absent from the report is any acknowledgment that Western corporations themselves eagerly shifted production to China, or that Washington—not Beijing—has been the global pioneer in using export controls as geopolitical coercion. When the United States weaponized semiconductor export restrictions, Beijing responded in kind with export controls on rare earths and battery materials. To portray this sequence of events as evidence of China’s uniquely sinister strategy is simply dishonest.
The Commission displays the same lack of self-awareness in its discussion of China’s space program. According to the report, “China has embarked on a whole-of-government strategy to become the world’s preeminent space power,” viewing space as a “warfighting domain” and seeking “superiority” to achieve “information dominance” in future conflicts. These statements are presented as though they reveal some shocking and destabilizing ambition. Yet even the report itself admits that the United States pursued precisely the same aims throughout the Cold War, beginning with Sputnik and culminating in the Apollo program—a state-directed race for prestige, technological supremacy, and ideological credibility. One could be forgiven for marveling at the Commission’s ability to recount this history without recognizing that China today is behaving exactly as the United States once did.
No area attracts more overwrought commentary than Taiwan. The Commission repeats the standard Beltway line that Taiwan is a “vital national interest,” a geopolitical linchpin whose fate somehow determines the future of American security. Yet as I have argued repeatedly, these claims fall apart under scrutiny. Taiwan is important to Washington because Washington has decided it is important. The obligations cited—the Taiwan Relations Act, American “credibility,” regional “order”—are political choices, not laws of nature. Yes, Taiwan produces world-leading semiconductors. But nothing about that fact requires risking a catastrophic great-power war; supply chains can be diversified or on-shored. Beijing’s pressure, moreover, is far from the unprovoked aggression the report suggests—it is rooted in the unresolved civil war of 1949, the inevitable conclusion of which Washington prevented, and remains largely reactive. None of this is to deny tensions exist, but turning Taiwan into a test of American resolve is precisely how manageable disputes become existential crises.
The report’s alarmism reaches farcical heights in Chapter Five: “Small Islands, Big Stakes: China’s Playbook in the Pacific Islands.” Here the Commission insists that tiny Pacific states—many with populations smaller than a Michigan suburb—constitute a strategic battleground essential to the wellbeing of the American people. Any Chinese port investment, loan program, or diplomatic visit is portrayed as a step toward regional domination. Yet nowhere does the Commission attempt to explain how the average American benefits from micromanaging the political and economic decisions of Kiribati or Fiji.
The underlying logic is clear: assume U.S. hegemony is the natural order of the world, treat any erosion of influence anywhere as an existential threat, and convert distant, marginal islands into “vital interests.” This rhetorical sleight of hand is a hallmark of threat inflation. It serves contractors, think-tankers, and bureaucracies far more than it serves the American public.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the Commission’s sprawling list of recommendations. These range from creating a consolidated economic-statecraft agency with law-enforcement powers, to launching new global initiatives on undersea cable security, to deepening U.S. military and political involvement throughout Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. They continue with calls for massive industrial-policy subsidies, a quantum-computing “race,” bioeconomy initiatives, and new industrial-finance mechanisms—all justified by the specter of Chinese power.
The recommendations amount to a blueprint for a vastly expanded national-security state: more intelligence authorities, more intervention abroad, more surveillance tools at home, more taxpayer-funded subsidies for favored industries. It is striking how rarely the Commission pauses to explain how these measures relate to the concrete economic or physical security of ordinary Americans. Instead, all problems—whether involving undersea cables in Micronesia or chip production in Taiwan—are collapsed into a single narrative of geopolitical rivalry requiring endless resources and unquestioned bipartisan support.
This is not a sober analysis of Chinese capabilities or intentions; it is a maximalist wish list for Beltway institutions whose influence grows in direct proportion to the threats they amplify. And when one examines who actually produced the report, the outcome is unsurprising: longtime Nancy Pelosi staffer Reva Price; former Project 2049 Chairman Randall Schriver; and contributions from the Atlantic Council and American Enterprise Institute. This is a who’s who of professional China hawks, each institutionally invested in perpetuating a highly militarized U.S.–China rivalry.
In sum, the Commission’s report is emblematic of the broader problem in Washington: a foreign-policy establishment unable to conceive of international politics except as a struggle for primacy, uninterested in distinguishing vital interests from peripheral ones, and institutionally incentivized to magnify threats rather than manage them. The American people deserve better than a foreign policy driven by inertia, ideology, and bureaucratic self-interest.
The good news is that alternative perspectives exist—and that skepticism toward these narratives is growing. The United States can pursue a stable, prosperous relationship with China without embracing the fear-mongering, militarism, and threat inflation that dominate reports like this one. It only requires the courage to question the assumptions that have guided Washington for too long.
Sex offender Epstein engaged in 2006 smear campaigns against US scholars: Report
Press TV – November 26, 2025
An investigative report has revealed that US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was involved in 2006 smear campaigns against two influential political scientists criticizing the Israeli regime’s interference in the American political system and foreign policies.
The report published by Drop Site news outlet on Tuesday said Epstein’s smear campaigns were launched after the Harvard Kennedy School released in March 2006 a working paper, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
The paper, which ran in the London Review of Books and became the basis for a book published the following year, was an analysis of the impact of pro-Israel advocacy and lobbying groups on the US political system, and the role of organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in shaping US foreign policy towards the West Asia region.
“Mearsheimer and Walt described a loose coalition of philanthropists, think tanks, advocacy groups, and Christian Zionist organizations that routinely pulled US policy toward the Middle East away from America’s national interest, as the US was being drawn into a military quagmire in Iraq,” Drop Site wrote.
The independent news outlet quoted the two scientists as saying in their paper, “Other special interest groups have managed to skew US foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical.”
According to Drop Site, even before the Kennedy School posted the paper online, the project had already spooked editors at The Atlantic, who originally commissioned the essay in the early 2000s.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Mearsheimer revealed that the editor of The Atlantic offered them a “$10,000 kill fee” if the publication didn’t print the article. Mearsheimer said, “That’s the fastest $10,000 we ever made.”
The news outlet said a wave of news articles labelled the two authors as anti-Semites after the paper was released, while the Anti-Defamation League weighed in to denounce what they called an “anti-Jewish screed.” The pressure became so intense that the Kennedy School removed its logo from the paper and added a disclaimer distancing the institution from its arguments.
“Unknown at the time, Jeffrey Epstein gave feedback on talking points to discredit Mearsheimer and Walt, and used his extensive social network to circulate allegations of anti-semitism against the two scholars,” Drop Site wrote.
During the first week of April 2006, as the news outlet said, Epstein received multiple early drafts of an attack piece by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz titled “Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy.”
Dershowitz, who also served as Epstein’s defense attorney in his criminal matters, accused Mearsheimer and Walt of recycling “discredited trash” from neo-Nazi and Islamist websites.
At one point, Epstein received a message from Dershowitz’s email address, with an assistant asking Epstein to help circulate copies of the attack piece, writing, “Jeffrey, were you going to distribute this for Alan?? If I should forward this to someone in your office, pls let me know.” Epstein replied in the affirmative, “Yes I’ve started.”
The news outlet said the consequences of a coordinated smear campaign by elite members of media and academia were dire for Mearsheimer and Walt.
“The Chicago Council on Global Affairs canceled a scheduled talk by the pair in 2007, after pressure from pro-Israel supporters. Other institutions that previously welcomed them to speak now insisted that any appearance be “balanced” by an opposing speaker who was sympathetic to Israel,” Drop Site wrote.
“The backlash narrowed their platform in mainstream media, academia, and think tanks for years while making public appearances more difficult.”
Epstein played an unofficial yet influential role at Harvard University, leveraging over $9 million in donations to gain access and influence despite his 2008 conviction for sex offenses.
He helped establish the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics with a $6.5 million gift in 2003, had his own office and university card access, and visited Harvard more than 40 times after his conviction. His close ties to faculty allowed him to maintain a significant presence on campus until 2018. Harvard’s review criticized the institution’s handling of Epstein’s involvement and called for stricter policies on accepting donations from controversial figures.
Epstein had been arrested in July 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. He reportedly hanged himself in his cell at the Manhattan Correctional Center in August of that year.
The circumstances surrounding his death have fueled years of speculation about his high-profile associates and possible efforts to conceal his crimes.
Kremlin aide sees Washington infighting behind leak
RT | November 26, 2025
Someone in Washington could be trying to undermine US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has suggested, commenting on the recent leaks of his conversations with the envoy. At least some of the purported leaks are fake, he added.
Speaking to Kommersant newspaper on Wednesday, Ushakov defended continued contacts between Moscow and Washington, including by phone, and maintained they are needed to build trust between the two nations. He also said that neither side was interested in leaking the contents of the conversations.
According to the presidential aide, the incident might point to infighting in Washington. “Do you remember the case of [former National Security Adviser] Michael Flynn? This case could be the same,” the official said.
Flynn was forced to resign in 2017 after being accused of misleading officials about a phone conversation with then Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak. Trump, who was serving his first term as president, stated that the conversation was “illegally leaked” by US intelligence.
Flynn initially pleaded guilty to the false statement charges before reversing his position and calling the case politically motivated. Trump pardoned him in late 2020, bringing the case to a close.
Speaking to journalists on Monday, Ushakov warned that such leaks risk undermining the whole process of normalization of relations between Moscow and Washington. “This is unacceptable… in such relations, when most serious issues are discussed,” he said.
“There can be no cooperation with a partner when information about what was discussed is revealed. Otherwise, there will be no trust.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg published what it described as a transcript of Witkoff’s conversation with Ushakov from October 14. The US special envoy was then accused of “coaching” the Russians on how to deal with Washington. Trump dismissed the allegations by saying that Witkoff was using a “standard” approach.
Ushakov noted that some of the leaks are fake, adding that he would not comment on the others. “My conversations with Witkoff are confidential. No one should make them public. No one.”
US warns Ukraine of ‘imminent defeat’ – NBC
RT | November 26, 2025
A senior US military official has warned that Ukraine faces “imminent defeat” on the battlefield and urged Kiev to accept a US-drafted peace deal before its position deteriorates further, NBC News reported on Tuesday, citing people briefed on the talks.
The initial version of the 28-point draft plan would reportedly require Ukraine to relinquish the parts of the new Russian regions in Donbass still under its control, freeze the front lines in Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, and cap the size of its army.
In a meeting with Ukrainian officials in Kiev last week, US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told his counterparts that their troops “faced a dire situation on the battlefield and would suffer an imminent defeat against Russian forces,” NBC reported, citing two sources.
The Russian military has been on the offensive in recent months in Donbass and elsewhere, with Ukrainian officials complaining of a lack of manpower.
Driscoll went on to say that Russia is increasing the scale and pace of its air attacks and can “fight on indefinitely,” and warned that US industry cannot keep supplying weapons and air defenses at the required rate, NBC said.
“The message was basically – you are losing, and you need to accept the deal,” the network’s source said.
According to NBC, Kiev refused to sign the deal, which has since been amended. Several media reports also suggest that Driscoll held “secret talks” with the Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi on Monday and Tuesday.
NBC described the talks between Driscoll and Ukrainian officials as a sign of a long-running rift in the Trump administration between Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
While Vance’s camp is seeking to push Kiev to compromise and see it “as the primary obstacle to peace,” supporters of Rubio believe that the Ukraine conflict could be settled by pressuring Russia, the network said. Vance and Rubio have denied being at odds over Ukraine.
Russia has said it remains in contact with Washington and has received the broad outlines of the plan, but said it will not “engage in megaphone diplomacy,” which could jeopardize the peace efforts.
EU scrambling to steal Russian funds
RT | November 26, 2025
The EU remains intent on funneling frozen Russian assets into Ukraine’s war effort, despite internal opposition from Belgium, the bloc’s top executive has said.
EU leaders want to issue a ‘reparation loan’ to Kiev by using Russian funds frozen in the West as collateral. However, Belgium, where the bulk of the holdings are kept, has refused to greenlight the plan unless other EU nations share the legal and financial risks of what Moscow has denounced as blatant theft.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed the policy on Tuesday while pledging continued EU support for Kiev, even as Washington promotes a new peace initiative that reportedly demands major concessions from Ukraine.
Europe, von der Leyen said, will “stand firmly by Ukraine” throughout any future discussions, adding that “a central point is the question of financing for Ukraine, including the use of the immobilized Russian sovereign assets.”
“Ukraine’s interests are our interests,” she said. “They are inseparable.”
Politico previously reported that pro-Kiev officials in the bloc have floated a temporary “bridge loan,” taken out collectively by EU member states, which would keep Ukraine solvent for several months. Supporters hope that once Belgium is persuaded, the larger reparation loan could later be approved and used to repay this interim debt.
“We hope to be able to solve their hesitation,” one EU diplomat told the outlet. “We really do not see any other possible option than the reparations loan.” Another official said, “if we don’t move, others will move before us.” Both spoke on condition of anonymity.
Russian officials have accused Brussels of trying to prolong the conflict for domestic political gain and to justify soaring defense budgets that benefit European arms makers.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested that critics of the US peace proposal are either misinformed or “pushing their own agenda,” adding that some “don’t want to see this war come to an end” and may be “profiting off of it.”
Some Western Nations Trying to Sabotage Russian-US Efforts on Ukraine – Deputy FM Ryabkov
Sputnik – 26.11.2025
MOSCOW – Several Western European countries are frantically trying to prevent Russia and the United States from reaching an agreement on Ukraine, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told Sputnik on Wednesday.
“We find ourselves in a situation where, especially in a number of Western European countries, a phenomenon already well-known from previous periods is occurring: frantic activity aimed at preventing agreements. They have completely exposed themselves as the main opponents of any agreements,” Ryabkov stated.
Moscow has seen numerous attempts to hinder progress between Russia and the US on negotiations regarding Ukraine, Ryabkov highlighted.
In the talks with the United States on Ukraine, Russia deems it crucial not to deviate from the understandings reached at the Putin-Trump summit in Anchorage, the senior Russian diplomat added.
“We are ready to continue the dialogue. When the American side officially declares its readiness, we will naturally reciprocally engage in the dialogue,” Ryabkov said.
There can be no talk of concessions on key issues for Russia in relation to the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, Sergey Ryabkov said.
“There can be no talk of any concessions or surrender of our approaches to the key aspects of resolving the challenges we are facing, including in the context of the special military operation. I emphasize that the various elements of Anchorage in themselves represent compromise solutions,” Ryabkov told reporters.
Russia is ready to act within the framework of the Anchorage agreements, in accordance with the guidelines laid out at the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, Ryabkov said, commenting on the US plan for Ukraine.
“We are committed to the results of Anchorage and will continue to act within this framework, correlating what is happening now with the fundamental guidelines formulated there by the two presidents,” Ryabkov told reporters.
Russia is not ready to publicly discuss the details of US President Donald Trump’s plan for a Ukrainian settlement, Sergey Ryabkov said.
“We are not prepared to publicly discuss certain details of what is happening, including the various versions of this peace plan. Ultimately, time and attention are needed for the dialogue process to continue,” Ryabkov told reporters.
At the same time, Russia is ready to work with the material it has, the senior diplomat said.
The Russian side is ready to continue dialogue with the United States on the entire bilateral agenda, but only taking into account Moscow’s interests, Sergey Ryabkov said.
“There are plenty of unresolved issues in our interaction and dialogue with Washington, but we are prepared to continue it across the entire bilateral agenda, with the understanding that it will be built strictly on the basis of taking into account Russian interests,” Ryabkov told reporters.
At the same time, Ryabkov noted that there has been no progress in dialogue with the US on priority issues for Russia, such as air travel and the return of diplomatic property.
The situation in the strategic arms sphere will worsen if the United States rejects Russia’s New START proposal, Ryabkov said.
“I would like to emphasize once again the timeliness and validity of our initiative in the post-New START sphere. If the American side, for whatever reason, rejects it and begins to build up its capabilities in this area, the strategic situation will worsen, tensions will increase, predictability will decline sharply, or even be lost entirely,” Ryabkov told reporters.
Relations between Russia and the United States are in the early stages of normalization, Ryabkov noted.
“Our relations with the United States are still in the early stages of the normalization process, and the overall success of this process is not guaranteed,” Ryabkov told reporters.
US businesses are demonstrating a desire to return to Russia, but Moscow will consider each case individually, taking into account the interests of Russian entrepreneurs,Sergey Ryabkov said.
There are currently no agreements regarding contacts between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Deputy FM Ryabkov told Sputnik on Wednesday.
“They [contacts between Lavrov and Rubio] can be arranged as quickly as necessary. As of now, there are no specific agreements,” Ryabkov said.
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- Ceasefire for all or for none: Iran shuts Hormuz over Lebanon attacks
- Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon’ that forced US retreat: Medvedev
- Energy crisis will last for months – Kremlin envoy
- Europe’s quiet role in the war on Iran
- Forty days that shook the Empire: How Iran turned the tables on US and prevailed
- Netanyahu unilaterally declares Lebanon outside of ceasefire deal
- Israeli leaders: ‘Not a single goal’ achieved in war with Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- Trump Says US Sent ‘a Lot of Guns’ to Protesters in Iran
- Israeli forces destroy 17 UN peacekeeper cameras in south Lebanon
- US-Israeli strikes ‘completely destroy’ synagogue in Tehran
- Archbishop for US Military Says Iran War Is Unjust Under Catholic Teaching
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 