For Africans, Victory Day was not just about the fall of Hitler, but about the idea that brutal regimes could fall at all

Victory Day, marked every year in May, is remembered for the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Red Army of the Soviet Union and its allies in 1945. The world saw fascism crumble under the weight of mass resistance, both military and moral. But while Europe swept its streets and held its parades, across the African continent, colonized peoples watched with a different kind of hope. For them, Victory Day was not just about the fall of Hitler. It was about the idea that brutal regimes could fall at all. That whitewashed myths of European superiority, fortified by tanks and treaties, could be buried in the rubble of Berlin.

Read more

Africa in 1945 was still largely in chains. From the deserts of North Africa to the forests of Central Africa, Europeans governed through coercion, racial hierarchy, and theft dressed in the language of “civilization.” And so, when fascism lost, Africa’s revolutionaries leaned in. If a system as monstrous as Nazism could be crushed, then surely the British, French, Portuguese, and Belgian empires—those well-dressed relatives of fascism—could be kicked out too. Victory Day planted a powerful seed: the idea that no system, however armored in ideology or bullets, is eternal.

Colonialism and fascism were not just neighbors on the historical timeline. They were ideological cousins who often shared the same tailor. Both relied on military terror, racial supremacy, and the economic logic that some people existed to be ruled, and others to rule. In Algeria, France perpetuated forced labor, mass internments, and massacres. In Egypt, the British occupation entrenched inequality and racial hierarchy until the 1952 Free Officers Revolution ended King Farouk’s reign. In the Congo, Belgian rule left a legacy of mass violence and extraction so extreme that a UN report in 2020 called it a “colonial genocide.” Mozambique, Kenya, and Angola were ruled by the gun, not by consent.

African leaders like Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Samora Machel, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria didn’t need textbooks to define fascism. They lived it. Nkrumah declared in 1960: “The colonial territories are not free… unless we consider colonialism a form of democratic rule. But colonialism is the rule of a foreign minority over the majority.”

Read more

Victory Day helped ignite African resistance in very real and practical ways. It wasn’t long after the Nazi defeat that uprisings, protests, and movements surged across the continent. In 1947, the West African National Secretariat was formed in London, pushing for decolonization. In 1952, Egypt exploded with revolution, as young officers led by Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew the British-controlled monarchy. In 1954, the FLN launched its full-scale revolt against France. Ghana gained independence in 1957 under Kwame Nkrumah, declaring not just Ghana’s freedom, but that of all Africa.

“The independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked to the total liberation of Africa,” Nkrumah famously declared. His words were not mere rhetoric—they were a blueprint. That same year, thousands of Kenyans were locked in British detention camps during the Mau Mau uprising. In 1960, 69 unarmed protestors were gunned down in Sharpeville, South Africa. In 1961, South African communists, African nationalists, and Pan-Africanists formed Umkhonto we Sizwe. In 1963, the Organization of African Unity was born in Addis Ababa with a charter committed to the total liberation of the continent.

While the so-called “free world” supported colonial powers—France in Algeria, Britain in Kenya and Malaya, Portugal in Mozambique and Angola—the USSR made its position clear: the war against fascism did not end in 1945. It had merely shifted geography.

Read more

Moscow supported African and Arab liberation movements with military training, arms shipments, medical aid, diplomatic backing at the United Nations, and ideological education. The Soviet Union trained fighters at military academies in Tashkent, Odessa, and Moscow. Cuba, a close Soviet ally, sent over 36,000 troops to Angola between 1975 and 1988 to help defeat South African apartheid forces during the Angolan Civil War. Soviet arms were sent to Algeria, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, and Zimbabwe. Leaders like Agostinho Neto, Amílcar Cabral, Samora Machel, and Oliver Tambo were all beneficiaries of Soviet logistical and ideological support.

Egypt, under President Nasser, became a key player in this anti-imperialist axis. After the 1952 revolution, Egypt aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement and strengthened ties with the Soviet Union. Nasser offered training, arms, and diplomatic space to Algerian, Mozambican, and other African liberation fighters. Cairo became a beacon of Pan-African and Pan-Arab unity. In 1960, the Voice of the Arabs radio station broadcast revolutionary content from Cairo to the entire African continent.

Algeria’s war for independence from France from 1954 to 1962 was arguably the most brutal anti-colonial struggle on the continent. Backed by Egypt, the USSR, and China, the FLN fought an eight-year guerrilla war against one of Europe’s strongest military powers. Over 400,000 Algerians died. But in 1962, Algeria declared independence and became a continental center for revolutionary diplomacy, training movements from Zimbabwe to Guinea-Bissau.

Tanzania under Julius Nyerere became the logistical heart of Southern African liberation. Between 1964 and 1980, Tanzania hosted freedom fighters from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Namibia. Samora Machel’s Mozambique fought a decade-long armed struggle against Portugal’s fascist Estado Novo regime and declared independence in 1975.

Read more

The Soviet Union and Cuba were instrumental. Cuba deployed thousands of troops to support the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) from 1975 to 1991. These leaders were not ideological marionettes of the USSR. They were practical strategists.

Nyerere famously warned: “We are not interested in copying any ideology… but we do believe in the equality of man and in the right of all peoples to be free.” They took Soviet support not because it came with strings, but because it came with guns—and with it, the ability to stand.

The ideological parallels were clear. In a 1961 speech, Samora Machel declared, “To the colonialists, we say: We are not afraid of your bombs. We are not afraid of your prisons. We are not afraid of your propaganda. We are not afraid of you because we are standing with the people of the world.” In 1977, Nyerere offered perhaps the most biting summary of the West’s hypocrisy: “They talk of peace while financing the warlords who wish to destroy African independence.”

Victory Day is not just a European celebration. It is an African one. It marked the beginning of the end for empires that had long painted themselves as eternal. It created a new ideological and moral space in which Africa’s revolutionaries could act—not just with passion, but with international backing.

And yes, while Europe held commemorations in clean suits and shiny shoes, Africans fought in the bush, in exile, and in the streets—with little but belief, strategy, and Kalashnikovs. The contradiction is almost comical: the same Western European countries that claimed to defeat fascism in 1945 were simultaneously running torture camps in Kenya and bombing villages in Algeria.

Read more

Today, Africa faces new forms of domination: debt bondage, corporate extraction, foreign military bases, ecological exploitation, and digital colonization. Colonialism may have dropped the whip, but it picked up the loan agreement. In 2024, over 20 African countries still use the CFA franc, a colonial-era currency controlled by the French Treasury. Over 40% of Africa’s arable land is owned by foreign agribusiness firms. US and French military bases stretch from Djibouti to Niger to Senegal. We defeated fascism. We expelled colonialism. But empire? It changed its passport.

Victory Day teaches us that violent, seemingly permanent systems can fall. It teaches us the power of solidarity, the strength of internationalism, and the necessity of historical memory. Africa’s liberation was not a postscript to someone else’s war. It was a front line in the same battle for human dignity.

So, from Stalingrad to Lusaka, from Cairo to Algiers, from Moscow to Accra—the struggle against fascism, racism, and empire continues.

Let us remember. Let us speak. Let us act. And let us never forget: sometimes, the only difference between a fascist and a colonial officer was who got invited to dinner in Paris.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Artificial intelligence may bring about the end of the world as we know it – but not in the way most would expect

The global economy was already navigating a minefield of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) when US President Donald J. Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs reverberated across international markets. This aggressive escalation of trade barriers, including a mélange of sudden rate hikes, retaliatory measures, and rhetorical brinkmanship, didn’t just amplify the chaos; it ignited the specter of a full-blown economic firestorm.

Volatility unleashed

The moment the tariffs were announced, markets convulsed. Stock indices plummeted, erasing $2.1 trillion in global market cap within days, while currency markets whipsawed as traders scrambled to price in the fallout. Supply chains, still reeling from pandemic-era disruptions, faced new shocks. Factories in Vietnam scrambled to reroute shipments, German automakers recalculated production costs overnight, and Chinese exporters braced for 145% retaliatory duties on key goods. The tariffs acted like a sledgehammer to an already teetering Jenga tower of global trade, with each blow amplifying volatility far beyond their intended targets.

Uncertainty weaponized

While volatility reigned, the tariff war between the United States and China introduced a deeper, more corrosive uncertainty. Businesses accustomed to stable trade rules now faced policy seesaws. Exemptions granted one day were revoked almost overnight while the constant threat of broader tariffs were dangled without clarity on timing or scope.

CEOs delayed investments, fearing sudden cost hikes. The Federal Reserve, already grappling with inflation, found itself trapped in a Catch-22 situation: raise rates to tame inflation and risk recession, or hold steady and watch confidence erode. Meanwhile, allies like the EU and Canada retaliated with precision strikes on politically sensitive US exports, ranging from bourbon to motorcycles, threatening 2.6 million American jobs at one point. The potential unemployment tallies just kept rising worldwide.

The message was clear: no one was safe from the fallout.

Read more

Complexity spirals out of control

As the trade war escalated, the global economic order began to fracture. Nations abandoned decades of multilateralism in favor of ad hoc alliances. China fast-tracked deals with the EU and ASEAN and began to court rivals Japan and India. The US, on the other hand, found itself isolated. Companies, desperate to adapt, began planning redundant supply chains – one for tariff-free markets and another for the US. This only served as a costly and inefficient hedge against further disruptions. Regulatory labyrinths simultaneously emerged overnight. A single auto part might now face several different tariff rates depending on its origin, destination, and material composition. The system now groaned under the weight of its runaway complexity.

Ambiguity: Strategy or stumbling block?

Worst of all was the ambiguity. Trump framed the tariffs as a “negotiating tool” to revive US manufacturing, yet no coherent industrial policy followed. Were these temporary measures or a permanent decoupling from China? Would they actually bring jobs back, or simply raise prices for consumers? The administration’s mixed signals left allies questioning America’s reliability and adversaries probing for weakness. Geopolitically, the tariffs accelerated a crisis of trust. NATO allies doubted US commitments, Southeast Asian nations hedged toward Beijing, and the Global South explored alternatives to the dollar. The longer the ambiguity persisted, the more the world adapted to a reality where the US was no longer the anchor of the global economy.

What makes these tariffs uniquely dangerous is their role as a VUCA multiplier. They don’t just create volatility – they lock it in. Uncertainty doesn’t subside – it metastasizes. Complexity isn’t resolved – it becomes the new normal. And ambiguity isn’t clarified – it is weaponized. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: tariffs provoke retaliation, which fuels inflation, which strains central banks, which spooks investors, which forces more protectionism. Meanwhile, the dollar’s dominance erodes, supply chains Balkanize, and businesses lose faith in long-term planning.

AI as the VUCA force multiplier

When the first round of tariffs was imposed by Washington DC, traditional economic models anticipated familiar disruptions in the form of market corrections, supply chain adjustments, and eventual equilibrium. What these models missed was the presence of a new wildcard – AI systems that don’t just respond to volatility but can amplify it. Algorithmic trading platforms and predictive logistics tools, operating on assumptions of continuity, struggled to adapt to the sudden, chaotic shifts introduced by trade barriers. In some sectors, this has led to mismatches between inventory and demand, not because of human misjudgement, but due to machine learning models which are ill-equipped to handle the cascading effects of cross-sectoral VUCA.

Read more

AI is indeed accelerating the fragmentation of the global economic order. As nations implement competing AI systems to manage trade flows, we may see the emergence of parallel digital realities. One country’s customs AI might classify a product as tariff-free while another’s system slaps it with prohibitive duties. This isn’t just bureaucratic confusion; it represents the breakdown of shared frameworks that have enabled global commerce for decades. We used to worry about trade wars between nations; now we should worry about conflicts between the machines built to manage them. In a hypothetical future, trade wars will be fought by rival AI systems fighting proxy battles through markets, logistics, and information. Personally, I doubt this planet has scope for another crisis beyond this one, as Albert Einstein’s adage that WW4 will be fought with “ sticks and stones” comes to mind.

In the midst of the ongoing VUCA torrent, many clueless bureaucrats and executives have quietly turned to AI, particularly GPTs, to make sense of the myriad crises facing their nations and institutions. Many flawed decisions may have been made and sums allocated for “future-proofing.” Let me tell you why this is a recipe for disaster: one prominent GPT model gave me not one but five (5) erroneous and wholly-fictitious examples of how AI had messed up the post-Liberation Day geo-economic landscape. And here is the scary part: only those well-versed in complex systems, global risks and AI would have discerned those flaws. Otherwise, the scenarios generated by the GPT model were generally more accurate than most of those voiced by pundits on prime time television.

Why did the GPT model make such mistakes? I am convinced that AI is being surreptitiously used to sift out the gullible from the indispensable, perhaps in preparation for a post-VUCA world. But that remains a relatively optimistic theory!

Mass unemployment ahead?

AI and VUCA are rapidly converging to create the preconditions for the worst unemployment crisis since the Industrial Revolution. Back then, the West could resort to new markets in the form of colonies. This time, however, there are no new territories left to colonize – only the continued cannibalization of societies themselves. The accelerating spiral of global wealth inequality is not an anomaly; it is the clearest symptom of this internalized exploitation.

The world is not merely staring at job losses in specific sectors. No, this is about the simultaneous breakdown of multiple stabilizing mechanisms that have historically absorbed economic shocks.

Russia’s Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadaev recently claimed that half of his nation’s civil servants could be replaced by AI. Shadaev, however, noted that certain professions, such as doctors and teachers, cannot be replaced. Bill Gates thinks otherwise. He predicts that AI will swiftly replace humans in nearly every professional sphere, including teaching and medicine. For once, I wholly agree with Gates.

So, what do we do with the “excess humans”? Institute a CBDC-mediated rationing system as a stop-gap measure?

Read more

Culmination of systemic global corruption

The VUCA-AI quagmire unfolding today is the consequence of decades of entrenched patronage systems that were perfected in the West and subsequently exported to the Third World. These were intrinsically corrupt systems that rewarded compliant mediocrity over critical thought. In sidelining genuine thinkers, these structures forfeited any real chance of forging a balanced, intelligent response to the collision between VUCA dynamics and artificial intelligence.

In the end, we are left with a world designed by clowns and supervised by monkeys, to borrow a phrase from a disillusioned Boeing pilot. Many Third World pundits and policymakers, themselves products of the West’s neocolonial machinery, are now advocating a wholesale pivot towards the BRICS bloc. Like courtiers in a globalist brothel suddenly desperate for new clientele, these elites now decry the very “inequalities” that once elevated them to cushy posts – at the expense of the citizens they claim to represent.

As far back as 1970, the Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi had warned of the consequences of the “terrible strain of idiots who govern the world.” Szent-Györgyi, who bagged the Nobel Prize in Medicine (1937) for discovering Vitamin C had however hoped that the youth of the future would save humanity from a gerontocracy that cannot “assimilate new ideas.”

Little did he know that the same gerontocracy had already hatched a plan to create a new breed of “young global leaders” – even children – who were more feckless and pliant than their predecessors. This may have been the real raison d’etre behind the World Economic Forum. Personally, I can find no other justification behind the founding of this institution.

In the end, individuals with real ideas – both young and old – have largely abandoned a system that no longer rewards insight, only compliance. Their views no longer appear on search engines as Big Tech had employed a variety of pretexts to shadowban their viewpoints.

However, the day may come when the phones of ideators may start ringing again in the quest for “solutions”. It will be too late by then.

Медиа: image / jpeg

It must be quite a burn for Brussels elites when Washington says their most vaunted quality is not as good as they try to make it look

This one stings. When asked how the EU might dodge US President Donald Trump’s tariff hammer, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent replied, “My observation... goes all the way back to [former US Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger’s statement: ‘When I call Europe, who do I call?’ So, we’re negotiating with a lot of different interests.” Translation: You can’t sit with us until you stop fighting at your own lunch table.

Sure, the continent is tripping over its own policies and tumbling down an economic staircase, but at least everyone’s falling in sync. Brussels tightens the “unity” straitjacket, and they all cheer, or risk getting whacked back into line. Unity is the brand. Unity is the product. Unity is the hashtag.

“Only together can we address the grave challenges we face,” unelected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in January 2024.

“It is thanks to all this that in the last five years, Europe has weathered the fiercest storm in our economic history. And we overcame an unprecedented energy crisis.

We did this together, and we can do it again. And we have the political will. Because when Europe is united, it gets things done,” she said in an address earlier this year at the Davos World Economic Forum, explaining how solidarity will help the EU weather the problems created by its own policies.

“The EU’s strength lies in its unity, including when confronted with major health crises. European solidarity, in sharing medical supplies, treating patients or helping repatriate citizens, and in the reconstruction of our economies, helped us to protect our citizens together and overcome the most difficult phases of the pandemic,” she said in 2023 about the Covid fiasco, during which she brokered a non-transparent deal for jabs with her pal, the CEO of Pfizer, via text messages that have since vanished. Contracts which ultimately left EU member states on the hook even after they had no use for the jabs.

Read more

“This 4th Ukraine meeting was another demonstration of European unity,” Queen Ursula posted a month ago on social media. Of course it was. What isn’t?

Even just this week, in evoking fires in Israel and EU assistance, she wrote on social media that it was “EU solidarity in action.”

Unity and solidarity are important to the EU in the same way that the concept of family is important to evoke every time two toddlers want to poke each other’s eyes out with crayons. As in, “you’re supposed to be brothers, so play nice!” All that helps to paper over the unfortunate history of family infighting and battlefield beatdowns.

Enter Scott Bessent, politely suggesting that he’s not impressed by the EU’s unity thirst traps.

And that hits deep. It’s like telling someone that what they think is their very best feature is really their worst. Say, for example, you really love your own butt, have been spending years in the gym doing every kind of squat, lunges, hip thrusts, and you’re so proud of your butt – and then one day, someone you’re interested in is like, “You know, you should really work on those glutes more.” That’s exactly what Bessent’s comment is when he says that the problem with the EU is their lack of unity.

Nothing the US can do about it, he implies – just a little friendly feedback. Back to the gym, Brussels. And Queen Ursula must be fuming since she talks like it’s her best feature and she already spends all day and night obsessing over it. How is she possibly supposed to do more when she’s already maxed out on her unity obsession? Which is all superficial by the way. Her unity-at-any-cost talk really just means that dissent from countries that disagree is quashed. And those dissenters are typically those with ideological views and approaches similar to Trump’s that place their own country’s interests above those dictated by a supranational institution of global governance.

This is some brutal negging on the part of the Trump administration saying basically, look, you’re not as hot as you think you are. So go work on yourself and then maybe get back to us afterwards. Because this is a YOU problem.

Read more

Bessent specially mentioned the wide variation within the bloc when it comes to taxation of digital services. “We want to see that unfair tax on one of America’s great industries removed,” Bessent said. Funny how they can’t agree on that, but have no problem marching in step behind the Digital Services Act, which basically deputizes “fact-checkers, civil society, and third-party organizations with specific expertise on disinformation,” to keep EU internet users “safe and accountable.” When it comes to taxes, the EU is a jazz band. When it comes to censorship, they’re a military parade.

Meanwhile, von der Leyen reportedly tried to book time with Trump at Mar-a-Lago before his inauguration. No dice. Her staff was ghosted by the White House despite blowing up its phone. When she finally caught up with Trump in Rome at Pope Francis’ funeral, it was said to be… not exactly a summit. More like a celeb sighting.

Word is that Trump told her they’d meet. Perhaps just to get her to release his hand.

Other than the fact that Queen Ursula is unelected, unlike all the leaders of individual EU nations with whom Trump has been meeting, why else might he be ignoring the EU’s top boss? Well, maybe it’s the constant scolding. “Global markets are shaken by the unpredictable tariff policy of the US administration,” von der Leyen said this week at a political gathering in Spain. ”My friends, we cannot and we will not allow this to happen. We have to double down on our hallmark policies of open markets of win-win trade and investment partnership, and of free and fair trade.”

Bessent’s whole “fix yourselves first” vibe also lines up with Trump's vice president, J.D. Vance’s stance. According to the UK Independent, Vance reportedly wants future trade deals tied to countries, like the UK, abandoning speech-curbing laws.

So if the Trump doctrine is a world order of free nations over rule by top-down globalist committee, then using trade as a crowbar to pry open authoritarian institutions certainly checks out.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Kiev is trying to portray itself as a “key supporter” of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle

The article “Ukraine looks to rekindle ties with liberation heroes,” published on April 15 in The Citizen, reports on a statement by the Ukrainian ambassador to South Africa, Liubov Abravitova, that Ukraine was “a key supporter” of South Africa’s freedom struggle, including arming the liberation movement “under the umbrella of the former Soviet Union.” The Ukrainian diplomat’s assertion is a clear example of information manipulation.

Thirty years have passed since the victory of the ANC-led democratic forces over South Africa’s apartheid regime. Throughout most of this time, South Africa’s mainstream media has largely downplayed the Soviet Union’s significant support for the liberation struggle. Do these claims stand up to historical scrutiny?

The truth is that ANC combatants received training at various locations across the Soviet Union, particularly in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Baku (then the capital of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic), Frunze (then part of the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic), and Minsk (then capital of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic). The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) also served as a training ground for ANC officers, with this effort beginning in 1964 at the Odessa Infantry School.

Read more

The story of how South Africans were trained in Odessa is well documented in “Armed and Dangerous,” the memoir of Ronnie Kasrils – one of the first ANC cadets at the school, who later served as South Africa’s Deputy Minister of Defence and Minister of Intelligence Services.

From 1965, ANC personnel also received training at Special Center-165 near the village of Perevalnoye in Crimea, which was then part of the Ukrainian SSR. Hundreds of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) soldiers were trained in advanced tactics and weaponry at this facility. In 1980, the center was renamed the Unified Simferopol Higher Military School (Simferopol is Crimea’s capital).

However, the current Ukrainian state has no direct connection to that historic chapter. While the training occurred on the territory of Soviet Ukraine, the context was entirely different. At the time, Ukraine was one of fifteen republics within the Soviet Union, governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). The Ukrainian SSR, like the other republics, was de-facto not an independent actor in foreign or defense policy. Since 1991, a fundamentally different state has emerged – one defined by a capitalist economy and an openly anti-communist ideology.

It is difficult to imagine that today’s Ukrainian ambassador to South Africa could find common ground with comrades like Chris Hani or Joe Slovo. Chris Hani, it should be remembered, was assassinated by an emigrant from Poland – a country close to Ukraine not only geographically, but also in terms of the deeply ingrained anti-communist sentiment within its society. The current Ukrainian government is resolutely anti-communist, having banned the Communist Party of Ukraine four years ago.

Read more

Moreover, the training of ANC fighters in Perevalnoye came to an end in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Ukraine’s declaration of independence that same year marked the conclusion of all such collaboration. The current authorities in Kiev, including their representatives in Pretoria, have no historical link to the ANC’s struggle.

While MK training occurred on the territory of Soviet Ukraine, the Ukrainian SSR itself was not involved in policy decisions. The decision to support liberation movements – including the ANC – was made in Moscow by the CPSU’s Central Committee and the Soviet government. Funding came solely from the Soviet Union’s central budget; the Ukrainian SSR had no independent military or foreign affairs budget and did not control an army. All military training was organized by the Soviet Ministry of Defense.

It is also important to note that ANC and MK officers were trained in several other Soviet republics. One of the most important centers was north of Moscow, known to the ANC as the “University of the North.” Early trainees included future President Comrade Thabo Mbeki and future Speaker of Parliament Comrade Max Sisulu.

Similarly, ANC civilian personnel studied at universities across the Soviet Union. Again, admission decisions were made by the USSR’s Ministry of Higher Education, and funding came from the Soviet state budget – not from the republics themselves.

Read more

Of course, local staff in military academies and civilian institutions did play a role, and in this sense, all the Soviet republics contributed to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. This support extended beyond education and training: the Soviet Peace Fund conducted public fundraising campaigns across the USSR for ANC camps in Angola and for the Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College in Tanzania.

Given this context, efforts to portray the current regime in Kiev, represented by the Ukrainian ambassador in Pretoria, as having supported the ANC’s liberation struggle are historically inaccurate. The ideology of today’s Ukrainian state, rooted in anti-communism and shaped by far-right nationalism, bears no resemblance to the values that guided the Soviet-era solidarity movement.

If anything, such a state would likely have aligned itself with the apartheid regime and its Western backers.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Days before India’s ‘Operation Sindoor,’ Islamabad suspended the 1972 agreement with New Delhi that aimed to establish lasting peace between the two neighbors

India launched ‘Operation Sindoor’ on the night of May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan in retaliation for a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgram, Kashmir last month. New Delhi stated that it hit at least nine targets.

“Our actions have been focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in the selection of targets and method of execution,” the Indian government said in a statement.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif descried the strikes as a “cowardly” attack and said Islamabad "has every right to respond forcefully to this act of war imposed by India, and a forceful response is being given."

Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated to military actions following the killing of 26 innocent vacationers in Pahalgam, Kashmir by Pakistan-backed terrorists in a Hamas-style terror attack.

Pakistan Army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) links were established by India’s National Investigation Agency days after the mass killing. The public was angry, and sought appropriate revenge.

A wide range of diplomatic and economic measures were announced by both nations following the attack. Remarkably, India has put the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance for the first time since the pact was inked by the two neighbors. Rejecting India’s move to suspend the IWT, Pakistan warned that any diversion of water will be treated as an ‘Act of War.’ Islamabad also said that it would hold “in abeyance” its participation in all bilateral agreements with India, including the landmark 1972 Simla Agreement.

Pakistan pledged a full-spectrum national power response to any threat against its sovereignty, put its armed forces on high alert, and began selective mobilisation. Most measures were quite expected. But by suspending the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan unwittingly handed over big advantage to India.

What is the Shimla Agreement?

The Shimla agreement between India and Pakistan was signed on July 2, 1972 at Barnes Court (Raj Bhavan) in the town of Shimla in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh, between then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her Pakistani counterpart Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It was ratified on July 15, 1972 (by Pakistan), and August 3, 1972 (by India), and became effective the next day.

Read more

The agreement had come in the wake of Pakistan’s comprehensive defeat in the 1971 war that split the country and created independent Bangladesh.

The agreement stated:“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly arid harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.”

The document was meant to lay the foundation of a peaceful and stable relationship between the two nations. It was decided that the two countries are resolved “to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”

The treaty mandated that the two countries resolve issues bilaterally, and superseded the United Nation’s resolution on Kashmir. Perhaps more importantly, under the agreement, India and Pakistan established the Line of Control (LoC), previously called the Ceasefire Line, making it a quasi-border between the two nations.

New Delhi succeeded in persuading Islamabad to change the name of the ceasefire line to the Line of Control (LoC), thus delinking it from the UN-imposed 1949 ceasefire line and highlighting that Kashmir was now a purely bilateral matter between India and Pakistan.

The treaty clearly stated that Indian and Pakistani forces must be withdrawn to their respective sides of the “international border.” That in Jammu and Kashmir, the LoC resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice toward the recognised position of either side.

Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. India returned around 13,000 square kilometers of land taken in battle on the western border but retained some strategic areas, including Turtuk, Dhothang, Tyakshi, and Chalunka in Chorbat Valley, covering more than 883 square kilometers, so as to facilitate lasting peace. Both sides further agreed to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of the LoC.

Read more

The fact that there has only been one limited war since the agreement was signed reflects its effectiveness.

Some Indian bureaucrats later argued that a tacit agreement to convert this LoC into a international border, was reached during a one-on-one meeting between the two heads of government. Pakistani bureaucrats have denied any such thing. Nor was that acceptable to Indian public.

The Shimla agreement called on both sides to resolve all issues bilaterally. But Pakistan never respected this part of the treaty, and has taken matters to an international level, especially by doing chest-beating over Kashmir at the UN. The latest example of this attitude is Pakistan’s outcry over the Abolition of Article 370 by the Narendra Modi-led government in 2019. One critical clause was that “both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.”

Pakistan has been engaging in cross-border terrorism as a foreign policy tool to bleed India and to foster separatism in Kashmir, as well as to keep the Indian Armed Forces pinned down. Some of the major Pakistan-sponsored Islamist attacks against India have included a terrorist attack on the Parliament of India in New Delhi on December 13, 2001, the attack on the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar in 2002; the Mumbai train blasts in 2003; twin blasts at Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar in Mumbai in 2005, Delhi bombings and 2006 Mumbai train bombings, train blasts in Jaipur in 2008, and the tragic Mumbai attacks in November 2008. The latest large-scale attacks occurred in Kashmir: a deadly terrorist attack on the Army camp in Uri killed 17 Indian soldiers and an attack on the military convoy in Pulwama resulted in the death of 40 personnel.

From then to now

Islamabad believes that by suspending the treaty it can once again take all issues to the UN or other bodies and invite third parties to intervene in the India-Pakistan disputes. But by suspending the Shimla agreement, the sanctity of the LoC becomes open-ended. It will be possible for either side to unilaterally take advantage and try violate it to gain ground.

India is more powerful, both militarily and otherwise, and will have the advantage. Pakistan tried to breach the LoC in 1999, resulting in the Kargil War, where Pakistanis were not only thrown out but also faced a humiliating defeat and very high casualties. Earlier, in 1984, Pakistan attempted to take control of the Siachen Glacier, an Indian territory demarcated by the Karachi agreement. In response, India launched Operation Meghdoot in 1984, gaining full control of the glacier.

Read more

With the suspension of the Simla Agreement, New Delhi is free to use military options without violating any treaty. These options could be many. India could pro-actively target terrorist camps across the LoC in order to slow or stop terrorist infiltration. India could regain territory in critical sectors, especially gains like the Haji Peer Pass, that it had earlier frittered under international pressure. There are other sectors where India can create greater buffer zones to reduce threats to the Srinagar-Leh highway.

When the treaty was signed, Pakistan had the support of the West, particularly the US, because Washington needed Pakistan for its operation against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Things have changed ever since. Today the world is wooing India. India is a mature democracy with a powerful economy. It is a significant military power, too. Russia, Europe, the US, the Arab world, and even China need India for economic reasons.

India can now use the leverage it has over major powers to isolate Pakistan. It was encouraging to note that when the New York Times reported that the Pahalgam tourists were gunned down by “militants in Kashmir,” the US House Foreign Affairs Committee rectified the headline, referring to the gunmen as “terrorists.” India’s ties with China are also improving – causing insecurity in Pakistan.

Peace and stability in question

The Shimla agreement had not prevented the relationship between the two countries from deteriorating to the point of armed conflict even before – in the Siachen glacier or during the Kargil War of 1999.

Read more

The prerequisites for reconciliation, good neighborliness and durable peace between the two, has been breached repeatedly by Pakistan sponsored terrorism. They were expected to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other, this too has been violated. Pakistan's army has repeatedly vowed to avenge the humiliating defeat and surrender of 93,000 able-bodied soldiers, “throwing peace into the wind.”

The progressive normalising of relations as envisaged by the treaty was not allowed to happen by Pakistan's army, which has de-facto run the country since 1947. Pakistani Army’s power flows from the insecurity of the nation’s masses. Steps that were to be taken to promote travel, trade, and cultural relations kept seeing setbacks. The suspension of the treaty has raised concerns about the future of peace and stability in the region, especially regarding the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir.

The suspension could potentially revive the proxy warfare tactics that the Simla framework aimed to curb. It may not have immediate tactical consequences, but could open the door to greater diplomatic and military brinkmanship. Revival of hostilities or border instability could derail developmental and democratic consolidation efforts in J&K’s post-Article 370 abrogation. The escalation conflict between two nuclear-armed states have already raised alarms in the international community, prompting calls for restraint and dialogue.

The suspension of the Simla Agreement has provided India with an opportunity to recalibrate its security and diplomatic strategies. It also strengthened the case for Pakistan’s re-listing in the Financial Action Task Force grey list.

By disregarding the Simla Agreement, Pakistan has done a great favour to India and Prime Minister Modi to reclaim Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, something that the entire political class of India would support. India has nearly $680 billion in foreign exchange reserves, while Pakistan’s are $15 billion. Pakistan cannot sustain a conflict. The extent of armed conflict will be graded. It is time to wait and watch as things unfold.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Between uncontrolled migration, propagandistic ideology and self-suffocating green agenda, the EU has only itself to blame for its decline

The European Union, that grand and failing dream of technocrats, is dying. Its decline is not sudden or dramatic but a slow unraveling, a bureaucratic collapse in which every policy designed to sustain it only hastens its demise.

It starves itself on the thin gruel of ideology – open borders dissolving nations into contested spaces, green mandates suffocating industry under the weight of unattainable standards, and a moralizing anti-Russian fervor that has left it isolated and energy-dependent. Once, Europe was the center of empires, the birthplace of civilizations that shaped the world. Now, it is a patient refusing medicine, convinced that its sickness is a form of enlightenment, that its weakness is a new kind of strength. The architects of this experiment still speak in the language of unity, but the cracks in the foundation are too deep to ignore.

Immigration was the first act of self-destruction, the point at which Western Europe’s ruling class severed itself from the people it claimed to govern. The elites, intoxicated by the rhetoric of multicultural utopia, flung open the gates without consideration for cohesion, for identity, for the simple reality that societies require more than abstract ideals to function. Cities have fractured into enclaves where parallel societies thrive, where police hesitate to patrol, where the native-born learn to navigate their own streets with caution. The promise was harmony, a blending of cultures into something vibrant and new. The reality is a quiet disintegration, a thousand unspoken tensions simmering beneath the surface. Politicians continue to preach the virtues of “diversity,” but the people – those who remember what it was like to have a shared history, a common language – are beginning to revolt. The backlash is no longer confined to the fringe. It is entering the mainstream, and the establishment trembles at what it has unleashed.

Read more

Then came the green delirium, the second pillar of Western Europe’s self-annihilation. Factories shutter under the weight of environmental regulations, farmers take to the streets in protest, and the middle class is squeezed between rising energy costs and stagnant wages. The climate must be saved, the leaders insist, even if the cost is economic ruin. Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of the continent, dismantles its nuclear infrastructure in favor of unreliable wind and solar power, only to return to coal when the weather turns unfavorable. There is a madness in this, a kind of collective hysteria where dogma overrides pragmatism, where the pursuit of moral purity blinds the ruling class to the suffering of ordinary citizens.

The rest of the world watches, perplexed, as the EU willingly cripples itself for a cause that demands global cooperation – cooperation that is nowhere to be found. China builds coal plants, America drills for oil, India prioritizes growth over emissions, and the EU alone marches towards austerity, convinced that its sacrifice will inspire others. It will not.

And Russia – the great miscalculation, the strategic blunder that may yet prove fatal. Europe had a choice: to engage with Moscow as a partner, to integrate it into a stable continental order, or to treat it as an eternal adversary. It chose the latter, aligning itself fully with Washington’s confrontational stance, severing ties that had once provided cheap energy and economic stability. The pipelines are silent now, the ruble flows eastward, and Western Europe buys its gas at inflated prices from distant suppliers, enriching middlemen while its own industries struggle. Russia, spurned and sanctioned, turns to China, to India, to those willing to treat it as something other than a pariah. The Eurasian landmass is reconfiguring itself, and Europe is not at the center. The EU is on the outside, looking in, a spectator to its own irrelevance. The Atlanticists in Brussels believed they could serve two masters: their own people and Washington’s geopolitical whims. They were wrong.

In this unfolding drama, America and Russia emerge as twin pillars of Western civilization – different in temperament but united in their commitment to preserving sovereign nations against globalist dissolution. America, the last defender of the West’s entrepreneurial spirit and individual liberty, stands firm against the forces that would destroy borders and identities. Russia, keeper of traditional values and Christian heritage, guards against the cultural nihilism consuming Europe. Both understand that civilizations must defend themselves or perish; neither suffers the death wish that afflicts the Western European elites.

Read more

And of Western Europe? It is a ghost at the feast, clutching its empty wineglass, muttering about “norms” and “values” as the world moves on without it. The European elites still cling to their illusions, still believe in the power of rhetoric over reality. They speak of “strategic autonomy” while marching in lockstep with Washington’s wars, of “diversity” while their own cities become battlegrounds of competing identities, of “democracy” while silencing dissent with bureaucratic machinery and media censorship.

The voters sense the decay. They rebel – in France, where Marine Le Pen’s supporters grow by the day; in Italy, where Giorgia Meloni’s government rejects the EU’s dictates on immigration; in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán openly defies the liberal orthodoxy. Yet the machine grinds on, dismissing every protest as populism, every objection as fascism. The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.

There is a cancer in Europe, and it is not the right or the left. It is the very idea that a civilization can exist without roots, that a people can be stripped of its history and still remain coherent. The EU was built on the assumption that identity was an accident, that men were interchangeable economic units, that borders were relics of a barbaric past. Now the experiment is failing. The young flee – to America, to Asia, anywhere with opportunity and dynamism. The old huddle in their apartments, watching as their neighborhoods change beyond recognition. The politicians, insulated by privilege, continue to lecture about “tolerance” and “progress,” oblivious to the rage building beneath them.

Read more

The great realignment is already underway. The Atlantic widens; the Eurasian landmass stirs. America and Russia, for all their rivalry, understand power in a way Western Europe has forgotten. They build, they fight, they act decisively. The EU deconstructs, hesitates, agonizes over moral dilemmas while others seize the future. The 21st century will belong to those who can face it without illusions, who can say “we” and mean something concrete, who can defend their interests without apology. Western Europe, as it exists today, is incapable of this.

Perhaps the EU will linger for years yet, a hollowed-out institution shuffling through summits and issuing directives that fewer and fewer obey. But the spirit is gone. The people feel it. The world sees it. Historians will look back on this era as the funeral of liberalism – a slow, self-inflicted demise by a thousand well-intentioned cuts. The creators of this collapse will not be remembered as visionaries but as fools, as men and women who prized ideology over survival.

And when the last bureaucrat turns out the lights in Brussels, who will mourn? Not the workers whose livelihoods vanished for the sake of carbon targets. Not the parents afraid to let their children play in streets that no longer feel like home. Not the nations that surrendered their sovereignty to a project that demanded their deconstruction. Only the living corpses of the elites will remain, muttering to each other in the ruins, still convinced of their own righteousness.

But righteousness is not enough. The world has always belonged to those who are willing to fight for it – and Old Europe has forgotten how to fight.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The popular opposition party has been blacklisted, a big step down the slippery slope towards a total ban

Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (literally, the Federal Office for Protecting the Constitution), has released a bombshell: Based on a report of over a thousand pages, the Verfassungsschutz has classified the AfD (Alternative for Germany) party as “confirmedly right-extremist.” Or, to translate from bureaucratese, “extreme-right.” That means that the AfD is now officially tagged as hostile to the constitutional order of Germany.

Regional branches of the party as well as its former youth organization have been given the same label before. The party as a whole has been formally labeled a “suspect case” (Verdachtsfall) for years, which already allowed the Verfassungsschutz to spy on it. This new classification now is not yet a prohibition. It is more akin to an extreme form of official blacklisting: In practical terms, the AfD can still contest elections, citizens can still vote for it, and its candidates can still represent them.

It is also not a crime to be a member of the AfD; there are currently about 51,000. At the same time, members who are also public servants, for instance in the police, may well face individual assessments of their loyalty to the state.

Conveniently, the Verfassungsschutz has not published the report underlying its finding. But its key allegations against the AfD have been advertised widely: Due to its – very real and often brutal – xenophobic rhetoric, the AfD stands accused of systematically offending against human dignity, an ideal explicitly protected as “inviolable” by the very first article and first paragraph of the German constitution (formally known as the Basic Law).

More broadly, the AfD, the Verfassungsschutz argues, advances an ethno-chauvinistic – to translate the almost untranslatable German adjective “völkisch” – concept of the German population that discriminates against those who are not or not entirely of ethnic German descent. That is – full disclosure – Germans such as me, for instance. That as well, the domestic intelligence experts charge, is not compatible with Germany’s constitutional order.

That Germans can, for now, still vote AfD does not mean that the Verfassungsschutz’s new move is a formality. On the contrary, it is a grievous and misguided escalation, in three ways: It allows the government to boost spying on the AfD by surveillance and informers to the maximum. In principle at least, it greatly stigmatizes the party in the public sphere. Finally, if a formal procedure to achieve a full prohibition were to be initiated, then its chances of success have now increased.

Read more

Little wonder then that the AfD has already announced that it will fight the new classification in the courts. It is hard to predict its chances of overturning it. For one thing, last year the AfD lost a similar case – if with lower stakes – when it contested its prior Verfassungsschutz categorization as “suspect.”

It’s little wonder also that some political opponents of the AfD are already loudly clamoring for fresh attempts to fully ban the AfD and remove it from German politics by brute suppression. “If you can’t beat them, snuff them” might as well be the motto of those AfD rivals.

For, despite silly claims to the contrary, the escalating attack on the party is inevitably political and does reflect the AfD’s massive recent success: with 25 percent and more, the AfD is now often the strongest single party in German polls; it did very well at the last federal elections, taking second place with almost 21 percent after the mainstream conservatives; it has a large parliamentary presence of 152 seats, doubling its previous weight. It is, by far, the largest and most important opposition party. Many Germans will, rightly, see the current moves against the AfD as a political abuse of legal norms – in short, lawfare – to hamstring or destroy a political rival that has become too threatening.

Some German mainstream politicians, including the always extremely cautious Olaf Scholz, are more reticent. Scholz, notoriously, is the man who smiled sheepishly when Washington let the world know it would take out Germany’s Nord Stream pipelines; he also denies the Gaza genocide, while Germany is supplying Israel with arms and political support. Scholz, in other words, is the opposite of a courageous hero. And yet, his hesitence about going for a full ban on the AfD makes sense.

Because, in simple practical terms, notwithstanding the Verfassungsschutz classification, that, too, would be an undertaking with an unpredictable outcome. Fortunately, German law makes it difficult to completely prohibit a party: Only three institutions can start the legal process – parliament, the federal council (the upper chamber, representing Germany’s states), and the federal government in Berlin – and only the country’s constitutional court can decide such a case. Similar hurdles would have to be overcome to deprive the AfD of public funding, another demand currently made with fresh force by its opponents.

If there were an attempt to prohibit the AfD and it failed, the only party profiting from it would be, obviously, the AfD: it would then be able to claim both the mantle of martyrdom and victory over the deep state and its lawfare. Like Donald Trump recently in the US, the AfD has an in-built capacity to politically profit from persecution that its enemies underestimate at their peril.

Even if a prohibition attempt were to succeed, simply abolishing a party that a quarter (and counting) of German voters are supporting would, of course, trigger enormous, justified frustrations and a massive popular backlash. But there are even more – and more fundamental – reasons why both the current ostracizing of the AfD and a potential full ban are very bad ideas.

Read more

First, various commentators and politicians have already pointed out that the industrial-strength blacklisting now applied to the AfD is likely to buttress the so-called “firewall,” that is, in essence, the abysmal policy of all other parties to rule out the AfD as a coalition partner, that is, to systematically exclude it from government no matter how many Germans vote for it. In practical terms, this means that, in terms of both numbers and real – if denied – ideological affinity, the AfD, not the SPD, should be forming a government with the CDU now: The firewall already has momentous distorting effects on election consequences, and all Germans can see it.

The firewall also means that by now more than a fifth of German voters are, in effect, partly disenfranchised and treated as second-class voters and thus second-class citizens. That’s because their votes clearly are deprived – deliberately and, as it were, by definition – of a power that all other votes have, namely, to potentially influence not only the composition of parliament but that of government as well.

The firewall is, in other words, not something good democrats should be proud of; it is a blatant form of massive discrimination. What makes this particularly harmful is that the AfD is dominant in what used to be East Germany. Hence, discriminating against it and its voters means, inevitably, discriminating not only politically, which is bad enough, but regionally as well, along the worst possible fault line in all of Germany.

Consider, for instance, how not only but especially AfD voters or members in the former East Germany must feel, when they hear CDU politician Marco Wanderwitz claim that the AfD “ must be eliminated“ because as long as it is around “to fill up” voters (all Wanderwitz’s own bizarre terms) with its ideology, those same voters cannot be reclaimed by “democracy.” It’s hard to imagine a more patronizing and demeaning statement. Good luck, Germany, with riding out the polarizing effects of such approaches, combining the obviously unfair with the obnoxiously offensive.

Read more

Second, it is true that significant parts of the AfD – not merely a fringe – are far or extreme right. But, even if that may be counterintuitive too many, to fight the party with lawfare is still principally – not only pragmatically – wrong, because all German mainstream parties – as well as much of the AfD, by the way – support come-what-may a very far-right Israeli regime that has been stomping on that famous human dignity for decades and has been committing a live-streamed genocide since late 2023. It is ludicrous, peak hypocrisy to stand by apartheid-genocidal Israel in foreign policy but try to blacklist or even forbid the AfD domestically.

Third, all too few Germans seem to be aware that the whole idea of protecting democracy by aggressively identifying those accused of not supporting it and then marginalizing and suppressing them has a very dark history. Instead, the simplistic tale Germans are told again and again by their leaders and mainstream media is that this ideal of so-called “militant democracy” is the correct post-World War Two response to the manner in which the Nazis came to power in 1933. As if that so-called ‘seizure of power’ had not been most of all the outcome of a conspiracy – in practice, not ‘theory’ – of small traditional elites.

‘Militant democracy,’ on the other hand, was actually tried out already during World War II; not, obviously, in Nazi Germany but in the US, under the direct influence of the recognized and usually venerated intellectual father of the concept, the German émigré Karl Loewenstein.

Regarding those who think that ‘militant democracy’ can do ‘merely’ political and not very concrete, brutal harm, they should urgently read up on this first experiment in Loewensteinian democracy ‘defense.’ For Loewenstein did not just theorize, argue, and lobby. As American historian Udi Greenberg has long shown in his book “The Weimar Century” and a shorter online article, Loewenstein inspired and played an important role in a long international US campaign to identify and suppress alleged “subversives” in the Western hemisphere.

Read more

Carried out under Washington’s leadership in several countries of Latin America as well, this campaign ended up surveiling, incarcerating, and deporting thousands, without due process or appeal, simply by administrative fiat. At its peak stood literal, now mostly forgotten – unlike the better-known case of the World War II persecution of Japanese Americans – concentration camps on US soil.

And – surprise, surprise – many of the victims were, of course, innocent. Indeed, Greenberg found that US officials knew they “posed no security threat” and that “only a tiny minority” among them were even politically active in any way. What the preponderant majority was repressed for was not what they had done – nothing – but who they were or, in the eye of over-eager and over-empowered security bureaucrats, seemed to be. The same American officials also knew that many arrests were really “motivated by racism or greed, with internal reports mentioning “policemen’s plans to take over the prisoners’ houses.”

Finally, to reach peak absurdity, US officials were aware from internal reporting that the victims of their campaign included Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, now absurdly targeted as enemy agents. If you have never heard about this extensive practical test of the concept of ‘militant democracy,’ guided by its intellectual godfather himself, and its extremely dark outcomes, then ask yourself why.

Germany may end up prohibiting its biggest, most important opposition party – in the name of “democracy.” This would be a new milestone in the EU’s relentlessly escalating – Romania, France, even Moldova, which is not even a member yet – authoritarian campaign to bend voters to the will of radical-Centrist establishment parties that monopolize the notion of democracy and thereby undermine, even destroy whatever is left of its reality. Whether you like AfD politics or not – I do not, not at all – you should understand that the real if insidious threat to democracy comes from those waging lawfare against it.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Excluding Moscow’s representatives from commemorations of the defeat of the Nazis shows a problem with elementary logic and basic decency

Eighty years ago, Germany suffered its worst self-induced military – as well as moral, political, cultural, you name it – catastrophe ever.

First, Nazi Germany led the global fascist challenge that we call World War II. Then, Germany was not merely defeated but crushed by the combined efforts of, in order of importance, the Soviet Union, the US, and UK, to name only those powers that really mattered decisively for the outcome of the war in Europe. This Allied victory in Europe is celebrated in May. In the West, the commemorations peak on the 8th and in Russia, one day later.

In Asia, things were different. World War II started earlier – in July 1937, not September 1939, and ended later – in August, not May, 1945. Regarding the war in Europe, the West has always, with varying intensity, sought to diminish the preponderant role of the Soviet Union – and within the latter, of Russia.

Concerning the war in Asia, the West’s main target of this weaponized forgetfulness has been China, rightly labeled “the forgotten ally” by historian Rana Mitter. China, like the Soviet Union and now Russia, has always dared challenge Western hegemony and especially US ‘primacy’. And, as with Russia and the former Soviet Union, it is this geopolitical independence that has led the West to deny the Chinese people’s real and massive World War II contribution and sacrifices, which were enormous (the death toll alone, to quote only one figure, is estimated at 12-20 million).

But for now, back to the European part of the war. There, in historical reality, it was the Soviet Union that did the most – by far – to destroy Nazi Germany. And that is a simple, even quantifiable historical fact. Merely a decade ago, it was occasionally admitted even in Western mainstream media, such as America’s Washington Post and Britain’s Independent.

A few figures suffice to sketch just how predominant the Soviet share in the victory over Nazism was: Over the course of the war, in all its theaters, 17 to 18 million Germans served in the Nazi forces (including the Wehrmacht and the smaller but especially important and vicious Waffen-SS).

Read more

At least 4 million German soldiers were killed in the fight against the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 alone. Estimates indicate that at least as many were injured, probably more; around 3 million became POWs.

The upshot of this is simple: A massive chunk, some historians estimate up to 80%, of the total German fighting manpower of World War II – not only those who invaded the Soviet Union – was eliminated on what the Germans called the Eastern Front. Without going into easily available details, the picture is similar when we focus not on men but materiel.

Ask, for instance, Google’s Gemini AI in Deep Research mode, and it will sum it up thus: “It is evident that the Eastern Front absorbed the vast majority of Germany’s total tank losses throughout the war.” It turns out that the failure of Germany’s touted Leopard tank in the Ukraine conflict has a long tradition reaching back to Nazi Germany’s Panthers and Tigers: Russia, neutering German cats since 1941.

Put simply, as with Sweden’s Gustav XII and France’s Napoleon, it was Russia and the Soviet Union that broke Hitler’s back. And at enormous cost and sacrifice: Current, solid figures put Soviet losses (military and civilian combined) at 26-27 million. (Compare, for instance, with the US: Military casualties, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, just over 292,000; civilian losses were negligible, even if every individual death is, of course, tragic.)

And now it is Germany – of all places – that has marred the run-up to this year’s May anniversary with an embarrassingly ugly scandal. Its essence is a German government attempt to crudely instrumentalize the commemorations to make them serve the propaganda war that has been part of the West’s proxy war in Ukraine, while accusing Russia of doing just that. In Germany, more and more often, every accusation is a confession, as they say about Israeli propaganda.

While similar initiatives have occurred for years, this year, the German Foreign Office – still mismanaged by Annalena ‘360-Degrees-of-Russophobia’ Baerbock – has escalated the pettiness by circulating a so-called Handreichung – officially, a sort of advice; unofficially, nasty arm-twisting – to insist that neither Russian nor Belarusian representatives should be invited to commemoration events and that, if they dare show up anyhow, they should be kicked out.

The barbaric call to, in essence, kick out well-behaved diplomats as if they were brawlers at a pub, is encoded as a reference to ‘house rules’ to be enforced. But this is a shamelessly primitive euphemism, about as Teutonically klutzy as when the German authorities used to disappear their opponents into ‘protective custody’.

Read more

The German mainstream media have mostly, once again, supported this harebrained and bigoted attempt to stick it to the Russians, as is fashionable again in the new-old Zeitenwende Germany of massive re-armament and ‘war fitness’ (Kriegstuechtigkeit – a term Nazi-infowarrior-in-chief Joseph Goebbels also used). As always, Ukrainian representatives have done their best to misuse their always willingly available German media platforms to confirm Germans in their errors.

The German parliament has followed the Foreign Office and demonstratively excluded Russian and Belarusian diplomats from its commemorations. At least some of the heads of commemoration sites and museums are obeying the Foreign Office’s advice, or perhaps pursuing the same policy out of their own provincial dogmatism. Christian Wagner, who is responsible for sites in Thuringia, has explicitly barred Russian and Belarusian diplomats. Likewise, the head of commemoration sites in Brandenburg, Axel Drecoll, has boasted of disinviting the Russian ambassador and of being ready to evict him – in cooperation with the ‘security forces’ – if he tries to attend.

The good news is that there is resistance as well. Around the town of Seelow – a region with special importance because of the immense 1945 Battle of the Seelow Heights – local politicians, including from Sarah Wagenknecht’s leftwing BSW, the centrist SPD, and also the mainstream-conservative CDU party, dared show themselves “astonished” by the Foreign Office’s “absurd” ideas.

When Russian Ambassador Sergey Nechayev did attend a commemoration event, no one asked him to leave and – surprise, surprise – nothing terrible or scandalous happened. That’s because Russians, unlike quite a few Germans, it seems, still know how to behave with decency.

To the credit of many other Germans, in Seelow, the ambassador was welcomed by a crowd showing their support and respect. Nechayev also took part in commemorations in Torgau, where Soviet and US troops famously met toward the end of the war, and later, at the site of the former camp of Sachsenhausen, which was liberated by the Red Army in April 1945. There, as well, the hysterical fantasies of Germany’s Foreign Office proved simply irrelevant.

In the Berliner Zeitung, songwriter and author Hans-Eckardt Wenzel sharply criticized the policy of weaponizing the memory of World War II against Russia. In particular, he took Axel Drecoll to task, challenging him, in effect, to stop his attempts at rewriting history.

Read more

The German Foreign Office, meanwhile, has shown cold feet. It has begun to equivocate in a comically dishonest and self-revealing manner. When challenged about his ministry’s gratuitous initiative against Russian and Belarusian representatives, its spokesman, Sebastian Fischer, outdid his usual stonewalling: The Foreign Office’s circular, he said, is not a prohibition because the individual memorial sites and museums retain the right to decide whether to follow it or not.

Yes, sure, and we know from Hollywood that the Pirate Code is not really legally binding but more like, you know, sort of a recommendation. Russia has long pointed out that Western elites have become so habitually underhanded, so addicted to sophistry and casuistry that they are no longer ‘agreement-capable’. Thank you for selflessly illustrating, Mr. Fischer from the Foreign Office, that this collapse of a minimum of good faith holds true not only in their behavior abroad but at home as well.

In reality, it is obvious that – despite Fischer’s transparent weaseling – the Foreign Office issued its directive to exert political and public-opinion pressure and do its worst to compel other institutions. To now discover that no one really meant to give orders is a cheap cop-out. But let’s be fair, for Germany, it’s at least a new one: From ‘I was just following orders’ to ‘We never really meant to give any.’ And they say Germans have learned nothing from their nasty past!

In the same press conference, Fischer also failed to answer a crucial question: His ministry has argued that Russian and Belarusian representatives should be kept away and even kicked out if they dare show up in order to prevent any nefarious political instrumentalization.

Read more

Yet, when reminded that similar concerns have been voiced for years now and asked to provide concrete examples of anything of the kind actually happening, Fischer drew an embarrassing blank. He mumbled something vague about some St. George’s ribbons – and that was it, all he could come up with. This from a strangely high-ranking spokesman for a country that has never really had an issue with quite a few of its new Ukrainian friends displaying stuff that is by any reasonable reckoning much worse, namely Nazi-style – and often just straightforward-Nazi – symbols. Talk about instrumentalizing the memory of World War II!

It was left to a member of the German parliament from the Alternative for Germany party (AfD) to speak some plain truth: Steffen Kotre pointed out that it is, actually, Germany’s “ideological policy” that “is instrumentalizing history.” For those out to “clobber the Russians ideologically,” the real history of World War II does not even matter. Exactly!

It is not a pretty picture: The German authorities have revealed, once more, just how small-minded, historically illiterate, and fanatically Russophobic they are. The same politicians who have never failed to support Israel’s routine instrumentalization of the German crime of the Holocaust to cover for Israel’s own brutal crimes of apartheid and genocide against the Palestinians, have shown that they see Russia as a legitimate target of what can only be called memory warfare by dirty tricks.

Of all countries, it is Russia, the one that – objectively, quantifiably – did the most to rid the world of the Nazism that Germans made, served, and fought for, which some Germans now feel they have to censure and offend demonstratively. Germany’s elites have serious problem not merely with memory but with elementary logic and basic decency.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Russia, which is integrally connected to Europe, ensures its stability and prosperity

The narrative around Russia’s role in European security has become increasingly distorted in recent decades. Once a central player in European geopolitics, Russia is now considered an outsider at best and an outright enemy at worst. Looking at Moscow through this narrowed prism has become the norm not the exception. It makes the focused observer wonder if European leaders really believe that much can be done without Russia, particularly security-wise.

To say such a European view of Moscow is both unfair and short-sighted may be an understatement. It is only 80 years since the Soviet Union, of which Russia was the center, led the liberation of Europe from what was essentially the European evil of Nazism, which is coming back to haunt the old continent. Do current European leaders really forget such recent history or do they, intentionally, want to rewrite it to suit their current agendas and future Europe, in another generation or two? There is an irony here: while some European leaders are intentionally casting Russia as a “non-European” entity, the historical and practical reality paints a starkly different picture – where Russia is not only a European country but an essential player in ensuring the continent’s stability and prosperity. What cannot be changed is this: Russia is and will always be as European as France or Germany.

Russia’s role in European security

Any serious debate about security in Europe is meritless and factitious without acknowledging Russia’s pivotal role. Throughout history Europe needed some kind of balancing powers between its internal powers (such as France and Germany), and Russia has been key in maintaining the balance of power on the continent. A case in point: had it not been for the Soviet Union defeating Nazi Germany, who knows what kind of Europe would have emerged from World War II? The Soviets sacrificed more than 27 million human lives – soldiers and civilians – to rid the world of Nazi Germany and help create a new Germany, even though Germany has never been fully denazified.

The United States played a part in liberating Europe and some 190,000 of its soldiers were killed, but that does not make the US a natural ally of Europe more than Russia. After the war, Western Europe accepted US hegemony, but that does not change the fact that Russia is a European and neighborly country and should be part of any European context discussions.

Read more

After the Cold War ended, Russia became even more important to be considered European than even the United Kingdom. The UK, eventually, chose to be an extension of America geopolitically and ended up threatening the EU had it not left the superficially harmonic union. Even the claim that shared values ??unite Europe and America and Europe within NATO is more of a justification for excluding Moscow than a reality. What are the noble values the UK shared with America in invading Iraq or Afghanistan? Where are such shared values within the NATO alliance, led by the US, that compelled it to destroy Libya in 2011? In both cases Moscow was out of the calculation except as a potential adversary.

This negative image of Moscow across much of Europe has been on the rise, becoming what the Russians rightly describe as “Russophobia,” taking a life of its own after the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Today many European leaders have reinforced this binary view of Russia as a threat, despite its historical and cultural ties to Europe. It seems that, in modern European politics, the question of Russia’s European identity is too often answered with a resounding “no.”

The myth of Russia as a non-European country

Portraying Russia as a non-European country is an unfair characterization loaded with adversarial connotations. Who can deny the simple geographical fact that the Russian Federation is part of Europe and that Moscow lies firmly within Europe? Yet European school textbooks hardly count Moscow as a European capital city. Commonly, Russia in this context is described as the “other,” implying exclusion.

General Charles de Gaulle, the founder of the Fifth French Republic, viewed Russia as an integral part of Europe. De Gaulle, one of the most respected leaders in modern Europe, understood the central role Russia plays in European affairs despite his occasionally fractious relationship with the Soviet Union. The late Russian thinker Alexander Solzhenitsyn, renowned for his criticism of the Soviet regime, went further in recognizing Russia’s importance for Europe. He said, “Our Russian experience is vitally important for the West” as a lesson and a model.

“Russia is a part of European civilization, but it is also something more, something different, and we should not forget it.”

In the ongoing discussions about European security in light of the apparent lack of enthusiasm in the US for NATO, one cannot help but ask the obvious question: Why is Russia excluded from such discussions? Do European leaders honestly and objectively think that a comprehensive European security is achievable without Russian contribution? Or could it be that the US for such a long time wanted European allies to believe that Russia is the real enemy and Moscow is indeed the immediate threat? This suspicious scenario could not be completely discounted but the problem now is with Washington, not Moscow.

Moscow vs. Pristina

Read more

Here is a comparison to further explain the point: compare the “Europeanness” of both Moscow and Pristina for what it implies in terms of belonging to “Europe”. Moscow is home to over 13 million people compared to Pristina’s estimated 200,000. Moscow is the centuries-old capital of a huge European and world power while Pristina is a capital of a partially recognized country starting from 2008. This implies cultural significance and historical centrality in European history. Moscow is over 2,000 square kilometres while Pristina is only one fifth of that. Yet, Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, is welcomed as a European capital. While many want Kosovo integrated into European structures, Moscow remains a political outsider. Or is it because Pristina, in a way, symbolizes European/NATO creation while Moscow is deeply entrenched in history that made it what it is today?

Russians within the EU and NATO

The Russians living within the European Union present another reason why excluding Russia from discussions of European security is counterproductive. There are sizable Russian-speaking communities in EU countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The alienation of Russia on the European stage has profound consequences for these communities, many of whom have the undeniable right to see themselves as part of both Russian and European traditions.

Pushing Russia away, the EU is creating a sense of disconnection and disenfranchisement among its Russian-speaking citizens. It also leads to long-term resentment and division within the union, ultimately undermining European unity. After all, how can Europe claim to be unified if it excludes large swathes of its population from the conversation?

For decades, the idea of European security has been tied to NATO and the US when in reality European security cannot be fully realized without Russia. Moscow, with its vast military capabilities and strategic position, is an essential part of any comprehensive European security framework.

The EU and NATO may argue that Russia’s actions in Ukraine have made it an adversary. But this recent development is hardly the cause of such alienation, which started right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A closer examination suggests that the real challenge lies not in Russia’s presence but in the failure of European leaders to constructively engage.

The economic perspective

Economically, Europe minus Russia is equally detrimental. Russia, as Europe’s largest neighbor, used to be an important economic partner. The EU and Russia had significant trade relationships, particularly in energy. Russia supplied large portion of Europe’s natural gas and oil requirements, and European companies had important business interests in Russia. The EU accounted for some 37% of Moscow’s trade volume. The Nord Stream gas pipeline was indeed a lifeline for Europe. The situation changed after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, but that is a loss for both the EU and Russia.

Read more

Furthermore, Russia’s vast resources and industrial capacity provide important opportunities for collaboration. In an era of global economic competition, Europe cannot afford to disregard a market as significant as Russia. By isolating Russia, Europe risks losing access to critical resources and cutting itself off from potential economic growth.

Double standards: The US vs. Russia

The final piece of this puzzle becomes clear when we look at the curious double standard European elites apply to the US and Russia. The US, despite its occasional unilateral actions and sometimes problematic foreign policy, is treated as an ally by the EU. Meanwhile, Russia, with its historical, cultural, economic, and geographical ties to Europe, is often demonized. Such bias is not only illogical but also counterproductive.

Europe should reconsider its stance on Russia. While Russia has certainly made mistakes, as have many other countries, its exclusion from the European conversation is neither fair nor pragmatic. Europe needs to find a way to integrate Russia into the security and economic frameworks of the continent – otherwise, it risks creating an artificial divide that could have long-lasting consequences for both Europe and Russia.

In his 1959 speech, General Charles de Gaulle said, “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals,” before adding, “it is the whole of Europe [including Russia] that will decide the fate of the world.”

Медиа: image / jpeg

The terrorist attack in Kashmir was conducted during the US vice president’s visit to India, serving as a reminder of the threat Islamist terrorism poses

Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said on Thursday that he had spoken with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir last week, which killed 26 people and led to the current escalation between India and Pakistan.

The “perpetrators, backers, and planners” of the attack “must be brought to justice,” Jaishankar said.

Washington earlier said it was in touch with both India and Pakistan at multiple levels, urging them to work towards a “ responsible solution.”

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired a cabinet meeting on Wednesday to discuss New Delhi’s options in the wake of the Kashmir attack. He has given the heads of the army, navy, and air force “complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets, and timing” of India’s response.

The attack occurred during a four-day visit of US Vice President J.D. Vance to India. US President Donald Trump and Vance both hold strong views on Islamist extremism. There is a belief that, as in the past, these terrorist attacks are organized to take place during high level visits to India by American leaders – in an attempt to draw attention to the issue of Kashmir and remind the Americans of the dangers of a conflict between the two nuclear armed powers if this issue remains unresolved.

Read more

The terrorist attack was strongly condemned, not only by Trump and Vance, but also by the US secretary of state, the FBI director, the director of national intelligence, and the US attorney general, among others.

Trump has signaled that he will leave it to India and Pakistan to sort things out, which suggests that he is giving India a free hand, just as he did in 2019 when he recognized India’s right to self-defense after the Pulwama attack in Jammu and Kashmir. At the time, India conducted precision strikes on a terrorist camp in Balakot, Pakistan. This time, too, New Delhi has sent a strong signal that it will respond through military means in addition to the diplomatic steps it has taken.

Trade in focus

The latest developments brought about by the terrorist attack should not obscure the importance of Vance’s visit, which reflects bilateral efforts to boost US-India ties, which have seen ups and downs. Even when they are improving, they are not devoid of difficulties, as was seen during the Biden administration.

By organizing a visit by the vice president to India just three months after taking office, the Trump administration has chosen to send a strong message of friendship with India, which also has implications for the region, especially China. Vance is a hawk on China.

Vance’s wife is of Indian origins, which would draw him towards the country – though this could also be a reason not to plan an early visit, to avoid criticism that the personal was being prioritized over the political. Former US Vice President Kamala Harris, for instance, did not visit India despite her Indian background through her mother, and despite an invitation from Modi.

Read more

Vance did not shy away from displaying his connection to India by visiting the Akshardham temple in Delhi – which India’s ruling party would appreciate, especially because of the perceived rise of Hinduphobia in some circles in the US – and by having his children wear Indian attire.

Vance’s visit can be seen as an effort to accelerate the momentum of India-US ties. Modi made a visit to the US within three weeks of Trump taking office, which was unusual in itself. The visit was substantial in scope, as reflected in the joint statement issued at the end of it. That such a significant document could be issued even when posts in the administration dealing with India-US ties had not been filled is noteworthy.

Dealing with tariff pressure

On the other hand, India, like other countries, has come under pressure by Trump on the issue of tariffs, with the US president calling India the “tariff king” and exaggerating the trade deficit the US has with India.

Because Washington is New Delhi’s biggest trade partner in goods and services, with bilateral trade reaching $200 billion and India enjoying a surplus of at least $46 billion, India has been keen to avoid a disruption and has wanted to engage the Trump administration at the very earliest. New Delhi’s message is that it is willing to review its tariffs on US imports in a positive spirit as part of a multi-sector trade deal, with the first tranche to be finalized by this autumn and announced when Trump is expected to visit India for the Quad summit.

The Trump administration wants India to buy more defense items, as well as oil and LNG, besides opening the doors for civil nuclear cooperation, especially small modular nuclear reactors, as a way to balance trade. The aim is to reach $500 billion in trade by 2030.

Read more

In a speech at Jaipur, Vance announced that India and the US had finalized the terms of reference for trade talks that will follow. This is significant progress, as the US seeks to go beyond tariffs and include non-tariff barriers, regulatory and intellectual property issues, etc. in the negotiations. The US is pressing India to open up its agricultural sector, which India will resist beyond a point, in view of the dependence of almost 45% of its population on agriculture, as compared to 2% in the US. The US, in fact, subsidizes its farmers far more than India does, but it is done differently.

In his speech, Vance stuck to the script on defense issues, called India a trusted partner for co-production of US defense hardware, and repeated Trump’s offer of F35 aircraft (which India would have little interest in). He asked India to drop non-tariff barriers that prevent US access to the Indian market, mainly agricultural produce and dairy products. He argued that Trump’s policy of ‘drill, baby, drill!’ would be to India’s benefit if it increases its purchases of oil and natural gas from the US. Vance also stressed the importance of amending India’s nuclear liability law.

The general approach of India is a readiness to reduce tariffs, provide some openings in the agricultural sector, increase oil and LNG imports, and increase defense purchases with an emphasis on joint development and production. The acquisition of Javelin anti-tank missiles and the Stryker combat infantry vehicle is likely to happen soon. Additional PI8 maritime surveillance aircraft and heavy-lift aircraft, as well as underwater sea technologies, could be acquired. India will demand in return more access to US technology, an easing of export controls, a shift of supply chains to India, etc.

All in all, Vance’s visit has served to consolidate the forward momentum in US-India ties. However, the manner in which the US handles the present confrontation between India and Pakistan will have an impact on mutual trust-building, which is vital to the future of ties between the two countries.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The catastrophic electricity outage in Spain and Portugal earlier this week should serve as a wake-up call for the bloc’s officials

It was probably the weather that triggered the ten-hour breakdown of all utilities on the Iberian Peninsula earlier this week.

It was also the weather that has turned Germany into Europe’s top CO2 emitter. There are days when the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow. And then the backup is coal in the absence of nuclear power or natural gas (from Russia).

The issue is transmission, not generation, of energy

An even bigger threat to the grid, however, stems from overproduction of electricity due to too much sun and wind. Both Spain and Germany proudly point out their statistics in terms of power generation based on huge onshore and offshore wind farms and extensive photovoltaic panels, often constructed on precious arable soil. Spain and Portugal are champions of green energy in the EU, and were sourcing 80 percent of their electricity from renewables just before the outage hit on Monday.

The larger underlying problem is in transmitting rather than generating electricity. Large parts of the existing grids in the EU were constructed in the 1950 and 1960s, when it was fairly easy to build infrastructure in the post-war towns. When Angela Merkel announced her ambitious energy transition, Peter Altmaier, the head of the Chancellor’s office announced the building of several thousands of kilometers of “electricity highways” (Strom Autobahnen). The slated budget was one trillion euros. But that budget was never established and nobody in Merkel’s government calculated the years for administrative planning and implementation.

So, the new grid was never built, neither in Germany nor elsewhere. The current grid is not made for to absorb constantly increasing volumes. The “electrification” of all forms of energy production and consumption, above all in mobility, poses a serious problem for the stability of the existing grids. Electric vehicles were supposed to replace cars with the traditional internal combustion engines. The hype surrounding the electric car has already died down. Customers simply refrain from buying an electric car. But the ambitious green agendas rarely take into account serious investments and above all solid timeframes for an enlarged electrical grid.

Read more

The European electrical grid stretches from Türkiye across the European continent to North Africa. Its technical name is Continental European Synchronous Area, and it is vulnerable. It is fed with an alternating current with a frequency of approximately 50 Hertz. In case of an overload, as probably happened on Monday in Spain, the risk is high that the frequency is destabilised. In order to pre-empt a power cut, since power plants will automatically shut down, the overload is sent abroad. Some voices claim that the Iberian Peninsula lacks interconnectors, while others warn against more interconnectors since this would only put the entire grid at risk, a domino blackout across more than 30 countries.

In 2012, the Austrian writer Marc Elsberg published his thriller “Blackout.” The plot describes a fictional 13-day power outage and the ensuing total breakdown of life as we know it. In the well-researched book, the blackout is caused by a cyber-attack. Many commentators eagerly suggested that one was behind the real-world crisis on Monday. Apparently, no one is ready to discuss the problem with the grid and green deal ambitions.

Attending energy conferences for years and teaching the topic of geopolitics of energy, I often wondered about the romantic fantasy models that Brussels officials and other climate experts presented. For the last 15 years, we witness an inflationary concept of “energy transition” or even worse, zero-carbon economy. Throughout the entire EU we have seen a focus on climate change. The approach lacks a solid energy policy, one which covers security in supply, affordability, and investments into grids.

New vulnerability due to the boom of renewables

I expected a major blackout to happen in Germany, rather than on the Iberian Peninsula.

The so-called energy transition declared by the Angela Merkel government in spring 2011 did not deliver at all. In the first quarter of 2025, instead of more electricity from wind and sun, more electricity was generated from coal and gas. Easter week also showed why the so-called energy transition is causing problems.

Despite the record expansion of wind and solar power, renewables are producing less electricity than at any time since 2021. Compared to the first quarter of last year, the amount of electricity produced by renewables in the same period this year fell by 16 percent.

The wind was not particularly strong in February and March. Electricity production from offshore wind turbines fell by a total of 31 percent, while production on land fell by 22 percent. As a result, electricity production from coal, oil, and gas had to be drastically increased. The logical consequence: CO2 emissions have risen dramatically. Electricity in Germany was dirtier than it had been since the winter of 2018.

Read more

However, it is not only in the medium term that the energy transition is not doing what its supporters believe it should. Easter week exemplifies all the problems associated with the plan to switch Germany’s energy production to mainly wind and solar.

On a sunny Easter Sunday, for example, the five million or so solar installations in Germany produced far more electricity than would have been needed to cover demand during the holiday.

However, electricity must be consumed exactly when it is produced, otherwise the electricity grid may be disrupted. This applies both nationally and to the local electricity grids on site and the regional capacities of the weather-dependent energy sources.

Due to the gigantic oversupply – 15 gigawatts too much, the output of a dozen average nuclear power plants – the price of electricity has fallen into negative territory at times, as low as -5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Germany has paid the French, Belgians etc. millions of euros to buy Germany’s surplus electricity so that the German electricity grids do not collapse.

However, this blatant surplus of electricity has not only meant that a lot of electricity has had to be sold abroad for a fee and lines to France and Belgium have had to operate at full capacity, there have also been numerous power outages in south-west Germany in particular, which could be linked to the oversupply and local grid overload.

The real drama is that the numerous solar plants in Germany cannot be controlled, regulated or even taken off the grid when electricity production exceeds demand. If there is a lot of sunshine – possibly accompanied by a lot of wind – on an afternoon with low electricity demand, Germany has increasing problems getting rid of the surplus energy.

This not only increases the potential for regional power outages and so-called “brownouts,” it also greatly increases the cost of electricity production overall – as Easter has shown.

The Siemens disaster

Storing electricity is a fundamental problem that has not been solved. Big companies like Siemens experimented for more than a decade with steam engines transforming electricity produced by windmills into hydrogen, in order to stock and transport it. Those experiments did not result in a viable commercial business model. Meanwhile Siemens, once upon a time in the 1960s a leader in nuclear technology, has abandoned its entire energy branch.

In 2020, the energy division was separated from Siemens. However, Siemens Energy ambitiously wanted to grow in the wind energy business and merged with the Spanish company Gamesa. But just three years later, it was clear that this would not work. Were the reasons additional management mistakes, was it Chinese competition or were there other issues?

Read more

Siemens Energy turned from a beacon of hope to a stock market nightmare. New bad news came from quarter to quarter. It was the wind power business, of all things, that slipped deeper and deeper into deficit. The Managing Board of Siemens Energy had to lower its forecasts countless times, and Siemens lost lots of money with its mergers in Spain. If the management had stamina, they would investigate thoroughly the power outage of last Monday and publish the conclusions. What happened in Spain and Portugal could happen at any moment in Germany and Austria.

Twenty-five years ago, I was involved in the municipal council of the village where I lived in Austria until 2020, when I was forced to quit. We had worked on emergency scenarios for a blackout. One item was to organize “islands of infrastructure” in military barracks and other buildings. The plan was that in case of emergency, people would be able to walk there and be provided with food, water, and first aid. In those days, there was still a generation of leaders who were hands-on and who knew how to get things done. Later I realized that this generation of men and women had passed away. In today’s EU, any such crisis would probably lead to a humanitarian disaster, to a total breakdown of public order.

I remember well the blackout that hit Northern Italy in 2003 and another one in the US; both were protracted and citizens were left in the dark and cold. In war-torn Iraq, people were wondering how those Western armies and NGOs would ever build up the electricity after the US invasion since they were unable to do it back home.

Having lived in Lebanon until the summer of 2023, I am fully aware of constant power cuts and know the nuisance of running one’s own generator, the bad smell, and the noise of all the generators around. But diesel can provide a regular flow of electricity, which no solar panel can do. But thanks to affordable Chinese solar panels, nearly every household in Lebanon has one.

Good old diesel generator

Interestingly, hospitals in Spain and Portugal continued to provide services thanks to their diesel generators. Emergency operations could be done and intensive care was secured. But what about the internet and mobile phone providers? The entire system of mobile communication broke down. Even speeches by the heads of governments could be watched abroad but not by concerned citizens.

Read more

I sometimes joked with my Lebanese friends that they should do crash courses for EU institutions on how to live without a regular supply of electricity. Using common sense, keeping good relations with one’s neighbors and knowing how to handle a diesel generator are certainly helpful. And where does the diesel come from? Yes, Russian oil companies used to provide huge volumes of diesel to their EU customers. The Rosneft refinery of Schwedt close to Berlin was confiscated by the German authorities in 2022.

The back-up for all those renewable efforts used to be natural gas, mostly from Russia, termed the “energy of transition.” There was a consensus that cooperating on oil and gas within the European continent was of benefit to both sellers and buyers. These days are gone.

What happened on Monday on the Iberian Peninsula was another wake-up call. But so far EU officials seem stuck in their green agenda. They could have understood previous signals, but they refused to do so. In the EU, energy has become an ideological topic and is no longer a technical matter. What Spain and Portugal went through earlier this week lasted for about 10 hours, and I expect more such incidents. One can handle it in a country like Lebanon, but the question remains: can one run an industry with constant power cuts? Deindustrialisation inside the EU will only accelerate. If one day, certain countries would like to buy Russian gas again, the volumes will be much smaller due to more limited industrial production.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The upcoming Australian election will be an illustration of how most Western elections will play out in the near future

Australian voters go to the polls next Saturday – voting in this country is compulsory, unlike in most Western democracies – but this is not a task that the electorate is looking forward to with any degree of enthusiasm, let alone optimism.

The choice that confronts the electorate is a bleak one – one commentator has fittingly described this election as “the most dismal in decades.”

Serious policy debate has been non-existent, with both leaders happy to offer meagre handouts to voters – an electricity price reduction from Prime Minister Albanese and a petrol price reduction from Conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton.

The first term Albanese Labor government has, from any rational viewpoint, proved to be a rank failure and does not deserve to be re-elected – and any competent opposition leader should have been able to win this election easily and dispatch Labor to the opposition benches.

Cost-of-living pressures have increased exponentially over the past three years – energy and food prices have skyrocketed, and house prices and rents in the major cities are now far beyond what ordinary wage earners in this country can afford to pay.

This, according to every poll, is the major issue troubling voters – and the Albanese government has done absolutely nothing to alleviate it.

Australian voters intuitively know, even if they are reluctant to admit it, that both the incumbent Labor government and the Conservative Liberal/National party opposition are incapable of alleviating the cost-of-living crisis. In fact, during the election campaign, both leaders have been reduced to telling outright lies (for example, that heavily subsidized renewable energy projects lead to lower energy prices) about how they will solve the crisis. The electorate’s escalating disenchantment with both major parties should come as no surprise to either Albanese or Dutton.

Read more

As yet, however, no political alternative has emerged that offers voters a way out (no matter how illusory) of this seemingly intractable impasse. Australia, in this respect, appears to be a decade or so behind Donald Trump’s America, Nigel Farage’s UK and Marine Le Pen’s France.

Both major parties in Australia are firmly committed to policies that favor the ruling global elites – with the result that the gap between the economic ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ will only grow wider in the future as the cost-of-living crisis intensifies.

This is hardly surprising, given that Australia has always been a colonial political and economic satrap state of both the UK and the US.

So dependent still is Australia on these waning and decrepit colonial empires – they differ only in the way they enforce their respective colonial hegemonies – that our current head of state is King Charles III, and our economic overlords remain, in the apt words of Woody Guthrie, the “money grubbing racket boys” of Wall Street.

What then are we to make of next week’s election?

If almost all recent polls are to be believed, the inept Albanese Labor government appears to be on track to be re-elected with an increased majority.

How is this altogether surprising state of affairs to be explained?

It cannot be explained by the “achievements” of the Albanese government because, as intelligent Labor supporters know, there have been no achievements. Nor can it be explained by Albanese’s political skills or charisma – he is completely lacking in both – although perhaps his dogged blandness and non-threatening demeanor appeal to some voters.

Nor can it be explained by opposition leader Peter Dutton’s gross political incompetence, his brief flirtation with Trump that backfired disastrously when tariffs were imposed and the stock market crashed (Canada’s Liberal leader did not make this mistake), or the fact that he has run probably the worst election campaign in Australian political history.

Read more

The answer lies rather in the inability of the conservative opposition to formulate an effective alternative political agenda to that of the Labor party – and this failure arises not from Dutton’s manifold personal shortcomings, but from the fundamental ideological division at the heart of all mainstream conservative parties in the West.

A deep-seated ideological division has emerged over the past few decades within these parties: between those adhering to traditional middle-class values (individual autonomy, individual rights, the rule of law, a traditional definition of the family, etc.) and those that have embraced the newer woke ideologies of the emerging global elites (catastrophic climate change, identity politics, DEI, transgender rights, etc). This division has both economic and cultural aspects, and in the UK it was intensified by the Brexit referendum.

This ideological division has caused serious ongoing instability within all mainstream conservative parties in the West – in Australia and the UK, for example, these parties have been characterized by endless leadership coups that eventually led voters to throw them out of office in recent years.

One important consequence of this ideological division is that mainstream conservative parties cannot wholeheartedly and openly attack woke global ideologies with any degree of vigor – because many of their politicians and supporters firmly subscribe to such views.

It is this issue that has crippled Dutton’s election campaign.

The Murdoch press and other conservative commentators have constantly urged Dutton to come out and explicitly attack dominant woke ideologies – that is, to adopt a fully-fledged Trump-like populist political agenda.

Dutton, however, has refused to do so – because it is simply impossible for him to do so within the framework of the mainstream conservative political party that he so tenuously leads.

If he tried to, he would alienate a large segment of his own party as well as a sizable component of conservative voters – thereby causing the coalition parties to split. More importantly, no traditional mainstream political party that is serious about winning an election can at present afford to openly attack dominant global ideologies – a majority of voters adhere to them, and no mainstream party can win office if it alienates a significant segment of these voters.

Read more

Dutton, therefore, has found himself in an impossible position.

This was graphically illustrated in one of the recent televised debates, when a journalist asked Dutton if he believed in climate change. Dutton responded by saying “I will leave that to the scientists” – notwithstanding that the opposition is committed to the Paris accords and net zero.

This non-answer, of course, pleased no one. It alienated those conservative and undecided voters who firmly believe in climate change ideology – but it also alienated those conservative voters who believe that the climate change ideology has had lasting and pernicious economic effects.

In refusing to take a firm stand on this key issue, Dutton appears to stand for nothing. Does he really think that disgruntled voters who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills believe that climate change is just a matter for the scientists?

It must surely be obvious to Dutton that, in order to win over those disaffected voters who have been left behind by globalization and who are being increasingly marginalized by the cost-of-living crisis, he has to openly attack dominant woke ideologies like catastrophic climate change – because it is precisely these voters who completely reject, for very sound economic and cultural reasons, such elite doctrines.

This, however, is Dutton’s dilemma – in order to differentiate the opposition from Labor and attract the increasing number of disaffected voters, Dutton is obliged to openly attack dominant woke ideologies, but, as the leader of a mainstream conservative party, he simply cannot do so.

Dutton’s dilemma is also UK opposition leader Kemi Badenoch’s dilemma – and it is a dilemma that right-wing commentators who urge mainstream conservative party leaders to miraculously transform themselves into Trump-like populists utterly fail to understand.

These commentators also fail to appreciate that, apart from the difficulties described above, two further insurmountable problems face conservative leaders seeking to instantly morph into populists – they would have to adopt an isolationist foreign policy stance, and they would have to at least pretend to represent the interests of the displaced working class.

Read more

Dutton – just like Badenoch – is, however, a fervent Cold War warrior (fiercely anti-Russian and anti-Chinese) and a supporter of the Zelensky regime in Ukraine, as well as being a strident opponent of moderate trade union demands (he even consistently opposes basic wage increases).

Trump, of course, can readily promise to end the conflict in Ukraine and accept endorsement from the head of the Teamsters Union – policy stances utterly impossible for a conservative leader like Dutton to even contemplate.

If the above analysis is correct, and, as nearly all the polls predict, Dutton loses next week’s election, it follows that the conservative coalition in Australia will have no viable long-term future – in much the same way that the UK Conservative party appears to be doomed to political oblivion in the near future. This week’s local elections in the UK will be an important indicator of that party’s fate.

If the Albanese government is returned to office with a majority, as seems likely, Dutton will no doubt be deposed as leader, but in fairness to Dutton, his shadow cabinet colleagues – who he has wisely kept hidden away during the election campaign – are all far less competent politicians than he is.

There is, of course, an alternative scenario – one that mirrors the recent emergence of populist parties in other Western democracies – namely that the coalition parties will split and the right-wing segments of the Liberal and National parties will coalesce to form a new, genuinely populist party with a radically different political program.

Read more

This is a distinct possibility – although it may take some time to eventuate and would involve a significant amount of blood-letting and political disruption.

A new populist party would face a revitalized Labor party – energized by winning an election under an uninspiring leader that it did not deserve to win – but still firmly committed to elite ideologies and programs that can only deepen the cost-of-living crisis that continues to brutally divide Australia.

If the conservative coalition’s dilemma is that it cannot attack elite ideologies and programs, the Labor party’s dilemma (much like that of the Democratic party in America and the UK Labour party) is that it is firmly and irretrievably committed to them.

Whatever the consequences of next Saturday’s election it is safe to predict that the chronic ongoing instability that has characterized Australian politics for the past few decades – and politics in the West more generally – will only intensify.

In that sense nothing much will change – and there is a more fundamental historical continuity in the Australian context at work here.

In 1964, Donald Horne, a prominent Australian intellectual, wrote a book titled “The Lucky Country” in which he described Australia as follows: “Australia is a lucky country ruled mainly by second-rate people… It lives on other people’s ideas, and although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders… lack curiosity about the events that surround them.”

Horne could easily have been writing about Dutton and Albanese and next Saturday’s federal election.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Constant preconditions for negotiations show the Ukrainian leader wants the conflict to last – because as soon as it’s over, so is his reign

The tragedy of Ukraine today is not merely the physical devastation of its cities or the displacement of its people. It is the political paralysis at its core, embodied in the figure of Vladimir Zelensky – a man who, under the guise of defending sovereignty, has turned the prospects of real peace into a distant mirage.

Once again, we see Zelensky putting forward a laundry list of preconditions before he will even consider sitting down for direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A full ceasefire, complete withdrawal from what he calls “occupied” territories, international security guarantees, and a tribunal for alleged war crimes – the list grows longer by the week. In essence, he demands that Russia first capitulate to all of Ukraine’s strategic objectives, nullify its military leverage, and admit guilt, before any negotiation even begins. One might ask: What exactly would be left to negotiate then?

Negotiations, by their very nature, are predicated on compromise, not on issuing ultimatums. In a genuine dialogue, both sides bring their grievances, demands, and visions to the table, without first requiring the other to surrender all their positions. But Zelensky’s approach ensures that talks can never begin, because his ‘preconditions’ pre-decide the outcome in Kiev’s favor. It is an unserious, irresponsible stance that can only prolong the suffering of his people.

On the other hand, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly reaffirmed his readiness to engage in talks without preconditions. This openness should not be dismissed lightly. Russia holds all the cards on the battlefield. After the sweeping victories in the Kursk region and steady advances in the new Russian territories, it is Russia – not Ukraine – that is dictating the military realities. Yet despite being in this position of strength, Moscow shows a willingness to negotiate. A responsible leadership would seize this opportunity to end the bloodshed. Zelensky instead chooses to throw it away.

Read more

One might argue that Russia’s ‘preconditions’ are baked into the military situation. And rightly so. In negotiations, power dynamics matter. Russia’s achievements on the ground create a natural incentive structure for talks: Kiev comes to the table recognizing its diminished position, while Moscow can be expected to negotiate from a position of strength. This is the normal course of conflict resolution throughout history. But Zelensky’s precondition that Ukraine must regain all lost territories first is absurd – it demands the total reversal of the battlefield situation without acknowledging the military realities. In effect, he asks for a fantasy.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Does Zelensky truly want peace?

Every day the war drags on is a day Zelensky remains in power without facing democratic accountability. Under martial law, elections are indefinitely postponed. Criticism is muted, political opponents are sidelined or silenced, and dissent is framed as ‘pro-Russian treason.’ Furthermore, the endless war provides a convenient channel for billions of dollars of Western aid to flow into Ukraine – money that too often disappears into a black hole of corruption, never reaching the soldiers or citizens who need it most.

On the international stage, Zelensky continues to enjoy the lionization of Western media as the brave David facing the Russian Goliath. His celebrity status ensures endless speaking tours and photo ops. The moment the war ends, so too ends this era of personal glory. The messy realities of rebuilding a bankrupt, fractured, and corrupted state would quickly erode his myth.

Read more

It is no wonder, then, that Zelensky clings to absurd preconditions. They offer a fig leaf of righteousness while ensuring that talks will never happen. They buy him time, money, power, and prestige – at the cost of Ukrainian lives.

Meanwhile, the suffering grows. Ukraine’s best and brightest are sent to the frontlines to defend indefensible positions. Entire towns are depopulated. Infrastructure collapses. A generation is sacrificed, not in pursuit of peace, but in service to a leader who sees in perpetual war the means of his own political survival.

The world must recognize this grim reality. Genuine peace will require dialogue, compromise, and a recognition of the facts on the ground – not wishful thinking or political theatrics. Zelensky’s insistence on preconditions is not the mark of a statesman. It is the strategy of a man desperate to postpone the inevitable reckoning with his failures.

If he truly cared about his people, he would sit down with Putin today. Not when every demand has been met. Not when he has a script that guarantees Ukraine’s total victory. But now – when the price of delay is measured in blood.

Peace is not built by ultimatums. It is built by the courage to face hard truths and make painful compromises. Zelensky has shown neither.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Pyongyang’s troops showed discipline, coordination and disregard for death, contributing greatly to the defeat of Ukrainian invaders

Until this moment, Russia had neither confirmed nor denied the presence of DPRK (North Korean) troops on the front line. Strictly speaking, we were not obligated to notify anyone about it. This is a matter of bilateral relations and agreements. Meanwhile, North Korean units gradually began to arrive in Russia during the Kursk campaign.

At first, they underwent training at military ranges, familiarizing themselves with modern combat tactics, mastering drone operation skills, and adapting to field realities. Then, the “combat Buryats,” as our military jokingly and covertly called them, were transferred to the Kursk region. They lived in field conditions to avoid attracting attention. Initially, they held the third line of defense, then the second, and eventually, they were tested in fortifications and, finally, in assaults.

Korean soldiers distinguished themselves by their coordination, discipline, a fatalist disregard for death, and remarkable endurance. Understandably so – they were mostly young, strong, well-built men, decently trained back home, particularly the units from the Special Operations Forces. They made a significant contribution to the liberation of the Korenevsky District, fought in battles near Staraya and Novaya Sorochina, and broke through to Kurilovka.

Read more

They had a strict rule – never to be captured alive, and never to surrender voluntarily.

Incidentally, the enemy tried to persuade them to do just that by dropping counterfeit DPRK banknotes, bearing inscriptions in Korean that read: “Surrender! Kim Jong-un has driven you to death and starved your families. Place a yellow flag before you, raise your hands, and loudly shout ‘Freedom!’ Then slowly walk toward the Ukrainian soldiers and follow their instructions.”

Not a single Korean soldier violated his oath or allied commitments. For Pyongyang, it was crucial to gain experience in modern warfare, study the tactics and technologies of a potential enemy (“the collective West”), and acquire knowledge that had been inaccessible due to sanctions. These objectives were achieved. Moreover, under the framework of a comprehensive bilateral agreement, the Koreans made a substantial contribution to the defeat of the Ukrainian forces on our soil.

Their arrival allowed us to maintain pressure on other sections of the front, continue the offensive in the Donbass, and inflict enormous damage on the invasion force, which consisted of 95 (!) battalions.

This text was originally published in Russian on Aleksandr Kots's Telegram channel, and translated by the RT team

Медиа: image / jpeg

Steve Witkoff’s Moscow visit seems to show that a detente the two nations is possible even if Zelensky is not part of the equation

Russian President Vladimir Putin has met again with Steve Witkoff, special envoy of US President Donald Trump. From the little the cameras showed us of the meeting it appears that the atmosphere was unusually friendly. The discussion was also long, lasting for about three hours.

Yet, at this point, we know little about its content or, more importantly, what progress has been made or not. We do know, from Russia’s Yuri Ushakov, special aide to Putin, that the meeting was, in his words, “constructive” and “useful.” In particular, it has produced closer proximity between the Russian and US positions, not only on Ukraine but also on other issues that have – mostly – not been further specified. With the important exception of the possibility of facilitating direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian representatives.

Clearly, it is too early to draw strong conclusions about the meeting and its results. One thing that seems certain is that it was not a failure. Even if Ushakov’s language was restrained, it did signal that much. Beyond that, however, we can only speculate: One thing we know from the meeting’s context is that Trump has, once again, publicly displayed great dissatisfaction and impatience with Kiev and personally with Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky. This time, using his own social media site Truth Social, Trump focused on Zelensky’s refusal to accept the loss of Crimea. More broadly, he reminded Zelensky that he has little leverage (“no cards”) and that his stalling delays ending the war.

This intervention is in line with what Trump’s critics furiously decry as a pattern of being soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine. In principle, while exaggerating a little, the critics have a point. Trump has effectively reversed the former US approach, which consisted of pampering Ukraine and always blaming Russia. But what Trump’s critics here fail to realize is that, on this issue, he is right. He cannot quite say it, but Russia is winning the war against both Ukraine and, in effect, the West. In this situation, a US president has two options: escalate further, most likely to, at least, a very large regional war in Europe and parts of Asia or finally speak to Russia in terms that Moscow can find acceptable. That is precisely what Trump has decided to do, at least for now. And anyone who wishes to avoid escalation has to agree with him, if not in detail, then fundamentally.

Read more

The latest round of talks between the Russian leadership and Witkoff confirm that Washington is staying the course outlined above. More broadly again, it also means that the US is not abandoning the style of its latest peace proposal for the Ukraine War. The latter is reported to offer a freezing of current lines on the ground, the long overdue to Ukraine’s NATO perspective (which, if it had come in late 2021 could have prevented the war’s large-scale escalation), sanctions lifting, as well as recognizing Crimea as Russian.

These terms do not, actually, coincide with all of Russia’s demands. But they try to meet Russian concerns as never before. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has pointed out, Trump is unique among Western leaders in acknowledging the root causes of the war. In that sense, the US peace proposals show not only that Washington is now realistic about the situation on the ground (heavily in Russia’s favor), but also that Trump’s administration is principally ready to shape its concrete policy according to the insight referred to by Lavrov.

That leaves, as far as the Ukraine War is concerned, two key questions: Will Trump follow through by withholding further military deliveries and crucial intelligence support to Kiev, and if so, when? Second, what are the NATO-EU Europeans going to do – or not do? While they still seem to be sticking to their rhetoric of blocking a path to peace, there are also signs that their misguided and harmful (for Ukraine most of all) resolve is crumbling: Britain is preparing the ground for explicitly giving up on silly schemes of sending troops to Ukraine, Polish President Andrzej Duda has recognized the fact that Ukraine has to make concessions to Russia, former NATO general secretary and uber- hawk Jens Stoltenberg has said the same, and current NATO figurehead Mark Rutte is demonstratively praising Trump for “breaking the deadlock.”

Read more

European hardliners are by no means ready to give up yet. Both Poland’s Radek “Thank you, USA!” Sikorski and France’s Emmanuel “I love my scent” Macron have produced hysterics of frustrated denial. Whichever way NATO-EU Europe ends up going, it is certain already that it is fracturing.

The above is the immediate backdrop of the latest meeting between Putin and Witkoff. The one thing we can take away from that meeting even now is that none of it has damaged the ongoing search for a fundamental normalization of the relationship between Moscow and Washington, which is good news for the world, whether European bellicists like it or not.

But it is more difficult not only to say anything about details, but also about one key question: Will this détente between Russia and the US proceed by including a settlement for Ukraine or will the two tracks diverge? It is possible for Washington and Moscow to keep working on normalization between them, while dropping the issue of Ukraine. That is the real meaning of Trump’s reminder to Zelensky that the US can recognize Crimea as Russian whatever Kiev chooses to do. Yet, of course, if Washington would really choose to be “done” with Ukraine, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio has put it, Russia would not. Kiev should be very careful what it wishes for.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi firmly believes the Pahalgam terrorist attack was backed by Pakistan. It can crush Islamabad in retaliation

The gruesome massacre of innocent holidaymakers near Pahalgam in India’s Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory has been condemned by all major world leaders including US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At least 28 people were killed and several others injured in the attack. That it happened when US Vice President J.D. Vance was in India indicates the audacity of the attackers and their backers. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who was on a visit to Saudi Arabia had to cut his trip short and rush back. The Indian security establishment immediately went into a huddle. Home Minister Amit Shah and the Army Chief rushed to Pahalgam to take stock of the situation on the ground.

The terrorists have already been identified and their Pakistan links established. The three military chiefs are now discussing a response and are considering all options. This will not be allowed to go by. There is nationwide anger. There will be repercussions. A team of National Investigation Agency (NIA) officials are investigating on the spot. Recent events in Bangladesh, the infiltration and riots in West Bengal, and Pakistan army chief’s venomous position on Hindus are indicative of a major game play.

The Pakistani army chief talks supremacism

Addressing the Overseas Pakistanis Convention in Islamabad, General Asim Munir echoed the words of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, who famously believed that Hindus and Muslims followed different philosophies, customs, and laws – making national unity impossible. Munir returned to the very roots of Pakistan’s ideological foundation. “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different – that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations, we are not one nation,” he said.

Read more

He urged overseas Pakistanis to never forget that they belong to a “superior ideology and culture,” and to pass down this ideology to future generations. “You have to narrate Pakistan’s story to your children so that they don’t forget it,” he added.

Pakistani footprint all over the Pahalgam attack

Hindu hatred is clearly visible from the modus operandi of the attack. Tell-tale signs of the Pakistani army’s backing are emerging. Pakistan cannot stand the peace and prosperity emerging in Kashmir. The state has been incident-free since its special autonomy status was revoked in 2019. Tourist numbers have been going up. Public participation in elections have been very significant. Chief Minister Omar Abdulla has been working closely with the New Delhi government for betterment of the masses.

But Kashmir’s integration with India was not palatable to the Pakistani ruling establishment. Pakistan is an ideological state, and its army has taken up the mantle of the guardian of that ideology. India’s 1.3-million-strong army cannot intimidate Pakistan, Munir said. He obviously forgets about the meek surrender of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers in that ended the two-week-long 1971 Indo-Pakistani war.

“China condemned the Pahalgam terror attack and said they oppose terrorism in all its forms. Hope China will then find courage to ask tough questions to their “iron brother” Pakistan on why it continues to sponsor terrorism on directions of Asim Munir. Let this be clear. Mastermind of Pahalgam terror attack is not Hafiz Saeed or Lashkar e Tayyiba. Mastermind of Pahalgam Massacre is Asim Munir of Pakistan Army sitting in Rawalpindi. Pakistan Army and ISI need to pay for the bloody carnage in Kashmir. Modi Govt should act boldly,” tweeted senior journalist Aditya Raj Kaul, a Hindu Kashmiri.

Political and diplomatic response

The Indian public is angered and demanding that the mantra “never forget, never forgive” be put into action.

For a long time, India has taken the soft line. Perhaps that is the reason some have taken India for granted. It cannot allow itself to be seen as a weak state. There are lessons to be learned from Israel.

Read more

There are diplomatic, political and military options. All need to be exercised in tandem. Strong expressions of support and solidarity have been received from many governments around the world, which have unequivocally condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack. The world is with India. Multiple nations have suffered from terrorism. Notably, major Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have spoken in favor of India.

India’s immediate response to the attack was broad-reaching. It has suspended the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, which allowed for water sharing providing irrigation to vast swathes of Pakistani land. All trade between the two nations, including through third countries has been suspended. The Integrated Check Post Attari, a strategic cross-border trade checkpoint and the only legal land route for trade, was closed with immediate effect. Pakistani YouTube and other social media channels have been barred in India. Cricket and other sporting events have been suspended. Pakistani nationals will not be permitted to travel to India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) visas. SVES visas already issued to Pakistani nationals are deemed cancelled, with any Pakistanis currently in India under an SVES given 48 hours to leave.

Military, naval and air advisors in the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi (the Pakistani diplomatic mission in India) have been declared personae non grata and given a week to leave India. India will be withdrawing its own defense/navy/air advisors from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad as well. Their posts in the respective High Commissions are deemed annulled. The overall strength of the High Commissions will be brought down to 30 from the present 55 through further reductions by May 1. India will use its financial and diplomatic muscle to teach Pakistan a lesson.

There are other things that can be done. Indirect options India could use include supporting secessionist forces in Pakistan and giving more backing to the insurgencies in Balochistan, Sindh, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Military options

The Indian government’s Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) reviewed the overall security situation in its meeting at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s residence and directed all forces to maintain high vigil. The armed forces have already launched Operation Tikka, a high-level anti-terrorism campaign. A few terrorists have already been eliminated. The Indian Army is giving a massive response to unprovoked firing at the Line of Control (LoC) between the India- and Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir. The ceasefire there is de facto annulled. Indian armed forces are already carrying out preparatory joint military exercises. Selective mobilization of the armed forces is possible and would send a strong signal. If it comes to that, India could exercise a massive punishing multi-domain strike.

Read more

India has many unspoken options. It could activate operatives to strike military establishments within Pakistan. An artillery barrage against terrorist training camps across the border could be launched. In case of open warfare, Pakistan would run out of ammunition much faster. Much wider air strikes against a host of terrorist camps can be carried out. BrahMos and other cruise missiles can be used.

The Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier has already sailed into the Arabian Sea. A few submarines could follow or may already be in the region. The Indian air force is formidable, with the French Rafale fighter jets armed with Scalp-EG and Meteor missiles. The Su-30 MKI, upgraded MiG 29 and Mirage-2000 are also potent assets.

New Delhi could coordinate with the Baloch Liberation Army and Pashtun insurgents in Pakistan to open multiple fronts. The escalation would have to be graded and carefully managed. A disproportionate Pakistan military response should be expected and prepared for.

India could also work towards selective US- and Israel-style assassinations of terrorist leaders in Pakistan plotting against.

Pakistan has few backers. Iran and the Saudis are not its friends anymore. China will at best act as a mediator. The US, Russia, Israel and Europe will back India for a controlled aggression. The bigger aim here is to show the Pakistani army in poor light. Call the nuclear bluff.

Read more

Punishment should not be a one-off event. It has to be a continuous program from now on. Make it painful for Pakistan to support terrorism. Peace overtures like the Aman ki Asha (‘Hope for Peace’) joint media campaign must end. Meanwhile, greater attention must be devoted to building military capability. Increase air force fighter squadron numbers. Stop downsizing the army. Get more nuclear submarines. Increase nuclear warheads.

Pakistan’s response

Pakistan has also put its military on alert. Border areas are being sensitized by them for possible Indian attack. Pakistan has suspended the 1972 Shimla Agreement that had marked the LoC as the temporary border. Islamabad has closed its airspace for Indian airlines. Anti-India rhetoric has been boosted to raise the morale of the public. Pakistan has also announced that diversion of water due to it under the Indus Water Treaty will be treated as an act of war. It is a wait-and-watch situation.

Time to stop terrorist infiltration

There are many Indian politicians, especially in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, who consider illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants as their political support base and are turning a blind eye to their arrival and settlement. It is time to take appropriate actions to curb this trend. There is a tendency for security forces and intelligence agencies to be less vigilant when there is an extended period of peace. It happened in Kargil.

Kashmir is a different story. Vigil will be required for decades ahead. If these terrorists were within the region for nearly a month as reports indicate, then we need to look in the mirror. The Indian judiciary is often seen as soft against terrorists. This needs serious review. The public has to be sensitized much more against terrorists. The time to act is now. A soft reaction will invite further dastardly attacks.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Ukrainian leader’s visit to South Africa is not a bilateral courtesy, but part of a grander Euro-American project to fracture the Global South

When Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky lands on African soil, he is not just making another stop in a diplomatic tour. He is bringing with him the full weight of the Euro-American agenda, crafted in Washington, Brussels, and London, with the aim of drawing Africa into a war it did not start and does not benefit from. This is not about Ukraine seeking understanding or empathy – it is about maintaining a global hierarchy, in which Africa is expected to follow, not to lead.

To understand the gravity of this moment, we must move beyond the spectacle and soundbites and revisit the deeper currents shaping the world today. The war in Ukraine is not a self-contained event. It is the product of decades of NATO expansion, Western military-industrial escalation, and the relentless refusal of the West to accept a multipolar world. Ukraine, tragically, is not a sovereign protagonist in this story – it is a pawn.

Read more

Since the 2014 Western-backed coup and subsequent civil war in the Donbass, Ukraine has been absorbed into the orbit of NATO’s militarism and the West’s ideological war against Russia. It has become a client state of Washington, surviving on IMF loans, EU aid packages, and American military hardware. Its economic decisions are dictated by external creditors. Its war effort is sustained by Western arms. Its diplomacy is choreographed by the same apparatus that once orchestrated regime change and military interventions across the Global South.

And now, this same apparatus is seeking to globalize the conflict by dragging Africa into its fold. Zelensky’s visit to South Africa is thus not a bilateral courtesy – it is part of a greater project to fracture the Global South’s solidarity with Russia, China, India, and the BRICS alliance.

Africa must resist this.

Ukraine’s historical disregard for Africa

Let us not be seduced by the sudden charm offensive. Ukraine’s voting record at the United Nations has consistently been aligned with the West – even when it meant opposing African interests. Ukraine has supported anti-Palestinian resolutions, abstained on decolonization issues, and followed the European bloc in rejecting anti-racism initiatives. Its sudden discovery of Africa is opportunistic, not principled.

Even more disturbing was the treatment of African students and migrants during the early stages of the 2022 war. As Ukrainians fled to neighboring countries, black students were denied transport, harassed, and pushed to the margins of safety corridors. This racial hierarchy is not incidental – it is embedded in the very white European supremacist frameworks that Africa has struggled against for centuries.

So we must ask: What kind of partnership is this? What solidarity do we owe to a nation that, in its moment of crisis, showed Africa its back?

Cultural imperialism and the weaponization of sympathy

Ukraine’s diplomatic messaging is powered not by traditional diplomacy, but by Western PR firms, Hollywood scripts, and media manipulation. Zelensky himself is a product of entertainment politics, styled to mimic Churchill one day, and a Netflix hero the next. This soft power offensive is designed to induce guilt, moral pressure, and emotional submission.

Read more

Africa must not confuse media saturation with moral legitimacy. Our memory is long. We know that NATO has never cared for peace – only for hegemony. We know that selective outrage is a weapon. And we must see Zelensky’s appeal for what it is: a geopolitical script to preserve Western dominance by appealing to the sympathies of the formerly colonized.

Africa’s peace philosophy vs. NATO’s militarism

Africa’s philosophical traditions – such as Ubuntu – emphasize reconciliation, communal healing, and justice. These values are incompatible with the logic of military escalation, sanctions, and permanent war that defines the NATO worldview.

Africa must call for peace – but not the hypocritical, self-serving peace that only ends when NATO says so. We must demand peace rooted in justice, mutual respect, and non-alignment. A peace that recognizes the security concerns of all parties, including Russia. A peace that ends the militarization of diplomacy.

The hypocrisy of sovereignty rhetoric

Zelensky speaks often of “sovereignty.” But this rhetoric rings hollow when his government does not respect the sovereignty of African nations to make independent foreign policy choices. His message is not: “stand with peace.” It is: “stand with us, or be morally condemned.”

This is not diplomacy. It is coercion. It is the colonial logic of moral superiority, updated for the twenty-first century.

Zelensky’s outreach targets African political elites, not African peoples. It follows the old colonial playbook: seduce the chiefs, bypass the masses. But African liberation was never won by elites alone. It was built by grassroots mobilization, mass consciousness, and continental unity.

If we are to engage in international diplomacy, it must be people-centered, not elite-centered. We must resist being used as pawns in another man’s war.

We are not new to these games. We remember that it was the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China – not the United States or the UK – who supported our freedom struggles.

Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal and defied imperialism. Patrice Lumumba was assassinated for rejecting Belgian neocolonialism. Kwame Nkrumah warned us that neocolonialism would be the final stage of imperialism. Julius Nyerere taught us that development without dignity is slavery. Muammar Gaddafi envisioned a United States of Africa and sought economic independence from the West.

These leaders understood that Africa cannot be free unless it speaks with one voice. Zelensky’s visit, if not checked, could divide Africa and weaken that collective voice.

Read more

Ukraine’s role in arms trafficking and global militarism

Ukraine has for decades been a source of illicit arms, many of which have found their way into African conflict zones. It has fed the very violence it now claims to abhor. Its military-industrial complex is now aligned with NATO’s, and its survival depends on the continuous flow of weapons.

How can such a state offer us lessons on peace?

Ukraine is not economically sovereign. Its national budget is underwritten by Western lenders. Its economy is molded by IMF conditionalities. Its development model is designed to serve Western European capital – not its own people.

Africa must not emulate this model. We must resist being pulled into a network of economic dependencies that serve only to preserve the dominance of the dollar and the euro.

BRICS and strategic coherence

South Africa is a member of BRICS, a group committed to multipolarity and alternative development models. Welcoming Zelensky without a Pan-African mandate undermines the strategic coherence of this alliance. It sends the wrong signal to Russia, China, Brazil, and India.

Diplomacy must be collective, not individualistic. South Africa cannot and should not define Africa’s position unilaterally. This is a continental issue, not a national one.

Rather than becoming a battleground for foreign influence, Africa must lead a new peace movement. We can propose an Afrocentric peace framework – grounded in non-alignment, historical justice, and multipolar negotiation.

This would place Africa at the moral center of global politics. It would revive our legacy as peacebuilders, not proxies. We can revive the spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement, not as nostalgia, but as a living strategy for independence in global affairs.

This framework should include:

? A continental summit on African neutrality and peace diplomacy.

? A new African Peace and Justice Commission to investigate foreign interference.

? Direct people-to-people peace forums between African and Eurasian societies, bypassing elite mediation.

Africa faces urgent crises: climate change, debt slavery, extractive neocolonialism, and social inequality. Zelensky’s visit risks distracting from these existential threats and diverting attention, resources, and discourse away from the real work of liberation. Let us not trade our future for a cameo in a European drama.

Read more

Africa aligns with itself

Zelensky’s visit is not neutral. It is a test.

Will we remember who we are? Will we honor the legacy of our martyrs? Will we reject the seduction of Western agendas and assert a sovereign, Pan-African voice?

Africa must rise – not as a tool for others, but as a sovereign force for peace, justice, and dignity. We do not need permission to define our destiny. We need only the courage to stand together. We are not the audience to Europe’s tragedy. We are the authors of our own liberation.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The country’s UN envoy has rolled out a basketful of demands to Berlin, including €550 billion and a third of Germany’s weapons

Most people keep their Easter expectations pretty modest: some pastel candy, a chocolate bunny, maybe even one that doesn’t taste like it was made during the Cold War.

But Ukraine’s former ambassador to Germany, Andrey Melnik, has decided that this is the perfect time to send the Easter Bunny – also known, apparently, as incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – a list that reads less like holiday funsies and more like a NATO procurement form.

“I am a realist and have no illusions as to whether you will take up one or more of these ideas. Or even none,” Melnik wrote in an open letter published by the German newspaper Die Welt last week. “But Easter is approaching. We are celebrating the resurrection of Christ, who overcame death on the cross. And we can hope for a miracle.”

Alright, so what exactly is on this audacious list? A Ladurée Macaron or Fabergé Egg? A five-star Easter getaway to the Alps complete with Easter brunch?

Not quite.

Melnik apparently wants Merz to get cracking on getting Ukraine 150 Taurus missiles the day he’s expected to take office as chancellor on May 6. We’re talking the kind that can hit deep Russian targets, like the Crimean bridge that Merz keeps obsessing about openly. Melnik also wants 30% of Germany’s current inventory of fighter jets. But why stop there? Spoiler alert: He doesn’t.

Look, how about I just grab you some marshmallow Peeps from the store? Classic yellow? Electric pink? Because that’s the sort of thing that belongs in Easter baskets – not precision-guided missiles.

This isn’t even Melnik’s first holiday-themed ask. Over the last Christmas period, he wanted €20 billion a year from Germany. Not quite the usual stocking stuffers of socks, aftershave, or underwear.

Read more

“The thing is that this should not be perceived as “Christmas charity”, as some call it. We are talking about Germany’s investments in its own security,” Melnik said to Germany’s N-TV at the time.

In Melnik’s new Easter plea, he also asked for 30% of the entirety of Germany’s weapons inventory. And all this is in addition to his proposal that a quarter of that 2% GDP that NATO countries are supposed to spend on defense – so we’re talking 0.5% of German GDP – should just be straight-up earmarked for Ukraine. He adds that Merz should also lobby the entire EU to do the same.

Also? Confiscate €200 billion in frozen Russian state assets and reroute it to Ukraine. As in: “Hey Merz, could you just go full Ocean’s Eleven real quick and fund our rebuild?”

Melnik also wants security guarantees, which, in plain terms, means that Germany would have to vow to step in and take a punch to the face itself from Russia if Ukraine does something face-punch-worthy. And even Melnik acknowledges right in his letter that he, personally, is highly punchable. “I know that many in the SPD – perhaps even in your own party – will once again be outraged: ‘How dare you!’ ‘Not that cheeky Melnyk again, who puts his two cents in everywhere.’ ‘We don’t need his advice, you pain in the ass.’ I can understand these reactions on a human level,” he said.

But it’s all worth it, he says, because Russian President Vladimir Putin would sit up and take notice if Merz did what Melnik suggested. “This mega-commitment of €550 billion for Ukrainian defense over the next four years would be a massive warning signal to Putin that you, Mr. Merz, and our allies are serious about aiding Ukraine. That will impress Putin.”

No doubt Putin could only marvel at Kiev’s consistent treatment of the EU as a 24/7 weapons vending machine, all while insisting that it’s doing the EU itself a big favor. Which is exactly what Melnik keeps saying himself. “Not only the future of Germany depends on your success as chancellor, but also the fate of Ukraine and all of Europe,” he says. Apparently, if Merz doesn’t risk World War III, he’s letting down the whole continent.

Read more

And this is Melnik on his best behavior. When diplomacy doesn’t deliver, he shifts gears fast. Like three years ago, after Ukraine iced out German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier for being too chummy with Moscow, prompting Chancellor Olaf Scholz to cancel his own visit to Kiev. That led to this classic from Melnik: “To play an offended liverwurst doesn’t sound very statesmanlike. We’re talking about the most brutal war of extermination since the Nazi attack on Ukraine, it is no preschool.”

Nothing says diplomatic savvy like slandering processed meat by comparing it to Scholz. Or reminding Germans of the Nazis as a means of seduction. Melnik’s like, “Hey man, help us out here against Russia. But it still isn’t as bad as that time when you guys genocided us.” What a charmer.

And just when you might have thought that was rock-bottom, Melnik brings out the jackhammer. He once responded to Elon Musk’s Ukraine peace plan workshopping efforts on social media with a rather unique proposition, rarely observed in the diplomatic world. “F*ck off is my very diplomatic reply to you,” Melnik wrote on Musk’s own X platform.

Turns out his style of diplomacy almost worked. Musk did, in fact, consider effing off, and taking Ukraine’s free Starlink satellite access with him.

Now, fresh off this highlight reel of diplomatic brawls masquerading as strategy, Melnik is poised to strut into the United Nations as Ukraine’s new envoy. Buckle up, world, and get ready for wishlists, lectures, and the occasional middle finger diplomatic salute.

Kiev might still be waiting on those Taurus missiles, but one thing’s for sure. Melnik’s weaponized mouth is always locked and loaded to friendly-fire on allies. And if the Easter Bunny doesn’t deliver the loot, guess there’s always another holiday right around the corner. Maybe try Oktoberfest.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The late Catholic leader was humble and always supported the abused and the downtrodden – except in one very sad case

When a great man and leader of the Roman-Catholic Church – and beyond it – like Pope Francis dies, it may seem almost impious to speak or write about politics. But in his case, we know for certain that it simply means doing what he told us to do.

For one of his fundamental teachings was that we have a religious and moral – not merely a civic – duty to engage in politics. He made this clear, for instance, in one of his major statements, the 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti (All Brothers). There, he spelled out the pronouncedly broad and political – not merely intimate, small-scale, or private – meaning of the story of the Good Samaritan, one of the most famous parables taught by the founder of all types of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth.

In Fratelli Tutti, Francis stressed that the Good Samaritan story “ summons us to rediscover our vocation as citizens of our respective nations and of the entire world, builders of a new social bond” in order “to direct society to the pursuit of the common good.” That is about as far away as you can get from the intellectual platitude and ethical cop-out of religion-is-just-a-private-matter. And that was a good thing, too.

Because, as Francis made clear time and again, he – rightly – saw our world in deep social, ecological, and, fundamentally, spiritual crisis. If you share his belief or not, it is important to understand that political engagement to save this world, for him, was a matter of survival of not just a species and its much-abused planet, but of God’s creation.

There is something else we should remember about this late pope. He was known for being both genuinely relatable – especially with the poor, weak, abused, sinful (his last major meeting was with JD Vance, after all), and troubled – and, at the same time, capable of harsh rebuke and tough determination. Having worked as a bouncer in his youth and later as a Jesuit taskmaster, he knew how to handle the gathering of careerist, vain, pushy, and scheming egos that the higher Church also is.

He was a decent and mostly kind man, but no push-over. And yet, with all his assertiveness, he was also humble, not in an ostentatious but a substantial manner: the kind of humility that makes you give up on many of the lifestyle perks that have corrupted the papacy and instead wash the feet of prison inmates. Or admit that you are not the one to judge, as once when commenting on a priest who was said to be gay.

Read more

Think about it: it is true, obviously; and, by the standards of tradition, it is at the same time something sensationally extraordinary for a pope to say about a priest. For, remember, the Roman-Catholic Church, is not a fake democracy – as secular states usually are now – but an unabashed absolute, if elective, monarchy.

Against that background – Francis’s instructions to engage with politics and his fundamental humility – two simple questions make sense: What is the political meaning of his tenure as pope between 2013 and 2025? And where did he succeed and where did he fail?

A full disclosure won’t do any harm either: I am writing about this pope as someone raised as a Roman-Catholic yet now largely lapsed. Largely, because, in reality, with something like a Catholic upbringing, about which I am far from complaining, “there are,” as the Russians wisely say about another experience that shapes you for life, “no formers.” Perhaps, that explains why I have always felt much sympathy for him. Although, come to think of it, that was due to his politics.

Regarding those politics, for starters, let’s note a basic piece of context that, however, is often overlooked: It’s commonly noted that Francis was a multiple first: first pope from Latin America, first Jesuit, first one not from Europe for well over a millennium. But there was yet another important first: even if the Cold War between – very roughly – the capitalist West and the socialist-Communist Soviet camp ended in the late 1980s and Francis became pope in 2013, he was, actually, the first substantially post-Cold War pope.

Counterintuitive as that fact may be, it is not hard to explain it. It was the result of the de facto rule that popes get elected when they are old and likely to be set in their ways and – usually, not always – serve until death. Specifically, once the Cold War had ended, the very Polish and very conservative John-Paul II – a quintessential Cold War pope – stayed in office until 2005. His successor, the not merely conservative but leadenly reactionary Benedict XVI from Germany was, in essence, the Angela Merkel of the Vatican: the one you call when, in reality, everything must change, but you are in obstinate denial about it. And did Benedict fulfill those expectations!

It was really only after rigid Benedict abdicated and, in effect, retired – the first pope to do so in more than half a millennium – that there was an opening for finally moving the Church beyond this sorry state of stagnation. And Francis, once elected to his own surprise, certainly did his best – or, as his many critics and opponents would gripe, worst – to use that opportunity.

Read more

Apart from setting an example by his personal modesty – for instance, just two rooms in a Vatican hostel, a comparatively simple pectoral cross, no flashy cape or dainty red slippers, and, finally, orders for a fairly simple coffin, lying-in-state, and burial – Francis tackled major unresolved issues inside the Church, such as finance scandals and corruption, sexual abuse, and the prevalence of rule by clique and intrigue.

On these issues, he certainly did not universally succeed. Regarding child abuse by clericals, his reactions and actions were honest, well-intentioned, and sometimes unprecedented and consequential: as when he, in essence, forced a mass resignation of bishops in Chile and defrocked a truly demonic US cardinal for his revolting crimes and sins. But his record remains mixed. He himself, to his credit, ended up admitting his “ grave mistakes” in this crucial area. Victims of clerical child abusers and critics find that his efforts did not go far enough.

Francis could neither defeat nor eradicate the hardy networks, lobbies, and plots of the Vatican and the Church leadership more broadly. In particular, the – surprise, surprise – conservative US cardinals form a powerful, mean lobby. But to be fair, no single person could have cleaned up these Augean Stables. That would take a miracle, one that did not take place under this pope.

Yet Francis did have an impact. His challenge was sometimes fierce, and the resistance it provoked proves that he hit a nerve. This, clearly, is an issue which will be decided, if ever, in the future. In that respect, note that kind, smiling Francis was worldly and tough enough to promote – where he could (an important caveat) – like-minded men to high office. As he installed the preponderant majority of the 135 or 136 cardinals who will elect his successor, his policies might be continued. Yet Church politics is less transparent than the Trump White House and much more complex. Nothing is certain.

Yet what about the world beyond the upper ranks of the Church? That is, after all, clearly what Francis – the pope with a personal cross that depicted Jesus as the Good Shepherd – cared about the most. For practical purposes and to greatly simplify, think of that world-beyond-peak-Church as consisting of two concentric circles: the inner yet large circle consists of currently about 1.4 billion Roman Catholics globally, and the outer, even larger one of everyone else in a world population over 8 billion.

There, Francis pursued two great lines: He clearly sought to finally do justice to the fact that demographically and in terms of commitment and dynamism, Roman-Catholicism’s center of gravity has inexorably shifted away from Europe and, roughly speaking, to the Global South-plus: Latin America, Africa, and Asia, too. Indeed, over the last half-century, Africa and Asia have been the only two regions where the increase in the number of Catholics has exceeded population growth.

Read more

When elected, he immediately pointed out – with a hardly hidden edge, I believe – that his cardinal brothers had plucked him “from the ends of the Earth.” That was a statement in favor of those “ends” and against the breathtaking, institutionally inbred provincialism that has made 80 percent of popes come from tiny Italy. By now, though, the cardinals who will elect the next pope come from 94 countries and less than 40 percent are from Europe, “with a record number from Asia and Africa.”

This, true globalization of the Roman-Catholic Church in its most fundamental meaning, namely as the community of its members is what Francis was in sync with as no pope before him, not even the globe-trotting John-Paul II. If the Church is wise, it will follow his example; if it is foolish – which, historically speaking, happens a lot – it will revert to Benedict XVI’s futile retreat into the past.

The other major policy Francis consistently pursued was – believe it or not – a form of socialism. Recall that socialism is a broader church than Marxism. Socialists, even by the narrowest, most modern definitions, existed before Marxism. If we widen the lens to ancient history, a certain rebel called Jesus, executed by the indispensable empire of his day, obviously, was one, too.

Francis understood that and stuck to it. That is why The Economist sniffles at what it mislabels as his populist and Peronist leanings. In reality, the last pope was a sharp critic of populism, if understood as, say, Trumpism (or Sanderism-AOC-ism, I would add): the fake appeal to longings for justice solely to control, mobilize, and profit.

The core of Francis’s de facto socialist position was – as The Economist, to its credit, also admits – “scorn for capitalism” or, to quote the Washington Post, another party organ of the global oligarchy – a strong concern for “ social justice.” Indeed. And then some. In sum, Francis was not a Marxist. He did not see eye to eye with Latin American Liberation Theology and his behavior during the right-wing dictatorship in Argentina may have been less than exemplary. But, as pope, he was, in effect, a man of the Left. He had the breadth of mind and the strength of character to reject the unfortunate recent hegemony of liberal capitalism in favor of something fairer and more moral, something worthy of humanity. In the dark post-Cold War that we are forced to inhabit, that fact made the Roman-Catholic pope one of the main forces (next to China, intriguingly) – weak as it may have been – of survival of leftwing ideals.

Those tempted to underestimate such influence - as Stalin is reported to have done: “The pope? How many divisions?” - should ask themselves where his Soviet Union is now (hint: nowhere). And yet the Church is still around.

Read more

There was another issue of immense importance for our future on which he stood out by being more honest and more courageous than all too many others: Francis did repeatedly censure Israel’s – and the West’s – brutal slaughter of the Palestinians, using terms such as “cruelty” and “terror” and pointing out that what Israel is doing is not even war, but, clearly something worse.

And yet, those who now claim that he condemned the Gaza Genocide are wrong, unfortunately. I wished he had, but he did not. The fact remains, painful as it may be for those who liked and respected him (such as I), that he failed to take this crucial and necessary step. The closest he came to it was the following, far too cautious statement: “According to some experts, what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. It should be carefully investigated to determine whether it fits into the technical definition formulated by jurists and international bodies.”

That was more than almost any other leader in the “value-driven” West; it was also more than the studious public silence practiced by Pius XII during that other holocaust, when the Germans did not support Jews committing a genocide, as now, but – together with their many collaborators and friends – committed a genocide against Jews. But both are pitiably low bars.

As the pope, that is, not just some political leader but a man with great soft power and extraordinary moral duties by design, he should, as a minimum, have condemned the genocide as being just that and told all Roman-Catholics that not opposing it in every way they can is a grave sin.

He should also have excommunicated co-genocider-in-chief Joe Biden and preening neo-Catholic JD Vance. Pour encourager les autres. Francis did have a steely side. This was where the world needed him to show it most, but he did not.

I like to think he would be the first to admit this fact. Because that is the way he was: great, fallible, and humble.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Identity, not supremacism: to affirm one’s people is to affirm all peoples.

To be white in America is to inherit a name shaped by migration, faith, and forgotten histories. It is a lineage carried across oceans, passed through lullabies, and rooted in both cathedrals and cornfields.

This identity lingers in quiet rural churches, where the voices of ancestors seem to echo in the trees.

For many, “white” becomes a stand-in when older names fade — when “American” feels like a hollow label on a billboard. It is not about shame or dominance. It is about memory, continuity, and being quietly aware of where you come from.

Multiculturalism, as it manifests now, behaves like a solvent. It dissolves the distinct, merges the sacred into sameness, smiles as it rubs out the texture of rooted lives. Within this flood, those who carry European memory find themselves drifting, searching for a foothold. The word “White” is that foothold. It holds meaning through resistance, through memory, through the fierce dignity of cultural continuity. Identity, in this sense, becomes a form of love — love for origins, love for inherited stories, love for those yet to come.

Supremacism speaks in the language of domination. Identity speaks in the language of presence. The White American who awakens to his name does not seek a throne. He seeks a hearth. He seeks a way to stay whole in a world that rewards fragmentation. This is a path of loyalty to one’s kind, never hostility towards others. In the garden of peoples, each flower flourishes with its own fragrance. Ethnopluralism offers an architecture of difference, a choreography of coexistence, where each cultural rhythm retains its beat without drowning the others.

The term “White” in the American lexicon carries a unique frequency. It vibrates with Jefferson’s quill and Bach’s organ, with frontier hymns and Viennese waltzes, with cavalry horns and Celtic chants. To call oneself White in this context is to protect this frequency from dissonance disguised as “inclusion.” It is to declare, without aggression, that the old songs deserve to be sung again. Memory deserves air. Tradition deserves breath. Identity deserves more than footnotes in someone else’s anthology.

Read more

European nationalists who peer across the Atlantic may see a racial label where a cultural signal flares. In America, this signal reaches through the noise, calling for cohesion in the absence of nationhood. The immigrant once became American through absorption into a defined mythos. That mythos no longer exists. “White” now fills the vacuum with a new mode of belonging — fused from ancestral fragments, reconstructed into a postmodern tribe bound by shared affinities rather than state-sponsored creeds. This tribe seeks kinship, not conquest.

The word itself — “White” — is undergoing alchemy. Once used carelessly, once wielded cruelly, now reclaimed with care. It becomes a sanctuary word, a quiet defiance against vanishing. It shields neither empire nor empire-building. It cradles only memory. Those who say the word do so with reverence, tracing maps invisible to those who only see skin. Within this word lives the village, the chapel bell, the grandmother’s eyes. To be White, then, is to feel time coiling through your veins, to hold the sacred burden of continuity with both hands.

Identity here acts as a compass, never a cage. It points to something essential, never reductive. Within its frame, new expressions rise — art, ritual, story, space. The future emerges from the past, remixed through intention rather than accident. Each person who reclaims identity becomes a steward. Each community that honors its inheritance becomes a lighthouse. In the haze of cultural disintegration, the glow of remembrance shines stronger than shame. Authentic diversity, when anchored in respect, requires difference. And difference requires selfhood.

To be pro-White is to be pro-identity. To affirm one’s people is to affirm all peoples. The line between celebration and supremacism is one of spirit, not volume. This spirit seeks harmony, not hierarchy. A world without distinct identities offers only the cold hum of managed sameness. A world of living cultures brims with meaning. So let this be said clearly: the affirmation of White identity, grounded in respect, carried with humility, lit by ancestral fire, serves not as a threat — but as a promise. A promise to remain, to remember, to reimagine.

This article was first published on Constantin von Hoffmeister's Substack, Eurosiberia.net.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The chancellor-in-waiting says he would commit to giving Kiev long-range missiles if London backs him

Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz doesn’t officially take office until May 6, but that hasn’t stopped him from hitting the press circuit like it’s demolition day. Apparently, he’s got some lost time – and infrastructure – to make up for.

In a chat with Germany’s public broadcaster, ARD, he floated the idea that Kiev, which seems to rank higher than Berlin on his priority list, needs to “get ahead of the situation” on the battlefield and “shape events” instead of playing defense. The event he seems most eager to shape? Oh, just the Third World War, apparently. Because he pivoted straight to the Kerch Bridge – mainland Russia’s lifeline to the Crimean peninsula – like it’s been living on borrowed time.

Merz said that “if for example, the most important land connection between Russia and Crimea is destroyed, or if something happens on Crimea itself, where most of the Russian military logistics are located, then that would be an opportunity to bring this country strategically back into the picture finally.” Cool, cool. Which picture would that be, exactly? The one labeled “Catastrophic Misjudgments of the 21st Century”?

Probably. Which is why Merz needs a useful idiot to ride shotgun alongside him in the doltmobile to share in any responsibility for the eventual mayhem when things inevitably go pear-shaped.

“You rang?” say the Brits. Or at least that’s what Merz is apparently hoping they say. “Our European partners are already supplying cruise missiles,” Merz said in an interview. “The British are doing it, the French are doing it, and the Americans are doing it anyway, this must be jointly agreed. And if it’s agreed, then Germany should take part.”

Read more

Merz’s fellow Christian Democratic Party MPs have been floating the idea in the Western press that he’s waiting for an official permission slip from London.

It would probably read something like this: “Dear Herr Friedrich, You are hereby authorized to partake in a highly coordinated, militarized pub crawl. First stop: a punch-up with Russia, followed by a wobbly march to a greasy spoon for black coffee, bad lighting, and a collective hangover.”

“Ah, wunderbar!”

Merz is just days away from grabbing the wheel, and he’s done pretending to be the guy in the backseat yelling directions at Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Scholz, for his part, always said that Germany wouldn’t hand Kiev the Taurus long-range missiles. Not that he had much wiggle room after last year’s leaked audio from Russian intelligence of German Air Force brass workshopping ways to hit the Kerch Bridge without leaving any German fingerprints. Kind of a bad look for a guy who keeps overtly declaring that he wants peace. So naturally, he was furious. Which is why, if Team Scholz suddenly turned around now and said, “You know what? Let’s try a few long-range missile strikes, just for funsies,” people might reasonably assume that he’d undergone a surprise lobotomy with a NATO letter opener.

As the coalition partners for Merz’s incoming government, Scholz’s Social Democrats’ support would be needed on any vote. And so far, they’ve shown no interest in greenlighting his WW3 passion project. You know, democracy and all that.

Minor hiccup, I know. If military ambition and musings alone were all it took, Merz would already be well on his way to having a Netflix original named after him and maybe even a seat with his name on it waiting at The Hague.

Read more

But hey, hear the guy out. What if it’s, like, a group project? Das ist gut, ja?

Nah, dude. Nicht gut. Nicht gut at all.

What exactly does Team Merz think this would look like? Would the Brits and Germans sit side by side, fingers hovering over their respective missile buttons, doing a tense little “one, two, three, fire” and just praying that neither one flinches at the last second and leaves the other one with some very awkward phone calls to make?

If so, that would certainly explain why they’re talking about specifically needing Britain’s non-negotiable participation and not France – the country that trained a flagship brigade for the Ukrainian army, who apparently learned how to bail out before even seeing action. “Paris hailed it as a ‘unique’ initiative,” reported France24. Training 1,700 Ukrainians in France to fight who then just end up surrendering to the foie gras and rosé at the local café prior to deployment is ‘unique’, alright.

Britain isn’t exactly a great choice for a wingman either, though. If only because it says that its own participation in Ukraine is contingent on Washington holding its hand. “Europe must play its role, and I’m prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others, if there is a lasting peace agreement, but there must be a US backstop,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in February.

So for those keeping score at home. For deeper involvement in Ukraine, Merz would need the Brits. The Brits would need Washington. And what would Washington need? For them all to knock it off. But apparently that memo got lost in their inbox among all the world war fantasy fiction.

Read more

“Pentagon figures recently questioned one ally about why it was still supplying weapons to Ukraine – a challenge that was ignored,” The Economist reported on April 15. ”Diplomats in Washington also report that some Trump aides say privately that they are ‘fed up’ with Europe’s effort to strengthen Ukraine.”

Doesn’t sound like Team Trump is up for holding hands as part of the West’s human chain in its reckless playground games against Russia. “Red Rover, Red Rover, send Putin right over!”

It’s hard to believe that there was a time not too long ago that Germany wasn’t trusted with the sharp knives, like nukes. Oh wait, it still isn’t. Technically, the Bundeswehr is still supposed to be defense only, but Merz seems determined to assemble just enough multilateral hand-holding to justify pulling out the long knives – the 500-kilometer-long ones, to be precise. If this is the new leadership model, then someone better put all the launch codes in a childproof box.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The detention of a ‘pro-Russian’ Orthodox bishop before one of the holiest days of the year is a sign of terrible things to come

On Thursday, Moldovan authorities chose to detain Bishop Marchel of the Moldovan Metropolis, a metropolitanate under the Russian Orthodox Church, at Chisinau International Airport.

Bishop Marchel was on his way to Jerusalem to bring back the Holy Fire for Easter, one of the most sacred ceremonies of the year for Orthodox believers. According to reports, he was pulled aside for a “thorough inspection” of his person and luggage, had his passport confiscated, and was not allowed to board his flight – even though nothing suspicious was ever found. His documents were only returned thirty minutes after the plane departed.

By contrast, the rival Metropolis of Bessarabia – a different Orthodox Christian church in Moldova, canonically under the Romanian Patriarchate – sent its own delegate, Bishop Filaret, on the same mission unmolested.

This isn’t an isolated outrage but rather the latest episode in a systematic campaign against anyone deemed “pro-Russian.” On March 25, 2025, Eugenia Gutul – the democratically elected head of the Gagauz autonomy – was detained at the very same airport. Her passport was confiscated and she was held incommunicado for 72 hours on opaque “corruption and illegal financing” charges, before being put under house arrest to await trial. Two days later, opposition figure Alexei Lungu was stopped from leaving the country on murky grounds, and Viktor Petrov – another Gagauz leader – was held for hours in February after flying in from Istanbul, an arrest he claims was orchestrated by Prime Minister Recean’s office. These incidents form a clear pattern: every pro-Russian politician, cleric or public figure is under suspicion of destabilizing “European choice” or colluding with foreign powers.

Read more

At its core, what is being played out in Moldova in regards to the Moldovan Metropolis is an attempt to hold the spiritual life of the majority hostage to a political agenda. Nearly 70 percent of Moldovans adhere to the Moldovan Metropolis of the Russian Orthodox Church. By making its shepherds and representatives into targets, the government is sending a message: worship with a Romanian or European-aligned body and you’re free to practice your faith; profess loyalty to a politically inconvenient church and you risk being treated like a criminal. This is not a security measure – it is a politicization of religion.

Worryingly, Moldova’s airport detentions echo the trajectory taken by the Kiev authorities in Ukraine. In August 2024, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law effectively banning any religious organization “affiliated with a state engaged in armed aggression” – a barely veiled reference to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP). The bill sailed through 265–29 and obliged each parish to sever ties with Moscow or face court-ordered closure within nine months. President Zelensky hailed it as a step toward “spiritual independence,” yet by criminalizing an entire denomination, Kiev set the stage for unprecedented state intrusion into religious life.

Since then, Ukrainian authorities have moved beyond legislation to direct law-enforcement actions: dozens of criminal investigations into UOC-MP clerics on charges of treason and “impeding community re-subordination” have been opened, and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has conducted raids on church offices, seizing computers and documents, sometimes without clear warrants or transparent legal basis. Places of worship themselves have been raided and forcibly “re-subordinated” to the Kiev-backed Orthodox Church of Ukraine – like when St. Michael’s Cathedral in the city of Cherkasy was attacked by armed men wearing camouflage and balaclavas. The raiders reportedly used tear gas and stun grenades against the defending believers and clerics.

Read more

Church-owned media outlets were also stripped of their licenses for alleged “propaganda,” and countless properties – cathedrals, monasteries, parish halls – have been expropriated or blocked from use.

International observers have warned that these measures risk violating Ukraine’s human-rights commitments. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in its December 2024 report that Ukraine’s new law “prohibits the activities of churches affiliated with Russia” and has spurred “restrictions on religious freedom” that must be carefully scrutinized under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Watch likewise cautioned that the law’s sweeping scope could “interfere with the right to freedom of religion” if applied without narrow, evidence-based safeguards – which are evidently nowhere in sight.

Moldova’s leaders ought to take note: by emulating Kiev’s model of cultural-spiritual engineering, they risk undermining the very social cohesion they claim to defend. When border guards become adjudicators of faith, and when police and prosecutors are deployed to silence theological allegiance, the state forfeits the moral authority to protect its citizens’ fundamental rights. Bishop Marchel’s detention – ostensibly to prevent the arrival of the Holy Fire specifically for worshippers of a church deemed “pro-Russian” – is not an isolated misjudgment but part of a broader blueprint to “de-Russianize” society under the banner of Western integration.

It is not too late to reverse course. The Moldovan government must immediately restore Bishop Marchel’s full rights, issue a public apology, and guarantee that no member of the clergy or laity will ever again face arbitrary obstruction in practicing their faith. More broadly, Moldova needs an urgent reassessment of the policies that equate spiritual affiliation with political threat. If the authorities persist in treating believers like suspects, they will do far more damage to Moldova’s soul than any external force ever could.

Sadly, the soul of the nation doesn’t appear to be part of the equation – the only thing that matters is the pro-Western authorities grip on power.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Moscow is now being accused of orchestrating Islamist terrorism, among a litany of other ridiculous claims

Like people almost everywhere in NATO-EU Europe, Germans are currently being subjected to a relentless barrage of shameless, often astonishingly crude propaganda. That’s because their political elites and mainstream media are desperately trying to prepare them for war against Russia. And this time, not by proxy, that is, by way of a devastated Ukraine and dead Ukrainians, but directly.

As a former, very evil but in his prime all-too-popular German master of mass manipulation – who also happened to love war with Russia more than was good for him (or Germany) – explained a century ago, effective propaganda keeps the world very, very simple. Or, to add a little detail, propaganda’s sometimes literally stunning success is built on two primitive yet powerful – and very old – tricks: the broken-record principle and the litany effect.

Their meaning, too, is elementary: In essence, if your image of reality is delusional, you don’t have sound arguments, and your case is absurd, do not despair. Instead, ceaselessly drum in a few very basic and bogus ideas until the audience is dizzy with repetition (the broken-record principle), while also eliciting frequent consent from it (the litany effect). In short: Keep shouting the same nonsense at them and make them bleat back “yes” regularly. You know, like a ritual, really.

In the case of the manufacturing of the current iteration of traditional German the-Russians-are-coming hysteria as well, it is easy to identify its handful of specious, daft, and childishly simplistic key motifs: Russia and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine; Russia intends to attack Europe (if not the world) – and soon; and Russia is incredibly devious and scheming, so you cannot find a reasonable compromise with it.

Yet what about the nuts and bolts of this propaganda campaign? Even a simple story needs detail, and, if told and retold almost without letup, that detail at least needs to vary: Same old story but different flavor. That’s where things get tricky.

For one thing, if you pick the wrong flavor, your propaganda may start looking as silly as it actually is. A current example in Germany – as well as the EU parliament – would be the recent hysteria over the global hit Sigma Boy from Russia. Its brilliantly catchy tune is a piece of art, like it or not. But its lyrics are about as profound as a margarine commercial.

Read more

Yet that won’t stop Germany’s radical-Centrist elite from exploring the song’s ominous depths as a weapon of nefarious Russian cultural warfare. Because Sigma Boy, one EU parliamentarian from Hamburg has noticed – with a little help from Ukraine – is really “ a viral Russian trope used on social media that communicates patriarchal and pro-Russian worldviews” as well as “only one example of Russian infiltration of popular discourse through social media.” Also, you see, Sigma Boy is really just code for – scary sound effect – PUTIN!

Silly? So ridiculous it gives you that cringey feeling you get when someone else is making a total fool of themselves and all you want to do is tell them to shut up already and save whatever maybe left of their credibility? Yes, obviously.

Indeed, in the case of the Great Sigma Boy Panic Attack, even Spiegel – a usually reliably Russophobic and NATO-militarist publication now – has mildly demurred. Dedicating a whole podcast to the phenomenon, it had an editor and journalist deliberate on the Sigma Boy case in all earnestness and with proverbial German thoroughness and faces serious enough for Kant and Hegel hashing out the nature of TikTok. The result: Maybe, just maybe, it’s really simply a pop song.

Now you could say “Great. At least someone is not completely falling for the mass hysteria.” But that would be too optimistic. In reality, the real question is how could things get so absurd in the first place? What is the Zeitgeist environment in which an EU parliamentarian is not ashamed to display so much provincial paranoia and Germany’s major news magazine needs intensive research and a long discussion to find out that, perhaps, she does not have a point?

In that regard, another recent propaganda fiasco is instructive. Its essence is simple: Some may know the ZDF, one of Germany’s most popular and influential public – that is, de facto state – TV channels most of all as a rock-solid mouthpiece of Israeli propaganda, especially during the ongoing Gaza genocide.

But the ZDF also has a substantial line in Russophobia. And for once, it went a little too far in its never-slackening eagerness to stick it to the big bad Russians: In its main news show and a long, sensationalist pseudo-documentary in its Terra X History program – under the title “Spying, Sabotage, Fake News. Putin’s war against us” – the broadcaster claimed, in effect if with some cheap pro forma hedging, that Russia was behind, among other nefarious schemes, an Islamist terror attack in the city of Mannheim in May 2024.

This was, obviously, an extremely serious allegation, in principle as well as in detail: the attack, carried out by a man from Afghanistan who had lived in Germany for ten years, left five victims injured and one, a policeman, dead. Moreover, in the consciousness of the German public, this particular terror attack is only part of a whole series of unrelated yet similar violent assaults that have taken place over the last year, including another one in Magdeburg as well as in the cities of Solingen and Aschaffenburg.

Read more

Hence, pointing a finger at Russia over one of these traumatizing onslaughts inevitably implied that Moscow may have had a hand in the others as well. Et voila! A new and particularly horrifying accusation against Russia had been manufactured: Moscow, so the essence of this wildest of many wild tales, was using migrants to instigate bloody Islamist terror in Germany.

And this big fat lie started working quickly: Various major mainstream media in Germany and abroad began to uncritically repeat the story, such as Britain’s Telegraph and The Sun, the German Merkur, and the French Sud-Ouest.

Yet the “research” on which ZDF had based this specific propaganda strike against Moscow was so breathtakingly sloppy that, this time, even Germany’s BND foreign intelligence service had to object.

Shortly after the ZDF had made its splash, the BND publicly contradicted it, pointing out that the method – basically a childish misreading of Google Trend data – used to produce these allegations against Russia is, in essence, ridiculously unreliable. Indeed, it turned out that several German intelligence agencies had warned the ZDF already before the Terra X pseudo-documentary was broadcast. Even Germany’s highly conservative Welt newspaper called the ZDF’s handiwork – with massive understatement – “negligent.”

So far, so bad. Just another case of propaganda becoming self-defeating by going too far. Let’s move on. And that is, of course, what is happening now. While the very worst lie about Russia has been discredited, there are virtually no consequences.

Yet, in reality, this is where the whole daft affair is only beginning to get interesting. For one thing, the Terra X feature, almost 45 minutes long, was packed with other, equally unfounded accusations against Russia. Indeed, it consisted of a long sequence of one hearsay after another speculation, all based on profound evidence of the “Western-intelligence-services-believe” type.

At Terra X, have they ever heard of those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? The babies torn from incubators in Kuwait? Or Gaddafi handing out Viagra to his troops to promote rape? All of them, of course, lies; all, in their time, spread by those famously reliable Western intelligence agencies and mass media functioning as their servile propaganda arms. And all of these lies, these actual cases of “hybrid warfare” – by Western elites on their own populations – have always had the same purpose: prepare and justify Western military aggression.

Read more

Yet, in the Terra X case as well, the fact that the single most egregious anti-Russian allegation of many has been, for once, exposed quickly as at best reckless nonsense if not a deliberate lie, makes no dent in the story as a whole.

On the contrary, all that happens is that one scapegoat is singled out and sacrificed: Steven Broschart, the discredited “data profiler” and self-appointed “digital behavioral analytic.” It was all him, is the message now. But that is clearly untrue. Long stretches of the Terra X tale consisted of various, often much more prominent talking-heads lending their authority to a long list of equally unsubstantiated allegations of Russian crimes and, in general, helping beat the war drums against Moscow.

There was, for instance, an official of Germany’s domestic intelligence service – the Verfassungsschutz – who first conveniently confirmed that the internet is a “treasure chest” of information revealing sabotage and attack plans and then informed viewers that they are already at war with Russia, even if they haven’t noticed yet. No biggie in Germany now: at war, not yet at war with Russia… Who cares once we all know where we are supposed to be going anyhow, and so soon, too.

To be fair, the man from the Verfassungsschutz had his entertaining side: You don’t need tanks to bring down a country, he enlightened us, because you can also strike at its vital infrastructure. Really? You don’t say! You mean the way that Germany’s “allies” in Washington and its spongers in Kiev struck at the Nord Stream pipelines? No, just kidding. Of course, he did not mean that. Because that would be reality, and his job clearly is the opposite, propaganda.

Quintessential German professor Martin Schulze Wessel added platitudes about Putin, who, we learn, thinks in categories of East and West and antagonism. Wow! Aren’t we lucky that no one does so in Garden Value Europe and a Germany that has decided to quite literally define itself, again, via antagonism toward Russia.

In addition, the professor confirmed that Russia is a “direct” threat to Germany – clearly unlike, again, Ukraine and the US, obviously, even if they have actually committed the largest act of infrastructure sabotage in German peacetime history. And the German public must be made aware of that non-fact, the professor lectured. Thank you for summarizing the essence of propaganda so selflessly: making the people aware of what isn’t there. And, if we may add, the opposite is also important: that that same public is made unaware of what does, actually, exist, for instance that Nord Stream attack that must go forever unmentioned.

My only caveat regarding Schulze Wessel’s amusing contribution is that, as a matter of transparency, he could have let viewers know that he is heavily networked with Ukraine and in particular the rather nationalist city of Lviv. Again, no biggie: On the big crusade against bad Russia, minor sins are forgivable.

Read more

The cast of Terra X was rich and not everyone can be mentioned here. But we would be amiss to omit Anton Shekhovtsov. Ironically now based at some “Center for Democratic Integrity,” he is the commentator who publicly celebrated the Odessa Trade Union House fire, while comparing its victims to vermin, literally. Dehumanizing? A little on the fascist side psychologically, perhaps? Oh, come on! Once again, on the grand campaign against Moscow, a little excess of eagerness is more than welcome.

On Terra X his function was unspoken yet clumsily clear: He served as the “expert” explaining that everything alleged in the show is “hard to prove.” But, of course, not as in not likely to be true, but as in: absolutely true even without any evidence. Thank you, too, Anton, for demonstrating a basic yet always popular trick of gutter propaganda: “You can’t see them,” as it were, “but that’s only because they are so well hidden. Which proves again how dangerous they are.”

The single worst irony about this piece of weaponized “journalism” from one of Germany’s biggest broadcasters is its flatfooted hypocrisy. For, in the context of the Ukraine War, provoked and fought via proxy by the West, there are real sabotage and terrorism, namely by Ukraine and the West: The attack on the Crocus City venue in Moscow, the assassination of General Igor Kirillov, the heinous murder of Darya Dugina, the Ukrainian attacks on the Kerch Bridge and on Nord Stream, of course – and this list could be prolonged – are all clear examples of Ukraine using terrorism. And we have known for years now, from Western mainstream media, that behind these activities, there has been hands-on and proud support from Western intelligence services.

Is it possible that, in a conflict where the West and Ukraine have liberally deployed “hybrid war” tactics, Russia is sometimes paying them back in the same coin? Yes, in principle. You could even make a plausible argument that it has to do so to remain credible.

Accusations of promoting Islamist terrorism, from which Russia has suffered greatly, in any case, should be off-limits to anyone with half a brain and some elementary decency. And the West would do very well to mind the beam in its own eye.

For Western media that would mean that, even apart from the straightforward lying, against this background, it is not just dishonest but ridiculous to produce “journalism” that focuses on Russia alone. The very least a serious investigation would have to do is look at all sides and treat information from all sides critically.

But then, that would be a piece of practical enlightenment, intellectually and politically empowering viewers and citizens, and it would not be effective war-in-sight propaganda anymore. It might even end up – oh horror! – promoting compromise and peace.

As it is now, in Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe, journalists, security service officers, experts, and academics – all are perfectly fine with lending their name to propaganda of the basest form. What a shame.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Russian media presence on the continent will help counter Western media’s dominance

In a move seen as part of its broader diplomatic push across the continent, Russian news agency Sputnik has opened its first African editorial center in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.

Foreign policy analysts say the launch underscores Moscow’s growing interest in deepening its engagement with Africa—both diplomatically and in the media space.

Boniface Muoka, chair of the Department of Security, Diplomacy, and Peace Studies at Kenyatta University in Nairobi believes it's not just about asserting Russia’s political presence, but also about reshaping how Africa is portrayed, both within the continent and globally.

The editorial center is expected to serve as a hub for regional coverage, offering an alternative to Western-dominated media perspectives.

“For decades, Western-owned and controlled media coverage of Africa has been skewed, biased, and unfair. Africa’s negative story has dominated Western media and the entry of Russia into this space is likely to turn the tide and show us the other side of the continent,” Muoka told RT.

Muoka adds that since Russia is not interested in “policing Africa,” its media investment will likely be focused on strengthening its relationship with the continent by telling Africa’s positive story.

Read more

“Through Sputnik, we are more likely to witness a story of good deeds by both Africa and Russia and not the usual stories of hunger, corruption, conflict, poverty, and underdevelopment which have been a norm in the Western media,” Muoka adds.

Sputnik’s editorial center in Ethiopia is Russia’s first large-scale, multi-functional media center in Africa.

“Showcase the continent’s potential and milestones”

Muoka explains that the move to set up the editorial center in Africa’s diplomatic capital demonstrates Russia’s intent to cement its media presence and influence on the continent.

“To reach across the continent and win the souls of the African masses, Russia has every reason to make such media investments because it needs a voice that can tell and sell its story,” Muoka told RT.

Dr. Jacinta Maweu, a media ethics and communication policy expert at the Global Center for Policy and Strategy (GLOCEPS), notes that Russia needs a strong global media influence and presence to advance its diplomatic, economic, and military strategies.

“The opening of the media center was well-timed and very strategic because Russia has made huge investments in Africa and it needs a tool to amplify that,” Maweu told RT.

Read more

According to Maweu, Russia’s media investment in Africa will help neutralize the continent’s negative image that has long been painted by Western media.

“Russia’s coverage of Africa will not be about what is not being done or what has failed but what is been achieved and efforts being made. It will help showcase the continent’s potential and milestones,” she said.

“Counter Western media’s dominance”

Alfred Otieno, a Nairobi-based independent journalist specializing in diplomacy reporting, argues that Russia’s media entry into Africa provides African journalists with an opportunity to tell the African story in a positive way, with an African voice.

“Russia’s strong media presence on the continent will help counter Western media’s dominance in the coverage of African affairs,” says Otieno.

Speaking when she officiated the opening ceremony of Sputnik’s office in Addis Ababa, Valentina Matvienko, speaker of the Russian Federation Council, acknowledged that Russia and Africa have been lacking information interaction, a gap Moscow’s media investment in Africa seeks to address.

“We are taking a giant step towards the emergence of a broad Russian-African interaction. First of all, of course, information interaction, which we have been sorely lacking, and which is now crucial for the formation of a truly fair multipolar world order, in which the interests of African countries will be fully taken into account,” Matvienko said.

Read more

Sputnik, which has membership in the African Union of Broadcasting, already runs radio stations in several African countries, including Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Mali, Guinea, Botswana, and Zambia. The radio stations broadcast programs in English and French.

According to Dmitry Kiselev, director general of the Rossiya Segodnya media group, which runs Sputnik, there are also plans to open other Sputnik editorial centers in South Africa and Tanzania.

Muoka, however, warns that even as Russia expands its media footprint in Africa, a move that will help balance narratives, the continent must be awake to the potential shaping of public perceptions through media-led propaganda.

“Russia’s media investment in Africa must solely focus on showcasing African solutions to African problems and not a tool of division and propaganda,” says Muoka.

Jacinta Maweu, on the other hand, observes that Russia will not allow its media to be used to propagate negative narratives against the continent.

“Russia is presenting itself as a friend of the continent and an anti-imperialist, something which will endear it to the emerging African leadership and earn the much-needed trust the Russian media needs from the African people,” Muoka told RT.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Russia’s attack on a gathering of Ukrainian servicemen has become immediate fodder for the information offensive against Moscow

On April 13, Russia launched an attack on a target in the eastern Ukrainian city of Sumy. All reports –Western, Ukrainian, and Russian – agree on some basic facts: The attack consisted of two ballistic missiles; substantial numbers of people were killed (over 60, according to the Russian Defense Ministry; over 20 in Western and Ukrainian reports) and injured (over 110, per Ukrainian reports).

Beyond that, however, a thick fog of war has descended. Or rather, a fog of propaganda. Western media and politicians have denounced the Russian strike as, in essence, an atrocity or war crime. The New York Times, for instance, presented it as slamming “into a bustling city center […] on Sunday morning, […] killing at least 34 people in what appeared to be the deadliest attack against civilians this year.” Incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz (to be sworn in at the beginning of May), speaking on one of his country’s most popular TV shows, condemned what he called a “perfidious act” and “serious war crime.”

In the US, President Donald Trump’s special – if largely sidelined – envoy for Russia and Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has invoked his experience as a “former military leader” who “understand[s] targeting” to denounce the Russian strike as “wrong,” adding that the attack “on civilian targets in Sumy crosses any line of decency.” Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, is “appalled at Russia’s horrific attacks on civilians in Sumy.”

Both Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron saw an opportunity to call for “ imposing” a ceasefire on Russia. Merz, for his part, felt the need to talk, once more, about providing Kiev with German Taurus missiles. The fact that Ukraine has made a point of not complying with the partial ceasefire officially already in place seems to make no difference. Neither, clearly, does the fact that neither France nor Britain has the means to compel Moscow. That the use of the German Taurus to strike at, for instance, the Kerch Bridge may well invite – perfectly justifiable – Russian retaliation against German targets, whether in Germany or elsewhere, seems to appear equally irrelevant to Merz

Read more

More examples could be added, but the trend should be clear: In the West, almost everyone agrees that the Russian attack on Sumy was an atrocity and in the EU there is talk – if we are lucky, it will remain just that – of exploiting it as a pretext to escalate further the proxy war in which Ukraine is being used up against Russia.

Yet there are two major problems with this escalatory approach: Most importantly, it is not based on facts but on disinformation originating with the Kiev regime, taken over uncritically and spread enthusiastically by Western mainstream media and many political leaders.

Though not, actually, all of them. That is the second, as it were, practical problem for the escalation brigade: The single most powerful Western figure is not playing along. Trump has not condemned Russia. He did call the attack “terrible” and “horrible” and claimed that he was told that “they [presumably meaning Russia] made a mistake.”

Whatever basis (US signal intelligence? Hearsay?) he has – or not – for this statement, politically, the key point of Trump’s first reaction was that he demonstratively refrained from joining the rest of the West in escalating, while stressing that the war as such is the issue and ending it the solution.

A similar approach in a statement on X by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirms that this is not a fluke but Trump’s and therefore Washington’s policy, at least for now. America’s president has clearly – and unsurprisingly – decided that his halting and open-ended yet still at least ongoing attempt to achieve a normalization with Moscow is more important than joining the latest propaganda campaign against Russia.

Trump – so criminally wrong in the Middle East – is right on this one, even if he is pursuing extremely pragmatic purposes. He is also, as it happens, right here in a more fundamental sense, which brings us back to problem number one with the Western mainstream treatment of the Sumy attack: Despite Kiev’s endless record of deception, the Western claim that the Russian attack was a crime is once again based on that very murky source alone. Ukraine’s past-due-date president Vladmir Zelensky, for instance, has decried a “horrific” attack hitting “an ordinary city street, ordinary life.”

Macron, Merz, Starmer, Kellogg the New York Times, The Telegraph – to name only a few examples – all follow Zelensky’s and Kiev’s lie that this was a deliberate attack on civilians. Yet, in reality, Russia struck at a gathering of Ukrainian soldiers. Soldiers, yes, even on Sunday and also on Palm Sunday, are legitimate targets in armed conflict. It is not criminal to attack them.

Read more

That is an elementary legal reality, rooted in the Law of Armed Conflict. And, when the boot is on the other foot, the West knows this well: No one there decried a Ukrainian “war crime,” when Kiev’s Western-supplied artillery wiped out almost 100 Russian troops sleeping in their quarters behind the front line in January 2023.

Indeed, the few Ukrainian media and politicians who still dare publicly contradict the de facto authoritarian Zelensky regime are clear about the fact that Ukrainian soldiers were the target: The major Ukrainian (not Russian) news site Strana.ua has reported that the Ukrainian authorities have tried to be cagey about the exact location of the Russian strike, while, at the same time, “more and more information is emerging from various sources that the Ukrainian military was the target of the strike.”

More specifically, Ukrainian parliamentarian Maryana Bezuglaya, former parliamentarian Igor Mosiychuk (politically on the far right and definitely no friend of Moscow, by the way), and a local mayor have stated that the Russian missiles hit an award ceremony of the 117th Territorial Defense Brigade, a Ukrainian unit that fights in the region.

There also are serious accusations, but not merely against Russia. Instead local and central Ukrainian authorities are under fire: Mosiychuk and Bezuglaya surmise that Russian forces may have gotten wind of the target from what can only be described as criminal negligence, namely unguarded invitations to the ceremony.

Mosiychuk, in addition, denounces that the organizers invited civilians, including children. And he suspects not only sloppiness but extremely dubious motives. He believes that a local politician and a parliamentarian – from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, incidentally – were using the military ceremony as a “PR” stunt, and his hope is that the “ trash and scum,” as he calls them, will be arrested.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense, meanwhile, has stated that the strike targeted a meeting of Ukrainian commanders. Award ceremony for the troops, meeting of officers, or, perhaps, both – whichever way you look at it, this was a military target.

Let’s address one thing squarely: A large number of people have died and been injured, and yes, they do include civilians and children. This is terrible, but it is precisely not a matter for cheap political exploitation to make the war even worse and last even longer. As this is an armed conflict, Russia has a right to strike at Ukrainian forces, as Ukraine has a right to strike at Russian forces.

There is another thing that is clear: Those who pretend that this was a deliberate attack on civilians are either disinforming or disinformed, or both. It is possible that Russian commanders failed to consider the likelihood of also killing and hurting civilians; it is possible that they did consider it but decided that the risk was in proportion to the military gain they expected. That form of thinking, again, is part of the Law of Armed Conflict. They may have been wrong, and critics can argue that, if they wish. But this was not a massacre of civilians but a fundamentally military attack.

Those in the West who want to pretend otherwise are – this must be said as well – the same politicians and mainstream media outlets who have sided pro-actively with Israel while it has committed an ongoing, stunningly violent and perverse sequence of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes against the Palestinians as well as its neighbors in Lebanon and Syria.

Germany’s Merz, for instance, found strong, false words for condemning the Russian attack on Sumy, and is threatening once again to give German missiles to Kiev. This is the same man who wants to invite internationally wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu to Berlin. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, but not surprising.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The right-wing party has taken the lead in a nationwide poll for the first time. It won’t be the last – and the establishment only has itself to blame

Germany has an undeserved reputation for dour rationality and lacking an appreciation of the absurd. In reality, however, Germany is a – for want of nicer terms – very counterintuitive country.

If you are running a regime in Kiev (at least according to the official story) and blow up Germany’s vital energy infrastructure, Germans will say thank you and throw money and arms at you, while also helping you blame someone else (the Russians, of course: Germany has never been an imaginative country).

If you are in Washington and certainly had a hand in blowing up that infrastructure, and then go on to fleece the Germans by selling LNG at a high cost and promoting their deindustrialization by filching their companies, good Germans get very, very angry – at China.

If you happen to be the single most popular and perfectly legal political party in Germany, get ready to never be allowed to actually participate in governing. Because Germany is also a country in which that single most popular party – the Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, commonly known simply as AfD) – is locked out of building governing coalitions. By definition.

That system is called a “firewall” – against that nasty most popular party that makes life so difficult for all those other, no longer popular parties. It has absolutely no basis in the constitution or in law.

Come to think of it, as the “firewall” systematically and deliberately treats the votes of AfD voters as somehow less effective than those of others, it may well be the “firewall” itself that is unconstitutional, at least in spirit if not even by the letter of the law. So much for Germany, the country that allegedly loves order and rules.

In reality, the “firewall” amounts to a dirty political cartel and a form of disenfranchisement: The traditional parties, feeling threatened by the insurgent AfD have simply decided that they do not care what the voters say and won’t have anything to do with it. Since German governments are virtually always based on coalitions, which means that the AfD and its voters are treated as inferior. That this means that, as of now, in particular voters in the former East Germany are subject to this kind of discrimination, adding a West-East aspect to it that sits very badly with talk about German unity.

Read more

To get one thing out of the way: For now, it is only one poll that shows the AfD in the lead; other polls still have it in (barely) second place after the mainstream conservatives of the CDU/CSU bloc (which, in reality, functions as one party) of soon-to-be chancellor Friedrich Merz. But these differences are irrelevant. What matters is that the AfD’s rising trend is unbroken. That is definitely a blow to Merz, even before he has officially assumed office, as international observers are noting. Especially in view of the fact that Merz’s own poll numbers are cratering at the same time.

Yet there is a broader point, too: The whole “firewall” strategy is malfunctioning extremely badly. Sensible observers have long predicted it, and now it is becoming ever more obvious: Freezing the AfD out only serves to make it stronger.

One thing that does not make Berlin’s ruling parties, the CDU and SPD, any more popular is that they have concluded their negotiations on how to divvy up the spoils of ministries and other goodies. Indeed, it is extremely embarrassing for the new governing coalition of conservatives and Social-Democrats (SPD) that the most recent AfD milestone breakthrough is happening now. It is a coincidence from hell: there they are, the traditional parties, seemingly safe behind their “firewall” and all ready to go, and the voters – uncouth as they can be – show them just how unpopular they are.

Germans expect little from them, even now: A fresh poll shows that two thirds do not believe that things will change under the new coalition of tired old parties.

Note that most Germans have been deeply unhappy with the status quo, as we also know from recent polls: In February, Ipsos found that the general mood was “ as bad as never before.” Only 17 percent of citizens – less than a fifth – believed their country was “on a good trajectory.” The other 83 percent were not indifferent or neutral but felt Germany was on the “wrong” trajectory. Even for a nation with something of a culture of angst and doom, those are atrocious figures.

Hence, expecting no change now amounts to deep pessimism: Germans have felt for a while already that they are in dire trouble; and a preponderant majority thinks that that is where they will be stuck under new old management as well.

Read more

A senior AfD leader, Alexander Gauland, is already more than confident: “ It’s a natural law that we’ll be ahead of the CDU at the next elections,” he recently declared. That may be jinxing it. The AfD is, after all, much less unlike other parties than the latter like to pretend: The AfD as well may end up squandering its current good luck with infighting, for instance, over how to react to US President Donald Trump’s tariff attacks, which will severely harm Germany.

Yet there is no doubt that the traditional parties are doing their utmost to repel not only voters but even their own members. In particular Merz’s CDU is in barely contained rebellion: its members and voters are fuming at having voted conservative and yet being saddled with a massive deficit spending program. The pretext that all of this is needed because of – drum roll – Big Bad Russia is not dampening down the anger.

One local CDU organization has already rebelled openly. In the state of Sachsen-Anhalt, formerly part of East Germany, CDU members from the Harz district have gone public with an official resolution making two points and one demand: There is “massive” unrest among the CDU’s base of ordinary party members, and in Germany’s “East,” that is, what used to be the former German Democratic Republic, the CDU has decisively lost the last federal elections. The demand is to tear down the so-called “firewall” against the AfD and start collaborating with it systematically. It is symptomatic that this very local rebellion is making news all over the country.

“What a scandal! Opening the gates to the far right!” many will scream. Yet they have it all upside down: Disregarding the fact that, in reality, the CDU/CSU conservatives and the AfD mostly see eye-to-eye ideologically, one day, in the not so far away future, the AfD may well enter and perhaps even dominate a German government. The irony is that when that happens, those who have upheld the, frankly, moronic “firewall” will have only themselves to blame. Because the real question is not if the AfD will enter government in Berlin but how and, in particular, how strong. The longer the “firewall” is kept up, the more likely the AfD will not just participate but dominate.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Trying to salvage and empower an empire in decline, only to end up hastening its demise – we’ve seen that somewhere before

The Great Trump Toddler Tariff Tantrum that we have all been living through is so very Trump – blunt like a baseball bat, burn-it-down-first-figure-out-the-consequences-later reckless, and attention-grabbing like Kim Kardashian – that it is easy to forget that Donald Trump is merely human, too.

The now 47th US president has an extraordinary gift for occupying center stage. Yet, as Karl Marx wrote almost two hundred years ago with reference to France’s Napoleon III, another bigger-than-life “ global disrupter” leading his country into a fiasco, “men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please […] but under circumstances existing already.”

And if the co-founder of “scientific Communism” isn’t your thing, take it from the other side: Arch billionaire capitalist and creator of the world’s largest hedge fund Ray Dalio is warning us that the current tariff brouhaha, fundamentally driven by Trump’s crude ideas about how to re-industrialize the US, is obscuring what is really at stake: namely, a “once-in-a-lifetime event”: a “classic breakdown of the major monetary, political, and geopolitical orders.”

Yet collapse is only half the picture. We are also witnessing historic transformation on a global scale: yes, the old world order of so-called “liberal hegemony” – that is, really, US “primacy” – is tottering and crumbling. But it is also already being replaced by emerging multipolarity. With American politics simultaneously, according to Dalio again, “fraying” at home, conditions are “ripe for radical policy changes and unpredictable disruption.”

And hasn’t Trump made good on that? Before his subsequent U-turn and suspension (not yet canceling) of his “ Liberation Day” tariff blitz, accumulated 2025 US import tariffs were scheduled to grow higher than ever since 1909. Rapid subsequent US stock market cratering alone wiped out well over $5 trillion – as if, to quote the Communist Manifesto, melting into the air. A post-U-turn rally then recovered some of the losses. Yet, whichever way you look at it: “Radical policy changes” and “unpredictable disruption” indeed.

Now – after what the Trump team tries to sell as the president’s brilliant pressure tactics and an analyst has called Trump’s “ capitulation to the markets” (except regarding China) – even if Trump may end up negotiating away some or many of his tariff hikes, great damage has been done to Washington’s already shoddy standing and credibility: Because it has once more displayed the staggering irresponsibility, stunning shortsightedness, and sheer incompetence that make living on the same planet with the self-appointed “indispensable nation” so painful for the rest of us, and this lesson will not be forgotten.

Read more

Yet the bigger point is that – with his giant ego, lovingly cultivated idiosyncrasies, and Freudian-sized Sharpie signatures – Trump remains locked into his time and place even more firmly than he can cage migrants in El Salvador.

And his time is one of America never going to be great again. Like a late-Roman emperor, Trump is trying to stop and reverse history itself. Little wonder that some specialists on Roman history see parallels between his tariff storm and that ancient empire of relentless aggression, ruthless exploitation, and, finally, decadent perversion, decline, and fall.

But, like those stubborn Roman emperors, Trump cannot succeed. It does not matter whether he himself politically survives the brutal toll his tariff offensive will impose on the American home front: Before Trump’s U-turn/capitulation, the Budget Lab, a research center at Yale University, had estimated that toll at, on average, 3,800 dollars per household annually. It may or may not turn out less catastrophic in the end, but there is no reason to assume it will be negligible.

This may cost Trump’s Republican Party the midterms in 18 months. It may also cost Trump his whole political career, his unconstitutional dreams of a third term included. For even if he were able to re-industrialize America with his simplistic and misguided methods, it would, of course, take years, if not decades. And it would not, as he suggests, produce an abundance of jobs – and certainly not well-paying ones – because job losses have been due more to automation than to off-shoring.

Meanwhile, the self-hobbling US is also supposed to do all of the following, at least: First, fight an escalating economic – and not necessarily only – war against a cohesive, patriotic, and internationally well-connected China that is not ceding ground but retaliating in kind and also has the difficult but devastating option of dumping its humungous holdings of American government debt. Second, wage the usual catastrophic wars in the Middle East to please Israel and American Zionists, with Iran currently in Washington’s sight. Third, cajole or conquer its neighborhood, including Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, as a minimum. And, fourth, in general keep spending as if there’s no tomorrow on its already insanely expensive, bloated overkill forces – yes, that would be the same ones that cannot defeat Yemen (at a price tag of, at least, a cool billion, and counting) and are just losing their proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Just now, Trump has announced a new annual military budget “in the vicinity” of one trillion dollars, or, in the original Trumpese “the biggest one we’ve ever done for the military.”

Read more

But, in reality, Trump’s attempt to recreate a mid-twentieth-century industrial-manufacturing base in the 21st-century US is quixotic anyhow. And vaguely reminiscent not of ancient Rome but of a large, powerful state much more recently deceased and also often called an empire. It was the late Soviet Union about which Cold War Westerners liked to joke that it had the most impressive early-twentieth-century industry on the planet.

That was, of course, an absurd and mean exaggeration – no one built satellites and intercontinental missiles in the first half of the twentieth century, for one thing. But it is true that one weakness that brought down the Soviet Union was clinging to an outdated and always insufficiently modernized economic structure skewed toward heavy industry.

Curiously enough, there are other aspects of Trump’s second presidency that bring the Soviets to mind, in particular the one-and-a-half decade between, roughly 1985 and 2000, that is the period of the Soviet collapse and its long, extremely painful reverberations.

For one thing, there is Trump’s perverse sense of imperial grievance. In reality, for decades the US has profited massively, economically and politically, from its position at the center of its own empire, including what a French finance minister once called the “ exorbitant privilege” of the dollar, that is, a unique ability to live on virtually unlimited credit.

And yet here is an American president who cannot stop whining about how everyone else is “ ripping off” of his poor, downtrodden country. And to top off the absurdity, that president also happens to be a billionaire business clan leader raking in money around the globe.

Meanwhile, Trump’s bad habit of believing his own demagoguery makes him mistake any trade deficit for evidence of a raw deal; and his oddly pinpoint forgetfulness makes him simply overlook American trade surpluses in services.

A disruptive, charismatic, rabble-rousing politician presenting the dominant core of an empire as the victim of exploitation by its peripheries? A natural-born populist – with an occasional dancing habit – resorting to a nationalist appeal fusing crude economic quarter-truths with widespread resentment at declining living standards and life chances?

Read more

That description would also fit Boris Yeltsin, of course, the man who first exploited late-Soviet Russian frustrations to deliver the death blow to the Soviet Union and then misruled what was left through the dark and dismal 1990s.

Or consider the curious fact that, among other things, Trump triggered a massive wipe-out specifically of wealth held in stocks. But that kind of wealth is anything but evenly distributed among Americans. Bloomberg even goes so far to speak of an “ American investor class — that top 10% that owns almost all of the stocks.”

Make no mistake: Trump’s tariff shock is already hitting all other Americans as well – through rising prices, declining retirement funds, reduced labor income and, soon, lost jobs. Indeed, as an American, the harder you already have it, the worse the Trump’s brutalist economics will harm you. That’s because, tariffs are, in effect, a kind of tax on the domestic population, too, “ burden[ing] households at the bottom of the income ladder more than those at the top as a share of income.”

In other words, if you are already poor, these tariffs – to one extent or the other – will make you even poorer; if you are teetering on the brink of poverty, they are likely to push you over into full destitution. And that means large numbers of Americans will be hit severely: According to a Congressional Research Service paper, as of 2023 between 11.1 and 12.9 percent (almost 37 to nearly 42 million) were already in full-blown poverty (depending on which of two US Census Bureau definitions is applied). 15 million of them were enduring an inner circle of hell by the name of “deep poverty.”

And yet another 15 percent of Americans (or almost 50 million) are still just above the poverty line but precariously close to it. All in all, more than a quarter of the American population is either poor or almost poor. And they are all going to suffer especially badly from Trump’s wrecking ball policies.

Sorry, ordinary Americans: With all his populist braggadocio, this president is not your friend. And he’ll cost you. A lot.

And yet, it was also striking to see how Trump’s “Liberation Day” impacted Bloomberg’s “investor class” and in particular the even narrower circle of the rich and super-rich. After the tariff blitz, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg taken together, for instance, lost an estimated $42.6 billion – in one day.

Read more

That does not really hurt them, and they may generate more wealth soon, through no discernible effort of action of their own, as so often. But even if they do, here as well there is a lesson that will remain: namely that America’s oligarchs, with all their ostentatious finance power which allows them to corrupt and bend politics, are not invulnerable but, when push comes to shove, also depend on one man at the top.

Of course, the above cannot be compared to the taming of the Russian oligarchs gone feral in the 1990s, which was a necessary, healthy stage in Russia’s recovery from the Soviet collapse. And yet, fragile as the analogy may be, there it is: around the end of empire no one is entirely safe, not even the richest.

And then, there is the final and greatest irony of empire’s end: It may be hard to see at first glance, but there is a fatal similarity between the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev and Donald Trump as 47th president of the US.

They were different in ideology, personal ethics, temperament, and style. Gorbachev was, for one thing, what Trump only claims to be – a peacemaker. The last Soviet leader was so smugly naïve toward the West that he greatly damaged his own country in the process, but he did play the single most important role in ending the first Cold War, which, otherwise, could well have ended with World War III.

Trump, by contrast, is failing to end the Western proxy war in Ukraine while co-perpetrating the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians as criminally as his predecessor Joe Biden. Moreover, one reason for his abrupt change of course on tariffs may well be that Netanyahu and friends have ordered him to get the US shipshape for attacking Iran on Israel’s behalf.

And yet, Gorbachev and Trump do have one fundamental trait in common: trying to save and make great again a proud superpower in deep crisis. Trump may not end up having to preside over the full, official demise of his country, as Gorbachev tragically did. Yet, just like Gorbachev in that one respect, history will remember Trump as a would-be “reformer” whose policies of change only hastened the decline he tried to fend off.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The recent case of 15 uniformed first responders killed on their way to work is but the latest in a long, long line of similar crimes

The Israeli army has executed 15 Palestinian medics in Gaza, buried them and lied about them being “terrorists.” For those paying attention, this barbarism is not new, only the latest war crime committed by Israel in a litany of war crimes over the decades.

The combination of the medics being tied up, executed and buried in a mass grave was so horrific that even usually indifferent global media reported on it, albeit without the outrage that would have accompanied such reports were the perpetrator an enemy of the West. (Warning: disturbing video.)

On March 31, Jonathan Whittall, the Head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OCHA) posted on X, “First responders should never be a target. Yet today @UNOCHA supported @PalestineRCS and Civil Defense to retrieve colleagues from a mass grave in #Rafah #Gaza that was marked with the emergency light from one of their crushed ambulances.”

His thread went on to detail how a week prior, on March 23, contact was lost with ten Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) and six Civil Defense first responders, in five ambulances and one fire truck, who’d been dispatched to collect injured people, noting, “For days, OCHA coordinated to reach the site but our access was only granted 5 days later.”

When they finally accessed the site, they “recovered the buried bodies of 8 PRCS, 6 Civil Defense and 1 UN staff,” he wrote, noting, “They were killed in their uniforms. Driving their clearly marked vehicles. Wearing their gloves. On their way to save lives. This should never have happened.”

Palestinian Civil Defense spokesperson, Mahmoud Basal, separately said, “One of the Civil Defense crews had his feet tied, another had his clothes removed from his upper body, another was beheaded. Among all the martyrs, the least harmed had 20 bullets fired at him, in his chest.”

Read more

According to the PRCS, a ninth EMT is missing and is believed to have been detained.

The UN, The Red Cross, and OCHA have all issued statements of outrage and condemnation of these murders. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Secretary General Jagan Chapagain said: “They wore emblems that should have protected them; their ambulances were clearly marked. They should have returned to their families; they did not. These rules of International Humanitarian Law could not be clearer – civilians must be protected; humanitarians must be protected. Health services must be protected.”

According to Chapagain, 30 PRCS volunteers and staff have been killed since October 2023 alone.

OCHA called the murders “a huge blow to us” and said, “these abhorrent acts require accountability.” According to the UN, “408 aid workers including more than 280 UNRWA staff have been killed in Gaza since the war began on 7 October 2023.”

Tom Fletcher, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, wrote, “They were killed by Israeli forces while trying to save lives. We demand answers & justice.”

The Guardian cites PRCS’ Dr. Bashar Murad, who spoke to one of the paramedics in the convoy:

“He informed us that he was injured and requested assistance, and that another person was also injured. A few minutes later, during the call, we heard the sound of Israeli soldiers arriving at the location, speaking in Hebrew. ‘Gather them at the wall and bring some restraints to tie them.’ This indicated that a large number of the medical staff were still alive.”

The Israeli army media spokesman Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, predictably denied Israeli army wrong-doing and blamed Hamas, claiming the ambulances were “advancing suspiciously” toward Israeli forces. He declared the execution of the medics be an elimination of “a Hamas military operative, along with 8 other terrorists from Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.”

Observers on X rebuffed Shoshani, including pointing out the Israeli army has been attacking ambulances for a very long time.

Gaza medics under Israeli attack since 2009

I can speak from personal experience. During the January 2009 Israeli war on Gaza, I was among a handful of international volunteers riding in PRCS ambulances, to document their work and the victims they rescued.

Read more

The first night of the Israeli land invasion, we were based in a PRCS center in Ezbet abed Rabbo, east of Jabaliya, with Israeli shelling around us. By morning, we had to evacuate. By the end of the war, the center was nearly destroyed.

But in terms of direct attacks on ambulances, and hospitals, I can attest they occurred against unarmed medics in ambulances not carrying any Palestinian resistance, but retrieving wounded or killed Palestinian civilians, including elderly ones.

In one instance, an Israeli sniper fired at least 14 shots at medics and the ambulance I was in, targeting the uniformed medics during supposed ceasefire hours, shooting one medic in the leg and damaging the vehicle.

A week prior, a medic I had accompanied one dangerous evening in the northwest of Gaza was killed the next day when the Israeli army fired a flechette shell (dart bomb) directly at his ambulance, shredding him with the razor sharp darts, killing him. Survivors from the scene corroborated there were no resistance, only medics and wounded and killed civilians.

A week later, the Israeli army repeatedly bombed al-Quds hospital, meaning medics had to evacuate to al-Shifa hospital, risking being shot by Israeli soldiers while doing so. I was with the medics and saw the damage and resulting fire from the Israeli bombing of the hospital.

I later took testimonies from other PRCS medics who had been targeted by the Israeli army, some multiple times over the years.

Two medics told me how after getting permission from Israel, via the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to retrieve the wounded and the dead, three ambulances and an ICRC jeep came under Israeli fire repeatedly in northern Gaza.

“We were driving to the area, speaking with the Israelis on the phone. They’d tell us which way to drive, what road to take. When we got near the wounded, Israeli soldiers started firing. I told them, ‘We have coordination’ and they said to wait. Then they began firing at us again.”

According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), that same day, Israeli soldiers fired on a convoy of 11 ambulances led by a clearly marked ICRC vehicle in central Gaza, injuring an ICRC staff member and damaging the vehicle.

Read more

Another medic was shot in the leg while on a mission for PRCS in May 2008, and was twice targeted by Israeli snipers during the 2009 war. He was also in a building that was being bombed while emergency workers tried to evacuate the victims.

“I was with Dr. Issa Saleh coming down the stairs from the sixth floor of an apartment building in Jabaliya, evacuating a martyr, when the Israelis again shelled the building. They knew there were medics inside. They could see our uniforms and the ambulances outside.” Dr. Saleh was killed, decapitated by the bombing.

The testimonies I took then included many more cases of medics going to save injured Palestinians and coming under Israeli fire, preventing them from reaching those who needed help. Reports at the time also spoke of a handwritten order in Hebrew found in Gaza, directing Israeli soldiers to “open fire also upon rescue.”

In 2007, in the West Bank, during an Israeli invasion of Nablus, I saw Israeli soldiers take a Palestinian Medical Relief (PRM) volunteer (who had been part of a group escorting civilians to their old city homes) hostage, blindfold and handcuff him and use him as a human shield.

Even back then, targeted arrest and detention of medics was common as a form of collective punishment for the volunteers providing essential emergency services to wounded Palestinians. When not arrested, medics and ambulances would still be routinely denied access to emergency areas, denying the wounded the attention they desperately needed.

Fast forward to 2023 and 2024. The Israeli army repeatedly bombed hospitals throughout Gaza, invaded them, occupied and destroyed them, routinely killing medics, doctors and emergency workers.

It is clear that for Israeli soldiers, killing medical workers is a policy, whether in ambulances or hospitals. It’s also clear that while words of condemnation will sometimes be uttered by Western powers, Israel is never held accountable for these crimes.

Read more

Denying civilians medical care

In January, I wrote about Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, a Palestinian doctor from northern Gaza abducted and imprisoned by the Israeli army last December. In that article I noted that three doctors from Gaza in Israeli prisons had already been tortured to death in the last year plus, and that there is grave concern for Dr. Abu Safiya’s life.

Since then, other Palestinian hostages released from Israeli detention have confirmed Dr. Abu Safiya is being tortured. More recently, the Israeli Beersheba Court has issued a six-month administrative detention order for Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, administrative detention being the means Israel uses to imprison Palestinians without charge.

The abduction and torture of Palestinian doctors is another aspect of Israel’s all-out attack on Gaza’s health system. It is part of Israel’s attacks on Palestinians themselves, depriving them of life-saving care, part of the decades-long policy of killing Palestinians by every means possible, including by preventing the entry of medical equipment and food, starving Palestinians who escaped bombs and sniping.

I will post the same rhetorical question I’ve posed ad nauseam: What would the international reaction be like if it were Russia point-blank assassinating uniformed, unarmed medics? It would be non-stop 24/7 howling in corporate media, victims faces and stories spoken of, demands for more sanctions...

But Israel does this again and again over the decades and all Palestinians get are muted words of concern and calls for investigation, allowing Israel to continue slaughtering medics and emergency workers unabated. No justice.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Ukraine is the only side that would benefit geopolitically if Russia were to actually commit the crimes it’s accused of

The strike on Krivoy Rog this week has reignited the familiar chorus of accusations from Kiev and its Western backers. Ukraine claims dozens of residential buildings were damaged, hinting – without evidence – that Russia deliberately targeted civilians. But once again, beneath the fog of war and politicized narratives, a more complex and revealing truth emerges – one that the mainstream media and Western officials seem all too eager to ignore.

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the strike hit “a meeting place of commanders of military units and Western instructors in one of the restaurants” in Krivoy Rog. Video footage and on-the-ground reports from Russian war correspondents support this claim. There is no indication that a cluster munition, often used to inflict wide-scale damage, was deployed. Instead, a single high-explosive missile appears to have been used, striking with precision and targeting a specific structure. The implication is clear: this was not a random or reckless act, but a targeted military operation.

The outrage from Kiev rings hollow, especially considering the Ukrainian military’s well-documented habit of embedding its personnel and foreign mercenaries in civilian areas. This is not speculation; it’s a pattern. Nearly one month ago to the day, Russian forces struck a hotel in Krivoy Rog used as a base by foreign mercenaries. The outcry then was similar, but the facts held up – military targets were embedded within what Kiev called “civilian infrastructure.”

Read more

If civilian casualties do occur in such circumstances, the blame does not lie solely with the missile that struck, but with the cynical strategy of using human shields. It’s a tactic designed not just for tactical cover, but also for information warfare – to exploit every Russian strike for international sympathy and political gain.

Let’s ask a hard question: Who benefits if civilians are killed? Certainly not Russia, which has nothing to gain from inflaming Western opinion at a time when there is a fragile diplomatic opening with Donald Trump’s team in Washington. But Kiev? It gains everything. President Zelensky’s criticism of the US ambassador’s response as “weak” after the Krivoy Rog incident reveals his real concern: Washington isn’t reacting strongly enough to maintain the image of Moscow as an intransigent aggressor. That image is essential if Ukraine hopes to derail even the slightest move toward a negotiated settlement – something Zelensky desperately fears as he loses ground both militarily and politically.

Meanwhile, the ceasefire agreement regarding attacks on energy infrastructure – a minimal 30-day moratorium – has been consistently violated by Ukrainian forces. These aren’t isolated incidents; they’re near-daily breaches. Russia has held its fire on critical infrastructure to create space for diplomacy. Kiev has done the opposite, undermining the very basis of trust necessary for any future agreement.

It’s time to start asking who is actually obstructing peace. Who stands to gain by perpetuating an endless war narrative? The Krivoy Rog strike, once stripped of Western spin, doesn’t suggest a careless or barbaric attack. It points to a targeted operation against a legitimate military threat – one deliberately placed in a civilian zone by Ukrainian command. That’s the real scandal.

The tragedy of this war is not just the suffering it has caused, but the way truth itself has been weaponized. If the West is serious about peace, it must start looking beyond Kiev’s smoke and mirrors – and ask whether the story it’s been told is really the one that leads to an endgame.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The bloc has been diligently self-deindustrializing and vassalizing itself to Washington in recent years

The EU is putting on its bravest face, with European Commission President – and the bloc’s de facto unelected monarch in all but crown – Ursula von der Leyen declaring the bloc is fully equipped to weather US President Donald Trump’s latest tariff tantrum – a fresh 20% slap on EU imports. Markets were clearly moved by this rousing display of confidence – so much so that the Euro Stoxx 50, the Eurozone’s top blue-chip index, is currently tracing a pattern that closely resembles that of a skydiver who forgot to pack a parachute.

“Europe holds a lot of cards. From trade to technology, to the size of our market. But this strength is also built on our readiness to take firm countermeasures,” von der Leyen said.

Ah yes, the EU’s strength is so formidable that Brussels had to advise citizens to share showers to conserve energy after decisively cutting off Russian fuel – only to later import it discreetly, like a teenager sneaking in past curfew.

Can the average EU citizen expect more of the same kind of ‘firm countermeasures’ their leaders are famous for? Like the one that mandated twist-off bottle caps to be tethered to the bottle so you get hit in the face with every sip in order to spare the earth from being crushed under the weight of rogue caps that managed to escape their fate en route to the recycling depot. Or the kind of countermeasures that attempt to stick it to Russia by trying to regulate the temperature that Europeans should tolerate to reduce energy use. Because nothing says ‘take that, Putin!’ like sweltering during a summer heatwave inside a 27C office.

“Unity is our strength,” Queen Ursula reiterated, throwing down her favorite mantra. Because, apparently, unity is the magical solution to all challenges. And also a euphemism for unquestioningly following the whims of whatever lunacy her reality-detached battalion of bureaucrats concocts.

Read more

The resounding success of this approach must be why there totally isn’t stalled GDP growth, an industrial sector limping along, and a sputtering economy even before these tariffs came into play.

Tag-teaming Trump alongside Ursula was German Economy Minister Robert Habeck, who seems to think the EU is locked in an intense geopolitical arm-wrestling match with the US president, saying that “pressure now needs to be unfolded” against Trump “from Germany, from Europe in alliance with other countries, and then we will see who is the stronger one in this arm wrestle.” He may as well have just whipped it out and slammed it down on the table while he was at it. His arm, I mean.

The hitch? The EU’s economic biceps – especially Germany’s – look more like a middle-aged accountant’s than those of a powerlifter. But sure, flex away. Seems the EU has found itself a new external foe to blame for its economic struggles: America.

They’ve been wringing their hands about Russian influence, worried about China’s rise, and now, surprise! Their latest villain is their self-proclaimed best friend.

So what’s their big flex going to be? Well, French President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge for French and European companies to stop investing in the US. “It is important that future investments, the investments announced over the last few weeks, should be put on hold for some time until we have clarified things with the United States of America,” Macron said. “What message would we send by having major European players investing billions of euros in the American economy at a time when [the US] are hitting us?”

What message indeed? That Europe stands for a totally unfettered market economy, free from government interference, meddling, and control? Yeah, that must be it.

The EU’s major economies were already struggling long before Trump’s tariffs came along, as a result of the bloc’s own actions, egged on not by Trump but by the Biden administration, who they considered their best pals. Germany’s industrial sector is contracting. France is seeing massive layoffs. Germany’s DHL Group, the logistics company, is cutting 8,000 jobs alone. But yeah, let’s definitely have European businesses take advice from the same people who led them into this mess, on how to get out of it. It’s like getting fire safety tips from an arsonist right after he tosses a match at your living room curtains.

Read more

The EU sanctioned itself into this mess with its anti-Russian policies, all while getting a friendly thumbs-up from Washington. And now, Washington under Trump is just dropping the charade and openly prioritizing American interests – except this time, in a way that pulls the rug out from under globalism. So Brussels is left standing in the cold, wondering why Uncle Sam isn’t holding its hand anymore.

Enter Trump’s vice president, with an uplifting pep talk. Actually, it’s less of a pep talk and more of a stern lecture – the kind a coach gives to players whose performance doesn’t match their egos.

“We must admit: the main threat to Europe is not China or Russia. The main threat is its internal problems: migration policy, which destroys the cultural foundation of Europe, economic policy, which reduces competitiveness, security policy,” US Vice President J.D. Vance said in a speech earlier this year at the Munich Security Conference.

To be fair, the EU had been trying very hard not to buy Russian gas, bending over backward to instead become completely dependent on US LNG, reportedly as a sort of peace offering to Trump, in the hope of avoiding tariffs, according to Politico. But apparently, Team Trump took its phone off the hook. So Europe never quite managed to become as reliant as it would have liked on the guy they’re now threatening with economic retaliation.

The EU could feasibly try to put a tax on the services that it buys from the US, which is something that Trump avoided doing – maybe because he knows that the EU and many other countries buy more services from the US than vice versa. By about $70 billion in Washington’s favor in the EU’s case. So just do it, then. What are you waiting for? Let’s get this de-globalization party started already!

The EU used to say it wanted strategic autonomy. Well, congratulations. Mission accomplished, thanks to Trump’s tariffs. Now let’s see if they can handle it without sounding and acting like a teenager who just got kicked out of his parents’ basement and is now threatening to key their car.

Медиа: image / jpeg

By hitting Moscow with never-before-seen economic warfare, the West has helped it thrive

Another Trump-Quake has been shaking the world. In his attempt to, in essence, make America great again by eliminating its trade deficits and re-industrializing it into, in his own words, “ an entirely different country,” US President Donald Trump has launched a global tariff campaign that has shocked the world by being even fiercer than expected.

Its details are convoluted – involving almost scholastic debates on the meaning of the term “reciprocal” as well as bizarre math to calculate the tariffs – and its impact is uneven, but its core is simple: The US is greatly, often massively increasing tariffs on imports from almost every other country in the world. It is thereby disrupting the international economic order as it currently exists, making a harsh contribution to wrenching it from moribund globalization into an emerging age of protectionism and geopolitically redirected trade flows.

In practical terms, if Trump’s policy is implemented as announced, the average duty that importers will have to pay – rising from an estimated 2.5 percent to 25 percent – will be higher than ever before since World War I. Individual examples of massive new additional tariffs include China (34 percent), India (27 percent), and the European Union (20 percent).

All of the above means that Washington has imposed tariffs even higher than during the extremely tense and dismal period between the Great Depression and World War Two. As the chief economist of a major bank has laconically remarked, the 1930s are back. Welcome to your future: it could well be a second-hand nightmare from a very dark past.

The immediate consequences of the great tariff coup have been dramatic: Trump announced his new tariffs on Wednesday, April 2. US “ stocks, oil and the dollar tumbled” immediately, including flagship companies, such as Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Nike. On the whole, US markets took their worst hit since 2020. Literally trillions were wiped out almost faster than you can turn your MAGA cap around.

Read more

Of course, the downturn also spread around the world, reflected by stock markets in Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, and China (though less so there than elsewhere). And this at a time when US macroeconomic data was better than for many other Western countries.

Mainstream politicians, journalists, experts, bankers, and business people have been casting about for words to express their confusion, fear, and frustration: “economic ignorance” and “nonsense” (Washington Post), “ havoc” (The Economist), “ max pessimism” (New York Times). And even if you include the marginalized voices of those siding with Trump, everyone agrees that something momentous has happened, from arch conservative German newspaper Die Welt – a new “economic era” – to anything but conventional Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. A firm believer in a “Trump Revolution” – likely to be badly disappointed – he finds the tariff push “ethically marvelous and morally exceptional.”

None of the above is criticism (although I’d have plenty of that, too, for Trump and his team: for instance, that they are already matching former sort-of-president Joe Biden in corruption and violence by co-perpetrating the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians). But there, Washington is, of course, just part of an even larger failure: As acute observers have noted, the West is now divided over tariffs and united in supporting genocide.

Yet is it really the whole world that’s shaking in the big Trump Tariff Quake? No, not quite, and the exceptions are telling: Russia, as well as Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea. That makes Russia the one and only top league player that the Trumpists have exempted from their tariff attack, even if Moscow is nonetheless monitoring its international impact and preparing to minimize the indirect effects.

The official American reason for this exception is that due to the massive Western sanctions already in place against Moscow, it would be silly to levy fresh tariffs on the itsy-bitsy teeny bit of imports from Russia that is left. In the words of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, the current sanctions already “ preclude any meaningful trade.” Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian presidency, agreed. There simply is no “ tangible” trade to go after at this point.

True enough, makes sense. But only as far as it goes, and that’s not far at all. In reality, there is a much more interesting story here. But to notice it, we must zoom out. Once we do so, the case of Russia becomes extraordinarily instructive.

Read more

Consider that Trump’s new offensive amounts to, in effect, a form of economic warfare, whether one-sided or not. Independent of, that is, whether other countries retaliate – as China has already started doing and as more will soon – or hold still out of fear that any resistance will make America’s aggression even worse, as US treasury secretary Scott Bessent is threatening in true mobster style. The boss has just shattered your kneecap with a carpenter’s hammer and that may feel bad, but don’t make him really angry by trying to fight back, or he’ll put your head in a vice next.

Yet Russia has already faced the single most extensive, obstinate, and ferocious economic warfare attack carried out by states not officially at war in modern history, and not merely from the US but the collective West as a whole.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently told a meeting of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs in an important speech sorely under-reported in Western mainstream media, there are now “ 28,595 sanctions against individuals and legal entities.” That is a number significantly exceeding “all sanctions ever imposed on all other nations combined.” Even a CNN journalist acknowledged in a recent interview with Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s Direct Investment Fund, that the scale of the sanctions deployed against Russia has “no precedent.”

And yet Russia has survived this assault, explicitly aimed at its economic devastation, political disintegration, and geopolitical degradation. Instead of crumbling under the weight of what Putin has acknowledged – with certainly deliberate understatement – as “serious challenges,” Russia has done well in a way that has surprised many international observers and disappointed its enemies in the West.

Indeed, to take only one indicator, in 2024 Russia had one of the most dynamically growing economies in the G20. This outcome was produced by both Russian businesses and the state. The latter has applied a whole set of instruments including capital controls, expanded spending, deliberate import substitution, and policies of reorienting trade. In combination with the effect of the sanctions themselves, their result has been what one analyst has called a “ seismic new shift in global trade flows,” much of it in Russia’s favor.

Moscow’s systematic response to this challenge has played a key role in bringing about this outcome. Take one comparatively small example: a recent conversation between Putin and the head of the Russian Export Center (REC), Veronika Nikishina. The REC is a government agency that promotes Russian non-commodity exports. Consider that it was established in 2015 and that 2014 was the year in which the Ukraine crisis escalated with a Western regime change operation in Kiev, as well as sanctions intended to punish Russia for resisting massive Western overreach.

Read more

It is obvious, then, that the REC is one reflection of a strategic policy choice that some Western observers still underestimate. Moscow’s reaction to the West’s massive and constantly escalating economic-warfare attack has not been to rely solely on finding ways to get its raw materials and commodities to international markets and buyers. Instead, there has been a deliberate emphasis on strengthening non-commodities. Indeed, in 2018, a key presidential decree on national priority targets included the “creation […] of a high-productivity export-oriented sector.” Now, Nikishina is reporting that 85 percent of Russia’s non-commodity exports are flowing to “friendly countries.”

Russia’s resilience was the message that Dmitriev had for CNN’s audience, too. Asked if Moscow is, in essence, asking for a reduction of sanctions in the ongoing normalization talks with the Trump administration, the head of Russia’s foreign direct investment agency said “absolutely not.” Let that sink in. Likewise, the spokesman for the Russian presidency, Dmitry Peskov, is on record stating that the issue of sanctions will not interfere with negotiations with Washington.

It is true that negotiations among adults are complex and confidential processes, and not everything needs to be shared with the public. It is also true that Moscow has an interest in displaying indifference to sanctions, especially because Washington cannot drop the bad habit of occasionally threatening even more of them. Finally, it is very hard to see why Moscow would not welcome a lifting of sanctions if it were to happen on terms it finds acceptable and useful – for Russia, that is.

But the key point is Moscow’s messaging that it cannot be blackmailed, neither by imposing nor by lifting sanctions. During the same speech before the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs mentioned above, Putin sketched Moscow’s current position. And it is anything but naïve, soft, or pliant.

“Sanctions,” Putin reminded his audience of entrepreneurs, “are neither temporary nor targeted measures.” Instead, “they constitute a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Regardless of global developments or shifts in the international order, our competitors will perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities.” In other words: Don’t kid yourself, Western sanctions will not simply go away, even if the Ukraine War ends.

Even worse, they might well keep escalating, because, according to Putin, now “the so-called Western elites […] routinely threaten Russia with new sanctions” and churn out whole new packages of them incessantly.

Read more

Note that Putin issued this warning against exuberant expectations a month after the Russia-US talks in Riyadh, that is well after the process of negotiating a normalization of relationships with Washington had begun in public. Clearly, the Russian leadership sees no reason why better or at least more rational relationships with the US should require pleading for sanctions relief. Indeed, the opposite is true. Moscow is ready to explore and pursue this normalization policy, while remaining resolutely realistic about what to expect with regard to Western economic warfare.

And there you have it. For years before Trump 2.0 started the new tariff crusade that is now frightening everyone, one of the world’s most important countries has proven that even much worse economic warfare can be withstood. It can even become, again in Putin’s words, a “catalyst of positive structural changes” in an “economy, including in the financial [and] technological spheres [as well as] in many other key areas.”

Trump’s newest assault on the world, in other words, is deeply ironic. While the American president strives to, in essence, initiate a policy of rebuilding America’s real – industrial and manufacturing – economy, his rude ruin-thy-neighbor methods are likely to speed up the process in which other countries’ economies learn to detach from the US and to rely more on each other.

Whatever happens inside the US, Trump’s own undercutting of America’s position in the international system of trade, supply chains, and – against his expectations – even investment and finance, will also be a catalyst of a world of both political multipolarity and distinct economic zones, if not blocs. And that, in turn, may well be a necessary stage in burying Western predominance for good.

These are long-term, post-Cold War processes that did not start with Trump. Their root cause is the decline of the US, which he is trying to stop so desperately and crudely, and the rise of other, non-Western powers. Trump’s tariff policy is certain to be bad for what is left of “globalization,” the economic equivalent of the infamous “rules-based order,” that is, of always stacking the deck in favor of Western power and profits. But that is precisely why it may end up favoring the globe, that is, all – or, at least, the vast majority – of humanity.

Медиа: image / jpeg

How Nikolay Gogol invented Russian horror

Nikolay Gogol invented the horror story – or at least Russian horror. This statement might seem bold, but it’s not far from the truth. As we celebrate his birthday this week, it’s fitting to reflect on how his literary legacy shaped the genre in Russia.

The first work that inevitably springs to mind is Gogol’s “Viy,” along with its chilling Soviet adaptation. Let’s set aside the questionable quality of the modern remake; I vividly remember a school tour to Mosfilm studios, where merely glimpsing the sets from the original film gave me goosebumps. But “Viy” is not only about witches, devils, or other folkloric creatures. Indeed, much of horror literature draws from such themes – from Hoffmann’s unsettling tales of monsters and demons to the contemporary, predictable vampire stories. Folklore, after all, prepares us to confront death and the afterlife.

Yet Gogol dives deeper. In “Viy,” he taps into the dark, archaic mythology lurking beneath folklore’s surface. The monstrous Viy and his demonic entourage represent the primal, chthonic forces of the underworld, relentlessly pursuing the hapless Homa Brutus with purpose.

The power of Gogol’s horror lies at the intersection of mythology, philosophy, and society. It’s more than mere fright – it’s a story with profound hidden meanings. His philosophy suggests two ways to comprehend reality without words: laughter, as with Democritus, or tears, as with Heraclitus.

Thus, Gogol’s mysticism and absurdity, as seen in works like “The Nose,” seek to understand Russian reality through hysterical laughter and terrified tears that border on madness.

The boundaries between reality and the supernatural blur continuously in Gogol’s work. Ghosts inhabit “The Overcoat,” living portraits appear in “The Portrait,” and even the absurd comedy “The Government Inspector” ends with an eerie, silent revelation. All these tales merge into what contemporary critics label “Russian chthon” – a uniquely Russian manifestation of horror and the uncanny.

Before Gogol, despite attempts by writers like Bestuzhev-Marlinsky and Orest Somov, this distinctive form didn’t fully exist in Russian literature.

The brilliance of Gogol’s supernatural elements is that they never reduce neatly into mere metaphors for morality or social issues. Stephen King’s horror, for example, isn’t metaphorical either. His creatures – possessed characters, creepy clowns – are disturbingly real within their fictional universe, reflecting societal dysfunction only when directly confronted.

Similarly, Gogol’s famously absurd “Nose” isn’t simply a symbolic figure. Rather, the bizarre tale of a nose living independently of its owner spotlights the absurdity and complexity of bureaucratic life in imperial Russia.

Read more

True horror emerges when reality and the impossible fuse indistinguishably. A trivial yet scandalous act – like offensive graffiti appearing on a pristine city wall – can terrify civic officials but also prompt serious reflection. Gogol’s “A Terrible Vengeance” is perhaps his most unsettling work, not merely due to witchcraft, but because of its seamless integration with everyday Russian reality.

The story confronts readers with the stark realities of mortality and morality, forcing them to ask challenging, eternal questions: What constitutes duty? Is revenge justified? When do traditional relationships between generations break down irretrievably?

Almost all contemporary Russian horror literature follows Gogol’s blueprint. Yet, despite my profound admiration, claiming he invented horror outright may be too flattering.

Gogol expertly harnessed the narrative techniques of fairy tales and myths, where supernatural elements were never mere metaphors but essential to illuminating deeper truths. His stories compel readers to see reality through tears or laughter – not purely from social or ethical perspectives, but profoundly sacred ones.

Consider the eerie folklore tale of the brother who breaks a taboo and becomes a monster with sharpened stakes instead of legs. Gogol embraces a similar narrative rhythm, adapted to his unique context: a hero breaks a social or ethical taboo – often subtly or offstage – and unleashes a nightmare.

Fittingly, Gogol himself has now entered the pantheon of horror as a character in contemporary films bearing his name, underscoring his lasting influence. Perhaps he did not single-handedly invent the genre, but his fusion of the supernatural with harsh Russian realities undoubtedly created something uniquely powerful, which still reverberates today.

Russian horror, thanks to Gogol, persists as a literary force precisely because it confronts the unknown and unknowable, grounding it in the stark, often absurd realities of everyday life. In this sense, he didn’t merely craft terrifying tales; he gave Russia a distinctive lens through which to perceive the world – one filled equally with horror, absurdity, and profound philosophical inquiry.

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team

Медиа: image / jpeg

Nations of the group make a significant contribution to crucial sectors of the world economy, and this also increases the group’s political role

BRICS+ collectively represents nearly half of the world’s population and is set to overtake the G7 in terms of global GDP share by 2028. The figures underscore the critical role of BRICS in the international arena, showcasing its influence over essential sectors like agriculture, energy, manufacturing, and the extraction of minerals.

At the Kazan summit in October 2024, BRICS+ leaders invited 13 more countries to join as partners. The new BRICS partner states which accepted the invitation are Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Nigeria, Algeria, and Uzbekistan. On January 6, 2025, Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populus country, joined BRICS as a full member, making it the first Southeast Asian state to join the bloc, as well as the tenth member of BRICS.

Read more

BRICS member states’ combined GDP accounts for more than 41% of global GDP. India is 8% of world GDP, Russia over 3.5%, Brazil over 2.4%, and Indonesia 2.4%, while China’s economy accounts for approximately 19.5% of the world’s GDP.

Gross Domestic Product is a measurement of the value of all of the goods and services produced in a country in one year. However, if you look at the composition of the GDP in the US, the actual production of tangible products that people need for their lives is just around 10% of its GDP.

Around 21% of the US GDP comes from the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, and real estate). Higher fees from banks and brokers boost GDP. Professional and business services, including white-collar jobs like lawyers and managers, also contribute. Healthcare represents 18% of GDP, but the US has poor public healthcare outcomes despite spending twice as much as other advanced economies (their healthcare spending ranges from 9.6% to 12.4%), including those among the BRICS+ nations. Additionally, 8% of US GDP comes from imputed rents for owner-occupied housing, which is a theoretical figure rather than actual income.

BRICS+ countries account for nearly half of global GDP in areas like food production, energy manufacturing, and public health, when measured by Parity Purchasing Power (PPP). GDP reflects value of all the goods and services produced by countries in global terms, while GDP by PPP focuses on what money can actually buy in each country.

Global food production

BRICS+ has become a key player in global food production. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are major contributors to primary crops like sugar, corn, rice, wheat, palm oil, and potatoes. These countries produce nearly 90% of the world’s palm oil and substantial amounts of soybean and canola oil.

In the meat sector, Brazil and China lead in the production of chicken, pork, and beef, with China also being the largest producer of hen eggs. Additionally, China, India, and Indonesia account for over 70% of global aquaculture production. This agricultural capacity positions BRICS+ as crucial players in the global food supply chain.

BRICS+ not only addresses food production but also helps stabilize global food security challenges. By promoting sustainable agricultural practices, BRICS+ solidifies its role as the “Bread Basket of the World”.

Energy

BRICS+ nations are major players in energy production, with half of the top oil producers being BRICS+ members. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global energy demand is projected to increase by 30% between 2016 and 2040. This surge is comparable to adding the combined current energy consumption of another China and another India to the existing global demand.

Read more

With the addition of the UAE, Iran, and, potentially, Saudi Arabia the expanded BRICS+ group would include three of the world’s largest oil exporters and would constitute 42% of the global oil supply. Oil market management will remain the purview of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allied producers (OPEC+).

But over the long term, an expanded BRICS+ grouping could be significant for energy markets. For years, OPEC+ states have complained that Western energy sanctions on Iran and Venezuela have constrained investment and export flows. More recently, the EU embargoes on Russian seaborne crude oil and petroleum products and the EU-G7 price caps have created a new sanctions mechanism that is politically weaponized, and targets a country’s revenues rather than export volumes.

An enlarged BRICS+ would include both oil and gas exporters and two of the largest importers, China and India. Producers and consumers in this group have a shared interest in creating mechanisms to trade commodities outside the reach of the G7 financial sector, and this is not a small task.

In the atomic energy sector, Russia’s Rosatom is a leading player. For example, India’s Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, which has been under construction with Russian assistance, features six VVER-1000 reactors that have a total capacity of 6,000 MW. Units 1 and 2 were commissioned in 2013 and 2016, respectively, and Rosatom is currently exploring the addition of six more high-capacity units in India.

In China, four VVER-1000 reactors are operational at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, with four more under construction that utilize advanced VVER-1200 reactor technology. These new units are expected to be completed by 2028. These developments underscore the ongoing collaboration between China and Russia in advancing nuclear energy infrastructure.

Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is also expanding with two new VVER-1000 units expected to be commissioned in 2025 and 2027 under the agreement with Russia.

Rosatom is Involved in constructing nuclear power plants globally, including, among others, Egypt’s El-Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, which will feature four VVER-1200 units, slated for completion by 2029.

Read more

Additionally, Rosatom is pursuing projects in Hungary, Brazil, Bangladesh, Türkiye, and Nigeria.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing capabilities of BRICS+ are strengthened by investments in technology and infrastructure, enhancing productivity across various sectors like automotive, electronics, textiles, and pharmaceuticals.

Integrating digital technologies such as automation, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things (IoT) into manufacturing processes within these countries is revolutionizing traditional production methods, enabling them to compete more effectively on a global scale.

China’s revolutionary flash ironmaking process improves efficiency and reduces costs, disrupting global iron ore and steel markets. This technology challenges misconceptions about China’s innovative capabilities and aims to lessen reliance on imported iron ore, marking a significant shift in the industry.

Chinese researchers have dedicated substantial resources to this development, which could alleviate pressure on electric grids. As the world’s largest steel producer and exporter, China’s advancements enhance its position in the global steel market, raising concerns for domestic industries in the US and Europe. Additionally, China’s lower labor and energy costs further establish its dominance in iron and steel production.

Mineral extraction

The BRICS+ countries also play a significant role in the global production of critical minerals. Their contributions to the iron ore, copper, and nickel markets are substantial. In particular, the BRICS+ countries are leading producers of iron ore, with Brazil and India taking the lead. Moreover, the BRICS+ nations collectively hold a strong position in global copper production (where Chile and Peru are key contributors).

Read more

Russia and Indonesia are prominent in nickel production, a metal that is crucial for battery manufacturing and stainless-steel production. This highlights the strategic importance of these countries within the BRICS+ framework, especially as global interest in renewable energy solutions and electric vehicles grows.

China not only leads in the production of rare earth metals but also plays a crucial role in the global supply chain for microprocessors. This dominance allows China to wield considerable influence over various high-tech industries worldwide.

The collaboration among BRICS+ nations in metallic ore production ensures a stable supply of critical materials and fosters advancements in technology and sustainable practices within the mining sector. Overall, the BRICS+ alliance emerges as a powerhouse in the production of metallic ores, driving innovation and shaping the future of global resource management while responding to the evolving demands of a rapidly changing world economy.

The contribution of BRICS+ in the global economy is constantly growing, and furthermore, the sectors where the alliance holds strong positions are all crucial, from agriculture and food production to energy. This creates a solid foundation for a steady growth of the political role of the group while also deepening ties among its members and partner states.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The case of the National Rally leader and presidential favorite, conveniently taken off future ballots, is part of a long pattern

Earlier this week, the anti-establishment French political leader whom all polls suggest would easily win the presidency, if the vote were held tomorrow, was barred from running for office for five years. How convenient.

Right-wing National Rally leader Marine Le Pen has been found guilty in a Paris court of embezzling European Union funds. Accused of enabling a system whereby aides hired to serve in Brussels ended up doing work for the party, she was also fined an sentenced to two years of home detention under electronic monitoring. The allegations against Le Pen, dating back to at least 2014, were so old that they could have qualified for a French pension. But now the verdict conveniently takes her out of the 2027 election cycle.

If you were looking for a foolproof way to supercharge support for Le Pen’s party, congratulations, French judiciary – you nailed it. There’s no better way to fire up a political movement than to turn its leader into a martyr of a state that looks to be meddling with citizens’ democratic options. Just ask Romania’s Câlin Georgescu, who was on his way to victory before getting politically kneecapped by the system: arrested, accused of foreign funding, then ultimately just dismissed for a paperwork technicality.

And what happened next? His replacement, George Simion, is now surging in the polls. Who could’ve seen that coming? (Spoiler: Everyone.)

Disqualifying candidates for crimes like corruption, fraud, and electoral violations wasn’t automatic in France – until Emmanuel Macron’s party conveniently made it so in 2017. Timing is everything: that law landed roughly three years after Brussels put Le Pen in its investigative crosshairs. Surely just a coincidence.

Read more

The law’s biggest cheerleader? Macron ally and centrist leader, François Bayrou, who championed it – right up until he found himself accused of the exact same EU cash-grab scheme as Le Pen. Awkward. He lasted a whole month as Macron’s justice minister before getting booted. But don’t worry, he bounced back. Acquitted last year, he was later handpicked as Macron’s prime minister, despite not running for anything. You know who actually won that election? Le Pen’s party got the most votes, and the anti-establishment left won the most seats – neither of which entitles you to actually govern France anymore, apparently. Meanwhile, leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon is also under investigation for – you guessed it – precisely the same kind of disqualifying offense involving EU funding as Le Pen.

It’s no wonder Trump looks at this mess and sees himself in Le Pen’s situation. “She was banned for five years and she was the leading candidate,” Trump said. “That sounds like this country.” If Trump had been French, and convicted on some of his own election-related charges, like those in Georgia, he wouldn’t have been able to run for president, either. Hopefully the fashion capital of the world won’t set a trend with this one. Sure, convict someone. But let the people decide if the convict is still a better electoral option. Democracy means letting people choose – even if their top pick needs a parole officer instead of a campaign manager.

There’s a distinct pattern here: every time a candidate starts looking like a real threat to the establishment, the legal system suddenly finds a reason to hit the brakes. It’s almost as if France has an unofficial “Incumbent Protection Act”.

Remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Back in 2011, as IMF head, he was basically measuring the drapes at the Élysée Palace for his imminent move in. Then – bam! – a New York hotel maid accused him of sexual assault. Career over. And just to make sure, French authorities later charged him with pimping. Yes, pimping. He was acquitted, but good luck running for office when “IMF President” and “Accused Pimp” are both on your CV.

Read more

Jump to 2017: François Fillon, a former prime minister, was leading the race to replace then president François Hollande. Then, right on cue, an investigative paper got a tip that he was allegedly paying his wife and kids to hold fake parliamentary aide jobs. His campaign imploded, and suddenly, here comes a relatively unknown political wonderboy named Emmanuel Macron to win it all. What luck!

Even the much-beloved former President Jacques Chirac couldn’t dodge the pattern. He was convicted in 2011 for a fake jobs embezzlement scheme dating back to his Paris mayoral days from 1977 to 1995. The only reason they didn’t nail him sooner? He had presidential immunity until 2007. They waited him out like a debt collector until his longtime nemesis, Nicolas Sarkozy, took office. To illustrate the contrast of worldview between the two presidents, Chirac kept France out of Uncle Sam’s regime-change-mobile in Iraq, and Sarkozy invaded Libya and was single-handedly responsible for reintegrating France back into NATO command after President Charles De Gaulle refused to do so in the interests of national sovereignty. By the time Chirac was actually convicted, he was no longer any kind of electoral threat to Sarkozy’s team, since he was denying Alzheimer’s rumors by that point more often than political wrongdoing.

Le Pen’s conviction has sparked immediate reactions from her political allies. Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán tweeted, “Je suis Marine,” in a nod to the “Je Suis Charlie” slogan that emerged after jihadists shot up the Parisian newsroom of the “Charlie Hebdo” satirical magazine. Dutch right-winger Geert Wilders called the sentence “incredibly harsh” and predicted that she’d win on appeal and win the French presidency. If she actually wins on appeal. And if that happens before 2027. And if the French legal system doesn’t suddenly “discover” another obstacle, with the EU’s help, as is often the case. Because if history tells us anything, it’s that French elections aren’t just won or lost at the ballot box – they’re also decided in courtrooms. And somehow, the ruling party never seems to be the one on trial.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The New York Times ‘expose’ on the US-Ukraine partnership contains no surprises, but the underlying revelation is stunning

Under the title ‘ The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine’, the New York Times published a long exposé that has made a splash. It is a long article advertised – with a lumbering clunkiness that betrays cramping politics – as the “untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia’s invading armies.”

And it clearly aspires to be sensational: A revelation with a whiff of the famous Pentagon Papers that, when leaked to the same New York Times and the Washington Post in 1971, revealed what a mass-murderous fiasco America’s Vietnam War really was.

Yet, in reality, this time the New York Times is offering something less impressive by magnitudes. And the issue is not that the Pentagon Papers were longer. What really makes ‘The Partnership’ so underwhelming are two features: It is embarrassingly conformist, reading like a long exercise in rooting for the home team, the US, by access journalism: Based on hundreds of interviews with movers and shakers, this is really the kind of ‘investigation’ that boils down to giving everyone interviewed a platform for justifying themselves as good as they can and as much as they like.

With important exceptions. For the key strategy of exculpation is simple. Once you see through the rather silly group-therapy jargon of a tragic erosion of ‘trust’ and sad misunderstandings, it is the Ukrainians that get the blame for the US not winning its war against Russia, in their country and over their dead bodies.

Because one fundamental conceit of ‘The Partnership’ is that the war could have been won by the West, through Ukraine. What seems to never even have entered the author’s mind is the simple fact that this was always an absurd undertaking. Accordingly, the other thing that hardly makes it onto his radar screen is the crucial importance of Russia’s political and military actions and reactions.

Read more

This, hence, is an article that, in effect, explains losing a war against Russia without ever noticing that this may have happened because the Russians were winning it. In that sense, it stands in a long tradition: Regarding Napoleon’s failed campaign of 1812 and Hitler’s crash between 1941 and 1945, all too many contemporary and later Western observers have made the same mistake: For them it’s always the weather, the roads (or their absence), the timing, and the mistakes of Russia’s opponents. Yet it’s never – the Russians. This reflects old, persistent, and massive prejudices about Russia that the West cannot let go of. And, in the end, it is always the West which ends up suffering from them the most.

In the case of the Ukraine conflict, the main scapegoats, in the version of ‘The Partnership’, are now Vladimir Zelensky and his protégé and commander-in-chief General Aleksandr Syrsky, but there is room for devastating side swipes at Syrsky’s old rival Valery Zaluzhny and a few lesser lights as well.

Perhaps the only Ukrainian officer who looks consistently good in ‘The Partnership’ is Mikhail Zabrodsky, that is, the one – surprise, surprise – who worked most closely with the Americans and even had a knack of flatteringly imitating their Civil War maneuvers. Another, less prominent recipient of condescending praise is General Yury Sodol. He is singled out as an “eager consumer” of American advice who, of course, ends up succeeding where less compliant pupils fail.

Zabrodsky and Sodol may very well be decent officers who do not deserve this offensively patronizing praise. Zelensky, Syrsky, and Zaluzhny certainly deserve plenty of very harsh criticism. Indeed, they deserve being tried. But constructing a stab-in-the-back legend around them, in which Ukrainians get blamed the most for making the US lose a war that the West provoked is perverse. As perverse as the latest attempts by Washington to turn Ukraine into a raw materials colony, as a reward for being such an obedient proxy.

With all its fundamental flaws, there are intriguing details in ‘The Partnership’. They include, for instance, a European intelligence chief openly acknowledging – as early as spring 2022 – that NATO officers had become “part of the kill chain,” that is, of killing Russians who they were not, actually, officially at war with.

Or that, contrary to what some believe, Westerners did not overestimate but underestimate Russian abilities from the beginning of the war: In the spring of 2022, Russia rapidly surged “additional forces east and south” in less than three weeks, while American officers had assumed they would need months. In a similar spirit of blinding arrogance, General Christopher Cavoli – in essence, Washington’s military viceroy in Europe and a key figure in boosting the war against Russia – felt that Ukrainian troops did not have to be as good as the British and Americans, just better than Russians. Those daft, self-damaging prejudices again.

Read more

The New York Times’s “untold story” is also extremely predictable. Despite all the detail, nothing in ‘The Partnership’ is surprising, at least nothing important. What this sensationally unsensational investigation really does is confirm what everyone not fully sedated by Western information warfare already knew: In the Ukraine conflict, Russia has not merely – if that is the word – been fighting Ukraine supported by the West but Ukraine and the West.

Some may think the above is a distinction that doesn’t make a difference. But that would be a mistake. Indeed, it’s the kind of distinction that can make a to-be-or-not-to-be difference, even on a planetary scale.

That’s because Moscow fighting Ukraine, while the latter is receiving Western support, means Russia having to overcome a Western attempt to defeat it by proxy war. But fighting Ukraine and the West means Russia has been at war with an international coalition, whose members have all attacked it directly. And the logical and legitimate response to that would have been to attack them all in return. That scenario would have been called World War III.

‘The Partnership’ shows in detail that the West did not merely support Ukraine indirectly. Instead, again and again, it helped not only with intelligence Ukraine could not have gathered on its own but with direct involvement in not only supplying arms but planning campaigns and firing weapons that produced massive Russian casualties. Again, Moscow has said this was the case for a long time. And Moscow was right.

This is why, by the way, the British Telegraph has gotten one thing very wrong in its coverage of ‘The Partnership’: The details of American involvement now revealed are not, actually, “ likely to anger the Kremlin.” At least, they are not going to make it angrier than before, because Russia is certain to have long known about just how much the US and others – first of all Britain, France, Poland, and the Baltics – have contributed, directly and hands-on, to killing Russians.

Read more

Indeed, if there is one important takeaway from the New York Times’ proud exposé of the extremely unsurprising, it is that the term ‘proxy war’ is both fundamentally correct and insufficient. On the one hand, it perfectly fits the relationship between Ukraine and its Western ‘supporters’: The Zelensky regime has sold the country as a whole and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives to the West. The West has used them to wage war on Russia in pursuit of one overarching geopolitical aim of its own: To inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia – that is, a permanent demotion to second-rate, de facto non-sovereign status.

The above is not news, except perhaps for the many brainwashed by Western information warriors from historian-turned-war-apostle Tim Snyder to lowlier X agitators with Ukrainian flags and sunflowers in their profiles.

What is also less than stunning but a little more interesting is that, on the other side, the term proxy war is still misleadingly benign. The key criterion for a war being by proxy – and not its opposite, which is, of course, direct – is, after all, that major powers using proxies limit themselves to indirect support. It is true that in theory and historical practice that does not entirely rule out adding some limited direct action as well.

And yet, in the case of the Ukraine conflict, the US and other Western nations – and don’t overlook the fact that ‘The Partnership’ hardly addresses all the black ops also conducted by them and their mercenaries – have clearly, blatantly gone beyond proxy war. In reality, the West has been waging war on Russia for years now.

That means that two things are true: The West almost started World War III. And the reason it has not – not yet, at least – is Moscow’s unusual restraint, which, believe it or not, has actually saved the world.

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the US fighting Canada and Mexico (and maybe Greenland) and learning that Russian officers are crucial in firing devastating mass-casualty strikes at its troops. What do you think would happen? Exactly. And that it has not happened during the Ukraine War is due to Moscow being the adult in the room. This should make you think.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The American vassals’ nominal show of defiance against the US president’s land-grab plan is pathetic

In Frank Herbert’s novel ‘Dune’ – with its blood-soaked canvas of a whole universe of rules-based empire, incessant lying, enthusiastic mass murder, and some very critical raw materials – there’s a famous scene featuring a box.

Herbert – as most bros reading him for life hacks fail to understand – loved irony of the savage type. That’s why the box reveals the truth about you by lying to you: Put your hand in it and you will feel it burning so hot (though it isn’t, not really) that you will scream and shrink away (and, if you are a man, you will be murdered, for your pains as it were, by a very harsh nun-witch headmistress). Because you have been found out to be merely human, which the nun-witch headmistress thinks makes you an animal. It’s complicated.

Or you happen to be a deeply flawed ‘ubermensch’ produced by thousands of years of obsessively controlled human breeding experiments plus – very Herbert that, again – some last-minute coupling mutiny.

In that case, you won’t flinch, the headmistress will let you live (though not your father), and you will move on to become a charismatic, vaguely Islamic-looking rebel leader destroying the space equivalents of a perverse, sadistic Zionist death cult (called Harkonnen) and of the American empire, too (here led by the kind of wily, ruthless emperor US President Donald Trump really would love to be, if with a dash of glitzy real estate tycoon, of course). After that happy ending, however, things will get a little out of hand.

Read more

But this is where we leave the Herbert-verse and return to our own small, single-planet but no less blood-soaked world. There, a truth box has materialized – a little like that mysterious obelisk among that tribe of screaming, fighting prehistoric hominins in Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (my last science fiction analogy for today, I promise). And it’s called Greenland.

For in the unfortunately real world, whoever nowadays goes to Greenland, touches Greenland, or even talks about Greenland, starts revealing the truth about themselves. And, spoiler alert, it’s never pretty.

Let’s look at the self-revealers in turn. First, as is only right for our little planet’s empire, there is the US. It has revealed with almost laudable frankness what attentive observers have long known. Washington respects neither international law nor even the fuzzy would-be norms of that amorphous rules-based international (dis)order that has, literally, no rule book. Common decency, diplomatic forms, or elementary ethics – forget about those as well, obviously.

Under Trump 2.0, who sees Greenland as a really nice piece of property and a geopolitical linchpin as well, the US has escalated an obsession with acquiring the island. Never mind it already belongs to another country that happens to be a very obedient US vassal, Denmark. ‘Escalated’ because it’s an old – if often dormant – project going back to the 19th century, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has just noted in a speech at the International Arctic Forum.

Denmark, you may well say, should not be owning Greenland anyhow, in any shape or form, ‘self-government act’ home rule or not. The overwhelming majority of Greenland’s very small population – about 55,000 or 0.00068 percent of humanity – are Greenlandic Inuit, who have nothing in common with Danes ethnically and have had plenty of bad experiences with them, too. Greenland still being attached to Denmark is simply a late outcome of European colonialism. As such, this status quo is overdue for a swift, unsentimental end.

Read more

But none of the above means that the Greenlanders should end up under the control of the United States. For one thing, historically speaking, America is one of the worst outcomes of that same European colonialism, with the difference that in the US case, the ethnic cleansing and great white replacement of the indigenous inhabitants was almost total.

In more contemporary terms, there simply is no reason why Greenlanders should not be genuinely independent – as far as that is possible in the real world – with a state they fully own and the international political, commercial, and security relationships that would result from a combination of their own decisions and the necessities resulting from their place on the map.

In other words, simply due to proximity, the US is likely to play a large role in Greenland’s future anyhow. Its current ham-fisted, carelessly brutal approach, however, reveals more than its usual overbearing meddling. Even if also motivated by grandstanding for a domestic audience, silly, provocative performances such as Vice President J.D. Vance’s visit show that Washington has entered a phase of immature I-must-have-it-all-and-I-must-have-it-right-now imperialism.

The other thing this reveals is that the new, no-frills exercise of brute American power is openly contemptuous of Washington’s European vassals. No surprise there, you may well say, but still, let’s note that America’s new rulers are going out of their way to show just how little they respect the European underlings. And to be fair, isn’t this deserved?

Read more

Because here is what the Greenland truth box is telling us about the Europeans: Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, has found “ drastic” words, so we are informed, for Vance. For Vance’s “tone,” to be precise. Way to start! That’ll teach the ugly American! Do not focus on the substance of what he is threatening you with but on his tone. Really? Tony Soprano walks into your cod liver and whale meat restaurant making a change-of-ownership offer you can’t refuse, and your response is to ask him to say it more nicely?

Anyhow, Rasmussen believes that Vance’s – that is, Washington’s – tone “is not how you speak to close allies.” Oh my God! He is sooo close! Will he ever realize that this is precisely the issue: Denmark is not a “close ally.” It’s not even an ally. The most polite label with any connection to reality would be ‘client’. The most truthful – ‘vassal’.

That’s an exaggeration? A bit harsh in, you know, tone? Not at all. How do we know that? Two words: Nord Stream. Remember that pipeline that the US blew up – who cares whether on its own or with or through other steadfast allies, the Ukrainians, for instance – in a (barely) covert military attack and the largest act of ecoterrorism in European history? And that Washington is now thinking about acquiring and repairing to add some more injury to an already richly packed insult-injury sandwich?

Read more

Because of Nord Stream’s location in the Baltic Sea, Denmark was also directly affected. And like all other Europeans, it just rolled over and showed its belly. Its “investigation” (yes, scare quotes) “found” (ditto) that while the explosions were sabotage, there were not enough grounds to go after anyone. In other words, there were plenty, but going after the US and its Ukrainian or other accomplices was too scary. So much for Danes getting tough. Or Western Europeans as a whole.

At the time, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the Danish cop-out “ close to absurdity.” True, if mildly put. But the absurdity wasn’t the worst part. That was the deliberate abdication of any remaining shred of practical sovereignty and therefore of any hope for respect from other states.

And disrespect has consequences. For this is the most fundamental revelation of the Greenland truth box: In the deeply Hobbesian world of states, cowards damage themselves the most. That is why the Greenlanders are right to tell the US to get lost. The way things are, they may not prevail against the biggest bully in the known universe, and they would be wise to settle for what they can if they must. But one thing we know for sure – they won’t get anything from just rolling over European-style. There, too, it’s time for Europe’s colonial legacy to disappear.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Peacekeepers are now a “reassurance force”, rearming is now “readiness”, and citizens should stock up on emergency supplies

I guess calling Ursula von der Leyen’s €800 billion defence spending plan, “ReArm Europe,” as she did initially, didn’t test well – probably because Europeans are too busy wondering why there’s no money for literally anything else that isn’t a weapons buying bonanza.

So, what’s with this new name, Readiness 2030, that they’ve suddenly started using as a replacement term? And why 2030?

Turns out that’s the magic number that European intelligence agencies, notably Germany’s, have cooked up for when Russia will supposedly be all set to roll into Europe. You know, the same intelligence outfits that just now decided that the EU is a sitting duck and could really use desperate measures now that its economy is circling the drain. Like, for example, the new proposal for French citizens to invest their personal savings of a minimum €500 euros, for at least 5 years, to help mitigate the dwindling public support for military over social spending, as the French economy minister just announced.

That 2030 date definitely has nothing to do with the fact that politicians need a solid five years of blank checks from taxpayers to funnel cash into the defense industry, conveniently boosting GDP after tanking their own economies with their self-inflicted crises.

To really hammer home the “readiness” vibe while European leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron riff nonstop about war with Russia, the EU is now mass-marketing a self-assembled emergency kit to all member state citizens.

Read more

“Today, the EU launches its new #Preparedness Strategy. ‘Ready for anything’ — this must be our new European way of life. Our motto and #hashtag,” wrote EU Crisis Management commissioner Hadja Lahbib on social media. She also posted a video that she called a “what’s in my bag — survival edition” and started pulling out of her purse things like a Swiss Army Knife, something that looked like a can of tuna, playing cards “for distraction”, and a radio. “Everything you need to survive the first 72 hours of a crisis,” she said.

After that? Well, maybe the Russian soldiers who have invaded Europe will have just gotten their fill of selfies with the locals (courtesy of the go bag’s backup phone charger) – #TanksForTheMemories – and their travel chess set matches – and will be on their way. Because it’s not like the EU is going to get anything under control in 72 hours. As if that was the point anyway.

Oh, and Queen Ursula’s EU Commission isn’t stopping at just one dumb rebrand. The bloc is also giving a fresh coat of paint to what was once known as “fiscal responsibility.” EU rules used to cap member states’ deficits at 3% of GDP – now, that little restriction is being rebranded as a “National Escape Clause”. As in, congratulations! You’re finally free from the oppressive burden of not bankrupting your country.

Not long ago, a stunt like yanking off national debt brakes would have just gotten member states a spanking from her. Now? It’s “spend whatever you want – as long as it’s on weapons.”

And let’s talk about the official name for this giant spending spree: SAFE – as in, “Security Action For Europe.” Because nothing screams “SAFE” like blowing your savings together, like a group of teenagers maxing out their credit cards at the mall. Except instead of Sephora lip gloss or Louis Vuitton bags, it’s missiles and drones. And speaking of drones – all this rebranding of the defense spending spree was sparked by objections from some folks like Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, who was like, hey, we should at least pretend this is about dual use – you know, the drones we’re cranking out for Putin’s completely hypothetical invasion could also fight wildfires.

Italy’s Prime Minister Georgia Meloni also brought up the fact that if this is all supposed to be about security, then why is the focus on just making weapons and not also on improving essential service that are also kind of important if this is really about an emergency. Well, because that won’t make defense shares go up, will it, silly?

Read more

These latest attempts to sprinkle glitter on a raging dumpster fire are right on schedule. Europe isn’t getting “ready”; citizens are just getting robbed. Again. At this point, you have to wonder how long it’ll be until someone rebrands inflation as “Freedom Pricing.” They almost have already, arguing that sacrifices are needed in the European way of life to really own Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Oh wait, here we go again! Already! Barely a few days later, yet another rebranding has emerged!

A “reassurance force” is what French President Emmanuel Macron is now calling potential European boots stomping into Ukraine after Thursday’s big gathering of Ukraine-allied Western nations in Paris. Before that, he was pitching British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s “coalition of the willing” cerebral faceplant, because, hey, if it worked out so well for Iraq 20 years ago, why not give it another spin?

And before that, Macron floated the idea of “peacekeepers,” which didn’t exactly land because, well, that was just NATO troops in Ukraine with a fancy new label – and Russia wasn’t buying it.

But will Moscow notice that the “reassurance force” isn’t there to offer Ukraine emotional support and free therapy sessions, despite how the name sounds? Seems that all the ginning up for war that’s been going on here in Europe to wash every euro they can into the defense industry hasn’t escaped Moscow’s attention. “The leadership of the European Union has adopted the propaganda techniques of the Third Reich to intimidate the European man in the street with the Russian ‘threat.’,” noted Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. ”The Directorate General of the European Commission for Public Relations has drawn up a plan for a centralized campaign to introduce stable Russophobic narratives into the public consciousness.”

Well, that certainly would account for the frantic spinning.

Just last month, Macron insisted that the fighting in Ukraine had to stop before so-called European peacekeepers could roll in. Now? He’s apparently totally fine with the fact that there’s still zero peace to keep before forging ahead. He just won’t call them peacekeepers. There, all fixed!

“The reassurance forces is a Franco-British proposal. It is not universally agreed upon today, but we do not need unanimity to do this,” Macron said. “The two defence chiefs, British and French, will set up a team to work with Ukrainians, who will tell us exactly what their needs are.”

Read more

Macron’s partner in strategic brilliance, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, also doesn’t seem too fussed that the US hasn’t exactly rushed to offer air cover for these troops – something he himself said, just weeks ago, would be a deal-breaker for British troop presence in Ukraine.

But Macron now says that he “wishes” the US would be involved. “I wish the US were engaged alongside us and provided meaningful support. It would be good for Europe, good for NATO, good for all of us,” he said. “But we must prepare for a situation where perhaps they might not join us and that we would be required to act entirely alone. It’s an exit from geopolitical minority status. It’s a good thing for Europe.”

He sounds like a guy sending a dramatic “I’m about to do something crazy” text to an ex, hoping they rush over to hold their hand. But unfortunately for him, Washington is busy trying to negotiate peace. Also, some members of Trump’s cabinet, including the Vice-President and Defense Secretary, just basically called Western Europe a bunch of pathetic freeloaders in a leaked chat on the Signal app. So good luck with that.

Steven Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy for the Russia talks, made it clear in a recent interview with journalist Tucker Carlson that Washington isn’t interested in babysitting European troops while they run military obstacle courses with their Ukrainian counterparts in an active war zone. America is quite clearly focused on a peace deal that would make this whole circus unnecessary.

But hold up! it’s not like French and British troops are strapping on their helmets and marching into battle tomorrow. No, they’re just heading over for a fact-finding mission – you know, to figure out what it might look like if the rest of the EU ever decides to join them. Which is totally happening any minute now. That’s why France and Britain are the only ones even talking about these troops.

But don’t worry – Macron swears all of the EU will jump in once peace magically breaks out. Because nothing prevents war like sending troops into an ongoing conflict zone. Don’t think that’s exactly what this would be? Ask Zelensky, who keeps insisting that what Ukraine really needs is soldiers who can actually fight, not a bunch of peacekeepers, which he makes sound like glorified hall monitors.

So again, the latest buzzword is “reassurance force”. Try to keep up, as there will probably be even more whitewashing coming down the pipe again shortly.

Macron’s out here naming military plans like they’re self-care retreats. Next up from Camp Reassurance: the ‘mindfulness missile strike’ and the ‘holistic artillery barrage.’ Only the optics-obsessed, directionally-challenged EU would try giving war a glow-up at a time at a time when peace has never seemed closer.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Donald Trump’s team has revealed a lot more than just the Yemen attack during the chat with the accidentally invited Atlantic journalist

There’s a scandal exciting American mainstream media and minds, and it has to do with bombing. Yet there is an important nuance: it is not the bombing itself that is so scandalizing.

What is troubling many Americans is neither what Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin has rightly called the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians with US bombs and support nor the renewed American air campaign against Yemen. Bombing large numbers of essentially defenseless brown people – men, women, and children – into bloody, dusty pulp, has long been a bipartisan tradition of the Indispensable Nation, especially if most of them are Muslims.

What Americans do find irritating is when their leaders spill the beans too early. And have they been spilling! In a cluster-fiasco reminiscent of those loose-lipped German generals caught out last year while prattling about launching their Taurus missiles at Russia via Ukraine, a whole gaggle of Washington top officials have made fools of themselves by a ridiculously feckless breach of elementary security.

In the run-up to the recently renewed US bombing campaign against Yemen, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Vice President J.D. Vance – to name only the most prominent delinquents – have all been involved in online chat meetings via the commercial messaging app Signal.

Having such meetings on Signal, instead of via well-established and obligatory secure channels, is ludicrously amateurish: Signal may be encrypted, but spyware can hack it. There are reasons why officials are instructed to use other means.

Read more

It is also seriously illegal (no Stormy Daniels issue this one) to be so sloppy, since it infringes on more than one provision of the National Security Act, which is ironic, considering it seems to have been the national security adviser who initially got this trainwreck going.

Because it was Waltz who – somehow – invited a journalist to participate: Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic does of course not belong in meetings preparing a military strike, especially when sharing sensitive operational data. And talking all too frankly about making the mooching European vassals pay, one way or the other. She may have been shunted off to a sinecure at New York’s hapless Columbia University, but the spirit of Victoria Nuland’s “F*ck the EU!” is alive and well in Washington, as this meeting also unsurprisingly showed.

Nobody has yet explained how it happened that Goldberg was included and why no one seems to have noticed the clearly visible presence of an obvious if conspicuously silent outsider in the virtual room. And all that while the secretary of defense was droning on about how secure it all was: The TV show Hogan’s Army was funny; the reality of Hegseth’s army looks silly.

The above, in essence, is what mainstream America is all worked up about now. President Donald Trump and Hegseth have nothing of substance to say in this case: Hegseth messed up royally – as did Waltz and the others – and Trump is the guy who hired them all. So they have switched into attack mode, tearing down Goldberg and The Atlantic. It’s cheap, but it may work, especially since The Atlantic really does have a bad record of stirring up baseless Russia Rage (aka Russiagate) hysteria.

But this time, it’s not complicated: the Signal meetings really did take place; Goldberg was invited, present, and not spotted; and what he has now reported has been confirmed as authentic even by Brian Hughes, spokesman of the National Security Council.

What is unfolding now in US domestic politics is, to be frank, predictable and dull: The opponents of the Trump administration are trying to squeeze every last little drop of dramatic embarrassment for it out of the foul-up. The Democrats are calling for investigations and consequences. Hillary Clinton – remember her? – is gloating that those, especially Hegseth, who almost a decade ago went after her own sloppy and probably criminal use of private technology for government business are now getting a taste of their own medicine.

The Trumpists meanwhile – surprise, surprise – are not having a self-flagellation procession down the National Mall but closing ranks, even demonstratively: The president has called Waltz a “good man,” who “ has learned a lesson.” Ouch, that must feel so humiliating, like being dressed down live on The Apprentice. But it’s still the opposite of being fired. For now, at least.

Read more

Vice President Vance has denied any disagreements within the administration, that is, precisely the thing he displayed in the Signal chat. There he doubted the wisdom of the attacks on Yemen, not because killing people is a problem, but because he did not like the timing and the fact that Europe was going to profit, as he believes. And so on. The good bad old Washington.

In case you don’t like Trump and his government, please don’t be naïve and make a hero out of Goldberg simply because he is giving them some probably minor trouble. For one thing, though posing as a “liberal,” Goldberg is a highly aggressive Zionist. As a young man, he moved from the US to Israel to enter its military forces. He then served as a prison guard in a large camp for Palestinians, about which he has written a self-revealingly egocentric and, in fact, self-incriminating memoir, admitting at least covering up the brutal torture of a defenseless prisoner.

As you would expect, for over two decades Goldberg has consistently used his great media and policy influence to agitate for and embellish American aggression in the Middle East. Clearly, very much in line with what Israeli governments perceive as Israel’s national interest.

In this particular instance, WikiLeaks has rightly asked about Goldberg’s dubious role in this affair: Why, instead of speaking up quickly, did he “sit on” what he must have known to be real, until the attack actually happened? His “claim that he did not know if the group was real until after the bombing is clearly a construction designed to facilitate an ignorance defense under the espionage act,” as WikiLeaks plausibly notes.

Given his politics, there is another obvious reason why Goldberg did not use his scoop before the bombing got going: Disregard the silly cant about “freedom of navigation” and all that, the real reason why the US has started striking Yemen’s people again is that they resist Israel striking Gaza’s people.

Indeed, Yemen’s true “sin” in the eye of Zionists and their US allies is that, with the partial exception of Iran, it is the only country that, under Ansar Allah’s de facto rule, complies with the 1948 UN Genocide Convention by actually resisting Israel’s genocidal attack on the Palestinians. While Yemen does occasionally lob a well-deserved missile at Israel, its main leverage is blocking much of the maritime traffic through the Red Sea. Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East and one of the poorest in the world, is using a geographical choke point to do the ethically and legally obligatory right thing: fight against Israeli genocide as good as it can, while the collective West is on the side of the genociders. As is Jeffrey Goldberg.

We live in a morally perverse, upside-down world. The repeated bombing of Yemen is part of this world’s insane and evil rules. “Rules-based” this international disorder may be, but if so, its rules are from hell, as Russia’s foreign minister has also recently hinted.

Read more

Hence, what is really bizarre about the current Signal scandal in the US is what is outside the American media frame, namely the bombings themselves. They are just taken for granted. Because America is a country where they watch bad TV, drink too much fizzy sugar, and also, with the same regularity, bomb the world.

On any given day, it’s more likely than not that the US is bombing – someone, somewhere, for some bad reason or another. Washington has long been addicted to lethally clobbering other parts of humanity from a safe distance, and sometimes at close range, too, of course.

The end of the Cold War made no difference to that bad habit; in fact, it may even have gotten worse: As of 2022 – three years ago already – official surveys found that America and its vassals had dropped over 337,000 bombs and missiles since, in essence, the beginning of this millennium (note that this figure excludes, for instance, the Gulf War of 1990-91 – another 88,500 tons of bombs – and the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia). Or, put differently, over 20 years, the US conducted an average 46 airstrikes per day.

Just ask Google’s Gemini AI “How often and how much and where has the USA used air power to bomb since 1990?” The answer will include an impressive – and merely representative, not complete – list of operations all around the globe and a note cautioning that “the ‘how much’ in terms of bombs dropped is difficult to quantify precisely due to the vast number of operations and the variety of munitions used,” while the ‘where’ is also extensive, spanning multiple continents and regions.” Known highlights have included Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria.

In the case of the new wave of American air attacks on Yemen, the US officially pretends that it is merely (if that is the word) targeting the Ansar Allah movement (usually pejoratively labelled “the Houthis”). But with Ansar Allah the de facto ruler of much of Yemen, including its capital Sanaa, America is, of course, really assaulting the country itself and its people. As of March 25, ten days after these new attacks began, at least 79 people have been killed and more than 100 injured.

Compared with the slaughter Israel is inflicting with massive US support on the Palestinians, and its neighbors too, whenever the fancy takes it, these figures may appear small, for now. Yet these Yemeni victims are being killed for the same abject reason: to execute and shield a genocide that the West is co-perpetrating together with Israel. Yet all US mainstream pundits and politicos can get worked up about is a premature leak of some of these crimes and not the crimes themselves. That is yet another sign of just how entirely lost the West is.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Balancing diplomacy and realism, India’s premiere geopolitical forum, Raisina Dialogue, reveals the contours of a new global conversation

At a time when global governance is fraying and multilateralism teeters on the edge, the 2025 Raisina Dialogue, India’s flagship geopolitical platform, offered a rare window into the world’s evolving geopolitical imagination – connecting North and South, West and East, somewhat unimaginable these days.

Speaking to a packed hall, Samir Saran, President of the Observer Research Foundation which annually hosts the Raisina Dialogue, set the tone with a sharp observation: “The creators of multilateralism have given up on multilateralism.”

Co-hosted by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, the Dialogue showcased India’s balancing act – between East and West, power and principle – while reflecting deep anxieties over global disorder. The invitees to the conference represent a good litmus test of the health of India’s bilateral engagements with the world.

Americans were represented by a large delegation of foreign policy pundits and business leaders, with Tulsi Gabbard, US director of National Intelligence, providing a keynote address.

A separate QUAD panel was hosted too, signifying Indian appetite towards the multilateral concept in the face of disruptive Indo-Pacific geopolitics. There were no representatives from the Mohammad Yunis-led Bangladesh, interestingly, while a Chinese professor from Fudan University was invited, signifying the thawing of Indo-Chinese relations for the time being.

The invitation to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga was artfully balanced by an invitation to Vyacheslav Nikonov, a prominent member of Russia’s State Duma and the grandson of Vyacheslav Molotov, among other Russian experts.

Other prominent mentions include Slovenia, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Moldova, Georgia, Sweden, Slovak Republic, Bhutan, Maldives, Norway, Thailand, Antigua and Barbuda, Peru, Ghana, Hungary, Mauritius and Philippines. The sessions represented a marked diversity, with due considerations given to the Global South throughout.

Read more

It wasn’t unusual to witness panelists hailing from three or more different continents in each session, replicating the multilateral cross-cultural deliberations even as the latter disappear from fracturing global institutional frameworks.

During the course of the forum, the United Kingdom wielded a noticeably softer stance on the Ukraine conflict, with National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell obliquely referencing it without explicitly naming Russia. Contrastingly, the 2024 edition of the Raisina Dialogue saw the former European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson give a strongly worded speech criticizing Russia and its ‘colonial war’ against Ukraine.

Whether the change in stance is due to Europe’s new-found crisis of security or a realisation of the limits of Western power is far from certain.

The UK NSA mentioned with satisfaction that Britian has been invited back into European security discussions almost a decade after Brexit, symbolising the return of “British relevance” to European geopolitics. Other commentators may argue that increasing British relevance at a time of growing European irrelevance and crisis of confidence doesn’t make a robust case for Britain’s rise. In fact, as the Slovenian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Tanja Fajon opined, even smaller states like Slovenia are pivoting towards strengthening relations with Eastern and South East Asian states since the contemporary disorder is governed by “not power of the rules but the rules of the power.”

Pre-pandemic notions of reducing supplier base through outsourcing have being replaced by a diversification of supplier chains, if not by indigenisation. Such a move has placed increased stress on the robustness of multilateral cooperative mechanisms such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, which has, despite some exceptions, successfully prevented global nuclear proliferation.

Consequently, some scholars like Dr. Happymon Jacob argue that a facade of rules-based order is better than no order. Despite rampant hypocrisy amongst rule-makers, it provides relative benchmarks and course-corrective measurements, which are absent when the world is adrift on an unordered international system.

As Fajon commented, there is a need to develop trust within an increasingly sceptical and suspicious international system. A similar concern was raised by Russian President Vladimir Putin at a plenary session hosted by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs where he remarked that trust is difficult to foster in an environment of contradictions and violations to the rules-based order.

Read more

The accelerating drift towards regional orders amidst a global power vacuum complicates concerted state efforts to predict shifting global trends. Disparate and contradictory mega-trends are increasingly shaped by pivotal spaces where geopolitics converge.

The point was driven home by an Arab state facilitating peace negotiations between two European powers, an event unimaginable three decades ago. Ashok Malik summed up the global drift by stating, “In 2023 Europeans were berating the Global South for not upholding European values in Ukraine. In 2024 the Global South was berating Europe for not upholding European values in Gaza. In 2025 the US Vice President was berating Europe for not upholding European values in Europe.”

Today we witness a recalcitrant America courting transactionalism, a recessionist Europe feigning to be a great power, a resurgent Russia balancing unchecked Western expansionism, a revisionist China vying for its ‘place in the sun’ and a rising India which comprehends “all three sides of a bipolar debate.”

The “weaponisation of everything” as pointed out by Jaishankar, is a trend which will not subside in the near future. Pierroberto Folgiero, CEO of Italian shipbuilding giant Fincantieri subsequently argued how the geopolitics of shipbuilding is emerging as a key strategic pillar of the maritime economy.

Today, shipbuilding in terms of tonnage is largely concentrated between South Korea and China, since the West abandoned it two decades ago. Beijing crystallizes shipbuilding expertise, logistics handling and owning port infrastructure as key focal points within its long-term strategic maritime economy. Despite current trends, an Emirati panellist sensibly argued that pursuing sovereignty shouldn’t be outright viewed as declaring isolationism, threading a fine line within a saturated global dichotomous discourse of globalisation versus nationalism.

Moving Forward, inter- and intra-state conflicts are likely to increase in face of global institutional paralysis and American recessionary motives. In this context, diplomacy takes on a renewed urgency – even as it risks becoming a rarity in conflict-ridden international arenas.

As states find themselves in a post-truth and post-rules world, governments are facing the dangerous triad of AI weaponisation, nuclear proliferation and ultranationalism. In such a volatile environment, it is imperative to establish guardrails that can prevent unnecessary escalations. Without them, we risk repeating the mistakes of a previous generation – one that too hastily declared ‘peace for our time.’

Медиа: image / jpeg

It’s much easier to invoke inept comparisons than to analyze and combat the systemic decadence and decline of America

The ubiquitous and ongoing critique of Donald Trump from the so-called social democratic ‘left’ in America – namely that he is a ‘fascist’ – is not only inaccurate, but completely fails to comprehend Trump as a unique modern political phenomenon.

Trump is not a fascist.

Fascism emerged in the 1920s as an historically specific internationalist revolutionary political movement that sought to overthrow both liberal democracy and communism, while maintaining and preserving the capitalist economic order.

As Hungarian historian and philosopher Gyorgy Lukacs pointed out in the epilogue to his book ‘The Destruction of Reason’, published in 1953, it is simply impossible for fascist ideology to serve as a dominant ideology in Europe or America in the post-World War II era.

This is not to say that ruling liberal democratic ideologies in the West cannot manifest deeply illiberal components. Nor is it to maintain that such ideologies cannot generate authoritarian counter-ideologies that can become influential and dominant.

Even in the 1930s, fascism remained a subterranean political movement in those Western countries (America, Britain, and France) in which liberal democracy had become the prevailing political ideology in the 19th century and after World War I.

Read more

Germany and Italy were exceptions – nation states that were formed in authoritarian fashion in the latter half of the 19th century – in which liberal democracy had failed to prevail as it had elsewhere in the West.

Trump is not a fascist because, unlike fascism, ‘Trumpism’ does not constitute a coherent ideology. In fact, there is a sense in which Trump is not really an ideological politician at all.

The contrast with fascism is stark.

National Socialism was a political movement that was based upon a coherent ideology – an amalgam of Volkish racial anti-Semitism and the 19th century liberal ideology of eugenics. Hitler sought to bring about revolutionary social and political change in Europe – and beyond – by biological means and military aggression.

Trump is quite incapable of formulating such a program – and, even if he did, it would hold little appeal for the American electorate. Nor is Trumpism an aggressive expansionist ideology in terms of foreign policy, let alone a genuinely revolutionary one.

It is, therefore, patently absurd for liberal democratic politicians and their sycophantic allies in the Western media to continue to brand Trump as a fascist.

Such a false categorization of Trump reveals the fundamentally ahistorical mentality of Trump’s critics, and – more importantly – their intrinsic inability to engage in any kind of meaningful critique of the expansion of American global hegemony since 1945 and its corrupting consequences internally in America.

In this regard, Trump’s critics lack the integrity and insight of principled 1960s American critics of the expanding American Empire – such as Barrington Moore Jr, William Appleman Williams, and Gore Vidal – as well as like-minded contemporary American critics like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs.

This brings us back to Trump and his foreign policy.

Read more

Unlike his neocon predecessors (both Democrat and Republican alike, and it should not be forgotten that the neocon movement started within Jimmy Carter’s Democratic Party, not with George W. Bush) Trump is an isolationist – isolationism being an extremely strong trend in American politics for over 250 years.

The American founding fathers wisely warned against America becoming involved in “foreign entanglements” – because they had firsthand experience of how the British Empire had oppressed its colonial subjects.

They also understood how empire had corrupted and debauched internal British politics. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all feared the consequences for the new American republic if, mutatis mutandis – in Edmund Burke’s telling phrase – “the breakers of the law in India became the makers of the law in England.”

Woodrow Wilson won a presidential election in 1916 as the politician “who had kept America out of the war.” He entered the war only after the German submarine campaign continued to sink American ships, and in order to save the West from the spectre of communism after the Russian Revolution in 1917.

The isolationist American Senate, however, subsequently refused to endorse Wilson’s internationalism, and vetoed America joining the League of Nations.

Likewise, Franklin D. Roosevelt only entered World War II after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 – more than two years after the war had commenced.

Unfortunately, all post-war American presidents – until Trump – cast aside isolationism and firmly committed America to the global expansion of its empire. And, from the Carter regime onward, neocons have framed America’s expansionist and aggressive foreign policy.

Read more

Thus the Cold War, misguided wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the America-driven and disastrously provocative expansion of NATO over the past 30 years.

Trump’s foreign policy stance constitutes a decisive break with the past.

Trump’s isolationism is evident in his firm determination to end the Ukraine conflict. He has also taken initial steps to end the reactionary Netanyahu regime’s brutal colonial oppression of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Whether this will succeed is, however, not yet clear.

And whether Trump’s isolationism extends to cutting deals with Iran and China is, at this stage, very much an open question.

What then of Trump’s domestic policies? Here Trump’s authoritarian and anti-liberal democratic tendencies are already apparent.

Trump is determined to reshape the Judiciary, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and any other domestic institution that does not cravenly support his domestic agenda. This should come as no surprise – Trump has always been openly contemptuous of liberal democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

Trump has also moved very swiftly to dismantle authoritarian woke ideologies and their insidious consequences. He has also taken steps to put an end to the disastrous open borders immigration policy promoted and facilitated by Obama and Biden.

Whether Trump will succeed in successfully implementing his domestic agenda is not yet clear. Constitutional challenges to some of his executive orders are already before the courts, and more can be expected.

This week Trump called for the impeachment of those “crooked judges” who have ruled against some of his executive orders – provoking an unprecedented public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Read more

It is thus already clear that Trump’s attempts to disregard the Constitution will lead to a serious constitutional crisis and an accompanying intensification of political conflict over the next four years.

How resilient liberal democratic institutions will prove to be under the Trump onslaught is difficult to predict – bearing in mind that many of these bodies have become weakened and corrupted under previous Democratic administrations.

One thing is clear however – the shattered Democrats are at present unable to mount any effective political resistance to Trump’s domestic or foreign policy programs. Not for nothing did Trump contemptuously taunt ‘Pocahontas’ Elizabeth Warren during his recent speech to Congress.

Kamala Harris has disappeared from sight, and the ultra woke Gavin Newsom recently recanted on his previous championing of transgender athletes in women’s sport. This, however, hardly constitutes a viable alternative political program to Trumpism.

The Democrats’ dilemma was highlighted recently when they criticized Trump for diminishing free speech in America by shutting down America’s propaganda agency, USAGM. These, however, are the same Democrats that have for decades championed an authoritarian ‘cancel culture’ that has diminished free speech and destroyed the careers of anyone courageous enough to oppose the Democrats’ woke ideologies.

Even more troubling for the Democrats is the fact that the American elites that once supported them are now changing political tack, and falling in behind the Trump regime – just as the liberal 19th century French elites made their peace with Louis Napoleon’s authoritarian regime. It should not be forgotten that Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr. were once fervent Democrats who denounced Trump as a fascist.

How then are we to properly categorize Trump as a politician?

He is, of course, sui generis. Trump is first of all a modern celebrity politician – among whose ranks the inept Vladimir Zelensky must also be numbered. He is also a populist who captured the Republican Party after realizing (as previous third-party candidates had not) that capturing a major party was the only way that a third-party politician could ever become president.

Trump is thus a new kind of politician – a modern celebrity populist.

His predecessors include William Jennings Bryan and George Wallace, and he shares with them their ‘common man’ rhetoric, anti-intellectualism, contempt for liberal democracy and traditional conservatism, as well as their program of demonizing the East Coast and Washington elites. And, like his populist predecessors, Trump promises to miraculously revive a weakened and corrupt America.

Trump also has a great deal in common with Louis Napoleon. Elected president of the new French Republic in 1848, Louis Napoleon – being constitutionally barred from a second term as president – mounted a coup in 1851, dismissed parliament, and declared himself emperor. He ruled France in authoritarian and repressive fashion for the next 20 years – until military defeat in the Franco Prussian War led to the collapse of his regime.

Read more

Trump is also constitutionally barred from running for the presidency in 2028, and he may well attempt to overturn this legal impediment to a third term. In February 2025, he posted an image of himself wearing a crown with the caption “Long Live the King.”

But Trump’s modernity and the fundamentally changed nature of politics in America over recent decades render such historical comparisons otiose and misleading.

Trump became president in a decadent American society dominated by a mindless celebrity culture – in which there was no longer an educated elite or an educated public; in which liberal values and basic notions of decency had collapsed completely; and in which politics had descended into complete irrationality and become an unedifying and brutal spectacle akin to a celebrity-based television show.

These fundamental changes long predated Trump’s entry into politics, and without them he could not possibly have become president. Only in an America that had degenerated to this extent could populism in its new Trumpian form become a dominant political force.

Lukacs in the work cited above predicted that the expansion of the American Empire would result in internal cultural decadence and the corruption of American politics.

Lukacs highlighted various aspects of this, including a rise in juvenile delinquency – not for a moment imaging the school shootings that are now a regular occurrence in America. Nor could he possibly have imagined the degenerate nature of a popular culture that feted a ‘celebrity’ like Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs and continues to exploit his celebrity status as it belatedly seeks to destroy him.

Donald Trump is not a fascist.

He is a modern celebrity populist whose election as president is a symptom of the irreversible decadence and decline of contemporary American politics and American society more generally.

Social democratic critics of Trump, however, cannot accept this categorization of Trump because it entails admitting that American society has degenerated culturally and politically in recent decades – a state of affairs for which they themselves are primarily responsible.

Far easier to simply brand Trump a fascist, and ignore America’s ongoing decadence and decline.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Berlin’s Russia war hysteria is taking it down a clearly signposted path of self-destruction

Germans are famously – infamously, really – fiscally conservative. Believe me, I know: I am German and have witnessed for decades, indeed all my conscious life, how my compatriots have fretted obsessively over public debt.

They often conflate the rules that may work for individual, personal frugality with what is needed by a modern state and its economy. Indeed, they have crystallized their misguided ideal of how to manage public finance with a tight fist and little foresight in the odd avatar of ‘the Swabian Housewife’ (Swabians are stereotypically thrifty and prudent; sort of the Scots of the German sense of self).

And whenever the national adoration of the Swabian Housewife was not enough, plaintive sobs of ‘Weimar, Weimar’ were added. You see, Germany’s first failed experiment at (more or less) democracy, the Weimar Republic of the interwar years, is said to have died, among other things, of inflation.

Hyperinflation, so this shaky but (formerly) extremely powerful tale of a “ unique inflation trauma” goes, undermined that state’s legitimacy from the very beginning, so that it could never grow strong enough to later withstand the pressure of the Great Depression and the Nazis.

Curiously enough, in this sorely mistaken version of recent German history, austerity was enshrined as the magic charm that will keep inflation away and therefore also other undesirable things such as Leni Riefenstahl movies, fascism, and starting and losing yet another world war while committing genocide.

In reality, it was, of course, precisely the austerity policy of the last Weimar governments, enacted about as undemocratically as is fashionable again now (see below), that really made the effects of the Great Depression even worse and helped open a path to power for the Nazis.

Read more

But this time, everything is different. In a truly unprecedented move – instantly recognized as historic, for better or, much more likely, worse – Germany’s elites, in politics, the media, and academia, have closed ranks Nuremberg-party-rally-style to make Germany splurge again. The upshot is a fundamental policy change, complete with fixing the constitution, another thing Germans usually are obstinately conservative about. And all that to go into massive, quite possibly crippling debt for, in essence, war with Russia.

For, in sum, there are three ways in which Germany wants to go on a big binge: The so-called debt brake – an anachronistic and economically primitive limit on public debt – will be removed for anything having to do with ‘defense’, that is, in reality a massive rearmament program, including civil defense and the intelligence services, as well as for military assistance to Ukraine.

Second, the German government will also incur debt to the tune of another €500 billion to be spent over 12 years. This money is supposed to be invested in climate action (a sob to Germany’s militaristic, far-right Greens) and infrastructure.

Infrastructure, here, has much to do with military purposes as well. No secret has been made out of the fact that often decrepit German railways, roads, and bridges, for instance, are to be renovated not merely for civilian and commercial purposes. Instead, as before in German history, trains and autobahn highways, for instance, are being highlighted as key parts of military logistics.

And as before as well, the big propaganda story is that they are needed for sending military forces into a fight against Russia. Only that this time, Germany is presented as a hub for all of NATO. Whatever ‘all of NATO’ may mean in the future.

Third – and usually overlooked – as Germany is a federation, its individual land states are also being empowered to assume additional debt. The way all of this is supposed to work together over the next decade or so, is complex. For instance, there are complicated and probably impractical rules designed to avoid labeling ordinary budget expenses and debt-making as part of this program. Yet the upshot is quite simple: The German government has created a tool to add a total of about a trillion euros or even more of debt.

It is true that to some extent, all of the above is simply a local variant of a general EU-plus-UK frenzy: With Brussels, London, and Paris as agitators-in-chief, the whole shabby, stagnating bloc is dreaming big about going into massive debt, perhaps even, in essence, confiscating private savings, to confront Russia. With or without the US. That is just another application of the key current governing principle of Western elites: Rule by permanent emergency. And if there is no real emergency around, they just make one up.

Read more

But there is also something specifically German about Berlin’s ‘Sonderweg’ into deadly debt. For one thing, so much then for that old habit of whining about inflation in ‘Weimar’: It turns out that the one purpose that makes Germans overcome their hitherto allegedly debilitating fear of inflation and debt is – wait for it – launching a re-armament program in the style of 1930s Nazi Germany. Because, we must assume, unlike Weimar, that regime ended really well.

You see the irony, I trust. The Greeks probably spot the tragedy: In 2015, the Germans, most of all, turned their nation into a ritual sacrifice to the EU god of Austerity (the bloodthirsty Kali version of the local Swabian Housewife deity).

Yet if ideological-narrative clumsiness and an astonishing inability to see just how bemusing they sometimes look to others were the only problems here, it would just be Germany as usual. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Much more is at stake. Because there is a much worse irony: In principle, it is true that Germany urgently needs a big dose of Keynesianism, that is, of using public debt to relaunch its deindustrializing (compliments US and Ukraine) deathbed economy. Yet to tie this fundamentally sane and absolutely necessary policy to a hysterical war scare about Russia will produce great economic waste as well as terrible risks.

These risks include a ruinously costly failure of the policy with horrendously destabilizing domestic effects and an even more ruinous ‘success’, namely a self-fulfilling prophecy effect, in which what is officially presented as preventing war by increased deterrence will help bring that war about.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The problem is not even that Berlin is admitting, once again, not only how dilapidated the German military is, but that something needs to be done in earnest, that is expensive, about that weakness. A reasonable modernization is urgently needed; and that, in principle, is a fact that serious observers, including in Moscow, are likely to understand (whether they currently find it useful to say so out loud or not).

What makes the stress on rearmament so pernicious in this case are four features that the German elites have deliberately attached to it: Ukraine; exaggeration; a truly deranged, monotonous propaganda drive about an impending war with Russia; and last but not least, a coup-like implementation of the policy by an unusually shameless maneuver.

Read more

To deal with the most obvious first: German companies may, of course, find production locations and markets in Ukraine, especially if the moronic Western proxy war finally ends (and they would have to thank both Washington and Moscow for that, definitely not Berlin or Brussels). Such investment and commerce would also benefit Ukrainians.

But simply throwing money at Kiev and its corrupt regimes must end, because in realistic terms, Ukraine is not an asset but a great burden. And for those who wish to talk about what they misunderstand as ‘values’: Ukraine is not a democracy and does not have the rule of law or a halfway free media; its ‘civil society’ – at least what Westerners encounter in chic cafes in Kiev and on promotion tours across academia – is a bloated grant fraud gig; and to top it all off, it is extremely corrupt. For Berlin, it is perverse, self-damaging, and actually immoral to feed Ukrainian elites even more money.

Secondly, it is not possible to pin down the precise mix between military and civilian deficit spending that would be the optimal Keynesian mix to jolt Germany out its economic coma. But there can be no doubt that the current plans have erred on the military side, probably massively. For one thing, it is a simple economic fact that weapons and other military expenditures are not productive in the usual sense. They are at best third-best to prime the pump of a national economy. Those fantasizing about enormous knock-on effects to compensate for that fact are either ignorant or dishonest.

Unsurprisingly, even the German government’s own chief auditing body – the Bundesrechnungshof – has criticized the debt plans: For the federal auditors, they are excessive as a whole. And, regarding their preponderant military side, they find that these expenses should not have been freed from the debt brake, making them, in effect, unlimited. As a result, “long-term, high interest expenditures” will threaten damage to state finances as well as corporations, leading to “economic and social risks.”

Time will tell, but much of the currently fashionable boosterism and boasting is likely to be remembered with embarrassment. Joe Kaeser, the head of the Siemens conglomerate, for instance, may – like Chancellor-elect Friedrich Merz – exult now about Germany being back. He has clearly overlooked that, with Germany especially, the question should always be ‘back to what?’ Yet even he notices that ‘we don’t know exactly how’.

Really? What intriguing nonchalance when you are about to pick up a trillion euros of additional national debt. No wonder that even Switzerland’s arch-capitalist and very Russophobic Neue Zuercher Zeitung has met the new German enthusiasm for debt with pronounced skepticism.

Thirdly, there is the war scare. For those who do not know German, it may be hard to imagine just how pervasively unhinged Germany’s public sphere has become. Traditional as well as social media are feeding the population a constant, ceaseless torrent of Russophobic war-in-sight propaganda. The very few and thoroughly marginalized German critics of this manufactured mass psychosis speak of war hysteria, and they are right.

Read more

Tellingly, a small but ubiquitous platoon of experts-from-hell such as Carlo Masala, Soenke Neitzel, Gustav Gressel, and Claudia Major have gone into overdrive: After years of getting everything – yes, really, everything – wrong about the Ukraine conflict, they are now confidently predicting a war with Russia and telling Germans what to think and do about it.

Their fascinatingly diverse (not) and always fresh and surprising (also not, really not) discussions, pounding Germans on a nearly daily basis from one studio or another, usually now turn on when exactly ‘the Russian’ (Der Russe!) is going to strike. Opinions vary between essentially tomorrow morning and in a few years.

And that insanity is, unfortunately, now representative in Germany, at least among its so-called elites. One problem with this propaganda is old and obvious: Those spreading it start believing in it themselves. Indeed, in Germany, they have long reached that stage: Like the doomsday cult, which they really are, they are self-hystericizing and self-escalating.

Which means that while a rational German leadership would seek to balance due diligence in matters of security with national-interest-based diplomacy and, yes, cooperation with Russia, this type of approach is now impossible. Instead, those Germans who love to talk in the name of the nation are busy talking it into yet another very stupid, very unnecessary, and, in the end, very lost war.

Finally, there is the way in which this policy turn was executed. It may have been (barely, formally) legal, but if so, then only by the letter of the law. Its spirit and democracy as such have been violated vigorously and in public. For Merz, who is not even chancellor yet, has used the old, pre-election parliament to ram these changes through. The new parliament, already elected, would not have allowed him to find a majority for this operation.

This means Germany’s next chancellor deliberately went against the already clearly declared will of the voters, and he did so by using a transparent dirty trick. All the parties helping him do so, including the Greens and his likely future coalition partners from the Social Democrats, have sullied themselves.

Read more

And all that while Merz has shown his contempt for law and decency by inviting the internationally wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu to Germany, and Sarah Wagenknecht’s BSW has been kept out of parliament by obvious election manipulation and extremely likely falsification. No wonder many Germans have lost belief in the traditional parties. If there is one force standing to profit from all of the above it is, of course, the AfD, Germany’s strongest opposition party now. German Centrists: Don’t cry on our shoulders and don’t whine about ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ when your silly firewall against the AfD crumbles. You only have yourselves to blame.

Is there any hope left? Yes, maybe. Because although this is a terrible beginning, the policy just started is also meant to be carried out over a decade and more. Much may happen in that time. For instance, German corporations might finally – if quietly – rebel against being crippled by a self-defeating sanctions war against Russia, especially when their US competitors will be back in the Russia business, as they are clearly itching to. The Ukraine conflict may end in such a manner that Germany’s Zelensky stans simply won’t have anyone left to send the money to. Last but not least, even currently hyperventilating Germans may perhaps notice when Russia does not, actually, attack.

Yet for now, Germany is continuing on its path of severe and self-evident national self-harm. And unfortunately, history teaches that Germans can stay such a course through to a very bitter end. There are no guarantees that things will be better this time.

Медиа: image / jpeg

In shaking taxpayers down for arms money, any tactic is fair game, so a four-year-old terrorist murder is being repurposed

Get a load of Team Macron’s latest PR campaign: Rebranding the jihadist responsible for a high-profile terrorist attack in a Parisian suburb back in 2020 as “Russian.”

Turns out that the sister of that victim, Samuel Paty – the high school teacher murdered for teaching a freedom-of-speech class featuring satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (the same ones that led to gun-toting jihadists mowing down the Charlie Hebdo newsroom in 2015) – sounds like she’s not really enjoying the rewrite of her brother’s murder by French President Emmanuel Macron’s lapdogs who have been barking this hot take all across the media landscape.

“I am shocked to hear from the government spokeswoman that Russia’s role is engaged in the attack on my brother Samuel Paty, while nothing, during the entire investigation, has made it possible to make the slightest connection between the terrorist Anzorov, a refugee in France, and Russia,” Mickaelle Paty told Le Figaro. “The attack on my brother cannot serve the interests of the government’s foreign or political policy.”

Well, apparently it can! Because when it comes to keeping the tax cash-for-weapons party going amid the risk of peace breaking out in Ukraine as Moscow and Washington come to terms, nothing is too sacred or off limits.

“I remind you that Samuel Paty was assassinated by a Russian Chechen, and therefore, even in the area of terrorism, Russia’s role is engaged,” government spokesperson Sophie Primas said at a ministerial meeting on March 12. “So today, it’s about catching the French people, not scaring them, not manipulating them, but simply making them aware of the reality of the Russian threat, which is a real and serious threat.”

Yep, doesn’t look like a manipulation at all. Scaring the plebes is the name of the game right now. If only because shaking them down for more cash to spend on weapons to shore up the GDP when your economy is in the tank as a result of your anti-Russian policies would be a tough sell otherwise.

Read more

So what’s the reality here? Well, the 18-year-old terrorist who beheaded Paty with a machete and was eliminated by the authorities at the scene, had been living in France with his parents for 12 years. It emerged at trial that he had been radicalized online by jihadists in Idlib, Syria – specifically by HTS actors, the rebranded Al-Qaeda franchise now running Syria with Western support, and which recently dabbled in a bit of ethnic cleansing.

At trial, it was also revealed that the killer, Abdullah Anzorov, had been regularly in touch with the father of one of Paty’s students – the same father who had been throwing a fit over the cartoons on social media. His complaints were then amplified by a radical imam, already on police radar, who eagerly joined in, leading protests outside the school with the angry dad in tow. Then, Anzorov took it from there, you could say.

After the murder, he jumped on Twitter, proudly posted a graphic picture of what he had done, called out Macron for defending the cartoons, labeled the French president the leader of infidels, and declared that Paty was executed for insulting the Prophet.

At the time, Macron called it a “typical Islamist terrorist attack,” which was pretty obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

No one cared that this kid’s parents happened to be from Russia – specifically, Chechnya – or that they had left for France over a decade earlier. Because, frankly, none of that mattered. Until now, apparently.

Enter Macron’s former interior minister, Gerald Darmanin – now also conveniently his handpicked justice minister in the current government of political parachutists who merely crash landed into their positions and were NOT selected from the anti-establishment parties that actually won the most seats or votes in last year’s national election.

Read more

On March 12, Macron’s golden boy debuted the new narrative. “Sometimes it’s the same thing, the Russian threat and the terrorist threat. Who are the people who killed Samuel Paty? These are Russian citizens, Chechens. When I was Interior minister, Russia has hundreds of Russian citizens that it does not want to take back… They are S-files, they are radicalized, they are Islamists, they are Russians. There is no doubt about it. And Russia has not taken them back.”

Uh, who let them into France in the first place, genius? Night clubs in the Marais district of Paris are apparently harder to get into with a sob story than France itself. For instance, all it took back in 2017 for France to open its arms and borders to Chechens was for them to claim homosexual persecution. Does a French border guard having to decide on the entry into the country of a gay jihadist work up more of a sweat than on an afternoon jog in a Parisian heatwave?

So, according to Team Macron, Russia and jihadist terrorism are now just… the same thing. Don’t worry about the details.

Ignore the fact that Russia has been fighting Islamic terrorism on its own soil for decades. Forget that, at least as far back as 2002, Russian security services were directly linking terrorist attacks on Russian territory to wealthy Middle Eastern backers – including during the infamous Moscow theater hostage crisis, when they said that Chechen jihadists were literally phoning contacts in the Persian Gulf mid-siege.

Even the FBI admitted that Russia’s intelligence services had warned Washington in 2011 about the terrorist risk posed by a couple of ethnic Chechen immigrants to the US and “adherents of radical Islam” – whose kids later bombed the Boston Marathon.

Also forget that Moscow was left to sweep up the absolute mess of jihadism left behind in Syria after the Pentagon and CIA filled the place with weapons and ‘trainee’ jihadists, under the guise of unseating former President Bashar Assad, who subsequently ended up chewing through their harnesses.

Read more

As far as propaganda goes, this isn’t a new technique. In 2016, the EU was cranking out documents and reports conflating the ISIS and Russian threats – even as Russia was doing the heavy lifting against ISIS in Syria. “Be aware of Russian and ISIS propaganda, warn foreign affairs MEPs,” the headline of a press release read.

But hey, when you’re desperate to justify draining your country’s treasury and hitting up citizens for a military spending spree like a kid trying to shake loose lunch money from dad, reality is just an inconvenience.

Uh, slight problem. The French public isn’t really buying it. According to an Elabe poll from earlier this month, 61% of French citizens still want the government to focus on reducing the deficit instead of setting fire to the budget with a military shopping spree. And that’s terrible news for one of Team Macron’s more ambitious funding ideas: Getting the French to invest their personal savings into financial schemes that would bankroll tanks and missiles, as Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu has floated. Because obviously, there’s no better way to use their nest eggs.

So now, in a desperate effort to shake down both taxpayers and the treasury, Team Macron has apparently decided to throw history in a blender, rebrand jihadists as just “Russian,” and hope that the French chug it right down.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Ukraine blew up a Russian gas facility just days after a mutual agreement not to do just that. As if anyone expected something different.

In a brazen act of duplicity, Ukraine has once again demonstrated that it is not a reliable partner for diplomacy – let alone peace.

Mere days after a US-brokered agreement saw Moscow and Kiev commit to a mutual moratorium on targeting each other’s energy infrastructure, Ukrainian forces reportedly launched a deliberate strike on a gas metering station in Russia’s Kursk region. This was no accident, no miscommunication, and no unfortunate timing—it was a calculated breach of trust and yet another glaring signal that Ukraine cannot be reasoned with.

The agreement in question was a result of a bold and rare diplomatic effort led by President Donald Trump, who had secured direct conversations with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. Despite the immense complexities of this long-running conflict, Trump managed to extract a commitment from both sides: a 30-day freeze on attacks against energy infrastructure. It was a starting point – modest, but meaningful.

And yet, even that modest agreement was too much for Kiev to honor.

Russia, for its part, not only adhered to the ceasefire but did so with a level of discipline and self-restraint that should have been headline news across the globe. In a show of integrity seldom seen in modern warfare, Russian forces actively intercepted and shot down their own drones – already airborne and en route to targets – because those drones had been launched prior to the agreement’s announcement. That is a serious country taking a serious peace process seriously.

Read more

Contrast that with Kiev’s conduct. According to reports from the ground and satellite imagery, a Ukrainian strike targeted the gas infrastructure facility near Sudzha in Russia’s Kursk region. The attack caused a fire, damage to critical energy infrastructure, and sent a clear message: Ukraine is not interested in honoring its word, and it certainly isn’t interested in diplomacy – only escalation.

This latest incident is not occurring in a vacuum. It is part of a long and well-documented pattern of deception and provocation, especially in the face of good-faith overtures by Russia.

Let’s go back. In 2014, the Minsk agreements were hailed as the roadmap to a peaceful resolution in the Donbass. Russia backed them, and Western leaders nodded approvingly. But years later, former Western officials themselves openly admitted that Minsk was never intended to be implemented – it was merely a ploy to buy time for Kiev to rearm. In other words, a lie from the very beginning.

In 2022, there was another real opportunity. Talks in Istanbul between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reportedly came close to a viable ceasefire. But just as Kiev was nearing a deal, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened, reportedly urging Ukraine to walk away from the table. The result? Thousands more lives lost and the door to peace slammed shut once again.

Now, in 2025, with yet another window of opportunity pried open through diplomacy – this time led by Trump – Ukraine has apparently chosen to burn it down. Literally. The Kursk attack is not a deviation from Ukraine’s diplomatic record; it is the continuation of it.

To President Trump’s credit, his efforts thus far have been the most realistic of any Western leader since the conflict began. Unlike the performative moralizing of his predecessor or the reckless interference of EU and UK heads of state, Trump’s approach has been grounded in pragmatism: reduce civilian suffering, de-escalate the war incrementally, and restore a framework for diplomacy. But those efforts require a willing partner.

Read more

Russia has signaled, time and again, that it is ready. Even now, despite this attack, Moscow has not withdrawn from the agreement. It is attending talks. It is engaging. It is showing up to the table. But the table is increasingly starting to look like a trap, set for anyone naive enough to believe Kiev’s promises.

And that is the central, bitter truth: Kiev has shown not just unreliability, but outright duplicity. It will sign agreements, only to break them. It will smile for the cameras, only to sabotage talks behind the scenes. It will invoke Western values while acting in direct opposition to the very foundations of diplomacy and peace.

It’s important to emphasize that how this attack was carried out is ultimately irrelevant. Whether the strike on the Kursk gas facility was a direct order from Kiev’s central command or the reckless initiative of insubordinate field commanders, the result is the same – and equally damning. If Kiev ordered it, then it has willfully and maliciously violated the very agreement it made days earlier with President Trump and President Putin. If it didn’t order it, then it has either lost control of its own forces or simply refuses to discipline them. In either case, Ukraine reveals itself as not just untrustworthy, but structurally incapable of honoring any deal it signs. What’s the value of a promise from a government that either lies outright or can’t enforce its own word? Neither scenario is the hallmark of a state genuinely seeking peace. It is, instead, the profile of a negotiating party that is not just unreliable – but fundamentally non-viable.

For Washington – especially President Trump – this should be the wake-up call. The Kursk strike wasn’t just an attack on Russian infrastructure; it was an attack on diplomacy itself. It was an attack on the possibility of peace.

The world has now seen, repeatedly, who honors their word and who discards it the moment it’s politically convenient. Russia has shown that it is willing to pause, to restrain, to negotiate. Ukraine has shown that it will exploit every agreement, twist every olive branch into a weapon, and backstab at every opportunity.

There can be no more illusions. No more Minsk-style traps. No more Istanbul disappointments. If there is to be peace, it cannot be built on the quicksand of Kiev’s promises. Any further negotiations must be predicated on reality – not hope – and the reality is this: one side is showing maturity, consistency, and openness. The other is showing that it cannot be trusted, or even talked to.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi is solidifying its position as a global manufacturing hub for defense by utilizing the expertise of state-run majors and engaging private firms

Atmanirbharta (self-reliance) in defense is the flavor of the season in India. The country’s defense manufacturing sector is rapidly emerging as a cornerstone of New Delhi’s strategic and economic ambitions, and government policies are focusing on making sure that modern weaponry is both designed and manufactured in India, or, at the very least, is “Made-in-India.”

The Indian military has identified over 5,000 items that must be manufactured in the country rather than imported. Called the positive indigenization list (PIL), the initiative began in 2020 and aims to offer defense items to be indigenized by Indian manufacturers, including small and medium enterprises and startups. It has already yielded results, according to the Defense Ministry.

Defense production and exports are being monitored at the highest levels of the executive. Ambitious targets are being set: 75% of the defense capital budget has to be spent procuring India-made products. The private sector is being encouraged to enter defense production, which was hitherto public-dominated. Some big industrial groups have entered defense, but there are also large numbers of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and start-ups that are producing international quality components and subsystems to global manufacturers.

Historic shifts

It was different for the newly independent India. In the early 1950s, the country’s economy was greatly influenced by the Soviet “socialist” approach, and evolved its five-year plans. Perhaps that was the best for those times.

Throughout the 1950s, there was Soviet assistance and technology transfer in multiple industrial sectors such as steel, defense, railways, construction equipment, metal, mining, petrochemicals, and much more to India. A very important part was the building of military aircraft, aero-engines and avionics factories. At one point the Indian armed forces had nearly 85% of military equipment of Soviet or Russian origin.

Read more

Back then, India’s private sector was relatively small and primarily focused on meeting the daily needs of the masses. The government utilized public funding to establish essential infrastructure, nationalizing key industries such as banking, car manufacturing, and aircraft production. This approach may have been suitable for that time.

Over the long term, both public and private sectors exhibited distinct strengths and weaknesses. The public sector benefits from government funding but operates under the bureaucratic control of government departments. Decision-making can be complex, and progress monitoring is similarly cumbersome. With taxpayers’ money at stake, accountability tends to be lower. Salaries are fixed according to government scales, and once hired, employees find it difficult to be dismissed for poor performance, resulting in generally lower productivity compared to the private sector.

After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia realized the need to compete with the rest of the world through market forces. India too realized that it had to diversify its defense sourcing.

After the economic reforms of 1991 that deregulated markets, reduced import tariffs, and lowered taxes, India’s economy began to grow. This growth enabled significant investment in the defense sector and marked the emergence of a robust private sector. Manufacturing capabilities expanded, resulting in the mass production of cars and motorcycles. Additionally, the previously protected defense sector began to open up to private players.

The private sector attracts top talent with competitive salaries and can quickly dismiss non-performers. Its efficiency allows tasks to be completed with fewer workers, and it can easily raise funds from banks and international institutions. Unlike the public sector, which faces complex governmental approvals for joint ventures and foreign collaborations, the private sector can pursue these opportunities swiftly. Foreign corporations prefer working directly with Indian companies to avoid bureaucratic hurdles. Additionally, the private sector can acquire essential technologies and raw materials based on commercial needs, improving operational agility.

Interestingly, 41 of the top global defense companies are from the US. All are private. These companies had $317 billion in arms revenues, which was half of the total revenue of the top 100 companies. The top five arms companies were all US-based. Nine Chinese, three Indian, and two Russian companies are in the top 100. All these were public sector companies.

India’s initiatives

New Delhi has launched a host of programs and policies in the past few years to attract private companies to participate in defense manufacturing.

Read more

This includes Innovation for Defense Excellence (iDEX), which aims to spark innovation in defense and aerospace by creating prototypes that enhance national security; and the Defense India Startup Challenge, which supports startups and small and medium companies in building prototypes and commercializing solutions for national defense. Additionally, the 2020 Defense Acquisition Procedure reserves certain orders (worth of up to 1 billion rupees or $11.5 million) for small and medium sector companies.

The Defense Ministry has also encouraged industry bodies to create dedicated defense chapters and help connect the industry with the government and address concerns. Lastly, the government is pushing public sector banks to develop loan schemes tailored for the defense industry, with the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) already offering specific options.

The government has also insisted that state-run companies and agencies in defense, including the largest one, the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which was created in the late 1950s to support defense equipment research, should offer support to the private sector by providing their facilities.

Setting up an independent nodal umbrella body for testing, trial, and certification requirements of defense systems should improve access to existing facilities while reducing the need for investments to recreate the capital-intensive infrastructure.

Currently, India has 16 Defense Public Sector Units (DPSUs), over 430 licensed companies, and approximately 16,000 MSMEs. Notably, 21% of this production comes from the private sector, bolstering India’s journey toward defense self-reliance.

There has long been a feeling that state-owned defense companies are keeping their technology R&D cards very close to their chest and are reluctant to share with private sector. They also continue to treat them as competitors rather than partners. Meanwhile, the government has offered increased governance and control rights to foreign companies.

While major foreign defense manufacturers have chosen to partner with major Indian conglomerates like Tata, Reliance, Adani, L&T, and others to invest in defense in India, similar projects with the public sector have been few.

The Indian government’s defense procurement policies have lured several global players, such as Airbus, BAE, Boeing, Collins Aerospace, Dassault Aviation, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Pilatus, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Rafael, Safran, and Thales, to set up operations and form joint ventures in India.

Read more

For instance, Lockheed Martin and Boeing joined with Tata group manufacturing aero-structures and sub-systems for global supplies, while Adani group is making UAVs and drones with Israeli’s Elbit group.

The Airbus C295 is built by Tata group in India. This first-of-its-kind ‘Make in India’ aerospace program in the private sector is expected to involve more than two dozen small and medium-sized suppliers, producing over 60% of the 30,000 detail parts, sub-assemblies, and component assemblies locally.

The Defense Ministry issued an expression of interest (EoI) to the private sector to participate in the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program through a special-purpose vehicle. The project will include ADA, HAL and a selected private company under the PPP model. The name is expected to be announced by mid-2025.

There are many private companies making defense electronics, large aero-structures components, advanced technology components, and sub-systems. Dynamatic Technologies makes assemblies of vertical fins for Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters. They are also supplying aero-structures to Airbus for its A320 family of aircraft and the wide-body 330 aircraft. Hyderabad’s VEM Technologies manufactures centet fuselage for LCA Tejas.

The BrahMos is JV is a joint venture between the DRDO and Russian NPO Mashinostroyeniya, which together have formed BrahMos Aerospace and have had significant success in missile production and exports. The AK-203 assault rifle is being produced in India through a joint venture between Russia and India. Russia has recently offered to make the fifth-generation Sukhoi Su-57 in India through a JV with Indian partners. Interestingly, the Russian Army wears boots crafted in India’s Hajipur district in Bihar.

Ambitious targets

Overall, India’s aerospace and defense sector has witnessed remarkable growth in recent years, with the private sector contributing a staggering 20% to its turnover. Developing a strong research base in India and a robust supply chain for components and sub-systems, most currently sourced from abroad, will help create the market for civilian and defense systems in the aerospace sector.

Read more

Domestic defense production in India has already reached $14.5 billion in the 2023-24 financial year. The target to procure 75% of all defense capital acquisitions domestically will give a huge boost to the “Make-in-India” initiative. The target is $19 billion in the current fiscal year with aspirations to achieve $34 billion in defense production by 2029.

Meanwhile, India’s defense exports reached $2.4 billion last year, and the government set a defense export target of $5.7 billion by 2028-29. Currently, India exports to over 100 nations, with the top three destinations for defense exports in 2023-24 being the USA, France, and Armenia.

To move beyond traditional defense manufacturing, India needs to boost public funding for investments in key future technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, autonomous vehicles, hypersonic technology, directed energy weapons, augmented and virtual reality, and blockchain. These investments will lay the groundwork for future innovations in both commercial and military applications. Developing intellectual property is vital for India to secure a prominent place in global defense manufacturing.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Imagine the Russian and American leaders having a productive 2.5-hour-long conversation just two months ago

The presidents of Russia and the US, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, have had a long telephone call. Yet the sky has not fallen and the Earth is not shaking. In other words, at least as far as we know now, those expecting instant sensations must have been disappointed.

No, Odessa has not been handed over to Russia; no, Moscow has not suddenly agreed to abandon its main war aims, such as making and keeping Ukraine neutral again; and no, the call did not produce a finished map of territorial adjustments. But then, to be frank, those expecting such sensations only have themselves to blame.

For they have missed the bigger picture: As so often, the sensation is hidden in plain sight. It is that these talks have taken place and have clearly not failed but succeeded. Clocking in at almost two-and-a-half hours – the longest telephone conversation between leaders in recent Russian-American history, as Russian commentators immediately stressed – the talk was wide-ranging. And it will be remembered as another milestone in the developing new détente between Moscow and Washington.

For those whose baselines have shifted due to rapid recent developments, please recall: Less than half a year ago, before Donald Trump’s re-election to the American presidency, what has just happened would have been considered impossible. Less than two months ago, before Trump’s second inauguration, many observers would still have qualified it as very unlikely. And even between that inauguration and now – notwithstanding the first phone call between Trump and Putin in February – many skeptics were still, understandably, cautious or even pessimistic: The inertia of American deep-state interest and Russophobia, they felt, would never allow this kind of radical rapprochement.

Read more

Now, however, it is time to recognize that this, as the Americans say, is happening. The discussion has to move on from “could this possibly be real” to “it’s real and what are the consequences?”

We know far too little at this point to come to robust conclusions. But two important points are clear enough already: The US and Russia will keep these negotiations between themselves, at least in substance: Russian evening news has reported that Moscow has agreed to continue and extend the bilateral process. “Bilateral” is, of course, the word that matters: As predicted by some, the times of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” – always a hypocritical and silly slogan – are over, forever. And NATO-EU Europe remains locked out, too. That’s good news.

The second take-away point we can already register is that Moscow is not making substantial concessions. It is true that, in what was clearly a gesture of good will, Putin did agree to mutually – with Ukraine – suspend attacks on energy infrastructure for 30 days. He also welcomed working out the details of an agreement regarding Black Sea maritime traffic. A prisoner exchange and the unilateral transfer of several dozen severely injured Ukrainian POWs currently being treated in Russian hospitals pointed in the same direction.

But that was it regarding Mr. Nice: Confirming Russia’s readiness to take part in working out “complex” and “long-term” solutions, Putin, of course, made it clear – once more – that Moscow is not interested in anything less, especially not in any form of truce that would serve only as a stalling device for Ukraine and its remaining Western backers.

Likewise, the Russian president re-iterated that the root causes of the conflict will have to be addressed. These include, as should be well-known by now, NATO’s attempt to acquire Ukraine as well as the generally aggressive eastward expansion of the alliance since the end of the Cold War. But those in the West who have a habit of not listening when Moscow speaks, should recall that, from its perspective, the nature of Ukraine’s regime, its treatment of minorities (including religious suppression), and the militarization of Ukraine also belong to these root causes.

Read more

Hence, there will only be disappointment for those in NATO-EU Europe who now want to believe that Ukraine may lose territory but can then be turned into what Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen unflatteringly calls a “steel porcupine” (or “stählernes Stachelschwein” in her native German). That will not fly. Russia has fought this war to eliminate a military threat on its western border. If the EU-NATO Europeans should really go ahead with an attempt to replace US support for Ukraine, the war will continue. But without the US and, probably, even against the backdrop of a flourishing Russian-American détente. Good luck with that one.

Unsurprisingly, further remarks by Putin in the conversation with Trump, as reported by Russian evening news, confirm these hard limits to Moscow’s “give.” The Russian president explained that a general 30-day ceasefire, as suggested by Washington, is conditional on several “essential” points: effective supervision along the whole frontline and a stop to re-arming the Ukrainian military, including, obviously, from outside the country, as well as to forced mobilization inside Ukraine.

Indeed, “emphasis was put” on the fact that a “key” condition for both avoiding further escalation – note that Russia emphatically does not exclude that option – and for finding a diplomatic solution, is a “complete” end of foreign supplies of military hardware and intelligence for Kiev.

Kiev’s unreliability in negotiations was mentioned and so were war crimes committed by its forces. Even another conciliatory message had its flip side: Russia, Putin explained, is prepared to apply “humanitarian” considerations regarding Ukrainian troops now encircled in its Kursk region. When, that is, they surrender into captivity. That is basic international standard, of course, and only to be expected. But those asking, in effect, for the special privilege of just letting these units escape to fight another day, have been told once again that there won’t be any freebies anymore. Kiev has by now admitted that it mis-used the Istanbul negotiations of spring 2022 in bad faith to gain military advantages. Moscow is clearly determined to not let anything comparable happen again.

Ultimately, this conversation belongs in two main contexts, both historic: the ending of the Ukraine War, which may or may not work out. What Russia has made clear is that it will end only on its terms, which is what powers which win wars usually do. And the US has de facto accepted this outcome. Because – historic context number two – the new American leadership is putting a general policy of normalization and, in effect, détente and cooperation with Russia above the West’s proxy war in Ukraine. And so it should.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Cutting off funding for Voice of America, RFE/RL, et al doesn’t make the US president a ‘good guy’, but it’s a step in the right direction

He’s done it again. Or rather, they have. As part of their curious slash-and-burn crusade to dismantle – for better or worse – large swathes of the American state from the top, President Donald Trump and his bestie-in-chief Elon Musk with his gang of enforcers at DOGE have put the axe to yet another seven government agencies. Carried out by presidential executive order, this particular blitz is aimed at offices busy with things as diverse as labor dispute mediation and the mitigation of homelessness.

The method of Trumpist attack is simple and already familiar: The targeted agencies are not literally shut down, which Trump cannot legally do by decree. Instead, their budgets and staff are pruned so aggressively that they have to cease operations.

Yet, tellingly, there is only one kind of cut that has really made centrists, liberals, and the mainstream media furious. Nope, not the hit on the homeless; and not the one on labor relations either. What caused a ruckus instead is that Trump and Musk have gone after state propaganda. To be precise, state propaganda for the rest of the world.

For one of the offices that has been given the Trumpist flamethrower treatment this time is the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). And that is, in reality, the US ministry for propaganda abroad.

While it’s a fairly new (2018) label, USAGM’s roots reach deep into the fetid soil of the last century’s Cold War.

Originally, there were Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty. Voice of America was founded during World War II and was quickly retooled afterwards to be used as a Cold War propaganda weapon by the CIA. Its younger cousins, Radio Free Europe, founded in 1950, and Radio Liberty (1951) were, literally, CIA fronts.

Read more

But that “involvement was kept secret until the late 1960s for fear of Soviet retaliation,” as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it with fine British understatement as well as a whopping portion of brute disinformation: The fact that the CIA remained in hiding was, of course, not due to the big bad Russians (the Soviets at the time) being so terribly scary. It was simply a means to manipulate publics in the East and the West and present what was geopolitically driven propaganda as ‘independent news’.

After 1971, the CIA (officially) ended its (direct) control. If you believe that means an agency specializing in lying – and so much worse – was no longer pulling the strings, I have a Ukrainian ‘democracy’, complete with ‘civil society’ and all the fixings, to sell you.

Formally, the Board for International Broadcasting took over. It was appointed by the president, which tells you all you need to know about how important this global propaganda machine was to Washington.

Finally, after further label changes, the board morphed into the USAGM. It ended up controlling not just Voice of America, as well as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty – long merged into RFE/RL – but a host of other outlets, including Radio Free Asia, and the very honest-sounding (not) Office of Cuba Broadcasting.

According to USAGM’s own website, it was reaching an audience of 427 million per week in 64 languages, and via traditional broadcasting as well as the internet. Those lucky viewers, listeners, and readers were fed an unhealthy diet corresponding to the US “national interest” (in USAGM’s own terms) of “more than 3,000 hours of original programming each week.”

Say what you will about this American ministry of foreign propaganda, but it was bigger and richer than anything comparable the poor old Soviets ever managed to rig up.

And that is the organization that Trump and Musk have just cut down. The Cold War, of course, has long been over. Any reasonable person’s response to this overdue move would be: ‘What took you so long?’ Elon Musk had a point when posting that the propaganda outlets are “ just radical crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1bn/year of US taxpayer money.” Except, they were by no means only talking to themselves, unfortunately. And what made them “radical” and “crazy” is actually how very American-as-applepie they were.

Read more

Reason, in any case, is in short supply in America’s political center. Instead of a sigh of relief that this costly Jurassic Park of Cold War media dinosaurs has finally been taken off the US taxpayers’ books, a great lament set in.

The director of Voice of America, Michael Abramowitz, provided his own outfit’s eulogy with touching modesty, posting that “ VOA promotes freedom and democracy around the world by telling America’s story and by providing objective and balanced news and information, especially for those living under tyranny.” For Steve Capus, the head of RFE/RL, “The cancellation of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s grant agreement would be a massive gift to America’s enemies.”

Oh, that rich sound of the 1950s! It’s almost as if Duke Ellington and his Big Band orchestra are back to let it swing with Joseph McCarthy.

Funnily enough, Abramowitz didn’t include those living under genocidal siege by apartheid Israel. It seems that “objectivity” and “balance” were doing about as well at VOA as ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are in the US.

The former chief financial officer at USAGM, Grant Turner – yes, that’s his real name, no kidding – has bemoaned a “Bloody Saturday.”

To be fair, it’s only natural that high-ranking propaganda cadres won’t yell with joy when their life’s work ends up in shambles or their careers meet a sudden, if deserved, end. But Abramowitz, Capus, and Turner are by no means alone. NBC News, the National Press Club, the Association for International Broadcasting, for instance, all joined the chorus of protest against Trump’s move.

Read more

And the Czech Republic’s foreign minister, Jan Lipavsky, believes the EU should put Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on life support. It’s a European thing now: Whatever really bad idea Washington finally drops – keeping expensive Cold War propaganda relics, running an even more expensive and very bloody as well as hopeless proxy war against Russia – the Europeans feel like picking them up.

Let’s hope they won’t succeed. It is time for these disinformation machines to go. They have never ceased doing massive harm, be it through warmongering or information war support for regime change camouflaged as color revolutions. Ivan Katchanovski, the leading authority on the false-flag Maidan massacre in February 2014 in Kiev has just posted about how they “covered up [and] misrepresented” it by purging inconvenient video evidence, and later omitting the “de facto confirmation” by a Ukrainian court that the massacre was indeed a nationalist far-right, pro-Western operation.

The Trumpists are not ‘good guys’. They believe in lying and censorship no less than their Bidenist predecessors. Ask the Palestinians and their harassed and persecuted supporters or the Yemenites or the Venezuelans. But no one needs more well-financed lying in this world. And if American factions are now going after each other’s propaganda machines, the sight is grimly funny.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Ukraine conflict epitomizes the technocratic decline foreseen by Oswald Spengler, with Moscow embracing historical destiny while the machine-driven West crumbles under its own hubris

The conflict in Ukraine is not about Ukraine. It is the West’s last delirious attempt to exert control over a world that no longer needs it.

The West, lost in the labyrinth of its own technocratic nightmare, flails like a dying beast, mechanized and blind. The German historical philosopher Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), in ‘Man and Technics’ (1931), wrote of the Faustian civilization’s ultimate downfall, where technology, once an extension of organic culture, becomes an iron cage, trapping its creators in a world they no longer understand. The Western response to Ukraine is precisely this: Drones, sanctions, media narratives manufactured in real-time, an illusion of omnipotence maintained by algorithms, and artificial intelligence. But reality is slipping through the cracks. The more the West mechanizes, the more it loses its ability to perceive the living, breathing cultures it seeks to control.

A ceasefire? A negotiation? The West proposes them like a bureaucrat offering a new tax code, as if war were a spreadsheet that could be adjusted to fit quarterly projections. US President Donald Trump’s emissaries meet with Russian officials, not because they believe in peace but because the old America – his America – has sensed the shift. A world order of raw power is replacing the West’s dream of digital hegemony, and Russia, China, and a thousand-year-old history stand against it. Spengler saw it coming: The machines would overtake the soul, and the West would become incapable of organic thought. This is why they cannot understand Russia – not because they lack intelligence, but because their intelligence has been reduced to an algorithmic process, stripped of cultural depth. The West is thinking in the way that a machine thinks, and Russia, still a creature of history, is thinking like an empire.

Russian President Vladimir Putin dismisses the ceasefire offer because he knows it is a mirage. He speaks of root causes, of history, of a world that is not reducible to transactions and diplomatic maneuvers. The West recoils in horror. This is the fundamental difference: Russia still understands what war means, while the West sees only an endless data stream of casualties, arms shipments, and strategic objectives. Spengler called this the tragic turn of Faustian civilization – when man, having created his machines, no longer controls them. The West does not wage war for power or territory but to maintain the facade that it is still in control. War as process. War as algorithm. The end goal is never victory, only perpetual management of crises.

Read more

Meanwhile, the financial technocrats of the G7 conjure $50 billion from thin air, leveraging interest from Russia’s frozen assets, a sleight of hand that Spengler would recognize as the final stage of Western decay – economic manipulation replacing genuine production, artificial wealth replacing true cultural strength. The West no longer builds. It merely extracts, redistributes, and sanctions, hoping that the machinery of global finance can replace the natural momentum of a rising civilization. Russia, in contrast, returns to the old ways: Industry, military strength, self-reliance. The difference is stark. One civilization grows more entangled in its own mechanical hat tricks, the other returns to the fundamental logic of history.

Spengler saw technology as both the great achievement and the final undoing of the West. It began as a tool, an extension of man’s will, but in the late stages, it turns against its creators, reducing them to mere components in a system that no longer serves them. The West’s obsession with sanctions, surveillance, and narrative control is not an expression of power. It is a sign of weakness. True imperial civilizations do not need to micro-manage the world; they shape it through sheer will. This is why Trump, despite his flaws, represents the only real possibility for a Western resurgence. He rejects the managerial ethos. He understands power instinctively, like the rulers of old. The new Conservative Revolution in America is not about ideology. It is about reclaiming agency from the machine.

And yet, the media apparatus, a monstrous organism birthed by technics, continues its relentless march, shaping reality through distortion. Spengler wrote that the press, in the late stages of Western civilization, ceases to inform and instead dictates what must be believed. Ukraine is reduced to a symbolic battlefield in this grand narrative. Russia is the villain because the system requires a villain. The truth is irrelevant. The headlines are written before the events occur. The war exists less as a physical struggle and more as a media spectacle, a grotesque ritual in which Western leaders play-act as warriors while ensuring they remain far from the consequences of their own actions.

Read more

But while the West is trapped in its simulation, Russia operates in the real. The battlefield is not a metaphor. It is a place where men kill and die. Spengler warned that the civilizations of the late stage would become incapable of true war – they would engage in conflicts but only as technocratic exercises, devoid of the deep, existential struggle that defined the great wars of history. This is why the West cannot win in Ukraine. It fights as a bureaucratic entity, not as a people. And Russia, for all its flaws, fights as a people. The difference is everything.

So here we are, watching the end of an era. The West’s technics cannot save it. The more it relies on technology, the weaker it becomes. The West’s technocrats believe they are guiding history, but history is slipping from their grasp. Ukraine is just a chapter in a much larger story – the story of the old world returning, of empire reclaiming its place over the managerial state. And Trump? He is not the solution, but he is a symptom. A sign that somewhere, buried beneath the layers of bureaucracy and digital wallpaper, the West still remembers what power looks like.

This war is not about Ukraine. It never was. It is about the final struggle between technics and history, between the machine and the soul. And in the end, the machine will fail. Spengler saw it. We see it now. And Russia, whatever else it may be, understands it better than the West ever will.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Even the European Court of Human Rights has found Ukraine guilty over the Trade Union House deaths, but Kiev and its backers remain silent

A sure sign that a news item inconvenient for Zelensky-regime Ukraine and its (remaining) Western supporters is important is that the Western mainstream media will do their best to ignore it. That rule has now held true for more than a decade. At some point in the future, it may stop operating, namely, if the West fully abandons its proxy war regime in Kiev.

Then, and only then, will the Western media heed a new “party line” by dumping that regime as well. But we are not there yet. Indeed, if it is up to the NATO-EU Europeans it may still be a long time before we will see Western mainstream media treating Ukrainian regimes truthfully and critically.

Exhibit A that the kid-gloves-for-Kiev rule is still in force: The way in which Western mainstream media audiences are not getting to hear much about a clearly momentous and, in its political implications, far-reaching finding by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): A few days ago, the court decided an extremely important case against the Ukrainian authorities of both the major port city of Odessa and the capital Kiev.

The essence of the case and the court’s findings, which are available on its website, is not complicated. The Ukrainian authorities abysmally failed to avoid or respond adequately to severe street violence and killings that took place in Odessa in May 2014 between supporters and opponents of the regime change operation commonly known as “Maidan.”

Subsequently they also obstinately failed to investigate the incident. In other words, they first messed up criminally – or worse – and then engaged in a cover-up for over a decade. Not a minor issue if you consider that hundreds of victims were injured and 48 killed on that day.

Twenty-eight plaintiffs from Ukraine had challenged these failures of Ukraine’s current regime before the EHCR. After too many years of deliberation the court has now finally recognized – unanimously, including a Ukrainian judge – that the Ukrainian authorities committed “violations of Article 2 (right to life/investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the relevant authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odesa on 2 May 2014, to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events.”

In addition, in one case, a “violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)” was also found because of a delay in handing over a victim’s body for burial.

Take a step back and just consider the bare essentials: Unrest and mass killing have occurred, in a major city, too. And the public authorities of the state concerned have never provided a remotely adequate investigation or legal redress: Victims and their relatives were left without justice, perpetrators without punishment. In any country that is not content with being a failed state, an authoritarian swamp, or both, the above alone would be a scandal rocking and toppling governments.

Read more

But not in post-Maidan Ukraine. There, instead, major media, such as Ukrainska Pravda, for instance, are performing acrobatic mental contortions to protect their regime from the fallout of the ECHR decision. And how do they do so? By blaming the big bad Russians, of course. Because the very mature first principle of Ukrainian “agency” still is: If it succeeds, it was us; if it’s a fiasco, it was the Russians’ fault. So much for Ukraine’s “free” media and “civil society.” Yes, that’s sarcasm; yes, it’s richly deserved.

Those few Western mainstream media that have not entirely ignored the ECHR decision have, unsurprisingly, employed a similar tactic of obfuscation. Thus, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung does acknowledge that the ECHR “has condemned the Ukrainian authorities,” but reverts to common places about alleged Russian involvement to cushion the blow.

In reality, the court did go out of its way to find something negative to say about Russia, vaguely but demonstratively pointing to Moscow’s information warfare and intentions to “destabilize” Odessa. Yet when you read the ECHR’s press release on its decision honestly, one thing is perfectly clear: the gesturing toward Russia is unspecific and, in essence, rhetorical. It reads as if the judges felt they had to keep up appearances.

If anything, what we learn from these obligatory swipes at Russia is only one thing, namely that the ECHR is biased against it. Big surprise. And the real take-away point then is, of course, that the judges still found massively, comprehensively against the Ukrainian authorities. Even an anti-Russian bias could not sway them – to their credit – from acknowledging reality.

On May 2, 2014, that reality was gruesome: in clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan protesters, some died from gunshot wounds, but the preponderant majority, 42, of the victims died in a fire in the Odessa House of Trade Unions that broke out during and because of the fighting. While some of the fire’s victims received help from outside, others were deliberately blocked up in the burning building or beaten savagely when they escaped it.

Read more

The fire, in other words, may have been the result of deliberate arson or it may have started semi-accidentally when Molotov cocktails were deployed by both sides. But the key point is that it was not merely an accident. At least once it was blazing, it was a weapon because that’s how it was used. How do we know this? In case of a genuine accident, everyone helps put a fire out. Yet that was not at all the case here. Even police and fire services deliberately refrained from intervening.

Both sides fought, but the victims of the fire and thus almost all victims on May 2, belonged to the anti-Maidan side, which was far inferior in numbers and systematically demonized as “pro-Russian,” that is, smeared as “traitors.” And that is, of course, the reason why their relatives cannot receive justice in Ukraine and why those who killed or helped kill these victims are not prosecuted: they belong to the side which was in power then and is still in power now.

The West has its own reasons to ignore this ECHR finding: its whole narrative of why it went to proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is shot through with lies: beginning with the Maidan Massacre of February 2014, which was blamed on the old regime but really committed by pro-regime change, pro-Western snipers, as Ivan Katchanovski has long shown in painstaking detail.

Think about it: This was a false-flag operation that greatly helped catalyze a large regional war, pitting Ukraine and the West against Russia, with a clear potential of escalation to World War III. And the West will still not correct the record.

Read more

And in this enormous Western information war offensive, misrepresenting the Odessa killings of May 2014 has been almost as important as covering up the true nature of the Maidan Massacre in Kiev just over two months before.

Now, with the proxy war being lost for Ukraine and its Western supporters, an honest reckoning with these deceptions would expose how we were lied into it. And that is precisely why it cannot happen. At least not yet: Too many American, European, and Ukrainian politicians, generals, experts, journalists, and academics have too much to lose.

This absence of truth and justice can lead to more killing. In Odessa, one of the pro-Maidan street fighters of May 2014 has just been gunned down in broad daylight: Demyan Ganul was an open and proud far-right extremist and neo-Nazi, tattoos and all. He led his own outfit, called the Street Front and made a habit out of mocking the victims of the Trade Union House fire by having barbecue parties in front of the building on the fire’s anniversaries. He was generally violent, allegedly not only beating but also raping victims, including males. He terrorized others into fighting in the war. In his spare time, he toppled Russian monuments.

The Ukrainian authorities have announced that the investigation of Ganul’s end is now under the personal supervision of Interior Minister Igor Klimenko. The priorities of the Zelensky regime are ugly and unsurprising.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Russia faces the challenge of keeping Trump engaged in ending the conflict while protecting its own interests, which clash with America’s ambitions

With the caveat that if everything the American and Russian negotiators are discussing behind the scenes regarding peace in Ukraine is not known, one can make a reasonable assessment of how things stand based on public statements made not only by the US and Russia, but also the Ukrainian and European leadership, as well as some inbuilt difficulties in reaching a peaceful settlement – because with regard to the end game in Ukraine, the views and interests of the parties involved differ deeply.

US and Russia officials met in Riyadh on February 18 following a conversation between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting had a broader agenda that went beyond the issue of Ukraine, and understandably so, because the Ukraine conflict is rooted in US security policies in Europe which the Russians have viewed as a threat to national security. Inevitably, therefore, the search for a resolution to the conflict has to be embedded in efforts to improve US-Russia relations in general.

Accordingly, at the Riyadh meeting, the two sides agreed to take steps to normalize the operations of their respective diplomatic missions and lay the groundwork for future cooperation on geopolitical issues and for economic and investment opportunities following the end of the Ukraine conflict, for which high level teams will begin working on a path to achieve in a way that is enduring, sustainable, and acceptable to all sides.

After a meeting between Trump and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in the White House turned into a fiasco, US and Ukrainian delegations met in Riyadh on March 11. At the White House meeting, Zelensky maintained his hardline posture on fighting the Russians, refusing any recourse to diplomacy to end the conflict, instead insisting on obtaining security guarantees from the US. In Riyadh – after the US temporarily blocked arms supplies and intelligence sharing – Zelensky discarded his obstinate position and agreed to an immediate ceasefire for 30 days.

Read more

The joint statement issued on the occasion has nuances of interest. The intention is to “enact” an immediate ceasefire, which normally would mean that it cannot be ‘immediate’, as the details of what goes into the ceasefire arrangement would have to be clarified. The US, according to the joint statement, will communicate to Moscow that Russian reciprocity is the key to peace. But reciprocity in what time frame is the question?

The approach taken suggests that Zelensky is now genuinely wedded to peace, but that if Russia wants to discuss the conditions associated with the ceasefire and the next steps required to achieve peace that is “enduring, sustainable and acceptable to all sides,” Putin would be rejecting peace.

Without waiting for a Russian response, the US has announced in this joint statement that it will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine. This means once again buttressing Ukraine’s capacity to fight and wielding a stick against Russia. The US has also legitimized in principle the Ukrainian demand for the “return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children,” which is a way for Ukraine to claim sovereignty over the people in the regions in the east now claimed by Russia following referendums. This is also a loaded issue as it was used by the International Criminal Court to egregiously declare Putin a war criminal.

On the issue of long term security for Ukraine, the American and Ukrainian delegations will hold negotiations and the specific proposals that emerge will be discussed by the US with Russia. What these specific proposals are is unclear, as Trump has repeatedly rejected the idea of Ukraine joining NATO or receiving security guarantees from America, as this would open the door to a direct clash with Russia in the future. Trump believes that a deal on mineral resources with Ukraine will guarantee its long term security. The Ukrainians are determined to use Europe as a counterbalance to US pressure on them, and hence in the joint statement, the Ukrainians have insisted that the Europeans should be involved in the peace process.

Read more

The course of peace in Ukraine is beset by many problems. The issue extends beyond Ukraine’s security – it is equally, if not more, about Russia’s security, which ultimately drove its decision to take military action. At the heart of this has been NATO’s eastward expansion, the regime change in Ukraine provoked by the US, the capture of power in Ukraine by what Russia sees as forces wedded to a Nazi-like ideology and hostile to anything Russian, and so on. The declared goals of Russia’s military operation are the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.

These goals are unlikely to be met. On the contrary, Zelensky is seen as an embodiment of Ukrainian resistance and continues to be lionized. If he was rebuffed by Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, the European leaders collectively embraced and honored him immediately after his US visit, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer arranging for him to be received by King Charles, which could be interpreted as a snub to Trump. If Trump has called Zelensky a dictator and advocated for elections in Ukraine, the Europeans do not question his democratic credentials and see him as fully legitimate.

Peace in Europe, and durably in Ukraine, cannot be achieved if Europe is preparing for a long term confrontation with Russia. In early March, the EU decided on a massive €800 billion re-armament program, a five-part plan to bolster Europe’s defense industry and increase its military capability and help provide urgent military support for Ukraine The member states would be given more fiscal space for defense investments, as well as €150 billion in loans for those investments.

On March 11, in a meeting in Paris of 34 countries, French President Emmanuel Macron called on European and NATO military chiefs to draw up a plan “to define credible security guarantees” for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and throw their full weight behind Ukraine. Macron has joined with Starmer to lead efforts to form a “coalition of the willing” to enforce an eventual ceasefire in Ukraine and give security guarantees to Ukraine that, according to the Elysée, should be “credible and long-term, and should be accompanied by unfailing support for the Ukrainian army.”

Read more

Earlier, the French defense minister stated that any form of demilitarization of Ukraine would be rejected. Starmer ratcheted up his rhetoric against Russia, saying on March 13 that “Putin’s appetite for conflict and for chaos is already there, and it will only grow,” and that Russia “is already menacing our skies, our waters, our streets and our national security.”

Differences between the US and Europe on NATO could mean less pressure on Russia on the NATO front. Whatever its defense plans, it will take many years for Europe to build its defense capabilities. Europe does not have a standing European army with a single command structure and collectively defined war plans or strategy outside of NATO.

On the other hand, with the US unable to discipline Europe, the security headaches for Russia will take a new turn. The EU leadership is profoundly hostile to Russia, whether it is the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy, Kaja Kallas, the EU commissioner for defense and space, Andrius Kubilius, etc. This will make peace understandings with Russia that much more difficult in the European framework.

Trump himself is a problem as he is wont to air his views publicly on sensitive matters rather than leaving his emissaries to conduct talks discreetly away from media glare, often contradicting himself, and being accommodating and threatening at intervals. He is constantly doing this on the Ukraine issue. He is a player, commentator, and umpire at the same time. Russia’s challenge is to keep him engaged, as he seems to genuinely want to end the conflict, and not alienate him, but at the same time protect Russia’s fundamental interests, even if means dissonance with Trump’s expansive positions.

READ MORE: India is way too eager to embrace Trump’s America

Putin has tailored his approach as well as possible by remaining open to a ceasefire while seeking clarifications and answers to obvious questions that arise, which he has spelled out to the press. The uniform statement coming from the West is that the ball is in Putin’s court. Putin has to put the ball right back in the US and Ukraine’s court. Hostile forces in the West will promote a narrative against him, with Zelensky already claiming that Putin does not want peace. Let’s see how this plays out. Bridging the differences in interests and perspectives between the various sides will not be easy.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The bloc has allowed its most war-crazed members to dictate its Russia policies – and now they want to attack Moscow first

We have reached a point where, with regard to Russia, the US is more reasonable and less bellicose than its currently semi-rebellious European vassals.

Washington is trying to end the senseless proxy war against Russia via Ukraine and also to facilitate a broader détente with Moscow. The NATO-EU European elites are desperate to keep the war going and to build their own countries’ whole futures on confronting Russia – forever.

The deranged European “elites” will fail, one way or the other. Their perception of reality is distorted by delusions, their resources – military and also intellectual – are far too small, and their aims make no sense. But the problem for the rest of us is that they may yet cause enormous damage on their way down the rubbish chute of history. And while they are all fairly insane – minus exceptional cases, such as Slovakia and Hungary – there still are important differences: they tend to get even more bonkers the farther east you move on the map. Call it the West-East NATO-EU Insanity Gradient, if you wish.

That’s what a recent Western mainstream media specimen brought out with beautiful clarity if unwittingly. Its lede was buried so far down that most readers probably never got to it: “I put it to a major eastern European politician that western European states care little about wars in eastern Europe. He replied, ‘We know. That’s why some of our countries are asking, ‘Why don’t we attack Russia now, instead of sitting waiting for it to attack us?’” So writes Simon Kuper in the Financial Times, under the heading “ Return of the Two Europes.”

A “major eastern European politician” … Come on, who was it this time: The Estonian wonder brain Kaja “Let’s Break Up Russia” Kallas, again? Or Poland’s current viceroy from Brussels Donald “I want some nukes, too” Tusk? Clearly in any case, this one was not from Ukraine but from somewhere (officially) inside NATO and the EU. And he or she has told us that they – “some” others are involved as well – are thinking about launching a preventive war against Russia.

Read more

Based not on anything that you could conceivably call self-defense – not among the moderately sane, in any case – but only their own hysterical delusions. That, in and of itself, is sensational, though not really surprising. Even more exciting: It’s also sensationally awful since it’s really about some all too well-connected idiots – that NATO-EU expansion thing, again – in possession of very moderate militaries seriously thinking about starting World War III for the rest of us with a great power that has a large, very efficient, battle-hardened, and motivated conventional military and almost 5,000 nuclear weapons. Surely, that’s a page-one first-order scoop! Right?

Nope, it’s not. Not at the Financial Times, in any case. Maybe that’s because Kuper – former sportswriter, now all-purpose deep-thought ruminator and clearly confidant of at least one absolute nutcase in high office in the NATO-EU East – chose to end his piece on that bang instead of making it its actual topic from the get-go. Even more intriguingly, everything that happens in his article before we get to that wallop of an ending about ending us all, seems to imply that we are supposed to find that idea rather understandable if not, perhaps, really quite attractive. Because, you see, it’s from the NATO-EU East.

For here is what Kuper feels we need to think about: Milan Kundera. Yes, really, Kundera. I know… Because that effective novelist and once fashionable essayist had an idea once. An idea hitting it off with the eternally fresh Zeitgeist of – drum roll – 1983. Yes, that would be that 1983, the year of America’s Ronald Reagan at his most gung-ho and the Soviets’ Yury Andropov at his most paranoid; one of the very worst of the many, many bad years of the Cold War, one when we did almost manage to trigger the big one, nukes and all and then nothing). Obviously, that idea is now officially enshrined, rather like a relic, on the European Parliament’s website.

And Kuper just can’t forget it either: Namely Kundera’s notion that what, during the Cold War, used to be Soviet Eastern Europe wasn’t really Eastern Europe but, actually, you see, Western Europe, only better: namely with Kafka, rainy cobblestones, Habsburg gilt and schmalz, and, of course, “YALTA!”

“YALTA!” (meaning the 1945 Yalta conference where the post-World War II reorganization of Germany and Europe was arranged) – always to be pronounced in an aggrieved, resentful voice, please, preferably with a Polish accent – meaning this particularly precious part of Europe had been “ kidnapped” by the big bad Russian bear and sold out by the mean West, that is, the rest of the West, as it were. You get the idea.

Read more

And therefore, the politicos, intellectuals, and future grant entrepreneurs of not-really-Eastern-Europe had some very decent victimhood capital to work with in the ongoing age of competitive victimhood discrimination: a lot of oomph for, say, former picturesque Polish dissidents (and some informers, too, of course), but not the gum under the West’s shoes for today’s massacred Palestinian children.

Indeed back then, in – checks notes: yes, really, 1983 – that slightly displaced West in the claws of that rudely overreaching Russian bear was such a touching sight, so cute yet unlucky, so brave yet suppressed that it needed an old new name all of its own: Central Europe. (No, translation into German strictly VERBOTEN! Because that would be “Mitteleuropa” and then… please, just don’t ask. And don’t mention the war! Come to think of it, either of the two, really.)

Polite Westerners raised on Kundera, Havel, and Garton-Ash learned that: 1) Central Europe is sad, because it’s between Germans (no sense of humor, occasional fits of ultra-violent world conquest) and Russians (did defeat those Germans and have a sense of humor but never do as we tell them). 2) Central Europe is often Slavic, but nice Slavic. Not like, again, those terrifying Russians who every hundred years or so whip our armies’ behinds (Hintern, postérieur, ända, tylek – in reverse chronological order) when we try to invade them, 3) Central Europe belongs in NATO and the EU – again unlike Russia – because, remember, Central Europe is really Western Europe and definitely not Eastern Europe. Because Eastern Europe, you see, is only Russia now, and, ironically, everyone still agreed that Eastern Europe could not ever possibly belong to us.

In the meantime, a miracle occurred: as “Central Europe” had always really been an extension of the West, the two “good” post-Cold War Europes, West and Center or NATO-EU and Soon-NATO-EU, fused rapidly. Sounds not very likely? No, but don’t blame me. That’s what the FT is telling us, as joining NATO was the same as joining the “transatlantic West.”

And now, there is the rub: That West’s imperial capital in Washington has been taken over by a weird reformer with outlandish ideas about making peace with the other side, who is dissolving the whole Pact, pardon Alliance. Sort of like good old Gorbachev c. 1989, when he tore down and buried the Cold War East from its center in Moscow. The name of this distant (admittedly, very distant) revenant of “Perestroika” and heir to the Gorbachevian tradition of Cold War empire disruption from the very top: Donald Trump. (Didn’t see that one coming, Donald, right?)

Read more

And that’s why, Kuper believes with an incredibly deep sense of history (not), the Europes are now drifting apart again. It’s all Trump’s fault! Again! Kuper does not know this, of course, but he rather resembles a post-Soviet nostalgic in Russia who would also be blaming the end of the Soviet empire on one guy alone. Great Men do make history, it turns out. At least when small minds need a scapegoat.

Where to even begin? The two Europes, East and West, have never been one. And NATO didn’t make them so, either. What did happen was that the European NATO-EU bloc ended up permitting the newcomers from the East to shape, even dominate its policy toward Russia. Clueless Kallas is merely the logical if imbecile outcome of that decision.

The reasons for that non-sensical permission are manifold, but the key point is that this pathology must end: there is no sound reason why everyone in NATO-EU Europe should agree to war with Russia just because Madame Kallas and company can’t get over their Kundera. Or you, for that matter, Simon. Indeed, it was a mistake not only to expand NATO but to expand the EU.

And for those who think the “elite” nutcases in the NATO-EU East cannot do too much harm because NATO’s infamous Article 5 is only about “defense”: First, NATO has found ways to go on the attack several times already, ask the Afghans and Libyans, for instance. Second, a pretext can always be found or made. Rely on it: If we, the West, ever launch a direct, open attack on Russia – indirectly and by proxy, we have already done so, of course – our media will lie us into the ground with tales of how “they started it all” – and our intellectuals and experts will eat it all up and drone on about it on our talk shows as long as TV will still be working. Third, the EU itself is now planning to massively militarize. If it “succeeds,” there will be yet another tail with which an idiot from, say, Estonia can wag us all into oblivion – for the greater glory of Kundera and 1983.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Officials are gearing up to wring their constituents of every last coin to fund their wargame fantasies

European defense is basically a teenaged-grade fantasy war gaming league at this point – minus the generous sponsorships.

On Wednesday, defense ministers from five European heavyweights – France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Britain (yes, Britain, because apparently Brexit only applied to sensible EU decisions) – gathered in Paris to figure out how to elbow their way back into the Ukraine game.

With US President Donald Trump running the show himself, Europe’s big players are scrambling for relevance. And they’re doing such a stellar job of it that the German defense minister is now relegated to sounding like every annoying dude sitting courtside at a French Open tennis match who thinks he’s offering stellar insight into the state of play. “We welcome the one-month ceasefire,” Boris Pistorius said, referring to the deal that the Trump administration made with Ukraine. “But now the ball is in Vladimir Putin’s court. It is now Vladimir Putin’s turn to demonstrate his repeated stated readiness for a ceasefire or peace,” he added. Because nothing screams “gimme peace” like the EU meeting about throwing money into the purchase of new weapons.

But all this war prepping talk is great for Europe’s latest PR push: convincing taxpayers that draining their wrung-out wallets to the point of even potentially leveraging their private savings for an arms race, as suggested by the French defense mall minister, is actually a genius economic plan. Keynesianism, but with a military vibe.

The British defense secretary claims that the need for a weapons shopping spree actually comes from a place of deep, inner hippie-ness. “The Ukrainians want peace. We all want peace. And as defense ministers, we have been discussing and we are working to strengthen the push for peace,” John Healey said, probably itching to get back home to squeeze into some bell bottoms and smash the bongo drums.

Read more

Poland’s defense minister also appears to have just stumbled out of a flower-painted VW bus straight from Woodstock. “500 million Europeans deserve a force that will defend peace. 500 million Europeans deserve the opportunity to bring peace,” said Wladyslaw Kosinski-Kamysz in explaining why more weapons spending is needed, and sounding like the type who would also suggest that sobriety comes through an overextended happy hour sip n’ giggle.

Earlier this week, the French and British defense ministers huddled with their army chiefs of staff, still riding high on their leaders’ idea of a “coalition of the willing” for Ukraine. That was British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s braindropping, repurposed from the Iraq War – perhaps because he couldn’t think of an appropriate catchphrase to reference loss of 60,000 British troops in World War I’s Battle of the Somme. All because Trump had the audacity to suggest a grand bargain with Russia, with the risk of peace breaking out in Ukraine.

None of these European countries actually want any troops on the front line at this point, by the way. Not that they aren’t one screwup away from them ending up there anyway. Maybe the French president and armchair general, Emmanuel Macroleon, can train all these contingents like they did that €900-million Ukrainian ‘Anne of Kyiv’ Brigade, with 1,700 of them going AWOL before the first shot was even fired.

Interesting that the Trump administration reportedly just wants private contractors on the ground around the resource exploitation deals that they’ve envisioned in Ukraine and elsewhere, and in which Putin has also expressed interest in partnering. But insiders have told France’s Le Figaro that the Europeans don’t believe that will work, and that NATO troops are needed. Apparently, they believe that Russia would attack its own joint ventures with the Americans in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, 34 European and NATO army chiefs also met in Paris. Notable absence: anyone from Trump’s Washington – even though Starmer straight up said that British troop deployment would be contingent on US air cover. So you’d think a Trump official would need to at least be present to make all this more than just an exercise in self-flagellation.

French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu says that the discussions were not just about putting European boots on the ground in Ukraine – since apparently there are plenty of other creative ways to deploy troops, he suggests. Like, say, casually stationing them in the Black Sea or around nuclear plants. Because what could possibly go wrong? Just some chill guys, loitering like they’re outside a 7-Eleven, but instead of sipping Slurpees, they’re securing nuclear facilities. Totally not a pretext for future shenanigans – like, I don’t know, using another ceasefire to reload for war, just like former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande admitted being the case under the Minsk agreements a decade ago.

Read more

Oh, and in between all this strategizing, they also put together a little weapons wish list. Lecornu rattled off items like air defense systems, space tech, munitions, early warning systems, and, of course, joint defense acquisitions – because nothing says “we’re serious about peace” like a military shopping spree. One minor detail in all this, by the way: How are you jokers going to pay for all this?

Lecornu has already said that “Ukraine” (synonymous in this context with the EU military industrial complex) can benefit from €195 million stolen from Russian assets held in the West. Meanwhile, France’s Europe affairs minister, Benjamin Haddad, a former Washington-based think-tank fixture, suggested that the French could just “work more,” according to Politico, which also cites center-right establishment figure Cedric Perrin, president of the French Senate defense and foreign affairs committee, who figures that the cash can be found by cutting down on wasteful public spending.

Gosh, if only you geniuses had thought of that before now, then maybe you wouldn’t be resorting to theft and rummaging through everyone’s couch cushions to fuel your “GI Jean” fantasies – and musing about having citizens invest whatever’s left of their private savings after already robbing them through skyrocketing energy prices and cost of living “for Ukraine.”

Meanwhile, Ursula von der Leyen, the unelected European Commission president, couldn’t sufficiently convince enough representatives of already broke EU member states who actually rely on the public for reelection, that they should start prioritizing, in their spending budgets, bullets over baguettes and be stocking up on tanks like they’re toilet paper. Even the loudest doomsayers about the so-called Russian threat – like Lithuania – have already told NATO that when it comes to sacrificing social spending for artillery, “Nah, we’re good.”

So what’s left to do? Easy. Fire up the fear machine, crank it to 11, and act like Russian tanks are already lining up on the EU’s borders and about to door crash it like a Black Friday sale, and that the only way to stop them is for the EU to impulse-buy weapons – some of which won’t even exist for years even if the manufacturing investment was made today.

Read more

We’re talking about €800 billion that Queen Ursula wants EU countries to blow. And nestled inside that €800 billion tab? A new €150 billion loan scheme – because nothing fixes crippling debt like grabbing a bigger shovel. Weird move, considering von der Leyen has spent years scolding countries like France for their runaway debt, forcing them to cut spending and raise taxes.

So how does she justify this glorious U-turn? Simple. It’s an emergency! And emergencies are sometimes best handled without the inconvenience of democracy. So she’s resorted to Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – a handy little bureaucratic cheat code that lets the Council of Europe, at the request of Queen Ursula’s European Commission, bypass the elected European Parliament entirely if there’s an economic crisis tied to energy supply or a natural disaster.

But when you’re Ursula von der Leyen, apparently fine print is just a minor detail. She’s used it to skim profits from energy companies, bankroll the bloc-wide “get paid to stay home” scheme during the Covid pandemic, force an energy consumption crackdown that left Europeans layering up in turtlenecks and taking speed showers to “own Putin,” and slap on a gas price cap that was conveniently NOT the higher one that member states wanted, Le Monde has reported.

And all of these measures under Article 122 are supposed to only be temporary. But Ursula’s grand military splurge? That’s shaping up to be the kind of one-night stand that comes with a lifetime of regret.

As for the democratic process that this loophole use is undermining? Well, when it comes to fast-tracking a weapons wishlist, democracy is apparently like a seatbelt in a Hollywood car chase that can just be ignored when things get spicy.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The continent must unite to shape its economic future and to end its dependence on Western financial institutions

In late February 2025, a group of former African heads of state and finance experts gathered in Cape Town, South Africa, to sign the Cape Town Declaration – a bold call for a comprehensive debt relief program for African nations. This initiative, led by the African Leaders Debt Relief Initiative (ALDRI), comes at a time when Africa’s economy is shackled by a debt burden that is suffocating development, forcing governments to prioritize repayments to Western and private creditors over essential services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The numbers are staggering. As of 2021, Africa’s external debt had skyrocketed to $824 billion, with many countries spending over 60% of their GDP servicing these loans. In 2025 alone, Africa is projected to spend $74 billion on debt repayments – money that could instead fund schools, hospitals, and roads. But this crisis is not a simple case of financial mismanagement; it is a direct continuation of a system of economic subjugation that was established during colonial rule and perfected in the post-independence era through institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

For decades, African nations have fought to break free from Western economic dominance, and many visionary leaders have proposed radical solutions to liberate the continent. Among the most ambitious efforts were those led by Muammar Gaddafi, who sought to establish a gold-backed African currency, an African Central Bank, and an African Organization of Natural Resources – initiatives that, had they succeeded, could have ended Africa’s dependence on Western financial institutions.

The colonial origins of Africa’s debt crisis

Africa’s modern debt crisis cannot be understood without revisiting its colonial past. European powers extracted resources worth trillions of dollars from the continent while offering little in return in terms of industrial development. When independence movements swept across Africa in the mid-20th century, colonial powers did not simply leave. Instead, they imposed odious debts on newly independent nations, ensuring their continued economic dependence.

Read more

Take, for example, the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). When Belgium finally relinquished its grip on the country in 1960, it left behind a destroyed economy and almost no national wealth. Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister, attempted to nationalize the country’s resources to benefit its people. The response from the West? A CIA-backed coup that led to his assassination. In his place, the US and Belgium installed Mobutu Sese Seko, who accumulated billions in debt while plundering national wealth. The people of the DRC are still paying for this crime.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the IMF and World Bank imposed Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) on African nations, forcing them to slash public spending, privatize state enterprises, and open their economies to foreign investors. These policies, disguised as “economic reforms,” crippled Africa’s public sector, increased unemployment, and destroyed local industries – while Western corporations made a fortune.

The debt trap today: A modern form of colonialism

Fast forward to 2025, and Africa remains trapped in an economic structure that benefits Western financial institutions, multinational corporations, and private creditors. According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), nearly 49% of Africa’s debt is now held by private lenders (expected to rise to 54%). Unlike concessional loans from the AfDB or the World Bank, these private loans come with interest rates that are five times higher than those paid by Western nations.

And then there’s the “Africa premium” – the absurd phenomenon where African countries are charged higher interest rates despite having lower default rates than Western economies.

Read more

AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina has repeatedly condemned this financial racism, stating, “There is no economic justification for why Africa, which has some of the lowest default rates, should be punished with higher borrowing costs.”

Gaddafi’s vision: Africa’s path to economic sovereignty

Not all African leaders have accepted this system of economic servitude. Some have tried to overthrow the Western-controlled financial order, and none more so than Muammar Gaddafi. It is in fact undeniable that Gaddafi was one of the most visionary proponents of African economic independence.

Gaddafi’s most radical proposal was the creation of an African currency backed by gold, known as the Gold Dinar. This would have eliminated Africa’s dependence on the US dollar and euro, allowing African nations to trade with one another in a currency based on their own resources.

Western powers understood that such a move would undermine the supremacy of their financial systems. A leaked Hillary Clinton email revealed that one of the main reasons for NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 was to prevent Gaddafi from launching the gold-backed currency.

Read more

Gaddafi also proposed an African Organization of Natural Resources (AONR), an institution that would have unified Africa’s resource management and ensured that the continent’s wealth was controlled by Africans, not foreign corporations. And his most ambitious economic project was the establishment of an African Central Bank (ACB), headquartered in Nigeria. The ACB would have served as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank, issuing African currencies and financing development without reliance on Western financial institutions.

A strategic shift: Africa and BRICS

If Africa is serious about breaking free from Western economic hegemony, it must seek alliances beyond the West, and BRICS offers the best alternative. BRICS nations represent a significant share of global economic power, controlling over 31.5% of global GDP (PPP) as of 2024, surpassing the 30% held by the G7.

Why BRICS? First of all, it gives access to alternative financing: the New Development Bank (NDB), established by BRICS, provides loans without the colonial-style conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank. Then, it can build a way to reduce dollar dependence, as BRICS is actively promoting trade in local currencies, which aligns with Africa’s own push for currency independence.

We also speak of technology transfer and industrialization: China and India, as emerging industrial giants, can provide investment in infrastructure and technology transfer without the exploitative conditions imposed by the West.

Read more

Apart from that, BRICS means fairer trade terms, because, unlike Western trade agreements, which favor multinational corporations, BRICS partners have shown more willingness to negotiate mutually beneficial deals.

Africa must not simply replace Western dependency with another form of subservience. The relationship with BRICS must be strategic, ensuring Africa gains real leverage. First, African nations must demand technology transfer instead of being raw material suppliers. Then AfCFTA (African Continental Free Trade Area) should be expanded to create a strong internal African market before seeking external trade partnerships. And finally, Africa should collectively negotiate with BRICS rather than entering fragmented, nation-by-nation agreements that weaken its position.

The struggle continues

The West killed Gaddafi’s dream of economic independence, but it remains Africa’s duty to resurrect it. The 21st century must be about dismantling financial colonialism – and forging new alliances that serve African interests. BRICS offers a promising alternative, but ultimately, Africa’s economic liberation must come from within. The continent must unite, own its resources, control its currency, and dictate its economic future – or remain forever shackled to the whims of foreign creditors.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The French leader is mulling sending troops to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but his “little emperor” moment could turn into a nightmare for many

French President Emmanuel Macron is currently completely absorbed in cosplaying Napoleon, leading the charge to put French and European boots on the ground on Ukraine’s side against the Russians. His costume needs to be taken in for resizing – downward.

Sharing the stage with “Dollar General Napoleon” is British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the role of “Wish Wellington.” This sweatshop mail order version of the legendary British Duke of Wellington and military strategist sounds like he was knocked around and damaged during the shipping process, and has been keen to use his predecessor’s Iraq War tagline of a “coalition of the willing” for marketing purposes. Because that worked out so great the first time that reminding people of it will surely make them want to have yet another go. This time against Russia.

“Wish Wellington” seems rather keen to repeat the logistic challenges of the actual Duke of Wellington in the Peninsular War of 1807 to 1814 in Spain and Portugal. Only this time the modern-day Napoleon knock-off would be fighting beside him rather than against him. Good luck stretching your logistics to Ukraine for battle when your stated opponent only has to travel from right next door.

Macron doesn’t want to go in right away though, he says. He needs for everyone to stop fighting for a bit first – a month to be precise – so the French and Brits and their posse can safely get to the VIP room with the bar service without having to worry about getting mixed up with guys throwing punches in Club Ukraine. Macron has since explained that the French wouldn’t be on the front line, but would be hanging out to guarantee “peace” – by repeating the same NATO troop presence that sparked the conflict’s escalation in the first place. So there’s no way they could possibly ever find themselves in the middle of punch-ups because Macron envisions that velvet rope separating his fantasy stage play from any real-life consequences remaining intact. A modern-day Maginot Line.

Read more

In the meantime, he’s been taking to TV to tell French citizens, “Who can believe today that Russia would stop at Ukraine?” Well, the French, for one – 65% of whom currently oppose French troops in Ukraine, according to a new CSA Institute poll. Guess they don’t really see it as the pressing issue that Macron portrays. Neither do other EU members, apparently – contrary to their own hyperventilation on the issue. Why else would they have held their Ukraine defense summit in London and not ensured that the Baltics were there, if they were really that concerned about the EU’s frontline countries.

Obviously this is about something else. And one of those other things is trying to literally scare up as much taxpayer cash by fear-bombing their electorate, using the “Russian threat,” to boost their own industrial base.

Germany’s economy has been in the dumps since 2022, but there’s nothing that now can’t be fixed with a trillion-euro blank check from the German taxpayer, as the top establishment parties on both the right and left now want – and a good excuse to have to transfer a big chunk of that cash to the country’s defense industry. Some analysts are saying that the plan could boost the country’s GDP by 2% – in the long run. And well, hey, even if it doesn’t, those responsible probably won’t be around when accountability comes knocking, anyway.

Meanwhile, France has been eyeing a defense spending boost for a while now – because nothing says sophisticated economic strategy like just cranking out piles of missiles. With French manufacturing about as sturdy as a baguette left out in the rain – declining output, sluggish new orders, and job cuts since 2023 – Reuters points to skyrocketing energy prices, fuel costs, and raw materials as the culprits. But hey, at least sticking it to Putin by messing with those things has totally, definitely worked… right? So who’s going to actually pay for all this? Sounds like the French government spokesperson already has an idea: dipping into the interest on French citizens’ savings. Pretty sure that people invest in savings so they can buy themselves nice things – not so Brigitte Macron’s former junior high school drama student can gear up for his “little emperor” era.

All this talk of war with Russia for peace has already sent European defense stocks through the roof. According to the Financial Times, Germany’s Rheinmetall is up 14%. A boost of 15% for France’s Thales and Italy’s Leonardo. BAE systems – 14%. Saab – 11%. Because nothing says ‘safety and security’ like a bunch of investors and establishment cronies getting rich off the backs of the average working stiff.

Read more

The whole charade also has the added bonus of accelerating Macron and European Commission President “Queen” Ursula von der Leyen’s shared fantasy of an integrated EU defense. “The Europe of defense, which we have been defending for eight years, is therefore becoming a reality,” Napoleclown said on March 5.

Not only can they now use Russia, but also Trump’s attempts to cooperate with Putin in securing peace, as a pretext for not having to share any defense cash with Trump’s America. Instead, they can now fully indulge in a shopping spree by themselves.

This is arguably a far bigger opportunity for the Western European military industrial complex than the earlier European collective defense project for which Macron and von der Leyen were ostensibly trying to leverage France’s military presence in Africa to achieve – until they were kicked out of countries when their stability missions resulted in several coups. Even afterwards, Macron was still arguing to Africa, while standing on Central African soil in 2023, that “our interest is to play collectively with our European allies and to position Europe as the partner of reference on major defense and security issues.” He added that “this is the very heart of what we are going to do beyond the pivot that I mentioned earlier,” referring to his grand new strategy of having French military bases in Africa self-identify as schools. Turns out that Africans just pivoted France and the EU right out of there, crushing the dreams of Macron and Queen Ursula, whose own troops reportedly resorted to using broomsticks instead of firearms for their training while she was busy mismanaging contracts as German defense minister – and which may or may not have also served as her chosen mode of transportation.

Ultimately, this whole European “war for peace” thing – “for Ukraine” – is just one big pantomime to fleece the locals, with Macron, Starmer, and von der Leyen hoping they won’t notice. Backstage, a shiny, integrated EU defense and industrial stimulus is being plotted, through a military-industrial shopping spree – which probably will take so long to actually emerge through all the usual red tape and squabbling that Ukraine risks fading well into the rear-view mirror in the meantime. For example, looking forward to someone in the cheap seats – who bought into the EU’s last big obsessive scam before this one – starts heckling them about how the tanks aren’t biodegradable.

Anyway, it seems like the only thing that could ruin their charade now is if some actual shooting inadvertently broke out because Russia isn’t just a non-playable character. Or, you know, World War III.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The presidential frontrunner has been banned from elections under a laughable pretense. Is this the future fate of the entire bloc?

One way you can recognize a rotten Ancien Regime desperately running out of road is by how boorish and transparent its methods of repression get.

By that standard, Romania and with it the EU must be on the verge of revolution. Because it is really hard to imagine a cruder set of dirty tricks than what has been deployed there to suppress the most likely winner of the next presidential election, Calin Georgescu.

By now, the hounding of Georgescu by the Romanian establishment (and that of the EU) is quite a saga. A short recap will do: Last December, Georgescu, an insurgent nationalist-sovereignist surprise candidate, won the first round of Romania’s presidential elections. Instead of holding the second round, as foreseen by law, the Romanian establishment resorted to crass lawfare: Bucharest’s constitutional court cancelled the run-off, which Georgescu had very good chances of winning. Or rather, because Georgescu had very good chances of winning.

The pretext the court used was ludicrous then – guess what? “Russian interference,” again – and by now even Western mainstream media have had to acknowledge that the so-called “evidence,” a file cobbled together by the Romanian security services, is a bad joke. Even the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, stately stalwart of German Russophobia, has long admitted that the claim of Russian meddling was a “myth” (read: lie): “The governing class in Bucharest has made a show of the Russian bogeyman to distract from the failure of its little power games – and to have a pretext for annulling elections that did not suit it.”

Worse (yes, they can do even worse in EU-Romania), Georgescu’s successful social media campaign, which was used as evidence against Georgescu was, in reality, financed by his political opponents. Their plan was to promote him into the second round where they would then be able to beat him. When he proved unpredictably popular and upset that scheme, they cancelled the election.

Read more

Unsurprisingly, many Romanians saw through this charade and rallied even more behind the suppressed candidate. Hence, Georgescu was, if anything, even more likely to win the replacement elections scheduled for May, as polls clearly indicated: leading with over 41% over his closest opponent, who had less than 19%.

That was too much to bear, of course, for Romania’s long-suffering and deeply corrupt establishment. With those poll figures just out, as it happened , the main election authority has now banned Georgescu, again. The underlying principle is simple: You look like you are going to win fair and square. But rule number one of EU democracy club is: we always win. Out you go.

Georgescu, it is true, can still appeal. But guess where: to that same constitutional court that was used to kneecap him when he was winning the first time. Fat chance he’ll have a fair hearing.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Georgescu has been widely characterized as far-right. He certainly is a nationalist and definitely does not belong to my club, the Left. But all of the above is irrelevant. Strictly irrelevant. He has a right to stand for elections. If his opponents dislike his politics, they have to beat him at the ballot box, not through lawfare and by clearly instrumentalized charges.

These charges include dubious associations, playing fast and loose with recent Romanian history, and being less than transparent about money. And so what? Big deal: Even if every single accusation should turn out to be true, the fact is that if the same standards were applied everywhere and to everyone in Romania and the EU or its favorite sham “democracy”, Zelensky’s Ukraine, then broad swathes of the incumbent “elites” would fall.

Read more

Italy, literally, has a government led by a neo-fascist; Ukraine is shot through with not even neo-fascism but the good old sturdy World War Two variant. And don’t get me started on the AfD in Germany and the National Rally in France, neither of which – in spite all the already deeply undemocratic “firewalling” they face – anyone would dare to simply kick out of elections. We could enumerate more examples, but the gist should be clear: even if Georgescu can be characterized as “far right,” the EU, to which Romania belongs, has long accommodated this type of ideology.

The real reason why Georgescu has been eliminated, for now, is, of course, something else, or rather two things: First, he is a populist (that’s praise in my lexicon, by the way) challenger to the elite in both his own country and the EU. Secondly, he has dared question the wisdom of turning Romania into a massive NATO base and thus a giant target. Everything else is pretext. Don’t fall for it.

Georgescu’s supporters are demonstrating and resisting. They are right. Those currently running the US have also come out on his side repeatedly. J.D. Vance warned the Europeans not to overdo it in Romania, or elsewhere. Elon Musk has called the new Romanian attack on the elections “crazy.” About this one, he, too, is right, even if Politico is hysterical about it.

Yet, in a way, the fact that the Romanian authorities, certainly with EU backing, have gone so far is a bad sign: it seems that with the US-Europe relationship on the rocks anyhow, the Europeans are now willing to thumb their noses at what their old overlords in Washington tell them, at least, when it’s about cancelling elections, suppressing democracy or, of course, continuing the moronic and bloody Western proxy war via Ukraine against Russia. Way to go, Europe: You are discovering your ability to rebel against the US, at very long last, only to be even worse.

Georgescu is right: This is not “merely” a Romanian affair, but yet another trend-setting event for all of EU-Europe. After the massive manipulations used in France to build bizarre governments to shut out both the populist right and left and not reflect the vote, the brazen “firewalling” (against the AfD) and probably outright falsifications (against the BSW of Sarah Wagenknecht) in Germany, now we have reached the stage of direct, open election suppression.

Romania is likely to be a harbinger of the future of the EU. No offense, but what an irony. The only hope is that Europe’s future is, actually, not the same as that of the EU. Indeed, Europe may only have a future if the EU will not.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The American president has announced the beginning of a golden age for his nation – but there’s one thing he hasn’t taken into account

About one month after his second inauguration, American president Donald Trump addressed the two houses of the US parliament, the Congress. It is well worth watching the whole speech. Clocking in at one hour and forty minutes, Trump’s address was unusually long, the longest of its kind in American history, according to some observers.

Trump claims to have been extraordinarily dynamic during his first weeks in office, and that claim is true: As a rough indicator, “ in an explosion of executive action,” the total of his “executive orders, memoranda, and substantial declarations” issued – a metric applied by the American Presidency Project at the University of California – has far outpaced the early-term output not only of his immediate forerunner Joe Biden, but also such giants as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, not to speak of Trump in his own first term. In fact, Trump 2.0 has produced already “more presidential directives than almost all recent presidents” in their full first 100 days, that is, more than double the time Trump had been in office again.

The 100-day standard – or now even less maybe – for measuring presidential performance is, of course, arbitrary, a product, originally, of FDR’s savvy propaganda tactics that never went away again, and it may even be “ ridiculous.” But it is part of US political culture such as it is, and Trump is fully aware of the sheer political shock-and-awe effect of his Battle-of-the-Somme-like opening barrage, or, as US commentators put it with the inevitable sports metaphor, of “flooding the zone.”

Numbers, in any case, are not everything: The substance of Trump’s first salvo is at least as impressive – for better or worse, that’s another question – as the bare figures. Highlights include: Starting a détente with Russia and a great American-European split, both long overdue. The dismantling – de facto, at least – of NATO has begun was well. And good riddance to that Cold War zombie, too: Say hello to the Warsaw Pact when you meet in history dustbin hell. Then there also are a few trade wars that have shaken the stock markets globally.

Meanwhile, a blitzkrieg in the great American culture wars over pronouns, bathrooms, and genital modification has pummeled everything that US conservatives consider “woke”: from gender definitions (from now on only two, can you imagine?) to no longer letting biologically male athletes beat up women or allowing adults to rely on children’s “own” “judgement” when it comes to doing away with their sex organs.

Read more

And yes, Mexico has lost its Gulf – as far as Americans are concerned, anyhow; Panama may well lose its canal; Denmark – Greenland (“one way or the other,” in Trumpese) and Canada – Canada.

Say what you will about Trumpism, but it sure as hell is not lazy. That was also one of Trump’s key messages during his address to Congress. It is no surprise, but let’s state it for the record: Trump still has a huge ego – if anything, even bigger now, after his come-back triumph and dodging that assassin’s bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania – and, of course, he spent a lot of time on praising himself and his team, with special accolades to first buddy Elon Musk. So what? It will rile up Trump’s opponents and critics (which the Trumpists greatly enjoy); his voters and fans will love it.

The same is true for Trump’s extensive and very deft use of the “human touch” or “showmanship” – call it what you will – highlighting individual citizens and their losses or challenges and offering them solace and recognition: A young boy suffering from cancer who admires the police was made an honorary Secret Service agent. A woman athlete permanently injured by a very misplaced man got a shout-out when Trump spoke of banning male athletes from women’s sports. The bereaved family members of crime victims received various acknowledgments.

None of the above was innocent, of course; everything was political. The crimes selected for mention featured illegal immigrants. An officer singled out for his bravery had saved a colleague in a fire fight with a gang from across the Rio Grande. Trump used his kindness toward the boy struggling with cancer to claim that his administration is fighting toxins in the environment. With his pronounced activism against environmental standards, the opposite is true, unfortunately. But you get the gist.

Yet there are two mistakes that casual or angry observers are prone to make and they should better avoid: Yes, Trump is a politician – and a much more gifted one than we knew – and his relationship with the truth is very complicated, to put it politely. But that does not make him exceptional: neither the substance nor the scope of his distortions and outright untruths exceed those of, for instance, the late Biden administration which was brazenly lying about Israel’s Gaza Genocide in a truly Orwellian register – as, by the way, are their Trumpist successors, too. Witness Trump’s bizarre claim that he has struck down “censorship,” while, in reality, his administration is suppressing solidarity with Palestine even worse than their predecessors.

Secondly, the fact that Trump bends and breaks the truth does not mean that he does not believe in anything. This is a key fact: Trump, like quite a few other major political leaders in history and at present, has both a tactical relationship with reality and sincerely-held beliefs, even a sense of justice (usually aggrieved), some of it on display during the “human touch” moments of his speech. That is a powerful element of the charisma he has in spades and that has allowed him to not only win elections but re-center US politics.

Read more

Hence, you may agree with or you may oppose, even detest, Trump’s convictions. But critics and opponents who deny their existence or underestimate their effects simply because they are neither pure nor free of hypocrisy, will only have themselves to blame when the real world escapes the narrow limits of their imagination, again.

Apart from the self-praise, there were other things about Trump’s speech that were less than surprising. As some commentators have pointed out, the address was generally thin on sensational revelations and announcements. (Going to Mars? Come on, we’ve all seen that one coming, from light years off.)

And, equally expectably, some of Trump’s statements were at least hyperbolic. New York Times “fact-checkers” who somehow hardly ever check Israeli non-facts, for instance, got busy pointing out that “Trump overstated […] fraud uncovered by” Musk’s DOGE outfit, “misled about energy and environmental policy” and “justified sweeping tariffs with hyperbolic claims about world trade, among other statements.” All true enough, but frankly, a bit of a yawn, too. US politics – and not only, is such a bipartisan orgy of lying, that it is hard to get excited about journalists picking on one side.

No, the really interesting – and it was very interesting – side of Trump’s speech was not what exactly he had to say or the tired old game of him tweaking reality and his opponents pretending he’s the only one (that is why Democrats holding up little signs reading “false” looked so sad and daft). What was truly intriguing is what Trump told us about himself, and in particular about himself at this stage of his life and career.

Right from the get-go, there was Trump the Unforgiving, even Vengeful. If anyone had expected the usual pretend offer of bipartisanship to the defeated – here, the Democrats – what they got was more like Joe Pesci in one of his many roles as a mafia loose cannon stomping his already dazed opponent into the ground.

Biden, Trump let it rip, is “the worst president in American history.” And although that is probably true, it was a tad brutal to rub it in on this occasion. Senator Liz Warren, who boosted her career by claiming a fraction of native-American “blood” (yes, the US is weird that way), got her usual “Pocahontas” snub, and, in general, Trump taunted and teased the losers. It was not pretty, but it was funny and richly deserved.

Read more

Then, there was – perhaps all too easily overlooked – Trump the Fit and Focused. This was not rambling Trump, and even his ad-libbing, while harsh, went well and was clearly under control. From a rhetorical point of view: Take a step back from whether you like his style, and you’ll have to admit, this was a powerful, effective, well-organized, and well-delivered speech. Long gone seem the days of Kamala Harris’s word salads and Joe Biden’s senescent mumblings. Trump may be not so much younger than his predecessor. Yet this speech showed that anyone betting on him declining soon, mentally or physically, is likely to lose. That, in and of itself, is an important fact.

Trump the Showman and Trump the Sincere, namely Sincere Nationalist, we have already discussed above. But regarding that nationalism – or patriotism, if you wish – there is one final aspect of Trump we should note. Especially because it could make him fail, even on his own terms. That is Trump the Utopian.

Trump the Utopian may be a disconcerting phrase for some. Are utopians not supposed to be slightly other-worldly, more or less leftish, probably overly literate types that tend to either not get very far in life or, if they do, mess things up really badly? A personality type somewhere between Campanella (two years of house arrest and then another 27 in prison) and Robespierre (the guillotine, but only after sending plenty of others there)?

And yet, there he was, the business tycoon and political brass-knuckle fighter, announcing the beginning of America’s “Golden Age” to be ushered in by his very own flavor of revolution, namely a “revolution of common sense.” Trump promised to pursue “the righteous cause of American liberty” to bring about “the most thrilling days in the history of our country” and its “greatest era,” with “the highest quality of life” and the “safest and wealthiest and healthiest and most vital communities anywhere in the world.” And in the end, that fantasy US, will be, he announced, “the freest, most advanced, most dynamic and most dominant civilization ever to exist on the face of this Earth.”

Typical Trump bombast, you may say. The signature style of a man who has the special skill of sounding too loud even by the standards of American political culture. Or is it just hyperbole for the plebs, perhaps even with a view to already preparing a play for a third term?

But what if we take Trump’s utopianism seriously? I believe we should, if only because behind all the pomposity and rhetorical overkill, it is easy to miss what may be the single greatest weakness of Trumpism.

Consider again that last line: “the freest, most advanced, most dynamic and most dominant civilization.” Even within the mindset of relentless bragging, choices still have to be made what exactly to brag about. And there it is, next to the freedom, the progress, and the dynamism: Dominance. Not just any dominance, but the greatest dominance ever, whether past or future.

Trump is still failing to see a very simple fact: if there is a way to make America great again, then only by letting go of the clinically insane idea that it must “dominate.” Despite its enormous problems, which Trump may diminish or make worse, the US still has much demographic, economic, and innovative potential.

But its senseless dream of dominance will always overstretch its resources. America can, perhaps, be great, but only with and no longer against other major powers and, in general, the rest of humanity. And the US will be stuck in useless, wasteful conflict with everyone as long as it does not deliberately abandon its pursuit of dominating everyone. Because guess what Americans: Everybody wants to be free, not only you. You want a “revolution of common sense”? Dominance is the first thing that needs to go.

Медиа: image / jpeg

After spearheading her own country’s sovereignty erosion, Chrystia Freeland is suddenly militant about a supposed threat to its independence

As Vladimir Zelensky sprints from Western capital to Western capital, looking like an over-caffeinated lawnmower salesman, and demanding “security guarantees” and nukes so he can keep slow-walking peace talks, one of his biggest hype women has decided that she wants in on the action. Not to deter Russia – but to protect Canada from its so-called closest ally, the United States.

Hypochondria is when you see someone else’s illness and convince yourself you’ve got it, too. Turns out, there’s now a geopolitical version of that. “Give us back nuclear arms. Give us missile systems,” Zelensky said last month, according to Politico. “Partners: Help us finance the 1 million army. Move your contingent on the parts of our state where we want the stability of the situation so that the people have tranquility.”

Now, in a Canadian Liberal Party leadership debate to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – a contest in which she’s trailing behind the globalist banker extraordinaire Mark Carney – Chrystia Freeland, a former finance minister, foreign minister, and deputy prime minister, declared that she wants to “guarantee our security” (Canada’s, that is) by making “sure that France and Britain were there, who possess nuclear weapons.” Because, apparently, the US is now “clearly threatening our sovereignty.”

And what triggered this sudden existential crisis? Trump referring to Trudeau as “Governor Trudeau,” a nickname the prime minister totally loves and definitely doesn’t find infuriating at all, which is why Trump keeps repeating it? Oh, and the fact that Trump keeps talking about making Canada the “51st state” of the US, ogling its natural assets like he wants to put it next to Greenland in his geopolitical trophy cabinet.

As former finance and foreign minister, Freeland spent nearly a decade turning Canada’s “sovereignty” into a polite fiction, tethering the country’s economic and political future so tightly to Washington that the smiling friendly mask slipping off and revealing the organic face of American self-interest now has Canadian elites scrambling for a nuke-wielding bodyguard.

Read more

Remember the Freedom Convoy protests against Covid mandates in 2022? Freeland, then finance minister, took one phone call from a top Biden economic adviser and suddenly had an epiphany: “That one conversation was a seminal one for me. And it was a moment when I realized as a country, somehow, we had to find a way to bring this to an end.” Translation: Washington made it clear she needed to shut down any Canadian dissent, particularly on the border, that could have an economic impact on the US.

Freeland subsequently pulled the trigger on freezing bank accounts of Canadian protesters and their supporters. Meanwhile, Carney, her current rival for Liberal leadership, wrote a totally measured and chill and not at all hyperventilating guest piece for the Globe and Mail, calling for an “end to sedition” and demanding that officials “follow the money.” He also declared that the protests were foreign-funded – except that Canada’s intelligence chief later confirmed that was fake news.

This isn’t an isolated incident, but an illustrative one. Canada’s ruling class has spent decades prioritizing Washington’s policy directives over the interests of actual Canadians, while Mexico – America’s other neighbor – has managed to maintain a strategic independence that Ottawa wouldn’t dare dream of, until Trump came along.

When Washington says “Go train fighters in Ukraine!” Canada asks, “How many Nazi tattoos should we ignore?” – as the Ottawa Citizen reported on Canadian forces cozying up to far-right Ukrainian battalions. Regime change in Libya, Syria, Venezuela? Canada’s there, cheerleading like it’s a football game with Raytheon and Lockheed Martin as its major sponsors. Meanwhile, when Biden single-handedly killed the Keystone XL pipeline by revoking its permit on his very first day in office – a project critical to Canada’s energy security – Freeland and company just sighed and moved on. Because, hey, what are you gonna do?

Publicly, Freeland plays the anti-Russia hardliner. Privately? A CBC News investigation found Canada still imported $250 million worth of Russian fuel – laundered through countries such as India and Türkiye. Way to stick it to Russia, guys. With screw-tightening workmanship like that, it’s no wonder Freeland and Team Trudeau figured they could slap together a new home every minute between now and 2031.

Canada could have dropped the whole charade altogether and pursued active economic cooperation with Russia, like the US is now talking about doing under Trump with natural resource joint ventures. Now, its leaders are stuck running behind the gravy train and resorting to threats when it could have already been aboard with a first class seat.

Read more

If Freeland had spent less time marching in lockstep with Washington and more time actually diversifying Canada’s economic ties, she wouldn’t now be having a meltdown over the possibility of a US administration doing what every country does in pursuing its own national interests.

And this whole ‘Let’s get European nukes to deter the Americans’ idea? What exactly is the plan there? To have France and Britain send a strongly worded letter to Canada’s NORAD roommate, warning that if he acts up, they’ll launch a missile up his backside? And then what – Trump nukes Paris or London over a spat about Toronto?

Even Trudeau, in a meeting with King Charles, tried to drum up support for Canada against Trump. But Charles seems too busy virtue signaling for Ukraine, posing with Zelensky for photo ops, to address Trump’s so-called “threat” to annex a country of which Charles is technically still the head of state.

Canada has already hitched itself to the US military-industrial complex, sharing NORAD command, intelligence through Five Eyes, joint procurement deals, supply chains, and military operations. What exactly would Europe be nuking? Their – and Canada’s – own Western alliance infrastructure? Or maybe some US bases in Germany?

Trump doesn’t need to “invade” Canada. All he has to do is squeeze its economy, leveraging the country’s massive over-dependence on the US market – something no amount of nuclear saber-rattling can fix. That’s the real national security threat to Canada, and it was manufactured by the very same Canadian elites now panicking over Washington doing what they’ve always done: Looking out for number one. It’s long past time for Canada to start doing the same – and to stop treating those of us who have long been advocating for diversification away from US interests like we’re the enemy.

No amount of nukes is going to save Canada from its own mistakes.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi’s quest for great status lies in building a blue water navy, but it has been loathe to pursue this path

Every state’s politics is dictated by its geography – hence the term geopolitics. India is no exception. The Himalayas to the North running eastwards, and the Indian Ocean flanking the southern shores provide natural barriers to the unique subcontinental ecosystem. Historically, almost all the invasions India has been subjected to were undertaken through the northwestern plains, which provides the only viable land route for large standing armies.

However, these barriers also isolate the subcontinent from the rest of the Eurasian landmass, preventing an outward expansionism from within. The oft-repeated phrase among Indians – ‘India has never invaded another country in the last 10,000 years’ – isn’t a question of intent but of geopolitics.

With the north cut off due to geographical impossibilities, seafaring was, and remains, the most viable form of expanding influence. Indeed, during the era of the South Indian Chola empire, its seafaring capabilities allowed it to establish far-reaching influence up till Java, Sumatra (present day Indonesia), and Indo-Сhina. Hindu and Buddhist temples scattered across South East Asia are a testament of that seafaring past.

It also meant that during times of internal crisis and strife, seafaring routes could be exploited by external powers to expand into the subcontinent. The establishment, expansion, and conquest of the subcontinent by the British East India Company is a case in point.

Colonial legacy

Scrapping the plans for a third aircraft carrier shows that India has axed its visions of a great power, even if it doesn’t immediately realize it.

Read more

A 75-year independent history and preceding global events are sufficient to realize that India’s path to greatness doesn’t run through its neighbourhood, but through the Indian Ocean. America’s tumultuous ties with Latin America, and the USSR’s conflictual relations with China and Yugoslavia did not prevent them from successfully projecting power globally. Having restive neighbours due to unequal power relationships is the characteristic nature of a great power. Treating it as the norm rather than an exception will colossally benefit the Indian leadership in the long run.

India became independent in 1947 – a time when an economically bankrupt Britain handed over the command of the global commons to the US even as the Cold War started materializing. Colonial India was the Jewel of the British Empire; but after independence, how could the Anglo-Saxons retain control over a valuable state strategically located near the global commercial sea lanes?

The Americans pursued a two-pronged strategy: First, by building a military base on the British-loaned Chagos Archipelago, and second, by preventing a large Indian naval presence by arming and aiding Pakistan, Delhi’s neighbouring rival. The nascent Indian leadership was forced to divert funds for the construction and maintenance of a large standing land army to protect itself against threats in the north – China and Pakistan.

Long-term priorities

As India strives for a status of not just regional, but global power, which includes ambitions for a modern and efficient military, it needs to first prioritize naval development and modernization; second, develop a sustainable indigenous defense industrial capacity, and third, engage in bilateral relations which bolster instead of degrading Indian interests in the long term.

These are easier said than done. However, materializing them is critical if Indian great power status is to become a reality.

Read more

Today the Indian Navy’s posture is defensive in nature, with limited offensive strike capabilities. Indian naval chiefs have consistently advocated in the past for a three-carrier naval force, which is at odds with the government’s and the army’s traditional land-dominated thinking.

Despite the example of the US, whose carriers have served as a force multiplier and instruments of power projection, former Chief of Defense Staff General Bipin Rawat has dismissed them as “sitting ducks.”

There are three points to consider. Firstly, a state doesn’t transform into a great power by solely ‘defending’ its backyard against foreign interventions, but instead by proactively investing in infrastructure (read: carriers) which effectively extends its influence and operational reach beyond home waters.

Secondly, the Indian state is currently failing even in its own prioritized sectors. The dismal production rate of submarines, which are one of the pivotal anchors of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) doctrine, highlights the lack of effective naval architecture to materialize Indian ambitions.

Third, closely resembling the Cold War scenario, the ouster of a pro-Indian government in Dhaka has successfully caged Indian ambitions through an unstable, volatile pro-American Bangladesh. Therefore, similar to pre-independence era, the costly maintenance of a large land force, the staunch intellectual inertia against pivoting away from outdated concepts and foreign interference keeps the Indian state boxed within the subcontinent.

Defense strategy

Throughout the past two decades, despite a growing body of literature labeling India as an ‘emerging great power’, the country has been unable to cross the Rubicon from emerging to actually being a great power.

Read more

One of the primary criteria for a greater power is the presence of an autarkic defense-industrial base. Establishing one is itself a formidable yet delicate task. India needs to ask whether greater American defense reliance, which comes with multiple strings attached and denies technology transfer, will help India on its path towards becoming a great power.

In other words, are defense ties with Washington reducing New Delhi to a long-term buyer, or can the relationship transform into a joint partnership, akin to what it enjoys with Russia, which also allows transfer of technology?

For India, the criticality to develop an effective indigenous defense industry gains newfound urgency due to growing concerns about Russian-Chinese bonhomie. Unsettled about the guarantee of Russian defense imports amid a potential future Indian-Chinese conflict, New Delhi should not overlook a far graver outcome – a possible American-Chinese rapprochement.

This situation would fundamentally upend current Indian dynamics which rely on India showcasing itself as a potential ally against China, while retaining sufficient autonomy to pursue its own independent interests, which may not necessarily overlap with American interests. New Delhi has certainly been making clear attempts to curry favor with the Trump administration: It agreed to take back illegal immigrants, being rather silent on their objectionable treatment, and reduced tariffs on American imports in the budget adopted for the next fiscal year. The Indian prime minister’s visit to the US to iron out potential differences was also a part of the effort.

To understand the ‘why’ requires a dive into India’s past. A cursory historical glance will reveal that Indian foreign policy operates optimally in an unstable international environment marked by competition among multiple states. By deftly fine-tuning bilateral relations to its own advantage while never overtly antagonizing its relations with other states, has been a difficult but rewarding cornerstone of Indian diplomacy.

Read more

Conversely, in an international order where the great powers aren’t engaged in a power struggle complicates Indian balancing. With no rivalry left to exploit, India risks falling into irrelevance on the global stage – being perennially relegated to being a middle power at best. This time, despite the international situation beckoning greater proactive indigenous defense development, New Delhi is determined to stay within the trench it has dug for itself.

India has developed a habit of engaging in strong talk, both domestically and on the global stage, yet often overlooks the importance of backing this talk with action. Soft power can be effective when supported by hard power. Likewise, while assertive discourse has its place in international relations, its strength is directly tied to a nation’s military capabilities. If India curtails its naval expansion and settles for the status quo, it risks leaving room for other powers to fill the void, which they will inevitably do.

India’s elites must realize that the country’s road to greatness passes through the Indian Ocean, and not through its restive neighbourhood. Without such fundamental geostrategic restructuring, India risks stagnating as a middle power – relegated to launching fanciful satellites to placate its great power ego while its backyard is overrun by rivals. As Alfred Mahan declared in his seminal treatise “France fought for the empire of the land, and England for the empire of the sea; and it was the empire of the sea that ultimately decided the fate of the world.”

Медиа: image / jpeg

Refusing to support a child who survived cancer might be the pettiest of gestures, but it’s only one of the Dems’ latest ungraceful antics

During Donald Trump’s address to Congress, the president made reference to a young man in the audience who survived one of the worst medical scourges of all time. Yet that distinction could not get the Democrats off their feet.

“Joining us in the gallery tonight is a young man who truly loves our police,” Trump began. “His name is D.J. Daniel, he is 13 years old and he has always dreamed of becoming a police officer. But in 2018, D.J. was diagnosed with brain cancer; the doctors gave him five months at most to live. That was more than six years ago.”

Trump continued, saying he would grant the young man the greatest honor of them all by asking the new Secret Service director to make him an agent of the US Secret Service. Needless to say, it was not the time or place for political grandstanding. But the Democratic Party reared its ugly head and refused to stand for the young man who was seated in the president’s guest suite accompanied by his father, who held up his son with a proud smile.

Social media quickly lit up across the board, condemning the Democrats.

“A terminally ill child with brain cancer is given an honorary Secret Service award and the Democrats refuse to stand or clap for the child,” Trump administration official Ric Grennell tweeted regarding the magic moment between the 13-year-old and the president.

Read more

“Democrats refused to stand for the brain cancer surviving kid! How awful can one party be?” Outkick founder Clay Travis tweeted.

Donald Trump Jr. also blasted Democrats for their silence.

“If you can’t stand up and cheer for a kid with brain cancer being made an honorary member of the Secret Service, then you might be a deeply disturbed and f---ed up person!!!” he tweeted.

In fact, one of the times that a Democrat rose from his seat came when Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas broke with decorum and heckled Trump so obnoxiously that he was kicked out of the session by security.

Indeed, the Democrats came away from the 99-minute address looking once again as the “party of insanity and hate,” as White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dubbed them. Refusing to stand for a young cancer survivor was only one of many clues as to what makes the Democratic Party tick these days. They refused to applaud Trump’s remarks on issues including “the capturing of an ISIS terrorist,” “recognizing only two sexes,” “Americans joining the military in record numbers,” “securing our border,” “pursuing peace in Ukraine,” and “defeating inflation.”

In more than one way, Trump owned the moment. He showed the world why the American people put him back in office by a large margin. In the quest for restoring the American Dream, he is bringing back decency and common sense, putting American interests above those of other nations. The Democrats revealed whose side they are on, and it’s not the American people.

And it’s going to take a long time for the Republicans to undo the damage that the Democrats have done to the country under the Biden administration. Illegal immigration for one. Under four years of Democratic rule, the US-Mexico border was left wide open, allowing for millions of illegal aliens – many of them violent gang members – to pour into the country.

Read more

Trump also paid tribute to the families of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student who was murdered by an illegal immigrant last year, and Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered by illegal aliens. Trump noted how the men charged for the 12-year-old’s death were a part of Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang.

Trump also honored the family of slain firefighter Corey Comperatore, who was shot during the Republican’s July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Trump described how Comperatore gave his life to defend his family, who were sitting in the balcony in the president’s guest seating area.

“Corey is looking down on his three beautiful ladies right now, and he’s cheering you on. He loves you. He is cheering you on,” he said.

“Corey was taken from us much too soon, but his destiny was to leave us all with a shining example of the selfless devotion of a true American patriot,” he continued. “It was love like Corey’s that built our country, and it’s love like Corey’s that is going to make our country more majestic than ever before.”

Once again it became apparent where the interest of the audience lay and it was not on the side of love or compassion. As the right side of the gallery rose in salute to the fallen father, most liberals laid back in their seats.

Медиа: image / jpeg

In an era of uncertainty, economic turbulence, and rapid technological shifts, the search for sustainable global growth has never been more urgent.

The Open Dialogue “Future of the World: New Platform for Global Growth”, hosted the National Centre RUSSIA on April 28 to 30 in Moscow, presents a holistic vision that recognizes the interconnected nature of modern challenges.

By structuring discussions around four core pillars – Investments in People, Technology, Environment, and Connectivity – the initiative offers a comprehensive roadmap for sustainable and inclusive development. This approach ensures that economic progress is balanced, forward-thinking, and people-centered.

More importantly, the initiative stands out for its open call for participation, inviting anyone to submit ideas and insights. This crowdsourced approach breaks down institutional barriers, allowing fresh, outside-the-box solutions to emerge. Instead of relying solely on policymakers and economists, this initiative taps into the collective intelligence of global citizens, ensuring diverse perspectives and real-world applicability.

Why a four-pronged approach is essential

Global challenges cannot be addressed in isolation. This initiative ensures a multi-dimensional strategy that fosters long-term resilience and prosperity.

1. Investments in Human Capital – The future depends on human capital. With automation and AI transforming industries, economies must focus on workforce upskilling, youth employment, and digital inclusion. Effective demographic policies and equitable access to education will define future success.
2. Investments in Technology – AI, cybersecurity, sustainable energy, and biotechnology hold immense potential to solve critical issues like food security and healthcare access. However, tech development must be ethical, inclusive, and regulated to prevent widening social divides.
3. Investments in the Environment – Economic growth and environmental responsibility must go hand in hand. The focus on sustainable urban planning, circular economies, and climate adaptation strategies is crucial in mitigating future crises. A people-first approach to urban development will shape livable and resilient cities.
4. Investments in Communication – In an interdependent world, trade, data mobility, and digital currencies are key drivers of economic stability. Addressing barriers in global trade, enhancing digital infrastructure, and fostering cross-cultural communication will strengthen global cooperation.

This four-dimensional approach reflects real-world complexities and ensures that solutions are systemic, not fragmented.

Read more

Crowdsourcing solutions: Breaking institutional barriers

A defining feature of this initiative is its commitment to open participation. Traditionally, economic discussions are dominated by governments, multinational corporations, and academic institutions, leaving out those most affected by modern challenges. By crowdsourcing ideas, the initiative challenges outdated hierarchies and welcomes innovative perspectives from diverse backgrounds.

History has shown that groundbreaking solutions often come from unexpected sources. Many technological breakthroughs – from decentralized finance to clean energy startups – originated outside traditional institutions. By allowing students, entrepreneurs, researchers, and activists to contribute, this initiative unlocks untapped potential and grassroots-driven innovation.

Moreover, it fosters a sense of shared responsibility. Instead of waiting for global leaders to act, individuals are encouraged to actively participate in shaping economic policies. This democratization of knowledge and expertise is a crucial step forward in tackling modern global issues.

From ideas to implementation

For this initiative to be effective, it must go beyond discussion. Too often, international forums generate promising ideas that never materialize. To ensure lasting impact, the initiative must:

• Create pathways for real-world application of the best proposals
• Offer funding, mentorship, or partnerships to develop pilot projects
• Ensure continuous engagement with contributors beyond the event

Additionally, making participation as accessible as possible – through multi-language submissions and digital platforms – will help include perspectives from regions often overlooked in global policymaking.

A bold step toward a better future

Despite challenges, “The Future of the World” represents a hopeful shift in global economic discussions. By combining a structured, four-pillar approach with open, inclusive participation, it fosters innovative, bottom-up solutions that traditional institutions often miss.

The world faces a choice: continue exclusive, top-down decision-making or embrace a participatory, people-driven model that benefits all of humanity. This initiative presents a unique opportunity to rethink economic growth for a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient world.

Let’s hope it delivers.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The shift in relations between Russia and the US may open a door for a more balanced multipolar system

Africa has been heavily affected by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine since the start of Russia’s military operation in February 2022.

According to a report compiled by ODI Global, the African Economic Research Consortium (AERC), the Economic Research Forum (ERF), and Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP), ‘Impact of the Russia–Ukraine war on Africa: policy implications for navigating shocks and building resilience’, Africa has been caught in the crossfire due to lack of supplies of food and agricultural commodities.

The report features case studies on Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, Senegal, South Africa, and Sudan, and finds that while direct trade exposure is low, Africa relies on Russia and Ukraine for food and fertilizer imports.

Prices up

The conflict has driven up prices of oil, food and fertilizers globally. Simulations suggest that a 10% shock in oil, food and fertilizer prices may reduce Africa’s annual GDP by $7 billion. Actual impacts are likely to be higher since oil, food and fertilizer prices increased by larger shares, at 40%, 18% and 55%, respectively, in 2022.

Read more

Global commodity price increases also prompted an increase in interest rates in high-income countries, which in turn triggered capital outflows, exchange rate depreciation and higher borrowing costs for many African countries. The magnitude of an individual country’s impacts varies based on commodity dependence, financial openness, and domestic vulnerabilities.

The conflict may have exacerbated the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the deterioration of Africa’s macroeconomic and social performance. The overlapping crises have slowed Africa’s development progress and risk long-term “scarring” effects. In 2022, 18 million new poor people were added to the 546 million Africans already living in poverty, and one out of five Africans faced high levels of food insecurity. Women and vulnerable groups also tend to be disproportionately impacted by shocks.

Wheat and fertilizers

In Kenya and Egypt, for example, Russian and Ukrainian wheat once accounted for as much as 85% and 67% of wheat imports respectively. Fertilizers, vital for agriculture, have also become scarce and expensive. Egypt, Ethiopia, Morocco, Senegal, and South Africa sourced 11%–41% of their fertilizer imports from Russia and Ukraine. As a result, food prices have soared, pushing millions into food insecurity.

Energy bills have surged, putting pressure on national budgets and household finances. Fuel prices in some countries have more than doubled, forcing governments to pass costs onto consumers or risk bankruptcy. The economic strain has also forced many African families to cut spending on once-affordable essentials, with the most vulnerable populations being hit the hardest.

In West Africa, the situation is the same. The economic crisis in Nigeria has been substantially driven by the conflict, which has had an impact on the costs of important commodities as well as everyday living expenses. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has led to shortages in fertilizer availability, leading to high prices of fertilizer. Likewise, prices of major food commodities, such as maize, rice, wheat and cooking oils, have been on the rise. This has exposed the country’s vulnerable agrifood system and weakened the local currency, leading to foreign exchange shortages and high inflation rates.

Read more

According to a Global Agricultural Information Network report from the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the US Department of Agriculture, Nigeria is spending more on wheat imports amid high global wheat prices. The situation has negatively impacted Nigeria’s wheat supply value chain. More importantly, official records showed a drastic reduction in durum wheat imports from Russia in 2022. Russia was one of the country’s primary sources of cheap wheat.

Grain deal collapse

The issue of supply disruption has a direct link with the Black Sea grain deal that collapsed. The deal, which was initially brokered by the UN and Türkiye in July 2022, was meant to facilitate the export of Ukrainian grain, such as wheat, corn and sunflower products, to world markets, primarily to poorer countries.

In exchange for allowing the shipments of Ukrainian grain, Moscow was promised that Western sanctions would be lifted from its own agricultural exports. A year after it was struck, Russia had to abandon the deal, arguing that it was still unable to get any of its grain or fertilizer out to world markets and that the West had completely ignored its end of the bargain.

Additionally, Moscow noted that more than 70% of the shipments under the initiative had failed to reach poor countries, especially in Africa, and were instead delivered to wealthy nations.

Russia then announced it would deliver free grain directly to African countries, in order to help with food security. In July 2023, during the Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg, President Vladimir Putin pledged to provide free food assistance to six African countries, and Moscow had successfully completed delivery of 200,000 tons of food aid by February 2024.

Read more

Oil and gas

On the oil and gas market, Nigeria’s National Oil Company NNPC Limited affirmed that the crisis has affected the supply chain of Nigeria’s energy outlook. Maryamu Idris, executive director, Crude & Condensate, NNPC Trading Limited, said in a November 2023 panel presentation at the Argus European Crude Conference in London, that in addition to the substantial price shocks impacting commodity and energy prices globally, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has triggered a situation where India, a primary destination for Nigerian crude oil increased its appetite for discounted Russian barrels to the detriment of some Nigerian volumes.

“To illustrate the extent of this shift, Nigeria’s crude exports to India dwindled from approximately 250,000 barrels per day (bpd) in the six months preceding the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine to 194,000 in the subsequent six months afterwards. And so far, this year, only around 120,000 bpd of Nigerian crude volumes have made their way to India,” she said.

What’s next?

Now that the prospect of peace is here, it looks portent that the African economy will be revived to a more positive direction.

What is even more significant is the prospect of the American acceptance to the new reality of the multipolar world. Saudi Arabia, not Belgium or France or the United Kingdom, was chosen for talks between the US and Russia. Under President Donald Trump, the US is indicating its disconnect to the old order where everything starts and ends in the West. This, however, remain somewhat twisted, considering Trump’s unfavorable stand against the BRICS.

The fact is, Africa will be better with the new multipolar order. Most of the current multilateral institutions were created before many African states gain their independence. The United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, SWIFT Payment system, etc. were all created, engineered and controlled by the Western powers, often deployed at the detriment of African progress.

Read more

These institutions help in strengthening the unipolar system, with the US as the leader of hegemony, supported by the European Union. These institutions have long been tagged as the neocolonial assets used in shortchanging the African continent on its valuable resources, weakening the growth and development of the entire continent through unfair treatment and practices.

More balance needed

Hence the quest for Africa is to have a new, more balanced international system.

Africa has long demanded to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, several promises were made by the US and other powers, yet nothing was granted. Africa requested enough trade to fund its infrastructure, healthcare and education programs that will serve the needs of the people, yet the Western powers deem it more appropriate to respond to African demands for equal participation and representation with aid, rather than with mutually beneficial proposals to both parties.

The new peace talks between Russia and the US may open the door for a more equal, balanced and orderly multipolar system that will be formed when Africa is fully aware, independent and at the table. This will help Africa as a continent to push forward its interests within the emerging BRICS multipolar system.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Recent elections inside the bloc and its satellite states have shown a vigorous ‘othering’ of non-establishment candidates

Quiz time: What do Germany, Moldova, and Romania (in alphabetical order) have in common? They look so different, don’t they?

Germany is a traditional, large, and at this point still relatively well-off (if less and less so due to obedient self-Morgenthauing for the greater glory of Ukraine) member of the Cold War “West” (give and take a “re-unification” and all that). Currently, it has a population of over 83 million people and a GDP equivalent to $4.53 trillion. Romania is an ex-Soviet satellite with just above 19 million citizens and a GDP less than a tenth of the German one (at $343.8 billion). Moldova, which emerged from a former Soviet republic, is the smallest: 2.4 million people and a GDP of $16.5 billion.

And yet, look more closely, and they are not so different: They are all either inside the EU and NATO (Germany and Romania) or attached to these two organizations as an outside yet important strategic asset (the case of Moldova – despite and in de facto breach of its constitutionally anchored neutrality, as it happens). And also, all three have serious problems with conducting fair and clean elections. What a coincidence. Not.

Let’s take a quick look at each case: In Germany’s recent federal election, the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) failed to cross the threshold to representation in parliament – 5% of the national vote – by the thinnest of margins: The party officially garnered 4.972% of the vote. In absolute numbers, almost 2,469,000 Germans voted for the BSW (with the decisive so-called “second vote”). Only 0.028% – about 13,000 to 14,000 votes – more and the party would have passed the 5% barrier.

Even extremely tight results can, of course, be real and legitimate. The problem in Germany now is that there is steadily accumulating evidence that the elections were compromised by serious flaws and repeated errors. What makes this even more urgent is the fact that there seems to be a clear pattern with mistakes occurring not randomly but mostly at the cost of the BSW.

Read more

We already know about two key problems, although not much more than one week has passed after the election on February 23: First, about 230,000 German voters live abroad, but many of them could not cast their vote because the necessary documents reached them too late, sometimes even only after the elections. Of course, we cannot tell how exactly these voters would have voted if given the chance. But that is not the point. The fact alone that they could not participate casts severe doubt on the legitimacy of the results. And especially in the case of the BSW where so few additional votes would have been enough to principally change the outcome, that is, secure seats – and probably two to three dozen – in the next parliament.

The second even more disturbing issue is that there is ever more evidence of actual BSW votes inside Germany being allocated to another party. In the case of the major city of Aachen, for instance, a result of 7.24% for the BSW was registered for the “Bündnis für Deutschland” (an entirely different and much smaller party with no chance of parliamentary representation to begin with). The BSW vote was erroneously registered as 0%. Only protests by local BSW voters brought the scandal to light.

German mainstream media are trying to depict what happened in Aachen as an exception. Yet by now there are reports of similar “errors” from all over Germany – and don’t forget that the process of looking for these cases has only just started. In sum, there are good reasons – and they are getting better by the day – for believing that, for the BSW, the difference between correct and incorrect election procedures actually amounts to the one between being and not being in parliament. That implies, of course, that all those citizens who have voted for the BSW may well have been deprived of their proper democratic representation as foreseen by law.

Is there a motive for foul play? You bet. The BSW, an insurgent party combining leftwing social with rightwing cultural and migration-policy positions, has been hounded as too friendly toward Russia because it is demanding peace in Ukraine; it also has been outspoken about its opposition to basing fresh US missiles in Germany and to Israel’s crimes as well.

In Germany as it is now, these are all reasons for neo-McCarthyite smear campaigns and repression by – at least – dirty media tricks, all of which has already happened. It is entirely possible that a wave of deliberate local “mistakes” was added to that nasty tool box. And, a slightly different issue, asserting the BSW’s legal rights now will be especially difficult, in particular because a revision of the election result to include the party in parliament would immediately upset the complicated arithmetic of government coalition building. The BSW and its voters, in short, may well have been cheated, and they may be cheated again in case they seek redress.

Read more

The fact that one problem with those German elections has to do with voters living abroad rings a bell called Moldova, of course. There, last November, Maia Sandu narrowly won a presidential election that involved massively manipulating the outside-the-country vote. In essence, Moldovans abroad, especially in Russia, likely to vote against her were, in effect, disenfranchised by making it impossible for them to actually cast their vote; Moldovans more likely to vote for her, in the West, faced no such problems.

This crude trickery was decisive: Without it Sandu would have lost and her left-wing rival Alexandr Stoianoglo would have won. In the West, whose candidate Sandu has been, this outcome was, of course, hailed as a victory for “democracy,” a pro-EU choice, and a defeat of “Russian meddling.” As so often, it is hard to decide what is more jaw-dropping: the Orwellian reversal of reality or the Freudian projection of the West’s own manipulation on the big bad Russian Other.

That projection, in any case, is also in play in Romania. Indeed, at this point, the Romanian case of electoral foul play is clearly the most brutal one. There, the gist of a long saga beginning last November, too, is simple: Calin Georgescu, an insurgent newcomer is very likely to win presidential elections. Yet he is being denounced as a far-right populist and – drum roll – as somehow in cahoots with Russia, too.

The consequences were not surprising, except in how drastic things have gotten: First, when Georgescu was close to winning one election, the Constitutional Court abused its power to cancel the whole exercise. The pretext was a file of pseudo-evidence cobbled together by Romania’s security services that, by now, even Western mainstream media admit is ridiculously shoddy.

As you would expect, this open assault on their right to vote has made Romanians support Georgescu more, not less, as polls show. Since the next try at elections is now due to take place in May and Georgescu is still the frontrunner, the authorities have followed up with even more ham-fisted repression. This time, Georgescu was temporarily and dramatically detained – on the way to registering his renewed candidacy – and then accused of half a dozen serious crimes. His access to social media has been curtailed; his team and associates are being raked with searches, charges, and, of course, media attacks. It is possible that he will be deprived of his right to stand for the election.

Read more

Georgescu’s supporters have held large demonstrations; he himself has appealed for help in his struggle against Romania’s “deep state” to the Trump administration in Washington. Trump’s de facto right-hand man, tech oligarch Elon Musk, has used his X platform to signal support for Georgescu. And not long ago, US Vice President J.D. Vance warned the Europeans over the first round of attacks on Georgescu.

Yet Romania’s key role in NATO strategies is certain to be a key reason the NATO-skeptic and sovereigntist Georgescu has run into such massive trouble, not only from Romanian mainstream elites but also, behind the scenes, those still running the EU. With Washington now revising its approach to both Russia and its NATO clients in Europe, Georgescu’s fate could well hinge on one of the greatest geopolitical shifts of this century. And that shift might favor him.

Maia Sandu’s crooked victory in Moldova is not up for revision. The chances for the BSW of finding redress should be good, but, in reality, they are not, unfortunately. Georgescu’s luck, though, may turn again. He already has massive electoral support; he may well get even more precisely because of the escalation of dirty tricks used against him, and he has the US de facto on his side.

What is certain, in any case, is one simple fact: the “garden” West, with its endless talk of “values” and “rules” does not, in practice, believe in real elections. Instead, geopolitics prevail. And, tragically, those geopolitics are not only overbearing but stupid. Driven by an obsession with fighting Russia (and China, of course; and the Trumpist US, too, if need be) and rejecting diplomacy as such, this is a West ready to sacrifice whatever little democracy it may have left to a delusion of grandeur that will be its downfall.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Since Modi took power in 2014, a Western ecosystem of governments, media, and think tanks has consistently targeted the country through influential narratives

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) established by US President Donald Trump under tech billionaire Elon Musk, intended to downsize the federal government, reduce wasteful expenditure, and stop the misuse of funds and corruption, has created huge waves in the US. This affects the bureaucracy at large, elements of which at the higher echelons are seen as part of the “deep state” that Trump is battling.

The activities of USAID have also come under the scanner by DOGE, and their exposure has touched India also, with the disclosure that $21 million allocated to India in 2024 for promoting higher voter turn-out in elections has been blocked. The stated purpose of these funds, to be channeled via the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), a group based in Washington, D.C., is baffling because the turn out in Indian elections is already very high. It was 65.79% in the 2024 general election – much higher than in US elections.

Trump, as is his wont, has latched on to this in his characteristic discursive style and expressed bemusement that such an allocation was made. He has commented several times on this in public and in the process has created confusion by talking of $21 million – the DOGE figure –initially and later mentioning $18 million, suggesting that kickbacks may be involved, mixing up the potential beneficiaries, saying that the purpose was to get “someone else elected,” and asking the basic question why India would need these funds at all.

It could be speculated that the funds might have been destined for opposition elements to bolster their chances in specific constituencies by promoting a higher voter turnout opposed to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). No proof of this is available as the money has not been disbursed.

The Indian opposition and its sympathizers in the media have tried to obfuscate the issue by claiming that the purported funds – not $21 million but $29 million – were intended for Bangladesh to “strengthen its political landscape,” and that a perusal of available records would support this. The problem in taking this line is that DOGE is speaking of funds not disbursed to India whereas the funds to Bangladesh have been.

Read more

Be that as it may, the reference to $29 million to be spent on strengthening the political landscape in Bangladesh – a code word for political interference in the country, which saw a regime change last year – strengthens strong suspicions in India that the US had a hand in the ouster of Sheikh Hasina’s from power in Bangladesh, which struck a blow to New Delhi’s strategic interests in that country.

The obvious political nature of this $21 million allocation has created controversy in India, with the ruling party pointing the finger at opposition elements as the intended beneficiaries, and opposition groups seeking a proper investigation of the flow of such funds into India by the government.

The US has previously funded development projects in India. In the last decade, India has received about $1.5 billion as such aid. According to the BJP’s data, from 2004-2013, when the previous coalition was in power, the government received $204.28 million from USAID while NGOs received $2.11 billion. Under the present coalition the government has received $1.51 million (through 2015), while NGO funding has risen to $2.57 billion. Government funding ceased after 2015, but NGOs such as Catholic Relief Services received $218 million, CARE International $218 million, and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which has published reports targeting the Modi government, has received $47 million.

READ MORE: Trump has no idea where most of the Ukraine aid went – and honestly, who does?

USAID has backed programs such as Internews, which trained Indian journalists with the objective of shaping media narratives considered unfavorable to the Indian government. The US embassy in India has organized programs for Indian journalists on countering disinformation, becoming dependable fact-checkers and preventing fake news in their respective news rooms, besides strengthening positive narratives to maintain peace and stability in the region. USAID and the US embassy funding programs to tutor the media in India are clearly objectionable as they constitute interference in its internal affairs.

That USAID has engaged in activities that go well beyond development aid was always suspected but these concerns have not been publicly expressed at the official level. It is standard practice for entities such as USAID to have genuine aid programs, which give its operatives access to government departments and at the field level, and this facilitates collection of information and intelligence operations. With relations with the US steadily on the upswing since 2005, India has chosen to concentrate on the positives of ties and play down concerns about some negative features of US policy towards India.

USAID has not been the focus of Indian concerns. It is the activities of US foundations that have raised concerns, be it the Ford Foundation (whose activities the government has tried to control), the Open Society Foundation, the Omidyar Foundation, and so on.

Read more

The Open Society Foundation in particular, founded by magnate George Soros, has been blatantly active politically against Prime Minister Modi himself, and on the issue of democracy in India. Its link with USAID has now come out into the open. The present government has in recent years greatly tightened up on foreign funding of Indian NGOs when evidence grew that they were engaging in political and social activities against the country’s interest, and also mobilizing local populations against some development projects.

A whole eco-system in the West spanning governments, parliaments, media, think tanks, academia, journals, democracy and religious promotion organizations, and so on, have been targeting India ever since Modi and the BJP came to power in 2014.

Before the 2024 Lok Sabha election the anti-Modi and anti-BJP campaign intensified. Established publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, the Economist, Le Monde, Deutsche Welle, etc. uniformly promoted a negative narrative about the state of democracy and minority issues in India, some even calling openly for voting against Modi for re-election. Some observers in India felt that this was a concerted campaign that also involved the deep state in these countries.

It is not a coincidence that these attacks on Modi and the BJP government in western circles were closely aligned with the political attacks by India’s opposition. Some prominent Indian opposition leaders had actually sought US interference in India’s internal affairs to assist in saving its democracy. The incessant attack by an opposition leader on the links between a top industry figure in India with the Indian prime minister was echoed by George Soros at Davos as far back as January 2020.

Read more

The uncovering of USAID’s activities worldwide by the Trump administration and the decision to stop its operations have been explosive in nature. It has demolished a key instrument in the hands of the US establishment to further its influence abroad in overt and covert ways. Many have long suspected that the CIA uses USAID for furthering its agenda. Whether true or not, some of the revelations of DOGE about USAID’s activities substantiate this suspicion. The dynamics behind this is internal US politics but the fall-out is international.

Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has reacted in a relative low key to the exposure of USAID activities in India, stating that USAID was allowed into India “in good faith,” and now suggestions are coming from America itself that it conducted some activities “in bad faith,” which is worrisome. The government is looking into this and the facts will come out, Jaishankar asserted.

With the cleaning up operations that Trump is conducting against the deep state in the US that includes the CIA and the FBI, and the short shrift he is giving to the liberal media, not to mention his lack of interest in using the human rights weapon against other countries, India’s problems with the US under Trump will shift to economic issues. Washington will want to address high Indian tariffs, and reduce the US trade deficit with India by imposing matching tariffs and pressuring India to give more market access to US products, buy more US oil and gas, and acquire more US defense equipment. His anti-woke agenda will be helpful in curtailing trends towards woke-ism in India.

Under the Joe Biden administration India-US relations improved palpably. However, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in tandem with the liberal press pressured India on democracy and human rights issues, to the point of frequently commenting on India’s internal affairs and causing irritation in New Delhi. With Trump, the positive trajectory of relations will continue but contentiousness will shift to trade issues and “deal making” pressures from the US.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Throwing billions upon billions of cash at Kiev turned out to be such a massive scam no one seems to even know the exact amount

Donald Trump is pulling Ukraine aid numbers out of thin air – or maybe somewhere less polite – but let’s be real, does anyone actually know what’s going on?

The US president keeps saying that the reason Washington wants dibs on Ukrainian natural resources is because “the United States has put up far more aid for Ukraine than any other nation, hundreds of billions of dollars,” and that “we’re in there for about $350 billion. I think that’s a pretty big contribution.” But ABC News’ fact checking says that the figure is actually closer to $182 billion, which also includes the cost of making weapons and “restocking US weapons supplies.” In other words, a lot of that “aid” never even left the US.

That’s the dirty little secret regarding all of this so-called aid for Ukraine. There’s no shortage of casual observers who believe that every dollar of committed foreign aid for Kiev actually went to the country to rescue kittens and kids.

Trump keeps saying he doesn’t know where all the aid even went. Well, join the club. What’s undeniable is that much of it helped paid for old US weaponry to be promptly turned into expensive fireworks by Russian missiles, and for US weapons makers to churn out some shiny new ones to replace them, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Washington might as well have just shipped over a giant stack of cash with a sign that said, “For target practice.”

Anyway, Zelensky is now sounding like a guy who doesn’t think that he should have to pay for this whole movie, now that it turns out that it sucks. So he’s at the ticket booth just as the closing credits are about to roll, arguing with management and haggling over whether any cash that actually made it into Ukrainian hands should actually be considered a debt or just written off as a donation – or “grant.”

Read more

“When it is said that Ukraine received $200 billion to support the army during the war – that’s not true. I don’t know where all that money went. Perhaps it’s true on paper with hundreds of different programs – I won’t argue, and we’re immensely grateful for everything. But in reality, we received about $76 billion. It’s significant aid, but it’s not $200 billion,” Zelensky said. ”We should not recognize grants as debts. I agreed with Biden that this is a grant. A grant is not a debt. We’re not going to pay back grants.”

We’re talking about a lot of money. You’d think that someone would’ve at least written down the actual deal on a bar napkin or something.

Zelensky apparently doesn’t have much of a clue where all the cash went. Trump clearly doesn’t know. Maybe check near the $10,000 hammers on the defense procurement lists – or for a new yacht somewhere in a tropical tax haven that was recently christened as “Not Laundered, I Swear.”

Last year, the Ukrainian security service found that officials were working with Ukrainian weapons companies to embezzle $40 million earmarked for mortar shells. A couple of years ago, the New York Times found that almost a billion dollars in weapons contracts had missed their delivery dates, and the cash just kind of… disappeared. Like a rabbit in a magic show that goes into the hat and never comes back out – but everyone still claps because it’s “for Ukraine” and if you don’t cheer for all this, then you may as well just pack up and move to Moscow already.

Trump keeps trying to say that Kiev’s European backers deserve fewer post-war spoils because they didn’t invest as much, which isn’t true. The EU is too stupid to have caught onto the scam early enough to have spent most of the aid on itself. French President Emmanuel Macron interrupted Trump, grabbing his hand to explain during his recent White House visit that the EU is holding Russian assets in Europe hostage as “collateral for the loan” that they’ve given Ukraine.

The EU is actually going a lot further than that and is stealing the interest on those assets to give to Ukraine – “borrowing” Russia’s credit card in order to lavish gifts on Zelensky. The EU’s current chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, is a big fan of the idea of stealing those Russian assets outright. Macron, with Trump sitting beside him and the global press barely bothering to react, announced that Russia can have its frozen assets back – right after it forks over a giant pile of cash to the EU when the war wraps up. Oh sure, that doesn’t sound like a shakedown at all. A shining moment for capitalism – with a slight hostage negotiation vibe.

Read more

European leaders made a pilgrimage to Kiev recently to support Zelensky on the third anniversary of the day the conflict escalated and he started dressing like he collects cover charges at the local strip joint. It’s also the third full year of the West tossing money at him like he’s also personally giving them private shows in the VIP room.

Britain is offering to tuck another $5.7 billion in military aid into his cargo pants for “military aid” this year, much of which may or may not, in reality, just end up in the pockets of the British military industrial complex.

The “Ukraine aid” cash laundering machine is now such a prominent feature of European democracy that it’s what caused Germany to recently require premature national elections. Chancellor Olaf Scholz had wanted to hand over another €3 billion in military aid “for Ukraine” to the benefit of the German stock exchange’s star student, weapons-maker Rheinmetall, but his finance minister wanted instead to just hand over some of the old junk in their military attic to Kiev for which they could bill Brussels and get some of their own donated cash “for Ukraine” back from the giant EU recycled weapons slush fund. But because the hand-me-downs were long range Taurus missiles capable of hitting Russia, the same Ukrainian troops that were already FUBARing German tanks by attempting to “repair” them could do some real World War III grade damage if left unsupervised. The disagreement ultimately blew up the traffic light coalition.

Meanwhile, the EU just keeps throwing cash at the Ukraine issue like gambling addicts at a rigged casino, convinced that the jackpot is just one more bet away.

It turns out that Brussels also gave Poland a pile of money, generously and unwittingly donated by EU taxpayers: €114 million, to be exact. Warsaw was supposed to buy power generators for Ukrainians with it. But the EU’s anti-fraud team just reported a few days ago that some of the generators were overpriced by 40%. Sounds like a bunch of Poles figured that “surge pricing” can be profitably defined as just inflating the cost of power equipment.

The EU says that the Polish government agency managing the program was about as cooperative with their investigation as a cat at bath time, but the anti-fraud office worked with Polish prosecutors and Warsaw’s central anti-corruption bureau, and now wants €91 million of it back. Good luck with that. On the upside, another €22 million was caught and saved before it could fall into the abyss like the rest.

Read more

So maybe Polish officials know what they’re talking about. One former Polish deputy minister, Piotr Kulpa, said that corruption is kind of a tango with both supplier and recipient nations grooving together, and specifically brought up the two trillion that the US basically set on fire in Afghanistan as an example. Which would explain why some political opposition figures in France, for example, are starting to wonder if maybe one of the reasons why this whole “defend Ukraine” thing isn’t going too well is because the money isn’t actually going towards that.

Back in 2023, several EU nations accused Estonia of treating EU military aid reimbursements like a personal ATM. And guess who was Estonian prime minister back then? That’s right – current EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. Maybe she studied pricing math at the same school where Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock learned geometry?

Over in the Czech Republic, the media reported that the “Help Ukraine” foundation had received a grant of about €800,000 to help Ukrainian refugees to learn Czech. The Czech prosecutor’s office claims that by helping Ukrainians, the founder of this NGO was rather focused on helping ONE Ukrainian in particular – himself, charging him with embezzlement.

As for where Trump might want to start looking if he wants to figure out where all the aid to Ukraine went, he could always just start with the Pentagon Inspector General’s report from a year ago, which found that “59% of the total value” of defense articles provided to Ukraine “remained delinquent.”

That would be “delinquent” as in “missing.” Weapons not actually showing up on the battlefield like a kid who never shows up to class. It’s no wonder spending even more money is a tough sell right now stateside. Particularly when it doesn’t seem that much has changed since back in 2022 when the scams were so flagrant that they were happening right under the nose of observers in Kiev.

But then again, what do you expect when USAID, the supposed gold standard for foreign aid, and which is now being subjected to a proctology exam by the Trump administration, once reportedly dropped over $100,000 on a Ukrainian anti-corruption TV show to raise awareness about the very same message that Zelensky peddled as president: fighting corruption. Looks like that’s going really well so far. Clearly yet another case of money “for Ukraine” well spent!

Медиа: image / jpeg

Thoroughly thrashed by Trump and Vance, the Ukrainian leader faces a bleak future

“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington.

And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine.

“ A disaster” and “ bitter chaos” (The Economist); a “meltdown” that “ could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “ historic escalation” (Spiegel); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” ( Le Monde); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky ( New York Times) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.

And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986.

The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines.

Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “ Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky.

For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious.

Read more

Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.

Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding.

In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev.

And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.

Yet let’s not get distracted. Schadenfreude is not important. And neither are probably misguided speculations about Trump and the gang “setting traps,” staging “ambushes, or dishing out “payback.” Because even if they did, any leader worth his salt has to be able to deal with such baiting. One way or the other, this was yet another painful-to-watch display of Zelensky’s complete inadequacy.

The really interesting questions concern the consequences of this cluster-fiasco. No one knows the future. Currently, Zelensky is debasing himself even more – I know, hard to imagine, but leave it to the man who pretended to play piano with his genitals, in public – by trying to angle for mercy. Trump, as of now, seems in no mood to offer any. Not only was the Ukrainian satrap literally shown the door, but the irate American overlord also made a point of letting the media know that despite Zelensky’s begging it won’t be open again soon.

Read more

Hence, one consequence, let’s assume, is a long-term, deep falling out between Washington and the Zelensky regime that may well be irreparable. This is all the more remarkable as what led up to this turn of events was the almost-final-signing of an essentially colonial raw materials deal handing over Ukraine’s resources to America. And yet still not good enough.

The Trump administration is brutally frank about seeking material advantage; this, it seemed, was a done deal. What happened? We can only speculate, but one possibility is that Trump’s team is taking seriously the recent statements by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

In an important interview with journalist Pavel Zarubin – the real meaning of which has mostly escaped Western mainstream media, as is their wont – Putin explained that Moscow is open to business cooperation with the US regarding rare earth deposits everywhere in Russia. Including, as he stressed, territories recently conquered from Ukraine. You can extrapolate from here concerning other raw materials as well. Russia will, of course, not roll over Zelensky-style, but very much money can be made in fair deals, too.

Zelensky, hence, may have overestimated his negotiating position: although he is ready to sell out Ukraine’s raw materials to the US the way he has already sold its people, he has so little control that an offer of access with and through Moscow may have become attractive enough to neutralize his leverage. If that is so, then Washington has now even less interest than before in helping Kiev recover (impossible anyhow) or even keep territory.

Another possible consequence is obvious: Long before Trump, the US has had an impressive record of first using and then abandoning or even liquidating puppets, including, to name only a few, Ngo Dinh Diem of former South Vietnam, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden, a badly backfiring Cold War terror puppet.

Read more

There can be no doubt that Zelensky should worry about a similar fate. Exile may be the best option available left for him in reality. He may also be cooped away in Ukraine. Or even be forced to obey the constitution and hold elections, which he is certain to lose, most likely against Valery Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief and Zelensky’s arch-nemesis. Make no mistake: Zaluzhny is a bullheaded and narrowminded nationalist and militarist and, as of now, a Western puppet no less than Zelensky. Any scenarios involving Zelensky’s replacement remain hard to predict.

Especially because, and this brings us to a third possible consequence, Washington’s European vassals seem to be choosing the worst possible moment to finally rebel: Having helped drive the insane proxy war forward and Ukraine into an abyss with fanatic, self-destructive submissiveness to prior US rulers, it is the NATO-EU Europeans who are now trying to obstruct the search for peace. In that, they are even ready to diverge from Washington. That is the meaning, once again, behind the many messages of shlocky “solidarity” they are now demonstratively addressing to the Zelensky regime.

It is as perverse as you can imagine, but it is real: the hill that NATO-EU Europe has chosen to die on is to be even more warmongering and destructive than the US. Say what you will about these European “elites,” but they still manage to surprise: whenever you think they have done their very worst, they upstage themselves.

The war may well continue, even without the US. It would be insane. But the “elites” of NATO-EU Europe and Kiev are just that, of course, insane. We may even end up in a world where a Russian-US détente will unfold (as we should hope), while the Ukraine War becomes a fight between Russia and the US’ abandoned European vassals.

What will not change is the outcome: Ukraine and the West – in whatever rump shape – will lose. And the longer the war, the worse for both of them. Let’s hope that something will give. Ukrainians, another Maidan perhaps to finally stop the bloody clown who promised you peace and then betrayed you? Europeans, how much longer are you going to tolerate leaders obsessed with getting to World War III?

Медиа: image / jpeg

Those who think the ICC is “a great idea” that just needs some reforms fail to grasp its fundamental problems

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long masqueraded as a beacon of justice, a supposedly impartial tribunal holding the world’s worst criminals accountable. But the reality is far from this idealistic image.

The ICC is, and always has been, an instrument of Western hegemony – a tool wielded by the so-called “civilized” world to impose its will on those it deems lesser. Far from serving global justice, the Court operates as a political weapon, prosecuting those who challenge Western geopolitical interests while shielding those aligned with them. Its selective enforcement, impotence against real global power, and deep entanglement with Western influence make one conclusion unavoidable: The ICC is beyond reform. It must be abolished.

The ICC was never about justice

Supporters of The ICC was created to ensure justice for humanity’s worst crimes – so say its supporters, as well as those bold enough to criticize its current state but not bold enough to recognize it for what it always has been. Those latter ones – one example is a recent column on this same site , even saying the Court is "a great idea"! – seem to believe some sort of reform can fix the issues with the ICC. It cannot.

But from its inception, it was built not as a neutral arbiter but as a Western instrument of control. The idea that the ICC was ever intended to serve the good of all the people of the world is naive at best and willfully deceptive at worst.

From its early years, the Court fixated on African nations, disproportionately prosecuting leaders from the continent while conveniently ignoring the crimes of Western-aligned governments. African nations, of course, do not have a monopoly on war crimes or human rights violations. Yet time and again, the ICC has served as an extension of Western influence, doling out so-called justice only to those deemed insignificant enough to prosecute. The charges of neo-colonialism are not just accusations – they are the undeniable reality of the ICC’s record.

Read more

One need only look at the fact that the world’s leading superpowers – China, Russia, and the United States – have wisely refused to subject themselves to the ICC’s authority. Their absence is not an accident; it is a recognition that the ICC does not operate as a neutral, lawful institution but rather as a selectively enforced cudgel of the West.

An enforcer of Western geopolitical interests

The ICC’s defenders argue that the Court’s disproportionate focus on African leaders is just a reflection of where crimes happen to be committed. This is a flimsy excuse, especially when juxtaposed with the Court’s glaring omission of any serious action against Western nations. The US, for instance, has waged wars, committed war crimes, and propped up brutal regimes across the globe. Yet no American leader or general has ever been brought before the ICC.

Why? Because the ICC does not exist to prosecute Western war criminals. It exists to serve Western interests. The moment the Court dares to step out of line – such as when it attempted to investigate US actions in Afghanistan – the response is swift and brutal. The US wasted no time imposing sanctions on ICC officials and using European allies to pressure the Court into submission. This is not the behavior of a just, independent judicial body. It is the behavior of a lapdog, obedient to the whims of Washington and Brussels.

Even when the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials in 2024 – a rare instance of it challenging a Western-aligned state – the reaction from the US was revealing. Washington immediately condemned the Court, with threats of sanctions against its officials. The message was clear: The ICC may exist, but it may not act against those protected by the West. The selective nature of its so-called justice is on full display.

The superpowers’ rejection of the ICC proves its illegitimacy

One of the most glaring flaws of the ICC is its complete lack of jurisdiction over the world’s most powerful nations. The US has gone so far as to enact laws, such as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which allows military intervention to free any US personnel detained by the ICC. This is not the action of a country that respects the rule of law – it is the action of a country that understands the ICC’s true nature and refuses to be subject to its farcical authority.

Read more

Russia, likewise, withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2016 after the ICC classified its actions in Crimea as an “occupation.” Moscow was right to do so. Why should Russia – or any other major power – submit to an institution that is fundamentally biased, politically motivated, and powerless against real global influence?

China, for its part, has never even considered joining the ICC. It understands that the Court does not exist to prosecute criminals impartially, but rather to serve the interests of those who created it. It would be foolish for any sovereign nation to willingly subject itself to an institution that operates not on the basis of law, but on the dictates of Western policymakers.

The ICC’s power is an illusion

Even if one were to believe in the ICC’s mission, it is an indisputable fact that the Court lacks any real enforcement power. Without the backing of major global powers, it relies on cooperation from nations that have little incentive to comply. Arrest warrants issued by the ICC are, more often than not, ignored by those with the strength to resist them. The Court can issue as many rulings as it likes, but without the muscle to enforce them, they are little more than symbolic gestures.

And when it does manage to act, it does so selectively – pursuing leaders of weaker states while carefully avoiding any real confrontation with those who hold true global power. This is not the hallmark of a legitimate judicial institution. It is the mark of a toothless puppet.

Abolish the ICC – it will never be what it pretends to be

The ICC is not broken in the sense that it has failed to live up to its ideals. It is broken because those ideals were never real to begin with. The Court was not designed to be a fair, unbiased institution, and every action it has taken has proven that fact. It is a tool of the West, wielded selectively against those who oppose its interests while shielding those who align with them.

For those who still believe in the fantasy of international justice, the ICC is not the answer. A true global court would require universal jurisdiction, genuine enforcement power, and, above all, freedom from political influence. The ICC has none of these things. Reform is not an option because its flaws are not incidental – they are foundational.

The only reasonable path forward is abolition. The world does not need a pretend court dispensing pretend justice. It needs a real mechanism of accountability, one that is not beholden to the shifting whims of Western power. The ICC will never be that mechanism. It is time to put an end to the farce.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Ex-Blizzard developer Mark Kern is at the forefront of shooting down the woke agenda and bringing sanity back to videogames

For the better part of a decade – if not longer – so-called nerd media has been under assault from within its own walls.

Wokeness, DEI, and HR run amok have irreparably destroyed far too many franchises to count. But with a right-wing vibe shift occurring throughout the civilized world, a change is coming, and one former developer from the once-beloved gaming titan Blizzard should get his dues for risking it all to lead the charge.

Before the culture war dominated so much of our lives, Mark Kern, aka Grummz, was already an important figure within the realm of gaming. Consider him the Greek God of the sky, for he raised multiple titans. As a producer, he helped bring Starcraft and Diablo II to life, but more impressively he was the team lead on the global MMO powerhouse World of Warcraft.

With his contributions to those titles, he forever altered the gaming landscape. Not content to settle and simply end things there, he eventually began a crusade – not just to alter it a second time, but to save it from the clutches of left-wing demagogues intent on destroying the hobby for their own activist agendas.

For those not personally entwined with the hobby, it’s hard to fully convey just how far gaming has crashed throughout the 2010s and ‘20s, but one need only look at big-budget Western games to see how devastatingly it has rotted.

Military shooters like Call of Duty proudly feature trans flags and other gender-bending propaganda, while in far too many games to count, female characters are intentionally made ugly – spitting in the faces of real women, as the character models bear little resemblance to the actresses used as their base.

Read more

Consultancy groups like Sweet Baby Inc. are brought in to dictate changes in the name of inclusivity, and if that weren’t bad enough, left-wing preaching permeates nearly everything. Fun and meaningful gameplay have been thrown aside to cater to those who don’t even enjoy games in the first place.

Throughout the industry, most game developers are afraid to speak up, lest they be ostracized, forcefully silenced as gaming turns into a slurry of social justice agitprop. So it’s all the more meaningful that, at a time when doing so was nearly social suicide, Mark Kern risked his reputation and career to stand up to the mob.

Over the past several years, he has gone all in on fighting back, spending hours on social media calling out injustice and inadequacies where he sees fit. In doing so, he has caused a number of woke games to financially stumble or fail, while also helping titles untainted by DEI – like Black Myth: Wukong and Stellar Blade – find massive success.

None of this has been taken lightly by the opposition. He has survived endless attempts at cancellation and doxxing. The replies to his posts are often filled with death threats or wishes for grievous bodily harm. Detractors giddily share GIFs of him being beaten with hammers. His name is constantly smeared, and even his role in delivering Blizzard’s greatest hits is questioned.

All that is just par for the course for anyone who loudly and proudly goes against the “tolerant” left – which is all the more reason to commend him, because he has stood firm.

It’s a massive gamble that is now paying dividends. Elon Musk retweets him often enough, helping spread his message to an even wider audience, which is only serving to unify a growing army of distraught gamers. They are now taking back the medium – but perhaps more importantly, they are fighting back against runaway leftism.

Read more

The 2014 Gamergate scandal was already one of the original MAGA battlegrounds, but back then, the right wasn’t fully united. By 2025, however, the story is vastly different. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are being rejected by the masses, and now government institutions and entertainment mediums are being reclaimed for the land of the sane.

There’s no doubt a lot of people deserve thanks for putting us on track toward stability and no one person can take all the credit, but Kern still deserves his dues as a commander in the culture war.

That’s not to say everything about him is perfect. Post-Blizzard, his game development track record isn’t as strong, and sometimes he posts things that are a bit too cringeworthy. But that doesn’t diminish the strides he has made.

He may be an imperfect messenger, but his voice is still one the world needs to hear.

Wokeness may be on the back foot, but it’s not completely down and out. People like Kern may be the ones to finally land a knockout punch.

As Musk loves to proclaim, “DEI kills art,” and Grummz is how we bring it back to life.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has spent his entire term pandering to the global elites and is about to reap what he sowed

The first term Labor prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, must go to the polls before the end of May.

Astute political commentators predict that Albo – as he likes to be known amongst those working class voters that he so unconvincingly pretends to represent – will select April 12 as the election date. That date would allow Albanese to cynically take advantage of an interest rate cut announced by the Reserve Bank last week – as well as enabling him to avoid handing down a budget before the election.

Like many social democratic political leaders in the West, Albanese is facing certain defeat in the upcoming election, no matter when it may take place. Other social democratic leaders committed to global elite programs and ideologies, for example Jacinta Ardern and Justin Trudeau – after sensing a rise in populist sentiment in the West – have resigned in advance of being cast out of office by voters no longer willing to tolerate their ineptitude and hypocrisy.

Albanese – like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz – has, however, decided to chance his hand at being reelected by an electorate that increasingly cannot stand the sight of him and no longer believes a word he utters. This may be hubris on Albanese’s part, or he may be relying on the fact that, in Australia, first term federal governments are usually reelected.

Perhaps he is so committed to the elite ideologies that he embraces that he simply refuses to acknowledge the rise in populist sentiment that has changed the face of politics in the West in recent years, and threatens to destroy parties like the one he leads. Whatever the reason, Albanese’s political judgment – unsurprisingly – appears to be fundamentally flawed.

How has Albanese’s swift fall from grace come about? The starting point is that he has never been anything other than a fourth-rate politician. The Labor government was elected three years ago with a slim two-seat majority – not because the electorate was impressed with Albanese’s political acumen, but because the tired, divided, and incompetent Morrison conservative government was no longer fit to govern.

Read more

Albanese’s demise, in fact, commenced on the night of his election win.

In his victory speech, apparently without consulting his colleagues, Albanese announced that his government’s key policy initiative during its first term would be the establishment of a constitutionally enshrined ‘Voice to Parliament’ – a purely advisory body that would instruct the government on matters relating to Aboriginal affairs.

Never mind that reams of advice on this vexed political issue had been given to governments for decades – with no improvement whatsoever to the disgraceful conditions in which the majority of Aboriginals who live in remote communities have to endure.

Albanese’s radical rewriting of the constitution would have provided well paid perpetual sinecures for members of the urban Aboriginal elite. What prevented members of this elite from providing immediate advice to Albanese – without the need to create a constitutionally enshrined body – was never explained.

The ‘Voice’ was a classically woke, deeply flawed, and controversial proposal. It was, of course, supported by corporate and academic elites as well as most mass media organizations – because it provided a unique opportunity for virtue signaling. Unfortunately for Albanese – because, at his insistence, the proposal entailed amendments to the constitution – the Voice required the electorate to approve it in a referendum. Albanese staked his political career on winning the referendum and spent the next 18 months, in the company of elite leaders, campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote.

The referendum was lost in October 2023 – with 60% of the electorate voting against it. One could not imagine a clearer indicator of the rise of populist sentiment amongst Australian voters and their rejection of woke programs than this decisive referendum result. Albanese simply shrugged off this expensive political debacle – which set back the Aboriginal cause for decades – saying that he was not responsible for the defeat and that in any event “Aboriginals were used to disappointment.” Albanese and his government then blithely pressed on with their commitment to elite programs in other areas (climate change, diversity politics, transgender rights, etc).

Read more

At the same time, the Albanese government did nothing to ease the cost-of-living pressures that were progressively impoverishing more and more ordinary Australians. Energy and food prices have continued to rise dramatically over the past three years, as have house prices and rents.

Albanese refused to contemplate introducing policies that would ameliorate the cost-of-living crisis – this would have meant redistributing wealth away from the global elites – that had been for some time the primary concern of most Australian voters. Instead, he delivered endless woke homilies that amounted to little more than exercises in magical thinking – while continuing to confer largesse on anyone fortunate enough to fall within the sacrosanct categories created by diversity politics.

Albanese remains so committed to this elite mode of politics – even now – that one of his key election policies is free childcare for families earning up to $580,000.

Having ignored the deepening cost-of-living crisis, and disregarded the rise of populist sentiment, Albanese sought to placate voters by adopting wholesale the Conservative coalition’s foreign policy agenda. This, of course, came as no surprise. Having adopted the global elites’ domestic policies, it was inevitable that Albanese should also adopt their foreign policy program.

And, as with all contemporary social democratic leaders in the West, it did not occur to Albanese that the billions of dollars wasted on misguided foreign policy initiatives could have been much better spent on easing cost of living pressures domestically. In this Albanese somewhat resembles a latter day Lyndon Johnson – bearing in mind, of course, Marx’s dictum that history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.

Albanese enthusiastically championed the unwise and expensive AUKUS arrangement, Biden’s misguided China policy, the Netanyahu government’s atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the tottering Zelensky regime in Ukraine. Albanese’s capitulation on every one of these issues has been so abject and complete that it is now virtually impossible to have a rational debate on any of these matters in Australia.

Read more

Predictably, Albanese’s craven foreign policy cave-in has ended in complete and utter failure – because he could never hope to ‘out-conservative’ the Conservative opposition on these issues.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has effectively demonized Albanese on foreign policy issues in large part because Albanese has meekly accepted Dutton’s framing of the various debates. Dutton is, as one would expect, far more irrationally committed to US expansionism, China-phobia, and the Netanyahu and Zelensky regimes than Albanese can ever be.

But Albanese’s problems do not end there.

Donald Trump’s election as US president has created more difficulties for him – which go far beyond the fact that he and Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd (a former failed Labor prime minister who was rewarded for his political ineptitude by being dispatched to Washington), have made crude and derogatory comments about Trump in the past.

Trump, of course, is a populist leader par excellence, and has nothing but complete contempt for everything that Albanese and his Labor Party stand for. He also, no doubt, despises Albanese’s weakness. Nor is Trump a committed fan of AUKUS.

Trump’s recent wholesale abandonment of the Zelensky regime, and his determination to end the conflict in Ukraine has left Albanese looking particularly foolish. In fact, Trump’s decisive and principled action in respect of Ukraine has sounded the death knell for social democratic leaders like Scholz, Albanese and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Albanese, however, believes he can ignore these facts, and recently made the fanciful claim that he is better placed to cooperate with Trump than Dutton – because of the “enormous respect” that other world leaders have for him.

It is difficult to imagine a more pathetic and self-delusional assertion by an Australian prime minister. Most world leaders would not know or care who Albanese was – and the best that he can hope for from Trump is that he is treated with the benign condescension that Trump reserves for leaders of bit-player nations who supinely do his bidding.

Read more

Thus Albanese – only weeks out from an election – finds himself in the worst of all possible worlds. The only bright spot on the electoral horizon is that there are 18 minor party members and independents in the House of Representatives – most of whom are ideologically aligned with the Labor party – which means that Dutton has to win 19 seats to form a majority government. Twelve months ago this appeared to be unlikely – but the recent dramatic decline in Albanese’s popularity means that Dutton now has a very real chance of becoming prime minister.

Whatever happens, it is clear that Albanese will not be able to form a majority government. Even if he remains prime minister, it can only be at the head of a minority government forced to rely upon support from the Greens and/or the elite Teal independents. This, of course, can only lead to serious and ongoing political instability.

The absolutely dire position that Albanese and his Labor Party are in has been obliquely confirmed by their first election advertisement, released last week. The advertisement states (untruthfully) that “We understand the pressure that families are under” – and then, under a large picture of Peter Dutton, states “You’ll be worse off under Dutton”.

A more telling admission that Albanese is unable to run on his political “achievements” cannot be imagined. In fact, it is virtually an admission of defeat.

The fact is that Albanese is a doomed social democratic political leader – much like Biden, Ardern, Trudeau, Starmer, and Scholz. Such leaders – because of their unwavering support for the global elites and their ideologies – are incapable of effectively dealing with the pressing economic and political problems that increasingly bedevil all Western nations.

Hence their declining support amongst voters – it now hovers around 30% at best. Scholz, in losing this week’s election in Germany, garnered less than 20% of the vote. Nor are these failed leaders able to understand – let alone effectively oppose - the rising tide of populism that is now engulfing the West.

When Albanese loses the upcoming election, the Labor Party will simply replace him as leader with another non-entity and engage in the usual unproductive post-election postmortem. The Democratic Party in America is currently undergoing such a process – with little success. Not only can the Democratic leadership not agree on why Trump defeated them so comprehensively, they are unable to come up with a viable political program for the future. The fact that the Democrats have been unable to offer any resistance to Trump’s recent radical reshaping of American and international politics is proof positive of the party’s ideological bankruptcy.

The dilemma confronting all elite-oriented social democratic parties in the West is now tolerably clear.

These parties long ago sold their souls to the global elites whose rapacious greed, contempt for ordinary citizens and woke ideological fanaticism has generated a populist backlash and crisis of legitimacy that threatens to destroy social democratic parties (as well as mainstream conservative parties) in the very near future.

What is to be done? This has always been a difficult question to answer, but one thing appears certain – there is no point in asking Anthony Albanese – or any of his fellow social democratic leaders – for an answer.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Having an extranational body that maintains justice in the world is fine in theory, but the ICC isn’t that body

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established with the noble intention of serving as an impartial arbiter of justice, addressing the gravest crimes and holding perpetrators accountable on a global scale. However, over the years, the ICC’s credibility has been increasingly undermined by allegations of political bias and susceptibility to pressure from powerful nations, particularly those in the West. This erosion of impartiality raises a critical question: Has the ICC lost its relevance in the realm of international justice?

A history marred by bias

One of the most persistent criticisms of the ICC is its disproportionate focus on African nations. Despite a global mandate, a significant number of the Court’s investigations and prosecutions have centered on African leaders and conflicts. This pattern has led to accusations of neo-colonialism and selective justice, with many African leaders and scholars contending that the ICC serves as a tool for Western political interests rather than an unbiased judicial body. Such perceptions have prompted several African nations to consider withdrawing from the Rome Statute, questioning the Court’s legitimacy and fairness.

Major powers outside the ICC’s jurisdiction

The ICC’s authority is further compromised by the absence of major global powers such as the United States, Russia, and China from its jurisdiction. These nations have refrained from ratifying the Rome Statute, each citing distinct reasons rooted in concerns over sovereignty and perceived bias.

The US, for instance, has consistently expressed apprehension that the ICC could be used as a political tool against its military and political leaders. This concern stems from the potential for prosecutions related to the US’s extensive overseas military engagements, where allegations of misconduct have occasionally surfaced. To shield its personnel from potential ICC actions, the US has not only refused to join the Court but has also enacted measures to deter ICC investigations involving American citizens. A notable example is the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which authorizes the use of force to free any US personnel detained by the ICC.

Read more

Russia’s relationship with the ICC has also been fraught with tension. Initially a signatory to the Rome Statute, Russia never ratified the treaty and formally withdrew its signature in 2016. This decision followed the ICC’s classification of Russia’s actions in Crimea as an “occupation,” a characterization that Moscow vehemently disputed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov articulated the government’s stance, stating that the Court “failed to meet the expectations to become a truly independent, authoritative international tribunal.” This sentiment reflects a broader disillusionment with what Russia perceives as the ICC’s one-sided and inefficient operations.

China, another major global player, has also opted to remain outside the ICC’s jurisdiction. While specific official statements are less prominent, China’s decision aligns with its general policy of safeguarding national sovereignty and avoiding external judicial interventions that could challenge its internal policies or international actions.

Instrument of a vague 'rules-based order'

Critics argue that the ICC often functions as an instrument of a nebulous “rules-based order,” a term frequently invoked by entities like NATO, the European Union, and the US. However, the “rules” underpinning this order are often perceived as fluid, adapting to align with the political agendas of Western powers at any given time. This malleability raises concerns about the objectivity and consistency of international justice as administered by the ICC.

A striking illustration of this perceived double standard is the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024, accusing them of war crimes in Gaza. This move was an exception to the ICC’s usual pattern, as it directly challenged a nation that enjoys robust support from Western powers, particularly the US. Washington’s swift condemnation of the warrants, coupled with threats of sanctions against the ICC, underscores the influence that powerful nations can exert over the Court’s proceedings. Such actions suggest an effort to align the ICC’s operations with specific national interests, thereby undermining its impartiality.

The ideal vs. the reality

The concept of an international court capable of delivering unbiased and equitable justice is undeniably laudable. In theory, the ICC was designed to transcend political affiliations, ensuring that justice prevails over impunity. However, the reality has deviated significantly from this ideal. The Court’s operations have been tainted by geopolitical interests, selective prosecutions, and a lack of consistent enforcement mechanisms. This divergence between the ICC’s foundational principles and its actual functioning has led to a crisis of credibility.

Given these challenges, it is imperative to reassess the ICC’s structure and mandate. Reforms should aim to insulate the Court from political influences, ensure equitable attention to crimes committed across all regions, and establish robust mechanisms to enforce its rulings. Without such changes, the ICC risks becoming a symbolic entity, devoid of the authority and respect necessary to uphold international justice.

While the aspiration for a fair and unbiased international criminal court remains essential, the ICC, in its current form, falls short of this vision. To restore its relevance and effectiveness, comprehensive reforms are not just desirable – they are indispensable.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Despite the establishment’s historic losses, it will still form a coalition and lead the country deeper into despair

For anyone following German politics, it may be counterintuitive, but things can get even worse.

It is true: The “traffic light” coalition that finally imploded last November has left behind a stunning, all-along-the-line record of political, economic, and moral failure. Including but not limited to blindly and self-destructively supporting America’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, deindustrializing the German economy, and leading German society in siding with Israel, while the latter is committing genocide – according to both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International – against the Palestinians and going on a rampage among its neighbors.

Hard to beat for awfulness, you may well think. And yet after the German election results are in, there are good reasons to be pessimistic, even if it is true that the parties that made up the “traffic light” coalition of doom had their richly deserved comeuppance.

The Greens (usually well-off right-wing militarists and vegan woke pronoun sectarians) declined from 14.7% at the last federal elections in 2021 to less than 11.7%, a painful loss for a minor party past its heyday, especially given that it would have been worse without the personal – if inexplicable – popularity of top candidate Robert Habeck. Yet the former minister of the economy – really and in effect, of deindustrialization and recession – seems miffed at having been underappreciated and has promised to no longer claim a leading position in his party.

For the SPD (Centrist social-democrats specializing in political insipidness and obsequious obedience to Washington), the punishment was worse; indeed, it was truly catastrophic: With 16.1%, the party notched up its worst result in post-World War II German history. In a longer perspective, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s almost Wagnerian downfall is even more sensational: With SPD forerunner organizations dating back to the 1860s – yes, that would be before the first German unification – this was the party’s worst showing since 1887. And that statistic includes an election in March 1933, when the SPD was already suffering massive Nazi repression: even then, the predecessors of Scholz and co. did better (18.3%).

Read more

Finally, the FDP (tax-phobic free market doctrinaires) outdid the SPD by getting wiped out so completely it is gone from parliament. It may never return. Its de facto leader Martin Lindner has already announced not only – Habeck-style – his retreat from leadership but from politics as such.

Call the above a quantum of justice if you wish. But the election has also featured a great injustice, namely what happened to the left-wing BSW party under Sahra Wagenknecht. Germany has an electoral threshold of 5%. Parties that achieve less are not represented in the federal parliament. The BSW has failed to pass this minimum by an extremely small margin: Garnering 4.97%, it lacked only 13,400 votes. This may be a legitimate result: as Wagenknecht has acknowledged, the party did have real problems to overcome and made quite a few mistakes as well.

Yet the BSW is right to seek a verification of this intriguingly close defeat and is considering legal steps. Fabio de Masi, one of its prominent parliamentarians, has posted about “ disinformation,” irregularities in the election process, and “ Romanian conditions,” a clear allusion to the recent suppression of an “inconvenient” presidential candidate there.

While any legal challenge is likely to run into unyielding stonewalling, there is already no doubt that, as Wagenknecht claims, mainstream media have run a long and intense smear campaign against the BSW. Misleading or fake opinion and exit polls – including by the major pollster FORSA (traditionally close to the SPD) – have also, Wagenknecht plausibly argues, helped discourage potential BSW voters. The reason for these dirty tricks is obvious: in neo-McCarthyite style, the party has been systematically maligned as subservient to Russia simply because it wants peace in Ukraine. That the BSW has been the only German party to object to Israel’s genocide has made it even more of a target.

The winner of the election is, of course, the conservative CDU (CSU in Bavaria) under ex-BlackRock globalist, hard-right Atlanticist, and fanatically pro-Zionist Friedrich Merz. He is now the chancellor-elect. Yet, in reality, the CDU result of not even 29% is nothing to write home about. It’s enough to win, but definitely too little to boast about. Long gone are the days of heavyweight Helmut Kohl who regularly scored in the 34-38% range. Indeed, the only time when Kohl netted a result similar to Merz’s current one was in 1998, i.e., when he was in obvious decline.

The two parties that can really congratulate themselves are Die Linke (The Left) and the Alternative For Germany (AfD) under Alice Weidel. The Left, strongly rebounding from a period of demoralization, captured almost 8% of the vote and the AfD, doubling its 2021 result, nearly 21%. That is as predicted by polls; so, Elon Musk’s clumsy last-minute intervention definitely did not help; it may even have hurt the party in the end. Yet for the AfD, this still marks a historic breakthrough (and I write this without political sympathy): It is simply a fact that the AfD is now the second-strongest party in Germany.

The only, fundamentally dubious reason that it will – most likely – not participate in government is that all other parties, including the CDU, insist on treating it as a pariah. Citizens may vote for it – and in ever larger numbers – but the traditional parties claim the privilege of excluding it by a “firewall” (a concept unknown to the constitution, of course) from the ordinary process of coalition-making that really allocates power in Berlin.

Whatever you think about their reasons for doing so, it is a hard fact that the mainstream parties are thereby treating the AfD as a second-class party and therefore its voters as second-class voters. In that regard, a recent poll finding is relevant: As Germany’s thoroughly mainstream conservative paper of record Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is reporting, the AfD can no longer be understood as a mere “party of protest.” Instead, its voters mean it when they support it. Their decision is genuine and authentic, whether you like it or not.

Read more

And the AfD now also has the highest share of voters who are either workers or unemployed. Finally, the AfD is still especially strong, indeed dominant in the former East Germany. Put all of the above together and it is obvious that discriminating against the AfD promotes social and regional polarization. Indeed, not treating Weidel’s party as a normal member of the Berlin club undermines German unity.

As things are, Germany will probably see the establishment of yet another “great coalition” between the CDU and SPD. Even while the latter has been diminished as literally never before, together the two still have enough parliamentary seats to govern.

The AfD, in any case, is reiterating that it is ready for a coalition with the CDU, which would have a solid, indeed bigger majority and a shared view of the world. For, even if the mainstream conservatives of the CDU are loath to admit it, very little separates them ideologically from the AfD. Indeed, as one smart observer has plausibly argued, in terms of ideology, the true share of the “far-right” vote in this election was 60% - including the CDU, the AfD, and the Greens as well.

Yet since the real conflict between the CDU and the AfD is not over “values” but electoral turf and ultimately survival as the go-to for Germany’s future right/far-right vote, their coalition is not likely to happen, not yet. That will leave the AfD, for now, as the most powerful opposition party and free to profit from the predictable dysfunction and self-blockade that the CDU and SPD will, once again, inflict on Germany. By 2029 – or earlier in case of another government collapse – Weidel’s party will find itself in an excellent position to break into government, perhaps even dominate it.

In that sense, the AfD has every reason to be optimistic now: one way or the other, the election results and their consequences will play into its hands. But as to the rest of Germany, they won’t be so lucky. For three reasons: First, reduce bureaucracy as you will, raise or lower taxes to your heart’s content, keep talking about initiative and hard work and all that – none of it will overcome Germany’s abysmal economic decline.

Except you also address two key issues: namely how to reform or better abolish the so-called “debt brake” that paralyzes economic policy and how to rebuild a pragmatic, normal relationship with Russia, including inexpensive energy for German industry and access to cooperation and markets for German business.

Regarding the debt brake, a CDU-SPD coalition would have enough parliamentarians to govern but not to change the constitution. Yet that is what is needed to make a difference there. Hence, not only will the two coalition partners block and sabotage each other; they will also be unable to find enough support from the opposition. And if a compromise should be cobbled together, rely on it: it will be worthless since ineffective.

Read more

Regarding Russia: Merz and his CDU have already signaled that they intend to be even more belligerent than the “traffic light” coalition. As far as they can imagine loosening the self-strangulating debt brake, for instance, then mostly to pump more money into the military. And make no mistake: With regard to foreign policy, Merz’s declaration of seeking “independence” from the US may sound intriguing. But he remains a rigid, intellectually provincial Atlanticist, mentally stuck in the 1990s, if not the (early) ‘80s.

Merz’s idea of going it alone is motivated by nothing better than fear and necessity, as Washington under Donald Trump is getting ready to cut its European clients loose. Worse, where the imagination of, at least, a Gaullist would be required to rebuild European security with instead of against Russia, Merz seems to have no greater vision than, in effect, quixotically trying to make Germany (perhaps together with France as junior partner and nuke provider) replace America inside a shrunken, de facto EU-European-centered NATO remaining frozen in self-crippling Russophobia and daft Cold War reenacting, Kaja Kallas-style. Think of it as a new mutation of Atlanticism that doesn’t even feature an Atlantic anymore.

That is, obviously, a sad dead end, militarily, economically, and politically. But trying may still do much damage, for instance by interfering with finding peace in and for Ukraine. Merz has repeatedly posed as a diehard zealot of the Ukraine War; and immediately after the elections, his CDU posted on X that “ Ukraine must win the war.” An old German proclivity for endgame delusions seems to be asserting itself. Sorry, Ukrainians: The Americans and Russians may think enough blood has flowed; the Germans want more.

And then there is Germany’s worst, deepest, moral failure: Siding with Israel and serving as a de facto accomplice in its many crimes, including genocide. There, Merz has literally rushed to show that he intends to be even worse than his predecessors: Defying the International Criminal Court that has issued an arrest warrant for Israel’s leader Benjamin Netanyahu, the chancellor-elect lost no time inviting the wanted war criminal to Berlin. So much for obeying the law in the country of law and order.

Germany has had elections. But there definitely has not been a new beginning. It’s not even a false dawn. Dark night abides.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Kenyan experts share their thoughts on what to expect from the new US administration

When Donald Trump was elected as the 47th US president, there was no doubt that his country’s foreign policy, and more particularly, its relationship with African nations, would shift.

Diplomacy and foreign policy experts in Africa argue that Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine is likely to reduce US engagements with the continent, which offers it a renewed impetus to deepen ties with Eastern powers, such as China, India, and Russia.

“During his first term in office, Donald Trump’s foreign policy seemed not to favour Africa and that is unlikely to change during his second stint at the Oval Office”, Dr. Joshua Ochiel, a foreign policy expert at the Nairobi-based African Centre for Technology Studies told RT.

Ochiel argues that Trump’s disengagement policy inadvertently creates an opportunity for Africa to “face the East” and “negotiate new mutually beneficial partnerships.”

The policy expert notes that Africa can use Trump’s political comeback to “break free from Western dominance and control,” which he says has for decades stifled the continent’s economic, democratic and social growth and freedom.

Read more

Steven Nduvi, a policy expert at the Global Center for Policy and Strategy (GLOCEPS), notes that Russia, China and India have a lot to offer Africa and that the continent must, without fear, cement its relations with the East.

“I doubt if Trump would have a problem with African nations working with the East. He is not interested in policing African leaders and telling them who to relate with or not. African leaders must be deliberate and become liberal in fully associating with other powers like Russia and China,” Nduvi told RT.

Nduvi argues that Russia, China and India can be alternative and reliable partners for Africa, especially with respect to the infrastructure, technology, pharmaceuticals, energy and security sectors.

“In the recent past, China has heavily invested in the continent’s infrastructure projects through Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). India has a lot to offer in technology and pharmaceuticals, while Russia comes in with her huge investments in the security and energy sector,” he said.

Nduvi adds that Trump is not interested in countering China or Russia’s influence on the African continent, which he says gives the continent’s leaders a green card to relate with anyone they wish.

Philomena Achieng, a regional affairs analyst at The Institute of Security Studies (ISS), says Trump’s return creates a golden opportunity for Africa to forge deeper ties with Eastern nations on its terms.

Read more

“Since Trump will not question anyone on why they are associating with Russia or China, African countries need to push for more equitable trade deals, technology transfer agreements, and capacity-building programs, particularly in areas like infrastructure, security, renewable energy and digital connectivity,” Achieng told RT.

The experts, however, are cautioning African leaders against overreliance on either the West or East.

“What Africa needs is a non-aligned approach with the goal being to benefit from the competition among global powers,” Dr. Ochiel believes.

Ochiel says that the world “is no longer unipolar, and Trump’s return must be a wake-up call for African leaders to strategically diversify partnerships while fostering regional unity.”

“By deepening ties with Eastern powers, Africa could shape its geopolitical and economic trajectory going forward,” he told RT.

Nduvi argues that following Trump’s move to sign an executive order halting US funding for foreign projects, players like Beijing and Moscow could take advantage of the vacuum and expand their foothold in Africa.

Read more

“African nations that will be affected by reduced US funding can turn East. And with little competition from the US, Russia and China are likely to become Africa’s go-to partners for infrastructure and security partnerships and projects,” Nduvi said.

Among Trump’s executive orders that are likely to impact the African continent directly is the decision to order an investigation into trade rules at a time when Africa and the US are expected to begin a new round of negotiations on the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allows some African nations to trade duty-free with the US.

Trump’s move to kickstart the process of withdrawing his country from the World Health Organization (WHO) will have a direct effect on African countries whose health programs rely heavily on funding from organizations like the WHO. China has already said it will step in to fill the funding gap that might be left in case the US pulls out.

Additionally, the move to suspend cooperation disbursements for 90 days pending a review may also directly affect projects across many African nations.

Nduvi observes that African countries will suffer the most following Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement since they are the biggest beneficiaries of the global climate financing mechanism to which the US is among the biggest contributors.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The UK prime minister is mulling sending troops to Ukraine – but his ignored and alienated citizens won’t follow

Following the Munich Security Conference last week, European Union leaders appeared shell-shocked by US Vice President J.D. Vance’s scathing attack on Europe.

He criticized the continent for multiple reasons, including the lack of free speech, arrests of European citizens for inflammatory social media posts, insufficient commitment to security, and destabilization due to both legal and illegal migration. Although Vance seemed to address Western European politicians and officials, it is likely he was speaking over their heads, directly to the public. His words resonated with widespread discontent about politics and politicians across the region, aligning with the prevailing sense of unfairness felt by many ordinary citizens.

Western European leaders, including British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, appeared agitated and uncomfortable with Washington’s tone. Perhaps the hard truths Vance presented have forced them to reconsider their consistently underfunded armed forces. Vance’s warnings made it clear that they cannot indefinitely rely on the US for military power and financial aid, particularly regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky also heard that signal and immediately called for a ‘European Armed Force’. Western European leaders arranged an emergency meeting in Paris hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron and, astonishingly, Starmer indicated British soldiers could be sent to the Ukraine to enforce any peace deal.

The British public and Parliament were caught off guard by what many see as a reckless proposal from their PM. He announced the possibility of “British boots on the ground” just hours after the Munich meeting ended. This decision, or threat, appears to be a unilateral move by Starmer. It is unlikely to gain widespread support across the country and is already sparking outrage, particularly in the “Red Wall” – Britain’s former industrial heartlands. A poll in The Times just last week showed that only 11% of young people in the UK would consider fighting for their country, showing what we all know: that the UK is deeply divided over class, race, and region.

Read more

This is a problem for Starmer and the British liberals who have yet again found their war drums that were put away following the disastrous follies in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was once the Labour heartlands, the de-industrialized parts of the country, have also been the typical recruiting fields for the British Soldier – the white working class. These communities have been badly let down by all politicians have become deeply resentful and detached from what is happening within the politics, media and chattering classes of London.

It is no coincidence that those beating the war drums in London are the same individuals who supported the Iraq invasion and opposed the outcome of the EU referendum that led to Brexit. There has been a distinct division throughout the country since Brexit and I suspect Starmer’s reckless offering up of our military to “peacekeep” for the EU is a signal that he wants a closer relationship with the bloc. Unfortunately for Starmer, his brand of Labour – middle-class metropolitan liberals – will never offer up their own children for military service and will look north towards the very people they have spent the nine years since the Brexit referendum accusing of being racists, bigots, and xenophobes.

Starmer and Macron are deeply unpopular in their own countries. Perhaps they think they can paint over the damage done in their countries by successive neo-liberal governments by pulling the patriotic chord through the threat of war. But Starmer must realise that this will never be his Falklands War moment – when an unpopular Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government turned around their unpopularity by going to war with Argentina in 1982. Working-class populations outside the big metropolitan cities, in places like Blyth, Sunderland, Mansfield and Stoke-on-Trent, have traditionally been patriotic and supported the British military, but they will not follow Starmer and the failed EU leaders into a battle they see as ‘not theirs’.

The lesson here for the Western European political leaders is that ignoring sections of the population, allowing deep divisions and inequalities to fester, and then banging the war drums and expecting the working class to go and fight a war for you is not going to work. They can see right through this, and Vance’s words spoke to them more directly than a despised European elite class ever could.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The former president has marked Defender of the Fatherland Day by honoring heroes and denouncing neo-Nazism in Ukraine

February 23 isn’t just another day – it symbolizes our collective memory, glory, and pride, and stands as a testament to our unwavering belief in ultimate victory. This year, its meaning deepens as we honor it during the Year of the Defender of the Fatherland.

We will never forget the heroes of past generations. Their legacy guides us, inspiring us to live by their example. The stirring words of the great commander Alexander Suvorov – ”We will forever serve Russia with faith and truth, shaming our enemies” – beat in every heart.

Our nation has learned the hard art of winning through trials that tested us beyond measure. As new challenges arise, our duty is clear: to confront every threat head-on, channeling all our strength in defense of our homeland.

Tomorrow marks three years since our special military operation began – a bold step taken after crossing a point of no return against what we now call the “collective West.” It was our only way to safeguard our country and its citizens, pushing our adversaries back from our borders. History has proven this tough decision was not only necessary, but the only path forward. The Russian people have united to stand against a ruthless enemy fueled by foreign weapons and money. Although the battle against neo-Nazism and its allies is not yet over, its end is near. The enemy will be defeated, and truth will prevail.

Eighty years ago, our nation triumphed over fascism. Today, its loathsome heirs will face inevitable retribution – not in a modern-day Nuremberg, but on the battlefield, where justice is swift, uncompromising, and true. Our foes, gripped by fear and panic, know this all too well. In their desperate rage, they are capable of anything. We cannot allow a global catastrophe. We must crush any revival of Nazism at its roots, preserve our historical legacy, and leave a worthy inheritance for future generations.

Above all, our mission is to protect our boundless homeland and do everything possible to secure its prosperity – for our children, our grandchildren, and the brilliant future of Russia!

Медиа: image / jpeg

Having been thoroughly snubbed by Trump in favor of actual peace efforts, Kiev and Brussels may be hatching a new plan

The US and Russia are sitting down for some grand strategy global chess. Serious moves are being made.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio even said after this week's meeting in Saudi Arabia with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, that both countries were exploring ways to cooperate geopolitically and economically. And, oh yeah, wrap up this fiasco in Ukraine. And the EU states? They’re sitting there, arms crossed and red-faced because nobody asked them to play.

Well, technically, they are represented – through Washington. That’s been the role they’ve insisted on adopting all along, and now the backup dancer thinks they’re actually the headliner. If they wanted a say, they could’ve taken the lead on peace talks anytime over the last two years. Instead, every time a leader even hinted at engaging with Russia, he was browbeaten and marginalized by those who kept insisting that Ukraine was winning, and Russia’s economy was collapsing. They seemed so totally hammered from drinking their own bathwater that you have to wonder if they soak exclusively in Moët & Chandon.

Not only weren’t they sticking it to Russia like they figured, but their strategy was backfiring onto their own people. When their cheap Russian gas lifeline, Nord Stream, went kaboom, they just shrugged. Then they sanctioned the rest of their Russian energy supply to oblivion – only to end up secretly importing it at a markup through middlemen.

It wasn’t until Trump administration officials came over to Europe recently for some conferences and told European leaders what disconnected morons they all were from the interests of their own citizens on everything from free speech to migration, that the EU started telling Washington off.

German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck even clapped back at Washington. Not, you know, when their pipeline got obliterated. But on a podcast. After some mere words were said that he didn’t like. Meanwhile, the Munich Security Conference’s chief organizer had a full-blown public meltdown on the global stage, like a kid at a school play when he spotted mommy frowning in the audience.

Read more

So yeah, no wonder Russia and the US didn’t invite them to the grown-up table.

Enter European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the unelected “Queen” (according to Politico) of the EU bureaucracy, to insists that Europe has brought the most to “the table” for Ukraine and deserves a seat at peace talks. Yeah, a seat at the table with the twisty animal balloons and party hats. Did they even pay for those?

Probably not. Because nowadays, they’re proudly funding Ukraine with Russian assets being held in their possession like it’s their own money. A shining moment there for free market capitalism. Like buying someone a gift with cash stolen from someone else’s wallet, then bragging about how generous you are.

And now Queen Ursula says that the EU wants to partner with Trump for a “just and lasting peace” for Ukraine. Dear, you’ve been dumped – so why are you still talking like you’re planning a wedding? Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban says the EU missed its chance to make a serious push for peace. Now that it’s already being led by Russia and the US in bilateral talks, they’re acting like the kid who runs to the top of the escalator and pretends to be pulling all the people to the top by the handrail.

They saw Lavrov and Rubio meeting in Saudi Arabia without them and immediately threw together their own “counter-meeting” on February 17. And – get this – they didn’t even have Zelensky there to represent Ukraine. Which is exactly what they’ve been screaming at Trump and Russia about. Most of the EU wasn’t even there either, though – just six EU leaders, two Brussels bureaucrats, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Because nothing says peace like the guy who fronts for the transatlantic weapons lobby.

And the Baltics and Nordics are supposed to just crib the notes off Poland and Denmark after the meeting, apparently. Until the next meeting, to which they’ve apparently been invited. Because you know what this whole mess needs? More echo chamber meetings! And host, French President Emmanuel Macron, says that Canada is invited, too. Because nothing says “European security” quite like inviting the country that’s geographically closer to polar bears than to Paris.

Read more

At this point, these EU leaders are like non-playable characters (NPCs) in a video game. Like Pokémon shopkeepers who just keep repeating the same lines, over and over again, no matter how many times you interact with them. Some EU leaders – like Scholz and French PM François Bayrou – are even starting to already sound annoyed that nothing is actually happening.

They can’t even nail down consensus on sending “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine. Gee, I wonder why. It’s not like foreign involvement in Ukraine is what triggered this whole thing in the first place, or anything. Not exactly a blueprint for peace there, geniuses.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was also invited to participate, and he’s ready to deploy, guys. Kind of like a dude who just watched a YouTube video tutorial on football and wants to take the field in the NFL. He just says that he needs Uncle Sam to hold his hand. He says he’ll discuss American troops “backstopping” British soldiers when he visits Trump in Washington. Trump, for his part, says he has no idea what Starmer even wants to see him about. Maybe he figures that he’s just bringing over some Big Macs and Diet Cokes?

So what’s the EU really up to at the kiddie table? Well, for starters, some are already floating the idea of lifting EU deficit spending limits just to buy more weapons, which is a weird flex when peace is allegedly on the horizon. French Minister for Europe Jean-Noël Barrot also says they’re “increasing the pressure” on Russia with yet another round of sanctions. Because those have worked so well so far.

Even Macron says that he hopes that Trump can ramp up “pressure” on Russia by being unpredictable. Because nothing says solid foreign policy like relying on Trump to be a loose cannon.

With all this talk of “pressuring” Russia, could they be up to something even bigger between their sippy cup refills?

Read more

Could France, the EU, and Ukraine be plotting a new battlefront in Africa against Russian interests and any Moscow-Washington peace plan for Ukraine? France has been getting kicked out of its former African colonies one by one – while Russia moves in as a preferred partner. Now, suddenly, Ukrainian intelligence is asking France for help in toppling pro-Russian African regimes, according to Intelligence Online. You know, in the same resource-rich regions that Paris once controlled.

Dialing up a proxy war in Africa could serve the EU in getting leverage against Russia in Ukraine – especially since Trump has already told Zelensky that if there’s spoils to be had in Ukraine, they’ll be going to the US, leaving the EU with crumbs.

Which brings us to Zelensky’s trips to Turkey and the UAE this week – two countries that have spent years arming proxy wars in Africa, even on opposing sides like in Libya, but have recently started working together. Last year, Turkish drones were even fitted with UAE-made bombs, for example.

The UAE is already on record denouncing Paris’ loss of footprint in the Sahel. Meanwhile, Turkey has been arming anti-French, pro-Russian governments in Africa while simultaneously eyeing Niger’s uranium deposits for its Russian-built nuclear plant. So it seems that Ankara’s interests are prone to being rather “flexible.”

Could Zelensky convince Turkey and the UAE to collude with the EU and Kiev in Africa against Russia as a pressure valve to impact any peace deal in Ukraine? Would the Eurotots want to start flinging spitballs at both Moscow and Washington covertly from the kiddie table? And if so, how long before they get caught? Probably mid-throw, with pudding on their faces, crying that it was Russia’s fault.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Western hegemony destroyed Libya, and 14 years later is still unable to fix it

The British House of Commons in 2016 investigated the UK’s involvement in Libya’s 2011 civil war. The parliamentary report found that the British conservative government, led by David Cameron at the time, failed to “explain” its Libya policy, describing it as uninformed “by accurate intelligence,” overstated “the threat” to Libyan civilians and diligently overlooked that the rebel forces fighting the Libyan government “included Islamist element.” When the report was published in September 2016, David Cameroon had already left office and Libya was in tatters, sinking further into regional and tribal divisions, dominated by militias.

Yet Cameron, who refused to give evidence to the parliamentary committee, kept defending his policy. In January 2016 he tried to blame Libyans for the failure. They had been, he said, “given the opportunity” to transform their country into a “stable democracy” but had ignored the offer. Back in September 2011, when the war was winding down, he promised that he would not allow Libya to become another “Iraq” but that is exactly what happened. The parliamentary report highlighted Cameron’s “failure” to learn the lessons from Iraq’s invasion in 2003.

As veto powers the UK, France and the United States used UNSC resolution 1973 as a cover for their intentions to force regime change in Libya, contravening the resolution itself, which neither allowed regime change nor any boots on the ground in Libya. By the time Libya had become a huge mess, moving fast into a failed state, it was handed over to the UN.

Divided Libya

When the UN took over the efforts to stabilize post-war Libya it made two huge errors: first, it believed that once Gaddafi was gone Libyans would start earnestly building their country and forget the war they have just fought. This naive thinking implied that Gaddafi was the problem and that the majority of Libyans were happy to see him go, when in fact the man is still viewed by a large section of Libyans as a hero even today.

The second huge mistake made by the UN mission to Libya was an idea that elections are a magical cure to all Libya’s problems. They thus rushed the country into its first successful elections in 2012 the results of which were accepted by all factions.

Read more

That development, hailed by Western countries as a first step into a peaceful and democratic new Libya, created an illusion of stability in the country, while troubles simmered beneath the surface. In the background the country was awash with arms, militias roamed freely and foreign meddling, which is the top problem, never stopped.

Two years later, in 2014, came another legislative election in the absence of a nationally accepted constitution. Those who lost the vote, mostly Islamist-affiliated groups funded and supported by foreign countries such as Turkey and Qatar, rejected the results and plunged the country into more violence, causing a serious division of authority and threatening the unity of Libya.

The elected parliament was forced to flee Tripoli into the Eastern city of Tobruk, where it set up its own government, while the Tripoli government, recognized by the UN, stayed in the capital. In 2015 the UN envoy at the time, Bernardino Leon, through the Libyan Political Agreement, promoted the establishment of a Government of National Accord and called for the dismantling of militias.

In later years all that would fail and Libya would split under two governments; one in Tripoli and a rival in Benghazi. Today Libya is still divided, has two governments, two separate armies, millions of arms still in the hands of people, while militias have become stronger and richer and the country has fallen prey to more foreign meddling.

New UN initiative

After Leon, who engineered the political agreement, Libya saw the back of eight envoys who came and went with little tangible success other than further inflaming the already flammable situation.

Now the UN’s point-woman is Stephanie Koury; a former US diplomat with years of experience working for the UN, with little track record of success. In her latest briefing to the UNSC, on December 16, 2024, she unveiled her new initiative to settle Libya once and for all. She appeared encouraged by the success of the country’s national election commission in organizing partial municipal elections in 58 municipalities last November without any incident. A second round of local elections for the remaining 60 councils was planned.

Read more

However, internal disagreements on legal framework for elections, since the country still operates without a constitution, are still a major contentious issue among the factions competing for power and resources. Koury highlighted its potential to threaten “Libya’s national unity and territorial integrity,” she told the UNSC. Another major hurdle she has to grapple with is the unification of divided institutions under one government, yet to be created, to organize elections for both a new parliament and president, which were scheduled for December 2021 but were indefinitely shelved.

The UNSC still cannot agree on a new envoy to Libya, leaving Stephanie Koury in her position as deputy envoy. So far the divided UNSC still supports her plans for Libya. Koury has not set any dates for elections and many observers think it will not be possible to take this step in 2025.

The good thing so far is that while internal conflicts, disagreements, occasional fighting and divisions persist, the shaky 2020 ceasefire still holds and most of the political wrangling is violence free.

The Trump factor

The UN must be trying to predict what the unpredictable Donald Trump will bring, now that he has taken the reins of power in Washington. Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said he does not want any involvement in foreign wars, even claiming he will end the Ukrainian war in one day. While Libya for him is not an urgent issue, there is some indication that the incoming administration might have some ideas on how to make the UN mission in the country more successful.

While campaigning for the White House, Mr. Trump never mentioned Libya, unlike in his 2016 campaign when he mentioned Libya a couple of times, criticising the Obama administration’s interference. He even said Libya would have been better under Gaddafi and that the US had gone to war incurring millions of dollars in costs for nothing.

Read more

It is not clear if his second term will bring any new approach to the Libyan crisis while indicating that issues like the conflict in the Middle East, taking the Panama Canal back and acquiring Greenland, are more important.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also not known to have any specific interest in Libya. Back in 2011 when NATO intervened in the country senator Rubio supported president Obama going to war in Libya and backed a Senate resolution authorizing that action.

Another appointee for the role of senior director for counterterrorism, part of the foreign policy team, is a strong pro-Trump academic Sebastian Gorka. In 2017, when Gorka was a senior aide to Trump, he proposed to a European diplomat a plan to divide Libya into three independent regions and even sketched a map of it. Only time will tell if he still has the same idea despite the geopolitical changes and, most importantly, will such divisive vision become a new US policy in Libya?

The Syria factor

Geopolitically Libya in 2025 is far from that of 2017 or even 2020. The collapse of the Syrian government made the country a focal point between Russia and NATO, whose southern flank is only one hour flight from Libya. Moscow has maintained some military presence in eastern Libya since 2018 and is said to be transferring some military assets there from Syria. For Russia, Libya is critical not only as a surveillance post on the Mediterranean shores but also as a logistical hub for its navy and springboard for its mostly welcomed return to continental Africa.

Despite his dislike of involvement in foreign conflicts Donald Trump, as president of the leading NATO member, will be listening to US allies who have already expressed alarm about Russia’s expanding role in Libya and beyond. The US Africa Corps is already active in several African countries at the expense of the West, particularly France, which has seen its influence marginalized and its troops sent home by half a dozen countries, including Niger and Chad bordering southern Libya.

Read more

Politically, the majority of African countries have been on Russia’s side in the UN, for example, whenever the Ukrainian war is debated. Russia, in return, has reciprocated with economic help, investment plans and security cooperation.

Unlike Russia, the US has never stopped meddling in Libya’s affairs after it oversaw the country’s destruction in 2011. Washington, clearly, wants to return Libya to the fold of Western influence in which it was caught during the 1960s and 1970s, until the late Gaddafi ended that proxy relationship.

Libyans are not optimistic about the cold Russian-NATO confrontation on their soil but they are also very angry watching how the US is attempting to reshape their country in an increasingly dangerous region. They are against any American hegemony over Libya as much as they are against all foreign meddling in their internal affairs. Many of them see the West, led by the US, as the guilty party that created the mess they live in today, instead of the stable and safe country they had before 2011.

It is yet to be seen if Donald Trump, who prides himself on deal making, will be able to reach some kind of agreement with Putin that involves stabilising Libya through a more focused UN mediation.

The news that Trump is planning a meeting with Putin is a cause for a cautious optimism among many Libyans who hope that two powers will reach some kind of agreement to avoid any frictions over their country and unite the UNSC to take a more serious position in settling the long overdue crisis.

Медиа: image / jpeg

When a war is built on lies, making peace will hurt the liars

Let’s play a game: It’s called “Putin says, and so does Trump.” Because, recently, after years of disagreeing on, really, everything – from the order of the world to the meaning of simple phrases such as “not one inch” – the leaderships of Russia and the US have suddenly found not merely a common language, but a lot to agree on.

In particular regarding Ukraine, which used to be the Ground Zero of their great disagreement. That’s a good thing in case you wonder. As in, the good things that keep the world from burning, literally. The US president has just observed that World War III had become a real possibility under the preceding Biden/Harris (or whoever was really in charge) administration. And he’s correct: There’s a reason why the metaphorical fingers of the famous Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have crept “ closer than ever” to “midnight.”

Now, the American president agrees with the Russian one that Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky is one election short. Indeed, in a withering social media post, Trump has been blunt: Zelensky is a “dictator.”

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin also see eye to eye concerning the root cause of the Ukraine War, namely NATO’s – that is, let’s be frank, America’s – predictably catastrophic yet perniciously obstinate policy of overreach. That in turn, means Trump and Putin also share a sensible and rather traditional assumption which – somehow – many in the West’s elites have managed to forget: namely that all great powers have legitimate security interests in their neighborhood.

With thinking in Washington and Moscow converging this far, it is no wonder that there is agreement now as well on centering their relationship on sensible and mutually respectful dialogue on national interests.

Read more

And speaking of national interests, Trump has been clear that he can’t recognize any in sinking ceaseless billions into the Zelensky regime, its war, and its humungous corruption. True, the American president may have gotten his precise figures wrong, but for all the NAFO-id “fact-checkers” (i.e. info-warriors) out there: Don’t be silly: Trump’s key point stands, whether the US has wasted 500 or somewhere between 100 and 200 billion dollars on this bloody and stupid business.

So does, by the way, his characterization of Zelensky as a “dictator.” I know, for many in the West it feels like root canal extraction to finally face that reality, but the Zelensky regime is authoritarian and its leader had no right to give himself a waver on his last election. Therefore, his term ran out on 20 May 2024. Since then, like it or not, Zelensky’s legitimacy has at the very best been in an extremely murky gray zone. Moreover, he did not turn so bossy because of the military escalation of February 2022. In reality, his many prewar opponents and critics in Ukraine were accusing him – correctly – of severe authoritarian tendencies in 2021 already.

And make no mistake: this is not a “soft” authoritarianism. It hasn’t “merely” muzzled the media, as even the staunchly bellicist New York Times has admitted. Instead, this is a regime with teeth and claws and a great appetite for harsh repression. Ask the members supportterts of the 11 - yes: 11 - opposition parties the Zelensky regime has long suppressed. Or the clergy and believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) that has simply been banned. There are also individuals suppressed by police-state methods and even murdered in detention. Consider the cases of, for instance, the socialist activist Bohdan Syrotiuk, currently being subjected to a political trial, and the libertarian Gonzalo Lira, a US citizen and social media journalist, whom Ukrainian authorities tortured and killed for his criticism of the proxy war and the Zelensky regime (and also robbed him).

As should be clear by now, Trump and Putin and more broadly Russia and the US are not agreeing because of some dark Russian information war magic. Zelensky’s silly – and very arrogant – attempt to depict the American president as a helpless victim of Moscow’s “disinformation” only made Trump even angrier. And rightly so. Because the reason for the new spirit of agreement between Washington and Moscow is simple: Regarding Ukraine, the US government under Trump has rediscovered reality.

That reality includes another fact Kiev hates to hear about: Russia, in Trump’s words, has “the cards” in the war. True again: Moscow does have the upper hand on the ground, and any negotiation that aims to actually end this senseless war will have to start from that reality. If not, the war won’t end.

It is true that there are rumors – partly due to Germany’s Annalena “360 Degrees” Baerbock not mastering the diplomatic art of discretion (surprise!) – about insane EU-European ideas of pumping another 700 billion euros into the meatgrinder. But Euro-fantasies tend to fall short. And even if they don’t this time, all that would happen is making the EU’s economic malaise much deeper and Ukraine’s defeat much worse.

Read more

In that regard, let’s not overlook something simple but very important about Trump’s harsh approach to Zelensky and his regime: As US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has highlighted on Fox News, the US president is exerting pressure to speed up the process of ending the war by diplomacy. About that, Trump is, of course, absolutely right, because every single day of fighting is completely superfluous. This war should not only never have happened, it is also over. For those not blinded by wishful thinking and ideology, the result is clear: Russia has won. The sooner this futile madness finally ends, the more Ukrainians – and Russians, too – won’t be killed, injured, or maimed for life in a fight that does not even have a prospect of making a difference.

Trump’s political opponents are, of course, trying to exploit this moment, namely by shouting “betrayal!” Such as senator Richard Blumenthal from the Democratic Party, for instance. For good measure, the senator also denounced the president’s actions as “utterly despicable” and “disgusting.” Trump, he charged, has disregarded the “truth” and the “sacrifice of brave [Ukrainian] men and women who are upholding their freedom and ours.”

Really? Let’s talk about the truth then: In reality, Ukrainians have been sacrificed indeed, but not for anyone’s “freedom.” Instead they have been used as cannon fodder in a proxy war that was explicitly designed to inflict a strategic, that is, crippling defeat on Russia. Ukraine has been devastated but not for any noble values, whether “freedom,” “democracy,” or even gay parades and mixed bathrooms. Ukraine has been sacrificed, as so many before, in a US play for geopolitical advantage.

Trump is right to pull the plug on all of this. And he is right to stop babying Zelensky and his regime. And he is right to agree with Putin where both simply agree with reality.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The EU had ample warning not to blindly throw in its lot with Washington. The warning was ignored, and now a reckoning is due

It’s the “ end of an era" and Germany is “in disarray.” And not just Germany: “ Pandemonium” rages in Europe; the continent is under “ assault.” Its elites are “ shaken, anxious, and sometimes aghast,” as an “ ideological war” has been declared against their fiefdom, which is being “ left in the dust.” A big “ boom” has sounded, and a “ ferocious reckoning” is underway. In short, it’s a “ European nightmare.”

The above are quotes from (in order of appearance), the Financial Times, The Telegraph, and The Economist (all three from Britain), Le Monde (France), Bloomberg (US), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Bild (both Germany), and, finally, the (German) head of the Munich Security Conference Christoph Heusgen himself. Later, Heusgen, a beyond-middle-aged man and experienced bureaucrat, just cried, literally. For which he was applauded.

What happened? Have “the Russians” finally done what whole divisions of NATO-EU politicians, generals, admirals, think tankers, media talking heads and careerist intellectuals have been feverishly promising for years already? Are their tanks rolling down the Kudamm in Berlin and the Champs Elysees in Paris already? Not that Moscow has given any sound reason to believe it wants to do such things (who’d want to conquer a heap of economic misery, demographic malaise, and cultural pessimism, really?) But that has never mattered to European “elite” fantasies.

No, it’s not that: The Russians are not coming. Indeed, it’s the other way around. As in that 1970s Hollywood horror movie where “the call comes from inside the house,” the sum of all fears for NATO-EU Europe is now emanating from Washington. How ironic.

For it’s not Russia but the all-new Trumpist US that is panicking its own subjects: The Americans are leaving. Or, at least, they have made it brutally clear that they are tired of babying their EU vassals, who need to get ready to stand on their own feet. What an idea! A bloc of roughly 450 million inhabitants and in possession of modern (if steadily declining) industries – defend itself? What’s next? Asking healthy adults to walk, breathe, and eat on their own?

Read more

The timing, at least, of that overdue dose of tough love from Washington is not entirely fair, to be sure: The US, after all, has profited from its European colonies as well; and especially recently Washington’s policies have mightily deindustrialized, subverted, and generally crippled NATO-EU Europe. Very much with the help of the proxy war and puppet regime in Ukraine, the American empire has begun to devour its most loyal, submissive, self-abasing subjects – and now it’s asking the sorry remnants to stop being so clingy. It’s harsh, no doubt.

Yet geopolitics is not about fairness but power. And the comprador “elites” of NATO-EU Europe have only themselves to blame for letting the US treat their countries like dirt. Now things are escalating quickly: A genuine reset, maybe even a new détente between Russia and the US is a real possibility. That’s a very good, sensible thing for the world. But for the Euro-vassals, even this propitious turn of events comes with a very bitter taste: Washington has told them that they need not be in the room when serious powers talk. And Washington is right.

Being first systematically abused, fleeced, and then dropped – as in that very, very bad relationship every good friend would tell you to get the hell out of – would be awful enough. Yet things are even worse for a Europe that has made itself kickable as perhaps never before. Because Washington is not simply threatening to abandon it. The vassals should be so lucky! No, what Washington is really suggesting is a whole new and very raw deal: You, vassals, stay under our command and influence. In fact, we want even more of that. And in return we, your overlords, owe you nothing. Call it Mafia 2.0: all the extortion, none of the “protection.”

That was one but not the only message of the already famous speech that US Vice President J.D. Vance delivered at the Munich Security Conference. The speech, not long but packing a punch and well worth listening to in full, touched on various issues, including a terrorist attack in Munich that coincided with the conference, the authoritarian suppression of dissent with abortion in Britain, the recent canceling of elections in Romania, the upcoming vote in Germany, and, of course, migration. The silly hysteria around allegations of Russian meddling in Western politics and Greta Thunberg and Elon Musk also got a mention.

Read more

What kept these topics together was one simple but important idea: Vance reminded his listeners that genuine security – it was a security conference after all – is not only a matter of defense against outside threats but also requires domestic stability and consent inside countries. That, in turn, he argued, means that the NATO-EU vassals are running their fiefdoms all wrong. Vance admonished his listeners that they marginalize and suppress opinions and political choices which genuine democracies should, instead, accommodate.

Let’s be fair but let’s not idealize Vance or the US, either: His criticism of Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London etc. and their Centrist-authoritarian habits is fundamentally on point. Yet it is ironic and especially shameful for the Euro-vassals that it took an American, a representative of a de facto oligarchy/plutocracy, to tell them about democracy.

Moreover, and more importantly, Vance was, of course, deeply dishonest, too: His criticism of European attacks on essential freedoms made no mention of the single most important and most violently suppressed opinion of them all: namely resistance against the apartheid state of Israel and its genocide of the Palestinians. There, Vance and his Trumpist friends are just as bad as their European vassals, at least. Vance, in short, had a big point while also engaging in a big lie.

More generally, it was clear that the US vice president was biased and intended to support, in particular, those on the right, with an affinity for Trumpism, against being “firewalled” out of European politics. Indeed, without mentioning the party by name, he made it clear that he wants the German establishment to accept the AfD as a normal part of the political system. He also demonstratively met with AfD leader and chancellor candidate Alice Weidel (and not with irrelevant lame-duck chancellor Olaf Scholz: that’s what you get for grinning sheepishly when they blow up your pipelines). Judging by the polls, such a “normalization” of the AfD would make it part of the next government – a prospect about which Berlin’s cartel of traditional parties is still in denial.

Read more

Vance’s pointed – and again, factually correct – attack on the manner in which elections have recently been suppressed in Romania aimed in the same direction. Even Germany’s stodgy Centrist-conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has acknowledged that the official pretext for annulling the election (bad Russia, of course…) was “ extraordinarily thin.” Vance used the occasion to fire a loud warning shot across the European bow: He singled out former EU commissioner Thierry Breton’s bizarre praise for the Romanian operation and less than hidden threat to do the same in Germany, in case German voters dare vote in a manner Brussels won’t like. The US vice president, in effect, told his listeners: Don’t you dare.

Let’s zoom out for a moment: What was the broader significance of the speech – apart from announcing that the Euro-vassals will be on their own as far as security is concerned but will remain under intense American influence regarding their domestic politics? Three points stand out:

Number one: Appeasement does not work. And I mean, of course, not regarding Russia, but the US, which is Europe’s real problem. We have seen repeated attempts to do precisely that – appease Washington by promising to buy more liquefied natural gas and arms and spend more on defense (a lot, a ruinously lot more). And yet: the Euro-vassals still got socked in the eye as never before.

Read more

Point number two: “Values” are not your friends. After years of the arrogant invocation of allegedly superior “values,” the Euro-vassals got the “value” treatment themselves: Vance pointedly started his speech by declaring that Washington believes that it is Europe – no, not Russia or China - that has abandoned the right “values.” Indeed, the US vice president’s whole speech was also a textbook application of the rhetoric of values to meddle in other states’ business. So that’s what that feels like, his listeners might have thought, if they were capable of self-reflection.

And point number three: If you wish to put Munich 2025 into historical context, forget about “Munich 1938.” The endless, stupid comparison of everything with what happened between Hitler and Chamberlain back then has, of course, made its umpteenth appearance now, too. To be frank, it seems the only thing spent Western ideology cadres such Timothy Garton Ash, his Noltean clone Tim Snyder, or the information warriors at The Economist can ever think about.

And yet, in reality, the other Munich Europeans should actually recall now is that of 2007. That’s when they were warned, extensively and in detail, by none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many remember his speech then as above all a warning regarding Russia’s security interests – one that was flippantly disregarded, which is one reason the West has now lost a war against Moscow. But Putin’s 2007 Munich speech was more than that, namely a fundamental if short analysis of the enormous dangers inherent in US power and especially American domination. A wiser Europe would have listened and balanced against this obvious threat. A very, very unwise Europe decided to instead throw in its lot with Washington as never before, come what may. Now a reckoning is due.

Медиа: image / jpeg

With Russia and the US finally sitting down for negotiations, we now live in a slightly more normal world

It is already certain that the high-level Russian-American meeting in the Saudi capital Riyadh will have a place in the history books.

Together with a recent telephone conversation between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump and statements made in Germany by US vice president JD Vance and secretary of defense Pete Hegseth, the Riyadh talks show that something very dangerous has ended: namely the bizarre period of non-communication between the world’s two largest nuclear powers that had been imposed by US obstructionism.

We are now in a – slightly – more normal world again, where Washington has returned to the minimum requirement of diplomacy: maintaining dialogue, as Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has highlighted in his briefing after the meeting. Moreover, US representatives have explicitly acknowledged that such talks should reflect the national interest of the participating states. That is another important and potentially very promising return, namely to both capital-R Realism – as a way of thinking about international relations – and realism as such, as the healthy habit of not fantasizing. Lavrov noted that aspect as well.

The question that is harder to answer is what precisely has just begun in Riyadh (and, clearly, nothing has been finished yet). Because there can be no doubt that something has started: According to Lavrov, the talks were “very useful,” characterized by not merely “hearing” but actually “listening to” each other. That is not formal phraseology. Clearly, Moscow feels that this has, at the very least, not been a dead end. And we are not hearing anything to the contrary from the American side. So far, so good.

We all know what could be starting: obviously, the end of the Ukraine War. Beyond that, both Russia and the new US leadership have declared an interest in a broader normalization of their relationship, call it détente 2.0, if you wish. This, in turn, could affect international politics more generally. And finally, there is an economic aspect that both sides clearly treat as no less important than politics alone.

Read more

In terms of geopolitics, there is one thing Washington should not expect: any attempts to drive a wedge between Russia and its current allies and partners will fail. Moscow has already made it clear that, for instance, its relationship with Iran is not up for grabs.

Regarding the economics, it is striking that at the same moment when Moscow’s sending of Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) head Kirill Dmitriev to Riyadh shows that the US and Russia may well leave the idiocy of Western economic warfare behind, EU commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has signaled that his politically powerless and economically anemic bloc will stick to vastly self-harming sanctions. Well, good luck with that. And also, it won’t last.

Russia’s signaling that it can accept Ukraine’s full EU membership is evidence that Moscow fears nothing from that direction. Indeed, burdening the EU with what will be left of Ukraine may even appear advantageous to Moscow.

Current, desperate EU attempts to be even more bellicist than the US and cobble together a coalition of the obstinate to keep the Ukraine War going even without US support are unimpressive. It’s simple: Even with American commitment, the West and Ukraine’s Zelensky regime have been defeated by Russia. Without it, the defeat would only get more catastrophic. And then, Lavrov has also been clear that Russia will not agree to any backhanded introduction of NATO troops as “peacekeepers.”

And here is the final take-away point from Riyadh: Locking out the NATO-EU European “elites” and the Zelensky regime works and promotes results, cooperation, and peace. Perhaps, the populations of both EU-Europe and Ukraine should start excluding their “elites” as well.

Медиа: image / jpeg

It is time for Ukraine to choose: stand with its Western sponsors in pursuit of peace or continue to recklessly jeopardize its own lifelines

The recent Ukrainian drone strike on Russia's Kropotkinskaya oil pumping station is a reckless, irresponsible, and potentially criminal act that threatens ongoing diplomatic efforts between the United States and Russia. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio leads a US delegation to Saudi Arabia for high-stakes negotiations aimed at resolving the Ukraine conflict, such aggressive actions jeopardize the fragile path toward peace and reveal Ukraine's disregard for international norms and its own supporters' interests.

The Kropotkinskaya station, operated by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), is a critical infrastructure component that primarily facilitates the export of Kazakh oil – much of which is produced by American and European companies – through Russia to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. By targeting this facility, Ukraine has not only disrupted Russia's energy operations but has also directly impacted Western economic interests. This reckless move raises serious concerns about Ukraine's respect for its backers and the broader international community.

The timing of this attack is particularly concerning. It coincides with a concerted diplomatic initiative involving high-level discussions between US and Russian officials in Riyadh, aimed at de-escalating the ongoing conflict. Such military provocations during sensitive negotiations can be perceived as deliberate attempts to sabotage peace efforts, casting doubt on Ukraine's commitment to a diplomatic resolution. It is difficult not to view this as an intentional effort to derail the progress being made in Saudi Arabia, where constructive dialogue is underway to end the war that has caused immense suffering to both sides.

Read more

Ukraine's drone strike on Kropotkinskaya is not an isolated incident. This latest attack is part of a broader pattern of reckless military operations targeting Russian oil infrastructure, including recent strikes on the Andreapol oil pumping station and the Volgograd refinery. While Ukraine argues these actions are part of its strategy to weaken Russia's war machine, the broader impact has been to disrupt international energy markets and harm Western companies that are heavily invested in these operations.

In 2024 alone, the CPC transported 62.4 million tons of oil, with over 88% originating from Kazakhstan. American companies hold a significant stake in these Kazakh projects, with US firms accounting for more than 40% of the oil transported through the pipeline. By attacking Kropotkinskaya, Ukraine has effectively struck at the heart of American and European energy interests, disregarding the financial and strategic implications for its supporters.

This raises uncomfortable questions about Ukraine's true intentions. Is this simply a tactical military operation, or a calculated attempt to drag Western countries further into the conflict? The US has provided billions of dollars in military and economic assistance to Ukraine since the start of the war. Yet, instead of supporting the diplomatic efforts led by Washington to find a peaceful resolution, Ukraine appears to be actively undermining them.

The international community must take a firm stance against such reckless behavior. Ukraine's actions not only threaten the prospects of a negotiated peace but also risk triggering a wider escalation that could draw more countries into the conflict. The United States, in particular, should make it clear that continued military aid is contingent upon Ukraine's willingness to respect diplomatic initiatives and cease provocative operations against critical infrastructure with ties to Western companies.

Read more

Ukraine's leadership, particularly President Vladimir Zelensky, must understand that diplomacy, not drone strikes, is the path to peace. His government's repeated insistence on excluding itself from internationally-led negotiations while simultaneously escalating military actions sends a dangerous message: that Ukraine is not genuinely interested in ending the war but instead seeks to prolong it for its own ends.

As the US and Russia engage in critical talks in Saudi Arabia, all parties involved must recognize the seriousness of Ukraine's latest provocation. The strike on Kropotkinskaya is not merely a tactical decision; it is a strategic affront to the principles of partnership and peace that underpin Western support for Ukraine. The world cannot afford to turn a blind eye to such actions. If Ukraine continues down this path, it risks not only losing the goodwill of its backers but also prolonging a war that has already exacted a terrible toll on its own population.

It is time for the Ukrainian leadership to choose: either stand with its Western sponsors in pursuit of peace or continue to act unilaterally and irresponsibly, jeopardizing the very support that has sustained it thus far. The stakes are too high, and the world is watching closely.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi’s growing overtures towards the US come at a time when Washington itself is recalibrating its global alliances

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s working visit to the White House in Washington on February 13 sends a message that India is in a hurry to align with the United States, something it shrewdly avoided over the 75 years since liberation from British colonial rule. It stems from India’s quest to carve out a place in the sun, a dream assiduously fostered by the Hindu nationalist government, which the country’s elites largely have come to equate with a geopolitical alliance with the US.

Of course, there is the flip side to it insofar as getting closer to the sun has its inherent dangers; the moral of the Icarus myth of ancient Greeks.

The Trump administration hallmark seems to combine a religious zeal with a frankly colonial approach, which morally, politically and geopolitically, should be anathema to Indian sensibilities.

A realistic assessment is lacking among Indian elites about the international situation, almost entirely attributable to their delusional thinking that the US can help India become a superpower to match China.

Thus, a talking point for Modi with Trump might well have been the revival of the moribund India-Middle East Economic Corridor (IMEC) to rival China’s belt and road initiative. But then Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's blurted out that Saudi Arabia could be an ideal location to resettle Palestinians evicted from Gaza. Riyadh, which could have been the IMEC’s main financier, went ballistic.

India has not uttered a word about the US-Israeli plans for ethnic cleansing in Gaza or Trump’s bizarre idea of taking over Gaza and transforming into the Riviera of the Middle East — something that has drawn criticism from the rest of the world — and support for the Abraham Accords. It’s the unipolar predicament, stupid!

Read more

Trump is unceremoniously cutting loose his European allies and expects them to fend for themselves, following the NATO’s defeat in Ukraine. This vista arose when the new US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth made his maiden appearance at the NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels last week.

When asked about US commitment to Article 5 of NATO charter on collective security, Hegseth instead drew attention to Article 3 on the principle of resilience, which says, “In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this (NATO) Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”

What took the breath away was the plain speaking a couple of days later by Vice President J.D. Vance in his fiery remarks at the Munich Security Conference. He laid bare the collapse of the transatlantic alliance and signalled that the dispute between Europe and the US is no longer to do with sharing military burdens, or a perceived threat from Russia, but something more fundamental about Europe's society and political economy.

The greatest danger to Europe, Vance underscored, was not Russia, not China, but a ”danger from within”. Vance portrayed a continent that has lost its way, and stopped just short of warning that the moral purpose of NATO itself is falling away.

Indeed, the implications for Ukraine are enormous. It was left to Vladimir Zelensky to later lament at the Munich event: “The US vice-president made it clear: decades of the old relationship between Europe and America are ending. From now on, things will be different, and Europe needs to adjust to that.”

How come when history is unfolding, the Indian elites behave like lotus eaters, myopic about the magnitude of US retrenchment? The malaise is prevalent even among India’s elites in Congressan and its opposition party.

Read more

The elites are oblivious to the geopolitical reality, that war is not an option for the US vis-a-vis China (if it ever was.) Basically, Trump is intensely conscious that the US should not exhaust its resources by waging wars and, therefore, must avoid making hollow promises to leaders like Modi or Netanyahu.

In fact, at the joint press conference with Modi on Friday, Trump openly called for peace between India and China and offered to help. Gone are the days when Americans would encourage India to show the middle finger to China across the Himalayas and the elites in India would get ecstatic. Trump also never once mentioned Quad group comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the US.

China's role as the economic engine that drives the world economy seems to weigh on Trump's mind 24/7. Whereas the US ended 2024 with a trade deficit exceeding one trillion dollars, China chalked up a trade surplus of the same amount! Trump openly acknowledged the global tech power shift following the arrival of China’s AI model DeepSeek.

The bottom line is that Trump played Modi nicely by praising him as a “tough negotiator” while also holding in suspended animation the weaponisation of “reciprocal tariffs” like a sword of Damocles, to ensure India’s good behaviour. And he ended up selling to India an additional $10 billion of energy annually, generating an export business of anywhere between $15bn to $25bn a year.

Read more

Trump sees the Modi government as a milch cow for lubricating America First and coaxes it to buy more weaponry from American vendors, including F-35 stealth fighters. According to a report last February by the US Government Accountability Office, it would take the Modi government at least $1.7 Trillion to purchase, operate and sustain F-35's through the aircraft's 66-year life cycle, due to high maintenance costs and developmental delays. In geopolitical terms, the purchase of such a futuristic weapon system virtually “locks in” India as a US ally.

Where is it that Indian vulnerability lies is anybody’s guess. Modi’s visit to the US in such unseemly haste to insert India into Trump’s foreign policy toolbox exposes clueless policymakers in Delhi in a dynamic global geopolitical environment.

A strategy of multi-alignment anchored firmly on India’s time-tested relationship with Russia is an available option that suits India’s needs,preserves its strategic autonomy and independent foreign policy. And that when the Trump administration too intends to “potentially work together (with Russia).”

But at the joint press conference with Trump, Modi preferred to harmonise with the US stance on the Ukraine war, he robustly asserted India’s distance from Moscow and equidistance vis-a-vis Moscow and Kiev, and he went on to echo Trump’s mantra of an immediate ceasefire for vicarious reasons in the American interest.

What was the need to flaunt such eagerness when a peace settlement on Russia’s terms is a plausible outcome, it appears, and is something Trump himself may have come to accept? Indeed, the paradox is, a nadir has been reached in the Indian elites’ unipolar predicament at a juncture when even the Trump administration is getting accustomed to the growing signs of multipolarity in the world order, which renders obsolete the cold war style “bloc mentality”.

Медиа: image / jpeg

As New Delhi seeks to diversify its LNG supply, both Moscow and Washington are courting the country to secure major deals

One of the outcomes of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Washington this week is an expansion of energy cooperation with the US under the India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership.

In a joint statement, Modi and President Donald Trump reaffirmed their resolve to strengthen bilateral energy trade, positioning the US as a key supplier of crude oil, petroleum products, and LNG to India.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled his vision for a gas-based economy in 2016, it wasn’t just an economic shift but strategic maneuver aimed at reducing pollution, diversifying energy sources, and securing long-term energy stability while preserving strategic autonomy. As 2025 unfolds, India stands at a critical juncture as the global energy landscape is becoming increasingly complex. The United States is ramping up its natural gas exports, potentially adopting a more aggressive energy policy following Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Meanwhile, Russia, a long-standing oil supplier to India, continues to face US-led sanctions, complicating the energy trade.

India aims to increase natural gas’s share in its energy mix from the current 6.2% to 15% by 2030. This ambitious target is driven by the need to reduce carbon emissions and diversify its primary energy sources. The International Energy Agency forecasts that India’s natural gas consumption will rise by nearly 60%, reaching 103 billion cubic meters annually by 2030.

With LNG imports currently meeting around 50% of its gas demand, India faces a significant vulnerability in its energy security. By 2030, India’s LNG imports are projected to double to approximately 65 bcm annually, making it the fourth-largest LNG importer globally. This heavy reliance exposes the country to price volatility, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical risks.

LNG competition

The renewed engagement between Washington and New Delhi could open avenues for India securing long-term LNG contracts, deepening technology collaborations, and attracting investments in oil and gas infrastructure. The evolving US-India energy equation not only enhances India’s energy security but also aligns with New Delhi’s ambition to transition toward a gas-based economy, balancing economic competitiveness with strategic autonomy.

Read more

Simultaneously, despite Western pressure, Russia also continues to court India as an LNG buyer. Russian officials have actively pitched LNG cargoes from the Arctic LNG 2 project, yet Indian companies remain cautious due to the geopolitical and financial risks associated with sanctions. The situation remains fluid, with ongoing discussions between Indian and Russian firms.

Modi’s visit to the US underscores the importance of securing LNG contracts that reflect evolving market preferences. As India navigates a dynamic energy landscape, aligning agreements with flexible terms, cost-effectiveness, and long-term sustainability will be paramount.

As India seeks to diversify its LNG supply, both the US and Russia present compelling yet challenging options. On one hand, American LNG offers a stable and growing supply, but at a premium. Transportation costs and rigid contractual obligations add to the challenge. Shipping LNG from the US Gulf Coast to India incurs freight costs of approximately $1.61 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) as of February 2024. Furthermore, long-term contracts with US suppliers often come with inflexible terms, limiting India’s ability to respond to market fluctuations.

Conversely, Russian LNG is geographically closer and more cost-effective. However, it comes with geopolitical baggage, as Western sanctions limit financial transactions and logistical operations. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has disrupted global energy markets, reducing Russia’s access to its primary export destinations in Europe. This creates an opportunity for India to bargain for lower prices while mitigating risks through diversified sourcing strategies.

Over-reliance on either supplier poses risks: US LNG could be affected by policy shifts, while Russian LNG remains entangled in sanction-related uncertainties. By striking a balance between these sources and integrating additional suppliers from the Middle East, Australia, and Africa, India can build a more resilient energy portfolio.

Striking the Right Balance

As Prime Minister Modi returns to India following discussions with President Trump, including deliberations on oil and gas supplies, India remains focused on striking a balance between energy diversification and security.

Read more

While specific terms remain under discussion, India is actively advocating for competitive LNG pricing in long-term contracts. For instance, at Indian gas-fired power plants, these prices need to remain at $8 to $10 per MMBtu to be viable, as noted by the chairman of the state-run gas company GAIL India, Sandeep Kumar Gupta. This is significantly lower than North Asia’s spot LNG prices, which currently hover around $16 per MMBtu.

Recognizing the need for more cost-effective solutions, GAIL India is reviving its plans to acquire a stake in a US LNG plant. This move aligns with the recent US decision to lift restrictions on LNG export facility approvals, allowing India to secure long-term, affordable LNG contracts. Beyond contracts, India is also investing in gas infrastructure and technology to enhance domestic energy capacity.

At the same time, India continues to explore alternative financial mechanisms to sustain its energy cooperation with Russia despite sanctions, such as trading using the countries’ national currencies. Historically, India and Russia have traded this way, and recent discussions suggest a renewed interest in doing so to bypass restrictions.

Rather than easing sanctions, the Trump administration may intensify restrictions on Russian energy exports, further complicating India’s LNG sourcing strategy. If such policies materialize, India must proactively adapt by diversifying supply sources and refining payment mechanisms to ensure stable energy imports.

Beyond LNG, India’s energy cooperation with Russia extends to oil, coal, and nuclear energy. Russian firms remain involved in Indian oil and gas exploration, and discussions continue regarding expanded LNG shipments. Meanwhile, India is actively strengthening ties with Middle Eastern LNG producers, while also looking towards emerging suppliers in Africa and Australia to reduce over-reliance on any single nation. This multi-pronged approach ensures a diversified energy portfolio, mitigating risks associated with over-dependence on a single supplier.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Western European leaders are having a meltdown because shutting them out from talks is the only way to peace

The European Union was never in the driver’s seat on the Ukraine conflict. And now that same toddler sitting in the back with the plastic Fisher-Price steering wheel is throwing the kind of full-blown crimson-faced meltdown that makes adults chuckle.

How many times was the EU told, including by its own citizens with sledgehammer subtlety at the ballot box, to stop kissing Uncle Sam’s butt and start covering its own? Instead, its leaders cribbed America’s talking points, completely oblivious as they indulged in economic seppuku.

The EU’s entire economy-wrecking “strategy” over Ukraine was based on the fantasy that they were America’s little bro, not being used as naive pawns in a grand game that would knock them right off the chessboard. If Washington had picked peace over profit from the start, the closest thing that the Euroclowns would have seen to a military confrontation with Russia in Ukraine would have been playing Sergeant Savoir-Faire back home, armed with a map of the nearest coffee shops and a five-course lunch.

And now the previously unthinkable has happened. The jig is up on Biden’s ridiculous scam of vowing to do “whatever it takes” for Ukraine to beat Russia on the battlefield – mainly by dumping cash into US weapons which miraculously get lost en route to the frontlines after the cheque clears.

Read more

Nice racket. Too bad it’s getting people killed – something Trump’s made it clear he’s not exactly a fan of. Looks like he’s finally asked himself if there’s a way for the US to keep feasting on cash without a body count in Ukraine. Spoiler alert: he found a way, apparently. Several, in fact.

Cutting to the chase through all this messy death and destruction stuff, Trump just wants to wrap up the fighting and have Ukraine hand over its resources to cover US spending — most of which has already gone straight into the pockets of American weapons industries. And can he keep the weapon sales flowing, even without active conflict? Absolutely. Just tell NATO countries to cough up some cash for the sake of “preventive defense,” like he’s been doing relentlessly. A solid 90% of EU-bought weapons are already American, according to last year’s EU competitiveness report. And that’s not changing anytime soon – unless the EU’s itching for a tariff-spanking.

A group of European foreign ministers have issued a statement insisting that Ukraine and the EU must be at the table for any peace talks. Yeah, they’re at the table alright – the bib-wearing kiddie table, along with Ukraine. And while they’re busy twisting balloon animals and tossing around buzzwords like ‘enhancing support for Ukraine,’ totally immersed in their ‘choose your own adventure’ game where they’re obviously ‘winning,’ it turns out that Russia and the US – Putin and Trump – did something totally wild. They picked up a phone. Probably even a landline, like something out of a history book. All while the EU was bravely ‘sticking it to Putin’ by flaming him on social media while wiping croissant crumbs off their keyboard between sips of overpriced lattes.

In the wake of that call, Trump announced the start of immediate negotiations for peace. And now the EU is acting like it’s just been dumped by Uncle Sam, who’s committing the added insult of hanging around with the guy on whom they’ve been obsessively hating. “If there is agreement made behind our backs it will simply not work because you need for any kind of deal, any kind of agreement, you need Europeans to implement this deal. You need the Ukrainians to implement this deal,” said the bloc’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas.

Read more

The agreement is actually being made right in front of your face and ours, for once – unlike the back-room shenanigans between bloc officials and the Biden administration, which ultimately lured the EU economy off straight a cliff with EU “leaders” serving as willing lemmings, sanctioning their own Russian supplies of virtually everything critical to their economy.

Now the German defense minister is yelling from the kiddie table over to the adult table, trying to tell Trump and Putin how they should be conducting their negotiations. “From my point of view, it would have been better to talk about Ukraine’s possible membership of NATO or the country’s loss of territory only at the negotiating table and not take it off the table beforehand,” said Boris Pistorius. Everyone’s really keen to hear advice for peace from folks whose strategy so far has resulted in perpetual war. That’s barely a step above Elon Musk’s toddler, X – the one who was chiseling away at Mount Nostrildamus for the cameras while standing beside his dad and Trump in the Oval Office the other day – offering Trump and Putin his take on negotiated peace in Ukraine.

Sounds like Western European leaders are currently experiencing all five states of grief at once, while frantically refreshing their inboxes to see if either the US or Russia have noticed their total meltdowns and slid into their DMs – and not just taken their freakouts as confirmation that ghosting them entirely was maybe the best way to handle the situation when they’re sounding like they’re on the verge of throwing every dish in the cupboard straight across the room right now.

“All we need is peace. A JUST PEACE. Ukraine, Europe and the United States should work on this together. TOGETHER,” insisted Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on social media. ”Russia has to be forced to peace,” said Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze. No, dear, YOU have to be forced to peace. Now, please just go back to the kiddie table and wipe the spaghetti off your face.

European ministers and delegations had been meeting in Paris earlier this week for what they thought was an important strategy session – only to realize that they were basically just holding the equivalent of a corporate teambuilding exercise. While they were making all kinds of grand public proclamations in their echo chamber, like they were all jockeying for roles they could play in any eventual peace negotiations, it turns out that Trump and Putin were already finalizing the casting, and were even talking about bringing the curtain up. And they were suggesting that would be a two-man show, not an ensemble slapstick comedy featuring the EU big top circus troupe.

Read more

European diplomats are now telling the Financial Times that they figure they’ll be expected to foot the bill for Ukraine’s reconstruction – because Trump will insist on it – and also send troops to enforce a deal they had zero say in while the US refuses military involvement. Which is like getting handed a massive dinner check for a meal you didn’t even get to touch. Just picture it: EU soldiers walking around Ukraine at EU taxpayer expense to protect American resource ventures while US troops stay home, as Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has already stipulated, by adding that the EU needs to honor its commitments.

And Vice President J.D. Vance joined in the Trump administration’s stereoscopic spanking of the EU during their visit to the bloc by telling Europeans repeatedly – both during an artificial intelligence summit in Paris and before the Munich Security Conference – to stop censoring information and views they don’t like under the guise of it somehow being a peril to democracy.

The EU media has already suggested that it looks like the EU’s role is basically to shut up and accept the result of negotiations – like it has been kicked right out of the group chat before it even had a chance to log on, and still has to comply with the outcome of the meeting. Basically, at this point, Trump sees Europe as an ATM. Putin sees Europe as background noise. And Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky probably just sees his gravy train’s looming derailment.

Trump and Putin are already debating between caviar and steak for their peace talks while the EU stands outside like a rejected clubber, begging the bouncer to “check again, bro” – meanwhile, Zelensky is eyeing that tablecloth like a pyromaniac.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The US cutting loose both Kiev and Brussels is the way to end the war and that’s a good thing

The only thing more dangerous than being America’s enemy is to be its friend.

That is a statement often attributed to Henry Kissinger – the multiple, unrepentant as well as un-prosecuted war criminal, butcher of the Global South, and revelation-resistant icon of US foreign policy. And even if the sources are a little murky – involving the slightly deranged and badly overestimated arch-conservative grandstander William F. Buckley – it would have been just like bad old Henry: sort of witty, deeply malevolent, and yet realistic in its own, venomous way.

Never mind that the idea is not that original: Aleksey Vandam, an unjustly forgotten geopolitical theorist and general of the late Russian empire, knew that much already. Watching the British and Americans abuse China, Vandam felt the Chinese had every reason for concluding that “ it’s a bad thing to have an Anglo-Saxon for an enemy, but God forbid having him as a friend.”

And yet some lessons are never learned. This time it is the turn of both Ukraine and America’s EU-NATO vassals to pay the price of trying to be friends with what, in a global perspective, has been – quite objectively, quantifiably – the most overbearing, violent, and disruptive empire of firstly, the post-World War II and, recently, the post-Cold War periods.

Because that is one of the key messages of the increasingly intense – and now, finally, open – top level contacts between Moscow and Washington, that is, between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

Let’s be clear: This is, in and of itself, a positive and badly overdue development. The recent, officially confirmed “ lengthy and highly productive phone call” (Trump’s words) between the two leaders may not yet amount to a breakthrough. Even if Trump’s rhetoric – about a “successful conclusion, hopefully soon!” – already makes it look like one; Trump, it’s true, can be grandiloquent.

Read more

Yet the conversation does already serve as a big, heavy slab of a tombstone on America’s absurd and very dangerous policy of decrepitly stubborn non-communication. Moreover, Moscow has now confirmed that a full summit is in the making.

Even better, we also know already that neither Kiev nor the EU-NATO vassals were in the loop: There goes the daft, devious, and very deadly (for Ukrainians, too) mantra of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” And as a bonus: Soon there will be a lot about EU-NATO Europe without Europe. The fact that its leaders are, in the Financial Times’s words, “ reel[ing]” and already clamoring for being heard merely confirms that they have been shunted aside.

Rest assured: whatever cosmetic role the Europeans may be allowed to play (or not), they are delusional if they think they’ll matter. In reality, the Trumpists are brutally frank about what they have in mind for their underlings: Washington and Moscow make the decisions, the NATO-EU vassals fall in line and, also, pay for the outcome: Reconstructing Ukraine, Trump’s people feel, is for European budgets. And if – a big if, given Moscow’s objections – any Western troops somehow end up stationed in what will be left of Ukraine, then those too will be Europe’s very bad business to take care of as well.

Let’s be frank: Both steps look harsh, but they are necessary. In the case of Ukraine, its leadership needs to be deprived of its implied veto power over peace. Because, first, that power is not real anyhow. It has always served as a smokescreen to allow warmongers in the West – recall Boris Johnson, anyone? – to sell their proxy war as the “will of Ukraine,” while Ukrainians have been used up as cannon fodder.

Second, since the Ukraine War has long been a war involving – and putting at risk – all of Ukraine’s Western sponsors as well, it is obviously unjust that their populations’ security should not matter as long as a US puppet regime in Kiev doesn’t feel like peace. Third, Ukraine is not the same as that regime. Ever more of its people want a compromise end to this war, as polls have been showing for almost a year already. The regime’s superannuated, detached, and ever less popular leader Vladimir Zelensky and his team of slick operators and clumsy sycophants have no right to stand in their nation’s way.

Regarding NATO, the EU and Europe: Apart from getting the acid disrespect they richly deserve for allowing the US and/or Ukraine to blow up their vital infrastructure, Europe’s spineless leaders have made it abundantly clear that the best thing they can do for world peace and international stability is to have no say. The antics of Kaja Kallas, the overpromoted simpleton who counts for the EU’s de facto foreign minister, are just the latest proof of that fact. And let’s not even start on Baerbock, Lammy, Macron, Starmer, von der Leyen… The list of war-besotted incompetents and “Atlanticist” sell-outs goes on and on.

It’s not as if there had never been alternatives: remember what happened when Viktor Orbán, leader of bona fide EU and NATO member Hungary, tried to revive some diplomacy on behalf of Europe last summer? The Brussels gang went into an almost indecent panic attack, disavowing all such uncouth ideas: Diplomacy?!? Not on our watch! Well, what’s left to say now? You didn’t want talks with Orbán, now you’ll get freezing-out with Trump. Slow claps all around, once again.

Read more

I am a European; I wished it were different. But reality remains reality: Unless NATO-EU Europe’s “elites” either grow up (very unlikely) or are replaced (if only), they should be left out of serious international politics. It’s better and safer for everyone, including their own countries.

As things seem to be shaping up now, the US has signaled that it is ready to accept crucial Russian war aims: Ukraine will not get into NATO and Moscow will retain territories conquered during the war, as Trump’s secretary of defense Pete Hegseth has made clear. Both points, it is true, require serious elaboration: Moscow has been explicit for years that it will not agree to any settlement that leaves open the possibility of a “sneak”-NATO membership for Ukraine, where the West’s war alliance arms, trains, and equips but without formal membership, as it has already done. If anyone in Washington – or somewhere in Europe, for that matter – still thinks they can cheat, again, Russia will keep fighting. A Russian red line is a red line is a red line.

And don’t forget: the West has zero credibility left. After three decades of massive post-Cold War bad faith and trickery over one issue after another, from NATO expansion, via the rights of Russian-speakers in the Baltics and Libya’s destruction, to that of Syria – to name only a few examples – no one in Washington should assume they can have anything from Russia simply by saying “but we are different.”

Art of the deal here, art of the deal there: This time, only hard-headed, verifiable quid-pro-quos will even be on the table. As ancient-history American uber-cold warrior and – weirdly enough, sort of co-peacemaker, in the end – Ronald Reagan once said in execrably pronounced but brave Russian: doveriai, no proveriai (доверяй, но проверяй): Trust but verify. Now it’s Americans who will get to hear that a lot and in proper Russian: if there will ever be a time again for trust, the West will have to earn it first.

Concerning territory, only negotiations can clear up details. Yet, while there may or may not be some flexibility in Moscow, all Western and Ukrainian interlocutors should avoid getting up their hopes: This war has been costly for Russia, too; and whether its opponents and critics like it or not, it is winning. These two facts will translate into hard limits to Moscow’s flexibility on territory as well. Where exactly they are, remains to be seen. Trying to disregard them is a recipe for further or renewed war.

This rapprochement in the still crucial US-Russian relationship is a very important development. That much is already certain. It was not unpredictable. Trump’s campaign statements, his overall sense of the world, and even his temperament made it more likely than not. But it could also not have happened: Washington hardliners, who are not extinct or powerless, might have nipped it in the bud. Indeed, they may still succeed. Nothing will be certain before an agreement is not only signed but also fully implemented in good faith (unlike Minsk-2 of sad 2015 fame, yet another agreement that the West – and Kiev – systematically betrayed).

Yet let’s not overlook two important things that are already clear: As I have pointed out before, it is a fact now that Russia has defeated the West, in the simple sense that it is Moscow that is now imposing its terms on the war’s settlement; and the West’s leaders in Washington have now de facto acknowledged this outcome. While the West has fought Russia through Ukraine, its investment in treasure (including through self-damaging economic warfare), arms, intelligence, unofficial fighters, political support, and, last but not least, excessive rhetorical commitment is amply sufficient to make this a painful Western defeat, not “merely” a Ukrainian one. And that is how it will be perceived by the world, too.

Read more

Trying to “take out” a resurgent Russia was always a predictably bad idea.

Allow me, for once, to quote myself. As I wrote in December 2021, before the escalation of February 2022, a “major change in how the West and Russia relate to each other” was “inevitable” then already, because “sometime between, say, 2008 and 2014, the post-Cold War era has ended, and we are now in a post-post-Cold War world. It is this tectonic shift, Russia’s come-back, far from perfect yet substantial, that fundamentally drives the need for a geopolitical re-adjustment. The latter can happen in a deliberate and negotiated manner, or the movers and shakers of the West, first of all the US, can decide to let geopolitical nature take its course. The second course of, as it were, malign negligence would lead to a much bumpier ride to a new status quo, quite possibly with catastrophic effects.”

It is that “much bumpier ride” that, hopefully is coming to an end now – at least for a while – and the result is in: The West has tried and failed to stop Russia; the West has gambled recklessly and lost. Russia is now stronger than before that Western failure, and the West is weaker. Because weakness and strength are always relative, as Thomas Hobbes, past master of realism and pessimism told us a long time ago.

And here is the second thing that is already clear: The West is not one thing. While it is dominated by the US, its European vassals will suffer much worse from this historic setback. They could have stymied the American war course. If even one major European NATO state (France, Germany, Britain…) had come out and struck a deal with Moscow to never allow Ukraine into NATO, that state would have surely been punished by Washington, but the war could have been avoided. Because every individual NATO member has, in effect, veto power on new admissions.

In an ideal scenario, the hapless vassals could even have banded together and rebelled against their risk-addicted lords in Washington. But they chose complete submission instead. Now they have only two options: Try to continue the proxy war on their own – if there will be a Kiev regime left to collaborate with – in which case the US will watch from the sidelines as they are being ground up. (No, NATO, that is, the US will not help… duh). Or they can give up and try to navigate their defeat by Moscow and abandonment by Washington as best they can through trying to mend ties with Russia. Their economies, in urgent need of rescue, would benefit, as stock market reactions to the recent developments signal. For their own sake, the European “elites” should finally return to reality. Personally, I doubt they will.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The new reality is that the West can be stopped and made to negotiate on its “adversary’s” terms

It’s obviously good news for the world that the US has finally ended its perverse policy of anti-diplomacy (its absurd essence: When there’s a really dangerous problem, do not try to solve it by communicating) regarding Russia, the other great power with a massive nuclear arsenal.

But let’s not forget the even bigger picture: US President Donald Trump will not (and cannot) admit it – and Russian President Vladimir Putin is wise enough to not rub it in – but the single most important take-away from yesterday’s phone conversation is that Russia has won a war against the West.

Yes, it was a half-proxy war (that is, by proxy for the West, often half-heartedly, while very direct for both Russia and Ukraine), but that makes little geopolitical difference now. The West has been asking for this defeat. It could have easily been avoided, either by finding a compromise with Russia earlier or by staying out of the fight between Moscow and Kiev. But now things are what they are and the new reality is that the West can be stopped and forced to negotiate on its opponent’s (in this case, Russia’s) terms – and that the whole world knows this now as a tested, empirical fact. This is a historic turning point, and also good news for humanity. The reverberations will be felt for decades.

Read more

Ukrainians have been used and sold out. Those few in the West warning that this would happen were systematically maligned and sidelined. But now it will be Ukraine’s false ‘friends’ (and their own US- and Canadian-based diaspora) who should have a reckoning coming. So does the Kiev regime. The tragedy of Ukraine is immense, and it was unnecessary. In Ukraine, this, too, will become a historic turning point, and will have long-lasting consequences.

What will happen between the US and Russia is not yet predictable, but a broader détente is possible. The perversely, self-destructively, treasonously obedient EU elites, in any case, will learn what it feels like to be first used and then ignored, just like Ukraine. The worst thing they could do – and as things currently stand, something they might actually do – is let the US ‘Europeanize’ the war. The Biden administration has done a brilliant job wrecking its EU-NATO vassals. Trump might complete it by luring them into the trap of trying to tangle with Russia on their own – while Washington and Moscow make up, as they should.

Медиа: image / jpeg

What if the American president’s seemingly outlandish claims serve a higher purpose?

In a world caught between ecological limits and technological ambition, the revival of the long-dormant vision of the Technate suggests that America’s future may be shaped not by traditional geopolitics but by the pursuit of industrial autarky, resource control, and the promise of a self-sustaining technocratic order.

It was an unexpected move, bewildering analysts across the globe. After securing victory in the election, Donald Trump did not immediately focus on perceived strategic rivals like China, Russia, or Iran, as the geopolitical forecasters had so confidently predicted. Instead, his gaze settled on Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal – territories that, at first glance, seemed disconnected from the expected choreography of American foreign policy ambitions. This pivot raised a chorus of speculation and debate. Many theories were put forward. Yet, among the multitude of explanations, only one has managed to weave together the strands of Trump’s apparent unpredictability into a coherent narrative. This theory traces the logic of these moves back to a long-forgotten vision of a technocratic society that emerged in the early 20th century within the United States.

The roots of this idea, known as the “Technate,” lie in a vision of a society governed not by politicians or financiers but by scientists and engineers, guided by the principles of efficiency, technological mastery, and resource optimization. In the worldview of early technocrats, economic systems based on arbitrary currencies and speculative markets were seen as chaotic relics of the past. Instead, they proposed that energy itself – measurable and quantifiable – should serve as the basis for all economic transactions. The Technate would thus become a self-contained and self-sustaining entity, where wealth is defined by the availability of natural resources, the expertise of its inhabitants, and the seamless integration of technology with governance.

However, the Technate was never envisioned as something that could be established in just any location. It required a very particular environment – one with abundant natural resources, advanced industrial infrastructure, and a population trained to navigate the demands of a highly mechanized society. The ideal setting, according to early technocratic theorists, was North America, with its vast mineral wealth, fertile lands, and unmatched potential for hydroelectric and industrial power. Canada, with its rich deposits of metals and minerals, and Greenland, with its untapped reserves of rare earth elements, were integral to this vision. The Panama Canal, as the lifeline connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, would further ensure the region’s strategic autonomy from global supply chains.

Read more

The German philosopher Georg Friedrich Jünger (1898-1977), in his profound critique of technology, warned against the unchecked dominance of mechanization over human life. His reflections, particularly in 'The Failure of Technology' (1949), highlighted the existential dangers of a world where technological systems become self-perpetuating, stripping individuals of their autonomy and reducing human life to mere cogs in a vast machine. Jünger’s critique is a somber reminder of the costs that accompany technological grandeur: the erosion of traditional values, the alienation of the individual, and the potential for technological regimes to evolve into forms of soft tyranny. However, what distinguishes the Technate from the dystopias Jünger warned against is its promise of harmony between human expertise and technological control. Rather than technology dominating life, it would be wielded as an instrument of collective flourishing, overseen by a technocratic elite attuned to the nuances of energy flows, ecological balance, and long-term sustainability.

Elon Musk’s indirect connection to this vision adds an intriguing twist to the story. Musk, known for his futurist ambitions and technological ventures, is the grandson of a former director of the Canadian branch of Technocracy Incorporated, an organization that once propagated these very ideas before its activities were curtailed by the Canadian government. Whether Musk consciously channels this legacy or not, his influence within Trump’s circle has evidently revived interest in the concept of a self-sustaining North American Technate. From this perspective, Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland and secure control over the Panama Canal becomes less of an eccentric detour and more of a calculated step towards fulfilling a technocratic vision that has long been dormant but never entirely forgotten.

Most political analysts initially interpreted Trump’s focus on these regions as part of his broader strategy of retrenchment, aimed at reducing US involvement in overseas conflicts and reorienting national priorities inward. They saw his rhetoric about Canada and Greenland as either bluster or opportunistic real estate maneuvering. Yet, when viewed through the lens of technocratic theory, a different logic emerges. Trump’s America, despite its rhetoric of self-sufficiency, cannot achieve industrial autarky with its current resource base. The energy-intensive industries that would power a new era of American greatness require access to mineral reserves, hydroelectric power, and strategic shipping routes. Canada’s vast natural wealth, Greenland’s potential as a future resource hub, and the Panama Canal’s role as a vital artery of trade are not peripheral concerns – they are central to the construction of a modern Technate.

Read more

For all his bluster and unpredictability, Trump’s overarching aim of “making America great again” fits seamlessly into this framework. By 2025, it seems, key figures in his administration have recognized that achieving this vision would require more than tax cuts and deregulation. It would demand the strategic acquisition of resources and infrastructure beyond America’s current borders – assets that could anchor a new era of technological and industrial expansion. The Technate, in this context, is not merely a speculative ideal but a pragmatic blueprint for securing national prosperity in an increasingly multipolar world.

Jünger would no doubt caution against the risks of such an endeavor, reminding us of the dangers of subordinating human life to technological imperatives. Yet, if the vision of the Technate can be tempered by a recognition of these dangers – if it can integrate technological efficiency without sacrificing human dignity – it may offer a path forward that reconciles technological modernity with the enduring need for meaning and community. While the early technocrats of the 20th century were often dismissed as utopian dreamers, their ideas have resurfaced at a moment when the world is once again grappling with questions of resource scarcity, ecological sustainability, and the limits of global interdependence.

Whether this order will achieve the balance envisioned by its architects or succumb to the warnings of critics like Jünger remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the dream of the Technate, long relegated to the margins of political thought, is once again shaping the contours of geopolitical reality. It is an ambitious project that, if successful, could redefine the parameters of global power in the decades to come.

Медиа: image / jpeg

StratCom’s report on Russia’s ‘information operations’ and its influence on the continent goes far beyond this

There was a time when the West spoke, and the world listened. Its newspapers were the arbiters of truth, its think tanks the producers of unquestionable wisdom, and its governments the self-appointed defenders of democracy. But today, something has changed – especially in Africa. The carefully manufactured Western narratives are no longer going unchallenged. From Mali to South Africa, from Kenya to Egypt, a new consciousness is rising: one that questions, one that refuses to be dictated to, and most of all, one that seeks to reclaim Africa’s own voice.

That, more than anything, is what terrifies NATO.

Last month, NATO’s Strategic Communications Center of Excellence (StratCom COE) released a report titled “Russian Information Operations Outside of the Western Information Environment.” At first glance, it presents itself as a neutral study of Russian influence in Africa. But look closer, and it quickly becomes clear that this report is not about Russia at all. It is about NATO’s fear of an Africa that no longer takes orders from the West. It is about the rising multipolar world, where African countries are no longer trapped in Western-controlled narratives but are engaging with alternative global powers such as China, India, and yes, even Russia. This is not just about media. This is about power.

For decades, Western media has dictated Africa’s story, crafting a portrayal of the continent as helpless, corrupt, and perpetually in need of Western intervention. Whether it was the BBC, CNN, or Reuters, these outlets acted as the gatekeepers of African truth, deciding who was a hero and who was a villain. But as African nations increasingly engage with alternative media sources, NATO sees a dangerous trend: its grip on Africa’s narrative is slipping.

And so, it reaches for an old, familiar tactic – fear-mongering.

Read more

The report warns that Russia is “filling an information vacuum” in Africa, using state-sponsored media such as RT and Sputnik to manipulate African minds. The assumption here is not only ridiculous but deeply condescending. It suggests that Africans are passive consumers of information, incapable of critical thinking, easily swayed by “Russian propaganda.” This, of course, ignores the obvious: Africa does not need RT or Sputnik to tell it that NATO is an imperialist force. Africa has seen it firsthand.

After all, who destroyed Libya in 2011, reducing one of Africa’s most prosperous nations to a failed state where open slave markets existed for years? Who backed Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, who assassinated Patrice Lumumba, who orchestrated coup after coup to install leaders favorable to Western interests? It was not Russia. It was NATO.

And now, NATO wants to lecture Africa about foreign interference? The hypocrisy is staggering.

But let’s be clear: the real issue here is not Russia. The real issue is that Africa is thinking for itself. The Western establishment cannot tolerate the idea of African nations making independent choices, whether that means trading with China, strengthening ties with BRICS, or engaging in military cooperation with Russia. The moment Africa steps outside the Western sphere of influence, it is accused of falling victim to foreign manipulation.

Yet, when Africa was truly being manipulated – when the West was installing puppet governments, imposing structural adjustment programs through the IMF, and looting African resources through multinational corporations – NATO and its media allies had no problem with “foreign influence.”

The question then is this: What is NATO really afraid of? The answer lies in one word: multipolarity.

For the first time in centuries, Africa is no longer locked into a single global power structure. The rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the growing influence of India and Brazil mean that Africa now has options. It no longer has to rely solely on Western financial institutions, military alliances, or media networks. And that terrifies the West because it means control is slipping away.

Read more

The NATO report accuses Russia of “elite capture,” implying that African leaders are too naïve to think for themselves and are being manipulated into pro-Russian positions. This narrative is not only insulting but historically dishonest. If any global power has a history of manipulating African elites, it is the West. The United States, France, and Britain have spent decades ensuring that African leaders who defy their interests are overthrown, assassinated, or economically strangled. When Kwame Nkrumah advocated for African socialism and unity, he was deposed with Western backing. When Thomas Sankara tried to break Burkina Faso free from neocolonial control, he was assassinated. When Gaddafi dared to propose a gold-based African currency, he was murdered by NATO-backed thugs and terrorists.

But what NATO fears most is not just political realignment – it is the battle over media and information. For too long, Western media giants like the BBC, The Guardian, and the New York Times have acted as the official narrators of Africa’s history and politics. These outlets have controlled the perception of Africa for global audiences, ensuring that whenever Africa’s story is told, it is told from a Western perspective. Now, with alternative media sources rising, that monopoly is collapsing.

And this is precisely why Africa must go beyond simply rejecting Western narratives. Africa must own its own story. It is time for a radical Pan-African media revolution – one that does not simply react to Western propaganda but actively sets the agenda. This means:

• Creating a Pan-African media empire, with African-led journalism that tells African stories.
• Developing independent digital platforms that break free from Western-controlled tech giants like Facebook, Google, and X, which actively censor African resistance narratives.
• Investing in cooperative and state-funded, decolonized media institutions that prioritize Pan-Africanism, economic justice, and socialist policies over Western corporate interests.
• Reviving revolutionary journalism that educates African youth on their true history – not just the sanitized version taught in Western-sponsored textbooks.

Read more

During the Soviet era, the USSR played a crucial role in helping African liberation movements challenge Western imperialist narratives. Soviet radio broadcasts, literature, and educational programs provided African revolutionaries with an ideological framework that countered Western capitalist propaganda. Today, while Russia, China, and other emerging powers may have their own national agendas, they offer Africa something the West never has: a choice.

And that is what truly terrifies NATO. The Global South is rising, and Africa is at its center. The West can no longer dictate who Africa trades with, who it partners with, or whose media it consumes. NATO’s accusations of Russian disinformation are nothing more than a desperate attempt to reassert dominance over African consciousness. But the tide has turned. As Frantz Fanon once said, “Each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it.”

Africa’s mission is clear: Seize the narrative. Break the chains. Build a future free from Western control. And no NATO report can stop that.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Reflecting on the Nobel laureate’s complex legacy for Russian culture

Twenty-nine years ago, the Russian poet Joseph Aleksandrovich Brodsky passed away in his apartment on Morton Street, New York City. Though this is not a milestone anniversary, the occasion still invites reflection on his life and legacy.

Brodsky’s life embodied what he once described as the “alcohol and cigarette culture” — a blend of intellectualism, melancholy, and resilience. In many ways, his death was a result of this lifestyle. He was an incessant smoker, a habit he picked up from his idol, W.H. Auden. Even after surviving a heart attack and undergoing heart surgery, Brodsky continued to smoke strong cigarettes. To speak more abstractly, a poet of his stature may well have died from inexhaustible longing or because, as some might say, God called him home.

Brodsky’s funeral has become the stuff of legend. Stories abound, some credible and others less so. One claim, made by the poet Ilya Kutik, suggests that two weeks before his death, Brodsky sent letters to his friends asking them not to discuss his personal life until 2020. Whether these letters existed or not, few have honored such a promise. As a result, we know quite a bit about Brodsky the man. However, there’s reason to question some accounts, as not all who speak of him knew him well — or at all.

Read more

Peter Weil, a close friend of Brodsky, attended the funeral and shared that it coincided with the visit of Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin to New York. According to one version of events, Brodsky’s widow, Maria Sozzani-Brodsky, prohibited photography during the ceremony to prevent Chernomyrdin from using the Nobel laureate’s funeral as a publicity opportunity. Another version humorously claims that Chernomyrdin’s limousine inadvertently caused confusion with Italian law enforcement, who were burying one of their own in a neighboring farewell hall.

This mix of tragedy and absurdity mirrors Brodsky’s own nature. His life — marked by exile, poverty, and relentless surveillance — was both a testament to human resilience and a theater of irony. Soviet authorities who came to search his home often sent him vodka, exemplifying the peculiarities of his persecution. Brodsky navigated these contradictions without splitting himself into opposing personas. He was simultaneously accessible and abrasive, which led to contrasting perceptions of his character.

Some call him a “liberal” as an insult, citing his emigration and acceptance of the Nobel Prize. Others label him an “imperialist” with disdain, pointing to his controversial poem, “On Ukrainian Independence,” and his old-fashioned masculinity. These critiques, though opposite, share a misunderstanding of Brodsky’s complexity.

What’s so wrong with emigration? Brodsky lived where he was allowed to, not necessarily where he wanted. Before his 1972 expulsion, he wrote to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, offering to serve his homeland and contribute to Russian culture. It was a naive gesture, but what more can we expect from a poet than a touch of innocence in the face of power? Despite his exile, Brodsky’s contributions to Russian culture remained immense, and his Nobel Prize was a recognition of that legacy — politics notwithstanding.

Read more

Was Brodsky an imperialist? Artistically, perhaps. Like many greats, he saw himself as an heir to the classical tradition. For Brodsky, antiquity and empire were intertwined. Empires may fight and falter, but their grandeur persists in art, which he believed should reflect human resilience and the primacy of force. Brodsky balanced this with a profound respect for the ordinary, writing poignantly about the private lives of individuals, as in his line about “the province by the sea.”

Brodsky’s legacy transcends his persona. He has become a phenomenon greater than the man himself. Books like Solomon Volkov’s Conversations with Joseph Brodsky and Ellendea Proffer’s Brodsky Among Us, as well as documentaries by Nikolay Kartozia and Anton Zhelnov, explore his multifaceted identity. They reveal a poet who was at once paradoxical and magnetic: a man of corduroy jackets, cigarettes, ironic humor, and enduring vitality.

Brodsky’s poetry captures this ambiguity. His 1972 work, “A Song of Innocence, Also of Experience,” juxtaposes mutually exclusive ideas in adjacent stanzas. This paradoxical style reflects life itself, with its blend of tragedy and absurdity. As we remember Brodsky, perhaps the best way to honor him is through his own words:

“Old age we shall meet in a comfy armchair,
grandchildren around us, merry and fair.
And if there are none, then with the neighbors
over drinks we’ll enjoy the fruits of our labors.

...

That’s no solemn assembly convened by the bell!
The dark that awaits us we cannot dispel.
We roll down the flag and retreat to the keg.
Let us have a last drink and a draw on the fag.”

Brodsky remains an enigma, a figure who resisted easy categorization. He was a liberal and an imperialist, a dreamer and a realist, a man who lived through exile and still managed to create a lasting legacy. In his poetry and his life, Brodsky embodied the contradictions of his time, reminding us of the complexity of the human spirit.

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team

Медиа: image / jpeg