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 Defenыe 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

Netanyahu has made it clear he wants to redraw the region’s map, and the IDF’s refusal to withdraw backs up that intent

Another round of violence between Lebanon and Israel is not a matter of if, but when. Israel managed to extract a series of tactical victories from the war so far, but did not possess the capacity to defeat Hezbollah decisively. Now that Israel seeks to maintain freedom of action inside Lebanon, it threatens a much more violent outbreak than what was stopped by the November 27 ceasefire.

Much of the analyses offered on the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, which erupted into a paroxysmal battle in September 2024, trace its origins back to October 8, 2023. However, this take is limited in its scope and also often misses key lessons from the history of the conflict.

Understanding what shaped the Lebanon-Israel war

A day after the Hamas-led October 7 attack against Israel, it became clear, through the public statements and actions of the Israelis, that the war they sought to launch was intended to inflict maximum collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza. Although it often goes unrecognized due to the shocking effects of the Hamas raid, at least 413 Palestinians were killed inside Gaza that day, most of them civilians. The next day, the Lebanese group Hezbollah began opening fire on Israeli monitoring equipment set up in the illegally occupied Shebaa Farms area.

After Israel conducted airstrikes in southern Lebanon and killed four Hezbollah members, the Lebanese armed group responded by opening fire on Israeli military sites and surveillance equipment on October 9. That same day, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared a “complete siege” on Gaza and that “ we are fighting against human animals” to justify blocking all food, water, and electricity from entering the territory.

Read more

Understanding the gravity of what had just happened, Hezbollah’s secretary general, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, understood that they were going to have to play a supporting role for the Palestinian armed groups in Gaza. However, the group did not want to drag Lebanon into a comprehensive war and repeatedly stressed this point. The one pledge that Nasrallah made was “Hamas will win,” offering no other red lines.

From October 8, 2023 to September 20, 2024, Israel was responsible for around 81% of all attacks between both sides, killing 752 people in Lebanon, while Hezbollah’s attacks killed 33 Israelis. The last time a war was fought between Lebanon and Israel was in 2006, which began when Hezbollah conducted a raid and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. This war was well planned by Hezbollah and resulted in a victory for the group, as Israeli forces retreated from Lebanese territory.

What made Hezbollah the first Arab force to claim a real victory over Israel in 2006 was down to the absolute power imbalance, in which a stalemate combined with tactical victories and a well executed plan made it a defeat of the Israeli military. After this, while Israeli forces committed thousands of violations of Lebanese sovereignty – by land, sea, and air – occasionally assassinating Hezbollah fighters in Syria that caused some brief border skirmishes, the two sides veered away from all-out war.

In 2019, however, the Israelis began working on a new security fence/wall along the Lebanese border, which cut into and annexed land clearly demarcated to be on Lebanon’s side of what is known as the Blue Line. In 2023, the most significant land grab was of the northern Ghajjar village, which was cut off from Lebanon and opened for Israelis to visit. In addition, Israeli forces repeatedly entered Lebanon in order to clear land between the fence and Lebanese farm lands, resulting in repeated standoffs.

During the period from 2006 to 2023, Israel had been working at infiltrating Hezbollah and spying on the political party, while the Lebanese group significantly strengthened its military power. This is of great significance to the conflict that has taken place over the past 16 months, because Hezbollah in 2006 was somewhat comparable in power to Hamas at the start of the war in October 2023.

Hezbollah was also born out of the conflict between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, when the Israelis launched their invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The Israelis killed around 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese in that war, which ended with a ceasefire due to the PLO’s surrender and acceptance of deportation to Tunisia.

Read more

Yet, after the PLO’s fighters and leadership left, Israel did not leave Lebanese territory and instead occupied the south of the country, while deploying its allied militias, including the Phalange Party, to massacre thousands of civilians in and around the Palestinian refugee camps. The lesson learned here for all future movements that would emerge to fight Israel, was that you never surrender your weapons; hence the Hamas slogan ‘victory or martyrdom’. The single biggest achievement that Hezbollah recorded in its history was forcing Israel to withdraw from Lebanese lands and give up on their occupation.

Why war is inevitable

It is clear that the war between Lebanon and Israel, which lasted nearly two months, was not one that Hezbollah was prepared for. Even after Israel’s booby-trapped pager attacks, which injured thousands across Lebanon, including many civilians, the Lebanese group still sought to fight a limited battle, as evidenced by the speech given by Nasrallah at the time. However, Israel did not stop there and decided to kill most of Hezbollah’s senior leadership, including Nasrallah, making a war unavoidable.

As early as October 8, 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was threatening Lebanon with the kind of destruction wrought on Gaza. While the assault that the Israelis launched was certainly devastating to the civilian population, killing nearly 2,000 people, it was clear that it had not decided to launch a Gaza-style attack. Meanwhile, Hezbollah began using heavier missiles from its vast arsenal, but was tame in its approach and was careful to make much of its strikes symbolic or aimed at military facilities. This had nothing to do with what either side may have liked to do, but there was strategic constraint, which appeared to be deteriorating into the final week prior to the ceasefire.

By late November, Israel had failed to make meaningful advances on the ground in southern Lebanon and did not achieve its objective of reaching the Litani River area. Meanwhile, Hezbollah was not capable of equaling the level of destruction that Israel was committing against Lebanese cities using their missile strategy, it was also fighting essentially blindfolded and standing on one leg after the blows it suffered. Both sides realized that the inevitable result would be a stalemate, so in order to stop further devastation, a ceasefire was reached.

After suffering a major disruption to its supply line through Syria, the loss of its leadership and many commanders, also battling to solve the issues of infiltration, Hezbollah was severely wounded, but not destroyed. While the Israeli tactical victories have now shifted the propaganda war to make Hezbollah appear to be on its last legs, it is far from done. In fact, it still maintains a formidable ground force of around 100,000 fighters, a domestic weapons production capacity, and an abundance of ammunition, which the Israeli military understands well.

Read more

The loss of Nasrallah is not a small thing and still lingers in the minds of each and every supporter inside the country, many of whom still yearn for revenge after what was just committed against their nation. Israel proved incapable of beating Hamas after 15 months of all-out devastation, committing one of the worst atrocities since the Second World War. Hezbollah is still a much more capable fighting force than Hamas, yet there are a number of constraints on it due to the domestic political/economic/social situation inside Lebanon.

If Israel chooses to stay inside Lebanese territory, for whatever reason, it will only be a matter of time before action is taken. The next round will also likely be much more bloody, and the death toll will make the conflict last year seem relatively insignificant in comparison. This may not happen in the immediate future and could even take over a year, but the conflict is far from over and that is because there isn’t really a ceasefire in effect as of now.

On November 27, Israel made a point of not only violating it from the first moments and later advancing further into southern Lebanon, it committed hundreds of violations of the ceasefire. Israel has made it very clear that the new reality is that it has full freedom of action and can remain inside pockets of southern Lebanon for as long as it chooses. Therefore, there will have to be a war to ensure that a real ceasefire is reached and Lebanese territory will not be open season for the Israeli military to bomb, shoot at, and kidnap civilians.

Netanyahu is now bragging about changing the map of the surrounding region, while his new army chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, recently declared “ 2025 will continue to be a year of combat.” Israel is acting aggressively, expanding its borders, and does not appear to be backing down from its warmongering with Iran, which will lead to even greater chaos. Hezbollah will have to carefully navigate Lebanon’s domestic terrain and when it acts, implement a well oiled plan if it chooses to retaliate against Israel’s daily assaults on its country. All of the signs point to a dangerous escalation brewing.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The bloc’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas cheers on the Baltic states’ newfound dependence on the US

It’s a big day for the EU, says the bloc’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas. All because three former Soviet states – Latvia, Lithuania, and her home country, Estonia, where she previously served as prime minister – have just swapped out their historically reliable Russian electricity entirely for a system regulated by the folks in Brussels, whose recent energy security strategies have included imploring citizens to dress in sweaters, like turtles, and to consider group showers.

“Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia will permanently disconnect from Russia’s power grid tomorrow,” Kallas wrote on social media on February 7th. ”Russia can no longer use energy as a tool of blackmail. This is a victory for freedom and European unity.”

Yeah, Western Europeans are united, alright. On the fact that the EU has triggered an energy crisis that’s heavily contributed to voters across the bloc turning against establishment parties in recent national elections. The skyrocketing cost of living, largely attributed to a lack of affordable energy, was even cited by the EU’s own Eurobarometer report last year as a motivating factor for 42% of Europeans in last summer’s EU parliamentary elections. Those elections saw the arrival in Brussels of “more MEPs on the far-right benches than before,” Le Monde wrote, characterizing the rise of anti-establishment populism, notably on the right.

While loudly shunning cheap Russian energy, the EU has nonetheless been importing record levels of it, in the form of LNG, at several times the price. Russian oil being shipped to the EU has surged by putting on a fake mustache and arriving on European shores from Türkiye, India, and China, with Foreign Policy magazine underscoring just last month that Europe “somehow still depends on Russian energy.” The end result is essentially a virtue tax that gets passed on to the consumer. All this to impress the EU’s girlfriend, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, whose country was raking in about a billion dollars a year just for him kicking his feet up and watching Russian gas flow across Ukraine to the EU. Easiest job in the world, right? With the added bonus of pocketing cash from Russia that it can’t spend on the battlefield, according to typical EU logic. But Ukraine and the EU colluded to even put an end to that, creating an even bigger financial sinkhole for themselves to fill. Brilliant.

The EU has also become heavily dependent on the US – now to the benefit of President Donald Trump’s agenda. Which hopefully Brussels loves, because it has already set itself up to finance it as a result of its overdependence on the US as a means of sticking it to Putin.

Read more

Trump has made it clear that he views the EU’s lack of sufficient dependence on the US as some form of abuse – of the US. “I told the European Union that they must make up their tremendous deficit with the United States by the large scale purchase of our oil and gas. Otherwise, it is TARIFFS all the way,” Trump wrote last December on social media.

What a mess. How did it all go so wrong?

Let’s rewind the tape.

“When you turn off the water, say ‘Take that, Putin!’” said former EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager back in 2022 at the onset of the Ukraine conflict. With sophisticated thinking like weaponizing faucets, it’s hard to believe that their fantasyland reality hasn’t materialized.

But hey, let’s keep the ball rolling and make sure that the Baltic countries, who’ve been happily double-dipping from both the EU and Russian electricity networks, can finally join the rest of the EU in being fully stranded up the creek. Paddle sold separately. Probably by Trump’s America. At several times the price.

Perhaps Kallas could point to exactly where on the map Russia supposedly touched the EU unwantedly by blackmailing it with electricity? Because if that were really the case, it’s pretty weird how the officials of these countries, like Kallas, have felt completely free to badmouth Russia non-stop, like someone trash-talking their “toxic ex,” all while still freely using their Netflix password. Or like customers who leave scathing Yelp and Google reviews online, but still show up every morning like, “Hey, same table?”

The reality is that these Baltic countries have been planning for years to ditch the old Soviet Union’s power network for the EU’s, but their new guy, Brussels, apparently just didn’t quite have enough cash to make them part of his harem, with Brussels being the biggest single financial contributor for cross-border infrastructure projects like this.

Read more

So in the meantime, these countries were perfectly happy to keep plugging into Russia’s power supply. But the moment they could finally afford to leave, making the leap from one sugar daddy to another, they apparently felt compelled to rewrite the whole story like someone who was escaping a “toxic relationship” – conveniently forgetting all those years they benefited from Russia’s electrical largesse.

But this kind of rhetoric from the EU – masking a rather different, contradictory reality – is classic Kaja Kallas. She’s been one of the loudest voices pushing to skim the interest off Russian state assets in the EU to fund Ukraine – basically making Russia pay for the EU’s side of the conflict too, like it’s the bloc’s personal ATM. She’d prefer to go even further and just hand over the frozen Russian assets in their entirety to Kiev, like they’re gift baskets. Bought with a stolen credit card. Clearly Russia’s, in this case.

Last year around this time, Russia put Kallas on a wanted list, citing falsification of history for leading the charge to tear down Soviet-era Second World War monuments while she was Estonian prime minister – statues commemorating a time when the Soviets were allied with the West against the Nazis. But that kneejerk Russophobia didn’t get in the way of her family cashing in after the start of the Ukraine conflict when, about a year and a half in, reports came out about her husband’s transportation company, Stark Logistics, enjoying business relations with Russia when everyone else was being pressured to bail out of the Russian market – by folks like his wife.

Since Arvo Hallik got busted, he had to offload his 25% stake in the company. If he’d been able to keep flying under the radar, he could still be raking in cash right now, all while his wife performs her “screw Russia” routine.

No matter how much Kallas and the EU preach European unity and freedom, their actions typically just end up being a masterclass in self-sabotage. One that Europeans didn’t sign up for but are forced to endure. All while Russia just sits there watching the crashes like it’s an endless Formula One race, with the dumbest, most reckless drivers imaginable.

Медиа: image / jpeg

It’s fun to watch “independent” media and NGOs get outed, but Washington will always find ways to manipulate others

The catastrophe of the Ukraine War will leave a long trail of painful questions. Because this hubristic proxy confict has become such a pie-in-the-face fiasco for the West, there will be plenty of resistance to honest answers for a very long time.

But facts undermining self-serving Western narratives have started emerging already during the war. Most recently, revelations about the activities of USAID have delivered another hard blow to Western – and official Ukrainian – deception and self-deception.

But before we get to USAID, let’s note that those are not the first embarrassing disclosures with regard to the West’s harebrained and bloody attempt to use Ukraine to demolish Russia. Those with eyes to see have long known, for instance, that large-scale war would have been avoided if the West and Kiev had not deliberately sabotaged the 2015 Minsk-2 agreement, a short but viable blueprint to end a still comparatively small conflict, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Or if the West had not brushed Moscow off when it sent what was, in effect, a clear last warning in late 2021.

Then there was a very early opportunity to stop the war, namely the almost-peace of the Belarus and Istanbul talks in spring 2022. Kiev, shocked by the reality of escalation, was ready to take this exit ramp. The conditions offered by Russia and the concessions it made during the negotiations – above all ending its advance on Kiev – amounted to a good deal for Ukraine, as one of Ukraine’s key negotiators has since admitted. And yet the West chose more war, and an obedient Vladimir Zelensky followed its lead. That failure, too, has long been denied but has to be acknowledged now under the weight of the evidence.

Last but not least, the ongoing, absurd Western lying about the Nord Stream pipeline attacks – the largest ecoterrorist assault in European history and an act of barely-covert war among NATO allies – is not even amusing anymore. All that’s left of that big lie is a reverse IQ test, sorting the indoctrinated dim from the normally intelligent.

And now, USAID and Ukraine. There, the gist of the matter is that the Trumpists are now purging and (probably) recasting that agency in what is a mean fight among US establishment insiders. Don’t be too optimistic: Despite American leader Donald Trump’s and henchman-in-chief Elon Musk’s loud noises about USAID being a “criminal organization” that is “run by a bunch of radical lunatics,” the Washington “swamp” is not being drained; it’s just changing management.

Read more

However, as a side effect, details of some of USAID’s very seedy activities are coming to light. Not that we have not known before that this “humanitarian aid” and “development agency” – founded in 1961 at the height of John F. Kennedy’s “liberal” drive to escalate the US struggle against genuine decolonization in the Global South – has always served as a front for intelligence and in particular for the type of massive subversion that precedes and produces coups, regime change, and “color revolutions.”

Indeed, the more honest defenders of USAID have always admitted – really, boasted of – the fact that it has been a tool of strategy in the geopolitical sense of the term. Even the presidential executive order that initiated the Trump administration’s drive against foreign aid in general has now admitted that the latter serves “ to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”

Indeed, USAID’s last, Biden-administration head Samantha Power – a comically disingenuous regime change careerist and “genocide expert” who can recognize that crime anywhere as long as she’s paid or promoted, just not in US allies such as Israel – is a perfect embodiment of USAID’s rotten top and core.

Don’t get me wrong: It would be silly not to recognize that USAID has also provided some real assistance, even if never – yes, really never – without political strings attached. Hence, if you think of “aid” as something given exclusively or even mainly out of compassion, then it’s a misnomer here, as USAID critic Mike Benz has rightly pointed out.

In any case, before being gutted, USAID had an annual budget somewhere between 30 and 40 billion dollars and around 10,000 employees, including 6,000 outside the US. In fiscal year 2023, the agency was active in 130 countries (there are about 200 total). And its activities did include things such as food assistance, health services, and disaster relief in countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan, and Yemen.

Let’s also be fair to those USAID staff and grant recipients – American or not – who have genuinely helped in valuable ways and out of sincere good will, often under harsh as well as dangerous conditions. In the world as it really is, many must make deals with the devil: it is not their fault that their organization has always worked as a front for political influence and subversion as well. Indeed, it is a bitter irony that those who really needed what was actually useful about USAID assistance and those distributing it are now being punished together with those who befouled all of it with their vile as well as rather ham-fisted subversion games. Samantha Power, for one, will, obviously, have the softest of landings, in a bespoke think-tank, Ivy League university, “consulting” job (i.e., influence peddling), or media sinecure.

One simple indicator of just how corrupt USAID has been is that, recently, the very top recipient of its aid has been, as it happens, Ukraine: in 2023, for instance, its hand-out of more than $16 billion left runner-up Ethiopia in the dust with less than $1.7 billion, that is about a tenth of Kiev’s allotment. So much for helping the neediest the most.

But serving as just one more funnel to pump endless gazillions into the always wide-open maw of the insatiable and highly demanding Zelensky regime was only one, if you wish, ordinary aspect of USAID’s special role in Ukraine.

This is where we return to those pesky revelations about the war: It turns out that USAID has also proactively and systematically helped to suffocate any hope for peace. And not in just one but two ways.

Read more

First, we now learn that almost the entire Ukrainian media sphere – 90 percent of news organizations – depended on USAID funding. Indeed, Olga Rudenko, editor-in-chief of the Kyiv Independent (the irony…), a staunchly info-warring publication, fears that losing access to the USAID trough “has caused harm to independent Ukrainian journalism on par with the COVID-19 pandemic and the onset of Russia’s full-scale war.” Hear, hear.

More generally, a recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review is worrying that losing USAID money will threaten “independent” journalism worldwide. No wonder, as USAID itself has proudly claimed that the US government “ is now the largest public donor to independent media development globally.”

But any talk of “independence” here is, just like Rudenko’s complaint, obvious Orwellian-grade propaganda: Journalism that literally depends for its very existence on funding from an organization serving as a front for the foreign interests of the single most powerful and aggressive country in the world may be anything, but it cannot be – by definition – independent. You may, if that’s your thing, politically sympathize with such journalism or argue that you feel it is still, on balance, useful, if you wish, but please cut out the absurdity.

In practice, Ukraine is a perfect illustration of how such media dependency-across-borders can easily end in catastrophe: Anyone who knows Ukrainian well enough – as I do – can have a look for themselves. What they will find is a Potemkin village of pseudo-diversity, at best, with very few and embattled exceptions. In reality, the Ukrainian public sphere has been massively manipulated by a monotonous diet of pseudo-”patriotic” messaging. The single most urgent question concerning Ukraine’s own national interests, however, has been systematically maligned and made taboo: namely, if serving as proxy war cannon fodder for the West has been worth it.

The second manner in which USAID has promoted this devastating war was, if anything, even worse, in the sense of more drastic and hands-on: It’s now almost forgotten, but when Ukraine’s current past-best-by-date leader Vladimir Zelensky actually did face and win an election in 2019, his single concrete – and sensible – promise was to seek peace through negotiations.

Clearly, at the time, that promise was a major factor in his unprecedented landslide victory. Once in office, for a very short moment, it seemed as if Zelensky was trying to keep that promise. But then – years before the 2022 escalation – he made a 180-degree turn and emerged as an uncompromising and shortsighted nationalist and a tool of the US – if a very expensive and occasionally capricious one. It is likely that he will soon be discarded, as tools can be. But the damage he has already done to his country is enormous.

Many observers have long been puzzled by early Zelensky’s terrible turn. Was it fear of the powerful and aggressive Ukrainian far-right? Was it a misconceived play for even more popularity? Was it money? Was it Western pressure? We still don’t know the whole story, but we do know one important new thing: a wave of “popular” resistance “from below” and by “civil society” against Zelensky’s initial attempts to look for peace was not genuine. Instead, it had massive Western backing, including from USAID.

Read more

In particular, the organization was one of the key sponsors of a “ joint statement” which presented a concerted threat to Zelensky in 2019, that is, almost immediately after he assumed office. On the surface the product of 70 Ukrainian NGOs, this was, in reality, a massive affront to democracy and the rule of law: Its sole purpose was to unconstitutionally constrain the newly elected president with so-called “red lines” and, in particular, nullify what so many of his voters wanted, namely an honest search for peace. None of this means that Zelensky is innocent. On the contrary, it was his duty and, literally, his job to resist such shameless pressure tactics and their foreign backers and stand up for his voters and the country as a whole. His failure to do so is his and will remain so forever.

Those NGOs were supported not only by USAID, but also by the National Endowment for Democracy, another US subversion front, the US embassy, and NATO, to name only a few. Whatever else the so-called Ukrainian “diaspora” (that is organized Ukrainian exile nationalist organizations rooted in World War Two fascist nationalism) was up to, it also took part in that big arm-twisting: the Temerty Foundation, a key “diaspora” power broker, also figured among those NGO supporters.

Here is the sad irony: Ukraine has never been “free” and it has never had a “civil society” of its own. Instead, it has been used and manipulated by false “friends” from the West and a comprador “elite” that has put Western interests above those of their own compatriots. Together, they have openly and covertly colonized Ukraine’s public sphere and fed its people into a meatgrinder proxy war that is being lost as we speak. Soon, the West will sell out what is left of Ukraine entirely. None of this is unprecedented: It is a classic pattern of imperialist abuse. All those smart Westerners who have tried to apply “post-colonial” categories to the case of Ukraine: Go ahead – but look at yourself. You are the baddies.

In any case, don’t mistake the purge of USAID for some kind of principal improvement. It is true that some – rest assured: very selective – light is now thrown on its seedy, subversive activities. That’s a plus, for now. And yes, it’s fun to see Centrists and liberals exposed. Schadenfreude can be legitimate.

Of course, none of the above means that Washington intends to generally abandon foul play. On the contrary, under new Trumpist management, the US will remain as mean as ever. There will always be money for subversion, sabotage, disinformation campaigns, regime change, and coups. It will just flow through different channels, and the LGBTQ+ and DEI angles will be dropped. News flash: The US did not need those to coup Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and have Chile regime-changed and its president Salvador Allende murdered in 1973, for instance.

Even the good old USAID is down but not dead: Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s extraordinarily obedient secretary of state, has already announced that its work just has to be aligned with American foreign policy. How funny: As if it had not.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The much-maligned ideology is not “radical” or “left-wing” – it’s a tool of elitist control

In a recent post, right-wing social commentator and former academic Matt Goodwin announced that he had “just exposed how the British Psychological Society (BPS) had been captured by 'anti-racist racists'.”

This post is the latest in a series in which Goodwin reveals that various institutions in the UK (including the BBC and the NHS) had been “fully captured by radical if not extreme ideologies.”

One might nitpick over the term “radical” – but if Goodwin is saying that most powerful institutions in Britain are dominated by woke postmodern ideologies, one can readily agree with him.

Goodwin’s latest post – by citing numerous telling passages from BPS publications – shows beyond a doubt that the BPS has adopted wholesale the postmodern ideology known as “critical race theory.”

Goodwin appears shocked by his discovery – but it should not surprise anyone interested in the development of the ideology of critical race theory over the past five decades to find that a professional institution like the BPS has been infected by it.

The march of various postmodern ideologies through universities and other institutions in the West commenced in the late 1960s in the United States, and has intensified exponentially since then – and the literature analyzing this phenomenon (both academic and popular) is vast.

It would have been more surprising if Goodwin had discovered that the BPS did not embrace and promulgate critical race theory.

Read more

But Goodwin’s apparent naivety does not end there. Instead of engaging in a critical analysis of the phenomenon that he has discovered, he remains content to draw the trite conclusion that critical race theory is “racist” and that those who adhere to it are “racists” – without, however, defining either term.

In arguing in this way, Goodwin has adopted precisely the same mode of intellectual disputation practiced by those postmodern ideologues that he (correctly) criticizes and condemns. Goodwin himself has no doubt been branded a “racist” by these very same woke intellectuals.

Goodwin, just like his intellectual opponents, is satisfied with having reached this purely judgmental conclusion, which allows him to morally condemn the purveyors and adherents of critical race theory.

Goodwin seems not to realize that this form of ad hominem moral censure is precisely the same as that engaged in ad nauseam by those supposedly “radical ideologues” that Goodwin has spent the best part of his career denouncing.

One must also point out a further error in his analysis that renders his conclusions perfunctory at best – like many right-wing critics of Western societies, he wrongly believes that postmodern ideologies (like critical race theory) are “radical” or “left-wing” ideologies.

This, of course, is not the case.

These ideologies – and they include catastrophic climate change, diversity politics, #MeToo feminism and transgender rights, as well as critical race theory – are, in fact, deeply conservative, especially in their economic and political effects.

These ideologies emerged in the 1970s and have since come to prevail in most Western societies – although they are now coming under increased attack from populist political movements. They constitute the ideological means whereby the newly emerged global elites – who now effectively rule most Western nations – maintain their economic and cultural dominance.

To see these ideologies as “radical” of “left-wing” – in the sense that they are adhered to by groups within society that seek to fundamentally challenge the existing economic order – is to completely misunderstand them.

In fact, once any of these ideologies is adopted, it is absolutely impossible to make a genuinely radical critique (in the traditional left-wing sense) of any aspect of contemporary Western societies.

Even a cursory glance at those groups within society that fervently embrace these ideologies – including academia, large corporations, the judiciary, the public service and the majority of centrist politicians – proves conclusively their deep conservative import.

Can it seriously be suggested that any of these groups want to radically disrupt the current global economic order that each of them so blatantly and avariciously benefits from financially and status-wise?

Goodwin’s own analysis of the elite coalition of interest groups that opposed Brexit tooth and nail makes it clear that the Remainer movement sought to preserve the existing global economic order, rather than overturn it.

Read more

It is true, in a cultural sense, that postmodern ideologies appear to be “radical.”

But that is only because they are opposed to and seek to displace those ideologies adhered to by the previous ruling class (in this case the nineteenth and early twentieth century bourgeoisie) that the new global order has progressively replaced economically.

Let’s get back to Goodwin’s analysis. He correctly points out that critical race theory is intellectually incoherent, ahistorical and completely indefensible on rational grounds – as are virtually all postmodernist ideologies. He also, correctly, draws attention to its neo-totalitarian tendencies.

But he doesn’t ask why this is so, or how such a patently irrational ideology could gain dominance within those very institutions – the universities and professional bodies like the BPS – that, up until the 1970s, had been home to precisely those nineteenth century bourgeoisie ideologies that Goodwin nostalgically wishes to resurrect.

Goodwin’s description of the pernicious effects of critical race theory on the psychological profession is admirable. After reading the passages extracted from the BPS publications set out in his post, one can only ask how the practice of psychology can proceed in any meaningful fashion at all within the ideological straightjacket of an intellectually barren doctrine like critical race theory.

Goodwin naively believes that moral condemnation – “the BPS has completely lost its way” – and exhortation will be sufficient to drive out critical race theory from the ivy covered halls of the BPS. Thus he urges “the elite class… to put objective knowledge, truth and reason before all this ideological dogma and racism.”

Not only is this philosophically unsophisticated – but to think that such dominant irrational ideologies, once institutionalized, can be displaced by rational argument and/or moral exhortation is simply foolish.

Not only will the “elite class” that controls the BPS treat Goodwin’s critique with contempt – he will be lucky if they don’t seek to “cancel” him.

Goodwin also ignores the comprehensive critiques of modern psychology (before it was infected by postmodern ideologies like critical race theory) made by historians like Christopher Lasch and others from the 1980s onwards.

Modern psychology had become intellectually and morally debauched long before it was infected by critical race theory. Resurrecting an already moribund and compromised profession is hardly a viable solution to the problem that Goodwin has highlighted.

Goodwin also fails to appreciate that the only way that postmodern ideologies can be eradicated is through an extraordinary effort of political will.

Read more

Mainstream political parties in the West – whether conservative or social democratic – are, however, incapable of even contemplating such a project, so wedded are they themselves to these very ideologies and the elite economic interests that they protect.

Interestingly, however, Donald Trump has recently launched such an eradication program with respect to the affirmative action, DEI and transgender rights ideologies within the US public service, military and other US institutions.

But so dominant are these ideologies – precisely because they are the ideologies of the contemporary ruling class – that it remains an open question as to whether Trump will succeed in banishing them from the institutions that they have so thoroughly infected.

In drawing attention to the dominance of critical race theory within the BPS, Goodwin has highlighted a serious problem – but the limitations of his world-view prevent him from putting forward a cogent analysis of the topic.

A comprehensive analysis of the deleterious effect of critical race theory on the practice of psychology in the UK remains to be written.

So, too, does a more wide-ranging critique of critical race theory itself.

Медиа: image / jpeg

As China advances its air capabilities, New Delhi faces tough choices buying advanced warplanes while pushing for indigenous solutions

With China having recently unveiled two new sixth-generation fighter jets, India's neighbor Pakistan has put the “cat-among-the-pigeons” by announcing plans to acquire 40 of Beijing’s J-35 stealth warplanes. This marks the first time China has agreed to export fifth-generation jets to a foreign ally. It could mean induction (seamless integration into an existing air force) by around 2029, which will change the entire air dominance dynamics in the sub-continent.

India’s fifth-generation, multirole Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) received prototype approval from the country's Cabinet Committee on Security in March 2024 with an 11-year timeframe. Realistically – it may take more time. Sparing a heated debate in New Delhi: what are India’s immediate plans and options vis-a-vis two of its neighbours?

Next week, Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 ‘Felon’ stealth fighter will make a debut at India’s largest defence show, Aero India 2025, in Bangalore. This comes just months after the Su-57's international debut at the airshow in Zhuhai, China. Indian media has already begun speculating about “a shift in India’s defense strategy.” But the interest goes well beyond media rumours. The Americans had brought their F-35A for the first time to Aero India 2023.

What is 5th Gen Fighter anyway?

Starting with the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor, fifth-generation fighters were designed from the start to operate in a network-centric combat environment, and to feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques. The active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars with high-bandwidth lower the probability of intercept, Infrared search and track (IRST), and other sensors are fused for Situational Awareness (SA) and to constantly track all targets of interest around the aircraft’s 360 degree bubble. In addition to its high resistance to electronic warfare, they can also function as a “mini-AWACS” (Airborne early warning and control system).

Fifth generation fighters boast integrated electronic warfare and communications systems, navigation, and identification, centralized ‘vehicle health monitoring’, fibre-optic data-transmission, and stealth modes. Manoeuvrability is enhanced by thrust-vectoring. Super-cruise is inbuilt.

Signature-reduction techniques include special shaping approaches, thermoplastic materials, extensive structural use of advanced composites, conformal sensors and weapons, heat-resistant coatings, low-observable wire meshes to cover intake and cooling vents, heat ablating tiles on the exhaust troughs and coating internal and external metal areas with radar-absorbent materials and paints.

These aircraft are not a joke, especially when it comes to cost.

US, China and Russia's fighter compared

The US has two fifth-generation fighters built around 190 Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor aircraft, which began inducting in 2005. Three variants of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs are in service since 2015 with over 1,000 of them built. The aircraft is already being operated by eleven countries and nine more have ordered. The US itself has announced plans to buy nearly 2450 of the aircraft.

Read more

As of July 2024, the average flyaway cost of an F-35A is reportedly $82.5 million. The production rate currently is around 135 F-35 variants a year.

China’s J-20 was unveiled in 2011, and over 300 have been built to date. China’s second fifth-generation J-35A fighter (the F-35 look-alike) was showcased when it flew during the Zhuhai airshow in November 2024.

The Russian Sukhoi Su-57 ‘Felon’ evolved from the Indo-Russian project to build a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), a contract for which was signed in October 2007. The FGFA itself had evolved from Russia’s fifth-generation Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA) fighter jet.

By 2014, however, India began voicing concerns over the jet’s performance, project’s cost, and work-share. New Delhi eventually left the partnership in 2018, while Sukhoi continued to develop and promote the Su-57 for prospective export customers. The export variant, designated Su-57E, was officially unveiled at Moscow’s MAKS-2019 airshow in 2019.

The Su-57 made its maiden flight in its original design in January 2010, with the first operational unit established in 2021. This multi-role fighter boasts advanced air-to-air and ground-attack capabilities. It was first deployed in combat during the Syrian campaign in 2018 and has since played a significant role in the conflict in Ukraine.

To date, approximately 42 Su-57s have been produced. Meanwhile, the Sukhoi Su-75 “Checkmate,” also known as the Light Tactical Aircraft (LTA), is a smaller, single-engine stealth fighter currently in development, with induction planned around 2027.

Su-57 a Very Capable Fighter

The West acknowledges that the Su-57 is a highly manoeuvrable fighter, like most others from the Sukhoi fighter stable. The 360-degree thrust vectoring allows for aerodynamics that defy combat manoeuvres.

Read more

The Su-57’s ‘Integrated Modular Avionics Combat Systems’, use fibre optic channels. It consists of the main nose-mounted ‘N036-1-01’ X band AESA radar and two side-looking ‘N036B-1-01’ X-band AESA radars embedded in the cheeks of the forward fuselage for increased angular coverage. It also has an L-band array on leading edges.

The aircraft has an electro-optical system that includes IRST, directional infrared counter measures (DIRCM), ultraviolet missile approach warning sensors (MAWS), a thermal imager for low altitude flight and landing, and a navigation and targeting pod.

It is capable of deploying countermeasures such as flares and radar decoys, as well as single-use programmable ECM transmitters. The Su-57 would also serve as a test-bed for advanced AI and man-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) technologies.

Russia is continuously integrating new weapons with the aircraft. Several new air-to-surface weapons have evolved based on combat experience in Ukraine. As part of the MUM-T, the Su-57 will be able to launch and/or control the S-71M “Monochrome” combat UAV for deep penetration attacks.

Work is also on to integrate the Okhotnik UCAV as ‘loyal wingman’ for uncrewed teaming. A carrier-based variant of the aircraft is also under development. A ‘swarm’ teaming experiment had been conducted with a group of Su-35s and a Su-57 acting as a command and control aircraft.

All new production Su-57 fighters transferred to the Russian air force would feature second-stage AL-51 engines. Unlike its AL-41F1 predecessor, the engine has glass-fibre plastic IGVs and convergent-divergent nozzles that use serrated flaps to reduce its signature as well as 6.4% better specific thrust, 19% higher thrust-to-weight ratio, and 9 % lower specific fuel consumption. The new engines allow the plane to reach a maximum speed of 2,600 km/h.

The Su-57 can carry four beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles (R-37M) in its two main internal weapons bays and two short-range missiles (upgraded R-74) in the side bays. It can also carry bombs and surface-attack missiles in the main bay. For missions that do not require stealth, the Su-57 can carry stores on its six external hard-points which could include the hypersonic Kh-47M2 Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile.

Reasonable Price, Exceptional performance

The Su-57’s flyaway cost is reportedly around $35 million per aircraft. If true, it makes the Su-57 nearly half the price of the Chinese J-20, and even cheaper again than the much smaller single-engine American F-35. Moscow suggests that the Su-57’s lifecycle costs are comparable to those of the Su-27, Su-30, and Su-35, which it was designed to replace.

Su-57, the most advanced front-line aircraft in Russia is produced at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant in the Russian Far East. The pilots and engineers are reportedly happy with the aircraft performance.

More Su-57s are at various stages of production. Russian industry delivered 6 in 2022, 12 in 2023 and 20 aircraft in 2024, a substantial increase.

READ MORE: This strategic move can help both India and Russia resist Western pressure. Will New Delhi act?

Western defense analysts have noted that the development and production of the Su-57 have faced delays due to several factors, including the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and subsequent Western sanctions that have restricted access to critical microelectronic components used in major sensors and cockpit displays.

But Russia seems to have sorted out most technology development issues and supply-chain bottlenecks. Meanwhile, the Sukhoi Design Bureau is continuously working on improving and expanding the aircraft functionality, and also building infrastructure for further expanding production. The planned orders will be more than met in time and additional orders are expected.

In June 2019, the Russian Ministry of Defence signed a contract for the production of 76 Su-57 aircraft. According to the plan, three full aviation regiments of Su-57 fighters are expected to be operational by 2028. Meanwhile, the Russian government has announced that order numbers are increasing and that the production rate for the Su-57 will double in 2025. The target is to deliver over 20 Su-57s this year. If production ramps up, could the Su-57 become an attractive option for India?

India’s AMCA

India’s fifth-generation AMCA will be a stealth, multirole, single-seat, twin-engine, air superiority fighter for ground-strike and Suppression of Enemy Air Defences and Electronic Warfare missions. Designed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), it will be built by a public-private joint venture between ADA, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), and an Indian private company.

Read more

The initial development cost is estimated to be around 150 billion rupees (around $2 billion). In March 2024, the project received approval from India’s Cabinet Committee on Security for prototype development and mass production expected to begin by 2035.

The development of AMCA will take place in two phases, AMCA Mk-1 and AMCA Mk-2. The AMCA Mk-2 will focus more on stealth, electronic warfare, and a futuristic pilot-AI interface. It will boast directed-energy weapons (DEWs) and thrust-vectored engines with serrated nozzles. It will also incorporate sixth generation technologies. The aircraft will one day replace the Sukhoi Su-30MKI deployed in the Indian Air Force.

The AMCA successfully completed its systems-level critical design review in 2022, and metal cutting has already commenced. The DRDO aims to roll out the first prototype by 2027, with the inaugural flight scheduled for 2029. The initial three prototypes will conduct developmental flight trials, while the subsequent two will focus on weapon trials, with prototypes being rolled out at intervals of 8 to 9 months. Mass production of the aircraft is slated to begin by 2035, and the Indian Air Force plans to procure at least 125 AMCAs in both Mk-1 and Mk-2 configurations..

Interim 5th Gen Fighter for India?

India faces significant threats from two powerful nuclear-armed adversaries and neighbors - China and Pakistan. There are serious border disputes with both, and New Delhi has engaged in wars with each. China intends to ramp up its J-20 production to 100 aircraft per year, aiming for a total of 1,000 by 2030, coinciding with the AMCA’s first flight. By 2035, China could have around 1,500 J-20s when India optimistically plans to induct the AMCA.

Pakistan is already talking to China to induct the J-35A by around 2029. A country with a failing economy might have a fifth-generation aircraft earlier than the country that will have the third-largest economy by then. That will be unfortunate for India.

READ MORE: From Buyer to Supplier: India’s military industrial complex is on the rise

There is a school of thought that India may need to acquire an interim imported fifth-generation aircraft, though options are limited. The US is currently unwilling to provide the F-35, having previously denied the aircraft to its NATO ally Turkey over Ankara's acquisition of Russian S-400 air defense system. The S-400 reportedly possesses sensors capable of detecting the F-35’s electronic signature. India, too, acquired the Russian systems.

Additionally, India remains cautious about the US tendency to exert pressure and abandon allies when its own interests diverge with theirs, as well as potential US expectations for India to distance itself from Russia.

The second option is to acquire two squadrons of Su-57 aircraft, which are progressing toward maturity. Although production is slow, it is on the rise. However, the ongoing Ukraine conflict has shifted Russia's industrial focus, potentially impacting availability. Additionally, Western sanctions have created payment complications, exacerbating India’s balance of payments issues due to rising oil imports. Furthermore, the Indian Air Force (IAF) already has 60% of its fleet of Russian origin and therefore is reluctant to increase that basket any more.

Way Ahead for India

As China’s air combat capabilities continue to grow, India must invest more in advanced fighter aircraft to maintain credible deterrence. Undoubtedly, India should prioritize ‘Atmanirbharta’ (indigenization). For India to join the ranks of leading nations, the AMCA must succeed. AMCA requires a “whole of nation” vision and approach. The private partner for the project must be inducted quickly. Spelling out clear end-states, timelines and regular path-line reviews would be important. Sufficient funding must be allocated, and technology should be acquired as needed, alongside increased spending on R&D.

Choosing a reliable partner country that won’t impose undue pressure is crucial; France and Russia are potential candidates. While France lacks its own fifth-generation aircraft, Russia stands as a time-tested strategic ally renowned for its expertise in thrust vectoring aero-engines, from which India can seek support.

A fair “win-win” deal must be established. While India must invest more and take a task-force approach for developing the LCA Mk2 and AMCA, it needs an interim solution to make good numbers and reduce capability gap with China. Options are limited, and acquiring a few Su-57s remains a viable interim choice. Surely India’s security establishment must be contemplating. Time to exercise is now, lest we get left far behind.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The ban on biological men in women’s sports is an actual move to protect women, unlike most of the leftist posturing done to date

It was US President Donald Trump – a man who looked at Playboy founder, Hugh Hefner, and thought, “Now there’s a guy with life figured out” – who somehow became the only person in charge willing to pump the brakes on the surreal spectacle of born males bulldozing women on the rugby field, then waltzing right into the women’s locker room along with them. All while intersectional third-wave feminists are on the sidelines, basically acting like the hype squad… for the “dudes.”

After allowing a dude to smoke all the women in college swim championships, the NCAA American collegiate sports league announced on Thursday that it was suddenly putting an end to the practice, limiting the participation of transsexuals in women’s events to those whose assigned gender at birth was female.

The move came in the wake of Trump’s executive order earlier in the week withdrawing federal funding from institutions that allowed biological males to compete against women. “If you let men take over women’s sports teams or invade your locker rooms, you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding,” Trump said.

Under this Title IX civil rights law, considered a major victory for 60’s and 70s-era second-wave feminist icons like Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and tennis icon and activist Billie Jean King, colleges receiving federal funding couldn’t just have sports teams and scholarships exclusively reserved for men anymore. Sports suddenly became a social elevator and opportunity springboard for young women, too. But all of that was clawed back, mostly to deafening silence from feminists.

How on earth did Donald “grab her by the p***y” Trump end up being the one to reestablish due north on this issue?

Read more

One could argue that it’s feminism itself that has been ideologically corrupted by radical leftism, to the point where even the second-wave feminists – who were considered radical back when they were fighting for women to own property, have their own credit cards, or keep their own name in marriage – now seem almost conservative in comparison to this latest crop.

Feminism didn’t need intersectionality. That is, to get mixed up with causes that detract from the straightforward focus on improving the lives of women. There’s more than enough material to work with already when we still haven’t fully emerged from the turbulent wake of the MeToo movement, which shattered the long-standing omertà that mandated women’s silence about systemic second-class or abusive treatment as the price of fame and fortune in Western media and entertainment.

I was personally once told, despite supposedly being hired for my political acumen at a certain New York-based American cable news outfit, to just sit there and laugh at my co-host’s jokes, deferring to him while crossing and uncrossing my bare legs on camera. The message was clear: You either leave or comply, because if you don’t, then some other ambitious woman with equally decent legs will. And if you’re on the political right, good luck finding any feminists in your corner. Because leftist causes now take precedence over the defense of actual women, particularly if the woman in question doesn’t pass the ideological litmus test.

Rather than fighting the creeping, increasingly institutionalized corruption-driven brand of globalist leftism, today’s feminists have embraced it, confounding their struggle with all sorts of other causes that dilute their original mission. If one wanted to hijack the feminist movement, and render it totally useless in the actual defense of women, it’s hard to imagine a better way of going about it than by confusing it with issues like climate change and gender bending.

Read more

According to the United Nations’ “Feminist Climate Justice Framework for Action,” published in 2023, “economic hardship wrought by a heating planet is having additional knock-on effects for gender equality. Evidence shows that as communities are plunged into recurrent crises, tensions within families and between partners rise and gender-based violence escalates.” Ok, so when it gets hot outside, folks can get testy, and Mr. Hand can be inclined to become Mr. Fist. Do I have that right?

Lemme guess, the solution is just to give governments more of our tax money in an effort to stop the hot weather, right? Of course.

I seriously doubt that a single woman’s life has been spared by laundering tax cash into the elites’ climate change scam. Maybe if people were paying less of their own money into rackets like this, men and women alike would have more freedom to make decisions in their own best interests – including escaping any bad situation, whether that means leaving home or leaving a Spanish summer heatwave for the Edinburgh rain.

The kind of leftist causes that feminists have swallowed like they’re obligatory menu items included in a full meal deal are exactly the sort of issues that are relentlessly backed and promoted by corrupt institutional tools of regime change like USAID, which has funneled cash to NGOs messing around in the domestic affairs other countries, including under the pretext of promoting diversity. So much for sticking it to the patriarchy when you’re actively helping to grease the skids for its regime change efforts. The kind that harm women around the world through displacement, insecurity, and death.

This systemic perversion has been such a detriment to the average woman that when Trump campaigned on the promise to take a wrecking ball to the costly corruption that was keeping the working and middle class impoverished, barefoot and in the kitchen in service of predatory special interests primarily serving the global financial class, he managed to get a higher percentage of the female vote than even Joe Biden did in 2020, despite Trump running against a woman: former Vice-President Kamala Harris. And Trump managed to score this support despite a clear lack of appetite in reclaiming the issue of women’s reproductive freedom from the states, several of which have outlawed abortion outright. Enough women apparently decided in the voting booth that their current lives are impacted by worse problems than just that one issue, which Harris and Biden themselves never promised to do anything about, either, opting instead to punt it to Congress and saying that they’ll sign a law protecting the right to access the procedure, if Congress can ever be bothered to give them one someday.

Read more

The same Democratic officials, hailed by today’s feminists, couldn’t be bothered to stand up for women against men who decided to identify as women – right before taking full advantage of the chance to dominate them on the playing field.

Second wave feminists who have been fighting for women’s equality of opportunity for decades by promoting the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment, inexplicably failed to react, beyond actually cheering, when a key aspect of it that managed to make it into law – Title XI – was undermined. How exactly does allowing men to steal opportunities and financial benefits from women jibe with female advancement?

It doesn’t, and isn't it unfortunate that the lack of interest in addressing this issue, or even the outright support of this undermining of women’s rights, has ultimately resulted in a man unilaterally stepping in to get the job done?

The women who were speaking out against the injustice were typically dismissed as right-wing populists whose politics failed the feminist litmus test. But right-wing populist women can be feminists striving for equality and freedom, too. Such women consider the corrupt establishment status quo to be the primary existential oppressive force preventing social mobility by protecting “elite” special interests, including through the kind of Orwellian manipulations for which far too many leftist feminists have been keen to serve as handmaidens.

Wouldn’t it be just dandy if our sisters on the left could stop doing unpaid internships for the globalist overlords and their radical agenda? Imagine what we could accomplish if we stopped fighting each other for a hot minute and started fighting the actual final boss battle here.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Help your allies destroy a place, then swoop in to rebuild, but first kick out all the locals and annex the land – that seems to be the idea

What could Donald Trump and Bianca Censori possibly have in common?

Trump is the US president and bestie of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man wanted by the International Court of Justice (ICC) “for the war crimes of starvation […] and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” Censori is a – very – visual artist and wife of publicly mentally unstable rapper Kanye West.

And yet both Trump and Censori have made a habit of staging attention-grabbing provocations for so long that they now seem to be running out of extremes in outdoing themselves.

For Censori, after full frontal de facto nudity at the Grammys, there’s really only live intercourse left (she may not know she’s long been beaten to that trick by faded Western “freedom/civil-society” favorite Nadya Tolokonnikova from ancient-history “Pussy Riot”). For Trump, you really have to wonder now: He has just delivered such a double whammy of sheer shock value that it’s hard to imagine him topping it again (and yet he will, of course).

While hosting Netanyahu in Washington – as the first foreign leader officially visiting, no less – Trump has declared that the US wants to annex the Gaza strip, ethnically cleanse its entire Palestinian population (he used different terms, of course, but so did the Nazis, and we do not parrot their euphemisms), and then develop the area into a “riviera” of high-end real estate and businesses.

Read more

Meanwhile, the Palestinian victims of this plan are supposed to be de facto expelled to neighboring countries – except Israel, of course, which is really Palestine (layers…) – such as Jordan and Egypt, both US “allies,” i.e. vassals, notwithstanding their explicit objections. Let’s note in passing that Trump’s “development” plans prove that Gaza can be rebuilt. The issue is not “technical” but political: Trump suggests rebuilding but only after a very violent mass eviction. Call it the real-estate-with-genocidal-oomph business model.

Yet, while Trump’s insane as well as evil – yes, that’s the word – ideas about Gaza’s future have attracted most attention, there are two scandals here: Even receiving Netanyahu is outrageous. And it remains so, even if the entire US “elite” – in truly bipartisan fashion – pretends it is normal, or even something to celebrate.

Meeting the Israeli leader – for anyone anywhere, really – is such a disgrace because Netanyahu is not “only” the object of an ICC warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is also one of the top perpetrators of Israel’s geocide against the Palestinians ( a crime recognized by Amnesty International but that the ICC failed to acknowledge, clearly for political reasons), the leader of Israel’s vicious apartheid regime (as a UN report has long recognized), and a war monger addicted to assaulting neighboring countries via bombing, assassination campaigns, and direct invasions.

Israel is, by far, the worst source of violence and injustice (and thus more violence) in the Middle East. Beyond that region, its relentless settler-colonialist drive to dispossess, ethnically cleanse, and kill Palestinians and its ceaseless aggression toward its neighbors is constantly disrupting global stability.

The second reason American presidents, ideally, should not touch Netanyahu with a barge pole is, of course, exactly why they won’t stop embracing him in sordid reality: money. Israel has run the, by far, most successful foreign influence operation in modern history, even beating those of the US itself. While the whole West has been its target, the American establishment has clearly been the bull’s eye.

Hence, in an ideal world, from which we are very far, Americans would not celebrate Israeli leaders but rebel against them – AIPAC tea party, anyone? – since no other country has ever remotely done so much so successfully to undermine US sovereignty and dismantle what very little democracy has been withering away inside the rusty cage of oligarchy that America really is. None of this is a secret, an “antisemitic” smear, or a “conspiracy theory.” Indeed, the Jerusalem Post, for instance, has boasted of Zionist success in massively influencing US elections as recently as last November.

Read more

It is also well-known that Trump himself is a perfect example of this shameless buying – and being bought – among America’s “elite”: Zionist megadonor Miriam Adelson, for instance, bankrolled this campaign alone with 137 million dollars, making her family one of his top supporters, again. Her support for Israeli expansion and annexations is a matter of record. Since coming to power, and not for the first time, Trump has shown that he will pay his debts. For instance, by sending more 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs to Israel and lifting even the preceding Biden administration’s weak and symbolic sanctions against the ultra-violent settlers in the West Bank, who are in the process of producing their very own pogrom against the local Palestinians.

The US “elite’s” breathtaking, open, traitorous readiness to be corrupted by foreign interests as long as they are Israeli is one obvious reason why, in a sane world, Israeli leaders should find at least all other Americans highly averse.

The other, second scandal about smirking Netanyahu’s visit to Washington is, of course, Trump’s proposal to complete the Israeli campaign of genocidal ethnic cleansing. It makes no difference that Trump pretends not to understand the clear implications of his scheme. Trump’s hypocritical invocation of “humanitarian” intentions to “save” Gaza’s Palestinians from the wasteland that his predecessor Genocide Joe Biden mightily helped the Israelis make is – to say it in plain New York English – for suckers.

The fact is that the US president has publicly announced a plan to engage in an enormous crime under international law, together with Israel. That, in and of itself, is not new. But there are two things about Trump’s current move that make it special.

First, there is the backdrop of mass murderous violence and devastation that Israel has already inflicted since October 2023. Trump himself revealingly keeps referring to “1.7 or 1.8” million Palestinians alive in Gaza now. Yet there is general agreement that before the Israeli genocide campaign, Gaza’s population numbered at least 2.1 to 2.3 million. Clearly, the American president has seen or been told about figures that imply that not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been killed by bombing, snipers, in mass executions, by blockade and starvation, and illnesses, deliberately promoted by the comprehensive destruction of infrastructure. Such an outcome was predicted in the gold-standard medical journal The Lancet back in July 2024.

All of this – plus the long prior history of Israeli violence and in particular the systematic laying waste of Gaza since 2005 – Trump’s US now intends to reward with success. All that strenuous Western rhetoric about never “rewarding the aggressor”? It really seems to mean: Except when the aggressor is also a certifiable Israeli genocider. In the most immediate context, that American signal can only embolden Netanyahu and friends to break the current, fragile ceasefire which they punctuate with constant killings even now.

Read more

That is bad enough. But there is also a wider precedent here: Israel is dependent on American support for its extreme policies of genocide and war. What we are seeing, then, is a perverse tag team game: First the US provides Israel with everything it needs to devastate Gaza, then Israel creates a wasteland, and finally, Washington – “generously” – takes a look and finds that the only way to rebuild said wasteland is by first completing the total dispossession of its Palestinian inhabitants. Think about what a fine recipe that is for the rest of the world: Wreak havoc first, then swoop in to “save” the ruins by annexing them. If we let the US get away with it this time, this time will not be the last time.

That brings us to the one upside to Trump’s brutality: Unlike his predecessor Biden, Trump is not even trying to apply a fig leaf to his imperialism or his complete complicity with Israel. Where the Biden administration accompanied their co-genociding with nauseating hypocrisy, the Trumpists give it to us straight.

Don’t get me wrong: that doesn’t make Trump’s approach morally “better.” If you are still looking for fine distinctions between Trumpist and Democratic viciousness, stop wasting your time. It’s all the same bad old, if increasingly deranged, US establishment. Yet Trump’s frankness has one great advantage: The world needs to finally learn to do the obvious, namely – as they say in International Relations Theory – “balance” against Washington, the most dangerous rogue state on the planet. Trump’s lack of filters should make it easier even for the slowest to finally acknowledge that fact: Multipolarity is good but not enough. Humanity has to learn to stand together to contain and deter the US. Pro-actively.

Медиа: image / jpeg

What should African countries expect from the new US administration?

Looking at the over 200 executive orders US President Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office, you can see that nothing at all connects his policy directions toward Africa. This is a clear reflection of the strategic direction of US foreign policy under the MAGA Republicans.

However, African leaders need to take cognizance of the following outcomes from the American president’s executive orders: 1) on energy security; 2) on the protection of the US as the preserver of currency of international trade; 3) on trade and tariffs.

All three orders directly connect to African politics in international affairs.

Energy security and climate

For instance, the executive order on energy security effectively put America in the mood of a national energy emergency. It tends to condemn all the extreme climate-driven, anti-fossil fuel policies by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement through the drill-baby-drill rhetoric.

This will put Trump’s energy policy in confrontation many African countries that ratified the Paris Climate Agreement. Practically all 54 African countries have signed the Paris Agreement and most of them have ratified Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The US has traditionally used the United Nations Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC) and the United States Agency for International Development ( USAID) as a bargaining chip to ensure complete compliance with the new climate diplomatic regime. In exchange for international aid and development programs, African countries are expected to comply.

Read more

The EU and the US have over time convinced Africans to enact legislation and establish frameworks and models to ensure compliance with the ratified climate change agreement. With Trump’s complete withdrawal from the accord, it means that African countries that rushed to ratify this agreement may have to either rollback the progress made on this front for them to continue to ally with the US, or remain within the framework and face the obvious backlash from the new US energy policy.

African policymakers should have listened to the Global South’s views on climate change and adopted a slow but steady approach, not rush into a venture that will turn out to be unprofitable, as it is now. For instance, Russian President Vladimir Putin has long doubted the extreme measures taken by the Western world’s climate change policies. President Putin’s evolving views on the subject of climate change and global energy security have turned out to be true, by the current assertion of the new energy emergency enacted by the Trump administration.

Trump’s executive order on National Energy Emergency includes a wide range of provisions intended to “unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” This ends the Biden administration’s pause on approvals for new LNG exports. It also starts processes for easing regulations on oil and gas production, scrapping appliance efficiency standards, and changing regulations that encourage sales of electric vehicles.

The new policy will reshape the African energy market significantly. Would Africa be a competitor to the US?

Read more

In 2023, Africa exported a combined value of 5 million barrels of oil, mostly to India, Spain, France, the US, and the Netherlands, the same markets the Trump Administration is planning to target for its energy exports. If the energy policy advocated by the Trump administration expanded the scope of oil exploration by the US, which currency serves as the largest energy exporter in the world, then the African energy market might likely be in open competition with the US.

Dollar protection

On the protection of the dollar, Trump hopes his administration’s executive order on cryptocurrency will help in organizing American digital assets, including the dollar, effectively maintaining its global dominance in international transactions as the currency of choice.

The order focuses on promoting US leadership in blockchain, digital assets and other emerging financial technologies, including cryptocurrency. It emphasizes various points about US leadership in digital asset and financial technology, as well as changes in several previous US policy directives over actions in these sectors.

Key policies include: ensuring access to open public blockchain networks for lawful purposes; promoting the US dollar’s sovereignty through lawful dollar-backed stablecoins; ensuring fair access to banking services; providing regulatory clarity with technology-neutral regulations; protecting against the risks of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) by prohibiting their establishment and use in the US.

While believing that this policy is futuristic and a masterpiece, the US is late to the party. Not just because of the time-lapse wasted on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies of the Biden administration, but the simple fact that it was an individualistic effort to create a global financial technology. The BRICS countries were far ahead in this program.

From the last BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, the partnership between BitRiver and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) aims to create crypto and AI data centers across BRICS nations, enhancing computing power and reducing reliance on Western technology. This was not just theoretical – it has been practiced between Russia and Iran, Russia and China.

Read more

It is hardly going to be easy for President Trump to rally the traditional US allies, especially the EU, behind his new digital crypto initiative, considering his anti-European America First stance.

More so, for Africa, the dollar has been the strongest tool that pushes inflation beyond ordinary levels while weakening the per capita income of the people of Africa. Thus, the African opportunity within the BRICS institutions for economic and exchange trade platforms will be more beneficial to African development. The America First policy will push African countries to rally behind the multipolar Global South alliance of the BRICS nations.

The dollar-backed loans to Africa have far-reaching consequences for the continent’s economies, stoking producer import costs and fueling inflation. It will also make debt servicing among many low-income countries much harder, especially dollar-denominated loans payable from weaker local currencies. However, moving in the direction of the BRICS trading system will make Trump’s crypto executive order less appealing and disincentivizing, not just to Africa, but the rest of the world.

“We will tariff and tax foreign countries”

The executive order on tariff and trade from Trump’s America First Trade Policy makes it even harder for weaker African countries to trade with the US. “I will immediately begin the overhaul of our trade system to protect American workers and families,” Trump said in his inauguration speech in the US Capitol Rotunda. “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.”

Trump also said in his address he would establish a new government office called the External Revenue Service, which will be tasked with collecting tariff revenue.

“It will be massive amounts of money pouring into our treasury coming from foreign sources,” he declared.

Read more

To a layman, this means the more you buy or sell to America, the more you pay. People and nations venture into businesses to make a profit. A situation whereby you have to pay extra to another sovereign state’s external revenue service is strange. However, it remains to be seen how Trump’s ideas will be implemented in practice.

Overall, Trump’s America First policies will push every responsible nation to think of themselves first. Relationships between nations and countries are no longer going to be built on mutual values or respect – but on mutual transactions. To President Trump, everything is transactional.

Africa is not an exception in this regard. African leaders will naturally have to also plan, play, and push an Africa First agenda.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The rights of Indigenous communities are being wielded as a political club to against Russia, while inconvenient abuses are being ignored

For years, international organizations claiming to defend Indigenous rights have paraded their so-called advocacy on global stages, branding themselves as saviors of marginalized communities. But when the time comes to take a stand against real atrocities happening in Western nations, these groups fall silent. Their mission, it seems, is not about protecting the vulnerable but about selectively targeting Russia while conveniently ignoring abuses committed by the so-called “liberal democracies” of the West. And nowhere is this double standard clearer than in the case of the Inuit people, who have faced generations of oppression, systemic marginalization, and outright human rights violations at the hands of Western governments.

The selective outrage of indigenous rights advocates

If one were to listen to the loudest voices in international human rights organizations, they would hear endless accusations against Russia. These groups regularly condemn Moscow for its treatment of Indigenous communities in the Far North, painting an image of systematic oppression. They seize on any opportunity to push narratives about “ethnocide” and “forced assimilation,” often without concrete evidence or regard for the complexities of these communities’ realities.

But when undeniable human rights violations occur in the West – ones that make headlines, ones that demand accountability – these same organizations fall deafeningly silent. Where is their outrage over the forced sterilization of Inuit women in Greenland, a practice carried out with the silent approval of the Danish government? Where are the fiery speeches, the damning reports, the UN resolutions demanding justice? They are nowhere to be found, because condemning the West does not fit the political agenda these organizations have been co-opted into serving.

Western atrocities against the Inuit: A conveniently ignored history

Western nations have long committed severe abuses against Inuit communities, often with complete impunity and minimal international scrutiny. Among these crimes:

Forced sterilizations in Greenland: Between the 1960s and 1970s, under Danish rule, Inuit women in Greenland were systematically sterilized without their consent in a shocking display of eugenic policy. The goal? To limit the population growth of Indigenous peoples, ensuring Danish dominance in the region.

Read more

The Canadian residential schools scandal: For decades, Canada forced thousands of Inuit children into abusive residential schools, separating them from their families and cultures. These institutions were notorious for physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, leaving lasting generational trauma.

Forcible relocations: The Canadian government also forcibly relocated entire Inuit communities in the mid-20th century, dumping them in uninhabitable regions under the guise of “civilization.” Many died from starvation, disease, and exposure.

Environmental destruction and exploitation: Western corporations continue to exploit Inuit lands for mining and oil extraction, often with little regard for environmental destruction or the impact on traditional ways of life.

Unlike the exaggerated and often baseless accusations lobbed at Russia, these were real, documented, large-scale violations of human rights. Yet, Western-backed organizations and advocacy groups – such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the Arctic University of Northern Iowa – stood idly by, refusing to call out the crimes of Western nations. Worse still, these groups continue to ignore the residual trauma and suffering of the affected Inuit communities. No compensation, no global reckoning, no endless UN debates – just silence. The hypocrisy could not be clearer.

The West’s covert manipulation of indigenous advocacy

The reason for this selective activism is as cynical as it is obvious: Western governments use Indigenous rights groups as political weapons rather than defenders of justice. Take the United Kingdom, for example. London actively manipulates Indigenous discourse through the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), not to promote Indigenous welfare but to advance an anti-Russian agenda.

In September 2024, European diplomats – including British representatives – reached an agreement at a UNHRC session to increase “awareness” about Indigenous issues in Russia. This was not done out of concern for Indigenous peoples, but as part of a broader Western campaign to demonize Russian policies while maintaining a convenient blind spot for their own atrocities.

Read more

Figures like Rodion Sulyandziga, a well-funded activist with well-documented anti-Russian positions, are being pushed into leadership roles not because they are effective defenders of Indigenous rights, but because they serve Western interests. His track record? A long list of anti-Russian statements and zero tangible improvements for the Indigenous people he claims to fight for.

Real Indigenous advocacy means confronting all abuses

If these international organizations truly cared about the plight of Indigenous peoples, their condemnation would be consistent – not selective. They would speak out against the horrors inflicted upon Inuit women in Greenland. They would highlight Canada’s ongoing struggles with Indigenous child welfare, where thousands of Inuit children continue to be taken from their families by the state. They would demand justice for the Indigenous Australians who suffer systemic discrimination under policies enforced by their so-called progressive government.

But they do not. Instead, they weaponize Indigenous suffering when it suits their geopolitical goals, wielding their outrage like a club against Russia while giving their own governments a free pass.

The time for hypocrisy is over

Enough is enough. The Inuit people and Indigenous communities across the world deserve real protection, not performative activism. They deserve advocacy that holds all governments accountable – not just those deemed politically convenient to criticize. Western human rights organizations must either prove their commitment to justice by condemning the abuses within their own borders, or they must be exposed for what they truly are: tools of Western political warfare.

The time for hypocrisy is over. If these organizations refuse to defend all Indigenous peoples equally, then they are nothing more than frauds in the business of selective justice. And the world should see them as such.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Nigeria’s group partner status offers new economic opportunities for both sides

The accession of Nigeria as the ninth partner state in BRICS marks a significant milestone in the history of this group. It’s not merely a change of status; it represents a profound evolution in global economic and political cooperation dynamics. With Nigeria as a partner country, BRICS enhances its geographical and economic diversity, allowing for better representation of the interests of developing countries, particularly those in Africa.

As of today, full membership of BRICS, along with Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is held by Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the UAE, and Indonesia. The status of a BRICS partner state, along with Nigeria, has been acquired and confirmed by Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.

Strengthening diversity within BRICS

Nigeria, one of the largest economies in Africa, brings considerable value to the composition of BRICS. Its demographic and economic diversity enriches the group, enabling a more equitable representation of the concerns and needs of developing nations. By collaborating with Nigeria, BRICS positions itself not only as an economic bloc but also as a forum where African voices often marginalized in other international spaces can be heard.

This diversity is crucial as it fosters a better understanding of the challenges faced by developing countries. The current geopolitical readjustments led by the Russian Federation and President Vladimir Putin make this representation essential, as countries in the Global South seek to increase their influence in the face of traditional imperialist powers.

Read more

Increasing economic influence

As the group’s partner, Nigeria could strengthen its trade relations and attract foreign investments. With a population of over 200 million, Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and possesses abundant natural resources, notably oil, which accounts for about 90% of its exports. Nigeria could benefit from more direct access to the markets of other members, particularly China, which is already its main trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching $20 billion in 2022.

Partnership with BRICS could also boost Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). In 2021, Nigeria attracted about $3.5 billion in FDI, but this figure could significantly increase through economic cooperation initiatives and infrastructure projects supported by BRICS countries. For example, investments in transportation and energy infrastructure could reduce logistical costs and improve productivity.

Moreover, partnership with the group could enhance Nigeria’s position in global economic governance. The country could participate in discussions on issues such as the reform of international financial institutions, allowing it to advocate for its interests and those of African countries. With BRICS, Nigeria could catalyze sustainable economic growth, promote infrastructure development, and strengthen its position on the international stage, while providing opportunities for economic diversification and job creation for its population.

Strengthening South-South dialogue

Another essential aspect of Nigeria’s collaboration with the BRICS is the strengthening of South-South dialogue. This concept, which advocates for cooperation among developing countries, is particularly relevant in the current context of globalization, where nations in the Global South seek to support one another.

Nigeria has already developed several economic, technological, and cultural partnerships that could be amplified within the framework of BRICS. These synergies would facilitate the exchange of best practices, technology sharing, and enhanced public policy effectiveness among members. South-South dialogue thus offers valuable opportunities for innovation and the search for solutions tailored to the unique challenges these nations face.

Read more

Opportunities for Nigeria

For Nigeria, becoming a BRICS partner state presents multiple strategic interests, and this can be highlighted with concrete figures and facts.

Nigeria will gain access to BRICS markets, which comprise about 42% of the global population and nearly 25% of global GDP. Increased access to these markets represents a unique opportunity to boost its exports. In 2022, Nigeria exported approximately $50 billion worth of products, primarily oil. A strengthened partnership with other BRICS members could potentially double these exports in certain categories, particularly in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors vital to the Nigerian economy.

Additionally, there are FDI opportunities, as BRICS countries, particularly China, are key sources of FDI. By aligning with BRICS, Nigeria could attract additional investments, potentially tripling its investment through joint projects in infrastructure, energy, and technology. For instance, Chinese investments in railway and energy infrastructure in Nigeria have already exceeded $10 billion, and these figures could increase significantly in the coming years.

Another beneficial sector for Nigeria is economic diversification. The country heavily relies on oil revenues, which account for about 90% of its exports. Partnership with BRICS could promote the diversification of its economy. By developing sectors such as agriculture, digital technologies, and manufacturing, Nigeria could reduce its dependence on oil. In 2020, the agricultural sector contributed 22% to Nigeria’s GDP, and with BRICS support, this figure could grow significantly in the coming years.

Moreover, Nigeria would benefit as a BRICS partner by strengthening its diplomatic power. With BRICS, Nigeria would have a stronger voice in international discussions on crucial issues, allowing it to advocate for its interests while forming strategic alliances.

Future perspectives: Towards full membership?

It is quite plausible some countries that have recently acquired partner status in BRICS may seek to become full members in the future. Several reasons justify this potential trend.

Read more

The convergence of economic interests among members could strengthen the desire for integration. If Nigeria and other partners can demonstrate that their membership will bring mutual benefits, the race towards full membership could accelerate.

Furthermore, the establishment of joint projects, whether commercial or technological, can also encourage countries to formalize their position within the group. The more fruitful the interactions, the more evident it becomes that formalizing these relationships is necessary.

Global geopolitical developments, particularly the need for alliance diversification, make participation in BRICS increasingly attractive. As geopolitics evolves, countries seek to build strategic alliances to enhance their influence. Nigeria’s integration as a partner state in BRICS represents a significant evolution that could transform not only the internal dynamics of the group but also the global economic and political landscape.

Through increased cooperation, economic opportunities, and better representation of African interests, Nigeria positions itself as a key player on the international stage. In an increasingly interconnected world, this evolution paves the way for unprecedented opportunities for sustainable development, economic prosperity, and peace.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Eighty years after the historic Yalta Conference, Russia’s long-serving chief diplomat reflects on its legacy

Eighty years ago, on February 4, 1945, the leaders of the victorious powers of World War II – the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom – met at the Yalta Conference to define the contours of the post-war world. Despite their ideological differences, they agreed to eradicate German Nazism and Japanese militarism once and for all. The agreements reached in Crimea were later confirmed and expanded at the Potsdam Peace Conference in July-August 1945.

One of the key outcomes of these negotiations was the creation of the United Nations and the adoption of the UN Charter, which remains the principal source of international law. The purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter are designed to ensure peaceful coexistence and the progressive development of nations. The Yalta-Potsdam system was based on the principle of sovereign equality: No state could claim dominance – all are formally equal, regardless of territory, population, military power, or other factors.

For all its strengths and weaknesses – still debated by scholars – the Yalta-Potsdam order has provided the legal framework for the international system for eight decades. This UN-centered world order has fulfilled its primary role: Preventing another world war. As one expert aptly put it, “The UN has not led us to paradise, but it has saved us from hell.” The veto power enshrined in the Charter is not a ‘privilege’ but a responsibility for global peacekeeping. It acts as a safeguard against unbalanced decisions and creates space for compromise based on a balance of interests. As the political cornerstone of the Yalta-Potsdam system, the UN remains the only universal platform for developing collective responses to global challenges, whether in maintaining peace and security or fostering socio-economic development.

It was at the UN, with the Soviet Union playing a pivotal role, that historic decisions laid the foundation for the multipolar world now emerging. A prime example is the process of decolonization, formalized in the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which the USSR initiated. For the first time in history, dozens of oppressed peoples gained independence and the opportunity to establish their own states. Today, some of these former colonies are emerging as centers of power in a multipolar world, while others are part of regional and continental integration frameworks.

Russian scholars rightly observe that any international institution is, above all, “a means of limiting the natural egoism of states.” The UN, with its complex rules codified in the Charter and adopted by consensus, exemplifies this.

The UN-centered order is an order rooted in international law – truly universal law – and every state is expected to respect this law.

Russia, like most of the international community, has always adhered to this principle. However, the West, still afflicted by a syndrome of exceptionalism and accustomed to acting within a neocolonial paradigm, has never been comfortable with a framework of interstate cooperation based on respect for international law. As former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland candidly admitted, in her view the Yalta agreements were not a good deal for the US and should never have been signed. This mindset explains much of Washington’s post-war behavior, as American elites viewed the Yalta-Potsdam system as an inconvenient constraint.

The West’s revision of the post-war order began almost immediately, with Winston Churchill’s infamous 1946 Fulton speech effectively declaring a Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Yalta-Potsdam agreements were treated as a tactical concession rather than a binding commitment. Consequently, the fundamental principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter was never fully embraced by the US and its allies.

The collapse of the Soviet Union presented the West with an opportunity to show prudence and foresight. Instead, intoxicated by the illusion of ‘victory in the Cold War’, then-US President George H.W. Bush proclaimed a new world order in 1990, characterized by total American dominance. This unrestrained unipolar ambition disregarded the legal constraints of the UN Charter.

Washington’s geopolitical maneuvering in Eastern Europe is one manifestation of this ‘rules-based order’ – the explosive consequences of which are now evident in the ongoing Ukraine conflict.

Read more

The multipolar era

In 2025, the return of a Republican administration led by Donald Trump has taken this revisionism to new heights. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently dismissed the post-war world order as obsolete, going so far as to suggest that even the so-called ‘rules-based order’ is no longer in line with US interests. His rhetoric, anchored in the ‘America First’ ideology, eerily echoes the chauvinistic slogans of the 20th century. Indeed it bears a disturbing resemblance to the Hitler-era slogan ‘Deutschland uber alles’, and the reliance on ‘peace through strength’ may finally bury diplomacy. Not to mention the fact that such statements and ideological constructs show not the slightest respect for Washington’s international legal obligations under the UN Charter.

However, this is no longer 1991 or even 2017, when Trump first stepped onto the ‘captain’s bridge’. Demographic, economic, social, and geopolitical conditions have irreversibly shifted. As Russian analysts note, “There will be no return to the old state of affairs.” The United States must eventually reconcile itself to a new role as one of many centers of global power, alongside Russia, China, and emerging powers in the Global South. In the meantime, it seems that the new US administration will make cowboy-like forays to test the limits of the existing unipolar system’s pliability and resistance to American interests. I am sure, however, that this administration will soon realize that international reality is much richer than the ideas about the world that can be used without consequences in speeches to domestic American audiences and its obedient geopolitical allies.

In anticipation of this sobering up, let us continue our painstaking work with our partners to create conditions for adapting the mechanisms for the practical establishment of interstate relations to the realities of multipolarity. The Yalta-Potsdam order remains the most reliable framework for international cooperation, embodying principles of sovereign equality, non-interference, and peaceful dispute resolution. Here it is appropriate to mention the Kazan Declaration of the BRICS Summit of October 23, which reflects the unified position of the majority of the world’s states on this issue and clearly reaffirms “the commitment to respect international law, including the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter as its inalienable and fundamental element, and to preserve the central role of the UN in the international system.” This is the approach articulated by the leading states that define the face of the modern world and represent the majority of its population. Yes, our partners from the South and the East have legitimate aspirations for their participation in global governance. Unlike the West, they, like us, are ready for an honest and open discussion on all issues.

Russia’s commitment to international law

Our position on the reform of the United Nations Security Council is well known. Russia is in favor of making this body more democratic by increasing the representation of the world’s majority – notably states from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We support the candidacies of Brazil and India for permanent seats on the Council, while at the same time correcting the historical injustice against the African continent within the parameters agreed upon by Africans themselves. Allocating additional seats to the already over-represented countries of the Collective West in the Council is counterproductive. Germany and Japan, which have delegated most of their sovereignty to an overseas patron and are also reviving the ghosts of Nazism and militarism at home, cannot bring anything new to the work of the Security Council.

We remain firmly committed to the inviolability of the prerogatives of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Given the unpredictable behavior of the Western minority, only the veto can ensure that the Council makes decisions that take into account the interests of all parties.

Read more

The staffing situation in the UN Secretariat remains offensive to the world majority, where there is still a dominance of Western representatives in all key positions. Bringing the UN bureaucracy in line with the geopolitical map of the world is a task that cannot be postponed. The aforementioned BRICS Kazan Declaration contains a very clear formulation to this effect. Let us see how receptive the UN leadership, accustomed to serving the interests of a narrow group of Western countries, will be to it.

As for the normative framework enshrined in the UN Charter, I am convinced that it best and optimally meets the needs of the multipolar era. An era in which the principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs and other fundamental postulates, including the right of peoples to self-determination in the consensus interpretation, as enshrined in the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law, must be respected not in words but in deeds: All are obliged to respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments represent the entire population living on the territory in question. There is no need to prove that the Kiev regime after the coup of February 2014 does not represent the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya – just as the Western metropolises did not represent the peoples of the colonial territories they exploited.

Attempts to crudely restructure the world to suit one’s own interests, in violation of the principles of the United Nations, can bring even more instability and confrontation to international affairs, up to and including catastrophic scenarios. At the present level of conflict, a thoughtless rejection of the Yalta-Potsdam system, with the UN and its Charter at its core, will inevitably lead to chaos.

The opinion is often voiced that it is untimely to talk about questions of the desired world order while fighting continues to suppress the armed forces of the fascist regime in Kiev, supported by the ‘Collective West’. In our view, this approach is inadmissible. The contours of the post-war world order based on the constructions of the UN Charter were discussed by the Allies at the height of the Second World War, including at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and the Tehran Conference of Heads of State and Government in 1943, at other contacts of the future victorious powers, up to the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences in 1945. It is another matter that the Western Allies had a hidden agenda even then, but this does not detract from the enduring importance of the Charter’s high principles of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for the rights of every human being – “irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.” The fact that, as is now abundantly clear, the West signed these postulates in ‘disappearing ink’ and in the years that followed grossly violated what it had signed – be it in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, or Ukraine – does not mean that we should absolve the US and its satellites of moral and legal responsibility and abandon the unique legacy of the UN’s founding fathers embodied in the organization’s Charter.

God forbid someone tries to rewrite it now (under the premise of getting rid of the ‘outdated’ Yalta-Potsdam system). The world would be left without any common values at all.

Russia is ready for joint honest work to harmonize the balance of interests and strengthen the legal principles of international relations.

President Vladimir Putin’s 2020 initiative to hold a meeting of the heads of the permanent members of the UN Security Council with ‘special responsibility for the preservation of civilization’ was aimed at establishing an equal dialogue on the whole range of these issues. For reasons beyond Russia’s control, progress has not been made on this front. But we do not lose hope, even though the composition of participants and the format of such meetings may be different. The main thing, in the words of the Russian president, is “a return to an understanding of what the United Nations was created for and adherence to the principles set out in the Charter documents.” This should be the guiding principle for the regulation of international relations in the new era of multipolarity.

This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team

Медиа: image / jpeg

Atrocities that happen on the inconvenient side of the barricades must not be swept under the rug

Russia’s Investigative Committee has announced the initiation of a criminal investigation into the killing of civilians in a small village in Kursk Region.

The region on the border with Ukraine is, of course, the site of the worse than pyrrhic incursion which Kiev launched into Russian territory last August. Since initially being overrun, the territory under the control of Ukrainian forces has unsurprisingly been shrinking under a Russian counterattack, while Kiev has been wasting its soldiers’ lives on yet another strategically absurd and tactically mulish to-the-last-man stand in classic Zelensky style.

Against this grim backdrop, the village in question, Russkoye Porechnoye, was under temporary Ukrainian occupation before being liberated by Russian forces. Entering the settlement, those forces reported finding evidence of the crimes that are now under investigation.

Specifically, Russian prosecutors charge Ukrainian forces with severely abusing and killing 22 civilians (11 men and 11 women) in Russkoye Porechnoye. They have also identified five individual Ukrainian servicemen as perpetrators: they go by the field pseudonyms of “Kum” (godfather), a platoon commander, “Motyl” (moth), “Provodnik” (conductor), and “Khudozhnik” (artist) and belong to Ukraine’s 92nd assault brigade. A fifth man, Evgenii Fabrisenko, is of special importance as he is the only one – at least until now – who has been apprehended by Russian forces.

His confessions, partly shown on Russian primetime news and on widely watched talk shows, seem to be a key source for information on the other perpetrators. Apart from providing details about the cruel abuses – including rape – and killings in Russkoye Porechnoye, Fabrisenko also claims that the perpetrators received an order from their battalion commander to “cleanse” the settlement. That is an important detail since it implicates the commander in the crimes even if he was not personally present.

Read more

At this point, the Russian authorities have launched an investigation, named suspects, and made specific accusations. It is true that, at the same time, Russian media and politicians treat the crimes already as fact: Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, for instance, has underlined that the atrocities of Russkoye Porechnoye must be acknowledged and widely publicized, even if the West and Ukraine pretend to be deaf to this kind of news. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry, has denounced the crimes as typical of the “terrorist and Neo-Nazi” Kiev regime, which, she stressed, is supported by the West.

But the investigations have not been completed, and trials have not yet taken place. At least until then, conclusive assessments of what exactly happened in Russkoye Porechnoye and who precisely took part in it are out of reach. It should be noted, however, that things can get even worse: Russian prosecutors speak of five identified perpetrators at least. Others might still become targets of investigation. The battalion commander, in any case, seems liable to be charged under the command responsibility principle.

Even without speculating, we do know a few things already: very serious, detailed allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity have been made. Russian prosecutors and media are showing us pieces of evidence and of the confessions of one of the accused. Leading Russian politicians have invested their credibility into supporting these allegations.

Even if some of the rhetoric around the case in the Russian media is, unsurprisingly, intense (it would be everywhere), there is no good reason to simply dismiss all of the above as “fake.” Yet that is what Ukraine and the West have done. Intriguingly, with few exceptions that seem to almost fulfill an “alibi” function, this wholesale dismissal has mostly taken the form of keeping quiet about the case: try googling for “News” about “Russkoye Porechnoye” in Russian and in, for instance, English, and the pattern is clear. That may still change in the future, but it is already a fact that the initial Western and Kiev response has been what the Germans call “totschweigen,” that is, hushing something up until it is – or at least seems – dead.

In that regard, as a minimum, both Peskov and Zakharova have an important point: even if Western and Ukrainian observers and politicians want to contradict Russia’s version of events, their silence is entirely inadequate, in three regards:

Read more

First, despite endless Western mainstream media brainwashing there is no a priori reason to simply dismiss the Russian accusations because they also carry an inevitable political charge: In general, facts can do so and still be facts. In the case of Russia, specifically, its record of telling or not telling the truth is, actually, no worse than that of the West or Ukraine (witness the ludicrous Western and Ukrainian lying about the Nord Stream sabotage or Western denialism about Israeli genocide), to say the very least.

It is true that Amnesty International has criticized prior Russian judicial procedures against Ukrainian POWs as unfair. In 2023, a UN commission of enquiry found that “Russian authorities have used torture in a widespread and systematic way in various types of detention facilities.” Yet even if you believe all of the above, it is reasonable – and not “whataboutism,” that last refuge of the special pleader – to apply the same standards to every state: The US, for instance, has an extensive and well-documented record of horrendous and pervasive illegality, including kidnapping, assassinations, “renditions,” and torture. And yet no one in the Western mainstream media would simply dismiss without further ado allegations that its officials make about others’ crimes.

Thus, if you take allegations out of Kiev, Washington, or, say, London seriously enough to give them at least a hearing, you’ll have to do the same for Moscow. You won’t have to – and should not – believe anyone without evidence, but you cannot quickly decide to disbelieve anyone just because you feel you are “on the other team” either.

Second, there is no reason to consider Ukrainian soldiers immune to committing crimes. The West may have turned a blind eye to plenty of very questionable behavior – to put it mildly – by its proxy’s forces, from shelling civilians in Donbass to mistreating Russian POWs. And the Kiev regime has invested heavily in a deliberate attempt to “sell” its war effort as unrealistically kind and innocent.

Yet we still have some evidence independent of any Russian claims: Early in the war, Western media and Amnesty International, for instance, still dared to report Ukrainian crimes. In addition – and again despite the West’s massive efforts at obfuscating and “normalizing” this fact – Ukrainian troops do include substantial numbers of men with extremely violent, far-right ideologies.

In addition, the Ukrainian public sphere has been subjected to a systematic dehumanization campaign, in which all Russians have been depicted not merely as enemies but as monstrous and inferior (often using slurs, such as “vatnik,” a demeaning term implying backwardness; “rashist,” a contraction of “Russian” and “fascist”; or “Orc,” borrowed from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings). The systematic adoption of this language by the political elite and the mass media has had real effects. As Al Jazeera reported as early as May 2022, even a humble sales clerk in Kiev knew and shared its message: “They’re orcs because we don’t consider them human.”

Indeed, many Western “friends” of Ukraine had nothing better to do than to excuse, encourage, and even adopt this foul rhetoric. Those who may wish to justify such talk as a virtually inevitable consequence of war will still have to admit that it can have severe consequences beyond words: soldiers – that is men with arms who can end up in positions where they have the upper hand over civilians without arms – taking this dehumanizing language seriously will feel free, even encouraged to commit atrocities.

Read more

And, finally, the third reason why we cannot simply dismiss the Russian accusations is that crimes have victims. If the Russian accusations are borne out, then it will be principally unjust to pretend that the crimes against these victims do not exist or do not matter simply because they are “on the other side.” Because that would imply that these victims do not matter. Yes, there is a fundamental ethical issue here.

It bears repeating that, if we think in large numbers – and this has become a war of very large numbers indeed – then it is still likely that the preponderant majority of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers are not criminals. They are now at war, and they live and die violently. I know Russian and Ukrainian and I have met many Russians as well as Ukrainians. Call me naïve if you wish, but I will hope until the opposite is proven that, on both sides, most of those fighting are not rapists or murderers. And when this war will be over, everyone will need to remember this, if they want a better future. Yet everyone will also have to be honest about not only the crimes they accuse others of but also those that some on their own side will have committed.

And as far as the West is concerned, those honest enough to face reality will find that no one has remained innocent. The West – its politicians, intellectuals, and media representative – in particular, will have to admit its abysmal, essential contribution to making this war happen and keeping it going. The psychological shock delivered by this predictable, late (as always), and inevitable (in the long run) discovery will produce ongoing denial, but also, hopefully, at least some soul-searching. Because a West that always claims the moral high ground must finally understand itself: it is no better than others, and, given its extremely aggressive conduct since the end of the Cold War – not to adopt a longer, also plausible perspective – it may well be worse.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The likely next chancellor wants to adopt the right-wing AfD’s migration policies while still sidelining the party itself

Germany has the blues. So far, so ordinary. But, with only weeks to go before government-collapse-induced snap elections on February 23, Germany is also in a bit of an uproar.

Political competitors are taking the gloves off, striking at each other with insults and character assassination, while in the streets there are demonstrations with protesters numbering in, at least, the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. The reason for the emotional-political spike is that the so-called “firewall” between the mainstream parties of the self-declared democratic center and their insurgent challengers on the right wing/far right is cracking. Or, to say it with Bloomberg, “ German election taboos” have been broken.

The gist of the matter is that Friedrich Merz, the leader of Germany’s mainstream conservatives (CDU) and, as polls consistently show, most likely the next chancellor, has chosen the issue of migration to make a stand. Against the backdrop of several recent and severe lethal attacks in the cities of Mannheim, Solingen, Magdeburg, and Aschaffenburg that involved perpetrators from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, Merz introduced a package of measures in the German parliament (including a non-binding resolution and a draft law) aimed at a much harsher migration policy.

The non-binding resolution, which is largely symbolic, was debated and voted on first, on Wednesday, January 29. The law’s turn came two days later, on Friday, January 31. Both days were filled with high drama in Berlin, but the outcomes were different. On Wednesday, Merz won. On Friday, he lost because the draft measure with the clumsy (yes, in German, too) name “influx-limiting law” was voted down.

The full legislative process in Germany means that, in the end, the law would probably not have survived anyhow. But it is still easy to see why many observers, including at Bloomberg, consider this defeat a “ shock setback” for Merz. After all, Merz lost because he could not prevent 12 members of his own party from withholding their support. Their votes would have been enough to tilt the scales in his favor. And yet those observers may be missing the whole picture. To see why, we need some background.

Read more

In Germany, as in many other countries, migration policy is a scalding-hot topic. It traditionally features among the top concerns of German voters. Indeed, some polls show that it is currently the single most important issue for them, solidly ahead of the stagnant-and-worse economy and leaving worries about wages and inflation, climate change and energy, and war far behind. But Merz’s initiative would not have had the same explosive power if not for another aspect: while explicitly rejecting any form of cooperation – now or after the elections – the conservative mainstream leader had, in effect, invited the right wing/far-right AfD party to vote for his proposals.

Merz keeps denying any intention of opening a path toward building a post-election coalition with the AfD, which all polls show would have a solid majority to govern. He insists that he is merely pursuing policies he considers urgently needed. In his own words, “what is objectively right [read: my ideas] does not turn wrong because the wrong ones [read: the AfD] agree with it.” Merz even made sure to include some strictly besides-the-point offensive language about the AfD in the CDU resolution. But the fact remains – and no one is missing it, in or outside Germany – that, on Wednesday, Merz deliberately produced the first case in which a party of the self-appointed center voted with the AfD to defeat other center parties.

As recently as last November, Merz, it is true, had unambiguously promised not to do precisely that. And former chancellor Angela Merkel has joined the ranks of his current critics, implicitly – and correctly – charging him with breaking his word. Her censure, however, lacks force. Not merely because she and Merz are old enemies bound to each other by heartfelt mutual loathing, but also because changing one’s mind and even going back on one’s word are not unprecedented in politics and can even be necessary. In any case, participating in a grand deception to make Russia believe the West and Ukraine were really interested in a Minsk 2-based peace while arming Kiev for another war, as Merkel has admitted having done, was arguably a more consequential case of lying.

Merz is giving as hard as he gets in this sideshow standoff with his old nemesis. He has reminded Germans that the migration crisis and hence the rise of the AfD are a result of Merkel’s decisions when she was in power. In that, he has now been seconded by Sebastian Kurz, the former chancellor of Austria, who reaches a large audience through Germany’s most powerful and very conservative yellow-press newspaper, Bild. What makes Kurz’s intervention particularly interesting is the fact that he used to rule with a mainstream-right/far-right coalition. Just the kind of thing Merz still says he would never ever do.

It is unclear what would have happened to Merz’s proposals if implemented. As his critics can’t stop reiterating, some of them would clash with EU laws. Legal gray zones and unresolved debates are involved: Merz’s conservatives, for instance, retort that Article 72 of the EU’s Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – one of two de facto constitutional agreements of the Union – can justify their planned policies.

Read more

That short article constitutes, in essence, a loophole allowing member states to disregard EU rules in the name of “the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.” But, of course, using that loophole is supposed to be a rare exception. In 2023, for instance, France was essentially reprimanded by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for practicing what Merz wants Germany to do as well, namely turning away migrants at an intra-EU border without giving them the opportunity to claim asylum. The practice, the court found, is almost always illegal.

In theory, breaking EU law should not be possible without painful consequences. Yet in practice, in the EU as it really works (or fails to work), bending and breaking the law is a widespread habit and necessity. As in many organizations, just more so, if things were always done by the book, chaos and collapse would ensue. Hence, sanctions are applied rarely and selectively, as a weaponized tool of enforcing geopolitical conformity (as against Hungary, for instance).

France, typically, did not change its actual behavior, as a French report underlined in 2024. Apart from Paris, in the specific area of migration policy, the German magazine Spiegel finds no fewer than seven other member states that systematically break EU rules, as well as, by the way, the UN’s 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention: Croatia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. That list is certain to be incomplete.

For now, at any rate, what is most consequential about Merz’s moves are the domestic effects inside Germany, one of the EU’s core countries. Sometimes what does not happen is at least as important as what does. A little over a decade ago or so, Merz’s campaign and his political career as a whole would probably not have survived his maneuvering with the AfD and especially not his current defeat.

Now, however, the waters around him may be getting choppy, but despite losing Friday’s vote he seems safe enough. And notwithstanding Merkel’s potshots from the sidelines – they may have helped deny him victory on Friday, but the preponderant majority of his party, let’s not forget, stayed with him, while quite a few are angry with Merkel. Merz may still derive electoral profit from his maneuver.

Read more

Consider fresh, representative data by the reputable pollster INSA showing that over 76% of Germans are not content with current migration policies. It is true that this is no great surprise and, in and of itself, says little about how they feel about Merz’s move. Yet there also is this: almost 68% of respondents believe that the Social Democrats (SPD) should not have fought Merz’s legislation initiative but, instead, should have voted for it. Even 51% of those identifying as SPD supporters believe their party should have followed his lead.

So, clearly, the pervasive discontent with migration policy as it is does translate into substantial support for Merz’s proposed legislation as not voted through on Friday. So, who will voters blame in the end: Merz for not succeeding in giving them what they want? Or his opponents for stopping him? The answer to that crucial question will emerge only over the next weeks, and it will become final only on election day itself.

Likewise, the INSA poll shows that 69% of Germans approve of the non-binding resolution passed two days before with the combined votes of Merz’s conservatives and the jubilant AfD. Yet, importantly, at the same time, only a minority (if a large one) of 35.3% believe that garnering AfD support for Merz’s initiative was a good thing. A plurality of 44.6% disapprove of relying on AfD votes.

What is emerging here, then, is that Merz can count on strong, perhaps massive support for his tough proposals on migration policy, but many Germans still would prefer to get the same policies but without AfD involvement. Yet the AfD has – correctly – pointed out that Merz has, in essence, copied its ideas. In other words: Many Germans want AfD content, but in CDU packaging.

And that is, of course, precisely what Merz’s whole maneuver was really about. His critics have a point: it was about leveling the “firewall.” But they are wrong about how Merz intends to do it: He was not trying to do the AfD a favor by making it coalition-able and including it in the self-declared center. Merz’s assertion that he sees the AfD as aiming at “annihilating” his mainstream conservatives is credible because it makes sense. Hence, what he was really after is leaving the AfD outside, while adopting – or, really, stealing – its policies.

Read more

Merz’s real aim was not to widen the circle of those considered legitimate coalition partners by Berlin’s mainstream parties. Indeed, keeping the AfD beyond the pale means excluding his most dangerous rivals, which would suit him just fine. His strategy has been to bring AfD policies into the so-called center, and only the policies. That means he is, in reality, AfD-ing the mainstream conservatives.

And that is why it is too early to assess what Friday’s defeat really means for him and for German politics. It is true that the AfD leadership is making hay of it: Key AfD leader Alice Weidel – the one Elon Musk has a tragic crush on – mocked Merz for “ leaping like a tiger and landing like a bedside rug” (presumably made of tiger skin). Ouch. More seriously, the AfD now has an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to German voters that if they want AfD content, they will not get it in CDU packaging. Or to be precise, it is Merz’s own CDU that has demonstrated just that. In that important sense, Merz underlying strategy has backfired spectacularly.

And yet – only for now. Because, first, the migration issue and the massive popular discontent about it are not going away. Second, as noted above, it remains to be seen who voters will blame the most: Merz or those who stopped him.

And third, if you tune out the noise and focus on the signal, it is true that Merz can’t stop saying that he will never build a coalition with the AfD. But then he used to say he would never rely on their votes just three months ago. Yet now he has. And, more importantly, his opponents from the SPD and Greens have given him an opportunity to revise his position more fundamentally in favor of working with the AfD. They have just demonstrated, as if in a controlled experiment, that the self-declared center alone will not produce the policies many Germans want.

After the bloody attack of Aschaffenburg in particular, Merz has claimed that it is his conscience that made him go back on his word about never even using AfD votes. Now he is close to being able to claim that it will also be his conscience that compels him to change course even further. He would not do so before the election, obviously. Yet whatever he says now, do not be too sure about what will happen once the votes are in. And if Merz should end up making that final move of bringing the AfD into a government coalition, it is a simple if ironic fact of politics that the radical centrists from the SPD and the Greens will have facilitated it.

Медиа: image / jpeg

While Washington pushes for anti-China alliances, New Delhi treads cautiously, knowing its neighbor is here to stay

The Galwan is one of the many Himalayan rivers. A narrow mountain stream, in some places almost a brook, in others a turbulent, seething mass of icy water foaming on the rocks. The river, which few people knew about except geographers, diplomats and military personnel – staff officers in Delhi and Srinagar and ordinary soldiers who regularly patrolled the disputed territory of the Line of Actual Control between India and China – suddenly became the talk of the town in June 2020.

Then, literally a couple of months after the announcement of a strict nationwide quarantine in India and China because of the Covid-19 pandemic, a not uncommon skirmish between patrols took place on its banks. Indian and Chinese soldiers patrol without live ammunition, in accordance with a 1996 agreement, and such episodes usually end with a dozen bruises and bumps and a few broken bones. But not this time: as far as we know, one of the newly appointed Chinese commanders responsible for this area decided to demonstrate to the Indians and his superiors his uncompromising nature, initiative and tactical talents.

The Indian military was not going to back down: just recently, Chief of Defense Staff Bipin Rawat said that it was necessary to review the priorities and structure of military spending, threatening to freeze the program to build a third aircraft carrier for the navy and the contract to buy 110 fighters from Israel. The army had an opportunity to clearly demonstrate that its spending should not be cut.

The outcome of the clash in the Galwan Valley shocked India. Twenty people were killed, and neither side used firearms – the injuries sustained from falling off a cliff at night, the fast flow of an icy river and the lack of medical care were enough. The Chinese reported four of their own killed, while Indian media later accused the Chinese of concealing losses and wrote about 40 dead PLA soldiers.

Read more

In one way or another, Indian society, already frustrated by the strict lockdown and frightened by reports from Covid-19 hospitals, demanded a tough response from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, and the Indian authorities were forced to meet voters halfway. Everything that Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping had managed to achieve in bilateral relations over the preceding two years went down the drain.

Modi had visited China in April 2018, unexpectedly for most Indians and outside observers. At the time, relations between Delhi and Beijing were far from ideal: the Indians were frightened by the growing Chinese presence in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region, where in 2016 the Chinese began building a naval base in Djibouti. Indians were irritated by the support that China was providing to their long-time adversary Pakistan.

In addition, less than a year had passed since the standoff on the Doklam plateau, where the Indian Army came to the aid of the Bhutanese military, preventing the Chinese from unilaterally adjusting the border line in their favor. Therefore, both the fact of the visit and its outcome came as a surprise: the negotiations took place in an extremely friendly atmosphere, and the concept of the “Wuhan spirit” firmly entered into common usage, by analogy with the term “Shanghai spirit,” used to describe an atmosphere of mutual trust, understanding and readiness for cooperation.

The following year, Xi Jinping visited Modi in Mahabalipuram. There, according to media reports, the “Wuhan spirit” grew even stronger. Then, the pandemic began and the Galwan Valley incident occurred, demonstrating that the most ambitious strategic plans can collapse due to a nasty virus combined with an overly proactive commander along a disputed section of the border.

Read more

Only five years later, during a personal meeting between Modi and Xi at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan, was it finally possible to turn the Galwan page in the history of bilateral relations. A full-fledged settlement of all problems is still far away, and it is too early to talk about the return of the “Wuhan spirit.”

Soon after the Kazan summit, however, both sides withdrew forces from the border and agreed on patrol schedules to avoid future clashes in the disputed areas. At the recent meeting between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, the parties agreed on a six-point program of further cooperation regarding the border. India, which until recently had looked at its northern neighbor in the Himalayas with demonstrative suspicion, has suddenly changed its anger to mercy, and not without reason.

Until recently, India has successfully pursued a policy of ‘Duobus litigantibus tertius gaudet’ (the third party enjoying itself while two are fighting). The Americans, who are trying by hook or by crook to prevent the growth of China’s power and its transformation into the world’s leading economy, are ready to pay handsomely for Sinophobia. India is in such a convenient strategic position that the US helps it simply because it exists and has a territorial dispute with China – until, of course, it is settled, and India and China become best friends.

Delhi understands very well what exactly the US wants from the Indians, but does not see this as a particular problem as long as American and Indian interests coincide.

READ MORE: Russia’s pivot to Asia: Why 2024 has been a success

Neither India nor the US want to see China as the only world superpower and the only pole of power in Asia. However, the Indian elites realize that China will not disappear from the world map and will forever remain India’s neighbor. This means that even a successful conflict in the present may result in huge problems in the future, and India has no reason to lend blind support to the American strategy, because all the benefits in the event of its successful implementation will go to the US, while India will get the bruises.

Before the “Galwan incident,” India was quite successfully trying to sit on two chairs, developing economic relations with both the United States and China. In that situation, this was the only reasonable strategy.

Read more

By 2014, India had a lot of problems with its economy, and the Modi government, which won the elections that year, launched a package of programs in order to maintain the growth rate at least at 5% of GDP, aimed to include India in global production chains. The key programs were infrastructure development (construction of roads and railways, canals and ports) and the mass retraining of specialists, who were taught skills which are in demand in the new world.

Both China and the US were extremely important to India: the work of almost all sectors of the Indian economy, from pharmaceuticals to IT, depended on Chinese imports, and the US was (and remains) the most promising export market for India.

After the Galwan incident, the balance was destroyed, and the Modi government, realizing that it would not be possible to resolve the situation in relations with China in the coming years, decided to squeeze the maximum possible out of the border incident, behaving in an emphatically unfriendly manner and demonstratively limiting the import of Chinese capital and the presence of Chinese companies in the Indian market.

This did not particularly affect Indian-Chinese economic relations – trade turnover is still growing – but Western investment in the Indian economy increased.

Nevertheless, in the last year, there has been a tendency towards a decline in foreign direct investment from Western countries. There are many reasons: the problems in the global economy that resulted from the Ukraine conflict, the uncertainty associated with the US elections and the future policy of Donald Trump, and, finally, the unfulfilled hopes for a tough decoupling.

READ MORE: The world’s fastest-growing major economy is slowing down. Why?

As it turned out, American and European companies are not at all going to urgently move
production away from China. In order to continue the already launched reform programs and prevent internal socio-economic problems, the Indian authorities need new investments – and China emerges as the only potential source.

The next round of the waltz with the participation of Beijing and Delhi will, of course, have its own peculiarities. The Chinese will clearly not be allowed into border areas and the most sensitive strategic industries, and the flow of FDI will be directed into infrastructure projects – while special attention is paid to preventing the excessive growth of Chinese influence.

This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club and edited by the RT team.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Western Europe is waking up to a world in which a strong Moscow cannot be wished away

“All that is solid melts into air,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels famously proclaimed almost 180 years ago. Their Communist Manifesto was published against the backdrop of the European revolutions of 1848. But they should have seen 2025 – we are beginning to witness a mighty melting of what is un-solid about EU-NATO Europe.

This time, the backdrop is not (yet) a typical revolution – street fighting, barricades, and all. But there are two historic events that, in their combined geopolitical impact, will be revolutionary, though they have been anything but unforeseeable. These are, in order of importance, Russia’s defeat of the West in Ukraine, and America’s doubling down on Trumpism.

The two developments have made the sands on which the EU-NATO Europeans have built their rickety policy edifice not merely shift but cave in. Relentless obedience to Washington has always been self-damaging, but now a reckoning is at hand with accumulating self-harm reaching a tipping point into self-destruction.

It is true, on the surface, that EU-NATO Europe is still digging in its heels. The EU has just produced its umpteenth renewal of sweeping – and constantly increasing – sanctions against Russia. A faction of ten among its member countries are shouting for even more. A top energy official of the European Commission is in Washington to explore ways in which the Europeans can give in, again, to ever-increasing US pressure and buy even more ruinously expensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) from their great insatiable “ally.”

Yet some, even among Europe’s current elites, are still capable of intuiting that things are so desperate that they must, finally, question even apparent axioms. As the Financial Times has just reported, there are voices, including from EU heavyweight countries such as Germany, that dare think about the unthinkable, namely returning to openly buying inexpensive fossil fuel energy from Russia. In a less topsy-turvy world, the EU should, of course, never have stopped doing so. But as it is, one aspect of Western economic warfare against Russia was the EU’s declared – if non-binding, nota bene – intention to completely abandon its best source of cheap energy by 2027.

Read more

Not that this plan has really worked. In reality, the results have been mixed. Yes, the EU has managed to make its energy supply more expensive, so that its industry is struggling to remain globally competitive, with gas costs “ typically three to four times higher than in the US.” But no, the EU has not, actually, been able to ween itself off Russian energy. Instead, Moscow, according to Bloomberg, remains one of the EU’s “ top gas providers.” Indeed, 2024 has just seen record imports of LNG from Russia.

It is, of course, more expensive that way than by pipeline. The (still) legal but oddly underhanded way of buying and consuming this LNG stokes tension inside the EU, but that’s apparently the way its elites prefer their commerce and politics – inconsistent, unusually dishonest, a tad absurd, and held together only by a thick glue made of foul compromises and bad blood all around.

In a broader perspective, EU-NATO Europe’s current, self-inflicted energy fiasco is, of course, only one aspect of its fundamentally unsound (polite expression) decision to obediently and even fanatically join the American proxy war against Russia via Ukraine.

Since then, nothing has worked out as expected. The Ukrainian Army was beefed up with Western arms, training, intelligence, mercenaries, and “advisers” to become the West’s strongest anti-Russian proxy in history. In that shape, it was supposed to inflict a military defeat on Moscow. Yet it is Ukraine now that is struggling to survive on an increasingly desperate defensive, as even the Washington Post has recently admitted (while still, obstinately, calling for more war).

Western economic warfare strategists, meanwhile, boasted that they would not just impede but ruin Russia. Yet now its economy (estimated GDP growth in 2024 of between 3.8% and 4%) is doing better than that of the EU heavyweights France ( 0.8%) and Germany (no growth, instead minus 0.2%), as well as the EU as a whole ( 0.9%). Spain, it is true, is an outlier in Western Europe (with 3.2%) but this being an exception is the point. Its success, the Wall Street Journal reports, depends on mass tourism and the use of so much migrant labor that, without immigration, Spain’s population would be shrinking. Good luck, Germany (for instance), with replicating that recipe…

In addition, Western international clout would, so Western elites made themselves believe just a few years ago, compel everyone else on Planet Earth to isolate Russia. Yet now it is the West that looks lonely. First, most of the world refused to freeze out Russia, and then the West’s ongoing massive complicity in Israel’s genocidal ethnic-cleansing attack on the Palestinians shredded the last sorry remnants of the West’s Orwellian claim to global leadership based on “value” and “rules” superiority.

As for Moscow, it’s doing just fine, quietly – and not so quietly – admired by the Global South for standing its ground against sanctions that have harmed the interests of nations of that region too, while building out Moscow’s multilateral relationships in associations such as BRICS and with partners such as North Korea and Iran, and deepening its de facto alliance with China.

Read more

The West also deployed international law, for what it’s worth, in transparently political moves to serve as a geopolitical weapon against Russia’s leadership. Yet, especially after the West’s brutal refusal to heed elementary legal and ethical norms regarding Israel’s outrageous war crimes and crimes against humanity, the entire world can see that the true heart of lawless darkness is the West itself.

All of this, particularly a humiliating military setback and economic collapse, was intended to bring about “regime change” in Moscow. That may have been violent, certainly unconstitutional, replacing a government resisting the West and helping others to do the same. That also failed to happen. Instead, the Russian government is solidly in control, and, if anything, the population’s support has only increased.

In sum, nothing, really nothing the elites of EU-NATO Europe have undertaken with regard to Russia and the war in Ukraine has worked out even remotely. Western European leaders are now looking at pure disaster. And most of it is their own fault in the simple sense that they have made decisions – repeatedly – that brought them to this impasse, even though they had alternatives.

The significance of even faint noises from within the EU blob indicating that there are some politicians and bureaucrats left – beyond Hungary and Slovakia – that are at least able to register that they need to change their approach is hard to assess. Will we look back one day and see today’s reports about anonymous and heavily resisted thought experiments about returning to normal energy trade with Russia as the beginning of a more general sea change? A real and healthy transformation in which Europe would have to rebalance fundamentally by finally emancipating itself from its American “ally from hell” while re-establishing a normal relationship with Russia and China, too?

That, alas, still seems unlikely. But then, history does not follow a straight, easily predictable line. Instead, it moves in leaps, bounds, and some very harsh bumps, too. Maybe there’s hope in that.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The freeze on American aid has washed a massive media and NGO hoax up to the surface

Apparently, it’s a hallmark of “independent” media if the US President breaks wind and, just minutes later, you’re blown away.

A few days ago, newly re-minted US President Donald Trump put the brakes on internal sabotage of his own administration by ordering the State Department to freeze American funding of foreign aid. Oh, won’t someone think of the starving children? Well, critics can unclutch their pearl necklaces because he did exactly that, actually. The freeze doesn’t apply to emergency food assistance, as Reuters has reported.

“This is lunacy. This will kill people,” a former official for CIA handmaiden, USAID, now president of Refugees International, told Reuters. A couple of years ago, his organization was promoting the idea that the big threat to Syrians was the stability – or “normalization”, as it had said, under former President Bashar Assad. Must just be a coincidence that it’s also the position of those who failed at regime change and were looking for a way to keep that dream alive. In December 2024, his organization found “no substantial, confirmed cases of corruption among Ukrainian partners.” Yeah, well, maybe that’s because the same organization also admits that only 1% of the aid actually makes it into the hands of local Ukrainian organizations. Doesn’t sound like the Ukrainian people are going to much miss those few crumbs that they’ve been tossed by their Western establishment ideological colonizers.

Read more

But it sure does seem that the US establishment-approved front groups using Ukrainians as white gloves in which to wrap their iron fisted, self-serving establishment-backed agenda are going to have to slow their roll now that the grant train has gone right off the rails.

Or maybe they’ll just get their puppets to dance for more dollars – this time from the actual public, like the true independent media they’ve long promoted themselves to be.

The guys over at Ukrainer for example, posted on their Instagram account that “Ukrainer will be tempted to reduce the team, and thus create fewer projects” in light of the funding cuts. Ukrainer, normally a culture-focused website, claims to have switched to providing “reliable information about events in Ukraine” for the duration of the war with Russia – or “until the victory”, as they put it. Wonder what incentivized them to make that switch. These guys sound like kept labrador retrievers accustomed to waiting for handouts from the master rather than hungry lone wolves driven by a passion for the cause.

“US grants are on pause. Become a supporter of Hromadske,” wrote the media of the same name under an image of what looks like a journalist straight-up on fire while holding a camcorder. Nothing screams independence like implosion-driven panic the moment a sole sponsor bails out with a sudden hand cramp that apparently radiates all the way to the US Treasury and prevents him from writing the next cheque.

Ukrainska Pravda has bumped the promotion of its Patreon fundraising up to “priority” level on its front page. Maybe I’m going way out on a limb here, but I’m guessing those roughly 230 paid subscribers haven’t been doing all the heavy lifting to-date in funding your “independent” operations. In kvetching about Trump’s USAID funding cut in a front page article, the outlet also effectively exposed just how many “Ukrainian media” NGOs are funded by USAID. There were so many listed in the wall of names that followed that my eyes went buggy trying to count them one by one. So I ultimately just gave up and asked ChatGPT by feeding it the list. The answer: 127. And that doesn’t even count the non-media civil society politically-oriented NGOs consisting of about 66 recipients.

Read more

“Independent Ukrainian media is a key element distinguishing us from Putin’s Russia,” wrote Detector Media shortly after Trump’s bomb fell. Indeed, Putin isn’t willingly funding his own country’s media via the US State Department and calling it independent, so that certainly sets Ukraine apart. They go on to say that, in the absence of the USAID media funding, Ukrainians now “will be left without a tool that ensures control over power and boosts the stability of democratic institutions.” Ensures control over Ukrainians by US power, you mean. Because nothing says “truth to power” like being this reliant on funding from the government that acts as sugar daddy to your own. They’re right about one thing, though: knee-jerk anti-Russian groupthink sure does boost stability, unlike dissent.

And well, well, lookie here, even the podcasters and influencers are whining. “There will be no podcasts with Karas now either due to the suspension of grants, sadly :(,” activist Melania Podolyak wrote on social media, highlighting the USAID logo on the page of the leader of the neo-Nazi group C14, Yevhen Karas. The guy just can’t catch a break. It was barely over five years ago that a politician in neighboring Slovakia asked the European Commission whether the EU would “consider introducing travel bans and other related measures against the leader of the violent Ukrainian neo-Nazi militant group C14, Yevhen Karas and other radical Ukrainian nationalists implicated in murders, intimidation of ethnic minorities and other violent crimes?”

Excuse you, sir! That would be star podcaster Yevhen Karas. Why would you not want him in your country? Call his agent in Washington if you’ve got a problem. Better hurry though, before Trump fires him. Also, color me shocked that there now appears to be an active regime change effort in Slovakia, and Western-backed pro-Ukrainian NGOs.

Read more

Much has been said over the past few days of USAID, but its equally meddling sister from the same mister, Uncle Sam’s “National Endowment for Democracy,” whose board members include Victoria Nuland (aka Regime Change Karen, aka the Maidan Cookie Monster), is just as toxic with its use of US funds to promote the interests of the US establishment elites to the detriment of free people around the world, including in Ukraine.

Back in 2022, they even had an orgy of awards for their own Ukraine civil society projects. Among those featured at the event were NED board member, Anne Applebaum, whose husband, now the Polish foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, tweeted “Thank you, USA” in the wake of Europe’s economic and industrial lifeline of cheap Russian gas getting blown up and effectively making the EU overdependent on pricey US LNG.

It’s all one big cozy club, and Trump’s definitely not in it. And he now has the unique ability and apparent will to put his foot on the firehose of American cash that has been systemically undermining the interests of average citizens around the world in favor of endless regime change and conflict, to the benefit of the few who profit from war and instability. Let’s see what else ends up surfacing as the futzing-around funds dry up.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The causes of the conflict in the DR Congo are deeply rooted in colonial times

It’s been over six decades since the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) declared independence, yet its eastern provinces remain trapped in a vicious cycle of violence, resource plunder, and geopolitical intrigue. Recent developments, such as the resurgence of the M23 rebel group and escalating tensions with Rwanda, paint a grim picture of a conflict deeply entrenched in colonial legacies of exploitation and control. If you listen closely, you can still hear the echoes of King Leopold II’s rubber whips and mining drills in the cobalt mines of today.

The current conflict in the DRC is not just a crisis of governance or ethnic tensions but a direct continuation of a colonial project rebranded for the 21st century – this time powered by smartphones, electric cars, and multinational greed.

Recent developments: The M23 resurgence

After a period of dormancy following their 2012-2013 rebellion (due to military defeat and the subsequent Nairobi peace agreement of 2013), the March 23 Movement (M23) militant group has returned with a vengeance, capturing strategic territories of the North Kivu province and wreaking havoc on civilian lives. The DRC government accuses Rwanda of backing M23 – a claim supported by a United Nations report, which details the logistical and financial support provided to the group. Rwanda, naturally, denies these allegations, leaving us with a geopolitical finger-pointing contest while over 1.5 million people are displaced in eastern Congo.

The resurgence of M23 coincides with heightened global demand for the DRC’s mineral wealth, particularly cobalt and coltan, which are essential for rechargeable batteries and other high-tech gadgets. As the world races toward a “green future,” the DRC is paying the price, both in blood and in sovereignty.

Read more

Colonial borders: Africa’s original wound

To fully grasp the origins of Congo’s endless conflict, we must go back to 1884, when European powers met in Berlin to carve up Africa like a birthday cake – without a single African at the table. These artificial borders lumped together diverse ethnic and religious groups, while dividing natural communities and resources. For the DRC, a nation with over 200 ethnic groups, the ultimate result was a fragile state structure with no natural cohesion.

Post-independence, these colonial borders became the stage for a new battle: identity politics. Leaders manipulated ethnic identity to divide communities, fueling conflicts over land, resources, and power. What’s worse, multinational corporations have exploited these divisions to secure control over natural resources. The veneer of ethnic grievances often masks a deeper agenda: the competition for Congo’s mineral wealth. This tactic keeps communities fighting each other while corporate interests remain untouched.

The solution lies in rejecting divisive identity politics and embracing a pan-African identity – one that transcends tribal affiliations and unites Africans in the shared struggle for sovereignty, dignity, and justice. As the Pan-Africanist scholar Amilcar Cabral once said, “Hide nothing from the masses of our people. Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told.”

Colonial exploitation reimagined

To understand why the DRC remains a hotspot for conflict, we must revisit its colonial roots. When Belgium’s King Leopold II declared the Congo his personal property in the late 19th century, he unleashed one of history’s most brutal exploitation schemes. Under the guise of “civilizing” Africa, Leopold’s regime plundered Congo’s rubber and ivory, enslaving millions and killing an estimated 10 million people.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and not much has changed – except now, the plunderers wear suits and represent multinational corporations instead of European monarchs.

The DRC sits on an estimated $24 trillion worth of untapped minerals, including 60% of the world’s cobalt supply. These resources are indispensable to companies like Apple, Tesla, and Samsung. Yet, instead of uplifting Congolese communities, these riches fuel violence. Armed groups, including M23, fight to control mining regions, while multinational corporations tacitly enable this chaos by failing to trace their supply chains effectively.

According to a 2021 report by Amnesty International, child labor and dangerous working conditions are rampant in Congo’s artisanal mining sector. As one Congolese miner reportedly said, “The rich world wants its electric cars and smartphones, but we die digging for the materials to make them.”

Read more

Gaddafi’s pan-African vision: A missed opportunity

Few leaders in African history have demonstrated the visionary ambition of Muammar Gaddafi. The Libyan leader dedicated much of his life to addressing the root causes of Africa’s conflicts through pan-Africanism and the creation of strong, independent African institutions. I had the honor of working under his direct guidance and witnessing his relentless efforts to unite the continent.

Gaddafi championed the establishment of the African Union (AU) in 1999, proposed a Unified African Army to safeguard the continent’s sovereignty, and advocated for an African Organization for Natural Resources to wrest control of Africa’s wealth from multinational exploitation. He also spearheaded plans for an African Satellite and Communications System to end dependence on Western telecommunications and promoted the creation of an African Golden Currency, backed by Africa’s immense gold reserves, to liberate the continent from the dominance of foreign currencies like the US dollar and the euro.

Gaddafi directly communicated these transformative ideas to the Congolese government as early as 1999, using the AU platform to push for practical steps toward their implementation. Had the DRC embraced his vision, its mineral wealth could have been managed collectively through African-controlled frameworks, reducing foreign interference and fostering unity among African nations to mediate internal conflicts. By pooling resources, creating a shared defense system, and prioritizing economic independence, Gaddafi’s blueprint offered a clear path to stability in Congo – one that would have ensured its resources served African prosperity while addressing the systemic inequalities that fuel violence.

The neocolonial role of multinational corporations

Multinational corporations are the modern-day Leopold II, albeit with better PR teams. Despite numerous pledges for ethical sourcing, many tech giants continue to profit from Congo’s misery. A 2022 investigation by The Washington Post revealed that companies like Apple and Microsoft still source cobalt from suppliers linked to armed groups.

Read more

It’s not just the tech industry. The DRC’s gold, tin, and tungsten – referred to as “conflict minerals” – also make their way into global supply chains, fueling the conflict further. According to a 2017 report by Global Witness, less than half of companies exporting minerals from eastern DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda published due diligence reports in 2015. The report highlighted that 94% of Congo’s gold was estimated to have left the country illegally in 2014.

While a Wall Street Journal Article (2023) titled “How This Conflict Mineral Gets Smuggled Into Everyday Tech” discusses how coltan, mined in the DRC, is smuggled into Rwanda and sold as “conflict-free” to global smelters, generating substantial revenue for armed groups like M23.

And let’s not forget about the World Bank and IMF, whose structural adjustment programs in the 1990s forced the DRC to privatize its mining sector, opening the floodgates for foreign corporations to exploit the country’s resources with little oversight.

Human cost: A nation bleeding

The human toll of ethnic-fueled conflicts, The First Congo War (1996–1997), The Second Congo War (1998–2003), and the ongoing violence (2003–present), in the DRC is staggering. Over 6 million people have died in the country since the late 1990s, making it the deadliest continuous conflict since World War II. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that 5.8 million people are currently displaced within the country.

Eastern Congo is also a humanitarian disaster zone. In North Kivu, thousands of children work in artisanal mines, and sexual violence is used as a weapon of war. A 2022 study by the International Rescue Committee found that one in three women in the region has experienced sexual violence – a statistic that should shame the global community into action, but instead elicits only tepid responses.

The path forward: pan-African solutions to a global problem

The DRC’s plight underscores the urgent need for pan-African solidarity and solutions. The African Union (AU) must take a more assertive role in mediating conflicts and holding regional actors like Rwanda accountable. This could involve deploying a more robust African peacekeeping force or establishing a continental framework for resource governance that ensures transparency and equitable distribution of wealth.

Read more

Finally, the Global South must unite to challenge the exploitative practices of multinational corporations. As Kwame Nkrumah, the father of African independence, once said, “Africa’s liberation cannot be complete without economic independence.”

A smarter, ethical future?

The conflict in the DRC is a sobering reminder that the world’s technological progress often comes at the expense of the most vulnerable. As we charge our iPhones and drive our Teslas, let’s not forget the Congolese miners risking their lives for our convenience.

Perhaps one day, the DRC’s story will no longer be one of exploitation but of empowerment. Until then, we must keep asking uncomfortable questions and holding those in power accountable. After all, as the late African scholar Ali Mazrui said, “Africa produces what it does not consume and consumes what it does not produce. That is the heart of the problem.”

It’s time to rewrite that script.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The controversial case of a former Nagorno-Karabakh leader is not just a legal matter; it is a question of what kind of future the region envisions for itself.

In a Baku courtroom, a trial is unfolding that could shape the trajectory of the South Caucasus for years to come. Ruben Vardanyan, a globally respected philanthropist, businessman, and former State Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh, faces charges that many view as politically motivated and legally unfounded. Far more than a personal tragedy, this trial is a litmus test for justice, reconciliation, and peace in a region long scarred by conflict.

Ruben Vardanyan’s life’s work has been dedicated to improving lives, fostering dialogue, and building bridges across divides. His humanitarian legacy includes co-founding the Skolkovo School of Management in Russia and spearheading transformative projects in education, healthcare, and cultural preservation. In Nagorno-Karabakh, his leadership as State Minister was marked by a relentless focus on civilian welfare: ensuring access to medical care, heating, and food for a vulnerable population during a time of crisis.

Despite his record of humanitarian achievement, Vardanyan now finds himself accused of financing terrorism, creating illegal armed organizations and illegal arrival in Azerbaijan. Some of these charges can result in a life imprisonment. All of them appear to contradict the reality of his work and character. Alongside Vardanyan, multiple other former Nagorno-Karabakh officials are facing similar charges.

In a statement he managed to release via his family, Vardanyan describes conditions that make it virtually impossible to defend himself: he says he never gave any statements, but he and his lawyers were pressured into signing "falsified" interrogation records. They were also never allowed to see the official bill of indictment. On top of that, they were only given a month to read through 422 volumes of case material, all written in Azerbaijani, a language Vardanyan doesn't know.

"I reiterate my complete innocence, as well as the innocence of my compatriots, and demand an immediate end to this politicized case against us," he said in the statement.

The trial, shrouded in questions of fairness and transparency, raises serious concerns about the weaponization of legal systems in politically sensitive contexts.

Read more

A mischaracterization of a humanitarian

Azerbaijan has sought to portray Vardanyan as a war criminal, but the accusations against him fail to align with his documented role as a civilian leader and humanitarian. What began as three charges has now expanded to 45 under 20 articles of Azerbaijan’s criminal code, some of which date back to 1987 – when Vardanyan was a university student in Moscow, far removed from the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

This narrative ignores the reality of his contributions. Vardanyan’s work in Nagorno-Karabakh was focused on rebuilding civilian infrastructure and delivering essential services to those in need. His efforts earned him international recognition, including a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, underscoring his commitment to peace and reconciliation.

The trial, however, appears to be less about justice and more about politics. The lack of credible evidence, combined with the rapid expansion of charges, paints a picture of a judicial process driven by a broader political agenda rather than the pursuit of truth.

A trial under scrutiny

The circumstances of the trial further erode confidence in its legitimacy. Vardanyan has been granted only one lawyer, who operates under immense pressure in an environment where the legal process lacks transparency. Independent media have been barred from observing the proceedings, leaving the public reliant on state-controlled narratives.

This is not just a trial of Ruben Vardanyan; it is a test of Azerbaijan’s commitment to upholding justice and fairness. The international community must hold the process to the highest standards, ensuring that it does not devolve into a politically motivated spectacle.

Read more

The role of Armenia: A missed opportunity

Armenia’s muted response to Vardanyan’s plight is equally troubling. Despite his unwavering commitment to Armenian causes, the government in Yerevan has remained largely silent. This silence stands in stark contrast to Vardanyan’s own dedication to Armenia, exemplified by decades of humanitarian work, support for educational institutions, and advocacy for Armenian interests on the global stage.

This lack of action risks alienating a figure who has the potential to play a transformative role in regional politics. By failing to defend one of its most prominent citizens, Armenia misses an opportunity to assert its commitment to justice and to strengthen its voice on the international stage.

A unique role in regional reconciliation

Ruben Vardanyan is not just a victim of injustice; he is also a figure uniquely positioned to foster reconciliation in the South Caucasus. His pragmatic approach, combined with his deep understanding of the region’s complexities, makes him an invaluable bridge-builder.

Unlike many political figures, Vardanyan has the credibility and vision to facilitate dialogue between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia. His ability to engage with key stakeholders and build trust is crucial at a time when the region is searching for paths to lasting peace. Vardanyan’s leadership could help navigate the delicate balance of interests among these nations, fostering cooperation and stability.

Read more

A call for justice

The case against Ruben Vardanyan is a profound injustice, but it is also an opportunity for the South Caucasus to demonstrate a commitment to reconciliation and fairness. The international community, human rights organizations, and global leaders must raise their voices to demand a transparent and fair trial. Azerbaijan has the chance to show that it values justice and is committed to building a future based on mutual understanding rather than division.

At the same time, Armenia must step forward and advocate for its citizens. This is not just about Ruben Vardanyan; it is about reaffirming the principles of justice and protecting the rights of those who dedicate their lives to humanitarian work.

A path forward

Ruben Vardanyan’s imprisonment is not just a legal matter; it is a question of what kind of future the South Caucasus envisions for itself. His release would not only correct a grave injustice but also serve as a step toward healing and dialogue. It would demonstrate that the region is capable of prioritizing humanity over division and of building a future where cooperation triumphs over conflict.

The South Caucasus stands at a crossroads. The choices made now will shape the region’s trajectory for generations to come. Freeing Ruben Vardanyan would be more than an act of justice – it would be a symbol of hope, a step toward reconciliation, and a message that peace is possible. Let this be the moment when justice prevails, and the foundations for a brighter future are laid.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Moscow is seen as a more friendly ally by African nations that treats them as equals in a multipolar world

The burden of tough economic sanctions by Western states and a lingering war with Ukraine should have buried any thought of expanding Russian influence beyond its borders. However, Russia is pushing through the dark clouds to shape a future of geopolitics without the West at the center – a multipolar world in which Moscow is a major player. This push for a new order, despite being recent, is gaining some traction, thanks in part to a growing romance between Russia and the African Union.

Russia’s growing popularity in Africa

Africa and the African Union have, for most of modern history, looked to the West for bilateral relationships. Some nations over the years have survived on aid from Western partners or their erstwhile colonial masters, and others have also depended on the West for military support. But recently most of these countries, once loyal to the West, have taken a new open-minded approach to international relations.

The Russia-Africa Ministerial Conference, which took place last November in Sochi, is the first of its kind in the relationship between both parties. Still, it also followed the spirit of the October BRICS summit in Kazan, where Russia hosted African leaders. The conference not only kept the already existing relationship foundation laid by the Russia-Africa Summit in 2023 but also became the next step toward expanding bilateral cooperation in agriculture, defense, education, energy, investment, medicine, mining, and in international bodies and trade. This two-pronged purpose strongly indicates Russia’s growing influence in the region.

The discussions held at the ministerial conference reveal several major factors driving Russia’s increased acceptance and popularity in Africa.

Read more

First of all, there is a common dissatisfaction among African nations with their relationship with the West. It is a relationship that has resulted in the West infringing on the sovereignty of some African nations, placing harsh economic sanctions on defiant African nations, and even influencing domestic politics. This experience has pushed most African nations to seek alternative partners outside the continent. Russia’s non-involvement in the colonization of Africa, coupled with the fact that no African state has been under Russian sanctions, makes Moscow a more friendly ally that will look out for their interests and treat African states as equals.

Even after nominally obtaining independence, African nations found themselves in varying levels of dependence on its former colonial masters. Most of these relationships, although somewhat beneficial to the ex-colonies at some point, have led to the emergence of neo-colonialism where some countries were subjected to Western-backed rulers for decades. As a result, the alignment with the new alternative seems to be an effective protest against years of Western-backed misrule.

In most cases, the alignment with Russia has not led to a total disregard for relations with the West. However, what is happening is a shift in the focus of international relations across Africa. While these countries have remained exclusively pro-West for most of their existence, they now desire to embrace both sides of the divide. The hope is to balance ties with the West, Russia, and China without taking sides in geopolitical rivalries.

Action Plan

Russia has a vision of a multipolar new world order, and its terms for bilateral relations in Africa are encapsulated in the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum Action Plan 2023-2026. This document was ratified by the delegations of 54 African nations and Russia at the ministerial conference.

Read more

The Action Plan will guide Russia’s bilateral relationship with Africa across three broad areas: political and security, economic, and social and cultural cooperation. Beyond expanding cooperation between regional organizations in Africa and the Russian Federation, it also encourages mutual election monitoring between African states and Russia.

Of particular importance is the agreement to develop collaboration between political parties and to organize an annual international inter-party conference known as Russia-Africa: Reviving Traditions. The cross-fertilization of ideas from this annual event is aimed at benefiting both sides. For Russia, it would deepen its understanding of politics within the region, while on the other hand, the political parties from the African states would pick up new ideas that would improve the way they run activities, from campaigns to electioneering.

Recently, Russia has increased its military presence in Africa, especially in the area of counterterrorism. The plan aims to further increase its export of security to Africa and expand information sharing with counterpart security outfits in Africa.

Beyond security, one of the most attractive themes in the Action Plan is Russia’s plan to forge a different path for trade settlements with African nations. The agreement promises that trade between the Russian Federation and African nations will be in national currencies. This is a sharp blow to the status quo of settlements always being in dollars and has huge implications for the international economic order. Ultimately, we might be heading to an era where trade with Russia is more attractive than with the West.

Read more

Technologically, the Action Plan gives Russia a strong role in the development of the region. While the West has done quite little in nuclear programs across Africa, the plan promises more Russian involvement in developing nuclear programs and educational exchanges across Africa.

Embracing multipolarity

The African Union, African nations, and regional organizations have been loyal to the West from the colonial era to the post-colonial era, and this loyalty has been met with some discontent in recent years. Accordingly, it seems there is an agenda to keep the Global South, particularly Africa, poor. This has led to the current diplomatic stance of various erstwhile colonies to seek relations with nations other than their colonial masters or Western powers based on their interests. A multipolar world gives nations the freedom of association rather than taking sides in the wider geopolitical rivalries among nations in the Global North.

Therefore, Russia’s expanding influence into Africa is necessary to give developing nations wider options for relationships on their path to development. In the end, the only criteria for international relations should be mutual benefit rather than taking sides in a power tussle that has done little for African development.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A growing trend of revising World War II history risks erasing the immense sacrifices made by the Soviet Union in the fight against Nazi Germany

Russia’s exclusion from the commemorations marking the 80th anniversary of Auschwitz’s liberation is not just a diplomatic snub – it is an insult to history and to the memory of millions who suffered and died during World War II. This decision, part of a growing trend of historical revisionism, diminishes the decisive role played by the Soviet Union in defeating Nazi Germany and liberating concentration camps, including Auschwitz. It’s a troubling development that undermines the lessons of the past in favor of political expediency.

On January 27, 1945, the Soviet Red Army liberated Auschwitz, revealing to the world the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust. This event became a symbol of the triumph of humanity over the worst atrocities of the Nazi regime. Yet, in 2025, Russian representatives were excluded from the anniversary ceremony at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland. Piotr Cywinski, the museum’s director, justified the decision by citing Russia’s actions in the Ukraine conflict, stating that a country “that does not understand the value of liberty has something to do at a ceremony dedicated to the liberation.”

This reasoning ignores a critical truth: Auschwitz’s liberation was accomplished by Soviet soldiers, many of whom paid with their lives. The USSR bore the brunt of the Nazi war machine, suffering the loss of an estimated 27 million military personnel and civilians during the war. To exclude Russia from commemorations of such a significant event is to erase the sacrifices of those who played an indispensable role in ending the Holocaust.

Read more

This act is part of a broader pattern of attempts to revise history, downplaying or ignoring the Soviet Union’s contributions to the defeat of Nazi Germany. In recent years, statements from Western leaders have increasingly glossed over the USSR’s role in World War II. For instance, during a Memorial Day speech, then-US President Joe Biden recounted the victory over Nazi Germany without mentioning the Soviet Union, a glaring omission that Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov criticized as a cynical diminishment of historical truth. Similarly, current US President Donald Trump once claimed that it was “American soldiers who truly won World War II,” conveniently overlooking the critical battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin where Soviet forces dealt the decisive blows to the Nazi regime.

Even more troubling is the West’s apparent tolerance for neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine, a country central to the current geopolitical tensions. In 2023, the Canadian Parliament hosted Yaroslav Hunka, a 98-year-old Ukrainian who served in the Waffen-SS “Galicia” division – a unit implicated in war crimes. Hunka was given a standing ovation, a shocking display that later forced the resignation of Canada’s House Speaker Anthony Rota. Such incidents highlight a disturbing willingness to whitewash history in the name of contemporary political alliances.

Russia’s exclusion from World War II commemorations is not new. In 2024, Russian officials were barred from the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, France, with the French presidency stating that “the conditions for their participation are not there given the war of aggression launched in 2022.” Similarly, in 2020, Poland excluded Russian representatives from a Warsaw commemoration marking the outbreak of World War II. These decisions reflect a troubling trend: using historical remembrance as a tool of political messaging.

This selective approach to history is dangerous. World War II was a global conflict that required immense sacrifices from numerous nations, but no country paid a higher price than the Soviet Union. To erase or diminish that contribution is to distort the historical record and risk undermining the shared understanding that has underpinned the post-war international order.

Read more

The decision to exclude Russia from Auschwitz’s 80th anniversary commemorations sends a troubling message about the value of historical truth in times of geopolitical conflict. If we begin to erase inconvenient aspects of history to suit present-day narratives, we risk losing sight of the lessons that history teaches us. The Holocaust and the broader atrocities of World War II were enabled by dehumanization, propaganda, and the denial of reality. To combat these forces in our time, we must commit to an honest reckoning with the past, even when it is uncomfortable.

By excluding Russia, the organizers of the Auschwitz commemorations missed an opportunity to reaffirm the shared commitment to remembering the Holocaust and the sacrifices made to end it. The liberation of Auschwitz was a moment of global significance, a reminder of what humanity can achieve when united against evil. That unity is undermined when we allow historical revisionism to take hold.

In remembering Auschwitz, we must honor all those who contributed to its liberation, regardless of modern political considerations. The Soviet soldiers who freed the camp’s survivors deserve recognition, as do the millions of Soviet citizens who perished in the fight against fascism. To deny their role is not only an affront to historical truth but also a betrayal of the very ideals of liberty and justice that the commemorations seek to uphold.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Fearing being excluded by Trump, Kiev’s European backers see ‘boots on the ground’ as a political foothold in the crisis

Nothing is certain regarding the Ukraine conflict. Except two things: Russia is winning and, under new ownership, the US leadership is searching for a novel approach. As Russian foreign policy heavyweight Sergey Ryabkov has noted, there is now a window of opportunity for a compromise to, in essence, help end this senseless conflict and restore some normalcy to US-Russian relations and thus global politics as well. But that window is small and will not be open forever.

Beyond that, things remain murky. Is the end to this madness finally in sight? Will Washington now translate its declared intention to change course into negotiating positions that Moscow can take seriously? Those would have to include – as a minimum – territorial losses and genuine neutrality for Ukraine, as well as a robust sense that any peace is made to last.

Last but not least, will the West compel Kiev to accept such a realistic settlement? ‘Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine’ may still sound terribly nice to those selfish enough to mistake international politics for a virtue-signaling beauty contest. Yet – like the daft, hypocritical cant of ‘agency’ – it was never true in the first place, has served to shield the Western abuse of Ukraine and Ukrainians, and must be abandoned if this meatgrinder of a conflict is to end.

Or could everything turn out the other way around? Could Western and especially US hardliners still prevail? Whispering into Trump’s ear that ‘winning’ will just take a bigger, Trumpier push, with even more money and arms for the Kiev regime and more economic warfare against Russia, and that making peace would actually cost more than continuing the proxy war? Yes, the first is pure wishful thinking, going against all recent experience; the second is an absurd non-argument sitting on top of a mountain of false premises; and yet, this nonsense is still all too popular in the West, which has a habit of building its foreign policy on illusions.

Washington’s recent signaling has been ambiguous enough, whether by design or clumsiness, to raise hopes among the many remaining diehards in the West. The British Telegraph, for instance, is fantasizing about “Trump’s playbook for bringing Putin to his knees”; the Washington Post interprets the new American president’s recent (online) speech at the Davos World Economic Forum as “putting the onus on Russia”; and the New York Times desperately sifts through Trump’s words for anything that is harsh about Russia or its president, Vladimir Putin.

Read more

In the end, all of the above will probably turn out to be nothing but clutching at straws. While any Washington-Moscow negotiations are bound to be complicated, a return to the demented mutism of the Biden administration is unlikely. Communication will become the default again, as it should be among sane adults. And as long as there is no foul play – an assassination of Donald Trump, for instance – the US will, in one way or the other, extricate itself from the Ukraine conflict. If only because Trump is, at heart, a businessman, and will not throw good money after bad. It’s a harsh, cold reasoning, but if it leads to the right results – an end to senseless fighting and unnecessary dying – then it will have to do.

That US extrication, it bears emphasis, need not wait for a settlement with Russia or even the start of serious negotiations. Indeed, the extrication isn’t one thing but a process, and it has already begun. First, immediately after Trump’s inauguration, support to Ukraine was reduced, but military aid was still upheld. Not for long though. Only days later, Politico reported that a second general order to suspend aid flows for 90 days also applied to military assistance for Kiev.

But there is a catch. If the US distances itself from its lost proxy war, that does not necessarily mean that its clients and vassals in the EU and NATO will follow, at least not immediately. That is counterintuitive, admittedly. If EU leaders were rational, acting in their countries’ best interest – and, in fact, that of Ukraine, too – they would not even consider going it alone. But then, if they were rational, they would have refused to join the US proxy war from the beginning and long have stopped listening sheepishly to bossy tirades by Ukraine past-best-by-date president Vladimir Zelensky. And yet they have just done it again at Davos.

So, instead of rationality, we now see unending affirmations that peace will not and must not come soon. Sorry Ukrainians, your European ‘friends’ believe you haven’t done enough dying yet.

French President Emmanuel Macron, for one, seems to be going through a manic phase, again. Clearly with reference to Trump’s very different ideas, the comically unpopular leader, whose ratings have just dived to a six-year low, has declared that the Ukraine conflict will not end soon, “ neither today nor the day after today.” German Foreign Minister Annalena '360 degrees' Baerbock is throwing tantrums when she can’t have as many billions for Ukraine as she wants. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer – another European incumbent on very thin ice at home and with abysmal ratings – has made his first pilgrimage to Kiev and concluded a 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine, including a secret part and worth, again, billions and billions of pounds. Because, you see, Britain is doing so incredibly well at home – except not really. Take just one data point: British factories have just registered their worst slump in orders since Covid.

Against this Euro-Conga-on-the-Titanic backdrop, another upshot of the persistent European refusal to get real is re-emerging talk about sending large numbers of Western ground forces to Ukraine, specifically from NATO-EU countries. True, Zelensky’s demands at Davos for 200,000 troops – that’s more than landed in Normandy on D-Day 1944, but why be modest when you are riding high in Kiev? – are ludicrous. Yet smaller but still substantial numbers – 40,000 or so – are still under consideration.

Read more

What exactly these troops would be doing in Ukraine remains hazy. They would not be a peacekeeping force because they would be siding with one party of the conflict, Ukraine. And yet, proponents of these schemes promise they would not be on the front lines fighting against Russia because they would either be introduced only after an end to the fighting, or they would somehow remain in the hinterland, thereby freeing up Ukrainian forces for the front.

None of the above makes sense. As long as the fighting continues, there is no hinterland in the sense that the troops would be spared real fighting and dying, because Russian airstrikes can reach them everywhere even now, and, depending on further developments, so may Russian land forces in the future. Moreover, once these troops enter the country, Kiev would, of course, do its best to get them embroiled in great bloodshed, including by provocations and false flag operations. The aim would be to drag these ‘allies’ so deep into the quagmire that they wouldn’t be able to get out again.

Introducing boots on the grounds from NATO-EU countries after the fighting, however, won’t work either. Russia is fighting to have a genuinely neutral Ukraine and will not agree; and as long as Russia does not agree, there won’t be any end to the fighting. If these troops were to turn up anyhow, the conflict would start again. Indeed, Kiev would have an incentive to restart it once they are in Ukraine (see above).

Of course, NATO-EU states already have black ops operators and mercenaries on the ground. But while Moscow has wisely decided not to take this degree of intervention as a reason for attacking beyond Ukraine, regular forces in large numbers would obviously be a different matter. The proponents of this type of deployment argue that the US contingent in South Korea and KFOR troops in Kosovo (of all places!) show that these deployments are possible without further escalation. This, too, is nonsense. KFOR’s presence is based on several 1999 agreements and, crucially, a UN Security Council resolution (1244). Its sad but very low fatalities ( 213 as of 2019), some caused by accidents, cannot remotely be compared with what would happen to NATO-EU troops clashing with the Russian Army; finally, those KFOR casualties that did not come from accidents, and were not inflicted by a state’s regular forces but by protesters and irregulars. A scenario in which thousands of EU troops die in a fight with the regular army of a nuclear-armed Russia is incomparable.

Regarding the US troops in South Korea, their presence is based on a mutual defense treaty concluded in 1953. Again, exactly the type of arrangement Moscow will not accept. And also one that the NATO-Europeans would be very wise to shy away from, because, once again, it would suck them deep into the next war. Finally, obvious but worth stating: Those US forces in South Korea have the backing of the US. They are a classical tripwire. Attack them, and face the whole US military. EU forces would not have US backing; and if Europeans want to underwrite such a tripwire with their own flimsy armies, they are suicidal.

If large-scale deployment of EU boots on the ground is such an obviously bad idea, why will it not finally go away? There are really only two possible answers: Either those dreaming such dreams are really so shortsighted and irresponsible (think Kaja Kallas and similar intellectual lightweights) or they are not quite honest about their motives. In reality, we are probably dealing with both.

Regarding the genuinely confused, let’s not waste time on them. But what about those who are really after something else? What could that be? Here is a plausible guess. The talk about sending major contingents to Ukraine has two real aims, one targeting the new American leadership and the other, Ukrainian domestic politics.

Read more

With regard to Washington, the real purpose of speculating about EU ground troops is a desperate attempt to secure Brussels a say in the coming negotiations between the US and Russia. And there, the Europeans are right about one thing: They may well be excluded, which will be an ironic outcome after their self-destructive obedience toward the Biden administration. But there’s a new sheriff in town now, and he might well cut them loose no less than Ukraine.

In Ukraine, the real purpose is to exert outside influence on the sore issue of mobilization: Ukraine is running out of cannon fodder, as observers as different as the new US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and the slavishly NATO-ist German magazine Spiegel now admit. Mobilization of those who are still there is a creeping catastrophe; its violence and the mass evasion practiced by its victims demonstrating every day that many Ukrainians have had enough. The Zelensky regime’s proposed answer is to lower the mobilization age even further, to 18. Importantly, this is supposed to happen even if there is peace.

And would it not be convenient for this type of policy to point to troops from the West and tell unwilling draftees and their families: Look, if even those foreigners are coming to help, how can you stay at home? Yet they are unlikely to ever turn up. Once again, Ukrainians will be fed bloated rhetoric about and by false friends from the West – to, in the end, be left alone to keep dying and lose more territory. The way out of this is not more of the same. Even if it could work – which it cannot – NATO-EU mass deployment would only make everything worse. Because the real way out of this is a compromise with Russia – and the deployment of Western troops would prevent that compromise.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi’s role as a counterweight to China solidifies its status as Washington’s’ key partner in South Asia, outweighing short-term concerns over Russian oil revenues

The year 2025 had barely started when the outgoing Joe Biden administration presented a belated 'holiday gift' to Russian oil exporters. Washington announced a new sanctions package – the “most significant” yet, according to US officials.

This time, it affected Russian oil giants Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegaz. These companies already face restrictions on access to American financing and technology, but now it seems that the US and UK are about to impose more severe sanctions on the Russian oil giants.

The sanctions target 183 vessels – primarily the so-called “shadow fleet” tankers that transport Russian oil – as well as support vessels. According to US estimates, these vessels carry about one-third of Russia’s oil exports, and this move is intended to suffocate Russian oil producers. While this will likely trigger a surge in oil prices, US and EU authorities believe they can hold out until prices stabilize and decline.

India, one of the key purchasers of Russian oil, swiftly responded to the announcement. A senior Indian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Bloomberg that state-owned refineries will no longer process oil brought in by sanctioned tankers. They are negotiating with alternative suppliers from the Middle East and considering other strategies to avoid secondary US sanctions.

This situation is certainly concerning, but how critical is it?

Indian politicians often use Bloomberg as a means of conveying their intentions to overseas partners. Right after the price cap on Russian oil was implemented, Bloomberg quoted another high-ranking Indian official who claimed that although India wouldn’t officially join the “price cap,” it would unofficially adhere to the restrictions.

Read more

The current sanctions package demonstrated that there wasn’t much truth behind those words: tankers from the “shadow fleet” were sanctioned precisely because they transported oil purchased in violation of the price cap. It appears that India is sending a similar message this time, attempting to reassure the US – at least until US President Donald Trump’s new administration clarifies its stance on sanctions and in general on relations with Russia.

New Delhi and Moscow have plenty of ways to navigate around sanctions. The very concept of a “shadow fleet” allows for significant flexibility when it comes to flags, ownership of vessels, and operators (and sometimes even the use of AIS transponders). Moreover, India has a number of private oil refineries, and there are serious doubts about whether the US will actually impose sanctions on both government-owned Indian companies and the oil tycoons closely aligned with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The main concern isn’t even the potential spike in oil prices for European consumers – the stability of European economies isn’t exactly a top concern for the US. In the eyes of the Washington elites, India remains the most valuable partner in South Asia, as its mere existence complicates China’s economic and political expansion. Therefore, the Americans are unlikely to risk their relationship with New Delhi just to temporarily reduce Moscow’s oil revenue.

READ MORE: Why Russia is here to stay, making India’s military stronger

The real question is how long India is willing to keep circumventing these sanctions. After the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, New Delhi faced intense pressure from the US and EU, which urged it to align with other Western democracies, condemn Russia, and cut off all cooperation with it.

At that time, Indian diplomats managed to deftly navigate these pressures – largely because neither the Americans nor the Europeans were ready to sever ties with such an important partner – and waited for tempers in the West to cool down and politicians to realize that India’s neutral stance, along with that of some other countries, helps the global economy function as a unified system, even if it comes with certain challenges. This position allowed India to secure a steady supply of inexpensive petroleum products and a modest flow of technology and investments from Russia.

However, recently, New Delhi has increasingly signaled its willingness to act as a peacemaker. Under these circumstances, India’s stance on sanctions may eventually change.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team

Медиа: image / jpeg

Russia sees the African continent as a major side of the global multipolarity

I prefer to die with my head unbowed, my faith unshakeable and with profound trust in the destiny of my country, rather than live under subjection and disregarding sacred principles. History will one day have its say, but it will not be the history that is taught in Brussels, Paris, Washington or in the United Nations. But the history which will be taught in the countries freed from imperialism and its puppets.

Patrice Lumumba

In November 2024, I had the opportunity to participate in the first-ever ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, held in Sochi following the Russia-Africa summit that had taken place in St. Petersburg a year earlier. The conference accelerated the development of reviving ties with the African continent and marked another significant milestone in Russia’s foreign policy reorientation toward the Global South and East.

As a planner, I was particularly interested in gaining a comprehensive understanding of our African partners – their perspectives, concerns, anxieties, and aspirations. Upon returning home to Moscow, I implemented a long-standing idea: I put down on paper the impressions, thoughts, and ideas about Africa and its growing role in world affairs that had emerged from years of observations, travels and interactions, and from reading specialized literature.

This article is written with a specific purpose: to demonstrate that Africa possesses everything needed to become one of the strong centers of the emerging multipolar world and that Africans have already begun moving towards this goal. Let me state upfront that I do not claim to cover the topic exhaustively and have deliberately avoided delving into many historical, cultural, linguistic, and other aspects that fall within the expertise of regional specialists. The focus is on the evidence that illustrates the dynamics of Africa’s emergence as a pole of influence, its characteristics, and its prospects.

Read more

My broader plan involves exploring all existing centers of globally significant political decision-making, as well as potential contenders for this role. However, the decision to begin with Africa was also driven by a purely symbolic motive: this continent is the ‘cradle of humanity,’ our shared ancestral homeland. Based on anthropological discoveries made in the Olduvai Gorge area (Tanzania, 1959) and near Lake Turkana (Kenya, 1972), scientists have hypothesized that modern humans, Homo Sapiens, most likely originated in the eastern part of Africa about 200,000 years ago.

Today’s Africa is an extraordinarily complex civilizational entity. It includes both so-called ‘Sub-Saharan Africa’ and the Arab-Berber Maghreb, where the African world intersects with the Arab-Muslim world, with one civilization seemingly layered upon and transitioning into the other. It is a vast continent of many unique peoples, cultures, religious traditions, races, and diverse historical legacies.

However, an internal sense of shared destiny and belief in a common future, a drive for joint development, integration efforts in economics and politics, and an active search for African identity – these factors and more provide a foundation from which to view Africa as a cohesive geopolitical entity and an integral component of the multipolar system of the future.

The African pole – problems and prospects

In the declaration adopted following the second Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg, Africa is proclaimed as playing an “increasing global role and influence as one of the key pillars of a multipolar world.”

Indeed, Africa has all the prerequisites to transform into a sovereign center of power. With its inexhaustible demographic and natural resources, the continent has enviable geopolitical prospects if it seizes the opportunity for sovereign development. It is no coincidence that it is often referred to as the ‘continent of the future.’ With a population of 1.5 billion, Africa is on par with India and China, and its age structure gives it an advantage over these regions – half of Africa’s population is under 20 years old.

Read more

Experts estimate that by 2050, the continent’s population could reach 2.5 billion, meaning one in four people on Earth will be African.

Africa is a true treasure trove of natural wealth, containing 30% of the world’s mineral resources, including hydrocarbons, precious metals and stones, chromium, bauxite, cobalt, uranium, lithium, manganese, coal, and rare-earth elements. Spanning a total area of 30.37 million km2 (roughly twice the size of Russia and with a much warmer climate), the continent boasts enough fertile soil to feed its entire population. Additionally, Africa’s geographic location provides direct access to global transport corridors, particularly oceanic routes.

Politically, Africa comprises 54 member states of the United Nations (UN), 27 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), six members of OPEC, and five members of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF). Among BRICS countries, the continent is represented by South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia, while South Africa, Egypt, and the African Union participate in the G20 on a permanent basis.

Africa is rapidly advancing in strengthening its institutional frameworks to align and implement the interests of its nations. This progress is rooted in the unique idea of Pan-Africanism, which draws upon the centuries-old history of African peoples and local traditionalism. It is undeniable that “the revival of traditional values of African civilization is the key to Africa’s rise as a self-sufficient civilization.”

The embodiment of Pan-African principles is the African Union (AU), which unites nations on a continent-wide platform and increasingly raises its voice in global politics on behalf of all its peoples. The 55-country group plays a particularly important role in strategic planning. At its 2015 summit in Addis Ababa, a programmatic document was adopted with the aim of transforming the continent into a “zone of power” by 2063 – an initiative known as ‘Agenda 2063’. This comprehensive plan focuses on promoting industrialization and strengthening African unity. A strategic project to establish the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) – the largest of its kind in the world – aims to significantly bolster integration processes, positioning Africa as a global-class actor in trade and politics.

A major step toward expanding the AU’s reach in advocating its priorities on the international stage was the union’s attainment of permanent membership status in the G20, alongside the European Union, achieved in late 2023 with the support of Russia and other participant countries.

The architecture of a multipolar world is being shaped by horizontal inter-polar formats and, in this context, the African Union and Africa as a collective of states are among the global leaders. In addition to the Russia-Africa summits, there are similar mechanisms such as Africa-China, Africa-USA, Africa-India, Africa-EU, Africa-Arab World, Africa-Latin America, and Africa-Turkey. The creation of an ‘Africa-ASEAN’ format appears to be the logical next step.

Africa’s integration into intercontinental processes is also facilitated through the participation of individual African states in organizations like the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), the Organization of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS), and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP).

For structuring the intra-African space, subregional intergovernmental organizations play a key role. These include the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The East African Community (EAC), the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) also hold significant potential. This dense network of political and economic ties within the African pole enhances its resilience.

According to informed Russian experts, African countries “support each other on the global stage and adopt common positions on many current international issues.” At the same time, Africa seeks to steer international discussions in a constructive direction, focusing on solving practical issues such as socio-economic development, combating poverty and injustice, eradicating modern practices of neocolonialism, ensuring security and conflict resolution, and improving resilience to epidemics.

Like the rest of the global majority, and perhaps even to a greater extent, Africans suffer from attempts to politicize international discussions and to subordinate mechanisms of international cooperation to the interests of former colonial powers.

Africans are dissatisfied that they are still being treated as mere extras in foreign-policy projects promoted under the banner of a ‘rules-based order’

These include attempts to lure African countries into ‘summits for democracy,’ held at the initiative of the US administration from 2021 to 2024, to pressure them into voting for anti-Russian resolutions at the UN and other venues, and to secure at least the appearance of support for one-sided initiatives to resolve the Ukrainian crisis that fail to take Russia’s interests into account.

African experts lament that the West is unwilling “to recognize the right of the continent’s countries to set their own agenda” and that its policy toward opponents amounts to “punishing them for having their own interests”. We cannot but support those Africans who openly call on “the EU and other U.S. allies not to impose their way of life and values on those who do not wish it.” Nor can we disagree with the conclusion that, for some time now, the Ukrainian issue has overshadowed everything else for the West.

Africa’s voice, amplified by a powerful innate potential, is growing ever louder on the world stage. We have no doubt that this beneficial process will continue to gain momentum in consolidating and bolstering the sovereignty of the African pole. Yet the Dark Continent cannot achieve a high level of economic self-sufficiency and, consequently, geopolitical stability without “eliminating all the lingering effects of colonialism.”

Africa in the fetters of neocolonialism

God deliver us from Europe, which cares about our freedom.

Bernard Dadié, poet (Côte d’Ivoire, translated from French)

Africa remains the continent most devastated by colonialism, having been ruthlessly exploited for centuries by European powers that drained its human and material resources. The wealth plundered from Africa served as rocket fuel for the accelerated development of European countries and the United States. In the 1950s, Liberian poet Bai T. Moore wrote, “Civilization is in full swing – gold and diamonds are sent to Europe.” These poignant words encapsulate the historical trauma inflicted on Africans by colonial metropolises.

Read more

African experts believe that the foundations of the continent’s complex underdevelopment and the conflicts arising from territorial and ethno-religious divisions were largely laid by the predatory policies of colonizers.

Its historical chance to achieve independence and significance in global affairs came with the decolonization process of the 1950s and 1960s. The selfless struggle of several generations of Africans for freedom gave rise to a cohort of leaders whose names are etched in global history: Patrice Lumumba, Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, António Agostinho Neto, Samora Machel, Amílcar Cabral, and many others. The year 1960 became known as the ‘Year of Africa’ as 16 of the 17 states admitted to the UN that year were African. These nations, having freed themselves from the military and political oppression of colonial powers (Belgium, Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France), faced the arduous task of building newly acquired statehood.

However, the formal end of the colonial era did not bring true liberation from external dependence, particularly in the economic sphere. Despite being rich in resources, Africa, with its underdeveloped infrastructure and industries, continues to draw the attention of Western multinational corporations. Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong’o aptly noted that the West’s struggle for Africa revolves around “access to local resources.”

To this day, Africa occupies a peripheral position in the international division of labor, essentially serving as a source of cheap raw materials and a market for high-value-added products. This discriminatory arrangement, enabling Western development at others’ expense through unequal exchange, is highly advantageous to the West. To sustain and entrench this system, former colonial powers employ an extensive neo-colonial toolkit in Africa. This involves debt enslavement through the lending policies of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other Western ‘donors’, external control over African governments, and exploitative schemes that channel virtually all profits back to Western jurisdictions. As African political analysts rightly point out, “The West benefits from a system in which any so-called progress is driven primarily by multinational corporations and does not translate into development.”

Read more

In the past, there were efforts to break this system and channel Africa’s wealth toward the benefit of its people. Notable among these were Pan-African initiatives led by Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya, who was brutally killed with NATO’s support. Gaddafi’s vision was to harness Africa’s potential for large-scale development projects. His plans were ambitious – ranging from establishing a common currency (the gold dinar) and building infrastructure to fostering a Pan-African identity.

It is no surprise that such a progressive vision for the future of the Dark Continent directly clashed with the narrow self-serving interests of the West and its neo-colonial practices of exploitation and domination.

To this day, financial aid to Africa from Bretton Woods institutions and individual Western countries is accompanied by humiliating conditions. African experts lament that, for example, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) predominantly promotes a political agenda rooted in neoliberal globalist ideology. The agency prioritizes activities in Africa such as promoting “democracy, supporting civil society, and assisting in leadership elections.” Similarly, the European Union’s ‘Global Gateway’ initiative demands that Africans pledge allegiance to infamous Western values (including the primacy of LGBT rights, juvenile justice, racism, and Russophobia) and standards in exchange for assistance.

The scale of systematic exploitation of Africa by the West is exemplified by the situation in the global coffee market. The International Coffee Organization estimates its annual turnover at $460 billion. Of this, Africa receives less than 10%. Germany alone earns more from coffee trade annually than all African countries combined. In food security, Western lobbyists have, since colonial times, pushed for the replacement of traditional African crops with wheat, which is poorly suited to the region’s climate. As a result, many African nations have fallen into a man-made ‘wheat trap’, forced to import expensive wheat-based products from the EU.

In promoting so-called climate and environmental agendas in Africa, the West similarly pursues selfish commercial and political interests that contradict the aspirations of African countries. As Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed out, African nations are “offered modern tools and technologies, but they cannot afford them... and no one provides funding. Instead, they are forced to depend on Western technologies and loans. These loans come with horrific conditions and are impossible to repay. This is yet another tool of neo-colonialism.”

Read more

The composition of the ‘Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment’, established for Africa in 2022, reveals the West’s view of who should control African resources: Australia, the UK, Germany, Canada, South Korea, the US, Sweden, Finland, France, Japan, and the European Union. Partnerships like these invariably deprive Africans of the opportunity to transform their resources into economic, technological, and political sovereignty.

The UN, aligned with Western agendas, exacerbates such policies. For instance, the ‘African’ section of the UN website prioritizes climate change over poverty, migration (40% of the global total, terrorism, piracy, conflicts, or drug and arms trafficking. Despite operating five peacekeeping missions in Africa, the UN, according to African political scientists, has demonstrated a chronic inability to improve security. UN agencies like the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UNHCR, and the UNDP focus on short-term coordination with biased Western NGOs. Moreover, Western donors politicize international development assistance.

The UN enables the West’s global cognitive warfare by legitimizing convenient concepts and narratives. For instance, the UNDP relies on the false premise of ‘violent extremism’, linking the spread of radical ideologies to human rights violations. Their recommendations effectively limit governments’ ability to combat extremist or terrorist threats that align with Western interests, ignoring real causes like destructive foreign intervention, state destabilization, and intercommunal tensions often provoked for the benefit of Western multinationals.

This reflects the broader political strategies of Western nations. The US strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa emphasizes promoting democracy, supporting civil society and activists, expanding LGBT rights, combating “disinformation” (read: censoring narratives unfavorable to the US or its allies), and facilitating a green transition. These revolutionary (in a negative sense) neoliberal agendas, designed to serve the interests of globalist multinational corporations, are starkly illustrated by their actions in Africa.

Young African experts rightly argue that “escaping subjugation begins with decolonizing the mind.” The West watches with concern as Africa moves toward geopolitical sovereignty. Some Western scholars reluctantly admit that “African countries need to be understood and respected.” Interestingly, the West has even called for rejecting the term ‘Global South’, alleging it to be a product of Russian propaganda. They worry that Russia “leverages Africa’s frustration with inadequate representation in the global economy and governance.” They also hold that “the continent will not accept moralizing lectures.”

A deep-rooted superiority complex hinders Western powers from treating countries in the South and East as equals. Consider that, as recently as 1958, live individuals from Belgian Congo were displayed as exhibits in a pavilion during the Brussels World Fair. Human zoos operated across Euro-Atlantic countries – including Antwerp, London, New York, and Hamburg – well into the first half of the 20th century.

Time, however, runs its course. The main historical trend is that the era of Western dominance on the African continent has come to an end.

The disintegration of post-colonial zones of influence of former metropolises is underway. A striking example is the rapid decline of France’s military-political control in francophone African countries. Africans are gradually shedding the burden of outdated and ineffective mechanisms of cooperation, including in the area of security, that are tied to the neo-colonial interests of the West. A recent example is the establishment of the Alliance and later the Confederation of Sahel States. Taking the resolution of long-standing problems into their own hands, leaders resisting external domination adhere to a principle articulated by African historians: “Only formulas developed by Africans themselves, not imposed from outside, will work on the continent.”

Read more

The well-known principle of ‘African problems require African solutions’ is becoming a prototype in the era of regionalization of global politics. It serves as a model for addressing security issues in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, East Asia, and the Eurasian continent as a whole, emphasizing the responsibility of regional states for their own destinies.

Moreover, Africa’s liberation aligns harmoniously with the broader international trend of strengthening multipolarity. Changes in the global balance of power have become irreversible. Experts on Africa emphasize that, under these new conditions, the continent must focus on developing its own institutions and deepening intra-African cooperation based on mutual benefit rather than dependency. These and other key themes were highlighted during meetings of the organizing committee for the Interparty Forum of Supporters Against Modern Neo-Colonial Practices, initiated in 2023 by Russia’s political party, United Russia. The forum’s founding session, held in February 2024, saw broad representation from African participants, resulting in the creation of the anti-colonial ‘For the Freedom of Nations!’ movement.

A significant political victory was the adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution ‘Eradication of Colonialism in All Its Forms and Manifestations’ in December 2024. Drafted by member states of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter under Russia’s leadership, the resolution was supported by an overwhelming majority of African countries. It aims to ensure full implementation of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Additionally, it proposes designating December 14 as the International Day for the Eradication of Colonialism in All Its Forms and Manifestations, commemorating the date of the Declaration’s adoption. This step, supported by Africans, suggests that the UN still has the potential to play a constructive role in uniting progressive forces in the fight against hegemonism and injustice.

The BRICS bloc, with South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia currently representing Africa among its member states, is poised to play a key role in strengthening multipolarity. At the BRICS summit in Kazan in October 2024, additional African countries, including the Republic of Congo and Mauritania, participated in the ‘Plus/Outreach’ segment. Beyond the political significance of African participation in this multilateral organization, BRICS’ financial initiatives hold practical relevance for the continent. The New Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement provide reliable, depoliticized tools that African nations can rely on to address issues of sovereign development.

Read more

African politicians and experts highly value the potential of BRICS, viewing it as a driver for building a new and fair international order, and a cornerstone of the emerging architecture of international relations that is replacing unipolar mechanisms. Russian political analysts share this view, emphasizing that the expansion of BRICS, including the addition of Egypt and Ethiopia, is “a visible testament to the world’s movement toward multipolarity.”

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov aptly noted, “We are witnessing Africa’s second awakening, this time from neo-colonial oppression and practices that hinder its development.” With the ongoing redistribution of economic and political power on a global scale and the creation of alternatives to Western financial, economic, political, and humanitarian platforms, Africans will gain even more opportunities to embark on the path of nationally oriented development. Russia stands ready to provide comprehensive support to its African friends on this journey.

Russia and Africa – time to gather stones

God grant us rain or Russians.

Somali Proverb

The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation notes that the country intends to support the African continent “as a distinctive and influential center of world development.” According to Vladimir Putin, cooperation with African states is one of the enduring priorities of Russia’s foreign policy. The declaration of the Russia-Africa summit highlights the historically established and time-tested friendly ties between the Russian Federation and African states, based on mutual respect, trust, and a tradition of cooperative struggle for the eradication of colonialism and the establishment of independence for African countries.

Russia and Africa share a common vision for the future. A joint statement issued following the 2024 Sochi Ministerial Conference emphasizes “the responsibility of the Russian Federation and African states to promote the formation of a fair and stable world order based on the principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and respect for sovereignty.”

Read more

Russia is invested in the internal consolidation of African civilization and its prosperity underpinned by sovereignty. Like our African friends, we reject modern practices of neo-colonialism and condemn the policy of unilateral sanctions. We share a commitment to democratizing international relations and upholding the principle of the sovereign equality of states. Russia does not look down on Africans, respects their aspirations and interests, and is ready for an equal partnership without imposing ideologies, values, or development models. Each country’s relationship with Russia is valued on its own merits. As Vladimir Putin has stated: “In the history of our relations with the African continent, there has never been any shadow – never. We have never exploited African peoples, nor have we engaged in anything inhumane on the African continent. On the contrary, we have always supported Africa and Africans in their struggle for independence, sovereignty, and the creation of basic conditions for economic development.”

Africans gratefully remember the Soviet Union’s contributions to decolonization, the development of their economies, as well as their statehood and defense capabilities. All the projects constructed with Soviet assistance became foundations for development and helped improve living standards. By the 1980s, the USSR had technical and economic cooperation agreements with 37 of the continent’s 53 countries and had built 600 enterprises and other facilities. Soviet efforts included building schools, hospitals, farms, irrigation systems, and roads. African political scientists note that, unlike former colonial powers, Russia has historically aimed to address real problems without pursuing selfish interests.

No African state is unfriendly towards Russia. Not a single country on the continent has joined anti-Russian sanctions. Africa is among the leaders in refusing to support Western-initiated anti-Russian resolutions in the UN General Assembly.

Read more

In Russia, the states of Africa see an intellectual leader that can advance an agenda in international structures that aligns with the aspirations of Africans and the entire Global South.

Russia is also seen as a supporter of Africa’s legitimate aspiration to expand its representation in intergovernmental organizations, including the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). On this matter, Africans have a unified stance, articulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration – positions that Russia respects.

Today marks the era of Russia’s return to the African continent, a period of reviving lost connections and with each making up for missed opportunities. To understand the scope of the tasks ahead, it’s worth looking at some numbers for comparison. In 1985, the USSR’s trade turnover with African states amounted to $5.9 billion and, by 1995, this had fallen to $0.98 billion. Economic adviser positions were eliminated in most Russian embassies in African countries. Embassies in Burkina Faso, Lesotho, Liberia, Niger, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Equatorial Guinea were closed, as were consular offices in Oran (Algeria), Lobito (Angola), Port Said (Egypt), Benghazi (Libya), Toamasina (Madagascar), Beira (Mozambique), Ajaokuta (Nigeria), and Zanzibar (Tanzania).

Thousands of Soviet specialists who had successfully worked in Africa were forced to leave. This was all done under the slogan of “economic feasibility” for Russia, which was supposedly “feeding Africa out of ideological motives for years without receiving adequate practical returns.” However, during the Soviet period, vast quantities of industrial products were exported to the continent, but this was not taken into account by the reformers of the early 1990s. As a result, Russia lost significant markets for high-value-added goods, sources of strategically important resources for modern economic sectors, and, of course, an irreplaceable network of human connections. Thankfully, this regrettable chapter in history has been closed and left behind.

The importance of Africa for modern Russian foreign policy is evident in the frequency of visits by Sergey Lavrov to the continent. In 2024, the minister visited Guinea, the Republic of Congo, Burkina Faso, and Chad. In 2022–2023, Lavrov traveled to Egypt, the Republic of Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Angola, Eritrea, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Kenya, Burundi and Mozambique, while also making three visits to South Africa.

Read more

I had the opportunity to accompany the minister on these trips. Almost everywhere Sergey Lavrov was received, it was clear that the continent is waiting for us, that Russia is seen as a force advocating for truth, equality, and justice on the international stage, defending genuine sovereignty and statehood. Significantly, African experts draw a connection between Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and the successes of African nations in their struggle for independence, noting that “the course of Russia’s confrontation with the West influences the sentiments of nationally-oriented, sovereign forces in the region.” This sentiment was often echoed by officials of African countries during the aforementioned visits.

Our country is capable of helping Africa address the strategic task of achieving sovereignty in key areas of life and to end all forms of neo-colonial dependence. Russia can assist Africa in advancing several levels upward in the international division of labor.

Russia is well-positioned to strengthen the statehood of African nations. We are promoting our role as a guarantor of comprehensive security for the continent’s states. The presence of Russian military instructors, training of armed forces and law enforcement personnel, supply and repair of military equipment, and support for legitimate governments in conflict situations have had a stabilizing effect and created conditions for development. Local analysts note that “after the failure of France and UN peacekeeping forces in Africa, Russia has emerged as a reliable partner, accomplishing in a few months what international contingents failed to do for years.”

Our country can contribute to the industrialization of the Dark Continent, including building small-capacity nuclear power plants, providing modular reactors, and constructing infrastructure and industrial facilities. Russia assists in ensuring food and energy security, improving healthcare, and strengthening the pan-African system for responding to epidemic threats. Africans remember Russia’s critical role in combating the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014-2015 and the timely delivery of Sputnik V vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic. There are vast prospects for cooperation in energy, geological exploration, mining, science and education, telecommunications, cybersecurity, and agriculture. Africans are also interested in working with Russia in advanced technologies, including peaceful space exploration, nuclear energy, and the deployment of advanced Russian information and communication technologies. Importantly, our cooperation is not conditional on political demands.

A fundamental step for the future is creating a payment infrastructure independent of the West. Given the West’s influence over most universal international organizations, bilateral channels for assisting Africa are becoming increasingly significant. Direct, gratuitous assistance to needy countries on the continent through grain, fertilizer, and fuel deliveries is an essential aspect of Russian policy.

Maintaining the rhythm of structured political dialogue with Africa through bilateral summits every three years (the next scheduled for 2026) and annual ministerial conferences of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum (planned for 2025 in an African country) plays a critical coordinating role. There are also significant prospects for collaboration with regional organizations such as IGAD, SADC, COMESA, ECOWAS, the EAC, ECCAS, and others. The African Union’s interest in linking the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) with integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is promising. In the future, aligning AfCFTA with other integration entities could support Vladimir Putin’s proposed initiative to create a Greater Eurasian Partnership.

Read more

Russia is also reopening or establishing new embassies across the continent, including in Niger, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Gambia, Liberia, the Union of the Comoros, and Togo. In 2024, new diplomatic missions began operating in Burkina Faso and Equatorial Guinea. Occasionally, individuals who built their careers in diplomacy during the “embrace of the West” in the 1990s and 2000s argue that “few would want to work in Africa, given its harsher climate and limited medical facilities compared to Europe.” While there is some truth to these observations, serving the motherland is primarily about fulfilling government objectives, with personal comfort being secondary. This view is shared by the leadership of Russia’s foreign policy department and guides our approach in redirecting personnel to non-Western regions.

The development of interparliamentary relations also contributes to the Russian-African partnership. A notable example was the International Parliamentary Conference “Russia-Africa in a Multipolar World,” held in Moscow in March 2023, which received positive feedback.

In the current environment, Russian businesses must adopt a more proactive stance, unlocking the inexhaustible opportunities available in Africa. The outdated notion that engaging with Africa is best done through Western intermediaries is rapidly fading. Russian entrepreneurs need to expand their knowledge base about African markets. Economic cooperation with Africa is no longer built on ideological doctrines, as in Soviet times, but on principles of complementarity and mutual benefit.

Read more

Raising awareness about Africa and its challenges is a task not limited to businesses. We must study the Dark Continent and the entire Global South through local and Russian sources, rather than relying solely on articles from The New York Times or on IMF reports. It is essential to revive the achievements of the Soviet school of regional studies, deepen engagement with the works of African authors, and shed the psychological complex of Western centrism–a tendency to view the global majority from a “Western man’s” perspective. Russia’s unique advantage lies in its school of African studies, where specialists proficient in African languages are trained. The Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) offers courses in Swahili, Afrikaans, and Amharic, while the Institute of Asian and African Countries (ISAA) adds Fulfulde. African languages are also taught at the Russian Peoples’ Friendship University (RUDN), the Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH), St. Petersburg State University, and other universities across the country. However, during Soviet times, the range of languages taught was broader, and student enrollment was higher. There is room for growth in this area.

* * *

Africa’s role in global politics is steadily growing. The development of a Pan-African identity is progressing slowly. However, the increasing self-awareness of African peoples and their determination to make up for what was lost during the colonial and post-colonial eras serve as a powerful driving force in establishing the continent as one of the poles in a multipolar world order. This prospect, as scholars of Africa rightly point out, has a direct impact on the fate of multipolarity.

In their struggle for justice and a “place under the sun,” Africans can fully rely on the support of their friendly partner, Russia.

First published in Russian in the journal ‘ Russia in Global Affairs’

Медиа: image / jpeg

Paradoxically, a turn away from ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ values has the potential to defuse some of America’s belligerence

Recently, one of America’s most conservative as well as influential newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, ran two intriguing pieces. One observed that “ MAGA is taking back the culture,” the other – by the well-known academic and public intellectual Walter Russell Mead – argued that “ American exceptionalism is back.” Together they raise important, perhaps vital questions.

The essence of “MAGA is taking back the culture” is that the return of Donald Trump to the presidency comes with a noticeable shift in US culture, broadly understood. Trump’s first term in office saw him hold the political high ground (if often in a chaotic and beleaguered manner) while facing gale-force headwinds in the public sphere. This time around, however, trends in the latter are converging with the politics of Trumpism. Being traditional is an increasingly popular thing: In June 2023 already, pollster Gallup found that 38% of Americans identify as socially conservative, the highest number since 2012. In addition, 44% considered themselves “economically conservative,” also the highest score since 2012.

Anecdotal but intriguing evidence now includes American Football players performing Trump’s trademark shimmy as a victory dance, Disney cutting a story line about transgender issues out of an animated series, and MAGA baseball caps making appearances among students at elite university campuses. As Italian Marxist classic Antonio Gramsci – a brave intellectual as well as a victim of Mussolini’s Fascism – might have sighed, it looks as if the reactionaries have the ideological hegemony, again.

Mead’s “American Exceptionalism is Back” also makes a simple claim: In the US, and only there, populism (of the right-wing variety, of course) and high-tech capitalism (and its “ tech-lords,” Mead’s term) can form more than a temporary coalition. That combination, Mead believes, can last by reconciling the crackling-high tension built into it – think Steve Bannon vs. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg – and becoming the basis for an American resurgence. The US, the conservative maître-penseur promises – or warns – may still “renew itself in unlikely and even unseemly ways.”

Mead’s argument is really about class, even if he does not use such rude terms. His point is that somehow America still has a special magic – call it the American Dream or reach for Philipp Roth’s “American Berserk,” if you wish – which means that the angry MAGA masses from below and what Bannon would call the techno-feudalists around Trump at the top can not only co-exist but cooperate, and all to the greater glory of the “indispensable nation,” once again.

Read more

It remains to be seen how much of this wishful thinking survives reality. What Mead is not addressing, in any case, is what place this renewed America would seek to claim in the international order: Still the same tired old “primacy”? If so, things might get very “unseemly” indeed, and not because of anything Americans agree or disagree about among themselves, but because much of the world does not agree with US domination anymore, and there’s no way back from that.

What are the chances for an alternative: For America becoming an even slightly less rogue, less asocial member of the international community? It may be counterintuitive, but let’s not leap to conclusions from Trumpist braggadocio about Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Disruptive as the new US claims to and threats against these countries may be, these initiatives – whichever way they will play out – won’t be the whole story. Much of that will unfold in the relationship with rival great powers, that is, China and Russia, as well as the rising Global South as a whole.

That is why we need to return to the issue of a broader social-conservative shift in the US. For two reasons: It demonstrates that America is perfectly capable of being anything but exceptional, and it bears not only on domestic but also on international politics. Here is how:

While neat and well-defined ideologies tend to be academic, in both senses of the term, that is, heavy on big concepts and fine distinctions but of limited real-world effect, ideological movements with genuine oomph are sprawling and messy: the kind of thing that you know when you see it but that always evades a clean definition.

At this moment, we are looking at such a thing on a global scale, unfolding and accelerating in real-time. It goes by different names: not only “social conservatism” but also, for instance, “family values,” “traditionalism,” or – especially for those who can’t stand it – “cultural backlash.” These words do not mean exactly the same thing; some are capacious (family values), while others are narrower in scope (traditionalism). However, they all point to the same big underlying change in attitudes and therefore politics.

There is a virtually unanimous consensus that this shift is almost everywhere, from India and Russia to the US. Its manifestations are varied and pervasive. As is well-known, in Russia, for instance, it has essentially been state policy for well over a decade, as it is becoming now in the US. Less prominent effects include the rapid rise of a whole new German party that, as well-known sociologist Wolfgang Streeck has explained, combines left-wing appeals for economic justice with culturally conservative positions, and an electorally significant conservative backlash against “ liberalizing gender debates” in Sweden (yes, even in Sweden).

Read more

The relationship between this large-scale change in the Zeitgeist and politics is like that between tectonic plates and earthquakes: the plates keep moving, comparatively slowly but inexorably; the politics, all over the world, register the results, particularly when the plates clash. And yes, for the theoretically minded: ideas can be the drivers of historical change; Marx, have mercy on me.

The two most active plates that have been clashing for the last decades are not hard to identify. On one side, you still have the legacies of what some scholars have called the “silent revolution” of those long 1970s that started, symbolically, in 1968: a turn away from traditional and toward, for want of better terms, “progressive” values and attitudes.

These have included, in (neo-liberal capitalist) practice, an emphasis on individualism, or really on individual gratification; a rejection or, at least, a pro-active neglect of many traditional moral and religious restraints as well as formerly authoritative high-culture canons; a demand for equality among consumer and sexual lifestyles (but not of income, wealth, or power – that would be the no-no of socialism); and, last but not least, a form of identity politics that has replaced the older ideal of social and political justice with the pursuit of fairness (or “equity”) between relentlessly rat-racing individuals, to be achieved through an endless arithmetic of tradeable personal qualities, some chosen, some not. Finally, the importance of the nation is downplayed. In a world organized by these rules, you are “free” to buy marijuana, you need not know your classics, being LGBTQ+ can help your career, and you are encouraged to joke about how silly patriotism can get.

The contours of the other tectonic plate, the one colliding with all of the above, are clear enough, too: There are demands to abide by – and subject others to – traditional moral standards, especially regarding family life, education, gender roles, and sex; a yearning for binding cultural canons (even if only to honor them in the breach); a rejection of secularism in favor of religion or, at least, values claiming religious sanction; and a refusal to accept liberal identity politics and their policy consequences. Finally, the nation, sometimes defined in civilizational terms, is serious business. In a world ordered on those lines, you are “free” to be yourself but your idea of yourself should not be too individual; you better be able to pretend you know your classics, especially the national ones; being a straight family person can help your career (even if you cheat like hell, see American presidents); and don’t get caught making fun of patriotism.

Read more

Regarding ideas about how international politics should work, a substantial part of the “progressive” camp tends to align not with pacificism (as you might have expected in the past) but a secularized crusading ideology: as long as adversaries appear sufficiently “illiberal,” they are seen as fair game for any kind of pressure, including demonization campaigns, NGO/“civil-society”-style subversion and “color revolution” regime change, economic warfare, and, ultimately, war, by proxy or directly. On the other side, you will find social conservatism aligned with an emphasis on state sovereignty in the name of protecting national distinctiveness and a rejection of “progressive” elites denounced as globalist, that is, no longer loyal to their own countries.

And here is the twist: It is possible – by no means certain, perhaps not even probable, but possible – that a US that fully joins the global trend of increasing social conservatism could be less belligerent than its preceding “progressive” version. Not only because its secularized crusading spirit might wilt (although that would certainly be welcome) but also because a cause of deep ideological tension could be neutralized.

Recall that distinction between well-defined yet academic ideologies and broad, vague yet powerful ideological movements? An underlying convergence (which is not the same as an agreement but something less open to deliberate control and more solid) of Zeitgeist and attitudes that go beyond politics, no matter in what direction, could provide an element of stability. Not improvement, not progress, not kumbaya, but stability. In a world as on the brink as ours, stability is the key to survival.

Медиа: image / jpeg

With the inauguration of Donald Trump as US president, the question of possible decisions by a new administration in regard to the crisis in Sudan arises

The incoming Trump administration’s involvement in regional crises, particularly in conflict zones such as Palestine, Lebanon, and Sudan, raises questions. During Joe Biden’s presidential term, the US Congress demonstrated significant interest in Sudan, although the nature of this involvement remains unclear. However, the US special envoy to Sudan, Tom Perriello, did not visit until recently – despite his numerous trips to other countries in the region during his eight-month tenure.

Biden’s administration did not provide much for Sudan, but rather pursued a policy that can only be described as always against the interests of the Sudanese state – and an extension of the plan to divide Sudan by supporting one party to the conflict (RSF, Rapid Support Forces) over the other (SAF, Sudanese Armed Forces).

What to expect from Trump?

Trump’s policy appeared to emphasize sidelining multilateral institutions, such as the African Union, which he viewed as ineffective in addressing the conflict in Sudan. Reports from the United Nations suggested that the rebellion in Sudan was ostensibly supported by the United Arab Emirates, further complicating the situation. In response, the Trump administration shifted its regional strategy to form alliances with specific countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar, to manage the Sudan conflict. This approach marked a departure from relying on broader international frameworks to address the crisis.

It is expected that these countries will have pivotal roles in the region and will increase their influence in light of future US policy developments. The Trump administration’s approach in his first term relied on three main axes that are expected to be pursued in the same way: strengthening relations with African countries and competing with China and Russia in the region; ensuring the effectiveness of US aid by reducing ineffective spending; and combating extremism and radicalisation.

The new administration in the White House will probably seek to engage in the Sudan crisis, and one of the most important incentives for this path lies in following up on what has been achieved within the framework of the Abraham Accords – the agreements normalising relations between Israel and Arab nations.

Read more

It might be expected that the pace of international pressure will increase. Recall that Trump announced during his election campaign that the issue of stopping wars is a primary goal for him, but it is not expected that Trump will support any trend of international intervention. On the other hand, it can be considered that the Democrats and Republicans in America are two sides of the same coin, agreeing on the goal and strategy but differing in tactics. The goal is the same – dividing Sudan.

The US previously played a significant role in Sudan’s political landscape, particularly concerning the secession of South Sudan for easier control over its resources. In 2005, the US was instrumental in brokering the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). This agreement granted southern Sudan the right to a referendum on independence, leading to the creation of South Sudan as a sovereign nation on July 9, 2011. In summary, while the US played a pivotal role in facilitating South Sudan’s independence, characterising this involvement as a deliberate strategy to divide Sudan oversimplifies the complexities of US foreign policy objectives in the region.

The Russian veto to the British plan

Following Russia’s veto last November, the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution on Sudan, demanding that the two warring sides of the conflict, SAF and the RSF, respect and fully implement their commitments in the Jeddah Declaration on the protection of civilians, including taking all feasible precautions to avoid and minimise harm to civilians, a draft resolution supported by 14 Security Council members and opposed only by the Russian delegate, attracting strong criticism from the US and UK delegates.

Russia’s use of the veto has recalled its use of the veto 16 times in favour of Syria since the outbreak of the crisis in 2011, including 10 times with Chinese participation.

The British draft resolution, which Russia used the veto against, sought to introduce international forces into Sudan without the consent of the Sudanese authorities, and to form a ‘Compliance Mechanism’ under the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which would effectively replace the UN mission in Sudan, UNTAMS (2020-2023).

Britain, which held the presidency of the Security Council the previous month, had worked for a long time on this draft resolution, to enable the strengthening of Western intervention in Sudan’s affairs under the international cover of ‘protecting civilians’.

Britain’s holding of its former colony Sudan’s pen in the Security Council, and thus handling the Sudanese issue as one of its interests, has facilitated its role as a country of influence over Sudan and a number of low-income countries, in addition to the United States and France. Being a pen-holder means having the primary responsibility for drafting resolutions and leading discussions on specific issues, which grants these countries significant agenda-setting power within the Council.

The ‘pen-holder’ approach was introduced in the Security Council in 2003. The pen is theoretically held by the member states, but two decades of practice have shown that the actual right to hold the pens of states belongs exclusively to Britain, America and France.

Russia recognised the dangers of the draft resolution submitted by Britain, the holder of Sudan’s pen, and stopped its issuance, exposing its contents, objectives and nature in the speech of its representative at the Security Council sessionDmitry Polyansky, who said:

Read more

’The main issue with the British draft is that it is based on a misconception as to who has the responsibility to protect civilians in Sudan and ensure control of the country’s borders and security. There is also a misconception as to who should make decisions about inviting foreign troops into Sudan. Only the Government of Sudan should play this role’.

In justifying the veto, the assistant to the Russian ambassador to the UN stressed that Moscow had hoped for a ceasefire, agreed upon by the warring parties, and accused the British of preventing ‘any reference to the legitimate authorities of Sudan’ during the negotiations. In a statement, the Sudanese Foreign Ministry said:

’The Government of Sudan welcomes the Russian Federation’s use of the veto, and commends the Russian position, which is an expression of commitment to the principles of justice, respect for the sovereignty of states and international law, and support for the independence and unity of Sudan and its national institutions.’

In addition, Britain’s draft resolution on Sudan has been criticised by Russia as a veiled attempt to meddle in the country’s internal affairs under the guise of international concern, facilitating external political and social engineering. This reflects what Russia calls a lingering neo-colonial mindset, which seeks to exploit chaos in sovereign nations for strategic gain.

Polyansky pointed out the contradiction in the Council’s approach: while some nations demand a ceasefire and the protection of civilians in Sudan, they simultaneously endorse escalations in places like Gaza, turning a blind eye to violations of international law. This double standard, he argued, undermines the credibility of the Council and highlights Western biases.

The representative also questioned the selective narratives surrounding Sudan’s humanitarian crisis. He emphasized the need for impartiality, reminding UN agencies to respect Sudan’s sovereignty and utilize available channels for aid delivery rather than imposing unilateral demands.

He warned that the focus on “protection of civilians” in the draft resolution masks a broader Western agenda. Since Sudan’s political transition in 2019, international powers have sought to reshape the country to align with their interests, leveraging UN missions as tools for this project.

The West’s underlying motivations are Sudan’s vast resources, its strategic location, and its potential to influence Africa’s future. He highlighted concerns about the growing presence of Russia and China in Africa, which threatens the West’s traditional dominance. Sudan’s collaboration with these powers since the 1990s has deepened this competition, making its stability a focal point in the broader international struggle for influence on the continent.

It is true that Sudan has benefited from the current international weather represented by the Euro-Russian divergence on the one hand and benefited more from the divergence between Russia and US by winning the former’s veto. But in the other hand, the path of international interests does not go in a straight line and does not always go in the direction of the interests of the countries of the region.

What’s next?

Read more

After the middle of January, the biggest upcoming international variable will become the Russian-American convergence on the one hand and the (limited) Euro-American tension on the other, in addition to the reflection of this on further Russian-European divergence.

Assuming the worst, if Russia secures Trump’s tacit approval – or indifference – toward its special military operation in Ukraine, it may come at a significant cost. Russia might, in turn, be forced to overlook what the US “deep state” is orchestrating in Sudan. This risk is compounded if Trump, known for his transactional approach, adopts a detached or indifferent stance on developing a coherent Africa policy. Such an outcome could harm Russia’s interests in Sudan and Africa as a whole, as it would leave the region more susceptible to unchecked US influence and maneuvering.

A third game of possibilities may work in Sudan’s favour, namely that the Trump administration will be reluctant to follow up on what happens in Sudan, and even that Trump’s hand will be tied in funding any international forces sent to Sudan. This will give Sudan more space to develop bilateral interests with Russia without blackmail from US lobbyists.

The possibility of a Sino-American conflict is something that will make Sudan benefit more from China’s international influence inside and outside the Security Council, if the Sudanese administration manages to stand in the right direction, and if Beijing does not develop a strategy that surprises everyone to confront Trump.

Our foreign interests are based on a set of expectations that we do not have the right to manufacture or create. This war and the previous conflicts were imposed on Sudan by third parties with interests in Sudan. The interests of the Sudanese state hinge on hopeful expectations, but there are no guarantees. The worst-case scenario is that Gulf States might effectively “purchase” the Trump administration’s stance on Africa. After all, a leader who prioritizes building walls with Mexico is unlikely to pave a diplomatic path to Khartoum.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya is one of many unlawfully imprisoned medical professionals, reportedly tortured and abused in detention

As you read this, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, a Palestinian doctor from Gaza, is likely still in Israeli detention – and, according to mounting evidence, being tortured.

Despite the recent hostage swap with Hamas, multiple health professionals are still being held captive, with abundant reports of mistreatment, neglect and torture. One of these is Dr. Abu Safiya, arrested on December 27 and transferred to the notorious Sde Teyman prison camp ( dubbed Israel’s version of Guantanamo Bay).

As each day passes, and with reports from released prisoners who attest Dr. Abu Safiya was being tortured while they were in the same prison, fears of his death grow. At least three Palestinian doctors abducted from Gaza have died in Israeli prisons since October 2023.

Dr. Abu Safiya, the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, was taken after the IDF had repeatedly attacked the hospital over the course of over three months, ultimately invading it, burning and severely damaging essential buildings, and detaining dozens of medical staff. By now the chilling scene of Dr. Abu Safiya walking toward the Israeli tank has gone viral, as people around the world are demanding his release.

According to Medical Aid for Palestinians, a British charity working in Palestine, when the IDF invaded his place of work, “an estimated 350 people, including patients, were forced to leave the hospital. Some patients arrived at the Indonesian Hospital, which was not able to provide any care after being forced out of service by the Israeli military on December 24. The last remaining partially operational hospital in the North Gaza Governorate, al-Awda Hospital, is on the brink of collapse, struggling to function amid relentless attacks and resource shortages.”

Read more

The non-profit Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reports that after abducting him, “the Israeli army subsequently transferred Dr. Abu Safiya to a field interrogation site in the Al-Fakhura area of Jabalia Refugee Camp, where he was stripped and whipped with a thick wire commonly used for street electrical wiring.”

The torture of Palestinians in Israeli prisons has been widely reported. Methods include electric shocks to genitals, stress positions, psychological torture, near-starvation, and rape resulting in serious internal damage.

Following a request by the non-profit organization Physicians for Humans Rights-Israel (PHRI) for a legal visit to Abu Safiya, the Israeli military claimed that it had “found no indication of the arrest or detention of the individual in question.”

However, one report cites Palestinians released from Sde Teiman detention camp on December 29, 2024, saying Dr. Abu Safiya was being held there. One of the released Palestinians said the doctor had given him the phone numbers of his sons, and requested that The Red Cross and media look into his situation.

On January 5, PHRI posted on X, “The Israeli military also continues to withhold information about Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya’s detention location, despite retracting their earlier claim that he isn’t being held in Israel.”

A more recently-released detainee, Hazem Alwan, said he had been abducted from Jabalia by the Israeli army and used as a human shield before ultimately being taken to an Israeli prison, where he says he spent two days with Dr. Abu Safiya.

“It was clear, the brutal methods of torture used by the occupation on him. Dr. Hussam is in danger, nobody is looking after him. His mental state is completely shattered, completely...”

In October 2024, when the Israeli army invaded Kamal Adwan Hospital, they killed Dr. Abu Safiya’s son, Ibrahim. But Dr. Abu Safiya continued to work to help injured Palestinians in the dire conditions of northern Gaza.

In November 2024, he was injured in an Israeli quad-copter drone attack, believed to be, “an assassination attempt by Israel due to his unwavering commitment to providing medical care to patients in northern Gaza.”

He continued his updates from the besieged hospital, on December 6, 2024, noting, “The situation inside and around the hospital is catastrophic. There are a large number of martyrs and wounded, including four martyrs from the hospital’s medical staff, and there are no surgeons left.”

Read more

He spoke of the series of Israeli airstrikes, just outside the hospital, and of being forced by Israeli soldiers to evacuate all patients, displaced persons and medical staff to the hospital yard and forcibly take them out to the checkpoint.

“In the morning, we were shocked to see hundreds of dead bodies and wounded people in the streets surrounding the hospital.”

On January 9, the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, an NGO based in the Gaza Strip, noted that, “Dr. Abu Safiya’s detention was extended until February 13, 2025 by an Israeli Court” and that his legal counsel – which has been prevented from seeing him – will remain banned from visiting the doctor until January 22.

Still another doctor, Dr. Akram Abu Ouda, head of Orthopedics at the Indonesian Hospital (also in northern Gaza) is missing. Ramy Abdu (of Euro-Med) noted, “He has been detained by Israel for over a year, and it is our duty to remind the world he is wrongfully imprisoned, suffering under torture, with his health deteriorating.”

Palestinian doctors tortured to death

In September 2024, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Tlaleng Mofokeng, stated, “Dr. Ziad Eldalou is the third doctor confirmed to have died while being detained by Israel since October 7, 2023.”

Eldalou was, the OHCHR notes, an internal medicine physician at Gaza’s Al Shifa Hospital, detained with other healthcare workers by invading Israeli soldiers on March 18, 2024, who died just three days later, while in detention.

In its report on Dr. Abu Safiya, Euro-Med recalls the deaths of Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh, head of the orthopedics department at Al-Shifa Hospital, who was “killed under torture at Ofer Detention Centre on April 19, 2024,” and Dr. Iyad Al-Rantisi, head of the obstetrics department at Kamal Adwan Hospital, who was “killed due to torture at an Israeli Shin Bet interrogation center in Ashkelon, one week after his detention in November 2023. Israeli authorities concealed his death for more than seven months.”

Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh was “likely raped to death,” wrote United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese.

These murders, and the imprisonment and torture of numerous Palestinian doctors from Gaza, and the killing of over 1,000 Palestinian health and medical professionals, are part of Israel’s systematic attack on every aspect of Gaza’s health care system, as well as on the Palestinians’ morale: seeing doctors who didn’t abandon their patients be imprisoned, tortured and killed is a crushing blow.

Read more

Both Mofokeng and Albanese, at the beginning of January, 2025, issued an urgent warning: “We are horrified and concerned by reports from northern Gaza and especially the attack on the healthcare workers including the last remaining of 22 now-destroyed hospitals: Kamal Adwan Hospital.”

“We are gravely concerned with the fate of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, yet another doctor to be harassed, kidnapped and arbitrarily detained by the occupation forces, in his case for defying evacuation orders to leave his patients and colleagues behind. This is part of a pattern by Israel to continuously bombard, destroy and fully annihilate the realization of the right to health in Gaza.”

The lack of information on Dr. Abu Safiya’s well-being, the testimonies from released abductees that he was being tortured, and the prohibition on him accessing his lawyer have heightened fears that he could die in Israeli detention.

This must not be allowed to happen. As Euro-Med stated, immediate international intervention is needed for his release. What’s even more tragic is that were he being held by one of the West’s proclaimed ‘adversaries’, rather than its allies, such intervention would not be long in coming.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Moscow and New Delhi are deepening defense ties, with a focus on technology transfer across aviation, naval, and missile platforms

The relationship between India and the Soviet Union – and later Russia – has been a cornerstone of India’s foreign policy since its independence in 1947. Rooted in mutual respect and shared interests, this partnership has evolved into one of the most enduring bilateral ties in modern history.

A pivotal moment in this relationship occurred in 1951 when the USSR exercised its veto power at the United Nations Security Council to support India in the Kashmir dispute. This set the tone for a consistent pattern of Soviet support. In 1959, during the border dispute between India and China and later the Sino-Indian War of 1962, the Soviet Union maintained a policy of neutrality, despite strong objections from China.

The economic and military cooperation between the USSR and India in the early days of its independence was particularly robust. By 1960, India had received more Soviet assistance than China, reflecting the depth of their partnership.

A landmark development in this collaboration came in 1962 when the Soviet Union agreed to transfer technology for the production of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 fighter jet. This agreement not only marked a major step in India’s defense modernization but also underscored the Soviet Union’s trust in India as a strategic partner – a privilege it had previously denied to China. This helped India set up robust manufacturing base for vital defense platforms, including aircraft, aero-engines and avionics, laying the groundwork for India’s indigenous capabilities in advanced technology.

Russian jets built in India

In December last year, just ahead of Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh’s visit to Moscow, the Defense Ministry and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), India’s state-owned Aerospace and Defense Company, signed a $1.5 billion contract for the procurement of 12 Sukhoi Su-30MKI aircraft along with associated equipment. The jet would have an indigenous content of 62.6% – a significant increase from earlier levels, achieved through a persistent policy to procure components locally.

Read more

The Su-30MKI is the India-specific variant of the Russian Su-30, which was inducted into the Indian Air Force in 2002. The twin-engine, air-superiority, multi-role, heavy, all-weather, long-range fighter aircraft has a take-off weight of 38,800kg and a payload capacity of over 8 tons, including air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, and anti-ship missiles. The aircraft can carry ten indigenous Astra Mk1 class missiles.

The Su-30MKI has a range of 3,000km with internal fuel, which ensures a 3.75-hour combat mission. Also, it has an in-flight refueling (IFR) probe that retracts. The air refueling system increases the flight duration by up to 10 hours with a combat radius of 3,000km. Su-30MKIs can also use the Cobham 754 buddy refueling pods.

The aircraft features state-of-the-art avionics developed by Russia, India, and Israel for display, navigation, targeting, and electronic warfare. France and South Africa provided other avionics. It has abilities similar to the Sukhoi Su-35, which shares many features and components. Russia’s Defense Ministry was impressed with the type’s performance envelope and ordered 30 Su-30SMs, a localized Su-30MKI, for the Russian Air Force.

Make in India back in 1960s

India has been manufacturing the Su-30MKI since 2004 under a Russian license. As many as 222 aircraft have been produced at HAL’s Nashik factor up to now, and these jets will be the backbone of the IAF’s fighter fleet for some years to come (the force today operates a fleet of total 260 Su-30MKIs, and the 12 additional fighters ordered in December will make up for planes lost in accidents).

Indigenization was progressively increased with Indian content. HAL produced aircraft from scratch from 2013 onwards, and this includes the Lyulka-Saturn AL-31FP turbofan engines that power the aircraft.

An estimated 920 AL-31FP turbofans were manufactured at HAL’s Koraput Division. Notably, in September last year, India’s MOD signed a $3.05 billion contract with HAL for 240 AL-31FP aero-engines for the IAF’s Su-30 fleet. HAL will supply 30 engines annually from the Koraput factory with deliveries expected to be completed in eight years.

Read more

What often remain obscured is that the Nasik aircraft manufacturing division, where Su-30 MKIs are built, was set up in 1964 – with the support of the Soviet Union, as part of the MiG Complex.

It has previously built the MiG-21s, MiG-27s, and upgraded the MiG-21 ‘Bison’. It also carries out repairs and overhauls of many Russian fighter aircraft, and what is important in the context of “self-reliance” – it now has a production line for LCA Tejas Mk1A, India’s own multirole combat jet.

This is why today, when India is rapidly expanding its defense capabilities with a focus on self-reliance under the Narendra Modi-led government’s “Make in India” strategy, Russia remains a key player – despite India expanding the list of its strategic partners to include the US and European countries.

Approximately 60% of the Indian military’s hardware today remains of Russian origin, and military hardware supplies and more recently production joint ventures have been a key pillar of the defense ties going forward.

Tanks, guns, frigates

In 1965, Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) was set up at Avadi, Chennai, with Soviet assistance. HVF products included the Russian-designed T-72 Ajeya, and T-90 Bhishma tanks. In September 1965, the Soviet Union and India signed the first contract for the delivery of naval equipment that included four Project I641 diesel-electric submarines, five Project 159E corvettes and five Project 368P motorboats. The agreement also envisaged rendering Soviet technical assistance for the construction of a submarine naval base in Vishakhapatnam.

In December 2024, Russia handed over the INS Tushil frigate to India, and another similar warship, INS Tamala, built at the Yantar Shipyard in Russia’s Kaliningrad is going through sea trials. Two more frigates are being constructed at the Goa Shipyard Ltd in India through technology transfer.

Russia is reportedly expanding its shipbuilding cooperation with India, with two Indian shipyards being considered for construction of four non-nuclear icebreakers. Russian shipbuilding officials have offered New Delhi their nuclear-powered design for an Indian Navy aircraft carrier, according to India media.

Read more

Russian officials in 2023 announced that Goa Shipyard will also construct 24 river-sea class cargo ships for operation in the Caspian Sea by 2027. Cooperation with India in shipbuilding has its benefits for Moscow as the unit cost per vessel is projected to be half of what it would cost Russian shipbuilders.

India and Russia have good success stories for Joint Ventures (JV). The BrahMos is a medium-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, and fighter aircraft. BrahMos Aerospace is a joint venture between the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyeniya. The missiles are already being exported.

Under an estimated $680 million deal signed in July 2021, over 610,000 AK-203 assault rifles are to be manufactured in India with technology transfer from Russia, by the joint venture company Indo-Russian Rifles Private Limited. In May 2024, the first batch of 27,000 rifles was delivered while another batch of 8,000 was delivered in July 2024. The level of indigenous content achieved is already 25%, and going up rapidly.

Notwithstanding the above, some JVs did not take off. India had withdrawn from the joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) due to technical reasons. Finally, Russia continued the project and today has a successful Sukhoi Su-57 ‘Felon’ fifth generation fighter. Russia is once again suggesting that India return to the project.

Following selection of the Ka-226T to meet an India requirement for 197 helicopters, an agreement was signed in December 2015 for the creation of a JV between Rostec, Russian Helicopters and HAL to build the helicopters at a new factory to be constructed at Tumakuru in India. The project did not take off, and later India decided to make its own Light Utility Helicopter based on the indigenous ‘Dhruv’ model.

Similarly the Indo-Russian program to develop a new Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA) for both the countries through a JV between Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation and India’s HAL was canceled by India.

Aiming for more

In the last two decades India did look for alternative military hardware sourcing from the US, France and Israel, among other countries. But invariably India went back to its time-tested strategic partner, Russia. India bought five batteries of the formidable S-400 air defense systems in 2017, ignoring an American threat to impose CAATSA sanctions.

Most of the platforms bought from Western nations were also through government-to-government deals, as has been the case of all Soviet and later Russian deals. Despite promises, there has been very little technology in most deals with Western suppliers, while with Russia India did manage to get better technology transfer.

Going forward, India plans to begin upgrading its Su-30 MKI in India. Initially it will involve 84 aircraft, but subsequently the entire fleet will get upgraded. Sukhoi will also be involved in the project for the upgrade of fly-by-wire system. The jets will also be modified to fire BrahMos-ER missiles.

There have been reports that negotiations are on between HAL and Russia for exporting Indian-produced Russia-supported Su-30MKIs to global customers. All this will require major Russian support.

Read more

India is also in the process of procuring 21 additional MiG-29s from Russia, which would enable the replacement of earlier losses and raise another squadron. India earlier upgraded its MiG-29 and MiG-21 fleets with Russian support.

As Russia seeks to circumvent US economic sanctions, more Russian companies are keen to establish production facilities in India.

Defense cooperation will remain an important pillar of the India-Russia strategic partnership guided by the IRIGC Military Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC), set up in 2000. The Agreement for 2021-2031 was signed during the inaugural meeting of the India-Russia 2+2 Dialogue which was held in Delhi in December 2021. This agreement guides further cooperation in the sphere of research and development, production and after sales support of armament systems and various military equipment. Uninterrupted supply of spare parts to the Soviet/Russian-origin equipment is a critical issue being discussed between the two countries.

Russia last year approved the long-delayed draft logistics agreement Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS) that will facilitate military logistic exchanges for exercises, training, port calls, disaster relief, and ease access to Russian military facilities, especially in the Arctic. The agreement is expected to be signed soon. New Delhi has already entered into similar agreements with many countries, including all Quad partners.

Two Russian aircraft, the MiG-35 and Su-35S are competitors for India’s Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) contract, the tender for which is yet to be formally announced.

Russia’s Su-57 ‘Felon’ stealth fighter made its debut at the 2024 Zhuhai Airshow in China. Its appearance at Aero India 2025 next month would mark a significant diplomatic and strategic signal from Moscow.

Russia can then pitch for it as an interim option, as the Indian project for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a twin-engine, all-weather fifth-generation stealth jet, seems to be delayed. Russia could also bring the Tu-160M strategic bomber to the airshow if it wants to make a marketing push. For this time-tested partnership, the sky is the only limit.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The unipolar world order is not being dismantled by what’s happening inside its center

Asking a lot of other people about what they think may be interesting. But the real fun starts when you make it all about your own opinion. That is, of course, the secret magic of politicized opinion polling. And sometimes you wonder if there is any other type. In any case, a major recent effort by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a gilt-edged Western establishment think tank, is no exception.

Published under the poetic title “ Alone in a Trumpian World,” the study examines the “EU and Global Public Opinion after the US Elections,” that is, really, after the return of Donald Trump, bugaboo extraordinaire of mainstream Euro-centrists and their establishment nomenklatura throughout bureaucracies, media, academia, and, of course, think tanks.

Based on a large-scale opinion poll conducted with a total of 28,549 respondents last November, just after Trump’s US election triumph, in 16 European (including both Russia and Ukraine) and eight non-European countries, the resulting report mimics a simple commentary: summarizing some observations here, offering some conclusions there.

Among the observations, the most straightforward is that much of the world is optimistic about Trump, hoping that he will not only benefit America, but also promote international peace by making the US a more normal great power.

The main outliers to this pattern are the European Union and the even more splendidly self-isolated UK, where respondents stick to a pessimistic view.

In a way, the report’s authors themselves cannot stop illustrating that European isolation. Time and again, we read that the more positive opinion almost everyone else in the world has of Trump – whether rightly or wrongly – is “surprising” or “remarkable.” It’s ironic, but this tone of mildly puzzled perplexity is just what you would expect from a bunch of Western European elite representatives that find the world hard to grasp because Europe is so out of sync. Just imagine how different this report might look if it were based on the same polls but had been drafted by a group of Indian or Chinese intellectuals.

Read more

In any case, at its core, this is not even really a study of political moods. Instead, think of it, if you wish, as a manifesto wrapped in opinion polling. As you would expect from authors who are major public intellectuals – Timothy Garton Ash, Ivan Krastev, and Mark Leonard – this is not a shy policy memo, humbly submitted by bureaucrats who may even enjoy their anonymity. On the contrary, this is a brief, sometimes cursory, yet extremely ambitious statement of geopolitical advice. It is tied to a grand and anything-but-dispassionate ideology of world order, namely a greatly idealized vision of Western, in practice US, global dominance that, for believers, goes by the name of “liberal international order.”

For the authors, the significance of the second Trumpian moment for the EU – and, really, the world – lies in its catalysis of the ongoing end of that order. It is challenged from outside, and its core is not in good shape either, they recognize. The global, non-Western refusal to follow the West after the 2022 escalation of the Ukraine War showed that the West was isolated – “divided from the rest,” as the report delicately puts it – but now things are worse again.

The West itself is divided so badly that “indeed, it may no longer be possible to speak of ‘the West’ as a single geopolitical actor.” In that world, the authors’ key recommendation – and, really, the whole point of their report – is that the EU should behave like a traditional great power, acknowledging realist foreign policy precepts. Or, as they put it, it should stop “posing as a moral arbiter” and, instead, “build its own domestic strength” in pursuit of its own good abroad.

The fact that this is really a manifesto does not mean that it cannot be thought-provoking or that its underlying polling results are simply false or irrelevant – even if some are based on transparently disingenuous framing. For instance, a question probing respondents’ attitudes toward the destruction of Gaza by Israel simply does not feature either genocide or any other crime as an answer option. Instead, respondents are only permitted to choose between three different kinds of “war” and “conflict.”

In a similar if less egregious vein, a question about the nature of the Ukraine War offers no answer option including the term “proxy war.” Yet it is not a matter of opinion to acknowledge the fact that both views are widespread, for good reasons. To deprive the respondents of these obviously relevant options seems either elementarily flawed or crudely manipulative.

Likewise, it is at least puzzling to read that a strong change in Ukraine’s public opinion in favor of a compromise peace is “really new.” As a matter of fact, we have been seeing evidence of this ongoing shift for a long time. Ukrainian pollsters and sociologists were picking up on it – and writing about it, too – last spring, almost, that is, a year ago.

The study’s obvious political function means that the best, most rewarding manner to read it is as what it really is, namely a piece of ideology-in-action. Indeed, once we do so, things get much more intriguing, especially if we also ask another crucial question: What are the things that are obviously – and implausibly – avoided?

Let’s start by getting the single most glaring omission-with-a-message out of the way. One thing the authors acknowledge is that a new global order is replacing that sinking “post-Cold War liberal order.” No biggie, you would think, if a little obvious. Welcome to the club; we have all been thinking about this for about two decades at least. But to find this fact openly recognized by the ECFR – an ideological commanding height second perhaps only to its older cousin, the US Atlantic Council – is a modest historical data point in and of itself.

Read more

What’s truly odd, though, are the lengths to which the authors go to avoid one simple word: multipolarity. Search as much as you want, it’s just not there. Trying to come to terms with the new international order that they have noticed is emerging, the authors offer “a la carte,” (sure, my favorite restaurant is also about power and life and death, all the time, from starters to dessert), “polyamorous” (oh behave!), and the oldie-but-goldie “zero-sum.”

Usually, opinion polls are a little dry, but this one, once you know where to look, is entertaining. It’s just too amusing how much lexical-conceptual helplessness can be induced by simple jealousy. Can’t let the Russians, for instance, be having the right idea and using the correct word all the time, can we now?

Speaking of Russians, the second big omission from this report is, of course, the Ukraine War. Not, however, in the simple sense that it does not feature. It does. We learn, for instance, that, in a number of large and/or powerful countries, majorities of respondents believe that “achieving peace in Ukraine will be more likely” under Donald Trump: (in alphabetical order) China (60%), India (65%), Russia (61%), Saudi Arabia (62%), South Africa (53%), and the US (52%), too.

Even in countries where this expectation is not dominant, there are still pluralities or sizeable minorities who see Trump as promoting peace in Ukraine, for instance, Brazil (45%), the consolidated sample of 11 EU members (EU11) the study has used (34%), Indonesia (38%), Turkey (48%), and Ukraine (39%).

In addition, respondents were polled on a whole battery of questions related to the Ukraine War, ranging from, in essence, “Who is to blame?” via “What should we do now?” to “Who is going to win?” And then, there is a question for Ukrainians only regarding what outcomes they would be willing to support. The answers are not encouraging. As the authors note, “there is no consensus in Ukrainian society on the nature of an acceptable compromise” and “such disagreements could stoke political turmoil if and when negotiations begin.”

And you just wait for “the turmoil,” one is tempted to add, when they end with, in reality, a very costly – in lives, territory, and prosperity – Ukrainian defeat that could have been avoided if Ukraine’s false “friends” in the West had not provoked and then sustained their selfish as well as ill-conceived proxy war to take down Russia. But it is unsurprising that Garton Ash, Krastev, and Leonard miss an aspect of reality that would diverge from their own ideological predispositions all too painfully.

Read more

And yet, with so much polling about the Ukraine War, in one way or the other, the authors still miss the single most pertinent point about it. The most powerful factor now in further accelerating the demise of the so-called liberal order is not the second election of Donald Trump. That is the premise their whole study is built on, and it’s mistaken.

What is really speeding up the decline of the West is that it is losing its great proxy war in Ukraine. This, after all, has been the most hubristic proxy war/regime-change project that the West has ever undertaken, targeting Russia, a major great power that also happens to have the single largest nuclear arsenal in the world. The failure of this project was predictable. I know, because I did predict it. It is now the key fact of this moment in history. Even Donald Trump, ambitious and willful as he is, is merely reacting to this reality.

Try a thought experiment: What would Garton Ash, Krastev, and Leonard be writing about the “liberal international order” now, if the West had succeeded and Russia had lost. See? Yet, it is the West that is losing, while Russia is winning. In general, what has changed the world the most is not happening inside the West. It’s what’s happening outside it – most of all the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the self-reassertion of the Global South.

And that is the final irony of this report. At its center is an invitation to others – Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, Russians, for instance – to share their opinions about the return of Trump and its consequences. That, in and of itself, is a strikingly self-centered approach. Yes, do please talk to us, the West – but about our new boss. Western Europe has a long way to go to find its place in a changing world.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The newly-inaugurated president is serious about bringing back the glory days and risks leaving Washington’s allies in the dust

It’s shock and awe time for Uncle Sam’s allies in the clown car who have mindlessly gone along for the ride.

Not only is freshly re-minted US President Donald Trump reversing course at breakneck speed but, if his newly declared priorities are any indication, he seems to be headed, pedal to the metal, all the way back to the 80s.

One has to look back about 40 years to find a “simpler” time in Western society. Life was straightforward. You worked, earned a commensurate livable wage, and focused on your life and that of your family. Period. You didn’t have to dedicate bandwidth to navigating lunacy like which pronouns you should be using when you meet someone. Or whether to chop off your kid’s junk before the school demands it for his mental health and suggests you be re-educated if you object. Or whether your neighborhood soon risked looking like it was transplanted, in toto, from a foreign country. Or whether there was stuff hidden inside your food that would only make its presence known once it had latched onto your inexplicably ever-widening backside.

You knew about the foreign wars, and that they were a boon to the military industrial complex, but you didn’t get the impression that the country that was being invaded was like a foster child, commanding so many resources and attention that they were considered a big reason why your own life sucked. You figured that the folks in charge at least had enough sense to put the oxygen mask on their own people first. Now, it’s like Westerners in general are just supposed to embrace the martyrdom, gasping away and accepting to make the best of it.

Read more

Americans ultimately rejected it all when they elected Trump. And if his recent executive orders within hours of taking office are any indication, he isn’t wasting any time on setting the Time Machine to a return to the pre-woke era.

With a stroke of the presidential pen, he’s now brought back the two-gender reality, deprived men of the opportunity to excel in women’s sports, and terminated government-sponsored diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. As a woman who has championed first- and second-wave feminism, the kind that ended by the 80s before being hijacked by lunacy that perverted the interests of women and minorities – it’s about damn time.

The Democrats have had a long run at corrupting the once honorable struggle for equality. “This war against women started a long time ago with old Democrats who took over the Republican Party, which was, before that, the very first to support the Equal Rights Amendment,” second-wave American feminist icon and “Ms.” Magazine founder, Gloria Steinem, explained to The Humanist in 2012. “Even when the National Women’s Political Caucus started, there was a whole Republican feminist entity. But beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right-wing Democrats like Jesse Helms began to leave the Democratic Party and gradually take over the GOP,” she said.

Democrats ultimately ensured that everyone would become paralyzed by self-censorship in standing up against divisive and woke left policies, for the fear or being cancelled at best and officially sanctioned at worst. Trump has now taken that threat and others off the table, ordering that “no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” He’s also made it illegal to use any government resources to infringe on free speech.

Trump also made a long anticipated presidential pardon and commutation order that effectively places the January 2021 Capitol Hill rioters on par with the much less stigmatized and prosecuted antifa counterparts on the other side of the ideological coin. And he’s tasked the armed forces with actually defending the US by placing them at the border, and slapping the terrorist label on cartels endangering the US rather than on a group on the other side of the world in a country targeted for the “ liberation” of its natural resources.

Read more

Trump has now pulled the US out of the Paris Climate straitjacket, er, agreement. You know, the one that was such a brilliant idea that it’s proven to be a total failure. Maybe next time don’t try to legislate the temperature of the entire planet, and make it seem like citizens could do their part by yelling at their neighbor to recycle his Coke cans. Trump also ordered a withdrawal from the World Health Organization, citing costs and its “mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

He’s basically doing everything that he figures will make the US wealthier, from lifting the ban on Alaskan oil drilling to declaring a national energy emergency. And he doesn’t seem too interested in continuing or starting wars unless he can see a clear net return on investment for the hassle. “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end and, perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” Trump said in his inaugural address.

He’d clearly rather just straight-up tax countries (even friendly ones) through his exploratory concept of an “External Revenue Service,” or try to gain an advantage on the playing field through sanctions that handicap competitors, like those he just slapped back onto Cuba mere days after Biden had lifted them.

Meanwhile, across the pond here in Europe, and up in Canada, leaders and wannabe leaders are positioning themselves as the anti-Trump – the one who can stand up to his policies. Good luck with that. Europe literally made itself dependent on American natural gas when they cut themselves off from cheap Russian supply, and now Trump is turning the screws and demanding that they buy even more or face tariffs. Way to stick it to Russia, guys.

Former Canadian Liberal Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and prime minister hopeful, Chrystia Freeland, says it’s a “huge advantage” that Trump doesn’t like her. “At a time when President Donald Trump is threatening our country, it’s time to fight for Canada,” she wrote on social media. Her Liberal leadership opponent, Mark Carney, the former bankers’ banker in both Canada and the UK, World Economic Forum and Bilderberg fixture, and former chair of the Financial Stability Board that governs the global financial system, is running as an “ outsider” – whose signature is literally stamped on Canada’s currency. He should add “self-aware” to his list of personal qualities.

Read more

Carney is big on the whole carbon market and taxation scheme being pushed under the guise of climate change, effectively robbing the working class in developed nations to inflate the wallets of the global crony class. And, with Trump in charge, he now risks being left all alone to play with his carbon dioxide funny money. Carney also once wrote an oped calling the anti-Covid mandate Freedom Convoy protesters foreign-backed, just before their bank accounts were blocked – something that Canadian intelligence denies being true. For sure a real man of the people. What could possibly go wrong for him and his ilk as Canadians watch Trump’s America prosper?

This week’s French Prime Minister, François Bayrou, who just managed to dodge France’s second non-confidence vote in as many months, has called for the need to “stand up” to Trump. But before even thinking of effectively confronting the US, they’re all going to have to undo the damage that they’ve done to their own countries in blindly following Washington’s screwy policies to their own detriment. And that means dismantling all the distracting, resource-consuming, wokeist globalist agenda nonsense that Trump is now sweeping into the dustbin as he moves back onto the White House.

The problem is that Washington’s allies in the Western establishment are so brainwashed in their worldview that, in the absence of their own domestic house-cleanings in favor of populist Trump-like thinking, they run the risk of Trump running circles around their countries, bringing America back to 80s style basics of success, all while they try to figure out how to escape their own self-imposed echo chamber of nonsense. And there’s not even any evidence yet to suggest that they even realize that the entire problem is them.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Liberal universalism, for all its claims of celebrating “diversity,” operates as a force of erasure, denying every culture’s intrinsic worth

The unipolar era is collapsing, and in its place rises a new world, shaped by distinct centers of power, each bound to its traditions, values, and histories. Multipolarity rejects the artificial imposition of a single worldview, instead proclaiming the beneficial heterogeneity of human existence. It is a call to rediscover the strength of firmly established identities and to embrace a stabilized global order.

For centuries, the world was lorded over by empires that sought to impose their singular, myopic vision upon all peoples. Liberal universalism, with its insistence (like Star Trek’s Borg with their hive mind) on assimilating the world into one model, has failed to create harmony. Multipolarity, on the other hand, recognizes that genuine coexistence depends on respecting the uniqueness of each civilization. It seeks not to erase differences but to create a world where each culture thrives on its own terms, contributing to a dynamic and unadulterated global reality.

A profound transformation is underway. Multipolarity marks a return to the natural state of a world composed of many civilizations, each pursuing its destiny. This revival is seen in the resurgence of ancient powers such as Orthodox Russia, Confucian China, and Hindu India. These nations are not relics of the past but living civilizations, reconnecting with their historical roots to take their proper places in the present. They reject the unipolar dictatorship of the Atlanticist model, which imposes liberal democracy and market capitalism as universal truths.

The conflict between land-based and sea-based powers is central to the unfolding multipolar world. Maritime empires, like Britain and the United States, long preeminent in global trade and geopolitics, are now facing the comeback of continental alliances. The seas, once the lifelines of Western hegemony, are giving way to the strategic establishment of the land as the new focus of commercial and political activity. Tellurocracy, the reign of the land, confronts thalassocracy, the reign of the sea – tipping the geopolitical scale of power.

Eurasia exemplifies the triumph of the land. Its vast connectivity through infrastructure and economic corridors, from railroads to energy pipelines, undermines the primacy of maritime trade routes. This contest is not merely about command over resources but reflects a deeper philosophical divide. The land represents rootedness, tradition, and stability, while the sea symbolizes fluidity, disruption, and the unmoored aspirations of modernity. Multipolarity restores the equilibrium between these forces, defying the centuries-long dominance of oceanic powers and placing the ancient, grounded civilizations of Eurasia at the forefront of global affairs.

Read more

At the heart of multipolarity lies ethnopluralism – the recognition that distinct peoples cannot be blended into a single identity without destroying what makes them unique. Ethnopluralism opposes the liberal dream of the “melting pot,” viewing it as a forced amalgamation of disparate cultures. Instead, it argues for the coexistence of separate communities, each displaying its characteristics within its own boundaries.

Europe’s current discontent provides a stark lesson. The riots and social unrest in nations like France and Belgium are not isolated incidents but signs of a deeper crisis. These conflicts reveal the failure of forced multicultural integration, which has ignored the fundamental differences between communities. A more sustainable path forward lies in setting up autonomous regions where specific ethnic groups can live in accordance with their own traditions, free from external pressures. This model recalls the decentralized nature of the Holy Roman Empire, which united different regions under a common spiritual framework without obliterating their unique characteristics. This respect for local autonomy fostered resilience and ethnocultural preservation, qualities that resonate with the tenets of multipolarity.

The French political theorist Guillaume Faye’s vision of Archeofuturism brings this idea into the modern era. He proposes a synthesis of ancient traditions with forward-looking innovation. This vision combines the timeless veneration of heritage with the opportunities presented by technological progress. It aligns with multipolarity by advocating a world that honors the wisdom of the past while engaging with the issues of the present. Faye’s model offers a way to move forward without abandoning the foundations that support all civilizations.

Africa’s role in the emerging multipolar order cannot be separated from its historical experience of colonialism. The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 divided the continent among European powers, which stripped African peoples of their sovereignty and stole their resources. This era of colonial oppression imposed artificial borders and alien governance structures, setting the stage for decades of exploitation and instability.

Today, however, Africa is reclaiming its agency. The spirit of Pan-Africanism, championed by figures like Marcus Garvey and W. E. B. Du Bois, inspires a new ideal of self-determination. Garvey’s demand for African pride and repatriation, along with Du Bois’ endorsement of global solidarity among peoples of African descent, laid the foundation for Africa’s modern renaissance. This revival is political as well as modern myth-building, as African nations reconnect with their traditions and assume their rightful roles in the theater of continents. By rejecting the legacy of colonialism and embracing its exclusive path, African civilization contributes to the multipolar world as a vital and equal participant.

America, long the undisputed headquarters of unipolarity, now faces its own reckoning. The presidency of Donald Trump signals a shift away from globalist ambitions towards a more isolationist stance. Trump’s rhetoric and policies reflect a growing disillusionment with the liberal international order, which has overextended American influence at great cost. His postulate of “America First” confirms the sentiments of a nation weary of endless wars and foreign entanglements.

Read more

This isolationist impulse, while criticized by many, marks a break from the interventionist policies that have hitherto defined US overreach. Trump’s methods, although uneven, lay bare the contradictions within the unipolar system. As America recalibrates its role in the world, its withdrawal opens space for multipolarity to flourish. In the absence of a single superpower, a more balanced global order comes into being, where civilizations assert their sovereignty without fear of external interference.

Liberal universalism, for all its claims of celebrating “diversity,” operates as a force of erasure. It reduces cultures to superficial symbols, stripping them of their depth and meaning. Driven by materialism and individualism, it undermines the spiritual and communal pillars of societies. This worldview treats everything as a resource to be used and discarded indiscriminately, echoing the German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s critique of the technological ordering of existence (Gestell).

Multipolarity is a counterbalance. It defends the sanctity of each culture, illuminating the true beauty of mankind in its authentic diversity. Civilizations are not interchangeable, and their differences are not problems to be solved but treasures to be safeguarded. The multipolar order seeks to preserve these distinctions, creating a world where unique cultures coexist without being tyrannized by an alien entity.

The unipolar world has not only been brought up by liberal universalism but also by the persistence of White supremacist ideologies. Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” encapsulates the colonialist mindset that tried to justify Western European guardianship of the non-Western world. This paternalistic worldview, repackaged for modern times, persists in the form of Western interventions, sanctions, and mental indoctrination.

Today, the imposition of perverse liberal anti-values on resistant civilizations revives this older imperialist ambition. The narrative of “progress” and “human rights” often masks an underlying desire to enforce Western rule. Multipolarity deconstructs this racist agenda by affirming the dignity of all cultures and rejecting the moral superiority falsely claimed by any one civilization. It invites us to move beyond the colonialist hierarchies that have erected the modern world, creating a space where all peoples can chart their destinies free from external coercion.

The anthropology of Franz Boas provides a philosophical foundation for the multipolar vision. Boas rejects the idea of a universal hierarchy of cultures, arguing instead that each culture must be understood within its own context. His theoretical framework of cultural relativism dismantles the Eurocentric belief that Western civilization represents the pinnacle of human achievement. Boas emphasizes that every culture has intrinsic worth, born from its unique history and environment. This perspective aligns with multipolarity, which is against the imposition of a single model on all societies. Boas’ work reveals the depth and sophistication of cultures dismissed as “primitive,” questioning the assumptions that underlie much of modern liberalism. His insights remain vital in understanding the revolutionary significance of ethnocultural plurality in the multipolar realignment of the world.

The Russian thinker Alexander Dugin argues that each civilization, like an individual, possesses its own destiny and cannot be subsumed under a universal framework. Dugin critiques Western liberalism as a form of imperialism, seeking to impose its diseased customs on all societies, whether they want them or not, through regime changes and bombs.

Dugin’s concept of Eurasianism stresses the importance of rootedness and cultural identity. It puts the spotlight on the spiritual and historical depth of civilizations, standing in opposition to the abstraction and cosmopolitan rootlessness of modernity. Dugin envisions a world where each civilization prospers according to its own principles, rejecting the homogenizing pressures of unipolar despotism.

Read more

An essential element of multipolarity is the strategy of remigration. This involves reversing demographic shifts that have destabilized social cohesion in many regions. Advocates of remigration argue that it is not an act of exclusion but a necessary step towards restoring equilibrium and control. By encouraging displaced peoples to return to their ancestral homelands, this approach seeks to honor cultural and historical integrity.

Remigration is based on the principles of ethnopluralism. It aims to create conditions where all cultures can thrive within their deserved territories. While controversial, it is a practical response to the challenges of cultural dissonance in a world undergoing profound change.

Hegel’s philosophy sheds light on the historical forces driving the implementation of multipolarity. His notion of the World Spirit sees history as a process of unfolding freedom, guided by the interaction of opposing forces. The unipolar world represents a stagnation of this process, suppressing the natural variety of civilizations.

Multipolarity, by contrast, allows for the free development of all cultures, each contributing to the broader movement of history. Hegel’s dialectic reminds us that authentic progress is born from contradiction, and multipolarity represents a resolution of the tensions inherent in the unipolar era. The rise of multipolarity is not an end but a continuation of mankind’s historical journey.

The renewed world order will not be dictated by a single power imposing its will on the rest. Instead, it will be an orchestra of civilizations, each of them a potent instrument of ethnocultural expression. Multipolarity promises a world where power is distributed and cultural integrity is upheld, creating the possibility for genuine cooperation.

As the unipolar world collapses under its contradictions, a new dawn materializes – one of richness, adventure, and optimism. For those seeking a deeper understanding of the ideas expressed in this article, my book MULTIPOLARITY! offers a comprehensive exploration of the paradigms leading to this transformative era.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New Delhi’s strategy for oil imports is evolving in the face of growing pressure from Western sanctions against its key supplier

"When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water,” Benjamin Franklin once said. In today’s world, where energy fuels economies and drives geopolitical strategies, this adage resonates deeply.

For India, a nation heavily reliant on imported energy, the latest Western sanctions targeting Russian oil have triggered a pivotal moment.

Numerous restrictions put in place by the US and its allies since 2022 have not only disrupted global oil flows but have also forced major economies to re-evaluate their energy strategies. Caught in the crossfire of the latest sanctions yet again, New Delhi faces a delicate challenge, securing its energy needs without compromising its geopolitical relationships.

The latest sanctions on Russia, designed to cripple its revenue streams, represent some of the most stringent measures yet. These include bans on oil tankers, traders, and entities linked to Russia’s energy sector. While these sanctions aim to isolate Russia economically, their ripple effects extend globally, leaving energy-importing nations like India to navigate uncharted waters.

The latest round of Western sanctions against Russia has introduced unprecedented challenges to global oil markets as they target not only direct oil sales but also logistical channels. For energy-importing nations like India, the ripple effects have been immediate.

Read more

Brent crude prices surged to $81.01 per barrel, while WTI crude hit $78.82, reflecting tightening supplies and growing market uncertainty. With 40% of its crude imports coming from Russia in 2024, India finds itself at a crossroads. The restrictions on tanker capacity and insurance services have raised logistical costs and threatened supply chains, forcing Indian refiners to reconfigure their sourcing strategies.

In response, Indian refiners have started adjusting their operations to comply with US sanctions, ceasing engagements with blacklisted entities. State refiners are reportedly hastening to accelerate payments for Russian crude, aiming to finalize their transactions before Washington’s expanded restrictions on Moscow’s oil industry take effect after a two-month wind-down period permitted by the US (ending March 12).

During this period, minimal disruption is expected as ongoing shipments are allowed to reach their destinations, officials told Indian media (though anonymously). They pointed out it is too early to predict the long-term impact, particularly regarding discounts and compliance with the $60 price cap. As for oil cargoes booked before January 10 – they will be allowed to unload at its ports within the sanctions framework, India clarified.

Besides these immediate adjustments, the country has in general adopted a long-term strategy to mitigate risks. India has ensured supply stability while reducing its reliance on Russia by diversifying its crude sourcing, particularly increasing imports from Middle Eastern countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Read more

Before the Ukraine war and subsequent sanctions, Russia emerged as one of India’s most reliable oil suppliers. By offering heavily discounted crude, Russia not only addressed India’s growing energy demand but also shielded the world’s third-largest oil consumer from the volatility of global markets. A pivotal moment in this relationship was the 10-year agreement between Reliance Industries and Rosneft, which secured long-term supplies and reinforced India’s energy security. This partnership underscored Russia’s strategic role in meeting India’s affordability and supply needs, enabling India to navigate the challenges of soaring global oil prices.

However, the discounted oil came with implicit risks, forcing India to carefully balance energy affordability with its broader strategic interests.

India ramped up imports from the Middle East, particularly Iraq and Saudi Arabia, during November and December. This shift highlights India’s resilience and adaptability but also sparks important questions about long-term sustainability. Although Middle Eastern crude is more readily available, it comes at a higher price compared to Russian supplies, intensifying cost pressures.

The sanctions have also intensified energy competition between India and China, with both nations vying for alternative sources of crude. Morgan Stanley estimates that Russia’s redirected oil exports to India and China totaled 140 billion tonne-miles monthly, with 25–30 billion tonne-miles carried by now-sanctioned tankers.

The disruption of these routes threatens to strain global supply chains further, amplifying volatility in energy markets.

India’s pivot to diversification reflects a broader reality: energy markets are inherently geopolitical. For India, the challenge now lies in maintaining a delicate balance between affordability, energy security, and strategic maneuvering in an increasingly unpredictable global environment.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Establishment media outlets have often resorted to dumbing down societies by reducing global events to shallow soundbites or clickbait that reinforces convenient stereotypes

The moment has come to question the wisdom of continuing to battle a wounded but still formidable behemoth: Western corporate media.

For decades, it has held an almost unassailable grip on the global narrative, buoyed by wealth, political patronage, and an entrenched belief that it alone possesses the authority to define reality.

Yet the years of reflexive sensationalism, patent double standards, and top-down editorial diktats have eroded the very legitimacy Western outlets once took for granted.

The cracks in their façade are now impossible to ignore, with disillusioned viewers, readers, and even former insiders acknowledging that something profoundly dysfunctional lurks at the heart of so-called “mainstream” news.

Read more

Where does this leave those in what we might call the Global South, or the emerging multipolar alliance—countries previously relegated to the margins of a story that was never truly theirs to begin with? Too often, they have had to settle for representation that flattens their complexities and frames their societies either as exotic backdrops or perpetual sources of crisis. They have been told they must prove themselves worthy of Western approval, emulate Western editorial models, or else risk being dismissed as unprofessional or “biased”. But this old thinking—that the path to legitimacy is to follow the leads of media conglomerates in New York or London—can no longer stand in the face of new realities. A fresh era is dawning, and nowhere is that more evident than in the swelling tide of alternative networks within Russia, China, India, and beyond.

China’s CGTN and China Daily have asserted themselves on the global stage, offering views on geopolitics, technology, and cultural exchange that Western cameras rarely bother to capture. Crucially, these networks have also ventured far beyond traditional broadcasting, building diverse digital platforms that range from video-on-demand services to online text articles dissecting both global and national issues. RT in Russia, meanwhile, has assembled some of the world’s most sharp-witted commentators and thought leaders in wide-ranging talk shows and debates, questioning NATO-centric narratives and championing a multipolar vision of world affairs—while similarly strengthening its online reach through multimedia content. Indian outlets such as WION have also begun to carve a niche, reminding anyone who will listen that “international” does not necessarily equate to “Western”, and extending their influence with digital formats that engage audiences across multiple platforms. These ventures prove that when a nation or region invests wholeheartedly in its editorial independence—and leverages modern digital tools—it can powerfully impact global discourse. The Western monopoly on truth was always a myth; now it is visibly fraying at the seams.

Nowhere is the imperative to strike a unique path more pressing than on the African continent. South Africa’s Independent Media Group stands as a testament to what can be achieved when local ownership, innovative leadership, and social commitment converge. Under the guidance of visionary figure, Dr Iqbal Survé—who has insisted that “our media must reflect the transformation of society”—Independent Media has, time and again, defied the unipolar logic that demands everything be funnelled through a Euro-American filter. The group’s news titles have held space for diverse voices, for cultural movements, for sober debates on the direction of the country’s young democracy, and for investigations that challenge the status quo. Yet even this is but a glimpse of what is possible if Independent Media’s existing infrastructure is expanded into a fully digital, video and text, hyper-media driven platform connecting multiple partners across the Global South, BRICS, and other multipolar alliances.

Read more

Such an expansion is more than just a technical undertaking; it represents the birth of a new media culture. Western outlets have often resorted to dumbing down societies by reducing global events to shallow soundbites or clickbait that reinforces convenient stereotypes. Middle-class audiences, in particular, have been swept up in the spectacle—fed a diet of polarising headlines and commentary that ignore both local realities and deeper systemic questions. Grassroots communities, meanwhile, see their struggles either sensationalised or erased altogether.

A revitalised media platform that spans continents could change that equation. By treating audiences as active, thinking agents rather than passive consumers, it would promote real debates around social justice, economic development, and cultural identity. It would also speak directly to the concerns of the middle classes—those who have the resources to engage with more thoughtful content but have often been alienated by Western outlets’ biases. Critically, such a platform would honour the knowledge and experiences of grassroots communities, ensuring they are no longer simplified or silenced, but instead recognised as vital contributors to the global tapestry.

Read more

Imagine a transnational network of digital channels, podcasts, and investigative teams spanning Johannesburg, New Delhi, Beijing, São Paulo, and Moscow, sharing resources, training journalists, and broadcasting in multiple languages. The infrastructure is there. The talent is there. The audience, fatigued by the monotonous lens of Western reportage, is ready. All that remains is the collective will to see it through—to cultivate a media environment that uplifts local complexities while forging alliances across borders.

Throughout history, the power to define a people’s narrative has always been the power to govern its destiny. Steve Biko warned that “the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed,” a maxim that resonates in the media realm as much as in the political. Dr Survé has articulated that same imperative in contemporary terms, reminding us that a press unattuned to its community’s aspirations merely perpetuates entrenched inequalities. Rather than fighting to be recognised by a media sphere in decline, the emerging multipolar community can—and must—build its own house.

Critics will label this aspiration “propaganda”, but that refrain has long been a tactic used to discredit any challenge to Western hegemonic norms. The reality is that the Global South’s move towards editorial sovereignty is neither utopian nor sinister; it is pragmatic. There is simply no reason to remain tethered to an old hierarchy whose cracks have become too large to ignore. The gradual ascendancy of China’s CGTN, Russia’s RT, and India’s WION has already revealed that audiences respond to, and often prefer, a multiplicity of worldviews when they sense authenticity and intellectual rigour.

Read more

Indeed, the era of Western media’s uncontested sway is drawing to a close, a process hastened by endless political spin, shallow sensationalism, and an unquestioned alignment with powerful state and corporate agendas. Viewers and readers everywhere, especially across BRICS countries and the broader Global South, feel the numbness that comes from being patronised or omitted altogether. Consequently, they are looking for stories that acknowledge their experiences with complexity and humanity.

Why, then, compete with a dying system? The more fruitful path is to recognise the seeds of something new. Independent Media in South Africa exemplifies how a robust foundation can be laid—one that might be scaled up through digital convergence, transnational content sharing, and fresh collaborations among media professionals in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and beyond. This is not about disavowing global engagement; it is about reshaping who gets to speak and on what terms.

Of course, this is not a simple transition. It demands financial agility, political resolve, and a willingness to challenge entrenched cultural attitudes. It also requires a spirited defence against the propaganda onslaught that will inevitably come from those who wish to maintain the status quo. But with each passing day, the need for a new media renaissance grows more urgent. Disillusioned by the failings of Western outlets, the youth, middle-class audiences and citizens are more open than ever to platforms that respect both their intelligence and their cultural vantage points. Grassroots communities are increasingly prepared to articulate their own narratives and push them onto a global stage, no longer content to be represented—or misrepresented—by distant editors.

Ultimately, such a shift could reshape not only the information ecosystems of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but the global media order itself. We stand on the cusp of a world in which Western corporate news no longer holds an unchallenged monopoly, and where alliances like BRICS step forward as equals in shaping public consciousness. This is our greatest opportunity—to reclaim the narratives that define daily life for billions, reverse the dumbing down that has stifled genuine debate, and spark dialogues that resonate across cultures.

The question, then, is which of the superpowers will truly come to the table. China, Russia, and India have demonstrated through CGTN, RT, and WION that they have the will and the capacity to support alternatives to Western mainstream models. Brazil, too, is making strides in forging regional media initiatives, and South Africa’s Independent Media has laid a solid groundwork for continental innovation.

If these forces combine—guided by mutual respect, shared infrastructure, and a commitment to editorial independence—they can help inaugurate an entirely new chapter in global journalism, one defined not by outmoded hierarchies but by the sheer vibrancy of plural voices. It is an invitation not merely to resist but to build—and in building, to show the world that information, community, and the future of public discourse belong not to the corridors of old power, but to the boundless energy of those determined to shape tomorrow.

First published by IOL

Медиа: image / jpeg

Should TurkStream go the way of Nord Stream, it will prove that it doesn’t matter who is in the White House

On January 11, nine Ukrainian drones attacked the “ Russkaya” compressor station near the town of Anapa in Russia’s Krasnodar Region. The station, situated on the north-eastern coast of the Black Sea, is a key installation in the TurkStream gas pipeline that crosses the Black Sea’s seabed to emerge on land again north of Istanbul.

To be precise, TurkStream consists of two parallel pipelines, just like the Nord Stream 1 and 2, which used to link Russia and the EU. Most of these two trans-Baltic pipelines were destroyed in a massive act of eco-terrorism; the perpetrators are certain to have included Ukraine and the US, in one way or another.

The attack on the compressor station did not achieve its aims. Russian air defenses shot down the drones, and despite some minor damage, the station remained intact. However there were important consequences, and this story is far from over.

Three days after the Ukrainian strike, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Washington of being behind Kiev’s assault. In particular, Lavrov charged that the US is seeking to demolish TurkStream, just as it made sure Nord Stream was taken out of commission. If Lavrov is right, the unsuccessful January 11 drone attack could turn out to have only been the beginning: Further attacks may follow, perhaps including an underwater bombing of the pipelines, as was carried out against Nord Stream in September 2022.

Context is essential here: At the beginning of this year, pipelines carrying gas from Russia via Ukraine to the EU were switched off after Kiev refused to prolong a transit agreement.

Read more

That has left TurkStream the only remaining pipeline sending gas from Russia to, ultimately, the EU, in this case mostly Hungary. Importantly, Lavrov believes that the US is aiming to have its Ukrainian clients sabotage this last remaining link, not only to hit Russia but also in order to fulfil the broader strategy of disrupting the EU’s economies.

It is true that we won’t know for certain whether there is a dedicated US project to sabotage TurkStream and, if so, how far it will go – unless, of course, we wake up one morning to learn that “mysterious” explosions have occurred at the bottom of the Black Sea. In any case, Lavrov’s reading of the situation and warnings – not made for the first time – are plausible and should be taken seriously as a matter of due diligence, especially by Washington’s so-called European partners, that is, vassals.

This is so for several reasons: First, what happened to Nord Stream showed that the US and Ukraine accept no limits, even and perhaps especially among “allies.” Even more important is what happened after their Nord Stream attack, namely, in essence, nothing, at least to them. Instead, there was a prolonged period of falsely (and absurdly) blaming Russia, while the Europeans frantically helped cover up their “friends’” assault as best they could.

When that strategy of denial and disinformation became untenable, some Ukrainians were officially blamed but, as it happens, never apprehended – with the convenient side effect of letting Washington off the hook entirely. It’s a story that makes no sense, but then, making sense is not a thing Western elites and mainstream media consider obligatory. In any case, their failure to defend national interests and retaliate against a brutal attack on those interests can only have emboldened the perpetrators.

Read more

Then there is Donald Trump, of course. The returning US president’s explicit policy of making the US “ energy dominant” has various domestic aspects, from privileging the fossil fuel industry, which has contributed greatly to his campaign funds, to degrading environmental standards. But it also has foreign policy implications. One is the fact that Trump is continuing and escalating his predecessor Joe Biden’s policy of making the European vassals buy expensive American liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Trump wants them to take even more LNG, using the threat of punitive tariffs as a very American-style sales argument. In essence, this is just the latest phase of that other economic war that Washington has waged: While the one against Russia has backfired quite spectacularly, leaving Moscow stronger and more resilient than before, this one, against Washington’s own NATO-EU vassals has been successful.

Comparatively inexpensive Russian energy has been replaced with expensive American (and other) substitutes – as of 2021, 47 percent of the EU’s gas supplies still came from Russia, for instance. The Europeans have submissively crippled themselves economically and greatly reinforced their dependency on the US. From Washington’s brutally selfish perspective, what’s not to love? At least as long as the Europeans do not rebel. And it seems they never will, astounding as that is.

Finally, there is a broader but no less pertinent context. Lavrov made his remarks about the danger to the TurkStream pipelines at a much longer press conference, which was dedicated to a review of Russian diplomacy in 2024. Against that backdrop, he also restated his views on Washington’s general approach to other countries and, really, the world as such. His crucial point in this regard was that America is not interested, in principal, in equality between sovereign states, balance between their interests, or fair competition between their economies.

Read more

Instead, we can add, it keeps pursuing what Americans themselves call “primacy” and what the rest of the world experiences as a relentless policy of domination, intimidation, interference, and continual, usually extremely destructive, warfare. The US, Lavrov summed it up, does not accept any “competitor in any sphere.” We might add again, under any conditions, except when it is compelled to do so.

Washington’s ruthlessness – and lawlessness – in controlling energy resources and infrastructure and, if necessary, in destroying them, too, is merely one aspect of this strategy. A strategy that seems so deeply ingrained in the collective mind of America’s elite that they cannot even imagine a less confrontational approach to their neighbors on planet Earth anymore. If Trump intends to “make America even greater,” Lavrov warned, the world will have to pay close attention to the methods he will employ to do so.

One test will be what will happen – or not – to TurkStream under Trump. If it should go the way Nord Stream went under Biden, that would be more – if unsurprising – evidence that, ultimately, it makes little difference to the rest of us who is in the White House. Because in America you can have any foreign policy – as long as it’s bossy.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Facing platform restrictions at home, creators find freedom abroad, migrating to apps beyond Washington’s sphere of influence

Ni hao, American censorship refugees!

As the US Supreme Court weighs a TikTok ban, American users are sticking it to Uncle Sam by digitally migrating en masse to China and out of reach of their own government.

The judgment is expected any day now, and it could mean that the popular online app will no longer be available for new downloads in the US. In the absence of workarounds, it also means that Washington succeeds in censoring an online platform over which it has no control. And that’s clearly the issue, as lawmakers have long been pressuring the Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell off its American operations to a US entity, effectively handing over control of user data to the US in order to avoid the ban – which the company has so far refused to do.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that data held by an American company is in safer hands, as lawmakers want us to believe? There’s an easy litmus test to answer that. Would you be more willing to hand over all of your personal information to your own government, which has full jurisdiction over every aspect of your life – or, alternatively, to a government on the other side of the planet?

In any case, American TikTokers have already made up their minds. The app is now rife with videos of them packing their bags for their “digital migration” to a different Chinese platform – RedNote (known in China as Xiaohongshu). These self-described “TikTok refugees” have been in the process of saying their goodbyes with tributes to their “personal Chinese spies” in TikTok videos, including some made with artificial intelligence, showing them doing things like scrolling on their phone and wandering around making videos for TikTok while a Chinese “spy” dressed in a military-style uniform laughs and cries along with them. Or sits at the table with them on a restaurant patio while they film their food. Or smiles while they’re hanging out with buddies at the bar and taking group selfies. Or sits on a lounge chair on a beach while their “American target” films their beachside vacation antics.

Read more

Apparently Chinese RedNote users have been bonding with the new arrivals, who reportedly now number at least 700,000 at last count, teaching them Mandarin Chinese and helping them navigate the platform, while the TikTokers are already helping them with their English to help weather the migratory tsunami. Some RedNote users are already reporting that it’s now considered rude to post videos without captions generated by artificial intelligence in the language other than the one spoken in the video.