Tag: russia

EU Trying for Regime Change in Hungary Using Zelensky

Viktor Orbán has been a thorn in the paw of the European dictatorship masquerading as a democracy when the people have no right to vote for any leader, and the Parliament, which they do vote for, has no complete democratic control over other EU institutions, especially the European Commission. It can hold hearings, ask questions, and set up committees of inquiry. Most dramatically, it has the power to pass a motion of censure and force the entire European Commission to resign.  It cannot pass laws alone. It can reject proposed legislation entirely, killing the bill. It has done this on numerous occasions, forcing the Commission to go back to the drawing board. However, it has the power to reject the entire annual EU budget. It has no power to alter laws or the budget. It is always an all-or-nothing role.

The European Union has not stripped Hungary of its voting rights over issues related to migrants or Ukraine, but is dying to do so and is now behind closed doors telling Zelensky to create a confrontation with Orban to force Hungary to exit the EU and enter war with Ukraine. On Ukraine’s Independence Day, Zelensky gave Hungary an ultimatum: “You must make a choice.” 

Keep reading

US Announces Plan To Arm Ukraine With Thousands of Long-Range Cruise Missiles

The Trump administration has announced that it approved an $825 million weapons deal that will arm Ukraine with thousands of Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) air-launched missiles, which can hit targets up to 280 miles away, a significantly further range than other missiles that the US has sent into the proxy war.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said the deal will provide Ukraine with 3,350 ERAM missiles, 3,350 Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems, and other related equipment.

The arms sale will be funded in part by Foreign Military Financing (FMF), a State Department program that provides foreign governments with money to buy US-made weapons. Other funding for the deal will come from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on Saturday that the Trump administration had approved the deal and that the missiles would start arriving in Ukraine within six weeks. The report also said that the administration had been quietly blocking Ukraine from using US-provided missiles in attacks on Russian territory, but the provision of the ERAMs suggests that might change.

Keep reading

Zelensky’s reckless missile gamble: Ukraine’s new 3,000km weapon risks all-out war

  • Ukraine unveils new 3,000km-range Flamingo missile capable of striking Moscow to bypass U.S. restrictions on deep strikes into Russia.
  • Zelensky’s defiance risks catastrophic Russian retaliation, including cyberattacks, deeper NATO strikes, or even tactical nukes.
  • Ukraine’s dwindling resources, manpower, and Western support make the Flamingo a desperate last gamble rather than a war-winning strategy.
  • Russia’s military and economic superiority ensures Ukraine’s long-range strikes won’t shift the war’s outcome but could trigger uncontrolled escalation.
  • Zelensky’s provocative move signals weakness, not strength, as NATO fractures and Ukraine’s collapse becomes increasingly inevitable.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced this week that his military no longer needs U.S. permission to strike deep inside Russia, he wasn’t just boasting — he was rolling the dice on a conflict that could spiral into global catastrophe. The revelation came after reports that the Pentagon has quietly blocked Ukraine from using American-supplied ATACMS missiles to hit Russian territory since late spring. Now, Zelensky claims Ukraine’s new domestically produced Flamingo cruise missile, with a staggering 3,000km range, will let him bypass Washington’s restrictions entirely.

Speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Zelensky declared, “At the moment, we are using our long-range domestically produced weapons, and we haven’t been discussing such matters with the U.S. lately.”

His timing is no coincidence. Just days earlier, he unveiled the Flamingo, a missile capable of reaching Moscow, boasting that mass production could begin as early as February. “The missile has undergone successful tests. It is currently our most successful missile,” he told reporters.

But here’s the problem: This isn’t just another weapon. It’s a provocation that could force Russia’s hand in ways Zelensky clearly hasn’t thought through.

Keep reading

When the Russia ‘Experts’ Get It Wrong

The Western punditariat’s commentary on Russia is spectacularly ill-informed. This should be expected from mainstream journalists whose employment relies on the very ignorance they so readily espouse, but there is no excuse for those who promote themselves as “experts” and use this alleged expertise to help craft Western policy towards Russia.

A case in point is Michael McFaul, the Stanford Professor whose claim to fame is serving as Obama’s ambassador to Moscow. In a recent post on his Twitter account, McFaul linked to a Foreign Affairs article he penned in December of last year, outlining how he believed the incoming Trump administration could end the war in Ukraine. As is no surprise, the ambassador and NATO enthusiast recommended the suicidal strategy of admitting Ukraine into the alliance. Yet this is far from the most egregious misstep McFaul made in this piece, as he committed several factual errors that are inexcusable for someone of his experience and purported expertise.

It has become an article of faith in the West that Ukraine made a catastrophic folly in the mid-1990s by surrendering its nuclear weapons stockpile in exchange for security guarantees in the form of the Budapest Memorandum. McFaul repeats this conventional wisdom, stating that “the United States offered Ukraine security assurances in exchange for Kyiv’s handing over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow.”

There is, however, just one problem with this piece of commentary: it isn’t true. Kiev couldn’t hand over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow because it didn’t have a nuclear arsenal to begin with. Ukraine’s much-vaunted nuclear deterrent was, in actual fact, Soviet nuclear weapons that happened to be stationed on Ukrainian soil. Even post-independence, Moscow retained full control of these systems. Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, then, was as much Ukrainian as American nuclear systems stationed throughout Europe are European. All debates about whether Kiev could have deterred the Russian invasion had it not signed the Budapest Memorandum are, therefore, redundant. As someone who’s bragged about making close to a million dollars a year for his supposed insights on Russia, McFaul should know better than to entertain these debates.

In fairness to McFaul, he did at least get one thing right when he said Washington offered Ukraine security assurances. Often used synonymously with guarantees, the word assurances was very carefully and deliberately selected language by Washington to ensure they would not be legally-bound to come to Ukraine’s defense, as the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer has explained:

“American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies”

So, when former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said on a recent appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored that the U.S. is essentially “giving up” on the Budapest Memorandum by failing to come to Ukraine’s aid, he is demonstrating quite a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the agreement. Clark additionally fails to mention that Washington had made their desire to “give up” on the Budapest Memorandum very clear long before the 2022 invasion. A key component of the memorandum is for the signatories of Russia, the U.S., and U.K. to refrain from exercising “economic coercion” against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (the latter two also had Soviet nuclear weapons that they agreed to transfer, and signed their own separate versions of the memorandum to do so).

As early as 2006, the United States and its British partners acted in complete defiance of this commitment, sanctioning the government of Belarus. Washington placed further sanctions on Minsk in 2013, justifying this on the grounds that their pledges in the Budapest Memorandum were “not legally binding.” Feeling liberated from any legal constraints, Washington also imposed sanctions against the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, which complemented their blatant interference in the country’s internal affairs during the Maidan revolution. Such a move was a clear violation of  the Budapest pledge to respect Ukraine’s “independence and sovereignty.”

Clark may profit from studying this and much else of the post-Soviet record. In addition to peddling mainstream dogma about the Budapest Memorandum, the general also repeated the Western media favourite that Putin wants to reconstitute the borders of the Soviet Union. As he put it, “From the time Vladimir Putin became prime minister and later president, he wanted to restore the Soviet Union’s space and territory.”

Keep reading

If Ukraine Wants Security Guarantees, It Should Get Them From Europe

President Donald Trump deserves immense credit for prioritizing diplomacy in pursuit of a resolution to the Russia-Ukraine War. After three and a half years of madness and mayhem in Ukraine, and beneath a volley of overwrought accusations of “Appeasement!” from Democrats, the media, and parts of Europe, Trump has met with both sides of the conflict to discern their positions and try to bring them together to end the killing.

The substantive issues are admittedly tough. The Russians are dug in on territorial concessions and the end of NATO expansion, while the Ukrainians are dug in on security guarantees. Not surprisingly, after three years of brutal conflict, Kyiv wants outside powers to commit to going to war for it if the Russians should invade again. Rightly, Trump has declined repeatedly to commit U.S. forces to fight and die for Ukraine.

That leaves things at loggerheads: If Ukraine will not quit fighting without security guarantees, and the United States — under Joe Biden as well as President Trump — doesn’t want to provide them, who will? The natural answer should be Europe. With an economy roughly the same size as the U.S. economy, five times Russia’s population, geographic proximity to Ukraine, and already more combined military spending than Russia, surely Europe should step up.

After all, the Europeans have been quite consistent: Protecting Ukraine from Russia is of vital importance to them. Referring to the war in Ukraine, France’s Emmanuel Macron warned last year that “our Europe could die.” Macron was joined last week by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, the U.K.’s Keir Starmer, Finland’s Alexander Stubb, Poland’s Donald Tusk, and other EU leaders in issuing their demand for “ironclad security guarantees” to protect “Ukraine’s and Europe’s vital security interests.”

Keep reading

U.S. Bars China, Russia, Iran From Undersea Cable Supply Chains

The U.S. government is overhauling undersea cable rules for the first time since 2001, tightening restrictions to keep companies linked to adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran out of the supply chain, according to Nikkei Asia.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved proposed rules that bar adversary-based firms from working on U.S.-owned undersea cables or supplying related equipment. Approved companies will need cybersecurity plans and must certify their supply chains are free of such entities.

To encourage investment, the FCC will streamline approvals for U.S. firms and partners from Japan and Europe, cutting the typical two-year process. Reapproval will be required every 25 years instead of every three, as originally proposed.

Keep reading

Has He Gone Completely Insane? Zelensky Announces That There Is Not Going To Be Peace

If you listen long enough, people will eventually tell you exactly what they truly believe. Unfortunately, we have just learned what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky truly believes about the war with Russia, and it is not good news at all. Apparently Zelensky is convinced that there will not be a permanent state of peace until all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea belong to his government. Needless to say, the Russians will never hand all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea over to Ukraine willingly, and so they will need to be taken by force. Since the Ukrainians cannot do this alone, they will be seeking to enlist the help of others, and that is what should deeply alarm all of us.

The mainstream media’s fawning coverage of Zelensky’s Independence Day speech makes him sounds like some sort of a great peacemaker.  Here is just one example…

President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine would continue to fight for its freedom “while its calls for peace are not heard,” in a defiant address to the nation on its independence day.

“We need a just peace, a peace where our future will be decided only by us,” he said, adding that Ukraine was “not a victim, it is a fighter”.

He continued: “Ukraine has not yet won, but it has certainly not lost.”

That makes him sound so incredibly reasonable.

But the mainstream media did not report on any of the troubling parts of Zelensky’s speech.

I went and found a transcript of the speech, and it reveals Zelensky’s real goals…

And now, in a full-scale war for independence, it is here, on Maidan, that one can find such important symbols. Symbols of how we fight, what we fight for, and how we are overcoming this war.

These symbols are all around us. In this Independence Monument. Inside, it has a reinforced concrete frame and can literally withstand a hurricane. In the same way, our Ukraine has withstood the great calamity that Russia brought to our land. In this “Zero Kilometer” point. It is the starting point where distances to Ukrainian cities are written: to our Donetsk, our Luhansk, our Crimea. Today, these markers have a completely different meaning. They are no longer just about kilometers. They remind us that all of this is Ukraine. And there are our people, and no distance between us can change that, and no temporary occupation can change that. One day, the distance between Ukrainians will disappear, and we will be together again as one family, as one country. It is only a matter of time. And Ukraine believes it can achieve this — achieve peace, peace across all its land. Ukraine is capable of it.

This is what started the war in the first place.

Keep reading

Zelensky Wants $1 Billion Per Month From NATO Countries To Buy US Weapons

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday that he wants $1 billion per month from NATO countries to purchase US weapons, comments that come as a peace deal seems increasingly unlikely following the summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

NATO recently announced a new scheme under which member states commit to spending on US weapons to ship to Ukraine, known as the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative. So far, about $2 billion has been committed to the effort in pledges from the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Canada.

“Our goal is to fill this program with no less than $1 billion every month,” Zelensky said during a joint press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store in Ukraine. “We also discussed our domestic drone production and joint opportunities with partners. Investments now can help not only physically but also force Russia to end this war.”

During his visit to Ukraine, Store pledged that Norway would provide Ukraine with $8.4 billion in aid for 2026, the same amount Norway provided this year. The Norwegian leader said the $8.4 billion will go toward “military and civilian support.”

Zelensky and Store also discussed the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine, an issue that could sink the peace process as Ukraine and its European backers are insisting on some type of arrangement that would involve Western troops deploying to Ukraine, an idea Moscow has made clear is unacceptable and a non-starter for negotiations.

Keep reading

Left-Populist German MP Demands Zelensky Testify on Nord Stream Sabotage

German politician Sahra Wagenknecht has urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide testimony regarding the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions.

As leader of the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), she insists on a parliamentary investigative committee to examine the incident. Her demands follow recent arrests that point to Ukrainian involvement in the sabotage.

The Nord Stream pipelines, which transported natural gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, were damaged by explosions in September 2022.

A 49-year-old Ukrainian national was arrested in Italy on August 21, 2025, following a European arrest warrant issued by Germany.

The suspect, identified as Serhii K. in some reports, faces charges of causing an explosion, anti-constitutional sabotage, and destruction of infrastructure. He was detained while vacationing with his family in the Rimini province and is awaiting extradition to Germany.

The arrest stems from evidence linking the man to a small team that allegedly used a yacht named Andromeda to place explosives on the pipelines.

Investigators believe he coordinated the operation, which involved Ukrainian divers operating from the vessel in the Baltic Sea. Reports indicate the suspect had served in Ukraine’s military, adding a layer to the ongoing probe.

This development follows an earlier warrant in June 2024 for another Ukrainian suspect, Volodymyr Z., who reportedly fled Poland to Ukraine after authorities there failed to act on the alert.

Polish prosecutors cited issues with the suspect’s address not being registered and deferred to their internal security service. All known suspects are now believed to be in Ukraine, complicating extradition efforts.

Wagenknecht argues that the operation likely involved state backing from Ukraine and possibly the U.S. under the Biden administration.

Wagenknecht references investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s reports, which allege U.S. complicity in the sabotage.

Keep reading

Direct NATO Intervention In Ukraine Might Soon Dangerously Turn Into A Fait Accompli

Trump’s negotiating strategy is to “escalate to-de-escalate” in a very risky attempt to coerce concessions, which he might soon apply against Putin after being emboldened by its success with Iran.

The White House Summit between Trump, Zelensky, and a handful of European leaders officially concerned “security guarantees” for Ukraine, which is an ultra-sensitive issue for Russia. It was therefore alarming from its perspective that Trump subsequently said that the proposed deployment of French and British troops to Ukraine “will not create problems for Russia.” To make it even worse, he also spoke about helping them “by air”, while another report claimed that 10 countries are willing to send troops.

While it hasn’t been confirmed, this sequence of events suggests that Trump’s envisaged endgame in Ukraine is the deployment of NATO troops (even if not under the bloc’s banner), which may include a US-enforced (partial?) no-fly zone and/or promises of US air support if they’re attacked. All three – NATO troops in Ukraine, a no-fly zone, and the de facto extension of Article 5 mutual defense commitments to allies’ troops there (contrary to Hegseth’s declaration in February) – go against Russia’s security interests.

Nevertheless, it’s hypothetically possible that Putin might agree to at least some of the above, but only in exchange for far-reaching Ukrainian and/or Western concessions elsewhere. To be clear, neither he nor any officials below him have even hinted at anything of the sort, instead always opposing these plans and threatening that they might even use force to stop them. Having said that, “diplomacy is the art of the possible” as some have said, and these three briefings would contextualize any such quid pro quo:

* 7 August: “What’s Responsible For The Upcoming Putin-Trump Summit?”

* 16 August: “What’s Standing In The Way Of A Grand Compromise On Ukraine?”

* 21 August: “Which Western Security Guarantees For Ukraine Might Be Acceptable To Putin?”

In sum, Trump’s carrots and sticks might convince Putin that it’s better to accept this scenario than oppose it, but it might also be presented as a fait accompli for pressuring him into accepting it as part of a peace deal if he still opposes it instead of risking an escalation if it unfolds during active hostilities. After all, the US, UK, and the EU are all actively coordinating on the “security guarantees” that they’ll soon present to Russia, and this could dangerously include plans to directly intervene in the conflict.

Keep reading