Tag: russia

Russia pledges ‘full support’ for Venezuela against US ‘hostilities’

Russia on Dec 22 expressed “full support” for Venezuela as the South American country confronts a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers by US forces deployed in the Caribbean, the two governments said.

In a phone call, the foreign ministers of the two allied countries blasted the US actions, which have included bombing alleged drug-trafficking boats and, more recently, the seizure of two tankers.

A third ship was being pursued, a US official told AFP on Dec 21.

“The ministers expressed their deep concern over the escalation of Washington’s actions in the Caribbean Sea, which could have serious consequences for the region and threaten international shipping,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said, of the call between ministers Sergei Lavrov and Yvan Gil.

“The Russian side reaffirmed its full support for and solidarity with the Venezuelan leadership and people in the current context,” it added.

“The ministers agreed to continue their close bilateral cooperation and to coordinate their actions on the international stage, particularly at the UN, in order to ensure respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.”

Keep reading

Lt General Fanil Sarvarov Killed In Car Bombing In Moscow

A car bomb exploded beneath a Kia Sorento in a residential courtyard in southern Moscow on the morning of December 21, 2025, shortly after the driver entered the vehicle and began moving. 

Russian investigators believe an improvised explosive device (IED) was planted under the car, classifying the incident as a targeted attack rather than an accident. 

The blast occurred at approximately 7:00 a.m. local time on Yasenevaya Street in the Orekhovo-Borisovo Yuzhnoye district.  

Unofficial reports from Russian Telegram channels identified the victim as Major General Fanil Fanisovich Sarvarov, head of operational training within the General Staff of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Sarvarov has served in senior command and planning roles since at least 2015 and is described as a veteran of multiple conflicts, including the Chechen wars, the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, Syria, and the war in Ukraine.  

Keep reading

‘A Lie And Propaganda’: Gabbard Fact-Checks Reuters’ Russia Scaremongering In Real Time

On Saturday afternoon, Reuters posted an anonymously-sourced story pushing the idea that Russia is bent on reconstituting the Soviet Union. Before the metaphorical ink had dried, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard pounced, condemning the story as “a lie and propaganda” on behalf of “warmongers” seeking to derail President Trump’s drive to end the long and bloody Ukraine war.  

From selling the Iraq invasion to achieving a news and social media lockdown on Hunter Biden’s laptop, the Deep State has long used major media outlets like Reuters, the New York Times and Washington Post to inject their agenda-advancing narratives into America’s town square. Displaying the typical modus operandi with its Saturday night story, Reuters vaguely attributed the purported US intelligence conclusions about Russia to “six sources familiar with US intelligence.” 

According to those sources, “US intelligence reports” are warning that, despite Putin’s outwardly earnest claims that he wants to end the Ukraine war — claims credited by Trump — Russia not only wants to conquer all of Ukraine but also other European territories that were part of the Soviet Union. “The reports present a starkly different picture from that painted by…Trump and his Ukraine peace negotiators,” wrote Reuters journalists Jonathan Landay, Erin Banco and John Irish. Shortly after Banco promoted the story on X, Gabbard lashed out: 

“No, this is a lie and propaganda Reuters is willingly pushing on behalf of warmongers who want to undermine President Trump’s tireless efforts to end this bloody war that has resulted in more than a million casualties on both sides. Dangerously, you are promoting this false narrative to block President Trump’s peace effort, and fomenting hysteria and fear among the people to get them to support the escalation of war, which is what NATO and the EU really want in order to pull the United States military directly into war with Russia.

The truth is the US intelligence community has briefed policymakers, including the Democrat HPSCI member quoted by Reuters, that US Intelligence assesses that Russia seeks to avoid a larger war with NATO. It also assesses that, as the last few years have shown, Russia’s battlefield performance indicates it does not currently have the capability to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine, let alone Europe.”

The “Democratic HPSCI member” (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) is Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, who told Reuters that intelligence has “always” said “Putin wants more…The Europeans are convinced of it. The Poles are absolutely convinced of it. The Baltics think they’re first.”

Keep reading

Gabbard blasts ‘deep state warmonger’ report claiming Putin seeks to invade Eastern Europe, warns NATO and EU pushing U.S. toward war with Russia

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard refuted a report claiming that U.S. intelligence reports are finding that Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks to capture all of Ukraine and parts of Eastern Europe formerly under Soviet control.

Gabbard dismissed a Reuters report claiming that Putin still has the intention of expanding his war past Ukraine, citing six anonymous sources.

The report, released on Saturday, claims that a September U.S. intelligence report contradicts President Donald Trump and his negotiators, who have stated that Putin is seeking an end to the war in Ukraine.

The report added that U.S. intelligence has been consistent on the matter since Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, aligning with European leaders on the belief that Putin seeks to take back former Soviet bloc states by force, including NATO allies.

“The intelligence has always been that Putin wants more,” Democrat House Intelligence Committee member Mike Quigley (Ill.) told Reuters. “The Europeans are convinced of it. The Poles are absolutely convinced of it. The Baltics think they’re first.”

Gabbard responded to the report on Saturday afternoon, criticizing “deep state warmongers and their propaganda media” for attempting to undermine President Donald Trump’s peace efforts.

“This is a lie and propaganda @Reuters is willingly pushing on behalf of warmongers who want to undermine President Trump’s tireless efforts to end this bloody war that has resulted in more than a million casualties on both sides,” Gabbard wrote.

Gabbard went on to accuse NATO and the EU of wanting to lure the United States into a direct military conflict with Russia.

Keep reading

EU is Broke & Rejects Peace Since They Would Have to Return Russian Money

I have been getting emails asking if the EU robbing Russia is the prelude to the Great Taking. Let’s make this very clear – there is NO GREAT TAKING – that is sophistry. You might as well add that they will default on all pensions, medicare, and Social Security while at it. Not even the army would defend such actions.

Without the army, the government fails just as the 1991 coup in Russia collapsed when the army did not fire on the people. They know that such a “Great Taking” would be revolution. We will all be singing the Revolution song from Les Misérables.

The EU is on the verge of absolute collapse. Not only economically are they still in love with Marxism, but they are floundering and they are losing the support of member states all thanks to their stupid migrant policies, excessively high taxation, over-regulation, and now their desperate attempt to shut down free speech in a cynical effort to retain power. As I warned, the EU will sabotage any effort by Trump to end the war Ukraine. This is about the conquest of Russia for money.

Keep reading

Volodymyr Zelensky’s Non-Compromise NATO Compromise

A key reason that Russia went to war in Ukraine was to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO; a key reason that Ukraine went to war with Russia was to defend their right to join NATO. On December 14, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave up Ukraine’s right to join NATO. He presented the concession as a compromise. But it is not really a compromise. Zelensky may intend the non-compromise to leverage concessions from Russia, but it may not really change anything.

That blocking Ukraine accession to NATO was Moscow’s primary motivation has been confirmed by NATO, by Ukraine and by the United States. Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General at the start of the war, says that “no more NATO enlargement… was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine… [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”

Davyd Arakhamiia, who led the Ukrainian negotiating team in Istanbul, says that an assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO was the “key point” for Russia. “It was the most important thing for them… They were prepared to end the war if we agreed to… neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO.”  Zelensky said, in his first interview after the invasion, “As far as I remember, they started the war because of this.”

Amanda Sloat, the former Special assistant to President Biden and Senior Director for Europe at the National Security Council, was recently caught suggesting that a guarantee that Ukraine not join NATO could have prevented the war. “We had some conversations even before the war started about, what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘Fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, you know, if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion’ – which at that point it may well have done,” she said. “There is certainly a question, three years on now, you know, would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks? It certainly would have prevented the destruction and loss of life… If you wanna do an alternative version of history, you know, one option would have just been for Ukraine to say in January 2022, ‘Fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, we’ll stay neutral. Ukraine could’ve made a deal, I guess, in, what, March, April 2022 around the time of the Istanbul talks.”

But Ukraine did not make that deal because the United States, the U.K., Poland and their partners pushed them not to. They promised Ukraine whatever they need for as long as they need it to fight Russia in defense of the “core principle” that Ukraine has the right to choose its alliances and that NATO has the right to expand.

Nearly four years and hundreds of thousands of deaths later, Ukraine has surrendered the right to join NATO. On December 14, Zelensky said that he is ready to give up the demand for NATO membership in exchange for “bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the United States – namely, Article 5–like guarantees… as well as security guarantees for us from our European partners and from other countries such as Canada, Japan and others.”

Zelensky presented this concession as “a compromise on our part.” But it is not really a compromise for three reasons.

The first is that the retraction of the promise that Ukraine would join NATO was already a done deal. Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never going to happen.

That reality was implicitly stated by Biden and explicitly stated by Trump. It is point number 7 in Trump’s 28-point peace plan. The reality has been recognized by Zelensky who has “understood that NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine” since the start of the war. He has, since that time, “acknowledged” that Ukraine “cannot enter” the “supposedly open” NATO door and that, though “publicly, the doors remain open,” in reality, Ukraine is “not going to be a NATO member.” Any hope of resuscitating that dream died in the recently released 2025 National Security Strategy of the United States of America that states the policy priority of “Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.”

Keep reading

The EU is getting ready for its most dangerous move

Modern diplomacy is increasingly taking on strange and contradictory forms. Participants in the latest round of Ukraine-related talks in Berlin report significant progress and even a degree of rapprochement. How accurate these claims are is hard to judge. When Donald Trump says the positions have converged by 90%, he may be correct in a purely numerical sense. But the remaining 10% includes issues of fundamental importance to all sides. This, however, does not stop Trump from insisting that progress is being made. He needs to create a sense of inevitability, believing momentum itself can force an outcome. Perhaps he is right.

What is more paradoxical is the configuration of the negotiations themselves. On one side sits Ukraine, a direct participant in the conflict. On the other are the Western European countries surrounding it. Indirect participants who, in practice, are doing everything possible to prevent an agreement from being reached too quickly. Their goal is clear: To persuade Kiev not to give in to pressure. Meanwhile, the US presents itself as a neutral mediator, seeking a compromise acceptable to everyone.

There are obvious reasons to doubt American neutrality, but let us assume for the sake of argument that Washington is acting in good faith. Even then, one crucial actor is conspicuously absent from the visible negotiating process: Russia. In principle, this is not unusual. Mediators often work separately with opposing sides. But in the public narrative, events are presented as if the most important decisions are being made without Moscow. Trump’s allies and intermediaries pressure Zelensky and the Western Europeans to accept certain terms, after which Russia is expected to simply agree. If it does not, it is immediately accused of sabotaging peace.

Keep reading

Ukraine Energy Sector in Permanent Crisis Due to Relentless Russian Strikes – Daily Power Cuts Affecting All Regions

‘Hello, darkness, my old friend’.

Ukraine’s energy sector is living under extreme circumstances, as the constant Russian drone and missile attacks wreak havoc in the country’s power generation and transmission.

The biggest private energy provider is living in permanent crisis, according to its chief executive.

BBC reported:

“Most of Ukraine is suffering from lengthy power cuts as temperatures drop and Maxim Timchenko, whose company DTEK provides power for 5.6 million Ukrainians, says the intensity of strikes has been so frequent ‘we just don’t have time to recover’.

President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Tuesday that Russia knew the winter cold could become one of its most dangerous weapons.”

Keep reading

FBI Agents Thought Clinton’s Uranium One Deal Might Be Criminal – But McCabe, Yates Stonewalled Investigation: Report

Remember Uranium One? The massive 2010 sale of US uranium deposits to Russia approved by Hillary Clinton and rubber-stamped by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) – after figures linked to the deal donated to the Clinton Foundation?

Turns out rank-and-file FBI investigators thought there was enough smoke to launch a criminal investigation, but internal delays and disagreements within the DOJ and FBI ultimately caused the inquiry to lapse, newly released records reveal. 

The materials, made public by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and first reported by Just the News, reveal that investigators argued internally over the delays – which allowed the statute-of-limitations to expire and ultimately halt the case.

The Uranium One transaction – involving the sale of a Canadian mining company with substantial U.S. uranium assets to Russia’s state-owned nuclear firm Rosatom – became a flashpoint during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Critics argued that then-Secretary of State Clinton, a member of CFIUS, helped approve the deal while donors connected to Uranium One made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The New York Times reported in 2015 that “as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013 … a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. [Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” the Times reported. “At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.” -Just the News

Resistance from senior officials – including then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – slowed the inquiry to the point where statute-of-limitations concerns were later cited to justify shutting it down.

Keep reading

The Oligarch Part 1: How one powerful man made Zelensky president, Ukraine his pocket state, and sent it to war

Igor Kolomoysky built up Ukraine’s largest bank, then plundered it for billions in a scheme so elaborate it looks like a state intelligence operation. During the 2014 Maidan revolution, he ended up caught in a whirlwind of far-right militants, rising Western scrutiny, and a dramatic denouement with his bank – and fled abroad. Not one to give up, though, Kolomoysky had a plan for revenge and its name was Vladimir Zelensky.

Zelensky, however, soon ran amok. He “tricked Putin” in Paris, ruining hopes for peace in the Donbass, and setting the stage for the fateful events of 2022. Caught between Western pressure and his benefactor’s menacing presence, Zelensky tried to play both sides until events forced his hand. Yet Kolomoysky’s downfall merely left an open niche for a new shadowy figure to stride in.

Below is the first part of RT’s investigation, based on hundreds of pages of court documents, dealing with Kolomoysky’s rise, his turning PrivatBank into an empire of fraud, the events of Maidan, and his involvement in the post-Maidan world.

“He did play as Napoleon, right, Zelensky?… This Napoleon will soon be no more,” said a man with curly grey hair and a scraggly grey beard from the defendant’s cage in a Kiev courtroom. It was the middle of November, and Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoysky was speaking at a hearing in the longstanding fraud charges he faces related to his plundering of PrivatBank. Looking relaxed in a track suit and speaking in Russian, Kolomoysky predicted that Vladimir Zelensky would come crashing down with him due to his own intimate involvement in the corruption scandal currently roiling Ukraine.

Events in Ukraine have taken on the feel of a Shakespearean tragedy as one after another in Zelensky’s inner circle has fallen or fled under the taint of corruption. Perhaps it would be fitting if Kolomoysky ends up with the last word in this sordid affair, for it was his efforts that gained Zelensky the presidency in the first place. When the oligarch himself finally met his comeuppance, into the breech stepped another Kolomoysky-made man, Timur Mindich, who would reconstruct much of his former benefactor’s patronage network for equally corrupt aims.

It is perhaps an exaggeration to say that all crooked roads in Ukraine lead to Kolomoysky – if only because corruption there is too pervasive to trace to one man. Yet, Kolomoysky seems to stand upstream from the entire intertwined morass of militant nationalism, cronyism, and corrupt patronage networks that have defined modern Ukraine.

So who is Igor Kolomoysky and why does his name still echo in the halls of power in Kiev? This is the man who orchestrated one of the largest and most elaborate embezzlement schemes in modern history that cost the Ukrainian state 6% of GDP to remedy. This is the man who built up massive private security forces and financed far-right militias at an estimated cost of $10 million per month in the fraught post-Maidan period. And it is a man whose machinations Zelensky was loath to confront until Western pressure forced his hand.

Keep reading