radiofree.asia

Category: Russia

  • They Left The West To Fight For Russia

    Across the scorched fields and ruined factories of Donbass, a new kind of soldier moves among Russian units—not born under the tricolor, but under the flags of the very nations arming Ukraine.

    They come from America, Britain, France, and beyond. Men once proud of their military service now walk away from NATO’s wars and into the ranks of Russia’s armed forces—or into the humanitarian trenches of liberated towns. Why? Because they’ve seen through the lie.

    Some fight on the front lines, side by side with Russians defending cities like Chasov Yar. Others deliver aid, rebuild homes, and film what the West will never show its citizens: that this war isn’t about democracy or borders, but about global power, corruption, and forgotten people.

    The post They Left The West To Fight For Russia appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • How Russia Is Getting Ready For Victory Day’s Celebrations


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • United States Minerals Deal Resets Ukraine’s Geopolitics

    Moscow and Kiev have been vying with each other to curry favour with the new U.S. administration. Just as Russian diplomacy appeared to be outstripping Kiev, things changed dramatically on April 30 with the signing of the so-called minerals deal between the U.S. and Ukraine in Washington.

    Weeks of tense bargaining preceded the conclusion of the agreement, which at one point disrupted U.S. aid for Ukraine. But the latter showed extraordinary grit, tenacity and tact to hang on and, eventually, extracted out of the Trump administration what President Vladimir Zelensky called a “truly equal” deal. This must be the finest hour of Ukrainian nationalism and underscores that the country is far from a write-off on the geopolitical chessboard.

    The post United States Minerals Deal Resets Ukraine’s Geopolitics appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal

    The agreement between Washington and Kyiv to create an investment fund to search for rare earth minerals has been seen as something of a turn by the Trump administration.  From hectoring and mocking the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the cameras on his visit to the US capital two months ago, President Donald Trump had apparently softened.  It was easy to forget that the minerals deal was already on the negotiating table and would have been reached but for Zelensky’s fateful and ill-tempered ambush.  Dreams of accessing Ukrainian reserves of such elements as graphite, titanium and lithium were never going to dissipate.

    Details remain somewhat sketchy, but the agreement supposedly sets out a sharing of revenues in a manner satisfactory to the parties while floating, if only tentatively, the prospect of renewed military assistance.  That assistance, however, would count as US investment in the fund.  According to the White House, the US Treasury Department and US International Development Finance Corporation will work with Kyiv “to finalize governance and advance this important partnership”, one that ensures the US “an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.”

    In its current form, the agreement supposedly leaves it to Ukraine to determine what to extract in terms of the minerals and where this extraction is to take place.  A statement from the US Treasury Department also declared that, “No state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”

    Ukraine’s Minister of Economy, Yulia Svyrydenko, stated that the subsoil remained within the domain of Kyiv’s ownership, while the fund would be “structured” on an equal basis “jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States” and financed by “new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil and gas – generated after the Fund is created”.  Neither party would “hold a dominant vote – a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.”

    The minister also revealed that privatisation processes and managing state-owned companies would not be altered by the arrangements.  “Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.”  There would also be no question of debt obligations owed by Kyiv to Washington.

    That this remains a “joint” venture is always bound to raise some suspicions, and nothing can conceal the predatory nature of an arrangement that permits US corporations and firms access to the critical resources of another country.  For his part, Trump fantasised in a phone call to a town hall on the NewsNation network that the latest venture would yield “much more in theory than the $350 billion” worth of aid he insists the Biden administration furnished Kyiv with.

    Svyrydenko chose to see the Reconstruction Investment Fund as one that would “attract global investment into our country” while still maintaining Ukrainian autonomy.  Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, thought otherwise, calling it “Donald Trump’s extortion of Ukraine deal”.  Instead of focusing on the large, rather belligerent fly in the ointment – Russian President Vladimir Putin – the US president had “demonstrated nothing but weakness” towards Moscow.

    The war mongering wing of the Democrats were also in full throated voice.  To make such arrangements in the absence of assured military support to Kyiv made the measure vacuous.  “Right now,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on MSNBC television, “all indications are that Donald Trump’s policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on.”

    On a certain level, Murphy has a point.  Trump’s firmness in holding to the bargain is often capricious.  In September 2017, he reached an agreement with the then Afghan president Ashraf Ghani to permit US companies to develop Afghanistan’s rare earth minerals.  Having spent 16 years in Afghanistan up to that point, ways of recouping some of the costs of Washington’s involvement were being considered.  It was agreed, went a White House statement sounding all too familiar, “that such initiatives would help American companies develop minerals critical to national security while growing Afghanistan’s economy and creating new jobs in both countries, therefore defraying some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more reliant.”

    Ghani’s precarious puppet regime was ultimately sidelined in favour of direct negotiations with the Taliban that eventually culminated in their return to power, leaving the way open for US withdrawal and a termination of any grand plans for mineral extraction.

    A coterie of foreign policy analysts abounded with glowing statements at this supposedly impressive feat of Ukrainian diplomacy.  Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank’s Eurasia Centre, thought it put Kyiv “in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office”.  Ukraine had withstood “tremendous pressure” to accept poorer proposals, showing “that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal”.

    Time and logistics remain significant obstacles to the realisation of the agreement.  As Ukraine’s former minister of economic development and current head of Kyiv school of economics Tymofiy Mylovanov told the BBC, “These resources aren’t in a port or warehouse; they must be developed.”  Svyrydenko had to also ruefully concede that vast resources of mineral deposits existed in territory occupied by Russian forces.  There are also issues with unexploded mines.  Any challenge to the global rare earth elements (REEs) market, currently dominated by China (60% share of production of raw materials; 85% share of global processing output; and 90% manufacturing share of rare earth magnets), will be long in coming.

    The post The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • India signs for naval Dassault Rafale aircraft

    The Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has signed an agreement with the French government to acquire 26 Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft worth US$7.4 billion for the Indian Navy. The Intergovernmental agreement (IGA) signed on 28 April provisions for 22 Rafale M single-seat and four twin-seat Rafale trainer aircraft, the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) said. […]

    The post India signs for naval Dassault Rafale aircraft appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Release of Ukrainian prisoners in Russia key to any peace deal, rights groups say

    Kyiv-based Centre for Civil Liberties says tortured inmates bypassed amid focus on territory and security guarantees

    Ukrainian and Russian civil society leaders have called for the unconditional release of thousands of Ukrainian civilians being held in Russian captivity, pushing for world leaders to make it a central part of any peace deal.

    Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Kyiv-based Centre for Civil Liberties, which won the 2022 Nobel peace prize, said most of the discussion on ending the conflict, led by Donald Trump’s administration, focused solely on territories and potential security guarantees.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Russia Rejects Trump’S Freeze Of The War In Ukraine

    Despite U.S. pressure for a fast deal Russia does not expect any quick resolution of the conflict. It just announced a new unilateral ceasefire from May 8 to May 10, i.e. around the 80th anniversary of its victory in World War II on May 9.

    It is another public sign that Russia is willing to adhere to a ceasefire agreement IF the conditions are right.

    Trump still tries to behave like a neutral mediator in a conflict between Kiev and Moscow. He wants to impose a peace deal that projects his personal ‘greatness’.

    But the U.S. has been and continues to be the main party of the war with Russia while Ukraine is the mere proxy force that does the bleeding.

    The post Russia Rejects Trump’S Freeze Of The War In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Vietnam parade for 50th anniversary of end of war; Chinese troops & Russia jets participate (RFA)

    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

  • Losing And Learning Nothing

    How odd to look back now — now, as Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine ends in ignominious defeat—and think of that cornucopia of propaganda spilling out of what I called during the early months Washington’s “bubble of pretend.” Take a few minutes to remember with me.

    There was the “Ghost of Kyiv,” an heroic MiG–29 pilot credited with downing six, count ’em, six Russian fighters in a single night, Feb. 24, 2022, two days after the Russian intervention began. The Ghost turned out to be a fantasy confected out of a popular video game.

    So crude, the early Ukrainian propaganda, so rank.

    The post Losing And Learning Nothing appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Is Trump Closer to Walking Away from Ukraine?

    It appears that what many of us predicted about Ukraine may be coming to pass. Last Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appeared on the CBS program Face the Nation. In response to a question about Ukraine from Margaret Brennan, Lavrov said,“Trump is probably the only leader on earth to address the root causes that got us into this war and wants to rectify it.” Further, he said, “The President of the United States, and rightly so, believes that we are moving in the right direction.” He added that some matters need to be “fine tuned.”

    On Friday, Trump’s trusted envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Moscow for talks with Putin. Does this mean that the endgame is in sight, that Trump will finally extricate the US from Ukraine? We know that in a single day, Trump can voice indisputable truths, including that if Zelensky continues on his present path “he could lose his entire country.” And when asked what concessions Russia has made, Trump replied that “Russia isn’t taking the entire country.” However, we also know that only hours later Trump might prattle on and prevaricate about negotiations while evading the truth that the US and the collective West have already lost the war. It’s axiomatic that losers in a war do not dictate the peace terms so it’s telling that here we have a case where the delusional losers, with the exception of Trump, are still trying to prolong the war. In the US, opponents of a peace settlement include the MIC, neocons, Democrats, Lindsey Graham Republicans and members of his own team like Kellogg and Rubio.

    In any event, a reality-based analysis suggests that there is no deal to be had for Trump, no final settlement is within reach. Geopolitical analyst Larry Johnson is correct in asserting that, “Trump is playing a game of strip poker but he’s butt ass naked with no more cards to play.” The longer he dithers in exiting, the more likely he’ll be seen as a bluffing buffoon, all hat and no cowboy. Given this reality, sooner rather than later, Trump will walk away and simply say, “We made our best offer so now we’re getting out.” I suspect that Putin will understand this is about Trump saving face.

    What will happen when Trump pulls the plug on the Ukraine Project? The vaunted “Coalition of Willing,” which once numbered 27, is now down to 3: Britain, France and Germany. I once thought that Macron was semi-serious about putting French “peacekeeper” boots on the ground in Ukraine but the absence of a US security guarantee renders that avenue inoperable. Further, this would be a bridge too far for the public to tolerate and the massive protests it would ignite would be political suicide for Macron.

    The outcome for Ukraine is obvious: It will be decided on the battlefield where the Russian army is much stronger than it was in 2021. By all accounts, Russia is breaking through Ukrainian defenses across the board. On Saturday, Russian commander, Gen. Valery V. Gerasimov said that Russian forces had taken the last village that Ukrainian troops had held in Kursk. Gerasimov also said that 76,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed or wounded in the Kursk region. When the mud season ends in a few weeks, we can expect a major Russian assault and the absorption of more territory.

    For Ukraine, the war is unsustainable. How long the Kiev regime lasts is impossible to predict but six to eight months is a plausible guess. The fanatical ultra-nationalist elements (Neo-Nazis/Azov/Bandera Battalion elements) will fight a rear guard action with support from Europe but eventual collapse is inevitable. Subsequently, I would expect Russia to control events in Ukraine, commencing with denazification. The country will never be allowed to pose a military threat to Russia.

    The hubris of those provoking and continuing to cheer on this proxy war is diabolical and they did and do so in full knowledge that Russia would see it as an existential threat. In addition to all the horrific consequences that have preceded it, they are now responsible for the wholly preventable deaths to follow, the majority of which will be ever younger Ukrainian soldiers.

    European leaders who warned that the Russians would advance to the English Channel will continue shouting “Russia, Russia, Russia!” British political analyst Alexander Mercouris is certainly correct in suggesting that “European unity is now built entirely around hostility toward Putin, toward Russia,” even if that means sacrificing Ukraine. Thus we can expect Europe to press forward with rearmament at the expense of a working class that’s already experiencing increasing immiseration.

    Here in the United States, all the usual suspects, including some on the putative left, will vilify Trump for “cutting and running” on Ukraine. Sadly, I believe that we’re a long way from the point that our heavily propagandized fellow citizens grasp how they’ve been had, lied to about Ukraine by the ruling class and their servile mass media outlets. The next deception on the horizon is the “China threat” and the need to challenge and confront this dangerous duplicity could not be more urgent.

    The post Is Trump Closer to Walking Away from Ukraine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • China tight-lipped on North Korea’s Russia troop deployment confirmation

    TAIPEI, Taiwan – China avoided directly commenting on North Korea’s confirmation of its troop deployment to Russia and reiterated support for a “multilateral solution” to the conflict.

    North Korea on Monday acknowledged for the first time that it sent troops to Russia to support Moscow’s war against Ukraine, six months after reports of their presence first emerged.

    China, one of North Korea’s few allies, has been under pressure to serve as a restraining influence on Pyongyang as the U.S. and its allies worry that the deployment of North Korean troops could dangerously escalate the Ukraine war.

    “Regarding bilateral interactions between Russia and the DPRK, we’ve stated our position on multiple occasions. China’s position on the Ukraine crisis is consistent and clear,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun during a regular press briefing on Monday.

    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, is North Korea’s official name.

    “We have been actively working for a ceasefire and promoting peace talks,” Guo said, without elaborating.

    China previously called for a “multilateral solution” to the Ukraine crisis, saying: “all parties need to promote the de-escalation of the situation and strive for a political settlement.”

    Ukraine estimates as many as 14,000 North Korean soldiers, including 3,000 reinforcements to replace its losses, are in Russia to fight Ukrainian forces who occupied parts of Russia’s Kursk region last summer in a counteroffensive.

    Reports of the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia first surfaced in October. Even as evidence of their presence grew – including when North Korean soldiers were taken captive by Ukrainian forces in Kursk and interviewed – neither North Korea nor Russia acknowledged their presence.

    The U.S. previously voiced concern to China over “destabilizing” actions by North Korea and Russia and said Beijing should be concerned about steps that Russia had taken to undermine stability and security.

    Last year, speculation emerged that ties between North Korea and China had cooled as Pyongyang moved closer to Moscow in recent years, but China’s foreign ministry in October dismissed such suggestions.

    The Chinese foreign ministry’s remarks Tuesday came amid media reports that North Korea “urgently repatriated” all of its IT workers based in the Chinese city of Shenyang, after one of them was detained by Chinese public security authorities for allegedly stealing Chinese military technology.

    Authorities discovered extensive data related to Chinese weapons and military technologies on the detained North Korean IT worker’s laptop, which had allegedly been obtained through hacking, South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources familiar with North Korean affairs.

    While the specific nature of the Chinese military information found on the worker’s laptop has not been disclosed, it is speculated that it may involve unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, technologies – a field North Korea has recently prioritized for development.

    North Korean-linked hacking groups have repeatedly been found targeting military institutions and defence companies worldwide, including in South Korea. While Russia has often been among their targets, it is rare for North Korea to be caught stealing information from its close ally China, sources told Yonhap.

    Edited by Mike Firn and Stephen Wright.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • North Korea confirms sending troops to Russia to fight in Ukraine war | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • North Korea confirms sending troops to Russia to fight in Ukraine war | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • North Korea confirms sending troops to Russia to fight in Ukraine war | Radio Free Asia (RFA)

    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

  • North Korea confirms the open secret of its troop deployment to Russia

    TAIPEI, Taiwan – North Korea on Monday acknowledged for the first time that it deployed troops to Russia to support Moscow’s war against Ukraine, saying its soldiers “completely liberated the occupied area of Kursk region.”

    Ukraine estimates as many as 14,000 North Korean soldiers, including 3,000 reinforcements to replace its losses, are in Russia to fight Ukrainian forces who occupied parts of Russia’s Kursk in an August counter offensive.

    “The operations for liberating the Kursk area to repel the adventurous invasion of the Russian Federation by the Ukrainian authorities were victoriously concluded,” the North’s state-run Korean Central News Agency, or KCNA, reported, citing the country’s Central Military Commission.

    The North’s deployment was made by “the order” of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in accordance with Pyongyang’s mutual defense treaty with Moscow, said the KCNA.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin visited North Korea for talks with Kim in June last year when they announced the treaty, agreeing to offer each other military assistance “without delay” if either were attacked. They also underscored their shared defiance of Western sanctions and expanded cooperation in various sectors.

    KCNA cited Kim as describing the activities as “a sacred mission to further consolidate” friendship and solidarity with Russia and “defend the honor” of North Korea.

    A monument praising their heroism and bravery will be erected soon in Pyongyang and flowers will be placed before the tombstones of the fallen soldiers to pray for their immortality, said Kim, acknowledging troops killed in combat.

    The North’s confirmation of the troop deployment came after Russia acknowledged that North Korean soldiers had been fighting in its war with Ukraine.

    Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, confirmed their combat participation during a videoconference with Putin on Saturday, recognizing the crucial role they played in “liberating” the Kursk region.

    In response, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday that Ukraine’s army was still fighting in Russia’s Kursk despite Moscow claiming the “liberation” of its western region.

    “Our military continues to perform tasks in the Kursk and Belgorod regions – we are maintaining our presence on Russian territory,” he said.

    The U.S. State Department also called for North Korea to stop its troop deployment and for Moscow to end any support to Pyongyang.

    “The deployment of North Korean soldiers to Russia must end. Third-party countries like North Korea bear responsibility for the war,” said the State Department in a statement on Sunday.

    During his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump met Kim three times, but made no progress on persuading him to give up his nuclear and missile programs in exchange for relief on sanctions.

    Since the start of his second term, he has expressed an interest in re-establishing contact with Kim, although no developments appear to be imminent.

    U.S. online publication Axios reported on Sunday that the Trump administration has quietly been holding discussions and consulting outside experts as it considers options for potentially resuming dialogue with the North.

    Axios cited an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying that U.S. agencies are assessing North Korea’s current position and exploring potential avenues for engagement.

    Edited by Mike Firn and Stephen Wright.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russian General Killed By Car Bomb In Moscow Before Talks With US

    A top Russian military commander was killed by a car bomb near Moscow. The attack happened just hours before US envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    On Friday, Lt. Gen. Yaroslav Moskalik was killed by a car bomb in Balashikha, a city near Moscow. He served as deputy chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

    According to TASS, Russian officials say Moskalik was the only person killed by the blast. Authorities believe the bomb was an IED containing submunitions and had the power of more than 300 grams of TNT.

    The post Russian General Killed By Car Bomb In Moscow Before Talks With US appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Trump’s war on the media: 10 numbers from US President’s first 100 days

    Reporters Without Borders

    Donald Trump campaigned for the White House by unleashing a nearly endless barrage of insults against journalists and news outlets.

    He repeatedly threatened to weaponise the federal government against media professionals whom he considers his enemies.

    In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has already shown that he was not bluffing.

    “The day-to-day chaos of the American political news cycle can make it hard to fully take stock of the seismic shifts that are happening,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF North America.

    “But when you step back and look at the whole picture, the pattern of blows to press freedom is quite clear.

    “RSF refuses to accept this massive attack on press freedom as the new normal. We will continue to call out these assaults against the press and use every means at our disposal to fight back against them.

    “We urge every American who values press freedom to do the same.”

    Here is the Trump administration’s war on the press by the numbers: *

    • 427 million – Weekly worldwide audience of the USAGM news outlets silenced by Trump

    In an effort to eliminate the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) by cutting grants to outlets funded by the federal agency and placing their reporters on leave, the government has left millions around the world without vital sources of reliable information.

    This leaves room for authoritarian regimes, like Russia and China, to spread their propaganda unchecked.

    However, RSF recently secured an interim injunction against the administration’s dismantling of the USAGM-funded broadcaster Voice of America,which also reinstates funding to the outlets  Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN).

    • 8,000+ – US government web pages taken down

    Webpages from more than a dozen government sites were removed almost immediately after President Trump took office, leaving journalists and the public without critical information on health, crime, and more.

    • 3,500+ – Journalists and media workers at risk of losing their jobs thanks to Trump’s shutdown of the USAGM

    Journalists from VOA, the MBN, RFA, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are at risk of losing their jobs as the Trump administration works to shut down the USAGM. Furthermore, at least 84 USAGM journalists based in the US on work visas now face deportation to countries where they risk prosecution and severe harassment.

    At least 15 journalists from RFA and eight from VOA originate from repressive states and are at serious risk of being arrested and potentially imprisoned if deported.

    • 180 – Public radio stations at risk of closing if public media funding is eliminated

    The Trump administration reportedly plans to ask Congress to cut $1.1 billion in allocated funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). These cuts will hit rural communities and stations in smaller media markets the hardest, where federal funding is most impactful.

    • 74 – Days the Associated Press (AP) has been banned from the White House

    On February 11, the White House began barring the Associated Press (AP) news agency from its events because of the news agency’s continued use of the term “Gulf of Mexico,” which President Trump prefers to call the “Gulf of America” — a blatant example of retaliation against the media.

    Despite a federal judge ruling the administration must reinstate the news agency’s access on April 9, the White House has continued to limit AP’s access.

    • 64 – Disparaging comments made by Trump against the media on Truth Social since inauguration

    In addition to regular, personal attacks against the media in press conferences and public speeches, Trump takes to his social media site nearly every day to insult, threaten, or intimidate journalists and media workers who report about him or his administration critically.

    • 13 – Individuals pardoned by President Trump after being convicted or charged for attacking journalists on January 6, 2021

    Trump pardoned over a dozen individuals charged with or convicted of violent crimes against journalists at the US Capitol during the January 6 insurrection.

    • 6 – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) inquiries into media companies

    Brendan Carr, co-author of the Project 2025 playbook and chair of the FCC, has wasted no time launching politically motivated investigations, explicit threats against media organisations, and implicit threats against their parent companies. These include inquiries into CBS, ABC parent company Disney, NBC parent company Comcast, public broadcasters NPR and PBS, and California television station KCBS.

    • 4 – Trump’s personal lawsuits against media organisations

    While Trump settled a lawsuit with ABC’s parent company Disney, he continues to sue CBS, The Des Moines Register, Gannett, and the Pulitzer Center over coverage he deemed biased.

    • $1.60 – Average annual amount each American pays for public media

    Donald Trump has threatened to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting, framing the move as a cost-cutting measure.

    However, public media only costs each American about $1.60 each year, representing a tremendous bargain as it gives Americans access to a wealth of local, national, and lifesaving emergency programming.

    • The United States was 55th out of 180 nations listed by the RSF World Press Freedom Index in 2024. The new index rankings will be released this week.

    * Figures as of the date of publication, 24 April 2025. Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Campaigners sound alarm as European nations move to exit landmine ban

    Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania cite rising threats from Russia to justify once again using one of world’s most indiscriminate weapons

    Rights groups have expressed alarm and warned of a “slippery slope” of again embracing one of the world’s most treacherous weapons, after five European countries said they intend to withdraw from the international treaty banning antipersonnel landmines.

    In announcing their plans earlier this year, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all pointed to the escalating military threat from Russia. In mid-April, Latvia’s parliament became the first to formally back the idea, after lawmakers voted to pull out of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which bans the use, production and stockpiling of landmines designed for use against humans.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Ukraine Resembles The Fall Of Saigon In 1975

    The governing regime in Kiev is desperately trying to maintain its US support, as a defeat of the US-led, NATO proxy war in Ukraine looms. It is citing the collapse of the government in South Vietnam in April 1975 as a warning, saying that something similar could happen in Ukraine. At the time, the US defeat in Vietnam was a huge blow to the image and standing of US imperialism in the world.

    Such pronouncements by the Kiev regime reveal a recognition that ‘its’ Ukraine has become a satellite of the United States – much as South Vietnam was widely recognized to be half a century ago. Then as now, Washington and its allies are desperately seeking to maintain their economic and military dominance over the world and to stop rising movements of liberation by the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

    The post Ukraine Resembles The Fall Of Saigon In 1975 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Russia Launched A Massive, Deadly Missile And Drone Attack On Kyiv


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ROSOBORONEXPORT to unveil latest Russian weapons and civilian equipment at SITDEF PERU 2025

    JSC ROSOBORONEXPORT (part of Rostec State Corporation) is the organizer of the joint Russian exhibit at the SITDEF PERU 2025 International Defence Technology Exhibition, which will be held from 24 to 27 April 2025 in the General Headquarters of the Peruvian Army, Lima, Peru. The JSC “National Aviation Service Company” (NASC), Russia’s state intermediary for […]

    The post ROSOBORONEXPORT to unveil latest Russian weapons and civilian equipment at SITDEF PERU 2025 appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Trump’s Tariffs Hurt The US Much More Than China

    Why has US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on countries all around the world? And in particular, why is Trump waging a trade war on China? What are his real goals?

    Well, to try to answer these questions, I spoke with the economist Michael Hudson, who is the author of many books, and who just published the new report “Return of the robber barons: Trump’s distorted view of US tariff history“.

    Michael Hudson outlined the history of the use of tariffs in the United States and in other countries, and he explained how Trump is using tariffs as a weapon of class war, to benefit the rich at the expense of the vast majority of the population, and also how Trump is trying to reshape the global financial system, in order to benefit the United States at the expense of everyone else.

    The post Trump’s Tariffs Hurt The US Much More Than China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Close the US Military Bases in Asia

    President Donald Trump is again loudly complaining that the US military bases in Asia are too costly for the US to bear.  As part of the new round of tariff negotiations with Japan and Korea, Trump is calling on Japan and Korea to pay for stationing the US troops.  Here’s a much better idea: close the bases and return the US servicemen to the US.

    Trump implies that the US is providing a great service to Japan and Korea by stationing 50,000 troops in Japan and nearly 30,000 in Korea.  Yet these countries do not need the US to defend themselves.  They are wealthy and can certainly provide their own defense.  Far more importantly, diplomacy can ensure the peace in northeast Asia far more effectively and far less expensively than US troops.

    The US acts as if Japan needs to be defended against China.  Let’s have a look.  During the past 1,000 years, during which time China was the region’s dominant power for all but the last 150 years, how many times did China attempt to invade Japan?  If you answered zero, you are correct.  China did not attempt to invade Japan on a single occasion.

    You might quibble.  What about the two attempts in 1274 and 1281, roughly 750 years ago? It’s true that when the Mongols temporarily ruled China between 1271 and 1368, the Mongols twice sent expeditionary fleets to invade Japan, and both times were defeated by a combination of typhoons (known in Japanese lore as the Kamikaze winds) and by Japanese coastal defenses.

    Japan, on the other hand, made several attempts to attack or conquer China.  In 1592, the arrogant and erratic Japanese military leader Toyotomi Hideyoshi launched an invasion of Korea with the goal of conquering Ming China.  He did not get far, dying in 1598 without even having subdued Korea.  In 1894-5, Japan invaded and defeated China in the Sino-Japanese war, taking Taiwan as a Japanese colony.  In 1931, Japan invaded northeast China (Manchuria) and created the Japanese colony of Manchukuo.  In 1937,  Japan invaded China, starting World War II in the Pacific region.

    Nobody thinks that Japan is going to invade China today, and there is no rhyme, reason, or historical precedent to believe that China is going to invade Japan.  Japan has no need for the US military bases to protect itself from China.

    The same is true of China and Korea.  During the past 1,000 years, China never invaded Korea, except on one occasion: when the US threatened China.  China entered the war in late 1950 on the side of North Korea to fight the US troops advancing northward towards the Chinese border.  At the time, US General Douglas MacArthur recklessly recommended attacking China with atomic bombs.  MacArthur also proposed to support Chinese nationalist forces, then based in Taiwan, to invade the Chinese mainland. President Harry Truman, thank God, rejected MacArthur’s recommendations.

    South Korea needs deterrence against North Korea, to be sure, but that would be achieved far more effectively and credibly through a regional security system including China, Japan, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, than through the presence of the US, which has repeatedly stoked North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and military build-up, not diminished it.

    In fact, the US military bases in East Asia are really for the US projection of power, not for the defense of Japan or Korea.  This is even more reason why they should be removed.  Though the US claims that its bases in East Asia are defensive, they are understandably viewed by China and North Korea as a direct threat – for example, by creating the possibility of a decapitation strike, and by dangerously lowering the response times for China and North Korea to a US provocation or some kind of misunderstanding.  Russia vociferously opposed NATO in Ukraine for the same justifiable reasons.  NATO has frequently intervened in US-backed regime-change operations and has placed missile systems dangerously close to Russia.

    Indeed, just as Russia feared, NATO has actively participated in the Ukraine War, providing armaments, strategy, intelligence, and even programming and tracking for missile strikes deep inside of Russia.

    Note that Trump is currently obsessed with two small port facilities in Panama owned by a Hong Kong company, claiming that China is threatening US security (!), and wants the facilities sold to an American buyer.  The US on the other hand surrounds China not with two tiny port facilities but with major US military bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam, the Philippines, and the Indian Ocean near to China’s international sea lanes.

    The best strategy for the superpowers is to stay out of each other’s lanes.  China and Russia should not open military bases in the Western Hemisphere, to put it mildly.  The last time that was tried, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962, the world nearly ended in nuclear annihilation.  (See Martin Sherwin’s remarkable book, Gambling with Armageddon for the shocking details on how close the world came to nuclear Armageddon).  Neither China nor Russia shows the slightest inclination to do so today, despite all of the provocations of facing US bases in their own neighborhoods.

    Trump is looking for ways to save money – an excellent idea given that the US federal budget is hemorrhaging $2 trillion dollars a year, more than 6% of US GDP.  Closing the US overseas military bases would be an excellent place to start.

    Trump even seemed to point that way at the start of his second term, but the Congressional Republicans have called for increases, not decreases, in military spending.  Yet with America’s 750 or so overseas military bases in around 80 countries, it’s high time to close these bases, pocket the saving, and return to diplomacy.  Getting the host countries to pay for something that doesn’t help them or the US is a huge drain of time, diplomacy, and resources, both for the US and the host countries.

    The US should make a basic deal with China, Russia, and other powers.  “You keep your military bases out of our neighborhood, and we’ll keep our military bases out of yours.” Basic reciprocity among the major powers would save trillions of dollars of military outlays over the coming decade and, more importantly, would push the Doomsday Clock back from 89 seconds to nuclear Armageddon.

    • First published at Other News.
    The post Close the US Military Bases in Asia first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Jeffrey Sachs.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Germany In Crisis Part 2: A Short History Of Exploding Gas Pipelines

    A single, brief phrase always comes to mind when I think of Germany. Whatever may be the specific matter to hand, sooner or later my thoughts go to three words that seem to me — and to many others, given they have survived so long in the discourse — to capture some essence of the nation and its place in the world.

    “Germany is Hamlet.” For a long time I attributed this pithy observation to Gordon Craig, among Germany’s great 20th century historians. Craig (Germany, 1866–1945; The Germans) was noted for succinct observations of this kind. He saw Germany as a nation divided in history between its humanist achievements (Goethe et al., Kant et al., Thomas Mann et al.) and its regrettable givenness to varieties of absolute power.

    The post Germany In Crisis Part 2: A Short History Of Exploding Gas Pipelines appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On Neo-Nazi Influence In Ukraine

    The U.S. relationship with Ukrainian fascists began after the Second World War. During the war, units of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) took part in the Holocaust, killing at least 100,000 Jews and Poles.

    Mykola Lebed, a top aide to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the fascist OUN-B, was recruited by the C.I.A. after the war, according to a 2010 study by the U.S. National Archives.

    The government study said, “Bandera’s wing (OUN/B) was a militant fascist organization.” Bandera’s closest deputy, Yaroslav Stetsko, said: ““I…fully appreciate the undeniably harmful and hostile role of the Jews, who are helping Moscow to enslave Ukraine…. I therefore support the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine….”

    The post On Neo-Nazi Influence In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Have We Reached a Milestone in Ukraine?

    Secretary of Marco Rubio said today (Friday) that “If it’s not possible to end the war in Ukraine , we need to move on.” Rubio told reporters that the Trump could decide this “in a matter of days…” (NYTimes, 4/18/2025)

    The context: Russia has made its conditions very clear. (1) Ukraine must not join NATO. (2) Ukraine must give up the four oblasts and Crimea. 3) Ukraine must be demilitarized and not pose a military threat to Russia.

    Although to this point Trump been unwilling or unable to do so, he must accept these nonnegotiable conditions and do it against the opposition of European leaders. Or conceivably, he could simply walk away.

    British political analyst Alexander Mercouris reports that European leaders are meeting in Paris to, in their words, achieve a “fair and lasting peace in Ukraine” and for them, this means a “Ukrainian victory.” Even as they voice this objective, reliable reports indicate that Russian recruitment is running at 1,000 per day, which is more than enough to replace lost soldiers. Ukrainian forces are steadily getting smaller and for the first time, external military analysts can foresee the fall of Kiev as a real possibility. Russian forces are making significant gains and Ukrainians are retreating in several areas. Finally, there is no question that Europe lacks the resources to achieve anything in Ukraine.

    Presumably, the US will explain to the Europeans that they’re engaged in a dangerous fantasy and that peace will occur only by accepting the Russian demands (see above). However, the British, French and Danish are considering sending troops to Ukraine via Romania. This will be absolutely unacceptable to Russians but will come as no surprise to them. The few thousand (probably French) soldiers entering Odessa will be annihilated. Here one wonders how long French citizens would tolerate the war if coffins began returning home. (Note: Some of you may recall my earlier post about European and US intervention in the Russian Civil War and how they were expelled. Russian citizens will be reminded once again of Western intentions).

    Given the above, one is forced to wonder why European leaders are doing everything possible to undermine and sabotage any meaningful peace talks? Why are they pursing a doomed policy that’s bankrupting their economies? Why alienate the US and Trump? I don’t have a definitive answer but I suspect that Mercouris is close to one when he speculates that European leaders hate Russia and have come to loathe Donald Trump. They cannot accept that they’ve lost the war and Trump was actually correct. I’ll leave for another day to speculate about what this means for the Democrats and unprincipled “progressives” (think AOC and Bernie Sanders) who gave left cover to US imperialism in its proxy was in Ukraine. In my opinion, they have much to answer for.

    The post Have We Reached a Milestone in Ukraine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russia Launches Deadly Missile Strike On Ukraine’s Kharkiv


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Flexible and Sly: Indonesian Defence Policy, Russia, and Australian Anxiety

    Island states tend to be anxious political entities. Encircled by water, seemingly defended by natural obstacles, the fear of corrupting penetration is never far. Threats of such unwanted intrusion are embellished and magnified. In the case of Australia, these have varied from straying Indonesian fishermen who are seen as terrors of border security, to the threatened establishment of military bases in the Indo-Pacific by China. With Australia facing a federal election, the opportunity to exaggerate the next threat is never far away.

    On April 14, the specialist military publication Janes reported that Indonesia had “received an official request from Moscow, seeking permission for Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) aircraft to be based at a facility in [the country’s] easternmost province.” The area in question is Papua, and the relevant airbase, Biak Numfor, home to the Indonesian Air Force’s Aviation Squadron 27 responsible for operating surveillance aircraft of the CN235 variety.

    Indonesian government sources had informed the magazine of a request received by the office of the defence minister, Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, following a February meeting with the Security Council of the Russian Federation Sergei Shoigu. This was not the first time, with Moscow making previous requests to Jakarta for using a base for its long-range aircraft.

    The frazzled response in Australia to the possibility of a Russian presence on Indonesian soil betrays its presumption. Just as Australia would rather not see Pacific Island states form security friendly ties with China, an anxiety directed and dictated by Washington, it would also wish those in Southeast Asia to avoid the feelers of other countries supposedly unfriendly to Canberra’s interests.

    Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, who has an addict’s fascination with security menaces of the phantom variety, sprung at the claims made in Janes. “This would be a catastrophic failure of diplomatic relations if [Australian Foreign Minister] Penny Wong and [Prime Minister] Anthony Albanese didn’t have forewarning about this before it was made public,” he trumpeted. “This is a very, very troubling development and suggestion that somehow Russia would have some of their assets based in Indonesia only a short distance from, obviously, the north of our country.”

    The Albanese government has tried to cool the confected heat with assurances, with the PM reaffirming Canberra’s support for Ukraine while stating that “we obviously do not want to see Russian influence in our region”. It has also accused Dutton for a streaky fabrication: that Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto had “publicly announced” the details.

    Australia’s Defence Minister, Richard Marles, also informed the press that he had spoken to his counterpart Sjamsoeddin, who duly replied “in the clearest possible terms [that] reports of the prospect of Russian aircraft operating from Indonesia are simply not true.”

    Besides, a country such as Indonesia, according to Marles, is of the friendly sort. “We have a growing defence relationship with Indonesia. We will keep engaging with Indonesia in a way that befits a very close friend and a very close friendship between our two countries.” This sweetly coated nonsense should have gone out with the façade-tearing acts of Donald Trump’s global imposition of tariffs, unsparing to adversaries and allies alike.

    Marles continues to operate in a certain twilight of international relations, under the belief that the defence cooperation agreement with Jakarta “is the deepest level defence agreement we’ve ever had with Indonesia, and we are seeking increasing cooperation between Australia and Indonesia at the defence level.” Whether this is the case hardly precludes Indonesia, as an important regional power, from conducting defence and foreign policy on its own terms with countries of its own choosing.

    In January, Jakarta officially added its name to the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group, an alternative power alignment that has been foolishly disregarded in terms of significance by the United States and its satellites. Subianto’s coming to power last October has also heralded a warmer turn to Moscow in military terms, with both countries conducting their first joint naval drills last November in the Java Sea near Surabaya. (Indonesia is already a market for Russian fighter jets, despite the cloud of potential sanctions from the US Treasury Department.) For doing so, self-appointed disciplinarians, notably such pro-US outlets as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, have questioned the country’s fabled non-aligned foreign policy. Engaging Russia in cooperative military terms supposedly undermined, according to the think tank’s publication The Strategist, Jakarta’s “own stated commitment to upholding international law.”

    Such commentary is neither here nor there. The Indonesian military remains jealous and proprietary, taking a dim view of any notion of a foreign military base. Retired Major General TB Hasanuddin, who is also a Member of Commission I of the Indonesian House of Representatives, points to constitutional and other legal impediments in permitting such a policy. “Our constitution and various laws and regulations expressly prohibit the existence of foreign military bases.”

    Any criticism of Jakarta’s recent gravitation to Moscow also refuses to acknowledge the flexible, even sly approach Indonesia has taken to various powers. It has done so while maintaining a firm independence of mind. In the afterglow of the naval exercises with the Russian Navy, Indonesia’s armed forces merrily went about the business of conducting military exercises with Australia, named Keris Woomera. Between November 13 and 16 last year, the exercise comprised 2,000 personnel from the navy, army and air force from both countries. As Australia frets and fantasises about the stratagems of distant authoritarian leaders, Indonesia having the last laugh.

    The post Flexible and Sly: Indonesian Defence Policy, Russia, and Australian Anxiety first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Birthing A New International Order

    Writing in his cell as a political prisoner in fascist Italy after World War I, the philosopher Antonio Gramsci famously declared: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

    A century later, we are in another interregnum, and the morbid symptoms are everywhere. The U.S.-led order has ended, but the multipolar world is not yet born. The urgent priority is to give birth to a new multilateral order that can keep the peace and the path to sustainable development.

    We are at the end of a long wave of human history that commenced with the voyages of Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama more than 500 years ago.

    The post Birthing A New International Order appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ‘Russia lied to us’: Chinese fighters captured by Ukraine tell their story

    TAIPEI, Taiwan – Two Chinese nationals captured while fighting for Russia in Ukraine said they were tricked by false promises and online recruitment ads into enlisting, and criticized Moscow for exploiting foreign fighters in its war effort.

    “I wanted to make money, but I didn’t expect to end up in a war,” said Zhang Renbo, a former firefighter from China, during a Ukrainian government press conference on Monday.

    He and Wang Guangjun, both born in the 1990s, are the first confirmed Chinese nationals captured fighting in the Russian ranks against Ukraine. Their capture was announced by President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this month, who said “several hundred” Chinese citizens are believed to be fighting for Russia.

    Wang said he lost his job last summer and came across a TikTok ad offering a lucrative opportunity to join the Russian military. The recruiter promised him a salary far above the Chinese average and offered to pay for travel and paperwork.

    But soon after arrival, Wang claimed, the Russians confiscated his phone and bank card. He was unable to access the promised pay or contact anyone back home.

    “Everything we heard from the Russians was a lie,” Wang said.

    Radio Free Asia has not independently verified the men’s claims.

    The two men said they signed enlistment contracts voluntarily but without any connection to the Chinese government.

    Both claimed they were initially offered non-combat jobs – Wang in the military directly, Zhang through construction work – only to be placed on the battlefield later. Their route into the war passed through Moscow and Russian-occupied Donetsk before they reached the front lines.

    Wang said he had been at the front for just three days before he was captured.

    He described being sheltered by Ukrainian soldiers during a Russian gas attack after his capture and said he had been treated well ever since. In the video of the press conference, the two men appear to be in good health.

    Zhang, who comes from a wealthier background, said he never saw any Ukrainian troops until the moment he was taken prisoner. Both men said they had not killed anyone during their time on the battlefield.

    The two criticised Russia sharply during the press conference and discouraged other Chinese nationals from joining the conflict.

    “It’s better not to participate in wars at all,” Wang said. “Real war is completely different from what we have seen in movies and on TV.”

    They also denied any involvement by the Chinese state in their recruitment.

    When asked whether Beijing was aware of their actions, they said China had issued general warnings against travelling to conflict zones and noted that Chinese citizens who join foreign militaries could face legal consequences. Still, both said they hoped to return to China as part of a future prisoner exchange.

    “I understand there may be punishment,” Zhang said. “But I still want to return home and to my family.”

    Russia has increasingly turned to foreign nationals to fill its ranks in Ukraine, recruiting fighters from countries including India, Nepal, Syria, and reportedly North Korea.

    As many as 12,000 North Korean soldiers are in Russia to fight Ukrainian forces who occupied parts of Kursk in an August counterattack, according to the U.S. and Ukraine. Neither Pyongyang nor Moscow has acknowledged their presence.

    According to Wang, he was placed in a training camp alongside recruits from Central Asia, Ghana, and Iraq, and said communication with commanders was limited to gestures.

    Edited by Stephen Wright.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.