Category: Russia

  • Friedrich Merz has been in office as Germany’s new chancellor a matter of weeks, and already he has the German capital aflutter with worry about the increasing danger of a third world war. More to the point, while Germans are fearful of such a prospect, the Russians are warning of it.

    In a series of recent remarks, notably on German television, Merz has stopped just short of stating that he intends to authorize supplies of German-made ballistic missiles to Ukraine and to do so without imposing restrictions on the Kiev regime’s use of them to attack Russian territory. This is a tripwire for Moscow, as Merz cannot possibly fail to see.

    The post War In Our Time appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.


  • 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.


  • 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.

  • Russian state media has taken a notable swing at US president Donald Trump in recent broadcasts, lampooning his perceived instability and questioning his mental fitness. The mocking tone reflects a broader narrative that has emerged in response to Trump’s combative rhetoric towards Vladimir Putin, particularly during a recent town hall where Trump danced around questions instead of answering them.

    Russia-1: WTF is Trump doing?

    As Newsweek reported over the town hall event:

    After two attendees fainted and required medical attention during the town hall in Pennsylvania on Monday, Trump suddenly informed the crowd that he would like to “not do any more questions” and instead “just listen to music.”

    “Let’s make it into a music. Who the hell wants to hear questions, right?” Trump said, before proceeding to stand awkwardly and sometimes dance on stage as music played for 39 minutes.

    Olga Skabeyeva, a prominent host on Russia-1, highlighted this spectacle, suggesting it raised serious concerns about Trump’s cognitive abilities and fitness for leadership. The coverage has extended into a secondary commentary by US-based journalist Igor Naimushin, who noted the repetitive nature of Trump’s speech and erratic behaviour during the event:

    Naimushin later pointed out that Trump has claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris instead has issues with “cognitive stamina and agility” before suggesting that he thought there was reason to suspect that Trump was mentally unfit.

    “I have to acknowledge that the former U.S. president, and possibly future one, often keeps repeating himself during his speeches”… “He indeed gives a cause to doubt his mental abilities… He isn’t far behind the current President Joe Biden [in age]” Naimushin said.

    This public mockery is not the first of its kind; Russian media has frequently ridiculed Trump, dubbing him “our Donald Ivanovych” in a previous broadcast during the impeachment era, indicating a perception of him as a figure of fun rather than fear.

    Their strategy of highlighting Trump’s antics serves a dual purpose: to diminish the credibility of US leadership while reinforcing Russia’s own authority in global politics. When Trump threatens Putin, asserting he’s “playing with fire,” it only elicits laughter rather than concern.

    The Russian perspective is clear: they view him as a leader too easily swayed by whim, lacking the resolve expected from a powerful nation.

    Strained relations

    The relationship between the United States and Russia has been notably strained, particularly under Trump’s administration. His inconsistent policy moves, such as imposing then retracting sanctions on China without tangible benefits, only serve to bolster the Russian narrative that Trump is indecisive and out of his depth.

    Critics from various quarters argue that this indecisiveness is emblematic of a leader who prefers grandstanding over substantive action. Such wavering leaves the door open for stronger powers, like Russia, to exploit perceived weaknesses.

    Additionally, Trump’s interactions with Canada offer a striking illustration of his foreign relations approach. His treatment of Canada, once a close ally, has turned sour to the point where many Canadians now view the US with suspicion.

    These developments illuminate a broader trend in which Trump’s presidency has eroded long-standing alliances—a move that could have far-reaching consequences for diplomatic relations in an ever-complex global landscape.

    Trump: ensnared in Putin’s web

    While many Americans might express disbelief at Russian media’s portrayal of their former president, this mockery echoes sentiments that resonate within global discussions about US leadership.

    There are fears that Trump, emboldened by his own rhetoric but often lacking in coherent strategy, is not just a source of amusement for the Russians, but a genuine threat to the international order.

    Now, as he postures for attention, he seems to remain ensnared in a web woven skillfully by Putin, who is all too aware of Trump’s vulnerabilities.

    Against this backdrop, the reverberation of Russian laughter might be more than mere mockery; it serves as a stark warning. The world watches closely, mindful that the implications of Trump’s presidency extend far beyond the borders of America, reshaping attitudes and alliances with each tweet and each bluster-filled speech.

    In a time when global unity is paramount, the chaos of Trump’s rhetoric underscores a dangerous truth: the fragility of respect and the necessity of stable governance.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • 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.

  • Low angle of children standing in a circle reaching out to join hands.

    © UNFPA

    In 2024, we have witnessed extraordinary levels of hostility towards democracy, from rampant disinformation and information manipulation by foreign actors, to the silencing of media and human rights defenders, and a strong pushback against gender equality and diversity, undoing years of progress in many countries across the globe. Today, only 29% of the world’s population live in liberal democracies. At the heart of these challenges lies peace. Peace is not simply the absence of war. It is the active cultivation of justice, the protection of the most vulnerable, the realisation of all human rights and the commitment to dialogue and reconciliation.’ 
    – High Representative, Kaja Kallas 

    The publication of the EU’s Annual Human Rights Report takes place in the context of multiple and cascading crises, including war on the European continent and the resurgence of conflict in many other areas of the world. These developments underscore the strong links between peace, human rights and democracy. Climate change, digital transformation, and rising inequalities add to the growing human rights challenges worldwide.

    The report follows the structure of the EU’s Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, particularly the EU’s work on protecting and empowering individuals, building resilient, inclusive and democratic societies, promoting a global system for human rights and democracy, harnessing opportunities and addressing challenges, and ensuring that the EU delivers by working with our partners.

    The EU continues to support the strengthening of inclusive, representative and accountable institutions, and promoted a collaborative approach to democracy through the Team Europe Democracy initiative. The fight against information manipulation and interference also continues to be a priority through initiatives such as EUvsDisinfo. Over the past year, the European Endowment for Democracy has kept up its work on fostering democracy and working with free media and civil society in challenging circumstances in Belarus, and Ukraine among others. The EU has carried on supporting and empowering people on the frontlines of human rights advocacy.

    While the global outlook is challenging, the EU is steadfastly pursuing deeper international cooperation and stronger early warning and prevention mechanisms. Efforts to ensure accountability for violations and abuses of human rights continue to be a key priority. Together with its partners, the EU is determined to protect the multilateral human rights system and uphold the central role of human rights and democracy in fostering peace, security and sustainable development.

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • At the core of most demands for the US empire, we’re asking for kindergarten ethics– is that a stretch? It’s what the climate movement teaches about our relationship with the Earth: not to take and take and extract and extract because we have a reciprocal relationship. For most of its history, the US has largely ignored this, and that remains the case when it comes to the string of accusations leveled against the current president of Burkina Faso, Ibrahim Traoré. And if all of us– the climate movement, peace lovers, people with basic compassion–want to save the planet, we need to stand against the attempts of the US and NATO/Western powers in trying to intervene in the Sahel’s process of sovereignty.

    Several weeks ago, Michael Langley, the head of US Africa Command (or AFRICOM), testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and stated that Ibrahim Traoré, the current president of Burkina Faso, “is using the country’s gold reserves for personal protection rather than for the benefit of its people,” an absurd claim, considering that the US Department of Defense, which Langley works for, has stolen $1 trillion from US taxpayers in this year’s budget alone. What’s more, AFRICOM itself has a deadly, well-documented history of plundering the African continent, often in coordination with NATO.

    Take a guess why Langley might want to delegitimize Traoré’s governance and the larger project of the Alliance of Sahel States/AES (made up of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, all of which have recently allied under a confederation after recent seizures of power). Any takers? Hint: the answer is natural resources and military presence. Traoré has nationalized Burkina Faso’s foreign-owned gold mines in an attempt to actually use the land’s resources to benefit its people. Similarly, upon taking power in Niger, the current president, Abdourahamane Tchiani, nationalized uranium and banned foreign exports. Notably, a quarter of Europe’s uranium, crucial for energy usage, comes from Niger. Considering Traoré’s crucial role in developing the identity of the AES as one of the more vocal and charismatic leaders, targeting Traoré is part of a larger project by the US/EU/NATO axis targeting the AES project at large. Recently, this new AES leadership has launched new green energy and educational initiatives. Meanwhile, the US has pulled out of the Sahel states as the AES asserts its sovereignty in defiance of decades of Western-backed instability.

    Traore’s Burkina Faso is not the first Pan-African project to come under attack by the US/EU/NATO axis of power. Just as the vague claims from Langley serve to cast doubt on Traore’s ability to lead a nation, past Pan-African leaders who have dared to challenge imperialism and prioritize their citizens have also come under fire. For instance, former president of Burkina Faso, Thomas Sankara, was assassinated in 1987 after putting the Burkinabè people’s needs first by rejecting IMF loans and demands, implementing nationwide literacy and vaccine campaigns, and spearheading housing and agrarian reform. Time and again, France and the US have taken decisive action against leaders who have promoted Pan-Africanism and environmental stability over the interests of Western powers. We’re watching it happen live now, and have a responsibility to stand up for Traorè and the AES before it’s too late.

    When a country doesn’t bend its knees to Washington, the standard US playbook is one of environmental death, either via hybrid or classic warfare. Venezuela has refused to grant US corporations unfettered access to its oil reserves – the world’s largest –  and thus has been forced to use them as a lifeline. The US has punished Venezuela by imposing unilateral sanctions that have prevented the proper maintenance of the country’s oil pipelines, resulting in harmful leaks. In the Congo–one of the lungs of the Earth–the West’s decades-long quest for uranium and other rare minerals has led to mass deforestation, destroyed water quality, and unleashed military forces that have killed millions. And of course, the US is backing the ecocide/genocide in Palestine in order to maintain the existence of a proxy-state in an oil-rich region.

    When the US military – the #1 institutional polluter in the world – “intervenes”, the only environmental outcome is climate collapse. And even when countries play by Washington’s rules, the US will still militarize, build more toxic bases, seek continued extraction, and create mass poverty. For the survival of the people and planet, we must resist this imperial expansion.

    Any movement concerned with transitioning from an extractive to a regenerative economy must stand against US and Western intervention in the Sahel and advocate for Pan-African projects and a multilateral world. The emergence of a multipolar world means that projects like the AES have partners beyond the region: during Traoré’s most recent visit to Moscow, he met with the heads of state of Russia, China, and Venezuela. The US, of course, threatened by the loss of its dominion, insists on pursuing a dangerous cold war against China, to contain China’s influence, refuses to cooperate on green technology, and plows through any region that it views as a battleground, be it the Asia-Pacific or the Sahel. And always at the expense of life in all forms.

    So if we are in a project for life, why, then, are we often met with hesitation in climate spaces to stand against this imperialist extraction? We need to reflect on a few questions. Whose lives do we sacrifice for “strategy”? Which environmental sacrifice zones are we silent about because of the “bigger picture?” What extraction and militaristic build-up do we let happen to theoretically prevent planetary death that is already happening via our own government down the road? Are we avoiding building connections with popular movements because of donors who only fund dead ends? We have a choice to make: allow the doomsday clock threatening climate death and total catastrophe to keep ticking or reverse course and breathe life into something new.

    Traorè’s historic meeting with China, Russia, and Venezuela is a glimpse of what’s on the horizon. As people of the world rise against imperialism and neocolonialism, it is up to us in the US climate movement to stand unequivocally in support of projects of self-determination.

    Although our lifestyles will certainly look different once we no longer have uninhibited access to the gold, cobalt, uranium, and other resources that are routinely extracted from the African continent and its people, we must prioritize building a more just and healthy relationship with the planet and all its people. If leaders such as Traore succeed in revolutionizing agriculture and resource extraction at a sustainable pace that benefits workers, what might that signal for a new world order in which exploited Africans and their lands do not form the cheap material base for the world? What might we build in place of extractive economies to usher in a green future for all?

    The post Fighting for the Planet means Sovereignty for the Sahel first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Over the last seven days the Ukrainian military has launched over one thousand drones against targets in Russia. Most of these were shot down by Russian air defenses. There are no reports of any serious damage.

    The biggest effect the week long drone attacks achieved was to shut down air traffic in Moscow for several hours.

    After waiting a few days the Russian military responded in kind.

    Over the last three days a record number of drones and missiles were launched against military installations and production facilities in Ukraine (archived):

    Russia stepped up missile-and-drone assaults on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv and other regions, killing at least 12 people overnight into Sunday after President Trump last week declined to impose further sanctions on Moscow over its refusal to halt its invasion.

    The post A Week Long Drone Fight Which Russia Is Winning appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • As-of now, 80% of the 100 U.S. Senators — that’s 80 U.S. Senators — are co-sponsors of the bill that was written by the U.S. Senate’s arch-neoconservative (i.e., pro-MIC or pro Military Industrial Complex) U.S. Senator, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), to blockade shipments of Russian oil, and to punish all nations which refuse to comply with the blockade. This bill is written as an economic, not a military, blockade; it is a sanctions bill with secondary sanctions (or “penalties”) against nations that violate the U.S. sanctions against Russia. However, the UK and EU are now contemplating military enforcement as well, so that violators of the proposed U.S. measure would be at hot war against Russia, which is warning that it will protect vessels carrying their oil on the high seas. This could be the shortest way to get to a hot war between Russia and NATO. Of course, whichever side would lose that conventional war would then face the decision of whether to escalate to the nuclear level, and this would mean a blitz nuclear attack against the decision-making central command that would then be making the determination of how to retaliate against the blitz attack. Once that central-command center would be obliterated, we would already be in WW3, which would kill an estimated half of the world’s human population within two years.

    Short of that (i.e., short of a full blockade or even merely the economic sanctions), what is now being put into place is the establishment, by “The West” (the U.S. and its colonies or ‘allies’), of a new “Iron Curtain,” but this time walling-off commerce between The East and The West. This is what the neoconservatives (such as almost all of the U.S. Senate and House) are driving us toward. For example: the proposed legislation would impose a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products. The goal is to force countries NOT to make those purchases from Russian suppliers, or even from resellers of those Russian products. It’s a 500% tariff upon goods from any country that buys those Russian products; and, so, is extremely hostile toward any country that is NOT hostile to Russia. Similarly, U.S. President George W. Bush said to the world’s nations — and instructed America’s military that their task is to enforce — “You’re either with us or against us.” Every nation is either an ‘ally’, or an enemy. If the future now belongs to The East — basically Asia, which is the largest of all continents and by far the richest both in natural resources and in human resources, and which is led by such nations as China and Russia — then The West’s Iron Curtain will be bringing us to an impoverished West. Since capital is far easier moved (relocated) than people are, our billionaires might lose little or nothing, but everyone else (whose main property is NOT corporate stocks, bonds, etc.) will lose vastly more. Those U.S. Senators represent only their billionaires — not us. The basic myth is that they represent us. Those Senators represent their mega-donors’ corporations, NOT their voters — less still the general public. What we have is NOT democracy; it is instead an aristocracy of pure wealth. It is a system in which a person’s worth is that person’s wealth, or “net worth.” (For example, the poor are merely a burden that needs to be gotten rid of; and, in foreign affairs, the Gazans should be eliminated altogether.)

    The basic problem is that elected Governmental officials have actually been s‘elected’ by the billionaires who had funded their political careers by being the mega-donors to, and the controllers of the corporations that advertise in, the ‘news’-media so as to control what the voters will know, and thus how they will vote in those ‘democratic’ ‘elections’ (that are actually billionaires’ s‘elections’). I have further documented this problem here. At the end of that article, its last link is to my proposed solution to the problem.

    To merely continue on the path toward which we are heading is unacceptable. Although it is extremely profitable for billionaires, it is heading toward global suicide. The billionaires, left to their own devices, will not change their ways. An off-ramp from the present system must be taken now; and the only real question is: which one, and where to? Those are the two questions addressed in those two articles (each one of which contradicts the virtually universally-believed myths about what the term “democracy” fundamentally MEANS: re-DEFINING that term is crucial in order in order to get out of that rut — the rut that flows toward WW3).

    The post 80% of U.S. Senators Now Back Blockade of Russia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Reacting to the news that the Russian authorities have declared Amnesty International an “undesirable organization” thereby criminalizing its activities and any association with the organization in Russia, Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, said19 May 2025 

    This decision is part of the Russian government’s broader effort to silence dissent and isolate civil society. In a country where scores of activists and dissidents have been imprisoned, killed or exiled, where independent media has been smeared, blocked or forced to self-censor, and where civil society organizations have been outlawed or liquidated, you must be doing something right if the Kremlin bans you.  

    “The authorities are deeply mistaken if they believe that by labelling our organization “undesirable” we will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights violations – quite the opposite. We will not give in to the threats and will continue undeterred to work to ensure that people in Russia are able to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. We will keep documenting and speaking worldwide about the war crimes committed in Ukraine by Russia. We will redouble our efforts to expose Russia’s egregious human rights violations both at home and abroad.  

    The authorities are deeply mistaken if they believe that by labelling our organization “undesirable” we will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights violations – quite the oppositeAgnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

    “We will never stop fighting for the release of prisoners of conscience detained for standing up for human rights or for the repeal of repressive laws that prevent people in Russia from speaking up against injustice. We will continue to work relentlessly to ensure that all those who are responsible for committing grave human rights violations, whether in Russia, Ukraine, or elsewhere, face justice. Put simply, no authoritarian assault will silence our fight for justice. Amnesty will never give up or back down in its fight for upholding human rights in Russia and beyond.” 

    Background 

    On 19 May 2025, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office declared Amnesty International an “undesirable organization” under repressive 2015 Russian legislation which allows the authorities to ban arbitrarily any foreign organization and criminalize its activities in Russia. The announcement accused Amnesty International of promoting “Russophobic projects” and indicated that it was prompted by the organization’s work on freedom of expression and association in Russia, and its documentation and exposition of crimes under international law committed by Russian forces in Ukraine. The decision is based on a Russian law which in itself violates international law, and the language of the decision goes against facts accusing Amnesty International of activities which, within its statutory documents and policies, it is prevented from undertaking.

    The designation comes three years after the Russian authorities blocked access to Amnesty International’s websites in Russia and de-registered – effectively closed down – the organization’s office in Moscow. The designation puts at risk of prosecution in Russia partner organizations and individual supporters, journalists, other persons who now work with, or are seen by the authorities as supporting or promoting, the organization.

    Under Russian legislation, participation in the activities of an “undesirable organization” is punishable by law. First-time “offenses” may result in administrative fines of up to 15,000 rubles (around US$185). Repeated violations as well as funding or managing such organizations carry criminal liability and can lead to prison sentences of up to six years. The law has previously been applied to the distribution or reposting of any materials from the designated organization, including publications and hyperlinks predating its designation as “undesirable”.

    This designation places Amnesty International among dozens of independent NGOs and media outlets that have been targeted in recent years as part of a sweeping campaign to suppress dissent and dismantle civil society in Russia and prevent international watchdogs and partners from providing support or showing solidarity with them. These moves are the backbone of a pattern whereby the Russian authorities are using authoritarian practices to silence voices, undermine accountability and entrench power. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/01/22/in-russia-first-criminal-case-under-undesirable-organizations-law/]

    https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/russian-federation-designation-of-amnesty-international-as

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

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

  • On Monday President Donald Trump telephoned President Vladimir Putin and they talked for two hours before Trump put lunch in his mouth and Putin his dinner.

    On the White House schedule, there was no advance notice of the call and no record afterwards. The White House log is blank for Trump’s entire morning while the press were told he was at lunch between 11:30 and 12:30.

    Putin went public first, making a statement to the press which the Kremlin posted at 19:55 Moscow time; it was then 12:55 in Washington. Click to read.

    Trump and his staff read the transcript and then composed Trump’s statement in a tweet posted at 13:33 Washington time, 20:33 Moscow time. Click to read.

    If Secretary of State Marco Rubio and General Keith Kellogg, the president’s negotiator with the Ukraine and FUGUP (France, United Kingdom, Germany, Ukraine, Poland), were consulted during Trump’s prepping, sat in on the call with the President,  or were informed immediately after the call, they have remained silent.

    The day before, May 18, Rubio announced that the Istanbul-II meeting had produced agreement “to exchange paper on ideas to get to a ceasefire. If those papers have ideas on them that are realistic and rational, then I think we know we’ve made progress. If those papers, on the other hand, have requirements in them that we know are unrealistic, then we’ll have a different assessment.” Rubio was hinting that the Russian formula in Istanbul, negotiations-then-ceasefire, has been accepted by the US. What the US would do after its “assessment”, Rubio didn’t say – neither walk-away nor threat of new sanctions.

    Vice President JD Vance wasn’t present at the call because he was flying home from Rome where he attended Pope Leo XIV’s inaugural mass. “We’re more than open to walking away,” Vance told reporters in his aeroplane. “The United States is not going to spin its wheels here. We want to see outcomes.” Vance prompted Trump to mention the Pope as a mediator for a new round of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, first to Putin and then in public.

    Kellogg is refusing to go along. He tweeted on Sunday: “In Istanbul @SecRubio  made it clear that we have presented ‘a strong peace plan’. Coming out of the London meetings we (US) came up with a comprehensive 22 point plan that is a framework for peace. The first point is a comprehensive cease fire that stops the killing now.”

    FUGUP issued their own statement after Trump’s call. “The US President and the European partners have agreed on the next steps. They agreed to closely coordinate the negotiation process and to seek another technical meeting. All sides reaffirmed their willingness to closely accompany Ukraine on the path to a ceasefire. The European participants announced that they would increase pressure on the Russian side through sanctions.”

    This signalled acceptance with Trump of the Russian formula, negotiations-then-ceasefire, and time to continue negotiating at the “technical” level. The sanction threat was added. But this statement was no longer FUGUP. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was omitted; so too Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The Italian, the Finn and the European Commission President were substituted. They make FUGIFEC.

    Late in the Paris evening of Sunday French President Emmanuel Macron attempted to keep Starmer in Trump’s good books and preserve the ceasefire-first formula. “I spoke tonight,” Macron tweeted, “with @POTUS @Keir_Starmer @Bundeskanzler  and @GiorgiaMeloni  after our talks in Kyiv and Tirana. Tomorrow, President Putin must show he wants peace by accepting the 30-day unconditional ceasefire proposed by President Trump and backed by Ukraine and Europe.” By the time on Monday that Macron realized he had been trumped, the Elysée had nothing to say.

    By contrast, Italian Prime Minister Meloni signalled she was happy to line up with Trump and accept Putin’s negotiations-then-ceasefire. “Efforts are being made,” Meloni’s office announced, “for an immediate start to negotiations between the parties that can lead as soon as possible to a ceasefire and create the conditions for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.”  Meloni claimed she would assure that Pope Leo XIV would fall into line. “In this regard, the willingness of the Holy Father to host the talks in the Vatican was welcomed. Italy is ready to do its part to facilitate contacts and work for peace.”

    For the time being, Putin’s and Trump’s statements have put Rubio, Kellogg and the Europeans offside. Decoding the two president’s statements shows how and why.

    President Putin’s Statement


    Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76953 

    President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening.

    Our colleagues asked me to briefly comment on the outcome of my telephone conversation with the President of the United States.This conversation has effectively taken place and lasted more than two hours. I would like to emphasise that it was both substantive and quite candid. Overall, [1] I believe it was a very productive exchange.

    First and foremost [2], I expressed my gratitude to the President of the United States for the support provided by the United States in facilitating the resumption of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine aimed at potentially reaching a peace agreement and resuming the talks which, as we know, were thwarted by the Ukrainian side in 2022 [3].

    The President of the United States shared his position [4] on the cessation of hostilities and the prospects for a ceasefire. For my part, I noted that Russia also supports a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis as well. What we need now is to identify the most effective [5] ways towards achieving peace.

    We agreed with the President of the United States that Russia would propose and is ready to engage with the Ukrainian side on drafting a memorandum [6] regarding a potential future peace agreement. This would include outlining a range of provisions, such as the principles for settlement, the timeframe for a possible peace deal, and other matters, including a potential temporary ceasefire, should the necessary agreements [7] be reached.

    Contacts among participants of the Istanbul meeting and talks have resumed, which gives reason to believe that we are on the right track overall [8].

    I would like to reiterate that the conversation was highly constructive, and I assess it positively. The key issue, of course, is now for the Russian side and the Ukrainian side to show their firm commitment to peace and to forge a compromise that would be acceptable to all parties.

    Notably, Russia’s position is clear. Eliminating the root causes [9] of this crisis is what matters most to us.

    Should any clarifications be necessary, Press Secretary [Dmitry] Peskov and my aide, Mr Ushakov [10], will provide further details on today’s telephone talks with President Trump.

    Keys to Decode

    1. This is a qualifier, meaning there are serious differences on the details — Putin asked Trump to pause, halt or cease all arms deliveries to the Ukraine, including US arms shipped through Israel, Germany, and Poland. This is a bullet Trump hasn’t bitten, yet.

    2. Putin has made a firm decision to give Trump the “peace deal” he has asked for and wishes to announce at a summit meeting. In their call Putin was mollifying Trump’s disappointment at the failure of their plan to meet when Trump was in the Middle East. A Russian source comments: “Whatever concessions have to be made will be made only by Putin and only to Trump. The Europeans are trying to hog the headlines and turn their defeat into some sort of victory – Trump won’t let them have it and Putin won’t either.”

    3. Putin does not publicly admit the mistakes he made with Roman Abramovich and Vladimir Medinsky in March 2022 at Istanbul-I. They have now been corrected at the  consensus decision-making session with the military and intelligence chiefs (May 14 Kremlin session) and then on May 16 in Istanbul with Admiral Igor Kostyukov of the GRU seated on Medinsky’s right with General Alexander Fomin, Deputy Minister of Defence. For more details, click to listen.


    Source: https://ria.ru/20250516/peregovory-2017151081.html
    At top left, 2nd from left, Fomin, then Kostyukov (obscured) and then Medinsky.

    4. Soft qualifier. This means Putin did not agree with several of Trump’s points relating to intelligence sharing, arms deliveries, Ukrainian elections.

    5. Future tense. Putin suggested to  Trump that he stop Kellogg and FUGUP encouraging Zelensky. Putin made an especially negative remark about the role played by Prime Minister Starmer.

    6. This is a Russian lesson in escalation control. By putting the memorandum of understanding in Russian hands to initiate, Putin returns to the key parts of the December 17, 2021, draft treaty which President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken summarily dismissed. Placing agreement on these terms first, before a temporary ceasefire, and making that ceasefire conditional on ceaseforce (halt to battlefield intelligence sharing and arms re-supply), Putin has invited Trump to choose between the US and FUGUP; between Zelensky and an elected successor;  and between his personal negotiator advisors, Steven Witkoff and General Kellogg.

    7. Reiteration of the formula, negotiations first, then ceasefire.

    8. Qualifier repeated – see Key 1.

    9. This phrase refers to the European security architecture and mutual security pact of December 2021, as well as to the two declared objectives of the Special Military Operation — demilitarization and denazification.

    10. Following Putin’s statement, Ushakov added: “other details of the telephone conversation. Among other things, Putin and Trump touched upon the exchange of prisoners of citizens of the two countries: the format of ‘nine nine’ is being worked out. The leaders also discussed their possible meeting and agreed that it should be productive, so the teams of the presidents will work out the content of the summit between Russia and the United States.”

    President Trump’s Statement

    Tweet source: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114535693441367601

    Trump followed in a stumbling speech in the Rose Garden in which, referring to the morning telephone call, he said “they [Putin] like Melania better.”

    Just completed my two hour call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. I believe it went very well. Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire [1] and, more importantly, an END to the War. The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of. [2] The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent. If it wasn’t, I would say so now, rather than later. Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic “bloodbath” is over, and I agree [3]. There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED. Likewise, Ukraine can be a great beneficiary on Trade, in the process of rebuilding its Country.

    Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will begin immediately. I have so informed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of Ukraine, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, President Emmanuel Macron, of France, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, of Italy, Chancellor Friedrich Merz, of Germany, and President Alexander Stubb, of Finland, during a call with me,[4]  immediately after the call with President Putin. The Vatican, as represented by the Pope [5] has stated that it would be very interested in hosting the negotiations. Let the process begin! [6]

    Keys to Decode

    1. Trump accepts that negotiations should come before ceasefire.

    2. This amounts to rejection of Kellogg’s 22-point term paper first decided with Zelensky and FUGUP in London on April 23 and repeated by Macron the night before Trump’s telephone call; as well as rejection of Witkoff’s term paper discussed at the Kremlin on April 25.


    Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76797
    From left to right: Witkoff’s interpreter, Witkoff, Putin, Ushakov, Russian interpreter, Kirill Dmitriev. For analysis of the term sheets, read this.

    3. Agreement with the business deal-making which Witkoff has been discussing with Kirill Dmitriev. For the deal beneficiaries on both sides, read this.

    4. This list includes two Germans, both Russia haters — Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Ursula von der Leyen, former German defense minister and supporter of the German rearmament plan to continue the war with Russia into the future. The British Prime Minister has been dropped by Trump, and also Polish Prime Minister Tusk. Included for the first time in this context are the Italian and Finnish representatives with whom Trump has demonstrated personal rapport. Research by Manos Tzafalias indicates that there is a substantial money interest in Finland for Trump’s associate, Elon Musk.

    5. Prompt from the Catholic convert, Vice President Vance.


    Vance and Rubio meeting with Pope Leo XIV on May 18. They invited the Pope to make an official visit to Washington. The last papal visit to the White House was in September 2015 on the invitation of President Obama and Vice President Biden.

    6. Trump has covered his disappointment at failing to hold a summit meeting with Putin in Istanbul on the afternoon of May 16 by dismissing the negotiations which occurred without him. For details of Trump’s abortive summit plan, read this.

    The post Putin-Trump Phone Call on Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Viktoriia Roshchyna was investigating Russia’s torture sites, then found herself inside one. Manisha Ganguly and Juliette Garside report

    Viktoriia Roshchyna, a Ukrainian journalist known as Vika, was determined to report on Russia’s “black sites”.

    “These ‘black sites’, they’re not prisons; there’s no control on behaviour there,” Juliette Garside, an editor at the Guardian, tells Michael Safi. “So it’s where we know that some of the worst war crimes, the worst human rights abuses, take place.

    Continue reading…

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

  • After a two-hour telephone call between the presidents of Russia and the United States on Monday, President Vladimir Putin said:

    I would like to emphasize once again that the conversation was very constructive, and I rate it highly. The question, of course, is for the Russian and Ukrainian sides to show maximum desire for peace and find compromises that would suit all parties. At the same time,I would like to note that Russia’s position is generally clear. The main thing for us is to eliminate the root causes of this crisis.

    It should be no mystery to Western leaders, media and the public what those root causes are, as Moscow has been repeating them ad nauseam beginning 30 years ago and especially in the run up to Russia’s 2022 intervention in Ukraine’s then eight-year old civil war.

    The post Rooting Out The Root Causes In Ukraine appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • US President Donald Trump claimed he would “un-unite” Russia and China. However, this divide-and-conquer strategy — which prominent US officials like Henry Kissinger have advocated since the 1970s — is clearly failing.

    In a meeting in Moscow celebrating the 80th anniversary of their nations’ shared victory in World War Two, Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin reaffirmed that “China-Russia relations have reached the highest level in history”.

    In a lengthy statement, Beijing and Moscow vowed to “jointly resist any attempts to interfere with and disrupt the traditional friendship and deep mutual trust between China and Russia”.

    The post Trump’s Far-Fetched Attempt To Divide Russia And China Is Clearly Failing appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Rights group declared ‘undesirable organisation’ amid Kremlin crackdown on critics, journalists and activists

    Amnesty International has said it will not halt its work after Russia declared the rights group an “undesirable organisation”, in effect banning its operations in the country and exposing supporters to prosecution.

    “This decision is part of the Russian government’s broader effort to silence dissent and isolate civil society,” Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s secretary general, said. “We will redouble our efforts to expose Russia’s egregious human rights violations both at home and abroad.”

    Continue reading…

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

  • As was universally expected, little came out of Istanbul this week, where Ukrainian and Russian delegations met with the ostensible purpose of exploring a negotiated settlement of the proxy war the U.S. provoked three years ago.

    It is an odd state of affairs when even the people doing the talking did not anticipate anything useful to emerge from their talking.

    After less than two hours of negotiation, the two sides agreed only to future talks on subsidiary questions: a prisoner exchange and a 30–day ceasefire — a ceasefire Kiev and its Western backers refused for years but are now desperate to implement.

    The post Diplomatic Chess, Ukraine The Pawn appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In Danish here for Danish readers.

    The development – or decline – of the Danish daily newspaper Politiken as a quality newspaper in the field of foreign policy pains me. Allow me a personal, somewhat nostalgic introduction. I wrote frequently for Politiken from 1971 to 1994. As a 20-year-old sociology student, I was naturally proud to be published in what was then a prestigious, liberal media outlet, which was initially shaped by Hørup’s anti-militarism and cultural radicalism.

    In Denmark, there was a – albeit quite traditional but serious and multifaceted – discussion about the state of the world. There was actually quite a lot of room for different opinions, and it was natural that many opinions were expressed and met in the Danish media – creating the social debate that is essential for security, peace and democracy. There were debates on security policy around the country – in folk high schools, assembly halls, upper secondary schools and trade unions.

    How I miss that Denmark, which is dead and gone today.

    Back then, no one would dream of excluding/cancelling discussions about peace – nor did anyone suggest that Denmark should contribute to the militarisation of the world or participate in wars abroad – no, Denmark should first and foremost be able to defend itself against an attack or if, God forbid, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty should come into force. Denmark was called a ‘footnote nation;’ the principles were upheld that NATO membership was compatible with the country never accepting nuclear weapons, foreign bases, pre-positioning of equipment, weapons and ammunition on its soil, and that Denmark should not participate in NATO’s nuclear planning group.

    Those were the days. There were politicians who could both read books and write books – readable ones at that.

    And back then, long ago, Politiken was, in my view, the leading newspaper (along with Information, which, however, had less general influence) for common sense, diversity, broad social debate and room for both pro- and anti-military perspectives.

    And peace – and futurology, including global perspectives, Club of Rome reports, which I reviewed, etc.

    OK, things change over 50 years, of course. But Politiken’s current position on foreign and security policy is not a law of nature. Over time, the owners and editorial managers of the daily newspaper could have chosen to preserve at least some of the soul of what Politiken used to be.

    But where does Politiken – which still confidently calls itself ‘the organ of the highest enlightenment since 1884’ – stand today?

    For me, with the above background to compare (there are advantages to getting older…), it stands as one of the highest organs of propaganda about other countries and their – Western-determined – role as threats to the fine, pure, innocent Western world. Whether intentional or not, Politiken legitimises and promotes militarism infinitely more strongly than anti-militarism and peace.

    Today, it can rightly be called PolitPravda.

    My younger readers should know that Pravda was the organ of the Soviet Communist Party; Pravda means ‘the truth’ – and that wasn’t exactly what Pravda contained.

    In the areas of foreign and security policy, today’s Politiken runs on what I call FOSI – Fake+Omission+Source Ignorance. The newspaper’s management clearly sees its role as blindly loyal support for the militarism of the American empire – NATO, interventions, bombings, regime change, hatred of Russia – although not necessarily for Trump’s policies or the grabbing of Greenland.

    FOSI has been and continues to be practised in the coverage of Syria, Israel, Russia, Ukraine… Palestine. And China, which I discuss further down.

    *****

    I have just listened to the fifth episode of Politiken’s populist podcast series: Putin – The World’s Most Dangerous Man? The episode is alternately titled The Grand Plan and How He Is Creating a Generation of Ardent Nationalists. Listen here.

    It is incomprehensibly trivialising, intellectually lazy and unprofessional, with a few facts and guesswork about, for example, Putin’s daily routines, spiced with the journalist’s personal opinions and ‘assessments,’ interrupted now and then by exclusively US-Western media Russophobic expert quotes, which are concocted into breakneck interpretations of the banal central thesis that Putin is power-mad with his Grand Plan for the re-establishment of the old Soviet empire.

    No, dear reader, this is not political satire on Politiken’s humour page, ATS, or elsewhere. These are grown adults conveying this message without any form of analysis or arguments for or against the thesis, based solely on Western mainstream sources. It is blatant Russophobia, entirely in line with the relentless opinion-shaping efforts of the government, the military’ intelligence’ agency, FET, and other media outlets. It is opinion journalism of the worst kind and of no use whatsoever to anyone seeking qualified knowledge.

    There are no theories or concepts, and therefore no rigour. It is tabloid drivel at the lowest level of information and limited in its understanding, in that Russia and Putin are not seen as part of the international system or as a partner in a very complex conflict with the cultural West, which all Soviet/Russian leaders since Gorbaechev, also Putin, has stated clearly that they feel their country belongs to. In this presentation, Russia is an isolated entity – only action and never reaction. It is about a Russia that is only itself and in no way navigates the challenges posed by, for example, NATO. At Politiken, Russia is a pariah that can be talked about – and disparaged – however one pleases.

    This is the result of 110% groupthink, and there is only one possible attitude towards ourselves and towards Russia (and China). From my own experience, I know that it is impossible to get a response from today’s journalists if you point out that their portrayals are, for example, factually incorrect, biased and lacking in basic knowledge and fairness. Or if the top management has chosen a very specific systematic approach to reporting.

    How many times have you seen that this or that country is engaging in dis/misinformation – and that we must protect ourselves against this sedition? We are to understand that it is only the others who do this; we in the West do not engage in such mis/dis behaviour. It is only Russia that threatens us – we cannot in any way be perceived as threatening in the eyes of Russia or China. We have good intentions, but they do not.

    Coincidentally, this awful story about the CIA’s activities in China came out at the same time as Politiken’s series. You will not find that story in Politiken.

    Thus, nothing is too low, simple or stupidly propagandistic. It would be demeaning to children to describe it as ‘sandbox level.’

    This fifth podcast about the world’s most dangerous man is completely uninteresting if you want to know anything about Russia, Putin and international politics – including the invasion/war in Ukraine, which, in NATO agitprop style, is of course and quite foolishly called ‘full-scale,’ which is about the only thing (along with ‘unprovoked’) it cannot be described as. It is simply factual nonsense and should not have made it through quality control. When it does, it is because it is NATO speak, and therefore, there is no professional or ethical problem.

    I wonder how far they can go – and how long it will take – before loyal readers of the highest organ of propaganda realise that they are being deceived? When will the Pravda Moment hit Politiken’s readers?

    And if it is not deliberate deception, then it is simple ignorance and professional incompetence. A third – entirely hypothetical, of course – possibility is that senior editors at Politiken a little too often have lunch with people from the American embassy and say ‘No, thank you’ if they receive invitations from embassies that do not represent NATO and the EU.

    *****

    In keeping with the West’s incredible, rapid intellectual decline and impending fall, coupled with its support for armament and militarism, Politiken has also descended into pure propaganda when it comes to China. In an ‘analysis’ a few days ago, it claimed that China is hunting down critics all over the world. Read it here.

    In another, the theme is that China has infiltrated the UN and distorts and lies about everything related to human rights. Read it here. These are pure smear articles by journalist John Hansen and the newspaper’s Asia correspondent Sebastian Stryhn Kjeldtoft – who is based in Taipei, Taiwan, and not in mainland China.

    China has infiltrated the UN with an army of fake NGOs. Meet the gongos↗

    This is yet another example of how the media sees it as its primary task to write only negatively about China. You hardly ever see anything positive about China and its impressive development over the past 40 years. The classic themes are Tibet, Hong Kong, the ‘genocide’ and ‘concentration camps’ in Xinjiang, Xi Jinping is a dictator – and the system is a dictatorship because it is not a democracy in the Western sense – Chinese researchers, students and agents have stolen everything in the West, China’s military build-up is a threat to the Western world – and then, of course, Taiwan, which, according to Western media, is an independent state (or should be), but is constantly threatened by an invasion launched by Beijing.

    On the other hand, you never hear about what the US and the rest of the West are doing vis-à-vis China – and it is not small stuff and is not done on small budgets. TFF and my staff have mapped out this entire media-based Cold War initiated by the West. Read the full report with extensive, concrete documentation here.

    Both articles are based on material from an organisation that Politiken neither describes nor provides its readers with a link to, namely ‘the journalistic network ICIJ’ – as if readers already knew what ICIJ stands for, much like NATO or the EU. ICIJ’s website can be found here.

    I visited this website on 6 May 2025 and found that of the 13 top articles, 11 are about China – and only about how terrible China is. Several focus on the well-worn story of how China persecutes all Uyghurs. In Politiken, the issue of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is presented by quoting Zumretay Arkin, vice-president of the World Uyghur Congress, ‘who is fighting for democracy and independence for the Uyghurs, an ethnic minority in the Xinjiang region of western China.’ (My italics).

    However, the whole thing is a little more complicated. A very small minority of Uyghurs want an independent East Turkestan and have been trying to achieve this goal for a couple of decades by carrying out around 1,200 terrorist attacks in and outside Xinjiang. The United States and US-backed terrorist movements support them, and the East Turkestan government-in-exile has been based in Washington for 20 years!

    Many have been arrested and sentenced to prison or re-education camps in China – and it is certainly no fun to be there. But it is also no fun for China that the United States supports violent separatist movements in its largest province – and that some of these Uighur terrorists have been trained by al-Nusra and have been fighting in Syria for years with the aim of returning to Xinjiang and ‘liberating’ it – a province considerably larger than France and with extensive natural resources, through which China’s new Silk Road project, BRI, involving 140 countries runs.

    But in Western media and political propaganda, the terrorist element of this is never mentioned; it is simply that China persecutes Muslims in general and Uighurs in particular. Because remember: this was said by Trump’s then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – a habitual liar and former CIA chief who has himself said that he is proud to have trained CIA agents to ‘lie, cheat and steal.’ On his last day at work, he left a ‘statement’ saying that what was happening in Xinjiang was genocide. Full stop. To date, the State Department has never backed this up with any form of documentation. But TFF has documented how this outright lie has come about, how it is part of the US media’s Cold War against China, and here you can read a report from Xinjiang, which I co-authored.

    People who have no idea what social analysis or journalism is – but have a political agenda – have since promoted the lie, the fake and omission. Whether they know what they are doing or are simply ignorant, I will leave unsaid – but neither is particularly honourable. And the very same media and politicians are simultaneously concealing the actual Israeli/Zionist genocide and ensuring that it is not stopped. The US and its media allies are – once again – at the centre of moral decay.

    Back to the ICIJ website. The ICIJ’s ‘Our team’ consists of 42 journalists; no less than 25 of them are listed as ‘United States,’ and it is indeed in Washington that the organisation has its headquarters. The chairwoman of the board, Rhona Murphy, has worked with a number of leading conservative American media outlets.

    And who finances the ICIJ – which Politiken’s source-uncritical China smear campaign chooses not to reveal to its readers in the two articles? Well, as I thought – yes, I have a nasty mind: A long list of government organisations, foundations and funds in NATO countries, in the West in general – none outside. See the list here.

    Three stand out: the EU, the US State Department and the usual suspect, NED – The National Endowment for Democracy, which is indisputably well known as a front organisation for the CIA. There is hardly a US regime change where NED has not pumped money into NGOs to carry out colour revolutions, etc. The organisation was created by Ronald Reagan, and a former NED director has stated that most people would not want to accept money directly from the CIA and that NED appears less controversial as an NGO.

    As I write this article, Politiken publishes another smear article on 6 May and an editorial by Marcus Rubin – a law graduate, former US correspondent for Politiken and now feature editor and member of the editorial board – with the cultured, journalistically objective headline: “China’s oppression is both lawless and boundless. It makes for frightening reading about an extremely powerful dictatorial regime.”

    A taste:

    It makes for frightening reading about an extremely powerful dictatorial regime whose power is spreading both in Asia and throughout the rest of the world, and which will stop at nothing. The goal of the campaign of repression is to stifle any criticism of the regime in Beijing by persecuting, subjugating and destroying its critics – wherever they may be. The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) acknowledges the problems and assesses that China is also ‘attempting to exercise control over Chinese people in Denmark to a large extent.

    Not a single fact, not a single example, not a single piece of evidence. No documentation. It is as if Rubin asked an AI machine to ‘Write some shit about China.’

    The third article in the “highest level of information” about China appeared on 28 April with this sober headline: “Eric compares his former workplace to the Gestapo.” And the introduction reads:

    Chinese people who criticise the Communist Party are hunted down all over the world. Now one of the regime’s former manhunters, the spy “Eric”, tells his story in Politiken. For 15 years, he helped spy on and plan the kidnappings of dissidents, even though he secretly hated the Communists. Now Eric himself has become a victim.

    Like the other articles, the story is accompanied by a tasteful illustration of this type and begins:

    We meet “Eric” at dusk in an anonymous car in a secret location in Australia. He fumbles with the video camera, nervous that some detail in the background might reveal his location. He knows better than most what China’s hackers are capable of. Eric is convinced that his life is in danger. That is why Politiken does not publish his real name…

    So we are simply expected to believe Politiken: that this is objective journalism and not Sinophobic propaganda in the service of the US/the West. China’s intelligence service is like the Gestapo, and so you know that President Xi Jinping is like Hitler. And – surprise, surprise! – it is emphasised that the Chinese embassy has not responded to Politiken’s smear campaign.

    What Politiken naturally never covers is the positive development in China, for the people in general. That, according to the World Bank, 700 million people have been lifted out of poverty in record time. That the country has developed from a poor and dirty underdeveloped country 40 years ago to being the world’s most successful welfare state today, with a super-modern infrastructure, where people have access to education, health, employment, culture – and where incredible resources have been invested in research and development. Unique in the history of humankind.

    Would Politiken kindly publish the figures from the American Edelman Trust Barometer, which show that, year after year, China is the country in the world where the largest proportion of the population has trust in its government. The figure is around 90%; the corresponding figure is 30, some higher and some lower for many in the ‘democratic’ West.

    Would you kindly explain in an editorial how on earth it can be that over 120 million Chinese leave China every year to travel to the rest of the world and 99.999999% return and would not dream of settling permanently anywhere in the Western world. Oh yes, Marcus Rubin, they have all simply been completely brainwashed, haven’t they?

    I wonder if Politiken can find a single Westerner who has travelled around China as a tourist on their own for just 14 days and returned home with the same attitude towards China, the Communist Party and the population as Western racist US/NATO agitprop media continue to have in the current Yellow Peril hysteria, which Politiken also shamelessly and ignorantly promotes with its smear campaigns?

    I am not saying that various media outlets should write hallelujah articles about China. Journalism should never be about conveying a solely positive or solely negative image. It should be about being curious, being fair and conveying facts that are useful for the highest level of public information.

    Politiken simply does not do this. Or it prefers its agitprop role.

    *****

    Politiken’s writers make a big deal out of the fact that China has so-called ‘gongos’ – governmental non-governmental organisations, i.e. government-controlled/influenced NGOs. That is absolutely correct. But it does not occur to them that the ICIJ – and tons of Western NGOs – are wholly or partly funded by their governments and therefore, in practice, also have a restricted mandate and become near-governmental. It does not occur to them – because they have hardly investigated it, as they are uncritical of their sources as long as the message is anti-China (sinophobic) – that they are promoting claims without documentation from the ICIJ, which is partly funded by the US government, including the NED…CIA.

    Even less – one would hope – does it occur to them that they are helping to legitimise armament and increase the risk of actual war between the US/NATO and Russia and/or China. All false threat scenarios have that consequence.

    If Politiken is the organ of the highest information, the lights have gone out on the Danish mass media scene. The articles I have reviewed here are so journalistically poor and so propagandistic that it is far more accurate and relevant to compare Politiken with the old Pravda. (I am only talking about foreign and security policy areas – not about Politiken as a whole).

    Which reminds me that one of the most unique bridge builders between Russia, Ukraine and the United States, Edward Lozensky (1941-2025), has just passed away. Read about him here. Among many other things, he is known for this spot-on description of reality – that of the Western world – which only causes me pain in my heart:

    “The Americans are busy
    turning their country into the Soviet Union.
    And they don’t even realise they’re doing it.”

    This does not only apply to the United States. It applies to the entire Western world. It applies to Denmark. And to PolitPravda.

    The post Danish Politiken Smears China Based on CIA, US, EU and NATO Funded Sources first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its third year, Ukraine’s left-wing community is continuing its work fighting both neoliberalism and Russian aggression. Sotsialnyi Rukh or “Social Movement” is Ukraine’s largest and oldest democratic socialist organization. Founded in the aftermath of the Euromaidan protests of 2013-14, Sotsialnyi Rukh has held steadfast to its principled leftist…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • China and Russia released a joint declaration on the need for global strategic stability, which included an explicit condemnation of the US’s nuclear counterforce strategy. Historian Peter Kuznik and filmmaker Regis Tremblay join us to discuss the risks of nuclear war in the current moment and the historical implications of the Russia-China alliance. Our understanding of China — and U.S.-China relations — has become a defining feature of all global politics. The China Report is a new show produced in collaboration with Pivot to Peace where every week, we will be helping you through all the propaganda with an independent view of the country we are taught to hate, but know so little about.

    The post Pentagon Strategy Increases Risk Of Nuclear War With China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.


  • 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.

  • The “terrorism we are witnessing today comes from imperialism, and we are fighting it,” Burkina Faso’s charismatic president, 37-year-old Capt. Ibrahim Traoré told Vladimir Putin on May 10.

    The Russian president in turn assured him, “We are united by a common goal of fighting terrorism and extremism. We will continue to help the Republic in… suppressing the radical (Jihadist) groups that are still active in certain parts of Burkina Faso.”

    The leaders met in Moscow a day after attending the Victory Day Parade on May 9, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Soviet Union in 1945.

    The post Terrorism We Are Witnessing Today Comes From Imperialism appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In the past weeks and months, Russian and Ukrainian human rights activists have been focusing on negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Back in January, human rights activists and the People First campaign raised several issues to parties involved in ongoing negotiations in the hopes that the negotiations would prioritise those affected by the conflict, particularly prisoners of war, detained Ukrainian citizens, Ukrainian children which have been taken to Russia, and Russian political prisoners.

    The invasion of Ukraine was only possible thanks to a system of political repression Russia has inflicted on its own people for decades.

    In February, on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a group of UN special rapporteurs and experts called for parties involved in negotiations to put legal and humanitarian issues at the forefront of discussions. They stressed that the Russian government must be held accountable for its aggression and war crimes in Ukraine committed, and its repressive policies towards its own citizens.

    The invasion of Ukraine was only possible thanks to a system of political repression Russia has inflicted on its own people for decades. According to experts, over 3,000 individuals have been persecuted by Russian authorities for political reasons. Despite recent efforts by human rights activists to advocate for person-centred negotiations, it seems more and more doubtful that the focus will be on human rights

    Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has challenged the established system of international relations, which has now proven to be woefully fragile. Most countries see Putin’s decision to unleash outright war on Ukraine as unacceptable. While many democratic countries have continued to provide Ukraine with assistance, this has at times proven insufficient in the face of Russian violence.

    Since January, the rejection by the US of legal norms in place since the two world wars has unleashed a new crisis in international politics.

    US tactics to repeal basic human rights seem eerily familiar for Russian activists, who have been fighting similar state tactics for the past 25 years.

    The new American administration’s policy is increasingly similar to Putin’s own tactics. Both favour the “right of the strong”, whereby great powers can decide the fate of others and dictate conditions. The US has shown itself to be less interested in international law, making it increasingly easy for norms to be overlooked.

    US tactics to repeal basic human rights seem eerily familiar for Russian activists, who have been fighting similar state tactics for the past 25 years. Russians knew a world without regard for international human rights or legal norms long before 2025, or the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    For 25 years, Putin’s government has created a country which prioritises the interests of the state and denies basic human rights.

    What is happening in the US is recognisable to many Russians.

    By wanting to end the war in Ukraine and find a quick solution, the US president is effectively equating the aggressor with the victim of aggression.

    Negotiations thus far suggest Trump is more likely to ensure Russian interests that are detrimental both to the safety of the Ukrainian people, who have been subjected to aggression and occupation, and to justice and a sustainable peace.

    Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was the result of years of human rights violations within Russia and the lack of a response from the international community to these violations.

    An unfair peace — a “deal” that contradicts the norms of international law — sets a dangerous precedent. It normalises the war against Ukraine, thereby giving Russia the green light to repeat its aggression and to enact even harsher repressive policies inside Russia.

    Such a “deal” is a signal to the whole world, a move towards dangerous instability, reminiscent of the brink of the outbreak of the world wars. Departing from the principles of human rights and international law in peacekeeping practices encourages impunity and will inevitably lead to new wars of aggression. Democracy in many countries will also be at risk, as the new rules of the game will open up opportunities for autocrats and dictators to violate human rights in their countries without regard for international institutions and their international obligations.

    No peace without rights 

    We call on the leaders of all democratic countries, all politicians for whom human rights are not merely empty words, and civil society to take a stand and bring human rights back into international politics.

    This is the only way to create reliable conditions for long-term peace in Europe and prevent the emergence of new-large scale military conflicts globally. Otherwise, the world will find itself in a situation where the fate of countries and the people living in them will be decided through wars unleashed by imperialist predators.

    We call on all parties taking part in peace negotiations in Ukraine to prioritise the human aspect: the fate of prisoners of war and the protection needed for civilians, including in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine.

    We insist that negotiations be based on the fundamental norms of international legal agreements, including the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, as they define aggression, protect the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty, and link military and political security with human rights. Without this, it will be impossible to achieve a just and sustainable peace.

    The appeal was drafted and signed by members of the the Council of Russian Human Rights Defenders: Galina Arapova, Sergey Davidis, Yury Dzhibladze, Leonid Drabkin, Sergey Krivenko, Sergey Lukashevsky, Karinna Moskalenko, Oleg Orlov, Lev Ponomarev, Alexander Cherkasov, and Yelena Shakhova.

    The names of the other Council members who signed the appeal are not given for security reasons.

    https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2025/05/11/no-peace-without-human-rights-en

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • From Samori Touré to Thomas Sankara [left], our ancestors chose resistance. Now, we must choose: either we fight for sovereignty, or we remain slaves to neo-colonialism.

    — captain Ibrahim Traoré [right], Interview with Radio Omega FM, November 2023

    A young, by political standards, military captain, now an acting president has captured widespread admiration in Burkina Faso and across Africa. The legend of Ibrahim Traoré appears to be growing by leaps and bounds.

    But to understand from whence captain Traoré comes, one should be cognizant of the young revolutionary Marxist leader captain Thomas Sankara who served the people of Burkina Faso (Land of Upright People) before Traoré. Tragically, Sankara was assassinated in a hail of gunfire, betrayed by his close friend Blaise Compaore.

    African Hub calls Thomas Sankara the best president in Africa’s history. During Sanakara’s four years as leader he:

    Empowered women.

    Increased literacy from 13-73% refused aids and made his country self reliant.

    Renamed his country to Burkina Faso (meaning Land of the Upright People)

    Vaccinated 2M kids.

    Reduced all public servants salaries including his.

    Built 350 schools, roads, railways without foreign aid

    Increased literacy rate by 60%

    Banned forced marriages

    Gave poor people land

    Planted 10 million trees

    Appointed females to high governmental positions, encouraged them to work, recruited them into the military, and granted pregnancy leave

    Sold off the government fleet of Mercedes cars and made the Renault 5 (the cheapest car sold in Burkina Faso at that time) the official service car of the ministers.

    He reduced the salaries of all public servants, including his own, and forbade the use of government chauffeurs and 1st class airline tickets.

    As President, he lowered his salary to $450 a month and limited his possessions to a car, four bikes, three guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer.

    He opposed foreign aid, saying that “he who feeds you, controls you.”

    Drove out French imperialism & withdrew Burkina Faso from the IMF.

    He was later killed in a French backed coup in 1987.

    Thomas Sankara, the man, was killed, but his ideals live on. Into the fore another revolutionary has stepped. Ibrahim Traoré is serving the Burkinabé. African Hub calls Traoré, “The youngest and most loved President in the world.”

    Russia’s president Vladimir Putin seems to have recognized this appeal and invited Traoré to Moscow. Nigeria’s Igbere Television reported on the dignified transportation accorded to Burkina Faso’s acting president for the 80th Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on 9 May:

    Russia didn’t just invite President Ibrahim Traoré to Moscow — they sent a state aircraft to personally pick him up from Burkina Faso. That’s not diplomacy. That’s respect.

    That’s symbolism. In a world where African leaders are often summoned like subordinates, this moment flips the script. It tells a new story: of African sovereignty being recognized, of alliances built on mutual interest — not colonial residue.

    The security provided for the distinguished guest reportedly included two accompanying Su27 fighter jets.

    Given the history of what happened to Sankara and the threats posed by imperialist operatives, the high level of security is understandable, especially given that Traoré is said to have survived 19 assassination attempts.

    Traoré himself came to power through a coup against another coup leader Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba who fled to Togo. Traoré was disillusioned by Damiba’s failure at handling the “jihadist” insurgency in his country. Armed jihadist groups, purportedly linked to Al Qaeda, are fighting Burkinabè government forces.

    *****

    Since coming to power in 2022, Traoré has quickly burnished his anti-imperialist and socialist convictions. Burkina Faso is a resource-rich but economically impoverished country. Traoré seeks to overturn that economic contradiction by removing the colonialists who exploited Burkina Faso. Traoré is quoted as saying: “We have been receiving French aid for 63 years, yet our country has not developed, so cutting it off from us now will not kill us, rather it will motivate us to work and rely on ourselves.” (Quoted by Qiraat Africa, published by the South Sahara Research Center, UK)

    Yet the West still has strings to pull on. Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali were suspended from the western-backed Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Subsequently, the three countries formed their own anti-imperialist grouping as the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

    It won’t be easy going, as the former French colonies use the CFA franc, an international currency set at a fixed rate against the euro. This renders the African states economically dependent on France which holds a veto over the monetary policies of the CFA franc.

    Aware of this currency bind, Africa Reloaded quotes Traoré saying, “Perhaps everything we’ve done has surprised you, hasn’t it? Don’t worry more changes are coming that might still surprise you. We will break every tie that has kept us in slavery.”

    In 2023, French troops were ordered to leave Burkina Faso. The French embassy in the capital Ouagadougou is closed and French diplomats have been expelled. Some French passport holders have been detained on suspicion of espionage.

    Russian troops have since arrived to help Burkina Faso bolster its security. Nigeria’s Afro Page also reports the “arrival of 1700 Russian commandos, armed, coordinated, and highly trained” in Burkina Faso “not in secret … but boldly in broad daylight…. This is a message from the Kremlin to Washington.” In addition, 700 North Korean troops are said to have arrived in Burkina Faso.

    Gaining control over the resources of Burkina Faso is also underway. Burkina Faso has started to nationalize resources, particularly its gold mining sector. Burkina Faso’s prime minister Jean Emmanuel Ouédraogo realizes, “Our gold represents our greatest opportunity for economic resilience during these challenging times.”

    Africa Hub quotes Traoré: “We will mine our gold ourselves not for France, but for our people!”

    To achieve this, Traoré’s proposal is: “Targeting foreign exploitation, particularly by France, Traore has pushed to nationalize gold mines, like Boungou and Wahgnion, and approved a state-owned gold refinery in 2023 to process 400 kg daily, aiming to retain profits for local development.”

    The national transformation planned by Traoré government includes:

    1. sweeping reforms redirecting government funds from inflated salaries to crucial development projects
    2. launching ambitious industrialization projects
    3. unprecedented mechanization of the agricultural sector, including introduction of modern farming techniques and equipment that have significantly increased crop yields and farmer incomes
    4. implementing rapid response protocols to counter security threats and dismantle terrorist networks
    5. bringing about unprecedented levels of national unity and mobilizing citizens behind a shared vision of progress
    6. demonstrating that African nations can chart their own paths to development
    7. a deep commitment to public service and national development that focuses on tangible results rather than procedural democracy

    Back in 2023, Traoré spoke of the aims of the AES partnership: “We really want to look at other horizons, because we want win-win partnerships.” Security was addressed as a need: “If we can’t afford to buy military equipment in one country, we’ll go to other countries to buy it.”

    *****

    Meanwhile, the United States stirs the imperialist pot against Burkina Faso. On 3 April, US general Michael Langley, commander of US Africa Command (AFRICOM), accused Traoré of misusing the country’s substantial gold reserves for the military instead of benefiting the nation’s 23 million citizens. If Langley (whose basic pay is estimated by Deepseek at $203,700 per year) had done his homework, instead of making unsubstantiated accusations, he would know that Traoré revealed his net worth at $128,566. He might also know that Traoré refused a presidential salary, continuing instead to receive the same salary he earned as a soldier. Malawi24 was impressed: “Traore’s decision is a stark contrast to the actions of his predecessors, signaling a new era of leadership focused on public service rather than personal enrichment.”

    Langley’s comments brought Burkinabé into the streets in support of Traoré and his government.

    It is abundantly evident that Traoré has the support of the people, as did Sankara. Despite Traoré having reportedly booted out French and American media from Burkina Faso, even the BCC, a media organ of empire, admits that Traoré “has captured hearts and minds around the world.”

    Traoré represents a tangible hope, a hope that is more than an abstraction, it is a hope that, given time and momentum, could ignite a revolution to topple an empire.

    Until defeated, empire will not rest. As long as revolutionary men and women are committed, above all, to serving the people, they will pose a threat to empire.

    The lives of humans are finite, but the ideals of good people can outlive them and continue to represent a threat to empires until they fall.

    The post Who is Captain Ibrahim Traoré? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On June 6, 2019 President Trump commemorated the 75th Anniversary of Operation Overlord, popularly known as D-Day, when approximately 160,000 U.S., British, Canadian and Free French soldiers landed in and around the beaches of Normandy, France.

    Speaking at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer, where the remains of 9,388 American fighting men, most of whom perished on D-Day, are interned, Trump promoted the mythology of American omniscience that was born on the beaches of Normandy. …

    For Americans, D-Day stands out among all others when it comes to celebrating the Second World War.

    The post Who Defeated The Nazis? A Colloquy appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • 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.


  • 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.

  • 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 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.

  • 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.