radiofree.asia

Category: Ukraine

  • The Ukraine War Is Over And Ukraine Lost (To The USA) In 2014

    Even some of my readers have Ukraine derangement, where they think the Empire that has been wrong about every war happens to be right about this one. It ain’t true. Ukraine is just one front of the war White Empire is waging on the world, and I hope they lose. Thankfully albeit tragically (by Russia’s own admission), they are. Ukraine is simply exhausted and Empire is bored. Ukraine’s men have been thrown around like toy soldiers and, like the meme goes, America is saying I don’t want to play with you no more. That’s the meaning behind all this talk of negotiations. They’re meaningless. All that’s left is surrender.

    You have to consider negotiations in this context. Trump has said Ukraine is not his war and he visibly dressed down the already illegitimate (no elections) Zelensky.

    The post The Ukraine War Is Over And Ukraine Lost (To The USA) In 2014 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Russia Bad America Good

    The demonization of Russia among Western journalists has gotten so perverse, if Vladimir Putin were to jump in an erupting volcano and rescue a family of four Americans, carrying them on his back hobbling along on the melted stumps of his legs to a hospital 50 miles away, the mainstream media in the U.S. would report that Vlad the Impaler in some disconnected attempt to reconstruct the Soviet Empire had personally kidnapped four defenseless U.S. citizens and was holding them in a labor camp in the Siberian tundra.

    Nothing good about Russia ever makes the cut these days, only the bad, much of it fabricated by the U.S. government itself. Even indisputable facts of history take a back seat to vilifying everything Russian. With appalling disrespect, Western leaders snubbed Russia by refusing to take part in the 70th anniversary celebrations of victory over Germany held in Moscow in 2015. Likewise with the recent 80th anniversary victory day celebrations, attended by many top leaders from all over the world. Then at equivalent ceremonies in Europe, scant mention was even made of the Russian campaigns, which resulted in the deaths of over 10 million Russian soldiers. If you bother to check the record, you will discover it was not France, England, and the U.S. which defeated Hitler. It was Russia.

    I don’t say this because I’m a Russia lover or a Putin apologist. This is a matter of historical record. Maybe to the propagandists in the West with their highly focused, patently obtuse agenda, facts don’t matter. But to you and I, if we are to have any shot at embracing harmony in the world, facts are vital to a greater appreciation of a nation of 146 million people whose government is armed with over 5,000 nuclear warheads.

    Here are some more facts. Feel free to check the historical record:

    1) Joseph Stalin proposed in 1952 that Germany be reunited as a single neutral country with free elections. A central condition was that Germany not be part of a NATO alliance, which it viewed as a military threat. Russia was under enormous pressure economically after being ravaged by World War II and wanted to reduce the growing tensions between the East and the West.

    Of course, by ignoring and ultimately rejecting this proposal, it would take another forty years of Cold War hostility and posturing to reunite Germany, then as an loyal ally and military stronghold of the U.S., though ironically, Germany for decades — until fairly recently — has been one of Russia’s most important European trading partners.

    2) Prior to the 1963 Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Khrushchev for almost a decade proposed substantial reductions in offensive weapons. While America was implementing the largest peace time military build-up in history, Russia was in fact reducing its military capability.

    Khrushchev finally became convinced, especially after the U.S. placed in nearby Turkey nuclear-tipped Jupiter missiles which could easily reach Russia, that America was bent on attacking the Soviet Union. This was the underlying reason for deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, precipitating one of the most dangerous crises in history. Perhaps not the wisest thing to do, given the level of tensions the U.S. maintained with its constant “better dead than Red” fear mongering, nevertheless the missiles in Cuba were basically the Soviet’s attempt to achieve some sort of parity, at least a minimal acceptable level of mutually assured destruction with America.

    3) In 1983, the U.S. risked starting World War III with provocative and unnecessary probing of Soviet air defenses, a military exercise called Able Archer. This was purely a strategic and psychological maneuver intended to bolster support Reagan was soliciting from Congress and U.S. allies for his Star Wars missile defense system. Because at this same time the U.S. was deploying nuclear-tipped Pershing II missiles in Europe which only had a 5-minute flight time to key targets in Russia, Soviet leadership understandably viewed Star Wars not as a defensive system but as the means for establishing a first-strike capability. And it suspected the probing of its air space and testing of its defense systems via Able Archer, was a prelude to an attack. Speculation about a first-strike nuclear attack on Russia continues to this day. Extremely dangerous!

    4) Reagan and Gorbachev in the end were quite sincere about totally eliminating nuclear weapons by the end of the 20th Century, thus their verbal agreement during a summit in Reykjavik, Iceland to work toward eliminating the nuclear arsenals of both Russia and the U.S. was quite authentic. It was not posturing. Moreover, the whole idea for eliminating the entire nuclear arsenals of both countries was initiated by Soviet Premier Gorbachev in a letter sent to President Reagan January 14, 1986. It was actually his idea.

    5) Russia only has nine foreign military bases. This is in contrast to what many estimate to be 700-800 in at minimum 80 countries by the U.S. A cursory glance at a world map shows that a substantial number of these bases form a ring around Russia. Even the most impartial observer would not view this as a coincidence and would at least appreciate why Putin and company see much of what America does as provocative, if not blatantly confrontational — why some analysts on both sides conjecture that America is preparing to launch a “preemptive” nuclear attack on Russia, begging the question what such an attack would preempt other than the continuation of the human species.

    6) Contrary to headlines which screamed foul in the American media, Russia never invaded Crimea. The simple fact is that there were 16,000 troops already stationed there, as per a standing treaty with the Ukrainian government. When the elected President of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych — certainly corrupt and questionable in his own right, like most Ukrainian politician — was driven out of the country by street thugs, these troops were instructed to protect key physical assets in the region, as well as make sure that the many native Russians who were living there remained safe. There was no firefight, no resistance. After 97% of voters demanded in an internationally-monitored referendum to rejoin Russia, the region which had been part of Russia going back to 1786, returned to Russian authority — hardly an invasion by any stretch of the imagination. No troops stormed over the border. No shots were fired.

    7) Far from being the instigator of the current crisis in the Ukraine, Putin has consistently played peacemaker and attempted to defuse the situation, even as native Russians came under threat from the new government in Kiev, and now Russian civilians are still being attacked daily with drones. Battalions of neo-Nazi fighters now comprise key sectors of Ukraine’s military forces. These were among the shock troops which originally rampaged through the eastern regions, attacking Donetsk and Lugansk, two strongholds of pro-Russian separatists and home to a majority of Russians, after the Maidan uprising.

    8) Contrary to the narrative being pushed by the White House — obviously the creation of neocon ideologues swarming like locusts at all levels of the bureaucracy, especially in the State Department and think tanks within the beltway — the evidence is quite clear that the entire coup was engineered and directed by the U.S., using agent provocateur NGOs, funded by National Endowment for Democracy. Senator John McCain and Asst. U.S. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland were even on the front lines during the demonstrations. This is, of course, not what you were being told by the American press, which still leads the charge in continuing to pin all blame on Russia and Putin.

    Now am I making a one-sided case here? Of course not. For over six decades, extending right up till the present, there have been gross deceptions and blunders on both sides. I bring up the above examples because the collective memory of the American public seems to be very short. Or more likely, many well-meaning Americans may not even be familiar with these particular facts in the first place. Anything good about the Soviets — and now the Russians — tends to be overwhelmed and replaced by the fiercely promoted and much easier to embrace “black hat” characterization we hear regurgitated over and over.

    What I am saying is there has already been so much misunderstanding, miscalculation, and missed opportunities, that to compound our bleak and tendentious relationship with Russia with yet more misunderstanding, miscalculation, and missed opportunities, is courting disaster. It’s that simple. What’s been going on is not working. Time for a new approach.

    And I am also saying that America lately bears more than its share of responsibility for the distortions, the slander, the disinformation, which has aggravated hostility toward Russia both by American and European leaders in their official capacities, and by American citizens, who never seem to run out of foreign peoples to fear, mistrust, even hate.

    Let me throw something else into the mix here. This is probably the most important factor whenever we look at Russia and try to gauge her motives and intents.

    The Soviet Union lost more than 27,000,000 people in World War II. Most were killed in the Russian homeland itself as a result of the overwhelming German Nazi blitz. Over a half million died in the Battle of Stalingrad alone.

    That is why they are fearful of having troops and/or ballistic missiles on their borders — as in the Ukraine or Georgia. They have been gritting their teeth as NATO has edged its way closer and closer to Russia — contrary, by the way, to reassurances given right after the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany. America lost 420,000 soldiers during all of World War II, fighting on two fronts, in Europe and the Far East. If we had seen 27,000,000 Americans killed, the blood of the majority spilled right here on our own soil, how would we feel about having troops, nuclear-tipped tactical missiles, and ballistic missile defense radars and interceptors arrayed along the Canadian or Mexican borders? How would we read the intention of any nation insisting on putting these on our borders?

    As they say, this is not rocket science.

    What might require the intellectual aptitude of a rocket scientist is trying to understand what America’s strategic planners have in mind in promoting this agenda. It undermines any possibility of peace between the two great powers and risks thermonuclear war.

    Am I a Russia lover?

    An America hater?

    Neither.

    I just think that before we kill a few more million people or destroy the world, we might want to look at both sides of each issue, maybe mentally trade places, try to be fair and reasonable, give our all to try to understand exactly what is going on.

    And a big part of understanding issues is knowing history, taking into consideration what has been occurring for decades, sometimes even centuries. To paraphrase George Santayana: “Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.”

    Yet, the drama continues and intensifies. Confrontation and intimidation of Russia is ongoing. Massive military exercises on Russia’s borders have become frequent: Griffin Lightning, Operation Hedgehog, Nordic Response, Dynamic Front 25. These follow numerous previously held on Russia’s borders in Poland and substantial increases in troops and equipment in Poland and the Baltic states. A new ABM system was deployed in Romania back in 2016. Romania is now in the final stages of constructing the largest NATO military base in Europe. In 2024, NATO opened a new missile defense base in Redzikowo, Poland. Military war games are also held in the Black Sea, like Sea Breeze 2015 and Sea Breeze 2021, sailing war ships and aircraft carriers into the “Russian lake”, surveilling and testing Russia’s littoral defenses.

    While all of this display of firepower is allegedly to prepare for a Russian offensive, it only serves to provoke Russia and test its patience. Propaganda from the West would have it that Russia is aggressively re-building the Soviet Empire and is preparing to attack Europe. Looking at what comes out of U.S. think tanks would suggest the opposite, that it is the US/UK/EU/NATO which is preparing to attack and dismember Russia, then plunder its vast resources.

    Russia does not want war with Ukraine, the US, or any country in Europe. Recognize, no one can point at any actual aggression on Russia’s part, other than the trumped up and discredited accusations of fighting in eastern Ukraine and having invaded and seized control of Crimea and four oblasts. Russia’s coming to the defense of the people there is completely understandable. The people in these five regions are mostly Russian. Ukraine has systematically targeted them for elimination. Even before the 2022 Special Military Operation began, over 14,000 were killed in Donbas alone. These five zones have been actively wanting to leave Ukraine and join Russia since 2014. They each held referendums and by huge majorities — 97% in Crimea! — voted to do just that.

    Now the rhetoric from the U.S. and NATO is becoming even more skewed and provocative. At the July 2016 NATO meeting in Warsaw, Russia was declared the major threat to peace and stability in Europe. Nothing has changed except to get worse. Great Britain is talking about sending its troops to Ukraine. Germany, the Baltic and Scandinavia nations, and the UK open talk about having a war with Russia. These people are relentless. And apparently merciless. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens in a major war that need not happen. All Russia wants is a neutral Ukraine — free of US/EU/NATO troops, no missiles and other lethal weaponry pointed at Russia — and a Ukrainian government which is free of Russia-hating neo-Nazis.

    Russia has made clear its position over and over. Putin, forcefully and frankly, expressed his concerns about NATO expansion in 2007 in his historical address at the Munich Conference. The West was then and still is unable to listen. Or simply refuses.

    The reality is, facts don’t discourage western politicians and U.S. media from beating the drums of war, increasing tensions, and risking a major military confrontation. When you wear a white hat, you alone get to decide who the black hats are.

    Frankly, it’s shocking what comes out of the mouths of the spokespersons for the U.S. government. There is no equivalent that I can see coming from the Russian side. Russians tend to be restrained, diplomatic, and at least on the public side very respectful and statesmanlike. Trump, and Biden and Obama before him have, for example, in a number of high-visibility public forums made it their personal mission to insult Vladimir Putin and propagate what are proven lies about Russia. If our political leaders believe any of this stuff, then instead of attending foreign policy and intelligence briefings, they must have been reading comic books or getting their information from Garry Kasparov’s website. But to be honest, I’ve concluded they know the truth and these endless propaganda assaults are quite intentional. The big plan is still to destroy Russia, break it up into little pieces, a loot its rich national resources and treasures.

    Back to Russia …

    Despite the barrage of vituperation and insults from the West, you cannot find one instance of Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, former Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, current Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, Director of Information and Press Department Maria Zakharova, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, or any other high official in the ranks of power in Russia, conducting themselves with anything other than extreme courtesy and professionalism.

    Frankly, it’s often embarrassing to see the way U.S. diplomats swagger around like they’re on their way to a barroom brawl in America’s Old West. The contrast with Russia’s spokespersons is stark and revealing.

    Final thoughts …

    It would be one thing if the feud between the U.S. and Russia were just some schoolyard scrap between two pubescent boys. But these two major countries armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, burdened with almost seven decades of bad blood between them, much of the bad blood alarmingly the product of gross misunderstanding.

    The price of more of the same aggravation and contentiousness is at best wasting valuable resources and energy which could be devoted to other mounting crises — climate change, the rapid destruction of the oceans, the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease, desertification of farmland, depletion of water resources throughout the world, increasing risk of widespread famine, the urgent need to secure vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons from access by terrorists — at worst an epic nuclear holocaust which puts the human race in a giant coffin.

    Isn’t it time to stop the name-calling?

    Isn’t it time to put away the gang colors?

    The black hats and the white hats?

    Russia Bad! America Good!

    Nothing is that simple.

    Unless you’re simpleminded.
    [ This is an excerpt from my upcoming book, America’s Hijacked Peace Dividend, available late October or November at fine bookstores across the globe. ]
    The post Russia Bad America Good first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Self-Determination for Eastern Ukraine?

    Completely absent in any of the governmental efforts for the last three and a half years to end the war in Ukraine is the issue of self-determination as it relates concretely to where the on-the-ground war and the huge percentage of casualties are primarily happening.

    The principle of nations having the right to make decisions about the form and nature of their governments goes back over 100 years and has long been upheld by the United Nations and most of the world’s governments.

    When it comes to the Russia/Ukraine war, this principle clearly applies to Ukraine’s efforts to defend its territory, economy, and form of government from Russia’s 2022 military invasion, intended to extinguish Ukraine as a self-determining country.

    But so far, neither the United Nations nor any other country has applied the concept of self-determination to the reality that it is in eastern Ukraine, the four provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, where the path to a just and peaceful end to this terrible war lies. Following a ceasefire and other necessary steps to prepare for them, there should be binding referendums under United Nations supervision so that each of these four provinces can decide whether they want to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine.

    It would be essential that these referendums be under the auspices of a neutral entity, which is why the United Nations is the logical choice.

    Is this point of view pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian? It seems to me it is neither. Neither side wants to risk losing territory it considers to be its own via a popular vote, which would put the stamp of political legitimacy on the results. Of course, the alternative seems to be a continuation for years, if not decades, of destructive and dangerous military conflict, tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars wasted, and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of additional deaths.

    Would the implementation of such a deal set a precedent for situations elsewhere in the world where there is conflict over territory between more-or-less distinct peoples? It probably would, but is such a precedent a bad thing? In a world where democracy is under threat by fascists and authoritarians, a successful application of the democratic principle of self-determination would be a ray of light, a hopeful development.

    Is there an alternative that is more just, more likely to succeed, more likely to end this brutal, destructive, and dangerous war and allow for positive economic and social rebuilding? That must be the objective.

    The post Self-Determination for Eastern Ukraine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ted Glick.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia Advances Near Pokrovsk On Motorcycles, Ukraine Strikes Back | Front Line Update


    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.

  • Trump Says He’s Working To Arrange A Meeting Between Putin And Zelensky

    President Trump said on Monday that he was working on arranging a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, comments that came after a day of hosting the Ukrainian leader and several European officials at the White House.

    “At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelensky,” the president wrote on Truth Social.

    Trump said that once Putin and Zelensky meet, he would join them for a three-way talk. “After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself,” he wrote.

    The post Trump Says He’s Working To Arrange A Meeting Between Putin And Zelensky appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Declassified: CIA’s Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan

    On August 7th, US polling giant Gallup published the remarkable results of a survey of Ukrainians. Public support for Kiev “fighting until victory” has plummeted to a record low “across all segments” of the population, “regardless of region or demographic group.” In a “nearly complete reversal from public opinion in 2022,” 69% of citizens “favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible.” Just 24% wish to keep fighting. However, vanishingly few believe the proxy war will end anytime soon.

    The reasons for Ukrainian pessimism on this point are unstated, but an obvious explanation is the intransigence of President Volodymyr Zelensky, encouraged by his overseas backers – Britain in particular.

    The post Declassified: CIA’s Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • French monitor: Ukraine, NATO provoked Russia in Donbas war


    This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Zelensky Rejects Trump’s Push for Peace Deal

    Zelensky rejects Trump’s push for peace dealUkrainian President Vladimir Zelensky meets European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels. © Getty Images / EU Commission

    Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has rejected US President Donald Trump’s call for a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev, reiterating that a truce has to be implemented before discussing details of a possible settlement.

    Zelensky made the statement on Sunday during a joint press-conference with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who will accompany him to Washington for talks with Trump on Monday.

    The Ukrainian leader claimed that Moscow had made “many demands” on the settlement of the conflict and that Kiev needs to be made aware of them.

    “If there are really as many as we have heard, then it will take time to go through them all,” he said.

    According to Zelensky, it is “impossible” for Ukraine to negotiate “under pressure of weapons.”

    “It is necessary to ceasefire and work quickly on a final deal,” he insisted.

    Russia has repeatedly turned down Ukraine’s demands for a ceasefire, saying that a pause in the fighting would be exploited by Kiev to rearm and regroup its forces.

    The Ukrainian leader also ruled out the possibility of making territorial concessions to Russia as part of a peace deal, saying that trading land is forbidden by the country’s constitution.

    Earlier this month, Trump expressed frustration over Zelensky’s attempts to use the Ukrainian constitution as an excuse to avoid making compromises. The US president said that he was “a little bothered by the fact that Zelensky was saying, well, I have to get constitutional approval… I mean, he has got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap.”

    During the press-conference with Zelensky, Von der Leyen insisted that “Ukraine must become a steel porcupine, indigestible to potential invaders,” repeating a metaphor that she has used before. She promised that the EU would keep working to strengthen the Ukrainian defense industry, especially when it comes to drone production.

    The European Commission head claimed that decisions regarding territory “belong only to Ukraine, and cannot be taken without Ukraine at the table.” The EU will continue trying to apply diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia, with its 19th sanctions package against Moscow currently in preparation, Von der Leyen said.
    The post Zelensky Rejects Trump’s Push for Peace Deal first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US-Russia Talks: the Choice Between Peace and Escalation

    Photo: AFP via Getty Images

    Donald Trump came into office promising to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Now, six months later, his high stakes meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska may have put the United States and Russia on a new path toward peace, or, if this initiative fails, could trigger an even more dangerous escalation, with warhawks in Congress already pushing for another $54.6 billion in weapons for Ukraine.

    After emerging from the meeting, Putin correctly framed the historical moment: “This was a very hard time for bilateral relations and, let’s be frank, they’ve fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War. I think that’s not benefiting our countries and the world as a whole. Sooner or later, we have to amend the situation to move on from confrontation to dialogue.”

    Trump said he will follow up by talking to NATO leaders and Zelenskyy, as if the U.S. is simply an innocent bystander trying to help. But in Ukraine, as in Palestine, Washington plays the “mediator” while pouring weapons, intelligence, and political cover into one side of the war. In Gaza, that has enabled genocide. In Ukraine, it could lead to nuclear war.

    Despite protests from Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump was right to meet with Putin, not because they are friends, but because the United States and Russia are enemies, and because the war they are fighting to the last Ukrainian is the front line of a global conflict between the United States, Russia and China.

    In our book, War In Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, which we have now updated and revised to cover three years of war in Ukraine, we have detailed the U.S. role in expanding NATO up to Russia’s borders, its support for the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government in 2014, its undermining of the Minsk II peace accord, and its rejection of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine after only two months of war in 2022.

    We doubt that Donald Trump fully grasps this history. Are his simplistic statements alternately blaming Russia and Ukraine, but never the United States, just a public façade for domestic consumption, or does he really believe America’s hands are clean?

    At their first meeting in Saudi Arabia on February 18, senior U.S. and Russian negotiators agreed on a three-step plan: first to restore U.S.-Russian diplomatic relations; then to negotiate peace in Ukraine; and finally to work on resolving the broader, underlying breakdown in relations between the United States and Russia. Trump and Putin’s decision to meet now was a recognition that they must address the deeper rift before they can achieve a stable and lasting peace in Ukraine.

    The stakes are high. Russia has been waging a war of attrition, concentrating on destroying Ukrainian forces and military equipment rather than on advancing quickly and seizing a lot more territory. It has still not occupied all of Donetsk province, which unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine in May 2014, and which Russia officially annexed before its invasion in February 2022.

    The failure of peace negotiations could lead to a more aggressive Russian war plan to seize territory much faster. Ukrainian forces are thinly spread out along much of its 700 mile front line, with as few as 100 soldiers often manning several miles of defenses. A major Russian offensive could lead to the collapse of the Ukrainian military or the fall of the Zelenskyy government.

    How would the U.S. and its Western allies respond to such major changes in the strategic picture? Zelenskyy’s European allies talk tough, but have always rejected sending their own troops to Ukraine, apart from small numbers of special operations forces and mercenaries.

    Putin addressed the Europeans in his remarks after the Summit:

    We expect that Kyiv and the European capitals will perceive [the negotiations] constructively, and that they won’t throw a wrench in the works, will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress.

    Meanwhile, more U.S. and NATO troops are fighting from the relative safety of the joint Ukraine-NATO war headquarters at the U.S. military base in Wiesbaden in Germany, where they work with Ukrainian forces to plan operations, coordinate intelligence and target missile and drone strikes. If the war escalates further, Wiesbaden could become a target for Russian missile strikes, just as NATO missiles already target bases in Russia. How would the United States and Germany respond to Russian missile strikes on Wiesbaden?

    The U.S. and NATO’s official policy has always been to keep Ukraine fighting until it is in a stronger position to negotiate with Russia, as Joe Biden wrote in the New York Times in June 2022. But every time the U.S. and NATO prolong or escalate the war, they leave Ukraine in a weaker position, not a stronger one. The neutrality agreement that the U.S. and U.K. rejected in April 2022 included a Russian withdrawal from all the territory it had just occupied. But that was not good enough for Boris Johnson and Joe Biden, who instead promised a long war to weaken Russia.

    NATO military leaders believed that Ukraine’s counter-offensive in the fall of 2022 achieved the stronger position they were looking for, and General Milley went out on a limb to say publicly that Ukraine should “seize the moment” to negotiate. But Biden and Zelenskyy rejected his advice, and Ukraine’s failed offensive in 2023 squandered the moment they had failed to seize. No amount of deceptive propaganda can hide the reality that it has been downhill since then, and 69% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated peace, before their position gets even worse.

    So Trump went to Alaska with a weak hand, but one that will get weaker still if the war goes on. The European politicians urging Zelenskyy to cling to his maximalist demands want to look tough to their own people, but the keys to a stable and lasting peace are still Ukrainian neutrality, self determination for the people of all regions of Ukraine, and a genuine peace process that finally lays to rest the zombification of the Cold War.

    The whole world celebrated the end of the Cold War in 1991, but the people of the world are still waiting for the long-promised peace dividend that a generation of corrupt, war-mongering leaders have stolen from us.

    As negotiations progress, U.S. officials must be honest about the U.S. role in provoking this crisis. They must demonstrate that they are ready to listen to Russia’s concerns, take them seriously, and negotiate in good faith to achieve a stable and lasting agreement that delivers peace and security to all parties in the Ukraine war, and in the wider Cold War it is part of.

    The post US-Russia Talks: the Choice Between Peace and Escalation first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • What caused the war in Ukraine?


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • John Mearsheimer vs. Matt Duss: A Debate on Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine, Russia & Paths to Peace


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • John Mearsheimer vs. Matt Duss: A Debate on Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine, Russia & Paths to Peace

    Mearsheimer dussdebate

    As U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Alaska for a high-stakes summit to discuss a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, we host a debate between two foreign policy thinkers about the war, its causes and how it could be brought to a conclusion.

    John Mearsheimer is an international relations theorist at the University of Chicago, known for his realist perspective. He has long argued that Western policies are the main cause of the Ukraine crisis. “There’s overwhelming evidence that it was NATO expansion into Ukraine that drove this train,” says Mearsheimer.

    Matt Duss is executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and the former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. He says that despite Western missteps, Russia is ultimately the main cause of the current war, which Putin started in 2022 with a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. “Putin has made clear that he has a pretty grandiose historical conception of what he sees as a kind of renewed Russian empire,” he says.

    Both Mearsheimer and Duss say Ukraine’s war effort is flagging and that the best way out is to “make the best peace they can,” even if it means conceding territory to Russia.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russia Broke Through In The Battle For Pokrovsk, Major Setback For Ukraine | Front Line Update


    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.

  • Ukraine: WE TOLD YOU SO

    I hate to say I told you so. It’s obnoxious, really. But sometimes it is an important point. In this case, the point is this: the people who are always right about wars were right about the war in Ukraine, whereas the “experts” who are always on television and in government were, as usual, wrong.

    Which of the following statements about the war with Russia comes closest to your personal views?

    • Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war
    • Ukraine should seek to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible

    —

    Gallup asked that question three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, and this year. It asked it of Ukrainians. The first time, 72% of Ukrainians wanted Ukraine to continue fighting and only 22% to negotiate an end to the war. Most recently, 24% want to continue fighting and 69% want to negotiate an end to the war.

    If you’re a good U.S. news consumer and follower of weapons-funded “leaders,” then you know perfectly well that Ukraine must keep fighting until it wins the war. After all, Putin will be invading Idaho by Thursday if an end to the war is negotiated. Or even if that doesn’t happen, the rule of law will collapse — it will be as if someone had destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, fueled a genocide in Gaza, and sanctioned international courts for doing their jobs — total lawlessness!

    That’s not a terrible argument — absurdly hypocritical and blinkered, but still a fair point in there somewhere. Only that’s not why you used to tell me that Ukrainians needed to fight on. Do you remember what the reason was? You told me it hundreds of times. Has it slipped your mind? It was that Ukrainians said in polls that they wanted the war to continue, and who THE HELL did I think I was to dare to suggest otherwise?! I mean, it’s not as if I lived on the planet that a nuclear war would render uninhabitable. This was a decision for UKRAINIANS. UKRAINIANS! Why couldn’t I get that through my thick skull?

    But now, after years of pointless killing, dying, wounding, traumatizing, and destroying, we’ve got 69% of Ukrainians telling pollsters they think an end to the war should be negotiated as soon as possible. I’m willing to bet that most, if not every last one, of those expressing that wise opinion would also now agree that such a negotiated end should have been achieved years ago. Nobody but war profiteers, sadists, and politicians clinging to power with rightwing support (yes, on both sides of this war) is better off for the now-desired negotiated end having been delayed so miserably long. Less than two years into Afghanistan and Iraq, a majority in the U.S. said those wars should never have been started — including millions of people who had fervently denounced war protests months before. It’s not hard to predict something that happens over and over again.

    The Ukrainian ruler says the war must go on, presumably because of democracy. This may be difficult to hear, but there’s not a democracy in Ukraine or within 500 million miles of Ukraine. If we had actual democracies, these wars would never have started. If we even thought in democratic terms, our priorities would be ending the mass killing and destruction, halting the arms trade to redirect resources into human needs, and devising credible means by which the residents of various sections of Ukraine — and not the Ukrainian or Russian government — can collectively make the best of the disaster they’ve been handed.

    So, how can I claim that those who were for peace prematurely were “right” and those who didn’t want to sit down and end the war until years later were “wrong”? Because we said, over and over and over, that a negotiated peace would have to come sooner or later and better sooner, that people would come to understand this fact eventually — but by then we’d have more corpses and orphans, and that endless proclamations of victory just around the corner from both sides of an endless war are reasons to end the thing, not reasons to wave flags and cheer for the war machine.

    “Helping Ukraine” has done exactly what we said shipping weapons to a slaughterhouse would do. It has hurt Ukraine. It has hurt Ukraine deeply, militarized much of the world, and thrown global agendas and priorities wildly out of whack. The way to help Ukraine was always going to begin by negotiating an end to the war. Don’t believe me? Ask the Ukrainians! I’m not sure how you dare to defy their will.

    Originally on https://worldbeyondwar.org/ukraine-we-told-you-so/

    The post Ukraine: WE TOLD YOU SO first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Latest Ukraine Drone Strike Causes Huge Fire At Russian Oil Refinery


    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.

  • Pentagon Paves Way To Reclaim Ukraine-Bound Arms To US Stockpiles

    A memo written by the US Defense Department’s policy chief will allow US weapons and equipment earmarked for Ukraine to be diverted back into US stockpiles, CNN reported on 8 August.

    According to four people who have read the memo, the policy represents “a dramatic shift” that could see billions of dollars of weapons redirected to shore up dwindling US supplies.

    The memo was written last month by US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, but has become public ahead of US President Donald Trump’s planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for next week.

    Items desired by Ukraine’s military that are in short supply in the US include interceptor missiles, Patriot air defense systems, and artillery ammunition.

    The post Pentagon Paves Way To Reclaim Ukraine-Bound Arms To US Stockpiles appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Why Putin doesn’t want the war in Ukraine to end


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Eighty years after the U.S. Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki Are We on the Verge of Another Nuclear War?

    Eighty years ago, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are now nine nuclear-armed nations, many in military confrontation with one another. It is quite remarkable that there has not been another nuclear war. How can this be explained?

    Some say the absence of another nuclear war proves that nuclear “deterrence” is working, and to some extent, that is true. These nations are rightfully afraid of a nuclear conflagration that could obliterate their societies and even destroy all life on planet Earth.  With escalating military confrontations today – even the possibility of a World War – how long can “deterrence” work?

    “So Far, So Good…”

    “So far, so good” is probably the faintly hopeful refrain heard from many who feel helpless to undo the nuclear danger. This is reminiscent of the cartoon of the man falling from the top of a building. As he passes each descending floor, he proclaims, “So far, so good….”

    In reality, a fair amount of luck has helped humanity avert nuclear catastrophe until now. We came very close during the “Cuban Missile Crisis.” A political officer on a Russian submarine that was out of communication and uncertain if a nuclear war had already begun, called off a missile launch at the last minute. Another Russian military technician, suspicious of an errant radar reading that appeared to show incoming US missiles, called off another imminent nuclear strike. It could just as easily have gone the other way.

    Many experts worry that it will be an accidental nuclear launch that ends us. This is all the more concerning as Artificial Intelligence is applied to nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, decreasing the decision-making time to split seconds, and removing human oversight. What could go wrong?

    Never Again?

    2025 also marks eighty years from the end of World War II and the defeat of the German fascists by Russia, the United States, and the European Allies. Eighty years since Russian and US troops liberated thousands of skeletal prisoners from German concentration camps, much to the horror of the world, which reacted with calls of “Never Again!”

    But wait, don’t we have concentration camps now in the U.S.? Isn’t that why ICE now has a larger budget than any branch of the military, and larger than the entire current Federal prison system? They are building concentration camps for undocumented workers, whom they demonize as “murderers,” “rapists,” “gang members,” and “terrorists.” The vast majority of immigrants who have already been violently taken from their jobs and families, imprisoned and deported, have no criminal records whatsoever, and are productive, respected members of their communities.

    Authoritarianism with distinct overtones of white supremacy is on the rise once again, while craven European politicians clamor for war with Russia and more military spending. What could go wrong?

    Israel, purportedly a safe haven for the persecuted Jewish people – a “land without a people for a people without a land” – is escalating its blatant genocide in Gaza. The images of intentionally starved Palestinian men, women, and children conjure images of emaciated prisoners – mostly Jews – in World War II concentration camps.

    Israel Wages Genocide While Threatening Its Neighbors with Nuclear Weapons

    Israel is also a nuclear power, although it has long been considered impolite to say so. The United States helped Israel gain nuclear technology and has helped to shield Israel from any nuclear accountability. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its nuclear arsenal is not inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which the U.S. weaponized to support its rationale for war against Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The IAEA announced a resolution critical of Iran’s nuclear program on Thursday, June 12, the day before Israel’s attack on Iran. Coincidence? Probably not. Like so many other international bodies, the IAEA has been subverted to serve U.S. and Israeli war aims.

    Unlike Iran, Israel actually has nuclear weapons. Will they use them against Iran? The Israeli government of rightwing extremists has already shown us the depths of depravity they are willing to go. Furthermore, all their Arab neighbors know Israel is the only nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East.

    Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, reminded us that “Nuclear weapons are used every day. They are like a gun you point at somebody’s head.”

    Aside from “luck,” it has been nuclear arms treaties that have held nuclear war in check. In recent years, however, the U.S. has shredded most of these treaties and missed many opportunities for peace:

    • Reagan rejected President Gorbachev’s offer for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons if the U.S. would stop deployment of a “Star Wars” missile defense system in space.
    • President Clinton refused President Putin’s offer to cut our massive nuclear arsenals to 1,500 bombs and to call on all of the other nuclear-armed states to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons, in exchange for the US not placing missile sites in Romania.
    • President George W. Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put a missile base in Romania. President Trump placed another missile base in Poland.
    • President Bush in 2008 and President Obama in 2014 blocked any discussion of Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound UN Committee for Disarmament in Geneva.
    • President Obama rejected President Putin’s offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyber war.
    • President Trump pulled the US out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
    • President Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and placed sanctions on Iran.
    • From President Clinton through President Trump, the US has never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which Russia ratified.
      [Reference: Veterans For Peace Nuclear Posture Review.]

    Taken in their totality, these U.S. moves constitute an attempt to gain nuclear superiority, including the possibility of launching a first-strike nuclear attack. Pulling out of the ABM and INF treaties, in particular, indicates U.S. intentions to threaten Russia with nuclear war.

    Is it any wonder that Russia, faced with the prospect of the U.S./NATO troops and nuclear weapons systems stationed on its border with Ukraine, felt compelled to take military action? Now Russia is stuck in a bloody war that has been constantly escalated by the U.S., which has rejected multiple opportunities for peace talks since the war began. Russia asked for neutrality for Ukraine and respect for the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking populations. Over one million casualties later (both sides), the bloody trench-and-drone war drags on, not because of Russian intransigence, but because of the aggressive U.S. policy of “full-spectrum dominance” in every corner of the globe.

    Drone Attack on Russia’s Strategic Bombers Tempted Nuclear War

    On June 1 of this year, a U.S.-supported Ukrainian drone attack on nuclear bombers in Russia almost triggered a nuclear war. According to a Russian general who spoke with former CIA geopolitical analyst Larry Johnson, the world was even closer to nuclear war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russian bombers were openly visible on the tarmac, in accordance with the New START Treaty, which is designed to prevent a nuclear-first strike by either Russia or the U.S. This last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia is due to expire this coming February. But it has already been drone-bombed.

    News Flash! President Trump just posted on his Truth Social account that he is sending two nuclear-armed submarines closer to Russia. Why? Because he didn’t like something that Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev said on social media. What? Trump is scoring pissing points by playing with nuclear weapons? A narcissistic psychopath has his hand on the nuclear button. This is all the more reason to push for an end to the president’s sole authority to launch a nuclear war.

    To round out this bleak report, we must at least mention that the U.S. is planning for war against China. The United States is openly planning to wage a war against China – some say as soon as 2027. Why? Because China’s remarkable revolution from extreme poverty to becoming a prosperous global powerhouse is something that the U.S. ruling class (or “deep state”) will not accept. So China will not be attacked because of its military aggression. Even as the U.S. wages perpetual war on multiple countries, China has not been at war with anybody in this century. U.S. complaints about Taiwan are nothing more than an excuse, a trigger for the war that U.S. leaders are determined to wage, at all costs.

    The Pentagon Is Planning a Nuclear First-Strike Against China

    The Pentagon has figured out that it cannot win a conventional war against China, however. It is planning to use nuclear weapons – an overwhelming first strike or possibly only “tactical nuclear weapons,” those cute little guys that are several times more powerful than what was dropped on Hiroshima.

    U.S. war planners recently asked Australia and Japan to declare what military resources they will bring to bear in a war against China. And get this… The U.S. held talks with Japan, of all nations, to discuss how they will coordinate their efforts after a nuclear strike on China. Among the issues they discussed were how to manage public opinion after a nuclear war.

    So if you think I am pointing the finger at the U.S. as the “bad guy” who is mostly responsible for the prospect of a civilization-ending nuclear war, then you are reading correctly. To put it bluntly, the problem is U.S. imperialism. The waning U.S. empire, desperate to maintain and expand its hegemony, is the elephant in the room. It is buttressed by a very large and powerful Military Industrial Complex (MIC), the one that President Eisenhower warned us about – now on steroids. Ray McGovern of Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a former CIA analyst himself, has expanded the MIC acronym to MICIMATT (Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academia Think-Tanks). Yes, they are all complicit, not just with genocide in Palestine, but with militarizing and destroying the world. We peace-loving people have our work cut out for us. We are up against a lot.

    There is a lot of money to be made from war and militarism. And Politicians learn the advantages of justifying war and funding the war machine. The ever-growing Pentagon budget has ballooned to over One Trillion Dollars under Trump, money that will be redirected from the social security net that is being systematically shredded. Spending on nuclear weapons “modernization” alone will cost $100 billion in just the next year (from the budgets of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy).

    “The End Is Near”

    For decades, peace activists, scientists, and others have been warning us about the “growing danger of nuclear war.” Those sounding the nuclear alarm have been treated like the proverbial fanatic with the sign, “The End Is Near,” or like Chicken Little – “the sky is falling.” It is mostly by dumb luck, however, that we have not all perished in a nuclear Armageddon already. The guard rails have been removed, with the U.S. abrogation of nuclear arms deals. There are very few “adults in the room,” certainly not in the U.S., where Neocons who love Israel but hate Iran and Russia have seized the helm. It will take a miracle and a lot of activism to avoid utter disaster in the relatively near future.

    Many people are already experiencing disaster, what with wars, genocide, extreme poverty, starvation, and the climate crisis – the fruits of corporate greed and militarism. Many people also suffer from the poison of the entire nuclear cycle. There are 15,000 abandoned uranium mines in the western U.S., many of them on First Nations lands. Radiation contaminates the water, the air, the land, and the people, who suffer from many cancers and radiation-related diseases.

    The U.S. Exploded 67 Nuclear Bombs in the Marshall Islands

    Then there are the “downwinders” who suffer from the radiation of nuclear bomb testing. Or worse. The Marshall Islands were devastated by nuclear bomb testing. From 1946 to 1958, the U.S. detonated 67 nuclear bombs on this island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  To add insult to injury, their islands are now “sinking” from global warming and rising seas. Many Marshallese, unable to grow food on radiated land and unable to eat the fish from radiated waters, have been allowed to live in the U.S., without citizenship or security, and denied healthcare by many states. There is no cancer treatment facility in the Marshall Islands, and no VA facility for its many veterans of the U.S. military.

    We will end this disturbing nuclear tour on a positive note. It has to do with the Marshall Islands. In 1958, four Quaker peace activists bought a sailboat and announced to the world their intention to sail from Los Angeles 4,000 miles into the nuclear test zone in the Marshall Islands to stop U.S. nuclear testing. They were led by Albert Bigelow, a World War II Navy Commander who resigned his commission in protest of the U.S. nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The Golden Rule Crew Tried to Stop U.S. Nuclear Testing

    Halfway through the voyage, when Bigelow and his intrepid crew pulled into Honolulu, they were arrested and thrown in jail, and the Coast Guard seized their boat, named Golden Rule. They never made it to the Marshall Islands. Still, they succeeded in bringing worldwide attention to the danger of radiation that was floating all over the globe, even getting into mothers’ milk. Opposition to nuclear testing led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1962, signed by President Kennedy and the leaders of Russia and the UK. The treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, in the water, and in space. Only underground tests were permitted.  These days, most nuclear testing is done using computer simulations.

    The remarkable saga of the Golden Rule continued. The 34-foot ketch was sold and sailed as a pleasure boat by several families to the South Pacific and the Caribbean. Somehow, in 2010, it was found in Humboldt Bay in northern California – a derelict boat that had sunk in a gale and had a big hole in its side.  Some locals dragged the beat-up boat onto the beach and planned to make a bonfire of it. When someone discovered the boat’s legacy, however, local members of Veterans For Peace rescued it and decided to restore it to its original glory.

    In June of 2015, after five years of dedicated volunteer labor by veterans, Quakers, and boat lovers, the Golden Rule splashed back into the waters of Humboldt Bay and began sailing up and down the west coast from British Columbia to Mexico (Ensenada), then to Hawai’i and all around the Hawaiian islands. Back to California, trucked to Minneapolis, sailed down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, to Cuba, and up the East Coast to Toronto and back to Chicago, a 12-month voyage with a total of 102 port stops.  At every stop, the Golden Rule and its crew were welcomed excitedly by local peace and environmental activists as well as by state and local officials. Nobody wants a nuclear war!

    The Golden Rule Is Sailing Around San Francisco Bay

    The historic Golden Rule ­peace boat sailed last week from its homeport in Humboldt Bay to San Francisco Bay, where it will spend the month of August educating the public about the “growing danger of nuclear war,” and the importance of supporting the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The Treaty, supported by an overwhelming majority of countries, went into force in January 2021. It prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging, or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities.

    Peace at Home, Peace Abroad!

    The Golden Rule is a national project of Veterans For Peace, a 40-year-old organization dedicated to exposing the true costs of war, restraining our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations, and ridding the world of nuclear weapons. At its recent national convention, veterans from U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and recent deployments made a united call for opposition to the U.S.-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and for resistance to racist ICE attacks in our communities. While calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, the Golden Rule will be echoing these urgent cries for “Peace at Home, Peace Abroad.”

    The post Eighty years after the U.S. Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki Are We on the Verge of Another Nuclear War? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Farming Under Fire: Russian Drones Strike Watermelon Fields In Ukraine


    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.

  • US, UK In Secret Talks With Ukrainian Officials To ‘Replace Zelensky’

    Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has revealed that US and British officials recently held a meeting in the Alps with top Ukrainian officials to discuss “replacing” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    According to a statement made available to TASS, the meeting involved Andrey Yermak, head of the Ukrainian president’s office, Kirill Budanov, chief of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s Main Directorate of Intelligence, and Valery Zaluzhny, the country’s ex-commander-in-chief who is now Ukraine’s ambassador to London..

    “The Americans and the British announced their decision to propose Zaluzhny to the Ukrainian presidency.

    The post US, UK In Secret Talks With Ukrainian Officials To ‘Replace Zelensky’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Veterans And Allies Come Together At A Critical Moment In History

    After six years apart due to the COVID-19 pandemic, military veterans and peace activists from around the world will gather in-person once again for the Veterans For Peace National Convention, held July 24–27, 2025, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).

    The hybrid event also offers virtual access for attendees worldwide.

    Veterans For Peace, a national organization of former service members committed to ending war and militarism, will host workshops, speakers, and strategy sessions focused on peacebuilding, climate justice, and veterans’ advocacy—including issues like demilitarizing police, returning deported veterans, confronting mass deportation, and ending U.S. involvement in Gaza and Ukraine.

    The post Veterans And Allies Come Together At A Critical Moment In History appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Struggle for Power in Ukraine Has Begun

    The failure of diplomatic attempts to reach peace agreements in Ukraine amid increased military support from the USA and the EU has led to a major reshuffle in the government. The large-scale reshuffle is taking place against the background of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine with vague prospects for its cessation. Volodymyr Zelensky, fearing failure in future presidential and parliamentary elections, is making active efforts to clean up the political field and discredit possible rivals for the post of the Ukrainian president.

    Thus, on July 16, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky nominated Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko as the new prime minister with a simultaneous reshuffling of the majority of cabinet members1

    As a result of the mass reshuffle, Ukraine’s military industry will be placed under the leadership of the Defense Ministry, which will be headed by former Prime Minister Denys Shmygal, who has held this position since March 4, 2020. Under pressure from Zelenskyy and the head of the Ukrainian president’s office, Andriy Yermak, Denys Shmygal was forced to tender his resignation on July 15, 2025. The Ukrainian parliament voted for the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmygal on 16 July 2025.

    Topnews in UA

    The decision to dismiss Shmygal, 49, was supported by 261 MPs, while the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine was also dissolved during the government reshuffle.

    resignation letter of Prime Minister

    In mid-July, Zelenskyy also said that he was considering acting Defense Minister Rustem Umerov as Ukraine’s ambassador to the USA. Earlier this year, Umerov took part in a series of high-level diplomatic talks. Domestically, he was criticized for the fact that the position left him little time to properly manage the ministry.

    Yuliya Sviridenko, nominated by Zelensky for the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine, was born on December 25, 1985 in the city of Chernihiv. Until 2019, she worked in various positions in the administration of Chernihiv region, in 2019 she was appointed Deputy Minister of Economy of Ukraine, since 2020 she was deputy head of the office of the President of Ukraine, headed by Andriy Yermak. She is a member of the pro-presidential Servant of the People party.

    Yuliya Sviridenko

    According to Zelenskyy, the appointment of Yuliya Sviridenko as the new prime minister is based on her extensive experience in supporting Ukrainian industry and the urgent need to attract foreign funding for Ukraine’s military needs. Sviridenko gained influence thanks to the support of the head of the president’s office, Yermak, and her work with the USA, where she played a key role in signing an agreement with the USA on rare earth minerals in May 2025.

    Ukraine's parliament

    Next year, Ukraine will face the difficult task of financing its growing budget deficit amid cuts in foreign aid. The Ukrainian Finance Ministry estimates that the country’s financing needs from the US and the EU for 2026 amount to 40bn dollars.

    According to Sergiy Marchenko – Minister of Finance of Ukraine, now the government does not know where to find these funds in case of a decrease in funding from the European Union and international funds. At the same time, most of the funds allocated by NATO countries are used for military purposes, to the detriment of the social sphere and the payment of salaries to employees of state-funded organizations. In mid-July, the Ukrainian parliament supported a bill on amending the 2025 budget, which envisages an increase in defense spending by 412 billion hryvnyas ($10 billion) this year.

    Meanwhile, Russia has started signaling its desire for a third round of talks with Ukraine after US President Donald Trump said that the USA would supply Ukraine with more long-range weapons through NATO members. Trump also warned that if Russia did not agree to a ceasefire within 50 days, Washington would impose 500% duties on the country’s goods.

    These circumstances against the background of widespread corruption, forced mobilization, deterioration of the social status of Ukrainian citizens, illegitimacy of the country’s leadership and disregard for the norms of national and international law contribute to the intensification of the internal political struggle for the future posts of the President and members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

    Minister of Finance of Ukraine

    Strange as it may seem, the first place in this internal political struggle is occupied by Andriy Yermak, the head of the Ukrainian president’s office and the shadow leader of Ukraine. Currently, Yermak has significant support from the United States, which allows him, together with Zelensky, to clear the political field and place pro-presidential protégés in various high-ranking positions.

    Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine were to be held in March and July 2024. However, due to another extension of martial law in May this year, these procedures have not been carried out.

    Zelenskyy’s powers as president ended on May 21, 2024. At the same time, the decision of the Parliament of Ukraine – the Verkhovna Rada – to extend his powers in accordance with the national law No. 389-VIII dd. 12.05.2015 “On the legal regime of martial law” is also illegitimate, as Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of extending presidential powers. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the presidential term is 5 years and the President of Ukraine even under martial law has no right to extend his powers. Only the Parliament has the right to extend the powers. Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine also stipulates that the next presidential election is held on the last Sunday of the fifth year of the president’s term of office. In the event of early termination of the powers of the President of Ukraine, elections are held within ninety days from the date of termination of his powers

    According to the Ukrainian constitution, the prime minister’s candidacy should be proposed to the president by the parliamentary majority faction (currently, it is the pro-presidential Servant of the People party). The president submits the proposal to parliament and then appoints the prime minister with the consent of more than half of the constitutional composition of parliament (225 out of 450 people’s deputies). Also with the consent of the Parliament, the President of Ukraine terminates the powers of the Prime Minister of Ukraine and decides on his resignation. Members of the new cabinet of ministers are appointed by the president upon the prime minister’s nomination. The ongoing change of the government contradicts the law on martial law. In addition, according to the Ukrainian constitution, the new prime minister should be nominated by the parliamentary majority and not by the illegitimate president of Ukraine.

    Zelenskyy

    Many Ukrainian and international lawyers note that under national laws and international law, any agreements and legal acts signed and introduced by Zelenskyy into parliament after May 20, 2024 are effectively illegitimate, contradict Ukrainian legislation and can be canceled or easily legally challenged. In this regard, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to appoint Yuliya Sviridenko as prime minister also contradicts the current Ukrainian legislation and norms of international law.

    As for the parliamentary elections in Ukraine, they were held on July 21, 2019, the deputies were elected for a term of 5 years and their powers ended in July 2024. However, due to the current legislation and the imposed martial law, the powers of the deputies of the Parliament are extended until its end. According to Article 20 of the Electoral Code of Ukraine No. 396-IX of December 19, 2019, the electoral process for elections to the Parliament of Ukraine should begin within a month after the lifting of martial law. Therefore, in fact, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of Parliament, has been the legal head of Ukraine since May 21, 2024.

    For this reason, Zelensky’s decisions to extend martial law, appoint a new prime minister, Yuriy Sviridenko, reshuffle other members of the Ukrainian government, sign an agreement with the United States on rare earth minerals and transfer the port of Odessa to American companies are legally unauthorized and can be easily overturned both in Ukrainian legal proceedings and in international arbitration courts.

    Realizing this legal precedent-casus, the leadership of the United States of America and a number of EU countries, primarily Great Britain, France and Germany, in cooperation with the Ukrainian side, are currently trying to develop a legal mechanism to give legitimacy to the legal acts already adopted by Mr. Zelensky, as well as to the future presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine, since the elections held after the end of martial law in Ukraine do not fall under any provision of the current constitution.

    To this end, at the end of June 2025, the Chairman of the Parliament Ruslan Stefanchuk announced the preparation of a law on post-war elections, which is scheduled to be considered at the next sessions of the Ukrainian Parliament. Although Ruslan Stefanchuk himself notes that the said law will also be illegitimate if martial law is lifted in the country.

    Against this background, the internal political struggle between various parties and candidates for the post of the future president of Ukraine is intensifying. The main direction of this interaction is the development of a normatively grounded strategy for future presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine. Allies of Volodymyr Zelensky from Great Britain and the USA announcing continuation of his support and new deliveries of weapons paid for by them realize that without interference in pre-election processes and vote counting procedure it is difficult to predict the results of future elections. That is why Volodymyr Zelensky has now started an active reshuffle of the government and clearing the political field of possible competitors in the upcoming elections.

    The Economist previously wrote about the fact that the USA and EU countries are negotiating with Ukraine to start election processes after the ceasefire at the end of 2025 7 . However, in order to hold elections in Ukraine, martial law, which the authorities imposed on February 24, 2022 and extend every three months, must cease to be in force. The sixteenth extension for 90 days will come into force on August 7, 2025.

    The Ukrainian mass media name Valeriy Zaluzhnyy, a former commander-in- chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who is currently ambassador to the UK, as Zelenskyy’s main rival.

    From November 2024 to the end of June 2025 a number of sociological centers (KIIS – Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, SOCIS – Ukrainian Center for Sociological Studies) and the EU (Statista – German Statistical Data Center from February 5-11, 2025, June 6-11, 2025, Survation – English Polling and Marketing Research Agency from February 25-27, 2025) conducted opinion polls on the topic of presidential elections in Ukraine in order to determine the trust rating of Ukrainian citizens. According to the results of opinion polls as of the end of June 2025, more than 65.3% of respondents support holding presidential elections at the end of 2025.

    According to the results of the conducted research, as of the end of June 2025, out of 14 possible candidates for the post of the future president of Ukraine, the highest results were shown by: V.Zelensky, V.Zaluzhny, P.Poroshenko, Y.Tymoshenko. If V.Zaluzhny and V.Zelensky make it to the second round of voting and there are no violations at the elections, the population of Ukraine will give preference to V.Zaluzhny. The candidacy of Andriy Yermak, the head of the Ukrainian president’s office, is also being considered as a gray cardinal and a dark horse. A number of experts do not rule out that if the USA agrees to support his candidacy as the future president of Ukraine, Yermak is capable of making efforts to physically remove Zelenskyy, for example, due to a sharp deterioration of his health, as was the case with the poisoning of the wife of Kyrylo Budanov, head of the main intelligence department of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry.

    Against this background, many Ukrainian experts expect a large number of violations, scandals and kompromat at the future presidential election in Ukraine, as well as possible influence on the pre-election processes by the US, UK, Germany and France.

    While the Ukrainian people are eagerly awaiting the resolution of the conflict, members of the Ukrainian parliament continue to scuffle. Thus, on July 16, 2025, on the eve of the vote on the appointment of the new Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yuriy Sviridenko, MPs Oleksiy Honcharenko and Danylo Hetmantsev had another scuffle on the rostrum during the regular session.

    The post The Struggle for Power in Ukraine Has Begun first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Deadly Ukraine Drone Attack Hits Sochi, Southern Russia


    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.

  • What Deadly Drone Warfare Between Ukraine And Russia Looks Like Right Now


    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.

  • Trump’s Latin American Policies Go South

    With the Trump imperium passing the half-year mark, the posture of the US empire is ever clearer. Whether animated by “America First” or globalism, the objective remains “full spectrum dominance.” And now with the neocon capture of the Democrats, there are no guardrails from the so-called opposition party.

    Call it the “new cold war,” the “beginning of World War III,” or – in Trump’s words – “endless war,” this is the era that the world has entered. The US/Zionist war against Iran has paused, but no one has any illusions that it is over. And it won’t likely be resolved until one side decisively and totally prevails. Ditto for the proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Likely the same with Palestine, where the barbarity of war worsened to genocide. Meanwhile, since Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” the empire is building up for war with China.

    In Latin America and the Caribbean, the empire’s war on the world assumes a hybrid form. The carnage is less apparent because the weapons take the form of “soft power” – sanctions, tariffs, and deportations. These can have the same lethal consequences as bombs, only less overt.

    Making the world unsafe for socialism

    Some Western leftists vilify the defensive measures that Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua must take to protect themselves from the empire’s regime-change schemes. In contrast, Washington clearly understands that these countries pose “threats of a good example” to the empire. Each subsequent US president, from Obama on, has certified them as “extraordinary threats to US national security.” Accordingly, they are targeted with the harshest coercive measures.

    In this war of attrition, historian Isaac Saney uses the example of Cuba to show how any misstep by the revolutionary government or societal deficiency is exaggerated and weaponized. The empire’s siege, he explains, is not merely an attempt to destabilize the economy but is a deliberate strategy of suffocation. The empire aims to instigate internal discontent, distort people’s perception of the government, and ultimately erode social gains.

    While Cuba is affected the worst by the hybrid war, both Venezuela and Nicaragua have also been damaged. All three countries have seen the “humanitarian parole” for their migrants in the US come to an end. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was also withdrawn for Venezuelans and Nicaraguans. The strain of returning migrants, along with cuts in the remittances they had sent (amounting to a quarter of Nicaragua’s GDP), further impacts their respective economies.

    Higher-than-average tariffs are threatened on Venezuelan and Nicaraguan exports to the US, together with severe restrictions on Caracas’s oil exports. Meanwhile, the screws have been tightened on the six-decade US blockade of Cuba with disastrous humanitarian consequences.

    However, all three countries are fighting back. They are forming new trade alliances with China and elsewhere. Providing relief to Cuba, Mexico has supplied oil, and China is installing solar panel farms to address the now-daily power outages. High levels of food security in Venezuela and Nicaragua have strengthened their ability to resist US sanctions, while Caracas successfully defeated one of Washington’s harshest migration measures by securing the release of 252 of its citizens who had been incarcerated in El Salvador’s torturous CECOT prison.

    Venezuela’s US-backed far-right opposition is in disarray. The first Trump administration had recognized the “interim presidency” of Juan Guaidó, followed by the Biden administration declaring Edmundo González the winner of Venezuela’s last presidential election. But the current Trump administration has yet to back González, de facto recognizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    Nicaragua’s right-wing opposition is also reeling from a side-effect of Trump’s harsh treatment of migrants – many are returning voluntarily to a country claimed by the opposition to be “unsafe,” while US Homeland Security has even extolled their home country’s recent achievements. And some of Trump’s prominent Cuban-American supporters are now questioning his “maximum pressure” campaign for going too far.

    Troubled waters for the Pink Tide

    The current progressive wave, the so-called Pink Tide, was initiated by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s landslide victory in 2018. His MORENA Party successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, won by an even greater margin in 2024. Mexico’s first woman president has proven to be perhaps the world’s most dignified and capable sparring partner with the buffoon in the White House, who has threatened tariffs, deportations, military interdictions, and more on his southern neighbor.

    Left-leaning presidents Gabriel Boric in Chile and Gustavo Petro in Colombia are limited to a single term. Both have faced opposition-aligned legislatures and deep-rooted reactionary power blocs. Chilean Communist Party candidate Jeanette Jara is favored to advance to the second-round presidential election in November 2025, but will face a challenging final round if the right unifies, as is likely, around an extremist candidate.

    As the first non-rightist in Colombia’s history, Petro has had a tumultuous presidential tenure. He credibly accuses his former foreign minister of colluding with the US to overthrow him. However, the presidency could well revert to the right in the May 2026 elections.

    Boric, Petro, Uruguay’s Yamandú Orsi, and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met in July as the region’s center-left presidents, with an agenda of dealing with Trump, promoting multilateralism, and (we can assume) keeping their distance from the region’s more left-wing governments.

    With shaky popularity ratings, Lula will likely run for reelection in October 2026. As head of the region’s largest economy, Lula plays a world leadership role, chairing three global summits in a year. Yet, with less than a majority legislative backing, Lula has triangulated between Washington and the Global South, often capitulating to US interests (as in his veto of BRICS membership for Nicaragua and Venezuela). Regardless, Trump is threatening Brazil with a crippling 50% export tariff and is blatantly interfering in the trial of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, accused of insurrection. So far, Trump’s actions have backfired, arousing anger among Brazilians. Lula commented that Trump was “not elected to be emperor of the world.”

    In 2021, Honduran President Xiomara Castro took over a narcostate subservient to Washington and has tried to push the envelope to the left. Being constitutionally restricted to one term, Castro hands the Libre party candidacy in November’s election to former defense minister Rixi Moncada, who faces a tough contest with persistent US interference.

    Bolivia’s ruling Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) Party is embroiled in a self-destructive internal conflict between former President Evo Morales and his former protégé and current President, Luis Arce. The energized Bolivian right wing is spoiling for the August 17th presidential election.

    Israeli infiltration accompanies US military penetration

    Analyst Joe Emersberger notes: “Today, all geopolitics relates back to Gaza where the imperial order has been unmasked like never before.” Defying Washington, the Hague Group met in Colombia for an emergency summit on Gaza to “take collective action grounded in international law.” On July 16, regional states – Bolivia, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – endorsed the pledge to take measures in support of Palestine, with others likely to follow. Brazil will join South Africa’s ICJ complaint against Israel.

    At the other end of the political spectrum are self-described “world’s coolest dictator” Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and confederates Javier Milei of Argentina and Daniel Noboa of Ecuador. As well as cozying up to Trump, they devotedly support Israel, which has been instrumental in enabling the most brutal reactionaries in the region. Noboa duly tells Israel’s Netanyahu that they “share the same enemies.”

    In February, the US Southern Command warned: “Time is not on our side.” The perceived danger is “methodical incursion” into our “neighborhood” by both Russia and China. Indeed, China has become the region’s second-largest trading partner after the US, and even right-wing governments are reluctant to jeopardize their relations with Beijing. The empire’s solution is to “redouble our efforts to nest military engagement,” using humanitarian assistance as “an essential soft power tool.”

    Picking up where Biden left off, Trump has furthered US military penetration, notably in Ecuador, Guyana, Brazil, Panama, and Argentina. The pandemic of narcotics trafficking, itself a product of US-induced demand, has been a Trojan Horse for militarist US intervention in Haiti, Ecuador, Peru, and threatened in Mexico.

    In Panama, President José Mulino’s obeisance to Trump’s ambitions to control the Panama Canal and reduce China’s influence provoked massive protests. Trump’s collaboration in the genocide of Palestinians motivated Petro to declare that Colombia must leave the NATO alliance and keep its distance from “militaries that drop bombs on children.” Colombia had been collaborating with NATO since 2013 and became the only Latin American global partner in 2017.

    Despite Trump’s bluster – what the Financial Times calls “imperial incontinence” – his administration has produced mixed results. While rightist political movements have basked in Trump’s fitful praise, his escalating coercion provokes resentment against Yankee influence. Resistance is growing, with new alliances bypassing Washington. As the empire’s grip tightens, so too does the resolve of those determined to break free from it.

    The post Trump’s Latin American Policies Go South first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Russia Launches Wave Of Overnight Strikes On Kyiv, Ukraine


    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.

  • Congress to Consider Bills That Would Gut Oversight of US Arms Sales

    As early as next Tuesday, Congress will vote on two bills that will make it easier for the U.S. government and U.S. arms makers to push weapons out the door to foreign clients more quickly, with less time for congressional scrutiny, and, in some cases, with Congress not even being informed that the sales are happening. At a time when arms sales are a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Battle Over Zelenski’s Fate Is Still In Balance

    An intense information operation has been launched to remove Ukraine’s (former) President Vladimir Zelenski from office. Behind it are a cabal of Ukrainian opposition figures in coordination which western media and parts of the Trump administration.

    The current campaign follows a earlier one which was directed against Zelenski’s main advisor and head of the office of the president Andrei Yermak. The once little-known lawyer and B-movie producer — now in the thick of triangular peace diplomacy with the Americans and Russians — is always reverently loyal to his boss. In an interview with POLITICO last year, he referred to him glowingly as the “president of the people.” What else could he say? Yermak has ridden Zelenskyy’s coattails to become the second-most-powerful figure in Ukraine — even a co-equal.

    The post The Battle Over Zelenski’s Fate Is Still In Balance appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Medvedev Condemns Western ‘Treachery’

    Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev warned on 17 July that Moscow must be prepared to deliver preemptive strikes against the west if necessary.

    Speaking to TASS on the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Conference, Medvedev said, “The west’s treacherous nature and its warped sense of superiority are still evident. And we should therefore act accordingly, responding in full or even delivering preemptive strikes if need be.”

    Reflecting on the historical lessons of 1945, Medvedev added that the conference – attended by the leaders of the USSR, US, and UK after their victory in World War II – revealed that relations with the west must not be based on illusions.

    The post Medvedev Condemns Western ‘Treachery’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Trump’s 50-Day Deadline Threat Against Putin Will Backfire

    In the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his love for three things: deals, tariffs, and ultimatums.

    He got to combine these passions during his Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday. Only moments after the two leaders announced a new plan to get military aid to Ukraine, Trump issued an ominous 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. “We’re going to be doing secondary tariffs if we don’t have a deal within 50 days,” Trump told the assembled reporters.

    The threat is unlikely to change Putin’s calculus, however, or bring the conflict to a near-term conclusion.

    The post Trump’s 50-Day Deadline Threat Against Putin Will Backfire appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.