If French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit with President Donald Trump White House on Monday was a pop quiz about the United States’ longstanding geopolitical interests in Europe, Trump would have flunked the portion on Russia’s war on Ukraine. As Macron stressed that peace in Ukraine must not mean surrender to Russian invaders, Trump repeated his false claim that the U.S. spent $350 billion…
Three years into the 2022 Ukraine war, European leaders have unveiled yet another round of sanctions against Russia, its allies, and companies that engage with them—but continue to reject options that might actually bring an end to the conflict. This latest package in the EU’s ongoing effort to stun Russia targets not just Russian individuals and enterprises, but also officials in the Korean People’s Army and Chinese companies.
European officials insist these sanctions are working, weakening Russia’s military capabilities. “Today’s decision maintains pressure on the Russian military and defense by listing several industry companies manufacturing weapons, ammunition, and other military equipment and technologies,” the Council of the EU stated.
The Donald Trump administration is holding talks between the United States and Russia, and he says he wants to end the war in Ukraine.
Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio has even proposed that the US could “partner with the Russians, geopolitically”.
What is happening here? The simple answer is that this is all about China.
Trump is trying to divide Russia from China, in an attempt to isolate Beijing.
The United States sees China as the number one threat to its global dominance. This has been stated clearly by top officials in both the Trump administration and the previous Joe Biden administration.
The last few years have seen Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s invasion of Gaza. Both invading forces stand accused of war crimes, and the costs in terms of human lives and spending have been enormous. While neither conflict is settling in a fashion which is equitable for the invaded parties, it does seem like both conflicts are coming to a close. Strange, then, that the British political and media class – specifically the BBC – have chosen this moment to tell us that now is the time to increase our ‘defence’ spending:
"The Conservatives had 14 years, they hollowed out our defence forces"
In other words, defence contractors have gotten used to the extra income they made from arming Ukraine and Israel, and they don’t want the gravy train to end.
The BBC bubble
On Sunday 23 February, Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Labour Party education secretary Bridget Phillipson. The fact that Kuenssberg questioned Phillipson on defence spending and the armed forces rather than education tells you a lot about the ideology of the psychopaths at our national broadcaster. It’s important to understand, though, that while some described this exchange as a ‘grilling’, what’s far more disturbing is how closely aligned the BBC and Labour are:
Brigitte Phillipson very impressive on Sky & BBC, holding her cool under some fair grilling on the one channel & some really quite aggressive stuff on the other. She stood up really well to provocation in both cases. Can't remember Kuenssberg going after Tories with that gusto.
— @johnandi#FBPE#GTTO#LetsTryUBI#FollowBackFriday (@johnandi) February 23, 2025
And many of, people who work in this world, many of your political rivals, other people even like the boss of NATO, would say it’s also urgent that countries like Britain right now commit to spend more money, potentially a lot more money on defence.
Russia is preparing for long-term confrontation, with Ukraine and with us. We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years… It is time to shift to a wartime mindset, and turbocharge our defence production and defence spending.
the true number of Russian military deaths could range from 146,194 to 211,169. If one adds estimated losses from DPR and LPR forces, the total number of Russian-aligned fatalities may range from 167,194 to 234,669.
This means Russia has probably lost something like 10% of its ‘Russian-aligned’ fighting forces. And that’s not to mention the financial cost, with Reuters reporting US claims in February 2024 that:
Russia has probably spent up to $211 billion in equipping, deploying and maintaining its troops for operations in Ukraine and Moscow has lost more than $10 billion in canceled or postponed arms sales
It’s worth noting that despite the above, recent reports show that Russia’s economy has been more resilient than some analysts initially predicted. It’s also worth noting that these human and financial costs are the result of Russia engaging a singular enemy. Now let’s have a look at NATO.
Spread across its 32 member countries, NATO has around twice as many military personnel as Russia. Importantly, it also has more than five times as many aircraft.
Now let’s look back at what NATO boss Mark Rutte had to say:
We are not ready for what is coming our way in four to five years
We aren’t?
Because it looks like we’re more than ready. Unless you know something we don’t, like perhaps every Russian soldier will gain the ability to split into two like amoeba.
But forgetting all that, there’s also the glowing-green megaton elephant in the room that nobody seems to be talking about.
Nuclear NATO
Is everyone forgetting what the word ‘deterrent’ means in ‘nuclear deterrent’? Because our understanding is that we have a nuclear deterrent to deter other nuclear powers from going to war with us. And we know we’re not imagining that, because this is what the UK government has to say:
The purpose of nuclear deterrence is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression. Potential aggressors know that the costs of attacking the UK, or our NATO allies, could far outweigh any benefit they could hope to achieve. This deters states from using their nuclear weapons against us or carrying out the most extreme threats to our national security.
That’s weird, because over the past few years there have been many instances of British military bigwigs telling us that war with Russia is possible, such as general Roly Walker in 2024:
So what’s going on here?
Is the British military going rogue, and announcing to Russia and the rest of the world that we will forego using our nuclear deterrent for no apparent gain?
Or are military bigwigs like Mark Rutte and Roly Walker simply exaggerating the threats we face to secure more funding?
We’d lean towards the latter, because exaggerating the threats we face to secure more funding is literally the job of every military boss – at least it is under the Western neoliberal order, anyway.
The high offices of the police, the medical profession and the universities have fallen under ever more scrutiny and suspicion in recent years, but the media has largely ignored the Ministry of Defence. If the former naval officer Lewis Page has his way, all this is set to change.
The formal naval officer did not have his way unfortunately, and military bigwigs are still able to spew nonsense unchecked in the establishment safe space that is the British media.
the defence secretary has also been clear that alongside increased spending, there has to be better spending. There is far too much waste, poor procurement, and bad decisions that are being made. So alongside extra investment, there has to be that programme of reform that John Healy, the defence secretary, has set out.
So Labour’s plan is to increase military spending while cutting down on military waste. It’s hard to see how they’ll achieve this given that most military spending is waste by design, whether it be preparing for a land war with Russia we’ll never have or this long, long list of failed projects published by Declassified.
Another important thing to remember is that we don’t simply exaggerate the threats we face; we also create new ones, and then we waste more money ‘countering’ them.
The axis of defence spending opportunities
In 2022, NPR published a piece giving some context to the shifting relationship between NATO and Russia. It reported in the piece:
The question: Should NATO, the mutual defense pact formed in the wake of World War II that has long served to represent Western interests and counter Russia’s influence in Europe, expand eastward?
NATO’s founding articles declare that any European country that is able to meet the alliance’s criteria for membership can join. This includes Ukraine. The U.S. and its allies in Europe have repeatedly said they are committed to that “open-door” policy.
But in the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO’s eastward march represents decades of broken promises from the West to Moscow.
“You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly,” Putin said at a news conference in December.
The article carried a map showing the members who joined before 1992 and those who joined after:
The military industrial complex, Labour, and the BBC
In his 1961 farewell address, US president Dwight Eisenhower warned of the “military-industrial complex”. As he described it, this was a system in which the arms industry and political sphere became so entwined that they pursued war solely for their mutual enrichment. Sadly, this is the world we all now inhabit. It’s why president Joe Biden and his NATO allies turned down peace talks with Russia; it’s also why this same group refused to use their influence to stop Israel committing a genocide.
The total acceptance of military-industrial complex dogma is beyond apparent in the interview between Kuenssberg and Phillipson. Ignore the fact that our military ambitions only seem to make the world more dangerous – war is profit, and profit is the only thing that matters in the neoliberal world order:
Cutting disability benefits here, to spend on bombs to make people disabled in other countries, is depraved#Kuenssberg#bbclaurak
TAIPEI, Taiwan – A North Korean soldier captured in Russia’s Kursk region has reportedly expressed his desire to defect to South Korea, which has said it would accept him.
Legally, South Korea recognizes all North Koreans as citizens under its constitution. This means that any North Korean, including a prisoner of war, or POW, is entitled to South Korean nationality upon arrival.
However, the process is not as straightforward as simply crossing the border.
What would be the process?
Since the North Korean prisoner is in Ukraine, his transfer to South Korea would require diplomatic negotiations between Ukraine and South Korea. If Ukraine agrees to facilitate his departure, he could be transferred either through a third country or directly to South Korea. The South Korean government may also work with international organizations to ensure a smooth and legally compliant transfer.
Once in South Korea, the man, like all other North Koreans coming to the South, would undergo a vetting process by South Korea’s main spy agency, the National Intelligence Service.
He would first be taken to a secure facility, where intelligence officials would assess his background, potential security threats, and any valuable information he might have. This process can take several weeks or even months. If he is deemed to have no ill intent, he would be transferred to Hanawon, a resettlement center for North Korean defectors, where he would undergo training to adapt to South Korean society.
After this period, he would be integrated into South Korean society with government support, including financial assistance and job training.
An undated photo on Jan. 11, 2025 from the Telegram account of V_Zelenskiy_official shows an alleged soldier presented as North Korean detained by Ukrainian authorities at an undisclosed location in Ukraine, following his capture by the Ukrainian army. Part of the photo has been blurred by RFA.(V_Zelenskiy_official/Telegram/AFP)
Have there been similar cases?
There have been instances of captured North Korean soldiers defecting to South Korea, though such cases have been rare in recent years.
Historically, North Koreans captured during the Korean War had the choice to stay in South Korea, return to the North, or relocate to a third country. Many chose to remain in South Korea, while some resettled in other places such as Taiwan and the United States.
Beyond POWs, several high-profile North Koreans have defected to South Korea, including senior military officers, diplomats, and even a member of Kim Jong Un’s family.
Notable figures include Hwang Jang Yop in 1997, the highest-ranking North Korean official to defect, who was the architect of the North’s Juche ideology of self-reliance, and Thae Yong Ho in 2016, a former North Korean diplomat in the U.K. who defected to South Korea, later becoming a National Assembly member.
Kim Kuk Song, a senior North Korean intelligence officer who defected to the South in 2021, provided valuable insights into Pyongyang’s covert operations.
What happens if he arrives in South Korea?
While the South Korean government provides defectors with various forms of support for settlement, including financial aid, housing and job training, many struggle to adapt due to cultural differences, social discrimination, and economic hardship.
According to media reports, defectors often face difficulties finding stable employment and integrating into South Korean society, as they usually lack the necessary skills and networks to compete in the job market.
People lining up at a job fair for North Korean defectors in Seoul on Dec. 1, 2023.(Anthony Wallace/AFP)
Additionally, mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, are common due to the harsh conditions they endured in North Korea and during their escape.
Discrimination against North Korean defectors remains a significant issue in South Korea as well. Many South Koreans view defectors with skepticism, sometimes perceiving them as outsiders or even possible spies.
This prejudice makes it difficult for defectors to form social connections, find good jobs or be fully accepted in mainstream South Korean life.
Some defectors report being openly stigmatized in workplaces, schools, and even within their communities. The South Korean government has made efforts to address this discrimination through awareness campaigns and policy initiatives, but challenges persist.
How could South Korea use the POW for propaganda?
The prisoner’s background as a soldier sent to Russia makes him a unique case, and his defection could provide South Korea with intelligence on North Korea’s military cooperation with Russia, making him a valuable propaganda tool.
Historically, South Korea has leveraged high-profile defectors for propaganda purposes. When Hwang Jang Yop defected, he was frequently used to criticize the North Korean regime.
Likewise, Thae Yong Ho has been a vocal critic of Kim Jong Un’s leadership and has appeared on South Korean media and in political settings.
A portrait of deceased North Korean defector Hwang Jang Yop is hung on balloons as former North Korean defectors and anti-North Korean activists prepare to release them towards the North, near the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas in Paju, north of Seoul, Oct. 10, 2011.(Jo Yong-hak/Reuters)
The North Korean prisoner could be used to highlight North Korea’s human rights abuses, poor conditions within its military and any questions over the loyalty of its soldiers.
His testimony could be used in media campaigns, diplomatic discussions, and international forums to highlight North Korea’s involvement in Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Psychological warfare tactics, such as loudspeaker broadcasts at the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas or targeted online messaging, could spread his story.
He could also be encouraged to join human rights organizations, raising awareness of Pyongyang’s policies.
North Korea and Russia have not officially acknowledged that North Korean soldiers have been sent to fight in Ukraine. If North Korea refuses to recognize this, it may simply dismiss the defector’s case as South Korean propaganda. Pyongyang could claim that Seoul is spreading false information to undermine it, a tactic it has used in the past when high-profile defectors have revealed sensitive information.
If North Korea chooses to respond, it could label the POW a criminal or traitor, claiming he was abducted or coerced into defecting by South Korea. This has been North Korea’s standard approach to high-profile defectors.
For example, North Korea accused Thae Yong Ho of embezzlement and child molestation – charges widely believed to be fabricated. Similarly, Shin Dong Hyuk, a well-known defector who exposed North Korea’s brutal prison camps, was accused of being a liar and traitor, in an attempt to discredit him.
If the defecting prisoner had sensitive military information, North Korea might take drastic measures, such as increasing border security to prevent future defections or punishing the defector’s relatives who remain in the North. In extreme cases, North Korea has even carried out assassination attempts against high-profile defectors abroad, as was the case with Kim Jong Nam, the half-brother of Kim Jong Un, killed by exposure to a nerve agent in Malaysia in 2017.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
Europe should not hesitate to put pressure on the US if it fails to fall in line with “liberal democracies,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Friday. The diplomat made the remark following talks between the US and Russia that excluded representatives from the EU and Ukraine.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Potsdam on Friday, the Green politician stated, “We’re increasing pressure on the Americans [so they know] they have a lot to lose if they don’t stand on the side of Europe’s liberal democracies.”
With respect to EU-US relations, Baerbock warned against drawing any precipitous conclusions, remarking that “nothing has been decided there.”
“No one can decide about war and peace for the Ukrainians or us Europeans, and this is the clear German stance,” she insisted. Baerbock also warned against forcing Kiev into a “phony peace” or “capitulation,” which she said would only invite further “war and violence.”
A rift has opened up between Washington and Brussels since US President Donald Trump took office last month. Trump has taken a tougher stance on trade with the EU by threatening tariffs and demanded that its European-NATO partners boost spending on collective defense.
Addressing Munich Security Conference attendees last Friday, US Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a sobering speech to Europe’s political elites, suggesting that the biggest threat the continent is facing is one coming from within – the erosion of democracy.
“In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” the official stated, concluding that “if you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.”
The speech sent shockwaves across governments, with leaders, including Germany’s Olaf Scholz, scrambling to rebuke Vance’s assertions.
The fallout was further highlighted when Washington and Moscow held high-level talks in Saudi Arabia this week without bothering to invite EU representatives. This perceived slight prompted an outpouring of anguish and indignation on the continent.
Trump blasted Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky this week, branding him a dictator without elections, but a number of European leaders have rejected the US president’s assertion that he lacks legitimacy.
In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Trump said he sees no point in having Zelensky involved in peace talks with Russia. He also insisted that French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer “haven’t done anything” to put an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine for the three years since it started.
Tuesday’s talks (not yet ‘negotiations’) between the Foreign Ministers of the United States and the Russian Federation went well. More will follow. The readouts and interviews from the U.S. and Russia were all positive.
Embassies and Consulates of both sides, shut down for absurd reasons during the Obama and Biden administration, will be reopened and restaffed. Normal diplomatic relations will resume. That in itself is a huge step forward.
There were no negotiations yet about the war in Ukraine. Envoys and delegations will be named to crack that nut. It will be a challenge. The process will take some time.
As I noted the other day, most Americans remain unaware that President Barack Obama initiated the war in Ukraine in February, 2014 with the Euromaiden Coup in Kiev. Those with an ounce of integrity who followed subsequent events, understand that every Russian entreaty for peace was ignored and that Russia’s red line was crossed when the US opened the door for Ukraine to join NATO. Politically, Putin has no choice but to intervene.
This is the critical missing context every time the official mantra “Russia invaded Ukraine” is incessantly repeated in the mainstream media. And the Deep State and its minions will go on resisting peace and undermining improved US-Russia relations. Patrice Greanville (Greanville Post) called my attention to a good example on the CBS Sunday Morning show of February 16, 2025. Marvin Kalb (age 92) was trotted out to warn that a peace agreement with Russia “might betray Ukraine and send a chilling message to the rest of the world about America as a trusted world leader.” On the front page of today’s New York Times, we read that Trump is abandoning efforts to “punish Russia for starting Europe’s most destructive war in generations.” (NYT, 2/19/2025) Sadly, the “intervention lie” has also been reiterated by Democrats, Bernie Sanders and even some of those on the putative left. Sanders has consistently contributed to the disinformation campaign and called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “a horror that almost embarrasses all of us for being a part of the human race.” (C-Span, March 18, 2022). Again, no context. It seems that, for some, “fighting to the last Ukrainian” was not hyperbole.
Most readers on this Substack are aware that for at least 30 years, academics and policy makers warned against forward movement by NATO because it would provoke a serious response from Russia. Just a few of these voices include Henry Kissinger, George Kennan, Steven Cohen, Bill Burns (CIA director), Jeffrey Sachs, Col. Douglas MacGregor, and John Mearsheimer. To wit, Russia’s legitimate security concerns were alarmingly ignored by the West as US neocons were intent on inciting a war in order to bleed and weaken Russia, hopefully to the point of a fomenting a coup against Putin. This was all undertaken as prelude to confronting China. BTW, there is no evidence that Russia was planning to invade without US provocations. In countless articles and interviews, Prof. John Mearsheimer (Political Science Department at the University of Chicago) has continued to lay out, chapter and verse — with irrefutable evidence — how NATO expansion to Russia’s eastern border led to the war. For starters, Google: John Mearsheimer, “Why Is Ukraine the West’s Fault?”)
I mention all this because Americans are the most propagandized people on the globe and it will required seeking out alternative sources of information to unlearn the official narrative, not just about Ukraine but also the “Russian threat.” (Think of the Russia-gate hoax, the effects of which still cloud the minds of ordinary citizens). In order, I expect Ukrainians will be the first to grasp that they’ve been used, conned and in Malcolm’s words, “bamboozed.” One can only imagine the angry reaction that will follow. Citizens in European NATO countries will be next and finally, hopefully, the Americans.
I despise what Trump is doing domestically and in Gaza and it should be resisted by any means necessary. However, to simply yell “Trump, Trump, Trump” at every turn is to fail taking a more nuanced perspective at what is happening in the larger world. I agree with those analysts who believe that the 80 year old Cold War between Russia and the U.S. empire (850 U.S. bases around the globe) is coming to a close and a possible nuclear war has been avoided. We’re slowly transitioning from a world dominated by the neocons who believed their empire would last as long as one could imagine and that’s no small thing.
The Ukrainian war, which began in 2014 as a civil conflict and led to Russia’s intervention eight years later in February 2022, appeared headed to a resolution after top U.S. and Russian officials met in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Tuesday, incensing European and Ukrainian leaders who were excluded.
Speaking to reporters after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid out what was accomplished in Riyadh.
He said four principles had been agreed to: restoring ties by reopening diplomatic missions; the U.S. would appoint a high-level team to achieve “the end of the conflict in Ukraine” that is “enduring” and acceptable to all parties; the countries would work together towards economic cooperation; and the participants at the Tuesday meeting to remain engaged.
The signs aren’t good so far, but playing on Trump’s desperation to be seen as a great dealmaker would pay dividends
Kenneth Roth is a former executive director of Human Rights Watch. His book, Righting Wrongs, is published on 25 February
The common wisdom is that Donald Trump’s foreign policy will be a disaster for human rights. Certainly his penchant for embracing autocrats and breaching norms bodes poorly, such as his outrageous proposal to force two million Palestinians out of Gaza – which would be a blatant war crime – or his suggestion that Ukraine is to blame for Russia’s invasion. But Trump also likes to cut a deal, as shown by his paradoxically positive role in securing the current (precarious) Gaza ceasefire. If Trump the dealmaker can be nudged in the right direction, he might, against all odds, be brought to play a productive role for human rights.
As executive director of Human Rights Watch, I spent more than three decades devising strategies to pressure or cajole leaders to better respect rights. I have dealt with brutal dictators, self-serving autocrats and misguided democrats. My experience shows that there is always an angle – something the leader cares about – that can be used to steer them in a more rights-respecting direction.
Kenneth Roth is a former executive director of Human Rights Watch. His book, Righting Wrongs, is published on 25 February
Wow. In a series of rapid-fire developments last week, the new Trump regime has decisively joined the battle with the deep state on the national security side. This is big, or could be. Either Donald Trump will begin to exert political control over the invisible government or the invisible government will sink Donald Trump just as it did during his first term as president. Let us be attentive.
The attack on USAID, the telephone call with Vladimir Putin, the incipient alienation of the Kiev regime, new talk of talks with the Islamic Republic, Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation as director of national intelligence: I don’t know if these events and their timing reflect a concerted plan, back-of-an-envelope inspirations, or the president’s thinking but not necessarily the thinking of those around him.
I deplore Trump’s actions domestically and also, so far, on Gaza. However, I trust you’re also experiencing a rare morale boost regarding what Trump has begun doing on Ukraine. One consequence we can expect is hysterical, excoriating commentary from the European and US media as they condemn Trump for “betraying Ukraine and appeasing Putin.” On the front page of New York Times (2/15/2025) we read about the “rising Russian threat.” Also, there may well be false flags from Zelensky as he attempts to disrupt and delay productive talks — and save his own ass. Given the absence of an independent media all this will be confusing to the public because they’ve been so heavily propagandized about the war’s background and learned nothing about US motives in starting it. For example, how many Americans know that the Ukraine war was initiated in February 2014 by President Barack Obama? At that juncture, the Euromaiden coup was portrayed in the American news media as a spontaneous, “democratic” transition.
I’m also enjoying watching Washington’s EU lackeys squeal and squirm after subserviently going along with Biden and the neocon’s war for three years. The suggestion that they or Zelensky merit a seat at the Trump-Putin talks is hilarious. My sense is that these US allies harbored the illusion that the neocons and the Deep State would be ruling the US indefinitely. Now they’re befuddled, humiliated, cut loose and have no leverage and no cards to play. All they can do is bitch from the sidelines and behave as spoilers. Of course, my feelings of satisfaction (and if I might, vindication) are tempered by the fact that half a million fathers, brothers, sons and uncles were slaughtered on behalf of a U.S. proxy war to weaken Russia before taking on China.
These discredited European leaders have two choices: One, they must drastically increase “security” spending that will provoke massive social unrest as people watch the already weakened welfare state implode. Two, they must try to establish a post-Ukraine working relationship with Russia in order to obtain energy resources and a trading partner. After exposing their populations to a false narrative about Russia since 1945 in order justify NATO, at Washington’s behest, that’s an unenviable task. We can hope that NATO will soon be toast, U.S. troops begin exiting the continent and Europe becomes sovereign. Finally, I’m encouraged that Trump is proposing trilateral talks with China and Russia as this holds promise for a more peaceful world.
Lady Carr defends judiciary’s independence after Starmer said decision to accept case resulted from a ‘legal loophole’
England and Wales’s most senior judge has written to Keir Starmer about an “unacceptable” exchange with Kemi Badenoch at prime minister’s questions, saying she was “deeply troubled” by the discussion on the case of a Palestinian family’s right to live in the UK.
Lady Sue Carr, the lady chief justice, criticised the Conservative leader’s questions about the case, in which a family from Gaza had applied through a scheme designed for Ukrainian refugees.
Top diplomats from the United States and Russia met in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to discuss ending the war in Ukraine and improving relations between Washington and Moscow. The Riyadh summit represents a monumental shift in U.S. policy after the Biden administration led an international effort to isolate Russia over its invasion and gave tens of billions in military aid to Kyiv. Participants included U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not invited to attend and has said he won’t recognize a peace deal negotiated without his country. European leaders have also been sidelined. For more on these developments, we host a discussion between economist Jeffrey Sachs and foreign policy analyst Matt Duss.
“This is a war that never should have happened,” says Sachs, who faults “U.S. provocations” like the expansion of NATO for laying the groundwork for Russia’s invasion in 2022. In holding these talks directly with Russia, “the Trump administration, for the first time, is telling the truth about the fundamental causes of this war,” adds Sachs.
Duss says that while the U.S. has played a major role in the conflict, “Vladimir Putin is the one who chose to invade Ukraine.” He also emphasizes that Ukrainians themselves have agency and have been key players in events since the end of the Cold War, including their current defense against Russia. “It’s not just a story of unending U.S. villainy.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
Explosive leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone show how a shady transatlantic collective of academics and military-intelligence operatives conceived schemes which would lead to the US “helping Ukraine resist,” to “prolong” the proxy war “by virtually any means short of American and NATO forces deploying to Ukraine or attacking Russia.”
The operatives assembled their war plans immediately in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and delivered them directly to the highest-ranking relevant US National Security Council official in the Biden administration.
An investigation has exposed the tech firm’s cooperation with autocratic regimes to remove unfavourable content
Google has cooperated with autocratic regimes around the world, including the Kremlin in Russia and the Chinese Communist party, to facilitate censorship requests, an Observer investigation can reveal.
The technology company has engaged with the administrations of about 150 countries since 2011 that want information scrubbed from their public domains.
