Lmst

Serbia’s Continued Arming Of Ukraine Risks Rupturing Relations With Russia

Everything is proceeding according to the US’ plan, which Vucic might have even secretly agreed to.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic recently told German media that his country is eager to clinch large-scale ammo deals with the EU and doesn’t care whether they then pass his country’s wares on to Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to this by claiming that Russia “understands what unprecedented pressure is being put on Serbia” and that the issue is “not at all a simple story”, but nobody should fool themselves into thinking that it’s pleased with the latest development in this saga.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) accused Serbia of backstabbing it last May by indirectly arming Ukraine, after which Vucic resorted to his typical smooth-talking to promise that he won’t authorize any more ammo exports. This coincided with SVR claiming that this trade never stopped. In early August, Serbia then sent mixed signals about sanctioning Russia, which came roughly two months before Trump 2.0’s first sanctions against Russia. These imposed strict restrictions on its energy companies.

This coincided with unrelated US sanctions on Serbian national energy company NIS from earlier this year taking effect after it wasn’t granted another postponement. The Energy Minister accordingly warned in late October that its only oil refinery will run out by 25 November without new crude supplies, which it hasn’t been able to receive. This contextualizes Vucic’s eagerness to resume indirectly arming Ukraine since he might conceptualize this as part of a compromise for sanctions relief.

On the other hand, Vucic is nowhere near as close to Trump as the latter’s political ally Viktor Orban in Hungary is, who just obtained an exemption. This will certainly help his party during April’s next parliamentary elections and likely keep him in office for another term. By contrast, Serbia’s next elections will be held by the end of 2027, but Vucic said that he’ll move the date up. Any sanctions-instigated economic turmoil by then could ill for his party and possibly lead to a change in government.

Vucic is under what he and SVR consider to be Colour Revolution pressure, the purpose of which appears to be punishing him for not going all the way in risking a rupture of relations with Russia by sanctioning it and openly arming Ukraine. He’s now explicitly defying his country’s traditional partner by expressing his eagerness to clinch large-scale ammo deals with the EU for arming Ukraine as part of NATO’s proxy war against Russia but hasn’t yet nationalized NIS, seized Russia’s other assets, and sanctioned it.

That might be just around the corner though if Trump predictably doesn’t grant Vucic a waiver after the latter resuming indirect arms exports to Ukraine and then he goes through with the rest of the US’ implied anti-Russian demands as a last-ditch attempt to secure relief from the sanctions and/or protests. It’s also hypothetically possible that the aforesaid sequence was agreed to in advance and that whatever public drama might then unfold would be a ruse for facilitating a phased leadership transition.

Vucic already declared over the summer that he won’t change the constitution to run for re-election so he’s on the way out no matter what if he keeps his word as is likely lest he risk more unrest if he doesn’t. In exchange for avoiding corruption charges by whichever even more pro-Western figure succeeds him and/or personal sanctions by the West on the same pretext, he might have agreed to set into motion the rupturing of Serbian-Russian relations, which is arguably unfolding and might ultimately be inevitable.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#DonaldTrump #EU #Geopolitics #NATO #Russia #Serbia #SVR #TheWest #Ukraine #USA

Displacing Russian Gas ‘For Good’: What Is Europe Really Paying?

By Uriel Araujo

Europe’s leaders claim Russian gas can be phased out “for good,” but P-TEC exposes the real cost of this strategy. LNG dependency, US influence, and rising energy bills risk undermining Europe’s economy. A geopolitical shift may enhance Europe’s dependence.

The Sixth Partnership for Transatlantic Energy Cooperation (P-TEC) took place last week in Athens, with Washington and its European partners once again vowing to “displace Russian gas for good”.

This is a narrative that has dominated Western policymaking since 2022. The question is whether this is truly feasible, or merely a political slogan attached to a costly long-term energy gamble. One may recall that Europe once prided itself on “energy pragmatism,” particularly Germany, whose industrial model relied on competitively priced Russian pipeline gas.

Washington is now urging Europe to speed up the shift away from Russian gas and expand LNG imports. This has long been an American goal and I’ve been writing about this since 2021, at least. In any case, Brussels now aligns with this position, thereby accelerating Europe’s dependence on LNG supplies largely controlled by US-aligned producers. The P-TEC agenda is unmistakably centred on “securing” non-Russian supply while consolidating US influence over Europe’s energy architecture. This is less about “diversification” and more about re-orientation.

But, again, is it actually possible to “displace Russian gas for good”? In purely theoretical terms, yes. Europe could rely on LNG, renewables, limited domestic output, North African and Eastern Mediterranean resources, plus interconnectivity improvements. In practical, economic, and geopolitical terms, however, the challenges are formidable, to say the least.

First, replacing Russian pipeline gas requires enduring higher costs. LNG is more expensive to transport, regasify, and distribute. Last month, I wrote about Europe’s Nord Stream “headache” and the ongoing political infighting between Poland, Germany, and Ukraine. That episode illustrates how fragile Europe’s energy consensus is. Add to that the sabotage mystery that still lingers around Nord Stream; no wonder European industries today find their energy bills unbearable enough to undermine competitiveness.

Second, there is no easy alternative solution. Europe has turned to Norway and Azerbaijan to compensate for lost Russian pipeline gas, but even they can only do so much. Norway’s output is plateauing and expected to decline after 2026, while Azerbaijan’s Southern Gas Corridor supplies remain limited in scale. In North Africa, Algeria aspires to fill part of the gap, yet as I argued back in 2023, regional rivalries — particularly with Morocco over Western Sahara — undermine long-term reliability. That remains true. The grand “energy independence” slogan is far more complicated than Western officials admit.

Third, the underreported reality is that the rest of the world has not joined Europe’s embargo crusade. Turkey, India, and China continue to trade with Moscow. Even Western-aligned Asian states maintain strategic energy ties with Russia. Japan and South Korea remain stakeholders in the Sakhalin-2 LNG project — so much for the notion of a “united West” on energy sanctions. One may argue that this is not hypocrisy, but realpolitik. European elites, however, seem unwilling to adopt the same pragmatic approach.

Then, Greece is often presented as a key player in Europe’s post-Russian-gas era. It is true that Athens is actively positioning itself as a strategic LNG gateway for US cargoes. Its Energy Minister recently discussed the P-TEC summit agenda with his US counterpart. On paper, Greece’s role as a transit hub boosts its relevance, and infrastructure such as Alexandroupolis’ LNG terminal indeed enhances regional connectivity. Athens is also reviving offshore exploration, with ExxonMobil, Energean, and Hellenic Energy striking a historic drilling deal for deep-sea hydrocarbons.

Once again, the messaging is that Europe is entering a “new” energy chapter. No wonder Greece is being promoted as a critical piece of Europe’s energy puzzle.

However, a sober view reveals limitations. Offshore exploration takes years before production, with geopolitical hurdles like the “Turkish Question”, maritime disputes, environmental pushback, and cost overruns remain potent risks. LNG transhipment does not necessarily translate into affordable domestic energy or industrial revival.

Greece could end up as a transit zone benefiting others more than itself. The revival of the “3+1” diplomatic format involving Greece, Cyprus, Israel and the US shows geopolitical interest, but it also risks entangling Athens in regional rivalries without guaranteed economic payoff. Simply put, being a hub does not mean being a winner.

Meanwhile, Bulgaria is deepening energy cooperation with the US on strategic projects, indicating that Washington seeks a broader regional alignment. But whether this benefits ordinary Europeans is still unclear.

Europe’s refusal to sanction, say, Israel — while swiftly condemning Russia for a largely Western-made crisis — lays bare its glaring double standards and moral hypocrisy on international law and human rights.

Be as it may, Europe’s political establishment frames abandoning Russian gas as a kind of moral and strategic imperative — yet Hungary and Slovakia (using exemptions to keep Russian oil via Druzhba and gas via TurkStream), plus France, Belgium, Italy, and Austria, still import significant Russian gas, mainly LNG, despite 2027 phase-out pressure. These holdouts aside, Europe claims energy security and autonomy, while risking enhancing its dependence — this time on US LNG, Middle Eastern instability, and complex maritime supply chains.

Thus, critics argue that the goal is not “energy independence” but realignment under American guidance. Europe’s choice has its geopolitical logic: weaken Russia’s energy revenues, align with Washington, and integrate energy policy with NATO strategy. The price Europeans pay, however — deindustrialization, higher living costs, and strategic exposure — is rarely debated honestly.

To sum it up, Europe can theoretically phase out Russian gas “for good”. But doing so would require years of sustained high spending, political consensus, alternative supply diversification, and no major global disruptions. If anything, the rest of the world’s behaviour shows that isolating one of the largest energy producers is, at best, a Western European fixation. It is blatantly obvious that most nations are pursuing pragmatic energy policies grounded in national interest — not ideological crusades. Now, whether Europe will eventually admit this remains to be seen.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#Europe #gas #Geopolitics #NATO #Russia #TheWest #USA

Another episode of #TheWest airs tonight on the @History channel.

Honored to be bringing you these stories with the help of the brilliant historian @DorisKGoodwin

$6 Billion Icebreaker Deal: U.S.-Finland Alliance Signals Strategic Arctic Encirclement

By Uriel Araujo

America signals it’s in the Arctic race to stay. The question is: in heating up tensions in the High North, does the West secure interests or court conflict in a new domain?

The United States just inked a $6.1 billion deal with Finland to build 11 new icebreakers for its US Coast Guard, a move billed as historic and aimed straight at boosting America’s lagging presence in the Arctic. These 11 vessels — mix of polar and Great Lakes types — will extend operational seasons, support research, and assert presence amid rising activity from multiple players.

Deliveries should start in 2028 — with Finnish shipyards lending their expertise to revive a US industry in a niche sector it once pioneered (when it comes to modern polar-class icebreakers) but that has been gathering dust for decades.

This of course isn’t just about ships — it’s the latest chapter in the intensifying Arctic race, where melting ice opens new shipping lanes, resource grabs, and strategic chokepoints. The US Coast Guard as of now operates a mere three polar icebreakers, the newest dating back to 1997.

Still, much of the Western media hype around this deal has been disproportionately triumphalist. Some commentary described it as a “game changer” that would quickly close the gap with Russia’s longstanding Arctic fleet advantage. It’s not so simple.

Russia, by contrast, fields around 50 polar icebreakers, including nuclear-powered giants suited to its vast northern coastline and over two million Arctic residents plus critical infrastructure.

Talk of an “icebreaker gap” gets hyped often enough, but the real issue lies in America’s capabilities versus the growing demands of Arctic security. Northern routes are busier than ever, with China sending research icebreakers over US-claimed seabed off Alaska just this August, prompting the Coast Guard to dispatch its aging Healy for monitoring.

The real issue here, however, is not numerical parity with Russia, but rather Washington’s intent to securitize the Arctic and reshape the region’s political landscape in favour of the Atlantic axis.

From an American perspective, Finland steps in as the saviour here. Its shipyards build icebreakers fast and cheap — take Polaris, completed in three years for around €125 million ($147 million); this is a smaller vessel but still a proof of efficiency that shames US delays.

America’s own program for new heavy icebreakers, in contrast, has ballooned to $1.9 billion per ship; the troubled Polar Security Cutter program has been plagued by delays and ballooning budgets, with the first now slipping to 2029 at best. Suffice to say, America’s domestic shipbuilding sector proved incapable of meeting strategic demand thus far. No wonder Washington looked north to Helsinki, fresh off it joining NATO in 2023 and eager for Western buyers. It fits into broader NATO expansion across Scandinavia and beyond — Finland and Sweden’s entry, renewed US focus on Greenland — all part of encircling key Arctic zones.

Impact-wise, the deal bolsters US Coast Guard readiness for busier Bering Strait traffic and potential provocations. In any case, Peter Rybski, a former US naval attaché in Helsinki, put it plainly: America got by with few icebreakers when Arctic shipping was sparse, but that’s changing fast enough to demand action.

Risks loom large, though. Delays plague US shipbuilding thus far; costs could spiral as they have with domestic programs. Not to mention that geopolitical tensions escalate blatantly in this race — NATO exercises off Norway send signals not just northward but eastward too, risking miscalculations in a region long the world’s quietest frontier. This could change pretty soon.

Finland’s shipbuilders themselves remain cautious: while the agreement promises jobs and investment, it may also expose Helsinki to retaliation from Moscow — a country with which it previously maintained pragmatic economic relations. The arrangement may also deepen Finland’s integration into NATO military procurement chains, limiting future neutrality in high-stakes diplomacy.

The Arctic’s transformation into a chessboard in such a way reflects alliance reflexes better suited to past eras than a multipolar setup. Push too hard on energy sanctions or seabed claims, and retaliation could surface in unexpected spots, like the Gulf of Finland or shifted LNG flows to Asia.

Underreported amid Middle East and Ukraine headlines, Norway, for instance, is also emerging as the West’s quiet Arctic battleground, with NATO steadily expanding across Scandinavia and the US seeking to secure access to Arctic resources under the banner of “security”. This icebreaker deal adds fuel, expanding the confrontation between the US-led Atlantic axis and emerging Eurasian interests northward.

Control of the Arctic increasingly means control of emerging trade routes, energy corridors, and even undersea data cables — infrastructure likely to define the 21st century. The US-led West, unwilling to come to terms with the reality of Russia’s geographic advantages, seeks to neutralize them through alliances and the encirclement of key chokepoints. Moscow, understandably enough, responds by strengthening self-reliance and partnering with Eurasian allies.

The underreported dimension in mainstream discourse is that this deal further militarizes a region that should remain a zone of cooperation. Washington’s Arctic ambitions are not just about navigation safety or scientific research; they are tied to a wider containment policy targeting both Russia and China. And if Arctic cooperation collapses, miscalculations will become more likely — particularly given NATO’s growing activity in Norway’s waters and the Barents Sea. Again, these moves send signals not only to Moscow but also to Beijing, which sees the High North as a shared space of strategic interest.

This is a region that desperately needs diplomacy rather than gunboat-style signalling. Be as it may, the $6.1 billion investment marks a pivot. It plugs immediate gaps with Finnish speed while building long-term US capacity. Thus, America signals it’s in the Arctic race to stay. The question is: in heating up tensions in the High North, does the West secure interests or court conflict in a new domain?

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#China #Eurasia #Finland #Geopolitics #HighNorth #NATO #Russia #TheArctic #TheWest #USA

I just read this message from @ruaa (sharing it with her permission):

“I was just coming back with some food for my family I’m in Al-Mawasi, near the sea when suddenly, boats started firing all at once, one strike after another. I ran for 30 minutes straight, without stopping, and finally made it back to the tent terrified.

Thinking the tent would somehow shield me from the bullets and shrapnel.

I think genocide back again :(

Its not stop at all”

I don’t know what more there is left to say. If humanity refuses even to stop genocide what good is there in its existence?

#israel #genocide #settlerColonialism #ethnicCleansing #apartheid #EU #USA #theWest #complicity #Gaza #Palestine #StopIsrael #StopTheGenocide #FreePalestine

...i finish my evals of #arab nation #genocides in #africa..my heart shatters cos turns out its just perpetual #exploitation that ISNT only #western nations 2blame.

...#uae backs #rsf to gain #gold, agriculture, and #port access...#ksa backs #saf as rival for regional control against #iran and a foothold in #yemen, #egypt, #redsea

brothers?...how could you! SHAME! and how dare you set yourselves above "#thewest" WHEN YOU ARE NO BETTER than them with your evil schemes?!!

#sudan #chad #somalia

"#Finland’s foreign minister to #theWest: #Ukraine doesn’t need help to surrender — it needs strength to win

#ElinaValtonen said #Kyiv has all it takes to keep fighting #Russia and the West must help it defend, not capitulate"

On one hand, it's fucking obvious

On the other hand, "obvious" is in short supply

We need all the clear thinking we can get

There's a lot of stupidity out there, and madness in seats of power

Thank you Elina Valtonen

https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/10/21/finlands-foreign-minister-to-the-west-ukraine-doesnt-need-help-to-surrender-it-needs-strength-to-win/

#UkraineWar

Germany Stands To Lose And Poland To Gain From The EU’s Latest Energy Move

By Andrew Korybko

Poland’s role in providing more US LNG to Central & Eastern Europe is expected to erode Germany’s influence in this region and accelerate Poland’s revival of its lost Great Power status.

The European Council decreed that the import of Russian gas will be banned across the bloc next year, but with varying lengths of grace periods for countries with short- and long-term contracts, the longest of which will last till 1 January 2028. The Council earlier admitted that pipeline gas and LNG combined accounted for a little less than a fifth of the bloc’s imports last year. It should also be mentioned that the EU continues to import Russian oil too, including indirectly, which has proven to be similarly scandalous.

Nevertheless, the EU’s plans to phase out the remaining fifth of its gas imports from Russia will further enfeeble its economy by leading to their replacement with more expensive US LNG, which will predictably result in the costs being passed down to consumers. This was entirely predictable too since the EU agreed to purchase $750 billion in US energy by 2028 per the terms of their lopsided trade deal from last summer that was assessed here as having turned the EU into the US’ largest-ever vassal state.

Germany is expected to be the most dramatically affected by this development in terms of its domestic politics and geostrategy. As regards the first, a greater decrease in living standards caused by the costs of more expensive US LNG being passed down to consumers could accelerate the AfD’s rise, which would lead to significant political changes if they’re ever able to form a government. Even if they’re kept out of power, such blatant meddling by the elites could worsen political polarization and associated tensions.

On the topic of German geostrategy, Poland with whom Germany is competing for influence over Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) is poised to play a supplementary role in supplying Czechia and Slovakia with US LNG via the Swinoujscie terminal and the planned one in Gdansk. Ukraine will be supplied too. These countries lie within the sphere of influence that Poland envisages creating upon the revival of its lost Great Power status. Czechia and Slovakia are also part of the Visegrad Group together with Poland.

Hungary is a member too and could be supplied with US LNG via Poland or Croatia’s Krk terminal, whose expansion is one of the priority projects of the “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) that Poland and Croatia co-founded in 2015 but which is now led by Warsaw. While Germany commands much more influence over CEE due to being the EU’s de facto leader and boasting its largest economy, Poland’s influence over them is increasing through its future role in suppling US LNG, which might pull them away from Berlin one day.

Energy geopolitics play a significant role in geostrategy so the impact of the aforesaid trend shouldn’t be underestimated if it continues to unfold. In that event, the overarching trend would be the likely decline of German influence over CEE, greatly facilitated as it was by Germany’s voluntary participation in the US’ anti-Russian sanctions regime and then the Nord Stream terrorist attack which pushed it beyond the point of no return. These might be seen in hindsight as the beginning of a new regional order in CEE.

While Germany thought that it would inflict a strategic defeat upon Russia, the US ended up inflicting a strategic defeat upon Germany by engineering the circumstances whereby its only Western competitor’s economy would decline. Together with Poland, whose Anglo-American-backed revival of its Great Power status conveniently creates a regional wedge between Germany and Russia, the US is geostrategically re-engineering Europe at Germany’s expense in order to facilitate Russia’s post-Ukraine containment.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#CEE #CentralAndEasternEurope #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Germany #Poland #Russia #TheWest #USA

Western Designs On Belarus: Replacing Russian Ties With Polish Vassalage

By Andrew Korybko

The Guardian published a piece about the aims of the West’s incipient US-led rapprochement with Lukashenko, which amounts to an attempt to tempt him into rebalancing Belarus’ ties with Russia through closer cooperation with the West. It was assessed here over the summer that he’s unlikely to split with Putin, especially not after the West tried to coup him half a decade ago and Russia since gave Belarus tactical nukes, which Lukashenko confirmed in early August’s interview with Time Magazine.

Nevertheless, while his intentions shouldn’t be doubted after he proved his loyalty to Russia throughout the course of the special operation and the associated pressure that the West placed upon Belarus, this doesn’t mean that the West still won’t try to mislead him into drifting closer towards its camp. To be sure, the “EU Defence Line” that’s being built along the bloc’s border with Belarus (and Russia) resembles a “new Berlin Wall” as his Foreign Minister described it, which could impede cooperation.

At the same time, however, the US could leverage the sway that it wields over Poland to offer Belarus security guarantees against the future aggression that Lukashenko fears from it. He arguably considers this to be a credible enough scenario to release several waves of prisoners as goodwill gestures after meeting with some of the US’ high-level envoys in Minsk over the past year. If Belarus’ security interests are ensured, which is possible, then economic incentives for rebalancing its foreign policy could follow.

Poland briefly closed its border with Belarus last month at the cost of EU-Chinese trade, €25 billion (or 3.7%) of which is conducted across their frontier, after fearmongering about its drills with Russia. Even so, President Karol Nawrocki is likely to comply with whatever directives his ideological ally Trump might make of him, so it can’t be ruled out that Poland might lead the EU dimension of the West’s rapprochement with Belarus. It’s thus far eschewed doing so but that could change under his leadership.

He envisages Poland becoming the US’ top ally, which requires going along with its requests, in order to obtain support for its grand strategic goal of reviving its Great Power status that he plans to advance via the “Three Seas Initiative”, which could one day extend to Belarus. Poland just became a trillion-dollar economy and was invited to next year’s G20 Summit as a result so it could foreseeably allow low- or even no-tariff Belarusian imports as an economic incentive for closer cooperation if tensions decrease.

This outcome would align with Western interests but lead to Belarus replacing what they present as “Russian vassalage” with actual Polish vassalage. The military-strategic objective that they’re aiming to achieve is that Lukashenko comes to trust them enough to request that Putin take back Russia’s tactical nukes and Oreshniks. On the political front, they want his chosen successor (whoever it’ll be since he said he won’t run again in 2030) to continue this Western course, thus worsening Russia’s security.

The West already turned Ukraine, Armenia, and Moldova into anti-Russian states while stirring trouble in its ties with Azerbaijan and eagerly eyeing Central Asian leader Kazakhstan so the loss of Belarus would practically complete Russia’s strategic encirclement. Russia is responsible for Belarus’ continued socio-economic stability through decades of generous energy subsidies and access to its enormous market, and it helped quell summer 2020’s Colour Revolution, so Lukashenko should know better than to betray it.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

#Belarus #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Poland #Russia #TheWest #Ukraine #USA

Hey World, don't forget about the civil war in Myanmar!

Why does no one supply weapons to the rebels?! What about our humanistic western values?

https://myanmar.liveuamap.com/

#warinmyanmar #myanmar #war #worldpolitics #politics #weapons #weaponsupply #thewest #map #wars #war

Tomahawks In Ukraine: Why Russia’s Restraint Signals A Managed Escalation Path

By Andrew Korybko

The precedent set by Russia’s restrained response to Ukraine obtaining the F-16s, which could also be nuclear-equipped, suggests that tensions with the US will remain manageable if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks too due to the modus vivendi that’s arguably been in place for managing them.

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, which Putin said earlier this month could only be used with US military personnel’s direct involvement, has prompted concerns about a potentially uncontrollable escalation spiral. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov assessed that such a development would lead to “a significant change in the situation” but nonetheless reaffirmed that it wouldn’t prevent Russia from achieving its goals in the special operation.

Ukraine’s explicitly stated goal in obtaining these arms is to “pressure” Russia into freezing the Line of Contact without any concessions from Kiev, which would essentially amount to Moscow conceding on its aforesaid goals since none would be achieved in full should that happen, ergo why it hasn’t agreed. In pursuit of that end, Ukraine threatened to cause a blackout in the Russian capital, which would likely be accompanied by more attacks against civilian and military logistics targets far behind the frontlines.

Some are therefore worried that that Russian-US tensions could spiral out of control, especially after Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that the Tomahawks can be nuclear-equipped, but the precedent set by the F-16s suggests that they’ll remain manageable. Putin himself warned in early 2024 that they too could be nuclear-equipped, yet Russia ultimately didn’t treat their use as a potential nuclear first-strike. This is arguably due to the modus vivendi that was described here in late 2024:

“[Comparatively pragmatic US ‘deep state’ figures] who still call the shots always signal their escalatory intentions far in advance so that Russia could prepare itself and thus be less likely to ‘overreact’ in some way that risks World War III. Likewise, Russia continues restraining itself from replicating the US’ ‘shock-and-awe’ campaign in order to reduce the likelihood of the West ‘overreacting’ by directly intervening in the conflict to salvage their geopolitical project and thus risking World War III.
It can only be speculated whether this interplay is due to each’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (‘deep state’) behaving responsibly on their own considering the enormity of what’s at stake or if it’s the result of a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. Whatever the truth may be, the aforesaid model accounts for the unexpected moves or lack thereof from each, which are the US correspondingly telegraphing its escalatory intentions and Russia never seriously escalating in kind.”

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine fits the pattern of leaks serving to tip Russia off about this preplanned escalation so it can prepare its responses in advance. Time and again, Putin has exercised an almost saintly degree of self-restraint in refusing to escalate, whether symmetrically or asymmetrically. Readers can learn more about these precedents from the eight analyses enumerated in the one from late 2024 that was hyperlinked to above.

The only exception was him authorizing the use of the Oreshniks in November after the US and UK let Ukraine use their long-range missiles inside of Russia, obviously through the direct involvement of their military personnel, which he might repeat if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks. He didn’t authorize them after Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes against parts of Russia’s nuclear triad in June that were much more provocative, however, which might have been due to his diplomatic calculations vis-à-vis Trump.

Whether one agrees with the policy or not, it’s arguably the case that Putin wants to avoid doing anything that could reaffirm Trump’s perception (carefully crafted by the warmongers around him like Zelensky and Lindsey Graham) that Russia is escalating, thus falsely justifying “reciprocal US escalations”. So long as he continues formulating policy based on this calculation, and there’s no credible indication thus far that it’s changed, then any escalation over the Tomahawks will likely remain manageable.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#DonaldTrump #Geopolitics #NATO #Russia #TheWest #Ukraine #USA #VladimirPutin

... The West barely don't even have people, that's just walking POTATO and it's either a Zombie or a statue about to break. Then can try to invent some SOLUTION like "Gay men & models" and call them #Metrosexual but it's fucking annoying

📂. #TheWest. Is Dead

■. Metrosexual just means "HETERO at the Metro" that's actually Zorro (Jimin) who they based this on

✔️. they saw him. So, they based a concept on him.. just a man whose "abs you can see through his overcoat" OVER THE TOP DRESSED but manly

Why Does Poland Refuse To Hand Over A Nord Stream Bombing Suspect To Germany?

By Andrew Korybko

Tusk would defy public opinion, doom the ruling liberal-globalist coalition’s already dismal prospects of remaining in power after fall 2027’s next parliamentary election, and risk facilitating a German show trial that could implicate Poland in this attack for covering up the US’ actual involvement.

Germany is bound to be displeased with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s refusal to hand over a Nord Stream bombing suspect. The individual was recently detained near Warsaw under a European arrest warrant but Tusk just said that “He was detained because this is the procedure, but the position of the Polish government has not changed. It is certainly not in the interest of Poland or in the interest of a simple sense of decency and justice to accuse or hand over this citizen to another state.”

The German government was convinced by US media reports about a team of Ukrainian divers’ alleged involvement in this terrorist attack into blaming them instead of the US government like Seymour Hersh first revealed in February 2023 was responsible and who Russia has always suspected to be guilty of this. According to him, the aforementioned narrative blaming Ukraine, and to a lesser extent Poland from whose coast their ship was allegedly launched, is part of a CIA plot to cover up what really happened.

His suspicions were lent credence by incumbent Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, who was out of government at the time but had also served in this role under Tusk’s earlier government, after he posted “Thank you, USA” in a now-deleted tweet right after the terrorist attack. Poland opposed the Nord Stream pipelines due to its fear that they represented a new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for jointly ruling Central Europe so it’s natural that he’d celebrate their destruction. Here are some background briefings:

* 9 March 2023: “The US’ Latest Disinfo Campaign About The Nord Stream Terrorist Attacks Was Preplanned”

* 11 June 2023: “The Latest Twist In Germany’s Nord Stream II Investigation Puts More Pressure On Poland”

* 9 January 2024: “Contextualizing The Media’s Claim Of Possible Polish Complicity In The Nord Stream Attacks”

Circling back to the present, it’s now much easier to understand why Poland refuses to hand over that Nord Stream bombing suspect to Germany. Most Poles support the terrorist attack that damaged three of those four pipelines, so it would be very unpopular to do anything that could lead to anyone involved in this (even if only implausibly) getting punished. Doing so could also doom the ruling liberal-globalist coalition’s already dismal prospects of remaining in power after fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections.

Moreover, the conservative-nationalist opposition’s “grey cardinal” Jaroslaw Kaczynski accused Tusk of being a “German agent” almost two years ago during comments in parliament, which would appear more believable than ever to Poles if he defied public opinion to hand that suspect over to Germany. In that scenario, Germany could stage a show trial for partially implicating Poland per the CIA’s cover-up story, which would impugn its reputation right as it’s finally reviving its long-lost Great Power status.

Reports that Sikorski is considering granting asylum to the suspect and Tusk’s recent tweet that “The problem with North Stream 2 is not that it was blown up. The problem is that it was built” do make Poland look guilty in some’s eyes but they’re arguably meant to troll Germany. Poland and Russia rarely agree on anything nowadays, but they’ve interestingly found common ground in opposing Germany’s CIA-influenced belief that Ukrainian divers carried out this attack, each for their own reasons of course.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#Europe #Geopolitics #Germany #NATO #NordStream #NordStream2 #Poland #Russia #TheWest #Ukraine #USA

Beyond Ukraine: Norway Becomes The West’s Silent Front In Arctic Tensions With Russia

By Uriel Araujo

As NATO conducts exercises off Norway’s coast and Washington deploys spy aircraft, Arctic tensions are reaching a breaking point. Moscow’s Arctic strategy, once centred on cooperation, is turning defensive. The frozen frontier is quietly becoming the epicentre of a new East-West rivalry.

So much is written about the developments pertaining to Ukraine, but one crucial theatre of tension between Russia and the West remains underreported: the Arctic and the wider High North, as visible in Norway, a founding member of NATO. Despite a recent visit by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) delegation to Norway — led by Major General Andrei Kudimov, who smiled for the cameras as both sides discussed “cooperation” on border control and fishing rights — Russo-Norwegian relations are, as a matter of fact, deteriorating fast.

Despite those talks, NATO has been conducting large-scale military exercises off Norway’s coast. Moreover, the United States reportedly deployed advanced reconnaissance and P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft into Norwegian territory, flying missions uncomfortably close to Russia’s north-western frontier. The symbolism is clear enough: whatever “dialogue” exists between Moscow and Oslo, the military logic of deterrence — and provocation — still dictates the Atlantic agenda.

The Arctic, long portrayed as a realm of scientific cooperation and peaceful exploration, has quietly become the new crucible of Great Power competition. I have previously argued that the next confrontation between Russia and the West may well unfold not in Ukraine or Syria, but in the frozen North — where NATO’s overreach could ignite unprecedented tensions. That observation now seems increasingly on point.

Russia, for its part, has been revising its Arctic strategy, with new emphasis on military readiness and control over the Northern Sea Route — a shipping corridor that could transform global trade as the ice recedes.

Meanwhile, NATO has steadily expanded its footprint across Scandinavia. Finland and Sweden’s accession to the Alliance, and the renewed US interest in Greenland all form part of a wider encirclement strategy. As I wrote, the US has long sought to secure access to Arctic energy and mineral resources under the banner of “security.”

Beyond the military manoeuvres, the economic dimension of this rivalry is equally telling. The European Union, Norway, and Iceland have recently announced the end of their cooperation with Russia within the “Northern Dimension” framework — an initiative that once symbolized regional pragmatism and coexistence. The abrupt suspension, justified on geopolitical grounds, effectively dismantles one of the few remaining platforms for cross-border coordination in the Arctic.

Meanwhile, the cod fishing industry — historically a linchpin of the Barents Sea economy — has become collateral damage. As analysts have noted, growing geopolitical frictions could severely impact the joint management of fisheries that both Norway and Russia depend on.

The result? Rising costs, fractured supply chains, and yet another example of how Western sanctions and “security” policies often end up hurting the very regions they claim to protect. So much for “rules-based cooperation.”

Thus far, Western media have treated Arctic (and Baltic) tensions as footnotes to the Ukrainian crisis. Yet these northern frontiers are arguably equally strategic — and volatile. The Baltic Sea, heavily militarized, has become a corridor of confrontation. Poland’s nuclear ambitions, in turn, illustrate how the region’s security spiral is intensifying. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Warsaw’s nuclear trajectory is less a defensive reflex than a bid for great-power revival — one encouraged by a US eager to outsource its strategic burdens.

The logic is the same across the North: smaller states, emboldened by NATO, are taking risks they would not have dared a decade ago — from Baltic air patrols to Arctic manoeuvres. Norway’s hosting of US anti-submarine aircraft is but the latest link in a chain of escalations that collectively erode the fragile balance once maintained through calculated restraint.

Be as it may, the Kremlin sees NATO’s northern buildup as part of a long-term encroachment, not a series of isolated incidents. Moscow’s revision of its Arctic doctrine is thus both defensive and adaptive. And it is worth noting that Russia’s cooperation with China in Arctic development — through energy projects, infrastructure, and shipping — adds another layer of complexity to the equation. As I noted recently, as Arctic ice retreats, it exposes deep fault lines running through today’s global power architecture. No wonder Washington now seeks to “bolster” its own polar presence — a polite euphemism for militarization.

What makes the northern escalation particularly dangerous is its subtlety. Unlike the Ukrainian front, where lines and allegiances are visible, Arctic tensions evolve through technical adjustments — radar deployments, flight routes, research bans, maritime patrols — each justified as “defensive.” Yet taken together, they form a creeping militarization of one of the planet’s most fragile environments.

This is not simply about deterrence. Control of the Arctic means control of future trade routes, energy corridors, and even undersea data cables — the infrastructure of the coming century. The US-led West, unwilling to accept Russia’s geographic advantages, seeks to neutralize them through alliances and encroachments. Moscow, surrounded and sanctioned, responds by doubling down on self-reliance and Eastern partnerships.

This dynamic, left unchecked, could lead to dangerous miscalculations. NATO’s exercises off Norway’s coast send signals not just to Moscow but to Beijing as well, both of which view the High North as a space of shared strategic interest. The idea that Europe can isolate Russia economically while containing China militarily — all without consequences in the Arctic — is, to put it simply, delusional.

The real story, underreported and underestimated, is that the global confrontation between the American-led Atlantic axis and the emerging Eurasian bloc is expanding northward. The Arctic — long the world’s quietest frontier — is becoming its most revealing one. As the ice recedes and new frontiers emerge, the northern theatre may well determine the contours of the next Cold War.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#Europe #Geopolitics #NATO #Norway #Russia #Scandinavia #TheArctic #TheBaltics #TheWest #Ukraine #USA

Putin Loves the Slow, Slow West

https://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/64050-putin-loves-the-slow-slow-west.html

#putin #thewest

#TheWest assumes the Drones are from #Russia ??!!
Say what now
Are we pretending the capability of determining where the drones came from does not exist?

Kevin Costner apresenta ‘O Velho Oeste’ no History

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://mauricioaraya.com/2025/10/05/kevin-costner-apresenta-o-velho-oeste-no-history/

Kevin Costner apresenta ‘O Velho Oeste’ no History

Apresentada e produzida pelo ator e cineasta vencedor do Oscar, Globo de Ouro e Emmy Kevin Costner (Yellowstone, Dança com Lobos, O Guarda-Costas), a superprodução épica O Velho Oeste, exclusiva do canal History, traz uma visão inédita e abrangente sobre a conquista do Velho Oeste. A série – que estreia nesta terça-feira, 7 de outubro, às 22h10 – compreende desde o fim do Século XVIII até o início do Século XX, explorando os conflitos, personagens e acontecimentos de um passado selvagem, que moldaram a identidade dos Estados Unidos.

Com oito episódios de uma hora, O Velho Oeste com Kevin Costner transcende os clichês do ‘Velho Oeste’ ao apresentar múltiplas perspectivas sobre os eventos que definiram uma era e ainda ressoam no presente.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0SXDN6xX_M

Com produção executiva da historiadora vencedora do Prêmio Pulitzer Doris Kearns Goodwin, O Velho Oeste com Kevin Costner leva os telespectadores a uma jornada pelo nascimento do Oeste norte-americano, examinando as contínuas disputas por terras e poder. A série traz um novo olhar sobre o icônico Velho Oeste, com lendas, figuras históricas, guerras entre homens da lei e os fora-da-lei, a ascensão dos cowboys e fazendeiros, a resiliência de mulheres pioneiras, o fervor de aventureiros em busca de fortuna e de abolicionistas.

“O que tentamos fazer é narrar 100 anos de histórias, e elas precisam ser autênticas. Por isso recorremos aos melhores especialistas nesse período, que conheciam as histórias dos colonos, dos soldados, das mulheres. Uma das coisas que tentamos fazer — e que não foi muito abordada em filmes anteriores — foi incluir as mulheres. É como se os homens tivessem ido sozinhos, como cowboys, xerifes, tiroteios, mas, no entanto, as mulheres também estavam lá. E era uma época terrivelmente dura para se viver ali”, afirmou Doris em coletiva para a imprensa internacional.

Foto: History, cortesia

Ao apresentar essas histórias sob diversas perspectivas, a produção ilumina tanto as contribuições indeléveis dos pioneiros que moldaram o sonho do Oeste estadunidense quanto a corajosa resistência das tribos nativas, que defenderam com valentia suas terras ancestrais. Do legado de figuras como Lewis e Clark e Sacagawea, aos confrontos entre xerifes e forasteiros, O Velho Oeste com Kevin Costner retrata um século de eventos transformadores.

Também na coletiva, Costner afirmou: “Parece que questionamos muito o que aconteceu naquela época e, honestamente, quando vemos o que ocorre hoje, deveríamos questionar ainda mais. O que aprendemos? O que ganhamos quando dominamos outro povo, quando queremos expandir nossas fronteiras? O que ganhamos de verdade quando silenciamos uma voz? (…). É muito fácil para nós olharmos para o país de vocês e vermos o que pode estar errado. E também para refletirmos o que está errado no nosso. (…) 90% dos nossos problemas, acredito, poderiam ser resolvidos com humanidade, empatia e um pensamento realmente orientado para a justiça e a compreensão”.

Para Doris, os conflitos do passado ressoam nos dilemas atuais dos Estados Unidos: “Um dos maiores problemas que estamos vivendo hoje em nosso país — e que também ocorreu naquela época e no início do século XX — foi algo que Theodore Roosevelt advertiu: se pessoas de diferentes classes, regiões, religiões e setores começarem a se enxergar como ‘o outro’, em vez de como cidadãos norte-americanos comuns, perderemos aquela base que uma democracia precisa”.

Com o inconfundível selo do History — contar histórias reais por meio de potentes dramatizações, arquivos detalhados e intervenções de especialistas que oferecem contexto e profundidade —, cada episódio da série revive um fato-chave do Velho Oeste, como batalhas marcantes e personagens lendários. Entre elas, a vitória do chefe Little Turtle contra o Exército dos Estados Unidos, os combates liderados pelos povos Blackfeet, Comanche e Lakota Sioux, guerreiros como Red Cloud e Crazy Horse e ainda a história do célebre vigilante Joaquin Murrieta, conhecido como ‘o Robin Wood do Oeste’.

Na estreia, o History exibe dois episódios

O primeiro deles é Timbers caídos. Depois de muitos anos de invasões de colonos, o Chefe Little Turtle lidera as nações nativas americanas à vitória sobre o incipiente Exército dos Estados Unidos. No entanto, o General Anthony Wayne contra-ataca, e uma batalha decisiva se aproxima, marcando o início de uma nova expansão em direção ao Velho Oeste.

Em seguida, em A fuga de Colter, John Colter, um caçador da Expedição Lewis e Clark, escolhe viver em meio à natureza e comercializar peles. Porém, ao ignorar os avisos dos Blackfeet e caçar em suas terras sagradas, ele é capturado. Agora, precisa fugir para salvar sua vida, liderando uma perseguição literalmente lendária.

#25AnosHistory #AméricaLatina #CrazyHorse #documentário #DorisKearnsGoodwin #Emmy #EstadosUnidos #estreia #GloboDeOuro #históriaAmericana #History #JoaquinMurrieta #KevinCostner #LewisEClark #LittleTurtle #OVelhoOeste #Oscar #povosNativos #RedCloud #Sacagawea #sérieHistórica #superprodução #TaylorSheridanRemover_ #TheWest #VelhoOeste

History comemora 25 anos de América Latina com a estreia da série documental 'O Velho Oeste' com Kevin Costner: superprodução em oito episódios oferece um novo olhar sobre a história do Oeste Americano

Western media often portray violent uprisings and disasters in the Global South as heroic revolutions or tragic spectacles, applying double standards by portraying similar events at home through a different moral lens. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2025/10/03/world/media-hypocrisy-on-insurrections-and-revolutions/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=mastodon #commentary #worldnews #globalsouth #media #nepal #philippines #madagascar #indonesia #thewest #africa #southamerica

Five Reasons Why Moldova’s Latest Elections Were So Important

By Andrew Korybko

Even in the best-case scenario that their tensions remain manageable, NATO will still solidify its presence along Ukraine’s southwestern flank which also serves as the Black Sea’s north-western one, thus doubling the potential trouble that the bloc could one day pose for Russia.

Moldova’s ruling “Party of Action & Solidarity” (PAS), which was founded by liberal-globalist President Maia Sandu, lost some seats in the latest parliamentary elections but still narrowly won a majority. This result was achieved through suspected fraud, banning two conservative-nationalist opposition parties, only opening two polling stations in Russia for their half-million-strong diaspora, and creating obstacles for voters from the separatist region of Transnistria. Here are five reasons why these elections matter:

———-

1. The West Has Perfected Its “Regime Reinforcement” Model

Last fall’s EU referendum and Sandu’s re-election were achieved via the means above, which preceded the first round of Romania’s presidential election whose results were then annulled on false pretexts of foreign meddling after the result disappointed the EU. The re-run then predictably led to their preferred candidate winning upon his rival’s disqualification. The West’s “regime reinforcement” model has now been perfected after the latest Moldovan elections and will thus likely be applied elsewhere in Europe.

2. NATO Will Complete Its De Facto Capture Of Moldova

Moldova is a constitutionally neutral state but that could soon change if PAS holds another referendum modelled off of its flawed EU one. Even without amending the constitution, NATO is still expected to complete its de facto capture of Moldova, likely by building upon Moldova’s special ties with Romania and last year’s defence pact with France. As was assessed here, France envisages using Romania-Moldova as a launchpad for openly intervening in Ukraine, whether before or after the war ends.

3. Moldova Will Be Drawn Even Deeper Into Mission Creep

Expanding upon the second consequence of these elections, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warned in mid-July that “NATO Is Turning Moldova Into A New Military Ram Against Russia”, adding that its citizens might even be used as cannon fodder in Ukraine. Whether Moldova ultimately gets directly involved in the conflict or only facilitates the flow of arms and maybe one day Western/French troops there too, it’s still being drawn even deeper into mission creep, which entails very serious security risks.

4. A Joint Moldovan-Ukrainian Attack On Transnistria Is Possible

The preceding two consequences segue into the penultimate one of NATO backing a joint Moldovan-Ukrainian attack on Transnistria, something that SVR warned about last winter, on the assumption that it would be a low-cost but highly symbolic victory over Russia whose peacekeepers are still deployed there. This dangerous scenario could provoke Russian retaliation against Moldova, thus directly dragging it into the conflict, and possibly even NATO-member Romania too if its troops clash with Russia’s peacekeepers.

5. The Root Cause Of NATO-Russian Tensions Remains Intact

And finally, what all of this shows is that NATO continues expanding eastward at the expense of Russia’s security interests, thus confirming that the root cause of their tensions remains intact. These latest moves raise the odds that NATO will intensify its de facto expansion into Ukraine too, whether during or after the war, which in turn raises the odds of NATO-Russian tensions further worsening. The new normal that’s therefore emerging between them is one of heightened tensions for the foreseeable future.

———-

In view of the above, it’s clear that the latest Moldovan elections were much more important than casual observers might have thought, especially given how much their outcome is expected to further worsen NATO-Russian tensions. Even in the best-case scenario that they remain manageable, NATO will still solidify its presence along Ukraine’s southwestern flank which also serves as the Black Sea’s north-western one, thus doubling the potential trouble that the bloc could one day pose for Russia.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#EU #Geopolitics #Moldova #NATO #Russia #TheWest #Transnistria #Ukraine

#theWest

Client Info