L’élite européenne vaincue et le coup de désespoir (par Pepe Escobar)

Quatre ans après son lancement, l’opération militaire spéciale (SMO) semble être une opération dans laquelle la Russie atteint lentement mais

L’article L’élite européenne vaincue et le coup de désespoir (par Pepe Escobar) est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.

L’Iran lance deux missiles balistiques en direction de Diego Garcia, mais il est encore trop tôt pour dire qu’ils peuvent atteindre l’Europe !

Dans la nuit du 20 au 21 mars, l’Iran a tiré deux missiles balistiques en direction de l’île de Diego

L’article L’Iran lance deux missiles balistiques en direction de Diego Garcia, mais il est encore trop tôt pour dire qu’ils peuvent atteindre l’Europe ! est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.

Michael Hudson: The Ceasefire Charade

With Nima:

This is a little older but given the charade that we are watching in terms of a Ukraine plan, it is a perfect day.  This is why Russia thanks the US because the US is part of the charade and Russia just does not have to do it.   Reminder, these negotiations are being done and advertised and leaders are making statements and flying to and fro while discussing this with a sham president that has no authority to even speak, let alone carry out anything.

NIMA ALKHORSHID: Hi, everybody. Today is Wednesday, November 26, 2025, and our dear friend, Michael Hudson, is here with us. Welcome back, Michael.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s good to be back.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Please subscribe and hit the like button to help us reach more people. And you can see Michael Hudson’s website (below his name): michael-hudson.com. You can go there and follow Michael.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s michael, hyphen, hudson, dot, com (michael-hudson.com).

⁣⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Michael, let me start with the [28]-point plan on the part of the United States. They have proposed [28 points]. It seems that they have reduced it, after the meeting [Marco] Rubio had in Geneva with Europeans and Ukrainians. They have reduced it, as Donald Trump mentioned. We thought that it would be 19 points, but Donald Trump today said that it’s going to be 22 points.

But after all, looking at the document, what is your take on what’s going on, with the document?

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: The important thing to realize is it’s not a peace proposal. It’s not a plan at all. It’s a bold attempt to shape the terms in which the public views the entire Ukrainian coup d’état at Maidan in February 2014, followed by the whole Ukrainian attack on the Russian-speaking population, and the last (almost three) years of war. It’s a fight to shape public opinion, and it’s (in that sense) a brilliant propaganda attack. President Putin and Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov have given speech after speech explaining the whole history, explaining how the Russians intend to end the war when they win and they create a new government — free of the Nazis, free of the Russia-haters — and disarm Ukraine, and prevent it from joining NATO.

What NATO and the Americans have done is, instead of just giving a different speech and saying, okay, here’s your narrative, here’s ours, they’ve encapsulated their answer, and their counter-argument, and their counter-narrative, in the form of a point by point, listing by listing — as if it’s a proposed articles of agreement [document]. And, of course, these articles will never be agreed upon. There’s no way in which either Russia or NATO (Europe, and the United States) — not to mention Zelensky’s government in Ukraine — can accept them.

So, the purpose is not to get any agreement at all. It’s to make people think in terms of: How do we view what’s happening? What’s the war all about? Who’s responsible for it? And these points have been crafted by propagandists, to sort of win the hearts and minds of the people, in support of the Maidan coup.

The aim has been sort of leaked to the press, going all the way back — to reverse the way of, how World War II ended. What Europe wants to do is say: We want to refight the end of World War II. And already in 1944, Churchill was saying: As soon as the war is over, let’s attack the Soviet Union. Europe said: Well, let’s go back to that point — 1944 — okay? That’s 80 years ago. Let’s see whether we can refight, at that point. Now we can attack Russia.

That’s really what it’s about, and it’s an outrageous trick. It’s been carefully thought out and propagandized. So the peace proposal is not intended to bring peace. It’s just a propaganda charade at pretending to negotiate peace. And it’s really a propaganda effort. In a word, the aim is to essentially obfuscate what is really happening.

By the way, Foreign Minister Lavrov said yesterday at a French news conference that Europe’s “elites opted for war and have staked their entire political careers on the slogan of inflicting what they call a strategic defeat on Russia.” [Dialogue F-R YouTube channel, Nov. 21, 2025]

Well, that has failed; so NATO realizes it’s lost the war. It doesn’t have the arms to fight. You’ve seen the Russian advance, accelerating day after day. So NATO says: Well, okay, we’ll lose the war. How do we win the peace? And that’s going to be: How is history (and current voters) going to look at what’s been happening? What is all of this about? And if you look at the U.S. press (the New York Times and the Washington Post) and the British press, it’s which side of the fight is analogous to the Nazis and [Adolf] Hitler? In the New York Times yesterday, you have [Thomas] Friedman talking about, well, how can Trump appease Hitler? Trump is “Putin’s puppet.”

These agreements are really Russia’s demands. (Well, of course, they’re not Russia’s demands before. You can read the Russian demand, and what Putin and Lavrov have said.) So, I think we can [discuss], if this were really an agreement to discuss: Where do we go from here, and how do we think about solving this fighting in Ukraine?

Article 1 should be: Were there any war crimes committed? That’s what it’s all about. And a basic issue is, well, if they were, by whom, and against whom? And who are the victims? And what were these crimes? Well, Russia has already announced that when it conquers Ukraine and installs a non-Nazi government, it’s going to hold a modern Nuremberg trial. It’s going to convict parties that have committed war crimes. That is what terrifies the NATO leaders, not to mention the kleptocrats in Zelensky’s regime that have enriched themselves and been embezzling the loans — from Europe, the United States, and, especially, the International Monetary Fund — to buy properties offshore, and Bitcoin, and the things that kleptocrats do to hide or conceal the money they’ve taken.

Well, for the Russians, it’s vitally important to establish the historical record, because that’s the key to what is going to be the body of international law following  on from all of this.

Again and again, President Putin and Lavrov have said: We thought that the Nuremberg trials had established the international law of war crimes. We’ve been attacked. Russia is not the attacker. The Maidan [the coupists] was the attacker. The Ukrainian attack on the Russian-speaking population — the civilian population — was a war crime, breaking the rules of war. We came in to protect the Russian speakers. The populations of Luhansk and Donetsk have voted to become part of Russia, which were, in practice, [Russian] all the time during the Soviet Union, when there wasn’t any real separate Ukrainian nation.

The Russians are basing their actions, and their intentions, on international law. To do this, they have to have a Nuremberg trial — a war-crime trial — to reiterate: What is the appropriate international law to deal with the situation, such as we’ve been fighting, for more than two years, in Ukraine? And the West says: Well, it was Russia that’s the attacker. Russia has committed the war crime. That’s the travesty of what’s happening.

But it’s the aim of the U.S. and NATO narrative to turn the war into a new Cold War propaganda weapon against Russia, aimed at turning the world against Russia and supporting Western Europe. So, in practical terms, it’s to protect the Ukrainians and neo-Nazis, and the European backers; to whitewash all the corruption that’s been occurring during this.

And a major aim of the Ukrainian Nazis has been to avoid punishment. They want to leave Ukraine with the money that they’ve embezzled, and stored away, and go to their British mansions and Mediterranean castles.

So, the U.S.-NATO proposal calls for blanket amnesty. And if there, indeed, were a war crime, then there shouldn’t be an amnesty for everyone. If a criminal breaks the law, then the criminal must be arrested, and put away, not merely to punish them for what they’ve done in the past, but to protect the present population from having them continue to commit crimes.

Well, that (committing crimes) is exactly what the NATO-West wants to do against Russia, against China, against Venezuela, against Iran, and against any country that is resisting the U.S.-dominated world order. So, all of this jockeying, for how do we determine the terms of peace? Is it all, we’re just going to forget everything? Are we going to blame Russia, or are we going to blame the United States and NATO? All of this is what’s at stake, in all of this.

I can elaborate. The original proposal called for Ukraine to investigate corruption. The Wall Street Journal, a few days ago, reported that the Ukrainians insisted on changing the language to say that all countries will receive “full amnesty for their actions during the war.” Well, the actions are not only the war crimes — staging false flags, like the Bucha staged [war crime] — but the crimes of embezzlement. The World Bank, the Europeans, all have agreed that NATO [Ukraine] is the most corrupt country in the Northern Hemisphere, and it has been ever since 1991 —

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: You mean Ukraine is the most corrupt?

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, what did I say?

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: You said NATO.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: I’m sorry. Well, Ukraine is the most corrupt, although its corruption has been with the full participation and support of Europe. And I would imagine that any trial is going to involve the actions of [Emmanuel] Macron, and [Friedrich] Merz, and [Keir] Starmer (and the British — in breaking up the agreement that the Ukrainians and Russians had made to end the war all the way back in 2022 — the agreements that were all broken, and turned out to want a ceasefire just to rearm Ukraine with more NATO arms to go on fighting against Russia). That’s something that Russia is never going to fall for again.

So, the whole idea of a ceasefire, as if that’s what these proposals are about, there never was a possibility of that. And so, if that was never a realistic possibility, why are they doing it? It doesn’t have anything to do with creating an actual peace, as I said. It’s a way to shape the categories of how people think about this whole conflict between NATO and Russia, the whole expansion of NATO since the Americans had promised NATO would not expand, if Russia ended its military occupation of Central Europe and agreed to dissolve the Soviet Union. All of that has already happened, and I don’t think Russia has any intention of trying to trust the West again.

So, the reality is that any real peace agreement, logically, has to be created after the fighting stops — not before it stops — and especially not when one side is defeating the other overwhelmingly. Trying to freeze a conflict when Russia is overwhelmingly winning is trying to solve the Ukrainian problem by just making the loser set the terms of the peace.

NATO and the United States have lost the war that they started in Ukraine — hoping that the war would drain Russia’s economy; would create an economic crisis; would persuade Russian voters that we need a regime change, we’ve got to replace Putin for having started this war, and put in a new group. The idea of a “new” group is the same neoliberal kleptocrats that they put in in the 1990s — privatize Russia, ideally break it into parts (the whole strategy against Russia) — and that’s just a fantasy.

So, how can they, at least, try to convince the population that this fantasy is a realistic probability, and even a moral probability?

Their solution is to say (well, the big picture): Who are the counterparts to World War II’s Nazis in this? And we’re seeing a replay of the ending of World War II. And since Russia is organizing the peace, it’s in a position to hold these (what I call the new) Nuremberg trials.

And the NATO aim is to make people take seriously the idea that Putin is a modern Neville Chamberlain making peace with the Nazis — (I’m sorry, not Putin) to make Donald Trump look like a Neville Chamberlain — just surrendering to Russia. That’s what Friedman had written in the New York Times. It’s what the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and network television in the United States keep saying: We’re back in what started all of World War II, when Chamberlain did not protest against Russia’s moving into Czechoslovakia to defend the German population there.

Well, if trying to say that Trump is a Chamberlain means — you have the leaders of the Republicans in Congress, Mitch McConnell, especially, says there’s no way in which the U.S. Congress can possibly agree to even the proposal that Trump and his staff have put on the table. So Congress has already announced [that] any agreement is going to be a no-go. The Ukrainians have said: We absolutely will not cede any territory to Russia. Even though Russia has conquered it, even though we have no army to defend it, we’re not going to agree with that.

Well, the defeated party does not get the right to determine the terms of peace, and who won and who lost. That’s what war is about. As [Carl von] Clausewitz said, it’s a continuation of policy by other means — by military means. Russia has been obliged to use an enormous expenditure, and troops, to achieve this military policy of ending the NATO expansion towards trying to destroy the Russian economy, and hurt it in any way it can; especially by cutting off its trade with Europe in oil and gas, and other things; to seize Russia’s savings that it had kept in the West and [in] Euroclear (its foreign-exchange reserves that it was using).

That’s the first issue.

The second article up for discussion should not be put in terms of blaming one party or another. It should be: Who owes reparations to whom, and how are reparations going to be paid? Well, trying to frame the narrative, the current text says Russia owes reparations to Ukraine; but it’s Ukraine that should pay reparations; and Europe-NATO should pay reparations to Russia for initiating the war, for breaking the rules of war, for destroying enormous amounts of civilian property in the Russian-speaking portions of what was Ukraine.

And this is the cover story for the U.S. and Congress backing the NATO-Euroclear seizure of more than 200 billion euros (even more in dollars) of Russian assets. They say: Make these assets a loan to Ukraine. Well, Ukraine’s already broke. It’s unable to pay the IMF loans.

The IMF loans, in fact, were made — illegally — against the basic principles of the IMF, saying the International Monetary Fund will not make loans to a country at war, or to support a belligerent. The IMF said: This is not war. You know? This is … we’re defending ourselves. The war is … Russia, not Ukraine.

So the pretense that somehow [Russia] is liable? The hope [of the belligerents] is going to be that when Russia carves out its portions — of those Ukrainians that want to be part of Russia, and vote to become part of Russia — that the whole idea is to destabilize the next decade of legal argument, saying Russia owes money to the West. Well, if Russia would have thought of not giving speeches, but let us put a 28-point plan in, it would have said, how much does the West owe Russia? What’s going to be the cost?

There’s no question that Russia is going to spend more than 200 billion euros (and dollars), the equivalent in rebuilding all of the real estate that you’ve seen destroyed in the fighting that’s gone on so far — which is entirely on Russian-speaking land.

The way that the Trump administration shaped the agreement was: Well, alright, we’ll give 100 million of this (half of the money) to Donald Trump’s group, so American companies can come in, and they can rebuild Ukraine, and make enormous profits — Russia has no intention of letting American real-estate companies rip off profits, and emulate the Zelensky kleptocrats in just embezzling the money for themselves — and building the kind of shoddy building that Trump is known for, the shoddy Trump Tower, whose architects tell me he cut costs everywhere, and it’s just junk. The Russians build much stronger buildings, to last, and at less expense than Trump’s real-estate ripoffs that he made his career on building.

So, all of this, the phrasing of the peace agreement is designed to justify Trump’s, and the Americans’, and the Western Europeans’ attempt simply to grab what was Russia’s foreign-exchange reserves for themselves, and prevent Russia from having the resources to spend — the balance-of-payments drain — that it’s going to take to buy the raw materials, the equipment to rebuild the buildings with plumbing, all of the imported goods, the facilities that you need to make new apartment houses, houses — the vast amount of reconstruction that Russia is going to have to spend (and has promised to spend in Luhansk and Donetsk), and the other territories that it takes as it moves west, again, to those populations that want to remain part of Russia — leaving the Ukrainian West that does not want to be part of Russia isolated, demilitarized, denazified, and disarmed, not to ever again become a proxy battlefield for NATO, led by the United States and the neocons in their fight against Russia. It wants to prevent that permanently; not simply to have a short-term ripoff that is being proposed by the United States.

I’m amazed that the Russians have not been more vocal in calling a spade a spade in all of this.

You may have other points of the agreement that you’d want to bring up. And if you go over point by point, I’ll be glad to answer them.

But again, to me, the key is, Russia’s 200 billion in reserves is, the subject of this false narrative, of the premise: that Russia is the attacker — not NATO — and that Russia has attacked civilians — not Ukraine has attacked civilians.

Russia was very careful to focus on military targets, that extended to energy companies, to electrical systems. Russia had proposed a mutual agreement between it and NATO-Ukraine not to bomb each other’s energy; and President Trump said: No, no. We have to bomb Russia’s oil refineries because we want to block Russia’s ability to export oil. We want to create an oil crisis so that the United States can use oil as the key controller of American foreign policy. This is what you and I have discussed for the last few months on your show. So, of course, Trump said: No, no. Ukraine, don’t agree not to bomb energy systems.

So, Russia realizes that it’s energy that has been powering the NATO arms factories, that’s been powering the Ukrainian war machine, and that its basic military tactic is indeed to focus on destroying this military ability to fight; and energy is as much the key to military conquest as it is to Gross National Product. Energy is what makes the factories go; it’s what heats apartments; and it’s made life unlivable for much of Western Ukraine — and that was the choice of Trump’s foreign policy.

So, these are the two shaping narrative structures of the propaganda effort that’s been put in place. Do you have any questions you want to follow on to fill out this big picture?

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Michael, one of the crucial points in the [28] points is the size of the Ukrainian army, which was supposed to be (in the document) about 600,000. Then the Europeans changed it to 800,000. And right now, it seems that there is no limitation for that.

Who’s going to pay for this army? You know, it’s a huge army, if they go in that direction — because this army should be supported by someone, you know, other countries, Europeans, together with the United States — which literally means that NATO is going to arm this Ukrainian army, again and again, to fight Russians. The same attitude.

Do you think that Russia would accept that?

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: This is the opposite of demilitarizing the enemy.

Remember the end of World War II? The Morgenthau Plan in the United States was to say, make Germany never industrial again — make it an agricultural country, make it a theme park, but it won’t be an industrial country — so, that was [Henry] Morgenthau’s plan, and that was turned down by the United States. But the idea was for Germany, and also for Japan: Japan and Germany were to demilitarize and never be able to rearm, because they were incorrigible aggressors. And that is the principle (exactly the same principle) that Russia is trying to do [in Ukraine].

NATO says: We have to triple the size of what the Ukrainian army was when we began this war; and we have to leave the Nazis in control. There won’t be any war-crimes trial. We have to leave the Ukrainian government. It may not be [led by] Zelensky, it’ll be one of the [Stepan] Bandera followers. It will be the Nazi-led army so that, if we fail (so far), we can come again — and this time, we’re really going to hit you, with long-[range] missiles, and we’re still going to bring down the [Russian] government — until the Russian population says: It’s worth anything to surrender to the West and let them take over. We can’t fight anymore.

This is the evil fantasy that is being promoted.

Of course, Russia is going to say: We are the victors. We get to disarm the government. We get to put in place a post-war constitution of the restructured Ukraine (whatever is left of Ukraine), so that it will not have a standing army; it will not have Western weapons. And if the Western countries, if NATO or the United States provides weapons to [Ukraine], President Putin has already said: If a missile, or a weapon hurts the Russians, we will retaliate not simply against Ukraine; we’ll retaliate against the country that has supplied Ukraine with the weapons.

Well, Donald Trump has said, quite realistically: There’s no way Ukraine is going to win. It’s a black hole. We are not going to give weapons to Ukraine. It doesn’t pay —

We want to fight China. This is a race war. It’s the Anglo-Saxon West against the global majority; and China is the key, our long-term enemy. We want to do to China what we tried to do to Russia, and failed; so we’re not going to spend any money on arms on Russia, because we’ve depleted all of our arms, and NATO has depleted its arms. It doesn’t have any more —

We’ve got to prepare for the final conflict of civilization, the civilizational fight by the West, waged against the 85% global majority.

That’s Trump’s position; so Trump is not going to provide American arms to Ukraine. It’ll be the European countries. And it will be these countries, against which Russia will retaliate — and destroy not only their arms factories, but the political and military capitals, and ports, and power supply itself. The European NATO leaders, having agreed to fight to the last Ukrainian, are now saying: We’re going to fight to the last European, in an attempt to, somehow, hurt Russia, a little bit.

So, European history, essentially, is going to end, if this plan is put into operation — Russia has made that very clear. It says: There must be a better solution. Let’s just have nothing to do with Western Europe. Let it go its way. It can join the United States in some kind of political alliance — maybe France can become the 52nd state, Germany the 53rd state, you know, after Canada and Mexico. Right down the line. It doesn’t matter.

Russia wants to separate itself from the West and turn east. The West wants to move eastward, via Russia, towards its own fight against China. That is the long military dynamic — and it’s a crazy dynamic. It’s crazy because there’s no chance that the West has of winning. Its arms don’t work. The American ATACMS missiles that were just fired at Russia were all shot down by the Russian defenses. And then the Russians retaliated by a missile that killed the troops that were sending the missiles [their] way. I don’t know how you can get a clearer example of — this is a microcosm of what would happen if there are further NATO attempts to attack Russia.

But you can see that they don’t have the arms, they don’t have the money for the arms, and yet the  leaders — Macron, Starmer, Merz, the Dutch leaders — and the French general, last week, said France should be willing to sacrifice its youth of the future to fight Russia: We need an army to go into Ukraine towards Russia and invade it. Your children are going to die. It’s all worth it because we hate Russia, don’t you?

Well, how are they going to get the population, ever, to say: Okay, we’ll send our kids to war and they can fight to the last French infantryman, just like the Ukrainians are fighting to the last Ukrainian? Of course, we will agree that this is a moral fight against Russia?

I don’t see any way of convincing the French population of doing that. So far, you’ve had all of the yellow-vest protests against the Macron government. What more can they do? What do you do when a government is fighting a war in Ukraine, against Russia, that the populations of Germany, France, the rest of the European countries, do not support?

Their only outlet has been to support the nationalistic parties, such as the Alternativ für Deutschland, [Giorgia] Meloni in Italy, and similar parties in England and abroad. That’s not very effective in stopping this whole military plan of attack, and the whole rearmament, and the whole resumption of the new Cold War — which, really, is trying to refight the end of World War II. That’s, really, what it’s all about.

Well, Russia is going to be the winner. The winner gets to set the terms, and NATO will lose; but it can say: Well, if we can generate in the public mind enough resentment against the Russian victory, against the Russian denazification, against the Russian demilitarization of Ukraine; then we can fan these simmering embers of resentment into a new anti-Russian mentality.

It’s all about the narrative, once again. That’s what they’re trying to do in all of this; and that’s why they keep calling Trump Neville Chamberlain, and turning Trump into “Putin’s puppet.” It turns history inside out, and, with it, the whole idea of right and wrong, and good and evil, as described by the whole spirit of civilization for the last few hundred years of drawing up laws of warfare — laws to prevent armies from attacking civilians, false-flag operations. The whole behavior, and breakdown, of the system of international law that’s occurred over the last few decades — really since 1990 (quite a few decades now) — all of this is a breakdown.

That’s what we’re dealing with: the breakdown of the West, and the attempt by Russia, China, and Eurasia to create its own laws of civilization — on how they would define civilization — and these laws are pretty universal; and they’ll pick up what the West’s ideals used to be, but which the West has abandoned now.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Michael, how do you see the ability of Europe — because Ursula von der Leyen was talking about [how] Ukraine must be part of Europe (Ukraine, in today’s condition that they have, politically, economically, militarily)? Is Europe capable, or able to let Ukraine in?

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: The question is: What will Ukraine be?

If Europe lets Ukraine in, is there going to be free migration within Ukraine? You’re going to have the Ukrainian males who are able to bribe their way, or otherwise escape from the suicidal service in the army, [and] have already gone into Poland, and Central Europe, and into Germany. From what I read in the newspapers, they’ve made themselves fairly unpopular there, by being very demanding, saying: You have to support us. We’re victims.

Can Europe afford this whole migration crisis?

Well, the whole spirit of the nationalist parties, and of the voters, is very much like the United States. It’s anti-immigration. They’re saying: Western Europe for the Western Europeans; or, at least, they’re saying: France for the Frenchmen, Germany for the Germans, Britain for the British; but not for these countries to support, first of all, the influx of populations from the Middle East (where the United States [has] destroyed), from North Africa, from the Islamic countries — and now from the Ukrainians.

In order to fund the war, you’ve had Chancellor Merz in Germany say: We’ve got to cut back social spending. We’ve got to end the subsidies that we have given to German families — so that they can afford the higher gas and oil prices to heat their homes, and to cook, and to drive their cars — that we’ve been giving, when we cut off the trade with Russia. We cannot afford that, if we are going to spend our money on creating arms to give, or sell, or otherwise provide Ukraine with.

Well, what do you think the Germans are going to say? It’s okay? We’re willing to freeze in the dark and eat cold cereal instead of cooking, as long as we’re hurting Russia?

Can they really be convinced to hate Russia that much?

The neocons find this believable because they hate Russia that much. They’re not willing to fight Russia — and the Banderites (the neo-Nazis in Ukraine) are not the armies, primarily, that are fighting. The Azov Battalion, and others, tend to stay in the back and send the Ukrainian farmboys to fight, not the Nazis themselves. They’re shooting their own soldiers in the back, if their soldiers seek to retreat, instead of moving forward and simply being killed by the Russian drones.

So, you’re having an internecine Ukrainian war, by the Nazis, against the non-Nazi Ukrainians.

And you’re going to have this kind of counterpart all throughout the European countries, between the neocon governments representing NATO (the EU union represents NATO, not the elected voters) and the voters in the European countries. All of that is breaking up the European Union itself. And that’s going to be one of the results of this war.

It will not be up to Russia to do what it’s doing in Ukraine, and rewrite the European constitution and restructure the European economies, like it intends to do in Ukraine.

But you can see that in this fight over how to depict the culmination of the Russian military victory and restructuring of Ukraine; and the loss of the war by NATO, by the United States, and the loss of its whole plans to destabilize Russia — to deplete its arms supply, in order to try to make Russia deplete its arms supply (which has not occurred) — the failure of all of its unrealistic forecasts.

And this is what’s at stake: Can it maintain the fictitious view of reality that led to all of this failure, in the first place, ever since the 2014 Maidan coup d’état?

That’s what is the big picture of destabilization that’s occurring. And at what point will the European countries say: We’ve been suckered into fighting on behalf of NATO (which is really the U.S. War Department, as Trump has renamed it) — really, in serving American neocon foreign policy —

And maybe we should have a European policy, and the aim of our policy should be to improve the productivity and living standards and self-reliance of our European countries themselves, for our self-interest — not the neocon and the Trumpian-American self-interest, that has led to the surrender of von der Leyen to Trump’s tariff rules a few months ago?

They’re going to put European interests before foreign interests; and that’s going to mean, at some point, the loss of Europe to the United States.

This has been discussed by Putin in some of his press conferences. And he said, I think, realistically: You know, it’s going to take about 30 years for there, really, to be a restoration of trust, and trade, and investment, mutually, between Western Europe and Russia. For the time being, we’re turning eastward, with countries whose values we share.

And this ending of the Ukraine war, like the beginning of the Ukraine war, has been all about values.

And I think Lavrov had a wonderful statement, a few days ago, in the meeting with Belarus that Russia has once a year. He said: If we talk about what was, and what they want to restore (meaning NATO), these are all exhausted Euro-Atlantic models. NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] are Euro-Atlantic structures. The European Union has long ceased to be a European forum where the interests of Europeans are represented. It’s become an appendage to NATO. And what they call fighting for their values, is fighting for, what turns out to be, Nazi values.

That says it all, in a nutshell.

Again, yesterday, Lavrov said, in a French interview, that the whole drama began with the West’s attempt to have NATO absorb Ukraine, create a military threat to Russia right on our borders; and in breach of all the promises given to the Soviet Union, and contrary to all the understandings concluded then with the Russian Federation. As part of the OSCE framework on the indivisible nature of security, and the fact that no organization, no country in Europe will seek to strengthen its security at the expense of others, it was approved at the highest level — NATO acted in exactly the opposite way.

That’s the Russian position that’s going to shape how it restructures the domestic legal system and political system of Ukraine, and the value system in which it’s doing this. If you read what they’ve said, you realize the total disconnect between the so-called “peace proposal” propaganda effort, and what Russia intends to do. Russia has been sort of slow to raise the ante, and say: This isn’t simply about what military side is going to win; it’s a fight over the values of civilization. And Lavrov has said that Western Europe no longer has the values that shaped the Enlightenment, and shaped European Idealism at a point when Europe achieved world political and economic ascendancy in the 19th and 20th centuries.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Michael, before this live[stream] we were talking about Bloomberg’s leak of Steve Witkoff’s private call with Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov. What are they trying to do?

Looking at the social media, the way that they’re attacking Steve Witkoff, they’re calling [him] a KGB agent? He’s an agent of the Trump administration! He’s Russia’s puppet, “Putin’s puppet?” What’s going on with the case of Witkoff? It seems that the establishment is attacking him, and these people are getting in line with the establishment.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you mentioned the establishment. It’s obvious that the phone calls and the emails that Witkoff was handling were all copied by the National Security Agency. Essentially, they’re doing to Witkoff what they did to Donald Trump in his first administration, [when he] tried to appoint the general that was going to clean up the CIA, and clean out the bad actors. The NSA leaked it to the FBI saying, oh, look at what the general said. They pretty much falsified the charges against him.

I’m blocking out the general’s name, but you must remember who he is. At any rate, they’re trying to do the same with Witkoff. They’re trying to

Witkoff by saying, here is the reality that we recognize, when he was talking to [Kirill] Dmitriev and other Russians.

 

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Michael, you mean that general that was in Russiagate, they said that he’s connected with Russia, General [Michael] Flynn?

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, General Flynn. The one thing that the deep state wanted to do was to prevent General Flynn from being appointed to clean out the CIA, to clean out the neocons. That’s what Trump wanted to do. They framed him up, and they got Trump’s awful vice-president [Mike Pence] to say, and his idiot son-in-law [Jared Kushner] to say: No, you’ve got to get rid of General Flynn. The FBI doesn’t like him.

Well, of course the FBI and the deep state doesn’t like him because he wanted to clean out the neocons. And Trump was gullible enough to trust his idiot son-in-law and the vice president that was urging him. And he listened to the neocons who he wanted to get rid of for the advice: Don’t have anyone strong enough to get rid of us in power. He was suckered.

And I think he decided not to do that again. And that’s why he’s focused, in his second term, on appointing politically loyal cabinet members, and army members, and NSC members, and State Department members. The problem is that appointing political loyalists, they’re not (all) that savvy as to how to really conduct foreign relations and foreign policy, or even military policy. So that’s the trade-off that is sort of tearing his second term apart.

Well, they’re trying to say: Witkoff, by saying that Russia is winning, Witkoff is also “Putin’s puppet.” Well, any attempt at reality is defined [by neocons] as “pro-Russian,” because reality is the Russians have defeated Ukraine. They are marching towards victory, that they will probably conclude at the end of next spring, at the latest, in Ukraine. They will get rid of the Nazi government. They will replace it with a new government. They will write a new constitution.

All of that (obvious) military victory is a realistic expectation, and yet that’s called pro-Russian. Well, if reality is pro-Russian, then that means that NATO and America is the sphere of unreality. And the only way that you can ever get unreality to somehow dominate the electoral political process is by shaping a narrative in a way that distorts reality, that distorts the reality that recognizes Russia’s military victory in Ukraine; and, by the same token, [distorts the reality] that recognizes the futility of ever sending millions of Ukrainians to die, or to emigrate, or to suffer, to fight to the last Ukrainian.

What will the Ukrainian population think when the war is over? The voters — not the neo-Nazi leaders and the kleptocrats — what will they think? To say: How did we ever get our children, and our relatives, killed in this futile fight that we’ve lost, and had no chance of winning, because we were outgunned, outmanned? And all of this was just to, somehow, weaken Russia, not to help us? What interest did we have in fighting against the Russian language, in burning the library books that are written in Russian, in blaming, banning the Russian speakers, banning Russian music, and all of that?

Last time I was in Latvia, I remember, we were invited to a concert, and it was Dmitry Shostakovich’s opera, Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. This was many years ago, when I was there performing Russian operas. All that, now, is swept away by the anti-Russian Baltic feeling, by banning the Russian-speaking population from voting and really having a voice in the electoral process. So that’s what all of this is about.

When they’re saying that Witkoff is pro-Russian, and that what he is saying — that Russia’s winning — is pro-Russian — it’s as if that’s a bad word. Instead of saying: Witkoff is recognizing economic reality. Thank God that we have Donald Trump appointing him, [who] is willing to face the reality that, as Trump has said (again and again), Ukraine is losing. And if Ukraine doesn’t agree to end the war now, on whatever terms it can, it’s going to be in an even worse position later. Well, Trump is right.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Yeah, exactly. Thank you so much, Michael, for being with us today. It was great to talk in detail [about] what’s going on in terms of Trump’s [28]-point peace plan, and what’s next, happening behind the scenes. Yeah, great pleasure, Michael.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Thank you very much. I’m so glad we had this discussion.

Op Seal: How US tried to weaponise oceans & create a horror tsunami

In the closing years of World War II, the United States, with the reluctant cooperation of New Zealand, embarked on one of the most reckless military experiments in history: Project Seal, a secret programme to develop a “tsunami bomb” — a weapon designed to wipe out entire coastal cities using nothing but water.

From Gaganauts of Geopolitics

Shocking facts

US Navy engineers, obsessed with destruction, noticed that underwater explosions sometimes produced large waves — and immediately saw a weapon in nature itself.

They quickly enlisted New Zealand scientists to turn this horrifying idea into reality.

Between 1944 and 1945, around 3,700 underwater detonations were conducted off the coast of Auckland, using explosives ranging from a few grams to hundreds of kilograms.

Their goal was to create a man‑made tsunami capable of obliterating enemy cities.

Calculations suggested that 2 million kilograms of explosives, detonated offshore in a carefully arranged pattern, could produce waves 10–12 metres high, enough to drown entire populations.

The US pursued this with clinical precision, treating civilian death tolls as mere numbers on a test log.

Preliminary tests were even carried out across the Pacific near New Caledonia, showing that the Americans were willing to spread destruction far and wide, all under the cover of “research.”

Primary target

Declassified documents confirm that Japan’s coastal cities were the main target.

The plan was simple and brutal: flood ports, bypass defences, and inflict catastrophic casualties without using atomic weapons.

Major industrial hubs, including Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe, and Nagasaki, were all at risk.

US planners hoped that a massive offshore detonation chain could send a 10–12 metre wave crashing into Japanese ports and cities shortly before a planned Allied invasion.

Controversies

Although official strategy papers or military directives deny this, but some sources and post‑war commentary say that a successful tsunami bomb could have been later repurposed against:

Soviet coastal cities during early Cold War planning

North Korea or China during later Pacific tensions

Any state with major coastal population centres

Why was it stopped

As the war ended and nuclear weapons became the preferred method of mass destruction, project Seal was ultimately shelved.

For decades, the US kept these files classified, concealing its willingness to weaponise nature itself.

Even today, historians warn that the “tsunami bomb” concept demonstrates how far the US military was willing to push ethical boundaries to achieve strategic dominance.

Qatar, Türkiye Warn Gaza Ceasefire Is Fragile, Incomplete

There comes a time when one has to give credit where credit is due.  This does not mean sudden trust, it does not mean that one throws knowledge away and suddenly become love partners with the Arab states, it only means we give credit where it is due, at this moment.  The future will tell. The Doha forum unfortunately had everyone and the kitchen sink taking part. We had Kaja Kallas and such people taking part. But, the Qatar and Türkiye leaders spoke truth, clearly, with no ambiguity.

Gaza Ceasefire Lacks Stability, Say Regional Leaders

This is from https://interbellumnews.com/conflicts/palestine/qatar-t%C3%BCrkiye-warn-gaza-ceasefire-is-fragile-incomplete

Top mediators Qatar and Türkiye issued a stark warning that the nearly two-month pause in Gaza is fragile and incomplete, stating that a genuine ceasefire cannot be achieved without the full withdrawal of Israeli forces and an end to the ongoing violence that continues to claim Palestinian lives.

Speaking at the Doha Forum on Saturday, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani emphasized that the current situation amounts to merely a “pause” in hostilities. He asserted that stability, freedom of movement for Palestinians, and a complete Israeli military withdrawal are non-negotiable prerequisites for a lasting peace. This call was echoed by regional leaders who stress that without addressing the core issue of Palestinian rights and sovereignty, any agreement risks repeating cycles of violence.

A Truce in Name Only

Despite the truce that began on October 10, the Israeli military campaign has not ceased, with Palestinian authorities reporting over 600 violations in seven weeks. Since the truce started, Israeli attacks have killed at least 360 Palestinians, including 70 children.

Just on Saturday, seven people were killed in separate incidents across northern Gaza. This ongoing violence underscores the mediators’ point that the current arrangement fails to provide genuine safety for Gaza’s civilian population.

Furthermore, key provisions of the first phase of the U.S.-brokered plan remain unfulfilled. The agreed-upon daily target of 600 aid trucks entering Gaza has never been reached, and the Rafah border crossing has not been reopened for two-way movement as stipulated. Egypt, alongside other nations, has condemned an Israeli plan to open Rafah exclusively for Palestinian departures, warning it could facilitate permanent displacement and blocks aid entry, a move seen as a breach of the peace plan.

Disarmament, Governance, and an International Force

The proposed second phase of the deal, which has yet to begin, involves a complex set of interlinked challenges that mediators are urgently trying to solve. The phase calls for a full Israeli withdrawal, the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF), the establishment of a new Palestinian governance mechanism, and the disarmament of Hamas.

The issue of Hamas’s disarmament presents a major stumbling block. The group has stated it will not disappear and remains a central part of Palestinian political life, and is only open to handing over weapons as part of an internal Palestinian political process, not as an act of surrender to Israel.

Experts warn that attempting forcible disarmament would be a “recipe for disaster,” likely leading to renewed conflict. A viable plan would require a sequenced, Palestinian-led process that offers reintegration pathways for fighters.

Parallel to this, efforts are underway to build a post-war security infrastructure. Egypt, with EU support, has begun training thousands of Palestinian police officers intended to form a future Gaza security force loyal to the Palestinian Authority. This force is envisioned to work alongside, and eventually take over from, the proposed ISF. However, the composition and mandate of the ISF itself are still unresolved.

While Türkiye has indicated a willingness to participate, Israel openly opposes its involvement. The force’s primary goal, as stated by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, should be to separate Palestinians and Israelis, with other details to follow.

A Race Against Time

With the humanitarian situation still catastrophic and winter approaching for a displaced population lacking shelter, mediators are pressing for immediate action. Norway’s foreign minister insisted that the stabilization force and a governing peace council “must be formed this month,” warning the current pause “cannot hold for many more weeks in its current phase”.

—
Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan discussed the future of the Gaza ceasefire at the Doha Forum 2025.

Al Thani emphasized that the current pause in fighting is not yet a full ceasefire, highlighting the need for Israeli withdrawal, stability in Gaza, and free movement for residents.

Both leaders stressed ongoing collaboration between Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, and the US to advance negotiations and establish an International Stability Force (ISF) to separate Palestinians and Israelis at the border.

Fidan noted that the ISF’s mission must be realistic, supported by local Palestinian police, and coordinated with a peace board for long-term stability.

This is the speech that I concur with. Veracity? Future will tell but so far the Arab states held strong to a Palestinian State.

The 28-point Theater of the Absurd

“Whatever was the real story behind the 28 pointer … the messy, even infantile “plan” posing as Hegemon in Control and mocking the BRICS/SCO is completely unworkable.”

By Pepe Escobar at the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The Circus Ringmaster’s 28-point “peace plan” for Ukraine may be seen as a pet seal splashing around in a pond to amuse the galleries. And up next, we move to another attraction.

Yet if taken seriously – and that requires not a pinch but a barrel of salt – it’s like a twin to the Circus Ringmaster’s “plan” for Gaza, this time with the objective of snatching a pitiful “victory” from the jaws of the Empire of Chaos’s own, de facto strategic defeat.

Let’s check the reactions. Here you will find Larry Johnson’s analysis – which I share – , but most of all the video of the stunning two-hour interview  we had mid-week in Moscow with stellar Maria Zakharova, the most articulated Foreign Ministry spokeswoman on the planet.

What Mrs. Zakharova essentially told us is that by mid-week there was no Russian reaction because Moscow had not received anything concrete: “When we have some official information, when we receive it via a relevant channel, naturally, we will always be open to work.”

The same applied to the Kremlin. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “No, we haven’t received anything officially. We see some innovations. But officially, we haven’t received anything. And there hasn’t been any substantive discussion of these items.”

Kupyansk has been liberated – Gerasimov told Putin

The political leadership of Ukraine does not give orders to its troops to surrender, Gerasimov said

The political leadership of Ukraine is not such, Putin noted

The president called the Kiev authorities an organized… https://t.co/3vrNdx5zkS pic.twitter.com/gpudF5g5mf
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) November 20, 2025

The first actual, terse response that came from President Putin was stunningly graphic: in camouflage, visiting a command center, and stressing that the set up in Kiev can no longer be described as a “political leadership” because it’s just “a criminal organization”.

After a few frantic days buried in a tsunami of spin concocted by NATOstan mainstream media, supporting but essentially against the 28-pointer, someone in Washington – and not necessarily Russian middleman Kirill Dmitriev – may have delivered it, officially, to the Kremlin.

So this past Friday we had, finally, President Putin’s own response, during a session of the permanent members of Russia’s Security Council.

The key Putin points must be stressed:

Alaska: “The main point of the Alaska summit, its main purpose, was that during the talks in Anchorage we confirmed that, despite some difficult issues and complexities, we nevertheless agreed with these proposals and were prepared to demonstrate the requested flexibility.”

Global South reaction: “We provided detailed information to all our friends and partners in the Global South on these matters – including China, India, the DPRK, South Africa, Brazil, many other countries, and, of course, the CSTO states. All our friends and partners, and I want to emphasise this – without exception – supported these potential arrangements.”

U.S. non-response: “However, after the negotiations in Alaska, we have seen a certain pause on the part of the U.S., and we know this is due to Ukraine’s de facto refusal to accept the peace plan proposed by President Trump. I believe this is precisely why a new version has emerged – essentially an updated plan consisting of 28 points.” Note that “updated” is the key operative word here – as in an extension of Alaska.

What the 28-pointer really means: “We have the text. We received it through our existing channels of communication with the U.S. Administration. I believe it too could form the basis of a final peace settlement, but this text is not being discussed with us in substance. And I can suggest why.

The reason, I believe, remains the same: the U.S. Administration still cannot secure Ukraine’s consent – Ukraine rejects it.

Evidently, Ukraine and its European allies remain under illusions and still dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. I think this position is rooted not so much in a lack of competence – I will leave this topic aside for now – but rather in the absence of objective information about the real situation on the ground.”

Expanding on the EU and Ukraine: “All things considered, neither Ukraine nor Europe grasp the consequences of this path. Just one very recent example – Kupyansk. Not long ago, on 4 November – just two weeks ago – officials in Kiev publicly stated that no more than 60 Russian servicemen were present in the city, and that within the next few days, as they claimed, Ukrainian forces would fully unblock it.

But I would like to inform you that already at that moment, on 4 November, the city of Kupyansk was practically entirely secured by the Russian Armed Forces. Our guys were, as they say, simply finishing the job – clearing the remaining streets and neighbourhoods. The fate of the city had already been fully determined.

What does this tell us? Either the Kiev leaders do not have objective information about the situation at the front, or, having it, they are simply unable to assess it objectively.”

The SMO will go on: “If Kiev does not want to discuss President Trump’s proposals and rejects them, then they – and their European war-instigators – must understand that the situation in Kupyansk will inevitably be repeated on other key sectors of the front. Perhaps not as quickly as we would like, but the outcome will be inevitably repeated.”

The inevitable conclusion: “On the whole, this is acceptable to us, as it leads to achieving the objectives of the special military operation by military means. But, as I have said many times before, we are also ready for peace negotiations and for resolving problems by peaceful means. However, this requires a substantive discussion of all details of the proposed plan. We are ready for that.”

Deconstructing an incoherent mish-mash

So here we have finally come back to the essentials – what everyone with an IQ over room temperature following the imperial proxy war against Russia in Ukraine already knows: Russia is ready for peace, but in Putin’s own words, “is also satisfied with the current dynamics of the SMO”. Because this is leading – slowly but surely, “to the achievement of its goals” in the battlefield.

Whatever was the real story behind the 28 pointer – assuming it was Dmtriev and Witkoff holed up in Miami for three days; and then lowly neo-con Marco Rubio and zero-expert on anything Zionist asset Jared Kushner (!) chiming in – the messy, even infantile “plan” posing as Hegemon in Control and mocking the BRICS/SCO is completely unworkable.

What if it was designed to be exactly that?

The new frantic spin is that the sweaty sweatshirt in Kiev has been given an ultimatum by Trump 2.0: under a new “aggressive timeline”, he has to get on board. Or else.

Kiev’s backers – the proverbial assortment of chihuahuas comprising the EU, the European Commission (EC) and “leaders” in selected capitals – have rejected the 28-pointer, and so did Kiev, right from the start.

The 28-pointer indeed manages the feat of assembling an incoherent mish-mash that is unworkable not only for Russia but also for the EU/NATO combo. A few examples:

Point 4: “A U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO dialogue will be launched to resolve security issues and promote cooperation”. NATO is a brainchild of the Empire of Chaos. It will never “cooperate” with “existential threat” Russia.

Point 9: “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.” That means NATO still ready to attack Russian territory.

Point 10: “The U.S. security guarantee [to Ukraine] comes with conditions: – The U.S. receives compensation.” That’s pure “offer you can’t refuse” Mafia territory.

Point 13: “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

• Gradual lifting of sanctions
• Long-term U.S.–Russia economic cooperation
• Joint ventures in AI, energy, infrastructure, rare earths, and Arctic extraction
• Russia rejoins the G8”

That’s what this is all about, per the Circus Ringmaster himself: grabbing Russian natural resources. Moreover Russia does not need the G8: Moscow’s focus is on BRICS/SCO.

Point 14: “Frozen Russian assets will be allocated as follows:

• $100 billion used to rebuild Ukraine (run by the U.S.)
• The U.S. receives 50% of profits from reconstruction investments
• Europe contributes another $100 billion
• Remaining frozen assets go into a U.S.–Russia joint investment vehicle to deepen economic ties.”

That’s peak Theater of the Absurd: not only the Americans want to use Russian funds to rebuild Ukraine – which they were instrumental in destroying – but their “10 per cent for the Big Guy” turns out to be a hefty 50%.

Point 17: “The U.S. and Russia will extend nuclear arms-control treaties, including New START.” A non-starter: Moscow has been stressing non-stop that arms-control treaties will not be negotiated in relation to the SMO.

Point 21: “Territorial arrangements:

• Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk are recognized as de facto Russian, including by the U.S.
• Parts of Kherson and Zaporozhye become frozen “contact line” zones (also de facto recognition)
• Russia gives up other agreed areas
• Ukraine withdraws from remaining parts of Donetsk; the zone becomes a Russian-recognized neutral buffer
• Russian forces cannot enter the buffer zone.”

Total non-starter – and not only for the EU/NATO-Kiev combo.  Kherson and Zaporozhye, constitutionally, are now fully Russian – and will be liberated on the battlefield.

Point 26: “Full amnesty for all parties for all actions taken during the war: no prosecutions, no war-crimes claims.” Total non-starter: Kiev forced the draft document to use “amnesty” instead of “audit”. Moscow will settle for nothing less that full prosecution of members of the “criminal organization”. Yes, there will be a war crimes tribunal.

Point 27: “The agreement will be legally binding and enforced by a Peace Council chaired by Donald J. Trump.” That’s a Gaza replay. As if Putin and the Russian Security Council would accept a “Peace Council” chaired by a Circus Ringmaster whose expiry date is fast approaching, not to mention be subordinated to the losers in a vicious proxy war. 

About a really intriguing takeaway

One plausible takeaway of the 28-pointer is that the selected oligarchy running the Empire of Chaos continues to run a protection racket – and the only way to salvage the de facto strategic defeat in country 404 is to turn a quick buck.

Another more intriguing, plausible takeaway is that the 28-pointer was never meant to be accepted by the EU-Kiev combo. It’s all about the Circus Ringmaster’s exit strategy from the debacle in Novorossiya.

Trump is already preparing the terrain – as in I tried everything, but Zelensky won’t comply. So it’s now his – and his gang’s – problem only, side by side with the EU chihuahuas. Up next: an immediate change of narrative. What else: the Empire of Chaos cannot manage reality, only narratives.

Trump 2.0 may start to work on improving U.S.-Russia relations – while blame for the collapse of the “peace process” is laid on the EU-Kiev combo. The optics of the 28-pointer P.R. op are everything: packaged as it is asking Moscow to strike a compromise, even as Russia is winning in the battlefield, while making sure the “criminal organization” in Kiev cannot agree to the main provisions.

Provisional endgame: the chihuahuas of war will keep barking while the SMO will keep rollin’ along.

Hamas Statement on Israel’s Ceasefire Violations in Gaza

### Press release issued by the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, regarding the occupation’s violations of the ceasefire agreement signed in Sharm el-Sheikh one month after its implementation.

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

In this statement, we in the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas affirm our thanks and appreciation for the efforts of the brotherly mediators and all countries, international and humanitarian organizations, and free people of the world who took a courageous ethical and humanitarian stance in rejecting the genocide carried out by the occupation against our people in Gaza. We value the efforts of the mediators who contributed to reaching the ceasefire agreement.

In the context of the commitment of the Movement and the resistance forces to implement the agreement, stemming from their national and humanitarian responsibilities, it calls on the brotherly mediators, guarantors, countries, and international organizations to continue working to pressure the occupation and oblige it to stop its repeated excesses and violations aimed at torpedoing the agreement and undermining efforts to stabilize and sustain it. These violations were as follows:

First: Hamas’s full and precise commitment to the agreement

Since the ceasefire agreement signed in Sharm el-Sheikh came into effect, the resistance forces have adhered with full, precise commitment and in good faith to implementing the agreement. It handed over the twenty living captive occupation soldiers within 72 hours of the implementation’s start. It also continued meticulous search operations for the bodies of “israeli” captives in daily coordination with mediators and the International Red Cross.

This was despite the extremely difficult field conditions created by the war, its complete changing of the Strip’s features, the destruction of its infrastructure, the occupation’s control over 60% of the Strip’s area, working amidst hundreds of tons of unexploded ordnance dropped by the occupation on Gaza, the lack of sufficient excavation and rubble removal equipment (which the occupation still obstructs the entry of), the martyrdom of a large number of resistance fighters who were guarding the occupation’s captives, and the vaporization of the bodies of hundreds of Palestinian fighters and civilians (and the possibility of the same for some of the occupation’s captives).

Despite this, the Movement was able to recover (24 bodies out of 28). Through mediators and the Red Cross, it provided coordinates for the locations of other bodies in areas under occupation control. Meanwhile, the Movement continues its intensive efforts to find the remaining bodies. The Movement has left no pretext the occupation tried to fabricate, addressing each one, confirming through actions and field facts its full commitment to the text and spirit of the agreement.

Second: The occupation’s violations one month into the agreement

Since the agreement began, the occupation has not stopped undermining and violating it daily and momentarily, and attempting to fabricate pretexts.

This is represented in:

> 1. Killing and targeting civilians: 271 Palestinians were martyred as a result of deliberate bombing and shooting by occupation forces. Civilians constituted more than 91% of them, with 94% inside the Yellow Line and the rest adjacent to it. Among the martyrs were 107 children, 39 women, and 9 elderly persons, meaning 58% were children, women, and the elderly, in a scene that reflects the occupation’s continued policy of systematic killing against the unarmed population.
>
> 2. Injuries: 622 citizens were injured by bombing and shooting. 99% of them were civilians, including 221 children, 137 women, and 33 elderly persons, meaning 63% of the injured were children, women, and the elderly, which confirms the vengeful and systematic nature of the occupation’s crimes.
>
> 3. Arrests: The occupation arrested 35 Palestinians, including fishermen at sea and others from areas adjacent to the Yellow Line. 29 of them remain in detention.
>
> 4. Demolition of homes inside the Yellow Line: The occupation continues, on a daily and systematic basis, to demolish homes located inside the areas it controls outside the Yellow Line, in a clear and explicit breach of the agreement. These violations have continued for a full month without stopping, leading to widespread destruction of citizens’ property inside that area.
>
> 5. Exceeding the temporary withdrawal line: The occupation has not adhered to the agreed-upon withdrawal line for the first phase. It is exceeding the Yellow Line by an area estimated at 33 km squared, which includes fire control within distances ranging from 400 to 1050 meters inside the line, and the incursion of military vehicles into these areas. The occupation has also placed concrete blocks that exceed the Yellow Line by distances ranging from 200 to 800 meters along the temporary line.
>
> 6. Preventing the entry of UNRWA aid: In an explicit violation of the agreement’s text, the occupation continues to prevent the entry of humanitarian aid provided by UNRWA, which has led to the backlog of more than six thousand shipments of vital supplies. UNRWA is considered the most capable and professional body for distributing humanitarian aid, given its more than seventy-seven years of experience in relief work and serving Palestinian refugees in its various fields of operation.
>
> 7. Restricting the entry of aid and fuel: The occupation has deliberately and systematically violated the agreement’s clauses stipulating the entry of at least 600 aid trucks daily, including 50 fuel trucks of all types. Actual humanitarian aid did not exceed 40% of the total trucks entering during the first month, meaning less than 200 trucks per day.
>
> Commercial trucks constituted 60%, part of which were registered as aid despite being commercial. It also only allowed in 38 gas trucks and 92 diesel trucks, i.e., 8.4% of the agreed-upon quantity. Fuel is the oxygen for restarting life—for operating hospital generators, opening roads, running transport facilities, and rehabilitating infrastructure amid a total power outage. This confirms the occupation is working in a calculated and systematic way to maintain the state of paralysis and prevent the return of life.
>
> The occupation also continues to close the “Zikim” crossing, a main route to facilitate and speed up aid entry from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. The occupation also controls the types of materials allowed in, preventing basic foodstuffs like meat, poultry, eggs, and livestock, except in minimal amounts. In 31 days, only one truck of eggs was allowed in. It also prevents the entry of tents and shelter supplies despite the harsh onset of winter; what has entered is less than 5% of the Strip’s urgent needs, deepening the humanitarian crisis.
>
> 8. Failure to operate the power generation plant: Despite a month passing since the agreement’s signing, Gaza residents have not seen any practical steps toward restarting the power generation plant, even though the agreement’s text affirms that preparations for its operation should begin immediately upon the agreement’s entry into force. This keeps the Strip in a state of partial paralysis affecting all aspects of life.
>
> 9. Preventing infrastructure rehabilitation: The occupation continues to prevent the entry of heavy equipment and materials needed for rubble removal, as well as obstructing the entry of necessary supplies for operating power and water stations, sewage systems, bakeries, and hospitals. It also prevents the entry of construction materials and civil defense equipment needed for reconstruction, which systematically prevents efforts to rehabilitate infrastructure and restore civilian life in the Strip.
>
> 10. Closure of the Rafah crossing: Despite the agreement to open the Rafah crossing in both directions starting October 20, 2025, the crossing has remained closed since 03/18/2025, despite (21) days having passed since the agreed-upon date for its reopening. The occupation government continues to prevent citizens from traveling and returning, which has multiplied the suffering of thousands of stranded individuals, patients, and students, in a direct breach of the agreement’s clauses.
>
> 11. Incitement by occupation leaders to return to war: Political, military, and security leaders of the occupation continue their public, near-daily incitement to resume the war and not abide by the agreement’s terms, in clear disregard for the international community and defiance of world leaders who affirmed at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit the necessity of stabilizing the ceasefire. The occupation’s cabinet also voted, one week after the ceasefire agreement, to change the war’s name to the “War of Resurrection” (Harb al-Ba’ath), a step that shows its insistence on continuing the aggression and its rejection of the ceasefire path and international efforts for stability.
>
> 12. Mutilation of the bodies of Palestinian martyrs: The occupation handed over dozens of Palestinian bodies that had been brutally mutilated, including bodies crushed under tank treads, and others who were field-executed while bound and blindfolded. This constitutes a fully-fledged war crime and a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
>
> 13. Detainees and the missing: The occupation continues to manipulate the delivery of a list of names of Palestinian detainees from Gaza, despite a full month passing; it has not provided the final list as stipulated in the agreement. It continues to evade the mediators, providing incomplete lists from time to time, lacking dozens of detainees it had previously acknowledged in earlier lists, in addition to repeating some names or including names of persons who were previously released.
>
> The Movement affirms the existence of more than (1,800) missing persons from Gaza whose fate is still unknown. The occupation also continues to detain the nurse Tasneem Marwan Al-Hams from Gaza, along with dozens of women and children from the West Bank, and prevents the families of deported detainees from meeting their released relatives.

We in the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas and the resistance forces affirm our full commitment to the agreement signed in Sharm el-Sheikh and to our ethical and humanitarian responsibility towards our people. We hold the occupation fully responsible for its continued gross violations and breaches. We call on the mediators, guarantors, governments, and international civil society organizations to take immediate and serious action to oblige the occupation to stop its aggression, lift its siege, allow in aid, and guarantee the Palestinian people’s rights to security, freedom, and dignity.

Based on the resistance’s commitment to the agreement, international law, and international humanitarian law, we call on the brotherly mediators, guarantors, countries, international organizations, and free people of the world to act urgently to ensure the occupation is obliged to implement the following clauses:

> 1. Precise adherence to the clauses of the ceasefire agreement signed in Sharm el-Sheikh, affirmation of its continuation, and prevention of any breach.
>
> 2. Immediate cessation of killing, massacres, and violations against our people in Gaza.
>
> 3. Withdrawal according to the temporary line agreed upon in the first phase, and preventing any field transgressions or additional fire control.
>
> 4. Commitment to allowing in the agreed-upon quantities of aid and fuel as stipulated in the agreement, and preventing their reduction or obstruction.
>
> 5. Allowing UNRWA to work with full freedom inside the Gaza Strip immediately, and enabling it to enter and distribute humanitarian aid as the most experienced and capable body to do so.
>
> 6. Operating and opening the Rafah crossing in both directions for the travel and return of citizens, and lifting the restrictions imposed on it immediately.
>
> 7. Opening the Zikim crossing for the entry of humanitarian and relief aid via the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan without restrictions or delay.
>
> 8. Urgent allowance for the entry of 300,000 tents for immediate shelter to enable citizens to protect themselves from the bitter winter cold.
>
> 9. Entry of equipment and machinery necessary for infrastructure rehabilitation, and adherence to the agreed-upon humanitarian protocol.
>
> 10. Immediate cessation of demolishing and destroying homes and civilian facilities in the areas the occupation still controls.
>
> 11. Allowing entry of equipment necessary to operate the power generation plant in Gaza, and entry of the required diesel quantities for it.
>
> 12. Full and immediate disclosure of the fate and data of all Palestinian detainees and missing persons from the Gaza Strip.
>
> 13. Allowing entry of medical, humanitarian, and media missions and civil defense teams to provide their humanitarian and relief services freely.

The Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas
Monday: 19 Jumada al-Awwal 1447 AH
Corresponding to: November 10, 2025

To support our work, you can donate, share this article and subscribe to our newsletter.

November 10, 2025

Source: Resistance News Network

Chinese Foreign Ministry Calls for a Cease-Fire

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/fyrbt/202506/t20250616_11649408.html

When asked to comment on Israel ‘s attack on Iranian state TV, which has been condemned by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and described as a “war crime” by Iran , Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said on Tuesday that China is deeply concerned about the situation, adding that China once again calls on all parties to immediately take measures to cool down the tensions as soon as possible and prevent the region from falling into greater turmoil. Guo noted that a cease-fire and an end to the war are of paramount urgency, and only dialogue and consultation can bring lasting peace. China is willing to maintain close communication with all parties and play a role in easing the tensions, he said.

China is probably the only State in a position right now, who could shut this all down if they wanted to.  Although I had bitter responses when I critiqued China for holding full economic relations with Israel, it is my view that China is not in a clear manner carrying out its State responsibilities vis a vis Gaza at least.  States have declared responsibilities under the Genocide Convention.  This does not make me anti-China, it makes me call it as it is.

Although we see reports (no evidence as yet) of China having sent at least three military materiel transport airplanes to Iran.  The reports state that these flights turn off their transponders close to the Iranian borders.

Syria sanctions lifted? Not so fast …

With great fanfare, at the time of his 3-Gulf State visits, Trump announced that the US would lift all sanctions on Syria, because he wanted to ‘give them an opportunity’.

It turns out that this announcement is similar to what we know about Britain during the years when they tried to keep power, although forced to abandon overt colonization.  They designed neo-colonial leadership groups.  Femi Akomolafe speaks about this in his comments on Traoré videos today and we can see it in the inability of India and Pakistan for example to arrive at a strong and lasting peace.  These are very deliberate stones put in the path at the end of overt colonialism in order to maintain hegemonic control and plunder.  Now we have rabid neo-colonialism raging.  This is a fine example of the US, in my opinion, not intending to lift sanctions ever and maintaining its control over Syria.   Rubio: “I think as we make progress, hopefully we’ll be in a position soon, or one day, to go to Congress and ask them to permanently remove the sanctions,” Rubio said.

It is not that I expect anyone here to have skin in the game to remove these sanctions, but one does think of the ordinary Syrian.  Then it can be seen that this is just another resource grab for US companies to ‘rebuild’, or say they are rebuilding.   Jewlani is going to have to prostrate himself in front of Israel (which he is doing) and not even then will these Ceasar sanctions be removed.  It is easy to control the so-called waivers, tell your local companies (and we all know the names) which waivers will be maintained and grab some beautiful profits while filling the world with Trump Towers.

The Cradle reports:

Rubio says US ‘not in position’ to permanently lift Syria sanctions

The US secretary of state said Washington will issue temporary waivers to ease sanctions, while permanently removing them requires passing legislation in Congress

.

Statement by the President of Russia to the media

http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76899 – Yandex translation

At the time of writing, the only complete and translated statement on video is on Telegram:  https://t.me/news_kremlin_eng/5512

—

In this regard, despite everything, we suggest that the Kiev authorities resume negotiations, which they interrupted at the end of 2022, and resume direct negotiations. And, I emphasize, without any preconditions. We suggest starting immediately next Thursday, May 15, in Istanbul, where they were held earlier and where they were interrupted.

—

Vladimir Putin: Good evening, or maybe good night already. I want to greet everyone. Dear ladies and gentlemen, Dear colleagues! I would like to once again congratulate all of you on the Great Victory Day! I would like to thank our friends and foreign partners who have been with us in Moscow these days at the anniversary celebrations to bow to the generation of winners.

We honor all those who contributed to the common victory over Nazism, including our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, Chinese soldiers, participants in the anti-Fascist resistance in Europe, fighters of the people‘s liberation movements in Africa, the Asia–Pacific region, and volunteers from Latin America. Together with our friends and like-minded people, we share a common memory and respect for history, for the heroic deeds of true heroes who fought for freedom, and of course, our responsibility for the future, for building a more just and safer world.

The issues that directly affect the stable, sustainable development of the entire world community – Eurasia and other regions of the world – were at the center of the bilateral and multilateral meetings held in Moscow. Of course, they were held in a special, solemn, festive atmosphere, but at the same time they were extremely rich and informative, filled with topics of the political, economic and humanitarian agenda.

Summing up, and I would like to do this now, I would say that in four days, from May 7 to May 10, we hosted official visits by the leaders of three foreign countries: the People‘s Republic of China, the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In addition, 20 bilateral meetings were held with the heads of the CIS countries, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Latin America. In total, 27 heads of state from the CIS, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, as well as about 10 heads of international organizations took part in the celebrations. Six more countries were represented at a high level.

We see such a wide participation of delegations from foreign countries and international organizations as inspiring evidence of genuine consolidation around the enduring ideas and values of our common Great Victory. We are grateful to the leaders of 13 States who sent units of the national armed forces to participate in the parade on Red Square. Their march shoulder to shoulder with our parade squads filled the common holiday with special energy and the spirit of military brotherhood, tempered during the Second World War.

I was pleased to personally thank the military leaders of the Korean People‘s Army and convey my warmest words to the soldiers and commanders of the special forces units of the Democratic People‘s Republic of Korea, who, together with our soldiers, professionally, and I want to emphasize this, faithfully performed their tasks during the liberation of the border areas of the Kursk region from the Kiev regime. I would like to emphasize that they showed courage and heroism, acted – I want to say this again – in the highest degree professionally, showed good training and preparation.

And of course, it was a special honor for all the leaders of the states to welcome the main heroes of the Victory anniversary to the stands – veterans of the Second World War from Russia, Israel, Armenia, and Mongolia. I would like to note that, despite threats, blackmail, and obstacles, including the closure of airspace, the leaders of several European countries came to Moscow: Serbia, Slovakia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. I repeat: we understand the massive pressure they faced, and therefore we sincerely appreciate their political courage, firm moral position, and decision to share the holiday with us, to pay tribute to the memory of the heroes of the Great Patriotic War and World War II, who fought for their fatherland and for getting rid of the brown plague of the whole world, of all mankind, without any exaggeration.

It is important for us that millions of Europeans, the leaders of countries that pursue sovereign policies, remember this. This inspires us with optimism and hope that sooner or later, based on the lessons of history and the opinion of our peoples, we will begin to move towards restoring constructive relations with the States of Europe. Including those who today still do not abandon anti-Russian rhetoric and clearly aggressive actions against us. They are still trying – we can see it right these days – to talk to us, in fact, in a boorish manner and with the help of ultimatums.

Our comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation with the People‘s Republic of China can serve as a true example of modern equal relations in the 21st century. Chinese President Xi Jinping was the main guest of the celebrations dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory. We had extremely fruitful negotiations, adopted two joint statements at the level of heads of State, and signed a number of intergovernmental and interdepartmental agreements covering such areas as energy, trade, finance, science, culture, and more. As I have already said, it has been agreed that my official return visit to China will take place in September to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Victory over militaristic Japan. It is deeply symbolic and natural that the main, in fact, the main commemorative events related to the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe and Asia will be held in Moscow and Beijing, in the capitals of states whose peoples have gone through the hardest trials and paid the highest price in the name of common Victory.

Dear colleagues, I think it is obvious to everyone that during the negotiations and meetings held in Moscow, the issue of resolving the conflict in Ukraine was also raised. We are grateful to all our guests and our friends for the attention they pay to this conflict and for the efforts they are making to bring this conflict to an end. In this regard, I consider it necessary to focus on this topic separately.

In this regard, I would like to say that, as you know, Russia has repeatedly put forward initiatives for a ceasefire, but they have been repeatedly sabotaged by the Ukrainian side. Thus, the Kiev regime defiantly violated about 130 times the 30–day – I want to emphasize this – 30–day, from March 18 to April 17, moratorium on strikes on energy facilities, which was announced in accordance with our agreement with the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump. The Easter truce initiated by Russia was also not respected: the ceasefire regime was violated by Ukrainian forces almost five thousand times. Nevertheless, to celebrate Victory Day – and we consider this to be a holy holiday for us, as you can imagine, we have lost 27 million – we declared a truce for the third time on this holy holiday. At the same time, we also conveyed to those of our colleagues in the West who, in my opinion, are sincerely looking for ways to resolve our position on this issue, on the ceasefire on Victory Day, that in the future we do not exclude the possibility of extending the terms of this truce – but, of course, after analyzing what will happen in these few days. days, based on the results of how the Kiev regime will react to our proposal. And what do we see? What are these results? The Kiev authorities, as you can see for yourself, did not respond at all to our proposal for a cease–fire. Moreover, after the announcement of our proposal – and this happened, as you remember, on May 5 of this year – the Kiev authorities launched large-scale attacks from May 6-7. 524 unmanned aerial vehicles and a number of Western–made missiles participated in the strike, while 45 backup boats – unmanned boats – were used in the Black Sea. Actually, during these three days of the cease–fire that we announced – on the 8th, 9th and 10th – what you also saw from the media, in fact, from your reports, it was clear: during this time, five targeted attempts were made to attack the state border of the Russian Federation in in the area of the Kursk region and at the junction with the Belgorod region, precisely during the days of the ceasefire we announced. In addition, 36 more attacks were launched in other directions. All these attacks, including attempts to enter the territory of the Russian Federation in the Kursk region and the Belgorod region, were repulsed. Moreover, our military experts believe that they had no military significance, were conducted solely for political reasons, and the enemy suffered very heavy losses. As I said, the Kiev authorities not only rejected our proposal for a cease–fire, but also, as we all saw, tried to intimidate the leaders of the states gathered for the celebrations in Moscow.

You know, dear colleagues, when I met with colleagues here in Moscow, I had this thought. I’ll share with you: who were they trying to intimidate from those who came to Moscow to celebrate the Victory over Nazi Germany? Who were they trying to intimidate? After all, those who have come to us are leaders not by position, not by position, they are leaders by character, by their beliefs and by their willingness to defend their beliefs. And who was trying to intimidate them? Those who stand at attention in front of and salute and applaud former SS soldiers? And elevates to the rank of national heroes those who collaborated with Hitler during the Second World War? It seems to me that this is an attempt with obviously unsuitable means, and those who are trying to do this do not match the swing they themselves expect.

I repeat once again: we have repeatedly proposed steps towards a ceasefire. We have never refused to engage in dialogue with the Ukrainian side. Let me remind you once again: we did not interrupt the negotiations in 2022, the Ukrainian side did it.

In this regard, despite everything, we suggest that the Kiev authorities resume negotiations, which they interrupted at the end of 2022, and resume direct negotiations. And, I emphasize, without any preconditions. We suggest starting immediately next Thursday, May 15, in Istanbul, where they were held earlier and where they were interrupted.

As you know, Turkish colleagues have repeatedly offered their services in organizing such negotiations, and President Erdogan has done a lot to organize them. Let me remind you that as a result of these negotiations, a joint draft document was prepared, and it was initialed by the head of the Kiev negotiating group, but at the insistence of the West it was simply thrown into the trash.

Tomorrow we are scheduled to have a conversation with the President of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan. I would like to ask him to provide such an opportunity to hold talks in Turkey. I hope that he will confirm his desire to contribute to the search for peace in Ukraine. We are ready for serious negotiations with Ukraine. Their purpose is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict, to establish a long-term lasting peace in the historical perspective.

We do not rule out that during these negotiations it will be possible to agree on some new truces, on a new cease–fire. Moreover, a real truce that would be respected not only by Russia, but also by the Ukrainian side, would be the first step, I repeat, towards a long-term, sustainable peace, and not a prologue to the continuation of the armed conflict after the rearmament, resupply of the Armed Forces and the feverish digging of trenches and new strongholds. Who needs such a world? Our offer is, as they say, on the table. The decision now lies with the Ukrainian authorities and their supervisors, who, guided, it seems, by their personal political ambitions, rather than the interests of their peoples, want to continue the war with Russia at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists.

I repeat: Russia is ready to negotiate without any preconditions. Fighting and war are currently underway, and we propose to resume negotiations that were not interrupted by us. Well, what‘s wrong with that? Those who really want peace cannot but support this. At the same time, I would like to express my gratitude once again for the mediation services and efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis undertaken by our foreign partners, including China, Brazil, Africa, the Middle East, and recently the new Administration of the United States of America.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank everyone who shared with us the festive celebrations dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the Victory over Nazism. I am sure that the spirit of solidarity and harmony that united us in Moscow these days will continue to help us build fruitful cooperation and partnership in the name of progress, security and peace. I would also like to take this opportunity to note the tremendous role of journalists, representatives of global news agencies, TV channels, and the press who covered the anniversary events and the many-hour program of current negotiations and working meetings. Much has been done to ensure that people in different countries of the world experience the unique atmosphere of the current holidays in Moscow.

Of course, thank you for this meeting as well, as it is quite late and, of course, everyone is already tired. Thank you very much for your attention, because it‘s almost one-thirty in the morning, or even more than one-thirty in Moscow, I’m letting you go with God. Thank you very much for your attention. Goodbye.