Connexion
East Calling has provided this for us, quickly. Thank-you!
Before we go there, let’s take a quick look at Dmitry Peskov: Peskov’s first comment after the publication of the updated US national security strategy:
And this, of course, is a very gratifying, on the one hand, but on the one hand, we know what happens when everything is written very beautifully as a concept, but what they call a deep state does everything differently. <…>
Therefore, of course, it is necessary to closely monitor what kind of implementation this concept will find.
Deputy Chairman of the Security Counsel of the Russian Federation – Dmitry Anatolievich Medvedev on his VK:
The Americans continue to tame the crazed European Union. Naturally, so that the sick animal remembers who’s the real boss. Even Musk (in response to the fine against X) contributed to this, wishing for the EU’s disintegration. Not bad! Overall, this is to our benefit. Better Trump’s great-power pragmatism than Biden’s globalist insanity.
In this regard, the new National Security Strategy prepared by the current White House administration stands out. It is notable for its realistic assessment of many modern challenges. I should point out that the significance of such a strategy should not be exaggerated. It is merely a collection of political declarations. What matters is what’s in their heads. And not only in the minds of the inconsistent Washington brass, but also in the notorious “deep state.” And yet…
1. This time, a very interesting document has emerged from the depths of the White House. This is not just another pile of arrogant American diplomatic formulas. It’s more like an attempt to turn around a huge ship that has been sailing along by inertia for a long time and has finally decided to change course. For the first time in many years, Washington is openly talking about the need to restore “strategic stability” in Eurasia and improve relations with Russia.
This is no longer the language of the money-grubbing Derzhimorda, who, under Biden, declared a virtual crusade against Moscow. The overseas superpower has begun to realize that playing superhero on its own is too costly. It hurts its own interests the most.
For us, this means that space is emerging for more or less civilized diplomacy. This is not a friendly embrace, but a fairly clear signal: the US is ready to discuss security architecture, not just slap on endless, and most importantly, senseless sanctions (although new restrictions on Russian oil mean a continuation of the current course).
2. Washington is effectively admitting that the global world no longer rests on American shoulders alone.
The sky has become too heavy for a country that so zealously portrayed itself as an Atlas. Now it’s looking for those who can share the unbearable burden.
And here, inevitably, Russia appears as one of the few countries with a real influence on European security.
For the first time in many years, our country is not called a “threat” in an American document, but a participant in a dialogue on stability. It’s noteworthy that it mentions halting NATO expansion, and Ukraine doesn’t figure at all in this context. This strategy unexpectedly resonates with what we’ve been saying for years: security must be shared, and the sovereignty of states must be respected. Russia has long proposed reaching agreements, rather than arrogantly imposing a world order based on rules that aren’t even enshrined in international law. Now, the window of opportunity for dialogue has been cracked open.
3. The United States is proposing that an imbecile Europe, bloated from parasitism, become more independent in matters of defense. For Russia, this is a double signal. On the one hand, there’s a risk that the Europeans will aggressively build up their military capabilities. This will completely destroy their economies and require the establishment of regimes bordering on dictatorship. Europe already has such a tragic experience: Hitler himself came to power with harsh militaristic slogans.
On the other hand, the easing of endless financial injections from the United States creates opportunities to reduce tensions on the Eurasian continent and engage in negotiations. This is simply because Russia is a major global player, and constructive cooperation with us is more beneficial, as it was for many years, before the events in Ukraine.
4. As I already noted, strategy is a political declaration, and certainly not, to use the words of our beloved Lenin, “a change in all our views on socialism.” Fierce disagreements within the American and European elites continue to flare up, and habits are also strong.
Russia will look not at fine words, but at concrete steps: is there any movement toward reaching an agreement? Are the US and the EU ready to discuss security with us without ultimatums? Not just guarantee the security of the half-dead country 404, but ensure pan-European security?
The Strategy doesn’t answer this. As they say, we’ll see. Especially since the arrival of another rabid Biden in the White House would quickly nip any vestiges of great-power pragmatism in the bud of the current MAGA team.
There’s a constant drumbeat in Europe about war with Russia within the next five years.
That’s not going to happen.
Why?
Because it is against our national interests.
1. Russia doesn’t need a war with anyone, least of all the frigid old crone, Europe. There’s nothing in it for us. Europe’s economy is weak and dependent on the US, and its culture is degenerating into oblivion. Europe is losing its identity, dissolving in a flood of belligerent migrants.
2. The key priority for the Russian people is developing our own country, including rebuilding the territories that have returned to the fold. That’s neither easy nor cheap.
3. Russia has always come to Europe as a liberator, never as an invader.
Why won’t Europe start a war itself?
Here’s why:
1. European countries are vulnerable and divided amongst themselves. They can only pursue their own interests, struggling to stay afloat in today’s economic turmoil. They cannot afford a war with Russia.
2. European leaders are pathetic degenerates, unable to shoulder responsibility for any serious undertaking. They lack the strategic thinking, let alone the energy (in Russia it’s called passionarity), to make successful military decisions.
3. Most Europeans are soft and apathetic; they are unwilling to fight for any common ideals or even their own land.
Why is war still possible?
The chance of a tragic accident always exists. And hyperactive trigger-happy lunatics also remain a factor. This kind of conflict has a genuine risk of spiraling into a war with weapons of mass destruction.
So we must not let our guard down.
From RT
The countries of the Old World are intoxicated by militaristic frenzy. Like spellbound moths, they flock to the destructive flame of the North Atlantic Alliance. Until recently, Europe still had states that understood: security could be ensured without joining military blocs.
Now reason is giving way to herd instinct. Following Finland and Sweden, Austria’s establishment – egged on by bloodthirsty Brussels – is fueling public debate about abandoning its constitutionally enshrined neutrality in favor of NATO membership.
Austrian society is far from enthusiastic about the idea. The New Austria liberal party, led by Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger and eager to embrace the bloc, won less than 10% of the vote in the last election.
By contrast, the opposition Freedom Party of Austria, which firmly opposes blindly copying Brussels’ militaristic agenda, received support from 37% of citizens. But in today’s Europe, when has the will of the people truly stood in the way?
Efforts to erode Austria’s neutrality have been underway for quite some time. As far back as the 1990s, local revisionists began building military ties under the guise of “participation in the EU’s common security and defense policy.” Until 2009, when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, it was mostly empty talk – about coordinating military development among EU member states, but without binding obligations. Afterward, the argument shifted: the treaty didn’t specify the scope or timing of the assistance that “united Europe” was obligated to provide in the event of an attack. And, in any case, the EU was officially regarded as an economic union. The fact that most of its members already belonged to NATO was conveniently left unsaid. At the same time, Austria was expanding its military presence beyond Europe, taking part in EU training missions – thereby raising its profile in Brussels. And it was generously rewarded: from 2022 to 2025, the chair of the EU Military Committee was held by Austrian General Robert Brieger. The Austrians hadn’t shone so “brightly” on Europe’s military stage since World War 2 – when Wehrmacht colonel generals Lothar Rendulic and Erhard Raus, and Luftwaffe commander Alexander Löhr, “distinguished themselves.”
As the EU was expanding its defense capabilities, Austria was quietly undergoing militarization and NATO-ization. Vienna participated in the Alliance’s “Partnership for Peace” while the country was already de-facto a component of the bloc’s logic. Austria, despite not actually being a NATO member, has become a key transit territory for the bloc. In 2024 alone, it was traversed by more than 3,000 NATO military vehicles, and its airspace accommodated over 5,000 NATO flights.
Against this backdrop, opinions were voiced in Vienna that a “faltering pacifist consensus” and the “Russian threat” offer a historic opportunity to break free from the “shackles of the past” – namely, to scrap neutrality. Yet neutrality is woven into the very fabric of Austria’s statehood, re-engineered by the Allied powers after World War 2. It is enshrined in the three binding 1955 documents: the Moscow Memorandum, the State Treaty for the Re-establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria, and Austria’s own Federal Constitutional Act on Permanent Neutrality. These documents are the country’s legal foundation. Should they be removed, the entire edifice of the Austrian statehood is bound to collapse.
What is there to do for Moscow, which was, in essence, one of the architects of modern Austria? The answer is to give enthusiasts of war hysteria a slap on the wrist within the framework of international law. The answers to two key questions – whether Austria has the right to unilaterally renounce its legislatively enshrined neutrality, and whether it can independently decide to join NATO – are both unequivocally negative.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states explicitly that no provisions of a country’s internal law may serve as justification for violating an international treaty. Also, NATO cannot be considered a regional organization of collective defense, and therefore joining the alliance won’t grant a permanently neutral state the same benefits as its guaranteed neutrality.
These provisions are recognized by respected figures deeply versed in the issue. For example, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl, now head of the G.O.R.K.I. Center at St. Petersburg State University, stresses that altering the status quo of neutrality requires the consent of all the Allied powers that signed the 1955 treaty, including Russia as the legal successor of the USSR. Moscow retains the right to veto Vienna’s move down the NATO path.
The hawkish faction of Austria’s elite must grasp the full scale of foreign-policy losses that would follow from abandoning neutrality and joining NATO.
Today, Vienna is a hub for multilateral diplomacy, hosting around 20 intergovernmental organizations. This ensures its engagement in global processes and the development of legal frameworks to address emerging challenges and threats. The decision to establish offices of the UN, IAEA, OSCE and OPEC in Vienna was largely predicated on its non-aligned status, which provides an effective platform for dialogue and regional cooperation. Replacing neutrality with a bloc mentality undermines the very “spirit of Vienna” and makes it impossible for Austria to maintain balanced relations with its diverse international partners.
As a result, the country is losing its unique role as a mediator and a hub for major international institutions. This leads to an obvious conclusion:
it is time to consider relocating international organizations’ headquarters to countries in the Global South and East that can provide the necessary conditions for their work.
Adding to all this, Austria’s militaristic turn is shattering its peacemaker image, sharply curtailing its sovereign room for maneuver. Instead, it significantly increases the risk that Austria’s Bundesheer units may find themselves included in the Russian Armed Forces’ long-range mission plans. A package of countermeasures was adopted against Sweden and Finland after their NATO accession, and Austria should not expect any exceptions here.
Ritter explains something that has meaning that we don’t generally know and we should know. That is the background of ‘Dead Hand’. Sometimes, even a broken clock …..
TRUMP AND MEDVEDEV’S DANGEROUS EXCHANGE OF WORDS
As the rhetoric heats up, we must remain cognizant of the consequences.
The sharp exchange of words between President Trump and former President Medvedev underscores just how dangerous the deteriorating relations between the US and Russia have become.
The threats being promulgated are not idle ones.
President Trump has become enthralled with the Israeli “Nasrallah” solution—leadership decapitation and middle management disruption designed to bring about the rapid collapse of a government/system.
It was tried—and failed—in Iran.
But Trump is being advised by Russophobes who believe that the US can successfully implement such a plan against Russia.
This plan begins with sanctions, as all such plans do.
It ends with a decapitation strike on Moscow.
Trump’s imagined conversation with Putin, where he threatened to “bomb the sh*t out of Moscow”, is indicative of the President’s thinking in this regard.
The preferred decapitation strike is done using B-52 bombers launching cruise missiles, accompanied by Trident missiles launched from Ohio-class submarines operating off the coast of Russia, allowing for a flatter trajectory flight and shorter flight time.
Medvedev’s comment about the “Dead Hand” indicates that Russia is well aware of Trump’s plans.
The “Dead Hand”, or Perimeter system, is a long-standing fail-safe mechanism/plan which guarantees a full-scale nuclear retaliation in case any nation is foolish enough to try a decapitation strike.
It dates back to Soviet times, when a special regiment of SS-20 missiles was equipped with radio transmission devices instead of warheads. These missiles would be launched, broadcasting launch codes that would send all strategic nuclear force weapons to their targets, even if Moscow was taken out.
This wasn’t theoretical—in my book Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, I write about how the Soviets transitioned this capability to the SS-25 system once the SS-20 was eliminated under the INF treaty.
Today this mission is being handled by special regiment of SS-27 missiles.
There are other components of the “Dead Hand”.
Medvedev’s mentioning of it is a not-to-gentle reminder to Trump and his planners that it is suicide to think of a preemptive decapitation strike against Russia.
Hopefully this message gets through.
Otherwise, the “Walking Dead” allusion made by Medvedev will be the future of the United States and the world.
“… on June 22 Trump struck and a terrible beauty was born.”
By Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar at the Indian Punchline.
The former President and Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev who is one of the most authoritative voices in the Kremlin, wrote on the Telegram channel on June 23 a critique on the Middle East crisis following the US attack on Iran’s three key nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
Medvedev listed ten points, which, taken together, messaged that Russia’s stance on the developing situation around Iran has markedly shifted to one of proactive mode marked by profound scepticism and deep concern about President Donald Trump’s intentions.
As recently as on June 4, Trump had sought Putin’s help to advance the US-Iran negotiations on the nuclear issue and Putin, in good faith, agreed to help. Indeed, the Iranian government spokesperson had disclosed on June 12 that preparations were under way for a visit by Putin to Tehran.
But on June 22, Trump ordered the air strike on Iran’s three nuclear sites without taking Putin into confidence. Such surreptitious behaviour may be nothing new to Washington in inter-state relationships but it caused embarrassment to the Kremlin. Medvedev’s comments show it when he ridicules Trump’s triumphalism about the air strike.
Medvedev listed ten points under the heading What did the Americans achieve with their night strike on three points in Iran? They underscore that Russia’s stance on the developing situation around Iran has shifted to one of unequivocally distancing itself from the US approach going forward. The 10 points are:
Quote.
Unquote.
On the whole, Medvedev’s assessment is in sync with the swathe of opinion among neutral observers, including Western analysts, about the state of play. However, Points 2 and 3 stand out as particularly noteworthy in their prognosis that inexorably, Iran has now been pushed into a path of making the nuclear bomb and, more importantly, Tehran can expect help in this direction from “a number of countries (who) are ready to directly supply Iran with their nuclear weapons.”
This is the first time that Russia has explicitly spoken about Iran’s likely ‘nuclearisation’. That in itself is a paradigm shift. Medvedev has approvingly presented it in a marked departure from Russia’s stated affirmations in the past that Iran’s nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. Russia has been historically a cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Three things have changed. First, the US itself has become a proliferator. In Europe, the US’s allies freely fly its planes fitted with nuclear bombs during exercises. German pilots have familiarised themselves with such planes. In Asia-Pacific, AUKUS alliance actually involves transfer of nuclear weapon technology to Australia, which is technically an NPT member.
Second, when it comes to Iran, a key ally of Russia, the US aggression has crossed Iran’s “big red line” — to borrow the words of foreign minister Abbas Araghchi — which leaves Tehran with no alternative but to act in self-defence. Besides, in the ‘rules-based order’ imposed by the US on Iran, its own ally Israel, a non-NPT member country, has a fully-developed clandestine nuclear weapon programme and is estimated to have a stockpile of some 200 nuclear missiles but all that Trump blithely ignores.
Third, things have come to such a pass today that smaller countries must nuclearise in the quickest way possible, which is their only iron-clad guarantee to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity from the US attacks in the chaotic international situation today. North Korea’s success in pushing back US pressure is due to its nuclear deterrent capability. What is absolutely galling is that Trump has not even cared to seek a mandate from the UN Security Council and has gone to war with Iran without getting Congressional approval.
Evidently, Medvedev’s commentary pooh-poohs the pious hopes in Washington and Tel Aviv about forcing a ‘regime change’ in Iran. Medvedev assertively proclaims that not only has Iran’s political system become stronger but “people are consolidating around the spiritual leadership” including elements that “did not sympathise with him” previously.
Russia shares the prevailing opinion in the world community that by embracing on a military confrontation with Iran, Trump has added to the US’ growing isolation in the world community.
An intriguing point here is that in Medvedev’s prognosis, the US is being drawn into a new conflict abroad “with the prospect of a ground operation.” He didn’t explain how this may happen. Iran, which is almost the size of Europe, is a big country and has approximately 610,000 active duty personnel plus 350,000 reserve and trained personnel that can be mobilised when needed. Then, there is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which has approximately 125,000 personnel and a voluntary militia, Basj, under it with a further approximately 90,000 active personnel.
Even a limited US commando operation is fraught with high risk. The Operation Eagle Crew — undertaken in April 1980 in an attempt to rescue the US hostages — ended tragically. Of eight helicopters sent into Iran, two became disabled and a third was blown into a C-130 cargo plane in a fierce desert sandstorm, killing eight American servicemen whose bodies, left behind, were later paraded before Iranian television cameras. The Carter administration, humiliated by the failed mission and loss of life, expended great energy to have the bodies returned to the US. Trump is unlikely to risk such escapades.
In geopolitical terms, the seismic shift in the Kremlin thinking can be a game changer for Iran which must be regretting that it declined a Russian offer to include a provision for mutual security assistance in times of war in the two countries’ recently concluded treaty of strategic partnership, similar to what Russia has with DPRK. Also, Putin disclosed last week that Russia had offered to develop an integrated air defence system jointly with Iran (that could access Russian satellite data) but Iran showed no interest. Curiously, he revealed that Tehran was yet to ask for any help, either!
That was on June 19. But on June 22 Trump struck and a terrible beauty was born. It appears that Khamenei ordered Araghchi who was busy parleying with Europeans to go East and meet Putin.
Anyway, at a meeting with Araghchi in the Kremlin today, Putin used exceptionally strong words to condemn the US attack on Iran which he called a “completely unprovoked act of aggression against Iran … without foundation or justification.”
Putin added, “Russia has long-standing, strong, and trustworthy relations with Iran, and we are committed to supporting the Iranian people through our continued efforts… Your visit provides us with an important opportunity to discuss these sensitive issues in depth and to explore ways we might work together to navigate the current situation.” (The Kremlin readout is here.)
Will Russia’s entry deter Trump on his warpath? That is the million dollar question in the coming days. If Trump persists with such belligerence in cahoots with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, a protracted war of attrition will ensue that will most certainly bring in China at some point with which Iran has a strong mil-to-mil relationship.
Some 15 or 20 years ago, nobody here had any serious objections to Kiev seeking EU membership. The attitude was: go ahead, godspeed. You’ll just be kicking yourself later when you lose the EAEU market. Kiev’s choice of economic ties would seem to carry no fundamental threat to Russia – especially considering their chances of joining the EU were virtually zero. For us, the key point was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. The bloc’s expansion to our borders was and remains a direct threat to Russia’s national security.
But the old European Union, the one that once grew from the Coal and Steel Community, has essentially ceased to exist.
It has become a politicized, globalist and, more recently, rabidly Russophobic organization. An organization that dreams of settling an old score with Russia. The dim-witted European politicians of recent years have done everything to make this happen. They have completely destroyed the perception of the EU as an economic giant that abhors wars and avoids discord between European powers – a giant whose trade turnover with Russia reached nearly €500 billion.
Now, its main ideology is vicious Russophobia, stoked by an imaginary “Russian threat” which they’ve conjured up to serve their own petty agendas. Slowly but surely, the EU is transforming into a self-sustaining military bloc that will gradually come to compete with NATO, especially in the Trumpist era. The Brusselian cockroaches and narrow-minded leaders of EU countries are now proclaiming their own defense strategy, heralding a new “era of rearmament.”
This grotesque metamorphosis of the EU pursues a specific goal: to arm the neo-Nazi Kiev regime to such an extent that it becomes invulnerable to Russia. It was the EU that signed an agreement with the illegitimate ringleader of collapsing Ukraine on long-term commitments to ensure its so-called security. It is the EU that is supplying weapons and armor to the Banderite freaks, ramping up its own military industrial output and building defense factories on their territory. It is the EU that is sending its personnel to train Ukrainian militants, so that they can kill our citizens and carry out terrorist attacks in our country. And it is the same EU that brazenly uses profits from Russia’s frozen assets to finance its vile activities.
Brussels today is Russia’s true enemy.
In this perverted form, the EU is no less of a threat to us than the North Atlantic Alliance.
So the soft-hearted motto “Join anything you like except NATO” requires an update. Stuffed with weapons, rainbow freaks and yapping bitches in Brussels, the EU constitutes a direct threat to Russia. And it should be treated as such – at least until it changes its tune. This, of course, should not hinder our bilateral cooperation with individual European states.
Therefore, having so-called Ukraine in the EU would be a danger to our country. This danger can be mitigated in two ways: a) either the EU itself realizes that it doesn’t need the Kiev quasi-state at all; or, better, b) there is no state left to join the EU…
It seems to be Medvedev’s role to speak without the diplomatic and political veils.
What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?
1. Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage.
2. The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue.
3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.
4. Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking.
5. The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon.
6. Iran’s political regime has survived — and in all likelihood, has come out even stronger.
7. The people are rallying around the country’s spiritual leadership, including those who were previously indifferent or opposed to it.
8. Donald Trump, once hailed as ‘president of peace,’ has now pushed the US into another war.
9. The vast majority of countries around the world oppose the actions of Israel and the United States.
10. At this rate, Trump can forget about the Nobel Peace Prize — not even with how rigged it has become. What a way to kick things off, Mr. President. Congratulations!
From his telegram channel – Two comments on a Saturday:
Regarding the enemy’s potential attempts to create and use so-called dirty bombs mentioned by the President yesterday.
That would be, of course, an extraordinarily dangerous provocation that would demand a proportionate response. With what? A clean bomb—a tactical nuclear weapon? We’ve got plenty of those. That would be exactly the ‘mirror response’ that our head of state spoke about. I won’t go into the long-term consequences it would have for life and the environment. But the sick perverts in Kiev, with their twisted imagination, should be able to picture that pretty well. They could take a stroll through the Chernobyl exclusion zone or watch the thrilling TV series of the same name to get some inspiration.
And second, however cynical it may sound, this entire Israel-Iran affair obviously does not hurt our position in any way. Most Americans couldn’t even find the dying nation of Ukraine on a map, while Trump’s administration, already reluctant to burn money on a conflict they have nothing to do with, is now otherwise occupied.
Because this time, it’s different—it’s about their beloved Israel. So let them deal with their cherished creation for now.
There is only one obvious danger—that the Middle East conflict will go global. Which, by the way, Trump himself has been warning about.
So now it’s time for the US, Israel, and Iran to pray fervently on the holy books of all Abrahamic religions. Not Europe, of course, because there is nothing sacred left there. Their fate is having more freak shows, like the Paris Olympics, with degenerate clowns like Macron and other Ursulas and Starmers following along in procession.
About International Labor Day
If the United States had an award for valiant labor, the current president could be its recipient for his first hundred days of work, and especially for starting the tariff battle.
At the same time, the hammer and sickle of its tariffs are directed against everyone.
The neighbors suffer, the degenerates in Foggy Albion cry, the crazy old woman Europe goes crazy. They are not having an easy time at all. They have to go and bow down to make a ritual deal codenamed “kiss my ass”. And then the lights go out in the south of Europe… (Yes! Yes! Everyone knows who did it)…
China, however, has its own huge resources and a gigantic domestic market, and therefore its economy will certainly withstand any pressure. Here Trump has made a mistake.
We hardly trade with America, and the new brutal tariffs do not apply to us. They make no sense when there are illegal “restrictive measures”, of which there are already 30,000!
But Trump has finally broken the Kiev regime into paying for American aid with minerals. Now military supplies will have to be paid for with the national wealth of a disappearing country. And the US Senate, led by Republicans, is preparing to introduce more “crushing sanctions” against us. Let’s see how the new administration responds. Trump’s ratings have gone down, and the “deep state” is putting up fierce resistance to him.
May begins turbulently. And not at all peacefully. Victory Day is still ahead.
Happy Holidays! Happy May 1st!
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 