FM Lavrov: Embassy roundtable discussion “Ukraine crisis. Diplomacy and settlement prospects”

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions during an embassy roundtable discussion titled “Ukraine crisis. Diplomacy and settlement prospects,” Moscow, December 11, 2025

[Comment:  It is noticed that frequently now, Russia calls the so-called ‘Peace Agreement’ for Gaza into question as a key part and a leading component of their public speeches.  In this address to diplomats, he even calls out that other fora and discussions use the Russian issues to divert from the grave situation in Gaza.  He also calls it an initiative, and not a Peace plan or agreement.]     

Good morning, colleagues.

Your Excellencies,

Thank you for taking a lively interest in discovering our position on the Ukraine topic and international affairs in general. However, we are focusing this roundtable discussion on the Ukraine crisis, which was orchestrated by the West in an effort to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia, and pumping it full of weapons for preparing it to wage war against our country.

Of course, this is one of the most sensitive and urgent issues on the international agenda, even if, to be honest, we are witnessing attempts to exploit the sense of urgency related to all the debates regarding Ukraine, including within international forums, for diverting attention from other challenges the international community faces, which can be even more fateful and critical, not less. I am referring to the Palestinian issue.

We welcomed the steps by President of the United States Donald Trump. The key takeaway was that his initiative’s first phase helped free people, hostages, and facilitated the return of bodies so that they could be buried according to the religious traditions. We are now all waiting for the second stage. The fact that this plan has a humanitarian focus and does not provide for a final and lasting resolution of the Palestinian issue in keeping with the UN resolutions does not inspire any optimism.

Nevertheless, we have gathered here to discuss the Ukraine crisis. If you allow me, I will say a few words regarding the way Russia assesses the developments on this topic at the present stage.

We are holding this meeting at a time when not a single day goes by without the media relaying messages which create new expectations that a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict is getting closer. All these assessments and expectations stem from the fact that various international actors have stepped up their contacts. And all this is taking place against the backdrop of reports that the economies of the Kiev regime’s sponsor countries are sinking deeper into crisis, which primarily relates to European bureaucrats, as well as most NATO and European Union members.

There has been quite a lot of speculation regarding all kinds of destructive planted stories and fakes. We view these actions as being initiated by our Western colleagues with the primary goal of making it harder to come to a negotiated solution and make the conflict last longer. This includes efforts to derail the initiatives coming from the United States and its President, Donald Trump, since their genuine purpose consists of finding solutions and addressing the root causes of the Ukraine crisis.

In Europe, no one mentions the root causes at all. All they do is demand that hostilities be stopped immediately so that Ukraine and the Europeans could breathe a sigh of relief and win some time to be able to prop up the Kiev regime with weapons and money.

Here is a recent news story, which I wanted to bring to your attention. The media has reported about a telephone conversation between US President Donald Trump, President of France Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer, and Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz. Stefan Kornelius, who is a spokesperson for the German government, made a public statement saying that the four heads of state and government discussed the talks on a ceasefire in Ukraine. Just that. Europe is not interested in anything else. Meanwhile, Russia insists on agreeing on a package of measures to achieve solid, sustainable and lasting peace with security guarantees for all the parties.

Our negotiations with the US President and his team are focused on precisely that objective: developing a long-term solution that addresses the root causes of this crisis. In contrast, as illustrated by the recent statement from the official German government spokesperson, Western Europe is currently preoccupied with securing a ceasefire – essentially pausing to catch their breath and regroup before redoubling efforts to prepare Vladimir Zelensky and his regime for renewed hostilities against the Russian Federation.

So today we will try to separate the wheat from the chaff. We will examine the dynamics that have unfolded this year and, drawing on our accumulated experience, outline our assessments. These assessments will, in turn, inform our decision-making regarding negotiation formats, timelines, and potential outcomes.

First, however, some necessary historical context. While many of you are familiar with the background story, nevertheless, it is worth reiterating that under the Joe Biden administration, the United States became the primary sponsor of the Kiev regime. Shortly after the violent seizure of power in Ukraine in February 2014, then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, testifying before the Senate, openly endorsed the developments in Ukraine. She noted that the $5 billion invested there in preceding years would guarantee the success of what she termed “the triumph of democracy.” In reality, it was simply a coup.

Following this coup, the United States established control over Ukraine’s political system and economy, while flooding Ukrainian neo-Nazis with modern weaponry. Donald Trump “inherited” this situation in its entirety. We recall, however, that one of his central and most prominent campaign pledges regarding foreign policy was to bring about a swift end to the conflict in Ukraine. It should be noted that the current American leader, having now returned to the White House, has indeed taken tangible steps to address the conflict and, in our assessment, now appears sincerely committed to facilitating its resolution through political and diplomatic means. We welcome this shift.

Aspiration alone, of course, is insufficient. Concrete steps are required to address the root causes of the conflict, which the President of Russia and members of our Government have repeatedly outlined. This necessitates a change in the policies we find unacceptable, specifically: ceasing efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO, contravening assurances given over the past 35 years, and halting the Ukrainian regime’s campaign to eradicate all things Russian, which is conducted in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, numerous international conventions, and Ukraine’s own constitutional guarantees for the rights of Russian and other minorities across all spheres of public life.

From the outset of the crisis, Russia has taken every possible step to facilitate its resolution. In February 2014, when the coup was carried out in Kiev, we immediately appealed to the leadership of France, Germany, and Poland. We called on them to exert their influence on the opposition – which, in fact, had orchestrated the coup with direct Western support and guidance. Specifically, we asked these European governments to demand that the opposition honour the political settlement agreement signed on February 21, 2014, with then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich.

Crucially, Berlin, Warsaw, and Paris had acted as guarantors of that very agreement. Their signatures were on the document. We told them plainly that their reputations were on the line, and urged them to take action to bring the usurpers to their senses and restrain them. Had this happened, had the Germans, French, and Poles fulfilled their obligations as guarantors, Ukraine could have been spared the civil war that the new regime, having seized power by force, immediately unleashed against millions of its own citizens who categorically refused to recognise its legitimacy.

Given that the West, even then, almost twelve years ago, simply refused to honour its own commitments, this episode provides a clear answer to the question of how sincerely these European capitals have ever wanted peace in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, Russia has persistently pursued diplomatic efforts. The Minsk Agreements were agreed upon after protracted, late-night discussions in the Belarusian capital, with direct involvement of President of Russia Vladimir Putin. These accords were not only coordinated but also initiated by Russia (a deliberate move on our part) and later endorsed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council. Article 25 of the UN Charter stipulates that the Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

However, the West perceived these agreements merely as a stalling tactic – to buy time which they utilised to continue arming the illegitimate Kiev regime and advance their agenda of preparing for conflict against the Russian Federation. The signatories of the Minsk Agreements – the then-President of France, François Hollande, the then-Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, and the then-President of Ukraine, Pyotr Poroshenko (whose signature, naturally, is also affixed to the document) – sought only to secure time for themselves. They candidly admitted this. Three years ago, in interviews amidst the ongoing special military operation, they clearly stated that there had never been any intention to implement these agreements. Their aim, they confessed, was to bolster the beleaguered state of the Ukrainian armed forces, thereby preparing Ukraine for war against Russia.

The work of the Contact Group, established by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, also reached a deadlock. This too was sabotaged by the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors.

Concurrently, with NATO’s support, the Kiev regime enhanced its military capabilities, eventually escalating hostilities significantly against the civilians of south-eastern Ukraine – those who, as I have previously stated, categorically refused to recognise the legitimacy of the coup instigators. This refusal was partly based on the fact that upon seizing power in the immediate aftermath of the February 2014 coup, these individuals announced their intention to revoke the status of the Russian language, effectively outlawing millions of Ukrainian citizens who, like their ancestors, had been nurtured and lived within Russian culture for centuries. The southeast of Ukraine, including Odessa and Nikolaev, comprises territories and cities established by Russians. Factories, ports, infrastructure – all were constructed by Russian hands. These lands were later bureaucratically reassigned within the Soviet Union to the regions (of the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) now known as Galicia and other western territories.

Yet, the core issue remains: the Minsk Agreements were never honoured. The Kiev regime had no intention of engaging in a sincere peace process or negotiating with representatives of south-eastern Ukraine. They publicly declared they would never negotiate with these representatives – a direct breach of the Minsk Agreements’ provisions.

The fact that, in late January to early February 2022, the Ukrainian armed forces significantly intensified artillery and aerial strikes on the territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics was corroborated by reports from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. I will not elaborate on specifics; we have addressed this matter extensively. The key takeaway is that Russia prioritised diplomacy until the very last moment.

In December 2021, two months before the beginning of the special military operation, we pursued no agenda other than a peaceful resolution. We presented the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance with draft documents aimed at negotiating security guarantees on the western flank. We proposed signing legally binding agreements. These proposals were arrogantly dismissed by both the Americans and NATO.

It was only after it became apparent that the West sought to grant Ukrainian Nazis carte blanche to violently suppress those who refused to recognise the coup – as President Vladimir Putin stated – that we had no alternative but to launch the special military operation. Its purpose was to protect the population of south-eastern Ukraine, whom the Kiev regime had branded “sub-humans,” “creatures,” and “terrorists,” and against whom, in violation of all norms of international humanitarian law, it deployed regular armed forces, including artillery and combat aircraft.

Nevertheless, even after the commencement of the special military operation, we did not abandon efforts to resolve the situation through political means. Contacts with the Ukrainian side, at their request, took place in Belarus mere days after the operation began. These were subsequently continued in the Brest Region of Belarus, in Istanbul, and via video conference. Yet this dialogue, too, was disrupted through no fault of ours. Here, the leadership of Britain – and personally the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson – played a subversive (I can think of no better term), highly detrimental role. In April 2022, he instructed Vladimir Zelensky to abandon the settlement plan proposed by Kiev itself and already initialled, declaring that Ukrainians must fight “to the last.” All this was done in the illusory hope of witnessing the collapse of Russia’s economy. Such was the calculation of that dishevelled political figure. They believed that under sanctions pressure, we would descend into a deep crisis, precipitating political destabilisation in Russia – an outcome the West, particularly the Europeans, pursued then and continues to pursue today.

In other words, according to the schemes of Western strategists, Ukraine was to serve as an anti-Russian battering ram, holding out until the pressure on our country broke us economically, politically, and indeed morally and psychologically. Their goal was to shatter our resolve to defend the unity, sovereignty, and security of the state, as well as the dignity of Russian people who, by the twists of history, found themselves on Ukrainian territory. They would have lived there peacefully, had the Ukrainian leadership respected its own constitution, which mandates the protection of the rights of Russian and other ethnic minorities.

Their objective was to inflict a strategic defeat upon us, thereafter dictating Western terms on matters of interest to European capitals. Yet the plan for an anti-Russian blitzkrieg using Ukraine failed. Russian society demonstrated internal consolidation, while the economic and political systems proved their resilience and immense reserves of strength.

This, too, is a crucial point for understanding the historical context. As we say in Russia, whenever our nation has been attacked – our cause is just. This conviction in our righteousness – historical, legal, and moral – reflects the character of our people.  It underpins the current state of affairs in the struggle against those who sought to crush all our legitimate rights and interests.

Today, the resources available to the West for conducting a proxy war – financial, logistical, and military – are being depleted. According to numerous independent estimates, the AFU’s human losses have long exceeded one million and continue to rise. The Kiev regime, once an ideologically driven combat unit fuelled by Nazi ideology, including battalions such as Azov and other neo-Nazi groups, as well as certain prohibited substances in daily life, has devolved into an organised criminal entity mired in corruption and dragging its sponsors down with it.

In these circumstances, the ruling circles of the West can broadly be divided into two camps. The majority advocate for the militarisation of European economies and preparations for large-scale armed confrontation in Europe, evidently in the hope that, as the saying goes, “war will justify everything,” and their mistakes will be forgotten.

Among such figures, I would mention NATO Military Committee Chair Giuseppe Cavo Dragone: “We are looking at acting more aggressively rather than reacting. The Alliance (NATO) could consider pre-emptive strikes as defensive actions.” How about that? This underscores how other figures – not just military but political – openly declare that preparations must be made for war against Russia by 2030, if not 2029.

“Amusingly,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni attempted to justify this Italian admiral’s remarks on the necessity of pre-emptive strikes against the Russian Federation. When asked how she viewed this, she stated that these words should be interpreted correctly to halt and prevent dangerous escalation. How else can one interpret an explicit call for pre-emptive strikes?

I am confident that everyone understands what is at stake and how the West, out of desperation, is attempting to escalate the situation and remain on the path of war. They hope that by stoking this issue and hyping up the “military threat” emanating from Russia, they can cling to power and save face.

In our assessment, this represents the majority of Western elites in Europe. Others, the minority, seek to devise an exit strategy from the conflict, striving to find avenues for de-escalation and the creation of conditions for a political settlement. This policy among some European countries aligns with the actions of the Donald Trump administration, which has long moved beyond rhetoric to leverage its influence over Kiev, persuading Vladimir Zelensky to return to the negotiating table.

We appreciate these efforts, as well as the willingness of certain partners to provide platforms for dialogue. Though, frankly speaking, Vladimir Zelensky, with the backing of leaders in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Paris, seeks to obstruct these efforts at every turn, concocting excuses aimed solely at derailing the Donald Trump administration from its chosen path – one oriented towards sustainable, long-term settlement. They aim to substitute all this with fabrications, just to avoid taking any meaningful action.

As you know, confirming our commitment to negotiations and a political solution, we initiated the resumption of direct talks in Istanbul this spring. Three rounds were held – in May, June, and July. We approached these meetings in good faith. We prepared and submitted our proposals to the Ukrainian side: a draft Memorandum on Settlement Principles, outlining our vision for a resolution. Specifically, we proposed establishing a joint Russian-Ukrainian centre for monitoring and enforcing a ceasefire during designated periods to address pressing humanitarian issues.

When the Ukrainian side claimed that Istanbul was unproductive – arguing that only limited humanitarian agreements on prisoner and body exchanges had been reached – we responded by offering to create dedicated working groups: one for humanitarian issues, one for military matters, and one for political questions. This proposal, too, was ignored.

Subsequently, the Ukrainian delegation complained that the level of negotiators in Istanbul was insufficient for making substantive decisions. We then proposed a significant elevation in the rank of the negotiating teams. This also received no response. Every initiative we put forward to advance the bilateral dialogue was rejected or ignored. This pattern confirmed that the Ukrainian regime is fundamentally unwilling to seek genuine solutions or agreements.

I noted that there were some positive results in the humanitarian sphere: the exchange of the bodies of the deceased and of prisoners. Nearly 2,500 individuals from each side were able to return home. Several rounds of repatriating the remains of the fallen were organised. To date, we have transferred over 11,000 bodies of fallen Ukrainian soldiers to Kiev and have received, in return, 201 bodies of our own soldiers.

Despite the above, Kiev cited a lack of progress and decided to suspend negotiations with Russia. The West, for its part, has offered no reaction and has made no attempt to compel or even encourage the Kiev regime to create even the appearance of readiness for a political settlement.

Given these events, our conclusion is clear: the Kiev regime engaged in the Istanbul talks for a single purpose – as it did during the Minsk agreements – to exploit any pretext to secure an unconditional ceasefire, thereby buying critical time for rearmament, replenishing losses, regrouping forces, and other military preparations. Naturally, we could not agree to such a scenario.

Now, a new and personal factor has emerged for Zelensky. A major corruption scandal has erupted in Ukraine, making the prolongation of the conflict a pressing political imperative for him, and perhaps even a matter of his personal survival.

For us, talks designed to achieve a negotiated settlement, as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasised, remain the preferred course of action. We have never refused to talk, which is confirmed by our constructive work to review the initiatives advanced by the United States.

We appreciate the efforts of our BRICS partners to help create an environment conducive to finding peaceful solutions to the Ukraine crisis, including the Group of Friends for Peace in Ukraine created by our Chinese and Brazilian partners. We regard these efforts as a sincere desire to make a constructive contribution to stabilising international situation.

Importantly, such work should rely on international law, above all the provisions of the UN Charter understood as an indivisible and interdependent whole. It is essential to strive for what was mentioned several times today, namely, the elimination of the underlying causes of the conflict as a key prerequisite for durable peace.

I spoke about the principles of the UN Charter. The West also keeps referring to them as the basis for a settlement. But its statements are highly specific. Recently, German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz once again stated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of the principles of the UN Charter and respect for territorial integrity of Ukraine. This represents a selective commitment to the Charter.

The UN Charter also speaks of many other things, including equality and the right of nations to self-determination. It was precisely the right of nations to self-determination that became the foundation for the process of decolonisation, when peoples, above all in African countries, refused to live under the rule of the colonial powers, because these powers did not and could not represent the interests of African peoples. By the same token today, the Kiev regime – everyone is clear about that – cannot in any way represent the interests of the residents of Novorossiya, Donbass, and Crimea.

There must be no double standards here. When the Group of Friends of the UN Charter created by our partners works on shaping its philosophy, we want all the principles of the UN Charter, without exception, to be taken into account. All the more so since the West forgets another principle of the Charter which includes respect for human rights regardless of race, sex, language, or religion. The Russian language and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church have been outlawed in Ukraine. I hope that many countries that are part of the Group of Friends of the UN Charter are represented here and will take these issues into account in their work. The Group should be mindful of these considerations.

The involvement over the past year of certain Western countries that are directly engaged in supporting the Kiev regime, France and Switzerland to be specific, in the work of the Group of Friends for Peace in Ukraine can hardly help achieve this goal. How can they be members of the Group of Friends (even as observers) when they directly, both in word and in deed, support the Kiev regime?

Speaking of the Americans, I mentioned earlier that, in our assessment, they are interested in figuring out what is behind the Ukraine crisis. We saw that during the Russia and US leaders’ summit in Anchorage on August 15. Mutual understandings were reached there that remain valid to us and can serve as a starting point in our quest for a settlement.

Recently, US President’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was in Russia. Following his meeting with President Vladimir Putin, both sides confirmed the mutual understandings reached in Alaska. This is an important outcome, because the Anchorage summit was followed by a pause. Now, in our talks with the Americans on the Ukraine issue, I personally believe that misunderstandings and misinterpretations have been resolved. And the understanding reached in Anchorage is based on the proposals that President Putin once again summarised in June 2024 regarding the principles of resolving the Ukraine conflict.

Prior to Alaska meeting, Steve Witkoff visited Moscow and brought proposals that formed the basis of the understandings reached in Anchorage. These understandings come down to Ukraine returning to its non-aligned, neutral, and nuclear-free status which forms the foundation of its statehood. These particular principles were enshrined in the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine of July 16, 1990. We recognised Ukraine’s independence based on the principles proclaimed in that document.

When we hear claims that allegedly nothing can be done because the Constitution contains the goal of joining the North Atlantic Alliance… We recognised a different Ukraine. Most of those present here recognised Ukraine in 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a country whose statehood was based on three principles, namely, neutrality, nuclear-free status, and non-alignment.

This is not about a play on words, but about recognising historical facts. The Ukraine that became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union had guarantees in its laws and Constitution protecting the rights of the Russian and other ethnic minorities. The Ukraine as it was then did not have legislation institutionalising militarisation and Nazification of the state and society. Today, all of that exists.

It is important to understand the need to eliminate discrimination against the Russian language, Russian-speaking citizens, and other ethnic minorities. We are well aware that the Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Slovak minorities feel like second-class citizens. It is important to end the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

As for territorial realities, Zelensky says he can’t do anything regarding the territorial issue because their Constitution prohibits territorial concessions. Take a look at that character, who doesn’t always remember what happens around him. The [Ukrainian] Constitution also enshrines the obligation – I will be saying this for a third time today – to guarantee the rights of the Russian and other national minorities.

They have no regard for that constitutional provision. They have adopted laws that  expressly prohibit the use of the Russian language in education, culture and media. They have created a strainer of media outlets. It is impossible to work in the media sphere if you criticise Zelensky. They have shut down all media outlets of both Russian and Ukrainian owners that broadcast in Russian and criticised the authorities. They have banned all of them. If they really care about the integrity of their Constitution, civil and human rights are much more important than anything else.

I would like to state once again that we have a Constitution as well, and under it, Crimea, the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions are the integral and equal entities of the Russian Federation.

I will now repeat what I have said many times: We don’t want territories. We are concerned about the life of the people whose forefathers have developed these lands for centuries, building cities, roads and ports, and who have been commemorated in monuments as the founding fathers of these territories. It is the rights of these people that have been  cancelled by the Kiev regime. That is why the people of the Russian entities I have mentioned took part in the referendums to express their refusal to live under the neo-Nazi rule. It is a subject that can’t be hushed up.

I assume that all countries in this audience have a correct understanding of human rights in full compliance with the principles of the UN Charter, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, race, language, religion or belief. However, we are well aware of the Western interpretation of human rights.

After the United States circulated its 28-point plan, it has been leaked to the media. I am sure you have seen it. It included vital provisions on human rights and the denazification of Ukraine. It stated that the rights of minorities and religious freedoms must be protected, and that the Nazi ideology and activities must be outlawed.

After contacts with Europeans, the number of points in that plan was decreased. The provision on prohibiting the Nazi ideology and activities disappeared, apparently at the request of Europeans and Zelensky’s regime.

As for the rights of national minorities and religious freedoms, a provision has been added on Ukraine accepting the EU’s rules on rights of national minorities and religious freedoms. I believe that issue should be phrased differently. Ukraine must comply with the UN Charter and the numerous international and universal conventions on human rights, the rights of national minorities and religious freedoms. I consider it inappropriate to limit Ukraine’s obligations to compliance with the EU’s “rules.”

The rights of national minorities and religious freedoms are not limited or regulated by the European Union. It is inappropriate to enforce one’s rules on others, especially since we know which minorities – and these are not national minorities at all – modern Europe is now concerned about. We know how they interpret religious freedoms. Just watch the broadcast of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris, and you will understand their views on minorities and religious freedoms.

We continue to build upon the understandings reached with the American side in Anchorage. We have conveyed additional proposals to our American colleagues concerning collective security guarantees. We recognise that a discussion of such guarantees cannot be limited to Ukraine alone. The proposals that Zelensky and his handlers in Western Europe are currently commenting on have not been formally presented to us. However, if media reports are to be believed, these proposals, which reportedly include declaring a demilitarised zone along the entire border and creating a buffer zone free of heavy weapons on both sides of the border, are inherently pointless to discuss without our direct participation.

Furthermore, these reported plans envision an 800,000-strong Ukrainian army and propose security guarantees focused on Ukraine’s defence and post-war restoration. This represents yet another iteration of the flawed “Zelensky formula,” which pursued a single goal: to channel all international efforts into sustaining the current neo-Nazi regime without altering its fundamental nature, its policy of suppressing religious freedoms and human rights, while completely excluding Russia’s legitimate security interests from any dialogue.

As far back as 2008, we proposed developing a legally binding treaty on collective security with the North Atlantic Alliance. More recently, at a meeting with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner ten days ago, President Vladimir Putin clearly stated that we understand any security architecture must also encompass Ukraine. The other side, however, seeks guarantees solely for Ukraine. Judging by the information leaking to the press, these guarantees are being structured in a manner that effectively prepares for a future attack on the Russian Federation.

This, of course, is unacceptable. We believe the comprehensive proposals we submitted to the US and NATO in December 2021, which I mentioned, remain fully relevant and could serve as the foundation, or at least a starting point, for substantive discussions.

We are also prepared to consider other proposals. What is essential is a return to a fundamental consensus, as embodied in the decisions of the OSCE summits in Istanbul (1999) and Astana (2010). These principles remain valid:

First, that every state has the right to choose its own security alliances.

Second, that no state may strengthen its own security at the expense of the security of any other state.

Third, that no state, group of states, or organisation in the OSCE area can claim a position of dominance. It is precisely this position of dominance that NATO has been pursuing by steadily absorbing, one after another, the states to the west of Russia.

When we drew our Western colleagues’ attention to their duplicitous behaviour and their violation of commitments made by their own heads of state and government, their response was that those were merely political decisions, unsupported by signed legal obligations. That was it. That is their logic. That logic is untenable. If they insist on adhering to it, the outcome will be grave.

We are prepared to consider all credible proposals formulated within a collective framework to launch negotiations on fundamental, legally binding agreements. This is a matter of principle. We cannot allow one crisis to be immediately succeeded by another.

The West, however, appears intent on precisely that: sowing the seeds of a new conflict now while publicly declaring its preparations for it. We are determined to ensure that our current efforts do not meet the same dismal fate as the Minsk agreements – which, despite being unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council, did not deter France, Germany, or other Zelensky’s handlers from their relentless zeal to inflict a “strategic defeat” upon Russia.

Earlier today, I mentioned the US 28-point plan. Next, President of Russia Vladimir Putin met with US President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine Steven Witkoff, with the meeting reaffirming the Anchorage understandings.  The work will continue. In parallel, we see Europe fretting and Vladimir Zelensky shuttling between London, Paris, and other capitals. What is being leaked to the press – I have referred to that in part – is clear evidence of their intention to undermine the efforts being undertaken by US President Donald Trump and his team.

An early end to the conflict is not to the advantage of the majority of functionaries like President of France Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Federal Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz, Prime Minister of Poland Donald Tusk, President of Finland Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Vice-President of the European Commission Kaja Kallas.  They are stubbornly playing on the drums of war, as the saying goes, create “coalitions of the willing,” build up military expenditures, and are trying to save their political future, as I said at the start of our conversation.  They hold up the imagined threat of a Russian attack as a bogey and discuss Military Schengen plans and whether it will be possible to cut down the time for redeploying forces from Western Europe to our borders from 40 to 3 days.

Many of those engaged in war preparations are fantasising about sending their military servicemen to Ukraine as “peacekeepers.” For us, these “peacekeepers” will immediately become legitimate military targets. This must be understood by everyone. They have had to admit the direct involvement of British military officers, paratroopers, in the war against Russia, after one of them died and the UK Government no longer could conceal these circumstances. It was stated that no fewer than 100 British subjects were within the ranks of [Ukrainian] forces fighting against the Russian Federation. This news was reported in the evening yesterday or early in the morning today. We will draw all the necessary conclusions from this incident, which is yet another manifestation of the British regime’s true character.

The Europeans are nurturing plans to build up their forces and assets right on the border of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Poland has announced an intention to boost the output of 155mm artillery shells by 30 times. In this context, they seek to convince everyone that they are preparing for a “just peace in Ukraine” rather than war. They are aspiring to a role in the settlement. All these Europeans, like President of France Emmanuel Macron, who claim proudly that no one will decide anything without them, without Europe.

We are not nurturing, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated in no uncertain terms, any aggressive plans with regard to NATO or EU members. We are ready to put the relevant commitments and guarantees in writing in a legal document, certainly on a collective and reciprocal basis in the context of the previously enunciated approaches.

But let me repeat: we stand by our words, whereas there is nothing but open warmongering on their part. Well, to quote our President Vladimir Putin, if Europe decides to go to war, we are ready for this right now, if you like.

Legal aggression persists, involving puppet organisations, such as the International Criminal Court and Europol. The Council of Europe wants to establish a special tribunal and a damage register. To the best of our knowledge, they are trying to involve countries represented here in these anti-Russia initiatives. They are striving to ensure the participation of representatives of the Global Majority, including in the December 15-16 “diplomatic conference” in The Hague, where they plan to open for signing a convention on the international claims commission in order to examine claims by the Nazi regime to the Russian Federation for saving Russian nationals from extermination in full conformity with their legitimate rights formalised in the UN Charter. Such is the essence of Western “liberals” and “champions of democracy.”

Understandably, the true goal of these “exercises” is to expand the geographical reach of the Russophobic campaign, to involve as many countries of the Global South and East as possible in their provocative actions and, of course, to put Russia at loggerheads with Asian, African and Latin American countries. I have absolutely no doubts that our friends and partners are aware of this, and that they will not yield to such provocations.

Kaja Kallas, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, has set forth the general line of our adversaries and sponsors of Ukraine. “The EU has a very clear two-point plan. First, weaken Russia. Second, support Ukraine,” Kallas said. This masterpiece of diplomatic art is worthy of Annalena Baerbock who demanded that President of Russia Vladimir Putin must change his course by 360 degrees.

Europe, in the person of Kallas, has insisted that supporting Ukraine is the main thing. We can observe all this in the last few days. Of particular interest are the discussions that support for the Kiev regime includes a planned robbery – the confiscation by the European Union of sovereign foreign currency reserves of the Russian Federation. Representatives of Western countries, including the Prime Minister of Belgium, the leadership of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the IMF, are warning the Brussels bureaucracy against insane and ill-conceived actions. I do not know how much of an impact this will have on certain officials, including Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, who are engaged in a rather unsophisticated diplomacy. But they should realise that they are taking on a very serious responsibility for the possible outcome.

Kallas recently said (it appears that she sometimes makes some candid Freudian remarks) that it was not advisable to resolve the Ukraine crisis too quickly. In March 2025, Head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service Bruno Kahl noted that it is in Europe’s interests for the Ukraine conflict to continue for a few more years. Meanwhile, European countries would beef up their military potential, preparing for war with Russia.  One can get a clear idea of the advocates of war with Russia by analysing their arguments for European audiences. First of all, these arguments imply that it is necessary to support the Kiev regime because it is fighting for European values. As they say in Russia, this amounts to admitting one’s guilt. This means that the leadership of European countries forgive neo-Nazism that has been legalised in Ukraine. The Ukrainian state glorifies people who were recognised as criminals by the decisions of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Ukraine introduces racist practices and legally bans the Russian language and all things Russian, it persecutes Russian culture, media outlets and the Orthodox Church. No one in Europe is even mentioning that all this violates the UN Charter and Ukraine’s other international commitments. It turns out that this is how European values look like. I believe this is a lesson that everyone should learn.

The Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance has offered a new take on defending the so-called European values. Established 20 years ago by the government of Ukraine, this is not a grassroots institution. It operates in the status of a central executive agency with a mission to preserve national memory and designate individuals and entities accused of undermining the interests of the Ukrainian people. The lists this institute compiles include those who are viewed as posing a threat to the state and the Ukrainian nation and have to be subjected to what they call decommunisation and decolonisation processes. This formal listing includes writers such as Ivan Turgenev, Mikhail Bulgakov, Valentin Katayev, Ilya Ilf, Issac Babel, Mikhail Zhvanetsky, Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov, composers Mikhail Glinka and Modest Musorgsky, painter Vasily Surikov, and many others. Of course, this black list also includes major figures from our Imperial past who are viewed as a threat to Ukraine, including the Romanov dynasty, i.e., Nicholas II and his family, as well as Mikhail Lomonosov and Pyotr Bagration. The Poltava and Borodino battles have been outlawed, too.

Considering how inadequate this posturing by the Kiev regime is, we can therefore hardly expect it to be ready to engage in serious talks and, importantly, reach any serious agreements. This is something to keep in mind for anyone trying to insist that any decision for overcoming the Ukraine crisis can be taken only by working with the Kiev regime and its European masters. The fact that Europe has been treating Vladimir Zelensky as someone immaculate and deserving support no matter the circumstances also gives us reason to question whether the European leaders are in their right mind and whether they can make a meaningful contribution to the talks for achieving a solid, sustainable and just settlement based on the principles as set forth in the UN Charter and international law.

Unlike these people, we have the political will to bring about peace. President Vladimir Putin has been saying that we are ready to continue a meaningful dialogue, primarily with the United States, considering its serious commitment to achieving results. We really want to put an end to this conflict. Our principled position remains unchanged – this can be done only if we address its root causes, which are well known to everyone. I am certain that you understand this too.

I hope that the way we elaborated on this matter today will be useful for your respective governments for assessing the situation and acting accordingly.

Question: Your Excellency, the Alaska summit between presidents Putin and Trump constituted a significant breakthrough in overcoming the diplomatic impasse surrounding the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The international community received it with optimism. His Majesty the King of Bahrain dispatched two cables of congratulation and support to both presidents in recognition of their effort to achieve a resolution of this conflict. Nevertheless, the European states did not endorse this initiative, and it appears evident that they continue to harbour doubt and mistrust towards Russia despite the fact that the ongoing war poses a substantial risk to the European continent. I would like, your Excellency, to pose two questions. First, in Your Excellency’s view, what explains Europe’s apprehension towards Russia? The second question: why did Russia not take the initiative to propose assurance or security guarantees to Europe that might have encouraged it to support the American initiative. Thank you.

Sergey Lavrov: On the question of the EU’s apprehension towards the Russian Federation, as well as our plans and our thoughts, I cannot understand what guides the European leaders in their choices. Read what they have been saying so that the vanity of trying to understand their way of thinking or putting yourself in their shoes becomes clear.

Finland used to be our good neighbour for many years after World War II. We succeeded in overcoming a challenging period we had in our relations before World War II, as well as in its early days and especially with the start of the Great Patriotic War when Hitler invaded the USSR. The Finnish Army took a very active part in the war against Russia, including by sending a substantial force to enforce the inhuman and unprecedented siege of Leningrad. Finish troops took part in it alongside the German troops.

After the war, we were able to move beyond this period in history, and lived as good neighbours for several long decades with the border open for people on both sides to travel back and forth. Finland benefited from affordable Russian energy resources for developing its manufacturing, shipbuilding and timber industries. There was mutually beneficial trade and cultural ties.

But all of a sudden it seemed that our Finnish colleagues scratched off their gold plating, to use this metaphor, which included Finland’s current president, Alexander Stubb. He used to serve as a foreign minister and was my colleague, leaving an impression of being a serious and responsible politician. Finland turned into one of the most Russia-hating states and is trying to lead the pack when it comes to demanding that Russia be punished, claiming that no deals can be made with Russia anymore and that the only thing which can be done is fight and confront Russia. Only recently, the country’s current Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said: “Take it from us: whatever happens in this war, Russia will remain a long-term strategic threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Rather than encourage, we need to keep it at bay. <…> There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Putin has moderated his demands from those he laid out in December 2021 – demands that, if accepted, would roll back decades of progress in European security. Caving to these demands would expose Europe to further aggression.” These are the words of a foreign minister from a country whose capital was where the CSCE was born and then turned into an organisation. It is within its framework that the principles of indivisible security were approved at the highest level, including the principle of not seeking to ensure security at the expense of others.

This is precisely what lay at the core of the December 2021 proposals as presented by Vladimir Putin. But Elina Valtonen has rejected them by saying that they are unacceptable since they would reverse several decades of progress in enhancing European security. I would like her to hear these proposals. This is the last chance to salvage the existing achievements in European security. The West has been trampling upon them, and has been treating the OSCE accordingly. As a country where the so-called Helsinki spirit was born, Finland cannot ignore this. Nevertheless, Elina Valtonen did not have any problem when it came to defending the Nazi regime.

Europe is doing everything to squeeze itself into the settlement process. However, it does not have any useful ideas it could contribute to these talks. They must step back, look at themselves from the outside and start doing serious things instead of persisting with their propaganda and trouble making.

As for the security guarantees, everyone knows what we propose in this regard. This information has been disclosed to the public. We made these proposals in December 2021. They are very clear and de facto consist of promoting indivisible security but not as a political commitment but as legally binding obligations with the corresponding verification mechanisms. However, the European West rejects this and wants to continue treating us as an eternal enemy.

Question (retranslated): What does Russia regard as the main humanitarian component of a durable settlement of that crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: We appreciate the ICRC’s contribution to the settlement of humanitarian problems. I would also like to once again thank our colleagues from some Arab countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, who have been working without any fuss or self-aggrandizement to help organise prisoner swaps and the return of bodies.

It would be wrong to say that some humanitarian issues are of secondary importance. Everything is important. It is important to return prisoners to their families. It is important to return the bodies so that they can be properly buried. And it is important, of course, to prevent any risks to children in such situations.

The issue of children has been excessively politicised. Kiev continues to claim that tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted by Russian servicemen and are being maltreated. When this issue was first raised, we asked our Ukrainian counterparts at the Istanbul talks – we maintained contacts at that time – to give us a list of the “tens of thousands” of children, which would be in the interests of children and in the interests of settling that problem. We repeated our request many times, and eventually the Ukrainians produced a list of 339 names, which we started checking. We also asked your respected organisation for assistance. It turned out that a large part of these names were not children, and these people were not in the Russian Federation but in Europe. This has helped us reaffirm the suspicion that some Ukrainian operators and their European accomplices were involved in child trafficking.

I know that you prefer to act discretely, in accordance with your status as a depoliticised organisation, but this issue has no relation to politics. It is about the children who are presumably cannot be found. If the ICRC is ready to help establish facts and use your opportunities to help check these lists, this will be a great contribution to our common efforts.

As for humanitarian issues in a wider context, they include language and religion. I urge our friends in this audience, including from the Friends of Peace in Ukraine, to take a look at the rights of Russians and believers in Ukraine. On November 28, 2025, in the midst of the ongoing talks and discussions, as the West’s refusal to as much as mention Ukraine’s policy of eliminating the Russian language and prohibiting the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine, allegedly because Ukraine is protecting European values, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN Khristina Gayovishin stated: “Ukraine opposes concessions on the status of the Russian language. We will not reward the genocidal intent that underpins Russian aggression by undermining our identity, including our language.” In other words, our truth, and our policy of protecting the Russians who live in Ukraine from extermination has been described as “genocidal intent.” If those who maintain contacts with the Kiev regime took notice of such statements… I believe that the feeling of complete impunity of Zelensky and his team requires attention.

On December 2, 2025, US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff brought serious proposals to Moscow. The talks in the Kremlin continued for nearly five hours. It was an extremely serious discussion of concrete problems that need to be settled to achieve a durable peace. On December 3, 2025, Verkhovna Rada adopted a law, in addition to an existing set of laws, that prohibits the use of the Russian language in all spheres of life, and excludes Russian from the list of languages to be protected in accordance with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is a challenge to the ongoing peace efforts, in particular, by President Trump’s special envoy. The propaganda move that equates the fight for the Russian language to the genocide of the Ukrainian people has deliberately been made at this moment.

Don’t be shy to speak about this openly. It is only a legitimate demand to comply with international law. Europe remains silent, which is proof that its agenda includes encouraging racism, Russophobia and the revival of Nazism.

Question: Mr Minister, regarding the negotiations between Russia and the United States, the question is about the conclusion. I mean that if the current talks between you and the United States would not be able to find a political settlement and an agreement to end the war because of the destructive efforts of Europeans, as they say these days, Mr Trump may withdraw and leave the table of negotiations. The question is, what will be the alternative plan, I mean the plan of Russia in the case of failure of negotiations?

Sergey Lavrov: Trying to guess what will happen if someone suddenly changes course is not about us.

First, following the many contacts we had with the United States, including in Anchorage between the two presidents, with a follow-up at the level of their aides, special envoys of President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, as well as at the level of Foreign Minister and Secretary of State, we have reasons to believe that the United States has a sincere and genuine interest in finding an honest solution to this conflict in terms of enabling all parties to fulfil their legitimate interests. This is what underpins our position.

We are still waiting to be informed about what came out or comes out from the contacts between Vladimir Zelensky, his European masters and Donald Trump’s administration. There are all kinds of leaks in the media. As I have already said, if these leaks are accurate, this basically means that Europeans are exclusively focusing on forcing the United States to offer security guarantees to Ukraine while ignoring Russia’s security interests. They want to agree on managing to find money for the Ukraine Recovery Fund. This is a lop-sided, unilateral approach. I have no doubt that this is what Ukraine’s contacts with the Europeans are all about. If this is the case, this approach has no future.

President Vladimir Putin made a special point when he raised this topic once again, including during his meeting with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. He said that we want and we are ready to discuss security matters taking into consideration the interests of all parties and seeking to achieve a balance of these interests collectively, taking into account the current realities. This is Russia’s position. As for those claiming that offering Ukraine security guarantees is what matters the most so that it can expand its army headcount to a million or 800,000, and so that there is nothing standing in the way of arms supplies for the Ukrainian army – these people are trying to create a new storm. This much is obvious.

You see, all options are on the table for Europe when it comes to playing its dirty tricks. I have already mentioned the robbery they are trying to arrange regarding the reserves of Russia’s Central Bank. Arms trade is another example of a blatant violation of international law and the very rules the West has been advocating.

The West went on a global shopping tour to buy up Soviet and Russian weapons which can be found in European countries and in several states present in this room. We reached out to all the capitals to tell them that there are end-user certificates which are used in military-technical affairs. When one country sells weapons to another party, the buyer does not have the right to dispose of these weapons by transferring them to someone else without the seller’s consent. But they did away with all these principles. They simply ignored them. Moreover, they are now boasting about it in public.

One developing story has come into the spotlight. Several years ago, we supplied advanced air defence systems, the S-400 complex, which is one of the best in its class, to the Republic of Türkiye. Much to the displeasure of the West, including the United States, Türkiye owns these systems. But the United States also knows that Ankara wants to buy the F-35 jets, which led the US to demand that Türkiye stops using the S-400 as a condition for delivering the F-35s. The media has been covering this story for quite some time now. Yesterday, Europe – of course, I mean the European Union, since they believe that there is no one else in Europe – said that it decided to buy the S-400 systems from Türkiye to send them to Ukraine.

It never occurred to anyone that Türkiye is under obligation, as a buyer, to refrain from taking these steps without coordinating them with the Russian Federation. But this does not seem to bother anyone in Europe. This creates an impression that they are the ones who could enable Türkiye to buy the F-35s from the United States. This is an example of Europe being ready to ignore anything to achieve its goals despite all its claims about respecting private property, the presumption of innocence and the need to comply with laws and international norms.

But going back to the question from our friend from Bahrain, Europe is proving yet again that it was not in vain that it served as the main culprit during its long history in all the human sufferings starting with colonialism and slave trade, as well as the first and second world wars. Today, Europe also finds it impossible not to act. Maybe it worries that it has been left in the cold or that the way economics and politics have been evolving around the world have sidelined it and placed it on the margins of the global processes and events taking place today. I cannot tell you the exact reason, but we are once again witnessing their belligerent instincts and attempts to use aggression to keep their head above water.

Question: I have a question and a suggestion. Tell me honestly, do you see the conflict we’re discussing ending in the foreseeable future – say, within six months? Or is it endless, with another conflict waiting to follow, instigated by different parties?

My suggestion relates to this conflict. Why doesn’t Russia donate its share in the NIS company to the Serbian government, or sell it for a symbolic one rouble? It could be returned to you in full when conditions allow. This is my personal opinion, offered without prior consultations. I do hope that, if you don’t want to answer this, President Vladimir Putin will do it on December 19.

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding predictions on when the Ukrainian conflict will end, it is European representatives who are offering specific timelines – some say before spring, others point to 2026. We are not diverting our energy to such speculation. We have clearly defined objectives. They have been publicly and unambiguously outlined within a specific framework by the President of Russia. As I mentioned earlier, we discussed the path to these objectives in detail in Anchorage, where we reached an understanding on how best to achieve them – not in the context of a mere ceasefire or temporary pause, but as the foundation for a sustainable peace. We will continue to advance along this path, irrespective of timelines set by others.

For us, the paramount issue is one of essence: the security of Russia and of the Russian people whom the Kiev regime has labelled terrorists and stripped of all rights. This remains our goal.

Concerning the Petroleum Industry of Serbia (NIS) and the situation engineered by US authorities around this enterprise, in which Russian companies hold a majority stake, negotiations are ongoing. I am aware that the Serbian leadership is engaged in appeals to the United States. It was, after all, the US that demanded this company, established through a bilateral intergovernmental agreement between Russia and Serbia, comply with its directives.

This behaviour is characteristic of the American approach. Regrettably, through such actions, unilateral sanctions, and the weaponisation of the US dollar, they are eroding the very globalised system they spent decades constructing and promoting as the foremost benefit to humanity. The realisation is growing – not immediately, and not swiftly – that this configuration of the global economy serves not the common good, but rather allows one nation to impose its own “rules” upon all others.

Of course, serious nations intent on preserving their sovereignty will inevitably create alternative frameworks. They will shift their reliance away from mechanisms that have proven to be instruments of dictatorship and coercion, and toward reliable platforms not subject to ideological dictates. This work is actively underway within frameworks like BRICS, the SCO, and CELAC. While the architects of unilateral coercive measures may derive temporary benefit from this process, its long-term historical consequence is clear: it is fundamentally eroding the very architecture of globalisation, which is now crumbling before our eyes.

As for the specific path forward regarding NIS: there are, as I mentioned, intergovernmental agreements between the Russian Federation and Serbia that explicitly prohibit nationalisation without mutual consent. The conditions under which such consent could be granted are a separate matter. I will not speculate on nationalisation or other specific solutions – perhaps the answer lies in finding a way for NIS to continue its operations irrespective of the United States’ capacity to penalise it. This is what energy ministers, relevant economic operators, including those in neighbouring countries, and NIS partner companies are currently working to determine.

One principle, however, is beyond doubt: fairness must be the ultimate criterion. To do otherwise would be to set a dangerous precedent for many other countries, and no one wants that.

Question: You highlighted several human rights-related issues. I would like to draw your attention to the tragic events unfolding in Darfur and western Sudan. The RSF forces, rebel groups, and mercenaries are committing horrendous crimes and atrocities with the support of external actors. Everyone is well aware of who these actors are. Ukrainians mercenaries are fighting in Sudan and committing horrifying human rights violations, as they commit genocide against the Sudanese people. We saw the footage that they themselves had uploaded. This incriminating evidence is available for all to see. They mistakenly believed they could oppose Russia’s presence in Sudan and, more broadly, in the African region. What are your thoughts about this?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe you can, perhaps through your representatives in Kiev – I’m not sure you have an embassy there, but if not, you can take specific steps to this end – convey your position directly to the Ukrainian government for it to stop sending mercenaries there. In case they tell you they know nothing about this, they should look into it and take the necessary steps.

With regard to the situation in Sudan, we have strongly urged the Government led by Chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council of the Republic of Sudan Abdel al-Burhan and forces that oppose him to sit down and talk. A number of countries with a stake in finding a solution to this conflict made proposals to this end. Others suggested that your government start a dialogue with the external actors you mentioned. Unfortunately, this did not work out and the dialogue failed to materialise. However, a proposal was made, and we passed it on.

I’m sure the important thing to do is to focus on practical solutions to this issue rather than to engage in public condemnation of whoever it may be. We are ready to help. We have the means to do so. If your government gives a green light, we will do our best to make use of these opportunities.

Question: In your opening remarks, you mentioned the efforts to end the war in Gaza. This gave hope for ensuring maritime security in the Red Sea, which would also be beneficial for the Gaza Strip and the entire region. Maritime security issues are not limited to the Red Sea; they concern the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea as well. How do you think the international law can be improved to promote maritime security across all these bodies of water?

You also mentioned legal obligations of all parties with regard to safeguarding human rights, freedom of religion, and so on, in accordance with the UN Charter. Do you think the International Court of Justice is in a position to contribute to ensuring compliance with these rights?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a serious matter. The United States is aggressively promoting its policy, whereby they can destroy ships carrying illegal drugs without trial or investigation, simply based on the information at their disposal.

As you are aware, they have destroyed several such boats and power boats. Yesterday they boarded a tanker off the coast of Venezuela, declaring that the tanker was transporting illegal oil. There is too little information. I have no knowledge about the way the United States interprets the Venezuelan situation, other than President Trump publicly calling for a regime change or for the country’s leadership to voluntarily resign. Yet, Chevron continues to operate in Venezuela and to purchase local oil. What kind of illegal volumes of this type of fuel, hydrocarbons, was that tanker carrying? This needs to be looked into.

I very much hope that despite believing they are entitled to such operations, the United States will, out of respect for the international community, provide grounds for taking such actions. We are in favour of collective discussions on ways to combat drug trafficking and to ensure maritime security to avoid situations where members of the international community are forced into dealing with unilateral actions.

As for the International Court of Justice and its role in upholding the principles of the UN Charter, there was such a precedent, including with regard to Serbia, whose Ambassador spoke here today. Acting as a representative for the Kosovo settlement, Martti Ahtisaari suddenly said – at a time no hostilities were underway – that it was pointless to continue working on the matter. He claimed there was no option left except to proclaim Kosovo’s independence.

Independence was effectively proclaimed. Our Serbian friends appealed to the International Court of Justice which said that indeed, the UN Charter contains the principle of self-determination, and that the self-determination of a part of a state may take place without the consent of that state’s central authorities. That’s all there was to it.

Kosovo declared independence without holding a referendum, just as a unilateral move. Several years later, following the coup in Ukraine, Crimea said it would not live under the government that had declared the abolition of the Russian language its main objective. A referendum was held in Crimea, and the West said it was not a matter of a nation’s right to self-determination and claimed it was a violation of territorial integrity.

We are confronted with a situation where we must interpret the fundamental rulings of the International Court of Justice consistently, or we may find ourselves in quite a challenging situation. I have no doubt that its rulings must be treated with respect, since the ICJ is a body of authority. Indeed, the rights of states and human rights enshrined in the UN Charter fall within the Court’s purview, and the Court remains available to states to bring their cases before it.

Pepe Escobar: Tech Sinica – China’s Relentless Innovation Drive

China’s innovation drive is reaching fever pitch in 2025. Let’s cut to the chase and focus on four crucial domains.

1.The Huawei Factor

1.Huawei is already testing its first, self-developed EUV lithography machine capable of producing 3nm chips. Trial tests are going full blast at the research center in Dongguan, and mass production should start in 2026.

It’s impossible to overstate how much of a game-changing paradigm this Chinese breatkthrough – specifically in laser-induced discharge plasma (LDP) – is all about. It’s set to turn the seminconductor technology environment totally upside down.

The physics involved in Huawei’s LDP is fundamentally different from the method employed by the Dutch ASML’s de facto monopoly. This being China, it’s simpler, smaller and cheaper.
Huawei’s technology is bound to smash that monopoly while solidifying China’s chip independence. Talk about cost efficiency: Huawei aims to produce EUV machines at a fraction of the cost of ASML’s (around $350 million for each unit), and no less than flood China with homegrown 3 nm chips.

All that is happening after the proverbial Western “experts”, following the 2019 sanctions imposed by Trump 1.0, dictated that China would take up to 15 years to just catch up. After all, EUV technology is too deeply embedded in the Western-controlled supply chain. It was assumed that China would never be able to smash the monopoly.

Well, of course any monopoly is smashable when public-private partnerships – in academia and tech – release untold billions of dollars into R&D, rally the best minds, and focus on building an EUV eco-system from scratch.

This is not only about tech; it’s a geoeconomic and geopolitical earthquake. There was a serious debate going on across China that it would be a matter between 2 and 3 years to cut off any dependence on US/Western tech. Well, Huawei and SMIC will be moving closer to mass production of these 3 nm chips already by next year. Not hard to do the math on where the future of global chipmaking lies.

Invest In R&D And Reach Patent Heaven

Now cut to Fan Zhiyong, Huawei’s Vice-President and Minister of Intellectual Property, talking at the company’s 6th Innovation and Intellectual Property Forum this past Tuesday.
He explained how “from the brand-new HarmonyOS 6 operating system to the powerful Atlas 950 supernode, our R&D team has achieved remarkable successes. Although many leading software and hardware products are massive systems engineering projects, we are making every effort to make them open to everyone.”

Huawei conducts an innovation and intellectual property forum nearly every year, discussing the importance of open/protected intellectual property as well as promoting its Top Ten Inventions: this year they featured, among others, supernodes; the Harmony OS; foldable screens; short-range optical interconnects; and next-generation solid state drives.

There’s no secret: a lot of investment in R&D is behind all these breakthroughs. Over the past five years, Huawei has invested more than 20% of its annual sales revenue in R&D. According to the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard 2024, Huawei is Number 6 globally in R&D expenditure.
Huawei does not see these accomplishments as leading to a “closed garden”. On the contrary: the strategy is to foment an “open industry”, including the launch of a series of new open source software and hardware.

This opennes is reflected by the fact that Huawei is one of the world’s largest patent holders. By the end of 2024, Huawei held over 150,000 valid authorized patents globally, ranging from over 50,000 Chinese patents to over 29,000 patents in the U.S. and 19,000 in Europe.

And that brings us to…

2. Total Tech Sufficiency

And of course that is centered on AI. Cut to three recent key tech moves:

A. Beijing has banned foreign AI chips in every state-funded data center across the nation. Exempted will be only a few private companies which build their own data centers.

B. Local and regional governments were encouraged and are already subsidizing the electricity bills of AI data centers. China has a key infrastructure advantage over the US: cheap and extremely abundant power – as I saw it in my recent travels in Xinjiang. That is essential to offset the cost of switching to domestic chips, a more energy-intensive operation. For example, Huawei’s AI server system – CloudMatrix 384 – consumes more energy than Nvidia’s NVL72 system.

C. Beijing is also rolling out a new, ambitious “AI Plus Manufacturing” plan, included in the broader AI Plus initiative.

Point A is ultra-pertinent because Trump 2.0 is debating whether to allow Nvidia to sell a downgraded version of its Blackwell chips to China. Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang is lobbying for it like there’s no tomorrow, desperate of losing the Chinese market to Huawei for good. He bombastically announced that China is only “nanosenconds” behind the US on semiconductors.
Point C is also ultra-pertinent because as we saw with the Hauwei factor, Beijing is going for no holds barred AI chip self-sufficiency.

Beijing is deploying a very clever strategy. No foreign chips in data centers means a de facto protected market to domestic chip innovators which match foreign chip performances. Talk about a massive incentive.

Li Lecheng, Minister of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), has announced that MIIT will soon issue an “AI Plus Manufacturing” plan, focusing on rolling out AI upgrades in key industries; expanding intelligent assisted design, virtual simulation, and early defect detection; promoting brand new AI-enabled mobile phones and computers; and accelerating R&D for next-generation intel devices such as humanoid robots and brain-computer interfaces.

In a nutshell: that is how Beijing wants to implement AI in every nook and cranny of the Chinese economy. It’s a no holds barred total innovation strategy. Sanctions? What sanctions?
What A Stable And Resilient China May Accomplish

3. Clean Energy

This revolution is already on – with China leaping ahead of the whole collective West, installing, for instance, nearly 900 gigawatt of solar capacity, more than the US-EU combo.
Last year, China generated 1826 terawatt/hour of electricity out of solar and wind power – five times the energy equivalent of all its nuclear warheads.

Yes: that’s a certified energy superpower.

4. An Early-Warning Detection Big Data Platform

The Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology – China’s number one defense-electronics center and a hub of key innovation even under US sanctions – is developing a ground-breaking “distributed early-warning detection big data platform” capable of tracking up to 1,000 missile launches worldwide in real time.

The platform fuses data from an enormous array of space-, air-, sea-, and ground-based sensors, using advanced algorithms to distinguish warheads from decoys and proceed to action across secure networks.

The system integrates literally anything: fragmented, heterogeneous data streams from multiple sources – radars, satellites, optical, electronic reconnaissance systems – no matter where they come from, and when.

Cue to the system’s integration with interceptor missiles. During the Victory Day military parade last September in Beijing, China presented a new generation of air defense and anti-ballistic missiles, including the HQ-29, capable of intercepting hostile missiles beyond the atmosphere. Call it the Chinese Dragon Dome.

These are only 4 vectors amid the concerted Chinese tech drive, one of the key themes of the next Five-Year Plan to be approved next March in the “Two Sessions” in Beijing.

Now cut to Ronnie Chan, the Chair Emeritus of the Asia Society and the chairman of its Hong Kong Centre. He’s one of those affable old-school Hong Kong elite members who’s seen it all – and capable of synthesizing what’s ahead in a sharp and sweet manner. What he said recently at a seminar organized by the Shanghai Development Research Foundation could not be more relevant.
Let’s take just three key takeaways:

1.
“The Chinese people are resilient and patient. As long as domestic stability is maintained, external pressure only strengthens their endurance (…) in this China–U.S. rivalry, there will be no true winner, but the side that stands longer in the end will be China.”
2.
“China’s economy has not been over-financialised, and it continues to be grounded in the real economy. Only when manufacturing is strong can a nation remain stable and resilient.”
3.
“China must stay calm — neither blindly optimistic nor blindly pessimistic. China possess a vast market, a complete industrial chain, and a diligent population. As long as internal stability holds, external pressures cannot defeat it. The real opportunities ahead do not lie in real estate or finance, but in the service sector and innovation-driven real economies.”
There is no Chinese “miracle”: it’s all about planning and hard work.

And now to the next stage: no holds barred innovation.

From Mexico: Soberanía – Where Mexico stands in today’s shifting global policies

This week on Soberanía, Kurt Hackbarth and José Luis Granados Ceja bundle up for a freezing Mexico City episode and break down three stories that reveal where Mexico stands in today’s shifting global politics.

First, they explore Mexico and the “old world” — new meetings between Mexico, France, Spain, the EU and CELAC, and what these diplomatic moves say about Latin America’s growing independence from European influence.

Then they turn to Ricardo Salinas Pliego, as Mexico’s most notorious oligarch finally faces the Supreme Court after years of legal dodges by his companies. The hosts unpack what this long-delayed reckoning means for accountability and the balance between power and money in Mexico.

Finally, they examine Israel’s false claim of an “Iranian plot” in Mexico, how the story unraveled, and what it reveals about media manipulation and foreign attempts to drag Mexico into geopolitical narratives.

And as always, it all wraps up with Losers and Haters of the Week, this time focusing on the so-called Gen Z protests and how they’re being weaponized by the opposition and media to push an anti-government narrative.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Russian media outlets

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2058518/

Question: Moscow and Washington have almost simultaneously announced nuclear test plans. Does this signify global instability or rather demonstrate equal capabilities and thus the preservation of parity?

Sergey Lavrov: I have heard nothing about Moscow announcing nuclear tests, so it is inaccurate to say that Washington and Moscow made such statements simultaneously.

As I mentioned in a recent interview with Russian media outlets, we have so far not received clarifications from our US counterparts as to what exactly President Donald Trump meant to convey in his remarks. Was it nuclear tests, delivery vehicle tests, or subcritical tests which do not involve a nuclear reaction and are permitted under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)? There has been no answer to that so far.

The CTBT Preparatory Commission met yesterday, but a US representative failed to provide any clarifications, either, although such a forum is clearly the right place to clarify what the US President had in mind when he said that.

The US administration is still in the process of being formed. Many second and third-level positions, primarily in the Pentagon, have so far remained vacant.

In particular, Robert Kadlec has been nominated for the position of Assistant Secretary of Defence for Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Chemical and Biological Defence Programmes. Last week, he spoke before Congress, where he was grilled on the issue of nuclear testing and the current administration’s approach to nuclear weapons. He said that President Trump’s decision to resume nuclear tests was driven by geopolitical considerations. As before, there is no technical need to conduct such tests. That’s a strong statement. I’m not sure whether the speaker himself realises the gravity of what he said, but we are compelled to interpret this as confirmation of what we have been saying all along which is that there is no technical necessity for such tests. He went on to say that the goal was geopolitical and thus drove the point home for us.

What may the geopolitical goal of the United States look like? Domination, right? The use of nuclear weapons argument in this setting is alarming and represents a significant departure from the concept once agreed upon by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev where a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore must never be fought.

Robert Kadlec seeking the position of Assistant Secretary of Defence also stated that nuclear options should be developed to respond to certain regional conflicts that may flare up. That, too, is a rather curious statement. It’s a direct tell that this gentleman, once in office, will be thinking in terms of using nuclear threats in order to achieve the outcomes that the United States may need in a particular region.

He then went on to demonstrate even more instances of double standards when he said that NATO’s nuclear deterrence strategy might be revised in the wake of Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Yet, the fact that this was done after many decades of joint nuclear missions with US tactical nuclear weapons long stationed in five NATO member states and the fact that we have long proposed to redeploy all nuclear weapons back to the countries that own them was simply ignored.

Since Belarus has received nuclear weapons from Russia, the US side now wants to deploy theirs somewhere else as well. We are aware of ongoing contacts with South Korea and Japan. These games are very dangerous.

Back to your question, we have not announced nuclear test plans. At a meeting of the Security Council’s permanent members, President Vladimir Putin highlighted US President Donald Trump’s statement that Russia and China have long been doing this, and therefore the United States must do so, too. We immediately contacted our counterparts and let them know that there must have been a misunderstanding. We are looking forward to receiving clarifications.

President Putin has issued a directive not to conduct nuclear tests and not even to make preparations for them. The Foreign Ministry, along with other agencies, including military and intelligence, has been instructed to analyse the situation and to reach a consensus on whether this situation warrants considering the resumption of nuclear tests.

Our principled position was laid out by President Putin in 2023, when, taking a question during one of his speeches, he said that if a nuclear power were to conduct nuclear weapons test (not delivery system tests, not subcritical tests), then Russia will respond in kind.

Question: One more article has recently been published where the journalist and his sources claim that the United States, in particular Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been shocked by your uncompromising stance. Have you really been hard on the Americans or is this yet another article where they have gone too far with their sources?

Sergey Lavrov: We are polite people, and we try to remain polite. I have already answered similar questions in several interviews.

Since this audience consists of professional journalists, I would like to draw your attention to the latest facts of unprofessional and harmful coverage of certain events in the media, primarily British media. You know what is happening at BBC. It’s a shame that some individuals are trying to justify the situation and are speaking about an orchestrated campaign.

I would like you to take note of the item published in The Financial Times, which said that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agreed to meet in Budapest and instructed me and Marco Rubio to prepare that meeting. Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio have talked on the phone, but before that the Russians allegedly submitted a harsh memorandum after reading which the Americans decided that talking with the Russians would be pointless and meaningless.

There are so many lies here, including when it comes to the sequence of events. The memorandum the FT journalists mentioned is a non-paper, an unofficial draft we have sent to our colleagues not after but several days before the Putin-Trump conversation. It was designed to remind our American colleagues what we discussed in Anchorage, and what agreements we thought we reached (the Americans have not refuted this) during the US-Russian summit. That unofficial document did not contain anything other than what was discussed in Anchorage, which our American counterparts did not regard as cause for rejection.

The presidents’ telephone conversation was held after the document was delivered to the Department of State and the National Security Council. During that conversation, US President Donald Trump did not say a word about receiving a provocative or “subversive” paper that destroyed all hopes for a settlement. No, they had a normal conversation. President Putin gave a positive response to US President Trump’s idea of meeting in Budapest and proposed instructing the countries’ foreign ministries to prepare that meeting. That is exactly what we planned to do.

US President Donald Trump also said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would call me. I received his call three days later. We had a polite conversation without any nervous episodes, by and large reaffirming progress based on the agreements reached in Anchorage, and went off the phone. The next step was a meeting by representatives of our foreign policy and defence departments, and possibly our security services. However, the Americans have not taken the next step, although we waited for them to take the lead when it comes to the place and time for such a preparatory meeting because they had proposed holding a summit.

Instead, they made a public statement that they don’t want to hold a meaningless meeting. When Secretary of State Rubio made public comments on our telephone conversation, he did not say that he had noticed any aggravation or that it had undermined the chances of success. If I remember correctly, he said that it was a constructive conversation that quite clearly showed where we stand, which is why there was no need for a meeting. This can be interpreted in several ways, but this is what he said. There is a joke that we have a clean conscience because we seldom use it. But it is absolutely to the point in this case.

We see no reasons to offer excuses for being and remaining committed to what our presidents discussed in Alaska. Even if they did not agree on every comma and semi-colon, they have at least reached an understanding.

Question: You just mentioned the summit in Budapest. After his talks in the United States, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said he still hopes the meeting can happen. Is that still a possibility? And why has the focus shifted from a meeting in Hungary to a discussion of nuclear tests? What has changed?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe I have already addressed this. I cannot speak to what is behind the US position on nuclear testing, because President Trump’s claims about a supposed Russian and Chinese “resumption” of testing are simply not true – assuming we are talking about full-scale nuclear weapons tests. Other types of tests, like subcritical experiments (which do not produce a nuclear chain reaction) and tests of delivery systems, have never been prohibited. So, we are seeking clarification on these allegations.

As for the facts: Russia conducted its last nuclear test in 1991, and the United States in 1993. That was over thirty years ago. China’s last test was shortly after that. The most recent test by the DPRK was in 2017. Since then, we have seen no indications that any country is preparing to resume this practice. If someone were attempting to do this covertly, deep underground, it would be up to the professionals involved to expose it. In that case, they should be briefing the White House, not operating behind closed doors.

There is a robust global monitoring system in place, which both Russia and the US participate in. It relies on seismic data to record any significant underground vibrations. They know perfectly well what the indication of a nuclear explosion looks like. So, I would not conflate the issue of nuclear tests with the Budapest Summit.

The other day I watched President Donald Trump host Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban at the White House and then speak with journalists. When asked about a meeting in Budapest, he said that he had thought it over and decided not to hold it, because, he said, “I didn’t think anything was going to be happening of significance.” This fits with the thinking he expressed not long ago when he said that “sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while.”

Frankly, I don’t see any causal relationship here. We are ready to discuss the suspicions raised by our US counterparts whereby we have allegedly holed up deep underground and are secretly doing something there. We are also ready to discuss with our US counterparts resuming preparatory work for the summit between the leaders of Russia and the United States, which they themselves proposed.

If and when our US counterparts renew their proposal and appear ready to begin preparations for a high-level meeting that could produce meaningful results, Budapest would, of course, be our preferred location. All the more so as, during his meeting with Viktor Orban, Donald Trump confirmed that Budapest was a preferable venue for Washington as well.

Question: There is not much time left before the New START Treaty expires, yet the United States has not presented its official stance on President Putin’s initiative. Do you think the United States will respond in the near future? If, by any chance, an articulate answer never comes, would that make a difference for Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: We have made it clear many times that this proposal is a unilateral gesture of goodwill on our behalf. No talks or consultations are needed for the United States to support our approach. All the United States needs to do is state that it will not raise the quantitative limits under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty for one year that is at least for as long as Russia adheres to its own unilateral commitment. That’s all there is to it. No further steps are required.

As for whether any talks are underway to renew the treaty, no, there are no talks. Once again, the situation is completely transparent. The quantitative levels are well known. We know what the Americans have, and the Americans know what they have. Let’s take a year to, so to speak, cool down, analyse the situation, stop measuring everything by the Ukraine yardstick, and focus on the great powers’ responsibility to maintain global security and stability, above all, in terms of avoiding nuclear war. We are ready for that.

This has nothing to do with the time constraints. A declaration to renew the quantitative limits can be made at any point before February 5. By the way, the current New START Treaty was renewed right after Joe Biden had taken office just a few days before the initial expiration date. Renewing the treaty is a much more complicated endeavour than the simple act of making a voluntary statement to continue observing and respecting its numerical parameters.

Question: Considering rising tensions in the region, has Venezuela approached Russia with a request to provide military assistance? Has Caracas asked Russia to deploy its weapons in Venezuela similar to the way it was done in Belarus?

Sergey Lavrov: No, no such requests have been made.

I believe it is inaccurate to compare our relations with Belarus which is part of the Union State and with which we share synchronised, coordinated, and unified positions on all key international security matters with our relations with the friendly nation of Venezuela which is our strategic and comprehensive partner, to which end we signed a treaty not long ago.

However, considering, among other things, the important geographic factor it would be inaccurate to juxtapose our partnership with Venezuela with our Union with the Republic of Belarus.

The treaty I mentioned is an entirely new instrument. It was signed in May during President Nicolas Maduro’s visit to Moscow to attend the events marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. The treaty is now in its final ratification phase. It is called the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation and provides for continued collaboration in matters of security, including military-technical cooperation.

We stand ready to act fully within the framework of the commitments we and our Venezuelan friends have assumed in this treaty. It has not yet entered into force. Venezuela has completed its ratification procedures, and we have only a few days left to do so as well. Both chambers – the State Duma and the Federation Council – have held hearings to that effect, and the treaty is almost finalised. We will strictly adhere to the obligations it contains.

I’d be remiss to conclude my comments on Venezuela without mentioning our position on the unacceptable actions the United States is taking under the pretext of combatting drug trafficking as it destroys boats allegedly carrying narcotics, without trial, investigation, or any evidence whatsoever. Law-abiding nations do not do that. This kind of behaviour is more typical of those who consider themselves above the law.

Recently, citing the Daily Mail, Kommersant reported that Belgium was rapidly turning into a narco-state, where corruption, blackmail, violence, and the shadow economy based on drug trafficking flourish across all sectors, from customs to the police. Not the most reputable source, perhaps, but if even Daily Mail wrote this, they must have had a reason to do so. Why else would they slander their NATO partner?

Instead of targeting Nigeria or Venezuela under the guise of fighting drugs – and seizing oil fields in the process – the United States would do better to tackle this problem in Belgium. After all, the US and other NATO troops are already there. They wouldn’t need to chase small boats carrying three individuals each. I’m confident that the policy chosen by the Trump administration with regard to Venezuela will not lead to anything good. It will not enhance Washington’s reputation in the eyes of the international community.

Question: You have repeatedly stated that peace in Ukraine will only be achieved by addressing the root causes of the conflict. As is well known, one of these root causes is the rampant neo-Nazism in Ukraine. Is this issue discussed in your negotiations with American colleagues?

Sergey Lavrov: We regularly raise this issue. In fact, since the Anchorage meeting and my telephone conversation with Marco Rubio, we have had no further contact. We did not specifically broach this topic in Alaska, but they are well aware of our position. It is “in writing” for them. There is no secret about it. The position was articulated by President Vladimir Putin in June 2024, when he spoke at the Foreign Ministry, outlining our fundamental approaches to Ukraine and relations with the West.

Among other absolutely non-negotiable conditions for a settlement – such as demilitarisation, the removal of any threats to the Russian Federation, including by dragging Ukraine into NATO, and safeguarding the rights of Russians and Russian-speakers, as well as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – there is also the demand for denazification. This is not something we have invented as a notion alien to modern Europe.

One might think of the Nuremberg Trials. Their outcomes, forming part of the UN Charter, are a cornerstone of the international system established after the Second World War. Certainly, all of Europe signed up to this. Germany underwent denazification and a process of repentance.

Regrettably, now – perhaps even beginning with Germany – we sense that this repentance has come to very little. I have spoken about this before: some 15 years ago, during better days, in conversations with German colleagues, we noted the signals they were sending – not verbatim, but the meaning was quite clear. The gist was, “Dear colleagues, we have settled our accounts for the Second World War, we owe nothing to anyone anymore, and now we will act accordingly.”

Former Chancellors Angela Merkel and Olaf Scholz at least tried to observe decorum, while Friedrich Merz has repeatedly declared that his goal is to make Germany the primary military power in Europe once again. I think it unnecessary to explain what kind of signal such statements send – to make Germany the primary military power again. It already was a military power when it conquered more than half of Europe, calling it to arms to attack the Soviet Union.

When such Nazi relapses occur in the birthplace of Nazism, it naturally causes alarm. Naturally, it will require from us – from all those invested in a stable world – principled stances when discussing the final parameters of a settlement.

If the West finally recognises the futility of this scenario, i.e. that the demand should not be for a cessation of hostilities merely to continue arming Ukraine, but to act as President Donald Trump proposed before the Alaska meeting. He said then that a temporary truce would resolve nothing and that the conflict must be ended on the basis of principles for a sustainable settlement.

Yes, Europe later attempted (and not without success) to drag our American colleagues back into its camp of “truce, support for Ukraine, not a step back, not an inch to the left.” Nevertheless, President Donald Trump did say this, and it became the foundation of the understandings unequivocally agreed upon in Anchorage. Incidentally, this is what distinguishes the Republican administration, the administration of Donald Trump, from its predecessor – the administration of Joe Biden.

Recently, I came across an interview with Kurt Volker. He was the US State Department’s special representative for Ukraine under Joe Biden. He claimed that Russia would never agree to a peace deal. It is unclear where he got this from, because it is precisely we who are striving for a peaceful settlement. He added that Vladimir Putin does not consider Ukraine a legitimate or sovereign state. There is an answer to this as well. We recognised Ukraine when it was not a Nazi state and had not banned any language – in this case, Russian – as the only country in the world to do so. We recognised Ukraine as it was defined by the Declaration of State Sovereignty and the Act of Independence: a non-nuclear, non-aligned, neutral state. That is what we recognised, and that is how things stood.

Next, Kurt Volker asserts that Vladimir Putin is convinced Ukraine should be part of Russia (I will not even engage with that topic) and that the Russian President considers Vladimir Zelensky a Nazi. But where is the proof to the contrary? Vladimir Zelensky regularly poses on television, awarding honours to fighters of the Azov regiment [1] and other Nazi battalions, who wear the insignia of Nazi Germany on their sleeves. How else should one regard this man?

The eradication of Nazism in Ukraine – denazification – is an absolute condition for any settlement if we want it to be long-term. We do want that and will pursue it. But when no one in Europe, in their dealings with Ukraine, raises the issue of the country’s Nazification; when no one, except Hungary, addresses the rights of national minorities; when no one demands that Vladimir Zelensky repeal the law banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church…

In Alaska, when President Vladimir Putin explained to US President Donald Trump how we assess the situation in Ukraine, he mentioned that in 2024, they passed a law aimed at banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. President Donald Trump did not believe it. He asked US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was present at the meeting, three times whether this was true. Marco Rubio confirmed that it was. It was clear that the US President was, to put it mildly, taken aback.

Returning to Ukraine and its legislation. I mentioned Hungary. When the Brussels bureaucrats, led by Ursula von der Leyen (who is now creating an intelligence structure and will personally oversee it), were pushing through the decision to begin negotiations with Ukraine on its accession to the European Union, Hungary – credit must be given to the courage of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán and his Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó – stood alone in insisting that among the conditions Ukraine must meet before negotiations begin, there must be the resumption and restoration of all Ukrainian obligations regarding the respect for the rights of national minorities. There is a rather lengthy text on this topic. It was not difficult to draft, because the Constitution of Ukraine still requires respect for the rights of the Russian (singled out specifically) and other national minorities.

Currently, there is the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos. When she claims that Ukraine is ready and has fulfilled all the necessary conditions to begin negotiations, this is simply untrue. Nothing has been done to address or restore the rights of national minorities – not even for the Hungarian minority, despite Hungary being a member of both the European Union, which Ukraine so desperately seeks to join, and NATO, where Vladimir Zelensky is also constantly pushing for membership. No action has been taken on this front, just as nothing has been done regarding the remains of the victims of the Volhynia massacre in relation to Poland.

The European Union remains entirely silent on these blatant violations. Ukraine stands as the only country in the world to have completely banned a language. Even in Norway, where 7 percent of the population are ethnic Swedes, Swedish is an official language. The figures speak for themselves – compare that to the situation in Ukraine. From Brussels, we hear nothing about Ukraine’s actions except for the mantra that they must stand with Ukraine to the end, “until victory.”

This same refrain was recently echoed by Mark Rutte and other representatives of the Western European establishment.

They insist that they must always defend Ukraine because it is upholding European values. This is nothing less than a confession – a self-exposure. It reveals that, in the eyes of today’s Brussels bureaucracy, European values equate to the revival of Nazism. That is precisely why we cannot afford to show weakness here.

Question: Recently, Lithuanian authorities have been increasingly flirting with the idea of closing their borders and halting transit to Kaliningrad for Russians, using increasingly flimsy pretexts. What measures is Russia taking, potentially with Minsk, to prevent this? And how will Russia respond if Lithuania follows through?

Sergey Lavrov: These smaller nations – the “young Europeans,” like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia – seem to vastly overestimate their importance in the eyes of the Western European “old guard” of the EU. Those in Europe who still possess a shred of common sense and a genuine concern for the continent’s security (a dwindling group, admittedly) are perfectly aware of the provocative role assigned to these Baltic states by their handlers, primarily British ones.

London’s penchant for provoking situations is, of course, notorious. Take the recent case where the Russian FSB exposed a plot to trick a Russian pilot, flying a fighter jet armed with a Kinzhal missile, into flying to a base in Constanta, Romania with a fake order. The obvious intent was for the plane to be shot down, creating a pretext to accuse Russia of attacking NATO. But I’ll set that aside for now; the FSB has already laid out the details. I don’t know how the British will wash away the stain, but they’ve always had a remarkable talent for this, like a duck that waddles away from a shower without a drop of water on its back.

The former empire that once ruled most of the world is gone, and so is the “good old England” they so love to parade. They have little economic weight left, and their military might is relatively weak, as even their nuclear arsenal isn’t fully under their control. They have to compensate for this weakness somehow, so they fall back on that traditional English aspiration to “divide and conquer,” to put it politely. There are, of course, less charitable terms for their actions and goals.

Now, back to your question. Indeed, recently we’ve seen not just the usual threats to block Kaliningrad transit, but certain figures – not in Lithuania, but within the EU itself – egging the Baltics on by suggesting Kaliningrad could be “razed to the ground.” Meanwhile, Lithuania has already closed its border with neighbouring Belarus, leaving hundreds of trucks from Lithuanian carriers stranded there.

On this matter, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, as always, used particularly vivid language. These actions are outrageous. It brings to mind the phrase the Americans once used about dictators in Latin America, in Central America: “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” That’s precisely the attitude the European bosses have towards the antics of their Baltic protégés. They’re expected to commit as many heinous anti-Russia acts as possible, while also provoking Russia into a response that can be “sold” to Washington primarily as grounds for invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty and starting serious military action.

We see this clearly. But the obligations regarding Kaliningrad transit are not Lithuania’s alone; they are the obligations of the entire European Union. The 1994 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU included a provision on ensuring transit between neighbours. This was reinforced by a separate joint statement on transit in 2002, which had direct legal effect. Then, in 2004, when the Baltic states and other Eastern European nations were admitted to the EU, a Joint Statement on EU Enlargement and EU-Russia Relations was signed, which explicitly reaffirmed all these commitments.

Subsequent technical documents spelled everything out in minute detail, including the layout and procedures for a “temporary travel document” and the clearance processes for passenger and rail cargo transit.

The European Union must now take responsibility for the behaviour of its wayward “junior members” who are spinning out of control.

Back when decisions on admitting Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia into the European Union were being drafted in 2004, we asked our European counterparts – back then we had plenty of contacts and fairly open trust-based discussions – whether those three Baltic states were ready to meet the EU membership criteria. We were told they fell short in some areas, but…

We wondered whether bringing unqualified candidates into the EU made any sense. They said they knew where we were coming from, but having gained independence those countries were still haunted by phobias of “occupation.” “We’ll bring them into the EU and NATO,” they said, “and they’ll calm down.” Have they? I think the exact opposite happened. Not only did they not calm down, but they decided they would now call the tune in the EU and NATO, at least when it’s about openly Russophobic and anti-Russian “rhapsodies.” That’s the position they have adopted today.

In response to what I’m saying, someone in the EU may argue that we “invaded” Ukraine in violation of certain agreements we had arrived at with the EU before that. I have no doubt someone out there will be willing to come up with an argument like that. They are reluctant to recollect how things actually played out in Ukraine. How it all began long before the Minsk Agreements, long before Crimea, back in 2013, when then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich analysed prospects for signing an EU Association Agreement and realised that many of its provisions would imperil trade, trade arrangements, and other economic benefits Ukraine enjoyed in its contacts with the Russian Federation. He became fully cognisant of this and requested to put off the signing scheduled for late November 2013. We supported his approach. We did so not because we wanted to prevent Ukraine from pursuing relations with other countries, but because we wanted Ukraine to keep its access to its commitments under the CIS Free Trade Area and its economic ties with Russia, which had been vastly beneficial for Ukraine. We also strived to avoid inconsistencies between the principles underlying relations between us and the obligations Ukraine was supposed to assume under the EU Association Agreement.

Back then, President Vladimir Putin reached out to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso (former Portuguese Prime Minister), letting him know that Russia had a free trade area agreement with Ukraine, and the EU planned to create one with Ukraine as well. The principles of these two areas are at odds with each other. Putin suggested having the three parties – Ukraine, Russia, and the European Commission – sit down and discuss ways to harmonise them. What could be more reasonable? Barroso came back through some obscure channels saying that since the EU did not interfere in Russia’s trade with Canada, Russia should likewise stay out of EU-Ukraine relations.

We often talk about former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and her confession that $5 billion had been invested in Ukraine over the years preceding the coup. The EU catalysed the Ukraine crisis. It fueled the Maidan protests and planted the catch phrase that Ukraine must be with Europe, not Russia. They said this publicly. So, we should be left out of it, and they shouldn’t justify their own lawlessness by referring to the steps our country was forced to take after exhausting every reserve of goodwill and constructive proposals.

Here are some examples of the EU showing lack of integrity. In 2008-2009, the EU – France in particular – faced issues in Chad and the Central African Republic, which were home to small French expeditionary forces that lacked air support. They asked Russia to send in a helicopter group to assist in operations against rebels that engaged in genocide and other atrocities. We have sent the group as requested. Later, we reached out to our EU partners with a suggestion to create a joint crisis response mechanism for operations abroad based on this experience.

We proposed an approach under which, if Russia were to conduct an operation, we could invite the EU to participate in it on an equal footing, and if the EU were to engage in an operation, it could invite Russia. They were receptive of the idea. Discussions began, and everything appeared to be moving towards the sides coming to terms. Some time later they told us there would be no parity, because there already was an agreement outlining the possibility of Russia’s participation in EU operations, which covers everything. So much for an approach supposedly based on equality.

There are quite a few other examples, including the Meseberg Initiative, which we recently mentioned in our comments. Back then, President Dmitry Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed in Meseberg on a declaration establishing an EU-Russia Committee on Foreign Policy and Security. Ukraine was not even mentioned, only Transnistria. Merkel insisted on having the creation of that committee come with a condition, namely ensuring progress in the Transnistria settlement. That provision was included. Following those understandings, we ensured the resumption of the “5+2” format for the Transnistria settlement, which had been dormant for several years. The format resumed its work, but when we approached the EU with a proposal to now create the joint Committee on Foreign Policy and Security, they chose not to reply and the idea went off the table. That’s how much the EU’s word and even signature is worth. In this particular case, the EU was represented by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

A particularly glaring example is the visa-free regime with the European Union. Negotiations had been underway even before 2004, as at the Russia–EU summit in 2004, the then-head of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, stated that within a couple of years we would achieve a relaxation of the visa regime. Several years elapsed. We developed our internal regulations based on the framework agreed with the EU. Once these norms were finalised domestically and all requisite bilateral agreements with individual EU member states were concluded, no outstanding condition remained unfulfilled. In response to our query regarding potential timelines for abolishing the visa regime, the European Union engaged in protracted deliberations. Its eventual response was to table a new draft document, proposing a joint consideration of further steps. The document outlined purely technical nuances. Nevertheless, we engaged in this work as well. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly recalled those times.

Back then, not only was faith alive, but there was also a lingering hope that we were dealing with honourable counterparts.

Ultimately, these additional technical matters were also resolved. This was in the summer of 2013. When we suggested announcing the agreement, they (the EU officials) withdrew from official contacts on the matter and from providing an official response. Off the record, it was intimated to us that, despite our full preparedness, political considerations precluded the conclusion of a visa-free agreement with Russia prior to finalising such agreements with Moldova and Georgia. Ukraine was not mentioned at the time.

Therefore, should the European Union level accusations of violations against us, firstly, there is not a single factual basis for such claims, and secondly, we have ample means to “pacify” our European colleagues.

Question: Next year, the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship, and Cooperation between Russia and China will expire. Are there negotiations underway to extend it? Or will Moscow and Beijing draft new agreements to reflect the changed realities?

Sergey Lavrov: This treaty remains entirely relevant. It is no coincidence that when its initial term expired in 2021, approximately a month prior, President Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping signed a document extending the treaty for five years. These five years are now coming to an end. The 2021 statement affirmed that the treaty remains fully pertinent, retains its force, and serves the interests of further strengthening the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between our countries.

I believe this assessment still holds. However, events are unfolding rapidly, and our strategic cooperation and multifaceted partnership with the PRC are deepening, acquiring new dimensions. In principle, we have agreed with colleagues from other agencies to explore whether specific areas could be used to “enrich” this treaty. I am unsure of the form this might take. It could involve adopting another document confirming and expanding the treaty’s provisions. No definitive decisions have been made yet, nor are they necessary, as such decisions, when put in writing, merely reflect the realities on the ground. In practice, our relations have never been more advanced, close, or trusting. As our Chinese friends say: we work “shoulder to shoulder, back to back” in all spheres of international life. These are not empty words.

Thus, I assure you that the date of July 16, 2026 will not pass unnoticed. The details of how our cooperation with our Chinese friends will be confirmed, expanded, and deepened will be handled by the executive offices of our leaders. A report will subsequently be submitted at the leadership level.

The organisation is recognised as terrorist and banned in the Russian Federation.  [There is no link to understand what exactly is being referred to here].

 

Laith Marouf: Hezbollah Ready for the Biggest Defensive Battle Israel Has Ever Seen

This is a good video. For all those that still blame Russia because Syria fell, Leith said that Russia owns the South of Syria. Russia has direct control and is the Kingmaker in Syria. Nothing moves, if Russia does not allow it.

Slices of Life, #14

“I walked past a McDonald’s, Starbucks, 7-11 and Kentucky Fried Chicken, all lined up, cheek to cheek. America’s icons will survive its collapse.”

with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.

Go There! — Oct 29, 2025.

Walking a couple miles, I got a last look at everything, that square with the serene stupa and Tibetan temple, KTM Burger, Fire Café, Bueno Burrito, the early morning chai place that made me feel so at home on my first morning, 4 Square with Sumitra mopping the steps, the Indian beggar in his NIKE knit cap, Saroj’s store, founded in 1943 by his grandad, where I bought more treats and yak cheese. I passed too many gorgeous neighborhood temples to count. I moved too fast for stray dogs to say goodbye or curse me for leaving them.

With plenty of time before my flight, I asked the taxi driver to leave me outside the airport’s gate. Thirty-seven years old, he’s been driving 15 years. Though his village is only 100 kilometers away, he doesn’t have to go there since his parents are dead. Only his 55-year-old brother remains.

“Does he want to come here? To work?”

“He was here.”

“No job!”

“No job.”

“At his age, it’s better he stays in the village. When you’re over 45 or so, no one will hire you for anything. They don’t want experience, only young, strong bodies.”

He chuckled in agreement.

“In Vietnam, too, it’s like that.”

“It’s like that everywhere.”

“For women, it’s even worse. They only want young, pretty women in the restaurants and cafés. Hey, how come your English is so good?”

“I practice.”

“No classes?”

“Four classes!” he chuckled.

That’s all he could afford, obviously. He pays 15,000 rupees ($106) a month for rent. His taxi costs 3,000 a day. That’s also the monthly tuition for his five-year-old-son. Since his other son is only 1 ½, his wife must stay home to take care of this baby. Food for four costs 20,000 per month.

“I have no savings,” he said. “Sometimes, I take out loans.”

“But the interests are so high!”

“There are no jobs.”

“Too many people from the villages, and not enough tourists. I’m very surprised.”

“They’re scared.”

“But that was what, six or seven weeks ago? It’s perfectly safe here. Even then, there was no danger. If you see a protest, you just walk the other way! Did you see anything?”

“No, just on the mobile,” he chuckled.

“The protests were in a tiny area. Tourists, though, are always nervous. In Kathmandu, they stay inside a tiny area, where they can eat burgers and pizzas!” I laughed. I didn’t confess to pigging out at Bueno Burrito several times. Vung Tau has no Tex-Mex.

Just now, a guy about 50 looked over my shoulder to see what I was typing. We smiled. I’m sitting outside a cheerful and perfectly skanky eatery with dirty dishes on the concrete floor. Waiting to explode, an old gas canister lies on its side. The young waitress looked very nervous when I said, “Chai,” or when I threw up an index finger, meaning one more. Smartly dressed in his school uniform of button-up shirt, neck tie, creased shorts and dress shoes, a boy of eight eyed me as he walked past. Ten feet away, blue and red plastic bags of food garbage lean against each other. All I smell, though, is the curry being cooked. Since I don’t feel like sweating in agony, I’m not going to order anything. Tall bottles of Gorkha are certainly tempting.

This time tomorrow, I’ll be on my last leg to Saigon. Suddenly, I’ll be in balmy weather again. Snow is expected across Nepal within 48 hours. “4,982 escapees are still on the run,” announces the Himalayan on its front page. Also, Cameroon has just elected a 92-year-old president. Since Trump is just 79, Americans should expect 15 more years, at least, of winning big, no inflation and having so much money, they won’t know what to do. Unlike Elvis, Trump won’t ever leave the building.

At 10:16AM, I’ve cleared immigration and security check. There was a long line to just enter the airport. With boarding still an hour away, I rewarded myself with a 500 ml can of Nepal Ice. With its licker content at 6.1%, I’ll be groovy on that plane. Maybe I’ll sing Elvis.

Already, I miss Shree Gha Vihar, but here’s a deep, original thought. You can’t be everywhere at once! I should have been a hash pushing guru. It’s never too late. That’s what they all say, even as they’re lowered into the ground.

That thought just now is but a limp riff on what my long lost buddy, Aziz Vargha, said. When I visited Aziz on the 8^th floor of Pennsylvania Hospital, America’s oldest, he lamented, “You know what’s funny, man? You can’t just be somewhere, you must go there! That takes time.”

Born in Iran, Aziz was raised in Germany then the UK before ending up in the USA. He had “MADE IN USA” tattooed on his forehead, back when tatts anywhere was still rare. Sitting in McGlinchey’s among whites, Aziz shouted, “I’m white, man, just like you!” Soon after, he said to a table of blacks, “I’m black, just like you!”

One snowless Christmas, we headed to Kensington to get lots of the white stuff. Doing lines, we laughed so hard. If alive, Aziz would not being do well, I’m sorry to say. He was already a mess four decades ago.

Just sitting still takes time. That’s all we have. Even if it’s just a hundred yards, I’d rather go there.

After my laptop went dead, I rushed to a charging station. Seeing my heavy machine, a woman in her mid 50’s asked in a Germanic or Dutch accent, “Do you want to sit here?”

“No, no, I just need to charge my laptop. Thank you!’

Immediately I thought of an old woman on the Rome subway from 26 years ago. “Chi vuole scendered?” she said in the gentlest voice imaginable. She even smiled slightly.

Such sweetness or civility is what we live for. OK, must run now. Boarding time. I must go there!

---

Too Heavenly for Words — Oct 30, 2025.

If still in Nepal, I would have been in bed by the time I landed in China. Though exhausted, I was also elated at finally entering China, so I headed into town. Getting a transit visa was relatively painless and not too time consuming. After changing $100 into yuans, I found my way to the Metro. Though I had visited Macau and Hong Kong, and saw Chinese streets from across a thin river in Lào Cai, only now was I inside!

Having no Google Maps, I didn’t know which station to get off. One that connected to two other lines sounded like a transportation hub, so must be busy at street level? Outside, there were just vendors selling assorted sausages on sticks, mostly, taxis and motorbike taxis. No stores or cafes were within walking distance. This was Guangzhou at its grubbiest. The station, though, was well appointed. After ten minutes, I headed back in.

Since the ticket machine didn’t accept my 100 yuan bill, a uniformed employee went out of her way to get me change. She also suggested a more lively station. This young lady couldn’t have been nicer.

On the train, all but a very old, tiny woman were looking at phones. Whether in Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand or China, Asian subways are new, safe, clean and on time. The squeaking horror shows that still chug along in NYC or Philly are certainly cinematic. Since DC’s Metro must serve swamp dwellers, lobbyists, lawyers and Pentagon staffers, it’s cleaner and safer, though still dark and almost spooky in its cavernous design. DC go-go bars have nicer dancers, too, and they show everything. No coquettish peekaboo. Powerful old creeps don’t have time for subtleties.

Of course I forgot the recommended station, so got off at another drab neighborhood, but this one had stores and restaurants. I walked past a McDonald’s, Starbucks, 7-11 and Kentucky Fried Chicken, all lined up, cheek to cheek. America’s icons will survive its collapse. 7-Eleven has long been owned by the Japanese. Sears, once a symbol of America’s abundance, is mostly dead at home. There are three in Mexico City. I ran into one.

Standing outside McDonald’s, I heard John Denver’s “Take Me Home,” though sung in Cantonese, with only bits of English. “Country roads take me home, to the place I belong. West Virginia, mountain momma. Take me home, country roads.” Arriving in the US in 1975, this was one of the first songs I could almost sing.

Further on was a local fried chicken joint where sat three Chinese and an African. I noticed two pizzarie and several convenience stores. At a bright stand selling lottery tickets, a young female employee slept with her head slumped on a table. I entered a lit up Cantonese restaurant with uncleared tables and beer cans on the floor. To compensate for my suffering, I ordered too much food. I was nearly comatose. Grabbing a takeaway container, I then exited to look for a taxi. Before leaving, I did notice adds for prostitutes inside the toilet. In London, they lined phone booths, with exotic chicks from Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Scandinavia and Brazil, etc., especially popular. Dom leather, water sports, pussy licking, uniforms, toys and spanking were all available.

At Kathmandu’s airport, there were about 30 English high school kids. I heard one say, “I’d be very sad if you were to die on the way back.” Deadpan Brit humor. My favorite is what an Englishman says to his wife after their very first night, “I sure hope you’re pregnant, dear, because I don’t want to go through all those ridiculous motions again.”

Reentering Guangzhou’s airport, I knew my can of Nepal Ice, saved for Sơn in Vũng Tàu, would likely be confiscated, but there’s no way I could drink it myself. I had a can of clam sauce taken in Philly, a bottle of wine snatched somewhere and a jar of confit nearly filched from me at Heathrow. Global madness amplified after 9/11, the Anthrax scare then the Shoe Bomber, all hoaxes. In case you haven’t figured it out, Covid was an American bio attack on China, then Iran. Already a totalitarian state, China didn’t need a fake virus to paralyze itself. It was real enough for them to way overreact. Trump’s economic war against China should also be seen in this context. Xi, and Putin, too, certainly knows who’s his main enemy.

Exhausted and irritated, I made a beeline for those sleeping pods I had seen two weeks earlier. At just 138 yuans ($19.44) for three hours, it was absurdly cheap. Inside, there was a comfy seat that could be reclined nearly flat, lights that could be dimmed, a quiet fan and a TV. I assumed when my three hours were up, some alarm would go off or there would be knocks on the locked door, but nothing happened. I slept two extra hours. This, I only realized after emerging outside. Last night’s employee was asleep at her counter.

Since it wasn’t quite 6AM, restaurants were just setting up. Arabica, though, was open. A latte was just what I needed. Even before my first sip, I took photos of this elegant café. Their baguette sandwiches seemed proper. Nearly all Asian and European airports are more comfortable, better organized and civilized than American ones. At Guangzhou’s, hot or cold water is available for free, and you can sleep well enough even outside those pods. There are also free shower stalls. Even today, you cannot take a train from JFK to Manhattan.

At Mi Cang, I ordered rice gruel with just bits of minced pork and century egg, a peasant breakfast much beloved by my buddy John, an ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. It’s his ultimate comfort food, what his mama must have made often. It’s akin to oatmeal for many Americans. In Macau, I met a Chinese-American transplant who was delighted to find a store selling oatmeal. He needed it to feel at home

At $5.92, Mi Cang’s rice gruel was much fancier, for it came with four Japanese fried dumplings. On the menu were also Vietnamese phở, Japanese ramen with tonkatsu and a burger combo that looked pretty good, but they all do in photos. Eating my grub, I thought of a Nam Cao story where a woman feeds slop meant for pigs to her kids. Her calling it chè, a sweet, cold soup eaten as snacks, doesn’t fool them.

Looking up, I noticed a line at my gate, earlier than expected. Joining it, I asked a young white man if this was for Ho Chi Minh City, but he didn’t answer. Overhearing me, a Chinese said, “Yes, Ho Chi Minh.” The other couldn’t hear because he had earbuds on. To block out the foreign, many tourists must listen to familiar songs and check, constantly, websites from home.

With Guangzhou’s airport so vast, you must often take a shuttle to your plane. Getting on, I immediately looked for Vietnamese faces, but there was none. I also strained to hear Vietnamese, without success. Two weeks earlier, the flight from Saigon to Guangzhou had few Vietnamese. It’s that human or animal instinct to identify your own. Forever, life and death could depend on it.

With more money, and many more people, Chinese are much more visible everywhere. With increasing economic and political might, Chinese tourists and immigrants will be even more ubiquitous. JD Vance’s characterization of them as peasants exposes his hickishness. In Canada and Australia, rich Chinese have made real estate prices in many cities unaffordable for native peasants, workers and even the middle class.

After failing repeatedly to log on to Yahoo! Mail or my SubStack, I realized they were blocked. Everything Yahoo! is inaccessible there. Same with Google, Wikipedia, New York Times and Washington Post, etc. China doesn’t want any American information or disinformation for its citizens.

Rejecting most American products, it’s also prepared to ditch the American consumer. That righteous and pushy slob has been buying on credit for decades, from China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and, literally, every country you can think of.

Landing in Saigon, I will leap immediately onto a mini bus for Vung Tau. Failing to bring Sơn a Nepalese beer, I thought of getting him a Chinese one, but busy writing, I never got round to it. Those remaining yuans I’ll use, hopefully, on a proper trip to China.

Cloudy paths, zap me home! To that place, I sorta belong! Ocean mamas, they’re singing and dancing, all right. It’s enough to steal glimpses of them every so often. Why should they sing to me?

On the Kathmandu to Guangzhou leg, two babies on my row screamed or cried often. Others elsewhere did the same. Now, I only hear the slurping of noodles from the guy two seats away. Since there’s no broth, I’m not sure how he does that. Behind me is a well masked American from Chicago. Risking death or long Covid, he did manage to take it off to eat.

I finish this at 6:58PM in Vung Tau. It’s as if I never left. This is Như’s last day at Ông Bầu Coffee, she just told me.

“Where will you go next?”

“I don’t know.”

I don’t either. At some point, I should return to the US to experience, at least for a couple weeks, its Golden Age. I must catch Honolulu, El Paso or San Francisco before it becomes too heavenly for words. As for Philly, I won’t even recognize it, I’m sure.

---

Shrinking Brains and Dwellings — Oct 31, 2025.

On 5/29/25, a garbage truck stopped a Kings Park, NY middle school to empty its dumpster. There, a school janitor saw an injured, garbage draped man trying to climb from the truck. After it emptied its load, another was discovered, but well dead. Since this happened at the back of the school, no student witnessed the horror. Learnt of it from television news, how many thought this could ever happen to them? Much more likely, they envisioned their future as a president, astronaut, NBA star, Hollywood actress, trophy wife, rapper or, at the very least, YouTube influencer. On that date, the low was only 55, so these unfortunates or human garbage had slept inside the dumpster not for warmth, but to be safe. This was conditional on them getting up before the arrival of the garbage truck.

In Santa Monica, bums, especially female ones, dwell inside locked toilets. Further north, you can rent a tent pitched on someone’s backyard. Storage units are more solid, but illegal. Still, thousands of Americans must be dwelling in them. So loaded, they don’t know what to do with their heaps of cash. Those who freeze outside in the winter must be alcoholics or drug addicts, according to conventional wisdom. Don’t say it’s too funny a word in Trumplandia.

Sleeping quite well in my tiny pod at Guangzhou’s airport, I thought these compact solutions should be scattered everywhere. Herding American peasants into cities, huge parks were built to give these factory slaves imitations of their lost landscapes. Thus, we have Central Park in NYC, Prospect Park in Brooklyn, Fairmount Park in Philly and Grant Park in Chicago, all built in the 19^th century. Now, all these and more can be filled with sleeping pods, imported from China. Spinning in his grave, Frederick Law Olmsted will appreciate the exercise.

Convicted of any crime, the offender’s sleeping pod can just be locked. With bread sticks tossed in daily, he won’t starve. His shit and piss can be eased out through a hole. Capital punishment will be applied quickly and cheaply by denying him of bread sticks. After the stinking corpse is extracted, his sleeping pod will be sold at a slight discount, after a few sprays of disinfectant.

Just a few hours in China yielded so many solutions. Must be in the air.

In China, porn is banned. In the West, it’s freely available as the last bastion of free speech. Since jerking or stroking nearly nonstop is the best means of social control, it must be made mandatory. TVs inside sleeping pods must show only porn. Wouldn’t this lead to more rapes? Quite the opposite. Men who’ve shot their wad several times a day can only grab, at most. Most Americans are already fine with this, at least in principle. It’s also egalitarian. Why should bottom dwellers be denied some Trumpian perks? “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” MAGA chicks are turned on.

The last photo I took in Guangzhou was of a white enough man in a LAS VEGAS hoodie. Next to him was his exhausted wife. Bent over, she held her head. His or her wrinkled, white haired mom looked stunned. On 5/26/25, more than 8,800 flights were delayed in the USA alone. The next day, nearly 7,000.

Flying from Chicago to Frankfurt on 10/28/25, a 28-year-old Indian stabbed two sleeping American teens with a metal fork. He then slapped a woman and a crew member. One teen told investigators he had only exchanged pleasantries with the Indian. This non-immigrant had just finished his studies at Moody Theological Seminary.

Since 42 million Americans will lose food aid tomorrow, proactive cops across the USA have increased patrols around grocery stores, convenience stores and shopping centers. America’s Golden Age has just begun.

Yesterday at Saigon’s airport, I joked with the immigration officer, “Coming back, I’m just waiting to die!”

“You’re not that old, uncle,” she smiled slightly.

“I’m exhausted.”

On the minibus to Vung Tau, we passed a young man with this on his hoodie, “SMILE! IT WILL ONLY GET MUCH WORSE.” His helmet said, “WE WILL ROCK YOU!”

The young lady next to me wore a Covid mask and earbuds. When not dozing off, she stared at her cellphone. Born into universal madness, she’s well lost. After she dropped one earbud, we all helped her to find it. When it was discovered, there was universal jubilation inside that mini bus.

Ông Bầu Coffee’s evening barista just gave me a free glass of hot tea. In a minute, I will head home to eat some yak cheese with Nepali biscuits. This morning, I was too pooped to show up at Coffee Seven before 5AM. Tomorrow, then, I will see Mrs. Seven, Sơn, Liệt, Nọng and Milk Cow.

---

Fish in Teapots — Nov 01, 2025.

At Ông Bầu Coffee, one barista is a rather morose 20-year-old I first talked to only yesterday. It turned out she’s a third year student in logistics. With lots of shipping through Vũng Tàu, she’ll get a job easily, she believes. AI won’t bump her into any dumpster.

Though born after the Boat People crisis, Morose knows about corpses being washed up regularly on Vũng Tàu beaches. She also knows about Vietnamese trying to enter the US illegally during the Biden years. Someone approached her family to propose this. $70,000 per head was all it took, he said, and you’d make that back within two years, working in a nail salon, as if the US wasn’t oversaturated with these Vietnamese businesses. As a clumsy newbie whose English or Ebonics wasn’t good enough to interact with customers, who would hire you?

After eight years, you could return to Vietnam loaded with cash. He didn’t say anything about crossing seven countries before reaching the Promised Land. After entering Panama from Colombia, you would be an illegal for over 3,000 miles while being transported by criminals from various nations.

“What’s stopping them from robbing, raping or killing you?” I said. “People who could afford to fly to South America were rich! They sold everything here, thinking they’d never come back. Now, they’re being deported by Trump!”

Morose has never been outside Vietnam. She didn’t even know you could easily reach Cambodia by bus.

Village explainer, “You can go from Saigon to Bavet in just two hours! Cambodia opens all these casinos for Vietnamese. They want as many to come as possible, so go to Bavet, but without entering the casinos! You’ll just lose all your money! Phnom Penh is much more interesting, but it takes six hours to get there. Go to Bavet first, just to get a taste, then go to Phnom Penh later.”

Here three years, Morose started out making 18K, or 68 cents an hour. Now, she earns 23K. Working 200 hours a month, she takes home $129, though the shifty owner often deducts $27 for unexplained reasons.

Morose never protests. When business is slow, she just stares at her phone, like right now.

Morose lives with her parents just two doors down. At least her school is six miles away. She does visit occasionally a married sister in Saigon and has gone as far north as Nha Trang.

Fancying himself a painter, the owner has set up an easel right at the café. He’s so vapid and timid, you can’t talk to him about anything. It took me less than a minute to find out.

Before me, Như tried to mentor Morose, but it’s useless, she said. This girl is just incurious.

“She never had a chance!” I protested. To invigorate her, I will nudge and shove Morose some more, give her a few kicks in the ass.

Once, I overheard Như telling Morose about a new café that paid better. I’m not sure she applied. Begging for acceptance is always intimidating and dispiriting.

Ông Bầu Coffee has a new regular. A Siamese fighting fish is living, all alone, inside a teapot. Its diameter is four times the length of the fish’s body. There are pebbles at the bottom. Though it’s always lidded, I’ve been reassured there’s enough oxygen for this displaced creature. It could be much worse. Next to this teapot is a glazed ceramic planter with a cartoon cat and “cute” above its head. Taking frequent breaks, Morose would sit next to these exiled beasts.

In the next room, someone is strumming a guitar and singing. Surrounded by kitschy paintings, he and his listeners are soaked in an artistic environment.

Out collecting plastic bottles, that homeless Cambodian will return in the evening. He uses Ông Bầu’s bathroom and sleeps each night just feet from where I’m sitting. Lately, he’s refrained from disturbing that garish altar to the goddess beneath a banyan tree across the street. As long as he doesn’t go berserk, he belongs here at least as much as that fish.

Splotchy and discolored, he’s a piss poor representative of his species. With any residual self-respect, he should be deeply ashamed of himself, but I shouldn’t talk. My dorsal, pectoral, pelvic and anal fins are sad and feeble enough. Still, they’re sufficient to propel me home. After paying for my cappuccini, I’ll swiftly swim outta here.

That yak cheese is nearly gone. That cheerful, repetitive hymn to Ganesh I heard dozens of times daily so recently has faded. Soon enough, I’ll remember nothing.

---

Bloodbaths and Bashes — Nov 02, 2025.

Too much excitement this morning at Ông Bầu. Using her thin jacket, a woman swatted at a bee in mid flight, then stepped on this buzzer after he had dropped to the floor. His squashed body now oozes whatever. His stiff, broken wings are stuck up. No one knows what he could have accomplished. He might have been a great bee poet. For this gratuitous display of unfathomable viciousness, she’ll be reincarnated as a bee, wasp, fly or mosquito, I’m sure. Placid, Morose inspected the fleeting carnage. As she walked by, I had to refrain from expressing my entirely justified indignation. I only thought, “What were the odds of the innocent, intelligent looking bee stinging that smug, still smiling broad in the fuckin’ twat?!” Oblivious, she’s yakking away. She does have a melodious voice.

Before Ông Bầu, I stopped at Mrs. Tím’s stand for a $1.52 bowl of crab noodle soup. As I slurped away, a security guard on a motorbike stopped to ask for a 95 cent bowl. After he left, I said, “You still make a profit with that, no?”

“No, but what was I supposed to do?”

“Does he come by often?”

“Only rarely.”

“A security guard’s salary isn’t too bad.”

“But he also has a wife and children. What was I supposed to do?” Mrs. Tím, then, makes nothing selling to this man. Her name means Purple, by the way. One of her two sons is nearly always in drug rehab. This widow has maybe four front teeth left.

Worst are those who stuff some change into their bra or up their long sleeve, then say Mrs. Tím has short changed them!

“They have so many tricks. When you sell stuff, you see everything.” She said this without rancor, only a touch of amusement.

Before Mrs. Tím’s food stand, I was at Coffee Seven. Today, Sơn told me more about his experiences in Cambodia. I had asked Sơn about soldiers who freaked out. Of course, that happened. Losing their minds, some even shot at their comrades.

On a lighter note, Sơn told me about Vietnamese troops visiting Cambodian whorehouses. They were dim and sordid, and the girls were so poor, their panties were pitifully or laughably threadbare. Worst were Viet soldiers who refused to pay after service. “They’d leave a hand grenade on the floor to chase the girls away.”

Even Viet officers barely had cash. Some sold used artillery shells, illegally, of course. With this profit, they could buy made in Thailand jeans or T-shirts. Both were highly prized back in Vietnam. Even in 1998, I had some rural guy touch my Levi’s with something like awe. They were called cow pants, quần bò, short for cowboy pants.

Underfed Viet soldiers stole chickens, ducks and pigs from Cambodian peasants. Like American, Australian or South Korean soldiers here, they raped. Unchecked aggression or rage is intrinsic to every war, as is wetting or soiling your pants from ungodly terror. Clean uniforms and impeccable discipline are only meant for parades, to fool civilians, draftees and recruits.

Last night, I finally bought a new phone. With a sim card, it cost me just $125. Don’t even know what brand it is. Last phone I bought before this was in Albania four years ago. I need this gadget to take care of some business.

Last night, I also went shopping at Lotte Mart, Vũng Tàu’s fanciest mall. Viets who can afford it treat it like an amusement park, almost. Better dressed kids run around screaming. With burgers, pizzas and fried chicken available in futuristic settings, they’re in the USA of their imagination. KFC Vietnam has a new dish, Migaxuxi. It’s slices of hotdog in an overly sweet red sauce on too soft spaghetti. On KFC’s wall was a nearly life-sized Colonel Sanders, with that first KFC in Harland, KY in the background. Most Viets think this America still exists.

When the entire White House is destroyed, replicas will appear across Asia, I’m sure. Even if all of the USA becomes like Gaza, its highlights will be preserved in the East. There’s nothing to worry about, man! Thousands of Statues of Liberty will sprout, just not in America.

In each Oriental burger, pizza or fried chicken joint, wholesome white families as wax figures will be installed to give yellow diners the impression they’re practically in Sacramento, Cincinnati or Youngstown. In fancier diners, waitresses with their hair already dyed blonde can wear white masks and speak in a cute, flirty English they’ve learnt from movies like American Pie or Grease.

For a while, Michael Bordenaro has done an excellent job of tracking America’s collapse. Three days ago, he said, “As of September, employers have announced over 1 million job cuts, which is the largest number that we’ve seen since the pandemic in 2020 […] So this job market collapse is getting real.” Walmart, Amazon, Ford, Microsoft, Target, Starbucks and McDonald’s, etc., are all firing thousands of workers this year.

When Bordenaro asked his viewers about how they’re coping with this new grim reality, they’re saying they’re buying less or inferior food, driving less, selling more to pawn shops, delaying or avoiding medical care, saving less or nothing, using less energy, including taking cold showers, not traveling or seeing distant relatives, not going to restaurants or movies and, perhaps, most depressingly, having to move back home after decades of living independently.

One man, “I’m 45 living in my parents’ basement again, not because I’m irresponsible, but because of the economy.” Over 57% of Americans between 18 and 24 are living with their folks. You’d have to go back decades to find a higher percentage. Millions of Americans are also side hustling. One, “I’m doing DoorDash after my full-time job just to keep up. I’m exhausted and still falling behind.”

Another, “I barely leave the house anymore because I can’t afford gas to drive to work and see my family.”

All these testimonies, though, must be fake news disseminated, or rather, jerked off, by far-left agitators.

As Trump cut off food aid to over 40 million Americans, he hosted a Great Gatsby themed Halloween bash at Mar-a-Lago called, “A little party never killed nobody.” So cute, the bad English. Shows his common touch.

Posting photos of his glitzed up shitter on 11/1/25, Trump crowed, “The Refurbished Lincoln Bathroom in the White House—Highly polished, Statuary marble!” Let them eat shit is right.

---

About Linh Dinh (@linhdinh):

‘Before being canceled, I was an anthologized poet and fairly prolific author, with my last book Postcards from the End of America. Now, I write about our increasingly sick world for a tiny audience on SubStack. Drifting overly much, I’m in Cambodia.

Born in Saigon, Vietnam in 1963, I lived mostly in the US from 1975 until 2018, but have returned to Vietnam. I’ve also lived in Italy, England and Germany. I’m the author of a non-fiction book, Postcards from the End of America (2017), a novel, Love Like Hate (2010), two books of stories, Fake House (2000) and Blood and Soap (2004), and six collections of poems, with a Collected Poems cancelled by Chax Press from external pressure. I’ve been anthologized in Best American Poetry 2000, 2004, 2007, Great American Prose Poems from Poe to the Present, Postmodern American Poetry: a Norton Anthology (vol. 2) and Flash Fiction International: Very Short Stories From Around the World, etc. I’m also editor of Night, Again: Contemporary Fiction from Vietnam (1996) and The Deluge: New Vietnamese Poetry (2013). My writing has been translated into Japanese, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Korean, Arabic, Icelandic, Serbian and Finnish, and I’ve been invited to read in Tokyo, London, Cambridge, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, Leipzig, Halle, Reykjavik, Toronto, Singapore and all over the US. I’ve also published widely in Vietnamese.’

AHH: Please support this wonderful writer on his Substack! Thanks

Hitlerism, Trumpism, Netanyahu, Lepenism, Macronism

A comparative and expressive approach

Emmanual Todd and posted at the The Francophone Saker Blog

(This was machine translated from French)

The references from the 1930s were multiplied. The degeneration of American democracy seems to bring us back to that of the German republic of Weimar. Trump, for his joy in violence and lie, for the exercise of evil, irresistibly ramen to Hitler. In Europe, the mountain of movements categorized as extreme-right obliges us to this return on our history.

Western societies, however, no longer resemble what they were in the 1930’s. They are aged, consumption, tertiary, women are emancipated, personal development ya replaces partisan adherence. What does it have to do with the societies of the 1930s: young, frugal, industrial, workers, men, inserted? It is this socio-historical distance that had led me to consider until today as a priori invalidate the parallel between the “Extreme Right” of the present and those of the past. But political doctrines exist, today as yesterday, and one cannot be content to postularize the impossibility, for example, of an old Nazism, a francism of consumers, a fascism of liberated women or an LGBTism Croix-de-Fire.

The time has come to compare the doctrines of our present to those of the 1930s. Here is the outline of what could be the comparative study of five historical phenomena: Hitlerism, Trumpism, netanyahi(u)sme, lepenism. I will add at the end of the course, briefly, macronism. The centrist and European extremism that leads France to chaos obliges us to this examination. Is this extremism so centrist?

It will be an impressionist approach, without prejudice to completeness or even consistency, the purpose of which is to open up leads, not to conclude.

Strength of the features and colors for pleasure – the concepts in relation to each other. I’m deliberately exaggerating, to catch up or even anticipate a story that is accelerating. Expressionist approach will be perhaps a more appropriate metaphor.

Let’s start with the general dimension of racism or xenophobia.

The rejection of a “Other” defined as external to the national community, with very variable levels of intensity, is common to Hitlerism, Trumpism and lepenism. In the case of Hitlerism and Trumpism, there is the notion of racism, explicit or implicit, which is common. The Jews were considered by Nazism to be a race, in the biological sense. Blacks, these barely hidden targets of the Trumpized Republican Party, are also biologically defined. To lepenism, on the other hand, we can only associate the concept of xenophobia. Arabs or Muslims are defined by culture. One of the characteristics of the French obsession with immigration remains its fixation on Islam and its inability to target blacks, whose massive arrival is the new element of the migration process. The rate of mixed marriages of black women is three years old in France, the insignificant remaining in the United States.

A common feature of “populisms” Westerners is of course their refusal of immigration: Reform UK, the Sverigedemokraterna (Democrats of Sweden), the AfD, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Law and Justice in Poland, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, pass, like Trump or the Pen, the test of this common denominator. Is it enough to define them as far-right, in the sense that Nazism and fascism were far-right? I don’t think so. A crucial difference opposes today’s populism to the extreme right of the Hitler or Mussolinian type: Nazism and fascism were expansionist, with the aim of projecting to the outside of the power of the German (Aryan) or Italian (Roman) people. They were aggressive, nationalist, conquerors. They were relying on mass shares. We can’t imagine the current populists organizing the Nuremberg-style parades. The aperitifs sausage-pinard of the RN are certainly anti-Muslim but, nevertheless, less impressive than the Hitler war ceremonies. From Nuremberg to Hénin-Beaumont? Really?

Western populism will pass 100% of Netanyahu’s cell expansion test. Colonies of the West Bank, genocide of Gaza: Establishing relationship a between Hitlerism and Netanyahu is inevitable.

The French, British, Swedish, Finnish, Polish, Hungarian, Italian xenophobias are, in contrast to Nazism and fascism, defensive. We are not dealing with people who want to conquer but about people who want to remain masters at home. That is why the cultural dimension prevails today in Europe over the racial concept and why we can only speak here of xenophobia. This is xenophobia a conservative, where Hitler’s racism was revolutionary because it disrupted social organization. The notion of nationalism therefore does not apply to current European populisms, the notion of extreme right either, or we will have to introduce oxymorons like “Moderate Nationalism” and “moderate extreme right” . I to prefer of popular conservatism.

Personally in favour of controlled immigration, I must admit the legitimacy of thiste xenophobia because I accept the axiom that a human group with a culture, aware of existing as a community, in short a people, has the right to want to continue to exist. A person who controls the borders. Nazism, with its soldiers installed from the Atlantic to the Volga to serve or exterminate other peoples there was quite another thing.

Trumpism represent a mixed form that seems to combines a central defense element, anti-immigration, with a strong potential for aggression in the foreign world. This is not about expansionism. It is the earlier expansion of the US military apparatus and the role of the dollar in imperial predation that have made possible the violent Trumpian acts directed against other peoples and nations: Venezuela, Iran, we, the Western European subject peoples, and of course the Arabs, with the Palestinians as the main target. The gradual integration of Israel into the Empire, from 1967, makes that by 2025 we can hardly distinguish the Trumpism of Netanyahuism. But Trump, beyond his nobelizable antics, is indeed the chief culprit of the genocide in Gaza by his long-term encouragement to Israel’s violence: this so simple fact makes Trumpism fall on the side of Hitlerism. Trump is still behind the wheel: US accelerators and brakes regulate Netanyahu’s genocidal aggressiveness. I am lucky: as I write, Trump, frightened by the reaction of the Arab peas to the Israeli raid on Qatar, and in particular by the strategic alliance between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is retreating. He ordered Netanyahu to apologize for the bombing in Qatar and he executed. Trump imposes on Israel an agreement with Hamas and Netanyahu. Then? Trump is perverted, impossible to say.

The concept of Trumpo-Netanyahism, rather ugly I admit, makes it possible to identify the Jewish question as a common point in the American crisis of the years 2000-2035 and the German crisis of the years 1920-1945.

The radical pro-Israel stance of Trumpism masks in my opinion a visceral and vicious anti-Semitism: the identification of all Jews with netanyahism, a historical phenomenon effectively monstrous, canker in Jewish history, will only lead to renewing the Nazi conception of a monstrous Jewish people. I am talking about anti-Semitism 2.0.

I am aware that few actors will follow me on this point. But here I am only speaking like a banal prophet of the Old Testament. ” We were not chosen to be on the side of the powerful. History never ceases to set this trap for us . How many times the Jews thought themselves saved by the strong, by the powerful, by power, by an empire, designated even by a privilege – financial, intellectual success, importance in the Bolshevik party – to be finally thrown into fray to furious peoples… My heart bleeds When see you so many French Jews, who are believed on the sleeve, Netanyahu’s politics. But the children of a child who are on the train are very good. Thanks to Trump, the planet has anti-Semitic. American Jews, the majority of whom reject the Netanyahu line, are wiser and more just. But already, the Jews hostile to Netanyahu, academic or not, are suspected by the power of being anti-Semitic. Perversity reigns. Trumpism reigns.us .” How many times the Jews thought themselves saved by the strong, by the powerful, by an empire, even by designated a privilege – financial, intellectual success, importance in the Bolshevik party – to be finally be thrown into fray to furious peoples… My heart bleeds when I see so many French Jews, who today believe themselves on the side of the round, Netanyahu’s policy. But it is the jaws of a trap that are opening. the majority of those who reject the Netanyahu line, are wiser and more just. But already, Jews hostile to Netanyahu, or academic not, are suspected by the power of being anti-Semitic.

When is the close of the trap? One day, the Christian nations will inevitably make their peace with 1.6 billion Muslims. The Jews will then be abandoned by their fans and, now alone, thrown into the pasture to other furious peoples.

The promised land succeeds, disasters follow them. Nightfall, the first novel by Isaac Asimov, is the third great author of American science fiction, and seem to metaphor for the long suite of dramas that constitutes that the last story: within a civilization, a remnant of prophecy announces a mysterious catastrophe… it arrives, surprising… civilization. collapses… then slowly, it is reborn, it flourishes… a resumption of prophecy announces a mysterious catastrophe… it arrives, surprising…

In truth, the mere return of Jewish obsession to the heart of the West validates the hypothesis of a threatening continuity between the past and the present.

Zombie Protestantism and Nazism, Zero Protestantism and Trumpism

The economic crisis of 1929 was a determining, well-known factor in the Hitlerization of Germany. 6 million of the unemployed escaped Germany society from any ideological recall force. Hitler’s liquidation of unemployment in a few months sealed the fate of liberalism.

The religious context of the rise of Nazism, all also important, is less familiar: between 1870 and 1930, the Protestant faith vanished in Germany, first in the working world, then in the middle and upper classes. The Catholic regions resisted. In 1932 and 1933, the Nazi vote card was reproduced, with fascinating and literacy. Protestantism did not believe in the equality of men. There were the elect, appointed as such by the Lord even before their birth, and the damned. The metaphysical belief Protestant once it disappeared, what remained of it was the hysterization by the fear of the void of its unequal content, with the Jews, the Slavs and so many others as damned. In the United States, Protestantism of Calvinist origin targeted blacks. The Calvinist people, made on the Bible, themselves identified in Hebrew, and who born the anti-Semitism of America in the last few years and my open judgments. Finally…safe until the recent emergence of evangelical fixation on the state of Israel.

In the French Catholic Church, (in the Parisian Basin and on the Mediterranean facade in particular), the collapse of the faith and practice made 1730 to mutate the equal opportunities for access to paradise (obtained by baptism, which washes original sin) into equality of citizens and the emancipation of Jews. The republican idea of a universal man replaces that of the universal Catholic Christian (katholikoss universal in Greek). A very different program than Nazism but which had represented, long before it, the first massive replacement of a religion by an ideology. In both revolutionary and Nazi Germany, however, the potential for social and moral leadership of religion had survived the belief: the individual remained a member of his nation, his class, bearer of a work ethic and the sense of obligations towards the members of the group. The capacity of collective action is strong, ten-fold. This is what I call the zombie stadium of religion. The Nazis corresponds to this zombie state, which, due to unhappy, is and militarily effective.

I could complete this religious explanation of ideology with an explanation of religion itself, influenced by the underlying family structures, unequal in Germany and egalitarian in the Paris Basin. But we can be satisfied here with a continuity of Protestantism in Nazism and Catholicism in the French Revolution.

We find Protestantism in Trumpism. We then find the inequality associated with negrophobia. However, we are no longer at the zombie stage of religion but at its zero stage. The common morality has disappeared. Social efficiency has disappeared. The individual floats, particularly in this America of absolute nuclear family structure, individualistic and without a well-defined rule of inheritance. So it is to be expected as a Trumpist ideology: inequality always, but less stability in delirium, from brutal oscillations that do not, fundamentally, come from the brain of a vulgar and vicious president but from society itself. The capacity for collective, economic and military action is, fortunately for us, greatly diminished.

Note in the case of Trumpism the emergence of pseudo-nusely nihilistic forms that include an obscene reinterpretation of the Bible, such as a glorification of the rich. Significantly weaker than Nazism in the dimension of racism, Trumpism goes further in economic immorality.

Nazism is simply and anti-Christian. Trumpism is intended to be religious but in the manner of a satanic cult, by the inversion of values. Evil is good, injustice is justice. Hitler was only the Führer, guide of the German people to his martyrdom; Trump is not Satan but I suspect that for his Satanist fans his red cap is that of the Antichrist.

In the case of lepenism, no unequal Protestant inheritance. This is the real mystery of the National Rally: xenophobic, he was born in Catholic land. Worse still, its first zones of strength, on the Mediterranean facade and in the Paris basin, were that of the Revolution: egalitarian on the family and de-Christianized level from the eighteenth century. So, then? Inequality the National Rally? Egalitarian? Mystery to us, the RN is probably also for itself. They are rejected from the other results from a perverse egalitarianism that a rapid assimilation of immigrants rather than it feels them as different in essence. Above all, the RN, strongly determined by the rejection of immigrants, and even their children, is nevertheless constantly reminded of the French egalitarian tradition because its voters hate the ultra-rich, the powerful, in short our idiot elites, and not only the Immigrants. This is why the union of the right is struggling to succeed in France. In one form or another, the union of the oligarchs and the (white) people against the foreigner does not pose problems in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Scandinavia, where conservative popular forces and classical right-wing forces are easily agreed. In France, the coalition of rich and poverty against foreigners is dismantled.

However, do not underestimate the potential violence of a xenophobia of universalist essence. It can become racism. If a man thinks a priori that men are everywhere the same and that he is confronted with men bearing different customs, he may very well conclude that they are not men.

The RN is the product of a zero Catholicism, like the Revolution of a zombie Catholicism. That is why it will not give birth to any collective project. I refer the detailed examination of the RN and its relationship in the future to a future text, neither impressionist, nor expressionist, which I will devote entirely to the internal logic and dynamics of French chaos.

Psychiatry of the most advanced classes

I now turn to a crucial difference, which should be obvious to all and recalled by the political commentators who constantly refer us back to 1930 by their vocabulary. Understanding the religious, or post-religious, dimension of Hitlerism, Trumpism or lepenism, presupposed historical knowledge that one cannot demand from TV platter political scientists. On the other hand, we can demand from them that they know how to socially locate the ideologies of the past and the present, that they relentlessly bring together by the term extreme right. The difference between past and present is here very clear.

Nazism and pre-war far-right movements found their social epicenter in the middle and particularly middle-upper classes, threatened by the workers’, social-democratic or communist movement. These middle classes were feverish, very busy locking up their wives and persecuting homosexuals. Today, the so-called far-right movements find, on the other hand, their epicenter in popular circles, especially in an impoverished working-class world, shaken or destroyed by economic globalization, threatened by immigration. Today’s middle classes, largely defined by higher education, are less or even weakly affected by “The Extreme Right” . The most advanced classes, which combines higher education and higher education, are particularly immune.

It is for reason this that I prefer to talk about popular conservatism than extreme right. They are anchored in the group of dominated explains the defensive character of popular conservatism. They are an electrician cannot imagine conquering Europe or the world if it thinks of its own life as a survival.

The real intellectual mistake would be to stick to that. Let us continue to move forward, let us even turn down the problem of the association between ideology and class. We now compare the ideas of the present to the cells of the past, compare the main classes of the present to the cells of the past.

Some European middle classes of the interwar period went into madness. The world today is more reasonable. But the most recent classes, the most advanced classes, are they reasonable? Are they peaceful? What are their dreams?

They’re crazy. The construction of a post-national Europe is a hallucinatory project when we know the diversity of the continent. It led to the expansion of the European Union, tinkered and unstable, in the former Soviet space. The EU is now Russian-speaking, warmongered, with aggressiveness renewed by its economic defeat against Russia. The EU is trying to drag the British, French, German and so many others into a real war. But what a strange war it would be, in which the Western elites would have adopted the Hitlerian dream of destroying Russia!

The comparison between the social classes does not allow us to a major intellectual breakthrough. Europáism, and therefore macronism, falls, through their external aggressiveness, on the side of nationalism, on the side of the pre-war far-right. If we add sprains to freedom of information and the expression of popular suffrage, increasingly massive and systematic sprains in the EU space, we are getting even closer to the notion of the extreme right. Founded as an association of liberal democracies, Europe is moving into far-right space. Yes, the comparison with the current years is useful, essential even.

We find in the grandiose European project a psychopathological dimension already observable in Hitlerism: paranoia. European paranoia is concentrated in Russia. That of the Nazis made the Jewish threat a priority, without neglecting Russian Bolshevism (known as Judeo-Bolshevism).

Today as yesterday we can analyze a psychopathology of the Europeans classes. The bizarre sequence loved by Trump’s election, with the president’s unstable desire to discuss Putin allow, us to live in the real world of our lives. Let us summarize our delusional process. It began around 2014, before, during and after Maidan, this coup that disintegrated Ukraine, a coup remotely guided by American and German strategists. The Now Suite:

014-2022: Let us provoke Russia, which had warned that it would not tolerate the annexation of Ukraine by the European Union and NATO.
It’s done. Putin invaded Ukraine.
2022-2025: Let’s forgive the resulting economic war for us.
It’s done. Our societies implode.
2022-2025: Let us forgive the war in the strict sense waged on our behalf by the kyiv regime.
It’s in progress. The change of European governments in a parallel reality will begin in 2025.

Let us draw from our defeat the idea that we can finally impose our will and install our troops in Ukraine, to annex to the EU what will remain. But how can we not think to Hitler locked in his bunker in 1945, to give orders to armies that no longer exist.

We have today in Europe dealing with fools, or rather with a collective madness that has grasped en masse the individuals of the dominant social circles. In France alone, thousands of journalists, politicians, academics, business leaders, senior officials, participating in the collective hallucination of a Russia that would like to conquer Europe (paranoia). Such a person cannot be held to be personally responsible. Our thoughts are on a collective dynamic psyche.

I am convinced that the diminución of the individual born of the ero state of religion birth these schools of Russophobic fish.

As I explained in The Class Struggles In France in the 21st century, the disappearance of collective beliefs – religious beliefs and then ideological beliefs of the zombie religious state – led to a collapse of the human superego. Unlike the activists of the liberation of the self, I do not define the superego as only or even mainly repressive. The superego, as the ideal of the self, anchors in the person of positive moral and social values. The notions of honor, of courage, of justice, of honesty find their origin and strength in the superego. If it weakens, they weaken. If they shoot, they shoot. The man who was not at the end was freed by the end of religion and the most contrary diminished ideologies. These are men and women who are highly educated but morally and intellectually narrowed by the zero state of religion who are, en masse, carriers of the Russophobic pathology.

Nazi anti-Semites had a completely different psychic constitution. The death of God, to speak like Nietzsche, had certainly launched them in the quest for a Führer but they were hardly in deficit of superego and remained capable of collective action. The tragic performances of the German army during the last world war in testimony. Who are we to imagine today in our most advanced classes at death, in the face of people, in kyiv and Kharkov? Our war in Ukraine is for laughter, a product of the emancipation of the self, daughter of personal development. Only Ukrainians and Russians will die.

Unless…

The thermonuclear changes can happen to heroes.

Emmanuel Todd

Michael Hudson and Richard Wolff: The Narrative Battlefield

For us, because this was recorded on the 9th, it is a look back on what happened in this last week. These conflicts (Palestine, Ukraine) are not simply military conflicts. The narrative (a culture war) is what made us horrified during the peace plan circus, because we knew were were dealing with narrative, and not with truth.

“Well, this is a much longer lasting fight, and it goes beyond the military battlefield, and it’s how the world frames the thinking about what’s happening to it. And this is the deepest, and it’s even the most threatening battlefield over control of the narrative — the narrative of how to frame the issue — and what’s being taught in the schools, in the universities, and spread to the internet platforms and the mass media — that is now already come under the control of extremist Zionist hardliners. ”

NIMA ALKHORSHID: Hi, everybody. Today is Thursday, October 9th, 2025, and our dear friends, Michael Hudson and Richard Wolff, join us. Welcome back.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF & MICHAEL HUDSON: Glad to be here.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Since everybody’s talking about the Trump peace plan, I want to start with that. Michael, what’s your take on what is happening? You’ve sent me an email. You’ve mentioned that what has happened in Gaza is not Israel’s war, it’s NATO’s war. What’s your point in that?

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, Trump told Fox News last night: The important thing is for people to love Israel again. I told Bibi that Israel cannot fight against the whole world.

And Netanyahu has been saying that this war goes far beyond simply between Gaza and Israel.

It’s really a fight, a ninth front. And that ninth front is: Who is going to control how Americans view international relations, the geopolitics of what’s happening? And I think if the military confrontation stopped, at least temporarily, then this conflict has now shifted to the political and the cultural battlefield. And I think we have to look at that.

This is turning out to be a much deeper and long-lasting conflict, and it goes beyond Palestine and Israel. To answer your question, the war in Gaza and the West Bank isn’t simply a military conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Just like Russia isn’t simply in a military conflict with Ukraine, the Palestinians are not in a war with Israel, but with NATO led by the United States, and Britain, and Germany. And Israel’s strategy is — well, how do we keep the loyalty of the U.S., now that the opinion polls show that younger people are taking the side of the Palestinians, not Israel? What does that bode for continued American support for Israel?

Well, this is a much longer lasting fight, and it goes beyond the military battlefield, and it’s how the world frames the thinking about what’s happening to it. And this is the deepest, and it’s even the most threatening battlefield over control of the narrative — the narrative of how to frame the issue — and what’s being taught in the schools, in the universities, and spread to the internet platforms and the mass media — that is now already come under the control of extremist Zionist hardliners.

And that’s what the whole fight, over the last week, has been over TikTok. President Netanyahu has explained that Israel is at war with what he calls this ninth front: to control the United States. That’s the real war that’s happening. And this control isn’t to be established militarily, but by controlling the U.S. public opinion through, essentially, extremist Zionist billionaires, the Silicon Valley billionaires, who control the mass media. You’ve seen them take control of automatic intelligence to buy out TikTok, and redesign the algorithms of TikTok to replace the pictures that TikTok was showing about murdered Palestinian babies, all sorts of horrendous genocidal attacks. All this is going to be out.

And the new algorithm is blocking any discussion or any exposé of what Israel has been doing to Gaza and to the West Bank. And just like Israel has concentrated — the army has concentrated — on killing two groups of people: journalists — they must destroy any attempt to let the world know what they are doing — and doctors — the doctors must not heal the injured, especially the children who can grow up — and growing up with a memory of what’s happening to them.

And Israel says, if these children live, it is a threat to Judaism, because Israel is a Judaic state — meaning, as Alistair Crooke says — meaning a theocracy; and a theocracy has no room for anyone who is not a member of the Judaic state.

So, you’re having this war extending to the churches. You know, what are the churches going to say? Are they going to say this war of Israel against the Palestinians is part of the Bible — of the Lord backing Israel, as America’s ambassador to Israel has claimed, that he has to follow the Bible?

There’s a whole attempt to create this, not only a false, narrative, but by using the algorithms for all the main internet platforms — Facebook, Google, even X — if you try to use these platforms — and you can now expurgate or censor any discussion that is not reflecting an Israeli opinion — then you’re shaping public opinion. And if you can take over the news, like CBS News was just taken over by an ardent Zionist —

You’re turning the universities, who are preventing any student demonstrations in favor of peace — they say: If you want peace, and not fighting, then you’re antisemitic, we are expelling you — and if you’re a professor, who describes this ‘we will expel you,’ as Columbia University has done, other universities are doing —

This is a cultural war, and that’s what is being overshadowed by all of this military discussion. And since neither Richard nor I are military specialists, I think that that’s really what needs to be discussed on your site, because you have enough military people who are explaining the brutality of what’s happening.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: [muted, addressing Richard Wolff] … from a different angle, but you have your point. We talked about it before. Go ahead. Your take?

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: Let me frame it slightly differently, but, I think, in a way that is complementary to what Michael has just said. Here’s my interpretation of what — translation should be a better word — translation of what Trump said on Fox News, that Michael cited. Here’s my translation. This is not what the president said, but here’s what I think lies behind the words he said: that he has come to the conclusion, with his advisors, that the tide has changed in the world; that Israel is now losing the hearts-and-minds campaign that it launched, and that it did, in that area, too little, and too late; and that it could not overwhelm what the reality was, of what they were doing to the Palestinians in Gaza for the last two years.

Okay. It’s too late. Whether you want to give the credit to the global critical media, whether we pin another medal on Greta Thunberg, I don’t know — but he’s losing. And I don’t think President Trump cares about it anyway.

But what his advisors have told him is that the tide is turning inside the United States. It is becoming politically impossible for him to continue the policies of Biden and Trump, of being 100% pro-Israel — more than half the people of Israel are, in terms of the war policy. It’s becoming dangerous. AIPAC, for all the money it spends, and all the influence it has, has not prevailed.

And he is telling Bibi: Listen, Jack, I can’t keep supporting you if, in my country, the opinion is shifting away from you. I’ve done as much as I can do. I’m bailing. You’ve got to now do — and then he says something which is ridiculous: You’ve got to make the world love you.

Well, I know what he means. He means that AIPAC has to do something to change the direction of American political opinion. And there, again, I would remind everyone: We are now a very few weeks away from an election, which the polls suggest is going to bring an anti-Israeli Muslim socialist into being the mayor of the largest city in the country. This is an extremely powerful message being sent. Even if he were to lose the election — it doesn’t look like that, but even if he were — look how far he has already come!

And if you follow it — which I’ve been doing, from the beginning of his effort, long before he became well-known — one of his key supporters was an organization called the Jewish Voice for Peace, which is a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli war, Jewish organization — in the city that has more Jews than any other in the United States. I mean, wow! What?

And I think they’re learning, and they’re very worried. Marjorie Taylor Greene has announced she’s voting with the Democrats because she can’t go along with the policy of undercutting Medicaid for poor people. Mr. [Thomas] Massie is relentlessly trying to get the Epstein files opened up. There’s serious speculation that the real reason they shut the government down had nothing to do with Medicaid, or anything else: it had to do with postponing the denouement of the Epstein files.

Okay, I don’t know whether these things are true or not, but if you put them all together, they suggest that Michael is right; that there’s a turning point here; that this issue, even the Israelis and the Americans now understand that the military action in Gaza has to stop — because it’s counterproductive, it is damaging. The whole point was to give them more security, and as the critics have told them, for years now: that’s not going to work. You’re making your situation more difficult.

And you’re seeing around the world, even among comedians — Jon Stewart, explaining to his audience that Netanyahu is the one threatening a global wave of antisemitism. What did he mean? Because of what you’re doing in Gaza, you crazy people, you are, in the name of preserving yourself, you’re killing yourself. And that allows me to say — and bear with me: Nothing — nothing — is more typical of declining empires than having their leaders do things which everyone shouts at them: Don’t do that! That makes your decline worse.

But they can’t hear it. They’re stuck in these ways of doing things. And I don’t know whether Netanyahu can hear any of this (either), but that’s my suspicion. Mr. Trump is realizing he’s going to have to choose, and it’s very clear who’s going to be sacrificed.

You know, the Germans did a Holocaust — they did a genocide — and they are suffering, to this day, with the reputation they have around the world for that. How it has all played out in a million people’s minds — you know, you don’t undo this quickly. Hitler is dead in 1945: Here we are, eighty years later, and we can still see — Germany inside the European Union. I mean, my family is part-French and part-German. I have lived the lifelong effects of all of this all my life. Even though I’m born in the United States — I’m an American, and all of that — I’m fully aware that that is alive and, well, in a thousand ways, Israel will take a very long time, if ever, to crawl out from under what it has done.

And Mr. Trump is now telling them: You’re going to lose me too, because I’m not going to sacrifice my political life — because AIPAC is not able to buy and control the narrative, the way Michael laid out. It used to — it was very good at it. We all admired, in our way, how it did it. But we all knew — if you think about it — it wouldn’t last forever. Well, ironically, the most aggressive effort to hold on to it — the Gaza destruction — is also the end of it.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Richard, a few months ago, Netanyahu said that the greatest enemy of Israel are the assimilationist Jews. This is relevant to [Zohran] Mamdani’s running for election. He said, because the assimilationist Jews want to be part of their own society, want to be part of their own economy, they don’t look to Israel — they don’t put Israel first. And if the American Jews will put America first, European Jews will put Europeans first — they are the enemy.

Well, one friend of mine the other day commented that it’s as if Netanyahu has read [George] Orwell’s 1984, and he took to heart his statement that those who control the present control the past, and those who control the past control the future. And so what Israel is trying to do is to reframe the whole past, and the whole history, of the settlement of Israel, from the very beginning — the Israeli Holocaust, the Nakba, the mass assassinations, the whole military history.

Well, as I mentioned: To establish all of this, you have to control the narrative. And it’s a historical narrative, it’s an ongoing news narrative — and it’s capped by what students are taught.

I want to discuss the economics of how this narrative came about — and I have some personal experience in this. Back in the 1970s, more than seven decades ago, I saw how the groundwork was being laid for the cultural war that was being prepared. I was a Wall Street economist, and some of my oldest friends were working for Drexel Burnham — that was the investment banking firm for corporate-raiding junk-bond takeovers.

I often met with them, and I addressed their board meetings sometimes, and a number of their managers told me that the most important thing to them in their life was Zionism. And Drexel [Burnham] was the investment banking firm that developed the junk bonds to take over companies, and turned them into financial vehicles to make capital gains. It was part of the whole transition from America’s industrial capitalism to predatory finance capitalism — by making buyout offers to take companies, to make them into financial vehicles.

And the main organizer, Michael Milken, went to jail for organizing insider-dealing with Drexel’s investors. And the important thing — it was spelled out to me — was that these investors were all Jewish, and they were more than Jewish — they were Zionists.

The financial details have been widely reported about all of this, but what is not recognized is that there was sort of a personal compact among all of these investors — that they were going to be made very rich by playing by new rules — that the “white-shoe” law firms, and investment companies, wouldn’t do — of making hostile takeovers, instead of friendly merger proposals. And the deal was, they were all expected to give a substantial portion of their earnings to the Zionist cause — and that went beyond AIPAC: it meant supporting the Zionist cause in many, many dimensions.

And a few decades later, I met with some of the former Drexel strategists who’d gone on to create firms of their own. And they applied this principle — that in order to join this corporate raiding — and we’re talking about these investors were the ones who took over Silicon Valley, and the internet stocks, and the information technology stocks — they focused on that from the beginning. They became multi-billionaires and, in the case of Larry Ellison, a trillionaire now — they were able to operate with a freedom of attacking the economy-at-large, that the traditional investment banks and companies, and law firms, didn’t.

Well, fast forward to the last decade or so: You have the largest investment firms, those of Silicon Valley — and these firms are all led by Zionists, working together with Israel and the Likud Party, as well as with AIPAC. They’re active in U.S. political campaigns. They’re using some of their billions of dollars to promote the Zionist cause.

And this attempt to shape American public opinion is centered in the financial sector, and, specifically, the financial control of the information technology sector, the main platforms for internet communication — everything that I was discussing earlier, where the information war is being fought, including the takeover of CBS News to promote Zionist positions; the takeover of networks here; the takeover of mass media publications; and the huge propaganda within the churches; especially the fundamentalist churches, to give this fake Christianity, based on the Scofield Bible and the idea that God told Israel: Kill all the non-Jews — so that you’ll have the end of history — and Jesus can come back and send all of us up to heaven, and everyone else to hell —

This is the craziness that has been sponsored, essentially, by the Israelis, pushing the gullible Christian churches to transform — you know, what people think of America as a Christian country is not something that either the traditional Catholics or most Protestant churches, as they existed before 1900, would even recognize today.

So, this is why Trump made the deal with China, forcing the sale of TikTok as part of this campaign — along with Facebook and X, and other platforms and media — to create the Zionist perspective.

And, you remember, Hitler created a fake history: As the world was wrecked by the debt problems of the 1920s and the 1930s, Hitler tried to blame it all on Jewish bankers. Well, the fact is that American banking and European banking was pretty antisemitic. And the origin of these international bankers — they were created by the Catholic Church, in the 13th century, to raise war loans to the kings who were loyal to the church and fighting religious wars and the crusades on its behalf — so there was this fake history.

And the fact is that the Jewish financial presence in the United States was not in banking. When I began to work for banks in the 1960s, there was a marked antisemitism there. They wouldn’t hire Jewish people. And one bank I worked for even hired a black employee before they would hire a Jew.

Well, how do you explain the Jewish presence? They were in the brokerage industry. They were in the stock industry, the investment banking industry — such as Drexel Burnham — not in banking at all. And it’s this reshaping of the investment banking industry that has cost billions, and I guess you could say trillions, of dollars. Part of this has been to make themselves tax-exempt, from paying anywhere near as high an income or wealth tax as 90% of the population has.

So, I think it’s appropriate to explain how the economic powerhouse of this propaganda attempt, that is not only shaping how Americans think of Israel, but [also] because the American internet companies and the associated Silicon Valley companies control the large firms that are active in Europe and Asia. What you’re having are these companies using algorithms and automatic intelligence to essentially act as a censorship that goes way beyond the United States, but over the entire world economy that uses Facebook and X, and all of these other internet — TikTok, now.

You’re having something that — it’s a fight, a global fight, to reshape history in a biased, extremist, Zionist way, a Cold War way, a neocon way, a right-wing, oligarchic way. You’re having the whole narrative become oligarchic, neocon, and Zionist. That’s really what is the context for the fight that we’re going to be seeing unfolding, probably for the next few years.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: It’s very, very useful to have this kind of history. Michael is exceptional in that, and he has been for a long time. The books he writes, the articles he writes, the take-back, they answer the question. Other people notice something. Michael asked the question: Why is it like that? Why, for example, would Jewish people be prominent in a particular industry, not in another industry? And, then, how does that help you explain why Silicon Valley should be peopled by the people that are there now, rather than the conventional banking? And he explains: because Jews were excluded from the historical banking, so they went somewhere else — and that that becomes part of the history.

Well, I want to do the same thing. Jews have been split — for as long as I’ve heard about any of this — between those who thought that there ought to be a homeland, quote, for Jews — a Zion, a place for them — and we all know what part of the reason must have been: that they were excluded almost everywhere else. Antisemitism, one way or another, could lead people to have the fantastic idea: Gee! If we were in a country that we controlled, maybe, finally, we wouldn’t be vulnerable to what has happened to us — in Spain with the Inquisition, in Germany with the Holocaust, and on and on and on; or in America, with the more polite forms of antisemitism that have long been here, and still remain.

And I want to remind people: Why did Jewish people go into financial issues? It used to be a critique, that finance — [Friedrich] Engels once wrote: Socialism can take a stupid form — his word — “stupid.” That’s when you think that the problem isn’t the capitalist, but the Jew. Antisemitism is the stupid-person socialism, was the way he articulated it.

Well, Jews were not allowed to be part of feudal Europe. They were not acceptable — neither as serf, nor as vassal, nor as lord. So, how are they going to live? They can’t live on the land, the way everybody else did in what was a rural economic system. So, they became the go-between. They became the merchant who didn’t have a piece of land, who moved from one place to another, buying cheap and selling dear — because that’s how you live if you’re a tradesperson.

Okay, so they become tradespeople, but there’s no mystery here. You don’t need the Bible to understand any of this. You need a little economic history to know exactly how it evolves.

But that takes me to the point — and perhaps, here, Michael and I disagree. I think he’s right in laying it out, but I think one side is now clearly losing, and it’s the side that used to be winning. In other words, we’re at a point where the former winners, the people who made the deal, the Zionist wing of the Jewish community — which was, by the way, always a minority, but an important one, but they had a lot of resources — they got their little country, they built it up — with the help of Jews outside, of course, and with the help of allies like the United States and Britain.

But it’s over. It’s over — not because this one or that one failed — because they’re part of the losers in the world economy today. That’s their problem. That’s Mr. Trump’s problem. If he didn’t have six other crises crashing down on him, he could give Mr. Bibi more. He can’t do it anymore. He just can’t. It’s too costly. And it has now turned into being costly to him politically. And since that’s all he has —

He brought three hundred generals and admirals to Washington a couple of weeks ago. He insulted them. He had a numbnuts defense minister tell them that they were fat, and not up-to-snuff. It’s outrageous what he did. You know, he’s so tone-deaf to do such a thing — Trump, likewise. They’re in trouble. That’s why they did that crazy thing, and then messed it up.

You know, if you have too many of these, it’s no longer the failure of this or that plan, or the mistaken strategic — no, no, you have to put it together. What is happening here? And he’s telling Mr. Netanyahu: Look. You’ve got to change the position of Israel in the world —

That’s going to be very hard for Israel. Why would you ask that of a country? Right? You’re asking, I mean, the moon — you can’t. Why would you be in a position to do that?

And he’s clearly pointing out whose job it is, this impossible job: It’s them, not me — I’m back. It’s a little bit like what he’s been telling the Europeans: You know, I’m not in this war in Ukraine, the way I was. You can do it. You better do it. But I’m not going to help you do it anymore, except peripherally.

That’s what he’s telling everybody. It’s because the United States cannot play the role it did. We are in this — pardon me — ass-backwards way, trying to tell the world, and ourselves, the empire is over, and we have to figure out a whole new narrative, strategy, system of alliances, security framework — whatever language you want. It’s over, and we’re in a new place. And we can’t militarize our way out of it.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, there goes Richard again. He’s being reasonable.

I don’t think Israel is reasonable. I’ve known these people. They are fanatics. I’ve worked with Netanyahu’s head of Mossad, his advisors — there is no way they will change. They are not going to be reasonable with the Palestinians. They are committed to exterminating them. The American Christians are committed to genocide. You’ve seen in the whole decision to get rid of Mr. [Charlie] Kirk, a month ago — he wanted to try to be a little more reasonable and reflect just exactly what Richard’s been saying — he was killed. Any refusal to go whole-hog with their program is met in the same way that Republican congressmen here in America are treated — expelled from the insider group, if they don’t go 100% with the extremism.

I think we’re dealing with an extremist ideology, with a religious fundamentalist conviction, that is not amenable to listening to reason. And Trump loves to make promises, and to say: Here’s a promise of peace.

Trump has no intention whatsoever of living up to his promise.

Just in today’s news, the Argentine peso is collapsing because Trump had promised $20 billion to [Javier] Milei in Argentina, and he hasn’t really done anything — just as he made promises to Russia to try to, at least, stabilize diplomacy. And in the last two days, you’ve had a Russian spokesman saying Trump has not followed through on a single promise he’s making. What you are seeing today is the euphoria of a promise that is going to be broken, just as soon as Israel goes to war with Iran. And you can imagine the aftermath of that.

But I want to continue the logic that I’m saying: What do you do if you’re an extremist? You have to be totalitarian when it comes to knowledge. And Trump has declared war in the universities in the United States, to treat student protesters opposing genocide — to expel them. And he’s following the example of the Zionist university donors who said they’re going to cut off all the funding, to Harvard and other prestige universities who don’t support a Zionist, specifically anti-Palestinian, position.

And I think the trauma that the Zionist strategists have in mind are the protests against the Vietnam War by American students — the Kent State killings, that killed the student protesters against the war. And that’s what led President Johnson to resign in 1968, and said he wasn’t going to run again because he couldn’t go anywhere in the United States without escaping through the service entrance of hotels, where nobody would yell: Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?

All of this is in the mind when you think you don’t want the universities and the young people to take a position of supporting peace — because peace is assimilationism. To want peace is to deny that both the joint U.S. and Israeli control of Near Eastern oil and the whole Near/Middle East is at issue.

Well, last December, you had U.S. Senator Tom Cotton introduce a Senate bill that seeks to eliminate any federal use of the term “West Bank” — and instead substitute “Judea and Samaria.” And in Florida, you’ve had the governor try to insist that the textbooks used in the Florida schools rewrite history to use this different terminology. The terminology is sort of an identification as to whose/what language you’re going to use. And the House of Representatives has a bill saying that the government is going to remove all references to the West Bank from U.S. government discussions.

The fighting with Gaza may continue. So Israeli settlers are now redoubling their murder rampage against [Palestinians] on the West Bank. They’re burning their olive trees. They’re destroying their houses. They’re bombing all of their houses to drive them out. The war in the West Bank is now just as vicious as it was in Gaza, but there’s no military protection. And it is symptomatic of the control of the news that this has not been discussed anywhere, except on the internet.

Richard said at the beginning of the show that he doesn’t have the information, we don’t have access to the information. Richard, you and I have better information than President Trump has. We read the internet. We read the newspaper. We know what’s happening. Trump is surrounded by neocon Zionists, and despite the fact that he has the public relations perspective that you described, he has no understanding of the big picture that you and I, and I think most people who follow Nima’s channel, have. That’s what’s so striking in all of this.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: I think time will tell us how this is going to play out. I could be wrong. I could be wrong that it’s shifting against Israel and that this is symptomatic of that. But let me give you some more evidence that it might be shifting.

The British political system is now in a state of collapse. I mean, almost all points of view about Britain, inside and outside Britain, would agree. The Labour Party has lost pretty much all of the momentum it got from winning the last election, and putting [Keir] Starmer in the position of prime minister. The Conservative Party that ran Britain for most of the last thirty years is in its final death throes. It may disappear, it is so weak at this point in its existence. The polls are against it. Its leadership is fighting each other. It’s really a shadow. And an extreme right-wing reform party is probably the best positioned right now, if there were to be an election. And it is a minority party, with very little of a history, and a very strange man at the head.

But what’s clear is that the program of getting rid of a very popular Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, which was accomplished by Mr. Starmer, the guy who’s now in office, by pillorying Corbyn — by blaming him for being insufficiently vigilant against antisemitism, where the evidence was support of Palestine — that’s over. That’s a game you can play once, but you can never play it twice. It’s like the threat to commit suicide. You can play it really well once, but by the second time, it doesn’t have the punch it did before.

I want to remind everyone that a week ago there was a general strike in Italy. The whole country stopped — because the whole country went out, stopped working in solidarity with the dock workers’ union there, which had refused to load, or offload, Israeli cargo from any ship docking in the ports of Italy.

And a few days before that, you had mass movements across France on the 18th of September, on the 2nd of October, on the 10th of September — those three dates — and among all the flags of the millions who went into the streets of France were the Palestinian flags, that were obvious everywhere. It’s not just Mamdani in New York. There is a global turning against —

Look. It’s remarkable that it took this long, given how long the Israelis have done what they’ve done in Gaza, and the West Bank; and given the way they treated the Arabs, who, let’s remember, are half the population roughly of the country of Israel — so you have this split in the country, and all of that — it’s taken a god-awful long time! But I do believe we now have signs. Britain has recognized Palestine as a state. So have most of the other Europeans. Ireland did it long ago, but Spain, Italy — Germany, I believe, is about to do it, — France has done it. I mean, Israel’s isolation is virtually total.

You know, you even have conservatives running around the United States trying to explain to the American people that we’re pretty soon going to have ten billion people as the population of the earth. Half of them — five billion — are Muslim. You’ve got a problem here. And it’s becoming impossible to pretend otherwise. And all the money of the billionaires in Silicon Valley, and all the expertise that AIPAC has shown, are not enough. You can’t go against a historical shift — when its time is here. Michael may be right — it may not be here yet. I may be seeing things which, even in their aggregate, are not enough.

But, I haven’t thought so before, but I think so now. The communications I got over the last month, from both France and Italy, and also a little bit from Germany, show the Israeli issue — which in Germany has been very important because of their collective guilt and all of that — it doesn’t work anymore. The Alternativ für Deutschland [AfD], which is the right-wing inheritor of the Nazi past, is able to be what it is now, which is the largest single party eclipsing the Christian Democrats in Germany for the first time — and their position is unmistakable. It’s not being held back, as it used to be, by the legacy of their Holocaust. For the Israelis, this is all unspeakably bad news.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: You’ve put your finger on the really important thing: What is the rest of the world going to do?

And some of my friends that are still associated with the Democratic Party have suggested imposing a litmus test–pledge on political candidates not to accept any campaign contributions from AIPAC, or other Zionist organization. And if they accept such funding, then the Democratic voters are called upon to reject them; and if they win the primaries, to refrain from voting for them — even if this perpetuates the Republican domination of Congress. You’ve got to get rid of the AIPAC-funded candidates reflecting Zionist interests.

And beyond electoral politics, you have the whole looming threat of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. And that is the modern travesty — this is as destructive as the Dred Scott ruling that led up to the Civil War. Congress has to pass an act prohibiting private contributions to political campaigns beyond some circumscribed limit, with penalties for bribery and corruption brought against such violators. That’s the only way that you can cut off the money that is supporting this rotten congressional neocon, pro-war, oligarchic, anti-labor position. And without such legislation, the United States and its political system are going to continue to be that of an oligarchy, not a democracy. And it’ll be an oligarchy controlled by an extremist minority of wealthy financial institutions, and the international neocons who are supported with them.

So ultimately, it’s going to be up to the U.S. And the same thing applies to Europe and other countries. It’s up to these other countries — outside of Israel — to lead the opposition to the genocide that’s occurring, and to the whole idea of ethnic nationalism and ethnic cleansing that you have in Ukraine against Russian speakers; in the Middle East by the American-supported al-Qaeda and ISIS head-chopper that is the head of it now; and by Israel itself in Gaza and the West Bank.

And if you recognize that Israel’s war against Gaza and Hamas is against the broadest principles of civilization, that have spent centuries developing the laws of war, the laws of international diplomacy, the laws of, basically, international relations, then you realize the travesty that’s occurring in overturning this whole century-long momentum of trying to establish basic civilized —

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: Michael seems to have frozen. Let me pick up while we wait for him to come back.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Richard. Since you’ve mentioned the case of Germany, here is the poll that they had in Germany. Three out of five voters believe that Israel’s action in Gaza can be called genocide. This is meaningful, as you’ve mentioned. Go ahead.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: Yes. But I want to underscore the notion of seeing as a symptom of a larger decline, a rejection, an active rejection of what used to be — at least official — norms of acceptable behavior. I understand. Secretly, those norms are violated by the secret services of many countries, all the time — I understand that, I’m not questioning that. And that’s a serious problem.

But it is another step when you do that openly and publicly.

And I think I want to point to something which might even be an argument against what I’m saying. I have watched, and I’m sure you have all seen it, over the last month, on at least four occasions that I’m aware of, the United States has decided to bomb and destroy boats in the Caribbean that are moving in the water near Venezuela. Each time we were told by the president that these boats were involved in the drug traffic and that persons on these boats were killed — and thereby prevented from completing whatever they were doing with the drugs. Okay, so we killed eleven, in one case, four, in another, and I forget the number of people on the other two boats.

Alright, in this situation, the president, who announced and authorized these acts, is functioning as the police, he’s functioning as the jury, he’s functioning as the judge, and he’s functioning as the executioner. In the United States, participation in drug traffic is not a capital crime. You don’t get killed for that, if you’re found guilty. You have to have a chance to see the evidence presented against you. You have to have a lawyer. You have to be able to question and challenge the evidence. Then it goes to a jury, and only if the jury decides unanimously to find you guilty, will you then be punished with the punishment, 99% of the time, being some sort of imprisonment. We don’t kill those people.

We kill in America — it’s bad enough — but we kill people, usually, if they have killed somebody. And there is no evidence — not even offered by the president, who showed no evidence of anything, but he didn’t show any evidence — that these people had killed anyone. This is extra — and no one in the official positions of the United States government — to my knowledge, I’m no expert — but I haven’t heard any outcry — after he did it the first time, he did it a second, third, and fourth time. This is, I mean, this is unbelievable.

This the official murdering of people with no evidence required, no procedure, no due process, no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Nothing. And the ultimate penalty, execution? Am I the only one here finding this bizarre? Why would you do this? Forget whether it’s correct or not that these people were involved in drugs — I don’t know — but whether or not they were, why would you do this? Why would it be important not to have your Navy, which is down there, arrest these people? Okay. Board them. Check out, you know, bring them back and subject them to — Why wouldn’t you do that? Why would you kill them first?

And here is my answer, again. I am seeing — and I would love [it] to be argued that I’m wrong — I am seeing desperation. I see people getting together in a room. They have to do something. They have that mentality: We are losing something, we must act in a way that will, hopefully, gather support —

And you know, going to war, at least for a few weeks and months, does that for you. It’s awful, then, how it falls away, after a few months — and that’s been the American experience in Vietnam, in Afghanistan. Those wars were lost, in part, because the American people no longer supported them, the way they had in the beginning. Same is true in Iraq. But for a short time, you get a boost.

And you are now behaving? Look. All the laws of the world don’t allow one country to kill people in the boats of another country, and claim that they were involved in some transaction we don’t like — which we don’t even punish by capital punishment. It is extraordinary behavior, on the end of an extraordinary-behaving regime. So, I see a level of desperation, and I bring it up because I think it should be factored into how we look at all these other questions — because that hysteria, that desperation, is operative across the board.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: It seems that Michael has some sort of problem with his internet connection. Thank you so much, Richard, for being with us today. Great pleasure, as always.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: As always, and I look forward to talking with you again next week.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: See you. Bye-bye.

Apple-carrot cutlets

A little sweet, and very different.  A time to recover our senses from the circus that we watched the past day or two.

This, from my favorite Russian cooking site, describes what kids ate at school in Russia.  She says:

Soviet kids ate nearly all their meals at school, and like school food the world over, it left much to be desired.

Anna Kharzeeva researched and discovered what the kids actually ate, and some of it is wholly revolting.  But in the process, she found this delicious little morsel.  It is on our list for the coming weekend, but I will make it with a bit of flour for binding, as semolina may be challenging to get in our climes.  I will also try one or two with Chia seeds to bind them together.  This is the secret, then, of cooking – adjusting as we go.  Creating new out of old.

Ingredients:

1 carrot; 1 apple; 1 tsp semolina; ½ tsp sugar; 2 tsp butter

Wash carrot and apple and grate.

Put the carrots in a pot.

Add ¼ cup water and cook until soft. Add apples and simmer until apples are tender.

(I would also suggest to leave at least some crunch and don’t cook ’em to death).

Then add semolina (flour or my suggestion, Chia seeds), sugar, and some salt. Boil for 5 minutes, stirring constantly to avoid lumps. Allow to cool.

Shape in the form of cutlets and fry in butter.

I’m imagining these will go well with a topping squeeze from the honey bottle and then don’t use sugar in the making of it, or even try it with a little white sauce or herby sauce as a dinner vegetable accompaniment. Dress it up with a few raisins or dried cranberries. It is a versatile process.

https://www.russiaislove.com/russian_kitchen/2015/12/11/apple-carrot-cutlets-fit-for-the-school-cafeteria_550147

 

Videos and more videos

No, I won’t post them all but I took a little time and caught up with The Judge and there is nothing there that we don’t know.

We are as a principle trying to post more content from outside the US, and not just the US weekly cycle. We are watching an empire fall. In the usual cyclical videos from those that we all know, I get the impression that people are understanding we are on the brink of a larger war and this really may happen. There is a nervousness and a helplessness. It is not easy to assess if we will have an economic crash first, or an empirical crash first, in the states and countries where the empire finds itself.

So, I saw that Tucker Carlson interviewed the Gaza Whistleblower, Tony Aguilar and took a look. Tony is an American, still thinking that the US is the greatest and that the US should help because it is in their nature to help. Thye “we are the good guys” trope. The normal story of perhaps a deluded American, but a good and proficient soldier until he took his discharge after 25 years of excellent service and settled down with his family.

He is the man who took most of the photos and videos that we saw of Palestinians being killed at food distribution points, since the US, under the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, took over that function. Did you know for example that Gazans don’t get water at the few distribution points, because it is too expensive. His story is fascinating and also very disturbing, although he is not trying to make something out of it and did not set out to look for media coverage and attention. He is just telling what happened because it has to change in his view. If you have time, do watch it. It is an hour and a half long, but it does feel as if it is much longer. Tony is obviously a leader and an organizer from military training and can assess what is wrong. He gives the impression that he has morals and ethics in the right places. It is a shocking story but it connects many dots. We may know that Netanyahu stated that the will fully occupy Gaza. Tony describes what will happen under an occupation regime. It left me exhausted but in among the weekly cyclical videos, this changes things.

https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-anthony-aguilar-2

Benjamin Netanyahu Says The Holocaust Wasn’t Hitler’s Idea

As you listen to this, know that the quick statement that Amin al-Husseini stood trial at Nuremberg for war crimes is also not the truth. It is clear that Netanyahu is giving Hitler a break and blaming Haj Amin al-Husseini, “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem. But with such a flagrant lie in such a short speech one cannot help but question the whole story. “Burn them indeed!”

The Wiki on al-Husseini is interesting and it is clear that history says as much as what it obscures. An interested party will have to seek out the deep history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43921999

Adolf Hitler tueur en série. Entretien avec François Delpla

BOUQUINS ENTRETIEN AVEC FRANÇOIS DELPLA POUR SON LIVRE : « SUR ORDRE D’HITLER. Crimes passés inaperçus. » SOMMAIRE : I) pourquoi avoir fait le choix de cette approche de la carrière d’Hitler ? 4:23 II) Quelle conséquences cela sur sa personnalité… Lire la suite →