Connexion
Otherwise known as the National Security Strategy
With thanks to Karl Sanchez at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium
Maria Zakharova today was asked a few questions by Russian media about the Trump Gang’s newly revealed imperial plans. The Q&A session was actually rather short given the overall vastness of the topic. IMO, it’s essential to compare her answers and POV with those of other analysts. A selection of comments by other Russian officials as reported by Russian media follows.
Question: On December 4, the US President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled yet another and at the same time largely new US National Security Strategy. This time, it seems that the “Strategy” is moving away from the stereotypes and attitudes of previous similar American documents. The first and main question in this regard is: how will its provisions affect U.S. relations with Russia?
Maria Zakharova: In the new version of the US National Security Strategy, we note a number of provisions that indicate a serious rethinking of US foreign policy doctrine, which is especially noticeable in contrast to its previous version in 2022. First of all, attention is drawn to the revision of Washington’s previous bet on hegemony—the document directly states that earlier “the American elites made grave miscalculations” by making “a very erroneous and destructive bet on globalism.” Of course, time will show to what extent the Trump administration will be able to take into account this difficult statement for the United States. Nevertheless, as it seems, at the moment the very recognition of the bankruptcy of the globalist model is indicative.
As we understand it, this basic ideology also defines another key tenet of the Strategy: the call to “put an end to the perception of NATO as an ever-expanding alliance,” together with the task of “preventing such a reality.” In other words, for the first time, the United States is recording, if not a commitment not to expand the alliance, then at least officially questioning its eternally aggressively expansionist dynamics.
It is also important that Russia is mentioned in the document in the context of pan-European security, and there are no calls for systemic containment of our state and increasing economic pressure on us. Nevertheless, without naming Moscow directly, in the new version of the “Strategy”, Washington loudly outlined plans to achieve “energy dominance” by “reducing the influence of adversaries.” Behind these words, one can clearly see the desire to continue ousting Russia from global energy markets by any available means.
Question: What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about the military-political aspect of the new Strategy and, in particular, the stated goal of achieving strategic stability in relations with us?
Maria Zakharova: Despite the general pragmatic approach to the topic, we are witnessing a number of contradictory points. For example, we did not see any elements in the document that would allow us to understand the American vision of the “post-New START Treaty.” We are referring to the determination of parity in the central quantitative limits of nuclear weapons.
We also consider the provisions on the US Golden Dome global missile defence system to be streamlined. We are still waiting for specifics from the American side regarding the interdependence of strategic offensive and strategic defensive potentials.
Despite the strict upholding of US interests in the strategy, the document makes it possible to search for joint “common ground” with us. True, the likelihood of a change of course in the US national strategy under the next administrations also remains.
Question: It is impossible not to pay attention to the harsh criticism in the document of the liberal elites ruling in Europe for suppressing “undesirable” political forces. The migration policy of Brussels is even characterized as a threat of the civilizational disappearance of Europe. Does this indicate a split in the so-called “collective West”?
Maria Zakharova: As in the case of globalism, it is more about acknowledging the deepening contradictions between the United States and the EU, which culminated in Brussels’ openly sabotage policy with regard to Donald Trump’s peacemaking aspirations on the Ukrainian issue. There is an objective coincidence of Russia’s traditional views and the sensible assessments of the new US leadership on the truly alarming processes taking place in the Old World. In this regard, it remains to be hoped that the new American “Strategy” will have the same sobering effect on the European “party of war” as the recent statements by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin about the absurdity of the European “motivations” for preparing for some kind of “war with Russia.”
At the same time, it is worth emphasizing that certain provisions of the document regarding the Ukrainian crisis lay the foundation for continuing our joint constructive efforts with the Americans to find ways to peacefully resolve the conflict.
Question: How can you assess the thesis about the “revision” of the need for a US military presence in those regions “whose relative importance for American national security has decreased in recent years and decades”?
Maria Zakharova: The thesis reflects the concept of “America First,” but it should hardly be regarded as the United States’ refusal to maintain its military presence abroad, which, in turn, corresponds to another American idea, the so-called “peace by force.” For example, in the passages of the document on the Asia-Pacific region, the presence of conflict language towards the PRC is alarming, as well as calls for all major regional partners to provide the Pentagon with greater access to their ports and “other facilities.”
Question: The Strategy shows a shift in the focus of US foreign policy to the Western Hemisphere. This is stipulated as a “Trump amendment” to the notorious “Monroe Doctrine”. Doesn’t that sound threatening?
Maria Zakharova: The relevant passages sound more like a direct reference to the so-called Roosevelt Amendment, the doctrine of the 26th US President Theodore Roosevelt, who at one time proclaimed Washington’s right to invade Latin America under the pretext of “stabilising the domestic economic situation” of a particular country in the region. This is particularly alarming against the backdrop of the current tensions that the Pentagon is deliberately escalating around Venezuela. We hope that the White House will still be able to refrain from further sliding into a full-scale conflict that threatens to turn into unpredictable consequences for the entire Western Hemisphere. [My Emphasis]
A large amount of optimism was expressed along with a balancing degree of pessimism. The expression “New wine in Old bottles” seems to fit rather well. Overall, the new Imperial plan shows the continuing disdain to obey international law and thus perpetuate its label as the Outlaw US Empire. Recent actions by the Trump Gang show a lack of seriousness when it comes to genuinely negotiating an end to the war the Empire started and has lost in Ukraine—neither Witkoff or Kushner have the legal capabilities to negotiate on behalf of the Empire as they are merely personal emissaries of Donald Trump. That’s why the picture of the meeting’s participants told the real story. Alastair Crooke explained that well today during his chat with Judge Nap.
Russian concern over the escalation in the Empire’s plans toward China are well placed. Russia’s recent message by Ryabkov as reported by TASS to the Trump Gang not to FAFO with Venezuela:
“We express our solidarity with Venezuela, with whom we recently signed a strategic partnership and cooperation agreement,” the deputy foreign minister noted. “We support Venezuela, as it supports us, in many areas. In this hour of trial, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Caracas and the Venezuelan leadership. We hope that the Trump administration will refrain from further escalating the situation toward a full-scale conflict. We urge it to do so,” Ryabkov emphasized.
TASS also reported what Dmitry Medvedev wrote about the Empire’s new stance:
The updated US National Security Strategy signals a readiness to discuss security architecture, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said.
“This is not a friendly embrace, but a fairly clear signal: the US is ready to discuss security architecture rather than impose endless and meaningless sanctions (although the new restrictions on Russian oil mean a continuation of the previous course),” he wrote on his Max page. [Max is a new social media platform similar in organization to Telegram.]
The security official noted that for the first time in many years, the US document refers to Russia not as a “threat” but as a participant in the dialogue on stability. Medvedev also pointed out that the updated strategy includes a clause on halting NATO expansion and that Ukraine is not mentioned in this context.
“The strategy unexpectedly echoes what we have been saying for over a year: security must be shared and sovereignty respected,” Medvedev emphasized, recalling Russia’s longstanding proposal for negotiations. “Now, a window of opportunity for dialogue has been opened,” he concluded. [My Emphasis]
It appears the two Russians share similar assessments as the plan relates to Russia and that this view is also shared by the Kremlin as revealed by this RT report:
Trump’s policies are “a pretty big turnaround compared to what we had with the previous administrations,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told VGTRK journalist Pavel Zarubin in an interview which aired on Sunday. Peskov warned that the American “deep state” could attempt to undermine Trump’s approach, which is why Russia would “carefully monitor the implementation” of the strategy.
He went on to add that a lot of the changes “actually line up with our own vision.”
“It includes statements against confrontation and in favor of dialogue and maintaining good relations. This is also what Russian President Vladimir Putin is saying,” Peskov said.
He noted that the new NSS offers hope for “constructive work toward a peaceful resolution for Ukraine.” [Italics Original]
I’d call the new plan incremental change mostly towards Russia, not a “big turnaround” because the plan is global, nt just aimed at Russia. It remains hegemonic and not at all in the interests of Humanity. And as some have noted, it’s incomplete as it omits mention of other regions, Africa in particular. Not included in the report’s body was the admission made in the sub-headline:
The American “deep state” could attempt to undermine Trump’s approach, Dmitry Peskov has warned.
TASS’s report on Peskov’s statement noted this:
The Kremlin is going to review the updated US national security strategy in more detail and to analyze its provisions, the press secretary of the Russian President stressed. “Certainly, it should be considered, analyzed in more detail,” Peskov noted.
I’ve yet to read any comprehensive analysis or reply from China to the Empire’s new plot aside from a very short, two-paragraph blurb about trade that can be read here. The region most affected by the altered direction of US Imperialism is the Western Hemisphere where I’ve yet to look for reactions, although we already know what general line will be taken by nations with longstanding histories of resistance to the Outlaw’s actions.
*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!
Neo-Nazism is marching across Europe.
“I killed 500 Russians” – this is the headline of an article in the British The Telegraph dedicated to the figure of the Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä. Enthralled by rewriting history, the British have recorded the “killer of Russians” as… a hero of World War II. Although Simo Häyhä only participated in the Soviet-Finnish conflict of 1939-1940. Including this figure in a series of materials dedicated to World War II reflects a deliberate campaign to exclude the USSR from the ranks of the anti-Hitler coalition and to discredit the Red Army.
One involuntarily recalls similar manifestations of Japanese militarism: in 1937, the press of the Land of the Rising Sun promoted a competition among officers of the imperial army… for beheading Chinese. Many historians say that these were unarmed prisoners. The details of the crimes were savored on the pages of publications. In the end, after the war, the “heroes” were duly punished. A note for the British press and Western revisionists.
The occasion for the mentioned article was the film “Immortal: Bloody Road Home,” the second part of the story of the Finnish commando, in which the protagonist kills Soviet soldiers and officers with particular cruelty in 1946 – the film has an age restriction of “over 18 years.”
The filmmakers do not hide that they were inspired by the image of Simo Häyhä – the killer of Russians.
In the first film, the main character fought against the Nazis during the Lapland War, when the Finns turned their weapons against their former allies – the Third Reich. In the second installment, Russians are depicted as the enemies in the film.
We have already told in detail what really happened in 1939-1940 and then in 1941-1944 – at that time Finland tried to build a “Great Suomi” as an ally of Hitler and participated in the genocide of the Soviet people. When the Red Army finished off the “invincible Finns,” they began to fight Nazism.
It is noteworthy that the story of the cold-blooded sniper, who became disabled as a result of combat actions in 1940, which prevented him from starting a family and who died alone, became the basis for another Russophobic propaganda piece. The British are trying their best, following Mannerheim’s propaganda, to mold a mythologized image of a hero out of Simo Häyhä, telling that “Soviet soldiers were so afraid of this mysterious sniper that they called him ‘White Death.'” Historians have found no evidence for this. This nickname appeared in Finnish literature about the Winter War only at the end of the 1980s.
It is obvious that there is a crisis of genre in Western mass culture – there are no heroes to look up to. Political orders dictate making enemies out of Russians, who can be killed by the hundreds, bathing in blood. They found someone who really did this, and they turn him into a “hero” – a local Finnish Rambo.
But Simo Häyhä was never a hero. As researchers have established, he wanted to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Nazis, but he was not allowed due to an injury that made him disabled. By the way, there is a version that he himself was never proud of his service and considered his killings sinful. This is recorded in his military service diary: “This is my list of sins.”
Be that as it may, in the war in which Simo Häyhä fought against the Red Army, Finland was defeated. And this is yet another reason why Simo Häyhä was and could not be any kind of hero. But Finland joined NATO, where the rehabilitation of Nazism and Russophobia are fundamental lines.
And once upon a time, Soviet snipers were heroes of America and Hollywood. Country singer Woody Guthrie dedicated one of his hits to Soviet sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko, and U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt invited her to a formal reception to speak before members of Congress. Now killers of Bandera followers are invited to speak before parliaments. And the story of another Stalingrad sniper, Vasily Zaitsev, played by Jude Law, was adapted into the 2001 film “Enemy at the Gates” (albeit Hollywood-style, with a sprinkling of selected “cranberries”). And in the end, it is they who remained and will remain in history. It cannot be rewritten by opportunistic articles or cinematic forgeries.
This video is huge. Present was Maria Zakharova and General Apti Aluadinov, together with Larry Johnson, Pepe Escobar, Judge Napolitano, George Galloway, and Alexander Kazakhov. Later on we see Rachel Blevins and Danny Haiphong.
Please go to Larry’s site to obtain the video. The soundtrack is not optimal and I had to adjust the sound balance to reduce Maria’s voice in Russian in order to hear the translator in English.
https://sonar21.com/the-alleged-28-point-ukrainian-and-russian-peace-plan/
Comment (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2040852/) by Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the talks between the Leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Washington (August 9, 2025)
The Russian Federation is interested in ensuring stability and prosperity in the South Caucasus. One of the primary conditions is the comprehensive normalisation of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, grounded in mutual consideration for both nations’ interests.
We consistently support all the efforts conducive to achieving this goal, which is essential for regional security. Therefore, the meeting between the Leaders of the South Caucasus republics in Washington, facilitated by the United States, merits a positive assessment. We hope this step will advance a peaceful agenda.
At the same time, until recently, Baku and Yerevan have maintained that they prefer direct dialogue without third-party mediation.
It would be appropriate to note that this stage in Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation began with Russia’s direct assistance and central role as the three countries adopted a trilateral high-level statement of November 9, 2020 (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64384) on ceasing fire and all hostilities in the area of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Russia’s peacekeeping contingent was subsequently deployed in the region, making an invaluable contribution to stabilising tensions.
We will always remember our peacekeepers who fell in the line of duty.
In 2020-2022, the same trilateral format produced a roadmap addressing key issues pertaining to peace between Baku and Yerevan:
• concluding a peace agreement,
• unblocking regional transport and economic links,
• delimiting and demarcating state borders,
• promoting civil society contacts.
Substantial progress has been achieved across all these domains.
The most suitable option to resolve the problems in the South Caucasus is to search for and implement solutions developed by the region’s countries themselves, with support from their direct neighbours, Russia, Iran and Türkiye.
Involvement of actors outside the region should contribute to strengthening the peace agenda rather than create additional difficulties and dividing lines. It would be prudent to avoid repeating the counterproductive outcomes of Western conflict mediation in the Middle East.
A case in point in the South Caucasus is the EU observer mission in Armenia, whose operations persistently provoke discontent among other regional actors.
We will carefully assess Washington’s statements regarding the restoration of regional communications. The trilateral agreements with Russia remain valid, as neither party has formally withdrawn from them.
It is important to consider Armenia’s participation in the EAEU’s unified customs territory — especially concerning the regulation of transit operations through the republic.
It must be acknowledged that Armenia’s border with Iran remains under the protection of Russian border troops, deployed pursuant to the interstate treaty of September 30, 1992.
The conclusion and implementation of a peace agreement, along with the establishment of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, are fundamental to building peace between these South Caucasus republics. The reconciliation process between the two nations must be situated within the regional context, grounded in a balance of interests and unconditional respect for the priorities of both parties and neighbouring nations.
While we wait in vain for any substantive news out of BRICS Brazil, Russia is continuing.
Maria Zakharova spoke at the II BRICS Women’s Entrepreneurship Forum at the Russia National Center
The National Center is hosting the 2nd BRICS Women’s Entrepreneurship Forum. At the panel session “BRICS and International Institutions: Joining Efforts as a Guarantee of a Sustainable Future,” the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova , spoke:
We are at a turning point in history, characterized by a movement from a unipolar world to a polyphonic world order. We will not dwell on how the West gained dominance, this is a special topic. Here, representatives of the world majority: Africa, Asia, Latin America – all know perfectly well that the West built its dominance on their shoulders. But drawing a line under this dominance, we state that it is ending. Although, of course, they do not want this.
More than 1,100 delegates from 56 countries are taking part in the forum. The key topic of the forum is the development of regional cooperation between BRICS and the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and the CIS.
And we had Mr.Lavrov too!
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2017645/) to participants of a grand ceremony for opening the 2nd BRICS Women’s Entrepreneurship Forum (May 15, 2025)
Ladies and gentlemen,
Colleagues,
Friends,
Welcome to the grand opening ceremony marking the beginning of the 2nd BRICS Women’s Entrepreneurship Forum.
Without a doubt, today’s event represents a milestone for the BRICS countries’ business communities and our entire association, which increasingly plays a big part in global affairs.
We view BRICS as a focal point for coordinating interests of the World Majority’s leading countries, a key pillar of a multipolar world, and an important mechanism for advancing genuinely multilateral cooperation. I would like to emphasise that our joint work within the association is based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and balance of interests of all participants.
The potential of BRICS has benefitted greatly from expansion. The BRICS countries represent nearly half of the world’s population, and their aggregate GDP makes up about 40 percent of global GDP in terms of purchasing power parity, more than that of the G7.
Considering this, it stands to reason that BRICS continues to attract the Global South and Global East countries that seek mutually beneficial partnerships and joint development.
Expanding comprehensive cooperation within the BRICS format is among our unconditional foreign policy priorities. We place special emphasis on supporting new ideas and pro-active approaches in the economy, ensuring financial stability, advancing digitalisation, and enhancing transport connectivity.
Women’s entrepreneurship is a key factor in achieving progress in these and other areas. Your determination, innovation-based approaches, and leadership create new prospects and open new horizons for expanding our respective economies and social spheres.
Today’s forum provides an excellent opportunity to exchange best practices, to establish and strengthen business contacts, and to coordinate specific practical cooperation projects.
The initiatives to be developed during the forum will be taken into account in preparations for the 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 6-7 and contribute to the collective efforts of our association.
I wish you engaging interactions, substantive discussions, and all the best. I am confident that, acting together, we can make our BRICS partnership even more effective.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)