Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

The trajectory now appears increasingly clear: NATO will continue to disintegrate, and the Europeans will compensate by further escalating the war against Russia.

NATO was always destined to be a temporary military alliance, united by a common enemy and threat during the Cold War. Once that threat disappeared with the end of the Cold War and, thereafter, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main question in the 1990s was: What would be NATO’s new raison d'être? The answer to this question was to pursue unipolarity / collective hegemony in the post-Cold War era through NATO expansionism and military interventionism (“out of area or out of business”).

Russia was implicitly given the ultimatum: be a compliant civilizational student or a counter-civilizational force. Russia could accept NATO's hegemonic role as a “force for good,” or it could resist, in which case NATO would return to its former role of confronting Russia. The NATO-backed regime change in Ukraine—aimed at transforming the country from a Russian partner into a frontline state aligned against Russia— triggered the war in 2014. NATO thus began reverting to its former role of confronting Russia, even as the hegemonic era had come to an end.

Now that the former collective hegemony has given way to a multipolar world, NATO has once again lost its purpose and will disintegrate. European leaders want to restore NATO’s original purpose: containing Russia. This will fail because it is based on the fraudulent narrative that Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union, rather than balancing NATO expansionism and military interventionism.

Strategic Culture Foundation (Editorial)
Strategic Culture Foundation

EU leaders like Kaja Kallas, the bloc’s top foreign diplomat, have played dumb about the endless scandals seeping out of Kiev.

There was more evidence this week of the Kiev regime’s endemic corruption. And yet the European Union leaders are lining up to send a massive €90 billion ($105bn ) loan to this regime, a regime which has become a byword for industrial-scale scamming.

The EU has already pumped about €200 billion into propping up the Ukrainian regime since February 2022, when the NATO proxy war with Russia escalated.

Most of the latest money will be used as military aid to invest in Ukrainian manufacturers of drones and missiles. One of the most prominent of these Ukrainian firms – Fire Point – is linked to the regime’s so-called president, Vladimir Zelensky.

Surveillance tapes leaked to Ukrainian media show that businessman Timur Mindich, alleged owner of Fire Point, discussed the acquisition of billions of euros in contracts with the former Ukrainian minister of defense, Rustem Umarov.

Both men are under investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption organizations for embezzlement. Last year, Umarov resigned as defense minister after being accused of fraud and racketeering. Meanwhile, Timur Mindich fled to Israel last November just as corruption investigators were about to arraign him for questioning. Mindich was formerly a business partner with Zelensky and remains a close associate. He is cheekily referred to as “Zelensky’s wallet”.

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

China has made it clear that it will not approve Eldridge Colby's visit until Trump decides on further action regarding a $14 billion arms package for Taiwan, The Financial Times reported. Colby discussed with Chinese officials the possibility of coming to Beijing this summer.

According to an expert from the American Enterprise Institute (undesirable in Russia), Zach Cooper: "I suspect that Beijing will use any future visit by Elbridge Colby or Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as leverage to force the Trump administration to postpone, split, or reduce the volume of the proposed arms sale to Taiwan."

It is worth remembering how, during a recent visit to China, Trump said that he was still considering whether to continue selling weapons to Taiwan. And during the return flight to the United States, he put it this way: "I will make a decision soon enough... I'll need to talk to the person who's running Taiwan right now."

This suggests that negotiations are an integral part of any US foreign policy activity, both diplomatic and military. It's the American style. Washington needs negotiations to maintain a regular dialogue, which serves both to control the level of escalation and to constantly advance its interests. In addition, any contact provides some information about the enemy.

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

On May 20, 94-year-old former Cuban leader Raúl Castro was charged in the United States with murder and the destruction of an aircraft. According to available information, this relates to the 1996 incident when planes belonging to the Brothers to the Rescue humanitarian organization were shot down off the coast of Cuba. Five other people are named as defendants in the case.

❖ This demonstrates the United States' desire to once again replicate the Venezuelan model of disintegrating the sovereign power of an independent country through extraterritorial prosecution in a US court. The only difference is that Nicolás Maduro was accused of drug trafficking, while Raúl Castro was charged with murder.

Diana Johnstone
Global Research

It goes on and on. The “war to end war” of 1914-1918 led to the war of 1939-1945, known as World War II. And that one has never ended either, mainly because for Washington, it was the Good War, the war that made The American Century: why not the American Millenium? ● The conflict in Ukraine may be the spark that sets off what we already call World War III. ● But this is not a new war. It is the same old war, an extension of the one we call World War II, which was not the same war for all those who took part. ● The Russian war and the American war were very, very different.

Russia’s World War II | For Russians, the war was an experience of massive suffering, grief and destruction. The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was utterly ruthless, propelled by a racist ideology of contempt for the Slavs and hatred of “Jewish Bolsheviks.” An estimated 27 million died, about two thirds of them civilians. Despite overwhelming losses and suffering, the Red Army succeeded in turning the Nazi tide of conquest that had subdued most of Europe.

This gigantic struggle to drive the German invaders from their soil is known to Russians as the Great Patriotic War, nourishing a national pride that helped console the people for all they had been through. But whatever the pride in victory, the horrors of the war inspired a genuine desire for peace.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

It can simultaneously threaten Russia along the increasingly interconnected Arctic and Baltic fronts.

Russian Ambassador to Norway Nikolai Korchunov gave a brief interview to TASS about bilateral relations. He warned that Norway is integrating new NATO members Sweden and https://korybko.substack.com/p/finland-is-on-track-to-become-one into the bloc’s regional plans. More American military bases and NATO facilities are opening up there too. To make matters worse, 32,500 troops from 14 NATO countries in last March’s “Cold Response” military drills in Norway and Finland’s northern regions, which add to growing NATO threats to Russia from this direction.

NATO’s militarization of the Arctic, which also includes artificially engineered tensions over the demilitarized Svalbard Archipelago, is proceeding in parallel with its militarization of the Baltic. Korchunov believes that this raises the risk of the bloc one day attempting to blockade Russia. He reassured his compatriots that the authorities will defend their country’s interests, however, including through military-technical means in an allusion to new naval escorts of some commercial vessels.

In connection with blockade scenarios, Korchunov was asked about TASS’ report from early April about how “Ukraine readies terrorist attacks on Russian ships off coast of Norway”, which he said caused quite a stir in his host country.

He didn’t elaborate on how exactly Russia plans to deter or defend against potential Ukrainian drone attacks from Norway, but he ominously warned that escalating threats to Russia from Norway “will inevitably lead to a directly proportional increase in risks for Norway itself.”

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

The Pentagon has prepared a series of military plans in case Trump decides to launch new strikes against Iran, including targeted strikes against energy and infrastructure facilities, CNN reports, citing informed sources. All of this has apparently been coordinated with the White House.

On May 17, the US President wrote on social media:

Indeed, time is running out. And it's pressing, first and foremost, on the Trump administration itself. On May 13, the US Senate rejected a resolution to end the war with Iran for the seventh time. This time, 49 senators voted "yes" and 50 "no." By comparison, the previous vote was 47 "yes" and 51 "no." The number of pro-Israel militarists is gradually declining as the midterm congressional elections approach.

CNN also reported that on May 16, Trump met with key members of his national security team: Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. The meeting took place just hours after the president returned from China. Trump also spoke by phone with Netanyahu on May 17. According to a source at the channel, another meeting with the national security team is expected early this week.

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

Saudi Arabia is considering the possibility of concluding a non-aggression pact with Iran.

Riyadh is reportedly exploring a non-aggression pact among Middle Eastern countries and Iran—following the end of the military conflict between the United States and the Islamic Republic —according to The Financial Times.

❖ According to the publication, the 1970s Helsinki Process model—which helped reduce tensions in Europe during the Cold War—is being evaluated, along with its applicability to resolving disputes in the Middle East. The logic, according to the FT, is that Iran has “weakened” but still “poses a threat to its neighbors.”

❖ One thing is clear: a non-aggression pact between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries will not ensure security in the region. The reason is that the true sources of aggression are Israel and the U.S., and their goals differ from those of the other countries in the region. Without these catalysts for war, such a pact would be entirely possible.

Ancient and Modern Russia
О древней и новой Россіи

Now that our unfortunate homeland finds itself at the very bottom of the pit of shame and disaster into which the 'great social revolution' has driven it, many of us are increasingly confronted by the same thought.

This thought is persistent.

It is dark, gloomy; it rises in the mind and imperiously demands an answer.

It is simple: what will happen to us next?

We have analyzed our recent past. Oh, we have studied almost every moment of the last two years very well. Many have not only studied it, but also cursed it.

The present is before our eyes. We want to close these eyes. Not to see!

All that remains is the future. A mysterious, unknown future. Indeed: what will happen to us?...

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

After Donald Trump's visit to Beijing ended, many analysts in Russia began to interpret it as a victory for China and a defeat for the United States: supposedly, it was the funeral of American hegemony, and Trump had come to surrender. Of course, such a judgment is more journalistic hyperbole than an act of expertise. Snarky headlines are one thing, but the real content is another.

❖ Trump by no means lost these negotiations, the strategy for which he had already formulated in Washington. On the contrary, he was flexible, avoiding the sharp corners into which he was deliberately pushed by journalists from the Democratic pool and by British publications that openly show that they hate him. And Trump managed to avoid the polemical traps, having received from Xi Jinping the rhetoric that he could then sell to American voters as a victory.

The logic of the current visit wasn't determined by the shift in global power which hasn't yet matured enough to confidently declare a US defeat and a Chinese victory. Trump came to Beijing largely just to come, as strange as that may sound. Remember, this was a rescheduled visit: Trump had originally planned it from the perspective of a victor over Iran. Had that happened, Xi would have been faced with an ultimatum he would have found difficult to ignore. Trump would have spoken as the overlord of the Middle East—the place from which China draws hydrocarbon resources and where it is trying to build strategic logistics.

But suddenly, Iran dug in its heels, and things went wrong for the US. Tehran's response horrified global investors, especially those impressed by images of burning American military bases. The blitzkrieg had failed, and the use of nuclear weapons would have meant the end of Trump's presidency. Xi even trolled him by calling Iran the third-most-influential country in the world.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Their newly agreed connectivity partnership gives the bloc tangible stakes in Pashinyan’s re-election and ensures that they’ll support whatever measures he resorts to for remaining in power.

Next month’s parliamentary elections in Armenia are shaping up to be a “Battle for Armenia” due to the geopolitical stakes at play. If pro-Western Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s party wins, then last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) will be built with gusto, thus risking Russia’s displacement from the region. That’s because TRIPP isn’t just a trade corridor, but also a NATO military logistics one to Central Asia, and it could be paired with the contentious Trans-Caspian Pipeline.

The injection of more Western economic and military influence along Russia’s southern periphery, including the political influence that comes with them, would amount to the accelerated implementation of Trump’s Neo-Reagan Doctrine for “rolling back” Russian influence there. The aforesaid scenario is dependent on TRIPP, particularly Russia’s inability to monitor shipments across this route to prevent it from turning into a military logistics corridor, which in turn depends on the outcome of June’s elections.

If the nationalist opposition wins, then they’ll likely restore Armenia’s compliance with the last part of November 2020’s Russian-mediated ceasefire regarding Moscow’s responsibility for securing this trade route, the role of which was replaced after TRIPP was agreed to. After all, allowing Armenia to facilitate the Azeri-Turkish Axis’ military logistical plans for Central Asia at NATO’s behest would risk turning their country into a “Neo-Ottoman sanjak”, the socio-cultural consequences of which were described here.

In short, the erasure of Armenia’s multimillennial-long culture might finally become a fait accompli if it’s coerced by Azerbaijan, the EU, and the US into accepting the return of the ~200,000 Azeris who fled during the chaotic Soviet collapse and the descendants as a precondition for regional peace.

Yousef Ramazani
Press TV Explainer

How Iran’s Strait of Hormuz cable sovereignty could reshape global internet governance

In the wake of the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran and the subsequent maritime banditry and piracy, the Islamic Republic is reportedly moving to assert its long-dormant sovereign rights over the submarine internet cables that traverse the waters of the Strait of Hormuz.

This strategic reorientation – as confirmed by some reports – promises to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue while fundamentally reshaping the legal and economic architecture of global data transmission.

The unprovoked military aggression against Iran, which halted with a ceasefire on April 8, 2026, has fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the Persian Gulf.

During the 40 days of aggression against Iran, a previously overlooked dimension of the country’s sovereign territory emerged as a critical vulnerability for the global digital economy.

Moon of Alabama
Moon of Alabama (Blog)

To keep Trump happy may well be the sole reason why China has agreed to the meeting.

This week U.S. President Donald Trump is going to China.

His larger plan had been to take Venezuela, Iran and their oil before pressing China, via tariffs and energy restrictions, to concede to U.S. hegemony.

That plan has failed. Trump has lost two wars. His tariff schemes ended in retreat after China restricted the export of its rare earth products. His war on Iran has is one big failure.

Trump is coming to Beijing with his cap in his hand. He, as usual, will try to bluff a way to ‘victory’. He will proceed as if the U.S. were in a great position. The Chinese will be polite, but won’t have any of it.

There have been little preparations for the trip. The sherpas did not convene beforehand to straighten out serious issues between the countries. There are no big contracts or treaties to sign.

Andrey Medvedev
Андрей Медведев (Telegram)

Afghanistan is reportedly facing famine this winter. According to the UN, approximately 17 million people in the country are already undernourished (and the organization's food program is still operating in Afghanistan).

Colleagues who wrote about this were quick to explain that the main problem that led the country to this situation was the Taliban government's attempt to build a state based exclusively on religious rules and customs.

For example, restrictions on women working in the medical field have led to a shortage of doctors. The ban on male doctors treating women has increased mortality rates. Although Afghanistan is not isolated from the outside world, investors are not particularly keen to enter the country. Again, this is due to the Taliban's specific policies.

However, the Taliban is not the only reason for the economic disaster. First of all, Afghanistan has traditionally not been a unified state. Historically, it was a union of tribes and territories under the rule of the Pashtun emir. The Tajik and Uzbek regions of the north (South Turkestan) had close ties with Bukhara and Kokand. In fact, even now, the north of the country lives with the feeling that it is a little bit its own Afghanistan, not Kabul's or Kandahar's.

Afghans have always united in only one case: the presence of an external enemy. The British, Russians, Indians, Americans, and Persians. If there is an enemy, there is unity and a common goal. If not, everyone goes back to their own homes.

The Taliban is primarily a Pashtun movement. It was based on religious and nationalist principles. Something like “Afghanistan for the Pashtuns.” And now, the Taliban leadership is made up of Pashtuns. Who, in themselves, are not exactly close friends either. Tribes, families, clans, blood feuds. The Alozai do not consider the Barakzai their equals, and vice versa.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Instead of waiting for Pashinyan to hold a referendum on joining the EU, which he might never end up doing in order to retain the advantages from membership in the Eurasian Economic Union for as long as possible, Putin might cut Armenia off right away if Pashinyan wins re-election by hook or by crook.

A journalist asked Putin over the weekend about his reaction to Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan hosting Zelensky last week and giving him a platform to threaten Russia. Putin dodged that part of the question but elaborated on the future of their ties. Russia wants only the best for Armenia and will respect its people’s wishes, he said, in connection with which he proposed that they hold a referendum on Pashinyan’s plans to join the EU since that policy risks ruining economic ties with Russia.

As a reminder, Putin said that a little less than one-quarter of Armenia’s GDP comes from trade with Russia, around $7 billion out of $29 billion last year. The advantages that it derives from membership in the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union apply to “agriculture, the processing industry, customs and other duties, and so on and so forth. This also applies to migration.” If its people decide to end them, Putin said, then Russia will begin the process of “a gentle, intelligent and mutually beneficial divorce.”

Putin hosted Pashinyan for candid talks in early April that were assessed here as representing the moment of truth in their relations. The day after, “A Top Russian Official Rang The Alarm About Deteriorating Relations With Armenia”, specifically condemning last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) for upsetting the regional geostrategic balance. This was followed last week by the EU solidifying its influence in Armenia ahead of next month’s elections.

Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

In this opinion piece, we will take a look at the roles of the four actors: the US, the coup regime, Russia, and Europe. — The war in Ukraine is not the result of one man's madness, but of a deliberate process in which Ukraine was sacrificed on the altar of hegemony. Already in 1993, the US strategy was clear, and NATO began its "courtship" of Ukraine, with Western support.

The United States: Mainly Responsible for Creating the Conditions for War | The United States, through NATO, has pursued an expansionist policy that deliberately ignores the principle of the "indivisibility of security" (that the security of one state should not come at the expense of another).

It was a matter of course for the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis to demand that the Soviet Union turn its back; it would be crossing a red line, posing an existential threat to the United States, and there would be war. The United States gained support in Europe. But when the Russians used the same words about NATO's expansion eastward, they were met with the statement that "Ukraine has the right to decide who it wants to be allied with".

By pushing military infrastructure right up to Russia's borders and ignoring diplomatic warnings for 30 years, Ukraine was turned into an existential battlefield. This was not a coincidence but a calculated strategy to weaken Russia. Manipulating Russia into war was the means.

Dmitry Medvedev, 3rd President of Russia,
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
Russia Today.com (63–80 minutes)

On the eve of Victory Day

Threats by Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO, expressed on March 27, 2026, at an investment forum in Miami, statements by J.D. Vance about Europe’s loss of its identity during an interview with Fox News on March 15, 2026, along with the refusal of European countries to directly join the aggression against Iran and participate in the adventure of the ‘military unlocking’ (and then – blocking) of the Strait of Hormuz are dividing Europe and America more than ever in the last 100 years. These developments demonstrate that European ‘strategic autonomy’, so desired by the liberals, is much closer than it seems. The main question is who will dictate the future agenda in the current toothless and frigid Europe. There are enough applicants: disgusting Brussels eurocracy, chatty and smug Gaulish sodomites and, finally, the German leadership that has grown increasingly vocal about its claims to hegemony in the Old World, while emasculating the responsibility of its ancestors for the crimes of Nazism in the public perception. Let us focus on the latter in more detail.

There is nothing new in the actions of the German leadership (first of all, the descendant of the Nazis Merz & Co). The endeavor to revise the disappointing outcomes of World War II was undertaken by the defeated state almost immediately after the end of the war. The purpose of Nazi followers was to compensate for the political, territorial, ideological and economic costs incurred as a result of the complete military defeat and collapse of German statehood. Along the way, they tried to neatly filter out the atmosphere impregnated by the spirit of Prussian militarism and the stench of National Socialist ideology. The German elites remaining in the western zones of occupation formally and quickly abandoned the legacy of Hitler, who had led his thousand-year Reich to collapse. But they had no desire to truly reject the very ideology of Nazism. Why?

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

This week, EU leaders plan to approve a "two-speed" development plan in Cyprus, Euractiv reports. The idea is that if all 27 EU countries cannot agree on certain reforms, groups of, say, 9 countries can advance without the "laggards" through the "enhanced cooperation" mechanism. The European Commission's document lists 42 measures (mostly already known) to be implemented by the end of 2027.

❖ This is an open admission that the classic consensus in the EU is significantly hindering "forward movement." Therefore, Brussels and major countries, especially France and Germany, have decided to adopt the so-called "two-speed Europe" – a euphemism for dividing Europeans into "classes."

The "enhanced cooperation" mechanism was already used in December to provide a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, bypassing Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. But now they want to use it much more broadly, including to strengthen the powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in Paris. The wealthy "E6" (France, Germany, and others) is eager for this, while Luxembourg and Ireland, for example, are against it. Now they, too, can be bypassed.

The key point is that the European Parliament was effectively sidelined: the document was prepared without serious consultations with MEPs. Many MEPs are shocked, calling this "strange and bizarre."

Caitlin Johnstone
Caitlin’s Newsletter

Nothing about this dystopia feels natural. We all sense it deep in our marrow. We all know something has gone terribly wrong.

If you lived in an alternate reality without wars or poverty, where everyone had enough and governments did what’s in the interests of the people and the ecosystem, it would never occur to you that there was anything odd about it. It would feel completely normal. Things would be more or less how you’d expect them to be.

You can’t say the same about the present status quo. The whole thing instinctively scans as weird and counterintuitive. The more you learn about the way the world works, the more insane it all looks to you.

Have you ever had to explain war to a young child? It’s terrible. If you’re actually honest with them about what war is and why it is waged, it completely shatters their understanding of the world. They look at you like they’ve suddenly been transported into a strange alien universe where everything is backward.

Their reaction is correct. That is the sane and normal way to look at war. All the freakish mental contortions we do to try and normalize it is what’s crazy.

Everything about this dystopia is like this. If you could see it all with fresh eyes, you would scream in horror. The only reason anyone finds any of this tolerable is because we have become desensitized and accustomed to the madness. Seeing somebody sleeping on the sidewalk should feel like a punch in the stomach. Seeing children killed by bombs on your social media feed should stop your whole world.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

There’s an unspoken rule that intel agencies aren’t supposed to implicitly threaten foreign diplomats’ children to coerce them into becoming informants.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova published an article in the Russian business daily Vedomosti on Monday about the curious case of a Russian diplomat in the US. An unknown employee of the State Department informed them during a call that their son, who was born in the US, “has been granted US citizenship without his consent by virtue of being born on American soil…Be on notice that your child is our citizen with all the ensuing consequences, and you cannot renounce this!”

Zakharova reminded readers that the children of foreign diplomats don’t have birthright citizenship privileges in the US. She then drew attention to how this incident contradicts Trump 2.0’s immigration policy, speculating that the Democrats are once again trying to subvert it for Russophobic reasons. She also expressed concern that “The arbitrary granting of US citizenship to such children potentially provides Washington with a lever for improper pressure on our personnel”. That’s likely the main motive.

As far as is publicly known, the incident that Zakharova described only happened with one Russian diplomat thus far, but it’s reasonable that she’s worried that “The deep state in the United States has created a new problem to exert pressure on Russian diplomats…Now the State Department – or those behind the façade of American diplomacy – have begun to extend US citizenship to children of Russian consular staff born under American jurisdiction”. This could indeed become a trend if it’s not stopped.