Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 6

International Crisis Group: A Frozen Conflict: The Dilemmas of Seizing Russia’s Money for Ukraine

This article is from June but it explains some of the legal debate and political implications surrounding whether to seize Russia’s frozen assets to use for Ukraine. – Natylie

International Crisis Group, 6/17/25

What is happening?

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, countries that decided to impose sanctions on Moscow also froze Russian assets held in their banks or other financial institutions. On 28 February 2022, just days after the invasion, the European Union, the U.S., Canada, Britain and Japan blocked the transfer or use of bonds, deposits and cash owned by the Russian Central Bank and denominated in the currencies of the sanctioning countries. Switzerland and Australia did the same soon thereafter. Western supporters of Ukraine have also frozen privately owned Russian assets totalling more than €70 billion ($79.9 billion).

Estimates of the value of Russia’s frozen sovereign, or state, assets vary. In September 2023, officials from sanctioning countries assessed the total at around $280 billion (€262 billion), with approximately €210 billion ($224 billion) held in EU member states. Russian estimates are slightly higher. 

Either way, by some distance the largest share, €183 billion ($192 billion), sits with the Belgium-based central securities depository, Euroclear, a financial services company that acts as an intermediary between buyers and sellers of securities, such as stocks and bonds, and which has total assets under management of €40 trillion. Japan has the next largest share, with $33 billion (€30 billion), mostly held in cash in Japanese banks. France has frozen approximately €19 billion ($21 billion), Switzerland 7.7 billion francs ($8.8 billion, or €7.9 million), the U.S. $5 billion (€4.6 billion) and Germany €210 million ($229 million). Some countries do not report separately on the sovereign assets or privately held assets that they hold, instead providing a combined total. These include the UK (£25 billion, or $34 billion), Canada ($316 million, or €288 million) and Australia ($64.5 million, or €56 million). 

The range and size of these holdings reflect that Russia has an export-oriented economy; it has long deposited assets in other countries and in multiple currencies as a standard practice and risk-hedging strategy. Because dollars and euros were the primary currencies for Russian foreign trade before February 2022, Russia’s Central Bank held dollar and euro-denominated accounts abroad to make dealings easier. Dollars and euros were also important for payments inside Russia, where firms and individuals used them for numerous transactions. As of 1 February 2022, Russian households had $257.9 billion (€230 billion) in foreign currency savings.

As war drags on in Ukraine, a range of experts and officials in Europe, the U.S. and Canada, as well as the government in Kyiv, have argued that Russia’s frozen assets should be seized and used to support Ukraine. These funds could cover the Ukrainian government’s current public and military spending, now being paid for in large part by U.S. and European backers, as well as underwrite the gargantuan rebuilding effort that will eventually come. Kyiv argues that confiscation of Russian assets would be justified, productive and practicable. It would punish Russia for launching the war, compensate Ukraine for the huge material damage caused by Russian aggression and ensure that the Ukrainian state can balance its books, thereby serving the cause of justice in the face of an illegal invasion. Critics of the proposed measure, however, say it would violate international and national laws, might unsettle European sovereign bond markets and would weaken the euro’s status as a reserve currency.

Why have calls to confiscate Russian frozen assets intensified?

Reconstruction of Ukraine after the war is likely to come with a massive price tag. Russia’s initial attack, the fighting that followed and the continued occupation have inflicted enormous damage on Ukrainian infrastructure and destroyed dozens of small and medium-sized settlements in the country’s east. As of December 2024, the Ukrainian government, the World Bank Group, the European Commission and the UN estimated the cost of rebuilding Ukraine at $524 billion (€506 billion), 2.8 times higher than Ukraine’s gross domestic product. The previous month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had projected an even higher figure of $800 billion (€741 billion).

Meanwhile, Ukraine faces ever greater difficulties in covering its rising day-to-day spending. Ukraine’s 2025 defence budget alone is $10 billion larger than it was in 2024. Recent shifts in U.S. policy have only exacerbated concerns about how Ukraine can balance its books. Since the Trump administration took office, the U.S. Congress has not approved any new financial or military aid for Ukraine, and it looks unlikely to do so any time soon. Its inaction poses a major challenge for Ukrainian finances, since the U.S. has provided $53.8 billion (€47 billion) in direct budget support to Kyiv over the war’s three years. Responsibility for supplying Ukraine with arms and funding its budget may now fall entirely upon Kyiv’s European backers, which are hamstrung by their own budgetary constraints.

Mindful of the economic pressures they are under, Ukraine’s leaders have repeatedly pressed the issue of confiscating Russian assets.

Mindful of the economic pressures they are under, Ukraine’s leaders have repeatedly pressed the issue of confiscating Russian assets. In May 2022, Zelenskyy proposed that an international treaty allow for seizing Russian assets and transferring them to a special fund to compensate Ukraine for damages. Ukrainians involved in negotiations with Moscow have also proposed that frozen Russian assets could serve as reparations, though Moscow has not been amenable to this idea. In February 2024, Zelenskyy said he aimed to see Russian assets held in EU member states confiscated within the year. When that did not happen, he proposed in December 2024 that $30 billion (€28 billion) from Russia’s frozen funds be used to buy ten to twelve Patriot air defence systems for his country. Asset transfer also came up in U.S.-Ukraine talks in early 2025, with Zelenskyy  confiscation as a way to guarantee his nation’s defence spending over the long term. 

Several EU countries, including the Baltic states, Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic, have backed Ukraine’s push to use frozen Russian assets. With Washington making clear that its support for Ukraine will soon dwindle, if not disappear entirely, the clamour for rapid confiscation has intensified. One fear voiced among officials in EU capitals and London is that if the money is not cleared for use soon, it may be lost. The EU must renew its decision to freeze Russian assets by 31 July. If a member state like Hungary, which has pushed back against EU policy toward Moscow, vetoes the renewal, Russia could have access to the funds once again. To prevent that from happening, the UK has floated the idea of transferring all Russian sovereign assets to a special purpose vehicle authorised to make riskier investments for higher returns. Consolidating the assets in this fashion could also be seen as a step toward seizing them, as it would simplify any eventual takeover of the funds. 

What does the law say regarding confiscation of Russian sovereign assets?

Whether international or domestic laws allow Russian Central Bank assets to be confiscated by states other than Ukraine, and which are not direct victims of aggression, is a matter of dispute among officials and legal experts in the West. While the idea is supported by many politicians in the U.S., Canada and Europe, most specialists in international law argue that confiscation of Russian state assets would be unlawful expropriation. Some prominent legal scholars, such as Harold Koh, have nonetheless staked out an opposing view, insisting that expropriation would be lawful as a response to Russian aggression and if Russia failed to pay war reparations. 

Under international law, the doctrine of countermeasures maintains that the injured state, may respond to a violation of international law by seeking to induce the offending state to comply with the law. Countermeasures must be proportionate, temporary and, as far as possible, reversible. They must also meet certain procedural requirements, including proper notice to the state that has violated laws. But those are not the only legal hurdles that the case for confiscation must clear. Because assets of the Russian Central Bank are held not by Ukraine, but in third countries, the legal argument for seizure leans on the contested concept of “collective countermeasures”. If third-party states wish to apply collective countermeasures, they would likely have to depend for legitimacy upon the intervention of an international court, such as the International Court of Justice or European Court of Human Rights, which would first have to demand that Russia pay reparations and then permit its assets to be seized if it refused to do so. To date, there has been no international court decision that is binding for Russia and requires it to pay reparations to Ukraine. In theory, the UN Security Council could also impose measures like these, though as a permanent member Russia could simply veto any such proposal.

Confiscation of private or public foreign assets may … be unlawful under the domestic laws of some states.

Confiscation of private or public foreign assets may also be unlawful under the domestic laws of some states. In such cases, confiscation, as opposed to simply freezing Russian state assets, might require that states pass new legislation or amend existing laws to allow a greater margin for asset seizure (though this step would not remove the international legal hurdles mentioned above).

Some countries have already gone down that path. Canada and the U.S. have changed their laws, taking steps to legalise confiscation of Russian Central Bank assets held abroad. In June 2022, the Canadian Parliament amended the Special Economic Measures Act, which grants the executive branch broad powers to confiscate assets owned by governments or individuals, although the Senate has not yet passed the legislation allowing Ottawa to seize Russian state assets. The U.S., on the other hand, has given itself authorisation to seize Russian assets directly. In April 2024, the U.S. Congress passed the Rebuilding Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act (REPO). This act grants the president permission to “seize, confiscate, transfer or vest” Russian sovereign assets under U.S. jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions. So far, however, the U.S. government has taken no action under the new legislation.

In Europe, views on beefing up powers of expropriation are mixed, and there is no consensus among states. Leaders in the UK, Poland, the Nordic countries and the Baltic states have tasked legal officials with looking into the options. But the largest holders of Russian assets in the EU – Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Germany – continue to oppose seizure, as do several other states in the eurozone such as Italy and Spain. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever warned that confiscating Russian sovereign funds would amount to an act of war, while French President Emmanuel Macron has held that international law clearly prohibits seizure of these assets. Others in France disagree. In March, the French parliament passed a non-binding resolution urging the EU to appropriate frozen Russian assets and use them to support Ukraine.

Beyond the West, on the other hand, official support for asset confiscation is scarce. Japan, the second-largest holder of Russian assets after Europe, has stressed that these assets must be treated according to international law. China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia have also let the EU know that they oppose confiscation, while at a 2024 Swiss peace summit, Kenyan President William Ruto condemned “the unilateral appropriation of Russian assets” as “unlawful, unacceptable and a violation of the UN Charter”. 

What are the practical challenges to confiscating the assets?

Legal concerns aside, critics argue that seizing sovereign assets would threaten the fundaments of financial stability by making foreign investors nervous about the security of their holdings. Belgium and France, which hold a 13 per cent stake and 11 per cent stake in Euroclear, respectively, are determined to remain attractive, trustworthy destinations for foreign capital, especially in the face of growing competition from Asia and the Gulf. If spooked, holders of European sovereign debt such as China and Saudi Arabia could conceivably sell off their bonds, driving up borrowing costs for already indebted European governments. In early 2024, Saudi Arabia reportedly suggested that it might offload some European debt if the G7 decided to confiscate Russian sovereign assets.

The European Central Bank has also cautioned against confiscation on the grounds of the harm it might do to the euro’s status as a global reserve currency. A general loss of faith in European markets could also have knock-on effects for the region’s security, increasing borrowing costs for governments in the eurozone just when they are seeking to raise defence spending. A European member state official told Crisis Group that risks to euro stability are the main argument militating against asset confiscation.

Are there other ways to use the frozen assets to help Ukraine?

While debate rages over whether or not Russia’s frozen assets could be seized to help Ukraine, EU officials have determined that nothing prevents them from redirecting so-called windfall profits to Ukraine.

Russia’s frozen sovereign assets originally included short-term U.S., European, Canadian and Asian government bonds, government-guaranteed securities, and cash held on account and in fixed-term deposits. In time, most of the bonds matured and, with coupon payments, were converted into cash, which remained blocked. The fixed-term deposits also expired. But the returns from interest payments on cash held on account and matured bonds, known as windfall profits, were reinvested under the holding financial institutions’ rules and remained out of the Russian Central Bank’s reach.

In accordance with its conservative guidelines, Euroclear invested the windfall profits with the Belgian Central Bank, which offers the lowest risk-free rate of return available. Euroclear reported earnings of €4.4 billion on frozen Russian holdings in 2023 and €6.9 billion in 2024. These were also taxed by Belgium, whose state coffers received over a billion euros each year as a result. The Belgian government uses those taxes to provide military aid to Ukraine.

Legal experts and financial specialists have differing opinions as to the use of these profits. Some believe that these earnings stem from asset management and do not constitute sovereign holdings, meaning that seizing the funds does not violate property rights – so long as the frozen capital itself remains untouched. Others believe that generating interest is an inherent part of capital management and that transferring these profits (eg, to Ukraine) constitutes a violation of property rights. Constant extraction of profits prevents the growth of these assets, this argument goes, and as a result of inflation, reduces the real value of capital over time.

With the first argument in mind, the European Council, which brings together the governments of all EU member states, ruled in February 2o24 that institutions holding Russian sovereign assets worth more than one million euros should manage the profits from those funds separately from the assets themselves. 

Months later, the European Council ruled that these same institutions are now obliged to transfer at least 99.7 per cent of annual net (post-tax) profits from frozen Russian state assets to the EU biannually. As the largest holder of Russian assets, Euroclear was immediately affected. The EU is now supposed to direct 90 per cent of these funds into its European Peace Facility, which finances military aid to Ukraine; the remaining 10 per cent is to help pay for other Ukraine-related programs through the EU budget. In July 2024, the EU made its first transfer of €1.5 billion of these funds to support the military effort and reconstruction in Ukraine. In April 2025, the EU received another €2.1 billion, which will be gradually channelled to Ukraine. By the end of 2027, the EU expects, his scheme will have generated €15-20 billion.

Future revenue streams from the interest on Russian assets at Euroclear and other institutions have … been deployed to secure a major loan package for Ukraine from the G7.

Future revenue streams from the interest on Russian assets at Euroclear and other institutions have also been deployed to secure a major loan package for Ukraine from the G7, which approved a $50 billion credit line on June 2024. This mechanism is called the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration initiative. Under the plan, the U.S. is due to lend $20 billion to Ukraine and the EU a similar amount, while the UK, Japan and Canada provide the remaining $10 billion. Funds started to be disbursed in late 2024, when the Biden administration transferred its $20 billion to Ukraine. The EU has sent €6 billion since the start of 2025. As a result, windfall profits from sovereign assets will repay these lenders rather than fund Ukraine directly. Building on the success of this approach, some experts have suggested pooling all Russian sovereign assets into a single fund and issuing long-term bonds on the basis of the total amount, with the proceeds then funnelled toward Ukraine.

These funding schemes are inventive. But they also create their own obstacles to any plan either to seize Russia’s frozen assets or to thaw them. Because the G7 stipulates that its loan will take a long time to mature, extending up to 45 years in the EU and over 30 years in other countries, it means the assets will have to stay put and generate profit over that entire period, absent another plan to repay the loan. Indeed, countries like France have opposed any new decision on sovereign assets, arguing that the G7 loan create major obstacles to consolidating, seizing or unfreezing these assets in the near future. 

How has Russia responded to the freezing of its assets?

Reacting to the block on Russia’s sovereign assets, Moscow undertook its own asset freeze in March 2022. The Kremlin and Russia’s Central Bank established restrictions on individuals and bodies from “unfriendly” countries holding assets in Russian financial institutions, prohibiting them from withdrawing the money from Russia without government permission. A total of 47 countries are counted as “unfriendly”, including the U.S., Canada, the UK, Japan, Australia and all the EU member states that have imposed sanctions on Russia. Russian companies are also required to transfer funds from any dealings with businesses in those countries into special accounts that can be converted into foreign currency and taken out of Russia only with permission from the state. Russian officials declared that these restrictions would remain in effect until sanctions are lifted and the Central Bank’s foreign assets are unfrozen.

Officials have not revealed the value of foreign assets blocked in Russia. Some, including Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, have claimed that Russia has blocked foreign assets roughly equivalent in value to Russian assets frozen abroad. But some Russian experts dismiss these estimates, arguing that the total is far lower. One indicator of the size of foreign economic interests in Russia comes from a study by the Kyiv School of Economics and B4Ukraine, which estimated that, in 2023 alone, 1,600 multinational corporations generated more than $196.9 billion in revenue and $16.8 billion in profit in Russia through their subsidiaries. Companies from EU member states produced $81.4 billion of this revenue and U.S. companies $30.5 billion. Austrian Raiffeisen Bank, the largest Western bank still operating in Russia, has amassed €4.4 billion in blocked profit. Finally, it appears that investors from “unfriendly” countries continue to hold more than half of all stock traded in Russia. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund may hold assets in Russia worth $448 million.

How might Russia respond to the confiscation of its sovereign assets?

Russia considers Western sanctions to be illegal, and it says it will never renounce its rights to frozen assets. Moscow has also warned that any confiscation of sovereign assets would be met by retaliatory seizures of Western assets in Russia – and maybe by legal action as well.

The Kremlin’s first move has been to threaten to respond to confiscation of its sovereign assets by seizing private holdings inside Russia belonging to individuals and firms. A precedent already exists. In response to the U.S. REPO Act, Putin signed a decree in May 2024 allowing the Russian Central Bank to respond to any U.S. seizure of its assets by imposing the forfeiture of U.S. private and state assets in Russia. These assets can include property, shares in companies, securities and any property belonging to U.S. residents. Russia has also reportedly seized €3 billion in cash held by Euroclear and blocked in Russian financial institutions.

Secondly, Russian officials have suggested they might challenge the confiscation of Russia’s sovereign assets in court. Private investors from Russia have already filed more than 170 lawsuits against Euroclear in Russian courts. Some experts have suggested that the Russian state could take Euroclear to court in other jurisdictions, too, such as in Asian countries. The Russian state is likely to sue not in an effort to regain control of its holdings, which it believes would be futile, but to prevent their transfer to Ukraine. The lawsuits might succeed, and they might not, but they could prevent confiscation while they continue, perhaps for years.

As for using windfall profits from sovereign assets to help Ukraine, Moscow’s threats to prevent it largely ring hollow. Russia has threatened to impose sanctions and block the property of individuals or funds that purchase bonds issued against the collateral of Russian assets, but it has taken no concrete action.

How does Moscow see the role of sovereign assets in negotiations to end the Ukraine war?

Moscow sees the unblocking of Russian sovereign assets and lifting of sanctions on its Central Bank as critical to the peace deal it seeks – one that covers more than Ukraine, cementing Russia’s status as a powerful, prestigious state with major influence throughout the post-Soviet space and around the globe. The Kremlin believes that countries backing Ukraine should be willing to make the tradeoff, returning economic and political relations with Russia back to 2014 levels (including unblocking its assets) in exchange for peace in Ukraine. It views the assets it has blocked within Russia as additional leverage, saying it will not move first to loosen its grip on them.

The Kremlin’s approach has taken shape in its engagement with the Trump administration and Ukraine. While Washington has probed for a deal and better relations with Russia, Moscow has called on it to show good-will by restoring economic ties. To take one example, in March Russian negotiators offered U.S. negotiators safe navigation in the Black Sea in exchange for reconnecting Rosselkhozbank and other financial institutions involved in the international food and fertiliser trade to the SWIFT international bank transfer network. The offer was disingenuous: Ukraine had largely forced the Russian navy out of the Black Sea, meaning that Russian guarantees of safe navigation were not a major concession. Moscow also demanded something the U.S. cannot deliver. Washington does not control SWIFT, which is a cooperative company under Belgian law and complies with EU sanctions against Russia. But the gambit did reveal that Moscow is prepared to link moves toward peace in Ukraine – on the terms it defines – with Western economic concessions. The Russian position laid out two months later in talks with Ukraine in Istanbul did the same. Russia demanded that Ukraine waive all claims to compensation for war damages, a move that would deprive Kyiv and its European partners of a critical legal argument in favour of confiscating assets.

Moscow … seems willing to end Russian sanctions on the U.S. and European states, and to unfreeze assets held in Russia, if it gets what it wants.

Sensing an opportunity, the Trump administration has offered trade with the U.S. as a sweetener for Moscow. Russian authorities, however, see the resumption of trade with Ukraine’s European backers as far more important. Even though Russia has developed new trade logistics since 2022, the Kremlin is keen to resume using European trading networks and to see restrictions on transactions through European banks removed, in order to cut costs. As a result, the Kremlin appears to want to make renewal of commercial ties with the U.S. conditional on easing or lifting not just U.S. sanctions on Russia, but also European restrictions. Moscow also seems willing to end Russian sanctions on the U.S. and European states, and to unfreeze assets held in Russia, if it gets what it wants. 

The importance of European trade and financial ties in Russian calculations means that the region will almost certainly have to play a role in future peace talks. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted as much in March, adding that Russia would request the lifting of European sanctions, including unfreezing its assets, in any negotiations.

How can the countries backing Ukraine use sovereign assets as leverage in talks with Russia?

For now, European countries are not considering using frozen Russian sovereign assets as leverage in peace talks, as they do not believe meaningful negotiations with the Kremlin are possible. They also doubt that such negotiations could result in fair compensation for Ukraine. Instead, they prefer to retain these assets and use the proceeds to support Ukraine. But if trust were to be built among all sides and negotiations to start, the fact that Moscow wants its sovereign assets back means they can be useful leverage for countries holding them. The prospect of unfreezing assets could be tabled in negotiations even as debates about confiscation of assets continue – though it should be said if the assets are confiscated, their value as leverage will disappear.

Countries backing Ukraine should consider various ways to use the issue of frozen assets in potential peace talks. One would be to make clear that they will release the money only once there is a comprehensive agreement between Russia and Ukraine. As part of this deal, Russia would also have to agree to repay the outstanding balance of the G7 loan to Ukraine. If Russia then reneges on this commitment, any assets still held (which would presumably be of much lesser value) could once again be frozen. To prevent Russia from quickly withdrawing all its assets and encourage it to adhere to the agreement, countries supporting Ukraine could consider phasing the unfreezing of assets, linking it to implementation of the terms of a peace deal. Alternatively, assets could be thawed gradually as peace (or a ceasefire) continues to hold over the course of years. Meanwhile, as long as some assets remain frozen, the countries holding them can continue to use the profits to support Ukraine.

If a comprehensive peace deal is too hard to achieve, a more incremental approach could be adopted, with parts of the assets unblocked in step with specific concessions from Russia. For example, some portion of the assets could be unfrozen in exchange for Russian agreement to allow deployment of a foreign stabilisation force in Ukraine, or a UN mission with a strong mandate, and/or to let a strong Ukrainian military maintain close cooperation with its trans-Atlantic backers. Some assets might also be released if Russia pays financial compensation for damage inflicted on Ukraine, perhaps through direct payment of an agreed-upon amount to a special compensation fund. Another possibility is that Russia and Ukraine could negotiate contracts for long-term supply of Russian oil and gas to Ukraine at no cost.

Lastly, sanctions could be lifted in exchange for Moscow’s acceptance that its sovereign assets would be partially or fully transferred to a special fund dedicated to Ukraine’s reconstruction. Moscow has reportedly indicated that it might consider this measure as part of a broader deal, so long as it would mean avoiding future damage claims and lawsuits. But the reported Russian proposal would see at least some of the funds used to rebuild on Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory, potentially suggesting acceptance by Kyiv, if not formal recognition, of Russian control of that land. While this condition might not be acceptable to Ukraine or its backers, the proposal does open the possibility of gaining Russian acquiescence to use the frozen assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction. 

In any event, it is impossible to negotiate the future of assets or sanctions relief more broadly without the direct engagement of the countries involved. Since the lion’s share of these funds are parked in European countries, the U.S. cannot make a peace deal on its own that would satisfy Russia. Working with the Europeans may not please everyone in the Trump administration, but if the goal is peace in Ukraine, then the financial reality indicates that there is no alternative.

***

Kallas: EU can’t give back frozen assets to Russia, unless they pay reparations to Ukraine

, 8/30/25

The EU’s foreign policy chief said the bloc needs to dive deep into the issue of frozen Russian assets, to be prepared in case of an eventual ceasefire or peace deal.

The EU’s foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, stated that frozen assets will not be returned to Russia unless Moscow pays reparations to Ukraine. Kallas argued at the informal meeting of foreign affairs ministers in Copenhagen that the bloc needs to be prepared in case of an eventual ceasefire or a peace deal.

“We can’t possibly imagine that, if there is ceasefire or a peace deal, that these assets are given back to Russia if they haven’t paid for the reparations,” the high representative said.

The EU’s foreign ministers meet in Copenhagen for an informal Foreign Affairs Council to discuss issues related to the war in Ukraine. In this format, ministers do not make decisions, but they discuss the issues in depth.

After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the European Union decided to freeze state assets worth 210 billion euros. This amount is not confiscated, but the EU uses its interest to support Ukraine’s war efforts.

Earlier, experts warned that the possible confiscation and use of frozen assets is an unprecedented area and could result in a legal minefield for the EU.

The biggest chunk of assets, €183bn, is held in Belgium, a host country of the Euroclear clearinghouse for financial transactions. Those assets belong to the Russian central bank, which originally held them as short-term government bonds.

In the EU, Poland and the Baltic countries were in favour of the full confiscation of the frozen assets, while Belgium, Germany, and France had legal reservations.

Earlier this week, Hungary sued the Council of the EU over a decision to grant billions of euros of aid to Ukraine from frozen Russian assets.

Budapest argued that the European Peace Facility (EPF), a financial programme which facilitates military aid to allied countries, breached EU law by ignoring Hungary’s opposition in this matter.

Ukraine receives between €3–5 billion every year through the EPF programme, which is almost fully financed from the interest of frozen Russian assets in Europe.

Sylvia Demarest: Seven Months into the Trump Administration, a Report on Militarism, War, and the Prospects for Peace

By Sylvia Demarest, Substack, 8/26/25

In his inaugural address, President Donald J. Trump expressed a desire to be a “peacemaker and a unifier.” He emphasized that his administration would focus on restoring confidence and pride in the nation while aiming to “end wars and prevent new conflicts.” Trump pledged to create peace by building “the strongest military the world has ever seen,” indicating that military strength would be a key component of his approach to achieving peace. He stated, “Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable.” This is similar to past claims of “peace through strength” forced on every US president by militarism. To back up his pledge of “peace through strength”, the Big Beautiful Bill Act added $150 billion to the annual budget of the Department of Defense. This means the US has a trillion dollar defense budget, and funds an industrial weapons monopoly that produces overpriced, exceptionally complex weapons, while promoting the sale and use of these weapons around the world. By any measure, the creation of an entity this destructive, is objectively insane.

US diplomatic and military history since WW2 is a history of unbridled war and bullying. Every day, President Trump seems to issue a new threat. But the world is changing. Economic power is shifting to the east and military power may be shifting as well. In this environment, “building the strongest military the world has ever seen” may no longer be economically and technologically feasible. The old tactics of bullying and threating war could backfire. Also, the power of the national security must somehow be managed. Could this “tug of war” explain the never ending “Trumpian chaos”? Some observers think it does, I have no idea.

Every US president who has tried to promote peace has faced pressure and opposition. First from Military Keynesianism to both sell and use up the weapons the weapons manufacturers produce. Next, from a National Security State that pressures every president to promote war, sell weapons, and promote US hegemony. We are witnessing massive personnel changes in DC, both in the military hierarchy, in the intelligence community, and now even at the Federal Reserve; but the goal of these changes is unclear, and the power of the national security state cannot be discounted. Take the example of John Bolton, National Security Advisor in the first Trump administration. Formerly untouchable, Bolton’s home and office were just raided by the FBI. Bolton is typical of the deep state warmongers who populate Washington DC. His advice to President Trump during Trump’s first term serves as an example of the warmongering militarism US presidents must deal with. This is from Bolton’s book: The Room Where It Happened.

From James Carden: “In the span of just several pages, Bolton recalls that at one time or another he has counseled Trump to launch a preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear program; scrap the Paris climate agreement; tear up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iranian nuclear deal); pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council; defund the UN Relief Works Agency; prepare a preemptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile program; and consider the idea of a sinister, conspiratorial link between Iran, North Korea, and Syria.”

Carden continues: “After a litany like this, one can’t help but recall MacGeorge Bundy’s observation about the hawkish Washington columnist Joseph Alsop, that he had “never known him to go to any area where blood could be spilled that he didn’t come back and say more blood. That is his posture toward the universe.”

Taking the President’s stated goal to be a “peacemaker “at face value, this essay examines the impact of US militarism on both the national debt and our society, looks at Trump’s claim to have ended 6 wars, and briefly examines the potential for peace given the ongoing wars and the prospect for new wars.

The cost of Militarism –the impact on the US national debt

According to up-to-date data from the US Treasury on the budget shortfall, the federal deficit in the United States for 2025, is $1,628,515,019,238. This number represents how much federal spending exceeded revenue for the last budget year. I am writing down the full number arithmetically so you can see the true size. The total US national debt now exceeds $37 trillion–that’s 37 plus 12 zeros! In 2024 debt service i.e. interest paid on the national debt toped 1 trillion for the first time in our history. These annual deficit numbers are greater than the Gross Domestic Product of most countries. The US finances this deficit by selling treasury securities. The ability to sell those securities, especially to foreigners, depends heavily on the dollar’s role as a global reserve currency, and on the US maintaining a strong economy.

There are three big ticket items in the federal budget that account for most of the spending: the cost of militarism, the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals, and beginning last year, the interest paid on the national debt. As Yogie Bera is claimed to have said: “if something can’t go on forever, it will stop.” What would the end of our ability to finance these budget deficits mean for the welfare of the people of our country? At best, a serious decline in our standard of living, at worst, hyperinflation, chaos and civil war.

If annual cost of the Department of Defense, over the last 80 years, is added to the cost of the wars the US has fought over that time, our current national debt represents the accumulated cost of this history of militarism and war. As discussed in several articles on this Substack, since the end of WW2 the US has been captured by militarism and has become economically dependent on military spending i.e. on “Military Keynesianism”. The societal cost, as represented by the decline of economic fairness, along with our growing economic and social dysfunction, has been documented on this Substack. The extreme concentration of wealth and power in the US (and the West) is a direct result of the triumph of militarism, along with neoliberalism (financialization), and the monopolization of the US economy. The resulting dysfunction is manifest at every level of our society, economic, social, legal, and psychological. Yet, sadly, despite the cost, blood lust, war, and greed, continues to dominate our government.

President Trump’s first 7 months

Air strikes: In the first seven months of his second term, Donald Trump has conducted 529 airstrikes in over 240 locations across the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. The exact number of countries targeted is not specified, but the airstrikes have been extensive, with a significant focus on regions like Yemen including the strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. This is almost as many air strikes as conducted by the Biden Administration in four years.

Most of these strikes targeted the “Iran-backed Houthis “known as Ansar Allah, a Zaydi Shia Islamist political and military group from Yemen that emerged in the 1990’s. Ansar Allah opposes the Yemen government; they control part of Yemen and have blocked Israeli access to the Red Sea in opposition to the Israeli genocide in Gaza. They are one of the few groups to actively oppose Israel, despite the cost.

Ending 6 wars: President Trump claims to have ended 6 wars in the last 7 months. For these efforts, he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump is actively lobbying the Nobel committee. Let’s examine each claim:

Egypt-Ethiopia: This goes back to Trump’s first term when the two countries were feuding over a huge hydropower dam. There was never a war nor a peace agreement over this issue.

India-Pakistan: Trump announced that the two nuclear power countries had reached a cease fire in May. India does not credit Trump with brokering the halt in the fighting.

The Congo and Rwanda: A treaty was announced by Trump in May, including opening the door to Western and US investment including potential access to certain minerals. Secretary of State Rubio was credited with bringing the parties together.

Cambodia-Thailand: Leaders of the two countries agreed to a ceasefire on July 28 after five deadly days of fighting, Reuters reported. Trump urged them to negotiate a ceasefire or else trade deals with the governments would stall.

Armenia-Azerbaijan: This one is complicated and potentially related to a new attack on Iran. The agreement includes what is called “The Trump Route”. This route splits Armenia and Azerbaijan and terminates on the border with Iran. The treaty gives the US exclusive development rights. This is not a move that will promote peace. Iran is opposed and the agreement would provide the US/NATO/Israel with access to both the Iranian border and the Caspian Sea, potentially destabilizing the entire area. Still, the two former Soviet republics and Trump signed a peace agreement at the White House on Aug. 8, ending a decades-long war. The leaders of the countries gave Trump ample praise for his efforts at the ceremony.

The sneak attack on Iran: In the boldest claim of all, Trump took credit for ending the 12-day war with Iran, a war he helped start! Trump announced on June 23 a ceasefire between the two countries after the U.S. joined Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear sites. I doubt that hostilities against Iran are over.

Ending The Ongoing Wars

Ukraine–Ending the Ukraine war in 1 day: There is zero evidence that the positions of either Russia or Ukraine have budged since the Alaska meeting on the 15th, or after the White House meeting with Zelensky and the 7 representatives of the EU on the 18th. The parties are still far apart, and the war will continue so long as the US and NATO continue to provide money, weapons, and targeting support to Ukraine. In a speech last Sunday marking Ukrainian independence, Zelensky pledged not to give up land for peace, and to reclaim Crimea by force. Regarding Russia, there were suggestions that maybe Putin will relent and not insist that Ukraine withdraw its forces from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson should Ukraine Russian withdraw from the Donbass, as a prelude to a ceasefire. Unfortunately, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, did not support this claim in a recent interview. At the White House meeting on the 18th, Zelensky reiterated his position that all territory, including Crimea must be returned to Ukraine, and Russia be forced to pay billions in reparations. This proposal will not end the war.

On August 7th Gallup published polling results showing that 69% of Ukrainians favored a “negotiated end to the war as soon as possible”. This is a radical change from 2022 when only 22% supported a negotiated end to the war.

For those of you interested in the history anti-Russian meddling by the CIA in Ukraine, I recommend an essay by Kit Klarenberg: “Declassified: The CIA’s Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan.” Without going into details, the article discusses the planning that went into promoting a civil war in Ukrainian, creating the conditions that forced Russia to intervene.

Perhaps the Alaska meeting was designed to defang or delay the demand by Senator Lindsey Graham that the US return to tariff and sanctions threats. These threats did not go over well with India, Brazil, and China.

Ukraine continues to be supported with money and arms. Ukraine has been promised long-range missiles from the US and NATO countries, assuming they are presently available for delivery. Ukraine has also been promised assistance in building missiles in Ukrainian. One missile factory was just destroyed by Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones and missiles have had some success in impacting oil supplies and prices within Russia with drone strikes. It is claimed that some of these drones may have been fired from Finland and/or the Balkans–dangerous if true.

Opening Communications with Russia: There are many reasons other than ending the Ukraine war for the US to reopen communications with Russia. Communications were completely cut off by the Biden Administration when the war began in February of 2022. Even in the height of the Cold War the US and Russia communicated with each other. Cutting off communications was dangerous and unnecessary.

One big reason for the US and Russia to communicate is the Artic and its resources. Remember, the US offered to buy Greenland and suggested that Canada become the 51ststate? Look at a map–if this were to happen, the US and Russia would share a border with the Arctic of almost equal size and would dominate the region. Right now, Russia is far ahead of the US in developing the Arctic’s potential. Russia has military bases there, oil fields, and operates very effective ice breakers giving her year-round access.

Then there are other resources and expertise Russia possesses. Rosatom has perfected the nuclear fuel cycle, meaning nuclear waste can be reprocessed and reused. Rosatom also builds advanced nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, China has built and is operating a Thorium molten salt reactor that will not melt down. If the US can partner with Russia, we can greatly expand our use of nuclear power.

Otherwise, there is little evidence of concrete change in the US/Russia relationship.

Israel–The ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank: All modern wars are horribly destructive and everything possible should be done to prevent them. One of the most unbearable conflicts today is the ongoing destruction of Gaza and the ongoing starving of two million Palestinian people, if many Palestinians still survive.

This war is a prime example of what money and unaccountable power can accomplish. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have been directly involved in supporting and facilitating this genocidal war, and in helping silence those who are opposed. Congressional delegations from both political parties traveled to Israel this summer and were photographed with Netanyahu. This is despite the fact that what is happening in Gaza represents one of the most monstrous misdeeds of Western imperialism in the 21st century.

Slowly the façade of “western civilization” is being removed, and we are being forced to acknowledge that this ongoing atrocity is the result of deliberate policy–a policy supported not only by Zionism, but by the US, the UK, and much of the EU. It reflects an imperial policy that has been in effect for a long time. As Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli explicitly statedin the 19th Century regarding the objective of the British Empire: “Gain and hold territories that possess the largest supplies of the basic raw materials. Establish naval bases around the world to control the sea and commerce lanes. Blockade and starve into submission any nation or group of nations that opposes this empire control program.”

Today, the Zionists of Israel, with the help of our government, are again using blockade and starvation as a weapon. The wealth and power of Zionist billionaires, including their ability to destroy anyone who dissents, has acted as a shield against accountability.

The destruction of the indigenous population of Palestine may be another step in recently reiterated plan for “Greater Israel”. The goal of “Greater Isreal” is to rule the Middle East and its energy resources on behalf of Zionist and Western interests. War with Iran is needed to take control of Iran’s oil as part of “the plan” to counter and control China. To achieve these goals, several million Palestinians must die or be relocated, Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia must be conquered, and their occupants expelled to be replaced by Zionists.

This sounds crazy but replacement is happening right now in the West Bank. 25 Jewish settlers from Canada and the U.S. arrived in the occupied Palestinian territories today, moving into homes and land taken from Palestinians. “Taken from” means that violence was used to steal Palestinian property without paying any compensation. After all, 93% of Palestine has been stolen from Palestinians since 1948 without one penny of compensation being paid to any of the Palestinians who owned the land and homes. This is what wealth and power permits–the ability to act with complete impunity.

The prospect for new wars

War with Iran: There are indications that the Israeli/US war against Iran could begin again at any time. President Trump has threatened war if Iran does not end its nuclear program. Iran has refused to do this. War with Iran is could envelope the entire Middle East.

There were recent reports of Israel wanting to launch a preemptive war against Iran–with US weapons and support, of course. Israeli Colonel Jacques Neriah, a former intelligence official and a special analyst for the Middle East, warned on Sunday of an impending “second round” of war against Iran as Tehran weighs a revenge attack on Tel Aviv. “There is a sense that a war is coming, that Iranian revenge is in the works. The Iranians will not be able to live with this humiliation for long,” Neriah told Udi Segal and Anat Davidov on 103FM.

“Israel must launch a preemptive strike against Iran in its present state, as a large part of its military capabilities is paralyzed,” he added.

Let’s recall the events of the 12-day war that Israel started. Israel launched a sneak attack, while Iran was engaged in peace negotiations with the US. The sneak attack was designed to assassinate the entire Iranian civilian and military leadership–a decapitation strike that almost succeeded. Now, Israel wants the US to go to war with Iran to finish Iran’s destruction. Given Zionist power in the US, Israel may successfully goad the US into another war. After all, the US has been fighting Israel’s wars in the Middle East since 911. These are wars of choice, based on lies, that destabilized the Middle East, killed millions, caused in thousands of US casualties, and added trillions to our national debt. Why would the US fight another war for Israel?

Wars in this hemisphere: The Trump Administration has taken 2 actions that could lead to war in this hemisphere. This includes a possible war against Venezuela, or strikes against drug cartels in countries like Mexico, Columbia, and Venezuela.

Drug cartels: President Trump has signed a directive on the use of military force against drug cartels. Here’s the New York Times: “President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations, according to people familiar with the matter.”

“The decision to bring the American military into the fight is the most aggressive step so far in the administration’s escalating campaign against the cartels. It signals Mr. Trump’s continued willingness to use military forces to carry out what has primarily been considered a law enforcement responsibility to curb the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs.”

“The order provides an official basis for the possibility of direct military operations at sea and on foreign soil against cartels.”

“U.S. military officials have started drawing up options for how the military could go after the groups, the people familiar with the conversations said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations.”

War with Venezuela: The Trump Administration has placed a $50 million reward for the arrest of the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and sent a flotilla of ships to threaten the county. President Trump last week ordered at least three Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers, a submarine and other assets to head towards Venezuela. Earlier this week Reuters also reported that, in addition to the destroyers, 4,000 marines aboard an Amphibious Ready Group were also sent.

The US has been at odds with Venezuela for decades, and has supported coups and other regime change efforts, first against Hugo Chavez, and now against Nicholas Maduro. The cause is a wave of nationalizations of the oil industry and sanctions, resulting in defaults and the US seizing Venezuelan assets, including Citgo. The US has also supported various “governments in exile” using confiscated Venezuelan assets. One government in exile was headed by Juan Guaidó. The asset confiscation and debt defaults amount to over $18 billion. Bids are being taken now for a forced sale of Citgo.

Meanwhile, Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on earth totaling 303 billion barrels, larger that Saudi Arabia at 267 barrels. US refiners are optimized to use this heavy crude; they need and continue to buy Venezuelan crude. US refiners, working for years with Citgo and Venezuela, spent billions on refineries to process this crude. The sanctions the US imposed on Venezuela has hurt margins because alternatives from Canada and Mexico do not work as well in these refineries. Venezuelan crude is a strategic asset for US refiners. These refiners include some of the largest oil companies in the world.

It is difficult to understand why this flotilla of war ships, along with marines, are being sent to Venezuela given the success of recent diplomatic negotiations that resulted in the resumption of the oil trade. This resumption marks a significant shift in bilateral energy relations after years of sanctions and restricted trade, and has created a pathway for Venezuelan oil tankers to once again deliver their cargo to U.S. refineries. Venezuelan crude is on its way to the US–why does the US need to go to war with Venezuela?

Conclusion

So far there is no peace and not much unity. Ongoing wars have not been ended, and several countries face new threats of war. At some point the people of the United States will have to step in and impose sanity on the warmongers if we are to survive as a nation. This Substack has spent the last 5 months outlining how neoliberalism, militarism, and monopolization has so concentrated wealth and power that most people can no longer afford the cost of living. Our emphasis should be on restoring economic fairness and opportunity, not starting a world war. War is no longer a realistic option and our emphasis on militarism increasingly represents a waste of precious assets. Modern war holds the potential to destroy civilization itself. I keep saying–drive around and imagine bombs exploding all around you–this will happen unless we come to our senses as a nation.

The President of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, has discussed his dealings with 4 US Presidents since 2000. President Putin reported that while the US president changed, the foreign policy of the US did not. Worse, President Putin reported that every US president he dealt with was unable to carry out the agreements they reached after returning to the US.

Perhaps this is because the decision to go to war with Russia was made well before the Maidan coup of February 2014 and western warmongers were waiting for the opportunity to go to war with Russia? Well, they have had their opportunity. As a result of the Ukraine war, the West has forced Russia, once again, to become a great power with global reach. Unlike the US and the West, Russia has the resources and the industrial capacity to sustain a war economy.

The goal of western militarism was outlined by the Rand Corporation in 2019–to overextend and unbalance Russia. While this has yet to happen to Russia, the West now seems overextended and unbalanced. Meanwhile, Russia continues to increase her industrial capacity. This Russophobic hatred of Russia has damaged the economies of the European community, yet the leaders of Europe’s largest economies refuse to demand a peaceful solution to the war in Ukraine.

If the oil reserves of Russia, Iran, Venezuela and the arctic are added together, the outlines of a plan to control the world economy and sustain US hegemony becomes clear. Given the growing power of Russia and China, the US and the West appear to have lost the opportunity to achieve such a plan.

There are other dangerous considerations at work that demand peace. The US is running dangerously low on stockpiles of vital conventional weapons. This could limit US options for conventional war. The lack of conventional weapons could lead to the use of nuclear weapons–not by Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela–but by the United States and/or Israel. This means that the risk of nuclear war is currently greater than most people realize. It is time for peace to prevail. Is President Trump serious about peace? Does Trump, or any US President, have the power to make peace? We are about to find out.

Brian McDonald: Power of Siberia 2: the EU’s greatest self-own

By Brian McDonald, Substack, 9/3/25

There are moments in history when you can almost hear the hinge creak and Tuesday’s news that Russia and China have finally signed a binding agreement on the Power of Siberia 2 (a 50 billion cubic metre pipeline through Mongolia carrying Arctic gas eastward) is one of them.

Unlike the existing line out of Irkutsk, which feeds off reserves to the north of Mongolia, this new artery will carry the Yamal fields, the same gas that helped keep Germany’s factories humming for half a century. What once fuelled Western Europe’s rise will now stoke Beijing’s ambitions as a scheme long stalled by Chinese wariness suddenly becomes reality. Maybe Beijing has finally decided to heed its own ancient proverb: distant water cannot quench a nearby thirst.

Putin, closing out his China trip on Wednesday, underlined the point. Gas through Power of Siberia 2, he said, will be sold at market rates, with no “friendship discounts” for Beijing, whatever the Western press insists. Of course, “market rates” in Beijing’s lexicon are a different animal and the Chinese will try to drive them down toward their own domestic benchmarks.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much the map tilts with this shift, because for decades Russian gas was the bedrock of Germany’s might as an exporter and the hidden muscle that gave Western Europe its edge. For example, this fuel ran at an average of €13–22 per megawatt hour in the last “normal years” of 2018 and 2019. By contrast, in the first half of this year, the same benchmark was €41. Brussels can roar about values and thunder on about sanctions till its lungs give out, but numbers don’t bend to rhetoric.

Nevertheless, the sceptics have a point because fifty billion cubic metres is a sliver beside the 150-odd bcm Gazprom used to pump west each year. China won’t fill the EU’s shoes overnight, but the real shift here is in leverage. Western Europe has lost not just the gas but its standing as Moscow’s anchor customer and that mantle now slips easily to Beijing; on terms Berlin would have killed for. It’s another old proverb brought to life: hoist a rock in rage, only to let it fall on your own foot.

None of this means the deal is a bonanza for Russia because, in an ideal world, its companies would have sold to both east and west, playing them off to drive up returns. The EU’s decision to tear up that balance means Moscow forfeits income; but it loses far less than Western Europe does. For Russia, Power of Siberia 2 offers stability: a guaranteed outlet, even if the prices end up being close to Chinese domestic levels. For Western Europe, the outcome is instability: with higher bills, weaker security of supply, and vulnerability to every winter storm or accident that might close an LNG port in Texas or Qatar.

Even with the advent of Power of Siberia 2, Russia will sell in total about 106 bcm a year to China; still a long way shy of the 150–160 bcm Western Europe once bought. While European countries always paid premium prices, China drives harder bargains so the new project simply won’t bring the profits the old westward flows once did.

Bloomberg put it plainly on Wednesday: the pipeline “will turn the global LNG market upside down” and imperil Washington’s dreams of global energy dominance. If Chinese demand winds up being met by fixed Russian volumes, that will mean up to 40 million tonnes of LNG Beijing will no longer require; half of last year’s imports, although that remains a projection. It is hard to overstate the significance for US exporters, who had counted on China as their growth market.

Of course, the timing’s no accident here given Trump has swung around tariffs like a golf club while Xi has answered in kind, slapping levies on American LNG. And while the White House fumes, Beijing openly takes delivery of its first cargo from Russia’s sanctioned Arctic LNG-2; a move as brazen as it is calculated. China realises that betting on tankers through the Strait of Hormuz is gambling on a choke point the US Navy could close at any moment. And if there’s a fight over Taiwan, that artery will get cut, which leaves only one supplier able to promise steady lifeblood: Russia, with its pipelines over land and its immense reserves.

That truth has finally outweighed Beijing’s old nerves about leaning too heavily on Moscow, and leaving itself vulnerable to any political changes in the Kremlin. Something obviously altered the calculation, maybe it was Brussels’ latest lectures or perhaps Trump’s renewed threats but either way, EU leverage has drained away, and China walks off with a hell of a deal.

And here’s the bitterest irony: a project that started with Willy Brandt in the 1960s (Ostpolitik, the dream of tying East and West together by trade) now lies dead in the ditch. What’s left now is a cut-down continent, severed from the eastern pipe that kept its factories competitive, run by leaders who’d rather wave their fists than accept the facts staring them in the face. Moscow, by contrast, has read the weather and understands that when the wind shifts, you’re better off erecting windmills rather than stacking up sandbags.

And when you look at the frontline players today it can only make you wonder how a region which has produced some of humanity’s greatest ended up with this lightweight bunch of leaders. Von der Leyen, Macron and Merz talk like knights on a crusade but as most of Western Europe’s economies struggle, all they’ve achieved is spiralling costs and a half-continent shackled to LNG at twice the price

While Beijing quietly inks its contracts, Brussels keeps itself busy with morality plays. And nobody’s bills get lighter for all the posturing. Like an old man yelling at a cloud, to borrow a famous Simpsons’ line.

The EU has managed to pull off one of the greatest self-owns you could ever imagine. It’s tossed away the thing that carried its post-war prosperity; the quiet certainty that tomorrow’s power would be there, steady and affordable, same as today’s. That assurance has now crossed to Beijing and it’ll be only when the lights stutter, or bills climb higher, that Western Europeans feel the weight of what their leaders cast overboard in zeal.

Kit Klarenberg: How ‘Human Rights’ Became Western Weapon

By Kit Klarenberg, Substack, 8/25/25

All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the enormous generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please  click this link .

August 1st marked the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords’ inking. The event’s golden jubilee passed without much in the way of mainstream comment, or recognition. Yet, the date was absolutely seismic, its destructive consequences reverberating today throughout Europe and beyond. The Accords not only signed the death warrants of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia years later, but created a new global dynamic, in which “human rights” – specifically, a Western-centric and -enforced conception thereof – became a redoubtable weapon in the Empire’s arsenal.

The Accords were formally concerned with concretising détente between the US and Soviet Union. Under their terms, in return for recognition of the latter’s political influence over Central and Eastern Europe, Moscow and its Warsaw Pact satellites agreed to uphold a definition of “human rights” concerned exclusively with political freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, expression, information, and movement. Protections universally enjoyed by the Eastern Bloc’s inhabitants – such as free education, employment, housing and more – were wholly absent from this taxonomy.

Helmut Schmidt, Erich Honecker, and Gerald Ford sign the Helsinki Accords

There was another catch. The Accords led to the creation of several Western organisations charged with monitoring the Eastern Bloc’s adherence to their terms – including Helsinki Watch, forerunner of Human Rights Watch. Subsequently, these entities frequently visited the region and forged intimate bonds with local political dissident factions, assisting them in their anti-government agitation. There was no question of representatives from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, or Yugoslavia being invited to assess “human rights” compliance at home or abroad by the US and its vassals.

As legal scholar Samuel Moyn has extensively documented, the Accords played a pivotal role in decisively shifting mainstream rights discourse away from any and all economic or social considerations. More gravely, per Moyn, “the idea of human rights” was converted “into a warrant for shaming state oppressors.” Resultantly, Western imperialist brutality against purported foreign rights abusers – including sanctions, destabilisation campaigns, coups, and outright military intervention – could be justified, frequently assisted by the ostensibly neutral findings of “human rights” defenders such as Amnesty International, and HRW.

Almost instantly after the Helsinki Accords were signed, a welter of organisations sprouted throughout the Eastern Bloc to document purported violations by authorities. Their findings were then fed – often surreptitiously – to overseas embassies and rights groups, for international amplification. This contributed significantly to both internal and external pressure on the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia. Mainstream accounts assert the conception of these dissident groups was entirely spontaneous and organic, in turn compelling Western support for their pioneering efforts.

US lawmaker Dante Fascell has claimed the “demands” of “intrepid” Soviet citizens “made us respond.” However, there are unambiguous indications meddling in the Eastern Bloc was hardwired into Helsinki before inception. In late June 1975, on the eve of US President Gerald Ford signing the Accords, exiled Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn addressed senior politicians in Washington, DC. He appeared at the express invitation of hardcore anti-Communist George Meany, chief of the CIA-connected American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Solzhenitsyn declared:

“We, the dissidents of the USSR don’t have any tanks, we don’t have any weapons, we have no organization. We don’t have anything…You are the allies of our liberation movement in the Communist countries…Communist leaders say, ‘Don’t interfere in our internal affairs’…But I tell you: interfere more and more. Interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.”

‘Political Aberration’

In 1980, mass strikes in Gdansk, Poland spread throughout the country, leading to the founding of Solidarity, an independent trade union and social movement. Key among its demands was the Soviet-supported Polish government distribute 50,000 copies of Helsinki’s “human rights” protocols to the wider public. Solidarity founder-and-chief Lech Walesa subsequently referred to the Accords as a “turning point”, enabling and encouraging the union’s nationwide disruption, and growth into a serious political force. Within just a year, Solidarity’s membership exceeded over 10 million.

Lech Walesa addresses Polish workers in Gdansk, August 1980

The movement’s inexorable rise sent shockwaves throughout the Warsaw Pact. It was the first time an independent mass organisation had formed in a Soviet-aligned state, and others would soon follow. Undisclosed at the time, and largely unknown today, Solidarity’s activities were bankrolled to the tune of millions by the US government. The same was true of most prominent Eastern Bloc dissident groups, such as Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77. In many cases, these factions not only ousted their rulers by the decade’s end, but formed governments thereafter.

Washington’s financing for these efforts became codified in a secret September 1982 National Security Directive. It stated “the primary long-term US goal in Eastern Europe” was “to loosen the Soviet hold over the region and thereby facilitate its eventual reintegration into the European community of nations.” This was to be achieved by; “encouraging more liberal trends in the region…reinforcing the pro-Western orientation of their peoples…lessening their economic and political dependence on the USSR…facilitating their association with the free nations of Western Europe.”

In August 1989, mere days after Solidarity took power in Poland, marking the first post-World War II formation of a non-Communist government in the Eastern Bloc, a remarkable op-ed appeared in the Washington Post. Senior AFL-CIO figure Adrian Karatnycky wrote about his “unrestrained joy and admiration” over Solidarity’s “stunning” success in purging Soviet influence in the country throughout the 1980s. The movement was the “centerpiece” of a wider US “strategy”, he revealed, having been funded and supported by Washington with the utmost “discretion and secrecy.”

Vast sums funnelled to Solidarity via AFL-CIO and CIA front the National Endowment for Democracy “underwrote shipments of scores of printing presses, dozens of computers, hundreds of mimeograph machines, thousands of gallons of printer’s ink, hundreds of thousands of stencils, video cameras and radio broadcasting equipment.” The wellspring promoted Solidarity’s activities locally and internationally. In Poland itself, 400 “underground periodicals” – including comic books featuring “Communism as the red dragon” and Lech Walesa “as the heroic knight” – were published, read by tens of thousands of people.

Karatnycky boasted of how the Empire was intimately “drawn into the daily drama of Poland’s struggle” over the past decade, and “much of the story of that struggle and our role in it will have to be told another day.” Still, the results were extraordinary. Writers for Warsaw’s NED-funded “clandestine press” had suddenly been transformed into “editors and reporters for Poland’s new independent newspapers.” Former “radio pirates” and Solidarity activists previously “hounded” by Communist authorities were now elected lawmakers.

Signing off, Karatnycky hailed how Poland proved to be a “successful laboratory in democracy-building,” warning “democratic change” in Warsaw could not be a “a political aberration” or “lone example” in the region. Karatnycky looked ahead to further neighbourhood insurrection, noting AFL-CIO was engaged in outreach with trade unions elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc, including the Soviet Union itself. So it was, one by one, every Warsaw Pact government collapsed in the final months of 1989, often in enigmatic circumstances.

‘Shock Therapy’

The “revolutions” of 1989 remain venerated in the mainstream today, hailed as examples of successful, largely bloodless transitions from dictatorship to democracy. They have also served as a template and justification for US imperialism of every variety in the name of “human rights” in all corners of the globe since. Yet, for many at the forefront of Western-funded, Helsinki Accords-inspired Warsaw Pact dissident groups, there was an extremely bitter twist in the tale of Communism’s collapse across Central and Eastern Europe.

In 1981, Czechoslovak playwright and Charter 77 spokesperson Zdena Tominová conducted a tour of the West. In a speech in Dublin, Ireland, she spoke of how she’d witnessed first-hand how her country’s population had benefited enormously from Communism. Tominová made clear she sought to fully maintain all its public-wide economic and social benefits, while purely adopting Western-style political freedoms. Given she’d risked imprisonment to oppose her government with foreign help so publicly, her statements shocked audiences.

“All of a sudden, I was not underprivileged and could do everything,” she sentimentally recalled of the eradication of Czechoslovakia’s class system. “I think that, if this world has a future, it is as a socialist society…a society where nobody has priorities just because he happens to come from a rich family,” Tominová declared. She moreover reiterated her vision and mission was global in nature – “the world of social justice for all people has to come about.” But this was not to be.

Czechoslovakia’s late 1989 ‘Velvet Revolution’

Instead, newly ‘liberated’ ex-Eastern Bloc countries suffered deeply ravaging transitions to capitalism via “shock therapy”, eradicating much citizens held dear about the systems under which they’d previously lived. Thrust into a wholly new world, hitherto unknown homelessness, hunger, inequality, unemployment and other societal ills became commonplace, rather than prevented by basic state guarantee. After all, as decreed by the Helsinki Accords, such phenomena didn’t constitute egregious “human rights” breaches, but instead an unavoidable product of the very political “freedom” they had aggressively promoted.

RT: China cooperation, Ukraine conflict, and potential meeting with Zelensky: Key takeaways from Putin’s Q&A session

RT, 9/3/25

Russian President Vladimir Putin has concluded his four-day visit to China. Ahead of his departure on Wednesday, he held a major Q&A session, speaking to the media on a broad range of topics, including bilateral ties with Beijing, the potential settlement of the Ukraine conflict, international security architecture.

Here are the key takeaways from the press conference:

‘Very useful’ visit

The visit, which was the longest foreign trip for the Russian leader since 2014, combined multiple high-profile events and informal meetings with different leaders. Putin said the format had proven to be “very useful,” not only “good for meeting at the negotiating table but, more importantly, for holding many informal discussions on any issue of mutual interest in an informal and friendly atmosphere.”

“So, when we planned my visit, we did it so as to avoid moving a long distance many times. I would like to remind you that the schedule included the SCO summit, a trilateral Russia-Mongolia-China meeting, and a visit to the People’s Republic of China proper,” Putin told reporters.

Power of Siberia 2 pipeline

China and Russia have reached an agreement on the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, concluding years of talks on the major project, Putin said. The resulting deal on the 50 billion cubic meter per year pipeline has left everyone “satisfied” and “pleased,” according to the Russian president. 

“This is not charity – we’re talking about mutually beneficial agreements based on market principles,” he stressed.

End of Ukraine conflict in sight?

The potential settlement of the enduring conflict between Russia and Ukraine might have drawn closer thanks to the position of the US, Putin said. President Donald Trump and his administration appear to have a “genuine desire to find the solution,” he noted.

“I think there is a certain light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s see how the situation develops. If not, then we will have to achieve all the goals set before us by force,” the Russian president said.

West shifting responsibility for Ukraine conflict

Asked about recent hostile remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who called the Russian president a “war criminal,” Putin said it was merely a part of the strategy to shift western responsibility for the Ukraine conflict.

“I think that [Merz’s remark] was an unsuccessful attempt to absolve himself, maybe not himself personally, but his country and the collective West… of the responsibility for the tragedy that is currently unfolding in Ukraine,” Putin stated, adding that the Western European nations have been pushing the situation towards an armed conflict for a decade by “completely ignoring Russia’s security interests.” 

Putin ready to meet Zelensky

The Russian president reiterated his readiness to meet Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. However, he once again underlined Moscow’s concern that Zelensky lacks legitimacy and questioned whether meeting him would actually be “meaningful.” 

“It’s a path to nowhere, to just meet, let’s put it carefully, the de-facto head of the [Ukrainian] administration. It’s possible, I’ve never refused to if such a meeting is well-prepared and would lead to some potential positive results,” Putin said. “If Zelensky is ready, he can come to Moscow, and such a meeting will take place.” 

On security guarantees

Putin dismissed rumors of discussions about “security guarantees” for Ukraine in exchange for ceding territories it claims as its own. The territorial issue was never the priority for Moscow, the Russian leader said. The special military operation has been a fight for “human rights, for the right of the people who live in these territories to speak their native tongue and live according to their culture and traditions,” the president stressed. 

“Security guarantees are natural, I often talk about this. We proceed from the fact that any country should have these guarantees and a security system, and Ukraine is no exception. But this is not connected with any exchanges, especially with territorial exchanges,” Putin explained.

***

Vladimir Putin answered media questions

Go to Kremlin website to see full transcript.

Matt Taibbi: Exclusive: For Some, Russiagate Never Ended

By Matt Taibbi, Substack, 8/28/25

Judicial Watch today [August 28th] announced lawsuits filed against the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), for failure to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests in the case of longtime Donald Trump adviser Michael Caputo. For those who think Russiagate as ancient history, welcome to its second chapter, about Biden-era surveillance:

Judicial Watch submitted the requests in response to information that Caputo’s email was the subject of a secret search warrant of his Google email account in September 2023, three weeks after he began working for the Trump 2024 presidential campaign…

“The evidence shows that the Biden FBI and Justice Department were spying on the Trump campaign. Caputo used his emails to help devise strategy for the Trump campaign, and the Biden gang was rooting through it all!” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The lawsuits show that the lawfare and spying against Trump was only paused. These records can’t be released soon enough.”

Earlier this summer, after FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard began releasing documents exposing the original Russiagate probe as the product of manipulated intelligence and alleging a “treasonous conspiracy,” critics dismissed the matter as old news. Russiagate never ended for some, however.

Not only did Patel, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Regulatory Czar Jeff Clark all receive notices informing them of email monitoring from the last election cycle, but at least one longtime Trump aide is still under investigation by the administration he worked to elect.

A notice from Google in March told Caputo he’d been monitored by the FBI since September, 2023, weeks after he agreed to take on “Weaponization of Government” issues for the 2024 Trump campaign. In addition to Patel, Scavino, Clark, and himself, Caputo describes six other colleagues in a similar position. “If I know if there are ten, there are fifty,” says the garrulous Buffalo native with a radio voice. “The one thing I’m sure of is, I don’t know everything.”

Caputo hopes his lawsuit and efforts to get his case closed will jog something loose, from enforcement agencies he still doesn’t trust. “I think Kash and Dan and Tulsi have really big fish to fry,” Caputo says, “But the reason I’m bringing it up now is because my family has had enough. I want them to leave my family alone.”

The devout Catholic who nearly died of cancer during the scandal speaks of the original investigators as a spiritual horror. “These people,” he says, “are demons.”

The nightmare began on March 20, 2017. Caputo was in Moscow of all places, on a trip for his consulting business, staying at the Metropol hotel made famous by Master and Margarita author Mikhail Bulgakov. In the evening, a well-known American reporter called his cell.

“She said, ‘Michael, what the hell is this?’” Caputo recalls. “I said, ‘What do you mean?’ She said, ‘You just got name-checked in a House Intelligence Committee hearing by James Comey for being too close to Russia.’ I asked if she was kidding. She said, ‘I’m not kidding, where are you?’ I said, ‘Why do you need to know?’”

Caputo knew his life was about to be turned upside down. The Trump-Russia controversy was white-hot then. Four intelligence agencies concluded Russia meddled with the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. From there, the heads of anyone with even fleeting ties to Russia began rolling. National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign after reported contact with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself from Russia matters. And Caputo didn’t know it, but Comey that day just announced the existence of an FBI investigation into Trump’s “links” to Russia in hearings led by California congressman and Russia-hunter-in-chief, Adam Schiff.

Walking outside, Caputo found himself at the foot the Kremlin, a stone’s throw from the Metropol, staring at its red brick. He thought of his family and felt ill. “I lean over with both my hands on the wall, and I vomited all over the wall,” he recalls. “I’m thinking, ‘Oh God, oh God.’ I was retching for two or three minutes.” He got up, tried to clear his head, and ducked into a nearby Western bar to clean himself up. Before he could get to a bathroom, he saw a man at the bar staring at him. “I look at him, and he points at the bar TV. My face is on the TV.”

The critical exchange in Congress involved an exchange between California Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Comey.

“All right, let’s move on to someone else in that web,” the Bay Area’s Speier said. “His name is Michael Caputo. He’s a PR professional, conservative radio talk show host. In 1994, he moved to Russia… In 2000 he worked with Gazprom-Media to improve [President Vladimir] Putin’s image in the United States.” She paused. “Do you know anything about Gazprom, Director?”

“I don’t,” the head of America’s top counterintelligence agency said about the world’s largest natural gas company, and Russia’s largest company. Completing the ignorance loop, Speier incorrectly explained, “Well, it’s an oil company,” then went on.

“What possible reason would the Trump campaign have for hiring Putin’s image consultant? No thoughts on that, Director?”

“No thoughts.”

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embe...

About Caputo as “Putin’s image consultant”: in Caputo’s defense, Putin at the turn of the century wasn’t a full-blown villain in the American diplomatic community. Ex-Ambassador to Russia and leading Russiagate finger-wagger Michael McFaul at the time lauded Putin as a “bright counter” to the gloomy international picture. Future Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland called him a “kindler, gentler sort of Kremlin chief,” welcoming his “quick pat” to her “third-trimester belly.” Even Bill Clinton declared Putin a “man we can do business with.” Only the dwindling independent Russian press absolutely recoiled from him.

Like me, Caputo worked in Russia through the nineties and early 2000s. When we met, he was working on “democratization” projects in the Yeltsin years with USAID-funded organizations like the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, along with groups like the International Republican Institute (IRI), helping launch a Russian version of the “Rock the Vote” campaign.

He was also part of an expensive group U.S. effort to get Yeltsin re-elected, one eventually memorialized in headlines like “Yanks to the Rescue!” in Time and in Hollywood movies like the Jeff Goldblum/Lieb Schrieber vehicle Spinning Boris. “I was part of the original meddling team,” Caputo laughs. He recalls that meetings on that subject were also often attended both by high-level Democrats who’d later become leading Russiagate torch-bearers, and a translator named Konstantin Kilimnik. A 2020 Senate Intelligence Report would later allege that working with Kilimnik was “what collusion looks like.”

Caputo’s life went downhill quickly after that night in Moscow. He and friend Roger Stone would co-earn their own chapter in the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, under the heading, “Other Potential Campaign Interest in Russian Hacked Materials.” History unfolded differently, but the header should have read, “FBI Informants Offering Russian Aid to Trump Figures Without Success.”

In May, 2016, months before the official opening of the Trump-Russia investigation, a mysterious stranger named Henry Greenberg approached a partner in his business, Zeppelin Communications, in May of 2016, asking if they would do PR for his restaurant. It turned out he didn’t want PR for his restaurant at all ( it was never built, according to a Miami Herald article), just an introduction to Caputo’s friend Roger Stone. “Henry Greenberg” was really Henry Oknyansky, a.k.a. Gennady Arzhanik, a.k.a. Gennady Vorovtsov, a career criminal who by his own admission was also an informant for both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security:

“Henry Greenberg” explains his service to the FBI and DHS

A satirist couldn’t have invented this footnote character to the Mueller report. In 1993, while still in Russia, Greenberg-Oknyansky-Vorovstov posed as Gennady Arzhanik, the son of a Soviet war hero, Admiral Vasily Arzhanik. Using this identity, he induced a company called FinInTorg to fork over about $2.7 million for a shipment of canned goods. The moment money was transferred, he swiped it, then fled to America. In a 2002 article, Russia’s Kommersant Daily described him as having been “a fugitive from national and international justice for more than six years,” suspected in the theft of “over $50 million.”

This is the person who asked Caputo to introduce him to Roger Stone, in order to pitch a deal: information about Hillary Clinton laundering money, for $2 million. Stone asked how much money Hillary allegedly laundered. “Hundreds of thousands,” answered Greenberg/Oknyansky. “That isn’t much money,” laughed Stone. Greenberg reportedly said it wasn’t Stone’s money he wanted, but Trump’s. Mueller wrote that Stone “refused the offer, stating that Trump would not pay for opposition research.” The Special Counsel wasn’t impressed with the episode, saying it “did not identify evidence of a connection between the outreach… and Russian interference efforts.”

Mueller left out the detail about Greenberg’s history as a federal informant. Sort-of Russians with vague government or party ties offering dirt on Clinton to Trumpworld figures would be a consistent theme in the scandal. Registered FBI informant Felix Sater suggested that Trump attorney Michael Cohen push for a hotel deal in Moscow. Donald Trump, Jr.’s meeting with Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya in search of information on Clinton was “at long last, the smoking gun,” according to the Los Angeles Times, but even NBC’s Ken Dilanian was later forced to consider the episode in a “new light” after it emerged that the information Veselnitskaya offered came from the P.R. firm Clinton hired, Fusion-GPS.

Stefan Halper, another FBI asset, nudged Trumpworld figures like Carter Page with provocative suggestions, like one to seek Russian funding: “I imagine you could probably find funds” and “you could do alright there” and my favorite, “Nobody needs to know exactly where it’s from”:

FBI informant Stefan Halper (CHS) pushes Carter Page (“Crossfire Dragon”) to seek Russian funding

George Papadopoulos, sold in the papers like the New York Times as the Patient Zero of Russiagate, had an experience similar to Caputo’s. He was approached out of the blue by a mysterious Maltese professor named Josef Mifsud, who made extravagant claims about access to Russian information. Papadopoulos ended up a national villain just for mentioning the story to an Australian diplomat, who quickly fed the story to American authorities, after which the FBI’s “Crossfiure Hurricane” probe was officially announced on July 31, 2016. Like Caputo, Papadopoulos is convinced he was set up, and that only the release of records about American cooperation with foreign governments like our main “Five Eyes” partners (the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) will clarify who Mifsud was and why he was approached.

“I’m not mad that this has not been revealed yet, because I believe it will be,” Papadopoulos says now. “Recent trips by Gabbard and Patel to the UK and Australia signal that there is momentum towards this transparency.” Sources have told me the Trump administration is indeed making inquiries to some of those countries about older communications involving Russiagate.

When the story of Caputo’s interaction with Greenberg became public, the question the press should have been asking is how and why an FBI informant was trying to sell Trump aides information in May of 2016, or why another FBI informant in Halper was “ingratiating himself” to Page at a London symposium on July 12th, when the FBI investigation didn’t begin until July 31st, ostensibly because of Papadopoulos. Instead, Papadopoulos became a New York Times cover subject, and Caputo and Stone were denounced for failing to mention Greenberg when the House Intelligence Committee asked if he’d been approached by any Russians during the campaign.

California Congressman Eric Swalwell zeroed in on this testimony, telling Yahoo! reporter Michael Isikoff that Caputo and Stone “lied through their teeth,” to “protect the fact that they were willing and eager to take a meeting with Russians” — Russians, plural — “who were offering dirt.” He added Stone was “communicating with individuals associated with the Russian hacks.” There was never evidence that Greenberg had real restaurant plans, let alone connections to Russian intelligence. Asked this week which “individuals” were “associated with Russian hacks” and how he knew that, Swalwell didn’t reply.

In 2019 Caputo — whose wife is Ukrainian — produced a documentary called, “The Ukraine Hoax.” The film, which Caputo insists was a low-budget affair funded via his attorney with “no Russian money for obvious reasons,” was made with a few key points in mind. Though it criticized the Trump impeachment over a call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as baseless, its main message was historical. “I made a movie about how we’re going to go to war and we better watch out,” he says.

The film also dug into the Hunter Biden-Burisma story, with one scene even showing Caputo standing in front of Burisma’s offices. It aired on One America News (OAN) a day after Joe Biden’s inauguration, on January 21, 2021, and is still up on Rumble:

Caputo in front of Burisma

Caputo’s plan was to have the movie run, do a publicity tour, then publish a book. “Covid hit and the plan was scrapped,” says Caputo. The book was eventually published, but in March, 2020, Caputo joined Trump’s government, working for the Department of Health and Human Services as a spokesperson at the outset of the pandemic. Within six months he was diagnosed with head and neck cancer. “Russiagate almost killed me,” he said. “It was 100% stress.”

Caputo stepped away from government. Government didn’t return the favor. On March 16, 2021, a few months into Biden’s presidency, the Director of National Intelligence released a National Intelligence Council report that identified “The Ukraine Hoax” as a product of the Russian Secret Services, by way of Ukrainian parliamentary member Andrei Derkach and the selfsame Kilimnik, with whom Caputo says he never got along, even when they were co-workers at the International Republican Institute in the nineties. “He wouldn’t buy me a drink in a bar in the nineties,” Caputo says. The key passage reads:

Derkach, Kilimnik, and their associates sought to use prominent US persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to US officials and audiences… They also made contact with established US media figures and helped produce a documentary that aired on a US television network in late January 2020.

The next day, March 17, 2021, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty identified Caputo as the subject of the report. Neither the NIC nor any of the media treatments explained what the basis was for connecting Caputo’s film and Derkach, Kilimnik, or Russia.

Two years later, considerably thinner but recovered, Caputo decided to re-unite with Trump and join his second re-election campaign. Asked what he’d like to work on, Caputo didn’t hesitate. Stung by the 2016 experience, he sent a memo on August 4th, 2023, headed, “SUBJECT: DIRECTING WEAPONIZATION REFORM.” He wrote to the campaign leadership:

This memorandum outlines a campaign strategy to develop and execute federal government reform policy, focused on transformation of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and more.

Five weeks later, on August 21, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s office in the District of Columbia issued a classified subpoena to Google, demanding access to Caputo’s emails, subscriber information, billing and finacial information (including Google wallet), VOIP calls, data transfer volumes, and other records. He didn’t find out about this until March 18, 2025. In another preposterous plot-twist, he was by that time himself an advisor to the new U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia, Ed Martin.

“I actually was notified that this was an investigation initiated by the US attorney in the District of Columbia while sitting in the office of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia,” he recalls.

The classification on Caputo’s subpoena tolled, so like Patel, Scavino, and Clark, Caputo received a notice from the company informing him his data had been collected.

Across the years, a huge range of people connected to Russiagate received similar notices. Congressional investigators on both sides of the scandal were monitored in leak investigations, from Senate staff looking into Russiagate’s origins like former Judiciary Committee Counsel Jason Foster to members of Congress like Swalwell and Adam Schiff, who were pushing the probe in the opposite direction. Mueller targets like Rick Gates, too, received Google notices post-factum, and figures like Page and Paul Manafort were monitored under FISA.

Even Tucker Carlson appeared victim to the not-uncommon Russiagate cocktail of “incidental” FISA collection and media leaks, when Axios in 2021 reported he was “talking to U.S.-based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Vladimir Putin.” The amusing source: “People familiar with the conversations.” A later story by Charlie Savage of the New York Times hypothesized that the NSA “may have incidentally” captured his conversations without “intentionally targeting him as part of any nefarious plot.” Savage didn’t hypothesize about the intentionality or nefariousness of the leak.

“It was definitely part of Russiagate,” Carlson says. “The NSA read my texts and leaked the details to the New York Times. Ultimately they admitted it, but no one was ever punished. I rarely think about it, but it infuriates me every time I do.”

Since Russiagate started it’s become common to learn that intelligence agencies were either intentionally or incidentally collecting information even on politicians. A December, 2021 Inspector General’s report quietly disclosed in a footnote that a U.S. Congressman was the subject of “overly broad” and “non-compliant” FISA searches (it turned out to be Illinois Republican Darin LaHood). Current Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was physically monitored by Air Marshals under the TSA’s Quiet Skies program. The New York Times even just reported that the leak case involving John Bolton involved communications captured by a Five Eyes ally in the Biden years. Who isn’t under surveillance now?

Caputo’s notice read, saying, “Hello, Google received and responded to a legal process issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation”:

In conjunction with news about other Google notices, he lost it. “Come on,” he says. “The future Director of the FBI? Dan Scavino, the one of the President’s best friends, and the member of the campaign? Me, a member of the campaign, and they popped me weeks after I send a memo on how to pursue a Weaponization of Government policy? That’s a huge mop-up operation.”

Caputo turned to Judicial Watch, which filed FOIA requests to the DOJ, FBI, and ODNI, asking for records of his case. All were ignored, prompting the lawsuits filed today. He worries that elements of the FBI and other agencies who brought the original cases are still in place, using spy tools far too easy to access, with too little oversight. The only thing that would even begin to justify any of this would be evidence of Russian money backing his movie, but Caputo is steadfast on that score. “It’s been four and a half years by now,” he says. “You think they’d have found some kind of Oleg.”

Fifty years after Watergate, the idea of spying on aides to presidential candidates, Congressional staff, journalists, even candidates and presidents no longer shocks much of the country. Can that pattern be reversed?

Simplicius: SITREP 8/28/25: Trump Scoffs at Russian Interests in Gross Display of Hubris (excerpt)

By Simplicius, Substack, 8/27/25

Trump made a very interesting comment during a press conference yesterday (8/26/25) which entirely summarizes the West’s misguided approach to Russia:

Trump is asked on his opinion regarding Lavrov’s statement that Russia could not sign a deal with an illegitimate leader like Zelensky. Trump responds by saying such statements are irrelevant because “everyone is just posturing”, and “it’s all bullshit”.

Trump could not be more wrong that a civilizational state like Russia is merely “posturing” about its existential interests, and understanding this key divergence is essential for grasping the far larger implications of the ideological rift between West and East.

It also explains why observers have been tearing their hair out trying to comprehend why Russia’s consistently clear elucidations of its demands always seemingly fall on deaf ears. Russia issues the exact bullet point reduction of its demands, and the very next day Trump’s various reps and envoys muddle things by claiming they aren’t sure what Russia wants, or that a meeting is needed to further iron things out.

Trump demystifies things by explaining that these weren’t misunderstandings or a US inability to properly listen to Russia’s demands—even worse, these were outright US dismissals of Russian concerns all along. In Trump’s decadent, reality-TV-inspired world view, every global conflict is just another daytime soap opera production you can throw enough money at, ‘rizz’ up its hosts, and things fall into place.

He cannot seem to grasp the existential implications for the parties involved, a theme I recently alluded to:

The world’s a stage for silver-spooned Donnie, and its ‘inconvenient’ conflicts mere sideshows to be quickly dispensed with for the prize of accolades. That is what being uncultured gets you—the inability to understand rooted histories, barring the odd toss-off like “these people have been fighting for thousands of years” that Riviera Don occasionally rattles off about Gaza in pale imitation of erudition.

This is likely the real reason for Putin’s infamously pedantic exegesis on Russian history for Tucker Carlson, to signal to Western audiences that the conflict has much deeper roots and implications than their leaders are willing to admit.

Another implication of Trump’s crude dismissal of Russian legal objections has to do with the same so-called ‘Rules Based Order’ so often pedestaled as the sacred geometry on which the entire Western system rests. Trump callously pulls at the threads of this Order’s very seams by ignoring clearly legitimate concerns about one of the party’s legal standings, again signifying to the world that the ordurous odor coming from this Order is one of fickle arbitrariness and hypocrisy.

On the occasion of shedding light on this ideological divide between Russia and the West, it is interesting that Putin had just recently again shared his views on the origins of the West’s demonization of Russia. Many have debated this for years, citing Russia’s fraternal involvement with both US and UK in previous centuries and often attributing the ‘fall’ to the pre-WWI, Milner’s Roundtable and Mackinder’s “Heartland” years.

But Putin, for his part, traces the lineage of this schismatic hatred much farther back, to the days of Ivan IV, when he believes Papal representatives sought to convince Russia to shed its Orthodoxy, to no avail. After Ivan IV’s rebukes, Putin says the first inklings of the now-notorious “otherness” began to be applied to Russia, with Ivan deemed to be a mad tyrant and branded ‘the Terrible’.

So, how did we get from Trump’s casual table rants to plumbing historical myths? The underlying continuity can be explained simply: the West does not understand Russia, and does not care to understand it. This comes from an ingrained superiority complex and exceptionalism dating back centuries.

Rhetorical question: How can you resolve a conflict between two parties whose deepest cultural, spiritual, and geopolitical epistemologies you shroud in deliberate obfuscation?….

Asia Times: Putin pulling a reverse Nixon on Trump

By Francesco Sisci, Asia Times, 9/1/25

In 1972, US President Richard Nixon’s trip to China didn’t end the Vietnam War, but it helped offset the political fallout there and put a different turn on the ongoing Cold War. It ultimately worked, although it still took time to materialize into meaningful collaboration against the USSR.

The American strategy of engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin is a reverse Nixon—an attempt to pull Russia away from China’s embrace. The August 15 meeting between Putin and US President Donald Trump in Alaska failed to achieve the desired result, but at least the effort in this direction was clear.

However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s August 18 trip to India put a very different spin on the whole story. It appears as though Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are running circles around Trump.

Not only did Putin not abandon Xi, but the two also managed to woo Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who on August 30 flew to Beijing, effectively ending a tense relationship.

The Nixon paradigm did work in reverse, but not as the US had hoped; that is, this time Moscow outmaneuvered Washington this time.

Modi will certainly be very cautious with China. He visited Japan first, stressing their strong bilateral bond. He also called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and pledged to work for peace with Moscow.

But August 31 was a sad moment for America—losing, at least partly, a crucial friend that it had spent nearly 25 years drawing closer. It also represented a setback for Modi, who has tied his political legacy to aligning with the Western camp through the Quad military pact, moving India away from its traditional policy of non-alignment.

Putin is the total winner of the day. He can frame Trump’s erratic behavior as proof of influence, boasting to Xi and Modi: “I control Trump, stick with me, no need to talk with the Americans.”

Whether true or not, the narrative may seem believable, and if so, then anything can spin out of this spiel. Indeed, the next Trump-Xi summit, apparently scheduled for October, could take place under a Russian cloud. Is the US cornered? Trump now needs to prove that Putin is not in control. It could be very tricky.

If the US doesn’t redress its ties with India effectively and quickly, the entire international framework that has held the world together since World War II could begin to unravel. India’s sense of betrayal is felt to varying degrees by many US allies.

What many Asian diplomats find mind-boggling is the reason behind the betrayal. Reportedly, it stemmed from a testy phone call, where Trump insisted Modi nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, as the US president had helped resolve the recent India-Pakistan clash (see here). The damage to the US is compounded by how trivial the cause appears, casting a deep shadow over its reliability as a partner.

Russia can now boast a political victory greater than any it has achieved in Ukraine, gaining significant political leverage points from which it can upend the current world order.

China’s position is a mixed bag. Its friction with the US has moved somewhat to the background, but chaos in the world order threatens its trade, its main economic driver, possibly more than Trump’s tariffs. While Russia may have an interest in chaos, China could simply be looking for a distraction.

Nothing is certain or set in stone. “The world’s two most populous countries need to be friends,” Xi told Modi on Sunday (August 31), underscoring there is still a long way to go between China and India to improve their relations.

Meeting on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin, Xi reportedly told Modi that the two countries could be good neighbors and play a key role in the Global South.

The Chinese press has emphasized that the visit comes at a pivotal moment, as both countries work to resolve long-standing disputes and seek common ground amid growing strains in their relationship with the United States – the proverbial elephant in Beijing’s room.

Beijing is also using the SCO summit as an opportunity to showcase its leadership and build solidarity among the Global South amid mounting geopolitical challenges. It’s a very different narrative from the one coming out of Washington.

Scott Ritter: Citizen Diplomacy

By Scott Ritter, Substack, 8/22/25

We, the People of the United States of America, are the custodians of our Constitutional Republic. Through our free and democratic processes, we elect officials to represent us in government, and through these very same processes, backed by the rule of law, we hold these same officials accountable for what they do in our name. The processes of good citizenship, however, are not defined by passivity, limited simply to participation in elections, but rather dynamic actions that promote constant engagement across the full spectrum of issues that define our collective daily existence. Good citizenship sets the standards through which we hold elected officials accountable, and good citizens lead by example. This applies to both the domestic and foreign policies being implemented in our name.

The issue of Russophobia in America today should be a concern for us all. Russophobia is designed to exploit the ignorance of the American people by promulgating falsehoods about the reality of Russia that are designed to generate fear, fear which is then exploited by those whom we elect to support policies which postulate Russia as the eternal bogeyman. This mage is then used to justify defense spending and national security postures that have put the United States on a highway to hell that can only end with a nuclear Armageddon. In short, Russophobia represents an existential threat to the security of the United States and the entire world. It is one of the most dangerous threats facing the American people today, and yet it is fostered by mainstream media, academia and the permanent bureaucracy of government, all of which are deeply infected with the intellectual poison produced by Russophobia.

The antidote to this poison is knowledge and information that can only be garnered through direct contact between the American and Russian people.

This is where citizen diplomacy comes in.

I have been actively engaged in citizen diplomacy with Russia since April 2023, when I first travelled to Russia to promote the cause of peace through nuclear disarmament. At that time, I engaged in the practice of repairing trust between the American and Russian people “one handshake at a time.”

The Challenge Coin I brought with me to Russia in May 2023

I shook many hands during this trip.

I returned to Russia in December 2023 to bring in the New Year, promoting the concept of “Waging Peace” by learning more about the Russian reality, and bringing that reality back with me to the United States, where I sought to share it with anyone and everyone willing to listen and learn.

The poison of Russophobia, however, runs deep in the blood of the United States, and my efforts at conducting citizens diplomacy were deemed a threat by the administration of President Joe Biden, which sought to criminalize my efforts, dispatching the FBI to my home under the false pretext that I was acting as an agent of the Russian government. The Biden State Department revoked my passport, deliberately preventing me from travelling to Russia in the summer of 2024, where I planned on engaging in citizens diplomacy on a scope and scale greater than previously practiced.

I refused to be intimidated by this obvious lawfare being waged against me and the cause of peace I promoted. While I fought to get my passport returned, I continued to engage with the Russian people, attending several functions at the Russian Embassy (including a piano recital, and both Russia Day and Victory Day celebrations).

Shaking hands with Russian Ambassador to the United States Alexander Darchiev

I shook many hands during these visits.

I also worked with a Russian counterpart, Pavel Balobanov, to resurrect the landmark 1985 “Spacebridge” organized by the late American journalist, Phil Donahue, and his Soviet counterpart, Vladimir Pozner. One June 18, 2025, Pavel and I conducted a three hour “Citizens Summit” bringing together an American audience in Kingston, New York with a Russian audience in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

The reaction of all involved was overwhelmingly positive.

On July 15, 2025 (my birthday) my passport was finally restored to me. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began returning property they had seized in the raid on my home. Elections matter, and the results of the November 2024 Presidential election saw the Russophobia of the Biden administration replaced by the policies of peace promoted by Donald Trump. These policies were founded in the notion that America was best served by learning to live in peace with Russia. Free speech was once again a concept protected by the government, even when the concepts promoted—such as good relations between Russia and the US—ran afoul of the Russophobic narratives promoted by mainstream media, academia, and the permanent government bureaucracy.

My week in Russia (August 9-18) was one of the most productive examples of citizen diplomacy I have ever been engaged in—and keep in mind I travelled to Iraq in September 2002, where I was the first and only foreigner to address the Iraqi parliament in a valiant but ultimately failed effort to prevent a war by getting the Iraqis to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to work. The timing of this visit was serendipitous—I landed as the Alaska Summit between President Trump and President Putin was announced, and as such I was perfectly located to take the pulse of Russian public reaction, both to the potential of the summit, and its results.

One of the messages I received repeatedly from the scores of interviews I conducted with Russians from every walk of life was how important it was to the Russian people that President Trump understood that, when it came to the issue of peace between Russia and the US, the Russian people were fully supportive of his efforts. I promised that I would do my best to relay this message to President Trump, and today I am making good on this promise.

The Poughkeepsie Peace Initiative’s Letter to President Trump

As part of my Project 38 initiative, I have brought together a team of like-minded people, all experts in their respective fields, for the purpose of helping craft a vision for arms control with Russia, built on the premise that the last remaining treaty between the US and Russia which limits the size of our respective nuclear arsenals—the New START treaty—should be extended (it expires on February 4, 2026), and that the need for limits on intermediate range nuclear forces which were lifted with the demise of the INF treaty (President Trump withdrew from this treaty in August 2019) are essential for European and global security and stability. Together with this team—former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and MIT Professor Ted Postol—I have written a letter praising President Trump for his courage in agreeing to meet with President Putin, appraising the President of the results of my recent trip to Russia, and informing the President that this team—which we call the Poughkeepsie Peace Initiative—stands ready to support his peace efforts with Russia by engaging in citizens diplomacy for the betterment of relations between the US and Russia.

This is Citizens Diplomacy in action.

If you support the cause of waging peace and the work of citizens diplomacy, please consider donating to the cause. Our work is solely funded by your contributions. Thank you!

RT: Suspected assassin of neo-Nazi Ukrainian MP (Andrey Parubiy) detained – Zelensky

RT, 9/1/25

Ukrainian law enforcement has detained a suspect in the killing of far-right MP and former parliamentary speaker Andrey Parubiy, Vladimir Zelensky announced on Monday. The arrest comes less than 48 hours after Parubiy was gunned down in broad daylight in the western city of Lviv.

Zelensky said he was informed of the development by Ukraine’s minister of internal affairs, Igor Klimenko, and Security Service (SBU) chief Vasily Malyukon on Sunday night.

“I have instructed that the available information be presented to the public,” Zelensky said in a post on X. “I thank our law enforcement officers for their prompt and coordinated work. All the circumstances of this horrendous murder must be clarified.”

The identity of the suspect remains unknown while “necessary investigative actions are ongoing,” Zelensky added. In a separate statement, he said he had spoken with Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, who confirmed that the suspect had already given initial testimony.

“Urgent investigative actions are currently underway to establish all the circumstances of this murder,” Zelensky stated, adding that “the entire law enforcement team and the prosecutors are working around the clock.”

Parubiy, 54, was shot eight times by an unknown assailant on Saturday while walking along a sidewalk in Lviv. Surveillance footage shared online appears to show a man posing as a food delivery courier approaching Parubiy from behind before raising a firearm and fleeing the scene.

The motive behind Parubiy’s killing remains unclear. A prominent figure in Ukraine’s far-right political circles, Parubiy co-founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991 – known for its neo-Nazi symbolism and ideology.

Parubiy played a central role in the 2014 Maidan coup, where he coordinated paramilitary protest groups and served as commandant of the protest camp in central Kiev. After the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovich, he was appointed secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, overseeing early military operations in Donbass and the government crackdown on anti-Maidan protests.

Parubiy’s career was further marred by his alleged role in suppressing protests in Odessa in May 2014, which culminated in a fire at the Trade Unions building that killed more than 40 activists opposed to Kiev’s coup-installed government. In 2018, he drew international criticism for stating in a televised interview that “the greatest man who practiced direct democracy was Adolf Hitler in the 1930s” – a comment he later claimed was misunderstood.