The officers will reportedly rejoin the Burkina Faso army to help in its fight against terrorism
Burkina Faso’s interim president, Captain Ibrahim Traore, has pardoned 21 soldiers convicted of attempting to overthrow the country’s government nearly a decade ago, according to an official decree published by local media on Monday.
Traore reportedly announced an amnesty last December for several people sentenced over a 2015 plot to topple the transitional government in place after the forced resignation of former President Blaise Compaore. Compaore had come to power in a 1987 coup during which Pan-Africanist icon Thomas Sankara was assassinated.
“The following persons, who have been convicted or prosecuted before the courts for acts committed on September 15 and 16, 2015, are granted amnesty,” Traore declared in the order, dated March 24, naming 21 soldiers.
The officers, including two former unit commanders of the former presidential guard, had been convicted by a military tribunal in Ouagadougou in 2019 for “harming state security,” murder, or treason.
According to AFP, Compaore’s former chief of staff, Gilbert Diendere, and head of diplomacy, Djibril Bassole, two generals sentenced to 20 and ten years in prison, respectively, for allegedly masterminding the failed coup, were not included in the amnesty.
The pardoned soldiers will rejoin the national army to fight terrorism in the country, the outlet reported. Traore vowed last year to recapture all the country’s territory still under terrorist control by the end of 2025. The former French colony has been battling jihadist groups since 2015, including some affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
Traore came to power in 2022 following back-to-back military coups. The first took place in January of that year, when the army removed former President Roch Kabore, accusing him of failing to quell the jihadist insurgency. Traore led a second coup in September, which deposed the previous transitional leader, Lieutenant Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba.
Last August, the landlocked country suffered one of the deadliest attacks since the insurgency spilled over from neighboring Mali over a decade ago. At least 200 people were reportedly killed and 169 others injured when Islamist militants opened fire on residents who were digging defensive trenches in the north-central town of Barsalogho.
The West African country and its neighbors, Mali and Niger, also under military rule, have severed defense ties with their former colonial power, France, citing meddling and the alleged failure of French forces to resolve the unrest. The three countries have established a new group – the Alliance of Sahel States – and have sought security cooperation with Russia, which has agreed to assist them in counter-terrorism efforts.
Days earlier, a US manufacturer delivered an advanced version of the F-16 fighter jet to officials in Taipei
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has launched a military exercise near the self-governed island of Taiwan, aimed at deterring “separatism,” the Defense Ministry announced on Tuesday.
The drill includes the army, navy, air, and rocket forces, according to Colonel Shi Yi, the spokesman for the PLA’s Eastern Theater Command. The exercise focuses on joint sea-air combat readiness patrols, coordinated efforts to achieve comprehensive dominance, assaults on maritime and ground targets, and blockades of critical areas and sea lanes, the statement added.
Taiwanese officials cited by Reuters said the PLA had sent ten military ships toward the island, to which its military responded with their own naval deployment.
The American Institute in Taiwan, which functions similarly to an embassy, has described the exercise as proof that China is “not a responsible actor and has no problem putting the region’s security and prosperity at risk,” as quoted by the news agency.
Beijing framed the maneuvers as a warning to “separatist forces” pursuing Taiwanese independence. Although the island is part of China, it operates under a government that has its roots in the nationalist forces which were defeated by the Communists in the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s. A cartoon video released by the PLA depicts Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te as a bug, branding her a “parasite courting [the] ultimate destruction” of the island.
Taipei maintains a close relationship with the US, which officially acknowledges China’s claim yet provides military support to Taiwan despite Beijing’s protests. Last week, senior Taiwanese officials took part in a ceremony at a Lockheed Martin factory in Greenville, South Carolina, marking the delivery of the first of 66 advanced F-16 Block 70 Viper fighter jets ordered by Taipei.
US Congressman William Timmons shared images of the event – which he attended alongside Taiwan’s deputy defense minister and its envoy to the US – on X. “We are immensely proud to be the global home of the F-16 and to bolster Taiwan’s air defense capabilities,” the South Carolina lawmaker wrote.
It was an honor to speak today at Lockheed Martin in Greenville for the F-16 Taiwan Delivery Ceremony.
We are so proud to be the global home of the F-16 and to support Taiwan’s air defense capabilities. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/pNsvnn81H5
— Congressman William Timmons (@RepTimmons) March 28, 2025
Beijing views US arms supplies to Taiwan as provocative and a catalyst for separatism. While Chinese policy stresses the pursuit of peaceful reunification, it has not ruled out the use of force should Taipei declare itself a sovereign nation.
The Wall Street bank has raised the likelihood of a downturn to 35% ahead of the Trump administration’s massive tariff roll-out
The US economy is facing an increasing risk of a recession as escalating tariffs threaten to slow growth, push inflation higher, and increase unemployment, Goldman Sachs has warned.
On Sunday, the Wall Street bank raised its estimate of a recession over the next 12 months to 35%, up from its previous projection of 20%.
US President Donald Trump is expected to introduce a massive plan of country-specific tariffs across all American trading partners on Wednesday, calling the upcoming roll-out “Liberation Day.” Trump has already imposed tariffs on aluminum, steel, and automobiles, as well as raising tariffs on all imports from China. He also announced last week that a 25% tariff on cars imported to the US will take effect the following day.
“Higher tariffs are likely to boost consumer crisis,” Goldman Sachs warned, adding that rising prices will eat into inflation-adjusted income. It raised its end-of-2025 inflation forecast to 3.5%, up from 2.8% last month, increased its unemployment prediction to 4.5%, the highest since October 2021, and lowered its GDP growth forecast to 1%, the weakest since 2020.
Overall, Goldman now assigns a 35% probability of a recession within the next 12 months, up from 20% in its previous outlook.
While some critics warn that Trump’s tariff strategy risks a global trade war, provoking retaliation by major trading partners such as China, Canada and the EU, he has insisted that the tariffs are needed because the American economy had been “ripped off by every country in the world.”
The EU is likely to be hit harder than the US, Goldman warned, projecting that it could slip into a technical recession later this year. “We estimate that our new tariff assumptions will lower euro area real GDP by an additional 0.25% compared to our previous baseline, for a total hit to the level of GDP of 0.7% compared to a no-tariff counterfactual by end-2026.”
Many EU companies, including German car manufacturers and French luxury goods companies and wine, champagne, and spirits makers, rely on exports to the US for up to 20% of their income and are likely to be hit hard by the tariffs.
The EU has vowed to provide a “timely, robust and calibrated” response to Washington’s plans, which experts warn could suppress economic output, push prices higher, and escalate into a full-blown trade war.
The old world is fading. Moscow and Beijing are building the new one
Russia and China have emerged in recent years as standard-bearers of a world that aspires to multipolarity, sovereignty, and respect for international law. Their strategic partnership, tested by global crises and geopolitical turbulence, now serves as a cornerstone of what is often called the “world majority” – a growing group of states seeking independence in foreign policy and development.
Despite intense Western pressure, including sanctions and information campaigns, Moscow and Beijing have preserved and even deepened their cooperation. This partnership is not only important to both countries, but it also carries global significance. It is a model for how major powers can challenge hegemonic structures while remaining committed to international norms.
As Russia and China consolidate their own partnership, they must also pay close attention to major changes underway in the Western world. These changes, particularly in the United States and Europe, are opening new opportunities – but also bring risks that must be understood and addressed.
Fractures in the Western bloc
First, there is growing divergence between the United States and its European allies. We have seen Western European capitals express dismay and confusion over several decisions from Washington, indicating a widening strategic gap. As these countries try to recalibrate in response to an increasingly unpredictable United States, mutual misunderstandings are multiplying. What was once a coherent and unified “collective West” is now a patchwork of competing interests and visions.
This fragmentation deserves close attention from Russian and Chinese policymakers and experts. A coordinated approach to monitoring US-EU relations and engaging in joint analysis will be essential for navigating the future.
Second, internal divisions are widening within the political elites of Western countries. One camp recognizes the need to adapt to global shifts and internal socioeconomic challenges. Another clings to outdated globalist models, attempting to preserve Western dominance without addressing the root causes of their decline.
This internal rift is especially evident in the United States, where political polarization has become extreme. The outcome of this struggle is far from clear. But it may result in more erratic and aggressive foreign policies, including toward Russia and China. Western elites may try to externalize their internal failures by escalating global tensions. Moscow and Beijing must be prepared for this possibility.
Strategic economic cooperation
The Russia-China economic relationship has proven resilient, even in the face of relentless US and European attempts to isolate both powers. Still, recent years have revealed vulnerabilities. Threats of sanctions and secondary pressure have disrupted trade flows and delayed projects. A critical task for both governments is to identify weak points and develop safeguards.
By insulating their cooperation from external interference, Russia and China can reinforce mutual trust and build an even stronger foundation for political alignment. This will be especially important as Western pressure continues.
The role of Europe
Western Europe remains a complex factor in global affairs. Its economic weight is still significant, especially for China, and its cultural and political evolution bears close watching. Russian and Chinese analysts sometimes differ in their assessments of the region’s future role. But neither side should ignore it.
Upcoming political changes across European states could open the door for more pragmatic leadership. If so, Moscow and Beijing must be ready to engage. Even now, despite deteriorating ties, Western Europe remains an important partner and a variable in the broader strategic equation.
Countering Western divide-and-rule tactics
US policymakers have made no secret of their interest in weakening the Russia-China partnership. Some have floated the idea of pulling Moscow away from Beijing to prevent a deeper Eurasian consolidation. These efforts will intensify, especially if US-China relations worsen.
We should expect Washington to seek separate dialogues with Russia and China on issues such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and nuclear arms control. The goal will be to highlight differences and create the illusion of divergent interests.
Such moves must be met with caution and solidarity. There are no serious contradictions between Russia and China that could compare with the historical tensions of the mid-20th century. The current strategic alignment is based on shared values and practical interests. But this unity must be constantly reinforced at both the governmental and societal levels.
Expanding societal and scientific ties
Public perceptions in both countries still carry traces of old stereotypes. While progress has been made in people-to-people exchanges, educational programs, and academic cooperation, more can be done. Greater collaboration in science, education, and cultural initiatives can deepen mutual understanding and eliminate lingering mistrust.
A stronger societal foundation for the bilateral relationship will make it more resistant to external manipulation. The political will exists; now it must be translated into concrete initiatives.
Toward a shared Eurasian future
Finally, China and Russia share responsibility for shaping a peaceful and prosperous Greater Eurasia. They are both committed to preventing external interference and managing conflicts across the continent. Coordinating their strategies for development, connectivity, and conflict resolution in this vast region is not only desirable – it is imperative.
The future of Eurasia depends in large part on how effectively Moscow and Beijing can harmonize their visions. This is not merely an academic debate but a real-world challenge with lasting implications.
Conclusion
Russia and China are navigating an era of profound global change. Their partnership has already become one of the most consequential in world politics. But the shifting dynamics of the West, particularly the emerging crises within the United States and Europe, present both dangers and opportunities.
To protect and advance their shared interests, Russia and China must act strategically: studying Western developments, reinforcing their own cooperation, countering divide-and-rule tactics, and deepening ties across all levels of society. Together, they can help shape a world order that is more just, stable, and representative of the true diversity of global power.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
Foreign Minister Wang Yi has said further efforts should focus on eliminating the root causes of the conflict
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called for a fair, lasting, and binding peace agreement to end the Ukraine conflict, urging all parties to work toward a negotiated settlement. In an interview with RIA Novosti released on Tuesday, Wang said that in order to achieve this, the root causes of the conflict need to be eliminated.
Moscow has long maintained that Kiev’s NATO ambitions were among the main reasons for the conflict, and has insisted upon Ukrainian neutrality as a foundation for a settlement, along with demilitarization and denazification. This was echoed on Monday by US President Donald Trump, who dismissed Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions, saying Kiev “is never going to be a member” of the military bloc.
“We advocate the eradication of the causes of the crisis through dialogue and negotiations, and ultimately the achievement of a fair, long-term, binding peace agreement acceptable to all parties involved,” Wang said in the interview. “This would make it possible to achieve truly lasting peace and stability in Eurasia and throughout the world.”
Wang acknowledged that the “causes of the crisis are extremely complex” and that Kiev and Moscow have so far failed to find common ground on a number of key issues, but noted that there is “a tendency towards peace negotiations,” which Beijing finds encouraging.
“The path to restoring peace is long [but] certain results have been achieved,” he said, referring to the recent Russia-US diplomatic rapprochement and the initial progress toward a political settlement with a partial ceasefire agreement.
“A step towards peace, although not that big, is constructive – it is worth taking. You can’t get peace lying down, you have to achieve it by hard work,” he said, adding that the thaw in Russia-US relations “inspires optimism in the disappointing international situation.”
Wang arrived in Moscow on Sunday for a three-day official visit at the invitation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The two are expected to discuss bilateral ties and key international issues, including the Ukraine conflict. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also revealed that President Vladimir Putin is expected to receive Wang.
China has said the Russia-Ukraine conflict must be resolved through negotiations, and last year alongside Brazil, presented a six-point proposal for a diplomatic settlement. In his interview, Wang reiterated that China is ready to “play a constructive role in the settlement” of the conflict.
The US leader would not rule out secondary tariffs on Russia if the peace process stalls
US President Donald Trump has said his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, would honor his part of a potential peace agreement on the Ukraine conflict. At the same time, Trump warned Kiev against backing out of a rare-earth minerals deal with the US.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, the US leader repeated that he aims to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as soon as possible, adding that he “want[s] to make sure that he [Putin] follows through” on any peace deal.
“I think he will. I don’t want to go secondary tariffs on his oil, but I think it’s something I would do if I thought he wasn’t doing the job,” Trump stated.
He expressed hope that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky would also uphold his end of the bargain, but rebuked him for apparent attempts to renegotiate the rare-earths deal which would grant the US access to Ukraine’s mineral deposits. While Trump has portrayed the deal as a way for Ukraine to pay back past US assistance, Zelensky has insisted that Kiev owes Washington nothing.
“We made a deal for rare earths. It was all done. They’re now saying, ‘Well, I’ll only do that deal if we get into NATO or something to that effect,’” Trump said. He insisted that NATO membership for Ukraine was “never… discussed,” suggesting that the issue was the likely reason for the escalation of hostilities between Moscow and Kiev in 2022.
Trump earlier threatened Zelensky with “big problems” if he rejects the rare-earths deal. The Ukrainian leader, however, has said that “the framework [of the agreement] has been changed” from what he was willing to sign during a meeting with Trump in late February.
On that occasion, the pair’s White House meeting turned into a heated clash, with Trump accusing Zelensky of ingratitude and “playing with World War III” over what he perceived as reluctance to make a deal with Russia.
At the same time, Trump said on Sunday that he was “very angry” with Putin’s proposal to place Ukraine under a temporary UN-led administration to organize new elections. Russia has long insisted that Zelensky is an “illegitimate” leader, given that his presidential term expired in May 2024.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said Moscow and Washington are exploring several ideas aimed at resolving the Ukraine conflict, adding that Putin is open to any contact with Trump. Russia maintains that the conflict could be settled if Ukraine commits to bloc neutrality and demilitarization, and recognizes the territorial reality on the ground.
At least three people, including a Hezbollah member, have reportedly been killed in the Lebanese capital
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted an airstrike in Beirut’s southern Dahieh suburb on Tuesday. The operation constitutes the largest escalation between Israel and Hezbollah since a truce was signed in November.
In a statement on X on Tuesday, the IDF said Israeli jets targeted “a Hezbollah terrorist” who has “recently been directing Hamas operatives and assisting them in an attempt to carry out a serious attack” against Israeli civilians.
“The terrorist posed a real and immediate threat, and therefore the IDF and Shin Bet have acted to eliminate the threat,” the IDF stated.
The Lebanese TV channel Al Mayadeen reported that the strike “flattened” a multistory residential building, killing at least three people and injuring seven others. It cited sources as saying that “a regular member” of Hezbollah was killed.
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem condemned the renewed Israeli strikes on Saturday. “This aggression must end. We cannot allow this to continue,” he said, as quoted by AFP.
On Friday, the IDF carried out its first major airstrikes in Beirut since November 2023. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attack was in retaliation for rockets fired by Hezbollah from Lebanon.
“We will not allow any firing on our communities, not even a drizzle,” he warned. “We will attack anywhere in Lebanon against any threat to Israel, and we will ensure that all of us in the north return to their homes safely.”
Hezbollah has been firing rockets and mortars at Israel in response to the IDF’s operation against Hamas in Gaza. In September 2024, Israel stepped up its airstrikes in the Lebanese capital, killing senior Hezbollah officials, including the group’s longtime leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
The US president has said the prosecution of the French opposition leader reminds him of his own legal battles under the former administration
US President Donald Trump has said the criminal prosecution of French opposition leader Marine Le Pen reminds him of his own legal battles under the administration of former President Joe Biden.
On Monday, Le Pen, the former leader of the conservative National Rally (RN) party, was sentenced to four years in prison, two of which will be suspended, and was barred from holding public office for five years. The embezzlement conviction effectively bars her from the 2027 presidential race.
Asked by reporters in the Oval Office about the verdict, Trump replied, “That’s a very big deal.”
“I know all about it, and a lot of people thought she wasn’t going to be convicted of anything,” he said.
“But she was banned [from] running for five years, and she’s the leading candidate. That sounds very much like this country.”
Trump has often claimed that the court cases and investigations into his activities were part of a politically motivated “witch hunt” led by the Biden administration and the Democrats.
US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce has said the prosecution of Le Pen is “particularly concerning, given the aggressive and corrupt lawfare waged against President Trump here in the United States.”
According to the prosecutors, Le Pen siphoned off EU funds intended for her staff’s work in the European Parliament to fund the activities of her party in France. She denied any wrongdoing and called the verdict “a fatal day for our democracy.”
Le Pen’s party holds the highest number of seats in the National Assembly. According to an Ifop poll published in Le Journal du Dimanche on Sunday, 34-37% of those surveyed said they plan to vote for Le Pen in 2027 – over 10 points more than her nearest rival, former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe. Le Pen ran for president three times, finishing second in 2017 and 2022.
The US and its allies use the International Criminal Court to impose their will on other countries, a military analyst has told RT
The EU’s disregard for the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) rulings against Israel shows it is a “fake justice” institution, Drago Bosnic, a military expert and contributor to the Bangladeshi Blitz weekly, has told RT.
The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024, on charges of committing war crimes in Gaza. charges Israel rejects as baseless and “absurd.”
Netanyahu, despite the warrant against him, is set to visit Hungary this week. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has promised not to enforce the ICC’s decision. Poland has also said it will not arrest Netanyahu. EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, who refused to urge member states to comply with the warrant, made a high-profile trip to Israel last month.
Speaking to RT, Bosnic argued that Western countries wield the ICC as a political tool against nations they do not like. “We see double standards on virtually every step of the way of the functioning of the so-called ICC,” he said. “There is just no way that any Western country would arrest” Netanyahu, a close ally of the US, he added.
“There is no accountability if you are an ally of NATO or the US. There is simply no reason for you to worry about those things,” Bosnic said. The ICC often serves the “purpose of legitimizing Western… interventionism,” helping the US and allies to label people they do not like as “bad guys.”
According to Bosnic, the ICC should be “dismantled entirely and moved out of the countries of NATO and the EU.”
The French conservative politician has been barred from the 2027 presidential race
The US has condemned the prison sentence handed down to French conservative politician Marine Le Pen, who was found guilty of embezzlement and banned from running for president.
On Monday, a Paris court ordered Le Pen, the former head of the National Rally (RN) party, to serve four years in prison, two of which will be suspended, and banned her from holding office for five years. If it is not overturned, it would effectively bar her from the 2027 presidential election.
The prosecution accused Le Pen of misusing EU funds intended to pay for her aides when she was a member of the European Parliament. According to Le Monde, the prosecutors argued in court that Le Pen and other RN politicians diverted the money to pay for the party’s activities in France. Le Pen has described the verdict as politically motivated and promised to launch an appeal.
US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce drew parallels between the case in France and the criminal prosecution of President Donald Trump under the Biden administration.
“We’ve got to do more as the West than just talk about democratic values. We must live them,” Bruce said.
“Exclusion of people from the political process is particularly concerning, given the aggressive and corrupt lawfare waged against President Trump here in the United States. We support the right of everyone to offer their views in the public square, agree or disagree,” she added.
Bruce noted that, in his speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President J.D. Vance criticized Germany and other American allies in Europe for what he argued were attempts to restrict political competition. “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t,” Vance said.
RN President Jordan Bardella has accused the authorities of seeking to eliminate Le Pen from the 2027 election. “They are depriving millions of voters of their choice and therefore of their freedom,” he said.
Le Pen has run for president three times, placing second in 2017 and 2022.
The US’ relationship with North Korea shows that having such an arsenal has bought Pyongyang security, according to Ahmad Naderi
US President Donald Trump would not dare threaten to bomb Iran if Tehran had nuclear weapons, Ahmad Naderi, a member of the Presidium of the Iranian Parliament, said on Monday.
A day earlier, the US president threatened Iran with unprecedented bombing if it doesn’t accept a nuclear deal.
“It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,” he told NBC News on Sunday.
Iran could follow the example of North Korea to bolster its security in the face of the threat, Naderi suggested in a post on X.
“Observing Trump’s behavior and speech during his first term with North Korea shows that having a nuclear weapon has brought security to Korea,” he said.
Trump wouldn’t make such threats if Tehran were similarly armed, Naderi asserted.
“For a long time, many elites and sympathizers of the country and the [Islamic] Revolution have been calling for the bomb to be tested and announced. If we were also armed with nuclear weapons, Trump would not dare to threaten bombing,” he said.
Despite threatening North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen” over Pyongyang’s nuclear program in 2017, Trump instead went on to engage the country diplomatically during his first presidential term.
After several meetings, denuclearization talks later collapsed over disagreements on sanctions relief and North Korea’s nuclear program. Pyongyang has since continued to conduct missile tests, including of its nuclear delivery systems.
Tehran’s nuclear program has also been a bone of contention in US-Iranian relations for years.
In February, a month after the start of his second presidential term, Trump announced a renewed push for “maximum pressure” on Iran.
After the US president’s recent escalation in rhetoric, Tehran rejected direct talks with Washington, citing a loss of trust following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. The international agreement was envisioned to scale down the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Earlier on Monday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that Tehran would retaliate against any US attack.
The New York Times ‘exposé’ on the US-Ukraine partnership contains no surprises, but the underlying revelation is stunning
Under the title ‘The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine’, the New York Times published a long exposé that has made a splash. It is a long article advertised – with a lumbering clunkiness that betrays cramping politics – as the “untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia’s invading armies.”
And it clearly aspires to be sensational: A revelation with a whiff of the famous Pentagon Papers that, when leaked to the same New York Times and the Washington Post in 1971, revealed what a mass-murderous fiasco America’s Vietnam War really was.
Yet, in reality, this time the New York Times is offering something less impressive by magnitudes. And the issue is not that the Pentagon Papers were longer. What really makes ‘The Partnership’ so underwhelming are two features: It is embarrassingly conformist, reading like a long exercise in rooting for the home team, the US, by access journalism: Based on hundreds of interviews with movers and shakers, this is really the kind of ‘investigation’ that boils down to giving everyone interviewed a platform for justifying themselves as good as they can and as much as they like.
With important exceptions. For the key strategy of exculpation is simple. Once you see through the rather silly group-therapy jargon of a tragic erosion of ‘trust’ and sad misunderstandings, it is the Ukrainians that get the blame for the US not winning its war against Russia, in their country and over their dead bodies.
Because one fundamental conceit of ‘The Partnership’ is that the war could have been won by the West, through Ukraine. What seems to never even have entered the author’s mind is the simple fact that this was always an absurd undertaking. Accordingly, the other thing that hardly makes it onto his radar screen is the crucial importance of Russia’s political and military actions and reactions.
This, hence, is an article that, in effect, explains losing a war against Russia without ever noticing that this may have happened because the Russians were winning it. In that sense, it stands in a long tradition: Regarding Napoleon’s failed campaign of 1812 and Hitler’s crash between 1941 and 1945, all too many contemporary and later Western observers have made the same mistake: For them it’s always the weather, the roads (or their absence), the timing, and the mistakes of Russia’s opponents. Yet it’s never – the Russians. This reflects old, persistent, and massive prejudices about Russia that the West cannot let go of. And, in the end, it is always the West which ends up suffering from them the most.
In the case of the Ukraine conflict, the main scapegoats, in the version of ‘The Partnership’, are now Vladimir Zelensky and his protégé and commander-in-chief General Aleksandr Syrsky, but there is room for devastating side swipes at Syrsky’s old rival Valery Zaluzhny and a few lesser lights as well.
Perhaps the only Ukrainian officer who looks consistently good in ‘The Partnership’ is Mikhail Zabrodsky, that is, the one – surprise, surprise – who worked most closely with the Americans and even had a knack of flatteringly imitating their Civil War maneuvers. Another, less prominent recipient of condescending praise is General Yury Sodol. He is singled out as an “eager consumer” of American advice who, of course, ends up succeeding where less compliant pupils fail.
Zabrodsky and Sodol may very well be decent officers who do not deserve this offensively patronizing praise. Zelensky, Syrsky, and Zaluzhny certainly deserve plenty of very harsh criticism. Indeed, they deserve being tried. But constructing a stab-in-the-back legend around them, in which Ukrainians get blamed the most for making the US lose a war that the West provoked is perverse. As perverse as the latest attempts by Washington to turn Ukraine into a raw materials colony, as a reward for being such an obedient proxy.
With all its fundamental flaws, there are intriguing details in ‘The Partnership’. They include, for instance, a European intelligence chief openly acknowledging – as early as spring 2022 – that NATO officers had become “part of the kill chain,” that is, of killing Russians who they were not, actually, officially at war with.
Or that, contrary to what some believe, Westerners did not overestimate but underestimate Russian abilities from the beginning of the war: In the spring of 2022, Russia rapidly surged “additional forces east and south” in less than three weeks, while American officers had assumed they would need months. In a similar spirit of blinding arrogance, General Christopher Cavoli – in essence, Washington’s military viceroy in Europe and a key figure in boosting the war against Russia – felt that Ukrainian troops did not have to be as good as the British and Americans, just better than Russians. Those daft, self-damaging prejudices again.
The New York Times’s “untold story” is also extremely predictable. Despite all the detail, nothing in ‘The Partnership’ is surprising, at least nothing important. What this sensationally unsensational investigation really does is confirm what everyone not fully sedated by Western information warfare already knew: In the Ukraine conflict, Russia has not merely – if that is the word – been fighting Ukraine supported by the West but Ukraine and the West.
Some may think the above is a distinction that doesn’t make a difference. But that would be a mistake. Indeed, it’s the kind of distinction that can make a to-be-or-not-to-be difference, even on a planetary scale.
That’s because Moscow fighting Ukraine, while the latter is receiving Western support, means Russia having to overcome a Western attempt to defeat it by proxy war. But fighting Ukraine and the West means Russia has been at war with an international coalition, whose members have all attacked it directly. And the logical and legitimate response to that would have been to attack them all in return. That scenario would have been called World War III.
‘The Partnership’ shows in detail that the West did not merely support Ukraine indirectly. Instead, again and again, it helped not only with intelligence Ukraine could not have gathered on its own but with direct involvement in not only supplying arms but planning campaigns and firing weapons that produced massive Russian casualties. Again, Moscow has said this was the case for a long time. And Moscow was right.
This is why, by the way, the British Telegraph has gotten one thing very wrong in its coverage of ‘The Partnership’: The details of American involvement now revealed are not, actually, “likely to anger the Kremlin.” At least, they are not going to make it angrier than before, because Russia is certain to have long known about just how much the US and others – first of all Britain, France, Poland, and the Baltics – have contributed, directly and hands-on, to killing Russians.
Indeed, if there is one important takeaway from the New York Times’ proud exposé of the extremely unsurprising, it is that the term ‘proxy war’ is both fundamentally correct and insufficient. On the one hand, it perfectly fits the relationship between Ukraine and its Western ‘supporters’: The Zelensky regime has sold the country as a whole and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives to the West. The West has used them to wage war on Russia in pursuit of one overarching geopolitical aim of its own: To inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia – that is, a permanent demotion to second-rate, de facto non-sovereign status.
The above is not news, except perhaps for the many brainwashed by Western information warriors from historian-turned-war-apostle Tim Snyder to lowlier X agitators with Ukrainian flags and sunflowers in their profiles.
What is also less than stunning but a little more interesting is that, on the other side, the term proxy war is still misleadingly benign. The key criterion for a war being by proxy – and not its opposite, which is, of course, direct – is, after all, that major powers using proxies limit themselves to indirect support. It is true that in theory and historical practice that does not entirely rule out adding some limited direct action as well.
And yet, in the case of the Ukraine conflict, the US and other Western nations – and don’t overlook the fact that ‘The Partnership’ hardly addresses all the black ops also conducted by them and their mercenaries – have clearly, blatantly gone beyond proxy war. In reality, the West has been waging war on Russia for years now.
That means that two things are true: The West almost started World War III. And the reason it has not – not yet, at least – is Moscow’s unusual restraint, which, believe it or not, has actually saved the world.
Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the US fighting Canada and Mexico (and maybe Greenland) and learning that Russian officers are crucial in firing devastating mass-casualty strikes at its troops. What do you think would happen? Exactly. And that it has not happened during the Ukraine War is due to Moscow being the adult in the room. This should make you think.
Trade barriers could reportedly slash the size of the British economy by 1% and lead to tax hikes
The UK is preparing for a new wave of US trade tariffs that could be imposed this week, several media outlets reported on Monday, citing Downing Street.
Few details about the potential tariffs have been made public so far, but they could cut the size of the British economy by 1%, Reuters has reported, citing estimates by Britain's Office for Budget Responsibility. A tax hike is also possible in the fall because of the new trade restrictions, according to The Guardian.
US President Donald Trump is expected to announce the new measures on Wednesday as part of what he calls “Liberation Day.” The Trump administration maintains it seeks to slash the $1.2 trillion trade deficit by raising tariffs on global goods and counteracting non-tariff barriers created by other nations.
“We have been actively preparing for all eventualities ahead of the expected announcement from President Trump this week, which (we) would expect the UK to be impacted alongside other countries,” a spokesman for the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, told journalists on Monday.
London is currently seeking to strike a trade deal with Washington, which would exempt it from further rounds of trade barriers but the agreement is unlikely to be reached in the coming days, The Guardian reported, citing sources.
“This is an unpredictable situation and an unpredictable administration,” a British official told the paper. “We’re having to plan for every scenario.” People familiar with the matter also told the media outlet that London would not immediately respond to the US tariffs in order not to jeopardize the talks that are expected to continue regardless of any new tariffs imposed.
Talks between London and Washington would “continue at pace this week,” Starmer said following a phone call with Trump on Sunday night. The UK prime minister called it a part of “productive negotiations,” adding that the sides agreed to “stay in touch” in the coming days.
Last week, Trump announced his plans to introduce a 25% tariff on car imports that would hit British automakers such as Bentley and Aston Martin. A 25% tariff on steel imports that has already been imposed by the US president has prompted the UK’s sole remaining producer of virgin steel to consider closing its only remaining plant in the country.
The French court in which she was convicted resorted to practices fit for “authoritarian regimes,” the politician has claimed
French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen has denounced the sentence handed down to her by a Paris court as a “political decision” taken on an “order” of her opponents, who seek to prevent her from running in the country's 2027 presidential elections. She was sentenced to four years in prison on embezzlement charges and barred from running for public office for five years.
According to the former National Rally party (RN) leader, the largest single party in the French parliament, the sole purpose of the ruling was to “prevent [her] from participating and being elected in the presidential election,” she told the French broadcaster TF1 on Monday evening.
“The rule of law has been completely violated by the decision that was made,” Le Pen argued, vowing to appeal the court ruling “as soon as possible.”
The court resorted to “practices that were believed to be reserved for authoritarian regimes,” Le Pen claimed, calling it a “disastrous day for our democracy and for our country.” She also said that “millions of French people” were deprived of their preferred candidate at the upcoming elections by a “lower court judge.”
“There are millions of French people this evening, who are outraged… to an unimaginable degree,” by the actions of the court, she asserted.
Le Pen maintained she was “innocent,” adding that her trial was based on “arguments that do not hold water.” She dismissed her case as an “administrative disagreement” within the EU Parliament.
“There is no personal enrichment, there is no corruption, there is none of that,” Le Pen argued.
The former RN leader, who currently heads the party’s faction in the French parliament, also said that her conviction would by no means signal her departure from political life.
The politician was convicted of embezzling over €4 million from the European Parliament from 2004 to 2016. She received a four-year prison sentence, with two years suspended, and a five-year ban on holding public office, effectively disqualifying her from the 2027 presidential election.
Le Pen has been a prominent critic of NATO’s policies in Eastern Europe and has opposed Ukraine’s accession to the military bloc. She has also advocated against the EU’s anti-Russia policies.
The conviction of Le Pen and the disqualification of an independent presidential candidate, Calin Georgescu, in Romania, have occurred wheil political movements across the EU that are opposed to the bloc’s policies emerged and gained traction.
A number of French and foreign politicians have condemned the court ruling in Le Pen’s case as undemocratic. Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini called the verdict a “declaration of war by Brussels.”
Protests in the Strip reveal deep resentment towards the group’s mismanagement and corruption
For the first time in nearly two decades, the people of Gaza are raising their voices – not only against Israel but also against Hamas. In an unprecedented wave of protests sweeping across Beit Lahia, Khan Younis, Deir al-Balah, and Rafah, hundreds have taken to the streets, demanding an end to Hamas’ rule, restoration of their rights, and a future free from war and oppression. But as the protests grow, so does Hamas’ crackdown. Can this movement survive, or will Hamas crush it once again?
Why they rise
The demonstrations, which erupted in late March 2025, represent the largest grassroots challenge to Hamas since it seized control in 2007. Protesters chant for freedom, the end of Hamas’ regime, and liberation from the heavy burdens of war, poverty, and fear.
“We can’t live like this anymore,” said Mohammad, a resident of Nuseirat, whose full identity is withheld for safety reasons. “People are drowning in darkness, oppression, and sorrow. We’re exhausted by Hamas dragging us into death and destruction while they live comfortably.”
Since Hamas’ takeover in 2007, conditions in Gaza have worsened significantly – not solely due to the Israeli blockade imposed because of Hamas’ designation as a terrorist organization.
From 2007 to 2023, Gaza’s GDP per capita dropped by 54%, nearing levels last seen in 1994. Unemployment spiked from 40% in 2007 to a staggering 80% by 2024, and poverty soared to 65% by 2022. The war that erupted the following year only worsened the crisis.
Yet, it’s not merely economic hardship driving the unrest. Hamas has maintained an iron grip on Gaza for nearly two decades, suppressing dissent and silencing opposition. Now, frustration has reached a boiling point. Protesters have clear demands: ending Hamas’ rule, restoring basic human rights, and living free from the constant threat of war.
Years of frustration
Though these demonstrations are unprecedented in scale, they aren’t Gaza’s first attempt to challenge Hamas. Previous protests, notably the Bidna Na’ish (“We Want to Live”) movements in 2011 and 2015, called primarily for economic reform and political freedom. Each time, Hamas swiftly crushed these movements with violent crackdowns, arrests, and intimidation.
This time, however, the mood feels different.
“Hamas’ police are everywhere, but people aren’t backing down,” Mohammad said. “They know arrests and violence are inevitable, but we have nothing left to lose.”
Unlike past protests focused mainly on economic grievances, today’s demonstrations explicitly target Hamas’ political power. Protesters aren’t just asking for better living conditions – they want Hamas removed entirely. Interestingly, they blame Hamas, alongside Israel, for Gaza’s current devastation.
Gaza has weathered multiple wars, but the destruction since October 7, 2023, has pushed it to collapse. Following Hamas’ attack on Israel, the Israeli military response left vast areas in ruins.
According to recent UN estimates, 80% of buildings in northern Gaza are damaged or destroyed, 97% of residents lack consistent access to clean water, and child malnutrition rates have doubled. Essential infrastructure is devastated: roads lie in rubble, hospitals barely operate, and power outages are frequent.
“Of course, Israel is bombing us and killing our children, but who brought this upon us?” asked Mustafa, another Gazan critical of Hamas, who spoke anonymously due to fear of persecution.
“When they [Hamas] planned the attack on Israel, didn’t they think what the outcome might be? Did they really think Israel would swallow it? It was obvious that they would wreck havoc on us, so why did the leadership put us in this position from the first place?” he lamented.
Mustafa’s anger at Hamas is intensified by what he sees as their indifference to Palestinian suffering.
“Entire neighborhoods have no food or water, especially since humanitarian aid stopped flowing,” Mustafa claimed. “Meanwhile, Hamas leaders sit comfortably, stockpiling supplies. They’re not suffering like we are.”
After Israel resumed ground operations in Gaza, border crossings closed again, halting humanitarian aid as happened at the war’s onset. Even when assistance was available, reports suggest Hamas and its allies diverted substantial portions, leaving ordinary Palestinians hungry and desperate. Such systemic corruption has deepened resentment. Gazans are now equally outraged at Hamas’ greed and mismanagement as at Israel’s blockade.
Enough is enough?
For years, Hamas justified its authoritarian rule as necessary resistance for Palestinian freedom. But after enduring endless cycles of violence, many Gazans reject this narrative.
“For years, they told us resistance would bring dignity,” Mustafa said. “But what has it brought? Hunger, death, and endless war. Hamas is fighting for Iran’s interests, not for us.”
Hamas’ ties with Iran and other Islamist movements have increasingly become contentious. Protesters accuse Hamas of jeopardizing Gaza’s future by prioritizing foreign agendas.
“They’re gambling with our lives,” Mohammad added. “We’re not pawns in their geopolitical games.”
Hamas doesn’t like what it sees. As protests have grown, the group arrested dozens of activists and ordinary citizens, accusing them of spying for Israel or Fatah, Hamas’ main political rival controlling the Palestinian Authority.
Telegram channels linked to Israel and Fatah claim Hamas has executed at least six Gazans accused of organizing protests, though RT could not independently verify these reports.
Hamas claims to RT that information about group “is punishing those who participated in the protests is lacking any evidence.”
“We believe in the right of the our people to raise their voices, those who went to the streets are representing less than 1-2 % of the population and we are in an hourly contact with the people to discuss a way out”, the group stated.
Nevertheless, reports of torture and other radical methods have understandably frightened many, but Mohammad remains resolute.
“Hamas can use force to silence us,” he stated firmly, “but they can’t erase our anger. The harder they repress us, the stronger we’ll become.”
Mustafa echoed this sentiment:
“Hamas knows if these protests succeed, their reign is finished. That’s why they’re desperate to crush them – and exactly why we’re determined to persist. Enough is enough.”
RT approached a top Hamas official for a comment. The group issued a statement acknowledging the pain felt by the residents of Gaza, while emphasizing unity among Palestinians.
“It is the legitimate right of everybody to cry out in pain and to raise their voices loudly against the aggression targeting our people and the disappointment we face from our nation,” the statement read. “Our people, with all their factions – whether those who have taken to the streets or those who have not – are united; we are part of them, and they are part of us.”
However, Hamas condemned what it described as the manipulation of Gaza’s humanitarian tragedy for political gain, aiming to divert attention away from the real perpetrator – the Israeli occupation and its military.
Addressing critics directly, Hamas questioned: “To those in Ramallah pursuing such questionable agendas, we ask: Where are you when it comes to the ongoing killings, displacement, destruction, and annexation taking place daily in the West Bank? Why do you not mobilize against this aggression, or at least allow the people there to take to the streets and voice their rejection of these crimes?”
Hamas also asserted that it had upheld its commitments under a deal reached with Israel aimed at halting the war. “We have signed a deal with the Israelis, with the main goal to stop the war on our people, and we have fulfilled all our obligations accordingly,” Hamas stated. “Yet, supported by the Americans, the Israelis have breached the deal and launched the war again. Despite of this we are still committed to the deal and we have accepted the proposals presented to us by the mediators.”
The US president said that Iran could be bombed if it doesn’t agree to a nuclear deal
Iran will retaliate if attacked, the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned in response to US President Donald Trump’s recent threat to bomb the country.
In an interview with NBC News on Sunday, Trump said that if Tehran does not accept his deal and wind down its nuclear program, it will be bombed.
“If they don’t make a deal there will be bombing. And it will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,” he was quoted as saying.
Any such attack will face a strong retaliation, Khamenei responded in a speech in Tehran on Monday.
“The US and the Zionist regime threaten to commit vicious acts. Of course, if such vicious acts are committed, they will definitely receive a strong, reciprocal blow,” Khamenei’s English-language account on X stated.
“If the US and the Zionist regime are thinking of stirring up a sedition inside Iran, as they’ve done in some previous years, the Iranian nation itself will answer them” he added.
The escalating rhetoric follows years of tension over Tehran's nuclear program.
During his first presidential term, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an international agreement to scale down the Iranian nuclear program in return for the easing of international sanctions on Tehran. Following the US withdrawal and resumed sanctions, Iran reportedly reduced its compliance with the agreement.
International Atomic Energy Agency head Rafael Grossi said late last year that Iran was ramping up its enrichment of uranium to 60% purity, and expressed concern. The material needs to be around 90% enriched to be considered weapons-grade.
Iran has dismissed the accusation, and insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful and legal under “international frameworks.”
In early March, Trump said he sent a letter to Khamenei suggesting resuming talks about the deal and specified that he was giving Iran two months to comply.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded by calling on Washington to first rebuild trust with Tehran that has been broken by the US. During a cabinet meeting on Sunday, he refused direct talks but said “the path of indirect negotiations is open.”
The verdict is a “bad film we are also seeing in Romania” Matteo Salvini declared
Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has condemned the verdict against French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen as “a declaration of war by Brussels.” Le Pen has been sentenced to four years in prison on embezzlement charges and barred from running for public office for five years, including an upcoming presidential election in 2027.
In a post on X on Monday, Salvini compared the outcome of the trial in Paris to the recent barring of independent candidate Calin Georgescu in Romania.
”Those who fear the judgment of the voters often find reassurance in the judgment of the courts,” Salvini said. “A bad film that we are also seeing in other countries such as Romania.”
Georgescu, a critic of NATO, the EU, and aid to Ukraine, won an unexpected first-round victory in last year’s election. The results were promptly annulled by Romania’s Constitutional Court, citing funding irregularities. Georgescu was subsequently barred from running in the election rerun scheduled for May 2025.
Salvini called the ruling against Le Pen “a declaration of war by Brussels, at a time when the warlike impulses of Von der Leyen and Macron are frightening.” He was apparently referring to the push by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to militarize the EU and proposals by French President Emmanuel Macron to deploy troops to Ukraine.
Le Pen, the leader of the National Rally party (RN), was convicted of embezzling over €4 million from the European Parliament from 2004 to 2016. She received a four-year prison sentence, with two years suspended, and a five-year ban from holding public office, effectively disqualifying her from the 2027 presidential election.
Le Pen has been a prominent critic of NATO’s policies in Eastern Europe and has opposed Ukraine’s accession to the military bloc. She has also advocated against the EU’s anti-Russia policies. In the 2022 presidential election, she advanced to a runoff against Macron, securing around 41.5% of the vote. Earlier this year, polls suggested that Le Pen would secure 61% of the vote against her main rival in the upcoming presidential election.
The conviction of Le Pen and the disqualification of Georgescu occur amid an emergence of political movements across the EU opposed to the bloc’s policies. A number of French and foreign politicians have condemned the court’s ruling as undemocratic.
Eric and Donald Trump Jr. have partnered with a cryptocurrency firm to start a major US-based Bitcoin-mining company
US President Donald Trump’s two oldest sons are investing in a major Bitcoin-mining company, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
The Trumps have increasingly aligned themselves with the crypto industry through new ventures, investments, and public endorsements in recent months.
According to the WSJ, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. plan to merge their company, American Data Centers, with a new mining venture called American Bitcoin, which is majority-owned by Hut 8, a publicly traded crypto infrastructure company.
The deal will reportedly give the Trump brothers a 20% stake in the combined entity.
Eric, who will serve as American Bitcoin’s chief strategy officer, told the WSJ: “We are a hard-asset family,” adding, “My entire life has been spent building things, and I don’t think there is ever a better hedge against all of that than the true digital assets.”
Miami-based Hut 8 will transfer nearly 61,000 of its specialized mining machines to American Bitcoin in exchange for an 80% stake in the new company, according to the report. Hut 8 said in a press release on Monday that no cash changed hands in the deal.
American Bitcoin aims to become the world’s largest Bitcoin miner and build a strategic Bitcoin reserve, Hut 8 said.
Executives behind the venture said the plans are not connected to the US strategic crypto reserve established by President Trump earlier in March by executive order.
Once a crypto critic, Donald Trump changed his position during the 2024 presidential campaign, attracting significant industry support. Since returning to the White House, he has pledged to make the US the “crypto capital of the world” and to serve as a “crypto president.”
The administration of former President Joe Biden took a more cautious approach to digital assets, supporting stricter regulations and greater oversight to curb fraud and money laundering.
In recent months, the Trump family launched a decentralized finance project – World Liberty Financial – and said their social media company would invest in Bitcoin and other digital assets. They also announced plans for a dollar-backed stablecoin.
Some crypto industry figures have reportedly expressed concern that the Trumps could undermine US market credibility after launching highly volatile meme coins featuring the president and his wife Melania.
While still hypothetical, a Moscow-Washington deal to restore the gas pipeline would reshape energy diplomacy and bring new challenges
With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the world is bracing for yet another shift in global energy politics. For years, the United States has fought fiercely against Russian gas dominance in Europe, imposing sanctions, lobbying against Nord Stream 2, and promoting its own liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Yet, behind the scenes, something unexpected seems to be unfolding.
Recent reports suggest that American investors are quietly exploring opportunities in Russian pipeline projects, raising questions about a potential recalibration of Washington’s energy policy. Could the US actually seek a deal with Russia over Nord Stream? And if so, what would that mean for Europe, global energy markets, and the fragile geopolitical balance?
At first glance, the idea of a US-Russia energy rapprochement seems almost unthinkable. But dig deeper and you’ll find that in the world of energy diplomacy, pragmatism often trumps ideology. This article breaks down the key forces at play, exploring why Washington might be reconsidering its stance, how Europe is reacting, and what this could mean for the future of global energy.
Washington’s strategic shift: Economics over politics?
For years, US policy toward Nord Stream had been clear: block it at all costs. The rationale was simple – curbing Russian influence in Europe while securing lucrative LNG export markets for American producers. Yet, despite Washington’s efforts, European gas dependency on Russia never truly disappeared. And now, with shifting global energy trends, economic realities are forcing a rethink.
Why would the US even consider a deal?
Infrastructure challenges – the EU’s LNG infrastructure is still far from sufficient to replace pipeline gas entirely. Many countries lack regasification terminals, making a full transition unrealistic in the near term.
Price pressures – US LNG remains significantly more expensive than Russian pipeline gas. With Europe’s industries already struggling under high energy costs, a pragmatic solution is becoming more attractive.
Global competition for LNG – as Asia (particularly China and India) increases its LNG demand, the US may be rethinking its prioritization of Europe as its primary LNG market.
If Washington does indeed engage in Nord Stream diplomacy, it won’t be out of goodwill toward Moscow – it would be a cold, calculated move designed to balance its own economic and geopolitical interests.
The EU’s stance on Russian gas has been anything but unified. While the bloc officially aims to cut Russian energy dependence, internal fractures are evident.
Germany’s economic reality – as Europe’s largest economy, Germany is struggling with the long-term consequences of soaring energy prices. Berlin faces mounting pressure from its industrial base, which requires stable and affordable energy supplies. A behind-the-scenes reopening of Nord Stream – whether officially acknowledged or not – could be a lifeline.
France’s balancing act – while supporting Europe’s energy diversification, France remains pragmatic. It has invested heavily in nuclear energy but still seeks policies that ensure economic stability.
Eastern Europe’s opposition – Poland, the Baltic states, and others continue to oppose any Russian energy reintegration, fearing Moscow’s leverage over the region.
A potential Nord Stream deal would undoubtedly trigger a political storm within the EU, deepening the divide between economic pragmatists and staunch geopolitical hawks.
Russia’s strategic calculations: Risks and rewards
For Moscow, any US participation in Nord Stream would present both a golden opportunity and a strategic gamble. What does Russia stand to gain?
Reclaiming a key export market – despite the pivot to Asia, Europe remains an essential revenue stream for Gazprom.
Balancing its reliance on China – as Russia redirects more energy exports eastward, it risks becoming too dependent on Beijing’s bargaining power. Reviving Nord Stream could provide leverage.
Boosting state revenues – with ongoing Western sanctions and war-related costs, any increase in energy revenues would be a financial win for Russia.
At the same time, a potential Nord Stream deal with the US carries significant risks:
Potential US control over gas flows – if American investors are involved, will Russia retain full sovereignty over the pipeline’s operations?
Political conditions from Washington – any deal would likely come with strings attached, potentially limiting Russia’s strategic flexibility.
Uncertainty of US policy – if Trump (or any US administration) reverses course in the future, Moscow could find itself in another energy standoff.
Put simply, Russia will approach any Nord Stream revival with extreme caution, ensuring that it retains maximum leverage while minimizing external interference. The fate of Nord Stream is not just a US-Russia-Europe affair. It’s part of a much larger energy shift that involves key global players.
China, for instance, is carefully monitoring how Russia navigates its energy relationships with the West. If Europe shows any sign of reopening its doors to Russian gas, Beijing may seize the opportunity to renegotiate its own energy contracts with Moscow, pushing for more favorable terms. After all, China has become one of Russia’s largest energy customers, and any softening of Moscow’s dependency on Asia would prompt strategic recalculations.
Meanwhile, the Middle East’s energy heavyweights – countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia – have been working aggressively to expand their foothold in Europe’s LNG market. The potential return of Nord Stream threatens to disrupt their carefully laid plans, undermining their long-term strategies to become indispensable players in the European energy landscape.
At the same time, while European policymakers continue to champion the green transition, the path toward a renewable future remains slow and uneven. Despite bold commitments to wind, solar, and hydrogen, the reality is that natural gas will remain a critical component of the continent’s energy mix for decades to come. As such, pipeline diplomacy is not going away – it’s simply evolving.
The Nord Stream saga is about more than just gas – it’s about who controls the flow of energy in a rapidly evolving world.
What lies ahead?
For now, a US-Russia deal on Nord Stream remains hypothetical. But the fact that such a scenario is even being discussed suggests a deeper, potentially tectonic shift in global energy politics. Several key dynamics are worth watching in the years to come.
In the US, political volatility could prove a major wild card. With the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential race looming, any energy deal forged under one administration could be swiftly dismantled by the next. This unpredictability casts a long shadow over long-term agreements.
The EU, too, faces internal pressures. If energy prices remain high and economic pain deepens, political resistance to Russian gas could give way to a more pragmatic approach. Under enough strain, even long-held moral and geopolitical stances can bend in favor of economic relief.
Globally, shifting patterns in energy demand – particularly in Asia – could reshape Europe’s energy priorities. As more LNG flows eastward to meet Asia’s growing appetite, Europe may find itself recalibrating its energy security strategies, with an eye once again on stable, long-term pipeline supplies.
One thing is clear: the Nord Stream story is far from over. Whether as a strategic asset, a geopolitical bargaining chip, or a symbol of shifting alliances, this pipeline remains at the heart of 21st-century energy diplomacy.
Login
