After a fragile two-month ceasefire, Israel has resumed intense airstrikes on Gaza, resulting in an initial death toll of 326, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, which declared a state of emergency on Tuesday. The renewed violence has drawn urgent responses from the international community, with calls for an immediate end to the aggression.

China Urges Measures to Prevent Humanitarian Crisis
China has expressed deep concern over the escalating violence and called for measures to prevent a “humanitarian disaster” in Gaza. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning emphasized the need to “avoid any escalation” and prevent a larger humanitarian crisis. “China is highly concerned about the current situation between Israel and Palestine,” Mao stated, urging all parties to exercise restraint.

Russia Voices Concern Over Civilian Casualties
Russia has also expressed alarm over the escalation in Gaza, particularly in light of reports of mass civilian casualties. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on Tuesday, “Of course, an escalation, another escalation of the situation, an exit into a spiral again, into a spiral of escalating tensions. This is what causes our concern, especially, of course, the incoming information about large casualties among the civilian population.” Moscow is closely monitoring the situation and hopes for a return to peace, Peskov added.

Iran Condemns Israeli Attacks, Blames U.S. Backing
Iran strongly condemned the latest wave of Israeli airstrikes, describing them as part of an ongoing campaign of “genocidal actions and ethnic cleansing” in Palestinian territories. In a statement on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei condemned the attacks, which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including women and children. Baghaei accused the United States of backing the assaults and the blockade preventing food and medicine from reaching Gaza. He called on the international community and the United Nations to take responsibility for halting the violence, warning that inaction would undermine global peace and security. Baghaei also urged the Islamic world to take decisive action, including prosecuting Israeli leaders at international courts and cutting off arms and financial support to Israel.

France Demands End to Hostilities
France condemned Israel’s renewed strikes on Gaza, calling for an “immediate” end to the violence. The French Foreign Ministry stated, “France condemns the Israeli strikes carried out since yesterday on the Gaza Strip, which have caused numerous civilian casualties.” The ministry emphasized that the hostilities endanger efforts to release Israeli captives and threaten the lives of Palestinian civilians.

Ireland Calls for Ceasefire and Return to Talks
Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin also condemned the Israeli aggression, urging all parties to respect the ceasefire and return to negotiations. “I call on all parties to respect the ceasefire and hostage release deal, and to return to talks aimed at implementing the second phase of the deal,” Martin said. He stressed the urgent need to end hostilities for the sake of Gaza’s civilians, who have already endured immense suffering.

The international community continues to call for an immediate cessation of violence, emphasizing the need to protect civilian lives and prevent further humanitarian devastation in Gaza.

The post Israel Resumes Aggression on Gaza, Global Community Condemns, 600 Died appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

China, Russia and Iran issued a joint statement on Friday, reaffirming that political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue remains the only viable and practical option for the Iranian nuclear issue after deputy foreign ministers of the three nations held a meeting in Beijing on Friday. 

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, met with the heads of delegations to the meeting and put forward China’s five-point proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue, including staying committed to peaceful settlement of disputes through political and diplomatic means, and opposing the use of force and illegal sanctions.

Ma Zhaoxu, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, told reporters after the meeting that the three sides emphasized the necessity of terminating all illegal unilateral sanctions. Relevant parties should work to eliminate the root causes of the current situation and abandon sanctions, pressure, and threats of the use of force. 

We stress the importance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and its timeline, urging all relevant parties to refrain from actions that could escalate tensions and to jointly create a favorable atmosphere and conditions for diplomatic efforts, Ma said. 

The trilateral meeting was held against the backdrop of the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and the continued maximum pressure on Iran by the Trump administration.  

Amid the US’ unilateral actions and extreme pressure, the original framework under the UN reached between Iran and other permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) plus Germany has been unable to function effectively. Therefore, China, Russia, and Iran are exploring new mechanisms to prevent further deterioration of the Iranian nuclear issue and to seek a diplomatic resolution, according to experts. 

China’s efforts

Among the five-point proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue, China stays committed to balancing rights and responsibilities, and takes a holistic approach to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, said Wang.

China stays committed to the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as the basis for new consensus. China hopes that all parties will work toward the same direction and resume dialogue and negotiation as early as possible. The US should demonstrate political sincerity and return to talks at an early date, Wang said. 

Wang noted that China stays committed to a step-by-step and reciprocal approach, and seeks consensus through consultation. History has proven that acting from a position of strength would not lead to the key to resolving difficult issues. 

Upholding the principle of mutual respect is the only viable path to finding the greatest common ground that accommodates the legitimate concerns of all parties and reaching a solution that meets the expectation of the international community, Wang said. 

The trilateral meeting came days after Tehran spurned US “orders” to resume dialogue over the nuclear program, Reuters reported on Friday. 

Last week, US President Donald Trump said he had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing nuclear talks, adding that “there are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” according to Reuters. 

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded that he would not negotiate with the US while being “threatened”, and Iran would not bow to US “orders” to talk, the media report said. 

The Trump administration also downplayed the China-Russia-Iran meeting, Fox News said on Thursday while Trump suggested “perhaps Beijing, Moscow and Tehran will be having their own discussions on de-escalation.”

The Trump administration imposed a “maximum pressure” policy on Iran in February that includes efforts to drive its oil exports to zero in order to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and funding militant groups, Reuters said. 

Liu Zhongmin, a professor from the Middle East Studies Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, told the Global Times on Friday that the latest China-Russia-Iran dialogue is currently just the beginning, noting that the meeting could be seen as part of damage-control measures, aimed at preventing the Iranian nuclear issue from escalating further. 

The Iran nuclear deal was signed ten years ago, and the issue has once again reached a critical crossroads. There are essentially two approaches to resolving it, Sun Degang, director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times on Friday. 

One approach is the US strategy, which relies on extreme pressure, as seen during the Trump administration following the US withdrawal from the agreement. This led Iran to accelerate its uranium enrichment process, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation, Sun noted. 

“However, another approach is the multilateral diplomatic resolution, which proved effective in the original Iran nuclear agreement a decade ago,” Sun said, noting that China played a key role in that process, where all parties engaged in dialogue, sought common ground while setting aside differences, and ultimately reached a consensus on the nuclear deal.

In response to a question on the impact of the meeting on the resumption of dialogue and negotiation and the prospect of a political and diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on Friday that the Iranian nuclear issue is facing a serious situation and once again at a crossroads. The Beijing meeting is a useful effort by China, Russia and Iran in seeking to advance the settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue. 

Role of multilateral platforms

In the joint statement issued after the China-Russia-Iran meeting on Friday, the three countries agreed to continue their close consultation and cooperation in the future.

The three countries also exchanged views on regional and international issues of common interest, and agreed to maintain and strengthen their coordination in international organizations and multilateral arrangements such as BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization. 

On the Iranian nuclear issue, China stays committed to promoting cooperation through dialogue, and opposes pressing for intervention by the UNSC, said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang. 

Under the current situation, hasty intervention by the UNSC will not help build confidence or bridge differences among the relevant parties. Initiating the snapback mechanism would undo years of diplomatic efforts, and must be handled with caution, Wang said. 

Iran’s foreign ministry on Thursday summoned the envoys of Britain, France and Germany over what it called a “misuse of the UNSC to hold a closed-door meeting,” Reuters reported citing Iranian state media.

The UNSC met behind closed doors on Wednesday over Tehran’s nuclear program. The meeting called by six of the council’s 15 members – the US, France, Greece, Panama, South Korea and Britain, came at Washington’s request, according to the report.  

China’s envoy to the UN Fu Cong was quoted as saying ahead of the UNSC meeting in the media report that China still hopes that “we can seize the limited time we have before the termination date in October this year, in order to have a deal, a new deal so that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal, can be maintained. 

“Putting maximum pressure on a certain country is not going to achieve the goal,” Fu said, according to Reuters. 

The US has made some very unrealistic demands, completely driven by its own interests, regarding global hotspot issues including the Iranian nuclear issue, which has led to the destruction of the original consensus, foundation, and mechanisms surrounding these already complex international hotspot issues, Liu noted. 

“In this context, the international community faces the challenge of seeking new solutions and approaches, and must not allow the US’ unilateral actions to undermine all the consensus and mechanisms regarding international hotspot issues,” Liu said. 

If the other parties, aside from the US, can maintain consensus, this will, in turn, exert some pressure on the US, Liu added. 

Source: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202503/1330159.shtml

The post China, Russia, Iran Endores Diplomatic Engagement On Nuclear Issues appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

On 15th, US President Donald Trump authorized extensive military strikes against Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi group in response to their attacks on Red Sea shipping. The operation, which killed at least 50 people and injured 101, marks the beginning of a campaign expected to last for weeks. This is the largest US military action in the Middle East since Trump took office in January.

Trump issued a stern warning to Iran, the Houthis’ primary supporter, demanding an immediate end to its backing of the group. “If Iran threatens the US, America will hold you fully accountable, and we won’t be nice about it!” he declared in a post on his Truth Social platform.

Houthis Strike Back
In response, on 16th the Houthis claimed that they had targeted the US aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and its accompanying warships in the northern Red Sea. The attack involved 18 ballistic and cruise missiles, along with drones.

Iran Responds with Defiance
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Commander, Hossein Salami, dismissed Trump’s threats, asserting that the Houthis act independently and make their own strategic decisions. He warned that Iran would respond decisively and destructively if the US acted on its threats. “We warn our enemies that Iran will not hesitate to retaliate if provoked,” Salami stated in an interview with state media.

The Houthi-run health ministry reported that the US strikes resulted in significant civilian casualties, with most of the dead and injured being women and children. The Houthis’ political bureau condemned the attacks as a “war crime” and vowed to retaliate. “Our armed forces are fully prepared to respond to escalation with escalation,” the group said in a statement.

Strikes Target Key Houthi Strongholds
Residents in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, described the strikes as devastating, with explosions shaking entire neighborhoods. “The blasts were so violent, they felt like an earthquake. Our women and children were terrified,” said Abdullah Yahia, a local resident. Strikes also hit military sites in Taiz and a power station in Dahyan, the hometown of Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, causing widespread power outages.

The Houthis, who control much of Yemen, have intensified attacks on commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea since November 2023, disrupting global trade and prompting the US to launch a costly campaign to intercept missiles and drones. According to the Pentagon, the Houthis have attacked US warships 174 times and commercial vessels 145 times since 2023. The group claims its actions are in solidarity with Palestinians amid Israel’s conflict with Hamas in Gaza.

US Adopts More Aggressive Approach
The Trump administration has taken a more aggressive stance compared to its predecessor. While former President Joe Biden sought to limit US involvement, Trump has authorized broader military action. US officials, speaking anonymously, confirmed that the strikes are part of a larger operation aimed at degrading the Houthis’ capabilities.

The US military’s Central Command described the strikes as the start of a sustained campaign across Yemen. Fighter jets from the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier, stationed in the Red Sea, played a key role in the operation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasized that attacks on US assets “will not be tolerated,” adding that Iran, as the Houthis’ benefactor, is “on notice.”

International Reactions
Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the strikes as a “gross violation of international law and the UN Charter.” Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi accused the US of meddling in Iranian affairs and called for an end to support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. “Stop the killing of Yemeni people,” he urged in a social media post.

The strikes come amid heightened tensions in the region. Earlier in the week, the Houthis announced they would resume attacks on Israeli ships in the Red Sea and surrounding waterways, ending a period of relative calm that began with the Gaza ceasefire in January. The US also recently sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seeking talks over Iran’s nuclear program. However, Khamenei rejected the offer, stating that negotiations with the US are off the table.

Broader Implications
The conflict underscores the complex dynamics in the Middle East, with Iran’s influence extending across Yemen, Syria, and beyond. Tehran faces growing domestic challenges, including public discontent over economic hardships, which could escalate into mass protests. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program remains a contentious issue. The UN nuclear watchdog has warned that Iran is rapidly enriching uranium to 60% purity, nearing weapons-grade levels, though Iran denies seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

In a sign of shifting diplomatic efforts, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly informed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about the strikes in Yemen. Russia, which relies on Iranian weaponry in its war in Ukraine, has yet to issue a formal response.

As the US intensifies its military campaign in Yemen, the region braces for further escalation, with the potential for broader conflict involving Iran and its allies. The coming weeks will test the resolve of all parties involved, with significant implications for global security and stability.

The post US Launches Large-Scale Military Strikes in Yemen, Houthis Strike Back appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

China could be sitting on top of enough thorium to power its energy needs almost forever, a national survey has revealed.

This one radioactive metal alone could revolutionise global energy production, ending the worldwide dependence on fossil fuels, an expert has said.

According to a declassified report detailing the survey, which ended in 2020, China’s thorium reserves, already known as the world’s largest, may actually exceed previous estimates by orders of magnitude.

Just five years of mining waste from a single iron ore site in Inner Mongolia contains enough thorium to meet US household energy demands for more than 1,000 years, according to the report published in Chinese journal Geological Review in January.
Fully exploited, the Bayan Obo mining complex could yield 1 million tonnes of thorium – enough to fuel China for 60,000 years, according to some scientists’ estimates.

“For over a century, nations have been engaging in wars over fossil fuels. It turns out the endless energy source lies right under our feet,” said a Beijing-based geologist who requested not to be named because discussion about mineral deposits requires authorisation.
“Every nation has thorium. Imagine cargo ships powered by container-sized reactors crossing oceans for years without refuelling.”

Thorium, a silver-coloured metal named after the Norse god of thunder, generates 200 times more energy than uranium. And unlike uranium reactors, thorium molten-salt reactors (TMSRs) are small, cannot melt down, require no water cooling and produce minimal long-lived radioactive waste.

Last year China approved the construction of the world’s first TMSR power plant in the Gobi Desert – a pilot project that will generate 10 megawatts of electricity when it is up and running by 2029.

The survey, led by senior engineer Fan Honghai with the National Key Laboratory of Uranium Resource Exploration-Mining and Nuclear Remote Sensing in Beijing, identified 233 thorium-rich zones across China, clustered in five key belts from the inland Xinjiang to coastal Guangdong.

The findings show magmatic and hydrothermal deposits dominate, often intertwined with rare earth elements.
In Fujian and Hainan, coastal placer sands hold easily extractable thorium-bearing monazite.

The Bayan Obo mega-deposit – already the world’s largest rare earth mine – contains a huge amount of thorium in tailings alone, long ignored during iron extraction, according to Fan and his colleagues.

“These thorium resources in tailings remain totally untouched,” they wrote in the report.

Despite the optimism, hurdles remain. Isolating thorium from rare earth ores demands vast amounts of acid and energy – roughly hundreds of tonnes of waste water per gram of purified thorium, according to some industrial estimates based on existing technology.
There are also some fears that thorium could be used to produce weaponised uranium, though some experts argue such by-products are unfit for bombs.

China’s thorium push coincides with the release of KUN-24AP – world’s first thorium-powered nuclear container ship design – and plans for lunar thorium reactors to sustain future moon bases, according to Fan’s team.
“The demand for thorium in nuclear power and nuclear propulsion sectors have brought significant opportunities and challenges to the exploration and exploitation of thorium resources in China,” they wrote.
The precise estimate on China’s thorium reserve potential remains classified due to national security regulations.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3300360/chinas-thorium-survey-finds-endless-energy-source-right-under-our-feet

The post China Discovers Huge Thorium Deposit appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

Israeli officials reportedly rejected efforts to prioritize negotiations based on the US citizenship of certain captives, citing social and political sensitivities that could provoke outrage among other families. As a result, Washington opted for a direct, urgent, and secretive approach to negotiations with Hamas.

According to The New York Times, “Israel” was not directly informed about the negotiations by the US government but rather discovered them through “other channels.”

Yedioth Ahronoth stated that these tensions and leaks could deepen divisions between the US administration and the Israeli occupation’s government if an agreement is reached in Qatar.

An Israeli source cited in the report expressed concerns over the potential implications of such a deal. “The US is negotiating with Hamas for the release of captives, yet Israel will ultimately bear at least part of the cost. It is unclear whether Netanyahu’s government would agree to free Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences as part of a secret deal prioritizing American passport holders over others,” the source said.

Additionally, the report suggested that the US may seek to leverage this direct negotiation track to push for a broader agreement—one that “Israel” opposes and has been deliberately kept in the dark about.

US, Hamas officials held talks in Qatar multiple times: Israeli media

Yesterday, Israeli media outlet i24NEWS reported, citing informed sources, that the US administration engaged in discussions with Hamas in Qatar, with Donald Trump’s key message being his expectation of concrete steps before advancing to the next phase of talks.

A source familiar with the meetings stated, “Israel was informed of the discussions but not provided with all the details.” According to the report, Washington has pushed for the release of Israeli-American soldier Aidan Alexander, along with other captives.

However, US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, cancelled his planned visit to Qatar due to a lack of progress in negotiations. Meanwhile, US Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Adam Boehler, confirmed to i24NEWS on Wednesday that the administration had held direct talks with Hamas, aiming to secure the release of American captives and others.

The report noted that Boehler had met senior Hamas officials in Qatar multiple times, with discussions focused on a potential prisoner exchange. “The message to Hamas was clear: show goodwill so we can move forward,” the source stated.

Source: https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/us-accuses–israel–of-sabotaging-talks-with-hamas–israeli

The post US – Hamas Direct Talk Israel Tries To ‘Sabotage’ appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow could not consider “any options” for European peacekeepers being sent to Ukraine and that the idea was aimed at fuelling the conflict and making it harder to de-escalate.

French President Emmanuel Macron spoke in favour of the concept during talks with U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday, saying troops could be deployed to ensure that any peace deal was respected. Trump said he accepted the idea and that Russian President Vladimir Putin did too, though the Kremlin later indicated that Russian opposition to it was unchanged.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is due to hold talks with Trump on Thursday, has said he would be ready to send British troops to Ukraine as part of any postwar peacekeeping force.

But Lavrov, who has previously called the proposal “unacceptable,” set out Moscow’s objections to any deployment in some of the strongest terms yet, removing any doubt about the matter after Trump’s suggestion that Putin had come round to the idea.

“We cannot consider any options” when it comes to European peacekeepers, he said during a visit to Qatar.

“Trump said that a decision on the deployment of peacekeeping forces would only be possible with the consent of both sides. Apparently referring to us and Ukraine. Nobody has asked us about this,” said Lavrov, who some Western diplomats nickname “Doctor No” because of his habit of frequently voicing Moscow’s objections to various Western initiatives.

“This approach, which is being imposed by the Europeans, primarily France, but also the British, is aimed at what I just mentioned: to further fuel the conflict and to stop any attempts to calm it down.”

Doubling down on Russia’s so far maximalist approach to any potential settlement over Ukraine, Lavrov indicated Moscow still wanted full control over four regions it claims as its own in any deal, despite Ukrainian objections.

He also said there would not be a settlement that left the two sides facing off against each other along a line of contact, indicating that Moscow was interested in a solution that would leave the territory that remains under Ukraine’s control less hostile to Russia and Russian-speakers.

Ukraine has repeatedly denied Russian assertions it has repressed ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers on its territory.

“Therefore, we cannot get away with such simple technical measures like deploying troops. We need to talk about the root causes (of the conflict),” Lavrov said.

“The root causes were the (attempted) dragging of Ukraine into NATO and the total eradication of the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking people.”

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-rules-out-any-options-european-peacekeepers-ukraine-2025-02-26/

The post Russia Agaist NATO ‘Peace Troup’ In Ukraine appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

This is indeed a complicated and fast-changing time and a very dangerous one. So we really need clarity of thought. I’m especially interested in our conversation, so I’ll try to be as succinct and clear as I can be. I’ve watched the events very close-up in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Russia, very closely for the last 36 years. I was an adviser to the Polish government in 1989, to President Gorbachev in 1990 and 1991, to President Yeltsin in 1991 to 1993, to President Kuchma of Ukraine in 1993, 1994.

I helped introduce the Estonian currency. I helped several countries in former Yugoslavia, especially Slovenia. I’ve watched the events very close-up for 36 years. After the Maidan, I was asked by the new government to come to Kyiv, and I was taken around the Maidan, and I learned a lot of things firsthand. I’ve been in touch with Russian leaders for more than 30 years.

I know the American political leadership close-up. Our previous Secretary of Treasury was my macroeconomics teacher 51 years ago. Here just to give you an idea. So, we were very close friends for a half century. I know all of these people.

I want to say this because what I want to explain in my point of view is not secondhand. It’s not ideology. It’s what I’ve seen with my own eyes and experienced during this period. In my understanding of the events that have befallen Europe in many contexts, and I’ll include not only the Ukraine crisis, but Serbia 1999, the wars in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, the wars in Africa, including Sudan, Somalia, Libya. These are to a very significant extent that would surprise you, perhaps, and would be denounced about what I’m about to say.

U.S. Foreign Policy

These are wars that the United States led and caused. And this has been true for more than 40 years now. What happened, more than 30 years, I should say, to be more precise. The United States came to the view, especially in 1990, 1991, and then with the end of the Soviet Union, that the US now ran the world and that the US did not have to heed anybody’s views, red lines, concerns, security viewpoints, or any international obligations or any UN framework. I’m sorry to put it so plainly, but I do want you to understand.

I tried very hard in 1991 to get help for Gorbachev, who I think was the greatest statesman of our modern time. I recently read the archived memo of the National Security Council discussion of my proposal, how they completely dismissed it and laughed it off the table when I said that the United States should help the Soviet Union in financial stabilization and in making its reforms. And the memo documents, including some of my former colleagues at Harvard in particular, saying we will do the minimum that we will do to prevent disaster, but the minimum. It’s not our job to help. Quite the contrary.

It’s not our interest to help. When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the view became even more exaggerated. And I can name chapter and verse, but the view was we run the show. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and many other names that you will have come to know literally believed this is now a US world, and we will do as we want. We will clean up from the former Soviet Union.

We will take out any remaining allies. Countries like Iraq, Syria, and so forth will go. And we’ve been experiencing this foreign policy for now essentially 33 years. Europe has paid a heavy price for this because Europe has not had any foreign policy during this period that I can figure out. No voice, no unity, no clarity, no European interests, only American loyalty.

There were moments where there were disagreements and very, I think, wonderful disagreements, especially in the last time of significance was 2003 in the Iraq war when France and Germany said we don’t support the United States going around the UN Security Council for this war. That war, by the way, was directly concocted by Netanyahu and his colleagues in the US Pentagon. I’m not saying that it was a link or mutuality. I’m saying it was a direct war. That was a war carried out for Israel.

It was a war that Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Fife coordinated with Netanyahu. And that was the last time that Europe had a voice. And I spoke with European leaders then, and they were very clear, and it was quite wonderful. Europe lost its voice entirely after that, but especially in 2008. Now what happened after 1991 to get to 2008 is that the United States decided that unipolarity meant that NATO would enlarge somewhere from Brussels to Vladivostok, step by step.

NATO Expansion

There would be no end to eastward enlargement of NATO. This would be the US unipolar world. If you play the game of risk as a child like I did, this is the US idea to have the piece on every part of the board. Any place without a US military base is an enemy, basically. Neutrality is a dirty word in the US political lexicon.

Perhaps the dirtiest word, at least if you’re an enemy. We know you’re an enemy. If you are neutral, you’re subversive, because then you’re really against us because you’re not telling us. You’re pretending to be neutral. So this was the mindset, and the decision was taken formally in 1994 when President Clinton signed off on NATO enlargement to the east.

You will recall that on February 7, 1991, Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker III spoke with Gorbachev. Genscher gave a press conference afterwards where he explained, NATO will not move eastward. We will not take advantage of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. And understand that was in a juridical context, not a casual context. This was the end of World War II being negotiated for German reunification.

And an agreement was made that NATO will not move one inch eastward. And it was explicit, and it is in countless documents. And just look up National Security Archive of George Washington University, and you can get dozens of documents. It’s a website called “What Gorbachev Heard About NATO.” Take a look because everything you’re told by the US is a lie about this, but the archives are perfectly clear.

So the decision was taken in 1994 to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is a project. This is not one administration or another. This is a US government project that started more than 30 years ago. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote “The Grand Chessboard.”

That is not just musings of Mr. Brzezinski. That is the presentation of the decisions of the United States government explained to the public, which is how these books work. And the book describes the eastward enlargement of Europe and of NATO as simultaneous events. And there’s a good chapter in that book that says, what will Russia do as Europe and NATO expand eastward? And I knew Zbig Brzezinski personally.

He was very nice to me. I was advising Poland. He was a big help. He was a very nice and smart man, and he got everything wrong. So in 1997, he wrote in detail why Russia could do nothing but accede to the eastward expansion of NATO and Europe.

In fact, he says the eastward expansion of Europe and not just Europe, but NATO. This was a plan, a project. And he explains how Russia will never align with China. Unthinkable. Russia will never align with Iran.

Russia has no vocation other than the European vocation. So as Europe moves east, there’s nothing Russia can do about it. So says yet another American strategist. Is it any question why we’re in war all the time? Because one thing about America is we always know what our counterparts are going to do, and we always get it wrong.

And one reason we always get it wrong is that in game theory that the American strategists play, you don’t actually talk to the other side. You just know what the other side’s strategy is. That’s wonderful. It saves so much time. You don’t need any diplomacy.

The Black Sea Strategy

So this project began, and we had a continuity of government for 30 years until maybe yesterday, perhaps. Thirty years of a project. Ukraine and Georgia were the keys to the project. Why? Because America learned everything it knows from the British.

And so we are the wannabe British Empire. And what the British Empire understood in 1853, Mr. Palmerston, Lord Palmerston, excuse me, is that you surround Russia in the Black Sea, and you deny Russia access to the Eastern Mediterranean. And all you’re watching is an American project to do that in the 21st century. The idea was that there would be Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia as the Black Sea littoral that would deprive Russia of any international status by blocking the Black Sea and essentially by neutralizing Russia as more than a local power. Brzezinski’s completely clear about this.

And before Brzezinski, there was Mackinder. And who owns the island of the world owns the world. So this project goes back a long time. I think it goes back basically to Palmerston. In 19, and again, I’ve lived through every administration.

I’ve known these presidents. I’ve known their teams. Nothing changed much from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden. Maybe they got worse step by step. Biden was the worst in my view.

Maybe also because he was not compos mentis for the last couple of years. And I say that seriously, not as a snarky remark. The American political system is a system of image. It’s a system of media manipulation every day. It is a PR system.

And so you could have a president that basically doesn’t function and have that in power for two years and actually have that president run for reelection. And one damn thing is he had to stand on a stage for 90 minutes by himself, and that was the end of it. Had it not been that mistake, he would have gone on to have his candidacy, whether he was sleeping after 4 PM in the afternoon or not. So this is actually the reality. Everybody goes along with it.

It’s impolite to say anything that I’m saying because we don’t speak the truth about almost anything in this world right now. So this project went on from the 1990s, Bombing Belgrade 78 straight days in 1999 was part of this project. Splitting apart the country when borders are sacrosanct, aren’t they indeed? Except for Kosovo. That’s fine.

Because borders are sacrosanct except when America changes them. Sudan was another related project. The South Sudan rebellion. Did that just happen because South Sudanese rebelled? Or can I give you the CIA playbook?

To please understand as grown-ups what this is about. Military events are costly. They require equipment, training, base camps, intelligence, finance. That comes from big powers. That doesn’t come from local insurrections.

South Sudan did not defeat North Sudan or Sudan in a tribal battle. It was a US project. I would go often to Nairobi and meet US military or senators or others with deep interest in Sudan’s politics. This was part of the game of unipolarity. So the NATO enlargement, as you know, started in 1999 with Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic.

And Russia was extremely unhappy about it, but these were countries still far from the border. And Russia protested, but, of course, to no avail. Then George Bush Junior came in. When 9/11 occurred, President Putin pledged all support. And then the US decided on September 20, 2001, that it would launch seven wars in five years.

U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO Expansion

And you can listen to General Wesley Clark online talk about that. He was NATO’s supreme commander in 1999. He went to the Pentagon on September 20, 2001. He was handed the paper explaining seven wars. These, by the way, were Netanyahu’s wars.

The idea was partly to clean up old Soviet allies and partly to take out supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Because Netanyahu’s idea was there will be one state thank you. Only one state. It will be Israel. Israel will control all of the territory.

And anyone that objects, we will overthrow. Not we exactly, our friend, the United States. That’s US policy until this morning. We don’t know whether it will change. Now the only wrinkle is that maybe the US will own Gaza instead of Israel owning Gaza.

But the idea has been around at least for 25 years. It actually goes back to a document called Clean Break that Netanyahu and his American political team put together in 1996 to end the idea of the two-state solution. You can also find it online. So these are projects. These are long-term events.

These aren’t, is it Clinton? Is it Bush? Is it Obama? That’s the boring way to look at American politics as the day-to-day game. But that’s not what American politics is.

So the next round of NATO enlargement came in 2004 with seven more countries, the three Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. At this point, Russia was pretty damn upset. This was a complete violation of the post-war order agreed with German reunification. Essentially, it was a fundamental trick or defection of the US from a cooperative arrangement, is what it amounted to, because they believe in unipolarity. So as everybody recalls, because we just had the Munich Security Conference last week in 2007, President Putin said, stop.

Enough. Enough. Stop now. And, of course, what that meant was in 2008, the United States jammed down Europe’s throat, enlargement of NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia. This is a long-term project.

I listened to Mr. Saakashvili in New York in May of 2008, and I walked out, called Sonia, and said, this man’s crazy. And a month later, a war broke out because the United States told this guy, we save Georgia. And he stands at the Council on Foreign Relations, says Georgia’s in the center of Europe. Well, it ain’t, ladies and gentlemen. It’s not in the center of Europe.

And the most recent events are not helpful for Georgia for its safety and your MPs going there or MEPs going there and European politicians, that gets Georgia destroyed. That doesn’t save Georgia. That gets Georgia destroyed. Completely destroyed. In 2008, as everybody knows, our former CIA director William Burns sent a long message back to Condoleezza Rice.

Nyet means nyet about expansion. This we know from Julian Assange. Because believe me, not one word is told to the American people about anything or to you or by any of your newspapers these days. So we have Julian Assange to thank, but we can read the memo in detail. As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010 on the platform of neutrality.

Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there during these years. What Russia was negotiating was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it.

Not for Crimea. Not for the Donbas. Nothing like that. This idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire, this is childish propaganda. Excuse me.

If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So no designs at all. The United States decided this man must be overthrown. It’s called a regime change operation.

There have been about a hundred of them by the United States, many in your countries and many all over the world. That’s what the CIA does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy.

But in America, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re Hitler. That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given anywhere. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938.

Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. Can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil, implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our mass media. And the mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the US government.

The Maidan Revolution and Its Aftermath

Now in 2014, the US worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador, Peter Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet. Listen to it.

It’s fascinating. I know all these people. By the way, by doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. Now when the Maidan occurred, I was called immediately.

Oh, Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis. Because I’m pretty good at that. And so I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the US paid the money for all the people around the Maidan. Spontaneous revolution of dignity.

Ladies and gentlemen, please, where do all these media outlets come from? Where does all this organization come from? Where do all these buses come from? Where do all these people called in come from? Are you kidding?

This is organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly. Then came Minsk, and especially Minsk II, which, by the way, was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy. And the Belgians could have related to Minsk II very well.

It said there should be autonomy for the Russian-speaking regions in the east of Ukraine. It was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council. The United States and Ukraine decided it was not to be enforced. Germany and France, which were the guarantors of the Normandy process, let it go. And it was absolutely another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual playing completely useless subsidiary role even though it was a guarantor of the agreement.

Trump won, raise the armaments. There were many thousands of deaths in the shelling by Ukraine in the Donbas. There was no Minsk II agreement. And then Biden came into office. And, again, I know all these people.

I used to be a member of the Democratic Party. I now am strictly sworn to be a member of no party because both are the same anyway. And because this is, the Democrats became complete war mongers over time, and there was not one voice about peace. Just like most of your parliamentarians, the same way. So at the end of 1991, Putin put on the table a last effort in two security agreement drafts, one with Europe and one with the United States. The US put on the table December 15, 2021.

I had an hour call with Jake Sullivan in the White House begging, Jake, avoid the war. You can avoid the war. All you have to do is say, NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine. And he said to me, oh, NATO’s not going to enlarge to Ukraine. Don’t worry about it.

I said, Jake, say it publicly. No. No. No. We can’t say it publicly. Said, Jake, you’re going to have a war over something that isn’t even going to happen? He said, don’t worry, Jeff. There will be no war. These are not very bright people. I’m telling you, if I can give you my honest view, they’re not very bright people.

And I dealt with them for more than 40 years. They talk to themselves. They don’t talk to anybody else. They play game theory. In noncooperative game theory, you don’t talk to the other side.

You just make your strategy. This is the essence of game theory. It’s not negotiation theory. It’s not peacemaking theory. It is unilateral, noncooperative theory, if you know formal game theory.

That’s what they play. It started at the RAND Corporation. That’s what they still play. In 2019, there’s a paper by RAND. How do we extend Russia?

Do you know they wrote a paper which Biden followed? How do we annoy Russia? That’s literally the strategy. How do we annoy Russia? We’re trying to provoke it, trying to make it break apart, maybe have regime change, maybe have unrest, maybe have economic crisis.

That’s what you call your ally. Are you kidding? So I had a long and frustrating phone call with Sullivan. I was standing out in the freezing cold. I happened to be trying to have a ski day.

And there I was, Jake, don’t have the war. Oh, there’ll be no war, Jeff. We know a lot of what happened the next month, which is that they refused to negotiate. The stupidest idea of NATO is the so-called open door policy. Are you kidding?

NATO reserves the right to go where it wants without any neighbor having any say whatsoever. Well, I tell the Mexicans and the Canadians, don’t try it. You know, Trump may want to take over Canada. So Canada could say to China, why don’t you build a military base in Ontario? I wouldn’t advise it.

And the United States would not say, well, it’s an open door. That’s their business. I mean, they can do what they want. That’s not our business. But grown-ups in Europe repeat this.

In Europe, in your commission, you’re a high representative. This is nonsense stuff. This is not even baby geopolitics. This is just not thinking at all. So the war started.

The Ukraine War and Nuclear Arms Control

What was Putin’s intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this, not the propaganda that’s written about this.

Oh, that they failed and he was going to take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic. The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO?

It’s the United States off of Russia’s border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested? First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would the United States freak out, we’d have war within about ten minutes.

But because the United States unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and ended the nuclear arms control framework by doing so. And this is extremely important to understand. The nuclear arms control framework is based on trying to block a first strike. The ABM Treaty was a critical component of that. The US unilaterally walked out of the ABM Treaty in 2002.

It blew a Russian gasket. So everything I’ve been describing is in the context of the destruction of the nuclear framework as well. And starting in 2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania. And Russia doesn’t like that. And one of the issues on the table in December and January, December 2021, January 2022, was does the United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine?

And Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put missile systems wherever it wants. That’s your putative ally. And now let’s put intermediate missile systems back in Germany. The United States walked out of the INF treaty in 2019. There is no nuclear arms framework right now.

None. When Zelensky said in seven days, let’s negotiate, I know the details of this exquisitely because I talked to all the parties in detail. Within a couple of weeks, there was a document exchanged that President Putin had approved, that Lavrov had presented, that was being managed by the Turkish mediators. I flew to Ankara to listen in detail to what the mediators were doing. Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement.

The End of the Ukraine War

Why? Because the United States told them to. Because the UK added icing to the cake by having BoJo go in early April to Ukraine and explain. And he has recently and if your security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, God help us all. Keith Starmer turns out to be even worse.

It’s unimaginable, but it is true. Boris Johnson has explained, and you can look it up on the website, that what’s at stake here is Western hegemony. Not Ukraine, Western hegemony. Michael and I met at the Vatican with a group in the spring of 2022 where we wrote a document explaining nothing good can come out of this war for Ukraine. Negotiate now because anything that takes time will mean massive amounts of deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and likely loss of the war.

I want to change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document. And since that document, since the US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying. It’s the pure proxy war.

One of our senators nearby me, Blumenthal, says this out loud. Mitt Romney says this out loud. It’s best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It’s unreal.

Now, just to bring us up to yesterday, this failed. This project failed. The idea of the project was that Russia would fold its hand. The idea all along was Russia can’t resist, as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in 1997. The Americans thought we have the upper hand.

We’re going to win because we’re going to bluff them. They’re not really going to fight. They’re not really going to mobilize. The nuclear option of cutting them out of SWIFT, that’s going to do them in. The economic sanctions, that’s going to do them in.

The HIMARS, that’s going to do them in. The ATACMS, the F-16s. Honestly, I’ve listened to this for 70 years. I’ve listened to it as semi-understanding, I’d say, for about 56 years. They speak nonsense every day.

My country. My government. This is so familiar to me. Completely familiar. I begged the Ukrainians. And I had a track record with the Ukrainians. I advised the Ukrainians I’m not anti-Ukrainian, pro-Ukrainian completely. I said, save your lives. Save your sovereignty. Save your territory.

Be neutral. Don’t listen to the Americans. I repeated to them the famous adage of Henry Kissinger, that to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. Okay? So let me repeat that for Europe.

To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. So let me now finalize, a few words about Trump. Trump does not want the losing hand. This is why it is more likely than not this war will end because Trump and President Putin will agree to end the war. If Europe does all its great warmongering, it doesn’t matter.

The war is ending. So get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. It’s over. And it’s over because Trump doesn’t want to carry a loser.

That’s it. It’s not some great morality he doesn’t want to carry a loser. This is a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine. Second is Europe.

Your stock market’s rising in recent days by the horrible news of negotiations. I know this has been met with the sheer horror in these chambers, But this is the best news that you could get. Now I encouraged they don’t listen to me, but I tried to reach out to some of the European leaders. Most don’t want to hear anything from me at all. But I said, don’t go to Kyiv.

Go to Moscow. Discuss with your counterparts. Are you kidding? You’re Europe. You’re 450 million people.

You’re 20 trillion dollar economy. You should be the main economic trading partner of Russia, its natural links. By the way, if anyone would like to discuss how the US blew up Nord Stream, I’d be happy to talk about that. So the Trump administration is imperialist at heart. It is a great powers dominate the world.

It is we will do what we want when we can. We will be better than a senescent Biden and will cut our losses where we have to. There are several war zones in the world, the Middle East being another. We don’t know what will happen with that. Again, if Europe had a proper policy, you could stop that war.

I’ll explain how. But war with China is also a possibility. So I’m not saying that we’re at the new age of peace, but we are in a very different kind of politics right now. And Europe should have a foreign policy. And not just a foreign policy of Russophobia, a foreign policy that is a realistic foreign policy that understands Russia’s situation, that understands Europe’s situation, that understands what America is and what it stands for, that tries to avoid Europe being invaded by the United States because it’s not impossible that America will just land troops in Danish territory.

I’m not joking, and I don’t think they’re joking. And Europe needs a foreign policy, A real one. Not a, yes, we’ll bargain with Mr. Trump and meet him halfway. You know what that will be like? Give me a call afterwards.

Please don’t have American officials as head of Europe. Have European officials. Please have a European foreign policy. You’re going to be living with Russia for a long time, so please negotiate with Russia. There are real security issues on the table, but the bombast and the Russophobia is not serving your security at all.

It’s not serving Ukraine’s security at all. It contributed to a million casualties in Ukraine from this idiotic American adventure that you signed on to and then became the lead cheerleaders of solves nothing. On the Middle East, by the way, the US completely handed over foreign policy to Netanyahu 30 years ago. The Israel lobby dominates American politics. Just have no doubt about it.

I could explain for hours how it works. It’s very dangerous. I’m hoping that Trump will not destroy his administration and worse the Palestinian people because of Netanyahu who I regard as a war criminal, properly indicted by the ICC. And that needs to be told no more. That there will be a state of Palestine on the borders of the fourth of June 1967, according to international law, as the only way for peace.

It’s the only way for Europe to have peace on your borders with the Middle East is the two-state solution. There is only one obstacle to it, by the way, and that is the veto of the United States and the UN Security Council. So if you want to have some influence, tell the United States, drop the veto. You are together with 180 countries in the world. The only ones that oppose a Palestinian state are the United States, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Mr. Malay, and Paraguay.

So this is a place where Europe could have a big influence. Europe has gone silent about the JCPOA and Iran. Netanyahu’s greatest dream in life is the war between the United States and Iran. He’s not given up, And it’s not impossible that that would come also. And that’s because the US in this regard does not have an independent foreign policy.

It is run by Israel. It’s tragic. It’s amazing, by the way. And it could end. Trump may say that he wants foreign policy back.

Maybe. I’m hoping that it’s the case. Finally, let me just say with respect to China, China is not an enemy. China is just a success story. That’s why it is viewed by the United States as an enemy, because China is a bigger economy than the United States.

Source: https://singjupost.com/transcript-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopolitics-of-peace-in-the-european-parliament/?singlepage=1

The post Netanyahu Decides US Middle East Policy- Prof.Jeffry Sachs Full Speach At EU Parliament appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), have won the snap elections in the German Bundestag, defeating Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD). The anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party was the second strongest-performing contender and is projected to obtain more seats in the federal parliament than at any time in its history.

According to preliminary results released by Germany’s top electoral body on Monday, the CDU and CSU together received 28.6% of the votes, which means that CDU leader Friedrich Merz will likely become the next chancellor.

The AfD has received 20.8% of the votes, while the SPD placed third with 16.4% and the Greens came in fourth with 11.6%.

The early election was called last year after the collapse of the ruling ‘traffic light’ coalition made up of the SPD, the Greens, and the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP). FDP leader Christian Lindner pulled his support due to disagreements over the budget. His party received only 4.3% of the votes, prompting Lindner to announce his retirement from active politics.

The AfD performed the strongest in the eastern part of the country, winning elections in Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia, Brandenburg, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Despite becoming the second-most popular political force across the country, it will be hard for the AfD to enter a government coalition because other major parties consider its policies “extremist” and have ruled out any partnership.

In a post on X on Sunday night, Merz promised to “strive to form a government that would represent the entire German population and would solve the problems of our country.” He expressed hope that Germany will have a new government by Easter.

Source: https://www.rt.com/news/613201-cdu-wins-bundestag-election/

The post Friedrich Merz To Become New German Chancellor appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

As of February 2025, the policies implemented by President Donald Trump have significantly altered the United States’ interactions with its longstanding allies, resulting in heightened tensions and strategic shifts. The primary areas of influence include:

Trade Relations and Tariffs Tariffs on Allies:

In early February 2025, President Trump enacted a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico, alongside a specific 10% tariff on Canadian energy exports. Furthermore, a 10% tariff was imposed on imports from China. The administration defended these actions as essential measures to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Retaliatory Measures: In retaliation, Canada announced matching tariffs on American goods, affecting a broad spectrum of products. Mexico also expressed its intention to impose similar tariffs, escalating trade tensions among the North American partners.

Defense and NATO Commitments Demands for Increased Defense Spending

The Trump administration has heightened its demands on European NATO allies to substantially increase their defense expenditures, advocating for contributions of up to 5% of GDP. This insistence has created strain in transatlantic relations and sparked discussions within Europe regarding defense independence. Strategic Realignments: Reports indicate that President Trump is contemplating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from NATO’s eastern flank, particularly in the Baltic states, as part of a wider peace agreement with Russia. Such a decision has raised alarms among Eastern European allies regarding their potential exposure to Russian aggression.

Diplomatic Relations and Global Influence Exclusion from Key Negotiations

The administration’s choice to engage directly with Russia concerning the Ukraine conflict, without the involvement of European allies or Ukraine, has fostered feelings of exclusion among traditional partners. This strategy has led European nations to reassess their strategic dependencies and consider enhancing their own security capabilities. Formation of New Alliances: In light of the evolving U.S. policies, there has been a movement towards the establishment of new alliances.

The post How President Trump’s Policies Unsettling USA’s Traditional Allies appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.

The conflict in Ukraine, which commenced on February 24, 2022, has emerged as one of the most pivotal confrontations of the 21st century. Characterized by fierce combat, fluctuating frontlines, and a severe humanitarian crisis, this war has significantly altered the landscape of global geopolitics. As we approach 2025, the situation remains unresolved, with Ukraine and Russia entrenched in a protracted battle for territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Key Phases of the Conflict

Initial Invasion and Resistance (February 2022 – May 2022)
Russia initiated a comprehensive invasion, focusing on major cities such as Kyiv, Kharkiv, and regions in southern Ukraine. Ukrainian forces, bolstered by substantial military support from Western nations, effectively defended Kyiv and repelled Russian troops from critical locations.

Counteroffensives and Territorial Changes (June 2022 – December 2023)
Ukraine executed successful counteroffensives in Kherson and Kharkiv, regaining considerable territory. In response, Russia fortified its defensive positions, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk areas.

Prolonged Stalemate and Attritional Warfare (2024 – Present)
The conflict has devolved into a harsh, attritional struggle, with trench warfare, missile strikes, and drone operations becoming predominant tactics. Russia continues to target Ukrainian infrastructure, while Ukraine aims to disrupt Russian supply chains and military resources.

Global Ramifications

Economic Impact: Sanctions imposed on Russia have resulted in economic turmoil, energy shortages in Europe, and inflationary pressures across the globe.

Strengthened Military Alliances: NATO has seen expansion, with Sweden and Finland joining its ranks, while Western nations persist in providing Ukraine with advanced military equipment.

Humanitarian Crisis: The war has displaced millions of Ukrainians, leading to one of the largest refugee crises in contemporary history.

Trump’s Recent Peace Initiatives

Since resuming the presidency in 2025, Donald Trump has adopted a proactive stance in peace negotiations, positioning the United States as a mediator in the ongoing conflict. His approach emphasizes engaging both Ukraine and Russia in discreet diplomatic efforts.

The post 3 Years Of Ukraine War: A Comprehensive Overview appeared first on worldnewsunion.com.