NEO: America now practices diplomacy via murder and assassination: 17-07-2026: **************

 

Politics

America Now Practices Diplomacy Via Murder and Assassination

Bryan Anthony Reo, July 17, 2026

The United States, once a respected diplomatic power, has become a “gang of assassins and executioners” who practice the treacherous murder of foreign leaders and negotiators under the guise of diplomacy. All of this costs the American people immensely in many regards.

Is American Diplomatic Prowess a Thing of the Past?

Iam only 39 years old, but I am old enough to remember an era when the United States was seen as a diplomatic colossus, or at least a trustworthy negotiator who might drive a hard-bargain but could be counted on to actually negotiate and not simply kill every foreign dignitary involved in the conference or the process. The United States of the 1980s and 1990s would almost certainly not have participated in an Israeli style atrocity of “lull the foreign dignitaries into a false sense of security, make them what seems a generous offer worthy of contemplation, wait for a break in the various rounds of negotiating where they have to go home for consultation with senior officials and leaders, count on them all being together in one spot at the same time, and then murder them in targeted air strikes or drone attacks along with their children and grandchildren.”

Such murderous attacks constitute comic-book supervillain-level violence, something from a warped, degenerate polity, such as Likud Israel, not something befitting a nation such as the United States. As an aside, it should be painfully obvious by now that Likud is not a legitimate political party; it is the sort of organization that will likely be branded a criminal organization in the future by a war crimes tribunal (along with Mossad and Chabad Lubavitch).

Just as Venezuela has not submitted due to the grabbing of their senior leader, neither has Iran submitted due to the murder of their senior leader

It is not strictly perfidy under international law to launch such decapitation strikes in the middle of ongoing peace negotiations; it is not a classic case of “feigning a parlay on a battlefield and opening fire under a flag of truce” or “feigning surrender and shooting at enemies as they expose themselves to accept the surrender,” but the very notion of offering what appears to be reasonable good-faith terms for an escalating international crisis, only to massacre the foreign adversary’s senior leadership when they gather in the same place to discuss the terms, is certainly treacherous, double-minded, duplicitous, underhanded, and dishonorable; it is simply bad faith. I would not extend my hand to shake if I was planning to wait for my rival to extend his hand to shake, only so I could arm-drag him into a rear-naked choke and choke him unconscious. Likewise, who would shake hands with their right hand while using a dagger concealed behind their back in the left hand to stab their foreign counterpart? Who does such things?

Is this to become part of our national culture and international reputation? We extend an olive branch on Monday and then wait for the rivals to begin gathering on Tuesday; we wait for them all to be in place for the discussion on Wednesday, and then we kill them before they even give us a reply?

America Used to Regard Sneak Attacks as Outrageous Treachery

Every single American alive today should know and recognize the words, “Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

Less memorable except for older Americans who lived through listening to the speech as it was given, or students of history who studied the entire speech, but of equal importance are the following words:

“The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its emperor, looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.”

In 2026 Iran was at peace with Israel and the United States and, at the solicitation of the United States, was still in conversation with the United States and Israel for the maintenance of peace. Iran gave no indication that it would break off negotiations or that it would reject the proposed American terms. To the contrary, Iran appeared to find the American suggestions and proposals of February 2026 so plausible and viable that they convened high level meetings of senior Iranian leaders, gathered together in the same place, to discuss the proposed terms.

America and Israel then unleashed a campaign of aerial murder against the Iranian senior leadership, a campaign that required logistics of a sort that make it obvious the attack had been deliberately planned weeks or months in advance.

American Quasi-Perfidy Has Become Increasingly Common

I am not a communist, or any sort of socialist; I am not remotely sympathetic to the Venezuelan government, but I find the situation of stringing Venezuela along throughout 2025 for sham negotiations while spending upwards of six months having Delta Force operators train on a full-scale replica of Mr. Maduro’s living quarters and safe room, only to grab him in the middle of the night in January 2026, to be the epitome of bad faith. It reeks of inviting somebody into your house as a guest for dinner only to have them strangled during the meal.

Maduro at one point offered everything Trump wanted, with Trump even proclaiming in October 2025, “he’s offered everything.”

America used to practice genuine diplomacy; now we shamelessly and blatantly murder foreign leaders, dignitaries, and negotiators, all while sounding the trumpet of our own self-proclaimed virtue and righteousness

Everything was still not enough for Mr. Trump, who ordered the operation to kidnap the sitting head of a foreign state in a midnight raid in January 2026. It is almost as though nothing Maduro offered, did, or said would ever be good enough, and the USA simply wanted to demonstrate to the world, “Look at our capabilities; look what we can do.” It is the moral equivalent of an MMA fighter getting into a dispute over a parking space, the other man agreeing, “Yes, you’re right, that is your space, take the parking spot,” and the MMA fighter knocks the man unconscious anyway, just to show, “Look at my capabilities.”

Perhaps the United States calculated the kidnapping of Maduro would cause Venezuela to fall in line and submit? Perhaps it was intended as a signal to other nations in the region?

However, the United States has found that Venezuela has not capitulated nor submitted despite the kidnapping of their leader. Again, I have no ideological affinity for Venezuela’s Marxist/Bolivarian government, but I see no cause to maintain negotiations with their leadership while planning a kidnap operation, and then conducting that kidnap operation, particularly when one ponders, “To achieve what end?” because we must wonder, what end has been achieved? Venezuela has not submitted; they still resist and defy American demands.

As an aside, the oil is located physically in Venezuela; it is a Venezuelan resource. Its extraction and exploitation were made possible by infrastructure put in place and maintained by American engineers and technicians, with Venezuelan labor, financed by American capital. There is some resolution possible so long as neither side insists, “It is entirely ours and we get it all; you get nothing.” Venezuela apparently already offered Trump “everything,” according to Trump, but apparently that wasn’t enough to satisfy Mr. Trump.

For those who know the general history of oil revenue sharing in Venezuela, the first era (1920s-1930s) involved the oil companies controlling everything and receiving almost every cent of profit. The 50/50 split occurred in the 1940s during World War Two. Then in 1976 the Venezuelan government nationalized the oil infrastructure and took the vast majority of revenue for themselves. The 50/50 split would be the closest to a reasonable, fair, and potentially workable, resolution, that we might be able to hope for, something that works for the oil companies who built and maintained the infrastructure (and who will presumably renovate, restore, and repair the infrastructure) as well as the people of Venezuela, who live on top of the resources and do the physical labor in the industry to harness the resources. Reasonable splits and fair distribution ratios could have been agreed to.

America Cannot Procure Iranian Submission Through Targeted Killings

Just as Venezuela has not submitted due to the grabbing of their senior leader, neither has Iran submitted due to the murder of their senior leader.

The cowardly and cruel attack on Iran’s senior leadership on 28 February 2026, occurring in the midst of ongoing negotiations, was a failed attempt by dishonorable cutthroats to plunge Iran into the sort of chaos they had successfully plunged Libya into in 2011. The attackers succeeded in murdering Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and many others, but they did not succeed in plunging Iran into chaos or procuring their submission to American/Israeli subjugation. I am not endorsing Iran’s senior leaders (past or present) nor proclaiming affinity for their system of law, but I see nothing positive in cruelly assassinating the senior leaders of a nation such as Iran. I find the entire operation morally repugnant and politically dangerous. Suppose the United States had succeeded in plunging Iran into a civil war; what happens after? The United States and Israel seem to excel in trashing nations by plunging them into civil wars, but they give almost no thought to answering the question, “And what comes next? What about the next year, the next five years, the next twenty years?”

America, without much concern for long-term consequences, poured aid into Afghanistan in the 1980s, with the only thought being, “harm the Soviet Union,” and then promptly left and pulled the rug out from under Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew and the nation collapsed internally in a multi-faction, multiple years-long civil war, and then the USA returned in 2001 with its own invasion and occupation, only to leave 20 years later while seeing the Taliban return to power.

In my lifetime, nothing typifies American short-term, short-sighted thinking more than Afghanistan.

It should have been easy to calculate that there would be a civil war in Afghanistan after the Soviets left, because the Soviets didn’t per se cause the Afghan crisis; they intervened with an invasion conducted at the request of an immensely unpopular communist government in Kabul in what was already a burgeoning Afghan civil war, and it was obvious that the civil war would continue unabated as soon as the Soviets withdrew, so the American policy of “let’s hurt the Soviets” was clearly short-sighted and typical of American thinking, which is usually oriented towards quarterly earnings reports even if the company collapses in bankruptcy 5-20 years later.

Americans love to brag about winning battles while losing wars, as though a war is nothing more than a disjointed collection of battles, which if enough are won, the war is likewise won.

This very same attitude is present front-and-center with the Iran debacle, and oh brother, is it a debacle. I have stopped trying to count how many times the Strait (of Hormuz) has been opened and closed, or how many times the Strait was opened on Monday only to be closed by Wednesday and reopened by Friday only to be closed again by Sunday.

I wish the United States would just leave the region, ask the Iranians to reopen the Strait, and begin negotiations after the Strait is opened and the bulk of forces that arrived in 2024-2026 are withdrawn and the matter can be discussed without the threat of renewed strikes on a weekly basis. Of course, that is unlikely to happen.

Even now, attempting to negotiate an end to the latest American/Israeli war of aggression in the Middle East/Central Asia region, Israel has been plotting to murder negotiators.

Most Iranians Support Iran

If anybody had asked me about any of this, “Will Iranians surrender and submit to a foreign power just because many of them are mad at their own government?” I would have explained, “No, that occasionally happens in history, where a government is so unpopular and the foreigner is so liked, that foreigners are welcomed for having a hand in bringing down the unpopular government, but Iranians are not like that, and it didn’t play out that way in 1980 when the West instigated Saddam to send Iraqi forces into Iran. Iranians rallied to defend the new and somewhat unpopular and untested government of the Islamic Republic under Khomeini. Just because people protest in the street doesn’t mean they will cheer for, and cooperate with, foreigners who kill their leaders and try to plunge their nation into chaos.”

There are always a handful of exceptions: turncoats, bandits, traitors, criminals, exiles, and emigrés — those who take up residence in a foreign adversarial nation and who incessantly pound the drums of war and fan the flames of hate, targeting their former homeland and trying to weaken it for their own purposes.

We see one clear example of this with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya of Belarus, who claims to be a Belarussian but who clearly prefers to live in Lithuania while trying to subvert her former homeland. This is the equivalent of an unruly, drug-addicted 19-year-old being exiled from his parent’s house and taking up with a gang in a nearby city while planning a home invasion to burglarize his parents’ house with the gang, in exchange for a share of the loot.

The Iranian example is Reza Pahlavi, a ready-made puppet waiting in the wings who frequently makes calls for violence, uprising, riot, insurrection, and all manner of terrorism to take place across Iran, applauding and approving of the murder of hundreds of Iranian police and security forces during the 2025 insurrection, which continued into early 2026. He doesn’t care what happens to Iran, as long as he can be in charge, or pretend to be in charge while taking orders from his Western puppet masters. He will accept being installed to preside over a ship, and he will sink the ship, but he has to be the one at the helm. It is the creed of every traitor, “If I can be installed as captain at the helm, I am willing to steer the ship of state at the rocks, but I want to be in charge, and I want to be provided a lavish lifestyle of comfort and prestige along the way.”

Iranians Will Not Submit to Aerial Terror Tactics Masquerading as Diplomacy

The fact that the waves of protest in Iran largely ceased in late February 2026 as the American and Israeli targeted killings and mass airstrikes began is simple proof that most Iranians will not help foreigners tear their society down.

America used to practice genuine diplomacy, now we shamelessly and blatantly murder foreign leaders, dignitaries, and negotiators, all while sounding the trumpet of our own self-proclaimed virtue and righteousness.

America wants to practice diplomacy via murder and assassination, but the Iranians are not going to capitulate to that.

 

Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations

NEO: Nikolai Novichkov: "A secure world is only possible in partnership with the Global South and Global East", 03-04-2026: *************

 

Interviews

Nikolai Novichkov: “A secure world is only possible in partnership with the Global South and Global East”

Yuliya Novitskaya, April 03, 2026

How will the third Russia-Africa Summit, scheduled for this fall in Moscow, differ from the previous ones? What are the reasons for the overall decrease of Russian exports to Africa despite political successes? How likely is it that the West, after the failure of the plan to “deal Russia a strategic defeat,” will actively try to regain its positions in Africa?

This and much else was discussed in our exclusive interview with 8^th Convocation Russian State Duma member and PhD in Economics Professor Nikolaj Novichkov.

– Mr. Novichkov, the Expert Council on the Development and Support of Comprehensive Partnership with African Countries has been operating in the State Duma for several years now. To what extent has its work during this time become a real instrument of influence on policy, rather than just an expert platform? What legislative initiatives or systemic solutions aimed at strengthening relations with Africa have been implemented through it?

– The Expert Council is a platform for exchanging opinions, located within the State Duma, and it is necessary for systematizing and harmonizing the legislative framework. The Council covers relations with the entire African continent, and we have held countless meetings, roundtables, and expert sessions. I am confident that the very opportunity to create an effective space for dialogue is already an achievement.

Over the past 30 years, we have largely lost the African agenda. By this I do not mean the broader public; even at the expert level, at the level of decision-makers, people generally do not realize what is happening on the African continent, what the priorities are, where it is heading, and so on. For example, not everyone knows that the population of Africa has exceeded 1.5 billion people. For us specialists, this is not news, but some people are surprised by these figures.

A safe world is only possible in partnership with the leaders of the Global South and the Global East

What does one and a half billion people mean? On the one hand, they are consumers, a huge market; on the other hand, this represents vast human capital that allows for the creation of new industries, new knowledge, and new opportunities.

We truly do have a lot of work, and being at the heart of Russian-African affairs and influencing what happens is a complex task and an enormous responsibility.

– This fall the third Russia-Africa summit will take place in Moscow. The first one in Sochi was largely exploratory in nature and aimed at restoring dialogue, and the second one in St. Petersburg took place under unprecedented sanctions pressure and focused on breakthroughs in the economy and food security. What will be the key objectives of the upcoming summit? How will the third summit fundamentally differ from the previous ones?

– Currently, the political and economic agency of the African continent is on the rise. In recent years, the number of African BRICS countries has tripled, and if we count partner states as well, the figure is even higher. Africa is returning to the global political and economic stage. There is a whole group of African countries that are already economic giants, comparable to traditional developed nations.

Therefore, I would say that the third summit will be dedicated to transforming the agenda from the humanitarian, supportive aspect of “let’s help Africa” to a new stage of interstate relations. We understand that there are many leading countries and associations in Africa that have something to offer both Russia and the global community. The status of African partners is already being elevated to that of full-fledged, respected participants in global political and economic processes. I believe that the third summit will be connected to this, among other things.

Let me give a simple example. We are gradually moving away from the model of humanitarian food supply toward technological cooperation. It is important for Africa to organize the production of agricultural goods and their processing on its own territory. This is a key direction. The same goes for energy. Everyone knows that Rosatom is building a massive facility in Egypt, namely the El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant. Projects for small modular nuclear power plants are also being developed.

Thus, creating infrastructure and growth points on the African continent is on the agenda today, with economic issues being the most pressing.

– Two years ago, you had great hopes that the digital ruble would become a tool capable of solving the problem of mutual settlements with Africa against the background of sanctions. Now, in 2026, the integration of BRICS members’ digital currencies into a unified payment system, BRICS Pay, is being discussed actively. It could become an alternative to SWIFT. How do you assess the current state of this infrastructure? To what extent have the implementation of the digital ruble and integration with BRICS partners advanced the solution to the issue of “toxic currencies” in trade with Africa that we discussed?

– There are issues on our side, and they are connected, among other things, with the Central Bank of Russia, which to this day has not made the digital ruble a fully-fledged means of payment. We are still in test mode; we have not reached the level of interstate settlements, nor have we even fully implemented settlements within the Russian Federation. This issue has repeatedly been raised with our colleagues at the Central Bank. We have the support of the Ministry of Finance, which is interested in the digital ruble becoming a fully-fledged payment unit. Therefore, this question should largely be directed to us, rather than to our African partners.

Russia (the USSR) never colonized Africa, but always came with its own ideas and approaches

Some African countries, Nigeria for example, have advanced much further on this issue. We hope that in the foreseeable future, roughly in 2026-2027, the digital ruble will become a financial reality. That would then allow settlements to be carried out in digital currencies, which would indeed increase the reliability, security, and speed of transactions.

As for BRICS Pay and other instruments, they are also still in the development stage. We would like to see them implemented faster. And here, Russia’s role is also enormous; we ourselves could move faster. Here, too, there are questions that one would like to ask and receive answers to.

– In our previous interview, you spoke about the need for a systematic Russian presence in Africa and support for exporters. Since then, the geopolitical situation has become more complex: the “grain deal” ended, and Russia began supplying free grain to a number of African countries as a tool of humanitarian and political support. According to the latest data from the Federal Customs Service, the total volume of Russian exports to Africa over the 11 months of 2025 decreased by 13.2%. What do you think is the reason for this decline, given the political successes? And how has the role of the state in supporting Russian business on the continent changed over the past two years, especially considering the high competition from the European Union and China?

– The situation is such (and this partly explains the decline in exports): we have not yet restructured the interstate trade and economic paradigm. We continue to supply grain, energy resources, fertilizers, i.e., the same products that have been the focus of exports for the past decades. But we must transition to supplying equipment and exporting technologies. This is a difficult task that takes time.

The role of the state is enormous, as it must conceptually restructure these economic relations. One would hope that the government and the development institutions responsible for exports would take charge of this, and that results would follow.

I repeat: the Expert Council was created precisely to serve as a platform for open dialogue, to consistently remind the government of what matters. Because if we remain in the same paradigm, at a certain point we will reach a cooling in relations,if not rock bottom.

The world does not stand still, and Africa is undergoing rapid technological transformation. Russia, being one of the leaders in digital transformation, could offer it digital solutions in a wide range of fields, from organizing urban transport to something akin to government services for education. But unfortunately, so far, we have not succeeded in this area. This, too, is a question for our colleagues in the executive branch.

– Many experts believe that due to the militarization of Europe, African countries defending their sovereignty should prepare for growing threats from the Western minority. In your view, after the failure of the plan to inflict so-called “strategic defeat” on Russia, how likely is it that the West will actively attempt to regain the positions it has largely lost in Africa?

– Here it is better to be, as they say, a pessimist and say that any African country that aspires to sovereign political and economic development faces colossal risks. This concerns threats not only from the United States, but also from France and other Western countries that still have a colonial way of thinking and living.

Therefore, the countries of the Global South and the Global East, especially after the events in Venezuela and Iran, must consider that a safe world does not exist. A safe world is only possible in partnership with the leaders of the Global South and the Global East. Hence, each country will determine for itself the security parameters that are suitable and comfortable for it. At the same time, it is important to understand that the West will not tolerate any country’s or people’s attempts to achieve full sovereignty and political and economic independence as a state.

– Certain stereotypes about Africa still exist in the world, stemming from Western perceptions. For example, the West never considered issues of scientific and technological partnership with Africa. But today the situation is changing. China has already launched large-scale programs for the digitalization of African states as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Gulf countries are actively investing in African technology hubs, and the European Union, through the Global Gateway strategy, is trying to catch up, focusing on green technologies and digital infrastructure. Against this backdrop, according to the latest data, Russia has increased quotas for African students, yet the share of Russian technology exports to the continent remains low. What steps should Moscow take to establish itself as one of Africa’s key technological partners? And who represents our main competition today –China with its infrastructure packages, the UAE with its venture capital approaches, or the West, which is now also focusing on education and high technology?

– By and large, we have no competitors here, because we have a fundamentally different approach than any of our competitors or partners. Since Soviet times, Russia has sought to strengthen African countries and create foundations for their economic and technological development. There were tens or even hundreds of thousands of African students who studied in Soviet universities.

In this sense, we have a special approach, and we need to expand it. In this case, I am not even talking about increasing the quota for foreign students, though that, of course, must be done. We need to create opportunities for these students to work in technology industries in their own countries. And we are capable of helping Africans organize such technology industries on a mutually beneficial basis.

We do not need to pay attention to what other countries are doing. Everyone lives in their own world, adheres to their own values, and we respect that. But we have a different vision, one whose significance and relevance have been proven over decades.

So let us work where we are strong, building a network of partnerships in African countries. I mean not only partnership in the social and humanitarian sphere, but also in the economic sphere. By bringing our technologies and our well-established industries, Russia is capable of working on the African continent both in the coming decades and in the coming centuries.

Sometimes one must, without false modesty, look at oneself and understand what one’s fundamental difference is. Russia (the USSR) never colonized Africa, but always came with its own ideas and approaches. For that we were respected. We never forced anyone to be like us, but the attractiveness of our approach increased the number of our friends to millions of people.

We just have to return to this approach and continue to implement it in a world with new technological and economic indicators.

– The ongoing escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf due to the US-Israeli aggression against Iran could exacerbate global instability, with serious consequences for energy markets, food security, and economic stability, particularly in Africa, where conflicts and economic challenges remain acute. Will Russia, given the military escalation in the Middle East, be able to continue implementing joint economic projects in African countries?

– As we have already discussed, a comprehensive Russian presence is essential. Economic cooperation must always be supported by security measures. In fact, we are already doing this. We need to work with the partners who build systematic strategic relationships, including on the basis of security, comprehensive presence, and taking into account Russia’s interests on the continent. We have many such partners. For them, working with us is also a guarantee against future aggression, and the collective West will think twice before deciding to intervene there. So, returning to my answer to the previous question, we must act in our natural fashion, which will yield results.

– You have repeatedly spoken about the need to restore Russia’s influence in the Global South and about the relevance of socialist ideology in the world. What is the rationale behind the initiative to create the “Sovintern”? What values will it advocate, and why is its founding forum, scheduled for late April in Moscow, drawing the attention of political forces not only from Africa but also from Latin America and even Europe?

– As I have already said, the Russian and Soviet approach – not only in recent decades but starting from the Russian Empire, when we helped the Ethiopian people –has always been characterized by equality and mutual respect. On the other hand, we have always come with our own ideas and our own values. This confidence in our cause, especially when it involved appealing ideas and principles, was supported on the African continent. The Soviet Union brought socialist ideology, and its advocates still recall that era fondly. Most of our friends in Africa today are, as a rule, bearers of socialist values or their descendants.

At a certain point, we thought it was time to restore this work, at least at the political level. Thus the initiative called “Sovintern,” i.e., the Soviet International, was born. It is intended to unite a new global network of socialist parties and movements that stand on the principles of social justice, equality, and non-interference in each other’s economies, while relying on cooperation. These are the values that Soviet civilization upheld.

As our work in recent months has shown, this idea resonates strongly in the hearts and minds of citizens, of people speaking different languages. “Sovintern” has already become an international word, pronounced the same in all languages of the world.

On April 27, its first organizational forum will take place in Moscow, and the international “Sovintern” socialist network will be established, uniting political parties and movements from around the world, including socialists from the African continent. What is more, several of the idea’s initiators are Africans from various political parties.

It is important to understand that we are not creating another International; there are already many of them. Some no longer function, and some have degenerated and lost their essence; for example, Socialist International, which has shifted from defending workers’ interests to advocating for the LGBT community (organization recognized as extremist and banned in the Russian Federation according to the Supreme Court’s ruling).

We aspire to unite people who adhere to socialist values, regardless of their belonging to any parties or movements. The key is ideological affinity. To this end, we will create a fundamentally new digital platform using artificial intelligence. There are language models that allow people of different nationalities to communicate without an interpreter. Subsequently, these platforms will enable common civic and political activity, and acts of solidarity, and people from different continents will be able to pursue shared political and economic goals. The word “solidarity” is crucial here and reflects the socialist spirit.

We anticipate active participation from representatives of political parties and movements not only from the African continent but also from Eurasia and Latin America. Even some European countries are sending delegates.

Thus, in April, we will present to the global political community a new global association: the international socialist network “Sovintern”.

– Mr. Novichkov, we thank you for a most interesting interview!

 

Interviewed by Yulia NOVITSKAYA, writer, journalist, and correspondent for New Eastern Outlook

NEO: Sergey Karaganov: :We are facing a Major Historical Dual Task: To save the country and to save the World". 06-05-2026: *******************

 

Interviews

Sergey Karaganov: “We Are Facing a Major Historical Dual Task: To Save the Country and to Save the World”

Yuliya Novitskaya, May 06, 2026

My interlocutor is called a “hawk” in the West. But in essence, he is proposing offensive realism: to save the world through the threat of force before a major war breaks out.

During the interview, we spoke about the need to be prepared to use nuclear weapons and to communicate this readiness to our neighbors so that they come to their senses. We touched upon the question of whether we should reconfigure our presence in the Middle East so as not to lose the assets gained during the 2015 operation. We also discussed which regimes in Africa it is advantageous for us to maintain cooperation with.

Read about this and much more in the first part of our exclusive interview with the Academic Director of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at HSE University, honorary chairman of the Presidium of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, and Doctor of Historical Sciences, Sergey Karaganov.

– Mr. Karaganov, you are known as an offensive realist, and you recently stated that the “good old Europe” has turned into the “old evil Europe” and that it is time to bring it to its senses. Putting emotions aside, how far are we willing to go in the confrontation with Europe? Many people are now afraid that the “limited nuclear strike” you write about would open the so-called Pandora’s box. How could you reassure skeptics and explain that this is not a bluff, but a rational plan?

But with the European elites, who have degenerated, excuse me, into mice, in my opinion, it is neither possible nor necessary to negotiate

– First of all, let us begin with the fact that the “good old Europe” exists only in our imagination. It has never been that way. Europe is the most vile civilization in human history, the spawn of all terrible wars, including three world wars if we count the Napoleonic Wars; countless genocides – not only of the Jewish people but also around the world – and horrible ideologies. Of course, we partially belong to European culture, which has much that is beautiful, and we must preserve that within ourselves. But when we speak of the “good old Europe” – that is laughable.

That said, at a certain point, Europe, having exhausted itself with its wars and self-destruction in the 20^th century, when it unleashed two wars within a single generation, temporarily became a little more peaceful – especially under the auspices of the Soviet Union protecting it on one side and the United States of America on the other. But now it is returning to its old ways; revanchism is emerging from it.

The Europe we are dealing with today is almost all of Europe that lost World War II (the Great Patriotic War) to us. Virtually all of Europe fought against us, except for the United Kingdom, Greece, and Yugoslavia. And now they are trying to take revenge. In addition, anti-human values are flourishing there. These values existed there before, but not on such a large scale.

Europe is returning to its familiar way of being. It is, I repeat, the spawn of a colossal number of wars. That is precisely why, at a certain historical moment starting in the 16^th century, it began to conquer the world. Europe was not an advanced civilization, but it was a civilization that best mastered cannon fire and began to seize and plunder the world.

– And has that period now come to an end?

– Yes, and it has come to an end thanks to us, because we, concerned for our own security and at the cost of enormous effort, created a nuclear shield in the 1940s and 1950s and undermined the foundation of Western hegemony and prosperity. We undermined the military superiority that gave them the ability to impose their political orders, colonialism, neocolonialism, and culture and, of course, to plunder the entire world.

Now our neighbors in Europe and the United States are trying to turn back history. With the Americans, it is still possible to reach an agreement, because their situation is not so desperate. But with the European elites, who have degenerated, excuse me, into mice, in my opinion, it is neither possible nor necessary to negotiate.

The Americans still have common sense, and they still have a huge country with sizeable markets nearby. They are gradually withdrawing from their global role, since it has become not very profitable (though, along the way, they are leaving behind scorched earth). They set Europe on fire in order to weaken us through Ukraine. They are setting the Middle East on fire, and they will continue to set all of Eurasia on fire. Nevertheless, they are withdrawing, and some kind of agreement can be reached with them. With the Europeans, I repeat, there is nothing to negotiate about now, nor is it possible. At the same time, one must remember that there are wonderful people in Europe, there is a magnificent culture, and that cannot be denied.

As for the current circumstances, we simply need to understand that we are dealing with an irreconcilable, desperate, and insane enemy, who must either be pushed back or destroyed. Preferably, of course, pushed back. But for that, we need to instill terror in them.

They have lost their fear of death out of stupidity. They have forgotten their own horrifying history and are rushing headlong into another world war. And all the while, they keep saying that the Russians will never use nuclear weapons. We are partly to blame for this accusation as well, because we ourselves waver and show weakness. But in doing so, we are opening the door to the worst in European history: unbridled aggression and revanchism.

As for the use or non‑use of nuclear weapons, I, of course, do not want to use them. I simply believe that without making the threat of using nuclear weapons completely credible, we need to change our military doctrine and place nuclear weapons directly with troops.

– And to be prepared to use that nuclear weapon and to communicate that readiness to our neighbors so that they come to their senses?

– Exactly. And if they do not come to their senses…the situation is only escalating. On that ladder of escalation, one can, so to speak, cut underwater cables. On that ladder, one can punish those countries that block straits. On that ladder, there must certainly be nuclear weapons tests. And we should not wait for the Americans to start doing that. We must conduct tests ourselves, not only to show that we are ready, and not only to check our nuclear weapons, but also to instill the fear of God in our neighbors.

The risk of dragging us into an exhausting war, which is already underway and could lead to a universal nuclear Armageddon, is extremely high

As for the most terrible step – the actual use of such weapons… If the Europeans continue to wage war against us (and we are waging war against Europe, and Europe is waging war against us, even though we shyly avoid saying so), then we will need to move to real actions – and not regarding Ukraine. For many years, Ukraine was being turned into a dagger aimed at Russia’s chest. We did not want to admit that. We were foolish and weak. Now that unfortunate, brainwashed, and partially fraternal people are in the state they are in. But the root of evil is in the West. Therefore, we will need to strike the West.

– And how should we strike?

– This is a rather complicated question. The simplest scenario is to start by striking with conventional missiles, conventional weapons, conventional munitions against symbolic targets, against logistics hubs, and against military bases, i.e., strikes that might sober up the public. If they do not stop, then the next wave of strikes would follow. If they respond and do not cease, then a limited but significant use of nuclear weapons against both military and civilian targets, and, of course, primarily against the places where those elites gather.

They must know that they will be destroyed first. And we, unfortunately, must instill terror in them. This is the only way – animalistic terror – to avoid a long, exhausting war for ourselves and, for humanity, to avoid sliding into a third world general thermonuclear war, which has already begun. It has begun in Europe, it has begun in the Middle East, and it will continue further if we do not stop it. Therefore, we face a major historical dual task: to save the country and to save the world. But first and foremost, of course, to save ourselves.

– Many in the West call you a “hawk”. But in essence, you are proposing a kind of offensive realism: saving the world through the threat of force before a major war breaks out, which is what we have just been discussing. Is it not paradoxical that you, an economist and, one might say, a humanist by education, have become the voice of nuclear deterrence?

– By education, I am an economist, and I am rather well-versed in culture. Although I also know nuclear strategy and military history quite well, and I know the history of our country and the history of Europe very well. And I can say that without tough deterrence and intimidation, the European beasts will again pounce on humanity and on us. Therefore, they must either be stopped, by being thoroughly frightened, or we must begin to destroy them. Hopefully, not entirely, because, after all, the “old stones of Europe,” in the words of Dostoevsky, are also a part of ourselves. I would not want to destroy a part of us. But for the sake of saving ourselves and humanity, there should be no hesitation, especially since Europe, particularly its northwestern part and especially Germany, fully deserves this.

– Not long ago, you said that Ukraine has been reduced to an “African state of being.” Unfortunately, we are seeing the same process in Syria after the regime change. In your view, should we reconfigure our presence in the Middle East so as not to lose the assets gained during the 2015 operation? And should we place our bets not on states but on non-state actors?

– We should, of course, place our bets on everyone, both states and non-state actors. But for the foreseeable future, states will remain the main players. Any talk about non-governmental organizations and transnational corporations ruling the world is largely disingenuous.

Those were the hopes of Western globalists who wanted to rule the world through the back door. None of that has materialized. States have returned and will continue to return to their traditional roles. So, we will have to deal with states, but naturally, without forgetting the people, without forgetting human interaction, without forgetting culture, which plays a huge role in interpersonal communication.

As for the situation in the Middle East, I repeat, it has been set on fire – quite deliberately. And there are several goals here. First, so that no one gets it, because the Americans no longer need the Middle East. They have their own oil, and they are no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Currently, the underbelly of Russia and China is being set on fire, as China is largely dependent on Middle Eastern oil. This is a major geopolitical game. That is a separate issue. We must, somehow, by supporting Iran, supporting other forces, perhaps even forming a temporary alliance with China, stop this battle with the United States and force them to withdraw to their own territory with dignity.

But with the Europeans, the situation is much more complex. They have gone mad. There are certainly wonderful people there, but they are just forbidden to communicate with me (smiles). But today, I do not see any forces there with which we could or should talk and negotiate. We need to instill animalistic terror in them. We need to demonstrate the willingness to use full force. Of course, this should be done with the understanding that there is a risk of this conflict escalating, but that risk is negligible, because America will never, under any circumstances, come to Europe’s aid. However, the risk of dragging us into an exhausting war, which is already underway and could lead to a universal nuclear Armageddon, is extremely high. And we have waited too long.

– And if we look at Sudan or the Sahel countries, the situation there is also complex. Does this mean that for Russia in Africa, it is advantageous to cooperate with regimes that maintain order with a firm hand, so to speak, such as in Mali or Burkina Faso? Even if they are entirely unpopular in the West?

– We must maintain relations with those regimes with which it is advantageous for us to do so. As for the phrase “unpopular in the West,” your question seems absurd to me. How can one consider the West some kind of source of wisdom and goodness? Forgive me.

The West is the source of all evil in history. Right before our eyes, Trump, who, from an aesthetic point of view, we rather like, is threatening to destroy the great Persian civilization. Israel has just committed genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and is continuing further. Therefore, we need to accept the world as it is, and work with those with whom it is advantageous for us, with whom we may have common interests, and with whom we are ultimately united by spiritual closeness. I do not know the situation in Sudan in great detail, but from my point of view, the Malaysians, for example, are much closer to us than, say, the Germans. On a human level.

To be continued…

 

Interview by Yulia NOVITSKAYA, writer, journalist, and correspondent for New Eastern OutlookNEO: 

GT: US - Brazil diplomatic tensions expose Washington's outdated 'backyard' mentalisty: 05-08-2026: ***********

 

 
 
 
 
• 

OPINION / OBSERVER

US-Brazil diplomatic tensions expose Washington’s outdated ‘backyard’ mentality

By Global TimesPublished: Aug 05, 2026 11:59 PM

 

 

 

 

Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

The US was the first country to recognize Brazil's independence in 1822. More than 200 years later, Washington appears to still have not fully understood what it means to "recognize" a country's "independence."

The headlines across the Americas have been dominated by diplomatic tensions between the US and Brazil over the past few weeks. On Tuesday local time, the US revoked the visa of the Brazilian ambassador to Washington, further pushing the escalating diplomatic dispute to a new peak.

Even though the US claimed that it was a "reciprocal measure" after Brazil delayed approval of US ambassador nominee Danny Perez, it is not merely a procedural disagreement, but a contest over national sovereignty.

Since July, the US has slapped a 25 percent tariff on Brazilian imports over alleged "unfair trade practices," added another 12.5 percent duty related to forced labor on Brazilian goods, and sought to dispatch officials to Brazil to question the "fairness and integrity" of the country's electoral system.

"The current tensions between the US and Brazil are not merely a tit-for-tat diplomatic dispute, but reflect Washington's attempt to use economic pressure and diplomatic leverage to influence another country's electoral process," noted Jiang Shixue, a professor at the Center for Latin American Studies at Shanghai University.

The Brazilian left-wing government's emphasis on anti-hegemonism and an independent foreign policy approach stands in contrast to the "America First" agenda pursued by Washington, Jiang said. As Brazil's October presidential election approaches, the US' attempt to exert influence through economic and diplomatic means has exposed its long-standing hegemonic mindset of interfering in other countries' domestic affairs. Such actions constitute an infringement on national sovereignty and run counter to the international principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

Ultimately, the diplomatic dispute represents a direct clash between Brazil's pursuit of strategic autonomy and the deeply rooted US "backyard" mentality. More broadly, it reflects a structural tension between the growing desire for autonomy among Global South countries and the US' attempt to preserve its traditional sphere of hegemonic influence.

This isn't new in US relations with Latin America. Since the Monroe Doctrine in the early 19th century, Washington has long viewed the Americas as its own sphere of influence. From direct military intervention in the past to tariffs, sanctions, visa restrictions and diplomatic pressure nowadays, the US still assumes it has the right to shape the political choices of other nations in the region.

However, the 21st century is no longer the world it once was.

Brazil has taken a series of measures in response: requesting WTO consultations over US tariffs, denying entry to US officials over concerns of election interference, withholding formal approval of the US ambassador nominee for US breaching diplomatic norms without seeking Brazil's consent in advance, and issuing statement to swiftly condemn the US action as part of a deliberate campaign to influence the election. Brazil has demonstrated how a Global South country can defend its sovereignty and pursue independent development using legitimate diplomatic tools available under the modern international order.

The size of a country or the strength of its economy does not determine the degree of sovereignty it possesses. Brazil's growing cooperation with other BRICS members and Global South countries reflects an increasingly evident trend: Nations want greater autonomy in making their own choices within the international system, rather than having their development paths dictated by external forces.

"Brazil for Brazilians" is gradually overshadowing the decades-old effort promoted by Washington that "Americas for America." Principles including sovereign equality, multilateralism and the right of nations to choose their own paths have become widely recognized norms, particularly among Global South countries.

The political pendulum in Latin America may continue to swing, but one principle remains constant: Regardless of political orientation, protecting national sovereignty, security and development interests lies at the heart of every country's foreign policy. The US needs to recognize that the world has changed. Global South countries are no longer passive recipients of either economic coercion or political interference. They now seek respect for their independence, sovereignty and the right to make their own choices - and they now possess an updated and diverse toolkit to safeguard these principles.

NEO: The Ukraine war is a US war on Russia. Brian Berletic: 16th July, 2026: ************

 

Security

The Ukraine War is a US war on Russia

Brian Berletic, July 16, 2026

As the Western media continues shaping narratives depicting a growing divide between the US and Europe regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine — a narrative involving an increasingly disinterested and disengaging US with an increasingly desperate and confrontational Europe — it is important to remember precisely how this war was started and why, as well as the material reality shaping its continuation.

By doing so, it is revealed the only “division” taking place between the US and Europe is a “division of labor,” a phrase literally spoken by the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in Brussels in February 2025, delegating the continuation of what is a US proxy war on Russia to Europe while the US redirects resources toward Asia.

Precisely because the war in Ukraine is a US proxy war on Russia, and the fact that Ukraine’s trained military manpower and territory continue to contract under the pressure of Russia’s strategy of attrition, to continue the war will require introducing additional pools of trained military manpower — and to extend Russia further — to do so along a wider front.

The military build-up of the Baltic states appears to be at a minimum an attempt to fix Russian forces along their border with Russia. The worst-case scenario for Moscow would be for the US to repeat with its Baltic state proxies what it has already done in 2008 with its Georgian proxies and what it has done from 2011 onward with its Ukrainian proxies — attack Russia and its allies militarily, precipitating wider war along a wider front.

As the US continues escalating its war on Russia in Ukraine — threatening to expand it even further across the rest of Europe — the US also continues its direct war of aggression against Iran, together precipitating a widening, global energy crisis aimed directly at China itself

Western European nations, including the so-called “coalition of the willing,” led by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have implemented Secretary Hegseth’s directives from February 2025 enthusiastically — directives including to “double down” on arming Ukraine, “spending more on defense,” and convincing the European public of the “threat facing Europe” (meaning Russia).

With this in mind, it is clear there is not only no split of any kind between the US and its European proxies; Washington’s European proxies have demonstrated unflinching servile obedience even at the cost of placing themselves on the precipice of war with neighboring nuclear-armed Russia themselves.

The Larger, Long-Engineered War on Russia

Surrounding Russia with a number of geopolitical and economic crises to “extend Russia” with the hope of eventually precipitating a Soviet Union-style collapse is the subject of numerous US policy papers spanning the entirety of the post-Cold War period.

There is even a paper published by the RAND Corporation literally titled, “Extending Russia,” listing a number of measures the US has since implemented verbatim before and since its publication in 2019.

The paper lays out the economic and geopolitical measures the US has since used to both prepare the grounds for this current proxy war, and to both perpetuate and expand it over time. These measures include targeting Russia’s energy exports, specifically targeting pipeline expansion (Nord Stream, since destroyed by the US), the imposition of sanctions on Russia, the destabilization, destruction, and/or the political capture of Russia’s allies both along its borders and beyond (including Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, and Armenia, as well as Syria), and the arming of Ukraine itself following its political capture by Washington in 2014.

This latter measure, the RAND paper admits, would inevitably invite in wider conflict with Russia — and it did. The paper also admitted the measure would likely end in “disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows” and that “it might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace.”

The purpose of US policy is not to necessarily “defeat” Russia in Ukraine, or in Georgia, or Armenia, Syria, or in any other particular region — but to create a multitude of crises mounting ever-increasing pressure on Russia to create cracks and collapse wherever opportunities allow and eventually precipitate overall collapse following pressure along a large and growing collection of fronts.

And this is precisely what the US is doing.

It doesn’t matter that Ukraine can’t win the current US proxy war against Russia — or that Europe collectively might not be able to either. US objectives are to create a growing conflict that eventually outpaces Russia’s ability to respond and defend itself against.

Similar strategies have been used against other targets of US “regime change,” including Libya, Syria, and Iraq, spanning decades before finally and fully succeeding.

Thus, the measure of Russia’s success is not simply on the battlefield in Ukraine, but its success or failure in defending itself against this much wider campaign of US-driven encroachment — a campaign that has transcended all US presidential administrations since the end of the Cold War without exception and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

The Growing Drone & Missile War

Growing attention has been placed on the steadily expanding drone and missile campaign targeting Russia deep within its territory. While proponents of Ukraine claim the strikes have “turned the tide” in Ukraine’s favor, and Russian proponents claim the attacks have had no impact at all — the truth is likely somewhere in between and subject to shift as both sides adapt. .

The Western media has already admitted “Ukraine’s” deep strikes into Russia using both US and European-manufactured missiles and drones are actually the product of the US intelligence community and the US military.

In late 2025, the New York Times would admit, “The Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. military, with [US President Donald Trump’s ] blessing, supercharged a Ukrainian campaign of drone strikes on Russian oil facilities and tankers.”

More recently, the Financial Times would explain:

Analysts attribute the growing success of Ukraine’s drone campaign to its ability to significantly increase production, as well as improved management.

American intelligence assistance has also played a role, aiding Kyiv in charting the best paths for its drones and helping to skirt air defences, senior Ukrainian officials told the FT.

Of course, Ukraine’s “ability to significantly increase production” actually translates into expanded production by both the US and Europe, who then simply transfer components, kits, or entirely assembled drones to Ukraine for storage and use.

This includes the US-made artificial intelligence (AI) driven “Hornet” drones — a result of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s AI drone campaign announced at least 2 years ago.

These US-made and directed drones are carrying out a large-scale region-wide campaign of strikes on Russian maritime shipping in the Sea of Azov, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and beyond, as well as military, civilian, and energy production infrastructure at further and further ranges from the Russian-Ukrainian border deep inside Russian territory.

While the damage inflicted by these attacks has not matched Russia’s missile, guided bomb, drone, and guided rocket attacks on Ukraine, it is admittedly causing disruptions even according to the Russian government itself, especially for specific regions like Crimea and logistical routes leading into it.

Remembering that Washington’s goal with its war in Ukraine on Russia and its wider campaign of encroachment is meant to “extend,” not “defeat” Russia, it cannot be denied that the US strategy has significantly raised the costs of an already expensive war forced onto Russia.

The US and its European proxies will likely never match Russia in military industrial production, but given enough time, it will certainly continue to expand its ability to inflict greater and greater costs unless and until Russia is able to fully and finally end the war in Ukraine on the battlefield.

With the prospect of Ukraine collapsing and the war ending, the temptation for the US to open up additional fronts along Russia’s borders will increase, with preparations seemingly already underway for just such a front in at least the Baltic states.

Wider War on Multipolarism

As the US continues escalating its war on Russia in Ukraine — threatening to expand it even further across the rest of Europe — the US also continues its direct war of aggression against Iran, together precipitating a widening, global energy crisis aimed directly at China itself.

Meanwhile, the United States continues shaping the Asia-Pacific region in precisely the way it shaped and transformed Europe vis-a-vis Russia and West Asia vis-a-vis Iran — for large-scale war and/or proxy war with China.

The US is in the process of transforming the Philippines in Southeast Asia into the Asia-Pacific’s “Ukraine,” while integrating the military capabilities of South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines under a single interoperable US military command.

Just as the US has utilized drone attacks on Russia laundered through “Ukraine,” the US is likewise preparing the Philippines and the Chinese island province of Taiwan as launching points for similar attacks on China.

Understanding the wider, global nature of US foreign policy, the US proxy war on Russia fits into and helps explain the growing degree of cooperation between the primary targets of this US foreign policy — notably Russia, China, and Iran. Understanding that the US is advancing this policy by not only directly targeting these three nations but also targeting third parties — undermining, politically capturing, and using them as proxies to advance this policy — helps highlight the imperative of creating a global effort to expose and defend against this threat the US pursuit of primacy poses.

This threat is not only of a military and economic dimension but also targets information, education, and political space.

Centuries ago, securing only one’s castle against a siege gives an enemy access to all the space and resources surrounding that castle, creating dynamics of attrition that favor the enemy over time no matter how well-protected the castle itself is. A besieged castle that creates strategic depth far beyond the walls of the castle, enabling it to attack and deny an enemy the ability to approach, let alone begin the siege, increases the odds of victory in the long term.

Today, the multipolar world needs to improve its strategic depth as much as individual nations need to fortify their borders against US encroachment, aggression, infiltration, destabilization, and political capture or collapse. This must be done not only through the traditional domains of national and global security but also by focusing on information space — a domain as important to protect in the 21st century as one’s airspace, land borders, and shores.

Integrating this policy not only nationally but across the emerging multipolar world in a collective manner helps create the strategic depth required in the 21st century to frustrate and defeat aggression today as strategic depth has done in past centuries.

Only time will tell whether or not Russia’s advantages amid the US proxy war in Ukraine can be extended successfully to the much wider campaign of encroachment the US is pursuing against Moscow — and whether Russia, Iran, and China can combine their efforts sufficiently enough to frustrate and defeat Washington’s global campaign of encroachment and aggression it is subjecting the rest of the world to.

 

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.