#U.S.-Russia Relations

[abignewscom]

Putin on Trump Victory, Talks on Ukraine

Putin’s Reaction to Trump’s Victory Russian President Vladimir Putin, known for his reserved nature, publicly congratulated Trump on his win. Calling him “courageous,” Putin noted the many obstacles Trump faced in his political journey. His admiration seemed rooted in Trump’s resilience and fortitude amid political challenges. Historical Relationship Between Putin and Trump The Trump-Putin…

[jdunlevy]

The U.S. Is Paying Billions to Russia’s Nuclear Agency. Here’s Why.

Nuclear power companies rely on cheap enriched uranium made in Russia. That geopolitical dilemma is intensifying as climate change underscores the need for emissions-free energy.

By Max Bearak, nytimes.com

The United States’ reliance on nuclear power is primed to grow as the country aims to decrease reliance on fossil fuels. But no American-owned company enriches uranium. The United States once dominated the market, until a swirl of historical factors, including an enriched-uranium-buying deal between Russia and the United States designed to promote Russia’s peaceful nuclear program after the Soviet Union’s collapse, enabled Russia to corner half the global market. The United States ceased enriching uranium entirely.

[narrative-theory]

U.S. vs. Iran: Decades of Conflict Explained – Brian Berletić

[hisradiantfire]

Personal Integrity

In this thought-provoking episode of Radiant Fire Radio, Christopher delves into the significance of personal integrity in today's world. As exposure reveals true character, Christopher encourages listeners to walk in honesty and purity, emphasizing that integrity ultimately leads to a life free from shame and guilt. This episode serves as a powerful reminder that the little guy, the person doing the right thing, always wins in the end. Tune in to explore the freedom that comes from living a guilt-free life and the rewards of staying true to oneself. Listen as Christopher shares.

Here is the latest from Radiant Fire Radio...

[latestnews-now]

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken embarks on a crucial European visit, attending NATO’s final foreign ministers meeting before President Biden leaves office. With Ukraine's war against Russia and transatlantic security as key issues, find out how the Biden administration plans to strengthen Ukraine's position before the power transition. Stay tuned for the latest developments from Brussels and Malta.

[global-newz]

What Trump, Putin, and Zelensky Said After Biden's Missile Nod for Ukraine

The Biden administration has made a major shift in U.S. policy by approving the use of long-range ATACMS missiles for Ukraine, enabling the country to target Russian territory for the first time since the war began. This decision, made in response to escalating tensions and North Korean involvement in the war, comes just two months before President Joe Biden hands over power to his successor, Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism about continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

The Policy Shift: A Game-Changer?

For over a year, Ukraine has used U.S.-made ATACMS missiles against Russian forces in occupied Ukrainian regions, but Washington had previously barred their use on Russian soil, citing concerns that it would further escalate the conflict. The U.S. decision now gives Ukraine the green light to strike targets inside Russia, with the range of these Lockheed Martin-made missiles extending up to 300 kilometers (186 miles). Ukrainian officials are expected to target critical Russian military infrastructure, including air bases, ammunition depots, and key logistical hubs, particularly in the Kursk region near the Russian-Ukrainian border.

The Strategic Importance of Kursk

The change in policy comes amid increasing concerns about Russia's growing strength in the east of Ukraine and the involvement of North Korean troops in supporting Russian forces. The deployment of North Korean soldiers to the Kursk region, specifically, has been seen as a direct challenge to Ukraine's defense efforts. Ukraine's forces are expected to launch a counter-offensive in this region, which has been a key battleground for both Russia and Ukraine.

While the decision to provide long-range missiles could grant Ukraine an advantage, experts caution that it may not be enough to shift the momentum of the war entirely. Ukraine’s leadership hopes that the missiles will give their forces the ability to target critical Russian supply lines and military installations that could otherwise be out of reach, but the overall effect of the move remains uncertain.

Russian Reaction: Escalation Fears

Moscow's response has been one of intense alarm, with Russian officials warning that the move could lead to further escalation. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long warned that Western military support for Ukraine could cross a dangerous threshold, and he reiterated his concerns this week. "This will mean that NATO countries, the USA, and European states are effectively fighting with Russia," Putin said in September, acknowledging the growing stakes in the conflict.

Andrei Klishas, a prominent Russian Federation senator, called the U.S. decision an "overdue symbolic move" that could escalate the war to dangerous levels, predicting that it could "end with Ukrainian statehood in complete ruins by morning." Another Russian senator, Vladimir Dzhabarov, took a more dramatic tone, stating that this move could be a "very big step" toward World War III.

Trump's Response: Mixed Signals

In the United States, the decision has reignited the debate over the role of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, with former President Donald Trump and his supporters expressing mixed feelings. Trump has consistently criticized the extensive U.S. support for Ukraine, suggesting that the Biden administration's approach has been reckless and insufficiently focused on peace talks. However, Trump’s position on how to handle the war is far from clear, as some of his officials advocate for continued assistance to Ukraine, while others are pushing for a reduction in support.

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., voiced concerns over the potential for global conflict, writing on social media that the "military industrial complex seems to want to make sure they get World War III going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives." His remarks reflect the ongoing division within the Republican Party on the issue of Ukraine.

On the other hand, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz suggested that Trump might speed up the delivery of weapons to Ukraine in order to pressure Russia into negotiations. This could align with Trump’s stated goal of resolving the conflict quickly—he has previously said he could bring an end to the war within a single day.

However, other members of the GOP, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have been vocal in their opposition to further U.S. involvement. During a speech in May, Vance declared, "We’ve done more than our fair share" and expressed skepticism about continuing to fund what he described as a "never-ending war." Vance, along with other critics, argues that the U.S. should focus on domestic priorities rather than becoming further entrenched in a foreign conflict.

Global Reactions: A Symbolic Gesture or a Strategic Move?

While many Western diplomats have welcomed the decision as a necessary escalation to demonstrate unwavering support for Ukraine, some are cautious. They acknowledge that the ATACMS missiles, while powerful, may not be enough to turn the tide of the war or bring about a decisive military victory. In some circles, this move is seen as more symbolic, showing that the West remains committed to backing Ukraine despite increasing risks of direct confrontation with Russia.

The global community remains divided, with some fearing that the U.S. decision may increase the likelihood of nuclear escalation, while others believe that providing Ukraine with the necessary firepower to defend its sovereignty is essential.

The Road Ahead

As tensions continue to rise, both in Ukraine and on the international stage, the role of military aid and diplomatic negotiations will continue to be at the forefront of discussions. Ukraine is relying heavily on Western support, but the geopolitical consequences of this support, particularly in the face of an unpredictable Russian response, make the situation volatile.

The next phase of the war is likely to be shaped not only by the missiles that are now in Ukraine’s hands but also by the political decisions made in Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv. With the U.S. presidential election looming, the policy direction under the next administration could drastically alter the course of the conflict.

As the world watches closely, it remains to be seen whether this new development will bring Ukraine closer to victory or further entrench the conflict, pushing both sides toward even greater escalation.

[futurefatum]

⚫☢ NUCLEAR IRAN! US THREATENS WW3 WITH RUSSIA! ECONOMIC CRASH! BIRD FLU! (Tone: 50)

Escalating tensions w/ Iran, potential U.S. market crash, & bird flu crises loom. Global issues unpacked. #Geopolitics #EconomicInstability #Iran

Posted November 15th, 2025 by @CanadianPrepper ABOUT THIS VIDEO: This video presents a broad overview of various current global geopolitical and social crises, with a particular emphasis on potential conflicts involving Israel, Iran, and the United States, along with other topics like economic instability and bird flu outbreaks in North America. It asserts that nuclear conflict may occur soon,…

[reportwire]

After one year of war, how to break the stalemate in Ukraine?

February 24 will mark one year since Russian tanks rolled over the border into Ukraine. As it stands there is still no end in sight and the U.S. is facing increasing pressure to provide military aid in the form of high tech equipment such as F-16 fighters and M1 Abrams tanks. David Silbey is an associate professor of history at Cornell University where he specializes in military history, defense…

[afloweroutofstone]

Yassin al-Haj Saleh, "The Liquid Imperialism That Engulfed Syria," Commons, December 18, 2023:

Syria is a country of only 71,498 square miles in area, with a population of less than 24 million, and yet two global superpowers (the United States and the Russian Federation) and three of the largest regional powers (Iran, Turkey and Israel) are present on its territory. Israel has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967, and carries out almost nonstop incursions into Syrian air space today. In centuries past, prior to the heyday of European and Russian imperialism, Iran and Turkey were empires. While it is debatable whether they still qualify as imperial powers, they have never let go of their regional imperial ambitions. One way to understand them, regionally, is as “subimperial”: expansionist and interventionist, including militarily, in neighboring countries.

The U.S. and Russia have well-known histories of expansion and domination of peoples and territories. Imperialism was key to the very formation of both nations. But while Russia’s “manifest destiny” had been, for centuries, to expand into neighboring areas in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, it was in Syria that Moscow established its first overseas outpost. I will return to this crucial fact later.

In Syria, multiple imperial and subimperial powers have poured into one small country — some of them to protect a murderous regime, all of them annihilating any independent political aspirations among its people, dividing up sectors of Syrian society among themselves and their satellites, and denying Syrians the promise of a different future.

This unique situation was made possible by a combination of internal as well as international structures and dynamics involving five key powers — the U.S., Russia, Iran, Turkey and Israel...

One slogan of the recent protests that erupted in the southern city of Sweida on Aug. 20, 2023, speaks directly to the imperial-colonial complex that controls Syria:

["]We want the seaport, we want the land (the oil, in another formula) and we want the airport returned to us!["]

The seaport is Tartus, which, as mentioned, has been leased to Russia. The land is divided by the five occupying powers. And Damascus International Airport has, for several years now, been widely perceived to be under de facto Iranian control. The protestors in Sweida are thus drawing a connection between their economic hardships and the colonial relations between the regime and its Russian and Iranian protectors. In the version of the slogan that refers to oil, the implication is that it has been usurped by another imperial power: the U.S...

Lenin’s argument that imperialism represents “the highest stage of capitalism” has led many to think of imperialism as embodied in a very few capitalist powers. By this logic, there has been only one imperialism since World War II: Western imperialism, with the U.S. as its center and NATO as its military arm. The Soviet Union was not generally seen by those on the left as imperialist: not following World War II, nor after it invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, nor even after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Similarly, Putin’s Russia has not generally been understood as imperialist, even after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the intervention in Syria in 2015. For much of the so-called anti-imperialist left, not even the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was enough.

This conception of imperialism must be challenged. The case of Syria requires a paradigm shift in the understanding of imperialism and the theorizing of new practices and phenomena pertaining to it.

Ultranationalism, expansion, dismissal of international law, exceptionalism, imperial imaginaries — these are characteristics of many powers in the age of the war on terror. With “terror” identified as the principal political evil globally, any state that joins in this alleged war can gain international legitimacy — even those engaged in war crimes and murder on an industrial scale. This has dealt massive blows to the rule of law both locally and internationally. It has contributed to a securitized politics, it has promoted thuggery among political elites and has weakened democracy and popular movements everywhere. Imperialism has permeated the practices of power in many countries, among which Syria is arguably the most unfortunate, with no fewer than five expansionist powers on its territory.

The concept of liquid imperialism is an attempt to capture the fact that five different powers have penetrated one small country. But it also speaks to the lack of solidity or coherence in these powers’ strategies, practices, visions and commitments. Unlike the imperial projects of the past, in Syria there is no “civilizing mission.” Natural resources are not a primary motive (though the intervening states have seized whatever they can get their hands on, from oil and phosphates to seaports and airports, to water and real estate). Rather, this is a scramble to control the future of the country.

There is also a liquid aspect in the relations among the five colonial powers. In Syria, we have two Russias — one of them is called the U.S. On a rhetorical level (especially at the beginning of the uprising), Moscow and Washington seemed to be on opposite sides: The Kremlin stood by Assad and the White House denounced him. Yet operationally, Russia and the U.S. were effectively on the same side — especially after the Islamic State came into the picture and became the central focus of U.S. strategy in Syria. From that point forward, Moscow and Washington were on the same page: The two powers closely coordinated “deconfliction” and their military personnel were on the phone to each other on a daily basis to avoid planes flying in the same location at the same altitude and to ensure airstrikes didn’t hit one another’s “friendlies.” For all the bluster about Washington wanting “regime change” in Syria, the exact opposite was the case. The researcher Michael Karadjis has demonstrated that U.S. policy in Syria was decidedly one of “regime preservation.”

[liberalsarecool]

The United Nations Security Council on Monday passed its first resolution calling for a Gaza cease-fire after four failed attempts. The United States abstained, allowing it to pass.

The resolution, backed by 14 nations, including China and Russia, demands an immediate cease-fire during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan and the release of all hostages.

Four previous cease-fire resolutions had failed, including one proposed by the United States on Friday. The U.S. abstention is likely to further strain U.S. relations with Israel amid sharp disagreements over Israel’s planned military offensive in Rafah.

KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!!

[pissvortex]

Imperialism under Biden/Harris:

- Started war with Russia over natural gas

- Sponsors genocide in Palestine

- Continued attempts to overthrow social democrats in Latin America

- Continued sabre rattling against China and the DPRK

Imperialism under Trump:

- Continued sabre rattling against China (except Trump seems fine not propping up Taiwan)

- Continued attempts to overthrow social democrats in Latin America

- Assassinated Qasem Soleimani

- Bombed Syria

So, overall, it's two spur of the moment bombings versus two entire wars. Plus Trump negotiated with the DPRK and wants to dismantle NATO. For idiotic reasons, obviously, but he's objectively the anti-imperialist option.

you seem serious so: You have a very juvenile understanding of imperialism that seemingly only includes military action. Even if Trump did dismantle NATO it would not change America’s status as the finance capital / usury state of the world - I see no reason to doubt what he says openly is his intention when he says this move would actually increase American financial domination. That is imperialism, albeit a deviation from the current neoliberal global partnership imperialism because Trump is an American exceptionalist and (perhaps naively) believes in total American domination. He doesn’t really care about traditional conservative/liberal notions of diplomacy or world relations, he just likes watching the numbers go up. Every time there was a dip in the stock market he would just pump it with a trillion more dollars from the federal reserve. He correctly identifies America as the world’s money printer, and since the world has a U.S. currency standard, he has no reason to fear this backfiring. It’s why he’s pursuing this idiotic tariff idea, he knows the rest of the world will take a lot of punishment to continue to be “in” on American finance and he can make his petit bourgeois constituents happy with free money for hare-brained small business. He leaves the actual big finance and megacorporations alone and lets small businesses live in this fantasy realm of free government funding forever. It’s like a fake economy for complacency layered under the real one. This is not anti-imperialist, it’s petit-bourgeois populism and it isn’t better by any means.

[metamatar]

On March 2, just days before the meeting, Lu had been questioned at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing over the neutrality of India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan in the Ukraine conflict. [...]

The day before the meeting, Khan addressed a rally and responded directly to European calls that Pakistan rally behind Ukraine. “Are we your slaves?” Khan thundered to the crowd. “What do you think of us? That we are your slaves and that we will do whatever you ask of us?” he asked. “We are friends of Russia, and we are also friends of the United States. We are friends of China and Europe. We are not part of any alliance.” [...] The day after the meeting, on March 8, Khan’s opponents in Parliament moved forward with a key procedural step toward the no-confidence vote.

[...] In recent months, the military-led government cracked down not just on dissidents but also on suspected leakers inside its own institutions, passing a law last week that authorizes warrantless searches and lengthy jail terms for whistleblowers. Shaken by the public display of support for Khan — expressed in a series of mass protests and riots this May — the military has also enshrined authoritarian powers for itself that drastically reduce civil liberties, criminalize criticism of the military, expand the institution’s already expansive role in the country’s economy, and give military leaders a permanent veto over political and civil affairs.

[...] On balance, the text of the cypher strongly suggests that the U.S. encouraged Khan’s removal. According to the cable, while Lu did not directly order Khan to be taken out of office, he said that Pakistan would suffer severe consequences, including international isolation, if Khan were to stay on as prime minister, while simultaneously hinting at rewards for his removal. The remarks appear to have been taken as a signal for the Pakistani military to act.

[narrative-theory]

BRICS: New Global Financial Order?

BRICS: Defiance of U. S.?: New Global Financial Order?

[hisradiantfire]

Lean in to Him!

Christopher shares personal experiences and spiritual insights to encourage listeners to lean into faith during life's challenges. God will reveal Himself to you when you absolutely need it. Learn to trust in God's unwavering support. Look for the small ways that He brings joy to your heart. Be inspired to find peace and confidence in knowing you are loved and cared for, regardless of your circumstances. Listen as Christopher shares

Here is the latest from Radiant Fire Radio...