Најди сличен содржај

📰 Iran’s Supreme Leader Says He Won’t Bow Down to Protests or Trump Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has declared the Islamic Republic won’t back down in the face of fast-growing protests and threats from President Trump. After the largest demonstrations in years rocked Tehran, new protests have been called for Friday, with chants increasingly calling for regime change. Khamenei, speaking to supporters in Qom, said the regime “will not retreat” and blamed the unrest on “vandals seeking to please Trump.” He warned the U.S. president to focus on his own country’s problems, claiming “arrogant rulers throughout history were overthrown at the height of their pride”—and that Trump “will also be overthrown.” Trump, meanwhile, has reiterated his threat to intervene if the Iranian government uses deadly force against protesters. Tensions in Tehran have risen following the U.S. raid on Caracas and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, raising fears of direct intervention. The government has acknowledged economic grievances but continues to use security forces to suppress protests. More than 2,000 people have been arrested and at least 36 killed, with unrest spreading to 92 cities. Is Khamenei’s defiance a sign of strength—or desperation? #iran#protests#trump#khamenei#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Washington’s Not Leaving Europe. It’s Repricing It. The Trump administration is quietly telling European capitals to relax: there will be no dramatic airlift of tens of thousands of U.S. troops out of Europe — at least not yet. Between a new law that legally locks in a floor of 76,000 U.S. troops on the continent and a current presence of about 85,000, the big “America is abandoning NATO” panic is paused. What’s coming instead is a slow, technical‑sounding reshuffle that does the same thing more subtly: Europe gets more titles; the U.S. frees up flexibility. On paper, most things “stay the same”: bases, brigades, air wings remain; any cuts are sold as tweaks to rotational forces or trimming a couple hundred staff officers whose billets will quietly be handed to Europeans and Canadians when their tours end. But underneath, NATO’s command wiring is being rewired. Norfolk and Naples — two of the alliance’s three four‑star Joint Force Commands — will move under European officers, with the U.K. and Italy taking over. Germany and Poland will share the land‑war nerve center in Brunssum. The Americans, in return, grab Allied Maritime Command in the U.K., the bit that matters most if your real horizon is the Atlantic and the Pacific. The sales pitch is straightforward: this is “European leadership in European defense,” exactly what Trump has been demanding — allies stepping up, taking command, proving they can run a conventional war without Washington holding their hand. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker insists America will “continue to show up,” while openly saying the goal is for Europe to shoulder more so U.S. forces can be repositioned toward Asia and the Western Hemisphere when needed. Translation: we’re not ghosting you; we’re restructuring the relationship so we can leave faster later. For Europe, this is the real message beneath the calming briefings. There won’t be a theatrical “Trump pulls out of NATO” moment, because Congress has wired tripwires into the NDAA that make a massive drawdown painful and slow. Instead, there will be gradual non‑replacements, command swaps, and a permanent rhetorical drumbeat that “changes are coming” and Europe “must step up swiftly.” The flags will stay; the assumptions behind them won’t. In other words, Washington isn’t abandoning Europe. It’s turning Europe into a franchise: same logo, fewer guaranteed services, higher local costs — and a contract that can be rewritten again when the next crisis breaks somewhere closer to China than to Brussels. #usa#nato#europe#trump#war#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

📰 Trump, Putin Hold ‘Positive Call’ on Ukraine—But What Does It Mean? President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a “positive call” Monday to discuss ending the war in Ukraine, according to the White House. The conversation came just a day after Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago, where both sides claimed “a lot of progress”—but no breakthrough. “A lot of progress,” Trump said. “It might take a few weeks to conclude. No set timeline.” Trump’s optimism is familiar, but the details remain murky. Ukraine’s revised peace plan—now down to 20 points—is still missing key Russian demands, especially on territory and the size of Ukraine’s military. Moscow insists on maximalist territorial claims, while Zelensky wants a 50-year US security guarantee to deter future Russian aggression. The Diplomatic Dance Trump says a deal is “getting a lot closer,” but there’s no set timeline. Zelensky says the plan is “90% agreed,” but Russia says some elements are non-negotiable. Both leaders are playing the long game, promising progress while leaving the hard choices for later. Is this “positive call” a step toward peace—or just another round of diplomatic theater? #ukraine#russia#trump#putin#diplomacy#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

📰 Trump Wants a War. His Top General Knows He Can’t Afford One. Trump is talking like he’s ready to hit Iran; his top general is quietly spelling out why that could blow up in his face — militarily and politically. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has warned Trump and senior officials that the U.S. is low on key munitions, short on allied support, and facing serious risks to U.S. troops if the president orders anything more than a token strike. ​ Caine told Trump in a White House meeting that years of defending Israel, shooting down Houthi missiles, and feeding Ukraine’s air defenses have badly depleted stocks of THAAD interceptors, Patriot missiles, and Navy SM‑2/3/6 systems — the very weapons you need when Iran and its proxies start sending ballistic missiles back. These aren’t bullets you reorder on Amazon: experts say each replacement can take two years or more to build, and Congress only partially funded a $30 billion emergency restock last year. The Pentagon, according to former officials, “is not prepared to resource simultaneous conflicts” — adding an Iran war on top of Ukraine and Israel would mean deciding who gets left exposed. ​ Allies see the problem and want no part of it. A senior Gulf official says Arab states have already told Washington their bases cannot be used for strikes on Iran; Tehran has threatened to hit any country that helps. That raises basic questions: if regional partners deny basing and overflight, how do you run a days‑ or weeks‑long air campaign across a country more than three times the size of Iraq, against hundreds or even thousands of targets? Taking out missile sites alone would mean hitting mobile launchers, depots, air defenses, and transport networks; going for regime change — something Trump has openly mused about — would explode the target list and the risk of U.S. casualties. ​ Inside the administration, some push a “limited strike” to scare Tehran back to the table on its nuclear program, pointing to Iran’s relatively restrained responses to past U.S. and Israeli hits. Others warn that in the current climate — with Trump talking regime change and Iranian hard‑liners ascendant — even a “small” strike could trigger a deadly tit‑for‑tat: rockets on U.S. bases, attacks on diplomats, pressure on Israel, Hezbollah dragged in, and Americans evacuated from embassies like the one in Lebanon, where nonessential staff and families are already being ordered out. ​ Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff goes on Fox and asks why Iran hasn’t “capitulated” given all the U.S. firepower offshore. Iran’s foreign minister answers with a single line: “Because we are Iranian.” Translation: they’d rather absorb pain — and possibly dish it out — than surrender on enrichment and national pride. Caine, the one man in the room who has to make the math work, is effectively telling Trump that a big war with Iran today means going in under‑supplied, without regional cover, and gambling with U.S. lives to solve a problem airstrikes can’t actually finish. ​ #Trump#Iran#war#Pentagon#military#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Trump’s Ukraine Peace Show: High Stakes, Low Trust Donald Trump is selling himself as the exhausted planet’s peacemaker‑in‑chief, but his Ukraine diplomacy looks more like a high‑risk branding exercise than a moral awakening. For more than a year back in office he has thrown his weight behind talks with Russia and Ukraine, flown in Jared Kushner and a billionaire “peace envoy,” and wrapped everything in the language of a historic deal to end a nearly five‑year war. On paper, it’s a statesman’s dream. In practice, it’s a pressure campaign where the hottest seat isn’t in Moscow, it’s in Kyiv. The so‑called “energy truce” with Vladimir Putin is a perfect snapshot of the whole project. Trump bragged on TV that he called Putin personally and got him to stop firing on Kyiv and “various towns” for a week — a kind of gentleman’s pause in the middle of a grinding, industrial war. He mocked advisers who told him he was wasting his time, then claimed victory: “He kept his word.” Days later, Russia unleashed one of its largest missile and drone barrages of the year, smashing Ukraine’s power grid in sub‑zero cold, knocking out heat in thousands of apartment blocks and wrecking a plant in Kharkiv beyond repair. Kyiv calls it terror; Trump insists the timing technically honored the deal. This isn’t peacebuilding, it’s loophole management. All of this is happening while American, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators sit in hotel rooms in Abu Dhabi and elsewhere describing the talks as “substantive” and “productive.” The Russian team is fronted by the same intelligence chiefs who helped run the invasion in 2022. The U.S. delegation is heavy with political loyalists and uniformed brass. On the side, separate Russian‑American channels are busy talking oil, sanctions, investment and “economic cooperation” — the polite way of saying that Ukraine’s future borders are being discussed in the same portfolio as tanker traffic and access to Western finance. The war is the headline; the deal is a package. Moscow’s missile diplomacy is not a glitch in this script, it’s the logic. By hammering Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure while sitting at the table, the Kremlin raises the price of resistance for Zelensky and tests how far Trump is willing to go to force concessions. The message is brutal and simple: accept territorial losses, accept a frozen conflict dressed up as peace, or watch your people freeze and your grid collapse every winter. When Zelensky calls for “maximum pressure” — more sanctions, tighter controls on Russian oil profits — he isn’t just begging for leverage; he is trying to survive being turned into a bargaining chip in someone else’s grand bargain with Moscow. What Trump calls “redoubling efforts” looks, from a distance, like doubling down on a familiar pattern: stage a personal drama with Putin, wrap it in talk about ending “endless wars,” and quietly prepare to cash out a bad reality as a great deal. If he can walk away claiming he ended the Ukraine war — even at the cost of Ukrainian territory and long‑term security — he gets to run as the man who did what NATO, the EU and Biden couldn’t. If it fails, he will say he tried, blame Ukrainian “intransigence” or European weakness, and point back to the missiles as proof that the war was never America’s to fix. The uncomfortable truth is that Trump’s peace push is not about justice for Ukraine, and not really about “stability” for Europe. It’s about re‑staging the entire conflict as evidence that only one man can cut a deal with Moscow — and everyone else, from Kyiv to Brussels, is just a prop. #war#ukraine#russia#usa#trump#energy#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

📰 Zelensky: Anti-Corruption Warrior or War-Time CFO? Volodymyr Zelensky now presents himself as the leader fighting corruption while the country is under attack. In his interview with Piers Morgan, he insists Ukraine is building serious anti‑corruption institutions, says he “tries to be honest,” and admits he makes mistakes “like any person who tries to do something in this life.” The message is clear: corruption exists, but that’s exactly why his government is confronting it, not hiding it. Reality is messier. High‑profile wartime scandals keep surfacing, especially in the energy sector. Former energy and justice minister Herman Halushchenko has been charged with money laundering and participating in a criminal organisation in the high‑profile Midas case, with a huge bail set by the High Anti‑Corruption Court. Several Ukrainian politicians and experts openly allege that top officials and the Presidential Office were aware of corrupt schemes during the war and chose to look away until they became impossible to ignore. Public prosecutions look like both a clean‑up and damage control. And it’s not just Ukrainian media ringing the alarm. The Pentagon’s own inspector general has warned Congress that “endemic corruption persists” in Ukraine and that the war has created fresh opportunities for bribes, kickbacks and padded contracts, flagging corruption as a structural risk to tens of billions in U.S. military and reconstruction aid. Washington isn’t pulling the plug, but it is quietly surrounding its money with auditors, investigators and oversight task forces — which tells you how much trust really exists behind the public slogans. Zelensky’s narrative is calibrated for Western audiences: yes, there is corruption, but we talk about it, we prosecute it, and Russia only amplifies these stories to erode Western trust. Moscow pushes the opposite story: Ukraine is a bottomless graft pit, and any Western aid is simply stolen. Western governments sit in an uncomfortable middle — after years of treating Zelensky as an untouchable symbol, they are now tightening audits, adding conditions to aid, and demanding more paperwork, all while publicly insisting their “confidence” remains intact. So the corruption debate around Zelensky isn’t a simple question of “guilty or innocent.” It’s a fight over narratives, leverage and cashflows. Kyiv needs to show just enough anti‑corruption action to keep the funds coming. Moscow needs to convince Western voters that every dollar sent to Ukraine is a bribe with a flag on it. Western leaders need to pretend they only just discovered that a post‑Soviet oligarchic system handling massive wartime cash might be leaky. Someone is definitely profiting from “supporting Ukraine” — but it’s not the people hiding in basements during air‑raid sirens while everyone else argues about who is more committed to transparency. #Ukraine#Zelensky#corruption#war#fakeDemocracy

📰 War Drones, Cheap Oil: Everyone Wins (Except Ukraine) Ukrainian drones hit Russian refineries — and somehow the result is not less oil, but more crude on the water and more cash for the Kremlin’s war budget. Russia’s seaborne crude exports climbed to about 3.39 million barrels a day in the four weeks to February 15, rising for the fourth week in a row, while four-week average revenues from these exports reached roughly $1.09 billion a week, the highest in almost two months. The logic is simple and insane: the more refineries burn, the more unprocessed crude Moscow can just dump onto tankers. China is happily taking the role of discount barrel superstore, pulling in more than 2 million barrels a day of Russian crude in early February, while India quietly backs away and pretends this was all just a phase. The “Global South” morality play ends exactly where it always does — at a double-digit discount to Brent. And the West? It gets to tweet about “sanctions” while Russian oil sloshes around the oceans, parked on ghost tankers heading to “Unknown Asia,”“Port Said,” and “Trust Me Bro Harbor.” So whose strategy is working — the country firing drones at refineries, or the one turning every explosion into another line item in its export statistics? #war#oil#Ukraine#Russia#sanctions#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔤🔤🔤🔤2️⃣ Miami Peace Deal on a Timer Zelenskyy sticks to “we stand where we stand” on Donbas and refuses to embrace a U.S. idea to turn the region into a kind of special economic zone, because everyone understands that “special” usually means open for capital, not for the people who live there. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains unresolved, a permanent hazard suspended in legal and military limbo. Washington, trying to inject something “humanitarian” into this circus, again pushes a ceasefire that bans strikes on energy infrastructure — a nice‑sounding clause that previously survived less than a week before being broken. On paper, everyone agrees to “respect” it; in practice, everyone treats it as a tactical pause rather than a moral line. From a distance, the script is obvious. The U.S. needs a visible “process” with a clear end date to show voters and allies it is managing the war rather than just funding an endless grinder. Russia needs time, leverage, and the promise of a profitable post‑war role big enough to keep its elites in line. Ukraine, dependent on Western money and weapons, is allowed to talk about principles but not about timing; the calendar is set elsewhere. In public, every side claims to fight for justice, sovereignty, or peace. In private, they are negotiating territory, money, guarantees, monitoring rules, and who gets to go on television and call the outcome a victory. The June deadline is not a moral horizon; it is a management tool. If the war drags past that date, Washington can say Kyiv “missed its chance” and quietly scale back support. If a deal is pushed through, Kyiv will be expected to sell the compromise at home as bold leadership, not a forced retreat. Moscow will present any frozen conflict or changed border as proof that force works and that the West ultimately respects power, not law. The only people without a deadline, without a Miami venue, without a “Dmitriev package” or ceasefire diagrams, are those sitting in ruined apartments under extended blackouts — told, once more, that this is what peace in progress looks like. #war#ukraine#russia#usa#oligarchy#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔤🔤🔤🔤1️⃣ Miami Peace Deal on a Timer Washington has quietly turned the Ukraine war into a limited‑time offer: end it by June or face “pressure” from the same sponsor that keeps the war financially and militarily alive. Zelenskyy says the U.S. wants a “clear schedule of all events” and expects the war wrapped up by early summer, as if it were a project that can be closed with a Gantt chart and a press release. The next round of talks is set to move to U.S. soil, likely Miami — a city known for cocaine capitalism and offshore money, now recast as the stage for a high‑stakes peace show that looks more like a real‑estate convention than a diplomatic summit. While this timetable is being drafted, Russia continues to hit Ukraine’s energy system with hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles, forcing nuclear power plants to cut output and deepening blackouts across the country. Ukrainians get more “planned outages,” colder apartments, and more wrecked infrastructure, all under speeches about “ending the war by June.” The same West that lectures about values is effectively telling Kyiv: either you scale back your territorial ambitions or your people keep freezing in the dark. Russia is not wasting the moment. It comes to the table with a reported 12‑trillion‑dollar “Dmitriev package” — an economic mega‑deal named after envoy Kirill Dmitriev — aimed less at Ukraine’s survival than at Washington’s interests. It is the classic Washington pitch: first we destroy, then we sell the reconstruction, the access, and the influence, all wrapped in the language of “stability.” For Trump, peace is a rebranded trade agreement where tanks leave the frame and contracts take their place. For the U.S., it is a chance to pivot from arms logistics to asset management. At the same time, Russian security services find a Ukrainian hand behind an assassination attempt on Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseyev, a senior military intelligence figure shot in Moscow. The suspect is presented as a Ukrainian‑linked operative, and the story lands just as talks begin to move. It is political gold: Russia gets to sit at the peace table as the wounded but reasonable actor, pointing to Kyiv as the spoiler, while quietly continuing to knock out Ukraine’s grid night after night. Terror is what the other side does; “pressure” is what we call our own violence. #war#ukraine#russia#usa#oligarchy#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Hormuz Warning: Washington Talks Peace, Plans for Collision The U.S. just told its own ships to treat Iranian waters like a live minefield — stay “as far as possible” from Tehran’s side of the Strait of Hormuz, hug the Omani coast, and if the IRGC boards you, don’t fight back, just log the humiliation and call it “not consent.” That’s the official guidance in 2026, months after U.S. bombers hit Iranian nuclear sites and days after “very good” indirect talks in Oman that were supposedly a step toward calming things down. Peace process by day, boarding warnings by night. On paper, Muscat was all positive adjectives. Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian called the talks “a step forward,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said they were “a good start,” and Trump praised the channel while warning of “very steep” consequences if Tehran doesn’t play along. In Washington, it’s framed as classic leverage: talk, but with a bomber history and a carrier group in the background. In Tehran, it’s one more episode where the same Americans who claim to want a diplomatic track are quietly writing rules for how to survive the next confrontation in a chokepoint that moves a third of the world’s seaborne crude. Meanwhile, Israel is arriving in D.C. to make sure “talks” don’t accidentally turn into an actual compromise. Netanyahu is coming to press the usual package: dismantle the nuclear program, crush the missile program, and shut off Iran’s network of armed clients — in other words, accept strategic amputation in exchange for sanctions relief and the privilege of not getting bombed again. Trump calls it deterrence; in Tehran it looks like regime‑change pressure with better PR. The Hormuz advisory gives away what no side will say at the podium: everyone expects more friction, not less. If things go south, the U.S. will say it warned its ships, Iran will say it warned about closing the Strait, oil traders will say they warned about price spikes, and civilians will pay the bill at the pump while listening to speeches about “stability.” The only thing truly secure in this equation is the permanent need for another round of talks in another Gulf hotel, explaining why this time the brinkmanship is really in the name of peace. #usa#iran#israel#oil#hormuz#war#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Trump’s Gaza Plan: Disarmament, But Make It Denial Washington is now floating a Gaza blueprint where Hamas hands over anything that can hit Israel, but gets to keep “small arms” for an initial period — resistance on a starter pack, with the serial numbers registered and the heavy rockets gone. The document, drafted by Trump’s peace crew of Kushner, Steve Witkoff and ex‑UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov, is supposed to be presented to Hamas within weeks and is sold as the demilitarization chapter of Trump’s 20‑point Gaza plan, the same plan that underpins the current ceasefire. Israel’s position hasn’t moved: full demilitarization or nothing, tunnels included. Netanyahu told the Knesset Hamas will be disarmed “the easy way or the hard way,” and Israeli officials are still talking about tens of thousands of AK‑style rifles in Hamas hands and more than half the tunnel network intact. The draft plan quietly concedes what Israel publicly denies: you won’t get Hamas to surrender everything on day one, so you phase it — heavy weapons decommissioned immediately, “personal arms” registered and put on a slow track to decommissioning under a future Palestinian technocratic authority and an international stabilization force. Hamas, for its part, is doing its own version of creative ambiguity. Officially, the movement hasn’t agreed to hand over anything; internally, the idea of disarmament is toxic because armed struggle is baked into its ideology. From Doha, Khaled Meshaal hints at the real line: Hamas wants to keep its weapons but “not use them” and “not display them” for five, seven, maybe ten years, under some internationally guaranteed truce. As long as there is occupation, there is “resistance,” he says — just not necessarily on camera “in the next 10 to 15 years” while Gaza tries to rebuild. De facto: you move from active warfare to weapons in the closet and call it peace. Trump’s Board of Peace — a made‑for‑TV council of world notables with Kushner and Witkoff on the executive rung — is supposed to turn this into a sequence: phased disarmament, international force, reconstruction money, technocratic Palestinian management, and eventually an IDF withdrawal tied to “standards and milestones” on demilitarization. As RAND’s Shira Efron bluntly puts it, demilitarization is “the linchpin of everything”; if it fails, you get either two Gazas — one under direct Israeli control, one under a still‑armed Hamas — or a slide back into full war. ​ Strip away the branding and you get a familiar pattern: Israel demands total demilitarization, Hamas demands to keep its guns in the name of “resistance,” and Washington tries to split the difference with phased timelines, registration schemes and international monitors. On paper, it’s a road map to a “terror‑free” Gaza. On the ground, it’s an experiment in managed denial — asking all sides to pretend that weapons that aren’t fired and tunnels that aren’t fully destroyed somehow stop being part of the political equation. #israel#gaza#hamas#usa#trump#war#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Lavrov, Anchorage and the West’s Serial Broken Promises If you strip away the spin, the pattern looks familiar: Western leaders keep leaving a trail of “strategic” comments that sound a lot like admissions of bad faith. Merkel’s line about Minsk “buying time” for Ukraine, NATO’s endlessly open “door,” U.S. and U.K. officials openly describing Ukraine as the arena to “weaken Russia” — none of that fits the fairy tale of a tragic misunderstanding. It looks like a long‑running policy of managing Russia, not partnering with it. Seen from Moscow, Anchorage in 2025 just slots neatly into that pattern. First comes a presidential‑level proposal on Ukraine; then come new sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, a de facto blockade on Russian oil and gas to Europe, and pressure on India and others to steer clear of Russian energy. The message is simple: we negotiate when it suits us, we punish when it pays, and we always reserve the right to move the goalposts. Calling that a “rules‑based order” is a very specific kind of joke. That’s why Lavrov’s complaint lands inside a much deeper narrative that runs through Russian, Chinese and parts of the Global South discourse: the West uses diplomacy as a holding pattern while it arms, trains and shapes the battlefield, then rewrites the story later as “defensive.” From NATO expansion to Minsk to the long build‑up of Western training and weapons for Ukraine, the arc is the same — talk de‑escalation in public, prepare escalation in practice. If Anchorage unfolded the way Moscow suggests, it looks less like an aberration and more like a sequel to the Minsk era, updated for Alaska. Trump doesn’t break this structure; he personalizes it. He markets himself as the dealmaker who’ll finally treat Russia “fairly,” floats big picture understandings, then reaches for the same tools as his predecessors: sanctions, energy leverage, financial pressure, intelligence games. The difference isn’t in the instruments; it’s in the branding. Where a traditional hawk dresses it up as “deterrence,” Trump calls it “winning.” Either way, you squeeze until the other side either bends or signs something you can sell at home. From that perspective, this isn’t a story of Trump suddenly betraying some budding U.S.–Russia trust. It looks like the system behaving exactly as designed. Washington and London have effectively acknowledged they are co‑belligerents on Ukrainian soil. Senior Western politicians have boasted that past deals with Moscow were used to buy time, not to lock in peace. Russia was told one story at the table while another track ran through training ranges, budget committees and LNG contracts. Anchorage simply becomes the latest entry in a long “broken promises” narrative. For American readers, the question isn’t whether to sympathize with Moscow. It’s whether they recognize that a political and security system that treats a nuclear power this way will treat its own electorate the same way: promise one thing, do another, and blame “circumstances” or “intelligence” for the gap. If you can manage a war like this behind layers of narrative, staging an election story is child’s play. #war#ukraine#russia#usa#nato#energy#fakeDemocracy 📱American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸