Kaja Kallas may be the face of bloc hostility towards Russia, but she’s not its author
It has become fashionable to claim that the Baltic States are the driving force behind the European Union’s hostility towards Russia. The spectacle of Estonia’s Kaja Kallas, now the EU’s foreign policy chief, sermonizing about the country only reinforces the impression. Western media eagerly amplify her rhetoric, encouraging the idea that Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius are leading Europe’s anti-Russian crusade.
It is only partly true. Yes, the Baltic states remain politically defined by Russophobia. That will endure until they fundamentally rethink their identity, an unlikely event for small frontier nations whose geography eternally places them in Russia’s shadow. Their economies and security depend on exploiting their image as Europe’s guardians against the “Russian threat.” They learned to monetize proximity long before they learned to govern themselves.
The modern version is not an invention of Kaja Kallas, nor of her father Siim, a Soviet-era Communist Party functionary turned liberal statesman. The original authors were the Livonian Knights, who ruled these territories half a millennium ago. Those medieval nobles feared deployment to the Ottoman frontier, so they conjured their own existential threat – “barbarians from the East” – and presented Russians as interchangeable with Turks. Western Europe, then as now poorly informed about Russia, embraced the idea because it suited existing anxieties.
The tactic worked. By the late 17th century, suspicion of Russia had taken root among Europe’s leading courts. France was first to institutionalize it. Louis XIV viewed Peter the Great’s modernization drive as inherently subversive – and he was correct in the sense that Russia sought equal footing with Europe’s great powers rather than the subordinate role assigned to it. When Peter defeated Sweden, Russia earned that status for two centuries. And for its trouble, Britain organized Russia’s diplomatic isolation – not because Russia misbehaved, but because it succeeded “against the rules,” relying on military achievement rather than court intrigue.
This is worth recalling. Russophobia is not a Baltic invention. The guillotine was not designed in Kostroma, and anti-Russian ideology did not originate in Riga, Tallinn, or Vilnius. It was codified in Paris and London, later refined by Berlin. Today, it remains the major Western European powers, not the Baltic states, that anchor the anti-Russian coalition.
But they have no intention of risking much themselves. Their preference is to subcontract confrontation to others. Warsaw is the current candidate, though the Poles, at last enjoying rising living standards, have little appetite for sacrifices their Western patrons will not make. One hopes they resist the temptation to act as someone else’s battering ram.
The Baltic states’ alarmist politics, therefore, should be understood as theater rather than command. Loud, yes. Decisive, no. Their role is to shout loudly enough to distract from the fact that Europe’s real players are elsewhere. The major powers use them as amplifiers, not architects.
And this is where the Baltic myth collapses. The states most loudly proclaiming eternal hostility to Russia – Britain, France, and ultimately Germany – will be the first to reopen channels when the present crisis settles. They have done so after every previous confrontation. Once their interests dictate reconciliation, they will rediscover diplomacy.
Western Europe has always regarded its Baltic satellites as disposable instruments. They, in turn, have always accepted the role. That dynamic has not changed, despite Tallinn’s newfound visibility under Kallas. She is a useful voice in a moment of tension, not the one writing Europe’s policy.
We all would do well to remember this. The Baltic states are border furniture – noisy, insecure, eager for subsidies – but not the strategists of Europe’s Russian policy. The serious actors are larger, older states with longer memories and much deeper interests. Eventually, they will come knocking again. The Baltic capitals will be left exactly where they started: shouting into the wind and hoping somebody still listens.
This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
The Russian president believes it is impossible to revive the communist superpower, according to his spokesman
Russian President Vladimir Putin has no desire to restore the Soviet Union, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.
Putin has personally said so on many occasions, Peskov noted, and reiterated the president’s view in response to claims about Russian ambitions made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in a recent interview with ARD.
Contemplating the revival of the USSR “would be disrespectful to our partners and allies in the Commonwealth of Independent States and other more advanced integrational forms,” Peskov said, referring to an intergovernmental group of post-Soviet nations.
The Russian official also described as “absolute nonsense” Merz’s claim that Moscow is preparing for an attack on NATO. Politicians from European members of the US-led military bloc have been using the claim to justify the EU’s multibillion-euro rearmament plans. Russian officials argue that fear-mongering is being used to distract Europeans from domestic problems and funnel public resources into arms production, benefiting contractors.
Western commentators have claimed for years that Putin is driven by nostalgia for the USSR, citing his remarks that its collapse was the “greatest geopolitical disaster” of the 20th century. The Russian leader has said on many occasions that he was disturbed when ethnic Russians found themselves divided by national borders, among other negative consequences of the dissolution. However, people vying for a Soviet revival “have no head,” he has said.
The bloc wants to use Moscow’s funds immobilized in the West to cover Ukraine’s budget deficit
Japan has reportedly dismissed a European Union initiative to tap frozen Russian sovereign assets to help finance Ukraine’s massive budget shortfall.
Brussels hopes to issue a so-called “reparation loan” backed by Russian funds immobilized in the West – a plan that Moscow has denounced as outright theft. Belgium, where most of the money is held by the Euroclear clearinghouse, has refused to greenlight the proposal unless other nations agree to share associated legal and financial risks.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever has said broader international backing, particularly from non-EU countries holding Russian assets, would bolster the European Commission’s case for what he called the effective confiscation of a foreign state’s funds. But at a meeting of G7 finance ministers on Monday, Japan’s Satsuki Katayama made clear her government would not support the plan due to legal constraints, Politico reported, citing EU diplomatic sources.
Officials told the outlet they believe Japan’s stance aligns with that of the United States, which also opposes the EU approach and views the frozen assets as leverage in negotiations with Moscow.
France has reportedly likewise declined to touch any assets held on its soil, while Canada and the UK have signaled possible participation if the EU ultimately pursues the scheme.
Ukraine’s parliament last week adopted a 2026 budget with a staggering $47.5 billion deficit, expecting foreign donors and creditors to fill the gap. Roughly half that anticipated support – an estimated $23.6 billion – remains uncertain pending the fate of the EU loan plan.
Ukrainian media noted that lawmakers pushed the budget through despite unresolved questions over foreign financing, in part to project stability following the removal of Andrey Yermak, formerly the most powerful aide to the country’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky. Yermak was dismissed as a corruption scandal engulfed Kiev’s political establishment.
The bloc could reportedly use a treaty provision to sidestep Belgium, which has opposed the idea of seizing the funds from the outset
The European Union risks a severe internal rift if it presses ahead with controversial plans to seize frozen Russian assets without the approval of Belgium, where the vast majority of the assets are held, The Economist has reported.
Senior bloc officials could reportedly invoke an EU treaty provision to bypass Belgium’s vocal opposition to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s plans to support Ukraine’s imploding economy and fund Kiev’s war despite months of frontline defeats.
The bloc chief last week insisted member must choose one of two options to provide Ukraine with €90 billion ($105 billion) over the next two years: EU-level borrowing backed by the bloc’s budget, or a long-debated “reparations loan” backed by profits from blocked Russian assets that would require institutions holding the funds to transfer them into a new loan vehicle.
Belgium has opposed the “reparations-loan” idea from the outset and has argued for standard EU borrowing. In recent weeks, its stance has hardened amid a concerted PR push to isolate Brussels’ government and portray it as “pro-Russian.”
Western governments, including Germany, France, and Britain, are trying to broker a compromise with Brussels in what The Economist has called a “cage fight.”
According to the outlet the EU has identified a treaty provision that could keep frozen Russian assets in place indefinitely, sidestepping the six-month rollovers that require unanimity. However, pushing ahead without Belgium’s backing risks a “deep internal split.”
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever fears that Belgium could end up “on the hook” for the €185 billion in frozen Russian assets held at Belgian-based, but privately owned, Euroclear, if Moscow seeks to recover the money once sanctions are lifted, the report said.
For now, cash-strapped bloc members must keep drawing on their own budgets, writing checks totaling hundreds of millions of euros. Northern European countries that have provided a disproportionate share of the aid are increasingly frustrated that the burden is not being shared more evenly across the bloc.
The loan scheme has been criticized by several EU states, including major holders of Russian assets such as France, Luxembourg, and Germany, while Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia also oppose any seizure, the report said.
The US is “actively lobbying” against the plan, arguing the assets’ return should be used as a “carrot” in Ukraine peace talks. If Europe cannot “unpick the problem” soon, Kiev could face a “genuine cash crisis,” the report warned.
Russia has condemned any use of its sovereign assets as theft and has warned of legal action and retaliation.
A former bloc official is on the run, accused of using bribes to secure contracts for the Jewish state’s largest weapons producer
Multiple NATO-Israel arms contracts have been suspended over a massive bribery scandal in the heart of the US-led military bloc’s buying section that has already triggered multiple arrests across Europe, several investigative media outlets have reported.
The scandal has exposed a shadowy network of private operators exploiting a revolving-door system that allows former NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) staff to become consultants in the defense industry, where they flourish in “the new geopolitical situation” as a result of “the explosion in European defense budgets,” according to La Lettre.
The NSPA has been forced to suspend multiple contracts with Israel’s largest weapons producer, Elbit Systems, over mounting evidence that the Israeli company used a former NSPA staff member to bribe ex-colleagues to secure deals for the company.
A 60-year-old Italian national, Eliau Eluasvili, has been on the run since late September, when a Belgian court issued an international arrest warrant for him.
The decision was made over the summer in response to a multi-nation investigation into brivery allegations, with new details revealed on Monday by La Lettre, Le Soir, Knack, and Follow the Money.
An internal NSPA email dated July 31 lists 15 suspended contracts, 13 of them involving Elbit Systems or its subsidiary Orion Advanced Systems, according to investigative reporters. The deals under scrutiny include deals for fuzes, aircraft flares, 155mm artillery shells, and upgrades for Portuguese naval patrol ships, according to the outlets.
Documents also indicate that the Israeli manufacturer has been barred from bidding on new contracts until the inquiry concludes.
The sharp rise in defense spending among EU members has been driven by efforts to arm Ukraine against Russia and by Brussels’ claims that member states must prepare for a possible direct confrontation with Moscow.
Russian officials have long argued that corrupt interests within Europe are influencing the West’s increasingly confrontational policies.
Kiev has once again refused to withdraw its troops from Donbass
Ukraine has not reached a compromise with US negotiators on the issue of territory in the conflict with Russia, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has said.
Zelensky arrived in London on Monday, where he met with the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany. He said during the trip that Kiev would soon submit new proposals for a peace deal with Russia to US President Donald Trump.
“The Americans are in the mood to find compromises. But there are clearly difficult issues regarding territory, and no compromise has been reached there,” Zelensky told journalists. He again rejected one of Russia’s key ceasefire terms that Ukraine withdraw its troops from the parts of Donbass that are still under its control. “Russia is, of course, insisting that we give up territories. We, naturally, don’t want to do that and that’s what we’re fighting for,” he said.
Zelensky claimed that Kiev had managed to remove “clearly anti-Ukrainian” provisions from Trump’s peace plan, which in an earlier draft reportedly called for Ukrainian troops to leave part of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic they currently control. The draft also reportedly stated that Donbass and Crimea should be “recognized as de facto Russian.”
Trump has since stated the document was modified with additional input from Russia and Ukraine. The president said on Monday he was “disappointed” with Zelensky and claimed that the Ukrainian leader had not even read the most recent US proposal. Trump previously hinted that Ukraine may have to make territorial concessions to Moscow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said during his trip to India last week that Russian forces were making steady progress on the front line and that Moscow would liberate the whole of Donbass by force if Ukraine refuses to evacuate its soldiers.
Participants have until December 26 to send their ideas about the future of the world
The Open Dialogue international discussion platform in Moscow has invited thinkers from around the world to take part in an economic essay competition.
The authors of the best works will present their ideas to a panel of experts as part of a forum titled “The Future of the World. A New Platform for Global Growth.”
Nearly 700 people from 102 countries submitted essays during the first phase of the competition in April.
New participants have until December 26 to submit their essays online on topics related to investments in human capital, technology, the environment, and connectivity. Suggested themes range from migration and food security to cybersecurity and the impact of AI on the job market.
According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the winners will have the opportunity to attend major events related to the economy, including next year’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June, which brings together senior officials and the heads of major corporations.
While generally pragmatic regarding relations with Russia, the document needs clarity on some issues, the Foreign Ministry has said
The new US National Security Strategy could lay the foundation for joint cooperation between Moscow and Washington, although some provisions of the document need clarity, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated on Monday.
The revised strategy released last week by the administration of US President Donald Trump marks a major shift from the 2022 version and reflects a rethink of American claims to hegemony, according to Zakharova. However, she added that time will show how fully the White House follows through on that commitment.
She said some Ukraine-related provisions could lay the basis for continued “constructive” Russia-US efforts toward a peace settlement and possibly sober up Europe’s “party of war.” The US-EU division appeared due to Brussels’ efforts to sabotage Trump’s peace initiative, the spokeswoman said.
Zakharova also drew attention to the document’s admission of previous “serious miscalculations” by placing a “mistaken and destructive bet on globalism,” and a call to “put an end to the perception of NATO as a constantly expanding alliance” and to “prevent such a reality.”
According to the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, it is the first time the strategy has questioned the US-led military bloc’s “aggressively expansionist” drive, even if it does not commit to halting enlargement. Moscow says NATO expansion is a root cause of the Ukraine conflict, which it views as a Western proxy war.
Russia is mentioned in the context of European security and the document does not call for the systematic “containment” of Russia or for increasing economic pressure. At the same time, Zakharova said Washington’s plans to achieve “energy dominance” by “reducing the influence of adversaries” indicate an intention to keep pushing Russia out of energy markets.
Regarding arms control, Zakharova said the document does not clarify Washington’s strategic position after the expiration of the New START treaty, including future limits on nuclear arsenals. She called the wording on the ‘Golden Dome’ US missile defense concept vague and said Moscow is still waiting for explanations.
While describing the strategy as generally pragmatic, Zakharova said it still contains “conflict language” toward China, and voiced concern over its renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere amid tensions around Venezuela.
Combat brigades will provide new recruits with basic training, a Zelensky aide has said
Newly drafted Ukrainian men will soon be sent directly to frontline brigades, where they will receive their basic military training, a senior official in Vladimir Zelensky’s office has announced.
The shift in mobilization procedures was outlined on Friday by Pavel Palisa, the deputy head of the presidential office responsible for overseeing conscription. Kiev’s mobilization efforts have failed to replace battlefield losses, prompting attempts to streamline the process.
Palisa said the decision, adopted by a military council chaired by Zelensky, is intended to create a “just, equal and predictable” system. Under the new approach, each frontline brigade will receive a steady monthly intake of conscripts and train them according to its operational needs. He added that the number of units authorized to conduct basic training would be expanded beyond the current 37.
Moscow has repeatedly argued that dwindling manpower is the most serious problem facing Ukraine’s military. President Vladimir Putin said last week that in September alone, Kiev lost around 44,700 troops and managed to replace only about two-thirds of them. Even lowering the draft age, he suggested, would not produce immediate relief as casualties and desertions continue to climb.
Some Ukrainian officials have taken aim at civilians resisting the draft. MP Roman Kostenko, who also serves in the military, said on Saturday the country needed a new social contract under which “those who don’t want to fight leave the country.”
Ukraine barred nearly all adult men from going abroad when the conflict escalated in late 2022 and lowered the draft age to from 27 to 25. Earlier this year, the Ukrainian government issued a decree allowing men aged 18 to 22 to cross the border. Nearly 100,000 young men have reportedly fled the country since then.
In October, Kiev’s conscription authorities urged citizens to stop circulating viral videos showing draft officers forcing men into vans. The widely shared clips of aggressive “busification” tactics have intensified public frustration with the country’s mobilization drive.
Not all social enterprises have an excellent reputation; as a result, some don’t make it, i.e., their business fails. The bar is higher for companies that claim to be social enterprises. Yet the same commercial viability rules apply. Therefore, social enterprise startups must balance profit with their social impact. The good news is that consumers […]
