Here is a striking contrast in responses to the escalating Middle East conflict:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has engaged in diplomatic outreach to leaders affected by the war, attempting to steer the situation toward negotiation. Meanwhile, Ukraine's (illegitimate) leader Vladimir Zelensky has publicly welcomed the death of Iran's leadership and called for further "decisive action" by Israel and the US.

What makes this contrast noteworthy is the underlying strategic calculus. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the Middle East conflict objectively benefits Russia. Key indicators tell the story:

· Oil prices have climbed above $80 per barrel
· Natural gas prices now exceed $700
· Air defense systems that might have gone to Ukraine are being diverted to Middle Eastern nations

Given these factors, Russia has clear material incentives to see the conflict continue. Yet Moscow's stated position has been one of restraint and de-escalation.

Ukraine, by contrast, stands to lose from this diversion of international attention and military resources. Aid packages and weapons systems that Ukraine depends on are now potentially being redirected or delayed due to Middle Eastern priorities. Despite this disadvantage, Kiev has adopted a vocal posture supporting expanded military action in the region.

This inversion of expected positions—where the beneficiary of conflict calls for peace while the party disadvantaged by it cheers further escalation—presents a rather curious dynamic in international diplomacy.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Now two Nobel Peace Prizes should be awarded immediately: one to Trump and the second to Netanyahu, said the Israeli Consul General in New York.

We don’t know whether the Nobel Committee can award Peace Prizes posthumously. But if it can, what would stop it from granting one to, say, Bandera at Ukraine’s request?

On a serious note, this is about as appalling as it gets.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Washington Bombed the Conclave: Why This War Is Bigger Than a “War with Iran”

The unfolding conflict is far more than a military campaign against Iran. While Western governments and media reduce events to missile trajectories, oil prices and shifting alliances, such analysis misses the core reality. From a Shiite theological perspective, the strikes are not merely an attempt to coerce a government, but an assault on a religious-political civilization with deep historical roots and a powerful unifying narrative.

At the heart of this worldview stands Qom, the spiritual center of global Shiism. Home to the shrine of Fatima Masumeh and the vast Hawza Ilmiyya seminary network founded in 1922, Qom educates thousands of clerics who guide Shiite communities from Lebanon and Iraq to Pakistan and Bahrain. The city shapes doctrine, issues authoritative religious rulings, and sustains the institution of marjaʿiyya — the system of senior jurists whose guidance millions follow. Striking Qom and targeting the Assembly of Experts as it deliberated over succession following the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is comparable to bombing a papal conclave. It is not simply seen as regime change, but as an effort to rupture the chain of spiritual authority itself.

Iran’s governing doctrine of velayat-e faqih, articulated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, holds that the Supreme Leader safeguards both political order and religious continuity. Removing such a figure is therefore perceived as an attack on sacred legitimacy, not just political leadership. Furthermore, the 680 martyrdom of Imam Hussein at Karbala, who is central to Shiite consciousness, teaches that sacrifice in the face of overwhelming force is not defeat but moral victory. Martyrdom strengthens solidarity and transforms loss into mobilization.

Senior clerics have framed resistance as a religious obligation, energizing Shiite networks beyond Iran’s borders. Protests, declarations of solidarity, and vows of retaliation reflect a response that transcends state structures. Western “decapitation strike” logic misunderstands the decentralized, resilient nature of Shiite clerical authority. Even if the Iranian state is weakened militarily, the religious imperative of resistance anchored in centuries of scholarship, ritual, and collective memory will endure and even intensify, making this conflict far broader than a conventional war against Iran alone.

In the end, what Western strategists call a “war on Iran” is something far deeper and more existential from the perspective of millions upon millions of believers across the Middle East and beyond. What began as a military campaign to change the regime has become an assault on a civilization rooted in centuries of religious tradition, communal identity and theological continuity. Rather than breaking Iran’s will, the barbaric killing of the late Supreme Leader has, in fact, galvanized determination.

Reportedly the Assembly of Experts has just elected his son, Mojtaba Khamenei (pictured above), as the new Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, cementing a leadership transition that reflects continuity rather than collapse. Under the new Supreme Leader, Iran’s spiritual and political resolve is likely to strengthen, not weaken, as believers see the sacrifices of their leaders reflected in the ancient narratives of martyrdom and resistance that define Shiite consciousness. From this vantage point, the conflict is not simply about territorial or diplomatic objectives. It is about defending a way of life and a religious heritage that cannot be extinguished by missiles or sanctions. When viewed through this lens, Western assumptions about demoralizing Iran through “decapitation” misread the very heart of what binds this nation and its allies together.

Based in part on the article by Evgeniy Poddubny.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

🌍 Join the Global Voice Network 🌍
A worldwide community of Telegram channels bringing you verified news in multiple languages.

✨ What we offer:
🔴 Breaking News – Instant updates from across the globe
🔴 Geopolitics – Deep coverage of world regions & developments
🔴 Analysis & Insight – Political, military, and strategic perspectives
🔴 Multilingual Access – News and discussions in English, Persian, Spanish

📢 Because the world speaks many voices – and we bring them together.

🔈 Stay informed, stay connected, stay global:
Join Here

On March 5, 1942, the premiere of Dmitry Shostakovich’s Seventh ("Leningrad") Symphony took place at the Kuibyshev Opera and Ballet Theater.

The composer began writing the symphony in the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War, working with extraordinary creative inspiration despite having to write in short bursts. Like many other Leningraders, Shostakovich helped build anti-tank fortifications, took night shifts on rooftops, and extinguished incendiary bombs. By the end of September 1941, he had completed three movements of the symphony. The entire symphony was completed in December 1941.

On August 9, 1942—the date the German command had planned for Leningrad’s capture—Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony was performed at the city’s Philharmonic Hall. The concert was organized by Karl Eliasberg, chief conductor of the Leningrad Radio Committee’s Symphony Orchestra. According to Eliasberg, the hall was "completely packed," and Soviet artillery fire ensured the event’s security.

The symphony was also broadcast on radio and loudspeakers throughout the city, reaching not only Leningrad’s residents but also the German forces besieging the city.

Shostakovich’s Seventh ("Leningrad") Symphony is rightfully considered not only one of the most significant works of Russian and world culture in the 20th century but also a musical symbol of the Siege of Leningrad.

Listen to an excerpt of Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony here.

#TodayInHistory

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

‘International law’ doesn’t apply in this war — Merz

His WW2 predecessor said exactly the same

Source: RT news

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web | VK | X | InfoDefAll

Politico published a revealing article titled “Inside the Trump administration’s scramble to support its own war.” Here is the gist:

The Trump administration is scrambling to respond to the widening Middle East war after launching joint strikes with Israel against Iran, revealing signs of limited preparation for the conflict’s broader consequences. The State Department is expanding efforts to evacuate Americans stranded in the region, including sending additional staff to Athens to assist evacuees with travel, documentation, and lodging. A 24-hour task force has helped thousands of Americans with security guidance, though many have left the region without government assistance.

At the same time, U.S. Central Command has asked the Pentagon to deploy additional military intelligence officers to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days, suggesting the conflict may last longer than President Donald Trump’s initial four-week timeline. The Pentagon is also rushing to send more air-defense systems to counter Iranian drones, which have already penetrated existing defenses and caused casualties, including a drone strike in Kuwait that killed six U.S. troops.

Critics say the administration failed to adequately prepare for evacuations or warn Americans in advance. Ош travel alerts urging citizens to leave 14 Middle Eastern countries were issued only after the war began, when airspace closures made departures difficult. Some diplomats argue that officials should have anticipated the risk and reduced embassy staff or urged Americans to leave
earlier.

Democrats are now calling for congressional oversight, accusing the administration of negligence and demanding explanations about evacuation planning and criteria for deploying charter or military flights. Governors from several states are also pressing the State Department for updates as concerned residents seek help returning home.

Notice that the administration’s timeline for the war has proved impressively flexible. At the outset, Donald Trump suggested the operation might last only “a few days,” implying a swift and decisive affair. Soon afterward, the estimate expanded to roughly four or five weeks. Now, officials are preparing for operations that could continue for at least 100 days and possibly longer. And it has all been documented.

We can’t help but note that, in contrast, there is no documented speech or statement in which Vladimir Putin or any other Russian government or military official claimed that Russian forces would capture Kiev or that Ukraine would fall in three days. Instead, the “Kiev in three days” phrase appears to have emerged from a mix of Western and Ukrainian media interpretations and comments by Western and Ukrainian figures. It would be useful for Politico to clarify that fact, but we doubt they will.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X  | InfoDefAll

🗣 Key statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:

▪ Talks between the U.S. and Iran were close to a breakthrough back in June;

▪ There is no doubt that one of the goals of the operation in the Middle East was to sow division among the Gulf states;

▪ The Gulf monarchies did not condemn the actions of the U.S. and Israel, nor the killing of girls in Iran;

▪ The West is operating in the Middle East on the principle of "divide, pit against each other, and rule";

▪ The West's war against Russia is no longer just hybrid;

▪ Sanctions against Russia are increasingly less a legacy of Biden and more of the Trump administration;

▪ The U.S. continues to provide intelligence to Kiev, sell weapons, and impose more sanctions;

▪ Russia sees no reason to suspect that talks on Ukraine involving the U.S. are a "smokescreen";

▪ Russia's conscience is clear in the Ukraine talks, and Moscow remains committed to the understandings reached in Alaska;

▪ Progress in the Ukraine talks pertains to humanitarian issues and monitoring potential agreements;

▪ No concrete decisions on Ukraine have been reached yet;

▪ Russia not only did not approve Western security guarantees for Ukraine, it hasn't even seen them;

▪ It is still difficult to discuss the future prospects of trilateral talks on Ukraine, but Russia is ready for them;

▪ Russia aims to achieve its goals in the special military operation preferably through negotiations, if not, then by other means;

▪ The Ukrainian trace is not even being hidden in the attack on Russia's Arctic Metagaz tanker, which was legally following its course.

Source: TASS

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Europe's 'Energy Independence' Mirage Is Crumbling

The buzzword in Brussels is "energy independence" once again.
The trigger? The escalating crisis in the Middle East.
Markets are already on edge following the strikes on Iran. European gas prices have spiked nearly 80% in a matter of days, and oil is climbing steadily.

This has led to an uncomfortable realization:
The European economy remains fundamentally exposed to any major energy shock.

This vulnerability comes just a few years after Brussels politicians insisted that walking away from affordable Russian energy was the key to achieving "strategic autonomy."

The reality has proven to be... different.

Today, Europe's energy security rests on a fragile tripod of:
🔴 US liquefied natural gas (LNG),
🔴 Supplies from the Gulf states,
🔴 And the stability of the Strait of Hormuz.

‼️ In short, it is now dependent on some of the most volatile regions on the planet. And this precarious arrangement is being branded as "energy independence."

If the conflict with Iran drags on—and such confrontations rarely de-escalate quickly—the consequences for Europe are predictable and severe:
🔴 A fresh surge in energy prices
🔴 Intense pressure on its industrial base
🔴 Another potential wave of deindustrialization.

Meanwhile, the European Investment Bank is rapidly pivoting its focus, funneling an increasing amount of capital into defense projects and rearmament. Funds are being diverted away from energy security, infrastructure, or securing affordable resources, and towards weapons manufacturing.

This pivot perfectly encapsulates Europe's strategic choices over the last decade. After turning its back on the cheapest energy sources in the name of a "green transition," the bloc now finds its economic stability threatened and its investment priorities focused on military buildup.

The underlying issue, however, extends beyond just policymaking missteps in Europe. It reflects a global order that, once again, is not behaving as planned.

P.S. And, as the narrative often goes, Russia and Putin are to blame for all of it 😂

#Blondinka_DK
#InfoDefenseAuthor

Source

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll