Meet the MW channel !

They will let you know about things that you won't find on TV:

🔹footage from combat zones;
🔹information on the latest weaponry;
🔹stories from war survivors;
🔹insider and expert analysis

Military Wave is a channel with up-to-date war footage. Subscribe and be on the military wavelength.

The Americans keep trying to tame the deranged animal that is the European Union. Naturally, it’s all about reminding the sickly creature who actually runs the circus. Even Elon Musk pitched in (in response to the fine slapped on X) by wishing for the EU to be abolished. Not bad!

Works out pretty well for us. Better to face Trump’s great-power pragmatism than suffer Biden’s globalist senility.

What stands out, however, is the new National Security Strategy unveiled by the current US administration. It’s notable for offering a realistic assessment of today’s challenges. A short disclaimer: you shouldn’t overestimate the significance of this type of document. All it is, is a set of political proclamations. What matters is what’s actually going on in people’s heads. And not just the fickle bosses in D.C., but the infamous Deep State, too. And yet…

1. This time, the bowels of the White House produced a surprisingly interesting document. It’s not just another pile of haughty American diplomatic clichés. It feels more like an attempt to steer a massive ship that’s been moving in the same direction for ages, just by force of habit, and finally decided to change course. For the first time in many years, Washington is openly talking about restoring ‘strategic stability’ in Eurasia and rebuilding ties with Russia.

This is no longer the cash-drunk enforcer rhetoric we heard during the Biden era, when they were essentially calling for a crusade against Moscow. The faraway superpower is beginning to realize that playing superhero all alone costs too much—and hits its own interests the hardest.
For us, this means there’s finally a bit of wiggle room for something resembling civilized diplomacy. Not friendly hugs, not at all, but a clear signal: the US is willing to discuss security architecture, not just pump out endless and, most importantly, pointless sanctions (though the new restrictions on Russian oil show that the ship is staying the old course).

2. Washington has effectively acknowledged that the global order no longer rests on America’s shoulders alone. The sky has become a bit too heavy for a country that’s been so eager to pose as Atlas. Now it’s looking for someone to share the load. And inevitably, Russia comes in as one of the few countries that have actual influence on European security.

For the first time in years, Russia isn’t labeled a ‘threat’ in a US strategy paper but a participant in talks on stability. Notably, the document talks about halting NATO expansion—while Ukraine isn’t mentioned in that context at all. The whole thing unexpectedly echoes what we’ve been saying for years: security needs to be shared, and state sovereignty must be respected. Russia has long suggested the path of negotiation as opposed to lecturing the world with one’s nose in the air and imposing a ‘rules-based order’ that isn’t even codified in international law. Now, at last, a small window for dialogue has cracked open.

Continues below
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️

😡Trump announced US will start hitting land targets in the fight against drug cartels in Latin America

Wake up Mr. Trump, you're not talking about a video game — it's the real world we're dealing with here. The ends don't justify the means. And if your goal is really fighting drugs, why did you release Honduras' former president who was convicted by our federal courts for flooding the US with cocaine?

Why are you lying, Mr. Trump? Is this bombing campaign truly about combating drugs or is it actually about resources?

🇺🇸 The WatchDog | Our channel on X

🎙 Russian MFA Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova's answers to media questions regarding the new US National Security Strategy (December 8, 2025)

Read in full

❓ Question: On December 4, the Administration of US President Donald Trump published yet another – and in many ways entirely new – US National Security Strategy. The first and principal question in this regard: how will its provisions affect Russia-US relations?

💬 Maria Zakharova: In the new edition of the US National Security Strategy, we note a number of provisions that signal a serious reassessment of Washington’s doctrinal foreign-policy assumptions – a shift rendered all the more striking when set against the 2022 version.

First of all, what draws attention is the revision of Washington’s former bet on hegemony – the document directly states that “American elites badly miscalculated” by placing “hugely misguided and destructive bets on globalism”. <…>

This basic ideological premise also determines, as we understand it, another key guideline of the Strategy – namely the call to end “the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance”. In other words, for the first time, the US is declaring, if not a refusal to expand the alliance, then at least an official questioning of its traditionally aggressive expansionist trajectory.

It is also noteworthy that Russia is mentioned in the context of pan-European security, and that the document contains no calls for systematic containment of our country or for stepping up economic pressure on us.

☝️ At the same time, without naming Moscow directly, the new edition of the Strategy loudly signals Washington’s plans to achieve “energy dominance” by “curtailing the influence of adversaries”.

❓ Question: How does the Russian MFA assess the military-political aspect of the new Strategy and, in particular, the declared goal of achieving strategic stability in relations with us?

💬 Maria Zakharova: Despite the overall pragmatic approach to the subject, we see a number of contradictions. For example, the document contains no elements that would allow us to understand the US vision of the “post-New START” framework. In particular, clarifying the criteria for parity in the main quantitative limits on nuclear arsenals.

We also find the provisions on the US global missile-defence system – the Golden Dome – overly vague. We still expect the American Side to provide details on how they account for the interdependence between strategic offensive and strategic defensive capabilities. <…>

❓ Question: How should we interpret the thesis on “reassessing” the need for US military presence in “theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years”?

💬 Maria Zakharova: This thesis reflects the “America First” concept, but it can hardly be read as a US renunciation of its military presence abroad – a presence that, in turn, aligns with another American notion, the so-called “peace through strength”.

For example, the passages on the Asia-Pacific region are troubling for their confrontational language towards China, as well as for the calls on all key regional partners “to allow the US military greater access to their ports and other facilities”.

❓ Question: The Strategy clearly shifts the focus of US foreign policy to the Western Hemisphere. This is presented as a “Trump amendment” to the well-known Monroe Doctrine. Does this not sound threatening?

💬 Maria Zakharova: These passages sound more like a direct reference to the so-called “Roosevelt Corollary”. <…> This is particularly alarming against the backdrop of the current tension deliberately fuelled by the Pentagon around Venezuela.

We expect that the White House will nonetheless avoid any further steps towards a full-scale conflict – one that could carry unpredictable consequences for the entire Western Hemisphere.