Donald Trump is openly siding with Russia, throwing Ukraine and Europe under the bus. As America cozies up to Moscow, the transatlantic alliance crumbles—who will stop Putin now?

Trump didn’t just abandon Ukraine—he handed it over. In just a month, he’s flipped America’s allegiance from defending European security to echoing Putin’s propaganda. He’s not just letting Ukraine fall—he’s making sure it does.

His words weren’t a mistake. Calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” while blaming Ukraine for starting the war? That wasn’t just ignorance—it was alignment with the Kremlin.

Europe is waking up to a nightmare scenario: their greatest ally is now their greatest threat. Trump has spent his first weeks cutting Ukraine loose, dismantling NATO guarantees, and reviving Putin’s international standing. His message is clear: America is not on Europe’s side.

The betrayal is hitting fast. U.S.-Russia peace talks are underway—without Ukraine. Trump’s administration is already discussing lifting sanctions, restarting energy deals with Moscow, and redrawing Europe’s security map—all behind closed doors. And while Brussels scrambles for answers, Russian state media is celebrating.

This is a seismic shift. Europe spent three years believing America would stand by Ukraine. Now, they see the truth: they’re alone.

Even NATO is on the ropes. Trump has openly threatened to abandon allies, mocked European leaders, and questioned NATO’s very purpose. European diplomats are scrambling to rebuild defenses, ramp up military spending, and figure out how to hold the line without Washington.

The worst part? Putin’s next move is obvious. He never wanted just Ukraine—he wants the Baltics. He wants Poland. He wants a new Iron Curtain. And Trump? He doesn’t care. His America won’t lift a finger.

This isn’t a bad deal. This is surrender.

If Trump gets his way, Ukraine will fall. If Ukraine falls, Europe is next.

The world’s balance of power is shifting right now. America’s retreat means Europe must fight alone—or die trying.

Ahmed Madobe accuses Somalia’s federal government of hoarding resources, fueling tensions between Jubaland and Mogadishu.

Somalia’s federal fractures have widened yet again as Jubaland’s President Ahmed Madobe launched a direct attack on the government in Mogadishu, accusing it of hoarding resources, sidelining federal states, and acting like a “company” instead of a national government.

Speaking at the Jubaland Investment Conference, Madobe’s rhetoric was uncompromising, signaling escalating hostilities between Mogadishu and the semi-autonomous regional state. His grievances reflect a long-standing power struggle between the Somali central government and its federal member states, particularly over resource distribution, economic control, and security governance.

Madobe’s accusations of deliberate economic marginalization are not new. For years, Jubaland has accused Mogadishu of using development aid as a political weapon, favoring regions that align with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s administration while punishing those that don’t. With Kismayo’s port serving as a key economic hub, control over customs revenue, international trade, and foreign military partnerships—particularly with Kenya—has been a major flashpoint.

On the flip side, Mogadishu refuses to acknowledge Madobe’s legitimacy, branding his 2019 re-election illegitimate and even going as far as suggesting that he faces active criminal charges. The federal government sees Madobe as a Kenyan-backed strongman whose interests serve Nairobi rather than Somalia’s sovereignty. His strong ties with Kenyan forces, stationed in Jubaland under AMISOM/ATMIS, have only deepened Mogadishu’s mistrust.

This latest war of words is more than just political posturing—it’s a battle for influence over Somalia’s economic and security future. As regional states continue to demand more autonomy, Mogadishu’s attempt to centralize power risks alienating key stakeholders and pushing Somalia further toward fragmentation.

Will Somalia’s federal model survive this escalating crisis, or is this the beginning of a deeper territorial divide?

As Russia eyes naval bases in the Gulf of Aden-Red Sea region, Djibouti and Somaliland emerge as critical battlegrounds in the great power struggle.

Russia’s geopolitical chessboard is shifting in the Horn of Africa, where Djibouti and Somaliland are emerging as potential alternatives to Sudan for a long-sought naval base. With Sudan’s internal chaos stalling Russia’s military presence, Moscow is now reacting to shifting dynamics rather than shaping them—but that doesn’t mean it lacks a strategy.

At the heart of Russia’s calculations lies a critical uncertainty—whether the U.S. will maintain its Djibouti military base or shift operations to Somaliland upon recognizing it. If Trump follows through on his Project 2025 agenda, Washington could abandon Djibouti, creating an opening for Russia to swoop in—just as it did in Niger after the U.S. exit.

But if the U.S. stays in Djibouti, Russia will likely pivot to Somaliland instead, possibly formalizing diplomatic and military ties in exchange for strategic investments. While no concrete reports confirm such a move, Russia’s willingness to defy Mogadishu by engaging Hargeisa hints at deeper intentions.

Russia’s “pragmatic reactionary” approach is about leveraging existing tensions—between Djibouti and the U.S., between Somalia and Somaliland, and between Sudan’s competing factions. By positioning itself as a counterweight to Western influence, Moscow isn’t just looking for a naval base—it’s aiming to reshape Red Sea security in its favor.

With Washington, Beijing, and Ankara already competing in the region, the Gulf of Aden-Red Sea chess match just got a new grandmaster. Will Moscow pull off a strategic checkmate, or is it merely chasing shadows in a U.S.-dominated game? The answer may shape the future of military balance in East Africa.

Rubio signals major US-Russia peace push while Ukraine and Europe remain sidelined—what’s next for the war?

The Saudi-brokered US-Russia talks are signaling a seismic shift in global power dynamics, with Trump’s administration pushing for an immediate end to the Ukraine war—on Moscow’s terms. But with Kyiv and Europe excluded from the initial negotiations, the legitimacy of any deal is already in question.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s message was clear: both sides must make concessions. But what exactly does Washington expect Ukraine to concede? Crimea? Donetsk and Luhansk? NATO membership? These are the very red lines that Zelenskyy has vowed never to cross.

Meanwhile, Trump’s blunt remarks blaming Ukraine for “starting” the war have shaken Kyiv’s trust in Washington. His insistence on a deal, regardless of the cost, aligns with Moscow’s long-standing goal: a frozen conflict that cements Russian territorial gains.

For Putin, the timing couldn’t be better. Russia controls 20% of Ukraine’s territory and, after three years of brutal warfare, Kyiv’s Western support is fading. While Macron and European leaders scramble to react, Trump’s White House is already drafting a post-war framework that could leave Ukraine vulnerable to another invasion.

The elephant in the room? A “peace deal” that hands Russia control over occupied territories would mean the war was never really about Ukraine—but about reshaping US-Russia relations. Rubio even hinted at future economic cooperation between Washington and Moscow, making it clear that geopolitical realism is replacing moral diplomacy.

Will Ukraine accept this deal? Or will it reject the terms and risk losing US support? The next few weeks will determine whether this is the beginning of peace—or a forced settlement that leaves Kyiv alone to fight another war.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio backs Israel’s total war on Hamas as Trump pushes a radical Gaza takeover plan.

The Trump administration is all in on Israel’s war, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio making it clear that Hamas “must be eradicated” with no room for negotiation. As the first phase of the fragile ceasefire nears expiration, Washington is pushing a high-stakes endgame that could reshape the region permanently.

The U.S. has fully endorsed Israel’s demand that Hamas must not only be removed as a military force but also stripped of any governing power in Gaza. Netanyahu is on board, seeing Trump’s radical plan to relocate Palestinians and hand Gaza over to U.S. control as the key to his long-term security goals. Arab nations, however, are outraged, warning that such a move could destabilize the entire Middle East.

With 48,000 Palestinians killed in Israel’s relentless campaign, Hamas remains battered but far from defeated. The group still controls Gaza and continues to hold dozens of Israeli hostages. The question is whether Trump’s “common strategy” with Netanyahu will risk reigniting the war, with Hamas refusing to surrender and Israel’s right-wing government eager to continue the offensive.

Meanwhile, Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are working on a counterproposal to prevent mass Palestinian displacement and the erasure of Gaza. The stakes are immense, as Egypt warns any forced relocation could unravel its peace treaty with Israel, a bedrock of U.S. influence in the region.

While Rubio bypasses Palestinian officials on his tour, Arab leaders are preparing for a major showdown at a February 27 summit. The fate of Gaza—and possibly the entire Middle East—now hinges on a high-stakes power play between Washington, Netanyahu, and the region’s Arab heavyweights.

Trump Team to Start Russia-Ukraine Peace talks in Saudi Arabia

Russia’s cash delivery to Syria signals deepening ties as new Syrian rulers balance between Moscow’s support and Western pressure over sanctions.

Russia’s latest move in Syria is a stark reminder that Moscow is not leaving the war-torn nation anytime soon. The arrival of newly printed Syrian currency from Russia—just days after a phone call between President Vladimir Putin and Syria’s new de facto leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa—is more than a financial transaction. It’s a power play.

For years, Russia propped up Bashar al-Assad’s regime with military intervention and diplomatic shielding. When Assad finally fell in December, many assumed Moscow’s grip on Syria would weaken. Instead, the Kremlin has moved swiftly to reassert influence, using financial leverage and strategic alliances to entrench itself in the country’s post-Assad future. The cash shipment is a clear sign that Russia is ready to keep backing Syria’s fragile new administration, even as the West stalls on lifting crippling sanctions.

The geopolitical chess game unfolding in Syria is not just about loyalty—it’s about survival. Sharaa and his Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) faction shocked observers by maintaining lines of communication with Moscow. Many expected a complete break from Russia, given HTS’s history as a militant group that once battled Assad’s Russian-backed forces. Instead, Syria’s new leadership appears to be taking a pragmatic approach, recognizing that Moscow still holds the keys to crucial military, economic, and geopolitical resources.

Sanctions remain the biggest roadblock to Syria’s recovery. Western governments, particularly the U.S., are hesitant to lift restrictions designed to cripple Assad. But as history has shown, sanctions can become bargaining chips. France has already hosted Syria’s new foreign minister, and there are quiet signals that some European states may be open to easing restrictions. Washington, however, remains skeptical, with U.S. officials questioning whether Sharaa has truly distanced himself from his past as a jihadist leader.

The American strategy seems to mirror what it did with Sudan—dangling the prospect of sanctions relief in exchange for major political concessions. But Syria is not Sudan. If Washington expects Damascus to recognize Israel as a trade-off, as Sudan did in 2020, it will find itself at a dead end. For Syria’s rulers, normalizing ties with Israel remains politically impossible. That means they must keep multiple doors open—aligning just enough with the West to avoid further economic collapse while maintaining Russian backing to ensure military and financial stability.

This is where Russia’s cash airlift plays a critical role. It’s a direct challenge to the West’s economic stranglehold, a signal to both Syria and its Gulf neighbors that Moscow remains a reliable partner. With the Syrian economy in shambles and investment impossible under current sanctions, Russia is positioning itself as the lifeline. The message to Sharaa is clear: stick with Moscow, and the Kremlin will ensure the regime’s survival.

Meanwhile, the Gulf states and Turkey—both crucial to Syria’s future—are watching closely. Russia has cultivated strong ties with these regional powers, and their willingness to engage with Syria could be swayed by Moscow’s continued involvement. Keeping Russian forces in Syria also secures Moscow’s access to critical naval and military bases, ensuring its long-term presence in the Middle East.

For Syria, the challenge is navigating a tightrope between Moscow’s strategic interests and Western economic pressure. If the U.S. refuses to lift sanctions, Damascus will have no choice but to deepen reliance on Russia, even at the risk of alienating potential European allies. The coming months will reveal whether Sharaa can successfully maneuver between these power blocs—or if he will be forced to pick a side in this geopolitical tug-of-war.

The 38th AU Summit in Ethiopia sees African leaders battling economic strain, security threats, and climate challenges while strategizing a powerful roadmap for the continent’s future.

The 38th AU Summit in Addis Ababa is not a routine gathering—it’s a desperate battlefield where Africa’s future is on the line. War, economic collapse, and climate devastation have pushed the continent to the edge. Leaders are scrambling for solutions, but the same old speeches won’t save them this time. The stakes have never been higher.

Conflict is bleeding the continent dry. From Sudan to the Sahel, extremist groups and warring factions are tearing nations apart. The AU’s peacekeeping forces are underfunded, outgunned, and stuck in bureaucratic paralysis. The dream of an African rapid-response army remains just that—a dream. External powers like Russia, China, and the West are circling, eager to fill the security vacuum. African leaders must decide whether to keep outsourcing their defense or finally take control of their own battlegrounds.

The economic war is just as brutal. The AU still relies on foreign donors to keep the lights on, a humiliating reality for a continent rich in resources. Trade deals are dictated by outsiders, infrastructure projects are owned by foreign powers, and financial independence is nowhere in sight. Some leaders want a radical shift, pushing for an African-controlled monetary system and a break from Western financial dominance. Others cling to old alliances, unwilling or unable to fight for true sovereignty.

Climate disaster is accelerating the crisis. Droughts, floods, and food shortages are turning survival into a daily struggle. Africa has the natural resources to lead the world in renewable energy, but will it seize the opportunity or let foreign investors control the industry? The battle for water, land, and energy is no longer in the future—it’s happening now. Either African nations unite to take control, or they risk being torn apart in a scramble for survival.

The AU is at a crossroads. It can either rise as a force that commands respect or continue as a fractured body of weak resolutions and empty declarations. This summit must deliver more than words. It needs action, funding, and bold decisions. The time for diplomacy is over. Africa’s war for self-determination is here, and failure is not an option.

Djibouti’s Mahamoud Ali Youssouf is set to win the AU Commission race, leveraging his experience, French-speaking bloc support, and the political prowess of President Ismail Omar Guelleh.

The battle for the African Union Commission chairmanship is nearing its checkmate moment, and all signs point to Djibouti’s Mahamoud Ali Youssouf emerging victorious. This is not just another election—it is a high-stakes power game dictated by forces far beyond the public eye, where alliances are brokered in shadowy corridors, and kingmakers remain unseen. While Kenyan veteran Raila Odinga enjoys the backing of powerful Western circles, the real political arithmetic favors Youssouf, a trusted student of Djibouti’s President Ismail Omar Guelleh, a man who has never lost a political game.

Djibouti’s Mahamoud Secures Historic AU Commission Chairmanship

For weeks, waryatv.com’s intel network has tracked the intricate maneuvers shaping this race. At first glance, Odinga seemed like the natural frontrunner—his Pan-African credentials, economic vision, and Western ties made him an obvious choice. But beneath the surface, forces were realigning in ways only seasoned power players could predict. Somaliland, which has long viewed Odinga as an ally due to his support for its recognition, is watching this contest with cautious neutrality. This time, it’s not about who stands with Somaliland but rather about power shifts happening behind the scenes—shifts that will reshape African diplomacy for years to come.

At the heart of this power transition is the Djiboutian political machine, an operation so methodically efficient that it rarely miscalculates. President Guelleh, the undisputed architect of Djibouti’s regional dominance, has placed his full weight behind Youssouf. Djibouti’s strategic importance, sitting at the gateway of the Red Sea with military bases hosting the U.S., China, France, and Japan, gives it an unparalleled advantage. More importantly, Guelleh’s long-standing relationships with African heads of state—especially in the French-speaking bloc—are yielding decisive votes.

French-speaking African nations have emerged as the quiet kingmakers in this election, and their bloc is rallying behind Youssouf. The Francophone alliance is a historical force in AU politics, and when mobilized effectively, it overrides external pressures. Youssouf’s diplomatic finesse, multilingual skills, and emphasis on African self-reliance have resonated deeply with leaders seeking a more independent AU, free from the suffocating influence of global superpowers. His push for economic sovereignty, including a single African currency and reduced reliance on Western financial institutions, has given him an edge among those wary of external interference.

The key orchestrator in this equation is Djibouti’s Economy Minister Ilyas M. Dawaleh, a political tactician who has been playing a masterful background role in securing crucial endorsements. His recent remarks on X, praising Youssouf’s tireless campaign and widespread support across Africa, are not just words—they are a coded message to those who understand AU politics. Dawaleh knows something the public does not: that the game is already won. The final votes may not be cast yet, but the deals have already been sealed in private meetings, away from the public spectacle of debates and media narratives.

Odinga’s team, aware of the shifting tides, is making last-minute diplomatic overtures. Kenya’s President William Ruto has deployed his full diplomatic arsenal to rally East African votes, but the cracks are already visible. Regional rivalries, internal political calculations, and the looming 2027 Kenyan elections have weakened the unity behind Odinga’s bid. The AU race is not just about who is best suited for the job—it is about who controls the system that decides the outcome. And that system, for now, is favoring Mahamoud Ali Youssouf.

By the time the votes are counted, Djibouti’s disciplined political strategy, the backing of the Francophone bloc, and the unseen hand of Guelleh’s diplomatic empire will have delivered yet another victory. Youssouf’s win will not be an accident—it will be the result of a meticulously crafted power play, executed with precision.

This is why those who follow waryatv.com closely will not be surprised. They saw it coming.