Comments 1 - 6 of 39 Next » Last » Search these comments
But hey, who cares, when we have sports to keep our low IQ brains to feed us with meaningless nonsense while diverting our attention from real issues?
Question: if Gaza was being occupied by Israelis, and the Palestinians were committing these atrocities, what do you think the West's response would
be? Can there be any doubt whatsoever??
you are one of those people who still thinks that the world is fair
Nadezhda Romanenko is a political analyst who has written commentary on international relations, particularly focusing on Western policies and their global impact. Her work appears on platforms like Nexus Newsfeed, where she has authored pieces critical of Germany’s post-Ukraine war economic strategy and the broader Western-led international order.
She argues that Germany’s decision to sever energy ties with Russia have undermined its industrial base, calling it a “grave mistake” that threatens long-term economic stability. In another article, she critiques the so-called “rules-based international order,” suggesting it primarily serves U.S. geopolitical interests.
Her writing tends to reflect a skeptical view of Western foreign policy narratives.
Nadezhda Romanenko appears to have both academic and analytical credentials. She co-authored a scholarly article in the Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies on the role of the Russian language in professional training for the Belt and Road Initiative, suggesting a background in linguistics or international education policy. She’s also credited with a paper analyzing the speech strategies of Russian politicians, published on SSRN, which points to expertise in political communication and cultural linguistics.
Her public commentary, like the article on Nexus Newsfeed critiquing the Western-led “rules-based international order,” reflects a strong geopolitical perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives.
There’s no widely available information tying her to a specific academic institution or think tank.
There’s limited publicly available information about *Nadezhda Romanenko’s* personal background, including her place of birth, education, or current residence. Most of what’s known comes from her published work, which includes political commentary and academic articles on topics like Russian language policy and international relations.
Comments 1 - 6 of 39 Next » Last » Search these comments
By Nadezhda Romanenko, political analyst
The recent revelation that Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Sadati-Armaki was killed along with his entire family – his wife, two daughters, and son – in an Israeli airstrike should stop even hardened strategists in their tracks. This wasn’t just a precision strike. It was an execution of a household.
Sadati-Armaki was not a senior official. He was a mid-level scientist—an engineer working within Iran’s nuclear framework. That role may have made him a target in the logic of modern conflict. But nothing, not even that logic, can justify killing his children in their own home.
This wasn’t an isolated incident. On June 13, at least five other nuclear scientists were killed in Israeli strikes across Tehran: Fereydoon Abbasi, Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, Abdolhamid Minouchehr, Ahmadreza Zolfaghari Daryani, and Seyed Amir Hossein Feghhi. Their credentials tied them to Iran’s nuclear program. All had played some role, technical or administrative, in Iran’s nuclear development. None were combatants. Most were academics. Some had already retired from state positions.
Crucially, they weren’t alone. In multiple reported cases, family members died alongside them. Wives. Daughters. The daughter of a senior official.
These were not errant missiles landing in crowded urban spaces. These were targeted strikes on homes, in residential areas, at night, when families were together. This isn’t the fog of war. It is its deliberate weaponization. The children didn’t make enrichment policy. The spouses didn’t oversee uranium labs. But they died because of proximity—because they were related to someone deemed dangerous.
To call this “collateral damage” is cowardice. When decision-makers approve a strike on a home, knowing who sleeps inside, the outcome is no longer an accident. It is a choice.
Some argue that in an asymmetrical war, deterrence must be personal. But this is not deterrence—it’s liquidation. It suggests that no civilian life adjacent to state infrastructure is worth preserving. It sends the message that not even scientists’ families will be spared, as if moral limits are luxuries we can no longer afford.
This is not a defense of Iran’s nuclear posture. It is a defense of the basic principle that families—children—cannot be combatants. If we abandon that line, we are not winning anything. We are declaring that fear is stronger than law, that vengeance is smarter than diplomacy.
Killing scientists’ families doesn’t dismantle programs. It doesn’t prevent future threats. It only makes peace more remote and retaliation more likely. What we normalize now, others will imitate later.
This is not strength. It is strategic and moral collapse. And if this is where warfare is headed, then everyone—regardless of nationality—should be deeply, urgently afraid.