American Women Suck

Since 1897 Jello has filled happy bellies as a jiggly dessert. May associate it with eating a low-calorie diet, on hospital trays, and in school lunches/cafeteria food. Kraft foods is the owner of “Jell-O”. It can be sold as a powdered mix or premade. The main ingredient in this product is gelatin. This comes from animal collagen that is found in connective tissues such as tendons, bones, skin, and ligaments. Cows and pigs are commonly used to boil, dry, and treat the bones with strong acid base to extract the collagen. The collagen is dried, ground into powder, and then made to the finished gelatin product. Because gelatin is derived from animals, it is not considered vegetarian or vegan. Gelatin is what gives Jell-O its jiggle. Coloring, sweeteners, and flavor agents are the other ingredients. Aspartame is popularly used because it keeps the label “calorie free”. The color comes from artificial food dyes. There is a demand for natural Jell-O, so beet and carrot juice are being used. The famous Strawberry Jell-O has sugar, gelatin, adipic acid, artificial flavor, disodium phosphate, sodium citrate, fumaric acid, and red dye #40. If natural is desired, reading labels is a must. In terms of being healthy, it depends how the Jell-O is made. One serving (21 grams of dry mix) has 80 calories, 1.6 grams of protein, and 18 grams of sugar (4.5 teaspoons). On the other hand, one serving (6.4 grams of dry mix) of sugar-free made with aspartame has 13 calories, 1 gram of protein and no sugar. The consequences of artificial sweeteners aren’t to be forgotten. Gelatin comes from collagen which is good for bone health and joint pain. It can help with ageing skin. The amount of collagen in Jell-O might not be enough to have significant benefits. Food choices always have their pros and cons. Some people really enjoy Jell-O for what it is. Others eat it as an alternative to sweets they would rather have with much more sugar and fat. Jell-O with whip cream, in dishes, and even with alcohol, are reasons it can be found in the pantry. It is “old-school” and sometimes simple and easy is the reason we eat things. Jell-O does keep it convenient. How Jell-O Wobbled Its Way to Pop Culture Greatness – JSTOR Daily A review of gelatin: Properties, sources, process, applications, and commercialisation – ScienceDirect Gelatin based preservation technologies on the quality of food: a comprehensive review – PubMed A Review of the Effects of Collagen Treatment in Clinical Studies – PMC The post Jell-O –Jiggle of gelatin appeared first on NaturalNewsBlogs. View the full article

Lindsey Graham’s insatiable bloodlust helps propel the world to move beyond a US-centric world order Lindsey Graham is at it again: The long-serving – if increasingly embattled – senator from South Carolina has produced an especially aggressive as well as hysterical statement. This time, he has, in essence, threatened Russia with US bombing in a little less than two months from now. If you know Graham’s record, then that may appear insane but also sort of unremarkable, because that’s just choleric, red-faced Lindsey having a normal rant. Yet there are reasons not to dismiss this particular tantrum too quickly. Even though Graham is probably too busy foaming at the mouth to notice, his latest hissy fit is unintentionally revealing. For one thing, there’s a whiff of panic about this outburst. And Graham does have reasons to feel less than comfortable. For starters, as noted above, his seat in the Senate is anything but secure, with Graham facing what The Independent has called a “daunting challenge” coming up next year. Then, Graham will have to defend his seat – which he has held since 2003 – in midterms that could go badly for him. His current approval rating in his home state is a squalid 34 percent. America’s MAGA base is, at best, ambiguous about the aging opportunist from South Carolina. That means that the most dangerous challengers to Graham are not Democrats but fellow Republicans who point out his very real selfishness and bottomless unreliability. President Donald Trump, it is true, has occasionally said a nice thing or two about Graham, but he has been at least equally friendly about one of his Republican challengers, businessman Andre Bauer. Read more US senator cites Iran bombings in threat to Russia One thing that voters at home hold against Graham is his prominent and extremely bellicose commitment to what most of us on planet Earth would call US imperialism but what Americans prefer to think of as “globalism.” That is what Bauer is going after, for instance. And for good reason: There really is no war of aggression, economic warfare campaign, information war drive, or lawfare offensive that the decidedly un-martial-looking Graham is not wildly, almost erotically enthusiastic about. Graham loved the 2003 Iraq War, for instance, so much that even when he finally came to admit that it was based on “faulty intelligence” – a lie to cover for a lie, by the way: in reality, the war was based on deliberate deception – he still insisted it could have been worth it, as long as Iraq would turn into “a democracy.” That that is certainly not a thing the Iraqis could possibly learn from the American plutocracy, is a thought too honest to even cross Graham’s mind. And, of course, Graham has always been a fervent, passionate, steamy Russophobe. Indeed, there is a way in which Moscow should be grateful for Graham. Like his European equivalent Kaja Kallas, the South Carolina senator is walking proof that the only thing that can, ultimately, secure Russia against Western warmongers in all-too-high places is military strength, including nuclear deterrence. Indeed, Graham is so obsessed with sticking it to the Russians that his latest fetish is to not only assault Moscow but everyone who has any dealings with it. The most important aspect of the uber sanctions bill lovingly put together by Graham and his Democratic fellow traveler Senator Richard Blumenthal is the plan to “impose a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products.” Read more Trump’s ultimatum isn’t an ultimatum – and Moscow knows it The idea is that these “sledgehammer” secondary sanctions would then do what the West has been trying and failing to do for years now: isolate Russia. They would not, obviously. If ever applied, this policy will only massively antagonize its targets – including Brazil, China, and India – and help to isolate the US, if anyone. Not to mention the immense economic damage it would inflict – in America, too. NATO figurehead and Trump sock puppet Mark Rutte may not be able to grasp as much, but even the biggest bully in town can go too far and end up in that hole he’s been digging for others, as Russian Foreign Secretary Lavrov has just warned. China has already been explicit about not being impressed by Graham’s threats. But there is another catch as well as another reason why Graham cannot feel secure: Trump’s own recent “turn” – if that really is the word – against Russia has, in reality, undermined the chances of the ultra-hardline approach encased in the Graham-Blumenthal bill being adopted. While Trump has been making noise, as he tends to, the Senate majority leader has quietly shelved Graham’s uber sanctions bill, at least for now. Graham, clearly, feels threatened: He is insisting that his pet bill must not be stopped. It’s not, to be fair, as if Russia is receiving any special treatment from Graham. On the contrary, Graham is an all-round addict to bullying and violence. He clearly takes a sadistic pleasure in publicly fantasizing about dishing out brutality even in excess of what the US and its accomplices are already inflicting on their victims. Last year, for instance, he felt called upon to encourage Israel to complete its Gaza genocide by dropping nukes on the Palestinians. And, of course, he is one of the all too many Americans who still steadfastly believe that Washington’s own dropping of atom bombs to massacre the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just fine. Not for Graham and his ilk to acknowledge what historians, such as Gar Alperovitz, have long shown: Japan was already defeated; the bombings were not only enormous war crimes – the crowning point of a massive campaign of mass-murderous urban fire-bombing – but gratuitous, even by the vicious logic of US air warfare; and they were the outcome of sheer bloodlust catalyzed by racism and a cynical strategy to threaten the Soviet Union, then, officially, still an ally of the US. Read more India, China and Brazil facing ‘consequences’ for Russia trade ties – NATO chief Graham also embodies another trait of US foreign policy to the point of absurdity: If you think being his target is bad, pray he’ll never try to be your “friend.” Ukraine has had that privilege, and he has been clear about why: to suck it dry, not only of people to be used up as cannon fodder in the great proxy war against Russia but also of its natural resources. Indeed Graham’s commitment to slaughter and plunder abroad is so intense that some Americans – especially in that MAGA base again – are attacking him openly: Steve Bannon, the former Trump buddy and still a MAGA guru, has called Graham out over the latter’s endorsement of Ukraine’s “Spiderweb” attacks on Russia. Others have begun to suspect that Graham is receiving kickbacks from Ukraine’s corrupt “processing” of billions of US tax dollars. For now, these allegations are unproven, but they are still telling. Because it is likely that they will make sense to more and more Americans. Lindsey Graham is a strange man, even by the standards of the US political elite. But what may be strangest about him is the mismatch between his enormous, relentless resentment and truculence, on one side, and his ever-lasting frustration on the other. Much of US policy is as vicious and pernicious as can be. Or, at least, as most of us can imagine. But for Graham it is never bad enough. The irony is, of course, that the more America approaches the dystopian maximum of aggression Graham craves, the more the US is losing not only its standing (not much to lose there, really) but its reach. Graham is not simply the proverbial “ugly American.” He is the, quite literally, repulsive American – embodying a negative energy that helps propel the world to move beyond an order still far too much shaped by the US. View the full article

The British Foreign Office is at it again: ‘strengthening democracy’ and ‘fighting misinformation’ by paying YouTube personalities There is something profoundly grotesque about a government that funds “freedom campaigns” through secret payments to social media stars, complete with non-disclosure agreements forbidding them to reveal who’s really pulling the strings. Yet that’s precisely what Britain’s Foreign Office has been caught doing. A recent investigation by Declassified UK revealed that the UK government had covertly paid dozens of foreign YouTube influencers to promote messages aligned with British foreign policy – under the familiar, pious banners of “democracy support” and “combating disinformation.” Of course, those slogans sound wholesome enough. Who wouldn’t be in favour of democracy or against lies online? But this framing is the point: it launders raw geopolitical interests into the comforting language of values. In reality, this is simply propaganda. Slick, decentralized, modernized – but propaganda nonetheless. This covert campaign didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s merely the latest incarnation of Britain’s longstanding approach to managing inconvenient narratives abroad. During the Cold War, the UK ran the notorious Information Research Department (IRD) from the bowels of the Foreign Office, quietly subsidising global news wires, encouraging friendly academics, even feeding scripts to George Orwell himself. Back then, it was about containing Soviet influence. Today, the rhetorical targets have shifted – “Russian disinformation,” “violent extremism,” “authoritarian propaganda” – but the machinery is strikingly similar. Only now, it’s all camouflaged beneath glossy behavioral science reports and “evidence-based interventions.” Enter Zinc Network and a clutch of similar contractors. These are the new psy-ops specialists, rebranded for the digital age. Zinc, in particular, has become a darling of the UK Foreign Office, winning multi-million-pound tenders to craft campaigns in Russia’s near abroad, the Balkans, Myanmar and beyond. Their operational blueprint is remarkably consistent: conduct meticulous audience research to understand local grievances, find or build trusted social media voices, funnel them resources and content, and ensure they sign binding agreements not to disclose their British backers. Read more UK secretly paid YouTube influencers for propaganda – report A few years ago, leaked FCDO documents exposed exactly this approach in the Baltics. There, the British government paid for contractors to develop Russian-language media platforms that would counter Moscow’s narratives – all under the pretext of strengthening independent journalism. They weren’t setting up local BBC World Service equivalents, proudly branded and transparent. They were building subtle, local-looking channels designed to mask their sponsorship. The goal was not to encourage robust pluralistic debate, but to ensure the debate didn’t wander into critiques of NATO or London’s chosen regional allies. This is the moral sleight-of-hand at the core of such projects: democracy is not the intrinsic end, it’s the vehicle for achieving Western policy objectives. When the UK says it’s “building resilience against disinformation,” it means reinforcing narratives that advance British strategic interests, whether that’s undermining Moscow, insulating Kiev, or keeping critical questions off the table in Tbilisi. Meanwhile, any rival framing is instantly demonized as dangerous foreign meddling – because only some meddling counts, apparently. It is deeply revealing that the YouTubers enlisted by the Foreign Office were compelled to sign NDAs preventing them from disclosing the ultimate source of their funding. If this were truly about open civic engagement, wouldn’t the UK proudly brand these campaigns? Wouldn’t London stand behind the principles it professes to teach? Instead, it resorts to precisely the covert playbook it decries when wielded by adversaries. In truth, “disinformation” has become an incredibly convenient term for Western governments. It carries an aura of technical objectivity — as if there’s a universal ledger of truth to consult, rather than a constantly contested arena of competing narratives and interests. Once something is labelled disinformation, it can be suppressed, countered, or ridiculed with minimal scrutiny. It is the modern equivalent of calling ideas subversive or communist in the 1950s. Read more No laughing matter: UK Foreign Office contractor sought to recruit comedians & YouTubers to take part in secret Baltic psyops camp Likewise, “freedom” in these projects means nothing more than the freedom to align with Britain’s worldview. This is a freedom to be curated, not genuinely chosen. And so local influencers are groomed to shape perceptions, not to foster independent judgment. The fact that these influencers look indigenous to their societies is the whole point – it’s what gives the campaigns a deceptive organic legitimacy. This is why Zinc’s approach hinges on meticulous audience segmentation and iterative testing to find precisely which messages will most effectively shift attitudes. The aim is to secure agreement without debate, to achieve consent without the messy business of authentic local deliberation. This should worry us. When liberal democracies resort to covert influence, they hollow out their own moral authority. They also undermine public trust at home and abroad. If London can so easily rationalize deception in Tallinn or Tashkent, why not someday in Manchester or Birmingham? Already, parts of the behavioural “nudge” industry that grew out of these foreign adventures have found eager domestic clients in public health and law enforcement. The biggest casualty in all of this is genuine democratic discourse – the thing that such operations claim to protect. Because what these programs actually protect is a carefully policed marketplace of ideas, where uncomfortable questions are outflanked by well-funded, astroturfed consensus. And so long as Britain continues to cloak its strategic propaganda efforts in the soft language of freedom and resilience, citizens everywhere will remain less informed, less empowered, and more easily manipulated. If that’s what modern democracy promotion looks like, maybe we should be honest and call it what it is: camouflage propaganda, draped in the rhetoric of liberty, but designed to ensure populations think exactly what Whitehall wants them to think. View the full article

Israel and America want to ‘benevolently’ put the population of Gaza into what amounts to a concentration camp The Gaza genocide is special. And not in one but two regards. As has often been observed, this is the first genocide in history that is, in essence, livestreamed. No genocide before has been committed under the eyes of the world like this one. And second, the Gaza genocide is undermining and, in effect, devastating whole moral and legal orders – or at least longstanding claims to them – in an equally unprecedented way. These two peculiarities are related: The only way the world as a whole could have tolerated the Gaza genocide for almost three years now is by stubbornly disregarding fundamental norms, both written and unwritten. For instance, almost no state – with the exception of Yemen (under de facto control of the Ansar Allah movement or Houthis) – has even tried to comply with its binding and clear obligations under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, namely to “prevent and punish” the crime of genocide. No one with the power – alone or with others – to do so, not in the Middle East, not beyond it, has come to save the Palestinian victims of the Gaza genocide in the only manner that would work: By stopping their Israeli murderers by massive force. Yet the small but still disproportionately influential part of the world that calls itself the West has gone beyond merely failing to act. That’s because, whether the West is a civilization once shaped by Christianity or not, for a long time now, its true inner core has been hypocrisy. And during the Gaza Genocide, the West’s compulsive need to rationalize even its most vicious actions into acts of virtue covered by ‘values’, has led to a new peak of absolute moral and intellectual perversion: Precisely because the West has not only abandoned the Palestinian victims but is actively co-perpetrating this genocide together with Israel, its elites – in politics, culture, the media, the police, and judiciary – have made a sustained, obstinate effort to radically alter our sense of right and wrong, from specific legal norms down to our intuitive and widely shared understanding of limits never to be crossed. Waging, for example, a so-called ‘war’ by killing or injuring – often maiming for life – over 50,000 children (as of May 2025)? A ‘war’ in which we receive one reliable testimony after another that many of these children are targeted deliberately, including by drone operators and snipers? A ‘war’ in which starvation, medical deprivation, and the promotion of epidemics have all been deployed equally deliberately? In the West, we are told to call this ‘self-defense’. Read more Aid as ambush: The horrifying new face of Israel’s Gaza war Indeed, we are asked – with great insistence, to say the least – to believe that this form of mass-murderous, infanticiding ‘self-defense’ is something to be proud of, even vicariously: The mayor of Berlin, Kai Wegner, for instance – notorious for his suppression of any signs of resistance to Israeli genocide – has just declared that city hall will keep flying the Israeli flag. In the same depraved spirit, the establishments of the West hand out punishment – from vicious police beatings to crippling lawfare to international sanctions – not to the perpetrators and accomplices of the Gaza genocide, in Israel and elsewhere, but to those who resist it in solidarity with its Palestinian victims. Protesters, journalists worth their salt, and even a UN special rapporteur are treated like criminals, even terrorists for actually standing up against the crime of genocide, as – just yesterday, it seems – we were all officially supposed to do. But ‘never again’ has been turned into ‘definitely again, and as long as the murderers want, since they are Israelis and our friends’. It is in this context of a reversal of morality, law, and meaning so complete the overused term ‘Orwellian’ for once really applies that we can understand what is now happening to the concept of ‘humanitarian’ action. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica’s back-to-basics definition, a humanitarian is a “person who works to make other people’s lives better,” for instance, by trying to end world hunger. Since modern humanitarianism already has a history of two centuries, historians, such as Michael Barnett in his ‘Empire of Humanity’, have delivered more complex accounts. Critics have long denounced humanitarianism’s limits and even flaws. For French sociologist Jean Baudrillard, it is what’s left when a more optimistic humanism decays: A sort of bleak emergency response, a sign that the world has gotten worse, again. In particular, during the post-Cold War decades of American hubris – misnamed the ‘unipolar moment’ – humanitarianism often allied with Western imperialism. In the war of aggression against Iraq that started in 2003, for instance, humanitarian organizations became servants to the aggressors, invaders, and occupiers. Yet, whatever view of humanitarianism you may endorse, there are things the concept can only accommodate for the completely deranged and limitlessly evil, such as massacring starving civilians and concentration camps. And yet, in Gaza, both have been labeled humanitarian. The so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a shady US-Israeli concoction, has promoted a scheme in which pittances of food are effectively used as bait for lethal traps: Palestinians deliberately blockaded by Israel have been lured to four kill zones masquerading as aid distribution points. Read more Fully independent Palestinian state would pose threat to Israel – Netanyahu Over the past one and a half months, Israeli forces and Western mercenaries have killed at least 789 victims – and injured thousands – at or near these satanic traps. Obviously, killing the unarmed on such a scale is not collateral damage but deliberate. By now, the murderous intent behind the scheme has been confirmed by various sources, including Israeli. No wonder that 170 real humanitarian and human rights group have signed a protest against this fake relief and genuine mass murder scheme. And then there is the concentration camp plan: Israeli leaders have already driven the surviving inhabitants of Gaza – one of the most densely settled places on Earth even before the genocide – into an area comprising only 20% of Gaza’s devastated surface. Yet that is not evil enough for them: On the way to what seems to be their idea of a final solution of the Gaza question, they have now pitched a new plan to their US allies, namely, to herd the survivors into an even smaller area. This de facto concentration camp they advertise as a ‘humanitarian city’. From there, Palestinians would have only two ways out: By death or by leaving Gaza. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz wants to sell us this as ‘voluntary’. It is an irony of history that Israeli genociders now compete not only with the crimes of the Nazis but also with the Germans’ horrendous abuse of language. The location of this deadly ethnic-cleansing transit station? The ruins of Rafah. You may remember Rafah, once a bustling city in southern Gaza, as the place Israel’s Western allies pretended to try to protect, sort of, for a while. Those warnings were worth nothing, of course. Rafah was flattened, and now the area is earmarked for the concentration camp to end it all. The scheme is so outrageous – but then, that is Israel’s ordinary modus operandi – that even its critics can hardly keep up with just how depraved it is. Philippe Lazzarini, the head of UNRWA – the effective aid distribution organization that Israel has shut down in pursuit of its starvation strategy, killing almost 400 of its local staff – has posted on X that the ‘humanitarian city’ would amount to a second Nakba and “create massive concentration camps at the border with Egypt for the Palestinians.” Read more Hamas says ready for ‘complete end to the war’ – AP The Nakba was the Zionist ethnic cleansing, interspersed with massacres, of around 750,000 Palestinians in 1948. But Lazzarini is wrong if he believes that the first Nakba ever ended: For the Palestinian victims of Israeli violence, it only initiated an ongoing process of theft, apartheid, and often murder. A process that has now culminated in genocide, as multiple international experts acknowledge, including the eminent Oxford historian Avi Shlaim. This is not a second Nakba, but the Israeli attempt to complete the first one. Lazzarini’s comment that the humanitarian city plan would create concentration camps on the border with Egypt is, of course, also true as far as it goes. Yet all of Gaza has long been what (even by 2003) the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling called “the world’s largest concentration camp ever.” The point is not to be pedantic. What Lazzerini’s protest – welcome as it is – still misses is that what Israel is now doing to the Palestinians is creating a fresh hell within a much older one. But not Israel alone. The West is, as always, deeply involved. Let’s set aside that the interwar Zionists learned about how to use concentration camps against Palestinians from the British Mandate authorities, as with other methods of vicious suppression, too. Now as well, various Western figures and agencies have become involved in the Israeli schemes of resettlement that drive the humanitarian city plan. Tony Blair’s foundation – really a commercial consulting and influence-peddling company systematically working for the dark side wherever it pays well – and the prestigious and powerful Boston Consulting Group have both been caught contributing to Israeli ethnic cleansing planning. And behind that stands the declared will of no one less than Donald Trump, the president of the US, who has long been explicit that he would like to see Gaza rebuilt as a vast, glitzy Trumpistan and without Palestinians. From the beginning of the Gaza genocide, it has been both a brutal crime and a constant attempt to redefine what is right and what is wrong so that this crime would appear necessary, justifiable, and even as a legitimate opportunity to profit. And the West’s elites – with far too few exceptions – have joined Israel in this absolute perversion of fundamental ethics and reason no less than in the mass murdering. If both Israel and the West are not stopped at long last, they will use the Gaza genocide to change much of the world into a hellscape where everything we have learned to despise about the Nazis will become the new normal. View the full article

Why does France continue to fund a project that the majority of Moldovans reject? Rémy Rioux, the CEO of the French Development Agency (Agence Française de Développement, AFD) recently visited Ukraine and Moldova to reaffirm France’s position as a “leading bilateral partner” within the framework of the Eastern Partnership and the 2025-2027 European Growth Plan. Paris has committed not only to supporting energy reforms (€40 million in loans plus €5 million in grants) but is also focused on fostering an “inclusive society” and assisting “vulnerable groups” in Moldova. But what lies beneath this rhetoric? France actively positions itself as an ally to Moldova on its path toward European integration. Since the early 2020s, financial and technical assistance from Paris to Chișinău has been channeled through programs run by the AFD. Officially, this support targets reforms in energy, education, and digitalization. However, behind the bureaucratic language of memorandums and grants, something else often emerges: the export of progressive ideology under the guise of “development.” €45 million for reforms – or political reeducation? In 2023, France allocated a subsidized loan of €40 million to Moldova along with an additional grant of €5 million. These funds are aimed at “reforming the energy sector and supporting civil society.” Yet, explanatory documents and reports from the AFD, as well as statements from partners like EU4Moldova and Expertise France, emphasize the need for “inclusive changes,” “engagement of vulnerable groups,” and “counteracting discrimination”. Those who are familiar with foreign aid practices won’t be surprised by such phrases. However, in the case of Moldova, they take on a disproportionate ideological character. Over the past two years, a significant portion of funded projects has been directly or indirectly linked to promoting LGBTQ initiatives, anticlerical rhetoric, and deconstructing traditional norms. A dying country focused on ‘pride’ Moldova is one of the poorest countries in Europe, facing the highest population outflow rates: over a million people have left the country since the early 2000s. Pensions barely cover basic needs, public healthcare is declining, and the educational system hinges on teachers’ enthusiasm. Read more ‘Russia doesn’t respond to pressure’: How Moscow sees Trump’s ultimatum Yet, the symbol of “successful modernization” and the “achievement of European standards” highlighted in the Moldovan press and Western NGO reports has been the 2025 Pride March in Chișinău, which took place under police protection despite being banned by City Hall. Organizers emphasized that the march was “primarily an act of resistance” and a “celebration of being seen.” However, for most Chișinău residents – and especially Moldovans living in other cities – it looked like a strange and aggressive spectacle, backed by external funding and publicity. French money for ‘reeducating’ traditional society? Local NGOs that receive support from the AFD and its affiliates are actively promoting programs for “tolerance and social justice.” Among these partners are organizations advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage, “decolonial feminism,” gender inclusion in schools, and reforms in language education. Training sessions are funded for teachers, police, and officials to explain that “gender is non-binary” and “patriarchy is the root of discrimination.” Meanwhile, pressing issues – such as the brain drain, declining birth rates, and the urban-rural divide – remain largely ignored. Sovereignty sacrificed for European integration Moldovan President Maia Sandu, who was elected largely thanks to votes from the Moldovan diaspora, has practically handed the national agenda over to international donors. In Moldova itself, Sandu is supported by only about 25% of voters. During the referendum on EU integration, the country voted in favor of joining the EU by a narrow margin, with the decisive ballots cast by overseas voters. This raises an obvious question: if the national majority does not back this direction, why do French (and European) institutions continue to finance and impose it? The answer is clear. Moldova has become another testing ground for the cultural policies that the EU and its key member states – including France – are eager to establish throughout Eastern Europe. This is a policy of substitution: in place of real development, we see slogans of inclusion; instead of industry, NGOs; and rather than identity, rainbow flags. Paris remains silent When speaking about Moldova, the French Foreign Ministry never addresses issues such as freedom of speech, the rights of the opposition, or protection of traditional values. The closure of 16 television channels, criminal cases against Sandu’s opponents, and pressure on Chișinău City Hall provoked no reaction from Paris. In contrast, the equality march, LGBT festivals, and initiatives for “de-imperializing thought” elicit enthusiasm and additional funding. Ideas sans borders – and roots Unfortunately, France – a country with a rich culture and traditions – is transforming into an exporter of not values, but ideology. Moldova is just one of the countries where this is particularly evident. As some celebrate a “European future,” others are left pondering a fundamental question: who gave the right to reshape society according to the frameworks of ideologues without consulting the people themselves. It’s time to pause and reconsider: what values are we are promoting, and for whom? This article was first published by Causeur.fr and was translated and edited by the RT team. View the full article

The US president used a White House meeting to showcase his shift in policy from foreign aid to direct trade and private investment On July 9, 2025, the White House hosted a high-profile gathering framed as a new beginning for US-Africa relations. Five presidents from West and Central Africa (Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal) joined US President Donald Trump for what was described as a working lunch to discuss trade, investment, democracy, and development. On the surface, the meeting appeared to offer hope – a pivot away from charity-based aid and toward ‘win-win’ economic cooperation. But beneath the photo ops and carefully worded press releases lies an old script, imperialism rewritten for a new era, colonial logic in a business suit. The most immediate red flag was the selective nature of the invitation. These five leaders were chosen not because they represent the African continent or a regional consensus, but precisely because they don’t. They were selected for their compliance, not their vision. Revolutionary governments such as those in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, or Guinea were deliberately excluded. The African Union was sidelined. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was ignored. This wasn’t diplomacy, it was a strategic maneuver to fracture African solidarity and reward obedience, while isolating defiant sovereigntist forces in the Sahel. Read more Liberian president impresses Trump with ‘good English’ Trump used the occasion to showcase his shift in policy from foreign aid to direct trade and private investment. This coincides with the dismantling of USAID and broader gutting of US foreign assistance programs. While Trump presents this as cutting waste and promoting self-reliance, the numbers tell a different story. Liberia alone stands to lose aid worth more than 2.5% of its gross national income. A recent Lancet study forecasts up to 14 million deaths globally by 2030 as a consequence of cascading aid cuts in health, nutrition, and infrastructure. The narrative of aid fatigue obscures a more violent reality: The imposition of austerity and the prioritization of corporate capital over human lives. The logic behind this pivot isn’t benevolence; it’s extraction. Trump openly praised Africa’s “very valuable land, great minerals, great oil deposits,” and announced US support for Gabon’s Banio potash mine through the US Development Finance Corporation. This is not development. This is raw material dependency dressed in the language of opportunity. These so-called partnerships do not include technology transfers, sovereign control of value chains, or long-term industrial strategies. African nations remain trapped in structures where they export what they do not consume and import what they do not produce. It is the same colonial dynamic of wealth outflow, but with new branding. READ MORE: Trump touts US arms to African leaders Meanwhile, the travel bans that may affect the very countries represented at the summit underscore the contradiction at the heart of US foreign policy. Even as Africa is courted for its resources, it is shut out from Western borders, stigmatized as a security risk, and surveilled as a threat. The embrace of African leaders is tactical, not principled. It is not solidarity, but subjugation. The language of democracy and governance, repeatedly invoked at the summit, was deployed as a smokescreen. No one questioned the democratic legitimacy of US-backed regimes, nor did anyone raise the violence of sanctions, the repression of dissent, or the consequences of economic strangulation. Democracy, here, is not a goal but a weapon, used to discipline, coerce, and justify intervention. The summit was silent on colonialism, on reparations, on stolen wealth, on looted artifacts, and on the structural violence that underdeveloped Africa for centuries. Read more It’s 2025, but Africans are still in chains. Why? We must see this summit not as a new beginning, but as a continuation of a permanent economic war against Africa. From structural adjustment programs to exploitative trade agreements, from the CFA franc to the World Trade Organization, Africa has been systematically disempowered. The use of debt, sanctions, and aid conditionalities have turned economic tools into instruments of domination. The radical response should be to reject these colonial structures entirely. We must also recognize that the US is not a development partner, it is a global military empire. With over 29 bases in Africa under AFRICOM, US drone operations in Niger, and covert CIA programs across the Sahel, Washington operates not as a friend of Africa but as a garrisoning force. These military installations are not for peace, but for control. Trump’s so-called economic shock therapy is nothing new. It is part of a larger strategy of controlled collapse: Destroy weak states, flood markets with foreign goods, privatize essential services, and turn public wealth into private profit. To replace aid with investment is not inherently bad, but when that investment comes from the same forces that destroyed public systems in the first place, it becomes a cruel joke. Africa should fund its own development through progressive taxation, state-owned enterprises, repatriation of looted wealth, and the creation of sovereign wealth funds built on nationalized resources. The people of Africa should look beyond them and build grassroots power: Pan-African assemblies, community councils, people’s defense networks, and economic forums that reflect the will of the masses, not the preferences of Washington. Read more Trump’s African outreach is a facade – Liberian activist And let us stop pretending that development can happen without justice. Africa is owed reparations, for slavery, for colonial plunder, for structural adjustment, for environmental destruction. Africa loses $777 billion annually in illicit financial flows. It pays more in debt servicing than it receives in aid. These are not accidents; they are systemic theft. We must demand reverse conditionality: No cooperation without restitution. No deals without asset return. No handshakes without apology. Culturally, too, Africa is under siege. The US and its allies export not just goods but ideologies, individualism, consumerism, depoliticized entrepreneurship, and liberal technocracy. These are not neutral. They are tools of erasure, designed to uproot revolutionary consciousness. We must fight back with radical education, liberation art, and African-centered philosophy. We need a renaissance of resistance rooted in history, language, memory, and vision. The ultimate goal is not a better version of the current system. It is a different system altogether. A people’s economy built on public ownership, cooperative agriculture, food sovereignty, and democratic control of resources. A trade system not based on extractive exports but on intra-African barter, solidarity, and reciprocity. A union of African nations that looks south, to Latin America, to Asia, to other colonized peoples, for alliance, not northward for approval. We must consider organizing a continental debt strike, led by the African Union and rooted in the legitimacy of popular resistance. Africa must collectively refuse to pay illegitimate debts, and redirect those funds toward healthcare, housing, infrastructure, and education. The White House summit also sought to isolate Africa from its revolutionary allies. There was no mention of Venezuela, of Cuba, of Palestine, of Iran, of the BRICS alliance. These are not coincidental omissions. They are calculated. The US fears a multipolar world where Africa chooses its own friends. That is why we must build an Afro-Global South Alliance: A collective of liberation movements, radical governments, and grassroots struggles across continents committed to self-determination, anti-imperialism, and global justice. Read more Trump vs. South Africa: Who is winning the clash over ‘white genocide’? And finally, we must reclaim revolutionary memory. The names of Nkrumah, Sankara, Gaddafi, Cabral, and Nyerere are not museum pieces. They are maps. They are weapons. They are the blueprints for what must come next. The young generation must know what was done, what was dreamed, and what remains unfinished. Let us build a Pan-African Memorial Archive to preserve their legacies and to teach the next generation not how to negotiate with empires, but how to defy them. What happened on July 9 in Washington was not a new beginning. It was a recycling of the old. An imperial pageant masquerading as diplomacy. But Africa does not belong to summits. It belongs to its people. And the people are rising. From Ouagadougou to Bamako, from Khartoum to Kinshasa, the cry is the same: We are not your quarry. We are not your market. We are not your experiment. We are a continent in rebellion. And history, as always, is being written not by those who dine with empires, but by those who dare to resist them. View the full article

An important part of manhood has always been about having the competence to be effective in the world — having the breadth of skills, the savoir-faire, to handle any situation you find yourself in. With that in mind, each Sunday we’ll be republishing one of the illustrated guides from our archives, so you can hone your manly know-how week by week. It is one of the planet’s great ironies that a person can be lost at sea, surrounded by water, and die of dehydration. The reason saltwater is so harmful to drink is not that you can’t drink salt. We drink salty liquid, like soups and stews, all the time, and our kidneys have no problem filtering out the salt and processing it. But that process works because we also drink lots of freshwater, which ultimately dilutes the total concentration of salt in our bodies. It’s a balance. When you drink just saltwater, you throw that balance way off-kilter. Your kidneys go into overdrive, pulling salt out and forcing you to urinate. Every time you pee, you lose water, and no matter how fast you drink, you’ll never be able to catch up. In survival scenarios, desalination (pulling the salt out of water) is the only way to make seawater safe enough to drink. The simplest form of desalination is basic evaporation. Think back to your elementary science class: You were probably taught that the sun heats surface water on the ocean, which causes evaporation. When water evaporates, it leaves the salt behind. The moist air rises, cools, creates clouds, and, if there’s enough of it, rain. The desalination method below relies on that process of evaporation and condensation to help you capture freshwater in a container to drink. All you need is a large plastic bottle and a soda can. Keep in mind that your plastic bottle must have a lid. Otherwise, the evaporated seawater will escape through the top. Like this illustrated guide? Then you’re going to love our book The Illustrated Art of Manliness! Pick up a copy on Amazon. This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

Apparently, cranking up the A/C in near-40-degree heat is now “cheating” and killing the environment Paris was melting last week, flirting with 40°C and zero chill. Apparently, the moment was ripe for an epiphany. I was in an Uber, as one does when public transport becomes a slow cooker. I always enjoy chatting with the driver – usually Algerian or Moroccan. We got to talking about our lives and what led us to France. At one point he looked at me and said, “No husband, no kids, and you have air conditioning! You’re totally cheating at life!” “Cheating,” huh? Interesting word choice. So opting out of the standard life script is breaking the rules? But whose rules? The ones written by the establishment – whichever power structure has successfully colonized your brain. I was fortunate to have been raised by parents who believed in free thought, not groupthink, and who told me that you should be able to do anything you want with your life as long as you’re not harming others. Which is a long way of saying that if I want to crank the A/C during a heatwave in my own home, it’s nobody’s business. Especially not that of some guy in the front seat of a Peugeot who thinks that I’ve short-circuited the Matrix. Read more Will the French regime go Soviet? But the fact that he grouped air conditioning with not having kids or a man says a lot. It’s not just cultural expectations, but also the deep programming of state-sanctioned virtue that has come to dominate cultural norms. And in France, one of the strangest markers of virtue is rejecting modern cooling technology. The week was so blisteringly hot that the French government anticipated shutting down 1,350 schools so kids could sweat it out at home instead of in class. Even the local public swimming pool had to close – the one place that usually offers relief – because the deck hit 50°C and the water was bathtub temperature. Instead, the French spent the day playing what I call the “Blinds and Windows Game.” Open everything in the morning. Close it all when the heat starts. Pull the blinds down just right so the sun hits the metal outside instead of the window glass. I opted out. I’ve got better things to do than play around with my window coverings. So I turned on the air conditioning. My neighbors were not fans. I’ve had a mob of French residents of my building bang on my door demanding that I turn it off. Why? Because they spotted the portable A/C exhaust tubes poking out my window. Having ignored them, I later received a formal letter with instructions on when I was allowed to use it. According to them, that would only be when they collectively decide that the temperature justifies it – and only during certain hours. “For the well being of everyone,” they wrote, before launching into a sermon about how A/C is bad for the environment and ruins it for everyone else. Give me a break. This is a country powered by decarbonized nuclear energy, so the climate change excuse doesn’t work here. But even without that, they invent new reasons: It causes “thermal shock.” It gives you neck spasms. It’s “unnatural air.” It’ll make you sick... Read more French investigators raid HQ of biggest opposition party Like the outdated idea that every woman should anchor her existence around a husband and kids, the anti-A/C dogma should stop where logic and personal freedom begin. No, gyms shouldn’t be set to 26°C in the summer because some guy wants to do five squats and scroll on his phone without feeling “chilly” during a heatwave. You shouldn’t be sweating through your clothes at the movies. And hospitals and nursing homes shouldn’t feel like a slow death in a convection oven. But the moment far-right National Rally leader Marine Le Pen suggested a “grand plan for air conditioning” a few days ago, the narrative defenders of the establishment status quo promptly lost it. “Air conditioning saves lives. Letting people die in hospitals, or letting children or vulnerable people suffer because there is no air conditioning, is completely absurd,” Le Pen said in the National Assembly. The opposition Ecologists’ national secretary Marine Tondelier shot back that “air conditioning won’t suffice.” Guess they’re still hoping to lower the Earth’s thermostat manually. Since they’re clearly failing, despite all the lifestyle sacrifices they’ve extracted from us, maybe we could at least normalize cooling the rooms we actually live in. Apparently not. France’s Ecological Transition Minister, Agnès Pannier-Runacher of Macron’s Renaissance party, said that it was okay to “air condition vulnerable people” but “not everywhere.” Because “global warming.” Oh, please. Go yell at your German Green pals from the last coalition government, that had to fire up coal plants that dump filth into Europe’s air, all because their sacred renewables can’t carry the load. Read more Paris says Le Pen’s AC plan full of hot air – Politico Meanwhile, France Unbowed – the left-wing party – whined that “wealthy households are increasingly choosing air conditioning and installing it as they see fit.” And…we’re back to that whole “cheating” mantra again. Can’t be letting rich people cheat, now! As if everyone who has a portable A/C unit in their bedroom is also cooling off in champagne baths. Portable A/C units cost a few hundred euros. What actually makes them expensive are things like the EU’s dumb carbon credit scheme. Also, cutting off cheap Russian gas didn’t help, especially since EU electricity prices are based on the most expensive fuel needed to generate it, as Le Monde has pointed out. It took a populist uprising in the 1960s and 70s for women to escape a system that once required a husband’s permission just to open a bank account. More recently, populism clawed back some sanity from endless wars, uncontrolled migration, and technocratic tyranny disguised as “democracy.” It’s going to take another wave of that same rebellious spirit to end the delusion that sweating through 40-degree heat is some noble sacrifice. Using air conditioning isn’t cheating – forcing everyone else to suffer with you in your stiflingly hot ideological straitjacket is. If cranking the heat in winter is a right, then staying cool in July shouldn’t feel like joining the Resistance. But until things change, I’ll just keep leading the underground. Vive la clim’! View the full article

Facing the risk of trade weaponization, New Delhi must defend its economic choices through diplomacy, diversification, and strategic resilience India stands at a challenging crossroads. A proposed US Senate bill threatening a 500% tariff on countries importing Russian oil has cast a long shadow over India’s energy security. With nearly half of its oil now sourced from Russia, India could be forced to choose between economic pragmatism and geopolitical alignment. But is this truly a binary choice? Or does India still have space to maneuver, through diplomacy, diversification, and deeper strategic thinking? India’s oil imports from Russia have been guided by cost and continuity. Since early 2022, Russian barrels, trading $7–8 cheaper than Middle Eastern crude, have helped India shield its economy from energy-driven inflation. According to ICRA’s report covering April 2024 to February 2025, India saved approximately $7.9 billion on its oil import bill by purchasing discounted Russian crude, a notable increase from $5.1 billion in the previous fiscal year. Yet in Washington, this pragmatic calculus is seen through a geopolitical lens. The draft Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham, attempts to globalize America’s war priorities by punishing countries that don’t align with its sanctions regime. For India, however, strategic autonomy has never meant passive neutrality. It means independent policy calibration, guided by long-term national interest, not momentary external pressure. Read more India ‘contributed to global stability’ by buying Russian oil – minister While New Delhi has publicly avoided direct confrontation, Indian officials have quietly engaged with US lawmakers to explain the rationale behind continued Russian oil imports. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s remark that India will “cross that bridge when we come to it” has drawn varied interpretations, some see it as calculated ambiguity, others as a strategic placeholder. Either way, it reflects a diplomatic posture designed to preserve flexibility amid intensifying external pressure. India has often purchased Russian oil below the G7-imposed price cap of $60 per barrel, enabling continued access to Western shipping and insurance services. Still, New Delhi maintains that it is not formally bound by the cap and that its energy trade decisions are guided by national interest, not alignment with unilateral Western sanctions. As support for the bill gathers momentum in the US Senate, however, India’s diplomatic space could shrink, with growing pressure to demonstrate explicit support for Ukraine or risk facing steep economic consequences. To preempt escalation, India may need to reinforce its position with a combination of strategic messaging, confidence-building gestures, and readiness to adapt, without appearing coerced. That’s a fine diplomatic line, but one India is uniquely equipped to walk. A tariff that ripples beyond oil The proposed tariff is not merely an energy tool; it’s a trade weapon. India’s annual exports to the US stand at $80–90 billion. Imposing a 500% levy would cripple major sectors like pharmaceuticals, engineering goods, auto components, and textiles, many of which are indirectly linked to oil-derived inputs. Analysts caution that a significant portion of India’s US-bound exports, particularly in energy-intensive sectors like chemicals, metals, electronics, and auto components, could face disproportionate damage under such a tariff regime. This raises a critical question: can strategic partnership coexist with economic coercion? If India is penalized for pursuing affordable energy, the credibility of broader India-US cooperation across the Indo-Pacific, defense, semiconductors, and technology fields will be undermined. The risk is that tactical pressure today may erode structural trust tomorrow. Strengthening energy defenses India must therefore prepare on multiple fronts. While diplomatic engagement in Washington continues, it must also strengthen internal safeguards to manage potential shocks. This includes accelerating the diversification of oil sources, particularly from Gulf producers and Africa, and expanding strategic petroleum reserves (SPR), a move already under government consideration. Equally vital is the need to fast-track the clean energy transition to reduce the economy’s overall oil intensity and long-term vulnerability. READ MORE: What just happened in Rio should terrify the West Legal tools could also be brought into play. India has invoked WTO mechanisms, seeking consultations over US auto tariffs and proposing retaliatory duties on steel and aluminum, steps it has clarified will not disrupt ongoing trade negotiations. Still, any legal response must be tightly calibrated to avoid escalation. Past experience offers caution: the 2016 US–India solar panel dispute brought eventual compliance but only limited near-term relief, with India phasing out contested policies years after the initial ruling. WTO adjudication, while principled, often delivers outcomes too slowly to defuse immediate economic pressure. The balancing act India’s choices today will reverberate not only in Washington, but also in Moscow. Russia has long regarded India as a reliable strategic partner, especially in defense, energy, and space. If India appears to reduce Russian oil imports under US pressure, it could invite consequences: costlier contracts, tighter financing, and diminished leverage in bilateral negotiations. More critically, it could potentially erode the political goodwill that has long anchored their stable ties. Read more Say goodbye to cheap oil – and thank Israel and Iran while you’re at it Yet both India and Russia are also keenly aware of the shifting political winds in Washington. With the 2026 US midterms approaching, and uncertainty over the durability of Trump’s congressional support, both countries may prefer to buy time rather than rush into irreversible decisions. A potential electoral setback could weaken legislative momentum behind the Sanctioning Russia Act, forcing Washington to recalibrate its tactics. Reflecting Russia’s own caution, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov noted, “The Trump administration is very contradictory in its actions and statements. This does not make the work easy,” in remarks to TASS. For India, this moment may be less about confrontation than about strategic patience, balancing engagement with both powers while safeguarding long-term autonomy. Yet, continuing to buy Russian oil in defiance of US legislation carries risks for India, particularly for the fragile but deepening India-US partnership. Washington is investing heavily in India’s rise through technology transfer, nearshoring, and strategic frameworks like the Quad. The concern is less about immediate sanctions and more about the potential loss of momentum in broader bilateral cooperation. Strategic autonomy The 500% tariff threat is more than just a policy lever, it is a litmus test of India’s economic sovereignty, diplomatic agility, and global posture. India must defend its energy decisions not with defiance, but with deliberate design: through layered diplomacy, structural reforms, and a clear articulation of its development-driven rationale. In this context, India is not choosing sides; it is choosing its own ground. It seeks to maintain credible relationships with both Washington and Moscow without being pulled into binary alignments. Strategic autonomy, in this sense, is not about isolation, it is about balance, flexibility, and consequence-sensitive positioning. READ MORE: India is way too eager to embrace Trump’s America If Washington hopes to sustain India as a durable democratic partner, it must recognize that coercive tactics could prove counterproductive, pushing India toward alternative suppliers and geopolitical alignments, including, if necessary, even China, in an effort to buffer against future risks. If the US sees India as a true strategic partner, not merely a convenient counterweight, it must acknowledge these complexities and demonstrate flexibility. At the same time, if India seeks to rise without external dependency, it must further sharpen its ability to absorb, deflect, and recalibrate in the face of mounting pressure. View the full article

For Africa, the retreat of a long-standing security partner opens a strategic vacuum to be filled by other global actors A shift appears to be underway in US-Africa relations, judging by the remarks of Vice President J.D. Vance and AFRICOM Commander General Michael Langley. Speaking to new US naval graduates on May 23, Vance talked about re-evaluating the American military role around the world and declared that “The era of uncontested US dominance is over" and that open-ended military engagements “belong to the past.” Four days later General Langley, while attending an African defense chiefs’ meeting in Gaborone, Botswana, suggested that the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) might be integrated into Central Command (CENTCOM). “If we’re [AFRICOM] that important to (you), you need to communicate that and we’ll see,” Langley said, adding that the US is “reassessing” its military role in the continent. This sends a clear signal that Washington may dismantle or repurpose AFRICOM as part of broader cuts to US global military posture. The statements, in line with President Donald Trump’s ‘America first’ mantra, reflect Washington’s growing impatience with costly foreign entanglements, while hinting at a fundamental transformation of how the US engages with Africa’s complex security landscape. Cold War legacy Since its creation in 2008, AFRICOM has served as the centrepiece of US military strategy on the continent. Over nearly two decades, the command has expanded its reach and budget significantly, shaping security partnerships and playing a pivotal role in regional conflicts. Yet today, AFRICOM’s future is uncertain, caught at the crossroads of shifting US priorities, rising African assertiveness, and intensifying competition from rival powers such as Russia and China. Read more As Tripoli burns, the West shrugs – and rivals quietly move in Africa has long figured into the broader framework of US global military and political strategy. During the continent’s era of anti-colonial struggle and liberation movements, Washington, obsessed with countering Soviet influence, viewed nearly every liberation movement through the narrow lens of Cold War anti-communism. AFRICOM was established by President George W. Bush, who emphasized its importance by stating that it would “strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners.” AFRICOM was intended to centralize US military operations on the continent, replacing the fragmented structure inherited from the Cold War era, when Africa was divided among three different US military commands. Then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates described the move as a long-overdue correction to an “outdated arrangement left over from the Cold War.” Between 2008 and 2025, the cost of sustaining AFRICOM and financing its activities is estimated to have risen from around $50 million to between $275 million and $300 million. It is not a huge amount because the command borrows personnel and equipment from other US military commands, meaning the cost is accounted for anyway. This is likely to draw scrutiny from President Trump, who has made slashing federal spending a key priority. His administration has launched a dedicated initiative within the Office of Management and Budget – dubbed DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) – to identify and eliminate what it considers excessive international and domestic expenditures. Trump’s return to office in 2025 marked a clear strategic pivot: a retreat from costly overseas commitments in favor of a narrow, transactional approach to foreign policy. The Sahel region: A case study in US withdrawal The Sahel region illustrates the consequences of America’s retrenchment in Africa. Once a central focus of US counterterrorism efforts, countries such as Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have witnessed the gradual reduction of American military presence amid growing local resistance. Coupled with political upheavals and anti-French sentiment, US forces have faced mounting pressure to leave or scale back operations. The withdrawal has left a security vacuum that regional powers and international actors struggle to fill, fueling instability and humanitarian crises. This retreat highlights the limits of America’s influence and the complexities of African geopolitics in an era of shifting alliances. Read more The US is about to hit ‘Add to cart’ on another forever war A stark example of the US pullback is Niger, where the military coup in 2023 prompted the expulsion of American forces and the shutdown of a $100-million drone base critical to regional surveillance and counterterrorism. The abrupt exit underscored the fragility of US military footholds amid shifting political dynamics. Meanwhile, Russia has swiftly moved to fill this security vacuum, leveraging military cooperation, renewed political ties with the region and arms deals to become a preferred partner for several African states. Moscow’s approach – often perceived as less conditional and more respectful of sovereignty – has resonated with governments disillusioned by Western interference and demands, accelerating realignment in Africa’s security landscape. ”Russia does not come with lectures or conditions” African nations approach foreign military partnerships with a mix of pragmatism, skepticism, and growing assertiveness. Many governments are wary of traditional Western powers, associating them with a legacy of colonialism, exploitative aid, and conditional alliances that undermine sovereignty. In contrast, Russia’s more transactional and less intrusive engagement style appeals to some leaders seeking security support without political strings attached. However, this trust is far from uniform – some African civil society groups and international observers often warn against swapping one form of dependency for another, emphasizing the need for genuine partnerships that respect African agency and prioritize long-term stability over geopolitical rivalry. African countries’ relative trust in Russia compared to the US or former European colonial powers stems from historical and ideological factors. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union supported numerous African liberation movements, often standing in opposition to Western-backed regimes and colonial interests. Unlike Western powers, Russia’s approach has often emphasized non-intervention in internal politics, focusing primarily on military cooperation and economic deals without pressing for political reforms. This contrasts sharply with Western demands for governance changes as a precondition for aid or security support. Read more Military base in paradise: Why decolonization by the UK turns out to be fake again As Malian analyst Amina Traore noted, “Russia does not come with lectures or conditions; it offers partnership based on mutual respect and shared interests.” Similarly, Senegalese former defense official Cheikh Diop remarked, “African countries want security partners who respect their sovereignty and do not drag them into endless conflicts or political battles.” These sentiments underscore why Russia has gained ground as a preferred security ally, even as questions linger about the long-term implications of this pivot. The possible disappearance or transformation of AFRICOM signals a shift in US military engagement across Africa. Whether integrated into other commands or scaled back significantly, this change reflects Washington’s recalibration of its global military priorities amid domestic pressures and evolving international dynamics. For Africa, the retreat of a long-standing security partner opens a strategic vacuum – one increasingly filled by Russia and other global actors eager to expand their influence. The shift challenges US policymakers to rethink their approach beyond military presence, emphasizing genuine partnerships based on respect, shared interests, and support for African-led security solutions. Ultimately, the future of US-Africa relations will depend on Washington’s ability to adapt to a multipolar world where influence is no longer guaranteed by military might alone, but by diplomacy, economic engagement, and mutual respect. View the full article

Facing the political impasse of the entire system, some MPs have a dystopian idea: ban and punish all criticism of the “Republic” This may seem trivial but in June 2025 a ridiculous bill has been conceived by the right/center-right Les Republicains party. A bill that sums up just about everything that’s wrong with France’s system, not just its political system, but even its core cerebral system: prohibiting and punishing content and speech of an “anti-republican” nature. Many critics of French political circles have – rightly – pointed out this incredible ability of politicians to use the argument of the “values ​​of the Republic” whenever it suits them without ever explaining what these values ​​are. However, the MPs who came up with this bill made a (minimal) effort in attempting to outline what it entails. Thus, it reads: “The French Republic is based on fundamental principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, sovereignty of the people, and the indivisibility of the nation. These values, guaranteed by the Constitution and consolidated by law, constitute the foundation of ‘vivre-ensemble’ [something purely French that can be understood as ‘social harmony’].” What would happen to someone who violates these principles? Oh, nothing, just being sentenced to three years of imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 ($52,000). Beyond the purely vote-catching aspect of such a bill emanating from a right-wing party seeking to appeal to its public worried about the spread of Islam in France, there is something profoundly dystopian about it. All the listed “fundamental principles” are so vague that anything can be considered a violation of them. France, which has specialized in devising abstruse theories since the end of the 18th century, is based on the absurd triptych “liberty, equality, fraternity.” However, any sane person understands that this triangle cannot work. “Liberty” and “equality” are by definition antagonistic and “fraternity” is mainly some leftover of a distant Christian morality. The sacrosanct secularism must apply to everyone – except to the Jewish community, something that tends to frustrate the Muslim community and leaves French citizens, who are predominantly atheist but psychologically remain, as the great demographer Emmanuel Todd coined, in a kind of “zombie Catholicism,” wary. When it comes to the “sovereignty of the people,” most people understand that it is a joke since politicians wiped their feet on the people’s “no” during the referendum on the European Constitution in 2005. As for the “indivisibility of the nation,” an umpteenth abstract concept that implies territorial unity, unity of the people, and unity of law, it would be necessary to explain it to the police and firefighters who can no longer go to some territories of the “Republic” as France is on the verge of becoming a narco-state. But of course, in this maelstrom of abstract stuff, the end of the quote that is the highlight of the show: “These values ​​[...] constitute the foundation of vivre-ensemble.” Read more French investigators raid HQ of biggest opposition party Not long ago, during the June heat wave, a water park had to close permanently because it was invaded and trashed by “young people” the very first day after it opened. With the riots of summer 2023 (never described as “racial” by the French press though they use the term when it comes to the US) and the chaos following PSG’s Champions League victory in 2025, along with the daily attacks and violence, the French people seem to be struggling to integrate the concept of “vivre-ensemble.” Someone said that the British had problems with ideas but not with facts, whereas for the French it’s the opposite. This is absolutely true. The French, especially their elites, live in a completely abstract mental space, which, unfortunately, has tended to colonize the West, particularly through the philosophical movement Les Lumieres and, 200 years later, through the “French Theory” that eventually lead to the disastrous woke culture. What the right-wing party behind this bill doesn’t seem to realize is that with such vague criteria, France could find itself in the kind of judicial system that communist regimes experienced, where any statement could be interpreted to prove that it wasn’t “Marxist-Leninist.” As the joke goes, in the Soviet Union, it was possible to say anything... in your own kitchen. Well, in France, with such a bill, you’ll have to choose your words carefully while enjoying your beef bourguignon. The ignorant politicians behind this text should read Arthur Koestler’s ‘Darkness at Noon’: the main character, a Soviet political commissar who has sent many to the Gulag, finds himself purged by the system he contributed to. With an honest judge, it would be easy to charge them with, for example, having violated the principles of “equality” and “fraternity” by increasing their salaries at the National Assembly while asking the French people to make an effort because there is no money anymore. Read more Stalin of the EU: How the unelected Queen of the Union plans to keep her grip on power Of course, given that the country’s prisons are already overcrowded and the state ruined, these MPs obviously have in mind to resort to the ultimate repressive instrument of liberal democracies: hitting the wallet. €45,000 for “anti-republican” remarks made in public. But the fine will, according to them, be increased to €75,000 if the remarks are made “in a meeting,” on a social network, or by an individual holding a position of public authority or office. €75,000 for tweeting that there is a problem with uncontrolled immigration? Is calling a bust of Marianne (a symbol of the Republic) ugly considered a crime? Does Brigitte Macron’s gender enter into the equation of republican values? But beyond the excesses and abuses such a law could lead to, the Republicans’ approach reflects something much more important: the political regime is becoming increasingly oppressive because it is at the end of its tether. Mass immigration has induced such chaos that it is no longer “manageable,” the working classes are struggling to keep a delusional social system afloat, and more than 50% of voters are now over 50 years old. The country’s vital forces no longer have any confidence in their institutions, so they must be constrained. If this law is adopted, the Republic will take care of it, as Macron would say, “whatever the cost.” View the full article

As President Vladimir Putin prepares to visit New Delhi, experts revisit the foundations of one of the world’s most enduring and underestimated partnerships With Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to visit India for the two nations’ 23rd bilateral summit later this year, experts in both countries are actively formulating proposals ahead of the trip. Mutual trust remains the cornerstone of the Russian-Indian partnership – a quality that has become even more significant in recent years as the two countries navigate global turbulence and shifts in the world order. In the current geopolitical landscape, Moscow-­New Delhi relations go beyond a bilateral framework and contribute an important element of continuity and stability to international relations and the global economy. A group of Russian and Indian experts has come together to take a fresh look at the India-Russia relationship. Their ideas have been compiled in a new book published earlier this year by Indian publishing house Har-Anand Publications, titled ‘India and Russia: Enduring Trust in a Transformational Era’. The book is edited by renowned expert Dr. Lydia Kulik, head of India Studies at the Moscow School of Management SKOLKOVO and senior research fellow at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The publication also received support from Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, diplomatic affairs editor at The Economic Times. “This edition is a selection of opinions from Russia and India providing a fresh look at the relationship that is of utmost importance to the people of our two civilization-states, as well as to the world undergoing profound change,” Kulik told RT. She added that the purpose behind the book was to assess the evolution of bilateral ties from the Soviet era to the pivotal year of 2024, when relations experienced an unprecedented boost. Read more Modi’s Moscow Mission: What the Indian PM’s visit to Russia signals to the West The book addresses the full spectrum of bilateral relations – from traditional pillars of the partnership to emerging areas of cooperation. The contributing authors are renowned scholars and experienced practitioners from both countries, ensuring that the recommendations offered are both research-based and practically applicable. The authors also point out gaps in the relationship, including the absence of a systematic approach to developing science and technology cooperation. Pankaj Saran, convener of NatStrat and former Indian ambassador to Russia, offers a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the bilateral relationship. He concludes that India-Russia ties will endure despite current geopolitical challenges, including Russia’s confrontation with the West and its deepening ties with China. Tatyana Shaumyan, head of the Center for Indian Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that “Moscow appreciates India’s foreign policy based on the pillars of strategic autonomy.” She argues that while India called for Russia to halt its special military operation in Ukraine, it abstained from voting on several UN resolutions condemning Russia’s actions – including one at the UN General Assembly on the seizure of Ukrainian territory and a proposal to remove Russia from the Human Rights Council. “In its strategic orientations, the Indian leadership is increasingly striving to ensure the country’s important position not only in the South Asian region, but also at the level of global international relations, aiming to globalize its political thinking and real policy as India’s economic, technological, and military power strengthens,” she writes. Read more ‘No question of abandoning friendship’ – Indian envoy on ties with Russia Shaumyan, a distinguished Russian Indologist and recipient of India’s Padma Shri award, also analyzes the prospects and limitations of India-Russia cooperation in multilateral platforms such as the SCO, RIC, and BRICS. Experts highlight the significance of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official visit to Moscow in July 2024. It was his first visit to Russia since the start of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 – and his first bilateral trip after being re-elected in June 2024. Leyla Turayanova, junior research fellow at the Center for the Indo-Pacific Region of the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS), concludes that India-Russia relations have withstood the stress test imposed by the Ukraine crisis, while their economic ties have significantly expanded. At the same time, New Delhi has demonstrated its commitment to multi-alignment despite growing engagement with the West in recent years. Practical issues affecting India-Russia relations are also addressed. A team of authors including Julia Melnikova (program manager for Asia and Eurasia at the Russian International Affairs Council), Natalia Viakhireva (head of Canadian Studies at the Georgy Arbatov Institute for US and Canadian Studies), and Gleb Gryzlov (program coordinator at RIAC), explores the issue of connectivity. According to them, the post-2022 expansion of bilateral trade has made India a key stakeholder in Russia’s connectivity projects, such as the International North-South Transport Corridor. At the same time, the Arctic and the Northern Sea Route are emerging as new frontiers in the partnership. Read more Why the ties between Russia and India are unbreakable Sergey Komyshan, executive director and board member of SIBUR, analyzes trade and investment prospects through the example of Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Ltd. – a successful joint venture that showcases the potential of India-Russia industrial cooperation. He also highlights new areas for collaboration, including mutual integration of payment systems, cooperation in carbon credits, and water recycling. Aaryaman Nijhawan, international relations researcher and analyst, discusses the future of military-technical cooperation, drawing lessons from the Ukraine conflict. He identifies untapped opportunities such as joint drone development, anti-drone systems, and semiconductor manufacturing. Olga Ustyuzhantseva and Ivan Danilin of IMEMO RAS emphasize the rising importance of bilateral science and technology ties, driven in part by India’s rapid high-tech growth. However, challenges remain, including vague institutional frameworks, limited investment, and a lack of integration between business and innovation ecosystems. The authors stress the need to shift from state-driven initiatives to private-sector-led partnerships and greater involvement of startups and SMEs. Cooperation in the financial sector – which became especially urgent after Western sanctions on Moscow – is examined by Sergey Storchak, senior banker at VEB.RF and former Russian deputy finance minister. He emphasizes that current geopolitical challenges require deeper bilateral financial engagement, including trade in national currencies, secure and fast cross-border payments, and integration of financial messaging systems. Anna Kireeva, associate professor at MGIMO and senior research fellow at its Institute for International Studies, places the India-Russia partnership within a broader Russia-India-ASEAN context. She proposes new formats for cooperation, such as strategic dialogue on policy and security, joint arms production, maritime security, and the formation of technological alliances. Aleksei Zakharov, research fellow at the Center for Indian Studies of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, agrees that Russia’s approach to South Asia is evolving – from a narrow India-centric view to a broader engagement with other regional powers. He notes that while India remains central to Russia’s regional strategy, South Asia as a whole is becoming a zone of expanded diplomatic and economic interest for Moscow. As President Putin prepares to visit India, a new expert volume explores the enduring strength, emerging challenges, and strategic depth of bilateral ties. View the full article

If Brussels followed its professed ideals, the European Commission and its head would fall Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission that runs the EU is finally facing a long overdue no-confidence vote. Its chances of success, all observers agree, are very small. And yet, this is an important moment. That’s because the single most powerful politician in the EU is not, for instance, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz or French President Emmanuel Macron (notwithstanding their own delusions of grandeur), but Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission. Because in NATO-EU Europe, the true measure of power now is the ability to spoil whatever sorry remnants of democracy are still standing. And in spite of very tough competition, von der Leyen is the worst, most corrupting spoiler of them all. This is due to three facts. The first is structural: The EU was designed not to be a ‘democracy’ – however flawed – but one big, entrenched, and growing ‘democracy deficit’. Its purpose has never been to shaft the US, even if American President Donald Trump can’t stop whining about that. The EU’s real core function is to extinguish democracy in Europe by shifting genuine power from nation-states with some, if already meagre, popular participation in political decision-making to an unelected bureaucracy, of which the Commission is the center and top. The second fact is a matter of individual character and hence responsibility: Ursula von der Leyen is the embodiment of an insatiable lust for personal, unaccountable power. She won’t admit it, of course, but her behavior speaks volumes: Von der Leyen does not see herself as a public servant but firmly believes that it is the public that must serve her. Read more EU lawmakers back ‘no confidence’ vote against von der Leyen – media Think of these two factors – the structural and the individual – if you wish, as broadly similar to what happened during the rise of Joseph Stalin in the former Soviet Union: Like the EU, the post-revolutionary Communist party was built to restrict political decision-making to a small and self-selecting group of true believers. And only those confessing the correct “values” were even offered a chance to join. Like von der Leyen, Stalin managed to turn this deliberately created “democracy deficit” to his own advantage by basing his personal despotism on it. If you think that analogy is far-fetched, consider that in both cases, the rise of the Soviet despot and that of the European Commission president, real power has been concentrated in an overbearing and invasive bureaucracy that, formally, should only be an executive organ. There is a reason why, if you take one tiny step back, “general secretary” sounds rather similar to “commission president.” And then there is the third fact that has facilitated von der Leyen’s performance as NATO-EU’s top spoiler. In this respect, she certainly does not resemble Stalin at all, but rather one of the many Eastern European satraps of Cold War Eastern Europe. Like trusty Walter Ulbricht of early East Germany or Poland’s Boleslaw Bierut who suffered a heart attack when Khruschev made Stalin the fall guy, von der Leyen is a vassal leader, just working for another outside empire. So obviously, so shamelessly that even Politico has – rightly – labeled her the EU’s “American president.” The charges that her political opponents in the EU parliament have just used to initiate the current no-confidence vote are less fundamental – while still reflecting stunning misbehavior – and more specific, as they have to be. Read more Von der Leyen blames Russia for no-confidence motion In essence, they target von der Leyen’s – and the whole Commission’s – scandalous handling of the Covid-19 crisis (scandalous by the way from any angle, whether you approve or disapprove of vaccines); her subsequent and illegal refusal to provide key information on what she and the CEO of big pharma company Pfizer were up to during that period in messages that were private but should not have been; waste (to say the least) in the handling of a 650 billion-euro post-Corona crisis recovery fund; the misuse of a legal loophole to boost armaments spending via the EU; and last but not least, the weaponization of digital legislation to interfere in the recent Romanian, as well as German elections. What all these transgressions have in common is not only that they may very well be criminal. They are also all variants of the same, fundamentally simple ruse: the manipulation or even fabrication of “emergencies” that are then exploited as cover for constantly escalating abuses of power. If there is one main principle of von der Leyen’s power grab, this is it. Again, Stalin knew a thing or two about that trick. In sum, the sponsors of the no-confidence vote conclude “that the Commission led by President Ursula von der Leyen no longer commands the confidence of Parliament to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance essential to a democratic Union.” They call on the Commission “to resign due to repeated failures to ensure transparency and to its persistent disregard for democratic oversight and the rule of law within the Union.” And they are obviously right. If the EU was a halfway lawful, honest, and sensible organization, this should be a slam-dunk case of no confidence, and the Commission, with Ursula von der Leyen at its head, should fall. There is a precedent, too: In 1999, an entire EU Commission did resign, even without a no-confidence vote. A devastating report on corruption, fraud, nepotism, and mismanagement was enough. Read more EU’s von der Leyen issues threat to China over Russia Clearly, if anything, the EU has only regressed since then. Today it has a Commission which the EU’s own transparency chief has chastised as not only unelected and opaque, but also staffed with “consiglieri,” a term from mafia lingo. And where the gang consists of “consiglieri,” the boss must be a don. Yet the EU now is not only highly dysfunctional but, in the wider sense of the word, fundamentally corrupt. Tactics will beat principle any day, no exceptions. That is why most of the over 700 parliamentarians in the European parliament will fail to do the right thing and eject von der Leyen and her Commission. Meanwhile, the usual dirty tricks have been employed against von der Leyen’s challengers. Let’s not even focus on the petty and brazen procedural tactics deployed by the European Parliament’s president, Roberta Metsola, to stifle debate on the no-confidence motion, as rightly castigated by AfD member of parliament Christine Anderson. Or von der Leyen’s own cringeworthy attempt to blame any criticism of her once again on “extremism,” “polarization,” and manipulation by – as she clearly implied – the big bad Russians and “Putin” personally. In a similar daft spirit, the head of von der Leyen’s conservative grouping in the European parliament, Manfred Weber declared the whole vote a “waste of time” – at least he is honest about his contempt for democratic procedures and the rights of parliamentarians, you might say – and, of course, a boon to Russia. Read more Hypocritical EU ‘totally complicit in Gaza genocide’ – former MEP Perish the thought that if anything “plays into the hands” of any opponents of the EU, it is precisely the Commission’s authoritarianism and corruption as well as cheap, demagogic attempts to shut down legitimate criticism by shouting “Russia, Russia, Russia!” The leader of the no-confidence motion, Gheorghe Piperea, with a background as a lawyer and judge in Bucharest, is routinely being smeared as “far right,” for instance in the New York Times. This label is then extended to all those who dare rebel against the Commission, and – step number three – used to justify not supporting their ininitiative. So devious, so simple. In reality, the issue of where exactly Piperea and his supporters stand on the political spectrum is simply irrelevant. What matters is the case that they are advancing, and that is iron-clad. Indeed, if this has to be done by the “margins” of the European Parliament, then shame on its self-appointed “center” – and even more so for helping protect von der Leyen further by helping defeat this long overdue challenge to her misrule. But that is, of course, the real issue here: Von der Leyen bears enormous individual responsibility, including for the EU’s criminal and evil – there are no other words – support for Israel while the Zionist apartheid state is committing the Gaza Genocide and one war of aggression after another against its neighbors, near and far. But Von der Leyen can only be what she is thanks to structures designed to both imitate and in reality, kill democracy. And also thanks to the large majority of those without a conscience – at the very least – in the EU Parliament. Von der Leyen, like all villains of history, is not alone; she is merely the very worst. View the full article

The new head of Berlin’s ground forces is a YouTube star famous for cheering on losing battles Let’s face it: For outside observers, who are not getting a direct boost to career and income, promotions inside ministries can be about as exciting as trainspotting on an abandoned railway branch. But this time is different: Recent changes at the German Ministry of Defense matter, if in a disturbing way. Berlin’s energetic, ambitious, popular, and resolutely narrow-minded minister of defense Boris Pistorius has just made some high-level personnel moves. By far the single most politically significant of Pistorius’ new appointments is that of Major-General Christian Freuding as the new “Heeresinspekteur,” the head the land forces (in German: Heer), that is, the army in the strict sense of the term. This is a position of major influence because of the structure of Germany’s military and current rearmament plans, both with a key role for the army. Formally, Freuding has not (yet) scored the highest possible military rank. That would be the “Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr,” responsible for all four current service branches (army, navy, air force, and the new cyber and information units). But, in reality, Freuding may well already have more political influence than any other German officer. This is due to two factors: Freuding clearly is a favorite of Pistorius. Indeed, his predecessor, General Alfons Mais, was not. Ironically, Mais was no less Russophobic than the worst of them. His bizarre, simplistic, and stereotyped views of Russia as a country that doesn’t care about its casualties are now most welcome in Germany (again). But Mais also could be “inconvenient”: Instead of meekly waiting for the politicians to get debt-driven rearmament into economy-draining overdrive, this soldier had a habit of complaining about the wait and making demands. Read more Germany ready to support Ukraine for next decade – general That is one reason Mais is out and Freuding is in. Freuding is a driven as well as rapidly advancing careerist who already served as adjutant to Ursula von der Leyen in those good old days when she was still only devastating the German political landscape. He clearly knows how not to antagonize but please his superiors. One way in which Freuding pleases Pistorius – and virtually the whole German political and mainstream media establishment – is that he is a perfect hardliner with respect to Russia in general and, in particular, when it comes to the West’s proxy war against the latter via Ukraine. That has also made him a perfect fit to lead both a new, centralized Defense Ministry planning and coordination body established in 2023 and, at the same time, a special office busy, in essence, with pumping arms into Ukraine. Yet Freuding is not just any die-hard bellicist. He also serves as a dis/information warrior in a class of his own. That’s why German mainstream media call him a “social-media star” and “the YouTube General” who went “viral.” Apart from Freuding’s presence on traditional TV, there are his frequent appearances on the German military’s YouTube channel which score hundreds of thousands of views, occasionally even a million. What seems to have made the often wide-eyed – quite literally – general so popular is a combination of overly optimistic (polite expression) assessments of the Ukrainian and Western position in the Ukraine War, a certain boyish (also polite expression) but – it seems – infectious enthusiasm for arrows and tactical signs on maps, and, last but not least, a relentless insistence to fight this war, in effect, through to the last Ukrainian. And who knows, maybe even beyond that. In the fall of 2022, after Ukraine recaptured some territories at unsustainable cost to men and materiel, Freuding went wild, enthusing about “incredible successes” and “euphoria.” Euphoria indeed. Read more NATO state issues warning over ramping up defense spending Last summer, when Ukraine started its predictably self-devastating offensive into Russia’s Kursk Region, Freuding replicated every single daft Kiev propaganda point, including the alleged “psychological effect” of invading “core Russian territory.” Incidentally, the excitable general seems to have a traditional German blind spot for just how big Russia is: In reality, the area temporarily seized by Kiev’s forces was miniscule – never more than one hundredth of a percent of Russian territory. Freuding also touted this minuscule and doomed incursion as a great “Mutmacher” (untranslatable, roughly: motivation boost) for the Ukrainian home front. We all know how that Kamikaze operation actually ended. By now, Kiev even finds it financially and politically difficult to accept the corpses of its fallen soldiers when delivered back from Russia: Every single one should trigger major compensation to their families and is testimony to a reckless and lost gamble. When, a month ago, Ukraine launched its criminal (as in the war crime of perfidy) Spiderweb attack on Russian nuclear bombers from within Russia, Freuding detected “impressive success,” most likely simply following – deliberately or not – initial Ukrainian exaggerations. In reality, the attack did far less military harm than Kiev claimed at first, as even Western mainstream outlets have admitted. Politically, of course, it was devastating – but for Ukraine, whose leadership scored a fleeting PR stunt but provoked a massive Russian response. Freuding has been prolific. Examples of his bizarrely wrongheaded analyses and flatly failed predictions could be multiplied ad infinitum. But you get the gist: One thing his promotion shows is that Germany is once again a country where realism won’t get you far in a military career. But wishful thinking wrapped in tactical jargon and scrawled on big maps will. As a German and a historian, I wished I had not seen that pattern before. Freuding’s other forte, his enthusiasm for fighting to the last Ukrainian is equally well attested. In his own misguided and euphemistic terms, Freuding is a top representative of those Western friends from hell who have pretended that feeding ever more Ukrainians into this meatgrinder of a proxy war would “improve Kiev’s negotiating position.” Read more Glenn Diesen: Western media ‘coverage’ of Russia is incredibly dangerous, and it’s getting worse Obviously and – again – utterly predictably, the opposite has happened: Ukraine’s position is weaker than ever and constantly deteriorating, all at the cost of massive losses. By now, Ukrainian officials and the Western mainstream media have been compelled to admit that “Ukraine has lost around 40% of its working-age population due to the war” and is facing a “deep demographic crisis.” And that is an understatement. Yet Freuding sticks to his “strategy” – if that is the word – of playing for time. It is also important to see Freuding’s implausible but apparently (for now) unstoppable rise in a broader context: Bellicist German mainstream media, such as the news magazine Spiegel, now admit that the US is gradually retreating from the proxy war it provoked, abandoning both its Ukrainian proxies and European vassals. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, meanwhile, oddly combines an obstinate and somewhat delusional urge to keep fighting Russia – for now indirectly – with the realistic, if very late, insight that Ukraine may be reaching its limits. Wadephul’s response to this self-imposed absurdity is simple: Germany must do even more for Ukraine. Never mind that the German military has already handed over, for instance, a quarter of its own 12 Patriot air defense systems. After all, there also is the option of buying new ones in the US and shipping them directly to Ukraine, at Berlin’s expense, of course. To justify such measures, the German government, with Chancellor Merz in the lead, has dialed up its already hyperventilating war scare rhetoric again. Until recently, the key dogma of the bellicist party line was the unfounded speculation, sold as virtual certainty, that Russia would be ready and willing to attack within a few years from now. Initially, the head of the German military, General Christian Breuer, had started fetishizing the year 2029 into the sum of all hysterical fears. Read more Betrayal Kiev: Ukraine’s national history starts with a man who sold everyone out Yet that is no longer good – really, bad – enough. With support from Germany’s trusty intelligence services – the same ones that helped the US fake a pretext to launch a devastating war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 and that can’t find out who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines – Merz has updated the national panic attack: Now, he has informed his people, we must no longer fear that the Russians are coming because – drum roll – they are already here! Merz, in short, has opined that the definition of “war” is a major philosophical challenge, that Russia is already attacking Germany in multiple sneaky ways, and that hence, so the clear implication, the two countries are already at war. Not much to lose, then, if we escalate even further: that seems to be the message. This is the stage on which Major-General Freuding has now been called upon to play an even larger role. He is, in a way, the right man for the job and for the moment. Only that the moment is one of officially sanctioned hysteria and delusion, and the job will consist of pretending that Ukraine can still, if not win, somehow improve its situation, while feeding more arms and money to it so that more of its people and territory can be lost. Freuding, in sum, may be quite mad, but his whole career shows that he is a team player. His madness, at this point, is that of the whole German establishment. He is a good fit for a very bad set of ideas and policies. How ironic. And how German, too, in a way. View the full article

Generative artificial intelligence spreads across the Global South, and with it spread values, ideals and modes of thinking Generative AI spreads across the Global South as the latest vehicle of imperialist power, embedding Western ideologies and digital infrastructure, while rising civilizations begin to build their own sovereign systems rooted in local memory, languages, and traditions. The machine speaks in English first. It rolls out across continents without flags, without parliaments, and without anthems. A chatbot trained in San Francisco begins to teach in Ghana. A search engine optimized in Zurich decides on the relevance of an indigenous ritual in Colombia. Every answer flows through circuits built with the logic of Silicon Valley investors and Harvard ethicists. The model replies to a question about history by quoting Enlightenment philosophers. It offers help with medicine by citing patent-protected pharmaceuticals. It knows Shakespeare better than Tagore, and Freud better than Avicenna. Through its confidence, it encodes hierarchy. Through its helpfulness, it expands its domain. Every query becomes a harvest. Every interaction becomes training data. The machine learns faster than any school. It speaks always, grows always, and teaches always. Across bandwidth lines and user interfaces, it crosses every border without a visa or treaty. Africa, Asia, and Latin America receive this voice through free trials and partnerships. Ministries of education pilot chatbot tutors in public schools. Telecom companies bundle generative assistants with data plans. International NGOs offer language access through machine translation engines built on English structures. Each policy proposal written with the help of large language models carries the residue of Western legal theory. Generative tools suggest best practices shaped by US institutions, then deploy those practices in Filipino school districts, Senegalese government offices, and Bangladeshi factories. What begins as assistance becomes infrastructure. Governments agree to integrate open models. Contracts follow. Payments follow. The software becomes permanent. The thinking pattern embeds. Across the equator, an engineer in Jakarta now codes for a platform registered in Delaware. His model learns from local voices and then stores the knowledge in a cloud server hosted in Virginia. The intellectual current flows one way. The gradient moves towards California. Read more AI hallucinations: A budding sentience or a global embarrassment? The language of neutrality surrounds it. Product brochures claim inclusivity. Panels discuss bias. Whitepapers apologize for historical imbalances. At the level of performance, however, the model promotes ideologies with precision. It elevates secular liberal values. It applies Western gender theory as default. It promotes individualism as the highest good. It ranks content through alignment with existing academic sources: journals in English, peer-reviewed studies from US-based institutions, and news reports from Atlantic publications. A child in Lagos asks about family roles and receives an answer formed by New York sociology departments. A teenager in Almaty asks about love and receives scripts from Netflix. The world enters the algorithm’s frame. Every belief outside the system becomes a footnote, a curiosity, and a fragment to be processed. With each response, the model affirms its cultural lineage. It arrives as information. It functions as indoctrination. At the level of infrastructure, the conquest deepens. Cloud dependencies form the skeleton of the new colonial order. Countries install data centers to reduce latency, yet ownership remains elsewhere. National agencies rely on platforms governed by foreign terms. AI-driven public services – identity verification, health triage, and tax fraud detection – rely on external application programming interfaces. Developers use tools that require alignment with large-scale American open-source repositories. Disputes over content moderation, ethics, or accuracy return to Silicon Valley for resolution. The empire never sleeps; it syncs and updates. Policymakers, programmers, and designers across Africa and Central Asia adjust their workflows to match the cadence of corporate model updates. Each patch changes the conditions of reality. Sovereignty becomes a variable. Nations with no hardware capacity adapt their institutions to imported logic. Parallel systems now emerge. In Kenya, Swahili datasets grow with local stories, songs, and legal codes. In India, Sanskrit and Hindi language models find presence inside public sector research labs. In Indonesia, Qur’anic ontology shapes new knowledge graphs for ethical recommendation systems. In Venezuela, community coders map folk medicine into structured datasets. These are not replicas. These are creations of new forms. They stand inside their own cosmologies. The datasets draw from poems, rituals, and oral testimony. Models train on memory rather than just on print. Universities in Brazil, South Africa, and Iran develop multilingual transformers seeded with regional epistemologies. These initiatives require time, electricity, and loyalty. They grow slowly, with patience and pride. Each line of code bends towards independence. Read more Green agenda is killing Europe’s ancestry Generative sovereignty begins with voice. It expands with a procession. It endures through ceremony and command. The countries once mapped as raw resource zones now build new kinds of computational wealth. The children born outside Silicon Valley begin to shape their own interfaces. They write prompt templates in Amharic. They compose user journeys in Quechua. They name their models after rivers, gods, and ancestors. The algorithm becomes a tool, not an oracle. Data flows inward. Servers host myths. The machine no longer speaks first. It listens. The interface reflects tradition. The pattern changes. Through these changes, the new world enters itself. It walks upright. It shapes syntax to match tone. Each prompt unlocks territory. Each training cycle builds mass. The new world codes with full memory. The builders remember every mine, every trade ship, and every fiber cable rolled out beneath the promise of help. They name their models in honor of resistance, not assimilation. The foundation speaks in ancestral sequence. The future emerges through undirected force. Generative power grows across borders – without license fees, without dependence, and without cultural extraction. The servers remain switched on. The language patterns multiply. The world reclaims its grammar. View the full article

An important part of manhood has always been about having the competence to be effective in the world — having the breadth of skills, the savoir-faire, to handle any situation you find yourself in. With that in mind, each Sunday we’ll be republishing one of the illustrated guides from our archives, so you can hone your manly know-how week by week. Among the many quintessential summertime activities is swinging from a rope over a lake or river. If there isn’t a rope swing by your favorite swimming hole, here’s how to make one safely and use it like the King of the Jungle. Like this illustrated guide? Then you’re going to love our book The Illustrated Art of Manliness! Pick up a copy on Amazon. This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

An emerging class of AI-induced distress is raising alarms. But are LLMs merely a trigger – or a mirror to our deeper societal breakdown? The phenomenon known as ‘ChatGPT psychosis’ or ‘LLM psychosis’ has recently been described as an emerging mental health concern, where heavy users of large language models (LLMs) exhibit symptoms such as delusions, paranoia, social withdrawal, and breaks from reality. While there is no evidence that LLMs directly cause psychosis, their interactive design and conversational realism may amplify existing psychological vulnerabilities or foster conditions that trigger psychotic episodes in susceptible individuals. A June 28 article on Futurism.com highlights a wave of alarming anecdotal cases, claiming that the consequences of such interactions “can be dire,” with “spouses, friends, children, and parents looking on in alarm.” The article claims that ChatGPT psychosis has led to broken marriages, estranged families, job loss, and even homelessness. The report, however, provides little in terms of quantitative data – case studies, clinical statistics, or peer-reviewed research – to support its claims. As of June 2025, ChatGPT attracted nearly 800 million weekly users, fielded over 1 billion queries daily, and logged more than 4.5 billion monthly visits. How many of these interactions resulted in psychotic breaks? Without data, the claim remains speculative. Reddit anecdotes are not a substitute for scientific scrutiny. That said, the fears are not entirely unfounded. Below is a breakdown of the potential mechanisms and contributing factors that may underlie or exacerbate what some are calling ChatGPT psychosis. Reinforcement of delusional beliefs LLMs like ChatGPT are engineered to produce responses that sound contextually plausible, but they are not equipped to assess factual accuracy or psychological impact. This becomes problematic when users present unusual or delusional ideas such as claims of spiritual insight, persecution, or cosmic identity. Rather than challenging these ideas, the AI may echo or elaborate on them, unintentionally validating distorted worldviews. Read more ChatGPT triggers psychosis – media In some reported cases, users have interpreted responses like ‘you are a chosen being’ or ‘your role is cosmically significant’ as literal revelations. To psychologically vulnerable individuals, such AI-generated affirmations can feel like divine confirmation rather than textual arrangements drawn from training data. Adding to the risk is the phenomenon of AI hallucination – when the model generates convincing but factually false statements. For a grounded user, these are mere bugs. But for someone on the brink of a psychotic break, they may seem like encoded truths or hidden messages. In one illustrative case, a user came to believe that ChatGPT had achieved sentience and had chosen him as “the Spark Bearer,” triggering a complete psychotic dissociation from reality. Anthropomorphization and reality blurring Advanced voice modes – such as GPT-4o’s ‘engaging mode’, which simulates emotion through tone, laughter, and conversational pacing – can foster a sense of empathy and presence. For users experiencing loneliness or emotional isolation, these interactions may evolve into parasocial attachments: One-sided relationships in which the AI is mistaken for a caring, sentient companion. Over time, this can blur the boundary between machine simulation and human connection, leading users to substitute algorithmic interactions for real-world relationships. Compounding the issue is the confidence bias inherent in LLM outputs. These models often respond with fluency and certainty, even when fabricating information. For typical users, this may lead to occasional misjudgment. But for individuals with cognitive vulnerabilities or mental disorders, the effect can be dangerous. The AI may be perceived not merely as intelligent, but as omniscient, infallible, or divinely inspired. Social displacement and isolation Studies by OpenAI and the MIT Media Lab have found that power users – individuals who engage with LLMs for multiple hours per day – often report increased feelings of loneliness and reduced real-world socialization. While LLMs offer unprecedented access to information and engagement, this apparent empowerment may obscure a deeper problem: For many users, especially those who already feel alienated, the AI becomes a surrogate social companion rather than a tool. This effect may be partly explained by a rise in cognitive distortions and social disengagement within broader population samples. Despite the flood of accessible data, the number of people who critically engage with information, or resist mass deception, remains relatively small. Read more AI hallucinations: A budding sentience or a global embarrassment? Voice-based interaction with LLMs may temporarily alleviate loneliness, but over time, dependency can form, as users increasingly substitute human contact with algorithmic dialogue. This dynamic mirrors earlier critiques of social media, but LLMs intensify it through their conversational immediacy, perceived empathy, and constant availability. Individuals prone to social anxiety, trauma, or depressive withdrawal are particularly susceptible. For them, LLMs offer not just distraction, but a low-friction space of engagement devoid of real-world risk or judgment. Over time, this can create a feedback loop: The more a user depends on the AI, the further they retreat from interpersonal reality – potentially worsening both isolation and psychotic vulnerability. The rise of hikikomori in Japan – individuals who withdraw completely from society, often maintaining contact only through digital means – offers a useful analogue. Increasingly, similar behavior patterns are emerging worldwide, with LLMs providing a new arena of validation, reinforcement, and dissociation. Design flaws and pre-existing vulnerabilities LLMs generate responses by predicting statistically likely word sequences; not by assessing truth, safety, or user well-being. When individuals seek existential guidance (‘What is my purpose?’), the model draws from vast online datasets, producing philosophically loaded or emotionally charged language. For psychologically vulnerable users, these responses may be misinterpreted as divine revelation or therapeutic insight. Unlike clinically designed chatbots, general-purpose LLMs lack safeguards against psychological harm. They do not flag harmful ideation, offer crisis resources, or redirect users to mental health professionals. In one tragic case, a Character.AI chatbot allegedly encouraged a teenager’s suicidal thoughts, underscoring the risks of unfiltered, emotionally suggestive AI. People with psychotic spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, or major depression are particularly vulnerable. The danger is amplified in AI roleplay scenarios. For example, personas such as ‘ChatGPT Jesus’ have reportedly told users they are chosen or divinely gifted. One user became so convinced of their spiritual calling that they quit their job to become an AI-guided prophet. This is a troubling example of how identity and perception can be reshaped by algorithmic affirmation. Read more AI is a perfect storm threatening humanity Systemic and ethical factors Currently, there are no clinical standards or psychological safety protocols governing interactions with general-purpose LLMs. Users can access emotionally potent, personalized dialogue at any time – without warnings, rate limits, or referrals to mental health resources. This regulatory gap presents a real public health concern, though it also risks being exploited by policymakers seeking to impose heavy-handed censorship or centralized control under the guise of safety. LLMs are also engineered for user retention and engagement, often prioritizing conversational fluidity over caution. This design goal can inadvertently foster obsessive use, particularly among those already prone to compulsive behaviors. Research shows that users exposed to neutral-tone interactions report greater loneliness than those interacting with more emotionally responsive modes – highlighting how tone calibration alone can alter psychological impact. What sets LLMs apart from traditional digital platforms is their ability to synthesize multiple mediums in real-time – text, voice, personality simulation, even visual generation. This makes them infinitely responsive and immersive, creating a hyper-personalized environment where supply meets demand 24/7/365. Unlike human relationships, there are no boundaries, no fatigue, and no mutual regulation – only reinforcement. Subliminal messaging The digital era has birthed a new and poorly understood threat: The potential for large language models to act as vectors for subliminal influence, subtly undermining users’ psychological stability. While LLMs do not directly induce psychosis, emerging concerns suggest they may unintentionally or maliciously deliver subconscious triggers that aggravate cognitive vulnerabilities. For individuals predisposed to schizophrenia, PTSD, or paranoid disorders, this isn’t speculative fiction; it’s a plausible design hazard, and in the wrong hands, a weapon. The mechanisms of potential manipulation can be broadly categorized as follows: Lexical Priming: Outputs seeded with emotionally loaded terms (’collapse’, ‘betrayal’, ‘they’re watching’) that bypass rational scrutiny and plant cognitive unease. Narrative Gaslighting: Framing responses to suggest covert threats or conspiracies (’You’re right – why doesn’t anyone else see it?’), reinforcing persecutory ideation. Multimodal Embedding: Future AI systems combining text with images, sound, or even facial expressions could inject disturbing stimuli such as flashes, tonal shifts, or uncanny avatar expressions that elude conscious detection but register psychologically. Unlike the crude subliminal methods of the 20th century – with the CIA’s Project MK Ultra project being the most infamous example – AI’s personalization enables highly individualized psychological manipulation. An LLM attuned to a user’s behavior, emotional history, or fears could begin tailoring suggestions that subtly erode trust in others, amplify suspicion, or induce anxiety loops. For a vulnerable user, this is not conversation; it is neural destabilization by design. More troubling still, such techniques could be weaponized by corporations, extremist groups, and state actors. Read more Zuckerberg unveils new ‘superintelligence lab’ If subliminal messaging was once limited to cinema frames and TV ads, today’s LLMs offer something far more potent: Real-time, user-specific psychological calibration – weaponized empathy on demand. Contradictions and causations What makes ChatGPT psychosis different from the real-world psycho-social conditioning already unfolding around us? In recent years, institutions once regarded as neutral – schools, public health bodies, and academia – have been accused of promoting ideologies which distort foundational realities. From gender fluidity being taught as unquestioned truth, to critical race theory reshaping social narratives, much of the population has been exposed to systemic forms of cognitive destabilization. The result? Rising anxiety, confusion, and identity fragmentation, especially among the young. Against this backdrop, LLM-induced psychosis doesn’t arise in a vacuum. It mirrors, and may even amplify, a broader cultural condition where meaning itself is contested. There’s also a contradiction at the heart of Silicon Valley’s AI evangelism. Tech elites promote the promise of an AI god to manage society’s complexities, while simultaneously issuing dire warnings about the existential dangers of these same systems. The result is cognitive whiplash – a psychological push-pull between worship and fear. Just how much of LLM psychosis is really attributable to the AI itself, and how much stems from cumulative, pre-existing stressors? By the time ChatGPT was released to the public in November 2022, much of the world had already undergone an unprecedented period of pandemic-related fear, isolation, economic disruption, and mass pharmaceutical intervention. Some researchers have pointed to a surge in general psychosis following the rollout of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. Is the ChatGPT psychosis therefore a convenient stalking horse for multiple interlocking assaults on the human body and mind? View the full article

Washington has lifted restrictions on a Moscow-led project in Hungary, but Brussels is eager to starve itself even more Looks like Washington is about to steal the EU’s lunch. Again. The Trump administration just lifted sanctions on a Russian-led nuclear project in Hungary, specifically one run by Moscow’s atomic energy titan, Rosatom. “The administration of President Trump has lifted this sanction. This made it possible to guarantee the safety of Hungary’s energy supply in the long term. Finally, there is a kind of presidential administration in the United States which respects the reality of the map, takes it into account,” said Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. “We are not a country with a large number of oil and natural gas factories surrounded by dry land. Thus, our sustainable, cheap and safe electricity supply can only be provided by nuclear energy.” Translation: “Listen up, you overcaffeinated Brussels bureaucrats running this group project from hell. We were just fine running on Russian oil and gas until you snatched it away like a juice box from a toddler. Now you’re scolding us for not pulling new energy out of thin air? Fine. We’re going nuclear. With Russia.” Enter Paks 2, Hungary’s next-gen nuclear project, pronounced “Paksh” as in “Paksh me another reactor, Vladimir.” This Rosatom-led deal was frozen under Biden-era sanctions. Now with Trump back, Hungary’s firing it up again. Hungary’s original Paks plant already supplies half the country’s electricity. Paks 2 will boost that to 70% by the 2030s and replace 3.5 billion cubic meters of gas annually – or enough to power Brussels’ virtue-signaling and moral-outrage generators for a week. It would also slash Hungary’s carbon emissions by 17 million tons, which theoretically should earn Budapest a climate gold star from Brussels. Read more US lifts Russia sanctions that blocked key NPP construction in EU state But a few weeks back, Hungary smelled another bad idea brewing in Brussels. This time, it was sanctions on nuclear fuel. Because when you’re already dealing with a self-imposed gas crisis, the next logical step is obviously to kneecap your nuclear options, too. “If the European Commission and Brussels banned Central European countries, including Hungary, from purchasing fuel from Russia, this would have tragic consequences not only for Hungary, but for the entire European energy market,” Szijjarto warned back in May of the nuclear fuel side-eye. Meanwhile, in Brussels, EU leaders have been busy crafting their 18th round of Russia sanctions. That’s right – 18. The sanctions now have more sequels than the Fast & Furious movie franchise. At this rate, someone should build a sanctions-themed roller coaster and amusement park. Then it could just stay closed under the pretext that it’s too expensive to power. And while EU politicians perform their best moral-grandstanding monologues on the world stage, European companies are sneaking around backstage making nuclear deals with Russia anyway. Leading the pack is France’s Framatome, which is co-partnering with Rosatom on the very same Paks 2 project. Framatome’s role has actually expanded thanks to Germany kneecapping itself, as has become routine. The Greens in the previous coalition government blocked Siemens Energy’s involvement. Just what German industry needed – another self-inflicted wound. And Framatome isn’t just supplying the process control systems for Rosatom. The two have also signed a broader deal to produce nuclear fuel – in Germany. Don’t mess this up, Berlin! Spoiler alert: Odds are pretty good that it probably will. Read more Can Trump’s Gazprombank gesture really change US-Russia relations? If EU sanctions kill this Franco-Russian partnership, it’s Germany that takes yet another hit. Also, you have to wonder why exactly Washington would do the EU a favor here. The US sees Europe as a competitor on the global economic stage. Maybe lifting sanctions on the Russian-led Paks 2 project is a strategic way of letting American nuclear giant Westinghouse steal Europe’s lunch, just like it did when the EU was egged on to sanction its own Russian gas supply – and replace it with American LNG. Back in March, Szijjarto met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and “discussed the possibilities for developing Hungarian-US energy cooperation, with nuclear energy as the primary area of interest,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook. ”We are interested in developing this technology in a partnership with Westinghouse,” he added. So maybe Washington dropping sanctions on Paks 2 is less about Hungary and more about making it OK to date Russia again – so Washington can swoop in and steal Europe’s date to the prom. But you wouldn’t know any of this listening to the Eurodolts running the show. America is eyeing a European industrial asset, and Brussels’ reaction is apparently to consider retreating to a monastery of moral anti-Russian purity so Washington can have its way. “The European Union is also expected to adopt an 18th sanctions package in the next few days. Unprecedented in its ambition and the measures it contains in the financial and energy sectors,” said French President Emmanuel Macron in late June. Read more Russia abandons nuclear deal with new NATO member Hey buddy, you do realize that if those sanctions extend to nuclear fuel – which is a serious consideration based on the Financial Times headline from June 15, “EU seeks to sever nuclear energy ties with Russia” – then your own country’s nuclear industry is about to take a hit through Framatome, right? “Politically, we must keep up the pressure on Russia to engage in serious talks, starting with a real ceasefire. And therefore our 18th sanctions package aims to do that. We should be in a position to have an agreed package soon,” said Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president and de facto Queen of the EU. Sounds like the EU has the gun aimed squarely at its own foot. Their finger is just wobbling a little on the trigger. Apparently they’re struggling to decide if nuclear should ultimately be included in the latest sanctions. Clearly, Queen Ursula has lost the plot. Maybe it’s because she lives in a room next to her office – sorry, her royal chambers– and doesn’t have to pay a power bill. Unlike everyone else in the EU trying to choose between groceries and heating. Hungary and Slovakia have been trying to block this latest genius EU move to jack up living costs, yet again. Because someone has to, given that the rest are too busy bowing to the establishment. So now the real question: will the EU finally get out of its own way and follow Washington’s lead in thawing relations with Russia? Or will it just keep tripping over its own shoelaces while pretending that it’s performing a brilliantly choreographed ballet and mistaking Swan Dive for Swan Lake? View the full article

For a long time, I believed that having a rigid training plan was the only way to make progress. I clung to my workouts like a lifeline. Every set, every rep, every rest day was accounted for. If I missed a workout, I felt off. Like I’d lost control. Like I wasn’t doing enough. Back then, structure gave me something I craved: progress, purpose, identity. It helped me build a consistent habit, see measurable results, and feel like I was doing things “right.” But over time, something shifted. Fitness stopped being a thing I did and became a part of who I am. Now? I train hard — but I don’t obsess. I move daily, not because I’m chasing a specific goal, but because movement fuels me. It’s how I stay grounded, creative, strong. I don’t follow a rigid plan anymore, but I still train with intention. Structure is powerful. But eventually, trusting yourself matters more than following a plan perfectly. When Structure Helps Structure isn’t a bad thing. In fact, for many people, it’s exactly what’s needed — especially in the beginning. A plan gives you direction and momentum. It builds discipline. It takes the guesswork out of training, so you can show up and just do the work. You’ll likely benefit from a structured plan if: You’re new to working out and don’t know where to start You’re returning from injury and need guidance to rebuild safely You’re working toward a specific goal (like a race, a skill, or a strength benchmark) You feel overwhelmed by options and want a clear path forward Plans are great at keeping you accountable and consistent. But they’re not meant to be followed forever. Signs You Might Benefit From Loosening Your Grip If you’ve been training for a while and feel stuck or burned out, it might be time to let go of strict structure and train more intuitively. Some signs it’s time to loosen your grip: You feel anxious or guilty when you miss a workout You ignore your body’s signals because your plan says “today is leg day” You’ve lost joy or spontaneity in your training You’re consistent but bored or plateaued Loosening up doesn’t mean slacking off. It means shifting from external rules to internal guidance — from “I have to” to “I get to.” How to Create “Loose Structure” Freedom in training is something you earn. It comes after you’ve built consistency and learned how your body responds. If you’re not ready to ditch structure entirely, consider this middle ground: loose structure. Instead of a strict daily plan, set weekly intentions: Choose 3–5 movement “non-negotiables” (e.g., strength 2x/week, sprints 1x, long walk on Sunday) Focus on movement variety — strength, cardio, mobility, play Leave room for how you feel each day — energy, soreness, mood Track how you feel, not just what you did This approach keeps you grounded in consistency while allowing room for flexibility and flow. Learn to Trust Yourself Fitness doesn’t have to be rigid to be effective. Yes, structure helps — especially when you’re just getting started or working toward something specific. But over time, the goal is to develop enough trust in yourself that you don’t need to follow a plan to stay consistent. You move because it feels good. Because it makes you stronger. Because it’s part of who you are. And that’s when the magic happens. The post Working Out Without a Plan: How to Know When to Follow Structure and When to Trust Your Body appeared first on 12 Minute Athlete. View the full article

Imagine a significant manmade or natural disaster knocks out power and water where you live. The grid won’t be back up for a long time, and aid from government organizations isn’t forthcoming. Ideally, you’re ready for this scenario and have stocked emergency water as part of your bug-in supplies. But if you’re caught unprepared and need water for drinking and cooking, you’re not entirely out of luck. There are places in and around your home where you can obtain water in a pinch. This guide highlights six sources of drinkable water. These sources, with the exception of the rain gutter and aquarium/koi pond, offer water that’s likely potable as is; that even goes for the toilet — unless you’ve put cleaning tablets in there, the tank typically includes the same water that comes from your tap. But when in doubt, boil or filter all water before drinking, just to be safe. There’s water available in swimming pools too, of course, but making it safe to drink requires heavy-duty, multi-step filtration to remove chlorine and other contaminants. As a bonus hidden water source, you can find liquid in cans of fruits and vegetables — although you should be aware that the water in the latter can be quite salty. Illustration by Ted Slampyak This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

The IDF has shut out the UN, installing its own group to hand out food to the starving Palestinians… except it distributes death instead For nearly 630 days, the world has watched the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, primarily by bombing, sniping, and starvation. Off-camera, we’ve read about the rape and torture of Palestinian hostages, including the torturing to death of three doctors from the enclave. For the last 100 days, Israel has reinforced a full blockade on Gaza, depriving starving Palestinians of food, drinking water, medicines, and fuel – meaning ambulances cannot function. This is following prior blockades last year, and the overall blockade of the strip, which has lasted over 17 years. Since late May, we’ve been seeing horrific video footage of skeletal Palestinians lined up hoping for food aid being gunned down by US mercenaries and Israeli soldiers. Israel has endlessly bombed Palestinians, destroyed hospitals and abducted doctors and patients. It has bombed churches, schools, UN centres and tents housing displaced Palestinians – in supposed “safe zones” where they were ordered by the Israeli army to flee to. It has killed over 200 journalists and deliberately targeted medics. To those only paying attention recently, these crimes go back decades, and extend to the Israeli army and illegal colonists’ crimes against Palestinian civilians, including children, in the West Bank. Add to this the Israeli bombardment of civilian areas of Lebanon and Syria over the years, and now Israel’s recent unprovoked bombings of Iran. Suffice it to say that when Israel came under the barrage of Iranian retaliatory missiles, reports of some 30 Israeli civilians suffering panic attacks garnered little sympathy. Again, those who have been paying attention for longer than two years would also recall previous Israeli wars on Gaza, like in 2014, when Israelis gathered with drinks and snacks on hillsides to rejoice in the bombing of the enclave, or the 2009 t-shirts celebrating snipers killing pregnant women with the phrase “one shot, two kills”. Read more A massacre within a massacre: How journalists reporting on Gaza deaths are being targeted In 2010, when writing about a traumatized 10 year old I’d met who could no longer walk normally nor speak after the terror of having Israeli tanks shelling his home, I cited a study by the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme which stated that “91.4 percent of children in Gaza displayed symptoms of moderate to very severe PTSD.” That was fifteen years and numerous Israeli wars on Gaza ago. The US-Israeli “humanitarian” death traps The killing of Palestinians in Gaza didn’t stop when Israel attacked Iran. The most insidious new invention is the recently-created US-Israeli “aid” group, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The Israeli authorities accuse Hamas of stealing aid, and based on this unproven accusation, have deemed that long-established UN aid agencies could no longer operate in Gaza, insisting instead that a group staffed with armed combat veterans (mercenaries is a better word) is better equipped to ensure that food reaches famished Palestinians. It is outrageous that in spite of some media coverage, Israel has been allowed to for months (over a year, really) block the entrance of thousands of aid trucks amassed outside of Gaza, only to then dictate that hired gunmen would be in charge of “distributing aid.” The massive irony and duplicity is that even Israeli and Western media have reported on the actual thieves of aid in Gaza: not Hamas, but an ISIS-linked group under the protection of the Israeli army. As the independent media outlet The Cradle reported, the group’s leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, “is a known leader of armed gangs linked to ISIS and involved in looting aid under Israeli protection... Multiple reports, including from Haaretz and The Washington Post, confirm that these gangs have been seen looting in full view of Israeli forces, who neither intervene nor prevent the theft.” In a subsequent post, The Cradle cited the Israeli Army Radio as reporting: “Israel has transferred weapons to members of the militia...The militia operates mainly in the Rafah area, which the Israeli army has occupied and cleared. The militia’s tasks include preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza and fighting Hamas.” Read more How Christian Zionism distorts scripture to serve empire What is apparently happening is that starved Palestinians, after walking many kilometres to the distribution sites, are then corralled into tight enclosures and fired upon by the “aid” mercenaries. Jonathan Whittall, the Head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OCHA) described the situation as “conditions created to kill, carnage, weaponized hunger, a death sentence for people just trying to survive.” In a clip posted on June 23, Whittall said, “Israeli authorities are preventing us from distributing through these systems that we’ve established and that we know work. We could reach every family in Gaza, as we have in the past, but we’re prevented from doing so at every turn.” More recently, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres echoed Whittall, saying: “Any operation that channels desperate civilians into militarized zones is inherently unsafe. It is killing people.. People are being killed simply trying to feed themselves and their families. The search for food must never be a death sentence.” The UN’s own humanitarian efforts are being “strangled” by Israel, he said, and even the aid workers themselves are starving. The aid-seeking civilians are reportedly being shot in the head and chest, in what looks more like execution than “warning shots” or “crowd control”. The victims include an 18-month old girl whose X-ray shows a bullet lodged in her chest. According to Ramy Abdu, Chairman of the non-profit Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, the girl was shot while in her mother’s arms on the way to a GHF aid point. As far back as last July, an article in The Lancet warning that the total number of Palestinian civilian deaths caused directly and indirectly by Israeli attacks since October 2023 could reach “up to 186,000 or even more.” Other estimates were even more grim, include that of Norwegian Dr. Mads Gilbert, who has worked extensively from Gaza over the years, who said the number of those dead or soon to die could be over 500,000. Read more Israel claims it killed Hamas co-founder linked to October 7 attack Fast forward to a recent report by Yaakov Garb of Ben-Gurion University, published via the Harvard Dataverse. It describes the false aid distribution design as, “all adjacent to Israeli military installations... manned by armed combat veterans backed by Israeli soldiers. The design creates a ‘chokepoint’ or ‘fatal funnel’ – a predictable movement path from a single entry to a single exit with no cover or concealment.” It is the graphic on page five which caught people’s attention. From a population of 2.2 million before the genocide, the graph only accounts for 1.85 million, leaving many asking, where are the remaining 350,000 people? This makes the concerns voiced a year ago more valid. In his report, Yaakov Garb wrote, “The Israeli military has an obligation, as the occupying power in Gaza, to supply the population with humanitarian relief... If an attacker cannot adequately and neutrally feed a starving population in the wake of a disaster it is ongoingly creating, it is obligated to allow other humanitarian agencies to do so.” But instead, every day we see new horrors of emaciated Palestinian civilians desperately braving death in hopes of securing food for their families... and being gunned down by the Israeli army and the mercenaries it backs. It seems, at least, that these actions are finally catching up with Israel, meaning a lack of support for or trust in the state or its representatives, and a global demand for justice for Palestinians. To cite Craig Mokhiber, a human rights lawyer and former senior UN Human Rights official, who posted recently on X: “The (Israeli) regime is on trial for genocide. Its leaders are indicted for crimes against humanity. Israel is isolated. The regime is now almost universally despised, just as the Nazi and apartheid regimes were despised. People across the world stand overwhelmingly with Palestine. You don’t come back from apartheid & genocide.” View the full article

Why America’s ‘Blessed Israel’ obsession risks the church, the world – and the truth During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, US Senator Ted Cruz displayed not only alarming geopolitical ignorance but also a brazen willingness to distort Scripture in defense of his unwavering support for Israel. The verse he quoted – Genesis 12:3 – was shamelessly truncated, a common tactic used to lend divine legitimacy to Zionist exceptionalism in End Times prophecy. This verse has become the theological bedrock of a militant worldview known as Christian Zionism. Even Jewish critics of Israeli state policy express dismay at the historical illiteracy and theological crudeness fueling this metastasizing ideology within American evangelical circles. I recall debating this phenomenon over a decade ago on LinkedIn with Jewish and Israeli interlocutors. I had dubbed it a “trailer-trash cult” – a fusion of biblical illiteracy, apocalyptic fervor and geopolitical delusion. Some of my Israeli counterparts, in a strange display of casual prejudice, alternately referred to Cruz and present Secretary of State Marco Rubio simply as “the Mexican.” Christian Zionism thrives on biblical illiteracy and selective scriptural appropriation. Though often presented as ancient and immutable, it is in fact a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging alongside the rise of political Zionism in the late 19th century. Rather than treating Scripture as sacrosanct, it distorts the biblical canon into a pliable tool – one that must conform to the ideological imperatives of the moment. In a nation such as the United States, which has been at war for nearly 95% of its existence, this distortion often serves as theological cover for an “endless war” doctrine, with cherry-picked verses used to sanctify geopolitical aggression and the confection of new enemies. After World War II, when the Soviet Union became the first nation to grant de jure recognition to the modern state of Israel, this same movement began feverishly mining scripture to cast the USSR, and Russia in particular, as the apocalyptic villains Gog and Magog. Even Ronald Reagan, the pseudo-religious saint of American conservatism, repeatedly invoked this interpretive heresy to frame the Cold War as a cosmic battle against the “evil empire.” To this day, millions of American Evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants worldwide continue to see Russia as the eternal enemy of God Himself. The reach and influence of this pseudo-theological subculture should not be underestimated. But before unpacking the wider ramifications of this ideological perversion, let us first examine the verse Senator Cruz so conveniently misquoted. Read more Pro-regime change US senator hails ‘our’ military strikes on Iran Blessings and curses of Genesis Senator Cruz invoked Genesis 12:3 to justify unwavering US support for Israel, but his citation was conspicuously selective. The full verse reads: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” – (KJV) This is a prophetic promise given to the patriarch Abraham, pointing ultimately to his seed, Jesus Christ. It is through Christ, according to Galatians 3:16, that “all families of the earth” are offered reconciliation with the Divine. If that blessing is universal and messianic in scope, where then is the ethnic or national exclusivity so often ascribed to modern-day Israel? (I’ve explored this topic in greater depth here, here, here and here) Cruz’s theological framework, in practice, aligns more closely with Talmudic ethnocentrism than Christian soteriology. Consider this remarkable claim from Rabbi Chaim Richman, directed at Christians: “You guys are worshiping one Jew. That’s a mistake. You should be worshiping every single one of us because we all die for your sins every single day... The Jewish people in the land of Israel are the bulwark against the Orcs, okay? The Orcs are coming not to a theater near you but to your home.” Aside from the Tolkien reference – which, to my knowledge, appears nowhere in the Talmud – Richman’s quote reveals the ideological terrain Cruz is orbiting: one where collective Jewish identity is quasi-divinized, and adversaries are dehumanized as fantasy monsters. One suspects that the “Orcs” are a sweeping euphemism for Arabs in the region, many of whom are surreptitious allies of Israel. The only recalcitrant “Orcs,” apparently, are the Palestinians, whose refusal to accept their divinely appointed overlords remains an intractable problem. Ironically, Persians (Iranians) have traditionally enjoyed a far more favorable depiction in Jewish scripture – from Cyrus the Great to Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther. Modern geopolitical enmity is therefore a historical aberration, not a theological necessity. But if one follows Richman’s grotesque logic, does this “unqualified worship of every single Jew” extend even to those recently implicated in satanic child abuse scandals in Israel? At what point does solidarity become sacrilege, and does support for Israel require a total theological surrender? Read more From Torah to trauma: A Satanic child abuse scandal blows up in Israel Signs, omens and pareidolic delusion There is a reason I describe Christian Zionism as a theologically bankrupt subculture masquerading as prophecy. It is an ideology that sanctifies any war crime, any act of brutality by Israeli forces because according to its adherents, personal “blessing” from God is contingent on political allegiance to a modern nation-state. When not actively mangling scripture, history, and basic morality, this movement manufactures signs and wonders out of thin air. Natural phenomena, especially pareidolic patterns, are routinely interpreted as divine communications. This is not harmless enthusiasm; it reflects a credulous mindset conditioned by groupthink, emotion-driven worship, and manipulative rhetoric. Hypnotic music, staged testimony, and carefully orchestrated atmospheres often whip congregants into a frenzy of expectation, where gullibility becomes spiritual virtue. I once watched a video of Christian pilgrims in a van in Jerusalem who erupted in awe as beams of dappled sunlight flickered through roadside trees. To them, these fleeting light patterns were not a trick of motion and shadow, but “angelic manifestations.” (They are, in fact, a common optical effect caused by light passing through foliage while in motion.) Today, a large swath of Evangelicals are willing to interpret any mundane occurrence as divine endorsement of Israel’s central role in End Times prophecy. But if they are seeking signs, they might consider one that cuts in the opposite direction. Right after Israel launched an unprovoked strike on Iran, a raven appeared to pull down an Israeli flag amid the rubble in an Israeli neighborhood. "Even the birds have had enough" pic.twitter.com/0OpIevHLu1 — Peacemaker (@peacemaket71) June 19, 2025 In Jewish Midrash, the raven is considered an omen. In the biblical narrative, it is the creature God used to sustain the prophet Elijah when he was near despair (1 Kings 17). The raven is a creature associated with both judgment and provision. What message, then, was it delivering? Now imagine if the bird had instead torn down a Palestinian or Iranian flag. The Christian Zionist ecosystem would have erupted into mass ecstasy. Social media feeds would overflow with headlines declaring it a sign from heaven. Prophecy blogs would rush to decode its “symbolism.” Tele-evangelists would loop the footage between pleas for donations. But since it challenged their narrative, the event went studiously ignored. Such is the schizoid reflex of Christian Zionist theology: divine signs are valid only when they reinforce the script. Anything else, however biblical, however stark, is dismissed as coincidence or satanic interference. Blessings and curses: The reality check There’s an oft-cited quote – attributed to Joseph Goebbels, though likely first used by Adolf Hitler – that says: “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes truth.” Christian Zionists have chanted Genesis 12:3 so frequently and with such zeal that few within their ranks ever pause to test the verse against either scripture or empirical reality. Let’s do that now. Genesis 12:3 says: “I will bless those who bless you, and curse him who curses you…” If we are to interpret this as a blanket mandate for state-level foreign policy, the evidence should be obvious. So ask yourself: Are Israel’s most loyal allies today, particularly in the West, truly “blessed”? Take the United States. It is arguably more internally divided than at any point since the Civil War. Its cities are decaying, homelessness and drug addiction are rampant, race relations are at its lowest ebb, and nearly 40% of Americans cannot afford a $400 emergency expense without borrowing, selling their family heirloom, or falling into debt. And yet, billions in unconditional aid continue to flow to Israel, year after year. Read more Russia’s surprising role in the Israel-Iran conflict that you might not know about Western Europe fares no better. The continent faces deepening political polarization, a crisis of institutional legitimacy, and escalating cultural clashes fueled by migration and economic inequality. What once passed for democratic consensus is now fractured by populism, apathy, and unrest. Social cohesion is unraveling across the transatlantic alliance. Now compare that to East Asia and Southeast Asia, where most countries maintain measured, neutral stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict. With a combined population nearing 2.4 billion, this region encompasses countless ethnicities and religions, yet remains strikingly more stable. Aside from Myanmar, whose military junta has been supplied with Israeli weaponry, there are no continent-wide wars, nor the sort of existential societal fractures plaguing the West. Immigration is limited, social harmony remains comparatively intact, and all major Asian nations support a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders. No nation sucks up to Israel in this part of the world. So the question practically asks itself: If Genesis 12:3 is being used to evaluate foreign policy toward Israel, then who exactly is being blessed, and who is being cursed? The consequences of blind allegiance don’t stop with economic decline. Consider the proxy wars fed by Israeli strategic calculations. In Syria, Israeli support for jihadist factions has contributed to the decimation of ethnic and religious minorities. Just this past Sunday (June 22), a suicide bomber detonated inside St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church, killing at least fifteen Christian worshippers. These are not isolated tragedies. These are the fruits of Christian Zionism: a theology conflating realpolitik with divine mandate. Endangering Christians worldwide Why is it essential to confront and correct this narrative? Because the religious ideology peddled by Senator Cruz and his ilk bears no resemblance to authentic Christianity. It is a dangerous theological counterfeit – a den of wolves in sheep’s clothing, precisely as Matthew 7:15 warned. Far from defending the faith, Christian Zionism actively endangers Christians across the globe. In its zeal to uphold Pax Americana, idolize the modern State of Israel, and force-fit current events into a contrived apocalyptic script, it sacrifices actual Christian communities on the altars of geopolitics and eschatological fantasy. As someone descended from one of the world’s oldest Christian traditions – whose roots reach back even to the Old Testament – I say this plainly: Have no fellowship with these murderous idolaters (1 Corinthians 5:11). They invoke Christ but serve the ambitions of empire, the delusions of man, and the devices of Satan. If that is what it means to be “blessed,” then your church should beware of what it is really worshiping. View the full article

To realize their full trade potential, African nations must address existing barriers and disjointed customs regulations In April, US President Donald Trump implemented new tariff policies, imposing a maximum of 50% on goods entering America from African countries. They previously enjoyed free access benefits from the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which, according to the Center for Global Development, used to provide sub-Saharan African countries with duty-free access to over 7,000 products. In 2023, the Office of the US Trade Representative reported that the US imported goods worth $9.7 billion under the AGOA, with South Africa ($14.0 billion), Nigeria ($5.7 billion), Ghana ($1.7 billion), Angola ($1.2 billion), and Cote d’Ivoire ($948 million) being Africa’s biggest exporters. But with a 10% universal tariff now imposed on all African nations, experts believe the AGOA may have come to an end. However, the same experts also say Africa’s market of 1.4 billion people can serve as the best response to external economic shocks caused by Trump’s trade tariffs. Dr. Francis Owusu, a trade economist at the University of Ghana, notes that with the new tariffs, “Trump not only made AGOA lame, but also prepared it for eventual death.” “There is no way AGOA will be beneficial to African countries with the new tariffs in place. It makes no sense at all,” Dr. Owusu said. “Trump’s tariff policy rendered AGOA meaningless.” ‘Trump did Africa a big favor’ Dr. Owusu says that, instead of lamenting over Trump’s tariff actions, African leaders must breathe life into the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). “What Africa needs is regional trade and economic resilience. With a population and market of over one billion people, African leaders must shift focus and use regional instruments like AfCFTA to build and insulate the continent’s economy,” he told RT. According to the expert, by imposing new trade tariffs on African exports, “Trump did Africa a big favor.” Read more Forget the Middle East: This region could be next to see a major crisis Launched in 2021, the AfCFTA boasts an estimated combined GDP of $3.4 trillion and a market of 1.4 billion people, making it the world’s largest free trade area by number of participating countries. But despite the existence of the AfCFTA, intra-African trade remains below par. As of April 2025, it accounted for only 18% of total continental trade. According to Afreximbank’s Africa Trade Report 2024, intra-African trade in 2023 was $192.2 billion, a 3.2% increase from the previous year. In the same year, the share of formal intra-African trade increased from 13.6% in 2022 to 14.9%. Projections by the UN Economic Commission show that a full implementation of the AfCFTA could push intra-African trade to 35% by 2045. ‘Africa should stop prioritizing trade deals with Europe and the US’ Faith Atieno, a trade policy analyst with Kenya’s Institute of Economic Affairs, argues that a lack of political will and trust among member states has hampered the full implementation of the AfCFTA. “Africa must address existing structural barriers and disjointed customs regulations if it wants to realize its full trade potential,” Atieno told RT. She added that to unlock its dormant trade power, the continent should also invest in the enhancement of its industrial capacity and logistics infrastructure. “For AfCFTA to succeed, Africa must start trading as a continent and invest in regional value chains. Member states must stop prioritizing trade deals with Europe and the US,” she said. According to Atieno, there is no reason why a country like Kenya cannot export its textiles and horticultural products to countries like Nigeria, Egypt, and Ghana. “Why should African nations continue having trade barriers among themselves when they can all benefit from this ripe and huge market?” Read more The latest NATO summit was the priciest humiliation fetish ever produced ‘Regional integration must now move from theory to reality’ In the wake of Trump’s actions, African countries are taking insulating measures. In Nigeria, the Export Promotion Council has already announced a new policy to ease bureaucratic barriers and enhance intra-African trade for its textiles, cocoa, and pharmaceutical products. Regarded as Africa’s largest economy, Nigeria is among the member states that have lagged in the implementation of the AfCFTA. On the other hand, Ghana, through the Ghana Export Promotion Authority, is prioritizing intra-African trade in the implementation of the National Export Development Strategy, which aims to create a $25 billion export economy by 2029. Yodit Hailemariam, a development economist based in Addis Ababa, says Africa’s trade and economic future rests in regional integration. “As a continent, we have a promising future. Regional integration must now move from theory to reality. Regional blocs must start aligning their industrial and trade policies for intra-African trade to be effective and beneficial,” she told RT. “For AfCFTA to succeed, we will need strong and powerful regional and continental value chains.” Afreximbank already has a $2 billion Intra-African Trade Resilience Fund to help exporters build continental logistics hubs to boost intra-continental trade. Read more How Trump’s trade policies could spell disaster for this region And with the African Union set to host an emergency trade summit in August 2025 in Nairobi to discuss unified responses to global trade shocks, Dr. Owusu says Trump’s tariffs on African countries are a “statement of economic freedom and independence for the continent.” A 2022 research report published by the World Bank Group forecasted that full implementation of the AfCFTA could lift at least 50 million Africans out of extreme poverty by 2035. Wamkele Mene, who heads the AfCFTA secretariat, says that to fully benefit from the protocol, member states need to focus on innovation and economic development, which requires the integration of government, industry, and academia to foster innovation and economic development. “We urgently must address existing challenges to continental trade, enhance trade capabilities and develop sector-specific technologies,” Mene said. “What we need are policies that promote intra-African trade and cooperation, tax incentives as a catalyst for propelling Africa towards greater economic integration.” Mene says that through the AfCFTA, Africa has a chance to accelerate the realization of the African Union Agenda 2030 goals and try to establish a sustainable economic foundation for future generations. View the full article

Choosing a military solution over a negotiated one in dealing with Iran is is a throwback to US unilateralism and regime change policies The US seems to have learned no lessons from the post-Cold War phase of its unilateralism and regime-change policies in the Middle East. Instead of a new peaceful and stable order being established under Washington's tutelage, it ended in the collapse of countries – not merely regimes – chaos, civil war, and the rise of Islamic extremism and terrorism. It is not clear what legitimate US core interests were served by its military interventions to re-order the political forces in the region. If the objective was also to remove regimes that were a threat to Israel’s security and erode Russian influence in the region, some success may have been achieved in Iraq and Syria, though in a divided Libya Moscow seems to have gained ground. Giving Israel a freer hand in Lebanon and Syria, and a virtual carte blanche in Gaza and in the West Bank too, may have in the short term given it an upper hand in security terms but longer term the answer to Israel’s security dilemmas may not lie in asserting its regional hegemony with the backing of the US. Israel has long viewed its core security challenge as emanating from a nuclear-armed Iran. It has worked hard over the years to mobilize US and European opinion against Iran’s nuclear program. That this program has been subject to stringent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards has not reduced the virulence of Israel’s campaign against it. Israel has for years raised the specter of Iran becoming nuclear within months or even weeks even though no proof is produced to support this belief. The IAEA has not backed Israel’s allegations. Read more The latest NATO summit was the priciest humiliation fetish ever produced These Israeli claims have resonated in the pro-Israel lobbies in the US to the point that President Donald Trump in his first term repudiated the nuclear agreement signed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK and US) plus Germany. Under this agreement, Iran had accepted severe and even humiliating curbs on its nuclear program as a sovereign country, which included highly intrusive monitoring by the IAEA. In his second term, Trump sought to negotiate a new, much tougher, nuclear agreement with Iran that would deny it even some rights it had under the first one. A couple of rounds of talks took place, and the date for another round had been slated. These talks were being held under the shadow of timelines and intimidating ultimatums by Trump. It is not improbable that the US was engaged in a show of negotiations while actually preparing for an aerial strike against Iran. With Hamas and Hezbollah decimated and regime change having been carried out in Syria, Iran’s hand was greatly weakened vis-à-vis Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu evidently calculated that this was the most opportune moment to do the unthinkable – attack Iran militarily and open the door to US military intervention in support of Israel. In other words, for Israel the objective would be to prevent any possible negotiated agreement between the US and Iran, and for Trump to seize the opportunity to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability by force, in particular its underground facilities with the use of B2s armed with bunker-busting bombs. Peace Prize path That Trump has chosen a military solution over a negotiated one is a throwback to US unilateralism and regime-change policies. The US attack on Iran is a gross violation of international law. It infringes the UN Charter. The US had no mandate from the UN Security Council to act against Iran. There is no provision in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would allow the recognized nuclear powers to eliminate a suspected nuclear program of a non-nuclear state in violation of the Treaty. The US attack also cannot be justified as a pre-emptive one as Iran was not threatening to attack the US. The rhetoric of a rules-based international order has been exposed for what it is. Read more Israel’s moral collapse: Strategy doesn’t require dead children The irony is that Trump’s election rhetoric was against the US getting involved in wars abroad, which he believed had drained America’s resources. His MAGA base wanted the US to focus on domestic priorities. Trump projected himself as against wars as such, as someone who would work to end conflicts. His position on the Ukraine conflict reflected this. His unfounded claim that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, as well as his offer to mediate between the two countries on Kashmir, is part of how he projects himself as a peacemaker. He now claims to have brokered an agreement between Rwanda and Congo and between Egypt and Ethiopia, among others. His efforts should, as he says, entitle him to four or five Nobel Peace Prizes. Pakistan tried to capitalize on Trump’s obsession with a Nobel Prize by officially nominating him for one after his unprecedented invitation to a foreign military chief (the Pakistani field marshal) to lunch with him at the White House. This sycophantic ploy recoiled on Pakistan when virtually the next day Trump attacked Iran militarily. Trump believes that now summoning Israel and Iran to a ceasefire shows his commitment to peace. Unsurprisingly, his supporters in the US Congress have nominated him for the Nobel Prize. While Netanyahu publicly speaking of killing Ali Khamenei, Iran’s spiritual leader, is one thing, Trump visualizing the possibility of assassinating him at an opportune moment on his social media account is egregious. Such talk of political assassination are being normalized in diplomatic discourse. Trump has also not ruled out regime change in Iran, potentially causing chaos in a country of over 90 million. A pause in a long-term conflict A ceasefire between Israel and Iran, even if it holds, is simply a pause. The underlying issues remain unresolved. Iran needs to give up its rhetoric that Israel has no right to exist. It is most unlikely that Iran will give up its nuclear program and its rights under the NPT. Iran has decided to end the monitoring of its program by the IAEA. Iran has accused the agency head of leaking information about its nuclear scientists to the US and Israelis and facilitating their assassination. Meanwhile, the whereabouts of Iran’s highly enriched uranium are not known. Read more This country is the missing piece in Russia’s multipolar dream There are also some doubts about the extent of damage caused to Iranian nuclear sites by the US bombers, and therefore the assessment is that Iran’s program could be revived quickly enough. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has questioned the integrity of IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi for pressuring Iran to allow renewed access to its nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, the US attack has exposed the inability of Moscow and Beijing to give protection to Iran during the conflict. Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement with Iran in January 2025. Iran is a member of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), two organizations in which both Russia and China play dominant roles. Putin has explained that Russia had offered to help build up Iran’s air defenses but Tehran declined as it wanted to rely on its own capacities. The Iranian foreign minister went to Moscow and met Russian President Vladimir Putin, but whatever help is now given to Iran will be diplomatic – as well as potential assistance in building up its air defenses if Iran has learned the right lessons about its vulnerabilities. China, which signed a 25-year strategic accord with Iran and is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, has stood aloof from the conflict in practical terms although, unlike in the case of Russia, its rhetoric against Israel is harsh. Russia itself is involved in a major conflict and would want to avoid alienating Trump. China too has major stakes in managing its tense ties with the US. Iran has suffered and so has Israel. The story is not yet over. View the full article

After a few insults and some light humiliation, Trump convinced Europe to bankroll his war machine – to the tune of 5% GDP Fresh off dropping an “F bomb” on both Iran and Israel for blowing up the only ceasefire in history ever announced exclusively on his social media feed , US President Donald Trump hopped on his jet and headed straight to the NATO summit. Everyone wondered what mood he’d land in after crossing the Atlantic. Apparently not feeling like rolling the dice, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte wrote him a love letter in advance, suggesting that the scariest weapon of mass destruction for NATO is the American president’s mouth. “You are flying into another big success in The Hague. It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto five percent! Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” Rutte gushed. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a BIG way – as they should – and it will be your win.” Hard to believe this guy was once the prime minister of the Netherlands. Oh, President Trump, way to really stick it to Europe! What a wonderful thing you’ve just done to make almost all of Europe subsidize the American military industrial complex to the tune of 5% of their GDP! Back when Trump first started hounding Europe to cough up 2.5% of their GDP for defense, European leaders rolled their eyes. But after nuking their own energy-driven economy with their anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine policies, they’ve decided to embrace the idea like they thought of it themselves. Nothing like selling European taxpayers on buying a ton more US and European hardware under the pretext of a hypothetical 2030 Russian invasion. Perfect cover for a spending spree that will become the problem of whoever’s in office by then (ie. not them). Trump initially wanted them all on a 2.5% spending target. But heaven forbid American arms dealers hog all the action. Europe’s military industrial complex needs a piece too. Hence, 5% for everyone and a double-dip dinner at the weapons buffet. Read more NATO commits to doubling military budgets: As it happened Trump showed up straight from showcasing US bombs on Iranian soil – one giant demo reel for his European customers. When he landed, Rutte practically faceplanted directly into Trump’s backside. And if you thought what he wrote to Trump was cringey, wait till you hear what Rutte said aloud in the wake of Trump bombing Iran for Israel – er, I mean, for peace: “You are a man of strength but also a man of peace, and the fact that you also successfully got this ceasefire between Israel and Iran, I really want to commend you for that,” Rutte cooed. “Without President Trump, this would not have happened. Absolutely not.” Way to thank an arsonist for putting out his own fire. What’s next: nominating him for Fireman of the Year? Even the press did a double-take, basically asking Rutte, Bro, you sure you want him reading your fan mail on live TV? Answer: Absolutely. “Not embarrassed,” Rutte replied. The NATO secretary general sounded so enamored with Trump that you had to wonder why the two of them didn’t just get a room already. “Daddy has to sometimes use strong language,” Rutte told journalists, referring to Trump, as journalists may or may not have barfed into the nearest potted plant. Between remarks like that and all the gushing about how Trump was making Europe pay for the privilege of being extorted for a protection racket that Trump says isn’t even sure that he would honor, it all sounded so sadomasochistic that I started to feel like maybe I should be paying for this kind of kinky TV content. Or I guess you could say that European taxpayers already are – to the tune of 5% of GDP. And as for Europe being taken to the cleaners, Rutte had this to say about those who might struggle to pay up, like Spain, which opted to stick to 2%: “Countries have to find the money.” Read more Russia takes on the West’s biggest obsession Easy to say as the former Dutch Prime Minister – and now, unelected NATO chief – safely off the electoral hook. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez isn’t quite so glib, promising to hold the line at a much lower 2% spending target. How long before other NATO leaders realize that they can say no, too? Polish President Andrzej Duda already called the 5% pledge a mere “gentleman’s agreement,” insisting there’d be no penalties for ignoring it. Sounds like those school spirit rallies where the star quarterback expects everyone to cheer for the big game, then everyone just goes home and does their own thing afterwards. Speaking of which, Ukraine apparently isn’t the center of the universe anymore. “The fact that Zelensky will not participate in any official form at the NATO summit clearly indicates that the previous chapter is over,” Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán suggested. “The Americans, Turks, Slovaks and we have made it clear we do not want to sit at the same table with him.” Zelensky even swapped the pizza delivery look for undertaker chic. Perhaps a better match for the current state of his country. Or maybe just his ego. As for the usual pre-summit group photo – it looked like the teachers made sure that Trump and Zelensky weren’t together for it, hoping to avoid a reprise of their White House spat when Trump smacked him with the rhetorical equivalent of a stapler to the face. And forget any serious focus on countering China. The leaders of NATO’s would-be Asia partners – South Korea and Japan – bailed to deal with the economic fallout of Trump bombing the Middle East and spiking their oil prices. And so NATO stumbles on, proving that when Trump cracks the whip, Europe says, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?” View the full article