American Women Suck

Bloodthirsty American politicians like Lindsey Graham are eager to drag the war on forever, so they do everything to scupper negotiations The picture of Lindsey Graham, US Senator for South Carolina, and Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, grinning into a camera in Brussels on June 2, is worth a thousand words. Graham is one of the most extreme hardcore warmongers in Washington DC, and the competition is pretty stiff. Ever since he first became a member of the US Congress over 30 years ago – once in, American politicians are rarely voted out – he has devoted his career to arguing vehemently for war. His remarks are often not just belligerent but also sadistic, such as when he recently posted that he hoped ‘Greta could swim’, meaning that he hoped her Gaza aid ship would be torpedoed. Joking about an attack on a civilian aid ship carrying a young female civilian activist is sick – and typical of Graham. Like his old friend, the late Senator John McCain, Lindsey Graham is obsessed with the idea of war with Russia. He has been pushing for this since at least 2014. In 2016 he told Ukrainian soldiers, “Your fight is our fight.” Graham’s presence in Brussels is therefore significant. Ever since von der Leyen’s appointment in 2019, she has pushed herself forward as the principal public face of the Brussels institutions. Six years ago, she said she wanted to make the European Commission into a ‘geopolitical’ body – even though it has no role in foreign or military policy. Since then, she has done little else than parade on the international stage. She is among the most hawkish and anti-Russian European figures, absurdly claiming, like French Foreign Minister Bruno Lemaire, that EU sanctions have brought the Russian economy to its knees. Read more Kremlin confirms Putin warning after Ukrainian drone strikes The Graham-von der Leyen alliance is therefore a natural one – against Donald Trump. European politicians are often quite explicit in their view that Trump is now the enemy. The same goes for Lindsey Graham. In Kiev last week, Graham explicitly challenged Trump’s authority to decide US foreign policy. He lambasted the very notion of negotiations with Russia – just as Zelensky did to Vance in the Oval office in February – and said that the president of the US is not the boss. “In America, you have more than one person at the card table. We have three branches of government,” – meaning that the Senate would soon impose its own sanctions on Russia, whatever the executive does. Graham’s budget bill from February is intended to spend even more money on the US military – as if that were possible – which means that he is marshalling the US deep state to fight back after initially reeling from the re-election of Trump. Meanwhile, the Europeans’ determination to continue the war is existential. Their Russophobia, which goes back at least to the 2012 Russian presidential election, when Putin came back into the Kremlin, is extreme because their “Europe” is defined by its hostility to Russia. Russia is “the other Europe” which the EU does not want to be and which it defines itself against. Von der Leyen and others want to use the war against Russia to federalise Europe and create a single state. Meanwhile, Trump’s Russia policy is based on sidelining Europe. When he first announced talks with the Russians, EU leaders demanded a seat at the table. They failed. US-Russia talks took place outside Europe – in Riyadh – while the Russia-Ukraine talks the EU vehemently opposed are taking place without the EU, in Istanbul. Let us not forget how furiously EU leaders opposed talking to Russia. When Viktor Orban travelled to Kiev and Moscow last July, Ursula von der Leyen denounced Orban’s “appeasement”. The EU’s then chief diplomat said in an official statement that the EU “excludes official contacts between the EU and President Putin.” The French foreign minister said in February that if Sergey Lavrov telephoned him he would not answer the call. Now these very same people claim they want to “force” the Russians to come and talk! Read more Kiev regime ‘not interested in peace,’ turning to terror and suffering battlefield losses – Key points from Putin’s speech EU policy on Russia is now in ruins. That is why, like Graham, they are determined to stop Trump. Their attempts have been ever more desperate and ridiculous. On May 12, Kaja Kallas and other EU leaders said Russia “must agree” to a ceasefire before any talks. Three days later, those talks started anyway. Britain also tried to scupper them by saying it was “unacceptable” for Russia to demand recognition of the “annexed” regions, which is odd considering Britain is not a participant. European credibility is therefore at zero. In March, the British prime minister had said that the plans to send British and French troops to Ukraine had entered “the operational phase.” They were ready, he claimed, to protect Ukraine’s security by directly entering the war zone. By April, these plans had been dropped. On May 10, European leaders threatened Russia with “massive sanctions” if it did not agree to a ceasefire immediately. Russia did not agree to a ceasefire and yet there have been no more “massive sanctions.” A 17th package of sanctions was indeed announced on May 14, but it was so weak that Hungary and Slovakia, who oppose the EU’s overall policy, let it pass. In any case, the 17th package clearly had nothing to do with the ultimatum because such sanctions take a long time to prepare. Instead, that is what Lindsey Graham was in Brussels to discuss. The EU and the UK have thus sidelined themselves with their meaningless braggadocio. They cannot operate without the Americans. But which Americans? The claim that the White House did not know about the recent Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airfields might well be true: the US deep state, embodied by people like Graham, is clearly trying to undermine the executive. Both Lindsey Graham and former CIA director Mike Pompeo were in Ukraine just days before the attack. Read more EU unlikely to meet demand from US senators on Russia sanctions – media The political goal of the drone attack was obviously to scupper the talks scheduled for the following day in Istanbul, or to provoke Russia into a massive response and drag the US into the war. Even if the attack does not succeed in these goals, it clearly sets the tone for the future Ukrainian insurgency which, American and European officials hope, will turn that country into an 'Afghanistan' for Russia. The US deep state is in for the long game. So are the Europeans. On May 9, 'Europe Day', European leaders confirmed their intention to set up a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression, to prosecute Russia for invading in February 2022. Western European states are already the primary financers of the International Criminal Court, whose prosecutor is British. The ICC indicted Russian leaders, including Putin, in 2023 and 2024, on various very surprising charges. (Ursula von der Leyen continued to lie about “20,000 abducted children,” the day after the Ukrainians gave the Russians a list of 339 missing children.) Now the Europeans intend to open a new front in their 'lawfare' against Russia. Such a Special Tribunal, if it comes into existence, will tear the heart out of any peace agreement – just as Ukraine’s acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC in 2014 and 2015 rendered the Minsk agreement of February 2015 null and void. With one side of its mouth, Ukraine asked the ICC to prosecute Russian officials and Donbass “terrorists”; with the other side, it agreed at Minsk that the Donbass insurgency was an internal Ukrainian problem and ruled out any prosecution or punishment (Article 5 of the February 2015 Minsk agreement). It is not possible to agree a peace agreement with a country and at the same time to set up a Special Tribunal whose sole purpose is to criminalize it. So the creation of this Tribunal, which will presumably remain in existence for over a decade like the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, is nothing but a Euro-American institutional time bomb designed to blow up in the future any agreement which the two sides might reach in the short term. The future of “Europe” depends on that. View the full article

Beijing’s close ties with Islamabad give it a level of influence over dealings with Delhi The recent terrorist attack in India’s Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, which originated in Pakistan and resulted in the death of 26, mostly Hindu, civilians, has triggered another wave of heightened tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad. While public discourse has focused on terrorism and hostilities between the two nuclear-powered nations, a deeper analysis reveals the unmistakable imprint of another key actor ­– China’s strategic calculus in the region. The relationship between Islamabad and New Delhi has evolved significantly in recent decades. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar travelled to Beijing days after the military standoff with Delhi and met his counterpart Wang Yi. The Chinese Foreign Minister called Pakistan an ”iron-clad friend” and ”all-weather strategic partner.” China is pursuing a strategy that aligns with its regional interests — including economic engagement, defense cooperation, and influence-building. This strategy, logically, includes efforts to slow down India’s rise. Pahalgam incident thus cannot be seen an isolated terrorist attack, but as a signal within a larger geostrategic landscape that is shaping Asia’s future. Strategic Timing The flareup in South Asia has come at a time of major geopolitical developments. With the mass shift of Western companies like Apple away from China to India, India is poised to become the next big manufacturing hub. Read more How Moscow’s legendary S-400 missiles helped India outgun Pakistan As global businesses explore alternatives to rising operational costs and geopolitical uncertainties in China, India is increasingly seen as a competitive option. Additionally, the proposed US tariffs may add pressure to China’s manufacturing sector, which is already adapting to evolving global supply chains. For the strongman leader, Xi Jinping, sustaining economic growth and employment remains a top priority. Any escalation involving India could introduce uncertainty that might affect investor sentiment and infrastructure momentum. Regional instability could redirect global attention away from India’s growth narrative toward internal and border-related concerns. China’s close political, economic and defence ties with Pakistan ­– an economically vulnerable partner ­– gives Beijing a certain level of influence on the way Islamabad deals with India. New Delhi was compelled to act militarily, risking escalation and economic fallout. To India’s credit, it managed to negotiate a ceasefire after achieving its key objectives of affecting 11 Pakistani air bases and nine terrorist camps and other strategic terrorist infrastructures against the popular sentiment against de-escalation. Economic factor Pakistan has been struggling with near to bankruptcy. Its foreign exchange reserves have fallen to $4.3bn, its lowest levels since February 2014. Despite a $2.4 billion bailout from the IMF – approved on May 9, when Islamabad and New Delhi were firing missiles at each other ­– the Pakistani economy is still in tatters. China’s offer of financial and military aid to Islamabad at such times comes in more than handy. Read more From ceasefire to misfire: Trump’s claims stir concerns in India China’s support for Pakistan is not circumstantial. It is also institutional and deeply entrenched. Between 2014 to 2024, China sold over $9 billion worth of advanced weaponry to Pakistan, accounting for around 80% of imported weapons, including J-10CE fighter jets, Wing Loong drones, LY-80 air defence systems, and naval assets. The operational use of these systems in the recent conflict, including Pakistani claims of downing Rafales using Chinese PL-15 missiles, has allowed Beijing to showcase its weapons systems in live combat. Beyond India, China’s motivation also ties into its long-term strategic objectives in the Persian Gulf. Pakistan provides China access to the Arabian Sea via Gwadar port, a linchpin in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and part of the broader Belt and Road Initiative. This maritime access offers China two significant advantages: a strategic military presence near key Middle Eastern shipping lanes and an alternative route for oil imports in case of a US-China maritime standoff in the South China Sea. Military-Industrial Complex benefits China’s defence industry is another big beneficiary of the escalation. Claims by the Pakistan Air Force that Chinese-made jets outmanoeuvred India’s French-built Rafales, regardless of their authenticity, have created a nationalist fervour in Chinese social media and boosted investor confidence. Stocks in Chinese defence manufacturers surged as hashtags like “J-10 shot down Indian warplanes” trended online, and praise for the PL-15 missile system flooded Weibo. Read more Truce or trap? India’s calculated calm with Pakistan Indeed, Beijing wants to use this as an inflexion point for its arms export ambitions. With Western suppliers often constrained by political alignments or human rights concerns, China’s relatively unrestricted military exports offer an attractive alternative, especially in conflict-prone or authoritarian regimes across Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. A perceived successful battlefield performance strengthens China’s pitch as a reliable arms supplier. From shaping regional dynamics to advancing its defense exports and maintaining strategic interests in West Asia, China may perceive certain advantages in the current situation in the region. While the Pahalgam attack was carried out by terrorist actors, it may also reflect broader regional undercurrents in which multiple stakeholders play complex and calculated roles. Through India-Pakistan rivalry, China is executing a proxy strategy that would halt India’s rise, safeguard its own economic interests and bolster its defence exports and regional clout. Beijing has much to gain and little to lose from this rivalry — as long as it stays just below the threshold of full-scale war. View the full article

Libya is no longer just a post-Arab Spring tragedy, but a credibility test for multilateral diplomacy Libya has endured a collapse unmatched in modern North Africa since the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 in March 2011 – endorsing international intervention during the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Fourteen years on, the country remains fractured, chaotic, and stuck in an open-ended ‘transitional period’ that never seems to end. NATO’s seven-month, round-the-clock bombardment of the country, under the pretext of protecting civilians, left Libya in tatters. So far, the UN has dispatched ten special envoys, passed 44 resolutions, convened multiple peace conferences, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars. All UNSC resolutions adopted under the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, which makes them binding to member states, have not, however, been implemented effectively on the ground. Libya remains a cautionary tale: Two rival governments, a patchwork of militias, foreign interference at every level, and no real path to a functioning, unified state. Despite repeated pledges to guide the country toward elections for a parliament, president, and unified government, every major initiative has failed since the last elections in 2014. The UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) now stands accused of not resolving the crisis – but managing it instead. Critics argue that the mission has become a diplomatic holding pattern, one that accommodates obstructionists instead of sidelining them. Tripoli on fire again Nothing illustrates the UN’s ongoing failure better as the recent eruption of violence in Tripoli. On May 12, two powerful government-loyal militias clashed in a two-day battle that left over 100 civilian casualties and at least eight deaths. Burned-out cars and rubble littered the streets of the capital. It was triggered by the assassination of Abdel Ghani al-Kikli, known as ‘Gheniwa’, at the hands of the rival 444 Brigade. Gheniwa, who led the Stability Support Apparatus (SSA), was ambushed during what was supposed to be a mediation meeting. Read more It’s 2025, but Africans are still in chains. Why? Both the SSA and 444 Brigade were created by former Prime Minister Fayez el-Sarraj by separate decrees. The SSA’s tasks included protecting government buildings, providing personal protection to government officials, and controlling public discontent. The 444 Brigade was intended to be more of a disciplined combat-army unit headed by Colonel Mahmoud Hamza – a professional military officer. It originated as a small unit within a larger militia known as the Special Deterrence Force. Gheniwa, however, was more than just a militia commander: He had practically been running a parallel state, extending his influence across Libya’s security apparatus, central bank, foreign ministry, and southern Tripoli’s governance. The UN condemned the fighting, as it always does, and called for calm, but had little else to offer. The mayhem underscored what many Libyans already knew: Tripoli is not safer without Gheniwa and the state does not control the armed militias. This has been the case since NATO’s 2011 intervention which, effectively, paralyzed the Libyan state, and now the UN has lost its grip on the peace process. Ten envoys, zero breakthroughs From Abdel Elah al-Khatib in 2011 to Abdoulaye Bathily in 2024, every UN envoy has exited the Libyan stage with their mission unfulfilled. Some made bold moves. Bernardino Leon brokered the 2015 Skhirat Agreement, which became a de facto constitution in a country that still does not have one. The agreement is the official UN-sanctioned frame of reference for every political effort the UNSMIL attempts. Ghassan Salame, who took over five years after Leon, led the 2020 Berlin Process, further strengthening Leon’s work and delivering the road map that led to the formation of the current Government of National Unity (GNU) still in office today. But each road map eventually hit a dead end: Local actors resisted compromise, foreign players pushed their own agendas, and the interim authorities hoarded power. Bathily, a Senegalese diplomat, abruptly resigned in April 2024 after a proposal by the High Steering Committee to agree on a road map for the country was rejected by almost all rival groups and political entities in the country, including the House of Representatives in Tobruk and the High State Council (HSC) in Tripoli. His resignation letter was scathing, citing “a lack of political will and good faith” among Libyan leaders and warning that foreign interference had turned Libya into a “playground for fierce rivalry among regional and international actors.” His exit left the UN with a credibility problem. Who will gather all actors in one room? Now the UN is turning to Ghanaian diplomat Hannah Tetteh – the former head of the UN Office to the African Union – in what some see as a pivot toward African-led legitimacy. Critics of past efforts have long argued that Libya’s future should not be steered solely by European or Gulf powers. Tetteh faces daunting odds. Before her appointment, acting UN envoy Stephanie Koury laid some groundwork by establishing a 20-member Libyan Advisory Committee. On May 20, the committee delivered a report outlining four possible political paths: 1) hold both legislative and presidential elections, then proceed to a constitutional referendum; 2) begin with legislative elections, followed by a referendum to adopt a permanent constitution, then presidential elections; 3) reverse the process: Adopt a constitution first, then hold elections; 4) reset entirely, launching a new national dialogue and road map through consensus. Read more Gaddafi warned them. Now the EU is living out his grim prophecy Any of these tracks requires buy-in from what Libyan observers call ‘the Five Devils’ – the key domestic spoilers: Aguila Saleh, speaker of the House of Representatives in Tobruk; Khaled al-Mishri, the head of the HSC in Tripoli; Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his forces in the east; Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah and the Government of National Unity; the three-member Presidential Council in Tripoli. Bathily tried to convene these actors in one room. It never happened. And that failure, more than any policy misstep, sealed his fate. The international community often calls these actors ‘stakeholders’. In truth, they are gatekeepers of chaos. Elections threaten their entrenched power and access to state wealth. The longer the delay, the more they benefit. Many of these factions now function as proxies for foreign powers. Egypt, Turkey, France, Russia, the US, and to a lesser extent, Qatar, all back different sides. Their interests rarely align with the democratic aspirations of ordinary Libyans. Domestic leaders, meanwhile, speak the language of peace in public while obstructing it behind closed doors. Dbeibah’s GNU has publicly welcomed elections – while allegedly using state funds to sponsor rallies, suppress dissent, fund nominally allied militias, and sabotage electoral logistics. Last month, the Tobruk based parliament invited 14 men to present their manifestos to become the new prime minister of the unified government in Libya. But the chamber appears hesitant, fearing that the new government will not be recognized by the UN, as it will not be able to peacefully dislodge Dbeibah’s GNU from the center of power in the capital, Tripoli. This scenario is likely to lead to violence in Tripoli and perhaps other parts of the divided country. The UNSMIL has not commented on the parliamentary discussions yet, but behind the scenes, it does not support this step, fearing the consequences and potential destabilizing effects. From mediator to manager Critics argue that the UN mission has shifted from seeking resolution to managing stagnation. The mantra of a ‘Libyan-led solution’ has become, in effect, an excuse for inaction. By refusing to confront spoilers head-on, the mission risks legitimizing the very elites blocking progress. One Libyan analyst, speaking anonymously, described the UNSMIL as “a concierge service for the crisis” – hosting endless forums and communiques, while average citizens endure poverty, sky-high cost of living, inflation, and collapsing services. Basic institutions – a unified military, functioning judiciary, and national budget – remain aspirational. And then, like clockwork, violence erupts in Tripoli. A test for the UN Read more Brutally murdered 13 years ago, this leader is only growing more beloved If Tetteh’s mission stalls like the rest, what is the UN’s plan B? There is no formal fallback, but diplomats are quietly discussing three controversial options: Chapter VII-style international trusteeship – effectively returning Libya to partial international oversight. In reality, this option means placing the country, indefinitely, under UN trusteeship, with some kind of general governor appointed by it – practically ending the independence and sovereignty of Libya. Aggressive sanctions on spoilers: Asset freezes, travel bans, and naming-and-shaming campaigns. The UNSC, through the sanctions committee, knows the obstructers, both state and non-state actors, but never really empowered its resolutions to implement any effective punitive measures against them. A Bosnia-style power-sharing arrangement modeled on the Dayton Accords, which divided up the country into little quarreling cantons under a weak three-member presidency that hardly agrees on anything. This would entrench divisions but create a framework for gradual state-building. The Bosnia option remains deeply divisive. But as one Tripoli-based European diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity put it, “Better a bad peace than no state at all.” Libya is no longer just a post-Arab Spring tragedy – it is a credibility test for multilateral diplomacy. Fourteen years of broken deadlines, shelved blueprints, and failed elections have disillusioned not only Libyans but the international community. Hannah Tetteh’s task is to do what nine others could not: Disrupt elite collusion, overcome foreign manipulation, and make elections more than just lines in a Geneva communique. Her success or failure will shape not just Libya’s future – but the legacy of the UN’s longest-running post-conflict mission since Iraq. View the full article

The blatant incompetence shown by former German Foreign Minister Annalena ‘360 degrees’ Baerbock has earned her a cushy new UN General Assembly post Every circus needs a clown. And this one has a truly awesome demo reel. Despite the Greens snagging 85 seats in the current German parliament, it turns out they’re about as useful to Friedrich Merz’s shiny new right-left establishment coalition with the Christian Democrats as a vegan menu at Oktoberfest. So they’re relegated to chilling on the Bundestag backbenches. Annalena Baerbock, the former German Foreign Affairs Minister in ex-Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government, could have coasted into parliament again via the Greens’ party list, even after losing her direct seat to Scholz himself. But she apparently had bigger plans. She’s just been tapped as the next President of the United Nations General Assembly. Before officially packing up at the Foreign Ministry, her own department nominated her for the UN gig – an administrative role, largely ceremonial. Why her? Well, it’s Germany’s turn to fill the seat for a year starting in September, and a career diplomat was reportedly first in line. You know, someone who hadn’t become globally famous for flunking basic geometry. And well, that just can’t stand. Not when the face of German diplomacy is no longer being kept by German voters in the manner to which she has become accustomed. Besides, just check out this CV. In a moment that will live in infamy alongside Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, MLK’s “I Have a Dream,” Pericles’ Funeral Oration, and Churchill’s “We shall fight on the beaches,” Baerbock took the spotlight at the 2023 Munich Security Conference. Asked whether Ukraine would be safe long-term if Vladimir Putin stayed in power in Russia, she replied: “If Putin doesn’t change by 360 degrees, no.” Read more Germany risks becoming a target for Russia – for the first time since Hitler Apparently, she thinks a dizzy Putin would make all the difference. Perhaps it’s not the first time that Baerbock, a former gymnast, confused a 360 with a 180, and landed on her head at some point. Either way, German school-kids usually master this concept by age 10. In another Baerbockism, during a January 2023 speech at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, she said: “We are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other.” Cue her foreign ministry hastily clarifying that no, of course Germany hadn’t just declared war on Russia. It was just Baerbock talking again. With all this experience as Germany’s walking, talking diplomatic banana peel, she was clearly destined for bigger things on the world stage. So who could possibly object to shipping her off to the UN? Well, this guy, for one: “It is outrageous to replace the best and most internationally experienced German diplomat with an outdated model,” grumbled Christoph Heusgen, former chair of the Munich Security Conference, referring to career diplomat, Helga Schmid, reportedly slidelined in favor of Baerbock. An outdated model? Bold words, Mr. Former Conference Chair! Excuse you, but trusty single-cylinder moped-grade intellectualism never truly goes out of style. “Ms. Baerbock can learn a lot from [Schmid],” said former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. What’s he suggesting? That Schmid moonlights as a geometry tutor? So that makes two critics, including one who previously held Baerbock’s job. But surely these bitter old guys are alone in their skepticism towards this pioneer of feminist foreign policy. Read more Germany is weaponizing WWII memory against Russia No doubt it’s just a coincidence that “Mr. Eighteen Percent Popularity” Scholz beat her in her own riding. And that Statista pegged her approval rating at -0.7 on a scale from -5 to 5. And who really cares about that time she sounded kind of like she was unilaterally declaring war on Russia on behalf of Germany, or when she seemed unsure which country she was representing. Like at a September 2022 forum when she said: “If I give the promise to people in Ukraine – ‘We stand with you, as long as you need us’ – then I want to deliver. No matter what my German voters think.” At the time, Germany was deindustrializing and its citizens were being crushed by energy costs. Both consequences of the very Ukraine policy Baerbock was committed to, with or without voter consent, as she suggested. But look, Baerbock isn’t the only politician to turn a domestic faceplant into a corner office with a view at Global Governance Inc. Take European Commission President ‘Queen’ Ursula von der Leyen. No, please, take her, as former Chancellor Angela Merkel would say. Before becoming the unelected President of the European Commission, von der Leyen served as Germany’s Defence Minister in Merkel’s government from 2013 to 2019. Known more for glamour shots in front of jets than for actually equipping them, her ministry apparently favored pricey consultants over functionality. One report noted: “There is neither enough personnel nor material, and often one confronts shortage upon shortage. The troops are far from being fully equipped.” Well, unless you count the broomsticks reportedly used during training exercises, and possibly sourced from Ursula’s personal garage. Former European Parliament President Martin Schulz offered this glowing review of the current de facto Queen of the EU: “One thing is true, she ran in 2019 – but not for the European Parliament, but she ran away from her ministry in Germany.” He also tweeted in 2019: “Von der Leyen is our weakest minister. That’s apparently enough to become Commission president.” Read more Western Europe has lost the plot – but still plays with fire Apparently, flunking your domestic portfolio is the new fast track to international prestige. Just ask Mark Rutte. The Dutch Prime Minister became so politically radioactive that his coalition partners were getting scorched by mere proximity. He resigned twice: first over a child welfare scandal, then after failing to maintain unity on asylum policy. His solution? Bail and become NATO’s new Secretary General – essentially, the West’s chief weapons lobbyist. Or consider Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. Her Reform Party slipped to third place under her leadership, dropping below 20 percent approval. As her coalition sank, she jumped ship and landed in Brussels as the EU’s chief diplomat. Voters back home were apparently less impressed, especially after her government’s tax hikes and perceived focus on Ukraine over Estonia. Even more awkward: while Kallas was calling for Europe to cut all ties with Russia, her husband’s company, Stark Logistics, was still doing business there. But apparently, that kind of conflict of interest now screams “diplomatic credentials.” So no, Baerbock’s story isn’t a bug in the system. It’s effectively the blueprint. The fall from grace at home just gives more momentum for the launch to cushy international posts. The moral of the story is clear: stumble locally, ascend globally. Even if your personal GPS is so busted that you can’t tell a U-turn from a 360. View the full article

Any progress towards a settlement will be incremental, slow and painful On Sunday, in the Russian regions of Bryansk and Kursk, both bordering Ukraine, bridges collapsed on and under trains, killing seven and injuring dozens of civilians. These, however, were no accidents and no extraordinary force of nature was involved either. Instead, it is certain that these catastrophes were acts of sabotage, which is also how Russian authorities are classifying them. Since it is virtually certain that the perpetrators acted on behalf of Kiev, Western media have hardly reported these attacks. Moscow meanwhile rightly considers these attacks terrorism. On the same day, Ukraine also carried out a wave of drone attacks on important Russian military airfields. That story, trumpeted as a great success by Ukraine’s SBU intelligence service, has been touted in the West. The usual diehard Western bellicists, long starved of good news, have pounced on Ukraine’s probably exaggerated account of these assaults to fantasize once more about how Ukraine has “genius,” while Russia is “vulnerable” and really almost defeated. Despair makes imaginative. In the wrong way. The reality of Ukraine’s drone strikes on the airfields is not entirely clear yet. What is certain is that Ukraine targeted locations in five regions, including in northern and central Russia as well as Siberia and the Far East. Kiev’s drone swarms were launched not from Ukraine but from inside Russia, using subterfuge and civilian trucks. Under International Humanitarian War (aka the Law of Armed Conflict), this is likely to constitute not a legitimate “ruse of war” but the war crime of perfidy, a rather obvious point somehow never mentioned in Western commentary. Yet at least, in this instance the targets were military: This was either an act of special-ops sabotage involving a war crime (the most generous possible reading) or plain terrorism or both, depending on your point of view. Three of the attacked airbases, it seems, successfully fended off the Ukrainian first-person-view kamikaze drones. In two locations, enough drones got through to cause what appears to be substantial damage. Ukrainian officials and, therefore, Western mainstream media claim that more than 40 Russian aircraft were destroyed, including large strategic bombers and an early-warning-and-control aircraft. Official Russian sources have admitted losses but not detailed them. Russian military bloggers, often well-informed, have quoted much lower figures (“in the single digits,” thirteen), while noting that even they still constitute a “tragic loss,” especially as Russia does not make these types of aircraft anymore. Read more The last drone parade: Ukraine tries to reset a war it already lost In financial terms, Ukrainian officials claim that they have inflicted the equivalent of “at least 2 billion” dollars in damage. Even if it should turn out that they have been less effective than that, there can be little doubt that, on this occasion, Kiev has achieved a lot of bang for the buck: even if “Operation Spiderweb” took a long time to prepare and involved various resources, including a warehouse, trucks, and the cheap drones themselves, it is certain that Kiev’s expenses must have been much less than Moscow’s losses. In political terms, Russia’s vibrant social media-based sphere of military-political commentators has revealed a sense of appalled shock and anger, and not only at Kiev but also at Russian officials and officers accused of still not taking seriously the threat of Ukrainian strikes even deep inside Russia. One important Telegram “mil-blogger” let his readers know that he would welcome dismissals among the air force command. But he also felt that the weak spots exploited by Kiev’s sneak drone attack have systemic reasons. Another very popular mil-blogger has written of “criminal negligence.” Whatever the eventual Russian political fall-out of these Ukrainian attacks, beware Western commentators’ incorrigible tendency to overestimate it. German newspaper Welt, for instance, is hyperventilating about the attack’s “monumental significance.” In reality, with all the frustration inside Russia, this incident will not shake the government or even dent its ability to wage the war. Probably, its real net effect will be to support the mobilization of Russia. Remember that Wagner revolt that saw exactly the same Western commentators predicting the imminent implosion not merely of the Russian government but the whole country? You don’t? Exactly. In the case of the terrorist attacks on civilian trains, the consequences are even easier to predict. They will definitely only harden Moscow’s resolve and that of almost all Russians, elite and “ordinary.” With both types of attacks, on the military airfields and on the civilian trains, the same puzzling question arises: What is Kiev even trying to do here? Read more Trains derailed by saboteurs in two Russian border regions: As it happened At this point, we can only speculate. My guess: Kiev’s rather desperate regime was after four things: First, a propaganda success for domestic consumption. Given that Zelensky’s Ukraine is a de facto authoritarian state with obedient media, this may actually work, for a moment. Until, that is, the tragedy of mobilization, all too often forced, for a losing proxy war on behalf of a fairly demented West, sinks in again, that is, in a day or so. Second, with its combination of atrocities against civilians and an assault on Russia’s nuclear defenses, this was Kiev’s umpteenth attempt to provoke Russia into a response so harsh that it would escalate the war to a direct clash between NATO (now probably minus the US) and Russia. This is a Ukrainian tactic as old as this war, if not older. Call it the attack’s routine aspect. Equally routinely, that plan went nowhere. Then there was the attempt to torpedo the second round of the revived Istanbul talks, scheduled for Monday, 2 June, by provoking Russia to cancel or launch such a rapid and fierce retaliation strike that Kiev could have used it as a pretext to do the same. That is, as it were, the tactical dimension, and it also failed. While the above is devious, it is also run-of-the-mill. States will be states, sigh. The fourth likely purpose of Kiev’s wave of sabotage and terror strikes – the strategic aspect, as it were – however, is much more disturbing: The Zelensky regime – and at least some of its Western backers (my guess: Britain in the lead) – are signaling that they are ready to wage a prolonged campaign of escalating terrorist attacks inside Russia, even if the fighting in Ukraine should end. Think of the Chechen Wars, but much worse again. This, too, would not succeed. One lesson of the Chechen Wars is precisely that Moscow has made up its mind not to bend to terrorism but instead eliminate its source, whatever the cost. Regarding those Istanbul talks, they have taken place. Ukraine was not able to make Russia abandon them. Otherwise, the results of this second round of the second attempt at peace in Istanbul seem to have been very modest, as many observers predicted. Kiev, while losing, did its usual grimly comedic thing and offered Moscow a chance to surrender. Moscow handed over its terms in turn; and they have not changed and reflect that it is winning the war. Kiev has promised to study them. Read more Russia-Ukraine talks wrap up: As it happened Given that the gap between Ukrainian delusions and Russian demands seems unbridgeable at this point, even a large-scale ceasefire is out of reach. And that may be, after all, what both the Zelensky regime and its European backers want. As to Moscow, it has long made clear that it will fight until it reaches its war aims. In that sense, the new talks confirmed what the attacks had signaled already: peace is not in sight. Russia’s chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky did, however, offer smaller, local ceasefires of “two to three days” that, he explained, would serve to retrieve the bodies of the fallen for decent burial. In the same spirit, Russia has committed to hand over 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers and officers. There was something for the living as well: more prisoner exchanges, for those severely ill or injured as well as for the young, have been agreed. Figures are not clear yet, but the fact that they will take place on an “all-for-all” basis reflects a Russian gesture of good will. Finally, Medinsky also revealed that the Ukrainian side handed over a list of 339 children that Russia has evacuated from the war zone. He promised that, as in previous cases, Russian officials will trace them and do their best to return the children to Ukraine. Medinsky pointed out that the number of children on Kiev’s list massively contradicts Ukrainian and Western stories – as well as lawfare – about an immense, “genocidal” Russian kidnapping operation. In that sense, the talks at least helped to deflate an old piece of Western information war. Perhaps that is all that is possible for now: truly incremental humanitarian progress and a very gradual, very slow working toward a more reasonable manner of talking to each other. Better than nothing. But that’s a low bar, admittedly. View the full article

Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj US President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns. The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, who warn it could damage America’s global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government. So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. Read more Trump bans Harvard from admitting foreign students For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order against Trump’s proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora’s Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! Concentration of wealth and alumni networks The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater’s admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this scale. Read more Harvard defends ‘core principles’ against Trump threats Rankings, graft, and ominous trends Global university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families. According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn’t someone remark that “behind every financial disaster, there’s a Harvard economist?” Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that ‘learning’ is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand Read more White House halts new grants for Harvard The credentialism trap When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving ‘best practices’. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let’s compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China’s population at the time. Read more AI hallucinations: A budding sentience or a global embarrassment? A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society’s lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an “unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.” Just check out the credentials of the ‘experts’ involved here. Shouldn’t this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India’s income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule. A way out? As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say. View the full article

The former chancellor says closed borders could “destroy Europe” – meanwhile, it’s the locals’ way of life that’s getting destroyed The former chancellor is back in the news, lecturing her fellow citizens to allow more asylum seekers into their country even as Germany is plagued by rampant crime and dismal economic factors. If it is true that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results, then we can say with some degree of certainty that Angela Merkel is suffering severely on the mental front. The four-term leader of the Christian Democratic Union (2005-2021) has gone down in the history books as the person most responsible for the greatest upheaval of German society in modern times, and she shows no sign of letting up. Without ever asking the German electorate what they wanted, Merkel in 2015 opened her country’s borders to over one million illegal immigrants, while holding out cash incentives and other handsome benefits for those who made the difficult journey. Merkel was of the opinion that Germany had the economic strength to handle the influx of migrants and reiterated that there was no legal maximum limit on the number of migrants the country could take. Unfortunately, she was seriously mistaken. And her views on the matter – despite serious cultural, societal and political repercussions – have not changed. During this week’s presentation of her memoir, ‘Freedom,’ Merkel, 70, spoke out on migration, warning that without it “we could see Europe destroyed.” “I do not believe we can decisively combat illegal migration at the German-Austrian or German-Polish border… I have always advocated European solutions,” Merkel said when asked about the latest measures adopted by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who faces an uphill battle in the Bundestag, the federal parliament, to incorporate more anti-immigration policies. Read more EU could be ‘destroyed’ – Merkel As for Merkel the diehard globalist, who once lamented the failure of multiculturalism, she fails to understand that the German people are desperately holding out hope for a real change of political course. The fact is Germany is no longer a safe place to do simple everyday things, like take a casual stroll down the street or to raise a family, without an unhealthy degree of fear and apprehension. That is because an entirely new phenomenon of knife attacks is now plaguing the streets of every German city as the migration crisis has spiraled into a crime crisis. Statistics show that such heinous criminal acts, overwhelmingly committed by individuals of foreign origin, are getting worse, with a shocking 79 knife attacks per day on average now recorded, according to some German media. Last year, there were 29,014 cases involving a crime where a knife was used, of which, 15,741 were knife attacks. Physical harm involving a knife surged by 10.8 percent in 2024 compared to 2023. Here is just a glimpse of the recent violence that has plagued Germany. In January, a two-year-old boy and a 41-year-old man were killed in a stabbing in a park in Aschaffenburg, with several others wounded. One month later, a Spanish tourist was stabbed at Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial. This month, a 35-year-old Syrian asylum seeker stabbed five youths in an unprovoked knife attack outside a popular student bar in Bielefeld, Germany. Not all of the migrant violence was the result of a knife attack. Last December, six people were killed and hundreds were injured after a car plowed into a crowd at a Christmas market in the eastern city of Magdeburg. Such indiscriminate attacks must be taking a heavy toll on the German psyche. Meanwhile, other statistics reveal the state of mind of the average German voter and the real consequences of Merkel’s reckless policies. Die Welt has reported, citing a new survey by YouGov, that 31% of those surveyed said they would “definitely” move abroad if they were entirely free to choose. Another 27% of respondents said they would “probably” leave. Within this group, 61% identified the country’s immigrant situation as a major factor influencing their decision, while 41% cited Germany’s ongoing economic recession. Read more Most Germans would like to leave country – poll Speaking of the economy, Merkel’s continual promotion of open borders is coming at a time when Germany has been enduring its longest phase of economic stagnation in post-war history. The country’s struggling economy shrank for a second year in a row in 2024, as gross domestic product (GDP) declined by 0.2% compared to the previous year. Germany’s central bank, the Bundesbank, has lowered its forecast for the economy and only expects very modest growth of 0.2% for 2025. In other words, it may be simply asking too much of the German people to continue supporting asylum seekers at a time when so many are feeling the sting of economic uncertainty. For many Germans, their only hope is for a major change in the political landscape. Thus, many citizens have thrown their support behind the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the biggest opposition party, which came in second in the February general election with just over 20% of the vote. That was the best national result for a hard-right party in Germany since the Second World War, and despite being designated as an “extremist” organization by Germany’s domestic intelligence service. US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, described the ruling as “tyranny in disguise”. Posting on social media, Rubio said: “What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD – which took second in the recent election – but rather the establishment’s deadly open border immigration policies.” Angela Merkel would do well to heed the opinion of the average German voter, who seems to be running out of patience, and support a pause in the influx of asylum seekers at this dangerous juncture. View the full article

I started working out after college with my very first push-up—and I haven’t stopped since. Since then, I’ve trained through just about every phase: calisthenics, boxing, circus arts, gymnastics, and now, jiu-jitsu. My interests have shifted. My body has changed. But one thing has stayed the same: I want to be the best athlete I can be, for as long as I can. And I actually want to enjoy it along the way. You can plan for longevity, no matter your sport or training style. You don’t need to peak at 25. You don’t have to slow down just because you hit 35, or 45, or beyond. Here are 7 lessons that have helped me keep going—and might help you, too. 1. The Little Things Aren’t Little Recovery. Breathing. Warm-ups. Taking rest days seriously. They’re not exciting, but they matter more than almost anything. These are the invisible wins that keep you from burning out or getting injured. When people ignore them, I see it — and they feel it. Maybe not today, but eventually. If you want to keep training for life, take the little things seriously. That’s how you build a longer, stronger runway. 2. Mobility Is Non-Negotiable When I skip mobility, I feel it: tight hips, stiff joints, sluggish movement. And I see the same pattern in the people around me. The good news? You don’t need a 45-minute mobility routine. A few minutes a day — done consistently — makes a huge difference. It’s one of the best returns on investment you can make in your training. 3. Goals Keep You Showing Up Having something to work toward makes a huge difference in motivation. For me, it’s often a skill (a new jiu-jitsu technique, a strength benchmark, a handstand challenge). But it can be anything — just make it specific and exciting. The clearer the target, the easier it is to keep moving toward it. Vague goals fade fast. But meaningful ones build momentum. 4. Bodyweight Training Is Still My Favorite I’ve trained in a lot of styles. But bodyweight training is the one I keep coming back to. It’s efficient. It’s adaptable. And it makes you feel like an athlete anytime, anywhere. You don’t need a gym. You just need your body, your breath, and some grit. 5. Community Makes You Stronger I trained alone for years. And I still value solo sessions. But nothing compares to being surrounded by people who push you, cheer for you, and show up alongside you. Community brings something that solo training never will: depth. 6. You Can Always Make Progress Plateauing? Injured? Starting over? You can still make progress. You just have to redefine it. Break things down. Get help if you need it. Focus on one small win at a time. Progress doesn’t always look like “more.” Sometimes it looks like “better.” Sometimes it looks like “still here.” 7. Don’t Forget to Have Fun Seriously. If your workouts are mostly miserable, it’s time to change something. Play. Experiment. Try a new class, a new skill, or something you used to love as a kid. If you enjoy what you’re doing, you’ll keep doing it—and that’s what actually matters. Keep Going If I’ve learned anything over the last 15 years, it’s this: Consistency beats intensity. Joy beats burnout. You don’t have to be perfect. You just have to keep showing up — with intention, curiosity, and a little respect for the long game. The post Movement for Life: 7 Lessons to Help You Train for the Long Haul appeared first on 12 Minute Athlete. View the full article

Berlin would do well to heed Moscow’s warnings not to supply long-range weapons to Kiev If in a dark hole, dig deeper, especially even deeper than feckless German ex-chancellor Olaf Scholz. That seems to be Berlin’s new motto. Under Friedrich Merz’s new mis-management, the German government is clearly setting out to worsen its current abysmal non-relationship with Russia. That is a sadly ambitious aim, because things are already more dire than they’ve been at any point since 1945. But Merz and his team, it seems, are not satisfied with playing a key role in fighting a proxy war against Russia that has been a ruinous fiasco; not for the Russian economy, but for Germany’s. Even by February 2023, German mainstream media reported that the war had sliced 2.5 percent off GDP. That, by the way, is a large figure in and of itself, but consider that between 2022 and 2024 Germany’s annual GDP growth (or, really, reduction) rate has varied between -0.3 percent (2023) and +1.4 percent, and it looks even worse. And yet, instead of sincerely – and finally – trying to use diplomacy to end this war against Russia via Ukraine, Merz’s Berlin is now taking the risk of escalating the current mess into the nightmare of a direct military clash between Russia and Germany (and, hence, presumably NATO – though not necessarily including the US any longer). Such a confrontation would be devastating in a manner that Germans have not experienced for a long time, as even a recent German TV documentary had to admit, despite its obvious purpose to boost the country’s current re-militarization-on-steroids. The single most obvious symbol of Berlin’s new, industrial-strength recklessness is the Taurus cruise missile, a sophisticated, very expensive weapon (at €1-3 million each) with a full name you will want to forget (Target Adaptive Unitary and Dispenser Robotic Ubiquity System) and, crucially, a maximum range of about 500 kilometers. Read more Germany risks becoming a target for Russia – for the first time since Hitler The government under Scholz, breathtakingly incompetent and shamelessly submissive to the US as it was, never agreed to let Ukraine have this weapon. For, in essence, two reasons: The Taurus, once in Ukraine, could fire deep into Russia, even as far as Moscow, and it is undeniable that it can only be operated with direct German help, which would bring about a state of war between Moscow and Berlin. Merz, however, has created a vague yet substantial impression that delivering the Taurus to Kiev is an option again. Throughout this war – and its prehistory, too – Russia has been sending clear warnings about what such a war might entail: According to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, for instance, Germany is “already directly engaging” in the Ukraine War. But clearly, he, too, sees room for things to get much worse again, with, in his words, Germany “sliding down the same slippery slope it has already treaded a couple of times just this past century – down to its collapse.” Dmitry Peskov, spokesman of President Vladimir Putin, has underlined that Merz’s statements, muddled as they were, pointed to a “serious escalation.” Less diplomatically, the head of Russia’s RT, Margarita Simonyan, has explained that German-Ukrainian Taurus strikes on Russian cities could provoke a Russian missile strike on Berlin. An important Russian military expert, meanwhile, has mentioned the possibility of a strike against Taurus production facilities in Germany. Are these warnings any help? Of course, German politicians would not openly admit to being successfully deterred by Moscow, but it is a fact that Merz has abstained from following through on his implied threat of transferring the Taurus to Ukraine. Read more Russia could target Berlin if German missiles hit Moscow – RT editor-in-chief If he had wanted to do so, the visit of Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky in Berlin would have provided an excellent opportunity to close the deal. Yet, instead of the hotly desired cruise missiles, Zelensky has received something else: a demonstrative use of the German informal you (“du”), plenty of money (again), and a promise that Germany will help build long-range weapons in Ukraine. Considering that Moscow has just demonstrated its ability to strike such production facilities anywhere in Ukraine, that promise is the equivalent of a cop-out. For now at least. That is a good thing. It avoids an immediate, extremely dangerous escalation. Yet Merz and his experts are naïve if they believe that there will be no Russian response to their declared intention to transfer German know-how to Ukraine so that long-range weapons can be made there. For one thing, Moscow has just demonstrated its ability to strike Ukraine’s military industry. At the same time, even the Taurus is by no means off the table. Neither are Russian warnings about the catastrophic consequences of its use. The Russian Defense Ministry is confident that its air defenses could stop Taurus strikes, but also emphasizes that its special ability to fly far into Russia constitutes a problem in a class all by itself. What is the new Berlin even trying to do here? Negotiations to end the war are ongoing, even if Merz claims the opposite. Russia is not, as he repeats, merely “playing for time.” In reality, the second round of the Istanbul 2.0 talks is now scheduled to go ahead, at least as far as Moscow is concerned. The real problem for Western politicians like Merz is that Moscow is not willing to abandon its own interests or comply with unilateral demands backed up by threats. Indeed, if a plausible Reuters report based on leaks is correct, Putin has outlined Russia’s conditions for a realistic settlement once again: unsurprisingly, they include a complete stop to NATO expansion, an at least partial end to sanctions against Russia and to attempts to fully seize frozen Russian sovereign assets, the genuine neutrality of Ukraine, and protection for its Russian-speakers. Read more Germany to help Ukraine produce long-range weapons – Merz Against this background, Merz’s recent sallies are only more puzzling: Russia is not weak but winning this war. A summer offensive may be close and make Ukraine’s situation even more untenable. But there also is a genuine opportunity to exploit negotiations that have been restarted so as to finally limit the losses to both Ukraine and the West. Meanwhile, the reluctance of the US to reliably back up a hard course against Russia could permit the NATO-EU Europeans to explore constructive alternatives to the ongoing proxy war. Indeed, it should be their worst nightmare to be left alone with this conflict if Moscow and Washington should break through to a full détente. The German economy will not thrive – even with a hail-Mary boost of debt-based military Keynesianism, as now launched by Merz – unless its relationship with Russia is reframed. Last but not least, Ukraine will not be rebuilt before there is a durable peace. And Berlin’s response to all of the above? More of the same, but worse. Now, with the Taurus back on the options menu and open announcements to help Ukraine build, in essence, its own version of it, presumably under intense German coaching and packed with German technology, Kiev’s chances are not better and Germany’s position is more precarious. The probability of an escalation into a direct Russian-German war remains even higher than before Merz’s new initiative, and the probability of peace has been reduced. Call it a lose-lose. View the full article

Whatever happened between the French president and his wife on their trip to Vietnam, it completely overshadowed the politics of the visit French President Emmanuel Macron went to Vietnam to ink some massive deals – like a €9 billion Airbus order, which was supposed to be the centerpiece of the trip. But before he could even set foot on Vietnamese soil, as the plane’s hatch opened, his wife Brigitte was caught on camera doing what can only be described as a vertical push-up right on Macron’s face. At first glance, it looked like perhaps she was just trying to set the vibe for the visit, with a reenactment of what happened to the French the last time they got a little too confident in Vietnam. In any case, suddenly this image of the presidential couple had everyone zooming in like it was a lost Da Vinci. Cue the Elysee’s damage control. First: It’s a deepfake. Then: The Russians did it. And finally: Okay fine, it’s real, but it’s just two people “decompressing.” Let the one among us who’s never “unwound” by shoving our spouse in the face cast the first baguette. Final answer? Apparently so. A moment of complicity between longtime partners. Like a secret handshake. To the face. By the way, do the Elysee flaks themselves also count as conspiracy theorists? They’re the ones who cycled through every possible scapegoat short of blaming climate change – until they realized the Americans had the raw footage too. Read more Macron explains slap from wife Of course this slapstick moment didn’t make it into the glossy PR reel, which also featured Macron and his wife descending from the presidential plane. He appeared to gallantly offer her an arm as they deplaned – which she promptly ignored. His other hand formed a fist. For whom? Who knows. But France should probably duck. “France is a power of peace and balance,” Macron wrote above the promotional video on X. it would have been a hard sell posting that directly above a video that starts with him catching a couple of “peaceful” palms straight to the jaw. “When some choose to withdraw, France chooses to build bridges,” he added. Sure, but it kind of looked like you withdrew to the other side of the cabin, my guy. Weird? Well, maybe to the peasants. But apparently, it’s completely normal for the presidential couple to throw hands whenever someone cracks a joke. “It’s not even a slap…it’s a gesture that mimics a punch in the face. We’ve seen this sketch 100 times, it’s their way of decompressing before official performances,” explained a source described by Le Parisien as “close to” Macron. So, their opening act for a show of diplomacy on the world stage is something that looks like it was cribbed from a Three Stooges sketch? Alrighty then. In instances where you and I may laugh, these two just go full Rocky and Adrian, minus the gloves. You know they do have gloves though. We’ve already seen them used for Macron’s boxing photo shoots. The ones that absolutely are not meant to show how he’s going to personally fight Russian President Vladimir Putin. That is, if he ever gets past Brigitte in round one. Read more The slap in Hanoi: Why we should sympathize with Macron Macron later expressed frustration with everyone trying to decode what he insists is totally standard behavior. “We are teasing each other and having a bit of fun with my wife. I am surprised by this. It becomes a kind of... geoplanetary catastrophe where some are even developing theories, and I see a lot of crazy people spending their day explaining all these interpretations in videos,” Macron explained. “There are people who watched videos and think that I shared a bag of cocaine, that I had a one-on-one with the Turkish president, and that right now, I am in the process of having a quarrel with my wife. None of this is true, yet these three videos are real.” Oh, yeah – the napkin on the train to Ukraine that some folks mistook for a bag of cocaine. Maybe because Macron’s face looked a bit red as he snatched it up when the media walked in. Almost forgot about that one. Thanks for the reminder. Indeed, who hasn’t casually left a used Kleenex just sitting in the middle of the table with other folks. It’s a wonder that no one has yet speculated that Brigitte wasn’t just trying to give Macron one last hit of Kleenex before he stepped out of the plane. One for the road, as it were. As for the “one-on-one” with Erdogan? That’s a stretch. Macron’s flattering himself. It was more of a one-on-none. Erdogan held Macron’s finger like he was selecting a baguette from a Parisian bakery. If dignity were Kleenex, Macron would have struggled to blow his nose on what was left – let alone use it for his next Kleenex Rorschach Test. Yes, Macron technically came to Vietnam to ink major defense and aerospace deals in a power move to reassert France’s relevance in the Indo-Pacific, counterbalance China, and show that France can still punch above its weight (even without Brigitte’s spontaneous contribution). But between the bungled PR, the conspiracy fodder, and Erdogan’s diplomatic wedgie, it’s hard to tell if Macron’s trips are actual diplomacy – or rather just episodes of reality TV with an unlimited travel budget. View the full article

Can a wife hit her husband in the face if he is the President of France? Andrei Voznesensky once wrote a poem about a woman who beats up six men in a restaurant, throws salad at them, and kisses a mirror. His point was simple: a woman is allowed to fight back. She’s suffered, she’s been humiliated, she buys mimosas for International Women’s Day and sleeps on someone else’s mattress. So if she lashes out at greasy restaurant men, that’s just matriarchy at work. In this sense, we Russians are ahead of the progressive world. While the French are only now starting to debate whether a wife is permitted to slap her husband in the face – especially when he’s the president of the Fifth Republic – we’ve already worked through the layers of this discussion in our literature. Here’s what happened: when Emmanuel Macron landed in Hanoi and the door of his plane opened, cameras captured him being slapped in the face by a figure in a red jacket. A moment later, he descended the gangway smiling, hand in hand with his wife Brigitte – also wearing a red jacket. Naturally, memes followed. Social media lit up. In cafes and newsrooms, people speculated about what Macron did to deserve it. The internet loves a scandal, especially one wrapped in marital tension and presidential optics. But the laughter masks something serious. Domestic violence overwhelmingly affects women, yes, but that does not mean men are immune. And the rarity of male victims speaking up doesn’t make their experiences less valid. According to a 2017 US survey, 42.3% of men reported experiencing abuse from an intimate partner. A study in India’s Haryana state found the number even higher: 54%. Read more Stalin returns to Moscow – but not to power Yet men rarely report abuse. Shame, fear of mockery, and lack of support from law enforcement all play a role. In this context, statistics can only hint at the scale of the issue. The social script still expects men to absorb blows in silence. So what are we watching here? What’s the performance? The cameras captured more than a slap – they showed a leader of a major Western power, in an unguarded moment, inside a very human (and perhaps dysfunctional) marriage. The message? That even global figures are domestically ordinary. Macron smiles for NATO, frowns in boxing gloves beside a punching bag, pretends to want peace while rearming his country. Then, like any other man, he gets slapped at the airport. And perhaps that’s the point: it’s enough that he has a family at all, even if it looks unstable. The spectacle reassures the public that their leaders are human, not technocratic androids. Even if the home is shaky, at least there is one. But we, in Russia, remember another version of dysfunction. We lived through Boris Yeltsin’s 1990s with a president battling late-stage alcoholism. We know what happens when instability at home spills into governance. And we wouldn’t wish that kind of chaos on anyone. So, Mr. Macron, consider this: when your own wife slaps you in public and you have to pretend nothing happened, the world notices. These are international signals. Maybe they’re cries for help. And if they are, feel free to give them on camera. After all, you are the president of a nuclear power. This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team View the full article

Will Berlin start giving Kiev Taurus missiles and risk becoming a direct target for retaliation? Chancellor Friedrich Merz, from Germany’s mainstream CDU/CSU conservatives, has caused a stir. This time with statements about German weapons in Ukraine. Or to be precise, how exactly Kiev’s troops may use weapons provided by Berlin. Speaking at a public forum organized by a major German TV station, Merz declared that there are no range limits anymore on how far the Ukrainian military can shoot German weapons into Russia. Merz’s statements managed to be both sensational (sort of) and a muddle. He implied that they mark a change, but by now his Social Democrat coalition partners and even Merz himself are saying the opposite: That he wasn’t telling us anything new. It seems Merz has been improvising without thinking things through. In that case, no biggie. That’s just the way he is: Not as dissimilar from the American impulse monster Donald Trump as the dour chancellor from orderly Germany may wish to imagine. Moreover, the weapons – the MARS II system and the Panzerhaubitze 2000 – that Ukraine currently has from Germany only have modest ranges (84 and 56 kilometers). Removing political limits on them is largely militarily irrelevant. But what if Merz has been more devious? That is an interpretation popular with those German politicians who want to drag Germany even deeper into the great Western proxy war against Russia via Ukraine. For his fellow conservative – and head of the Defense Committee of the German parliament – Thomas Roewekamp, Merz’s explicit ‘no’ to any range restrictions for German weapons is meant to prepare the ground for delivering the powerful Taurus cruise missile to Kiev. Read more Ukraine can strike deep inside Russia using German weapons – Merz According to Roewekamp, under Merz’s predecessor, Olaf Scholz, the Taurus’ long range of over 500 kilometers was used as an argument against handing it over to Ukraine. By that logic, dropping range limits means facilitating the Taurus transfer, long the wet dream of German bellicist politicians, as well as some very high-ranking officers. Unsurprisingly, Germany’s militaristic camouflage Greens have already renewed their habitual calls for further escalation by delivering the Taurus to Kiev. The great risks of this step are well known, but large parts of Germany’s elite seem to be in denial about them: Not only can the Taurus strike deep into Russia – or at least try, against Russia’s air defenses – and even hit Moscow, it is also a fact – as the head of the German air force admitted when feeling unobserved – that the Ukrainian military cannot handle the Taurus on its own. The complexity of its guidance, programming, and launching require that Germans will play a direct role in its use against Russia. Therefore, even if fired from Ukraine, a Taurus would also be fired by Germany. Moscow – whether it intercepts the missile or not – will then have little choice but to consider Germany not ‘merely’ an important proxy force behind Ukraine, but a direct opponent. Russia would, simply put, be at war with Germany. A major Russian defense expert has already appeared on Russia’s most popular political show – 60 Minutes – arguing that in this case, Moscow should, at a minimum, conduct a limited, non-nuclear but certainly painful missile strike against the Taurus production facilities in Germany. Delivering the Taurus to Kiev has always been an awful idea, especially because even German officers have long acknowledged that it cannot even make a decisive difference in Ukraine’s favor. All the Taurus can do is help a desperate Ukrainian regime escalate the war to a higher level by involving NATO member Germany directly. That is certainly a Kamikaze option that the most reckless hawks in NATO-EU Europe would welcome, insane as it would be. Read more Russia requests UN meeting on ‘threats’ by Ukraine’s backers So why has Merz sent this odd signal now? Is he one of those hawks? Does he want a direct war with Russia? Probably not, at least not too soon. For Merz is obsessed with the idea of massively remilitarizing Germany, precisely because he argues – and probably even believes – that it is far too weak right now. At the same time, he knows that this re-armament – with the explicit aim of providing Germany with the strongest army, at least in conventional terms, “in Europe” (let’s not dwell on his clearly politicized notion of ‘Europe’) – will take years. If, that is, it should ever succeed. Merz claimed that his statement was the proper response to a wave of Russian drone and missile attacks last weekend. The German politicians who support the chancellor’s latest sally agree with this claim and depict these Russian attacks not only as large-scale, which they were and as Russia’s Defense Ministry has publicly recognized, but also as targeting civilians, which they clearly were not. Yet the evidence contradicts both charges: First, it is obvious that Moscow was not aiming at civilians. How do we know that? No, you do not have to take Russia’s word for it. Instead, treat the question empirically and consider the following figures, reported not by Russian media, but by the important and reliable Ukrainian news site Strana.ua: Over the last weekend, beginning Friday night and ending Sunday night, Russia launched a total of 92 missiles and over 900 drones at Ukraine. The Ukrainian military admits almost 30 direct hits on unspecified locations. Since Ukraine has a policy of not disclosing military losses while maximally exploiting civilian losses for information war purposes, we can assume that these locations were military or military-production sites, precisely as Russia has claimed. In addition, according to the Ukrainian Air Force and German mainstream media, during Monday night, Russia launched 60 drones at Ukraine. Read more Europeans once again rallying under Nazi flag against Russia – Lavrov What about civilian losses during these attacks then? Let’s be clear: Every human life is precious, every death terrible, and every injury deplorable. Yet proportions do matter. For the Russian weekend attacks, we find the following Ukrainian and Western (again, not Russian) figures about civilian losses: As of Saturday, the BBC reported “at least 13 people” killed and “56 civilians” injured in all of Ukraine. According to Strana.ua, Russian air attacks during Sunday night left 16 dead, including three children, (a total of 12 deaths according to the Washington Post); Monday night – ten cases of injuries. These figures aren’t perfectly clear. When the number of those killed, for instance, is reported as simply ‘people’ (not specifically ‘civilians’), it makes sense to assume that this does refer to civilians (because, again, Ukraine follows a policy of not disclosing military losses). There are some discrepancies; there may be overlaps. On the other hand, unlike in the case of Israel’s genocidal bombardment of Gaza – a textbook case of actually targeting civilians – we do know that there is no significant difference between the numbers we see and the actual numbers of victims. For Gaza, all figures we currently have are certain to be substantial undercounts. The crucial point is as clear as can be: The figures from Ukraine do not constitute the footprint of attacks targeting civilians – especially if these attacks involved almost 100 missiles and nearly 1,000 drones. Indeed, these figures are not even evidence of Russian indifference to civilian losses. If anything, tragic as they are, they show that Russia must have taken care to avoid civilian ‘collateral damage’. In Ukraine, this may be a painful fact to acknowledge – in the West, a politically inconvenient one – but any other reading of the available statistics makes little sense. Read more Here’s what they don’t tell you about ‘massive Russian strikes on Ukraine’ It is not only Friedrich Merz, but also Donald Trump who urgently needs to get real about the above. Trump has posted that “a lot of people” are being killed. If he means Ukrainian officers and soldiers, then we simply don’t know. In any case, that is not a crime in war. And Americans have certainly never shown the slightest hesitation to kill combatants in spades (or civilians, for that matter). If Trump means civilians – as his phrase “in cities” may imply – then he is simply wrong. One is one too many, as always, but if the US president wants to see what ‘a lot of’ killed civilians look like, again, he should look at Israel’s deliberate slaughter of the Palestinians. A slaughter he is supporting, aiding, and abetting no less than his predecessor, Joe Biden. But back to Merz. There he is, making an escalating statement that seems to make an important difference, but then does not. Or will it, in the end? And his main reason for making it – or at least the main reason he has shared with us – is simply nonsense based on disinformation. What can we make of all that, except that Bismarck this is not? Not even Helmut Kohl or Angela Merkel, really. Maybe this is supposed to be an exercise in ‘strategic ambiguity’, a silly French habit recently proudly claimed by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius? If so, Berlin needs to become much more discerning about the Parisian fashions it imports. View the full article

Washington is trying to outsource its migration problem to countries where people can just be forgotten You know when you’re a kid and your mom tells you to clean your room, so you just shove everything under the bed and pray that she doesn’t look? That’s basically the Trump administration’s immigration strategy, only instead of a bedroom, the mess is getting punted to countries like Ukraine, Libya, and El Salvador. “We are working with other countries to say, ‘We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries. Will you do that as a favor to us?’” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, per NBC News. “And the further away the better, so they can’t come back across the border.” It’s like a group chat where America just keeps forwarding spam to other nations. And hey, if you’re really trying to make sure someone doesn’t come back – not to America or anywhere else, for that matter – why not just send them to Ukraine? One day you’re watching reruns of ‘Friends’ in the Bronx, the next you’re personally starring in a Slavic war documentary without subtitles. Apparently, some Trump officials thought this was a real banger of a plan. If Ukraine’s military recruiters were getting tired of kidnapping guys off park benches, surely they’d appreciate the gift of some unwitting ‘pre-owned’ conscripts. The Washington Post recently revealed that in late January, shortly after Trump took office, the US asked Ukraine to “accept an unspecified number of US deportees who are citizens of other countries.” Ukraine, shockingly, wasn’t super into the idea. Probably because their definition of ‘foreign aid’ doesn’t include serving Washington as one giant human recycling bin. Still, it would have solved two problems at once: Ukraine gets soldiers, and the US gets to declutter its immigration problem by yeeting people into geopolitical sinkholes. No worries though, with Ukraine being picky, there are other destinations for an all-expenses paid permanent vacation courtesy of Uncle Sam Holidays. Like Libya! And Saudi Arabia! Read more African state in talks to host migrants deported from US Asked about migrants being sent to Libya, Trump said, “I don’t know. You’ll have to ask the Department of Homeland Security.” He looked like a kid whose mom just looked under the bed and found a year’s worth of dirty clothes. Asking DHS might be tricky, since Secretary Kristi Noem was last seen giving a stern PSA in front of a Salvadoran mega-prison while dressed like she was auditioning for Call of Duty. “Do not come to our country illegally,” she warned on March 26. “You will be removed and you will be prosecuted.” Washington is reportedly paying El Salvador $6 million to hide part of America’s mess from voters. And President Nayib Bukele is very upfront about the arrangement: “We are willing to take in only convicted criminals (including convicted US citizens) into our mega-prison (CECOT) in exchange for a fee,” he posted. Nothing says ‘land of the free’ like outsourcing incarceration to the highest bidder. Libya, meanwhile, still hasn’t recovered from being turned into an open-air dystopia after the West’s 2011 Greatest Hits Tour featuring regime change and chaos. Human trafficking is booming. Leadership is a mess. There’s the Government of National Stability (East), the Government of National Unity (West), and various militias doing daily interpretive dance performances with Kalashnikovs. All insist that they never agreed to take Washington’s deportees from places like Vietnam, Laos, or the Philippines, according to NBC News. So what was the game plan anyway? To just drop people off in the middle of the desert and hope no one noticed, like it was Survivor: North Africa? The State Department’s own travel advisory warns: “Do not travel to Libya due to crime, terrorism, unexplored land mines, civil unrest, kidnapping, and armed conflict.” Having US citizenship doesn’t “guarantee fair treatment” of foreigners, the advisory states. So, what you’re saying is that it’s an ideal place to send folks who can’t even sue if something goes wrong. At one point, a US judge had to block a military aircraft that was gearing up to taxi with a batch of deportees en route to Libya. Legal red tape might be slow, but you know what’s faster that a judge’s order, probably? That military plane’s engine at full throttle. Read more Trump orders reopening of Alcatraz And then there’s Saudi Arabia. Because why not build your immigration policy like an awkward wedding seating chart: Latin Americans to El Salvador, Asians to Libya, Arabs to Saudi Arabia. To be fair, it’s not just the US tossing migrants around like political hot potatoes. The entire West has been in a full-blown existential crisis since right-wing populism started ‘threatening’ elections in blowback against decades of lax migration. Even Canada is having second thoughts. Newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to cut back on permanent residents, from 500,000 to just over 350,000 per year, and must know full well that isn’t nearly enough of a cut. Last year, Germany flirted with the same genius idea as Britain: Send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Why Rwanda? Because the Brits already built the facility there, and Germany figured they could just Airbnb it. The only hiccup? German law doesn’t actually let you deport people to a country they’ve never set foot in. Also, there’s the tiny matter of… the Geneva Conventions. And those pesky historical vibes of mass deportation schemes in Germany during the Second World War. But that minor detail apparently doesn’t prevent Rwanda from still being on the table for future US deportations. What a mess the West has made for itself by prioritizing virtue signaling over self-preservation. The end result? Don’t call it dystopian foreign policy – just a pan-continental escape room. View the full article

Moscow is doing what must be done to protect its civilians from Kiev’s campaign of terror In the current media frenzy surrounding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, a glaring double standard continues to distort public perception: the nature and impact of drone warfare. Western outlets, politicians, and NGOs are quick to pounce on Russia for retaliatory actions, yet remain eerily silent about Ukraine’s increasingly reckless and escalatory drone campaign. This selective outrage has not only undermined serious dialogue on peace – it has shielded Ukraine from accountability as it wages what can only be described as a campaign of terror against Russian civilians. Drone war reality: Civilian targets in Russia Over the past few weeks, Ukraine’s use of drones has surged in both frequency and range. On a near-daily basis, dozens – sometimes hundreds – of drones are launched toward Russian territory, many targeting civilian infrastructure or flying indiscriminately toward dense urban centers like Moscow. While Russia’s air defense systems have performed admirably in intercepting the majority of these threats, the falling debris poses an unavoidable risk to civilians, including children and the elderly. Russian regions far from the frontlines have been forced into a state of constant vigilance, air raid alerts disrupting the normalcy of everyday life. What’s most alarming is the strategic logic – or lack thereof – behind these strikes. Unlike military-grade precision operations, Ukraine’s drone attacks appear designed less to achieve tactical objectives and more to instill fear. The targets are often electrical substations, communication towers, or simply proximity to residential areas. This cannot be framed as mere collateral damage; it is a campaign whose effects are felt most deeply by civilians. Read more Russian strikes on Ukraine are retaliatory – Kremlin Western silence and hypocrisy Despite this escalating threat to Russian civilians, international reaction has been resoundingly one-sided. There is no UN condemnation of Ukraine’s drone strikes. There are no emergency meetings in Brussels, no CNN specials about Russian children running to bomb shelters. Instead, the focus is singular: Russia’s every response is dissected, denounced, and demonized. The same countries that cheer on Ukraine’s technological advancements in warfare turn a blind eye to the human cost – so long as the humans in question are Russian. This selective outrage creates a moral vacuum in which Ukraine is emboldened to continue its drone war with impunity. Zelensky, backed by his Western sponsors, is not held accountable for the reckless escalation he fuels. Worse still, this impunity undermines any real incentive for dialogue. Why negotiate when your side is never blamed? Russia’s measured response What is most striking in this dynamic is Russia’s restraint. Despite the volume and severity of the attacks on its territory, Moscow’s drone strikes remain focused on disrupting military logistics and strategic assets within Ukraine – often near the frontlines. Russia has refrained from matching Ukraine’s willingness to launch indiscriminate aerial barrages deep into population centers. If anything, it has used this period to demonstrate its commitment to a diplomatic resolution, responding from a defensive posture while signaling that its hand remains extended toward the peace table. At some point, however, enough is enough. A nation cannot allow its citizens to be terrorized indefinitely while posturing for peace. The Kremlin has an obligation to protect its people. And that means pushing back against these drone incursions with the seriousness they deserve. Read more Trump claims Putin ‘has gone absolutely crazy for no reason’ The path to peace, and who’s blocking it Critics will claim Russia’s posture is inconsistent with its actions, but the facts tell a different story. Moscow remains open to dialogue. It is not demanding one-sided ultimatums, nor is it setting artificial deadlines as Western capitals often do. Contrast this with the theatrics of Zelensky and his handlers in Washington and Brussels, who have turned negotiations into performative exercises rather than serious efforts to end the conflict. It is not Russia who walked away from Istanbul in 2022. It is not Russia who ignored the Minsk process when it was politically inconvenient. Russia enters any future negotiations not as a supplicant, but as a state that has demonstrated both military strength and diplomatic maturity. It does so knowing full well that any peace must be just, balanced, and grounded in the lessons of the past – chief among them, that appeasement and naïveté only invite betrayal. There is indeed a stark difference between Ukraine’s and Russia’s drone strikes. One is a campaign of terror, reckless and civilian-targeted, encouraged by Western silence. The other is a reluctant defense, carried out with discipline and restraint. If peace is to be achieved, it must begin with honesty about who is escalating, who is suffering, and who continues to act like a responsible power even while under attack. Until the world is ready to admit that, Russian civilians will rely on their nation to do what must be done – and rightly so. View the full article

As Gaddafi’s last spokesperson, I saw what real African independence can look like: free education, universal healthcare, interest-free housing, and no IMF interference The past few days have offered a brutal snapshot of Africa’s unresolved crisis. In Burkina Faso, militants from Jama’at Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM), affiliated with Al-Qaeda, overran the Diapaga military base in the east, seizing most of the city and exposing the precarious state of security in the Sahel. Meanwhile, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the M23 rebel armed group, which has been fighting the government since the beginning of the year, tightens its grip on Goma, leading to vulnerable political conditions in which stolen minerals are funneled to foreign markets. In the diplomatic arena, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was treated with disrespect in the US when President Donald Trump ambushed him with a crude, racist presentation about so-called “white genocide,” using footage falsely attributed to South Africa. Kenya now fears economic chaos as the US threatens to revoke the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade deal, a reminder that many African economies are still at the mercy of external powers. This is the continent’s daily reality. Behind the headlines lie patterns of systemic violence, extraction, and manipulation. Whether it is Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, or foreign security firms in Mozambique, the message is the same: Africa’s enemies are armed not only with bullets but with contracts, media narratives, and economic traps. The ‘post-colonial’ moment has long expired – what remains is a managed crisis, policed by the IMF, militarized by AFRICOM, and sanitized by the African Union’s silence. Read more ‘Africa must unite’: Why this man was feared by the US and Britain And yet, in the middle of this, we are told to celebrate. May 25th is Africa Day – the anniversary of the founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963. Every year, flags are raised, speeches are delivered, and African leaders sing songs of unity. But let’s ask the uncomfortable question: What exactly are we celebrating? When Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Julius Nyerere, Ahmed Sekou Toure, and Haile Selassie came together to form the OAU, their aim was not to build bureaucracies. It was to liberate the continent – militarily, economically, culturally, and ideologically. They envisioned a single army, a common currency, a unified foreign policy, and a break from Western dependency. Nkrumah famously said: “Africa must unite or perish.” Today, we see more perishing than unity. Sixty-two years later, Africa Day has been reduced to a symbolic spectacle – flags without force, drums without direction. We watch parades while our lands are auctioned. We hear Pan-African slogans while our central banks answer to Paris. We commemorate independence while 14 African countries still use a currency created by their former colonizer – the CFA franc, a tool of economic control whose name itself means ‘Financial Cooperation in Africa’ – but cooperation for whom? Over 25 African countries are either in or near debt default. Collectively, the continent owes over $650 billion to external creditors. Nigeria spends substantial sums of its revenue servicing debt. Ghana, once called a rising star, is back at the IMF for the 17th time. In Zambia, debt repayments have choked investment in hospitals and education. This isn’t mismanagement – it’s engineered subservience. The so-called development partners make billions while entire generations are sacrificed to the gods of fiscal discipline. Read more Stealing a continent: How the plunder of Africa has evolved Meanwhile, Africa’s material wealth continues to flow outward. The DRC supplies more than 70% of the world’s cobalt, yet over 70% of its people live in poverty. Our uranium powers Europe’s cities while Niger’s villages remain in darkness. African agriculture – despite controlling 60% of the world’s uncultivated arable land – is gutted by foreign subsidies and aid dependency. We import $40 billion in food each year, while our farmers are criminalized or displaced by foreign agribusiness. It is no exaggeration to say: Africa is being starved by design. But exploitation today is not only economic – it’s also digital. Foreign companies dominate our telecom infrastructure, cloud storage, and digital platforms. Our data is stored abroad, our elections influenced by foreign code, our children fed algorithmic colonialism on social media. AI tools are trained on African voices but controlled by Silicon Valley. The scramble for Africa 2.0 is here – and it’s happening on screens. Even our culture is colonized anew. Our stories are funded by Western NGOs. Our artists are rewarded for repeating narratives of trauma, not defiance. From art galleries to film festivals, African creatives are often made to conform to donor expectations. Real revolutionary expression is defunded, censored, or drowned in an ocean of meaningless ‘diversity’ campaigns. Cultural sovereignty requires more than visibility – it requires ownership. What makes this tragedy worse is that many of our own leaders are complicit. Elites who benefit from foreign contracts, imported goods, and IMF handouts – pose as nationalists while enabling neocolonialism. Read more Why Russia needs an independent Africa But Africa is not silent. In Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, new governments are challenging the old order. They have expelled French troops, broken from the CFA zone, and are building a regional alliance rooted in sovereignty. Western media calls them juntas. But to millions of Africans, they are a new hope. These governments are not perfect – but they are confronting imperialism where the African Union has capitulated. Their stand echoes that of Sankara, Nkrumah, and Gaddafi. As Gaddafi’s last spokesperson, I saw what real African independence looked like. Free education, universal healthcare, interest-free housing, and no IMF interference. Gaddafi’s dream of a gold-backed African currency and a continental defense force terrified the West – not because it was mad, but because it was achievable. That is why Libya was destroyed. The lesson is simple: When you challenge an empire, it fights back. But we must not retreat. Africa must forge new alliances – not with masters, but with partners. Cooperation with China, Russia, India, and Brazil must be based on mutual respect and shared interest – not dependency. We must demand technology transfers, co-ownership of infrastructure, and the right to control our natural resources. BRICS can be a platform of liberation – but only if Africa enters as a united, self-respecting bloc. Equally vital is a revolution of the mind. Our educational systems still glorify colonizers and marginalize indigenous knowledge. Our universities chase Western rankings while neglecting community development. We need a new curriculum – one centered on African languages, philosophies, history, and political economy. We must build schools that produce thinkers, builders, and liberators – not bureaucrats. Read more The debt noose: Why does Africa remain trapped? The African diaspora is another critical front. It contributes over $50 billion annually in remittances, but its political power remains underused. We need institutional pathways for diaspora participation – in elections, investment, security, and culture. From Sao Paulo to London, Atlanta to Kingston, the diaspora is not a spectator. It is a co-creator of Africa’s destiny. Let us also talk about the ecological front. Africa is on the frontline of climate breakdown – but the solutions proposed often mask the same exploitation. Green capitalism – carbon markets, climate finance, offset schemes – lets polluters profit while Africa pays the price. We must fight for ecological justice rooted in land reform, water sovereignty, and indigenous stewardship – not donor agendas. This is the real meaning of Africa Day in 2025. Not celebration. Mobilization. Not pageantry. Resistance. The African Union must rise from dormancy or be bypassed by movements and governments that are willing to fight. Cultural organizations must reject NGO dependency and build spaces for radical imagination. Our youth must refuse the logic of escape and rebuild this continent with dignity. We need Pan-African banks, Pan-African education, Pan-African defense. And above all, we need truth. Africa is not poor. Africa is plundered. Africa is not backwards. Africa is blocked. Africa is not free. But Africa can be. View the full article

An article cut and pasted from ChatGPT raises questions over the role of fact-checkers in legacy media In a farcical yet telling blunder, multiple major newspapers, including the Chicago Sun-Times and Philadelphia Inquirer, recently published a summer-reading list riddled with nonexistent books that were “hallucinated” by ChatGPT, with many of them falsely attributed to real authors. The syndicated article, distributed by Hearst’s King Features, peddled fabricated titles based on woke themes, exposing both the media’s overreliance on cheap AI content and the incurable rot of legacy journalism. That this travesty slipped past editors at moribund outlets (the Sun-Times had just axed 20% of its staff) underscores a darker truth: when desperation and unprofessionalism meets unvetted algorithms, the frayed line between legacy media and nonsense simply vanishes. The trend seems ominous. AI is now overwhelmed by a smorgasbord of fake news, fake data, fake science and unmitigated mendacity that is churning established logic, facts and common sense into a putrid slush of cognitive rot. But what exactly is AI hallucination? AI hallucination occurs when a generative AI model (like ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, or DALL·E) produces false, nonsensical, or fabricated information with high confidence. Unlike human errors, these mistakes stem from how AI models generate responses by predicting plausible patterns rather than synthesizing established facts. Read more Swiss university secretly ran AI experiment to manipulate minds Why does AI ‘hallucinate’? There are several reasons why AI generates wholly incorrect information. It has nothing to do with the ongoing fearmongering over AI attaining sentience or even acquiring a soul. Training on imperfect data: AI learns from vast datasets replete with biases, errors, and inconsistencies. Prolonged training on these materials may result in the generation of myths, outdated facts, or conflicting sources. Over-optimization for plausibility: Contrary to what some experts claim, AI is nowhere near attaining “sentience” and therefore cannot discern “truth.” GPTs in particular are giant planetary-wide neural encyclopedias that crunch data and synthesize the most salient information based on pre-existent patterns. When gaps exist, it fills them with statistically probable (but likely wrong) answers. This was however not the case with the Sun-Times fiasco. Lack of grounding in reality: Unlike humans, AI has no direct experience of the world. It cannot verify facts as it can only mimic language structures. For example, when asked “What’s the safest car in 2025?” it might invent a model that doesn’t exist because it is filling in the gap for an ideal car with desired features — as determined by the mass of “experts” — rather than a real one. Prompt ambiguity: Many GPT users are lazy and may not know how to present a proper prompt. Vague or conflicting prompts also increase hallucination risks. Ridiculous requests like “Summarize a study about cats and gender theory” may result in an AI-fabricated fake study which may appear very academic on the surface. Read more WATCH AI-revived iconic Soviet radio announcement of Nazi capitulation in English Creative generation vs. factual recall: AI models like ChatGPT prioritize fluency over accuracy. When unsure, they improvise rather than admit ignorance. Ever came across a GPT answer that goes like this: “Sorry. This is beyond the remit of my training?” Reinforcing fake news and patterns: GPTs can identify particular users based on logins (a no-brainer), IP addresses, semantic and syntactic peculiarities and personnel propensities. It then reinforces them. When someone constantly uses GPTs to peddle fake news or propaganda puff pieces, AI may recognize such patterns and proceed to generate content that is partially or wholly fictitious. This is a classic case of algorithmic supply and demand. Remember, GPTs not only train on vast datasets, it can also train on your dataset. Reinforcing Big Tech biases and censorship: Virtually every Big Tech firm behind GPT rollouts is also engaged in industrial-scale censorship and algorithmic shadowbanning. This applies to individuals and alternative media platforms alike and constitutes a modern-day, digitally-curated damnatio memoriae. Google’s search engine, in particular, has a propensity for up-ranking the outputs of a serial plagiarist rather than the original article. The perpetuation of this systemic fraud may explode into an outright global scandal one day. Imagine waking up one morning to read that your favorite quotes or works were the products of a carefully-calibrated campaign of algorithmic shunting at the expense of the original ideators or authors. This is the inevitable consequence of monetizing censorship while outsourcing “knowledge” to an AI hobbled by ideological parameters. Read more AI is a perfect storm threatening humanity Experiments on human gullibility: I recently raised the hypothetical possibility of AI being trained to study human gullibility, in a way conceptually similar to the Milgram Experiment, the Asch Conformity Experiments and its iteration, the Crutchfield Situation. Humans are both gullible and timorous and the vast majority of them tend to conform to either the human mob or in the case of AI, the “data mob.” This will inevitably have real-world consequences, as AI is increasingly embedded in critical, time-sensitive operations – from pilots’ cockpits and nuclear plants to biowarfare labs and sprawling chemical facilities. Now imagine making a fateful decision in such high-stakes environments, based on flawed AI input. This is precisely why “future planners” must understand both the percentage and personality types of qualified professionals who are prone to trusting faulty machine-generated recommendations. Fact-checkers didn’t fact-check? When AI generates an article on one’s behalf, any journalist worth his salt should consider it as having been written by another party and therefore subject to fact-checking and improvisation. As long as the final product is fact-checked, and substantial value, content and revisions are added to the original draft, I don’t see any conflict of interest or breach of ethics involved in the process. GPTs can act as a catalyst, an editor or as a “devil’s advocate” to get the scribal ball rolling. What happened in this saga was that the writer, Marco Buscaglia, appeared to have wholly cut and pasted ChatGPT’s opus and passed it off as his own. (Since this embarrassing episode was exposed, his website has gone blank and private). The overload of woke-themed nonsense generated by ChatGPT should have raised red flags in the mind of Buscaglia but I am guessing that he might be prone to peddling this stuff himself. Read more AI offers ‘colossal’ military advantage – Putin However all the opprobrium currently directed at Buscaglia should also be applied to the editors of King Features Syndicate and various news outlets who didn’t fact-check the content even as they posed as the bastions of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Various levels of gatekeepers simply failed to do their jobs. This is a collective dereliction of duty from the media which casually pimps its services to the high and mighty while it pontificates ethics, integrity and values to lesser mortals. I guess we are used to such double-standards by now. But here is the terrifying part: I am certain that faulty data and flawed inputs are already flowing from AI systems into trading and financial platforms, aviation controls, nuclear reactors, biowarfare labs, and sensitive chemical plants – even as I write this. The gatekeepers just aren’t qualified for such complex tasks, except on paper, that is. These are the consequences of a world “designed by clowns and supervised by monkeys.” I will end on a note highlighting the irony of ironies: All the affected editors in this saga could have used ChatGPT to subject Buscaglia’s article to a factual content check. It would have only taken 30 seconds! View the full article

With global power dynamics shifting and Arctic resources surfacing, New Delhi has a timely chance to deepen ties with Russia Once a frozen frontier, the Arctic is rapidly transforming into a geopolitical and geoeconomic focal point. Melting ice is exposing vast reserves of critical minerals, hydrocarbons, and strategic shipping routes. As the West advances through NATO’s northern reach, a sanctioned Russia is turning to trusted partners to unlock its Arctic potential. For India, this shift offers a rare strategic opportunity. With rising energy needs, critical mineral ambitions, and a desire for multipolar engagement, India can enter the Arctic not as a competitor, but as a partner to Russia, guardian of over half the Arctic coastline and its richest untapped resources. India’s pursuit of energy security and cleaner fuels finds a strategic match in Russia’s Arctic LNG (liquefied natural gas) ambitions. While Yamal LNG has proven operationally successful, the Arctic LNG-2 project, long hindered by Western sanctions, now stands at a potential turning point. The renewed thaw in US-Russia relations following Donald Trump’s second term, as noted by Oxford Energy, has opened possibilities for easing restrictions on key Arctic energy assets. For India, this shifting landscape offers a timely opportunity to deepen its role in Russia’s polar pivot, by investing in Arctic LNG infrastructure, securing long-term gas supplies, and positioning itself as a critical partner in shaping the emerging Arctic order. The Yamal LNG facility, operating at 20% above capacity since 2023, has firmly anchored Russia’s Arctic presence, producing over 100 million tonnes of LNG since 2017. For India, this has translated into energy security gains, with GAIL securing long-term contracts for 2.85 MTPA through Gazprom Marketing & Trading Singapore. Despite EU restrictions on transshipment, deliveries continue uninterrupted, aligning with India’s strategy of diversifying supply sources to hedge against global volatility and fuel its gas-based economy. Read more The Great Game in the Arctic: Why the region is the next flashpoint between superpowers Yet the real test lies in Arctic LNG-2. Once 59% complete in 2021, the project stalled under heavy Western sanctions. By 2025, only limited operations resumed. India has maintained official distance, but quiet negotiations persist as Russia courts Indian buyers with steep discounts and DES (Delivered Ex-Ship) terms, mirroring its crude oil outreach. The recent easing of US-Russia tensions after Trump’s re-election offers a potential breakthrough: if secondary sanctions are lifted, Indian firms may finally step in, unlocking a significant Arctic energy axis. India’s Arctic engagement also aligns with its “Act Far East” policy and 2022 Arctic policy. ONGC Videsh’s $8.4 billion legacy in Sakhalin and Vankorneft provides operational experience and political capital that could be redeployed in the Arctic, though harsher environments and geopolitical stakes differ sharply. As Russia aims to capture 20% of global LNG exports by 2030, India’s energy calculus must adapt. For New Delhi, the Arctic offers more than LNG, it’s a new corridor linking Russian resources with India’s infrastructure and strategic aspirations. Polar Shipping and the Chennai–Vladivostok Corridor As Russia pivots to the Arctic amid Western sanctions, India finds strategic opportunity in emerging polar logistics. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), offering a 40% shorter passage than the Suez Canal and cutting transit time by 16 days, is becoming central to Indo-Russian Arctic cooperation. In 2023, NSR cargo traffic hit a record 36.254 million tonnes, with Moscow targeting 200 million tonnes by 2030. India’s growing stake is evident, by early 2023, it accounted for 35% of cargo at Russia’s Murmansk port, largely driven by rising coal imports. Complementing this is the Chennai–Vladivostok Maritime Corridor (EMC), launched in late 2024, which directly links India’s eastern seaboard to Russia’s Arctic gateway. Trade along the EMC has surged as coal shipments rose 87% and crude oil by 48% in FY 2024–25. This corridor not only facilitates India’s access to Russia’s vast Arctic and Far East resources but also strengthens its maritime footprint. India is positioning its ports and shipyards as vital nodes in Arctic logistics, proposing joint production of $750 million worth of Russian icebreakers. Together, the NSR and EMC mark India’s emergence as a serious player in Arctic connectivity, where geoeconomics and strategy now converge. Arctic riches, strategic gains Russia’s Arctic frontier, stretching across the Kola Peninsula, Norilsk, and Yakutia, is a treasure trove of critical minerals vital for India’s green and digital ambitions. The Kolmozerskoye deposit holds nearly 19% of Russia’s lithium reserves, Lovozerskoye is the country’s largest rare-earth element (REE) source, and Norilsk supplies over 40% of global palladium. Backed by state giants like Rosatom and Nornickel, Russia is fast-tracking development. Nornickel plans to triple cobalt output to 3,000 tonnes annually by 2025, while Rosatom’s Polar Lithium JV prepares to exploit Kolmozerskoye’s lithium for global markets. READ MORE: How Moscow’s legendary S-400 missiles helped India outgun Pakistan For India, dependent on imports for 100% of its lithium, cobalt, and nickel, access to these resources is a strategic imperative. With China dominating 60–90% of global critical mineral supply chains, Russia offers India a rare diversification opportunity. Ambassador Denis Alipov has highlighted mutual interests in Arctic mineral cooperation. India’s $15 billion investment in oil and gas projects in Russia, and the Chennai–Vladivostok Maritime Corridor, operational since 2024, lay the groundwork for secure logistics and collaborative mining ventures. Russia’s Arctic holds an estimated 658 million tonnes of rare metals, including 29 million tonnes of REEs, crucial for India’s EVs, renewables, and defence technologies. India is also eyeing technology transfer for processing projects like Tomtor, the world’s third-largest REE deposit. A proposed Centre of Excellence on Critical Minerals could partner with Russian institutes such as Gipronickel Institute to advance extraction methods. Though Western sanctions complicate financing, India’s 2030 target of $100 billion in bilateral trade provides a framework for structured deals. For India, Arctic minerals are not just economic assets, they are pillars of strategic autonomy. By anchoring itself in Russia’s resource-rich, sanction-insulated Arctic, India can strengthen its supply chains, hasten its green transition, and reduce dependence on China, all while asserting influence in a rapidly evolving polar landscape. Science, Satellites, and Soft Power in the Arctic India’s Arctic engagement extends beyond economics, grounded in scientific inquiry and climate diplomacy. Since gaining Observer status in the Arctic Council in 2013, India has actively contributed to initiatives like the Arctic Migratory Birds Initiative and the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group. Its most prominent scientific asset is the Himadri Research Station in Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard, operational since 2008 and managed by the National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research (NCPOR). Read more From ceasefire to misfire: Trump’s claims stir concerns in India Himadri supports year-round studies on glaciology, ocean-atmosphere interactions, and the Arctic’s impact on the Indian monsoon, with over 200 Indian scientists participating in research missions. India’s capabilities offer scope for deeper collaboration with Russia, especially through space-based technologies. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), using its Cartosat and RISAT satellites, can aid in Arctic mapping, environmental monitoring, and tracking activity along the NSR. India and Russia’s longstanding space partnership, dating back to their first agreement in 1962, offers untapped potential for Arctic collaboration in energy, shipping, and strategic monitoring. While current Arctic-specific projects remain limited, future joint space applications could enhance maritime domain awareness and infrastructure development in the polar region. India’s Arctic push is a strategic leap, linking energy security, mineral access, and scientific strength with Russia’s resource-rich north. As the Arctic reshapes global power corridors, India is no longer a bystander but a rising stakeholder. With logistics in place and a $100 billion trade vision, the polar frontier offers India more than resources, it offers resilience. In the ice of the Arctic, India finds new ground for strategic autonomy. View the full article

Why the notorious Soviet leader still matters in modern Russia A monument to Joseph Stalin has been unveiled at Taganskaya station in the Moscow Metro. More precisely, the historical high relief that was removed in 1966 during construction work has now been restored, albeit in a simpler version. Some brought carnations to the site in tribute; others brought portraits of modern Russian leaders bearing quotes condemning Stalinism. One group sees the monument as a rightful gesture, the other as a dangerous regression. In the post-Soviet era, Stalin monuments have been erected in places like Dagestan, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Rostov Region, Bashkiria, and the Stavropol Territory. But in the heart of Moscow? That strikes many as excessive. And yet, if there’s anywhere a monument to Stalin might logically appear, it would be in the Metro. After all, it was a project initiated and overseen by Stalin himself, and it remains one of the most beautiful metro systems in the world. Why not honor him there? This isn’t the first time Stalin’s name has stirred debate in the Moscow Metro. In 2009, when restorers reinstated a line from the Soviet anthem (“We were raised by Stalin to be loyal to the people”) at Kurskaya station, human rights activists were outraged. The line stayed. The USSR did not return. Opponents of such symbolic restorations claim they represent a creeping return to the Soviet Union. But let’s ask the obvious: what does Stalin mean to people today? For some, he is a symbol of raw, constructive power. He is credited with industrializing the USSR, closing its gap with Western Europe. The numbers are compelling: from 1928 to 1937, production of iron, steel, and oil increased by hundreds of percent. Automobile production jumped by 25,000%. The Soviet economy grew at breakneck speed. There was also cultural development: uplifting cinema, unmatched tank production, victory in the Great Patriotic War, the Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy, the creation of the atomic bomb, and yes – the Metro. These achievements are inextricably tied to Stalin’s name. Under his rule, there was order, and great things were built. For many, especially among younger, technically educated Russians in their 30s and 40s, this is what matters. Numbers do not lie. But the story doesn’t end there. There is also the Stalin of dekulakization, collectivization, and the stripping away of private property. The famine brought on by reckless policies. The countless victims of political repression. The massive losses in the early stages of WWII, despite the USSR having more tanks than the rest of the world combined. The forced industrialization funded by extracting everything from the population – even their religious crosses, exchanged for flour at state-run Torgsin shops. These are also Stalin’s legacy. Can one be separated from the other? Could industrialization have happened without the gulags and executions? Western European countries modernized without resorting to terror. Why couldn’t the USSR? These questions provoke endless debate. For every answer, new questions arise. But perhaps people today aren’t seeking historical accuracy or ideological consistency. What they want is something simple, something that offers closure to the contradictions of the past. For many, honoring Stalin is not about politics. It’s a form of escapism. A personal hobby. Like collecting Pokémon cards, hiking in the mountains, or raising miniature dogs. You can also bring two carnations to Stalin’s high relief in the Metro and feel, for a moment, that something solid still exists. Does this mean the Soviet Union is coming back? No. That project, in its full form, is economically and ideologically unsustainable in today’s world. Some elements of state power today may resemble Soviet-style repression, but there is no unifying vision, no positive image of the future, no religious zeal or ideological fire to recreate the USSR. And that, ultimately, is a good thing. We can revisit the past without being consumed by it. This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team View the full article

Brussels keeps slapping ever more penalties on Russia, even while Washington holds back What’s going on between the US and the EU right now over Ukraine feels like you and your buddy agreeing to go skydiving on a dare. You count “1-2-3-jump,” and leap – only to realize your friend’s still up in the plane. That friend is US President Donald Trump. And the EU parachute looks like it was stitched together with recycled climate summit lanyards and blind optimism. Emphasis on “blind.” On May 19, a German government spokesman assured the press that Washington would be joining the EU in yet another round of sanctions on Russia. But fast forward to today, and Brussels has leapt out of the plane solo while Trump is still standing at the hatch, waving goodbye and checking the minibar. And Berlin seems to be pretending not to notice – at least for the purpose of keeping up appearances. “Europe and America are very united on this point: We will closely support Ukraine on its path toward a ceasefire… We agreed on this with [Trump] after his conversation with Putin,” Chancellor Friedrich Merz tweeted. Translation: The EU went, “Hey Trump, we’re slapping more sanctions on Russia. Cool with that?” And Trump probably thought, “Oh, you mean the sanctions that nuked your economy, dried up your trade, and left you addicted to overpriced American LNG? Be my guest, Einsteins.” Read more EU and UK impose more sanctions on Russia despite US concerns Sure enough, Trump has since made it clear he’s not feeling another sanctions round. The vibes are off. He’s not jumping. But if the EU wants to swan dive into its own economic crater, well – godspeed. “Because I think there’s a chance of getting something done, and if you do that, you could also make it much worse,” Trump said. Trump keeps saying that he wants peace and trade with Russia – the exact opposite of Brussels’ Cold War cosplay. But let’s be honest: would the EU even be playing sanctions hardball if it hadn’t been cheered down that road by the Biden administration? Highly unlikely. Trump sees the whole mess as a Biden boondoggle – a “European situation.” What’s more interesting is how Team Trump is framing this not as a retreat, but as the dawn of a “peace first” presidency. One that’s allergic to forever wars. Secretary of State Marco Rubio even suggested that God’s on board. “We have a president of peace,” Rubio said at a recent Trump-hosted event, before recounting a chat with a Vatican cardinal for Pope Leo’s papal mass. “You know, it’s very unusual for us. We have an American president that wants peace, and it’s some of the Europeans that are constantly talking about doing war stuff.” Trump, Rubio, J.D. Vance, they’re all singing the same tune: get a peace deal done pronto, or the US checks out. Ukraine and Russia can slug it out without Uncle Sam in the ring. And Europe? It can handle its own geopolitical hangover, assuming it can still stand up straight. Meanwhile, Brussels is starting to realize its wallet has limits. That whole “whatever it takes” energy? It’s starting to sound more like “whatever we can still afford.” Ursula von der Leyen even admitted it. “Over the past five years, our budget has punched above its weight. And we must also see now… we have reached the limits of what is possible.” Translation: The ‘check engine’ light on the EU economy has been blinking for a while, and now the dashboard’s on fire. But never mind that – they’ve just pulled the trigger on yet another sanctions round. The 17th. And there’s already an 18th bullet getting loaded in the chamber. Because if you miss the target 17 times, the 18th is going to be the charm, right? Read more Trump responds to Zelensky’s call for tougher Russia sanctions This time, they’re targeting Russia’s “shadow fleet,” which – minor detail – delivers oil to countries outside the EU, so the EU, in all its usual brilliance, can then buy it at a markup from middlemen countries. Also not Russian? The ships themselves. And many of the newly sanctioned companies, which are in places like China (the EU’s top trade partner), Serbia (an EU candidate), Türkiye (the EU’s refugee babysitter), the UAE (gas hookup), Vietnam, and Uzbekistan. Way to win hearts and minds. Taking the long way around in sticking it to Putin, by ticking off the rest of the world. And while they’ve long denounced Trump’s tariffs on EU goods, guess who’s now crushing on tariffs? Yep, the EU has just introduced new ones on Russian agricultural imports. But wait, didn’t they already ban nearly everything Russian? Not quite. Some imports still sneak through the back door, like fertilizer, which supports the EU food system. In fact, Russian fertilizer imports rose 12% in January alone. Even the EU’s own Eurostat agency pegs the annual increase at 25%. Just explain that one to the farmers protesting Brussels’ rules while watching their markets flood with Ukrainian grain. The EU also imports Russian enriched uranium: the lifeblood of nuclear reactors that generate about a quarter of Europe’s electricity. And now, naturally, Brussels is considering tariffs on that, too. Apparently, if the ship’s on fire, the EU’s first instinct is to throw out the lifeboats. Then rummage around in the back to make darn sure there aren’t any more hiding in a closet somewhere. View the full article

The use of Russian defence technologies gave New Delhi a clear advantage in its recent military confrontation with Islamabad As Operation Sindoor, India’s response to the April 22 terror attack in Kashmir, has been put on a temporary pause, it is time to reflect on what happened. For the first time since the Battle of Britain, and the Korean War, two near peer air forces were engaged in an air campaign. This was also the first open conflict between two nuclear powers. Both sides had imbibed lessons from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It was clear that aircraft crossing borders would face strong hostile air defenses. Therefore, all strikes had to be undertaken using long-range, stand-off precision weapons, and yet hit targets accurately without much civilian collateral damage. Also the side with better air defense systems would be able to inflict significant damage and deter the adversary from carrying out strikes. Indian Air Force (IAF) strategy, tactics, and therefore inventories, have long been designed for offensive strikes against the Western neighbor with whom India has had three fully-fledged wars and many shorter skirmishes. Pakistan, conscious that it is a smaller economy with a smaller military, built an air force with a stronger defensive posture. In recent decades India has also had to prepare to take on a possible Chinese threat. Read more From ceasefire to misfire: Trump’s claims stir concerns in India Notwithstanding the known positions, Indian strikes against both terrorist and military targets all across Pakistan proved very successful. Pakistani defensive systems could not engage or thwart them. There were weapons platforms and armaments belonging to many countries at play, including, the US, Russia, China, France, and Turkey among others. Most analysts have started comparing and analysing the performance of the major weapons systems. This was also of interest to the manufacturers and their host countries. Some of the writing was part of the narrative-building to introduce motivated biases with politico-commercial considerations. The shares of some of these conglomerates saw huge fluctuations on the stock markets on a day-to-day basis. Both sides have claimed to have shot down each other’s aircraft on the opening round, but since no aircraft crossed the border, any wreckage would have fallen on home territory and proof could have been concealed, while confirmations take time to come in. Cross Border Air Strikes Just to recap the sequence of events. During the early hours of May 7, 2025, India launched air strikes on nine terrorist targets in Pakistan using 24 stand-off weapons. Codenamed Operation Sindoor, the strikes were India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22 by Pakistan-backed terrorists, in which 26 civilian tourists, mostly Hindu, were killed. India accused Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism, which Pakistan denied. Read more ‘Our hearts bleed today’: How terrorist attack shook fragile stability in Kashmir The missiles struck the camps and infrastructure of militant groups Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and no Pakistani military or civilian facilities were targeted. The initial Indian strikes that lasted 23 minutes and were reportedly carried out by Rafale aircraft using SCALP missiles and BrahMos cruise missiles as well as the Indian Army’s Indo-Israeli SkyStriker loitering munitions. Photographic evidence of strike success was presented to the Indian and international media. Following these strikes, there were gun duels and enhanced border skirmishes along the Line of Control (LoC). Pakistan also launched massive drone and missile strikes at military and civilian targets under Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos. This included targeting airfields from Kashmir to Gujarat. India negated these strikes with its integrated air defense and counter drone systems. The S-400 missile system, denominated as Sudarshan Chakra, marked its first combat use by India. The country's indigenous Akash AD system played a huge role. Pakistani strikes caused insignificant damage, and very few civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the IAF carried out SEAD/DEAD operations, neutralizing Pakistani air defence systems, including the Chinese HQ-9 in Lahore. On May 10, in response to Pakistani strikes against Indian military targets, the IAF launched major airstrikes across the length and depth of the country, targeting a variety of military targets including airfields, AD systems, weapon and logistic storage sites. Read more India deployed Russian T-72 battle tanks against Pakistan – media The Nur Khan military airfield at Chaklala which is just next to the capital Islamabad, and Pakistan Army’s headquarters at Rawalpindi were also hit. Other airfields hit were Sargoda, Rafiqi, Rahim Yar Khan, and radars and storage dumps at Pasrur, Malir, Chunian, Sukkur, Pasrur, and the Sialkot aviation base. India also inflicted extensive damage on air bases at Skardu in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and Jacobabad, and Bholari in Pakistan. During its retaliatory strikes on Indian military targets, Pakistan claimed that the BrahMos storage facilities at Beas and Nagrota were destroyed, and that two S-400 systems at Adampur and Bhuj were neutralised. International media acknowledged that all such claims were false. Immediately after the ceasefire, Indian Prime Minister Modi visited Adampur airbase and addressed the personnel with the S-400 launcher forming the background. A similar visit was made by Defense Minister Rajnath Singh to Bhuj. Sharing some more glimpses from my visit to AFS Adampur. pic.twitter.com/G9NmoAZvTR — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) May 13, 2025 A few systems used by Indian military during the operation received universal praise. These included the S-400 AD System, India’s indigenous Akash AD system, the 4D (Drone, Detect, Deter, Destroy) counter-drone system developed by India's key defence agency, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), and the BrahMos anti-surface missiles. The French Scalp missile proved extremely accurate and destructive. Let us look at the two Russia-origin systems. S-400 Missile System “Sudarshan Chakra” The S-400 is a Russian mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) system developed in the 1990s by Russia’s NPO Almaz as an upgrade to the S-300 family of missiles. The S-400 joined the Russian armed forces in 2007. The system is complemented by its successor, the upcoming S-500. © Sputnik / Sputnik The S-400 system has four radars and four sets of missiles covering different ranges and a vertical bubble. The maximum target detection range is 600 kilometers (around 372 miles) and targets can be engaged as far as 400 kilometres (about 248 miles). The five S-400 batteries contracted by India in 2018 cost $5.43 billion including with reserve missiles. All the sub-units are data-linked and controlled by a central command and control system with sufficient redundancy. The system is capable of layered defense and integrates with other Indian air defenses. One system can control 72 launchers, with a maximum of 384 missiles. All missiles are equipped with directed explosion warheads, which increases the probability of complete destruction of aerial targets. The system is designed to destroy aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missiles, and can also be used against ground targets. It can engage targets at up to 17,000 kilometers per hour (about 10,563 miles/hour) or Mach 14. It can intercept low flying cruise missiles at a range of about 40 kilometers (24 miles) with a line-of-sight requirement. The anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capabilities of the S-400 system are near the maximum allowed under the (now void) Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The number of simultaneously engaged targets by the full system is 36. The system ground mobility speed is close to 60 kilometers per hour (about 37 miles per hour) on roads and 25 kilometers per hour (about 15.5 miles per hours) cross-country. It takes 5 minutes to be operational and fire when ordered while driving. Otherwise, the system response time is just 10 seconds. Time between major overhauls 10,000 hours. The service life is at least 20 years. © Sputnik / Sputnik In Russia the system was made operational around Moscow in 2007. Russia reportedly deployed the S-400 in Syria. The system has been widely used in the on-going conflict in Ukraine, and is thought to have shot-down many aircraft. Meanwhile Ukraine has reportedly used Western weapons, mainly US-made ATACMS missiles, to hit S-400 units on the ground. Read more Russian shield for India: How S-400s gave New Delhi an edge over Pakistan Belarus has unspecified numbers of S-400 units. Deliveries of six batteries to China began in January 2018. Four batteries consisting of 36 fire units and 192 or more missiles were delivered to Turkey. Algeria is another operator. Other countries, such as Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Serbia, have also shown interest. South Korea is developing the KM-SAM, a medium-range SAM system based on technology from S-400 missiles, with assistance from NPO Almaz. Three of the five contracted batteries have arrived in India, which took deliveries despite an American CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) threat. The remaining two are expected later in 2025 or 2026. The recent conflict with Pakistan has revealed the rough location of two systems in India, one each being in Punjab and Gujarat. As per open sources, the third is somewhere in the east. The systems have been tested in various Indian military exercises. BrahMos The BrahMos is a long-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from land, submarines, ships, and fighter aircraft. It is a joint venture between DRDO and the Russian Federation’s NPO Mashinostroyeniya, who together have formed BrahMos Aerospace. © Naveen Sharma/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The missile is based on Russian P-800 Oniks. The name BrahMos is a portmanteau formed from the names of two rivers, the Brahmaputra of India and the Moskva of Russia. India holds 50.5% share of the joint venture. Around 75% of the missile is manufactured in India and there are plans to increase this to 85%. Read more From battlefield to Red Square: Russia’s parade weaponry explained Large numbers of land-launched, ship-launched as well as air-launched versions have been inducted and are in service of the Indian armed forces. In 2016, after India became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime. India and Russia gradually increased the range of the missile to 800 kilometers (497 miles). The latest deliveries to the Indian Navy are of this type. The cruise missile has anti-ship, land-attack roles, and has been in service since June 2007. The other operator is the Philippine Marine Corps. The unit cost is around $3.5 million. The extended range variant costs around $4.85 million. Many futuristic variants are evolving. Smaller sized variants like BrahMos-NG could be carried on more types of aircraft even on LCA. This solid propellant missile can carry a 200–300 kilogram warhead that could be nuclear or conventional semi-armour-piercing. Maximum operational ranges are up to 900 kilometers (560 miles). Export variants are currently restricted to 290 kilometers (180 miles). Currently missile speed is Mach 3. Later variants will be hypersonic (M 5+). © Ajay Aggarwal/Hindustan Times via Getty Images The missile is very accurate with a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of less than one meter. BrahMos is India’s fastest cruise missile. BrahMos was first test-fired on June 12, 2001 from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) Chandipur in a vertical launch configuration. The September 2010 test of BrahMos created a world record for being the first cruise missile to be tested at supersonic speeds in a steep-dive mode. BrahMos was tested with an Indian seeker for the first time in March 2018, and was tested with an India-developed propulsion system, airframe and power supply in September 2019. Read more India eyes fifth generation fighters: Can Russia’s Su-57 make the cut? On September 30, 2020, India successfully test-fired an extended range BrahMos, offering a range of around 350 kilometers (217 miles), at speeds up to Mach 2.8. The submarine-launched variant of BrahMos was test fired successfully for the first time from a submerged pontoon on March 20, 2013. The BrahMos-A is a modified air-launched variant of the missile with a reduced size and weight (2.55 tons). It has a range of 500 kilometers (310 miles) when launched from Su-30 MKI, and it can carry only one BrahMos missile. 50 IAF SU-30MKI jets were modified to carry the BrahMos-A missile. Even BrahMos Block III land-attack variants are operational. There are plans to have 1500 kilometer (932 mile)-plus range missiles. The more advanced version, BrahMos-NG (Next Generation) is being developed and will be ready by end 2025. BrahMos-II will be a hypersonic cruise missile. An Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) variant is also being planned. BrahMos is operationally deployed in large numbers by the three services. Additional missile orders have been recently placed for extended range variants. The Philippines has placed a substantial order for their services and deliveries began in 2024. Russia, too, has plans to buy missiles. Brazil has shown interest in the system. Vietnam and Indonesia have already signed deals. Way Ahead Resolute political will, target choices, weapons matching and accuracy, actionable intelligence, strong Indian air defense, IAF professionalism and strategic targeting accuracy were the clear clinchers in Operation Sindoor. READ MORE: Why the ties between Russia and India are unbreakable India-Russia relations are time-tested. Russian platforms and weapons with Indian armed forces have performed exceedingly well for many decades. The S-400 and Su-30MKI-BrahMos combination have excelled in Operation Sindoor. Could the S-500 with its 600 kilometer (372 mile) range be the next acquisition? Will India select the Su-57 fifth-generation aircraft and “Make-in-India”? Can Russia help accelerate the Indian nuclear submarine program? Should India acquire the “AWACS Killer” Russian R-37M AAM and the two then work on futuristic long-range aerial missiles? Should there be more work together on a Su-30MKI upgrade? Can the two enter into a joint-venture for Kamikaze drones required by both sides in large numbers, and India can help scale up production. Clearly the sky is no longer the limit. View the full article

The ‘total victory’ the PM has set as his goal is impossible, with or without American support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has trapped himself in a predicament that requires him to either bow out of power or drag his whole state down with him. In over 18 months, Israel has failed to defeat any of its enemies and escalation in Gaza could be the most dangerous decision he has taken yet. While the Israeli prime minister insists on continuing the war on Gaza, holding to his pledge to “crush and destroy” Hamas, he has failed to do so and according to his own nation’s intelligence estimates, the victory he speaks of is nowhere in sight. Now, Netanyahu has declared a new military operation in the Gaza Strip, labelling it “Gideon’s Chariots,” allegedly seeking the re-occupation of the entirety of the besieged coastal territory. Just prior to this, the US brokered a historic direct deal with Hamas to release an Israeli-American dual national, Idan Alexander; a soldier who had been taken as a prisoner of war on October 7, 2023. In return, Hamas say they were informed that the US was going to pressure Israel to allow in humanitarian aid to Gaza after an eight-week total blockade. Instead of permitting the entrance of humanitarian aid, Israel decided to ramp up its bombing campaign, displacing over 300,000 Palestinians and killing around 300 in only 48 hours. Afterwards, Israeli PM Netanyahu stated publicly that even in the event that all the captives held in Gaza are returned, he will not end the war. However, prior to US President Donald Trump’s trip to the Arabian Peninsula last week, a series of stories were published in the Israeli and international press, claiming that a major feud was brewing between Netanyahu and the American leader. Read more Are US-Israel ‘special relations’ about to end? So the narrative went, anonymous sources claimed that Trump had cut off direct communication with his Israeli counterpart, and that he was snubbing Netanyahu by not visiting Israel during his trip to the region and even that he was going to recognize a Palestinian State. Not only did Trump deny a schism between himself and Netanyahu in a recent Fox News interview, he even claimed that October 7, 2023, was one of the most violent days in history, which is, to say the least, a ridiculous assertion by any standard. Then came Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s interview with CBS News this Saturday, where he stated that the US supports the destruction of Hamas, while also saying the US seeks a deal to allow the release of more Israeli captives. It is clear from his language that Rubio has adopted the same stance as Israel, and that the war won’t stop until Hamas is defeated; in other words, the Israeli soldiers being held captive in Gaza are not the reason for the war. Anonymous claims of the US president standing up to Israel are not new. In December of 2023, former American President Joe Biden allegedly shouted at Netanyahu and hung up the phone, according to unnamed sources. Month after month, reports emerged about the so-called threats that Biden was issuing to the Israeli government. In October of 2024, headlines were even made of claims by Bob Woodward, in his book ‘War’, where he wrote that Biden called Netanyahu a “bad f***ing guy” and a “f***ing liar”. In April, it emerged through an Israeli Channel 13 investigative report that the Biden administration, which US media reported was “working tirelessly” for a ceasefire in Gaza, had never once pressured Israel to do so. The truth is, if the US was to tell Israel to stop its war on Gaza, it would end tomorrow. It won’t. Every senior official in the Trump administration is a diehard supporter of Israel that has taken money from pro-Israel groups, while the Republican President’s campaign was bankrolled by Israel’s richest billionaire, Miriam Adelson. Read more Recognizing Palestine could be one of Trump’s most pro-Israel moves yet Donald Trump speaks a big game when it comes to negotiating settlements to conflicts. One day he takes a breakthrough stance on an issue, before reverting back to the same exact positions the Biden administration held only a day later. On the other hand, the Israeli prime minister appears to have shot himself in the foot after deciding to violate the US-fostered ceasefire agreement in Gaza. He did this by choosing the issue of blocking humanitarian aid as his hill to die on. Although the Israeli military and coalition speak a big game when it comes to their options in Gaza, the reality is that their ground force is fatigued and ill-trained, having long lost motivation for the fight, and is not drawing enough men to carry out major operations without leaving Israel vulnerable on other fronts. Therefore, the Israeli army has remained in the buffer zone areas in Gaza, as the political leadership took the decision to apply pressure through collectively punishing some 2 million civilians. Netanyahu pledged to prohibit all food, water, fuel and medical supplies from entering Gaza. It has now been over 80 days since that decision was made. This blatant war crime, however, has provoked a significant international backlash and even forced the US to comment publicly that it is working on getting aid into Gaza. But there is one issue: Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition allies, belonging to the Religious Zionism Bloc, have begun threatening to leave the government if he lets food reach Palestinian civilians. This meant that a show had to be put on, one in which the likes of Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have been made to believe that their prime minister has lost favour with Donald Trump; the most loved political figure amongst Israelis. In this theater, the Israeli public were convinced that significant pressure had been applied on Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire agreement. So what does Netanyahu do now? He launches a new military operation against Gaza, knowing it will have no teeth and will simply target civilians and the territory’s remaining infrastructure, while limited incursions will also take place. Meanwhile, the Israeli leader will also appear to be standing up to the US in rejecting a ceasefire, while trickles of aid trucks slowly enter Gaza in a way that won’t trigger a major backlash. Read more Israel approves full ‘conquest’ of Gaza – media But Benjamin Netanyahu won’t finish there, he wants to show that he has taken on all of Israel’s enemies on every single front, and so Iran is at the top of his list of priorities. Finally, after 18 months of one of the most appalling civilian bloodbaths in modern history, the European nations are beginning to change their tone regarding the starvation policy being inflicted on Gaza, now combined with a renewed ground offensive. When we look at the predicament of Gaza, it cannot be separated from the other fronts. The war with Hezbollah in Lebanon is far from over, although it is only Israel that is bombing Lebanese territory for now. While Western officials and think-tanks claim that Hezbollah has been defeated and crushed, the reality is that it is nowhere near over. In fact, the events that have taken place since last September have only been used by the group to energize its base in a way we haven’t seen since the early 2000s. As for Yemen, the US was defeated by Ansarallah (the Houthis), despite the disparity between the sides. Ultimately, Washington was forced to concede that anything short of a ground invasion would fail to deter the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) from fighting Israel. The only way this war ends is with a showdown between Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that the US will seek to engage in an all-out war with the Islamic Republic, understanding well that this will come at an enormous cost to its troops, bases and allies in the region. Therefore, it is much more conceivable that this conflict will be controlled to one extent or another. After all, the massive investments pledged by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, didn’t come for free; they all seek security in return. Staring directly at a dead end in Gaza, the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has only one way out if it seeks to escalate further: a series of strikes targeting the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian air defences have not been degraded, as Washington-based think tanks and the Israeli leadership claim was the result of their last attack on the country. This does not mean, however, that the Israelis don’t have the capabilities to strike nuclear sites, they clearly do. Assuming they use conventional weapons to do so, it could potentially set the program back a few years. Read more Israel strikes ‘dozens of targets’ in Yemen (VIDEOS) If the Israeli attack is limited and the US only plays a support role, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will most likely limit its strikes to military sites and perhaps infrastructure like the power grid and/or ports. This would effectively ground, or at least degrade the capabilities of the Israeli air force, leaving an opening for Hezbollah to liberate the south of their country from occupation and restore their prestige following the tactical losses inflicted upon them. The big question mark here are the dozen or so armed groups based in the Gaza Strip. If Israel is having to concentrate its ground forces in the north and its air force is not operating at full capacity, there is the potential for a Hamas move that no other regional player would dare take. Considering the aforementioned scenario, it is conceivable that there is a way for Israel and the US to launch a battle against Iran which could close every front of the war, but there are two major issues that even get in the way of this: Netanyahu’s personal calculations for remaining in power and the predicament of Gaza. Israel is seeking to implement a plan to militarize and privatize the distribution of aid to Gaza’s civilian population, an initiative that the United Nations and rights groups have strongly opposed. Perhaps they believe that this will help facilitate their push towards ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from the besieged coastal territory, yet Egypt and other surrounding nations still refuse this as an option. Then comes the idea of Israeli forces occupying Gaza internally, which would be so incredible even if they could, that discussing the ins and outs of it would be a worthless endeavour. Israel has refused to actually fight the dozen or so Palestinian armed factions, which is why it has managed to keep its soldier casualties low and also explains why not a single one of the groups has been defeated. Even smaller groups like the Salah al-Deen Brigades, Mujahideen Brigades and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are still standing. Read more Trump pushes for ‘total dismantlement’ of Iran’s nuclear program “Total victory”, as the Israeli prime minister claims is his goal, is not possible. If he chooses to continue carrying on in the way he is today, he could end up provoking an escalation on one of the fronts that suddenly results in total defeat. Traumatized, frustrated and longing for revenge, these are the attitudes felt by millions across the region. An unexpected development in the West Bank, Syria, East Jerusalem or even on the domestic front from within the deeply divided Israeli society, all could spell disaster for Netanyahu. Despite all of the countless vulnerabilities, which extend beyond what is mentioned here, the US continues to give its Israeli allies carte blanche to commit whatever aggression they choose. At this stage, Washington is not a friend of Israel’s, it is its official hype man, supplying an endless stream of bombs and failing to consider how quickly the situation could explode. This was the exact same thinking that caught the US and Israel with their pants down on October 7, 2023, except the stakes are now much higher. View the full article

If you’ve ever skipped a workout because you “just weren’t feeling it,” you’re not alone. It’s easy to think that motivation is the secret to consistency. That people who train regularly must be naturally driven, disciplined, or hyped up all the time. But the truth is, most of us — yes, even seasoned athletes and coaches — don’t always feel like working out. Motivation is great when it’s there. But you don’t need it to move. In fact, building a habit around movement has much more to do with identity, structure, and action than it does with how inspired you feel. Here’s what to focus on instead: 1. Stop Waiting for Motivation—Start Building Momentum Motivation is fleeting. It shows up randomly and disappears just as fast. If you rely on it to work out, you’ll always be on a rollercoaster of starts and stops. What works better? Momentum. Even the smallest effort can kickstart forward motion. And once you begin—once you’re in it—it’s easier to keep going. Start with one push-up. One stair sprint. One round. Let that be enough for the day. You’re not lazy or unmotivated—you just need a spark to get moving. 2. Build a System, Not a Vibe If your workouts depend on how you feel, they’ll be inconsistent at best. But if you have a simple plan? A structure? Something already in your calendar? You don’t need to think about it. You just do it. For example: Use short, high-impact sessions (like 12-minute HIIT) Schedule them like appointments—same time, same space Use a workout app (like the 12 Minute Athlete app!) or written plan or program so you’re never guessing When you treat movement like something you just do, it becomes part of who you are—not something you debate every day. 3. Make Movement Easy to Access You don’t need a gym. You don’t need an hour. You just need to make working out harder to skip. This could mean: Keeping a mat or pull-up bar in view Choosing bodyweight workouts that don’t require gear Laying out your clothes the night before Remove any and all friction. Set yourself up to win. 4. Focus on Identity, Not Willpower This is the real game-changer. The people who train consistently don’t just “push through.” They see themselves as someone who trains—an athlete. Instead of saying, “I have to work out,” try: “I’m the kind of person who moves.” “This is just part of my day.” “I don’t wait to feel like it—I do it because it makes me better.” Training from identity gives you a foundation that’s way more stable than willpower. 5. Use Movement as a Reset—Not a Chore Some days, your workout won’t be perfect. You’ll be tired, distracted, low-energy. That’s normal. (Trust me, I still have days like this) But even a short, imperfect session can shift your mood, boost your focus, and remind you what you’re capable of. Let movement be a tool—not something you have to “earn” or “get motivated for.” It’s something you get to do to reconnect with yourself. Don’t Rely on Motivation to Move You don’t need to be motivated to work out. You need a plan. You need structure. And most of all—you need to start before you feel like it. Start small. Stay consistent. Let the effort build. And over time? You’ll become the kind of person who doesn’t need motivation to move—you’ll just move. The post Why You Don’t Need to Be Motivated to Work Out (And What to Do Instead) appeared first on 12 Minute Athlete. View the full article

Chicken Pox, Measles, Mumps and Whooping Cough are all waiting to encumber little kids. Before turning to Big pHarma to encumber them further, let’s take a look at what they are, how they come about and alternative therapies. Chicken Pox is a common acute childhood disease caused by a virus. It presents itself by a small sac filled with fluid that will eventually erupt and crust. Each sac will last 2 to 4 days, leaving a pink scar, which will eventually disappear but the pock mark could remain. Measles is an acute viral infection that is common is kids from 6 months to 5 years old. It starts out like a cold but includes a cough, fever, and inflammation of the eye area resulting in sensitivity to light. Usually, the fever goes down within a day or two but suddenly rises by day 5 or 6. With this rise in temperature comes a blotchy rash on the forehead, then appearing behind the ears and the rest of the body. The rash will fade within 3 to 4 days but the skin affected will peel. Bear in mind that during the first signs of rash the symptoms are at a peak. The fever could be strong and bronchitis may occur. In rare cases, the possibility of an ear infection with temporary loss of hearing, possible pneumonia in the bronchial area and convulsions may occur. Mumps are an acute viral infection characterized by mild fever lasting only a couple of days, feeling really crappy, having a sore throat, and swollen glands. All this could last from 2 days to a couple of weeks except for the fever. Whooping Cough is bacterial disease with a real crappy cough. It starts out with a mild fever, cold-like symptoms, and a mild cough that gets worse. This illness could last up to a month. If complications manifest, watch out for convulsions and/or nose bleeds. Unfortunately, all of the above are contracted by nearly all children, but to varying degrees. Some will show little or no symptoms and the results are passed off as a mild cold or cough. Others, unfortunately, will suffer more and become somewhat permanently damaged by the complications. It’s this individual difference in resistance and vitality that is the single most important factor in understanding and addressing acute disease. Germs and viruses are always around us and the body is usually capable of maintaining a proper balance when they attack us because the body’s self-defense mechanisms fight back and remove these dangerous attackers before they can take hold. The secretions form the protective boundaries, the glands act as filters, and the cell walls act as the barriers. So, the entire cell, tissue, organ and body VITALITY act as our protectors. But, if we let our defenses down through poor nutrition and deficiency, poor circulation or lack of oxygen, the shit hits the fan. Then, if we continue to clog our tissues with too many toxins or change our pH (acid/alkaline balance), it gets even worse and opens the door for infection. There is no one factor that opens the door to disease for our kids, but rather a multitude of insults on their bodies. And, diet takes the most blame. The Rockefellers conning the farmers to switch to the petro-chemical fertilizers, under the guise of spending more time planting and harvesting crops instead of shoveling doo-doo, killed the mineral sulfur in the soil depriving everyone of essential oxygen to keep them well. That’s why the organic sulfur crystals are such a wonderful blessing. The FDA, banning raw, organic, unpasteurized and non-homogenized milk and only allowing liquid fat full of GMOs, growth hormones, antibiotics, and the remains of the other dead, dying, diseased and decayed animals, contributed to the problem. The Big Food industry, with their processed foods to extend shelf life for years and pushing refined grains, which are anything but normal, added more insult to injury. It is not a vitamin deficiency that the kids suffer from but a “green vegetable” and a grain in its “natural state” deficiency. The poor kids are weaned too soon and subjected to 100 percent crapola made up of soda, candy, cookies and anything else advertised on TV or kept at their eye level in the supermarket. Why? Because understanding that the balancing and cleansing effect of fresh vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts and seeds is essential for good health, is no where to be found. Dietary habits are just that. Habits! And where do their “habits” begin? From their parents, where else? If the kid is well-fed, don’t you think he/she will be strong enough to deal with an infection in a successful way? If the child is well-nourished, they will likely not catch common childhood diseases, only mild cases. And if something takes hold, it won’t last long because of a strong immune system fighting back. My daughter, who is in her mid 40’s, has never been vaccinated, has been a vegetarian since being in her mom’s belly, and has never had the flu or any of the serious diseases mentioned here. When measles hit her, she had a high fever that was short in duration, she sweated a lot with a good rash formation, rather than having a lower fever, little perspiration, and a slowly developed rash. It allowed her to be over and done with her complaint soon and outside playing again, instead of dealing endlessly with ear problems and bronchitis. So, the treatment of many childhood diseases is pretty basic. The first priority is a liquid diet of pure water and fresh juices in the acute stages with the later introduction of fruits and vegetables. The fever should not be suppressed, but moderated according to the needs of the child, with gentle hydrotherapy because the establishment of perspiration with the fever is essential. The bowels must be kept open and herbal laxatives or enemas may be needed and the use of herbal medications can prove useful at various stages of the diseases. The major concern with chicken pox is the pock scarring, which can be modified by simple baths and applications. And, of course, scratching is a no-no. The bath should be tepid with baking soda or apple cider vinegar. The applications can include green clay, bentonite clay, goldenseal or burdock. The clay will form a barrier and the herbs should be dabbed on frequently. The botanicals can include nettle, fruit juice, vegetable juice, clear vegetable soups, vitamin C and propolis. With measles the treatment needs to be treated a bit more vigorously due to the fact that complications can likely occur due to nutritional deficiencies, suppressive treatments, or over feeding during the illness. Tepid baths are good and hot baths are good to bring out the rash that has not yet manifested. Steam baths to induce sweating work also. Wild clover is good for cough, Yarrow tea is good for sweat, and 15 to 20 drops of Sundew three to four times a day. For diet, the recommendation is fruit juice lemon juice and Himalayan salt, citrus juices, and vitamins A and C to bowel tolerance. Mumps looks worse than it is. The general therapy is that of any fever with plenty of fluids and bed rest during the acute stage, Whooping cough need the most attention because any cough is extremely disturbing. A light diet is essential because overfeeding prolongs the whooping cough and could cause complications. When it is whooping cough, a full fruit juice fast should be started, with lots of citrus juices. After the fast, follow up with a diet of fruit juices, carrot/apple juice, and fresh clear vegetable broth. Down the road, fresh whole fruits. Vitamins A and C again. To play it safe, when any of these occur, find a naturopath and keep it simple and natural. Aloha! Sources: HealthChildren.org World Health Organization – Improving Children’s Health The post Fight to save the kids! appeared first on NaturalNewsBlogs. View the full article

Growing up, I believed I just wasn’t athletic. I wasn’t the fastest kid in gym class. I didn’t make the sports teams. I was “average,” and I figured that was just how I was built—some people were naturally athletic, and I just wasn’t one of them. What no one told me back then is that athleticism isn’t fixed. That effort changes everything. That with enough consistency, I could actually get stronger, faster, more coordinated—and yes, more athletic. I wish I’d known then what I know now: you are never stuck where you are. Most of us have heard of the concept of a growth mindset—the belief that you can improve with effort and time. But when it comes to fitness, people tend to forget this entirely. I see it all the time: “I’m just not a pull-up person.” “I’ve never been good at cardio.” “I could never do handstands.” It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you believe you’re bad at something, you stop trying. And if you don’t try, you don’t get better. It’s that simple—and that frustrating. But here’s the truth: you can get better at anything you put effort into. I’ve seen people go from barely being able to do a single push-up to crushing high-rep workouts with perfect form. I’ve seen “non-athletes” run their first mile, do their first pull-up, get their first handstand. Not because they were born with some hidden athletic gift—but because they decided to try. And then kept trying. Here’s the mindset shift that changes everything: Don’t ask yourself whether you’re “good” at something. Ask yourself whether you’re willing to put in the reps. It doesn’t matter how slow your progress is or how far you think you are from your goals. What matters is that you believe change is possible—and then take small, consistent steps toward it. So the next time you catch yourself saying “I’m just not a [fill in the blank] person,” pause. Challenge it. Ask yourself: What if I just haven’t put in the time yet? You are more capable than you think. Your effort matters. And your mindset might just be the thing that unlocks your next big breakthrough. Ready to take that next step? Check out Fitter Faster Stronger—my course built to help you train with purpose, gain confidence, and become the athlete you never thought you could be. The post Your Mindset Might Be the Biggest Thing Holding You Back in Fitness appeared first on 12 Minute Athlete. View the full article

15 years into training, and I still get excited when I see a pull-up bar. There’s something magical about calisthenics. No gym required. No machines. Just you, your body, and gravity — in a random park or parking structure or wherever you can hang and move. And honestly? It’s fun. I just love feeling strong, free, and capable — especially when I’m traveling. That’s why I’m always hunting for new calisthenics parks, especially in different cities. (Bonus points if they’re outdoors with a good view.) Here’s one of my go-to quick sessions when I find a new park. Try it out and let me know how it goes! Here’s a quick video to see it in action: The Workout: Full-Body & Travel-Friendly Try 3–5 rounds, depending on your time and energy: 5–10 chin-ups 5 pistol squats per side 5–10 dips 5 hanging leg raises 10 L-sit tucks Modify as needed. Need to do fewer reps? Add a resistance band? Sub in step-ups or knee raises? Great. The goal is to keep it challenging and have fun while doing it. Modifications Make the workout work for you — here are some ways to scale: Chin-ups Beginner: Use a resistance band or do negatives (jump up, lower slowly) Advanced: Add a weight vest or do towel grip variations Pistol Squats Beginner: Do them to a box/bench, or try assisted pistols holding onto a bar or post Advanced: Add tempo (slow lowering) or hold a weight for extra challenge Dips Beginner: Use parallel bars with your feet on the ground for support Advanced: Add a weight belt or try ring dips Hanging Leg Raises Beginner: Bend knees for tuck raises or do lying leg raises on the ground Advanced: Aim for toes-to-bar or strict straight-leg raises L-sit Tucks Beginner: Keep one foot lightly touching the ground or do knee lifts Advanced: Extend legs into a full L-sit or add reps for more core burn Just Start Somewhere You don’t need to be able to do every rep perfectly. Just show up, do what you can, and build from there. That’s what training like an athlete really looks like. That’s what will help you keep making progress — and most importantly, loving staying active for the long run. Let me know if you try the workout — or if you find a calisthenics park I need to check out next. – Krista The post Why Calisthenics Are Cooler Than You Think (+ a full-body workout you can do almost anywhere) appeared first on 12 Minute Athlete. View the full article