Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UNRWA under attack: Ben-Gvir directs demolition in al-Quds

Al Mayadeen | January 20, 2026

Israeli occupation authorities bulldozed buildings inside the headquarters of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in eastern occupied al-Quds, as “Israel” intensifies restrictions on humanitarian organizations providing aid to Palestinians.

Local sources told the Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli troops, accompanied by bulldozers, stormed the UNRWA compound after sealing off surrounding streets and increasing their military presence. The forces then demolished structures inside the compound.

Later on Tuesday, Israeli occupation forces fired tear gas at a Palestinian trade school, marking a second incident targeting a UN facility in the same area.

Israeli officials present during the demolition

“Israel” has repeatedly accused UNRWA of pro-Palestine bias and alleged links to Hamas, without providing evidence, claims the agency has strongly denied.

“Israel’s” Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the demolition was carried out under a new “law” banning the organization.

Extremist Israeli Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said he accompanied crews to the headquarters, calling the demolition a “historic day”.

On his part, Israeli-imposed deputy mayor of occupied al-Quds Aryeh King referred to UNRWA as “Nazi” in a post on X.

“I promised that we would kick the Nazi enemy out of Jerusalem,” he wrote. “Now it’s happening: UNRWA is being kicked out of Jerusalem!”

UNRWA denounces ‘open defiance of international law’

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini described the demolition as an “unprecedented attack” and “a new level of open & deliberate defiance of international law.”

“Like all UN Member States & countries committed to the international rule-based order, Israel is obliged to protect & respect the inviolability of UN premises,” he wrote in a post on X.

He added that similar measures could soon target other international organizations.

“There can be no exceptions. This must be a wake-up call,” Lazzarini stressed. “What happens today to UNRWA will happen tomorrow to any other international organization or diplomatic mission.”

UN demands immediate cessation of demolitions

On his part, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned “in the strongest terms” the Israeli occupation forces’ demolition of the UNRWA Sheikh Jarrah compound, spokesperson Farhan Haq said during a news conference.

Citing the inviolability and immunity of UN premises, Haq said, “The Secretary-General views as wholly unacceptable the continued escalatory actions against UNRWA, which are inconsistent with Israel’s clear obligations under international law, including under the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.”

“The Secretary-General urges the Government of Israel to immediately cease the demolition of the UNRWA Sheikh Jarrah compound, and to return and restore the compound and other UNRWA premises to the United Nations without delay,” he added.

Aid groups face widespread restrictions

The move comes amid international condemnation following “Israel’s” ban on dozens of international aid organizations providing life-saving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza.

“Israel” has lately revoked the operating licences of 37 aid groups, including Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and the Norwegian Refugee Council, citing non-compliance with new government regulations.

Under the new rules, international NGOs working in Gaza and the occupied West Bank must provide detailed information on staff members, funding sources, and operational activities.

Last week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Israel” could face proceedings at the International Court of Justice if it does not repeal laws targeting UNRWA and return seized assets.

In a January 8 letter, Guterres said the UN could not remain indifferent to “actions taken by Israel, which are in direct contravention of the obligations of Israel under international law. They must be reversed without delay.”

Laws targeting UNRWA expanded

“Israel’s” parliament passed legislation in October 2024 banning UNRWA from operating in “Israel” and prohibiting Israeli officials from engaging with the agency. The law was amended last month to ban electricity and water supplies to UNRWA facilities.

Israeli authorities also occupied UNRWA’s offices in eastern occupied al-Quds last month.

UNRWA was established more than 70 years ago by the UN General Assembly to provide assistance to Palestinians forcibly displaced from their land.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli agricultural export collapse amid Gaza genocide boycott

Al Mayadeen | January 20, 2026

Israeli agricultural exports are collapsing under the weight of an expanding international boycott of “Israel”, driven largely by backlash over its war on Gaza, Jonathan Ofir writes for Mondoweiss. Reports aired by Kan 11 reveal a sharp decline in demand for Israeli mangos and citrus fruits, with settlers warning of imminent financial “collapse.”

In interviews, exporters say that Israeli fruit exports are being rejected by European buyers who now only consider purchasing Israeli produce when no alternatives are available. One farmer stated plainly, “They don’t want our mangos.”

Compounding the crisis was Ansar Allah’s Red Sea blockade, which disrupted shipping routes to Asian markets, pushing logistics costs up and delaying deliveries by months. Settlers say the new routes compromise fruit quality and profitability.

European markets withdraw as genocide condemnation grows

While no single factor has caused the breakdown of “Israel’s” fruit export market, the most consistent thread cited in Kan 11’s reporting is global outrage over the Gaza genocide. A widespread perception of Israeli impunity, underscored by public polling showing most Israelis believe there are “no innocents in Gaza,” has intensified calls to avoid Israeli products.

The economic consequences are already being felt in key agricultural hubs like Kibbutz Givat Haim Ichud and Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh, where settlers describe export losses as unsustainable. “Israeli fruit, despite its high quality, is currently less desired in Europe,” one settler admits.

Even Russia, a state under sanctions itself, is for now one of “Israel’s” few remaining markets. “We are now in the alliance of the boycotted,” says one settler.

Citrus and mango growers warn of industry collapse

The mango and citrus crisis has taken a visible toll. Settlers report rotting fruit, empty warehouses, and significant financial losses. Mango grower and retired general Moti Almoz says he’s left 25% of his crop unharvested, “I couldn’t do anything with them… people can’t just eat mango.”

In the north, out of 1,200 tons of mangoes, 700 are expected to rot on the ground. Smaller farms are attempting direct-to-customer sales, but say it won’t be enough to remain viable. “It’s a crisis the likes of which we haven’t ever experienced,” says another farmer.

The situation has escalated to the point that settlers are calling for state intervention. Without it, many warn that “Israel” may soon lose its entire export agriculture sector.

Hatred, denial, and the price of genocide

Despite the mounting crisis, some farmers refuse to sell to Palestinians, even if it would ease their losses. Almoz, whose produce once reached Gaza, says bluntly, “I’m done with them… If there’s a chance that I lose money because this [mango] turns into a Hamas interest, then I need to lose money.”

Such positions reflect how Israeli nationalism and denial of wrongdoing intersect with the economic consequences of genocide. Even as tears are shed over rotting fruit, there is little acknowledgment of the reason behind the boycott, the destruction of Gaza and its people.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | | 1 Comment

Europe is ‘run by German war troika’ – Orban

RT | January 20, 2026

The “German war troika” at the top of the EU is shaping the bloc’s bellicose policy, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has alleged.

Speaking at a political rally in Budapest on Monday, he identified the three “pro-war Germans” as European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the leader of the EU Parliament’s largest party, EPP, Manfred Weber.

“The fact is that Europe is controlled by a German war troika… These three people are the ones who shape Europe’s war policy today,” Orban said.

He cited the latest EU €90 billion ($106 billion) loan package to Kiev, arguing that the bloc was effectively financing the Ukraine conflict for another two years with money Brussels did not have. As Kiev will never be able to pay the money back, “our children and grandchildren will pay,” he added.

Western leaders are already openly discussing eventual troop deployments to Ukraine as so-called peacekeeping contingents, he said.

“Prior experience shows that European peacekeepers always tend to become warkeepers. That is why I do not recommend that Hungary send troops outside its own borders within any European peacekeeping framework.”

NATO troops in Ukraine under any pretext have long been an absolute red line for Russia, and initiatives to deploy them have been viewed in Moscow as undermining the US-brokered diplomatic efforts.

Russia has also pointed to an increase in warlike rhetoric from von der Leyen, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and the leaders of the UK, France and Germany.

“They are seriously preparing for war against the Russian Federation, and, in fact, are not even hiding it,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference on Tuesday.

Moscow has long been focused on eliminating the core causes of the Ukraine conflict, which the West has been fueling for years in an effort to turn Kiev into a “threat to Russia’s security,” the top diplomat said.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

‘Macron Is Trapped’: Double Standards in French President’s Davos Speech

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

François Asselineau, leader of French opposition party the Union Populaire Republicaine, points out that President Macron backed the US’s illegal military operation in Venezuela, but is now talking about ‘international law’ when it comes to Greenland.

“He approved Trump asserting the law of the strongest over international law,” Asselineau says. But now “he finds himself forced to call for a return to international law and multilateralism in an attempt to counter Trump’s desire to press his advantage by laying claim to Greenland.”

Macron’s WEF statement “about the need for European unanimity” only “touches on Europe’s permanent problem — that Europe doesn’t really exist,” the French opposition party leader stressed.

“It’s a fictitious entity made up of 27 states with different national interests,” Asselineau says. “We can already see this with Greenland. For example, there are several states that are not very critical of Donald Trump.”

Calling Macron’s position “extremely fragile,” he stresses that France is now “on very bad terms” with global powers including the US, China and Russia.
“It’s something like the twilight of the Macron presidency,” Asselineau argues. “Like many French people, I hope it ends as quickly as possible.”

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine aid critic quits as president of EU country

Bulgaria’s Rumen Radev, a critic of the bloc’s policies, has cited ‘oligarchy’ undermining the country’s democracy

RT | January 20, 2026

Bulgarian President Rumen Radev has announced his resignation, saying the political class has “betrayed” voters, citing “oligarchy” and fueling speculation that he is poised to create his own party ahead of snap parliamentary elections.

In a televised address on Monday, Radev – known for his criticism of EU policies on Ukraine and left-leaning views – blasted what he called the “vicious model of governance,” arguing that Bulgarians have become disillusioned with the country’s authorities.

Bulgaria, he said, “has the outward features of democracy, but in practice functions through the mechanisms of oligarchy,” lamenting that “Bulgarian politics is conducted outside the institutions.”

Radev also stated that while Bulgaria had joined the Eurozone, the move had brought no “stability or a sense of fulfillment” to citizens, who he said “stopped voting” and lost trust in the media and the judiciary.

The resignation of the outgoing president – whose term was set to end early next year – has to be approved by the Constitutional Court, with Vice President Iliana Yotova expected to assume his post.

Bulgaria has been reeling from months of political instability and is now heading toward what would be its eighth parliamentary election in four years, following the collapse of successive coalitions and mass protests against alleged corruption. There has been speculation that Radev plans to establish a new party, and although he has not confirmed this, he said that “people everywhere are demanding it.”

Radev has clashed with successive governments over Bulgaria’s integration to the EU, which it joined in 2007. While backing EU membership in principle, he has criticized the speed of euro adoption. Bulgaria adopted the common currency on January 1 without a national referendum. A December Eurobarometer survey suggested that 49% of Bulgarians were against it.

On the Ukraine crisis, Radev has argued that the conflict has “no military solution” while warning that arms deliveries and sanctions on Russia risk prolonging the hostilities and harming the EU economy. He has also opposed Ukraine’s push to join NATO.

Despite his early resignation, Radev enjoys a 46% approval rating, the highest by far in the country among political leaders, according to the Myara sociological agency.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

What happens when START-3 expires, and US doesn’t want to prolong it?

By Ahmed Adel | January 20, 2026

Although START-3, the last strategic arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, expires on February 5, the two countries will most likely continue to informally respect it, unless Washington violates it. Washington likely wants the treaty to expire so a new agreement can be signed that will not limit the development of new weapons.

US President Donald Trump considers all agreements made before he took office outdated and does not want to accept restrictions from a bygone era. Russia has prepared for that, since the proposal to extend the agreement was made more than a year ago and received no response from the American side.

The US and Russia together possess almost 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, but Russia remains the largest nuclear power. The first START treaty was signed on July 31, 1991, at a summit in Moscow between then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George W. Bush, and entered into force on December 5, 1994. This was the first document of its kind between the Soviet Union and the US, aimed at ensuring parity between the two sides, with the nuclear potential of both countries to be reduced by 30%. The treaty remained in force for a full 15 years, when START-3 was signed, the last strategic arms control treaty concluded between Russia and the US after the end of the Cold War.

With the Prague disarmament agreement, signed in 2010 by heads of state Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, Washington and Moscow committed to having no more than 700 deployed warheads and no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads. The contract expired in February 2021, but the Joe Biden administration decided to extend the agreement for five years, without any amendments or changes.

Washington does not want this arms control agreement because Russia is now a step ahead in the development of modern weapons systems. Russia has manufactured weapons incomparable to anything else in the world, such as the Oreshnik and Poseidon systems, as well as nuclear-powered missiles, while the Americans believe that the restrictions under this agreement hinder their development in this direction and therefore do not want to limit themselves.

Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, said that the US is likely not prepared to accept the Russian proposal to voluntarily extend the key provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) for another year.

It is recalled that on January 8, the US president said regarding START, “If it expires, it expires,” adding, “We’ll just do a better agreement.”

All these agreements were concluded in different eras and under different conditions, and the Americans could, conditionally speaking, once impose many things on Russia. Now they cannot, because Russia has an advantage across a wide range of areas today, such as modernizing 95% of its nuclear forces, something the Americans have not done yet. Russia also has hypersonic missiles that have already been tested on the battlefield, which the Americans do not.

Trump stated in 2020 during his previous presidential term that the US possesses a “super-duper missile” about seventeen times faster than turbine-powered cruise missiles like the Tomahawk and unlike any other in the world, but such a missile has not been shown to the public to this day. Then the Trump administration claimed that Russia developed hypersonic weapons, allegedly stealing some technologies from the US.

Based on all this, the Trump administration considers the circumstances and refuses to enter into any agreements or treaties that limit US capabilities.

In reaching any new nuclear arms agreement, beyond Russia and the US, several other players would need to be involved, with the US president primarily considering China. From Washington’s perspective, Russia should persuade China to join the deal. However, China refuses to do so because its nuclear arsenal is much smaller than Russia’s and the US’s. Additionally, Trump might have also considered India.

However, if Moscow and Washington, for example, say that such an attitude is acceptable regarding China, there is the question of how they will handle England and France, which also possess nuclear weapons. It is clear, therefore, that American think tanks are working to develop different options for establishing a new world order, but it will mainly be ‘peace through force’ under United States dominance.

There is a possibility that Russia will announce it will continue to respect the limits of the agreement, as long as Washington does not violate them. What the Americans, for their part, will say is unknown, but there have been Trump’s statements about the necessity of resuming nuclear tests, which are banned. Moscow responded that they are against resuming, but if the US conducts nuclear tests, the Russians will immediately carry out their own in response.

In that case, a nuclear arms race could occur, which would lead to increased strategic risks and potentially threaten global security. Therefore, Moscow believes that responsible and restrained behavior by nuclear states is more important than ever and is firmly committed to the principle that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and that it must never be started.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

How did the EU get hooked on American gas?

Pressure from Washington and compliance from Brussels has left the bloc at the mercy of the US

RT | January 20, 2026

The EU fears its long-term dependence on American liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports. Promised “molecules of freedom” by Washington, Europe now finds itself in a prison largely of its own design.

The EU has embraced a “potentially high-risk new geopolitical dependency” on American LNG, a new report by the Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) warned last week.

With the US set to supply up to 80% of the bloc’s LNG imports by 2030, a European diplomat told Politico that some officials in Brussels now see themselves completely at the mercy of the US, which could shut off the supply if, for example, the Europeans opposed an American annexation of Greenland.

How did we get here?

The EU imported 45% of its gas from Russia before the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, with Russia the bloc’s largest foreign supplier since the end of the Cold War.

However, a revolution began in the US in 1998 that would end in the EU severing its decades-long energy links with Russia. Mitchell Energy, a Texas-based company, carried out the first successful natural gas extraction via slick-water fracturing. This milestone kicked off the US’ fracking boom, which turned the country into a net energy exporter.

US shale gas output soared from negligible volumes around the turn of the millennium to roughly 30 trillion cubic feet a year by the mid-2020s. Washington began to look abroad for new markets.

‘Molecules of freedom’ and the politics of coercion

The Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have all lobbied Europe to switch from Russian gas to American LNG, with Donald Trump’s Department of Energy describing the American product as “molecules of freedom” in 2019. For two decades the Europeans were unreceptive: Russian gas, piped directly through Ukraine or via the Nord Stream 1 lines, was 30-50% cheaper than US LNG, which had to be converted to liquid, stored on container ships, and then regasified in special port facilities after crossing the Atlantic.

Barack Obama offered more favorable prices if the Europeans would make the switch, while Trump slapped sanctions on Nord Stream.

When Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the Americans finally got their opportunity to capture the European market for good. Europe’s Atlantacist leaders – among them EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz – eagerly went along with Joe Biden’s sanctions on Russian energy, and gas imports from Russia fell to 11% in 2024.

What does Nord Stream have to do with it?

The Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas lines presented a dilemma for the Biden administration: as long as they remained intact, the EU could – however unlikely – choose to cut support for Ukraine and negotiate a return to cheaper Russian gas.

Biden promised in early 2022 to “bring an end” to Nord Stream. “I promise you,” he told reporters at a White House press conference, “we will be able to do it.” The Nord Stream 1 and 2 lines were sabotaged in a series of explosions that September, and while there is no concrete proof of US culpability, American journalist Seymour Hersh maintains that Biden ordered the CIA to carry out the sabotage operation.

According to Hersh, Biden ordered the operation specifically to deny Germany the chance to back out of the proxy war in Ukraine.

Is there any way back to cheap gas?

Russian gas still reaches the EU via the TurkStream pipeline, as well as by ships from the Yamal LNG facility in Siberia. However, EU leaders intend to fully cut off all Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027.

The EU is currently the world’s largest importer of LNG, and more than half of its LNG terminals have come online or entered the planning or construction phases since 2022. The US now supplies 57% of the bloc’s LNG imports and 37% of its total gas imports, up from 28% and 6%, respectively, in 2021.

Even if the political will to change this situation existed, the EU is legally bound to deepen its dependence on the US. Under a trade deal signed by von der Leyen and Trump last July, the EU is required to purchase $750 billion worth of US energy by 2028. Essentially, Brussels cannot refuse what Washington is offering.

Russia maintains that it is a reliable energy supplier, and that the EU chose “economic suicide” in abandoning Russian gas.

How will the US use this leverage against the EU?

European leaders were seemingly content to trade away their energy security during the Biden years and to further bind themselves to the US under the Trump-von der Leyen trade deal. The risks of this approach became apparent last weekend, when Trump announced 10% tariffs on eight European nations for opposing his planned acquisition of Greenland.

Trump has warned that the levy will rise to 25% by June 1 if Denmark refuses to cede the territory. While the EU has threatened retaliatory tariffs, it is completely defenseless if Trump decides to cut gas exports as a punitive measure.

“Hopefully we’ll not get there,” an EU diplomat told Politico. However, hope is the only tool the Europeans have at the moment.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Why EU ‘Has No Alternative’ But to Return to Russian Gas Imports Sooner Than Later

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

Fears are growing as Europe becomes increasingly dependent on American LNG—once viewed as a safe alternative to Russian gas, but now seen as uncertain amid strained transatlantic relations, according to a media report.

With EU–US tensions rising over Ukraine and Greenland, “it is virtually impossible for the bloc to stop buying American LNG without having to allow Russian gas imports to return,” says Dr. Mamdouh G. Salameh, international oil economist and global energy expert.

He notes that while the threat of halting US LNG imports “could act as a deterrent against Trump annexing Greenland,” the reality is that “the EU has no alternative but to return to Russian gas sooner than later.”

According to Salameh, the US sabotage of Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline network was intended to “forever sever Russian gas supplies to Europe and ensure that US LNG replaces Russian gas permanently.” Instead, he argues, “this turned out to be a real financial disaster for Europe’s economy.”

He points to 2025, when the EU economy grew by only about 1.4%, with many German and other European companies—including Volkswagen—relocating in search of cheaper energy. Looking ahead, Salameh warns that the EU’s plan to end all Russian energy imports by early 2027 “will mean anemic economic growth for Europe’s economy.”

As a result, he says, the bloc now faces “a big dilemma, namely letting its economy stagnate if not shrink or lifting sanctions on Russian gas.”

With Europe now “squeezed between a rock and a hard place,” Salameh concludes that it is Russian President Vladimir Putin who “will have the last laugh.”

He adds that Putin could choose to resume gas supplies to Europe—a move that, he argues, could reshape the future of NATO and Europe’s relationship with the US.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO without America: Europe’s trial run ends in a reality check

Steadfast Dart 2026 exposes how fragile European security looks once the US steps aside

By Andrei Medvedev | RT | January 20, 2026

NATO has launched major military exercises – Steadfast Dart 2026. The drills involve over 10,000 troops from 11 countries: Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye. The primary goal is to assess the bloc’s readiness for the rapid deployment of substantial forces. The exercises will continue until mid-March.

At first glance, it might seem like just another NATO exercise. But here’s the catch: The US is not taking part. The initiative is purely European, and aims to achieve two main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to demonstrate that Europe is strong, unafraid of American influence, and capable of protecting its interests – not only by producing AI animations about heroic Vikings defending Greenland, but through real military strength.

The second goal is to find out whether Europe can operate independently, without US support. The answer is probably not. It’s no secret that 70% of NATO’s budget comes from US contributions. But beyond finances, NATO intelligence is primarily reliant on the US. Satellite communication, coordination, and command structures are also all built around a model in which the US acts as the ‘big brother’ to its European partners.

Russian journalists have witnessed this dynamic in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan (NATO did not officially conduct an operation there, but in reality, it entered the country). Who owns the largest and safest bases? Who oversees all sector units? Who plans operations and sets combat tasks? The big brother – the US. In Kosovo, for instance, NATO allies couldn’t just enter Camp Bondsteel. The base was American, and the Europeans had to get a special pass to enter.

Until recently, Europe seemed perfectly content with its ‘junior partner’ status. What fueled the EU’s prosperity? Cheap Russian (initially Soviet) resources with stable supply lines and minimal security expenses. Security was outsourced to the Americans: US bases, air support, missile defense… Then Trump came along, and in typical businessman fashion, said if you want protection, you’ll have to pay for it.

Is there a NATO without the US? That’s the question European military leaders will grapple with during these exercises – though they likely already know the answer. Sure, NATO would exist, but it would be very costly for the EU; or perhaps it won’t exist at all, which means Europe must concede that the master will do as he pleases. And the ‘master’ – America – is well aware of this.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently stated that the US will remain in NATO. But just look how he put it. Asked what’s more important to US security interests, NATO or Greenland, Bessent replied: “That’s a false choice. The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the US security umbrella.”

In the current climate, when Europe’s economy is struggling (for example, BMW and Mercedes are now using Chinese engines, and BASF is making only a third of what it used to), the idea of a European NATO seems far-fetched. Europe just doesn’t have the money for it.

Neither does it have the military equipment – most of it has been sent to Ukraine, and what’s left would last a month or so in a high-intensity conflict. Moreover, Euro-NATO doesn’t have that many armies with real combat experience outside of the bloc.

Sure, there is France, which has been engaged in prolonged operations in the Sahel. And Türkiye. However, even their combat experience is powerless in a situation in which there is no money. Fighting Bedouins in the Sahel or Kurds in Syria is worlds apart from facing an adversary like China or Russia – or, in the new reality, the US.

The fact that the US is not taking part in NATO’s latest military exercises (despite being able to easily deploy their troops from bases in Germany or Italy) is quite telling. America’s message to Europe is clear: Let’s see how you do without us and then come running back.

The lesson is humiliating. But after all, they got into this mess by themselves.

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US’ European Vassals Taught Bitter Lesson With Greenland Crisis

Sputnik – 20.01.2026

Commenting on the topics discussed by Foreign Minister Lavrov in his 2025 diplomacy year-in-review presser, Daffodil International University journalism professor and international politics expert Greg Simons detailed two main themes: Ukraine and the breakdown of the so-called ‘rules-based international order’.

The Greenland crisis shows that “when you are such a servile lackey as the EU, eventually you get to be ‘on the menu’, especially when the US empire, this Pax Americana, is in decline,” Dr. Simons told Sputnik.

“The EU has nowhere to go.” Their leaders “can bluster, they can try and bluff, but to use Trump’s terminology, they have absolutely no cards… They have no honor, they have no dignity, they have no respect, either for themselves or the EU. So this is not going to go well for the EU.”

As for Ukraine, while Washington has apparently recognized that the proxy war with Russia is “lost” and that Ukraine is “a liability,” the Europeans are pushing headfirst into prolonging the conflict, no matter the cost to themselves, Simons noted.

“Europeans seem to have their head in the clouds and unaware or not willing to see” the “risks and hazards coming up for them,” the observer stressed.

Then there’s the dysfunction at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

“If you prevent consensus on issues, an organization such as the OSCE is absolutely useless because consensus should be reached on objectively coming together on mutually acceptable and mutually favorable grounds,” Simons said.

“What they’ve turned it into is just this platform for pillorying countries such as Russia or those that stand for their interests and objectives rather than those of the US. I absolutely agree with the foreign minister’s characterization – that the situation of the OSCE is catastrophic. I would doubt it can be saved, mostly because of what the so-called Global North, those Western countries at the behest of the US did to make sure that it could no longer function effectively as an organization to be a bridge between different interests, different worlds (which it no longer is).”

January 20, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Glenn Diesen: How the Nordic Countries abandoned the Pursuit of Peace and went Confrontational

Max Otte | January 12, 2026

Did you know that Norway recently allowed over 30 US bases on its territory? (Without calling them “bases.”) The confrontation with Russia in the Arctic is heating up.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The New Scientist Misses the Science on ‘Sinking Pacific Islands’

By Anthony Watts | Climate Realism | January 16, 2026

The New Scientist (NS) recently published “The Pacific Islanders fighting to save their homes from catastrophe” by Katie McQue and Sean Gallagher. The article claims that small Pacific island nations face an existential threat from rising seas and intensifying storms driven by climate change, with displacement already underway and submergence looming. This article is factually false and unsupported by real-world data. The piece relies on emotive anecdotes and dire projections while ignoring a substantial body of empirical research showing that many low-lying islands and atolls are stable or growing, keeping pace with sea-level rise rather than succumbing to it.

The article asserts that “rising seas are anything but a distant projection,” that high tides now regularly inundate areas that “used to stay dry,” and that island nations such as Tuvalu could be “almost completely submerged at high tide by the end of the century.” It further suggests that climate-driven sea-level rise is already forcing migration and poses an existential risk. These claims are presented as settled science, yet New Scientist fails to engage with the very studies that have directly measured island change over time.

Actual surveys of island nations tell a very different story. As summarized in Climate at a Glance’s evidence-based review “Islands and Sea Level Rise,” dozens of peer-reviewed studies using aerial photography, satellite imagery, and on-the-ground surveys show that the majority of low-lying coral islands have remained stable or increased in land area over recent decades. Research on atolls in the Pacific and Indian Oceans finds that sediment transport, reef dynamics, and natural island-building processes allow islands to adjust to gradual sea-level rise. In other words, these islands are not passive sand piles waiting to drown; they are dynamic landforms.

This is not a fringe view. Climate Realism has repeatedly documented how media outlets ignore these findings, including in its coverage collected under island and sea-level rise reporting, where studies showing island growth in places like Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, and Kiribati are contrasted with alarmist headlines predicting imminent disappearance. Those empirical studies directly contradict New Scientist’s framing of inevitability and catastrophe. Further, sea level rise data from NOAA on the island of Kirbati is quite modest, just 0.77 feet per century.

Relative sea level trend is 2.34 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2.83 mm/yr based on monthly mean data from 1974 to 2022 which is equivalent to a change of 0.77 feet in 100 years

Equally telling is what is happening on the ground. Island nations supposedly facing near-term sea level submergence are investing heavily in long-term infrastructure. Tuvalu, the Maldives, Fiji, and other Pacific and Indian Ocean nations are expanding airports, reclaiming land, and approving major hotel and resort developments. These are capital-intensive projects with planning horizons measured in decades, not emergency stopgaps for populations about to flee. Governments and investors with real money at stake do not behave this way if these countries are about to vanish beneath the waves.

NS also conflates local flooding, erosion, and freshwater management problems with global sea-level rise. High tides washing into low areas, saltwater intrusion into wells, and coastal erosion are often driven by local factors such as land use, groundwater extraction, reef damage, and poor coastal management. Treating every such problem as proof of climate catastrophe is a classic case of confusing site-specific issues with global trends.

Perhaps most damning is what NS does not do.

It does not cite the extensive body of peer-reviewed literature documenting island stability and growth. It does not explain why measured island area changes contradict its narrative. It does not ask why nations allegedly facing “existential” risk are expanding infrastructure rather than abandoning it. Instead, it relies on selective anecdotes, speculative end-of-century projections, and emotionally charged language to imply a settled scientific conclusion that the data do not support.

If the New Scientist were actually doing science rather than regurgitating rhetoric, this article would not exist in its current form. A serious treatment would grapple with the observational record showing that many island nations are keeping up with sea-level rise, not disappearing beneath it. By failing to cite that science and by presenting a one-sided story of inevitable catastrophe, the New Scientist misleads readers and does a disservice to both the public and the people living on these islands, whose real challenges deserve honest, evidence-based discussion—not recycled counterfactual climate alarmism.

January 19, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »