Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel

France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel

Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026

A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.

The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”

The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”

The bill seeks to criminalize:

  • “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
  • “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
  • “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).

Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.

He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”

He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”

He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.

The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.

JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”

In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.

Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”

Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”

Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.

There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel

There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | April 12, 2026

“The war is not over,” stated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, less than twenty-four hours after a two-week cessation of hostilities with Iran was declared by the US. A clear sign of what is to come, from an emboldened Israeli leadership that has failed to achieve their goals of “total victory” in a “seven-front war” that has been ongoing since October of 2023.

With all the talk about ceasefire agreements to end regional hostilities in the Arab and English media, the Israeli Hebrew media is looking at things quite differently. Instead of an end to a war that the majority of the international community has worked to close, Tel Aviv eyes the next escalation.

In Lebanon, if a ceasefire is reached, the Israeli government will seek to do so in a way that inflicts a major political blow against Hezbollah, after having failed to achieve actual military accomplishments. Almost immediately following US President Donald Trump’s Truth Social post declaring a two-week ceasefire, Israel jumped to use the opportunity it had gained through the ceasefire in order to focus all of its airpower on Lebanon.

The results were truly devastating; around 300 Lebanese civilians were murdered in a series of strikes that lasted only ten minutes, which followed mass strikes across the country, including the targeting of an ambulance. After this, a series of other attacks took place, including a targeted strike which killed 19 Lebanese in Nabatieh, including at least 12 Security Force members.

Meanwhile, the US picked Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun, who have publicly begged their way to direct negotiations with Israel, while their civilians suffer through successive massacres. The way this is all being orchestrated was laid out well by a presenter on Israel’s Channel 13 News, who openly said that the Israelis are trying to orchestrate civil war inside Lebanon, using the government to order a crackdown on Hezbollah that will trigger it.

There are also Lebanese Forces militiamen who are suspected of helping drag the nation into such a bloody conflict.

Just as on November 27, 2024, when the Lebanon ceasefire was declared, the Israelis don’t see it as an agreement designed to stop aggression mutually. Over the course of 15 months, the Israelis committed 15,400 violations of the Lebanon ceasefire, setting a world record for the most violated ceasefire in recorded human history. While the US-backed Lebanese government pretended as if a new war had started in March, the Israelis had been waging war on the Lebanese south for 15 months.

In the Gaza Strip, the so-called ceasefire was also an opportunity for the Israelis; they got a break from the fighting while continuing to arm and build up their ISIS-linked militia allies. They violated the ceasefire around 3,000 times, killing over 700 Palestinians, all as a Civi-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), composed of over 20 countries, watched on in silence.

All the way back to 1948, the Israelis used ceasefires and temporary truces in the same exact way. For example, they launched ‘Operation Danny’, in July of 1948, during a temporary pause to secure territory in Lydd and Ramla; then ‘Operation Yoav’ in October 1948, breaking the second truce to launch an attack in the Naqab region; followed by ‘Operation Hiram’, also in October 1948 that was initiated shortly after the second truce ended, flooding their forces into the Galilee.

All of the Gaza ceasefire agreements were violated continuously by the Israelis, each used to Tel Aviv’s advantage. More recently, we can turn to Syria, where the Israelis tore up the 1974 disengagement agreement, using the fall of Bashar al-Assad to occupy even more southern Syrian territory, including seven key water assets. They had a well-oiled plan prepared, sitting there waiting for the day that regime change occurred in Damascus.

There is only one example of where the Israelis were forced to abide by a ceasefire, but were still violating Lebanese sovereignty thousands upon thousands of times throughout, and that was following the 2006 Lebanon war, when a costly equation was imposed by force. Yet, the post-October 7 predicament has destroyed all previous understandings and ushered in an expansionist era for the Israeli government. Both Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Yair Lapid have both publicly stated their interest in expanding Israel’s undeclared borders and achieving the “Greater Israel Project”.

Tel Aviv’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has made it clear Israel’s intention to expand its borders up to the Litani River in Lebanon, while Finance Minister Smotrich has openly asserted that the objective of settling the area is a goal.

Israel is currently fighting what it sees as an existential battle to achieve the rebirth of “Eretz Israel”, a regional war that will not end until the project is secured. This means that even if a ceasefire is reached with Iran and Lebanon, it is not actually a ceasefire; it is simply another opportunity to implement new schemes and head back to the drawing board, only to escalate once again in the future.

Both history and the statements coming from the Israeli leadership clearly demonstrate that there is no such thing as a sustainable ceasefire with Israel.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks

China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 13, 2026

China said it will not comply with the Strait of Hormuz blockade that President Donald Trump imposed on Monday. Beijing explained that it is negotiating with Tehran to transit the waterway and expects other countries not to meddle in its affairs.

Beijing is “monitoring the situation in the Middle East. Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz,” Chinese Defense Minister, Adm. Dong Jun, said after Trump announced the blockade. “We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others to not meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us.”

In response to a US and Israeli surprise attack on February 28, Tehran took control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has allowed only vessels from “friendly nations” to enter or exit the Persian Gulf and has imposed a toll. China is among the nations that have worked out deals with Iran to allow its ships to transit the Strait.

Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is now under Tehran’s control, and plans to change the toll to transit the waterway after the conflict ends.

Trump has threatened that the US will stop any ship that exits the Gulf after paying a toll to Tehran, setting up a potential confrontation with Beijing if the Navy attempts to seize a Chinese-flagged tanker.

Trump is scheduled to visit China next month to meet with President Xi. Earlier this week, the President threatened to place a 50% tariff on China if Beijing provides military support to Iran.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us

Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes

By William J. Watkins Jr. | The Libertarian Institute | April 13, 2026

President Donald Trump owes the Pakistanis for securing a fourteen-day ceasefire with Iran. He now has a chance to extricate the United States from the biggest blunder of his second term. Tensions, however, remain high. “It is emphasized that this does not signify the termination of the war,” the Iranian government said in a formal statement. “Our hands remain upon the trigger, and should the slightest error be committed by the enemy, it shall be met with full force.”

One must worry that Trump does not appreciate the ceasefire off-ramp as good luck or an unmerited gift; instead, he likely will credit his threats to destroy “a whole civilization…never to be brought back again.” If the ceasefire breaks down, Trump could fulfill his commitment to “rain Hell” on Iran.

While typing away on Truth Social, Trump is oblivious that he is giving an anticipatory confession to war crimes. In addition to the posts quoted above, the president has threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants, oil wells, and desalinization facilities if certain demands are rejected. Civilizational devastation, Trump raved, “will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year ‘Reign of Terror.’”

Trump’s promises violate fundamental tenets of the laws and customs of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law, “IHL”) which yields individual criminal responsibility under international law. This area of IHL is clear and not subject to different spins.

As an initial matter, Trump’s war plans violate protocols to the Geneva Convention codifying the principle of distinction. According to Article 48 of the relevant protocol, “the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Emphasis added] Article 51 further prohibits “[a]cts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”

Trump’s possible targets enumerated on Truth Social are integral to provision of basic services to civilians. The president is not threatening military bases, missile silos, or drone manufacturing facilities. Instead, he proposes to bring suffering on Iran’s civilian population simply because he can. IHL prohibits such methods of war as uncivilized.

Trump and his war hawk apologists will likely counter that destruction of certain infrastructure could produce a military benefit and thus is allowed. This is not true. Article 51 sets forth the principle of proportionality which prohibits military attacks expected to cause harm to civilians that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Just because soldiers use electricity and drink water does not mean that the United States is justified in destroying all of Iran’s power plants and desalinization facilities.

Further damning to the president’s case is his stated reason for attacking civilian targets and infrastructure: “retribution” for the conduct of a regime he alleges no longer holds power. IHL strictly prohibits reprisals against the civilian population. A reprisal is an action typically illegal that is taken to force the enemy to stop its own violations of IHL. For example, if Iran executed American prisoners of war (“POWs”), the United States could execute Iranian POWs to persuade Iran to comply with the Geneva Convention. In the present conflict, Trump has not identified Iranian IHL violations and even if he had done so, the United States could not institute reprisals against civilian targets or persons.

At best, Trump’s statements on Truth Social are desperate bombast from a leader who regrets taking advice from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). At worst, they are an outline for barbarism unfit for the leader of a federal republic.

If the ceasefire does not result in a permanent settlement and Trump follows through on his threats to civilians and civilian infrastructure, IHL is squarely against him. He should not be surprised if the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), which is charged with investigating war crimes and similar matters, issues a warrant for his arrest. Such a warrant would prevent Trump from traveling outside of the United States because of the risk of arrest. No more golf trips to Ireland for the Donald.

While Trump has just complaints about the lawfare waged against him by the likes of Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Fani Willis, an ICC matter would be different. Trump’s own words convict him and are counter to the established laws and customs of armed conflict.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes

Most Israelis oppose Iran ceasefire, reject talks: Poll

The Cradle | April 13, 2026

A majority of Israelis are against the ceasefire with Iran and anticipate that it will collapse within the coming year, according to a poll carried out by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

The survey was carried out between 9 and 10 April.

According to the results, 61 percent of Israelis oppose the cessation of hostilities with the Islamic Republic.

Seventy-three percent said Tel Aviv will have to resume the war, while 76 percent said that talks will not achieve Israeli objectives.

Additionally, 69 percent say Israel must continue the indiscriminate strikes on Lebanon and military operations against Hezbollah. Only 23 percent believe Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire.

The new poll also reveals that 62 percent are not convinced that the war against Lebanon will bring security and stability to Israelis.

Just 20 percent of supporters of the ruling coalition said they backed the truce, while only 31 percent of opposition voters expressed the same view.

The poll shows Israelis are unhappier with the results of this war than they were following last year’s 12-day June war against Iran.

Thirty-seven percent were “very satisfied” with the results of the new US-Israeli war on Iran, as opposed to 62 percent who said the same about last year’s war.

Forty-four percent of coalition voters are happy with the “diplomatic achievements” made, compared to 24 percent who are extremely unsatisfied.

Only seven percent of opposition voters said they were very satisfied with the achievements, compared with 69 percent who said they were unsatisfied.

The poll was released following the Islamabad talks between Tehran and Washington, which ended on 12 April with no agreement.

Since the US-Israeli war on Iran was launched in late February, Washington’s bases across the region have been ravaged.

A new Pew Research Center survey, released on 7 April, shows rising negative sentiment among US citizens toward Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the start of the war.

Six in 10 respondents report an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53 percent last year, while the number of those holding a “very unfavorable” view has also surged, nearly tripling since 2022.

Another recent poll carried out by Reuters and Ipsos showed that more than two-thirds of US citizens are calling for a quick end to Washington’s war against Iran, even if it means ditching its stated goals.

Just two weeks after the war began, a Drop Site News and Zeteo poll revealed that a majority of US citizens believe US President Donald Trump launched the war on Iran to “cover up” the scandalous Jeffrey Epstein files.

The new poll on Israelis’ sentiment toward ending the Iran war echoes some of those conducted during the genocide in Gaza.

In May 2025, a poll conducted by Penn State University found that 82 percent of Israelis supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Most Israelis oppose Iran ceasefire, reject talks: Poll

Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief

RT | April 13, 2026

Iran will levy tolls on ships from ‘hostile’ countries crossing the Strait of Hormuz as compensation for damage caused by sanctions and US-Israeli strikes, Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, has said.

Speaking to RT on Sunday following US-Iran talks in Islamabad that ended in an impasse, Azizi said Washington should accept Tehran’s terms because it needs a deal “more than we do,” and that many Iranians are unhappy that Tehran even entered into negotiations.

“When they need it, they should accept both the conditions and the prerequisites. If they don’t, we’ll do our work and go our own way. Nothing will change,” he added.

US President Donald Trump has refused to rule out resuming “limited” strikes against Iran after ordering a naval blockade and threatening to deny safe passage to any ships that have complied with Tehran’s fees and rules for transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

According to Azizi, a draft bill being drawn up in the Iranian parliament would stipulate that “those who have caused us damage, those who are in fact liable to pay compensation, may only cross the Strait of Hormuz if they pay their damages and compensation.”

Referring to countries that have frozen Iranian assets “on the orders of America,” he said: “You made a great mistake by blocking them. Now you also want to cross this waterway? That era is over.”

Once approved, the law will require the government to establish a new “management and control system” for the strait and the Persian Gulf, based on environmental safety, security, and services, Azizi said. Any vessel wishing to enter would then have to pay tolls “based on the national interests of Iran,” with specific fees and procedures to be set later by the cabinet rather than by parliament.

Tehran remains deeply skeptical of Washington’s intentions, even after ceasefire-related preconditions were discussed, Azizi said. “We simply do not trust them,” he stated, questioning how a country that “elevates arrogance and colonialism to a guiding principle” could be expected to honor its agreements.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief

UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait

The Cradle | April 13, 2026

The UK and others have rejected Washington’s plan to impose a blockade on Iranian ports and target ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz in collaboration with the Islamic Republic.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said “we are not supporting the blockade” in an interview with BBC Radio on 13 April.

Starmer added that the UK is not “getting dragged in” to the US-Israeli war against Iran. He emphasized the priority is reopening the strait, noting it is “vital that we get the strait open and fully open.”

Turkiye opposed the blockade and called for renewed diplomacy, while China warned against escalation and urged both sides to maintain stability.

The Spanish government has also condemned the US move. “It’s just another episode in this downward spiral we’ve slipped into,” Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles said on Monday, adding that US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “want to impose rules on the international community, which is illogical.”

Germany did not criticize the move. “The supposed blockade … does not mark the end of this diplomatic process,” a government spokesperson said, adding that “We see it as a move to ramp up the pressure.”

The US military’s announcement did “not mention a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, but rather a blockade of Iranian ports – that is a different approach,” the German spokesperson added.

Earlier on Monday, France announced that London and Paris will organize a conference to discuss forming a “strictly defensive” and “peaceful” mission to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

“As regards the Strait of Hormuz, in the coming days, together with the UK, we will organize a conference with those countries prepared to contribute alongside us to a peaceful multinational mission aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the strait,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.

“This strictly defensive mission, separate from the warring parties to the conflict, is intended to be deployed as soon as circumstances permit,” he added. Paris had previously rejected a US proposal on the formation of an international coalition aimed at reopening the Strait, saying it would help escort ships only when the war ended.

A Bahraini resolution to reopen the strait by force was vetoed by Russia and China right before the ceasefire was announced.

The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to Washington and its allies despite the recent ceasefire between the US and Iran.

Vessels unaffiliated with the US and Israel, including a French one, have recently been given access following coordination with the Islamic Republic.

The US threat to blockade Iran’s ports was made by CENTCOM on Sunday night. It said it would begin a blockade “of all maritime traffic entering and exiting” Iranian ports starting 10:00 am Eastern Time (ET) on 13 April.

“The blockade will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. CENTCOM forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports,” it added.

After the announcement, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said, “enjoy the current pump figures,” adding that “with the so-called ‘blockade,’ Soon you’ll be nostalgic for $4–5 gas.”

The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters of the Iranian military made a statement on Monday, accusing Washington of “piracy” while vowing to act “decisively” in order to permanently control the Strait of Hormuz and secure Iran’s waters.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait

Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it

By Drago Bosnic | April 13, 2026

On April 6, the Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) of the Kiev regime posted a video of the alleged “attack” on the Russian Navy’s (VMF) “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate in the port of Novorossiysk. According to Ukrinform, Robert “Magyar” Brovdi, commander of the USF, also posted the video on his Telegram channel. He claims that “on the night of April 6, the USF ‘birds’ struck the frigate ‘Admiral Grigorovich’ in the port of Novorossiysk and delivered some blessed fire to the Sivash drilling rig”. The supposed “attack” was carried out by the 1st Separate Center of the USF. The Neo-Nazi junta sources report that it was planned and coordinated by the SBU (effectively a terrorist organization at this point) and that “the extent of the damage is being assessed by intelligence”.

“The air defense missile launches were carried out directly from the frigate’s deck while approaching the target, which did not prevent us from pecking at the floating scab,” Brovdi stated, adding: “The Sivash floating drilling rig was targeted by the birds of the 413th Raid Separate Battalion in cooperation with the deep-strike forces of the Ukrainian Navy.”

This must be a great success for the Kiev regime, right? There’s “video evidence of the incident”, so the supposed “attack” undoubtedly happened, right? Well, there’s a “tiny” consistency problem with this entire story. Namely, the aforementioned “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate “magically resurfaced” in the English Channel just two days after it was “destroyed”. The vessel was sent to escort oil tankers after multiple incidents where NATO pirates hijacked Russian ships in international waters. This was also confirmed by the endemically and pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom, which sent its naval forces to track Russian warships. The British HMS “Mersey” was sent to “enforce sanctions” on Moscow’s oil tankers, but was forced to turn back after detecting naval escorts.

British sources report the vessels include the “Admiral Grigorovich” frigate, the “Aleksandr Shabalin” Ropucha-class landing ship and the “Krasnodar” Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarine, which was transiting on the surface. These vessels passed only about 15 km from the Strait of Dover. For London, the issue is that it pledged to “take more direct action against vessels linked to Russia’s shadow fleet”. However, with the appearance of the VMF, the UK is now complaining that “this has sharpened the operational context”. In simpler terms, NATO pirates would love to hijack those tankers and steal Russian oil, but it’s too risky when the targets are protected by ships that can actually shoot back, complicating the enforcement of “freedom and democracy” in international waters.

It should be noted that the political West has long been behaving like a bunch of pirates. In a purely legalistic sense, NATO navies are in no way different from Somali pirates, as both are hijacking ships in violation of international law. However, it should also be noted that Somali pirates would certainly protest such insulting comparisons, because at least they’re not a bunch of pedophile-cannibalistic Satanists. In the last several months alone, approximately a dozen Russian oil tankers have been hijacked. Although this is only a fraction of the so-called “shadow fleet” consisting of around 3,000 vessels, the obvious goal is to disrupt Russian oil exports, particularly at a time when US aggression against Iran caused price hikes that increased Moscow’s profits.

Although the VMF’s primary role is not to protect Russian shipping, after the US/NATO decided to openly practice piracy, the Kremlin was forced to retask its naval forces for escort missions. “Admiral Grigorovich” is the first of the Project 11356R frigates, equipped with eight 3S-14 UKSK VLS (vertical launch systems). These usually house “Kalibr” cruise missiles, although they can also accommodate P-800 “Oniks” ramjet-powered supersonic and 3M22 “Zircon” scramjet-powered hypersonic cruise missiles. No Western navy has anything remotely capable. On the contrary, the US is still struggling with the disastrous Zumwalt-class destroyers, which are now slated to be equipped with hypersonic missiles after billions were wasted on far more modest weapons.

Namely, the Zumwalt-class destroyer’s Advanced Gun System (AGS) is slated to be removed and replaced by Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) launchers housing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), better known by its US Army name, the “Dark Eagle”. However, the problem is that the Pentagon is yet to induct these missiles, leaving the entire US military without operational hypersonic weapons. Meanwhile, much smaller Russian frigates and corvettes all share the same 3S-14 UKSK VLS, enabling them to carry world-class missiles, such as the aforementioned “Kalibr”, “Oniks” and “Zircon”. This includes the smaller Gremyashchiy-class and Karakurt-class corvettes, giving them unrivaled strategic capabilities akin to those of destroyers.

Interestingly, after realizing that its little propaganda ploy failed, the Neo-Nazi junta resorted to damage control, claiming that its drones didn’t hit “Admiral Grigorovich”, but “Admiral Makarov”, which was later amended to also include “Admiral Essen”. The two ships are the third and second vessels of the same class, respectively. In other words, when caught lying and conducting its “PR victories”, the Kiev regime tries to hide it all with additional lies that only make things worse. It’s highly likely that the Neo-Nazi junta propagandists used AI-generated images as “evidence” of the alleged “hits”. This is most likely done to shift attention away from the Kiev regime’s massive losses, as the latest KIA exchange with Russia demonstrates a 1,000:41 ratio in Moscow’s favor.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it

Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide

Sputnik – 13.04.2026

MOSCOW – The Ukrainian special services are targeting the Russian merchant fleet with coordination and intelligence support of NATO, Russian presidential aide and chairman of the Russian Marine Board Nikolai Patrushev said on Monday.

“The risks of illegal actions and terrorist attacks against ships sailing from or towards Russian ports are increasing. The Ukrainian special services, with the coordination and intelligence support of NATO countries, are targeting the non-military maritime infrastructure and the merchant fleet of our country,” Patrushev told Russian media.

The Baltic states and Finland’s provision of airspace for attack drones means that NATO members directly participate in the attacks on Russia, the official said, adding that neighboring countries are complicit in Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian ports in the Baltic.

“Kiev cynically regards the death of three crew members, which was a tragedy for their relatives, friends, and all normal people, as its victory. At the same time, we record the hypocritical policies of a number of states and international organizations that refrain from assessing attacks on Russian ships,” the Russian presidential aide said.

Kiev, which has flooded the Black Sea with mines and unmanned boats, remains the main source of terrorist and military danger, Nikolai Patrushev said.

“NATO countries continue to play out exercise scenarios to neutralize non-existent security threats from Russia, even though they themselves face real threats in the Black Sea. The Kiev regime, which has flooded the Black Sea with mines and unmanned boats, remains the key source of terrorist and military threats in the region,” Patrushev said.

Drifting Ukrainian mines are increasingly being discovered in close proximity to the coasts of Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, Patrushev added.

The route of the Ukrainian UAVs through the Baltic States required a careful study and at least the consent of the leadership of those states over which it passed, Patrushev said.

“I believe that neighboring countries are also complicit in these crimes, even if Ukrainian drones are launched from the decks of ships in the Baltic Sea… The distance from the northern borders of Ukraine to the Leningrad Region is more than 1,400 kilometers [870 miles]. Such a route requires careful study and at least the consent of the leadership of the countries over which it passes,” Patrushev said.

A frigate of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet escorted tankers with Russian oil through the English Channel last week, Patrushev said.

Last month, the UK government announced that UK military personnel will be able to board vessels subject to UK sanctions and transiting through UK territorial waters. London will also impose even greater restrictions by blocking British waters, including the English Channel, for sanctioned vessels. The measure affects the so-called “shadow fleet,” allegedly engaged in the transportation of Russian energy resources.

“Given that London prefers to interpret international law in its favor, last week a frigate of the Black Sea Fleet escorted tankers with Russian oil across the English Channel,” Patrushev said.

If necessary, other measures will be taken to ensure the safety of navigation and protect national interests in international waters, the official added.

“It seems that the British are haunted by the evil fame of their ancestors, who made profit in a piratical manner on the transport passing along their shores,” Patrushev said.
NATO continues to build anti-Russian infrastructure in the Black Sea region under the guise of the recent Sea Shield 2026 exercises, Nikolai Patrushev said.

“The North Atlantic Alliance, under the guise of the Sea Shield – 2026 exercises held in early April, continues to form an anti-Russian infrastructure in the Black Sea area. Romania was chosen as the main territory of the maneuvers as a Black Sea springboard to confront Russia,” Patrushev said.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide

Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power

By Ian Proud | Resposible Statecraft | April 13, 2026

Few things provoke British politicians into fits of rage more than mention of Russia’s “shadow fleet.” Yet last week’s impotent tracking of Russian tankers in the English Channel illustrates that Britain doesn’t have the means to do much about it.

On 9 April, two Russian “shadow” oil tankers were escorted through the channel by a Russian navy frigate armed with all manner of weapons, including anti-ship missiles. In response, the Royal Navy could only muster an auxiliary fuel tanker to follow it helplessly. The Daily Telegraph reported on this heroic operation from the deck of a 40-foot fishing boat following in the tanker’s wake.

A regular pattern is forming in which the Royal Navy deploys vessels that are overmatched by better armed Russian naval escorts.

The inability of the Royal Navy to challenge Russian tankers has drawn howls of protest from opposition politicians, including former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The United Kingdom’s attorney general has now ruled that U.K. forces cannot likely board Russian vessels to seize them anyway, as this may be contrary to international law. Yet the policy message is clear. Even if Britain sent troops to board escorted Russian tankers, they might be fired upon with no effective military means to push back the Russian navy. The Royal Navy has been rendered unable to project force, even close to British shores.

A British frigate and helicopter seeing off Russian submarines apparently lingering over undersea cables provided much-needed relief to the embattled Defense Secretary John Healey, who took to the 10 Downing Street press room to brief the media on the operation. But that won’t be enough to quell the growing sense of national embarrassment and anger at the parlous state of the British armed forces.

An already much delayed Defence Investment Plan is quite obviously being held back until after the upcoming May local elections, because it will likely list more projects that Britain can’t afford or should shelve, rather than anything genuinely new and revolutionary; when published, I predict, it will be politically humiliating for the Labour government, which is suffering disastrous polling numbers, with just one fifth of the population inclined to vote for them, a historic low for a governing party.

The case of HMS Dragon has become illustrative of UK naval decay; the single air defense destroyer that Britain rushed out of maintenance and belatedly deployed to the Mediterranean to support defensive operations against Iran, was bedeviled by technical difficulties and has been forced to dock again for repairs.

Russia, meanwhile, has been emboldened. Having significantly increased the size of its fleet in recent years, Moscow is now increasingly able to dominate the high seas off Europe and hold British and European vessels at risk. In May of 2025, a Russian jet warned off an Estonian vessel looking to interdict a Russian tanker. Following the seizure by U.S. forces of a Russian tanker bound for Cuba in January and the boarding by the French of a shadow tanker on March 20, they have clearly decided “enough is enough” and are sending heavily armed Russian naval vessels to escort oil tankers.

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, western allies have sought to bear down on Russia’s war economy by limiting the revenue it gains from oil and gas sales, which make up around two thirds of its exports. With some estimates suggesting 80% of Russian oil exported is transported on ships, attacking the network of so-called “shadow tankers’’— aging Russian tankers that sail under murky insurance and flag arrangements — might appear on the surface a sensible approach, or at least it did in 2022. But four years on, the endeavor has proved utterly meaningless. Now it appears self-defeating.

Let’s be clear: the export of Russian oil has never been sanctioned in absolute terms. Rather, in December 2022, G7 countries imposed a price cap of $60 per barrel of oil sold to minimize the revenue Russia generates from its exports. In July 2025, Europe further lowered the cap to $47.60, though the U.S. stuck at $60.

Despite their protestations, Europe has nevertheless continued to import billions of euros worth of Russian oil throughout the war in Ukraine. Russia’s biggest customers, China and India, have bought at discounted rates below the level of the G7 price cap. Russia’s third largest customer, Turkey, has seen its imports of oil practically unchanged, walking a narrow tightrope on price restrictions.

The bottom line is that Russia’s export revenue hasn’t obviously suffered since 2022. In the first year of the Ukraine war, Russia pulled in its biggest ever current account surplus of $238 billion. Exports have remained above their historical average since that time.

The Iran war has now rendered the G7 price cap irrelevant. Global customers, faced with fuel rationing, will pay any price to get hold of oil. It is therefore clear that Russia will gain another windfall from oil exports in 2026. Indeed, preliminary analysis suggests Russia will see its tax revenue from oil sales double in April.

Since the war in Iran started, Russia has upped the ante by refusing to sell oil to countries that back the G7 price cap. That policy guarantees that developing countries will get preferred status and won’t want to enforce any price cap at a time of supply constraints. It also puts pressure on supplies to Europe and Japan in particular, who are struggling under the weight of soaring prices and tightened supply.

At a time when the U.S. has temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil shipments, this is a further sign of the untethering of American and European policy towards Russia. The festering and as yet unresolved stand-off between Ukraine and Hungary about the supply of oil via the damaged Druzhba pipeline might excite those Eurocrats who stridently believe we should continue to resist Russian energy supplies at all costs. The British hullabaloo about our inability to stop Russian tankers in the English Channel further proves our politicians have lost sight of our strategic objectives towards Russia, and whether our policies hurt Putin more than they hurt us.

Right now, it is crystal clear that our economies are suffering under the weight of energy shortages, as the coffers in the Kremlin are ringing, and Russia’s navy is ruling Britannia’s waves.

Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ makes mockery of UK naval power

Ukraine plans to attack Russian ships with Norwegian support

By Ahmed Adel | April 13, 2026

At a time when the world is distracted by the Iran War, Ukraine and Norway are reportedly planning to attack Russian commercial ships. If Norway, which shares a nearly 200-kilometer border with Russia, implements the plan, it would make the Nordic country directly involved in the Ukrainian conflict and could therefore drag all of NATO into the conflict.

“The criminal Kiev regime, with the assistance of military specialists from the Norwegian Navy, is preparing to carry out terrorist attacks against Russian vessels traveling through the Barents and Norwegian Seas to and from the port of Murmansk,” TASS quoted a military-diplomatic source as saying on April 9.

As part of preparations for Ukrainian attacks on Russian commercial ships crossing the Barents and Norwegian Seas, one of the main maritime routes of the Arctic Circle, Norway has reportedly offered training and even its own territory for the military actions. Approximately 50 personnel of the 385th Separate Brigade of Special-Purpose Naval Unmanned Systems of the Ukrainian Navy are already in Norway, “practicing the use of unmanned underwater and surface systems in cold conditions,” according to the unnamed source.

It is recalled that Norway has already signaled its intention to provide financial and military aid to Ukraine in recent months, as the war-torn country has lost much support from the United States amid events in the Middle East. So, an attack by Ukraine with Norwegian help could clearly further escalate the conflict, introduce new nuances, and even bring new actors into this confrontation. The Norwegian government has already shown support for Ukraine in areas such as intelligence and even drone development, but until now, it had never directly engaged on the battlefield, whether to attack ports, ships, or troops.

The plan would also directly involve NATO in the conflict, since the military actions would originate from the territory of one of its members. If Norway opens its territory for use, for example, the border with Russia in the Arctic, it would lead to an escalation of the conflict and bring NATO directly into the war on a new battlefront.

Ukraine’s plan is an attempt by the Kiev regime to regain the spotlight lost to the Middle East and to attract the attention of its Western allies. Although the conflict in Ukraine has never stopped, nearly all the world’s attention has been on events in the Middle East since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Ukraine hopes that audacious attacks against Russia, particularly along a trade route, will bring the conflict in Eastern Europe back into the spotlight, attract public attention, and even recover some of the lost financial and military support.

Despite negotiations to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine being virtually stalled in recent weeks, the discovery of the Ukrainian plan could affect peace talks and further strain relations between Brussels and Moscow. This could deepen existing distrust between the countries and hinder already fragile, obstacle-laden contacts. Reaching a peace agreement and a resolution is already difficult, and these reports could further worsen the situation.

It is worth noting that in recent decades, NATO itself broke a historic pledge made with Russia in 1991: not to advance eastward and to encircle the country’s borders. Instead, Moscow finds itself surrounded today by alliance members, with the exception of Belarus and Ukraine. Zelensky’s campaign to make Kiev a member state was one of the crucial factors in the outbreak of conflict in 2022.

The Ukrainian-Norwegian plan further exacerbates instability in the Arctic region, where tensions in Greenland have also escalated due to the actions and statements of US President Donald Trump. Given this, Norwegian support is not surprising, but the extent of the country’s interest in helping is notable.

Aid would likely be limited to unmanned vessels and would not involve military personnel. When citizens of a third country are attacked, the conflict will escalate. For this reason, like all the aid provided so far to Ukraine, it remains indirect.

The plan is not surprising, given the numerous terrorist attacks by Ukraine throughout the conflict, such as the Nord Stream 2 explosion and the failed attempt to blow up TurkStream, which connects Russian gas to Serbia and Hungary. This exemplifies not only Ukrainian practices but also collaboration among European allies.

In Norway’s case, the situation is further complicated by the country’s competition with Russia in the oil market and its even benefiting from anti-Russian sanctions. This motivation may stem from Oslo’s view of Russia as an energy rival.

Ahead of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in the Ramstein format, scheduled for April 15, Ukraine and Norway agreed on priority areas for defense cooperation, including strengthening air defense, developing unmanned systems, supporting innovative projects, and enhancing the capabilities of Ukraine’s Defense Forces. It is unlikely that Zelensky can draw NATO attention back to Ukraine, but it certainly appears that he has secured Norway’s support, an Arctic country opposed to Russia’s role in the region.

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

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine plans to attack Russian ships with Norwegian support

US’s ‘Very Foolish’ Double Blockade of Hormuz Strait Makes Absolutely No Sense: Here’s Why

Sputnik – 13.04.2026

Every step Washington has taken in the conflict with Iran to date has worsened its own strategic position, and the blockade of Iranian oil exports is no exception, says Center for Contemporary Iranian Studies director Rajab Safarov.

“This is a very foolish move on the part of the United States. With each passing day and every step,” Washington is “worsening” its own position, and that of many countries around the world for whom Hormuz is the lifeline to their economic existence, Safarov told Sputnik.

Meanwhile, “the Iranian position grows stronger” over time relative to others, something “the Iranians understand perfectly well,” Safarov said. Therefore, Tehran has no incentive to agree to or be bullied into a peace deal on American terms.

Safarov doesn’t rule out that President Trump is being provided poor information on conditions on the ground by underlings like Secretary Hegseth, and making statements and decisions that have “no connection to reality.”

The observer pointed out, for example, that Trump claimed Iran’s Navy has been destroyed. But it’s this same Navy that’s now “ready to sink any ship that might move toward the Indian Ocean without Iran’s permission.”

“He says that Iran’s missile tech and launchers are exhausted or destroyed. But we see Iran launching more and more of its missiles – more modern, more powerful ones, etc,” Safarov said.

The US will ultimately be forced to fold, the observer argues, because while blocking Iranian oil exports will hurt its economy, Tehran is in a position to survive. The effects on the Gulf exporters and major energy-dependent economies in Asia and the developing world will be far more punishing. Oil prices could hit $150 by the end of the week.

With 20% of the world’s oil trapped in the Persian Gulf, “that means a fifth of the global economy will essentially grind to a halt.” Therefore, “America risks turning almost the entire world against itself,” Safarov summed up.

April 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US’s ‘Very Foolish’ Double Blockade of Hormuz Strait Makes Absolutely No Sense: Here’s Why

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »