Russian Soldiers Tortured in Secret Ukrainian Prisons
Sputnik – 12.02.2026
MOSCOW – Russian soldiers are tortured in secret prisons of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, being kept in cages, beaten, and denied food and water, Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large on the Ukrainian regime’s crimes Rodion Miroshnik told Sputnik.
“The greatest amount of abuse and torture occurs in secret prisons – dungeons, basements, concrete boxes, often in cages. And it’s there, when no one knows about them, when they are not included in prisoner-of-war lists, when international organizations know nothing about them, that the worst abuse begins,” Miroshnik said.
He said the Ukrainian Armed Forces are trying to extract military information from them in these torture chambers.
“This is a conveyor belt that involves beatings at the entrance, a marathon of torture for these people – electric chairs, psychological pressure, coercion, denial of food and water. Meanwhile, representatives of the security services arrive to try to break people. Representatives of the SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] and GUR [Main Directorate of Intelligence] come, including for staged videos where people are beaten and subjected to severe psychological pressure,” the ambassador said.
Russia has been conducting its special military operation since February 24, 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the operation aims to “protect people subjected to genocide by the Kiev regime.” According to the president, the ultimate goal of the operation is to completely liberate Donbas and create conditions that guarantee Russia’s security: Ukraine must undergo demilitarization and denazification.
Tensions between Hungary and Ukraine could lead to a new regional conflict
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 12, 2026
Tensions between Hungary and Ukraine have reached a new level of severity, dangerously approaching the possibility of open confrontation. What was once limited to diplomatic disagreements and rhetorical disputes now takes on broader strategic dimensions, with potential for regional destabilization. The recent statement by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, labeling Ukraine as an “enemy,” should not be seen as mere rhetoric but as an indication of a structural rupture in bilateral relations — and possibly a prelude to more serious developments.
The immediate trigger of the crisis lies in Kiev’s insistence, with support from sectors in Brussels, that Budapest end its energy cooperation with Russia. For Hungary, a country highly dependent on external energy supplies, agreements with Moscow are not an ideological choice but a strategic necessity. Any attempt to interfere in this area is perceived by the Hungarian government as a direct violation of its sovereignty and national security.
However, the energy issue is only the surface of a deeper problem. For years, Budapest has denounced discriminatory Ukrainian policies against the Hungarian minority in the Transcarpathian region. Occurrences of forced recruitment, linguistic pressure, and cultural marginalization have fueled growing resentment within Hungary. All of this has contributed to the intensification of bilateral tensions.
It is precisely at this point that the risk of armed conflict begins to gain relevance. Although a direct war between two European countries seems unlikely in the short term, history shows that conflicts often emerge from poorly managed crises involving ethnic minorities and border disputes. Hungary, a member of NATO and the European Union, could not act militarily without triggering serious continental repercussions. Nevertheless, even a mere hardening of its posture — such as reinforcing military presence at the border, conducting strategic exercises, or creating mechanisms to protect the Hungarian diaspora — would already significantly raise regional tensions.
For the Kiev regime, which faces a prolonged conflict with Russia, opening an additional front with a NATO neighbor would be strategically disastrous. However, the logic of total war and permanent mobilization tends to reduce the margin for political concessions. If the Ukrainian government interprets Hungarian criticism as internal sabotage of its war effort, it may respond with even harsher measures — deepening the cycle of hostility.
The European Union thus faces a delicate dilemma. If it chooses to pressure Budapest to align unconditionally with the pro-Ukraine agenda, it risks deepening internal divisions and fueling sovereigntist movements within the bloc. On the other hand, if it recognizes the legitimacy of Hungary’s concerns, it may be accused of weakening political support for Kiev. In either case, European cohesion suffers.
The potential developments go beyond the immediate military dimension. A diplomatic escalation will result in Hungary more and more systematically vetoing European initiatives favorable to Ukraine, blocking financial packages, and paralyzing strategic decisions at the EU level. In a more extreme scenario, internal sanctions against Budapest or even mechanisms to suspend rights within the EU could arise — measures that would further aggravate the political environment.
On the military front, even if direct confrontation remains unlikely, border incidents, refugee crises, or disputes involving consular protection of dual citizens cannot be ruled out. In prolonged conflict contexts, small incidents can quickly escalate out of control.
The central fact is that formal rhetoric of enmity changes the nature of bilateral relations. When one state frames another as a direct threat, institutions begin preparing for scenarios of containment and potential confrontation. Europe, already marked by a large-scale conflict in the East, may be approaching a new focal point of instability.
Hungary has every right to use all necessary means to protect itself from Ukrainian provocations — including military means if diplomatic efforts fail. The only remaining question is whether, in such a scenario, NATO and the EU would side with one of their member states or continue to ignore Ukrainian crimes, as they have done in the current conflict with Russia.
Russia preparing oil lifeline to Cuba – embassy
RT | February 12, 2026
Russia is preparing to send a shipment of oil and petroleum products to Cuba, Moscow’s embassy in Havana has announced. The island is facing its worst energy crisis in years after the US doubled down on its campaign to cut off its energy supplies.
The fuel crisis intensified dramatically after US forces kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in early January, severing oil supplies from Caracas, which had been one of Cuba’s main suppliers.
Washington subsequently threatened to impose tariffs on any country providing oil to Cuba, with Mexico later suspending crude shipments to the island. The US itself has maintained an economic embargo on the island since the 1960s.
The Russian Embassy in Cuba confirmed to Izvestia that the Caribbean island is facing “an acute shortage of oil and petroleum products,” adding that while the crisis has lasted for more than a year, the stop of supplies from Venezuela “has aggravated this situation.”
The embassy said it is planning to send oil and petroleum products to Cuba in the near future as “humanitarian aid,” though without specifying the timeframe or volumes.
The last major Russian oil delivery to Cuba occurred in February 2025, when Moscow sent 100,000 tons through a state credit worth $60 million approved by President Vladimir Putin. Cuba is estimated to consume 500 to 600 tons of fuel per day for its most critical needs, and requires over 8 million tons of fuel per year to function normally.
In addition, Russian officials reported that Moscow is assisting Cuba in developing its domestic oil reserves. While the island’s proven crude oil reserves are officially around 120 million barrels, the offshore zone of the North Cuba Basin is estimated to hold up to 20 billion barrels.
Moscow has condemned the US pressure campaign on Cuba as economic “strangulation” and “neocolonial practice” while reaffirming solidarity with the island.
US President Donald Trump suggested last month that the pressure campaign would force the Cuban leadership to “come to us and want to make a deal,” claiming that the island “would be free again.”
Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘one single cause’: Israel
The Take | Al Jazeera | February 10, 2026
What do we know about Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Israel? We talk with Craig Mokhiber, who spent decades inside the UN system, about what millions of newly released files reveal about Epstein’s effort to reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favor, why this story remains underreported, and what it means for how power operates globally.
In this episode:
Craig Mokhiber (@craigmokhiber), Human Rights Lawyer and Former UN Official
View on Rumble
Episode credits:
This episode was produced by Marcos Bartolomé, Chloe K. Li, and Tamara Khandaker, with Melanie Marich, Maya Hamadeh, Tuleen Barakat, and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Alexandra Locke.
Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio.
Instagram suspends Track AIPAC, watchdog tracking pro-Israel lobby spending
MEMO | February 11, 2026
Instagram has suspended the account of Track AIPAC, a widely followed watchdog project that tracks political spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and related pro-Israel lobbying groups. The social media giant cited alleged violations of the platform’s intellectual property and trademark rules. The suspension places the account at risk of permanent deletion unless successfully appealed within 180 days.
Track AIPAC — also known as AIPAC Tracker — was launched in 2024 by Cory Archibald and Casey Kennedy as a transparency and advocacy platform documenting AIPAC’s political donations, endorsements and influence on US elections. The project publishes Federal Election Commission data on pro-Israel political spending, highlights which lawmakers receive the most support, and endorses opponents of candidates reliant on AIPAC funding.
The watchdog has become a prominent source for voters and activists seeking to make AIPAC funding “politically toxic” and to hold elected officials accountable for their ties to the pro-Israel lobby.
In a post announcing the suspension, Track AIPAC said Instagram had removed its account, which had amassed more than 137,000 followers, for alleged trademark violations, without clear explanation of what specific content triggered the action. The group said it plans to appeal the decision while shifting its engagement to its website and its X presence.
Supporters of Track AIPAC decried the suspension as a double standard on free speech and accountability. On X, critics argue that transparency about political influence is being stifled while lobbying groups with deep pockets continue to operate without similar oversight.
Commentators noted that the suspension comes at a time when AIPAC’s influence in US politics is increasingly being challenged. Since Israel’s genocide in Gaza began, there has been a steady shift among Democratic voters and some candidates away from accepting pro-Israel lobby funding.
Once considered politically untouchable, AIPAC is now viewed by many as a liability, with candidates distancing themselves from its donations amid growing public anger over Israel’s policies and its role in the genocide.
Polling suggests that a significant portion of Democratic voters now oppose candidates who accept pro-Israel lobby funding, reflecting a shift in grassroots sentiment.
This shift has been evident in recent elections and legislative cycles, with some lawmakers returning AIPAC donations or refusing further support, and others publicly criticising the lobby’s priorities. For instance, US Congressman Seth Moulton announced that he would return AIPAC funds and no longer accept the lobby’s support, citing concerns about its alignment with current Israeli government policy, a move that underlines how AIPAC’s brand has become fraught within its once-traditional political base.
The suspension comes at a time when AIPAC’s political spending is facing heightened scrutiny and growing resistance from segments of the Democratic base. As some candidates increasingly distance themselves from pro-Israel lobby funding, the removal of a watchdog account dedicated to tracking those donations has added to debate over transparency and accountability in US politics.
Nouri al-Maliki defends Hashd al-Shaabi as inseparable part of Iraqi security system
Press TV – February 11, 2026
Nouri al-Maliki, the leader of Iraq’s State of Law Coalition and a frontrunner for premiership, has quelled speculation regarding the future of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), saying rumors of their dissolution are “unfounded.”
In an official statement on Wednesday, Maliki clarified his vision for Iraq’s security landscape. He said the PMF, known locally as Hashd al-Shaabi, is an “inseparable part of the Iraqi security system.”
Maliki’s remarks follow a period of speculation triggered by his earlier calls for restricting weapons to the hands of the state.
Clarifying his position, the candidate said the priority of the current phase is to consolidate state authority and unify security decision-making.
“The Hashd is an official institution established by law and approved by Parliament,” Maliki said. “Any talk of dissolution or merger must occur exclusively within the framework of the constitution and the law, not through rumors.”
The security debate is unfolding against a backdrop of severe diplomatic tension.
US President Donald Trump issued a blunt ultimatum in January, labeling Maliki a “very bad choice” and warning that the United States would “no longer help Iraq” if he were elected.
Responding to these threats, in a televised interview with al-Sharqiya, Maliki struck a defiant tone.
He said withdrawing his candidacy under foreign pressure would “jeopardize Iraqi sovereignty.”
“I am proceeding with this nomination until the end,” Maliki said, though he left a small window for change, noting he would only step aside if the Coordination Framework, the Shia alliance that nominated him, officially requested it.
Maliki, who served as Prime Minister from 2006 to 2014, remains a powerful figure in Iraqi politics.
The Coordination Framework has reiterated its support for him despite Trump’s comments.
First Gaza, then the world: The global danger of Israeli exceptionalism
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | February 11, 2026
While many nations occasionally resort to a “state of exception” to deal with temporary crises, Israel exists in a permanent state of exception. This Israeli exceptionalism is the very essence of the instability that plagues the Middle East.
The concept of the state of exception dates back to the Roman justitium, a legal mechanism for suspending law during times of civil unrest. However, the modern understanding was shaped by the German jurist Carl Schmitt, who famously wrote that the “sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” While Schmitt’s own history as a jurist for the Third Reich serves as a chilling reminder of where such theories can lead, his work provides an undeniably accurate anatomy of raw power: it reveals how a ruler who institutes laws also holds the power to dismiss them, under the pretext that no constitution can foresee every possible crisis.
It is often argued that Israel, a self-described democracy, still lacks a formal constitution because such a document would force it to define its borders—a problematic prospect for a settler-colonial regime with an insatiable appetite for expansion.
But there is another explanation: by operating on “Basic Laws” rather than a constitution, Israel avoids a comprehensive legal system that would align it with the globally accepted foundations of international law. Without a constitution, Israel exists in a legal vacuum where the “exception” is the rule. In this space, racial laws, territorial expansion, and even genocide are permitted so long as they fit the state’s immediate agenda.
Isolating specific examples to illustrate this point is a daunting task, primarily because nearly every relevant pronouncement from Israeli officials—particularly during the genocide in Gaza—is a textbook study in Israeli exceptionalism.
Consider Israel’s relentless assault on UNRWA, the UN-mandated body responsible for the survival of millions of Palestinian refugees. For decades, Israel has sought the dismantling of UNRWA for one reason: it is the only global institution that prevents the total erasure of Palestinian refugee rights.
These rights are not mere grievances; they are firmly anchored in international law, most notably via UN Resolution 194.
While UNRWA is not a political organization in a functional sense, its very existence is profoundly political. First, it stands as the institutional legacy of a specific political history; second, and more crucially, its presence ensures the Palestinian refugee remains a recognized political entity. By existing, UNRWA preserves the status of the refugee as a subject with the legal right to demand a return to historic Palestine—a demand that the “state of exception” seeks to permanently silence.
In October 2024, Israel unilaterally legislated the closure of UNRWA, once more asserting its “exception” over the entire framework of the United Nations. “It is time the international community (…) realizes that UNRWA’s mission must end,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already declared on January 31, 2024, signaling the coming erasure. This rhetoric reached its physical conclusion on January 20, when the UNRWA headquarters in occupied Jerusalem were demolished by the Israeli military in the presence of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
“A historic day!” Ben-Gvir announced on that same date. “Today these supporters of terror are being driven out.” This horrific act was met with bashful responses, mute concerns, or total silence by the very powers tasked with preventing states from positioning themselves above the law.
By allowing this Israeli “exception” to stand unchallenged, the international community has effectively sanctioned the demolition of its own legal foundations.
In the past, Israeli leaders masked their true intentions with the language of a “light unto the nations,” projecting a beacon of morality while practicing violence, ethnic cleansing, and military occupation on the ground. The genocide in Gaza, however, has stripped away these pretenses. For the first time, Israeli rhetoric fully reflects a state of exception where the law is not just ignored, but structurally suspended.
“No one in the world will let us starve two million citizens, even though it may be justified and moral until they return the hostages to us,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich admitted on August 5, 2024. This “justified and moral” stance reveals a localized morality that permits the extermination of a population as an ethically defensible act. Yet Smotrich also lied; the world has done nothing practical to dissuade Israel from its savage pulverization of Gaza.
The global community remained idle even when Smotrich declared on May 6, 2025, that Gaza would be “entirely destroyed” and the population “concentrated in a narrow strip.” Today, that vision is a reality: a genocide-fatigued population is confined to roughly 45% of the territory, while the remainder stays empty under Israeli military control.
Netanyahu himself, who has stretched the state of exception beyond any predecessor, defined this new reality during a cabinet meeting on October 26, 2025: “Israel is a sovereign state… Our security policy is in our own hands. Israel does not seek anyone’s approval for that.” Here, Netanyahu defines sovereignty as the raw power to act—genocide included—without regard for international law or human rights.
If all states adopted this, the world would fall into a lawless frenzy. In his seminal State of Exception, Giorgio Agamben diagnosed this “void”—a space where law is suspended but “force of law” remains as pure violence. While his recent stances have divided the academic community, his critique of the exception as a permanent tool of governance remains an indispensable lens for understanding the erasure of Palestinian life.
Israel has already created that void. In the hands of a genocidal settler-colonial society, the state of exception is a relentless nightmare that will not stop at the borders of Palestine. If this “exception” is allowed to become the permanent regional rule, no nation in the Middle East will be spared. Time is of the essence.
Iran received no concrete US proposal in Oman talks: Security chief
Press TV – February 11, 2026
Iran’s security chief says the country received no concrete proposal from the United States during the first round of talks aimed at resolving disputes around Tehran’s nuclear program.
Ali Larijani, who leads Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), said in remarks published on Wednesday that Tehran and Washington had only exchanged messages in talks held in Oman last week.
However, Larijani said that Washington has taken the “wise and logical” decision to enter talks with Iran rather than threatening the country with military action.
He said that talks with the US will continue and that Iran views them positively, while insisting that countries in the region are also contributing to efforts aimed at bringing the Iran-US talks to a successful conclusion.
The top security official made the remarks in an interview with Qatar-based Al Jazeera Arabic TV during a visit to the country, where he met with senior officials to discuss developments related to the Iran-US nuclear talks.
Responding to a question about US demands for Iran to entirely halt its nuclear enrichment program, Larijani said that the country will never accept the zero enrichment condition, as it needs the technology for energy production as well as for manufacturing certain medicines.
He reiterated Iran’s previous warnings that any US attack on its territory will receive a harsh and decisive response.
“If the United States attacks us, we will target its military bases in the region,” said the SNSC chief, according to a Persian transcript of the interview published by the Tasnim news agency.
Larijani also said that the Israeli regime has been trying to sabotage the Iran-US talks and is seeking to draw the region into a new war.
US mulling new pressure tactic on Iran – WSJ
RT | February 11, 2026
The US is considering seizing tankers carrying Iranian oil in a bid to push Tehran toward a deal on its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing American officials.
Washington has long accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, while Tehran has maintained that its program is strictly civilian. The US has seized several vessels transporting Iranian oil in recent months as part of a broader campaign targeting sanctioned tankers linked to Venezuela. The ships are part of an alleged ‘shadow fleet’ used to move crude from heavily sanctioned countries to China and other buyers.
Senior officials in the administration of US President Donald Trump have debated whether to confiscate Iranian vessels but have stopped short of acting, wary of retaliation from Tehran and potential disruption to global oil markets, the WSJ reported on Tuesday. The option, one of several under discussion at the White House to pressure Tehran into agreeing to limits on its nuclear program, faces significant hurdles, US officials told the outlet.
Iran would likely retaliate against any stepped-up US enforcement campaign by seizing tankers carrying oil from American allies in the region, which could send oil prices sharply higher, posing political risks for the White House, the WSJ said. The US Treasury Department has sanctioned more than 20 vessels allegedly involved in transporting Iranian oil this year, potentially making them candidates for seizure.
When asked about the possibility of the US boarding tankers linked to Iran, a White House official told the outlet that Trump favors diplomacy but has a range of options available if negotiations fail.
The report comes amid rising tensions between Tehran and Washington, with the US recently deploying additional naval and air assets to the region. Washington has demanded that Iran accept a “zero enrichment” policy and has repeatedly suggested it could resort to military action if diplomacy fails, while Tehran insists that enrichment is its legal right, grounded in sovereignty and national dignity.
Speaking to RT’s Rick Sanchez on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran is fully committed to a diplomatic settlement with the US while simultaneously bracing for the possibility of renewed conflict. However, he argued that “there is no solution but a diplomatic solution,” stating that technology and progress cannot be destroyed through bombings and military threats.
World on the verge of uncontrolled deployment of nuclear weapons in space
By Ahmed Adel | February 11, 2026
The militarization of space threatens to trigger a new global arms race and undermine stability and security. The world is already on the brink of uncontrolled deployment of nuclear forces and assets regarding American plans to establish dominance in space.
International law, especially the Soviet-American agreement of 1967, prohibits the placement of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in space, as well as military activities in orbit, such as exercises and maneuvers. The agreement remains in place, but the issue of space militarization has resurfaced.
Although the law remains in effect and all space states are respecting it for now, other questions arise. When the United States asserted claims to space during Ronald Reagan’s administration (1981-1989) and began developing the concept of deploying missile defense in space, the Soviet Union responded by initiating the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987.
Perhaps most importantly, the Americans eventually suspended the program because missile defense assets were never deployed in space, and space activities by both the USSR and the US were limited to deploying satellites for missile launch warning, meaning satellites that track missiles over the territory of the Soviet Union and the US.
After that, a new phase started, not only in the militarization of space but also in the military-technical exploration of space. Now, reconnaissance satellites monitor Earth, along with communication satellites, including next-generation systems that provide broadband internet access.
The US and China are both actively involved in this, with large companies such as Elon Musk’s Starlink also participating in American projects. Meanwhile, Russia plans to develop its own satellite network by 2030, while China is rapidly deploying satellites in orbit for broadband internet.
It is precisely these systems that enable modern connectivity, battlefield communication, and control of unmanned aerial vehicles, which are currently being actively tested on the Ukrainian battlefield. The Americans started this with Ukraine, and now Russia is also actively using similar technologies.
In fact, this is the future. The next step for the Americans is the Golden Dome – an orbiting missile defense system. However, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START) is no longer in force because the US declined to extend it.
Ultimately, extending the treaty in its current format has become nearly impossible, or at least very uncertain, because of the development of the Golden Dome system. This system does not align with either the current START or any future version of the treaty, or with any new nuclear security framework.
Although the 1967 Outer Space Treaty remains formally observed, the absence of a new comprehensive agreement, such as a potential New START, creates opportunities for the US to conduct military activities in orbit. This could set a dangerous precedent and effectively undermine the existing international framework that, for decades, has prevented the direct militarization of space.
Over the past fifteen years, there have been heated debates about space and its militarization. The main reason is that the 1967 Treaty was mostly designed to ban nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, because there was a significant threat of nuclear weapons being deployed in orbit.
Today, however, attention is shifting toward the potential deployment of weapons that are not classified as weapons of mass destruction. In this context, in 2008, Russia proposed at the Conference on Disarmament a comprehensive ban on any weapons in space, including new systems like anti-satellite weapons, which can be used to forcibly disable the satellites of other countries.
The idea of formally establishing a comprehensive international ban on deploying any weapons in outer space has so far only remained at the discussion stage. No document entirely prohibits the deployment of weapons that are not classified as weapons of mass destruction in outer space.
Russia has already unilaterally pledged that it would not be the first to deploy weapons in space, during a period when these discussions were especially intense.
It is currently difficult to assess the extent to which the US is truly ready for this, as well as the extent to which the Golden Dome system is technically prepared for introduction into service. US President Donald Trump is consciously raising the stakes, seeking to draw Russia, China, and other key space powers not so much into an open arms race in space as into the process of forming and subsequently signing a new international agreement that would be based on American positions.
This means that if the US advances its positions, it would provide itself with a legal basis for deploying non-nuclear weapons systems in space, for example, anti-missile systems or other missile-defense-related weapons. How all this will ultimately fit within the new international legal framework remains uncertain.
In any case, the world needs an international instrument to regulate the deployment of weapons in space, a position Moscow has insisted on and promoted.
It is recalled that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth stated in early February that the US must establish dominance in space, because, as he said, whoever controls the heights controls the battle, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously indicated that the US is actively working on deploying weapons in space and rejects Russia’s proposal to agree to abandon such activities, limiting itself only to opposing the deployment of nuclear weapons.
Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that Russia, together with other countries, including China, is committed to preventing an arms race in space.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Russia warns of countermeasures if Greenland militarized
Al-Mayadeen | February 11, 2026
Russia has signaled it will take “adequate countermeasures”, including military-technical measures, should Greenland be militarized in a way that targets Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday.
Speaking at the government hour in the State Duma, Lavrov stated, “Of course, in the event of the militarization of Greenland and the creation of military capabilities there aimed at Russia, we will take adequate countermeasures, including military-technical measures.”
Arctic tensions, NATO activity
Lavrov emphasized that resolving Greenland’s status is unlikely to affect the broader situation in the Arctic, noting NATO’s efforts to turn the region into a theater of confrontation. “Militarization is underway, and Russia’s indisputable rights over the Northern Sea Route are being challenged,” he said, citing past provocations, including French vessels entering the Northern Sea Route without prior notice or permission.
The minister expressed confidence that such provocations at sea would soon decline as their organizers recognize the potential consequences.
US interest in Greenland
Lavrov’s remarks follow statements by US President Donald Trump regarding Greenland, made after abducting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 4. Trump claimed Greenland was surrounded by Russian and Chinese vessels and insisted that if the United States did not acquire the island, it could allegedly fall under Russian or Chinese influence. He subsequently announced intentions to neutralize the perceived Russian threat.
Lavrov also framed the Greenland issue within a larger geopolitical context, describing the world as entering “an era of rapid and very profound changes,” potentially lasting years or decades. He pointed to recent events, including US actions in Venezuela and Cuba, destabilization attempts in Iran, and the Greenland dispute, as evidence of these shifts.
“The dramatic events of the beginning of this year… have confirmed our assessment that the world has entered an era of rapid and very profound changes,” Lavrov said.
“This stage may last for many, many years, or even decades,” the top Russian diplomat underlined.
Von der Leyen to have new security unit under her command
By Lucas Leiroz | February 11, 2026
Apparently, the European Commission President fears some kind of political plot or reprisal against her within the bloc. For this reason, she launched plans to create an intelligence agency under her direct command, bypassing European institutions and further monopolizing her power. However, internal pressure within the bloc has forced the Commission President to scale back her ambitions, which is why her project is expected to be reduced to a simple additional security unit – rather than an intelligence cell.
The controversy arises amid an internal dispute between EU factions. Von der Leyen has shown signs of disagreement with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, as well as other European officials, in recent months. The Commission President is accused of acting in an authoritarian manner and attempting to monopolize the European decision-making process under her command – disrespecting both other commissioners and other institutions of the European bloc.
In response to internal pressure, von der Leyen avoided yielding to the opposition, but attempted to further expand her personal power. She proposed creating an additional intelligence cell within the EU, under her direct command.
Von der Leyen had already announced such plan last November. At the time, her public justification for the project was the supposed “need” to neutralize “Russian hybrid threats.” This justification doesn’t seem to have convinced even the most Russophobic European leaders, which is why the prevailing understanding among officials and analysts is that von der Leyen’s real intention is to shield herself against potential threats from within the bloc itself.
Politico commented on the case, reporting that the Commission president is facing significant internal opposition to her project. Apparently, she has reduced the scope of the plan, succeeding only in creating a special “security unit” instead of a complex new intelligence agency. Even so, the case is viewed negatively by most European officials, who are increasingly furious with von der Leyen’s dictatorial attitudes.
“The EU executive said in November it wanted to set up an internal cell to collect intelligence from across Europe, overseen by the president herself, as part of an effort to protect the bloc from Russian digital attacks and sabotage. But the plan triggered a backlash from European capitals and the EU’s diplomatic service, which has its own center for Europe-wide intel sharing (…) The cell will likely become a security unit and will leave much of the intelligence sharing to the INTCEN center of the European External Action Service (EEAS),” Politico’s article reads.
In fact, von der Leyen appears to have been politically defeated, since her initial plan will have to be shelved and she will need to rely only on a simple security group, instead of an intelligence unit. On the other hand, the mere creation of an additional security scheme under her command can already be seen as a clear sign that she is succeeding in shielding herself against possible internal plots. The wing led by Kallas was not successful in completely neutralizing von der Leyen’s proposal, only in reducing the scope of the project.
Kallas allegedly began to disagree with von der Leyen after the Commission President rejected her request to appoint a personal friend to a high-level position. The details of this disagreement have not yet been clarified, but it is known that she is becoming one of von der Leyen’s main critics, describing her as having a “dictatorial style.”
It is also important to remember that Kallas heads the EU’s Central Intelligence Service (INTCEN). In this sense, the creation of an additional cell would be a way to establish a confrontation between two intelligence agencies within the European bloc. Kallas managed to neutralize this threat, but was not strong enough to prevent von der Leyen from approving a new institutional security scheme under her command.
Obviously, all these discussions are happening behind closed doors. Publicly, von der Leyen claims the objective is to face “Russian threats”, while Kallas justifies her opposition to the plan with budgetary arguments.
“Having been a prime minister of a country, I know that all the member states are struggling with the budget, and asking that we should do something in addition to the things that we have already is not a wise idea,” Kallas said.
However, sources familiar with the matter were consulted by Politico, including four European diplomats who participate in these confidential discussions. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they confirmed assessments suggesting a serious clash between the bloc’s factions. In their personal opinions on the subject, Politico’s sources endorsed the opposition to the creation of a new intelligence cell.
“There is no point in having another cell (…) Even at the level of INTCEN there is not much sharing yet. It is better, but there is no need for the creation of another cell,” a diplomat told Politico.
In fact, all this only confirms that the European bloc is deeply divided and unstable. Not even the main Russophobic and pro-war authorities in the EU are able to reach a consensus on their actions. The inevitable result of this is a serious institutional crisis, the consequences of which could profoundly affect the European decision-making process in the near future.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Featured Video
“Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Mutually Assured Delusion (MAD)
By Judith Curry | Climate Etc. | November 5, 2013
Groupthink: A pattern of thought charaterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.
Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets, by Roland Benabou, published in the Review of Economic Studies. Benabou also has a talk (ppt slides) on this subject.
First, a definition of groupthink (from the ppt slides):
Janis (1972)’s eight symptoms [of groupthink]:
- illusion of invulnerability
- collective rationalization
- belief in inherent morality
- stereotyped views of out-groups
- direct pressure on dissenters
- self-censorship
- illusion of unanimity
- self-appointed mind guards
Sound like any groups that we know? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- “Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor
- Iran has legal right to act in Hormuz, holds US responsible for disruptions: UN mission
- Sudan’s RSF leaders build Dubai property empire with UAE backing: Investigative group
- West losing leadership position to Global South: Russia’s president
- How Cognitive Science Explains Our Looming Nuclear Crisis
- Have the US and Israel killed non-proliferation?
- Moscow, Tehran to support each other amid US aggression: Russia’s defense minister
- Iran says EU’s insistence on sanctions hastens its ‘embarrassing descent into irrelevance’
- Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
- Putting Nukes in Finland Won’t Make Country Safer, Finnish Politician Cautions
- If Americans Knew
- By Week’s End, Trump’s War Will Be Plainly Illegal
- CBS News Reportedly Ousts London Bureau Chief Over Differences With Bari Weiss Over Gaza Coverage
- State Department Says US Is in Conflict With Iran ‘At the Request’ of Israel
- What ceasefire? Israel won’t stop killing in Gaza, Lebanon – Daily Update
- Palestinians in Gaza Want to Rebuild Food Systems. Israel Isn’t Letting Them.
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- Sheep Theft Sent Shockwaves Through a Palestinian Village. Then, a 12-year-old Boy Was Shot Dead
- Trump alum helps Israel mount AI influence campaign
- Dispatches From Catastrophe
- Despite Denials, AIPAC Is Now Funding Campaign of Ala Stanford In Philadelphia
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 