US Overestimates Capacity to Wage War on Iran While Supporting Ukraine
Sputnik – 06.08.2026
Ukraine believed it could outsmart Russia by placing its most advanced drone facilities under the protection of Patriot air defenses around the capital, military historian Yury Knutov tells Sputnik, adding that the calculation proved wrong — American interceptor missiles ran dry.
“Germany, Norway, the Baltic states, and the Gulf monarchies that purchased Patriot systems are now confronted with the fact that the American shield has holes in it – and can no longer be fully relied upon,” says the pundit.
Reports say the Trump administration discovered its interceptor stockpiles had been drastically depleted, forcing it to scale back plans for large-scale strikes on Iran and deny Ukraine’s request for additional Patriot missiles. The Iran war was identified as a key driver of the shortages.
“For the next 3-5 years, the US will be forced to operate under strict constraints, unable to simultaneously protect all of its assets in the Middle East and continue supporting Ukraine,” Knutov says, commenting on reports that US missile stockpiles may not recover until 2029-2031.
The US may also scale back protection of its allies, the pundit suggests:
- Ukraine is only the first warning sign – other allies could be next to face reduced US air-defense support
- Many Iranian missiles aimed at the Gulf now go unchallenged as US troops conserves scarce interceptors for defending their own bases in the region
- A number of US units not directly involved in air operations or air defense have been withdrawn from the Middle East
The Imbalance in the Iran War is Critical
“Even if the US multiplies production several times over, it will never match Iran in terms of cost or production speed,” Knutov says. “Iran can manufacture missiles and drones at a fraction of the cost, while its facilities are dispersed and protected.”
A war of attrition against Iran would be a losing strategy for the US from the outset, the expert concludes.
Trump returns to talking on Ukraine but war must mature first
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 6, 2026
Russian President Vladimir Putin fired the political equivalent of an Oroshnik hypersonic missile Wednesday to scatter the recent pot shots by hawkish factions at the Russian ‘power vertical’, never a unified construct actually, over the future directions of Ukraine war.
Putin coolly announced at a Kremlin meeting Wednesday with the Defense Ministry leadership a major reshuffle of Russian commanders in the special military operation zone asserting that he has his own mind about tactic and strategy and intends to continue with the special military operation to its logical conclusion, while retaining the structural patterns.
Simply put, Russia’s Bismarck does not want to be remembered in posterity as someone who wantonly sacrificed the lives of his country’s youth to conquer foreign lands for self-glorification.
It is a noble decision — pragmatic and tactical but also strategic. This will mean Russia’s attritional war will continue but a paradigm shift to put maximum pressure on the leadership of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is to be expected. Indeed, the massive missile strikes at Kyiv in recent days are no longer meeting with missile interceptors, as Americans do not have surplus stocks to spare.
Put differently, there has been a paradigm shift as Russian forces gain ground all across the frontline while there are growing signs of demoralisation within the Ukrainian army whose command and control system has become shaky following the recent dismissal of Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and the replacement of Defence Minister Mykhailo Federov.
Putin has reposed confidence in the military commanders who worked as a team in advancing the special military operation. From the political perspective too, Putin is pleased with the return of the US administration — and President Donald Trump personally — to the Ukraine settlement process.
The big picture also needs to be factored in, as Washington’s high-level contacts with Beijing are intensifying and Moscow cannot afford to lag behind. Russia’s sherpa to the APEC summit at Shenzhen Ambassador-at-Large Marat Berdyev told Izvestia recently, “It’s premature to discuss specific meetings. However, in my opinion, such a trilateral contact [US-Russia-China] would be very useful. In practical terms, it’s entirely feasible, as three leaders of the leading powers are expected at the designated venue.”
Certainly, the first in-person meeting in Manila on May 25 between foreign ministers Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio since September of last year was a defining moment. Ukraine was largely the focus of the meeting. Rubio told the media there was a need to seek “new proposals and new ideas,” adding that Washington was prepared to present “some of them in the appropriate context and format.”
This marked a departure from the Anchorage agreements of last August. But Moscow decided not to make an issue of it and instead signalled appreciation that after a lengthy pause, the US was renewing efforts to restart the Ukraine negotiation process.
In a subsequent interview with Fox News on August 1, Rubio announced that Washington was once again ready to work with Moscow and Kyiv to achieve peace, despite the two countries’ existing “strict red lines.” Rubio stated that Moscow and Kyiv have “some pretty strong red lines. Until we can bring these red lines closer together, we won’t achieve our goal. But we are ready to act.”
Rubio also touched on how Washington envisioned the main goal of its diplomacy in the new phase: “The dynamics of the conflict have changed somewhat in recent months, with the Ukrainian side now capable of striking deep into Russian territory and making the Russians feel the effects of this war. Therefore, we want to explore whether this new dynamic can lead to some kind of negotiated settlement.”
But to be sure, Rubio would also have been aware that the emergent reality included sustained and massive Russian missile strikes on Kyiv, and that a major drone production facility belonging to the American company Terminal Autonomy was destroyed last week. According to the Guardian, this company manufactured high-precision drones for “deep strikes” in Ukraine, with guidance systems resistant to Russian electronic countermeasures. Of course, Russians were making a point.
On the other hand, Trump retracted from an earlier offer during the NATO summit in Ankara on July 8 to allow Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missile; and he also failed to respond to a request from Zelenskyy for an “emergency winter package of 300 Patriot missiles” without waiting for licensed production to begin.
The White House and SpaceX are also non-committal apropos of Zelenskyy’s proposal to Trump on July 28 to lift Starlink’s geographic restrictions over Russian territory that would enable Ukraine to use Starlink’s real-time connection to steer long-range drones against mobile Russian ballistic missile launchers positioned deep inside Russia.
Furthermore, it transpires that the new scheme by the US’ European allies for American arms supplies to Ukraine under the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) programme is stalling. Despite $4.5 billion flowing into the US Treasury under PURL as of March, no contracts have been signed so far.
Finally, the ‘Graham bill’ imposing oil sanctions on Russia may not after all pass before the legislative recess which begins on August 10, as it has become part of a bargaining chip between the Democratic and Republican parties. If consideration of the bill drags on and if the Congress comes under Democratic Party control, the ‘bipartisan consensus’ over the bill may well wither away even as Lindsey Graham becomes a distant memory. The White House is in no hurry to pass the bill.
However, such ‘feel good’ signalling notwithstanding, fundamental disagreements over key terms of a peace settlement continue to prevent Moscow and Kyiv from resuming full-fledged dialogue. Due to the escalating conflict over Iran, Washington is currently unable to exert the necessary pressure on Kyiv. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to visit Kyiv in the second half of August.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s attacks on civilian infrastructure within Russia are only intensifying, against the backdrop of Russia’s Duma elections. Russia’s retaliatory missile strikes have reached a massive scale.
The bottom line is that the chances of Moscow agreeing to Kyiv and Washington’s new terms are low. So, the nascent negotiation process would inevitably return to square one, which in turn will trigger another round of escalation. Perhaps, Russia anticipates such an eventuality.
One positive factor is that Trump himself would seek to achieve at least interim results in the negotiations before the mid-term congressional elections. But then, a powerful lobby representing the US military-industrial complex advocates a continuation of the conflict.
The Kremlin meeting on Wednesday and the reshuffle of army commanders steering the special military operation in Ukraine messages that negotiations can only become feasible when the parties are willing to make mutual concessions, and for that to happen, two pre-requisites of the situation are needed, namely, Russia’s battlefield victory and regime change in Kyiv.
Did the US military take down a civilian plane?
RT | August 5, 2026
The US military’s GPS jamming exercises have been directly implicated in a fatal plane crash for the first time, after an air ambulance flew into a mountain range in New Mexico while its guidance system was scrambled.
Details of the crash, which took place in May, were revealed in a recent preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The report explains how the jamming exercises interfered with multiple aircraft, pushing air traffic controllers to the breaking point as they attempted to reroute flights using traditional means of navigation. Amid the confusion, a medevac flight with four people on board strayed miles off course, crashing into mountains at full speed on a moonless night.
What happened to the plane?
Shortly after 11 PM on May 13, the crew of a Beechcraft King Air 90 air ambulance were given a straightforward mission: fly for roughly 20 minutes from Roswell to Sierra Blanca Regional Airport, pick up a patient, and transport them to Albuquerque for treatment. Two pilots and two nurses boarded the turboprop aircraft and took off, flying west.
Within minutes, controllers noticed that the plane was flying 1,000 feet above its assigned altitude. The plane’s captain informed controllers that he had lost GPS signal, and controllers responded by ordering him to correct his altitude, fly north, and await alternate directions to Sierra Blanca, where he would perform an instrument landing – using radio beacons to line up with the runway and descend at the correct angle.
Meanwhile, controllers got in touch with the military and requested that the jamming exercise be paused.
What was the military doing?
Some 40 miles away, at the White Sands Missile Range, the US Air Force’s 746th Test Squadron was holding its annual NAVFEST drills. These exercises bring together electronic warfare (EW) units from multiple branches of the armed forces, engineers from the defense industry, and teams from other NATO states to practice GPS interference, navigation, and drone defense on a desert plain once used to test atomic bombs.
Prior to the crash, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned aircraft operators that GPS could be affected up to 400 miles from the exercises between May 12 and May 18.
A map showing GPS interference around White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico on the night of the crash © GPSJAM
How did the plane crash?
As the plane continued north, controllers informed the captain that they would send vectors – a series of compass headings – to align the plane for landing “in a couple minutes.” However, the controllers were busy redirecting four other aircraft that had lost their GPS, and the vectors never came.
At eight minutes past midnight, the pilots spotted the runway lights at Sierra Blanca, roughly 31 miles to their southwest. They decided to navigate visually to the airport, informed controllers, and turned towards their destination. Apparently, they never intended to approach from this direction, and didn’t notice the 10,000-foot Capitan Mountains between them and the runway.
Controllers informed the military that it could resume jamming, and the plane descended towards Sierra Blanca, its altimeter still reading 600 feet higher than the plane’s actual altitude. As the mountains rose out of the darkness and obscured the distant runway, the pilots attempted to pull up, but were unable to avert disaster.
The plane slammed into the mountainside, instantly killing everyone on board and igniting a forest fire that took almost a month to extinguish.
What has the US military said?
The US Army did not respond to questions from the Associated Press, and has not released a public statement on the crash in the almost two months since the NTSB’s report was published.
Much about the incident is still unknown. It is unclear whether the pilots were aware that the FAA had warned about potential GPS interference, whether their ground proximity warning system – which should have told them to climb to avoid the crash – was affected by the jamming, and why they were unaware of a large mountain range in the area.
The NTSB’s report is preliminary, and the board will not identify the precise cause of the crash until its investigation concludes next year.
Are more flights at risk?
The crash marked the first time that GPS jamming by the US military has been implicated in a fatal accident. However, civilian aircraft have been affected by jamming exercises before. In March of last year, airliners approaching Washington DC’s Reagan International Airport received warnings from their planes’ Traffic Collision Avoidance System, instructing them to immediately descend to avoid hitting non-existent traffic in their paths. It later emerged that electronic warfare testing by the US Secret Service caused the false alerts.
Such incidents will likely become more common, as the Pentagon increases its spending on, and testing of, EW equipment. Since at least 2020, the US has been aware that its military trails Russia and China in developing and integrating EW systems, and lawmakers have pushed the Pentagon to close the gap.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has demonstrated just how wide that gap is, even between the US and its own client regime in Kiev. In a conflict where every Ukrainian advance in drone technology is countered by Russian EW specialists within weeks, and vice versa, US weapons systems – including GPS-guided shells and missiles – were rendered “useless” by mid-2023, according to media reports.
Since then, the Pentagon has asked Congress to fund more electronic warfare experiments in the US, and last year, the Army published its first ever Comprehensive Electromagnetic Warfare Strategy, promising to embed EW systems into every unit of the branch by 2028.
The US has the world’s busiest airspace, with more than 44,000 flights handled by the FAA every day. It is inevitable that a growing number of these flights will be affected by electronic warfare in the future, and that the risk to civilians will increase as the Pentagon tries to catch up with its adversaries.
The Galling Gallium Chokehold: Why the US Cannot Produce Precision Missiles and Fully-Functional F-35s
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 3, 2026
Kudos, again, to Kevin Wamsley of Inside China Business. Based on his latest podcast (see below) I did some additional digging. The substance of his video briefing is shocking and alarming, at least for US policymakers and weapons manufacturers. There is a single thread running from the empty nose cones of America’s newest stealth fighters to the laboratories where China is building the internet of the 2030s. That thread is gallium — a soft, silvery byproduct of aluminum refining that almost no one outside a materials-science department thinks about, and that the United States does not produce at all.
A metal America stopped making
The top line from the US Geological Survey is stark: the United States has had no primary domestic gallium production for decades, and its net import reliance sits at 100 percent. China, by contrast, controls the overwhelming majority of global output — figures commonly cited run from 94 to 98 percent of raw production. The reason is structural, not incidental. Gallium is extracted as a byproduct of bauxite and zinc processing, industries China dominates. A country cannot simply decide to make gallium; it must first build the aluminum and zinc industries that yield it, then the extraction, refining, wafer, and packaging lines on top. That is a decade-plus undertaking, not a budget line.
This dependency became a weapon in December 2024, when Beijing banned exports of gallium, germanium, and antimony to the United States, explicitly prohibiting sales to US military end-users. It was retaliation for American semiconductor export controls, and it landed on a Pentagon that, by the USGS’s own accounting, had no gallium in the National Defense Stockpile to fall back on.
One crucial update the alarmist version of this story often omits: in November 2025, as part of a broader trade truce between Presidents Trump and Xi, China suspended the civilian portion of that ban until late November 2026, moving those exports to a licensing regime. But the suspension came with a catch that matters enormously — the prohibition on exports to military end-users stayed in force. So the civilian supply reopened on Beijing’s sufferance, revocable at will, while the weapons-makers remained cut off. The chokehold didn’t release; it was repositioned.
The fighters with counterweights where radars should be
The most vivid symptom of this dependency is also the most easily misunderstood. It is true — confirmed through photographic evidence and industry reporting, though initially denied by the Department of War — that F-35s built from Lot 17 onward are being delivered with counterweights, literal ballast, in their nose cones where radars belong. Reporting has put the number affected in the hundreds.
But the cause is more tangled than “China cut off the gallium.” The immediate culprit is the delayed development and certification of the AN/APG-85, the next-generation radar meant to replace the older AN/APG-81. The APG-85 is built on gallium-nitride (GaN) technology, which delivers far higher power and better thermal efficiency — and demands roughly 82 kilowatts, forcing structural, cooling, and power redesigns to the aircraft’s forward fuselage. Jets from Lot 17 were redesigned to accept the APG-85 and can no longer take the old APG-81. When the new radar slipped, those aircraft had nowhere to turn but counterweights.
Gallium supply is the aggravating factor layered beneath that engineering delay: GaN radars use far more gallium than their predecessors, the DLA has struggled to source it as Japan and Germany lack the capacity to fill the gap, and prices have surged. The honest framing is that America faces a radar-development problem and a materials problem, and China’s monopoly sits underneath both. Meanwhile, China has moved its own J-20 fighter to a next-generation radar reportedly built on the same GaN technology — the qualitative gap the APG-85 was meant to open is instead narrowing.
The vulnerability extends well past one airframe. Gallium nitride underpins the high-power jammers on the EA-18G Growler, the F-35’s own electronic-warfare suite, and the large ground-based radar arrays of the kind destroyed during the fighting in the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon’s supply chains reportedly touch Chinese suppliers across a vast share of weapons components — the dependency is systemic, not a single point of failure.
The same monopoly, pointed at the future
Here the story turns from defense to something larger. The same industrial base that lets China throttle radar production also lets Chinese researchers race ahead on the technology expected to define the next quarter-century of connectivity: 6G.
The headline achievement is real and was published in Nature. A team led by scientists from Peking University and the City University of Hong Kong built what they describe as the world’s first “all-frequency” 6G chip — a device roughly 11 by 1.7 millimeters that integrates the entire wireless spectrum from 0.5 to 115 gigahertz onto a single chip. That span previously required nine separate radio systems. In testing it exceeded 100 gigabits per second on a single channel, which independent write-ups translate to roughly 500 times the real-world speed most users get from 5G today, and it can retune across 6 gigahertz of spectrum in 180 microseconds to hop clear of interference. The researchers built it not from gallium but from thin-film lithium niobate, using a photonic-electronic design, and they intend to shrink it into plug-and-play modules for phones, base stations, drones, and IoT devices.
The strategic point survives the technical correction. Whether the enabling material is gallium in a radar or lithium niobate in a transceiver, the pattern is the same: China increasingly controls both the raw inputs and the pipeline of scientists and engineers turning them into deployable systems. And 6G’s importance is not really about consumers. Few individuals need to download a library of films in seconds. The demand comes from industry — precision robotics, advanced manufacturing, private industrial networks, integrated sensing, low-altitude drone economies — the very sectors where China has already built commanding positions. 6G’s promised leap in speed, latency, and integrated sensing is a boon precisely to the industrial base China is busy consolidating.
The standards are the prize
There is one more dimension that outlasts any single chip. 6G has not yet been standardized worldwide; the global protocols are still being written, precisely because the systems are still being built. Standards bodies — 3GPP, the ITU, the O-RAN Alliance — are only now moving 6G from research into formal specification, with first specs targeted around 2029 and commercial networks around 2030. Whoever builds the working systems first shapes the standards everyone else must adopt.
The Trump administration has recognized the stakes, declaring 6G foundational to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic prosperity, and setting a policy of American leadership — directing work on spectrum, commercial applications, and diplomatic coalitions to back the U.S. position. The Boston Consulting Group projects that 5G’s roughly $1 trillion in economic output could grow toward $18 trillion by 2035, with 6G enabling entirely new enterprise models and large-scale AI across manufacturing, cities, healthcare, and public safety.
But intent collides with the same wall. The United States cannot lead in building what it cannot supply. Leadership in 6G requires the mining, refining, fabrication, and — above all — the tens of thousands of trained engineers applying the technology at scale. China is doing that work now. America is still debating how to start.
The bottom line
Strip away the hyperbole and a hard core remains. Today, U.S. contractors cannot reliably put advanced radars on hundred-million-dollar aircraft, in part because China controls a metal America stopped producing forty years ago. Ten years from now, on current trajectory, anyone who wants the best phones, drones, or robots may find the critical components — and the standards they run on — routed through that same country. Supply chains are the whole game, and so are the researchers who turn raw materials into markets. That is the argument, and the uncomfortable part is how much of it is simply true.
Here is Kevin’s video:
NATO to soon double US nuclear sharing warheads, deploy them in Finland, Poland and Lithuania
By Drago Bosnic | August 4, 2026
NATO is no longer even bothering to hide that it wants to expand its nuclear footprint on the “old continent”. Namely, the most aggressive racketeering cartel in recorded history is sliding into an increasingly dangerous nuclear posture, with the shift being sold as “routine deterrence”. In reality, the change is a deliberate widening of escalation options aimed at upending Russia. Combined with France’s preparation of a base for nuclear-capable “Rafale” fighter jets, this process is effectively a (geo)political and military masterclass in “normalizing” a confrontation that could bring about thermonuclear annihilation of humanity. With the new “Eastern Front” closer to a hair-trigger condition than ever before, this sort of escalation is virtually guaranteed to deliver what Western warmongering oligarchies have wanted for centuries – an all-out war with Russia.
Firstly, it should be understood that even from a theoretical point of view, this is not static deterrence, but an active preparation for offensive nuclear warfare. New infrastructure, upgraded airbases, greater readiness for nuclear-capable assets, massive expansion of delivery options and systems, etc., none of which are “administrative measures” or “seamless red tape”. This changes the strategic equation by making it easier to initiate nuclear escalation at shorter notice, giving Russia little to no time to evaluate response options and forcing it to rely on absolute use of its devastating firepower. In simpler terms, the Kremlin is left with no choice but to launch its entire strategic arsenal, by far the largest and most powerful in the world, if any incoming missile from NATO-occupied Europe is detected.
The general public, largely oblivious to the current nuclear posture developments, is actively being lied to that these steps are “defensive”, because Moscow is “aggressive”. However, the practical reasoning is to deepen the permanence of nuclear tensions in Europe. The role of Paris is especially telling, as it exposes the contradictions at the heart of the EU’s nuclear posture. Namely, France likes to frame its strategic arsenal as an “instrument of sovereignty” that’s supposedly separate from NATO’s wider nuclear posture. And yet, the timing of preparing airbases for nuclear strikes involving its “Rafale” fighter jets tells a very different story. What conclusion is Russia supposed to make given that the processes are concurrent? Would anyone with an ounce of “grey matter” view it as “purely coincidental”?
Thus, it can only be expected that Moscow will not view any of this as a series of isolated incidents. In the current geopolitical climate, this is clearly part of NATO’s wider doctrinal shift aimed at projecting strategic pressure, complicating Russian deterrence planning and tightening the nuclear dimension of European security. The nuclear integration of the US, EU and NATO is where the danger multiplies and grows exponentially. When nuclear-capable jets, forward operating bases and broader coordination are normalized at once, the line between deterrence and provocation effectively vanishes. In which twisted universe can doubling (if not tripling) the number of deployed nuclear warheads be seen as defensive? And to say nothing of the fact that they’re going to be placed in Finland, Poland and Lithuania.
Namely, all three countries border Russia. In practice, this means there would be a “nuclear wall” stretching from the Arctic all the way to the heart of Central Europe. That’s around 3,800 km of frontline that could explode into a thermonuclear annihilation at virtually any moment. Any move presented as “deterrence” could lead to cataclysmic consequences, meaning there’s zero room for error. And yet, NATO’s constant belligerence has reduced diplomatic contacts with Moscow to exchanging protest notes. The more the “old continent” is wired for nuclear war, the less response time leaders on both sides have in an escalating crisis. This dramatically increases the chance that what could be a temporary geopolitical flare-up becomes a military emergency before anyone can stop it or at least slow it down.
In addition, NATO’s wider nuclear build-up perfectly fits the Pentagon’s “geopolitics of controlled chaos”. In practice, that translates into a NATO-occupied Europe that’s mainly useful as a springboard for strategic pressure against the Kremlin. The overall nuclear posture keeps moving closer to the point where peace is maintained only by the threat of immediate catastrophe. This sort of “logic” is precisely what drove the world to the edge of the abyss during the (First) Cold War. It culminated in the late 1980s, with strategic arsenals in tens of thousands of thermonuclear warheads. NATO’s aggressive posture and forward deployment of offensive weapons forced the Soviet Union to build nearly 50,000 thermonuclear warheads, the largest and most destructive strategic arsenal in human history.
Hopeful that long-term peace with the political West was possible, Russia reduced this massive strategic asset to just about 12% of what it was at the time. What did it get instead? Only more belligerence and truly unprovoked aggression, while being presented as a “threat”. Not to mention the total disregard for its most basic national security interests, including NATO-backed terrorist attacks on Russian civilians and energy infrastructure.
Faced with such odds, Moscow had no choice but to dramatically increase the effectiveness of its thermonuclear arsenal. Namely, while the Soviet arsenal had around 60% of missiles with MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads, modern Russia has upward of 90% of MIRV-ed missiles, demonstrating how NATO aggression keeps making the world less safe.
The EU Has No Plan If Peace Breaks Out in Ukraine
By Glenn Diesen | August 4, 2026
Over the past years, NATO has held “peace summits” to which Russia was not even invited, where European leaders such as President Duda spoke about peace in terms of breaking up Russia into smaller states. Now that NATO is clearly losing its proxy war, the EU demands an “unconditional ceasefire”. This is not a peace proposal but an effort to further extend the war. An “unconditional ceasefire” is a conditionality for starting negotiations, which is intended to freeze a conflict that NATO is losing, giving it time to rearm, regroup, and even send in NATO troops as “peacekeepers”.
Why has the EU boycotted diplomacy for 4.5 years and continues to do so? And why will NATO not even take NATO expansion off the table in return for a ceasefire? Would it not be wise to discuss with the other side how we failed to establish a mutually acceptable pan-European security architecture after the Cold War, which has led us into this horrific war? The EU uses smears and censorship to prevent its own public from even discussing this matter, and it will certainly not be discussed with Russia.
The EU cannot allow this war to end, as there is no plan for peace. Fighting with Ukrainians keeps the U.S. in Europe, temporarily preserves European unity, protects an unpopular political elite from the rising opposition that seeks course correction, offers military Keynesianism as an economic model for a de-industrialising Europe, weakens Russia as a strategic rival, and buys the European leaders time to prepare for a direct war with Russia. A peace agreement would require European leaders to repay the funds they have seized and partly stolen from Russia, which they also used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. Victory would give the Europeans a strong U.S. behind them and a battle-hardened Ukraine in front of them, while defeat would leave Europe without a clear role or relevance in a multipolar world. There is no plan for what to do when peace breaks out.
When the Trump administration broke with the NATO consensus of boycotting diplomacy to negotiate an end to the Ukraine War, the main objective of the European leaders was to shut down the talks. The European leaders rushed to Washington to insist that peace entails an “unconditional ceasefire” without even discussing a political settlement, and intensified deep strikes into Russia to sell the idea that Russia can be defeated. The European leaders were successful as the Trump administration began adopting the false narrative that Ukraine had “turned the tide”. While the Trump administration had initially aimed to either end the Ukraine War or outsource it to the Europeans, the proxy war in Ukraine is now Trump’s war.
If the goal was to “help Ukraine”, then NATO would not have toppled the Ukrainian government in 2014 in the effort to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit that only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted; NATO would not have sabotaged the Minsk Agreement between 2015 and 2022; NATO would not have pressured Zelensky to reverse his peace platform that won him the election in 2019; NATO would not have torpedoed the Istanbul agreement in 2022; or at least NATO would have ended the war in November of 2022 on the recommendation of General Mark Milley when Ukraine was at its strongest. Instead, “standing with Ukraine” now entails deporting Ukrainian refugees and financing military recruiters to hunt Ukrainian men on the streets to send them to die in a war that Ukraine cannot possibly win. Proxy wars are ruthless as they use the proxy as cannon fodder, yet proxy wars are always sold to the public as being motivated by empathy and support for the proxy that is unnecessarily sacrificed.
The paradox of Brazilian defense: a comparative study with Iran
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 3, 2026
For decades, the debate over national defense in Brazil has been treated as a secondary issue. In a country with no significant border disputes and far removed from the world’s principal conflict zones, the prevailing perception has been that substantial military investments are unnecessary. The result of this mindset is an increasingly evident paradox: Brazil ranks among the countries with the largest military budgets in the world in absolute terms, yet it continues to display significant limitations in operational capabilities, strategic production, and deterrence.
Recently, I had access to a study prepared by Brazilian Navy Commander Robinson Farinazzo, based on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which highlights a striking reality. Between 2015 and 2024, Brazil accumulated approximately US$214 billion in military expenditures, while Iran spent roughly US$134 billion during the same period. In other words, Brazil invested about 60 percent more resources in defense than Iran over the past decade.
However, a simple comparison of spending figures reveals very little about the actual military capabilities of each country. Brazil allocates the overwhelming majority of its defense budget to maintaining its existing structure. Salaries, pensions, and administrative expenses consume most of the available resources, leaving relatively little room for research and development, procurement, weapons acquisition, and technological modernization. This model preserves a large and professional military force, but significantly limits the pace at which its operational capabilities can be renewed.
Iran, by contrast, has followed a fundamentally different approach. Despite decades of economic sanctions, financial isolation, and severe restrictions on importing military equipment, Tehran invested heavily in building a comprehensive domestic defense industrial base. Unable to rely on foreign suppliers, the country directed its resources toward the development of ballistic missiles, drones, air defense systems, and local weapons production. Ironically, the sanctions intended to undermine Iran’s strategic autonomy ended up encouraging a high degree of self-sufficiency across multiple sectors of its defense industry.
This divergence in priorities has become particularly relevant in today’s international environment. In an era characterized by growing competition among major powers, the ability to manufacture weapons domestically, sustain national industrial supply chains, and rapidly adapt military technologies has become just as important as the nominal size of a country’s defense budget. In this respect, Iran’s experience demonstrates that the efficiency with which resources are allocated can be as decisive as the total amount spent.
The contrast with Brazil is unavoidable. The country possesses a respectable defense industrial base responsible for projects such as the KC-390 military transport aircraft, the ASTROS rocket artillery system, the Guarani armored vehicle, and the PROSUB submarine program. Nevertheless, these achievements coexist with decades of inconsistent investment, recurring budget cuts, and the absence of a long-term state policy aimed at continuously strengthening Brazil’s defense industrial and technological capabilities.
Even more concerning is the fact that Brazil operates in a geopolitical environment that is incomparably less hostile than the one confronting Iran. While Tehran has spent decades under international sanctions, surrounded by regional adversaries and subjected to sustained external pressure, Brasília benefits from regional stability, abundant natural resources, and relatively broad access to international markets. Yet Brazil has failed to transform these favorable conditions into a coherent strategy for strengthening its deterrent capabilities.
The principal lesson from this comparison is not that Brazil should replicate the Iranian model, nor should it overlook the profound political, economic, and strategic differences between the two countries. The conclusion is far simpler: financial resources alone do not guarantee military power. Without long-term planning, sustained investment, a strengthened domestic defense industry, and priority given to research and technological innovation, even substantial defense budgets produce limited strategic results.
The world is entering a period of growing geopolitical instability. In this context, Brazil’s real challenge is not simply determining how much to spend on defense, but defining which capabilities it intends to develop over the coming decades. Otherwise, it will continue spending billions merely to sustain an existing structure that, while important, fails to meet the strategic requirements of a continental-sized nation with increasingly significant interests on the international stage.
How Lockheed Martin, Raytheon & BAE Systems Are Propagandizing Children to Support War Through STEM
By Alan Macleod| MintPress News | August 1, 2026
Raytheon sponsors the Girl Scouts of America. BAE Systems is reading your toddlers their favorite fairytale stories. And Lockheed Martin funds children’s math and STEM festivals. This is done with great fanfare, supposedly to empower and inspire children to pursue their passion for science. In reality, though, these companies are attempting to launder their images and enlist the next generation to become cogs in the military-industrial complex.
All the while, these organizations’ products are being used across the world by the United States and Israel to commit war crimes – in Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and beyond – to target children.
MintPress explores the murky world of the arms companies training kids to bomb kids.
Normalizing War to Kids
When many Americans think of Raytheon (now officially rebranded as RTX Corporation), they don’t envisage rockets and cruise missiles; they think of math. For decades, the second-largest arms manufacturer on the planet has bankrolled a wide range of organizations aimed at getting children excited about STEM subjects.
Since 2009, Raytheon has been the title sponsor of MATHCOUNTS, a non-profit organization that provides engaging math programs for middle school students in every U.S. state, as well as organizing math competitions to find the brightest children in America.
In 2005, Raytheon launched its MathMovesU program, aimed, in its own words, “to inspire middle school students to get excited about math and science.” In addition to the materials provided, it has also spent millions on scholarships, grants, and study awards to thousands of students, teachers, and volunteers.
And its MathAlive! traveling exhibit promises, in rather outdated branding, to take math “2theXtreme”. MathAlive! Has also traveled to several countries in West Asia, including Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – all of them among the biggest purchasers of Raytheon weapons technology.
The company also enjoys a longtime partnership with the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA). In 2017, for example, it launched the GSUSA’s first national computer science program and cyber challenge for middle and high school girls.
“The progress to diversify the STEM workforce needs to be accelerated… At a time when technology is transforming the way we live and work, we can – and should – show young women a clear path to taking an active role in this transformation,” said Thomas A. Kennedy, then-Raytheon CEO; “Working together, Raytheon and Girl Scouts will help girls build confidence to see themselves as the robotics engineers, data scientists and cybersecurity professionals who will create a better tomorrow.”
Raytheon also spearheaded the GSUSA’s “Think Like a Programmer” project, which encourages girls to explore the world of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, and developed many of the programming badges available to the scouts.
GSUSA appears proud of this relationship. Its website profiles one former scout who now works at Raytheon as a success story and a model to follow. The article includes a step-by-step guide and a list of tips for those wishing to follow in her footsteps.
Unsurprisingly, Raytheon also works closely with the U.S. military on these matters, establishing four new STEM “centers of innovation” with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America in Michigan, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington, D.C., all near military bases.
While some might be surprised by the closeness of the relationship between a children’s organization and an arms manufacturer, it is worth remembering that the scouting movement was originally established by Lieutenant-General Robert Baden-Powell, as a stepping stone towards boys joining the military. Baden-Powell was deeply concerned that English boys would not be physically fit enough to fight for their country in any upcoming wars, and designed an organization that would train them both physically and mentally to do so.
Kirsten Bayes from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade was unimpressed by Raytheon’s attempts to improve their image and to train the next generation of weapons manufacturers. “Our view is that arms companies have no place in schools or colleges, and should certainly not be working with children’s educational charities,” she told MintPress, adding:
“Schools and other places of education should be places where children learn, grow and develop their full potential. They should not be a recruiting ground where arms companies whitewash their activities.”
Lockheed Martin U
But Raytheon is far from the only weapons giant directly targeting America’s children. Lockheed Martin hosts CYBERQUEST, an annual high school competition that encourages children to pursue careers in intelligence and cybersecurity. The 2026 event was held in 11 locations across the country, as well as virtually around the world. The arms giant offers high school internship programs designed to fast-track America’s brightest young minds into careers in defense. Every year, Lockheed Martin hires thousands of young interns, and claims that 60% of these candidates go on to paid work at the company.
It also sponsors “young minds at work” days, setting up hands-on experiments for children to play with, including bottle rocket experiments and more.
Universities are a key recruitment ground. The corporation spends huge sums attracting top talent, including hosting “Lockheed Martin Day” at more than a dozen colleges nationwide, where company recruiters are allowed on campus to dazzle students with virtual reality exhibitions, flight simulators, and even landing helicopters directly on college greens.
Lockheed Martin has entered into partnerships with several top colleges. A $1.5 million donation to the University of Texas at Arlington, for instance, resulted in the renamed of one of their buildings as the Lockheed Martin Career Development Center.
The company touts its reputation as a safe space for women and LGBT employees, and is regularly listed as one of the best employers for inclusivity. One woman the company itself profiles is Haley, who, as a girl, dreamed of becoming an inventor. “As a child,” they write, “Haley clung to a notebook where she sketched her ideas and inventions. On the cover she scribbled, ‘Haley’s Way to Make Life Better.’ Her best idea? A self-folding Christmas tree cleverly called ‘Merry, Bright and Boxed’ to make cleaning up after the holidays more efficient.” Today, that child with dreams of making the world a better place is a missiles and fire control engineer with Lockheed Martin, developing weapons that efficiently kill people all across the planet.
Targeting Toddlers
Boeing, too, has developed a number of projects aimed at young children. Their “Engineering is Elementary” program is designed for pre-K, kindergarten, elementary and middle school students, and, like those from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is focussed on funnelling young minds into a career in weapons manufacturing. “Boeing has a strategic community focus to increase teacher effectiveness in math and science and to attract more students into STEM-related careers,” a company representative said, adding,
“Engineering is Elementary provides teachers and students a greater understanding of engineering, and it accomplishes that in a fun, interactive way. Our goal is to interest students in engineering at an early age and increase the number of scientists and engineers.”
Aerospace manufacturer BAE Systems, however, goes even further. The London-based giant that produces jet aircraft, missiles, howitzers, and warships published a series of bizarre videos featuring both its employees and members of the British Armed Forces reading classic fairytales to children. This included Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella, and Hansel and Gretel. These came complete with worksheets to help extremely young children with their problem-solving skills.
Reading bedtime stories to babies is just part of a wider strategy BAE Systems is conducting in order to, in their own words, “improve our corporate reputation at both a local and national level.” Other initiatives include hosting school roadshows, robotics festivals, science camps, and local community outreach programs, all aimed at children. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it also stepped in to provide schools with branded learning materials for children as young as five.
Bayes appeared appalled at the company’s actions, stating:
“We are aware that BAE Systems claims to spend as much as £100m [U.S.$134m] per year on educational activities. It claims its motives are community based, but we would say that this is part of their recruiting strategy: seeking to influence young people without presenting the full facts of what an arms company is, and what the consequences of working for them would be.”
Fairytales and Nightmares
As much as these companies attempt to present themselves neutrally as scientific entities, the reality is that their primary businesses revolve around producing the hardware and weaponry that the United States uses to dominate the world.
In the past twelve months alone, the United States has bombed seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. And it is companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin that make this kind of extraordinary planetary violence possible.
For example, on February 28, the United States launched an attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in Minab, Iran. A Tomahawk cruise missile – one of the most precise guided weapons on the planet – was launched from a nearby warship and pummelled the building, causing the school to collapse in on itself. Soon after, a second missile hit the school’s courtyard, where desperate survivors were gathering.
The attack was timed precisely for maximum damage: 10:45am on a school day. At least 156 people were killed, most of them pupils at the school, which neither served any military purpose, nor was located near any military target. Over 100 more were injured.
The event was immediately denounced as a major war crime. But Secretary of War Pete Hegseth brushed it off, and later stated that, “The only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians who think they’re going to live.”
The Tomahawk cruise missile is produced by Raytheon, and subsystems used in the operation were made by a subsidiary of BAE Systems.
Washington also uses its primacy in weapons to keep its allies in power. Saudi Arabia is by far the U.S.’ top arms customer, purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hi-tech weaponry, which it immediately uses against Yemen, and to suppress domestic dissent.
Riyadh has pursued a genocidal attack on civilian infrastructure in Yemen, including against farms, sewage, and water facilities, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In August 2018, it dropped a 227 kg (500lb) laser-guided bomb on a school bus in Dhahyan, northern Yemen. Fragments found at the scene identified the bomb as having been produced by Lockheed Martin. Forty children were killed in the attack – a far from uncommon occurrence during the Saudi-led campaign to topple Ansar Allah from power.
If Saudi Arabia is Washington’s biggest customer, then Israel is its prime recipient of welfare. A study from Brown University found that in the two years following the October 7, 2023 attack, the United States spent $21.7 billion on military aid to Israel, including aircraft, missiles, and all manner of small arms munitions.
Israel has used these weapons to systematically target children in Gaza and beyond. At least 97% of schools in the densely-populated strip have been hit. One of the more notable examples was the Khadija Girls’ School in Deir al-Balah, which was targeted on July 27, 2024. A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Israel dropped at least two GBU-39 bombs on the school – munitions manufactured in the United States by Boeing.
Thus, while arms manufacturers read fairytales to Western kids, children across the world are forced to live out a very real nightmare, thanks in no small part to these companies.
Whether they live in the United States or one of the countries under its boot, however, children everywhere are being targeted by these weapons firms, though in different ways. In the United States, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others have stepped in to bolster cash-strapped education departments. While their rhetoric emphasizes empowering children – especially girls – to follow their science dreams, their true intent is to launder their reputations as merchants of death, and to train up the next generation of Americans to become willing members of the American war machine.
Children on the other side of the globe, however, are given no such illusions, and have to live with the constant terror that they be these companies’ next victims. This image, is not the one the likes of Raytheon want us to think about when we picture their products, and so they spend millions attempting to distract us with stories of empowerment and discovery. What a world we live in, where weapons companies are training kids to bomb kids.
Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams. Follow Alan on Twitter for more of his work and commentary: @AlanRMacLeod.
Brazil approaches NATO and Israel to modernize its armed forces
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 2, 2026
In an unusual statement given the turbulent relations of recent years, Brazilian President Lula defended the rearmament and modernization of Brazil’s Armed Forces. According to him, Brazil must have strong armed forces, even if it does not intend to use them, but as deterrent forces to prevent direct interference from foreign powers in the country.
The statement took place at an event organized under the auspices of Avibras Aeroco, an important strategic company in the Brazilian defense sector. Avibras is best known for producing the Astros anti-aircraft systems, which are operated by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain, Angola, Indonesia, Malaysia and, naturally, Brazil itself. In addition to the Astros, Avibras also produces various types of armored personnel carriers and some other anti-aircraft equipment such as the SKYFIRE and the EDT-FILA. The company is also developing an anti-ship missile, a laser-guided missile, a fiber-optic guided missile, an air-to-air missile and an upgrade to the Astros.
Such a high level of activity on Avibras’s part is notable because the company only resumed its operations in May-June 2026, after more than 4 years of total operational standstill. Avibras’s problems began during the pandemic era (which leads us to reflect once again on the role of health crisis management in the deindustrialization of numerous countries and the destruction of their middle classes). While most relevant defense industry companies worldwide are subsidized or receive some type of government support, Brazil had been treating its companies in this sector as private enterprises like any other for decades. Thus, with reduced orders and the impossibility of travel, Avibras gradually became unable to pay its debts, salaries and cover its operational costs. In 2022, all activities are halted and a strike begins over more than 1 year of overdue wages.
Meanwhile, foreign companies (especially from Australia, Saudi Arabia and China) showed interest in acquiring Avibras, which could result in an uncomfortable and uninteresting situation, especially if Avibras were acquired by Australia.
A mobilization of patriotic sectors of Brazilian society, however, throughout this entire period, managed to exert enough pressure on the government to convince it of Avibras’s importance, leading to new contracts with the Armed Forces, a bankruptcy protection agreement and the end of the workers’ strike.
The Avibras case – which points to a renewal of interest in military affairs on the part of the Brazilian State – is not isolated, however.
Brazil’s military spending rose about 13% in 2025, but the country remained in 21st place globally – a ridiculous level given the country’s size and its international leadership aspirations. For 2026, a 6% increase was forecast, and at the end of 2025, approximately 6 billion extra dollars were also approved, due to budgetary limits for specific modernization projects.
The modernization projects in question fall within the logic of the Transformation Policy, a document built from observation of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine and recent conflicts in the Middle East. Based on this document, Brazil’s Armed Forces defined as part of their objectives the expansion of military drone use, the development of anti-drone systems, the national-level integration of sensor and radar systems and the expansion of cyber warfare capabilities.
Specifically, the project aimed at integrating and connecting military sensors, radars, satellites, aircraft and electronic systems is SISFRON (Integrated Border Monitoring System), which is set to receive approximately 600 million dollars. The drones used in this system will be from Israel’s Elbit.
Another program receiving historic attention from Brazil is Prosub, aimed at developing conventional submarines and nuclear-powered submarines, the result of a partnership with France dating back to 2008. Needless to say, for 14 years of cooperation this Brazil-France partnership has little to show so far, but there are promises that this year and next summer will see the delivery and launching of submarines.
The Brazilian Navy also expanded its fleet through the incorporation of a new frigate – to NATO standards – developed jointly by Brazil’s Embraer and Germany’s ThyssenKrupp.
The Air Force’s focus, in turn, is the Gripen Program, the result of a long-standing cooperation between Brazil and Sweden, which is only now yielding results. The Gripen fighters are assembled in Brazilian factories, and Brazil recently set aside a budget of approximately 400 million dollars for this program, which eventually envisions a fleet of 56 modern fighters.
There is also the recent formalization of a contract with the Italian CIO consortium for the acquisition of Centauro II armored vehicles, for use on Brazil’s borders, with a budget of approximately 1 billion dollars to acquire approximately 100 combat vehicles.
It is important to note that the fact that Brazil has understood the need to improve its Armed Forces is reassuring, and we imagine that the U.S. attack on Venezuela was one of the elements that reinforced this conviction and facilitated the acceleration of plans and the expansion of budgets.
It is also noteworthy that few of the projects and plans under development involve the U.S., which is peculiar considering the umbilical ties that exist between the U.S. Armed Forces and Brazil’s Armed Forces since World War II. Recently, the Commander of the Brazilian Navy, Marcos Olsen, reaffirmed the commitment to a doctrinal alignment of Brazil’s Armed Forces with the U.S. in an interview with CNN. But now, Brazil is preferring not to acquire its equipment or develop joint projects with the U.S., with the exception of the recent plan to acquire outdated (and used) Black Hawk helicopters.
It should also be noted that most of these partnerships developed by Brazil involve technology transfer, which is always of interest to Brazil and has guided Brasília’s international cooperation decisions. Agreements with the U.S. rarely involve technology transfer.
At the same time, however, it is striking that all the projects involve cooperation with NATO countries or their close allies, such as the State of Israel. Even with technology transfer, cooperation with countries like France and Israel raises concerns.
France is a country already notorious for handing over Argentine military secrets to its British allies during the Falklands War. Meanwhile, Israel has a history of placing backdoors in all electronic systems sold to foreign countries since the PROMIS case of the 1980s.
This is, then, clearly a crossroads situation in which the Brazilian government’s stance of not taking a geopolitical position and maintaining a certain “neutrality” facilitates the strengthening of ties with countries that are very clearly involved in international conflicts on the globalist and Atlanticist side of the equation.
Iceland’s forthcoming referendum on EU membership
By Alfred de ZAYAS | CounterPunch | July 29, 2026
In August 2026 Icelanders will vote in a referendum whether Iceland should open accession talks with a view to joining the European Union[1].
Icelanders would be well advised to keep away from the EU, which has morphed from a peace-loving European integration movement into a war-mongering globalist machine run by a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels that operates without transparency or accountability and endorses militarization and virulent Russophobia.
In the light of Iceland’s venerable democratic traditions going back to the Thingvellir Parliament of the tenth century[2], it would be madness for the Icelanders to abandon their hard-won sovereignty and independence.
In 1992 and 93 Iceland did negotiate the EEA (European Economic Area) agreement that gave it access to the EU market but without membership and many of the obligations. The EEA agreement came into effect in 1994, and was negotiated during the period after the adoption of the Treaty of Maastricht (see below). It is important to know that the EU in the time of Maastricht was fundamentally different to EU following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. The EU is now speeding into a more centralised, authoritarian and even totalitarian future.
There is another important consideration. The Treaty of Lisbon is in many aspects incompatible with the UN Charter. Icelanders must actually choose between their obligations under the UN Charter and the commitments and actions that flow from the Treaty of Lisbon and the arbitrary decisions of the European Commission, currently under Ursula von der Leyen.
UN membership
Let us review a bit of history. Iceland joined the United Nations in 1946.
The purposes and principles of the UN are laid out in Articles 1-2 of the Chater, notably a joint commitment of all members to advance peace through cooperation, multilateralism, conflict-prevention, respect of the sovereign equality of states, the self-determination of peoples, the promotion of human rights and the right to development.
Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, stipulates: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Because of this overarching legal commitment, every UN member State must consider, before entering into any treaty or joining any other organization, whether such action would be compatible with UN membership.
Article 52 of the UN Charter stipulates that UN members can join other organizations “provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” (emphasis added)
This short paper argues that Iceland should not become a member of the European Union, which admittedly had very good beginnings, but which gradually moved away from its original peace-oriented vocation and emerged as a competing supra-national geopolitical entity with aims and activities frequently in conflict with the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions.
On the basis of the Schuman Declaration (1950) the Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) the European Common Market was established with the purpose of advancing European integration, democracy and human rights. For decades the European States worked in tandem with the United Nations and contributed to stability and prosperity in the region.
The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) created the European Union and promoted peace and human rights while respecting diversity and state sovereignty. Article 6 of the Maastricht Treaty stipulated:
“The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. 3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States…”
This arrangement was compatible with the UN Charter and guaranteed the respect of national identities and approaches in a manner consistent with the UNESCO Constitution, which also values the richness of diverse cultures and perspectives and discourages top-down homologation.
Unfortunately, the globalist movement in Europe largely homologized foreign policy, culture and even morals, in disregard of local approaches and traditions. When in 2004 the idea of a European constitution was aired, it was quickly defeated in public opinion polls and in the referenda held in France and the Netherlands in 2006. The European populations felt that the proposed constitution threatened their national identities guaranteed in the Treaty of Maastricht, that it opened the way to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism driven by a Brussels bureaucracy disconnected from the peoples of the member States of the European Union.
In the light of the impossibility to adopt the European Constitution by direct democratic vote, the bureaucrats decided in 2007 to drop the project of a European Constitution, and instead to take a short-cut relying on the parliaments of the member States, which were more easily manipulated than the populations they represented.
The Treaty of Lisbon or 13 December 2007 emerged as an Ersatz or surrogate European constitution, adopted in a questionable manner, and in any case unrepresentative of the wishes of the populations concerned.
Lip service was given to the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the EU acts (in theory) only where its member states agree unanimously. This reflects the legal norm that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. Smoke and mirrors.
In practice, however, the sovereignty of European States has been significantly reduced since 2007, and the Brussels bureaucracy has imposed rules and regulations – as well as unilateral coercive measures, wrongly referred to as “sanctions” – in an increasingly authoritarian manner, in disregard of the “margin of discretion” of supposedly sovereign European countries.
Particularly dangerous is the fact the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg sides with the European Council in most cases, notwithstanding well-based challenges from individual States. In effect, EU law has primacy over the laws of member states, even in matters of access to information, freedom of opinion and expression, morals and national security.
In its Orwellian judgment of 2 July 2026, the EU Court in Luxembourg approved the legality of EU censorship of the internet and the criminalization of social media messages including electronic links to sanctioned senders[3]. In this genuinely totalitarian judgment, not only the rights of news services to broadcast information and perspectives are being violated by EU law, but also the right of every EU citizen to access and publicly discuss politically relevant information.
Access to information and freedom of opinion and expression are at the very core of every democracy. These rights are stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee.[4]
This and other recent decisions by the European Court of Justice illustrate that there is no longer an effective recourse or remedy, because the European Court of Justice is clearly beholden to the EU Council.
Even the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has failed to protect European citizens from confiscation of private property e.g. pursuant to EU sanctions against Russia, and in clear violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Here too, the right to private property has been done away with by the supra-national decision of EU bureaucrats to issues “sanctions” on targeted countries or persons.
Because of the severity of the consequences of these measures, numerous human rights organizations, including the Geneva International Peace Research Institute[5], have presented legal briefs to the Council of the European Union enumerating the violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus far GIPRI and other organizations have received no appropriate response, other than a blanket reaffirmation from Brussels that the extra-judicial measures adopted pursuant to EU sanctions are legal.
A particularly egregious case of the new EU totalitarianism are the sanctions imposed on six European citizens for allegedly expressing views close to those of the Russian argumentation concerning the causes of the Ukrainian war since the Maidan coup d’état in February 2014. Among those impacted are the retired Swiss Colonel and intelligence officer Jacques Baud,[6] and the German journalist Husseyn Dogru.
Moreover, as I explained before the UN Security Council on 25 March 2024[7], the EU “sanctions” are not compatible with the UN Charter. For years now the European Union systematically violates resolutions of the General Assembly[8] and of the UN Human Rights Council[9], which condemn US and EU “sanctions” as incompatible with the UN Charter, international law, human rights norms and the right to development. Moreover, EU “unilateral coercive measures” make the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals nearly impossible, and, together with the illegal US sanctions regime, cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands worldwide, as determined by the British medical journal The Lancet. The imposition of such unilateral coercive measures undoubtedly constitutes the “use of force” in contravention of article 2(4) of the UN Charter and have no justification in international law in the absence of UN Security Council approval. EU “sanctions” violate the right to life, the right to development, and the self-determination of peoples.
Another worrisome development in Europe is the systematic war-propaganda and fear-mongering, the refusal to settle disputes by peaceful means, in contravention of article 2(3) of the UN Charter and the virulent Russophobia displayed by the Brussels bureaucracy, in gross violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates:
“1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[10]
In 2024 and again in 2025 the Geneva International Peace Research Institute submitted legal briefs to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to article 15 of the Statute of Rome, alleging violations of articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute by the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. EU policies are contrary to international criminal law in that they have provided and continue to provide military, political, economic, diplomatic and propagandistic support to a genocidal State, thus enabling Israel to continue the genocide against the Palestinians and to engage in acts of aggression against Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc.
Collectives of jurists in France, Italy and Germany have also submitted legal briefs challenging the actions by EU member states as contrary to the UN Charter, the Statute of Rome, the ICCPR (articles 6, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25), the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.
All of the above activities by the European Union document the fact that the initially peace-loving institution has morphed into a totalitarian organization that no longer conforms with article 52 of the UN Charter, because it does not promote the purposes and principles of the UN but actually works against them.
Iceland must be very careful in considering any kind of association with the EU. A coherent foreign policy by Iceland would reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter and avoid any treaties or association that would restrict its sovereignty and margin of discretion and violate its obligations pursuant to the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The perception of the EU as a bastion of the “rule of law” and human rights can no longer be empirically sustained. Vestiges of a positive perception of the EU are only a product of public relations, indoctrination and relentless propaganda.
Yet, in our world of Orwellian newspeak and cognitive dissonance, some – even in Iceland – pretend that it is perfectly normal to be committed to the UN Charter while working against its purposes and principles through aggressive policies adopted by the Brussels bureaucracy.
A well-advised Icelandic voter should reject any association with the European Union, because the EU is no longer the peace-loving Common Market but has morphed into a totalitarian organization that does not respect the democratic rights of European peoples but pretends to impose a one-size-fits all, one-narrative for all, on all European citizens.
All freedom-loving Icelanders are called upon to defend Iceland’s sovereignty and independence.
Notes.
[2] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/05/thingvellir-northern-europes-first-parliament/
https://www.thingvellir.is/en/education/history/assembly-site/
https://www.rferl.org/a/ecj-eu-russia-sanctions-oligarchs/33434950.html
[5] Gipri.ch
[8] Resolution 80/209 of 17 December 2025
[9] Resolution 61/9 of 27 March 2026
Navy retiring USS Fort Worth halfway through lifespan
By Stavroula Pabst | Responsible Statecraft | July 31, 2026
This week, the Navy retired a littoral combat ship only halfway through its lifespan.
The USS Fort Worth, a surface combatant ship which cost $400 million to build, entered service in 2012. It was originally meant to serve until the late 2030s, but was retired early due to chronic repair issues and related costs, and longstanding concerns regarding its overall viability.
A major issue for the USS Fort Worth was its combining gear, which connects its gas turbine and engines to its water jet shafts. The combining gear took critical damage back in 2016 when crew members failed to follow proper procedures while testing its engines, rendering the boat functionally unusable.
The Navy initially scheduled the USS Fort Worth’s retirement for 2022, after only ten years of service. However, the Navy repurposed the ship instead, using it to test new technologies at a port in San Diego.
“By retiring early-hull test platforms like Fort Worth, the Navy redirects investments toward upgrading the remaining LCS inventory with enhanced capabilities,” the Navy said in a statement this week. Its retirement helps ensure “the active ships remain relevant, combat-credible, and reliable throughout their service lives.”
But, as Dan Grazier, the director of the Stimson Center’s National Security reform program, tells RS : “The whole Littoral Combat Ship concept has failed.”
“It’s a poorly designed ship that [has an] excessive maintenance burden,” Grazier said. To Grazier’s point, a 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found the Navy “hasn’t demonstrated that this type of ship can perform its intended missions,” and that it was less likely than its counterparts to withstand combat.
The USS Fort Worth’s untimely demise is representative of a broader procurement crisis, where the Navy has repeatedly failed to deploy reliable ships that can perform their intended function.
Rather, as Grazier tells RS, the Navy has often opted to build elaborately designed ships with unproven technologies, which often do not work as planned.
“The Navy’s now feeling the real consequences of years of bad policy,” Grazier said. “The size of the fleet is shrinking.”
The Navy originally planned to buy 55 littoral combat ships; it cut back to 32 in 2014 as questions mounted about the program’s viability. It now has 27.
Russian Strike on US Drone Factory in Kiev Makes Clear – NATO’s Overseas MIC Footprint Is Fair Game
Sputnik – 31.07.2026
A July 24 Russian attack on the Ukrainian capital hit a drone factory belonging to Terminal Autonomy – a Delaware-HQ’ed maker of low-cost UAV and AI navigation systems.
The attack deprived Ukraine’s military of a key long-range strike drone capability in the form of AQ-400 Scythe (32kg payload, 750km range) and AQ-100 Bayonet (4kg, 60km) drones.
More importantly, it sent Zelensky’s NATO “partners” an unmistakable message: if they set up shop in Ukraine, their manufacturing facilities will be targeted.
“I do expect that the strikes on Western facilities as and when they are identified will continue and probably intensify,” veteran French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon told Sputnik, adding that he expects “growing dissention and disagreement” within NATO on how to react.
“So far the EU and its allies, particularly the US, have hidden as far as they could any losses and even denied that their facilities or personnel were attacked and hit. That policy will probably continue for as long as possible, but the resolve will also probably be very weakened eventually,” given the difficulty of “selling” it to these countries’ respective populations.
As for immediate consequences, they may include:
- the “postponement” of new NATO weapons manufacturing contracts in Ukraine
- more production in neighboring countries
- most importantly, a blow to Ukraine’s attempt to sell itself as a nascent global manufacturer of drone hardware, including for the conflicts in the Middle East.
Featured Video
The Search for Truth: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination One Year Later
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The 9/11 “Double-Cross” Conspiracy Theory
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
Is it true that “9/11 was an inside job”? Yes, insofar as Israel is “inside” the U.S. But for the 9/11 truthers who have identified Israel as the main perpetrators, “9/11 was an inside job” is at best a half-truth, and at worst an integral part of the Zionist operation, like a secondary flag sewn as a lining under the false flag of Islamism. Victor Thorn (1963-2017) wrote in his book 9/11 made in Israel: The Plot Against America (2011): “In essence, the ‘9-11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. . . . The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised.” In milder terms, it is “controlled opposition”.
A genuine truth movement would have pointed to Israel as the prime suspect from the start. From day one, it was obvious who would benefit. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Europe’s mounting social chaos… chickens coming home to roost for proxy war against Russia
- US-Russia Diesel Deal Becomes Massive Defeat for Ukraine
- Hormuz and the Looming Economic Catastrophe
- Dhubab offensive, media blitz and the rapid unraveling of Saudi-backed coalition’s new gambit
- Putin Conveys to Trump Iran’s Vision on Possible Conflict Resolution – Kremlin
- The Search for Truth: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination One Year Later
- ‘Harsh reality’: Iran says France seeks monopoly on power and intimidation, not peace for all
- When Will This White House Madness End?
- Huckabee aide goes to ‘unusual lengths’ to portray ‘Israel’ positively
- Trump Announces Diesel Supply Deal With Putin Following Phone Call
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli forces kill another child in Gaza – Daily Update
- Gaza ceasefire exists in name only, say more than 100 organizations
- Nearly 2 Million in Gaza Need Urgent Shelter Assistance as Winter Looms: IOM Chief Warns
- Suppressing Palestinian resistance: US charity under fire for AI monitoring of Gaza classrooms
- Thousands Are Held in Israeli Torture Camps. This Is What Happens Inside
- Israel puts Gaza’s sick, injured, newborn in peril – Daily Update
- Report claimed Mark Levin used by Israeli government to influence Trump
- Over 2,000 Gazans have died awaiting medical evacuation amid Israel’s continued siege
- How a U.S. Diplomat Suppressed and Altered Reports Critical of Israel
- 5 Palestinians Die from Israeli Strikes in Gaza as Relentless Attacks Continue
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
