Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone over Hormozgan province
Press TV – May 24, 2026
Iranian air defense forces have shot down an Israeli “Orbiter” reconnaissance drone over the southern province of Hormozgan, according to military sources from the country’s southeastern air defense command.
The drone, described as being used for espionage and surveillance, was intercepted and destroyed after entering the operational airspace under the protection of Iran’s southern air defense network on Sunday.
Officials said the UAV was targeted by a specialized defense system whose technical specifications have not yet been disclosed.
Military authorities based in Bandar Abbas stated that the system used in the operation is capable of detecting and engaging radar-evading drones and that no stealth UAV would be able to penetrate the airspace stretching from the Persian Gulf and its islands to southern and southeastern Iran.
The wreckage of the destroyed drone was later recovered with the assistance of maritime border police units operating in Hormozgan Province.
The interception comes at a time of increasing scrutiny over the vulnerability of advanced Western and American unmanned aerial systems in regional conflicts.
A recent Bloomberg report detailing the loss of multiple advanced US drones during the war against Iran has drawn attention to the growing challenges facing technology-driven aerial warfare.
Among the systems highlighted was the MQ-9 Reaper, long regarded as one of the symbols of American military and technological superiority due to its surveillance, tracking, and precision-strike capabilities in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria.
Analysts say the significance of such incidents extends beyond financial losses. The downing of advanced drones increasingly carries political and strategic implications, raising broader questions about the effectiveness of modern airpower and the sustainability of prolonged military engagements.
In the United States, criticism has gradually intensified over the objectives and outcomes of US aggression against Iran.
Analysts say that if Washington, despite possessing some of the world’s most advanced military technologies, is unable to achieve its strategic goals, the justification for continuing this war becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
Oreshnik strike a retaliation for Kiev’s ‘terrorist attacks’ – Moscow
RT | May 24, 2026
Russian forces launched a “massive strike” overnight against military targets in Ukraine, using intermediate-range hypersonic Oreshnik system and Iskander ballistic missiles, Kinzhal and Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles, air-, sea- and ground-launched cruise missiles, as well as attack drones.
The strike came after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Defense Ministry to “submit proposals” for a response to a Ukrainian drone attack on a teacher training college dormitory in the Lugansk People’s Republic, which left 21 people dead and 42 injured, mostly teenage girls.
The bombardment targeted the Ukrainian military’s command and control facilities, air bases, and the country’s defense industry enterprises, the ministry said. No strikes had been planned or carried out against civilian infrastructure, it added.
“The objectives of the strike have been achieved. All designated targets were hit,” it stressed.
Earlier on Sunday, Ukrainian media and Telegram channels circulated videos showing clusters of bright objects rapidly descending from the sky, claiming that Russia had deployed an Oreshnik against an unspecified target in the town of Belaya Tserkov near Ukraine’s capital, Kiev.
The dormitory of Starobelsk College, a facility of Lugansk Pedagogical University located in the town of Starobelsk, was struck by multiple waves of Ukrainian drones on Friday while students were asleep inside, in what Putin described as a deliberate “terrorist act.”
Governor Leonid Pasechnik declared May 24-25 days of mourning, describing the attack as “pure evil” and saying those responsible would face “deserved and inevitable punishment.”
Earlier, the US Embassy in Kiev warned American citizens of a “potentially significant air attack” that could take place within 24 hours and urged them to be ready to seek shelter immediately if an air alert was issued.
Moscow first publicly confirmed firing an Oreshnik in November 2024 when the missile was used in a strike on the Yuzhmash military-industrial facility in Dnepropetrovsk. It was deployed for the second time this January, obliterating an aircraft repair plant in Lviv, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.
Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal
In essence, this agreement brings the situation to where it was supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire
By Trita Parsi | May 23, 2026
I wrote yesterday that the United States and Iran were on the verge of an agreement. Trump appeared to confirm as much a few hours ago with an unusually disciplined Truth Social post — grammatically coherent, diplomatically measured, and notably devoid of his customary theatrics or ritual humiliation of the opposing side.
That restraint matters. Unlike his earlier proclamations of imaginary breakthroughs, this statement carried the tone of a serious diplomatic signal rather than political indiscipline. Its timing, moreover, appeared disconnected from market considerations or domestic spectacle. My own sources in Tehran likewise confirm that a major breakthrough has been reached, though it remains contingent on final approval — precisely as Trump indicated.
So what does all of this mean? What do we actually know about the contours of the agreement? How significant was the role played by regional actors in securing the breakthrough, and what explains Europe’s near-total irrelevance in the process? If this arrangement is merely a Memorandum of Understanding, where do the principal vulnerabilities lie as negotiations enter a second phase?
Moreover, can Trump successfully sell the deal at home? What steps can — and likely will — Israel take to sabotage the agreement? And if a final deal is secured, how profound would Israel’s strategic defeat be?
Let me try to address these questions one by one.
First of all, the full details remain unclear. But according to reporting by Amwaj.media —much of which I have independently corroborated — the agreement entails a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, including in Lebanon; the gradual release of Iran’s frozen assets; and an end to America’s “blockade of the blockade” in the Strait of Hormuz.
Maritime traffic through the Strait would resume under joint Iranian and Omani oversight. Once these measures take effect, the parties would have an additional 30 days to negotiate a final agreement. That second-stage accord is expected to address both the nuclear issue and the long-term status of the Strait.
Significant progress, however, already appears to have been made on the nuclear file, and, as I understand it, broad principles for its resolution have largely been agreed upon.
In essence, this agreement restores the situation to where it was always supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire. From the outset, the ceasefire was intended to be regional in scope and to include Lebanon. There was never supposed to be a “blockade of the blockade” — an absurd scheme concocted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that only served to undermine America’s strategic position.
Nor was commercial traffic through the Strait meant to remain disrupted. The genuinely new elements are limited sanctions relief for Tehran and a formal commitment to resolve the nuclear issue within the next 30 days.
Yet while reaching this point is undeniably significant, there is still no real deal until a final agreement is secured. And the 30-day window, though short, nevertheless offers ample opportunity for spoilers on all sides to sabotage the process.
The regional buy-in — and the fact that Trump announced the agreement only after speaking with a wide array of key regional leaders, including those of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain, in addition to a separate call with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu — is highly significant. This regional anchoring affords Trump a degree of political insulation in Washington. Faced with inevitable accusations from hawks that the agreement amounts to defeat or that it betrays Israel, he can point to broad regional support as evidence that America’s principal partners in the Middle East prefer diplomacy to escalation.
Indeed, compared to President Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement, the regional engagement surrounding Trump’s deal is objectively deeper, broader, and more politically consequential. Obama’s agreement was negotiated despite resistance from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE; Trump’s appears to be taking shape with active regional backing. Europe’s near-total absence from the process is nevertheless striking — though hardly problematic. By this point, Europe’s diplomatic irrelevance in major Middle Eastern diplomacy has become so normalized that its exclusion barely registers.
Judging by the public panic now emanating from Washington’s war hawks and pro-Israel circles, however, the next 30 days are likely to be politically brutal for Trump. FDD is already openly attacking him. AIPAC is amplifying lawmakers denouncing the agreement. An adviser to the former Crown Prince of Iran has accused Trump of “total surrender.” Many of the same allies who enthusiastically applauded Trump’s decision to initiate the war are now turning on him for choosing diplomacy over permanent escalation.
Senior Israeli politicians, however, may choose a more cautious approach. Rather than confronting Trump directly, they are likely to let their proxies in Washington wage the public battle on their behalf.
Israeli elections are approaching, and Trump remains deeply popular among Israeli voters, while Netanyahu has thus far failed to convert the popularity of the Iran war into a decisive electoral advantage. A direct public clash with Trump over the agreement could therefore prove politically dangerous for Netanyahu. Trump, if provoked, could inflict substantial damage simply by signaling support for one of Netanyahu’s challengers.
Trump may have hinted at this dynamic a few days ago when he — seemingly out of nowhere — told reporters that he enjoys a “99% approval rating” in Israel and could run for prime minister there himself. On the surface, it sounded like another episode of characteristic Trumpian bravado. But in context, it may well have been a pointed warning to Netanyahu and Israel’s political establishment that Trump can damage them far more than they can damage him.
There should be little doubt, however, that if a final agreement is reached — and any lasting agreement will almost certainly require substantial, if not total, sanctions relief for Iran — it would constitute a devastating strategic defeat for Tel Aviv.
Israel’s two wars have, paradoxically, strengthened Iran’s deterrence posture, exposed Israel’s inability to confront Iran without overwhelming American military backing, and inflicted incalculable damage on America’s global standing and aura of military supremacy.
Indeed, the cumulative effect may be so severe that the pursuit of uncontested American global primacy is no longer a realistic option. At the same time, support for Israel within the United States has eroded dramatically across nearly every demographic group except older Republican voters.
Most importantly, sanctions relief would liberate Iran’s economy from decades of constriction and gradually shift the regional balance of power away from Israel and its vision of a “Greater Israel.” For precisely that reason, Israel will almost certainly do everything within its power — behind the scenes — to sabotage the agreement before it becomes irreversible.
But Israel is not the only threat to the deal. Both Washington and Tehran will have to exercise extraordinary discipline to ensure that their competing narratives of victory do not strengthen the hardline opposition camp in the other country. Throughout the negotiations, Trump has shown remarkably little sensitivity to how his inflammatory social media posts complicate Tehran’s ability to compromise. Iran must now avoid making the same mistake. Public triumphalism in Tehran could easily undermine Trump’s political capacity to deliver the agreement domestically.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s recent tweet comparing the outcome of Trump’s war to the failed Roman attempts to subjugate the Sassanidian Persian Empire is a case in point. Whatever its domestic appeal in Iran, such rhetoric risks hardening opposition in Washington at precisely the moment when restraint and strategic ambiguity are most needed.
At the end of the day, for the Phase II negotiations to succeed — and for any agreement to prove durable — both sides must be able to claim victory.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
British bases in Cyprus face renewed scrutiny amid war on Iran
Al Mayadeen | May 23, 2023
The war on Iran has reignited political tensions in Cyprus over the continued presence of British military bases on the island, with critics describing them as a lasting symbol of colonial domination and a direct threat to Cypriot security.
The debate intensified after a drone struck the British Akrotiri base in southern Cyprus in March, causing limited material damage but triggering renewed scrutiny over London’s military role on the strategically located island.
In the days that followed, British and Greek fighter jets intercepted additional projectiles reportedly heading toward Cyprus, while several European states deployed naval assets to the eastern Mediterranean amid fears of regional escalation linked to the US-Israeli aggression on Iran.
According to Cypriot and Lebanese media reports, Cyprus’s intelligence chief, Tasos Tzionis, later allegedly established contacts with the Lebanese Resistance to obtain assurances that no further attacks would target the island, amid concerns that British military activity could drag Cyprus deeper into the regional confrontation.
British military presence described as colonial legacy
Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has publicly criticized Britain’s handling of the situation, warning that ambiguity surrounding the role of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia bases effectively turned Cyprus into a target during the confrontation.
Speaking in Brussels earlier this year, Christodoulides described the British bases as a “colonial legacy,” stressing the need for a broader discussion with London once regional tensions due to US and Israeli hostilities subside.
The Cypriot government reportedly lacks oversight over many military activities conducted inside the British-controlled zones, including the transfer of military equipment and logistical operations connected to Western regional interventions.
Diplomatic sources cited in the report said London “does whatever it wants” inside the bases, which have long served as key hubs for British and US military operations across West Asia.
Strategic role of Cyprus in Western military operations
Located roughly 150 kilometers from the coasts of Syria and Lebanon and around 350 kilometers from Gaza, Cyprus occupies a central position in the eastern Mediterranean and has increasingly served as a forward operating platform for Western military and intelligence activity.
Akrotiri has reportedly been used in logistical support operations tied to “Israel”, as well as in broader US and British regional military deployments.
The Dhekelia base also hosts extensive surveillance infrastructure, including radar and signal interception systems used in operations stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Researchers and political analysts in Cyprus argue that the continued British presence undermines the island’s sovereignty and complicates efforts to resolve the decades-long division of Cyprus between the Turkish-occupied north and the internationally recognized south.
Calls grow for decolonization and sovereignty
The British-controlled territories are not conventional foreign military bases governed through bilateral agreements. Instead, they remain sovereign British overseas territories retained by London when Cyprus gained independence from British colonial rule in 1960.
Together, Akrotiri and Dhekelia cover roughly 3% of Cyprus’ territory and include civilian communities inhabited by around 11,000 Cypriots.
Critics argue that the arrangement represents an incomplete decolonization process imposed on Cyprus as a condition for independence.
The issue has gained renewed relevance following international legal disputes over Britain’s control of the Chagos Islands, where London agreed to return sovereignty to Mauritius while retaining long-term military access to Diego Garcia, a major Anglo-American military base.
Cypriot officials are now reportedly studying similar legal and diplomatic pathways as pressure grows domestically to challenge Britain’s continued military presence on the island.
NATO must ‘show its teeth’ to Russia – Czech president
RT | May 23, 2026
Czech President Petr Pavel has urged NATO to “show its teeth” in response to what he described as Russian “provocations” on the bloc’s eastern flank.
Pavel’s remarks follow a series of Ukrainian drone incursions into NATO airspace in Europe. Since mid-March, long-range UAVs have repeatedly crossed Baltic and Nordic airspace en route to targets in northwestern Russia, particularly oil facilities in Leningrad Region. The incursions prompted fighter jet deployments, and some drones crashed inside NATO states, causing damage.
Moscow has accused European NATO members of quietly allowing Kiev to use their airspace for attacks on Russian territory, but Western officials deny this, instead blaming Russia for the incursions and claiming that Russian electronic warfare systems may have redirected the drones to stray into NATO airspace.
In an interview with The Guardian published Friday, Pavel echoed the accusations, claiming that Russia was intentionally staging “provocations” operating just below the threshold that would trigger NATO’s collective defense clause, Article 5. He also claimed that Russian military officials openly mock the bloc’s indecision during such incidents, and called for “decisive enough, potentially even asymmetric” responses to counter Moscow’s actions.
“Russia, unfortunately, does not understand nice language. They mostly understand the language of power, ideally accompanied with action,” he claimed. “When I asked them why they do these provocative actions in the air… their answer was ‘because we can’. That’s exactly the kind of behavior we allowed.”
Citing earlier Western allegations of Russian “provocations” in the Black and Baltic Seas – such as fighter jet intercepts and purported airspace violations – Pavel suggested that NATO should consider shooting down “either an unmanned or manned” Russian aircraft if spotted near its borders. Moscow has denied the accusations, insisting its patrols occur in international airspace and are a necessary response to Western reconnaissance flights near Russian borders.
Pavel also proposed “potentially asymmetric” measures against Moscow, including disrupting internet access, targeting satellites, or cutting Russian banks off from the global financial system, measures he said “are not killing people, but are sensitive enough to make Russia understand this is not the way they should go.”
Pavel’s position echoes that of several other NATO countries. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Thursday that NATO states should actually help Kiev “direct” drone attacks “in the right directions.” Latvian and Estonian officials defended Ukrainian incursions by saying that Kiev “has every right to defend itself.”
Finland, however, rebuked Kiev over the breaches of its airspace, while Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico urged renewed dialogue with Moscow, warning of potential Ukrainian drone provocations involving NATO territory that he said could trigger direct conflict between Russia and the bloc.
Multiple Western officials have claimed that Moscow could test the alliance through provocations and hybrid operations, or eventually attack European states after the Ukraine conflict ends. Citing the purported threat, European NATO members last year pledged to raise military spending to 5% of GDP and launched rearmament initiatives such as ReArm Europe.
Moscow, however, dismissed claims that it poses a threat to Europe as baseless “nonsense” and condemned what it calls reckless EU militarization. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently accused European “warmongers” of portraying Russia as a “model external enemy” to distract from domestic problems.
Russia Has Three Responses to Ukrainian Attack on Donbass Children – Expert
Sputnik – 22.05.2026
Russian President Vladimir Putin has told the Defense Ministry to plan responses to the Ukrainian drone attack on a high school dormitory in Starobelsk in the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR).
Russia has several options, National Defense magazine editor-in-chief Igor Korotchenko tells Sputnik.
- Hitting decision-making centers — specifically in Kiev, “where the leaders of the terrorist regime direct and order attacks on Russia, including the latest large-scale tragedy involving the deaths of children”
- Critical infrastructure that supports Ukrainian Armed Forces rear operations and stability
- Ukrainian military and state command networks
“The retaliation strike must be large-scale and concentrated,” Korotchenko says. “Of course, we will not strike civilian infrastructure or the civilian population. Those are the methods used by Zelensky’s terrorists against us.”
The pundit stressed that Russia is fighting the military operation in Ukraine in line with international law and the UN Charter.
“Accordingly, strikes will target only military sites, critical infrastructure — considered lawful military targets — and Ukraine’s political and military command centers.”
The strike on the Starobelsk dormitory was not accidental — it came in three waves during the night. There are no military facilities near the dormitory.
Why does the Zelensky regime target civilians? Because it built up an illusion of safety and impunity, the expert replies.
Douglas Macgregor: NATO Attacked Russia; U.S. Being Pushed Out of the Middle East
Glenn Diesen | May 21, 2026
Ukrainian drone could have caused mass casualties – Greek defense minister
RT | May 21, 2026
A Ukrainian naval drone found off a Greek island earlier this month could have sunk a civilian ship and led to mass casualties, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias has said.
The unmanned surface vessel (USV) was reportedly a Ukrainian Magura V3 kamikaze drone, capable of carrying an explosive payload of up to 300kg. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and senior government officials were reportedly briefed on the matter last week, according to CNN.
Speaking at a conference on Wednesday, Dendias refused to divulge the details of the investigation, but stressed that the drone could have caused immense damage.
“It was obviously something extremely dangerous… there is not the slightest doubt – I repeat, the slightest doubt – that this is a Ukrainian sea drone,” he said, adding that if a cruise liner crossed paths with the USV, the ship would have been at “the bottom of the sea.”
How many dead would we have mourned? And how permissible is this thing in the Mediterranean?
Dendias stressed that Kiev owes Athens “a very big apology,” as well as “the absolute assurance that something like this will not happen again in the wider region.”
Ukraine has used such drones for months to attack ships in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, targeting vessels it sees as linked to Moscow. Russia has condemned the strikes, calling them “terrorism and maritime piracy.”
Ukrainian UAVs targeting Russian infrastructure have also increasingly flown through the territory of other countries, such as the Baltic states and Finland, according to Moscow. Several Ukrainian drones have crashed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland in recent weeks.
Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu said in April that should these countries deliberately allow Ukrainian drones to pass through their airspace, they become “open accomplices in aggression against Russia.” In that case, Moscow has the right to self-defense against such an “armed attack,” he warned.
Germany at the Crossroads: Revanchism Versus Diplomacy
Sputnik – 21.05.2026
Amid the conflict in Ukraine, voices in the German establishment increasingly call for strengthening the armed forces to counter the perceived Russian menace.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pledged to make the German army the strongest in Europe, while Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warns of a new military threat from Russia, which Europe has “forgotten over the last 20 to 30 years.”
An art installation in Berlin’s Thomas Schulte Gallery displayed the Ukrainian phrase “The best gift — dead Russians”, sparking debate over the anti-Russian provocation when the exhibition claims to condemn violence.
But not all politicians support militarization or war:
Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader Alice Weidel said war, even in Ukraine, is “absolutely fatal” and a massive security threat for Germany.
Sarah Wagenknecht, leader of the left-wing BSW bloc, wrote on X that Merz’s policies serve the elite and make German taxpayers participants in an endless war.
Former BSW MP Sevim Dagdelen wrote for NachDenkSeiten that dialogue with Russia is slipping away as the German government tries to win a victory.
AfD MP Tino Chrupalla warned the Ukrainian dream of ‘final victory’ harms both Ukraine and Germany and the proxy war wastes tax money.
Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico said the European Union must maintain normal dialogue with Russia and intermediaries like Schroeder could help.
Slovak MEP Lubos Blaha said only extremists deny the need for talks with Russia.
Former Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski said post-war Europe will have to rebuild relations with Russia, which will it will not just disappear.
Former Italian prime minister and leader of the Five Star Movement Giuseppe Conte said German rearmament won’t increase security but only it creates instability and enriches the elite.
Former Serbian vice-president Aleksandar Vulin said modern Germany dreams of revenge rather than learning from history, threatening peace.
The debate shows a growing rift between calls for war and those for diplomacy and caution.
Europe’s Irrationality & Inability to Discuss War
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | May 20, 2026
I argue that European states have made themselves legitimate targets by being participants in attacks on Russia. The emotional and often hysterical reactions this argument provokes reveal the extent of the radicalisation engulfing Europe.
Most countries avoid sending weapons to states engaged in war precisely because doing so risks making them participants in the conflict. Many Western leaders, from Boris Johnson to Marco Rubio, recognise that this is a proxy war. European states provide weapons, intelligence, targeting, planning, and contractors. European leaders openly speak about the need to bring the war to Russian territory and to destroy Russian refineries, while rapidly expanding the production of long-range weapons to support this objective. Attacks are now also being launched from the territory of the Baltic states. It is therefore difficult to deny that European states are directly involved in military actions against Russia. As this involvement escalates, Russia is under ever-greater pressure to retaliate and restore its deterrence. This should all be common sense, yet in Europe, recognising the march to war is considered a controversial observation. Why?
The responses I receive rarely address this argument directly. Instead, they focus on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and war crimes. Whatever one’s views on those issues, they do not alter the question of Western participation in attacks on Russia. The implicit argument seems to be that Russia is uniquely evil, and therefore the West is justified in attacking Russia while Russia is not permitted to respond. Most people would recognise that if Russia had launched missiles into Washington or London in response to the invasion of Iraq, it would have been understood as a Russian attack with unpredictable consequences. By attacking Russian forces in Ukraine, European states became involved in the conflict; by attacking inside Russia itself, they are deepening that involvement further and making a Russian retaliation inevitable. Ukraine’s right to self-defence has nothing to do with the discussion of European participation. There was a time when President Biden argued that sending F16s to Ukraine meant World War 3, today this argument would be smeared and censored in Europe as “Russian propaganda”. The instinct for self-preservation is gone.
I argue that Europeans have become radicalised because there now appears to be a widespread belief that acknowledging the reality of European involvement is treasonous. In their minds, reality is a social construction. Warning that Europe may be heading toward a direct war with Russia is condemned as “legitimising” Russian retaliation and dismissed as a “pro-Russian” position. The prevalence of constructivism and the focus on “speech acts” have led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entails legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power to construct political realities and influence outcomes. Everything is interpreted as normative statements about what one supports or wishes how the world worked, as opposed to recognising an objective reality of the world. If one does not participate in the suicidal self-delusion, then there will be accusations of having taken the side of Russia. Had this radicalised mentality prevailed during the Cold War, we would never have survived.
Academics in Europe are forced into the role of activists. It is impossible to analyse conflicts without being met with the demand to condemn Hamas, Iran, Russia and the “other” to prove you have picked our side. This is the ideological litmus test to establish if you are allowed to participate in the discussion or must be purged from polite society. The role of academics is analytical, not moralistic. The purpose is to explain motivations, power distribution and strategic behaviour. An objective analysis allows us to pursue the best policy to maximise our security. The demand to conform to the “correct” moral posture and EU-approved speech acts implies obligatory participation in the emotional and hysterical sloganeering. When the premise in any discussion is that we are in a struggle between good and evil, then security can only mean victory or deterrence. War creates peace, diplomacy is appeasement, and Europeans celebrate ignorance by criminalising the ability to recognise the security concerns of the other side.
In Europe, it is also considered “Russian propaganda” to argue that NATO expansionism provoked the Ukraine War. The overwhelming evidence supporting it is irrelevant and will under no circumstance be discussed, as it is considered an immoral argument that legitimises Russia’s invasion. Our political leaders frame all their policies as “pro-Ukrainian”: the toppling of Yanukovych, arming the far-right militias, sabotaging the Minsk peace agreement, ignoring Russian security concerns, supporting busification, boycotting diplomacy, etc. What makes this “pro-Ukrainian”? Did any of this do anything good for Ukraine? These questions cannot be asked because they are considered to be “pro-Russian” questions. Everyone has empathy for the gruesome situation in Ukraine, and would like to support those who suffer, and the European leaders have claimed the right to monopolise on what a “pro-Ukrainian” position entails – to fight to the last Ukrainian.
Similarly, warnings about Europe’s march to war with the world’s largest nuclear power by participating in attacks are viewed as treasonous efforts to reduce trust, legitimacy and support for the NATO war efforts at the behest of Russia. “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”.
China firmly supports Cuba in safeguarding sovereignty, security
Al Mayadeen | May 19, 2026
China reaffirmed its support for Cuba on Tuesday, condemning US sanctions and calling on Washington to end coercive measures against the island nation, Global Times reported.
Speaking during a regular press briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said Beijing opposes unilateral sanctions that are not authorized under international law and expressed support for Cuba’s efforts to protect its sovereignty and national security.
“China has consistently opposed illegal unilateral sanctions lacking basis in international law,” Lin stated, while urging the United States to “immediately end its blockade against Cuba and all forms of coercion and pressure.”
He further accused Washington of undermining the Cuban people’s rights to development and basic living conditions.
Cuba targeted
The remarks came after Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel warned Monday that Cuba was facing threats of military aggression from the United States, describing such threats as an international crime that could lead to bloodshed and destabilize regional peace.
Díaz-Canel stressed that Cuba does not seek aggression against any country, including the United States, but said the island has been subjected to “multidimensional aggression” by Washington and therefore possesses the legitimate right to self-defense.
The diplomatic dispute follows a new round of sanctions announced Monday by the US Department of the Treasury targeting nine individuals allegedly linked to Cuba’s intelligence services.
US weighs intervention
The latest tensions also come days after reports emerged alleging that senior officials within the Trump administration were examining possible regime-change options against Cuba. Reports published over the weekend claimed US officials had discussed scenarios ranging from intensified pressure campaigns to potential military action, while another report said a criminal indictment against former Cuban leader Raúl Castro was under consideration.
Separately, reports published early Tuesday said Washington was evaluating broader military contingency plans after concluding that sanctions and fuel restrictions had failed to force political concessions from Havana.
Cuban authorities have repeatedly rejected US accusations and described Washington’s sanctions regime as an economic blockade designed to worsen living conditions on the island.
Featured Video
Genocide-linked firm handles Britons’ NHS data
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Book review: Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine
By Tim Kirby | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 14, 2026
Did Vladimir Putin just wake up one day on the wrong side of the bed and decide to invade Ukraine in February of 2022 or is there a lot more to this single decision that has been reshaping the 21st century geopolitical landscape?
Obviously, from the way that I just posed the question you can see that I am on the side that views the causes for the war in Ukraine to be very deep, long-term, historical and consciously nefarious, and most importantly, not from within the halls of the Kremlin. So it was a pleasure to take a look at the book “Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine” by author Stephen Kinzer, who like myself, also believes that the real reasons behind military conflicts around the world are not what CNN and the BBC have been telling you. The main thesis of this book was stated clearly by its creator; the war “may have been illegal, but it was definitely not unprovoked.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- UK must be ready to strike Russian Arctic – ex-PM
- Fico’s Two Red Lines: Russian Energy and the Next Ukraine Loan
- Thousands rally for banned NATO-skeptic presidential candidate
- Ukraine Settlement and New European Security Architecture Must Go Hand in Hand – Kremlin
- Book review: Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine
- Israel Revives The ‘Iranian Assassination Threat Against Trump’ Deception In A Desperate Bid To Restart The War
- US rewrites history to dodge blame for illegal war on Iran: Foreign Ministry spokesperson
- TURBO CANCER DATA from Ontario, Canada (OHIP Insurance Billing Data)
- Iran warns France not to fall for Israeli false-flags operations
- Poland and Bulgaria put brakes on Ukraine weapons funding
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Barents Sea Temperatures Were Warmer And Sea Ice Less Extensive In The 1700s Than Today
- German Authorities Start Initiative To Evaluate Public Register For Climate “Disinformation” Spreaders!
- Zonal Asymmetry of Temperature Change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
