Kremlin responds to US election meddling accusations
RT | July 17, 2026
Moscow has dismissed claims linking Russia to threats against US elections, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, calling the intelligence cited by Washington unsubstantiated.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump delivered a prime-time address which focused on alleged vulnerabilities in the voting infrastructure. He said the current system “falls catastrophically short” and is exposed to hacking.
While Trump barely mentioned Russia in his speech and was more focused on alleged meddling efforts by China – which Beijing has denied – the White House released a trove of declassified documents, with one assessment stating: “We judge that US adversaries, including at a minimum Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea… have the capability to compromise US election infrastructure.”
Speaking to reporters on Friday, Peskov said the allegations are based on “certain anonymous and unsubstantiated information from the US intelligence services.”
He noted that “investigations and inquiries were conducted in the US” and they came to “the conclusion that Russia did not influence the elections in the US in any way.”
“Russia has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, and we expect that no one will try to interfere in our internal affairs,” he added.
Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and coordination between Trump’s campaign and Moscow – known as Russiagate – overshadowed much of Trump’s first term and led to an investigation overseen by special counsel Robert Mueller.
While Mueller claimed that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” – which Moscow firmly denied – he did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.
French Donbass Charity Founder’s Show Trial Designed to ‘Neutralize’ Dissent to Hostility to Russia
Sputnik – 15.07.2026
The criminal case against SOS Donbass organizer Anna Novikova is part of France and EU’s broader policy of “intimidating dissenters and neutralizing them to suppress domestic opposition to the official hostility to Russia,” independent French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon told Sputnik.
“In fact any support of Russia, even by quoting or circulating news reports, opinions or comments from Russian (state) media is considered in France as connivence with the enemy and therefore potentially treasonous,” with Russia deemed “de facto an enemy country,” the observer pointed out.
But the prosecution may face problems, because the law “is far from clear” regarding humanitarian aid, “and any trial can become very controversial as the accused may object the French Government’s position: Ukraine is not an ally of France or a NATO member, France has not declared war on Russia.”
“Therefore objections can be raised to the claim that assistance to the Donbass and denunciation of Ukrainian actions there is tantamount to supporting Russia’s military campaign.”
Nevertheless, “other EU countries” should be “expected to adopt similar measures or laws,” the analyst fears.
Case Flunks Even EU’s Own Fake Rule of Law Standards
Novikova’s case does not even “adhere to the three Orwellian slogans of the EU – democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights,” political analyst Dr. Greg Simons told Sputnik.
The “purely political” crackdown “is a continuation of the larger attempt to shut out any alternative views,” and was preceded by things like bans on Russian foreign-facing media, sanctions and economic warfare against critics. It will inevitably expand over time, Simons expects.
“The Ukraine issue is going to become much more sensitive and toxic politically to Europe for supporting this cause,” and Novikova’s “lawfare” imprisonment and trial are a “test case” for tightening control over the narrative on Ukraine.
It’s also an “an act of pure intimidation so that people will stop breaking the narrative” amid the growing desperation and political vulnerability of the French government, Simons suggests, pointing to President Macron’s growing vulnerability and questions on his political future, and similar trends regarding the anti-Russia ideology of Euro-Atlanticism in general.
UK moves to ban Iran’s IRGC, cites unfounded national security threats
Al Mayadeen | July 13, 2026
The British government announced Monday that it will designate Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps under new national security powers, deepening already strained relations between London and Tehran, The Guardian reported.
Rather than formally proscribing the IRGC under the “Terrorism Act”, the government will classify the Iranian military body as an organization involved in “foreign power threat activity.” The new mechanism carries consequences comparable to “terrorist proscription” and would criminalize certain forms of support or assistance once approved by Parliament.
The designation marks a significant shift in Britain’s position after previous Conservative governments declined calls to formally ban the IRGC, partly because it is an official component of the Iranian state and armed forces.
Home Office cites alleged threats
Announcing the measure, the Home Office said the decision followed a review of alleged activities connected to the organizations targeted by the new designations.
“Having carefully considered all the evidence, the home secretary has concluded that there is sufficient basis to reasonably believe that each of these bodies is engaged in foreign power threat activity, and that each designation is necessary to protect the safety and interests of the United Kingdom.”
British authorities linked the decision to alleged plots and cyberoperations attributed to Iran.
London has also claimed more than 20 allegedly Iran-linked plots identified by British security agencies over the previous year.
The British government has not publicly presented evidence establishing direct IRGC involvement in every incident cited in support of the measure.
Iranian and Russian bodies targeted
Alongside the IRGC, the government said it would designate the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, or IMCR, which British authorities blame for several attacks against Jewish institutions and other targets in the country.
The incidents attributed to the group reportedly include arson and vandalism attacks targeting synagogues, emergency vehicles operated by the Jewish volunteer service Hatzola and the offices of an Iranian opposition media organisation.
Russia’s GRU Volunteer Corps, which Britain describes as an overseas operational body connected to Russian military intelligence, will also be listed under the same legal framework.
The measures are expected to make it easier for British authorities to prosecute individuals accused of acting for, assisting, or receiving benefits from designated foreign-linked bodies. The designations must first receive parliamentary approval before entering into force.
Diplomatic fallout expected
The decision is likely to further damage relations between Britain and Iran at a time of heightened regional tensions and ongoing conflict involving Tehran and Washington.
British officials had previously warned that action against the IRGC could prompt retaliatory diplomatic measures, including the possible removal of the UK ambassador from Tehran.
The IRGC was established following Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution and operates as an official branch of the country’s armed forces. It plays a central role in Iran’s defense structure and reports to the country’s supreme leadership.
Britain’s decision follows a similar move by the European Union, which formally added the IRGC to its list of “terrorist organisations” in February 2026.
Lindsey Graham was a monster, but not exceptional
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | July 12, 2026
Lindsey Graham is dead. And if we were to apply the old Spartan and then Roman adage “about the dead, nothing but the good,” then this is where this text would have to end.
Some readers may find this shocking or unkind. But it is a fact that there is no way to write about the intriguingly sudden end of the long-term US senator from South Carolina in a ‘balanced’ manner and stay honest.
Graham was an almost cartoonishly evil man and since he was also very powerful, his moral depravity made a big difference to the lives of all too many. Downplaying that fact out of misplaced piety would be perverse; it would mean to disrespect the many victims of perfidious and brutal US and, in fact, Israeli policies of vicious violence and outrageous injustice that Graham promoted with every fiber of his being for his whole political life.
During the Gaza genocide, when challenged specifically about the Israeli mass killings of civilians, including women and children, Graham launched into what can only be called a psychopathic rant comparing the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians with American warfare against Germany in Japan in World War II (an intriguing comparison in and of itself, but that is another matter) and drawing the conclusion that Gaza should be flattened, including with nuclear weapons. Gaza has been flattened, and to his dying day, Graham never showed an ounce of compassion for those slaughtered by his Israeli friends and did everything he could to support that slaughter.
That is, of course, also why internationally wanted war criminal – really genocidaire – Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to offer his public condolences.
Speaking of Graham’s obvious subservience to Israel, the senator was, unsurprisingly, also a great fan of going to war with Iran, tirelessly calling for attacking it as violently as possible. He spread the Orwellian lies that Iran was about to pose a nuclear threat to the US and that its ballistic missile arsenal was a tool of reckless aggression, all to produce domestic support for yet another criminal American war. Himself addicted to hiding his foul character behind a bigoted and utterly fake Christian piety, Graham compared Iran’s leaders to Hitler and called them “religious Nazis,” thereby not merely offending brave men towering above him in moral and intellectual terms, but also helping to drum up propaganda for murdering them.
It is an irony of history or, maybe, divine justice that he lived just long enough to see the US follow his insane and corrupt advice and suffer a geopolitically catastrophic defeat for it.
Yet Graham was a monster long before the Gaza Genocide and the US-Israeli war against Iran. He was obsessed with brutalizing as many other countries and societies as possible. He could not see an opportunity for a war and not do his worst to make it happen. Graham’s record of warmongering is so extensive that it is hard to reproduce it in its entirety. Just shortly before his end, he had been calling for more US violence in Cuba, Lebanon, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Yemen – apart, obviously, from his eternal compulsion to scream for, in effect, more dead Palestinians and Iranians.
In true American fashion, if being Graham’s target was terrible, being his ‘friend’ was no better. Ukraine has come to stand for that experience. Even while pretending to be its ardent supporter, Graham was always among those most brutally open about using Ukraine and its people for the geopolitical and commercial interests of the US. He praised opportunities to rob Ukraine of crucial raw materials and he clearly considered pumping money into its ultra-corrupt Zelensky regime a great deal as it produced dead Russians (and, he failed to mention, Ukrainians, too, of course).
There is no other way of putting it. Lindsey Graham was an infernally bad man. And he was a revolting man: his viciousness was glaringly obvious. Graham was not a complicated case, a conflicted character, a man of light and dark. He was among the closest to pure, unadulterated, and shamelessly brazen evil many of us will ever lay eyes on.
That is why it is telling – but not surprising – to see who is lining up to let us know how much they’ll miss him, that they were buddies with him, or what a wonderful person he was. Apart from Netanyahu, for instance, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, NATO’s Trump bellboy Mark Rutte, Ukraine’s authoritarian leader Vladimir Zelensky, and, of course, AIPAC.
What these often abject condolences show is not merely the moral failure – polite term – of those who offer them. There is a more general and, in its way, worse point: Horrible as Graham was, he was also representative of the elites of the US and the West. Normal people would be ashamed to be seen with Graham, dead or alive; Western elites are boasting of their intimacy with him.
Graham was explicit in displaying his genuine, sick joy in inflicting pain and misery on as much of the world as he could. Indeed, one way to describe him would be as an openly, enthusiastically sadistic imperialist. Graham was a depraved pervert of power who let it all hang out. But apart from his lack of filter, he was not an exception but typical.
Graham was the ugly and all too realistic face of much of the West and its leaders in Washington. He is gone, everyone and everything else is still in place.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
US Strategy and the shift to NATO 3.0
A shorter declaration masks deeper tensions, as Washington pushes to reshape NATO’s role from Europe to West Asia and Asia-Pacific.
By Mehmet Ali Guller | The Cradle | July 11, 2026
The six-point final declaration of the NATO Ankara Summit is among the shortest in recent years, similar to last year’s five-point declaration from The Hague. In contrast, the 2021 Brussels Summit declaration contained 79 points, Madrid in 2022 had 22, Vilnius in 2023 included 90, and Washington in 2024 featured 38.
The sharp reduction reflects ongoing tensions between the US and Europe. The declaration is brief because areas of agreement remain limited. The debate over NATO as a “paper tiger” has not been resolved, only set aside.
In the declaration, this issue is temporarily addressed through the slogan “a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”
Ankara Declaration targets Russia and Iran
The first article of the six-point Ankara declaration reaffirms commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, while the final article offers thanks to the host country.
The remaining four articles center on Russia, outline a $70 billion support package for Ukraine, expand defense spending, reference $50 billion in arms deals, and briefly touch on Iran.
The Donroe Doctrine and NATO 3.0
Washington is seeking to adapt NATO to what it frames as a new strategic phase, described here as NATO 3.0. The so-called Donroe Doctrine centers on consolidating dominance in the Western Hemisphere, shifting more responsibility onto allies in Europe and elsewhere, and encircling China in the Asia-Pacific through partnerships.
In practice, this takes three forms:
- Europe assumes primary responsibility for its own security, including taking the lead in supporting Ukraine against Russia.
- A new order is established in West Asia under Israeli hegemony, requiring normalization between NATO member Turkiye and Israel, as well as between Israel and Syria and the Gulf states, while weakening Iran as the principal obstacle.
- NATO deepens cooperation with its Asia-Pacific partners—the IP4 countries: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—integrating them into its arms supply chain and gradually extending NATO’s reach into Asia.
The political economy of NATO 3.0
Washington views militarization as the lever for the transformation of NATO 3.0. It has two key objectives: raising NATO members’ defense spending to 5 percent of GDP and building a new arms production chain. The first step was initiated in The Hague last year, and the second advanced in Ankara.
Pushing defense spending to 5 percent would generate a vast financial pool within a few years. Including NATO partners such as Japan would further expand the scale, creating a market that draws broad interest. The US aims to distribute this pool in a way that sustains the NATO 3.0 framework.
Alongside this sits the effort to construct a new arms supply chain. The approach is to retain control over core components while distributing subcomponent production across allies, linking them to one another and ultimately to Washington.
The $50 billion arms deals referenced in the declaration mark an initial step. The $10 billion NATO–South Korea agreement, which grants Seoul access to NATO’s joint defense procurement market, fits within this model.
A new military-industrial economy
For the Erdogan government, securing a share of expanding defense spending has become a priority. Ankara sees this as an opening for its defense sector, particularly through the state firm ASELSAN and the private company BAYKAR.
The Defense Industry Forum, long held as a side event at NATO summits, was included in the official program in Ankara for the first time, reflecting that shift.
Countries seeking a share of this expanding market and Washington’s effort to allocate that share in line with its strategy have converged.
The idea of a NATO Defense Bank is also on the agenda. Nine countries laid its groundwork during the Ankara summit. If realized, it would tie a military-industrial model more closely to financial capital.
Turkiye 3.0: NATO’s central frontline state
For Turkiye, NATO 3.0 also signals a new phase.
NATO 1.0 covers the period from the alliance’s founding to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In that time, Turkiye was integrated into US strategy, diluting its founding emphasis on independence and anti-imperialism, eroding aspects of its secular character through the Green Belt project, and absorbing its human capital within anti-communist programs.
NATO 2.0 spans the period from 1991 to 2026. In these years, NATO expanded toward Russia, dismantled Yugoslavia, and intervened across West Asia. Turkiye’s role was again shaped within US strategy, this time through “moderate Islamism.”
NATO 3.0 is defined by Europe taking on security responsibility against Russia, the pursuit of a West Asian order under Israeli dominance, and a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific.
Within this framework, Turkiye is positioned as a security enforcer for Europe, encouraged to normalize relations with Tel Aviv to secure a place in the regional order, and drawn into efforts aimed at countering Iran.
In effect, Turkiye is being placed at the center of NATO’s frontline. The naval command under construction in the Bosphorus is directed toward Russia, while the new NATO Corps headquarters in Adana is oriented toward West Asia and Iran.
Washington’s ‘Asian NATO’ objective
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte effectively represents US leadership within the alliance. His statements reflect Washington’s position rather than Europe’s.
His remarks before and during the summit pointed to a longer-term objective. Rutte argued that Russia was working closely with North Korea, China and Iran, adding that NATO “cannot be naive” and had to remain united.
At its core, NATO 3.0 reflects an effort to use the alliance first against Beijing’s partners—Russia and Iran—and, over time, against China itself. The push to reorient NATO toward Asia follows from this.
For the past four years, leaders of the IP4 countries have been invited to NATO summits. In Ankara, discussions with these states focused on expanding cooperation in defense industries and advanced technologies.
Washington is pressing these partners toward closer military alignment, at times resembling a sub-alliance—an “Asian NATO.” Proposals to open a NATO liaison office in Tokyo—though contested, notably by France—form part of this effort.
Washington, however, has continued to push for a broader NATO role in Asia. As Rutte put it, “The security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are closely interconnected,” reinforcing efforts to extend the alliance’s focus beyond its original geographic remit.
Expectations from NATO 3.0
Following the Ankara Summit, NATO 3.0 is expected to serve different priorities:
- For the US: aligning NATO with its Asia-Pacific strategy.
- For Europe: maintaining US involvement in European security even as direct support shifts.
- For Turkiye: expanding a military-industrial growth model.
For countries across the Global South, NATO is widely viewed as an outdated military alliance whose role has run its course.
RT producer speaks out after UK detention
James Scott said the authorities questioned him for 2.5 hours, seized his devices, and are still investigating him
RT | July 9, 2026
An RT employee was detained and interrogated after arriving in the UK from Russia several days ago under the country’s counterterrorism laws.
James Scott said he traveled to Manchester to visit friends and family and watch World Cup matches when he was stopped by the border authorities and questioned for two and a half hours.
Speaking publicly for the first time after leaving the UK, Scott said the authorities seized his electronic devices, returning them several days later, and that he remains under investigation, which he called “ridiculous” and “absurd.”
Scott is the second RT journalist to be detained by the British authorities. Last year, Steve Sweeney, the head of RT’s Lebanon bureau, was briefly detained by counterterrorism officers at London Heathrow Airport and extensively questioned about his work for the Russian broadcaster.
EU’s Break With Russian Energy Cost €3 Trillion
Sputnik – 07.07.2026
Total economic losses for EU countries due to the refusal to buy Russian energy could amount to approximately 3 trillion euros ($3.4 trillion), the Russian Permanent Mission to the EU said.
“The total losses for European countries from the refusal to buy Russian energy, according to some estimates, amount to approximately 3 trillion euros,” the mission told a Russian newspaper.
European companies and ordinary citizens have fully felt the consequences of Brussels’ policy of severing ties with Russia, it said. This has manifested itself in the form of sharp price hikes, high energy prices, declining living standards, and the closure and relocation of industrial enterprises outside the EU.
Russia has repeatedly stressed that the country would cope with the sanctions pressure that the West had begun to exert on Russia several years ago and continued to escalate. Russian President Vladimir Putin previously said that the policy of containing and weakening Russia was a long-term Western strategy, and that sanctions had dealt a serious blow to the entire global economy.
How Germany blew the EU’s chance for information freedom
By Rachel Marsden | RT | July 5, 2026
It’s not every day that an EU member state has the opportunity to push back in favor of freedom. At least not without elections. But a German court did have that chance – and promptly blew it on behalf of European citizens everywhere.
Back in 2022 when the Ukraine war was ramping up, the European Commission made an executive order banning Russian media broadcasting in the EU. Meaning that you couldn’t – and still can’t – access RT from within the EU, either on TV or on the web, without a VPN.
So some folks running a website in Saarbrucken, Germany, near the French border, started including some RT videos in their live feed. They reportedly did this exactly four times, back in 2023. Whoop-dee-do, right?
Wrong. This is the EUSSR we’re talking about, remember?
For this, the accused ended up facing criminal prosecution in Germany for promoting some EU-sanctioned RT Germany content. But it turns out that even the German court in Saarbrucken considering this case had doubts as to whether these guys and their website actually fit the definition of an “operator” under the EU sanction’s language that “prohibits any operator from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating or otherwise contributing to broadcast, any” Russian media content. So the German court referred the question to the European Court of Justice tasked with interpreting and clarifying EU regulations and laws.
Wrong question, guys. Why didn’t you start with asking the ECJ whether the regulation itself, made unilaterally by the EU’s unelected and unaccountable executive branch, is even valid at all under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Article 11 protecting freedom of expression? The fact that the question wasn’t put to the European court by the German one has spawned a judgment that’s stunning in its failure to interpret the application of any free speech restrictions narrowly enough to avoid the disproportionate limiting of free expression.
The German court missed the forest for the trees and got down into the weeds and all hung up on the comparatively minor issue of whether the website could be considered an “operator” without being a commercial entity. Which the European court then used as a prelude to launch a sweeping McCarthyist “reds under the bed”-style tirade.
“The term ‘disinformation’ is a translation of the Russian word ‘дезинформация’ (dezinformatsiya), coined in the early 1920s by the Soviet intelligence services. Joseph Stalin is credited as being the originator of that term, deliberately making it sound French in order to make it seem Western in origin and thereby enhance its credibility,” wrote the EU court, self-identifying as a history professor. How about if I take that as an open invitation to self-identify as a judge in my capacity as a final-year law student?
The ECJ ultimately ruled that commercialism is irrelevant when the website solicits donations, and had raised over €60,000 within a period of a year. It basically said, look, any commercial nature of the platform risks being a false dichotomy, because who’s to say that the sanctioned entities themselves wouldn’t be paying these independent outlets through donations to promote their banned content: ”Even though, for the purposes of classification as an ‘operator’, no economic activity or income generation is necessary, the context of an appeal for donations enabling such sums to be collected warrants some comment. The fact that some websites are financed by donations rather than by a registered commercial activity justifies increased vigilance as to their possible use as a tool for propaganda purposes, in particular in the case of State-sponsored disinformation campaigns,” the European court ruled. “That lack of clarity makes it more difficult to identify financial flows and, therefore, the actors likely to influence editorial policy or content. It thus creates an environment conducive to interference by external interests, including by third countries, which may intervene directly or indirectly in the production or broadcasting of content.”
Isn’t it the prosecution’s job to present actual evidence and proof of influence through the powerful state-backed legal instruments at its disposal? Shouldn’t the ECJ’s definition of “operator,” if it leans so heavily on the risk of foreign corruption, therefore hinge on whether actual collusion has first been established beyond any reasonable doubt? The ECJ sounds shockingly blasé here about the basic burden of proof for criminal conviction.
This court case had been stayed, or suspended, in Germany pending the ruling by this European Court of Justice. But now it’s free to convict these guys of promoting banned Russian content, under the pretext that just maybe they’re not-so-independent media that schemed on the down-low to distribute Russian media content – something that a lot of people have been doing all over social media of their own volition.
Ultimately, what the buzz around this case effectively does is put a chilling effect on that sharing, and it also risks making people self-censor out of fear of being dragged into court for a judicial proctology exam and having their lives potentially ruined in the press over accusations of Russian collusion. What if these guys (and others) just happen to agree with some of the views expressed on banned Russian media? Who’s going to protect their honestly-held views from establishment authoritarianism?
Hang on, here’s a volunteer for the task.
“Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of democracy. And the EU protects what matters, including the right to receive independent, reliable information. The European Media Freedom Act helps keep journalists and sources safe, strengthens editorial independence and protects media organizations from undue interference or legal intimidation. Today, on World Press Freedom Day, we reaffirm our duty to support and protect journalists so they can do their work free from pressure, intimidation, or harm,” says unelected European Commission President and de facto Queen Ursula von der Leyen.
Oh, great. So the same people who censor speech are also its self-appointed defenders. Like an arsonist who goes running around setting fires but also works as a firefighter as their day job.
What’s clear from all this is that EU regulation may look precise on paper, but enforcement isn’t so straightforward. When even member state courts require an official interpretation, then how is the average person supposed to avoid running afoul of the law? The result ends up being less about what’s actually banned and more about what merely feels safe to touch. Not exactly the kind of vibe that one tends to aim for in a democracy.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.
EU court backs criminal prosecution for sharing RT videos
RT | July 2, 2026
The EU’s top court has ruled that private individuals can face criminal prosecution for posting RT videos on public websites, widening the bloc’s crackdown on Russian media.
The Court of Justice of the European Union issued the ruling on Thursday in a case from Germany, where three people are being prosecuted for publishing RT DE videos on a freely accessible website.
The site did not charge readers and was financed only through voluntary donations. The CJEU, however, said that made no difference and ruled that all persons who are “directly or indirectly” responsible for making banned content available to the public can be treated as “operators” under EU sanctions rules.
The judges argued it was irrelevant if the individuals were running a business, how long the content was available, or how widely it was spread.
Under the German law cited in the ruling, violations of EU sanctions-based media bans can carry up to five years in prison.
The ruling effectively pushes the EU ban on RT beyond broadcasters, platforms or media companies, allowing for the criminal prosecution of any individuals accused of making RT content publicly available online.
The EU banned RT and Sputnik, among other Russian media outlets, after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Brussels said the sanctions would remain in place until the end of the Ukraine conflict and after Moscow ceases to conduct “disinformation and information manipulation actions against the EU.”
The measures were followed by platform blocks, app-store removals, banking restrictions, and personal sanctions against media figures and journalists accused of working with Russian outlets.
Germany had targeted RT even before the bloc-wide ban, with RT DE facing licensing pressure, platform bans, banking problems and regulatory action.
RT has vehemently condemned the restrictions and rejected the EU’s accusations, stressing that the bloc has consistently failed to point to a “a single example, a single grain of evidence” of false reporting.
Moscow has repeatedly condemned the restrictions as censorship and an information war against Russia, accusing EU governments of using the Ukraine conflict as a pretext to silence dissent, suppress Russian-language media, and intimidate journalists who challenge the mainstream Western narrative.
NATO Prepares for War, Hitler-Style Prison Camps and Blockade of Russia
Sputnik – 30.06.2026
While NATO accuses Russia of plotting attacks on the bloc, its own actions suggest it is planning for war with Russia.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said NATO is building weapon to attack airfields deep inside Russia, with Ukraine as a testing ground. This spring, the NATO-led Joint Expeditionary Force held wargames to practise besieging and capturing Russia’s Kaliningrad region.
Questions have also been raised over the Namejs 2025 exercises in the Baltics.
Lithuanian media said the exercise played out setting up a temporary prison camp called “Selonia” in Latvia for “potential collaborators” — civilians suspected of political disloyalty.
- The camp would have 10,000 prisoners with 300 guards
- The exercise included identifying and isolating politically suspect people
That was most worrying for border regions like Latvia’s Latgale, where Russian remains the common language Russians, Latvians, Belarusians, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Jews. Russian- and Belarusian-speaking communities in Lithuania could also be targeted, including parts of the Polish minority.
Echoing the Nazi occupation, the drills involved labeling parts of the population as potential enemies, compiling lists of “disloyal” citizens and preparing prison camps even before any conflict begins.
Other war games were held near Bornholm Island in the Baltic Sea, where chemical weapons were dumped after World War II. The aim was to control sea traffic — possibly planning for Baltic Sea blockade on Russian ports.
Moscow insists that it has no desire for war with NATO. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said there was no support for confrontation in Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused the European Union of militarism on the pretext of a Russian menace.
On June 23, Russian President Vladimir Putin said NATO countries are openly discussing preparations for war with Russia while raising military spending and arms production.
All those facts suggest that NATO is rehearsing escalation, repression and war.
Denmark admits ‘no evidence’ for Russian drone hysteria
RT | June 26, 2026
Danish police say they have found no evidence that flying objects which shut down Copenhagen Airport last year were drones, concluding a nine-month investigation into an incident initially treated as an alleged Russian attack.
Danish airports repeatedly suspended flights in September 2025 after reports of suspected drones near the airfields. Copenhagen Airport was forced to halt operations for several hours after objects were reported flying near the runway, disrupting commercial air traffic and triggering a major police investigation.
At the time, Danish authorities claimed Russia may have been behind the incidents, despite presenting no evidence. In May, Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin said Copenhagen had failed to produce any proof that drones had entered Danish airspace during the alleged incursions.
Police said on Thursday they could neither prove nor disprove that drones had been operating in the vicinity of Copenhagen Airport. “We cannot demonstrate that there was drone activity in and around the airport,” Chief Police Soren Thomassen told reporters. No suspects were identified and the investigation has been closed, he said.
According to Thomassen, there was unexplained activity in the airspace that evening, but none of the evidence gathered over nine months conclusively showed the objects were drones.
Police said they had reviewed witness statements, photographs, videos, CCTV footage, radar data, and extensive records of air and maritime traffic. Despite the exhaustive inquiry, investigators were unable to establish what the objects were.
One radar detected an object traveling at around 100 kph over the Oresund Strait. However, Dutch manufacturer Robin Radar later told investigators that the bird radar installed at Copenhagen Airport was not designed to detect drones.
Danish officials claimed the alleged drone flights were carried out by a “skilled operator.” Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen later escalated the rhetoric, calling the incident a “hybrid attack on critical Danish infrastructure.”
The case had begun to unravel long before Thursday’s announcement. Within hours of the airport shutdown, open-source investigators concluded that a widely circulated video appeared to show a training aircraft rather than a drone, according to Dronewatch portal. An internal memo later reportedly revealed that air traffic controllers had not observed any drones during the incident, while police acknowledged in March that the credibility of a key witness had come under scrutiny.
Earlier this week, investigators also said the first completed police probes into other alleged drone sightings reported across Denmark in the autumn of 2025 had likewise found no evidence of hostile or unauthorized drone activity.
Featured Video
Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Pakistan Sign Defence Pact
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
What Is Peanut Allergy?
An Essay on the Injection That Created the Epidemic
Lies are Unbekoming | August 8, 2026
… In 1988, Japanese pediatricians began seeing something new. Children who had received the recently reformulated DTaP vaccine at three months of age were arriving at emergency rooms with anaphylaxis after eating yogurt or Jell-O. Others were reacting at their MMR shot months later. The reactions had not existed at that scale before. The pediatricians investigated. They identified the cause.
The aluminum adjuvant in the new acellular DTaP had sensitized the children to the trace gelatin proteins in the vaccine. Weeks or months later, the MMR (which also contained gelatin) delivered the second dose. The second injection provoked anaphylaxis in a subset of children. Some then reacted to gelatin in food.
The Japanese doctors wrote it down. They published. They removed gelatin from DTaP. New cases of gelatin allergy in Japanese children dropped.
The paper is on file. The cause is named. The solution worked. No Western regulator has applied the same investigation to peanut allergy, though peanut anaphylaxis emerged in Western children during the same window, at the same ages, following the same category of injection schedule change.
The Mayo Clinic’s public description of peanut allergy states that it occurs when the immune system “mistakenly identifies peanut proteins as something harmful.” FARE, the establishment’s own advocacy organization, documents that peanut allergy in US children more than tripled between 1997 and 2008. Neither statement explains why the mistake began, at scale, in a specific decade, in a specific set of countries.
The mistake framing is the tell. A mechanism that “mistakes” a food protein for a threat cannot explain why the mistake was rare in 1980 and epidemic by 1995. The body’s design did not change in fifteen years. What changed was what was injected into infants: what compounds, at what ages, in what combinations.
The Japanese case is the counterfactual. The cause was found and the epidemic was ended. What separates the Japanese gelatin admission from the Western peanut silence is not the science. The science has been in the record since 1913. What separates them is the willingness to name what was done. … Read full essay
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Netanyahu rejects Trump’s post-genocide 15-point plan for Gaza
- Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani military alliance shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran: Analyst
- When sanctions become piracy with a government stamp
- China’s first 100-bcm Bohai gas field Phase I fully online, with daily output topping 5,200 tons
- Iran Holds Firm on the Strait of Hormuz
- Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Pakistan Sign Defence Pact
- China to launch regular shipping to Europe via Russia’s Northern Sea Route – Rosatom
- When the coloniser calls resistance terrorism
- Bipartisan Senate bill ties LAF funding to Hezbollah disarmament
- Turkiye restricts Black Sea traffic as drone attacks on commercial vessels spike
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Uncertainty In Estimating Solar Forcing Across The Arctic Is 100-350x Larger Than CO2’s Alleged Climate Impact
- Farce Of The Week: Germany’s Weather Site Donnerwetter.de Attempts To Measure The Rhine River’s Temperature!
- Analysis: Robert Koch Institute’s Heat Death Model Is “A Joke”… Deaths “Assumed” To Be Due To Heat
- New Research Finds Increasing CO2 Induces Cooling In The Lower Atmosphere Over The Arctic
- Germany’s Industrial Suicide… Grid Agency Prepares Secret Power Rationing Plans Amid Electric Power Bottlenecks
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
- Greenland’s Ice Sheet Was Supposed To Be Rapidly Melting Away. It Hasn’t Been.
- Global Temperature Trend Has Cooled Over The Past 6500 Years, Scientists Have Found
- Wind Energy Means Going Back To The Middle Ages, Says German Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
- New Study: A 40-Fold Increase In Earth’s Main Greenhouse Gas Contributes To Cooling The Ocean
Aletho News 