Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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.

July 5, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on How Germany blew the EU’s chance for information freedom

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.

July 2, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on EU court backs criminal prosecution for sharing RT videos

EU hides secret Gaza files as UN says Israel is committing genocide

MEMO | July 2, 2026

The European Commission is refusing to release 17 secret reports on EU-funded infrastructure in Gaza, which could reveal further evidence of Israel’s destruction of European-backed civilian projects and increase pressure on Brussels to confront whether its continued partnership with Israel violates the human rights obligations underpinning EU-Israel relations.

The refusal came on the same day that a UN inquiry said Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza by deliberately targeting Palestinian children, raising questions over whether the EU is concealing evidence that could strengthen calls to suspend or review its agreements with Israel.

According to EUobserver journalist Nikolaj Nielsen, the refusal was signed on 23 June by Michael Karnitschnig, acting head of the Commission department dealing with the Middle East. Nielsen had requested the documents under freedom of information rules in February, seeking reports covering EU-funded infrastructure projects in Gaza from 2020 to the end of 2023.

“We have examined whether there could be an overriding public interest in disclosure, but we have not been able to identify such an interest,” Karnitschnig wrote, according to EUobserver.

The claim is likely to provoke outrage. The documents relate to EU-funded infrastructure in Gaza, including solar panels, water desalination projects, renewable energy schemes and potentially other civilian facilities such as hospitals and schools. Many of these projects are believed to have been destroyed during Israel’s military assault on the besieged enclave.

Their disclosure could reveal not only the financial cost to European taxpayers but also the extent to which Israel has targeted or destroyed civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Such findings would increase pressure on Brussels to act under the human rights clauses which form the basis of EU cooperation with Israel, including the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

The Commission also invoked the protection of international relations as a reason for withholding the documents. EUobserver reported that some of the projects were either suspended or completed, with implementing partners including Germany’s KfW development bank, Oxfam Novib and WE WORLD.

One project cited by the Commission reportedly sought to support water treatment in Khan Yunis, a city in southern Gaza which has suffered widespread devastation following Israel’s ground invasion.

The refusal has raised fresh questions about EU transparency and accountability, especially as EU taxpayers have funded many of the projects damaged or destroyed by Israel. EUobserver has separately estimated that Israel has bombed or bulldozed around €150 million worth of EU-funded buildings in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, without paying compensation.

Earlier this month, EU Commissioner Dubravka Šuica told members of the European Parliament that the bloc has requested Israel to return or compensate for EU-funded assets whenever they are demolished, dismantled or confiscated.

The Commission’s refusal to publish the reports came as UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel concluded that Israel continues to commit genocide and other atrocity crimes by deliberately targeting Palestinian children.

“Israeli authorities and security forces have deliberately targeted Palestinian children resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip and war crimes in the West Bank,” the UN report stated.

The UN Commission said the “deliberate targeting of children” forms one of the key elements establishing genocidal intent by Israeli authorities and security forces to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, in Gaza.

Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the Commission of Inquiry, said Palestinian children “have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces,” adding that even after the October 2025 ceasefire, children have continued to be killed and seriously injured.

The report also accused Israeli authorities of arresting Palestinian children and subjecting them to torture and other forms of mistreatment in prisons and detention facilities. It further said Israeli security forces used sexual violence against children as part of a broader pattern of collective oppression under occupation.

July 2, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on EU hides secret Gaza files as UN says Israel is committing genocide

Masters of the Sea: How the West Tramples International Law While Posing as the Defender Against a “Shadow Threat”

By Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid | New Eastern Outlook | July 2, 2026

Operation Irini has morphed from an instrument for arms control in Libya into a tool for geopolitical pressure on Russia, offering the world a glaring example of double standards.

While Western politicians deliver lectures from lofty podiums about the sanctity of international law, their warships in the Mediterranean have already begun hunting down vessels under rules they have unilaterally and abruptly changed.

A Mandate Lost: When the UN No Longer Holds Sway

On May 25, 2026, the mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 2292 expired. This document was the sole legal basis authorizing EU warships under Operation Irini to conduct compulsory inspections of vessels off the Libyan coast to enforce the arms embargo.

So what did the West do? Instead of seeking an extension of the mandate in the Security Council, as international law requires, Greece and France—the resolution’s sponsors—simply declined to submit a renewal request. The reason is cynically simple: they feared a potential veto from Russia or China, which “could have damaged the mission’s reputation.”

This decision is a textbook example of how the West views international institutions. They are convenient as long as they serve Western interests. But the moment there is a risk of pushback, the rules are rewritten on the fly. Ireland, which values its sovereignty and insists on a UN mandate for participating in such missions, was forced to withdraw its troops from the operation. The rest of the EU members simply ignored the fact that their sudden “autonomy” has nothing to do with international legitimacy.

Rebranding the Mission: From Libya to EU Interests

Official Brussels continues to maintain the rhetoric that Operation Irini (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) is a cornerstone of European support for the Libyan settlement. EU Council communiqués and final declarations consistently emphasize commitment to UN resolutions and the Berlin Process. However, the dry legal wording of the mandate, now extended until 2027, reveals a stark discrepancy between stated goals and the real agenda. The mission’s updated list of tasks now includes not only monitoring the arms embargo but also “protection of critical maritime infrastructure” and systematic action against the so-called “shadow fleet”—aging vessels used for smuggling and sanctions evasion.

This is a conceptual shift. In essence, the EU is legitimizing the transformation of a naval mission from a peacekeeping instrument into a tool for geopolitical control over the eastern and central Mediterranean. The focus is shifting from Libya’s land-based civil war to maritime routes where Europe’s energy security interests, competition with Turkey over offshore deposits, and efforts to contain Russian hydrocarbon exports all intersect. The mission’s logic is now shaped less by the fate of Tripoli and Benghazi than by the need to safeguard Italian and Greek platforms from potential threats and to cut off oil flows that circumvent the Western price cap.

Particularly telling in this context is Libya’s own position. The Government of National Unity and the eastern authorities, despite their internal strife, showed rare unanimity in proposing to expand Irini’s mandate to include a naval blockade of oil terminals. Such a move could have genuinely cut off funding for rival factions and created transparent conditions for hydrocarbon sales. Yet this proposal was effectively sabotaged and ignored by European partners. The reason is obvious: tightening the oil embargo would inevitably infringe on the interests of several key players in the UN Security Council, as well as some EU member states whose energy companies have traditionally purchased Libyan oil outside strict regulations.

Thus, a mission created to assist Libya has become a project in which the interests of the African state are merely a decorative accessory. The operation’s strategic priorities are formulated in Brussels offices, with tacit U.S. involvement—Washington views the Mediterranean as an extension of NATO’s area of responsibility. Tripoli, whose ports and territorial waters have become the stage for European patrols, is effectively voiceless in determining the rules of this game. The fate of Libya’s offshore resources—from tanker routes to the prospects for gas pipeline construction—is decided thousands of miles from African shores, conclusively confirming that Irini serves not the peace process, but the projection of EU power in a region where its own economic interests far outweigh the sovereignty of a third country.

Hunting Russia: A Direct Violation and Escalation

The most glaring example of Western hypocrisy is the change in the rules of engagement under Irini. In June 2026, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas proudly announced that warships had been authorized to stop and inspect foreign tankers that Brussels deems part of Russia’s “shadow fleet.”

“Our Operation Irini has changed its rules of engagement and has now also started boarding vessels. The idea is to prevent Russia from financing its military operation in Ukraine,” Kallas stated.

Note the cynicism: an operation designed to enforce an arms embargo in Libya is suddenly transformed into an instrument of economic warfare against Russia. And no new UN resolution was required for this. Irini simply “changed the rules” unilaterally. Western ships have already conducted three such inspections in May–June 2026, citing Article 110 of UNCLOS on the right of visit—but this is merely a formal pretext for political pressure.

Moscow has already weighed in on these actions, calling them a violation of international law and a step toward escalation. And this is entirely justified. The West is not seeking peaceful solutions to the conflict. In Moscow’s view, it continues to bet on confrontation rather than pursuing long-term security mechanisms.

Russia: A Bastion of Multipolarity and Rule of Law

Against the backdrop of this arbitrariness, Russia’s position stands as a model of state wisdom and respect for international law. Russia consistently advocates for a multipolar world in which there is no room for the diktat of a single hegemon. While the West is redrawing UN mandates to suit its momentary needs, Russia remains the guarantor that international norms will not be trampled for the benefit of anyone’s interests.

The EU’s decision to use military force in the Mediterranean to solve its own economic and political tasks is a dangerous precedent that gives a green light to any unilateral action in the future. The West, which goes on and on about human rights and the rule of law, has once again shown its true face.

Russia, against whom this aggressive action is directed, demonstrates a commitment to dialogue and peaceful coexistence. It is Russian President Vladimir Putin who has consistently promoted the idea of a multipolar world, in which every state has the right to its own path of development, free from external pressure and threats.

Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Expert on the Arab World

July 2, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Masters of the Sea: How the West Tramples International Law While Posing as the Defender Against a “Shadow Threat”

A banal collection of nonentities and grifters

Ashes of Pompeii | June 30, 2026

Across the European Union, governance has increasingly devolved into an exercise in moral posturing. When virtue signalling becomes the primary policy guide, pragmatic statecraft is abandoned. The result is a continent plagued by strategic blunders, driven by an elite class that prioritizes appearing righteous over being effective.

At the heart of this dysfunction is the Brussels bubble, an insulated ecosystem entirely disconnected from the real world. The leaders populating this space generally lack practical experience, possessing only the specific skill set required to navigate internal party machinations. Consequently, they have consistently failed upwards. Ursula von der Leyen stands as the ultimate archetype of this phenomenon. After an, at best, mediocre career in German politics, culminated by a totally unsuccessful term as Minister of Defence, she was elevated to the head of the European Commission through backroom political horse trading rather than visionary leadership. This general lack of democratic accountability is fuelled by a profound sense of hubris and an entitlement to lead the globe. Apparently the natural order of things places Europe as the world’s moral, economic (and even military LOL) leader. Diversity and Identity Politics may rule in Brussels politics, where quotas are more important than merits, but in foreign policy Europe seems to think it has a God-given mandate to rule the world. Virtue signalling has entirely replaced serious political discourse as the main political language, ensuring that only the most ideologically compliant rise to the top.

This environment breeds rampant careerism, where the ultimate goal is securing a prestigious post through absolute subservience to the EU elite and the United States. Loyalty to Washington is routinely rewarded over national interest, as seen in the appointments of Annalena Baerbock to the United Nations and Mark Rutte to NATO. Alongside this sycophancy comes institutional corruption. The Pfizer scandal perfectly encapsulates this rot, with Von der Leyen at the center of the scandal. But the intense scrutiny she should be facing is glaring for its absence. When leaders operate with such opacity and prioritize personal or political advancement over transparency, the entire administrative apparatus rots from the inside.

This moral posturing yields disastrous foreign policy, most notably regarding Ukraine. The fundamental question is not what the EU can do to help Ukraine win, but why it is even meddling at all. If the EU and the UK had not meddled in the peace negotiations of March and April 2022, the war would have ended then and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Furthermore, Ukraine would have secured far better territorial and political conditions than it is likely to achieve in any postwar settlement today. The early peace talks were derailed by Western interference, turning a potential diplomatic resolution into a grinding war of attrition. Instead of pursuing a pragmatic peace, European leaders chose to signal moral superiority, prolonging a devastating conflict. We can debate whether this was to satisfy their ideological vanity or out of simple subservience to Washington.

Domestic policies suffer equally. Driven by the moral imperative of green virtue signalling, European leaders prematurely dismantled reliable energy infrastructure, triggering severe economic crises. Meanwhile, the current trade dispute with China exposes profound intellectual dishonesty. The EU labels China’s success in manufacturing and exports as “overcapacity”. Yet, one must ask if Germany had overcapacity during all those decades where it maintained a highly successful export led economy. They refuse to acknowledge their own loss of competitiveness, choosing instead to penalize Beijing for outperforming them in the global market. By weaponizing trade terminology to mask their own industrial decline, Brussels prioritizes ideological protectionism over economic reality.

It must be noted that the United Kingdom suffers from most of these same ailments. London’s political class is equally plagued by careerism, a disconnected bubble, and a reliance on virtue signalling over practical governance. Ultimately, whether in Brussels or London, the shift toward governance by moral posturing has been catastrophic. When leaders are unelected, subservient to foreign powers, and selected for ideological purity and party loyalty, rather than competence, the nation suffers. Europe has traded statecraft for virtue signalling, leaving itself strategically vulnerable and economically weak.

Future historians will look back on today’s leaders and wonder just how could such a banal collection of nonentities and grifters rise to become in the “elite” of the once powerful Europe.

June 30, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Comments Off on A banal collection of nonentities and grifters

Slovenia president seeks probe into Israeli interference in elections

Al Mayadeen | June 30, 2026

Slovenian President Nataša Pirc Musar has called for an international investigation into Israeli interference in Slovenia’s parliamentary elections, escalating a diplomatic row that has also exposed deep internal political divisions over the country’s stance on the Middle East, VINnews reported.

President Musar, who previously accused “Israel” of committing genocide in Gaza, appealed for the release of intelligence findings that reportedly point to a coordinated disinformation campaign targeting the then-ruling liberal party during the March 2026 elections.

According to Slovenian intelligence investigations, the operation involved an electronic disinformation network that leveraged deepfake technology and artificial intelligence to undermine the liberal camp. The probe allegedly attributed the campaign to a private Israeli intelligence firm operating in coordination with elements of Slovenia’s right-wing opposition.

Right-wing takes over Slovenia, strives to repair ties with the occupation

While the liberal party ultimately won the highest share of the vote, it failed to secure a governing coalition. That deadlock paved the way for right-wing leader Janez Janša, who successfully formed a government and took office as Prime Minister in May 2026.

In a sharp reversal of his predecessor’s foreign policy, Prime Minister Janša has announced plans to repair bilateral ties with “Israel”. In an exclusive interview for the Israeli daily Israel Hayom over the weekend, Janša confirmed his intention to relocate the Slovenian embassy from Tel Aviv to al-Quds, a move that aligns with the policies of several right-wing Israeli governments but has drawn international criticism in the past.

Janša also pledged to revoke the previous administration’s formal recognition of a Palestinian state, a decision he characterized as a violation of Slovenian domestic law.

June 30, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , | Comments Off on Slovenia president seeks probe into Israeli interference in elections

EU’s New Creator Press Passes Come With a Loyalty Test

By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | June 29, 2026

The Council of the European Union has decided that from July, online creators can attend EU summits and ministerial meetings to make videos for YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Fine. But the guidance to member states includes one odd instruction: don’t pick anyone who has “published views against EU values.”

What are EU values? Nobody will say. That’s the useful thing about a vague rule. You can point it wherever you like and never have to justify it. Posted something awkward about migration?

Wondered whether the euro was a good idea? Suggested the Commission gets things wrong? Possibly against EU values, possibly not, depending on who’s reading your back catalog that morning.

There’s no list of banned opinions or a review. An official just looks through your old posts and makes a call.

Now imagine them trying this on actual journalists. Guidance that said: nominate reporters to cover the summit, but exclude any who’ve expressed views against EU values. The newspapers would lose their minds, and Brussels knows it, which is exactly why it would never write that sentence down for the press corps. Journalists come with a long tradition of being a nuisance to power, and a fair number of lawyers to back it up.

Creators don’t have that armor. There’s no press freedom group ready to defend some bloke with 200,000 followers who makes explainer videos about the Council. So the EU runs an opinion test, files it under “eligibility criteria,” and assumes nobody will notice it’s the same thing it would never ask of a reporter.

They’re doing the same job, though. A creator explaining a Brussels decision to teenagers who’ll never buy a newspaper is doing journalism, whether or not anyone hands him a badge. Plenty of them reach more people than the wire reporters in the room. The only real difference is that one group has institutional defenders and the other has a phone.

Which leaves the EU with an awkward question. Is a free press one of these “values” or not? If it is, the rule contradicts itself, because the whole point of a free press is being able to publish views against you. You can’t vet your reporters for loyalty and call it press freedom in the same breath. And if a free press isn’t on the list, then they’ve told you what’s actually on it by what they left off. An institution that believed in free expression wouldn’t reach for an opinion test at all.

The clever part needs no rejection to work. The moment this guidance exists, anyone who wants a press pass starts editing himself. Skip the criticism about the latest policy. Drop the joke about von der Leyen. Keep it balanced, just in case. The Council doesn’t need to silence anyone when it can make people nervous enough to do it themselves. There’s also no paper trail, because nobody was ever formally told no.

The scheme arrives wrapped in good intentions, naturally. Brussels calls it widening engagement and bringing the institutions closer to the public. The other rules are reasonable enough: you need a real audience at home, a track record on politics and European affairs, no big sponsorship deals, no political office. Then the values clause does the job it was put there to do, sorting the approved from the unapproved. What you get isn’t a press pool so much as a fan club with lanyards.

The politicians who said anything were the ones already out of favor. Belgium’s Gerolf Annemans, a Vlaams Belang MEP, went for sarcasm: “I would go even further: nothing should be allowed to be questioned.” Lucas Hartong, formerly a Dutch MEP for the PVV, was drier, noting that “the EU and genuine democracy don’t exactly go hand in hand.” The Sweden Democrats said the whole thing showed “the EU elite is becoming increasingly desperate.”

Take the word “values” off the front and look at what’s underneath. The EU writes the definition, hands it to national governments, and uses it to decide which independent voices get to film its leaders. An institution that trusted its own legitimacy would open the doors and let the unflattering footage happen. Screening the cameras for loyalty first tells you how confident it really feels. And the creators most likely to pass? The ones who were never going to ask anything difficult anyway.

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on EU’s New Creator Press Passes Come With a Loyalty Test

Wired for War: Pax Silica is AI slavery disguised as strength

RT | June 27, 2026

The EU has signed on to ‘Pax Silica’, a US initiative seemingly designed to shut China and others out of the global AI supply chain and extract resources from Europe for the benefit of Washington’s military-industrial complex.

“America and Europe belong together; our histories are braided, our destiny intertwined,” US Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg declared at a summit in Washington on Tuesday. “But we share more than a past. We share a purpose – to build a future that answers to our values and is worthy of our inheritance.”

What is Pax Silica?

Representatives from the EU, Germany, and Greece signed the pact at Tuesday’s summit, bringing the total number of ‘Pax Silica’ signatories to 19. They are:

  • Argentina
  • Australia
  • Chile
  • European Union
  • Finland
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • India
  • Israel
  • Japan
  • The Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Qatar
  • Republic of Korea
  • Singapore
  • Sweden
  • The Philippines
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United Kingdom

‘Pax Silica’ evokes imperial Rome in both name and practice. Its signatories agree to “partner on strategic stacks of the global technology supply chain,” including raw materials, energy, logistics, semiconductor manufacturing, computing, software, and models. They pledge to reduce “excessive dependencies” on nations that “undermine innovation and fair competition,” – an implicit reference to China – and “protect sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure from undue access, influence, or control,” – again, a reference to China – in exchange for access to this “full stack of technological advancements that are shaping the AI economy.”

The pact is largely the creation of Helberg, a China hawk and former adviser to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, whose growing power RT has already covered in our ‘Wired for War’ series.

Jacob Helberg and Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp attend the Hill & Valley Forum 2025 in Washington DC, April 30, 2025 ©  Getty Images;  Jemal Countess

Who is in Pax Silica and who is against it?

Notably absent from the list of signatories is France, where President Emmanuel Macron has spent years pushing for “digital sovereignty.” France, and Europe more broadly, he argues, need to end their reliance on American technology and develop homegrown alternatives. To that end, the French government has ditched US-made videoconferencing software, swapped Microsoft Windows for Linux, traded Palantir’s data analytics software for the French-developed ChapsVision, and invested public funds in Mistral AI – one of the continent’s few promising AI companies.

Does Pax Silica undermine national digital sovereignty?

Pax Silica is explicitly opposed to the notion of digital sovereignty. In a blog post published immediately after Tuesday’s summit, Helberg declared the concept “backward and counterproductive.” A world of sovereign nations building their own AI ecosystems, he wrote, would be “a planet of subscale clones, each heroically reconstructing last year’s breakthrough while the breakthrough itself moves on without them.”

Instead, Pax Silica members can pool their resources, with each nation playing to its own strengths. “One partner’s compute meets another’s minerals, a third’s talent, a fourth’s capital, and the result is not a sum but a multiplication,” he wrote.

On the surface, Helberg’s sales pitch makes sense. The Netherlands is the home of ASML, which manufactures 100% of the world’s most advanced EUV semiconductor lithography machines; Israel is a chip design and military tech superpower; Australia has the world’s fourth largest rare earth mineral reserves. By bringing these countries into a formal pact, the US denies China access to these spoils and shares them among its allies instead.

Who does Pax Silica empower most?

In reality, Pax Silica is less of a partnership and more of an imperialist resource grab. Washington’s partners provide raw materials, logistics, knowledge, and labor, but the US currently controls 75% of the world’s compute – the processing power necessary to build, train, and run large-scale AI workloads. Ultimately, the American companies that control this raw power will decide how it is used.

While this compute will be theoretically made available to Pax Silica signatories, the treaty is carefully worded to remind them that full access is not guaranteed. The US, it states “will endeavor to provide access to trusted partners to the full stack of technological advancements that are shaping the AI economy.” Washington is obligated only to try, not to do.

Chained by the pact to Washington’s new Cold War against China, the Europeans cannot look to Beijing if they end up shut out of US computing infrastructure. Likewise, the EU’s self-inflicted energy crisis – a result of Brussels trading cheap Russian gas for pricier American liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports – means that Europe will never be able to build and run this infrastructure for itself.

How does Palantir stand to benefit from Pax Silica?

Pax Silica undoubtedly serves the US geopolitical aim of isolating China – and possibly Russia – and strangling its technological growth, but it also serves the interests of Palantir and its fellow defense-tech behemoths, some of whom have admitted that their growth model depends on military confrontation with Beijing and a potential world war in the Indo- Pacific.

Palantir needs all the computational horsepower and raw materials it can get to power its autonomous weapons and AI operating systems, and if relations between the West and China deteriorate to the point of military conflict, the company stands ready to supply the weapons that will be used by the US military.

Karp has recently called on the US to prepare for a three-front war against China, Russia, and Iran; Palantir’s marketing material includes images of its ‘Gotham’ operating system tracking the movements of Chinese warships in the South China Sea. A representative of America’s Frontier Fund – which invests in Palantir – told a panel in 2023 that in the event of a “kinetic event in the Pacific…some of our investments will 10x, like overnight.”

“Great power competition with China remains top of mind as we continue to invest in moving more of Palantir’s mass west of the international date line,” the company’s operations chief, Shyam Sanka, said during a 2024 earnings call.

Although Helberg left Palantir last year to take his position at the US State Department, he spent the previous year working for Palantir and the American government at the same time. While still advising Karp, Helberg served on the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, from 2022 to 2024. In this role, he lobbied for increased tariffs on Beijing, a ban on TikTok, and the exclusion of China from the global AI supply chain.

How have China and Russia responded to Pax Silica?

Beijing has not directly addressed Pax Silica, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry instead calling on the US and its partners to “adhere to the principles of a market economy and fair competition and work together to maintain the stability of the global supply chain.” The ministry has directly condemned previous efforts by the US to lock China out of the tech supply chain, including the US-Japan-South Korea-Taiwan ‘Chip 4 Alliance’. Beijing has referred to this coalition of chipmaking nations as a brazen attempt by Washington to “dominate the global semiconductor production and supply chain.”

The Russian government has not commented on Pax Silica, but Moscow likely views any moves that increase the West’s power vis-a-vis its main trading partner with concern. Russia’s own access to rare earths and energy is not imperiled by the pact, with Russian mining CEO Andrey Trenin writing last year that Russia’s “path to a sovereign integrated AI industry must begin with [its] unique Arctic rare-earth metal deposits” and the creation of investment zones in the country’s frozen north.

Pax Silica: Membership is a security risk

By signing the pact, the Pax Silica states are signing up for great power competition and all of the risks it carries. In some cases, signatories are risking more than economic sovereignty. In the Philippines, which signed the pact in April, work has already begun on a 4,000-acre ‘Economic Security Zone’ on the island of Luzon where a number of key AI-related industries will be based.

The US initially wanted sovereignty over the zone and diplomatic immunity, but Manila rejected Washington’s demands. Negotiations over the zone’s status are still ongoing, but even if the Philippines retains full sovereignty over the area, Filipino nationalists fear that its role as a node in the US military’s AI supply chain could open the Philippines up to retaliation from China.

Helberg has written off these worries as “disinformation,” claiming that concerns over sovereignty risk delaying the Pax Silica project. However, they must be widespread if Helberg felt compelled to pen a 1,200-word blog post writing the concept of digital sovereignty off as a “trap.”

A warning from Middle Earth

Palantir derives its name from the obsidian seeing stones in JRR Tolkien’s ‘The Lord of the Rings’, through which the dark lord Sauron communicates with his vassals and spies on his enemies. In their dealings with the company, and with Washington, European proponents of Pax Silica would do well to remember how, in the film adaptation of the novel, the wizard Gandalf responds to Saruman’s use of a Palantir: “there is only one Lord of the Ring… And he does not share power!”

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , | Comments Off on Wired for War: Pax Silica is AI slavery disguised as strength

The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 25, 2026

The unintended consequences of Trump’s Iran Deal are too many to list. Chief among them is that Trump’s own buffoonery has injected cash and power into the regime in Iran that it could only have previously dreamt of. But the “unconditional surrender” deal has also probably destroyed the petrodollar – leading, most likely, to a faster demise of the US as what was once called a “superpower”, or even sometimes the superpower. Trump’s idiotic outburst of “unconditional surrender” is, of course, the greatest irony of the entire fiasco, given that it is Trump who is on his knees and has given Iran so much simply to open the Straits of Hormuz, simply to bring down the global price of oil.

Yet what happens now in the region, both to Israel and the GCC countries? For Israel, many leading commentators like Alistair Crooke claim that its people are in a state of shock and that it will take some time before they wake up after the party the night before and realise that things got a little out of hand and that a certain process of cleaning up and repair needs to take place. Crooke and others even go further and believe that Israel can no longer continue to indulge itself in the delusional notion of ’Greater Israel’ – i.e. having regional ambitions of hegemony beyond its borders – and needs to recalibrate its goals, starting with the admission that it is not winning its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is a general consensus among analysts that most Israelis are in a state of shock about how the war in Iran was lost, how America itself didn’t and couldn’t deliver on its military promises, and how even the IDF is no match for Hezbollah. This will take some time for them to sink in – that Israel has simply overstretched itself both politically and militarily, and that the reality is that it is in a deep hole and perhaps a solution might be to stop digging.

But a period of sombreness and solace is hardly what Netanyahu has in mind, and it is likely now that he will become a silent enemy of Trump, who needs him to stop fighting in Lebanon. This relationship between Washington and Israel will also come under strain and enter a new period of saliency, which might briefly mean Congress voting to withhold Israel’s funding, to remind Bibi and his coalition partners who really is the superpower (to coin Bill Clinton’s comment once in the White House when Bibi attended a press conference).

What is perhaps even more worrying is the region and how America now retreats. It is inconceivable that US forces will return to the dozen or so military bases in the Gulf, as it is unthinkable that those elites will keep the cash flowing into Wall Street. Indeed, a bundle of $3 trillion USD which Saudi Arabia and the UAE had earmarked for the US AI sector will now not make it, as those countries no longer have the cash flow in their economies, with hotels in Dubai only catering to about 10 percent capacity. Trump’s war literally sent missiles to these new economies, and the Donald cannot complain now that this cash will not make it to the US.

Yet remarkably, Trump is still dreaming. He is still delusional about who he is and what America currently is, and seems to be stuck with his own ideas which feel like they’re from the 1970s rather than 2026. What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the beginning of the end. The loss of the petrodollar and the GCC countries with their fast cash feels like the first domino falling for the old empire, while Trump obsesses with tiny minutiae details which take up time posting on social media late at night. In the last days of the Roman Empire, its emperor was said to have been concerned about “Rome” – but this was not a reference to a crumbling civilisation, but to his pet chicken of the same name. When we see the puerile, juvenile row between the diminutive Georgia Meloni and Trump, there is a sense of déjà vu with Rome. A row on X which Meloni keeps alive for days might be seen as incongruous to the bigger picture of the US and EU falling into the abyss, with the EU being such a dog’s breakfast that even bankrupt Britain wouldn’t even want to re-join it now, despite most Brits in polls conceding Brexit was a failure.

The recent comments by the Saudi foreign minister might signal that KSA and the UAE are looking for a completely different defence set-up which might actually bypass the US altogether. Other countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt are stepping forward and taking on the challenge by themselves, while leading the anti-Israel doctrine. It is rumoured that Bibi complained to Trump recently about Turkey’s tough talking, but Trump told him to forget about even thinking about hitting the NATO country, as it is simply out of Israel’s league – or words to that effect. But Turkey is the new enemy of Israel. That ball has been rolling for some time.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

The Illusions of Western Virtue: Ursula von der Leyen and Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | June 24, 2026

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has every right to condition European relations with any other country or bloc on respect for human rights. That, of course, would hold true if she genuinely cared about such values herself.

In response to the June 19 signing of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran—intended to bring an end to a destructive war—von der Leyen declared that the European Union does not intend to lift its sanctions on Tehran.

Speaking on June 15, ahead of the G7 summit, she firmly conditioned any diplomatic thawing on domestic changes within the Islamic Republic.

“The principle of sanctions is that we need real change on the ground before we can think about lifting them,” she stated, adding: “As long as there is no behavioral change, you cannot lift the sanctions because of human rights violations.”

Viewed in isolation, the European position might appear principled, even commendable. In its broader geopolitical context, however, it exposes a staggering level of hypocrisy.

On that very same day, the European Union’s duplicity was laid bare. During a Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, Europe effectively refused to take a unified stand on imposing trade sanctions on Israel, despite its ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip and unchecked colonial violence and expansionist policies in the occupied West Bank.

The discussion itself would not have taken place had it not been for the persistent efforts of Spain and Ireland, which have repeatedly urged the bloc to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement over Israel’s flagrant violations of international law.

The initiative failed because the EU remains deeply divided, constrained by the requirement of unanimity on foreign policy and repeatedly blocked by pro-Israel governments.

While Europe continues to engage Israel—providing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist coalition with desperately needed political and economic lifelines—the European public has increasingly moved in the opposite direction.

Recent polling across numerous countries has revealed growing opposition to Israel’s war and genocide in Gaza and increasing support for Palestinian rights. Across Europe, mass demonstrations, consumer boycotts, campus mobilizations, and divestment campaigns have reflected a widening gap between public opinion and official policy.

This reality appears entirely irrelevant to von der Leyen, who remains preoccupied with the human rights records of states viewed as Western adversaries. Such concern is not motivated by solidarity with victims, but by the desire to maintain political leverage that can be invoked when convenient and ignored when necessary.

Lest we forget, von der Leyen was among the first Western leaders to visit Israel following the events of October 7, arriving in Tel Aviv on October 13, 2023. Standing alongside Israeli leaders, she offered unconditional backing, declaring that “Europe stands with Israel.” She did so as Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to a devastating military assault that would soon claim tens of thousands of lives.

Although her rhetoric became somewhat more cautious as international legal institutions began investigating Israel for genocide and pursuing war crimes cases against its leaders, her fundamental political alignment never truly changed.

For anyone to believe that von der Leyen has suddenly discovered that human rights should occupy center stage in any responsible foreign policy is simply delusional. This is especially true given how restrained she remained, both in language and action, as the US-Israeli war on Iran expanded into a regional catastrophe that should never have been allowed to unfold.

None of that matters to von der Leyen, of course, since such immense human suffering does not neatly fit within her geopolitical priorities.

It is tempting to conclude that, for von der Leyen and many Western leaders, some human rights matter more than others. Yet even that assessment grants too much credibility to their position, because it assumes that human rights are the actual basis of policy. More often than not, they are merely invoked when politically convenient.

Even the Catholic Church appears to be moving away from this selective moral framework. Since his election in May 2025, Pope Leo XIV has repeatedly emphasized a vision of “just peace” over the traditional doctrine of “just war,” warning against the use of moral and religious language to legitimize military aggression. During his Palm Sunday homily earlier this 2026, he stressed that “God rejects the prayers of those who wage war,” a direct challenge to the normalization of violence by political leaders.

But von der Leyen cannot help herself. The instrumentalization of human rights has long been a staple of Western foreign policy, despite mounting evidence that such commitments are rarely applied consistently. In that sense, Europe appears increasingly bankrupt—not only morally, but politically as well.

The war involving Iran, the subsequent US-Iran agreement, and the major geopolitical shifts surrounding both unfolded largely without meaningful European involvement. Reduced to the role of spectator—or occasional cheerleader—the EU exerted little influence over events, underscoring its diminishing relevance in Middle Eastern and global affairs.

This helps explain why von der Leyen resorted to familiar rhetoric about human rights in Iran while remaining largely silent on Israel’s devastating actions in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere in the region. With Europe’s influence steadily shrinking, moral posturing has become a substitute for meaningful diplomacy.

Will the EU continue along this path of growing irrelevance, or will it finally heed the views of its own citizens, challenge Israel’s impunity, and pursue a foreign policy genuinely independent of Washington? The answer may determine whether Europe can reclaim political relevance—or continue its slide into long-term decline.

June 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on The Illusions of Western Virtue: Ursula von der Leyen and Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy

Putin Warns the West: Russia Is Ready

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 24, 2026

It has been a while since I have written about Russia and the war in Ukraine, but Vladimir Putin’s speech on Tuesday (23 June) to graduates of Russia’s higher military academies and security institutions (military cadets/officers) at the Kremlin merits attention because it carries an indirect but profound warning to the West.

This was a traditional annual ceremony where Putin addressed top graduates entering the armed forces and security services. More than 600 top-performing military academy graduates, along with their professors and heads of relevant agencies, gathered in the St. George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace. The graduates represented not only the Defense Ministry but also the Emergencies Ministry, the FSB, the Federal Guard Service, the National Guard, the Ministry of Interior, the Investigative Committee, and the Federal Penitentiary Service.

I am focusing on the Western threat section of the speech because it signals that Russia, in reaction to Western actions, is prepared for a wider war. The speech followed a consistent four-part structure: the West manufactures the threat; it then accuses Russia of creating it; this is a historically repeated pattern going back to 1941; and Russia’s response is both military preparedness and a principled alternative vision of world order. What made this speech most salient was the explicit statement that NATO has moved from proxy support to open preparation for direct war — an escalatory claim calibrated to remind the graduates, and the broader audience, of the stakes of their service.

Putin’s central argument was structural rather than event-specific. He described the West’s action plan as very simple: first they create threats for Russia, forcing it to take action necessary for defending and protecting itself, and then they immediately accuse Russia of all mortal sins to justify their continued aggressive policy and aggressive actions against Russia. This framing — Russia as perpetual reactor, never initiator — is the foundational claim on which all other arguments in the speech rest.

Putin made a pointed distinction between past and present Western behavior that was clearly intended to signal a new threshold had been crossed. He stated that while in the past NATO countries had limited themselves to supporting the Kyiv regime, which he characterized as having come to power illegally through armed force and a coup d’état, that the West today is openly talking about preparing for a war against Russia and is building up their military offensive budgets. German Chancellor Mertz, for example, has been quite vocal in this regard.

Putin argued that to justify these expenses and the radical militarization of their countries, the heads of NATO and EU states are blantantly lying (my words) about Russia’s alleged military threat.

Looming over the speech was the memory of the Great Patriotic War… The speech was delivered one day after the 85th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa. Putin made the parallel explicit and unambiguous. He argued that even after the treacherous attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the West and Hitler’s Germany tried to accuse the Soviet Union and Stalin of aggression against what we currently know as the “collective West,” and that it is surprising that certain quasi-scientific quarters continue to seriously consider this. Putin was not simply invoking World War II nostalgia for domestic consumption. He was making a specific epistemological claim — i.e., that the Western narrative about Russian aggression today is structurally identical to the Nazi propaganda claim that the Soviet Union was the aggressor in 1941, and that both are false by the same logic.

Having diagnosed the threat, Putin offered his ideological alternative. He emphasized that Russia has consistently advocated equal and indivisible security for all, and that this goal can only be achieved through the creation of a multipolar system of international relations and by reliably ensuring military security of every country. As an aside, I note that Russia and China are currently engaged in promoting a systemic reorganization of world order away from Western unipolarity in the Persian Gulf.

Putin minced no words… He stated that Russia is ready to promptly and appropriately respond to any external and internal threats, and that in accordance with the State Armament Programme, Russia is focused on modernizing its nuclear triad and the Army, and strengthening the combat capability of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy. The explicit mention of the nuclear triad in direct proximity to the discussion of Western preparation for war against Russia was a pointed message to Donald Trump and the rest of NATO.

In discussing the Western threat, Putin indirectly chided the ineffectiveness of Western economic pressure. He stated that all technological and military achievements are being accomplished using Russia’s own domestic scientific and technological capabilities, and that all of it is being supported by steady funding made possible by Russia’s stable and resilient economy. He reminded the cadets that Western efforts to cripple Russia had failed and that Russia met that challenge head on by ramping up production, producing new weapons and modifying existing systems to confront new threats.

I believe that Putin’s speech was a warning to the West that Russia will not make the same mistakes that made Operation Barbarossa possible, and it is ready to confront and defeat NATO if it persists in facilitating attacks against the Russian people.

June 24, 2026 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on Putin Warns the West: Russia Is Ready

Strategic Oil Reserve Nears Collapse… US Must Choose: Guns or Butter

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 21, 2026

As of the week ending June 12, 2026, the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) held approximately 340.25 million barrels of crude oil… Sounds like a lot, but it is approaching the danger zone. In late May, that number was 372 million barrels, which consisted of Sweet crude: ~142 MMB | Sour crude: ~230 MMB, according to the US Department of Energy.

The oil is stored in caverns at four sites:

  • Bryan Mound: ~166 MMB
  • Big Hill: ~90 MMB
  • West Hackberry: ~72 MMB
  • Bayou Choctaw: ~44 MMB

To understand how perilous the situation is you need to know that if the oil level in these caverns falls below a certain level that the structural integrity of the caverns would be jeopardized. The most commonly cited operational floor is around 20% of capacity. Mike Sommers, CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, told CNN that the SPR must be at least 20% full to remain operational — that’s roughly 143 million barrels against the SPR’s ~727 million barrel design capacity.

So subtract 143 barrels from 340.25… That means the US only has 197.25 million barrels left before the caverns could face irreparable damage. If the US consumers, who use 20 million barrels a day, had to rely exclusively on the SPR, the US only has less than a 9-day supply of reserves. If you compare the amount reported at the end of May (i.e., 372 MMb) with the June 15th report, the US is drawing 16 million barrels a week from the reserve. This is the optimistic scenario, i.e., the US has roughly a 12-day supply before the proverbial shit hits the fan.

But wait, it gets worse. The US Military has blown through its jet fuel reserves. The problem is compounded becuase Diesel reserves are at 25 year low. Diesel and Jet Fuel are critical Distillates. So the Trump administration must make a choice: support the military jets with jet fuel, or support the trucking Fleet with enough diesel fuel, to provide food and products to US consumers. Trump can’t wage war and keep the economy going at the current rate because diesel and jet fuel compete with each other when comes to production. So the question is, do you want to wage war or do you wanna save the economy and keep the trucks moving on the road? This is the main reason Trump signed the MoU with Iran.

A friend who is an energy analyst summarized the dilemma as follows:

The strategic warning is that the United States cannot assume it can fight a major fuel-intensive conflict and protect the domestic economy without tradeoffs. Military jet fuel, commercial aviation fuel, diesel, heating oil, and marine fuel all draw from the middle distillate portion of the refined barrel. Refineries can bias output, but they cannot instantly maximize every middle-distillate product at once.

The risk is not that every truck or aircraft stops at once. The risk is that a forced fuel-priority decision creates cascading shortages and price shocks across logistics, aviation, agriculture, construction, and consumer supply chains. A war-time jet-fuel surge could reduce the diesel cushion; a civil-aviation diversion could disrupt passenger movement and air cargo. Either channel can become recessionary because both diesel and jet fuel are operating fuels for the real economy.

The US is not the only country or region facing a massive problem. Europe is screwed. An April 2026 report by Karl Miller — The Iran War, the Strait of Hormuz and Europe’s Compound Energy Trap — spells out the danger facing Europe. Here is the Executive Summary:

This report assesses whether the European Union faces a structural energy-security Prisoner’s Dilemma with Russia, with Germany at its centre and the Persian Gulf crisis as the accelerant. The argument is blunt: the Union has deprived itself of the low-cost Russian oil and gas system that underpinned much of its industrial base, while the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz disruption have simultaneously impaired the maritime energy system that supplies a decisive share of the world’s oil, refined products and LNG.

Europe is on its knees in strategic terms. It is not literally without emergency stocks, because EU and IEA rules require minimum oil inventories. The harder reality is more damaging: those inventories are finite, unevenly usable, commercially fragile and unable to replace the normal flow of crude, diesel, jet fuel, LPG, naphtha and LNG through global markets. Emergency stocks buy time; they do not restore cheap Russian pipeline gas, reopen Hormuz, rebuild refining flexibility or prevent member states from bidding against one another.

The EU therefore faces a compound trap. Russian gas is being removed by law, Persian Gulf flows are exposed to war, U.S. LNG has become indispensable but expensive, storage refill is costly, and Germany’s industrial model remains dependent on affordable dispatchable energy. Each member state can rationally protect itself through bilateral contracts, subsidies, exemptions and emergency procurement, yet those same choices weaken the Union’s collective bargaining power and deepen fragmentation.

The conclusion is that the EU is locked into a repeated, asymmetric collective-action game. Escaping it requires enforceable solidarity, shared critical-fuels planning, coordinated storage, firm-capacity realism, a diversified LNG portfolio, strategic petroleum-product management, and legal reforms that make cooperation faster and more profitable than national defection.

June 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Strategic Oil Reserve Nears Collapse… US Must Choose: Guns or Butter

« Previous Entries