Why you are being lied to about Yemen and the implications of its liberation
By Robert Inlakesh – Al Mayadeen – August 16, 2026
The Yemeni Armed Forces’ campaign to liberate their nation and end the Saudi-led blockade could be one of the most important events for the Arab world in decades. Not only will it have major implications for the ongoing regional war, but it also has the potential to dramatically reshape the region.
In July, the collapse of the Yemen-Saudi ceasefire agreement, which had been in place since 2022, was triggered by a strategic mistake committed by Riyadh. While Iran sought to break the inhuman blockade on Yemen through landing civilian airliners in the nation’s capital, Saudi Arabia’s air force rushed to bombard Sanaa International Airport. The Saudis may not have known it, but their irrational actions strung them up in a strategically placed trap.
Not only had the Sanaa government been coordinating a general mobilization, but its Armed Forces decided to directly retaliate by striking vital Saudi oil infrastructure and imposing a counter-blockade on their opponents to the north. The Yemeni Armed Forces then decided to take it a step further, committing round-the-clock ballistic missile and drone strikes that inflicted hundreds of casualties on Saudi-proxy forces inside Yemen and even advanced to liberate more of their nation’s territory.
Saudi Arabia is now unable to transit the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and its ability to export oil has been severed, representing a serious economic blow. Riyadh is now facing an unprecedented predicament, as Ansar Allah imposes an equation whereby Saudi violations of Yemeni airspace are met with direct strikes on oil infrastructure.
The reason why this all matters so much is that since 2015, the so-called “International Community” has rallied behind Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies. The global media have also participated in the facade, pretending as if some rebel group that they call “the Houthis” were fighting against an “internationally recognized government.” Why they kept up their lies is simple: without full control over their nation and its resources, the Sanaa government was simply not as valuable a partner as the Arab Gulf States, so everyone played along.
Nobody cared to point out that “the Houthis” is not an accurate name for Ansar Allah, that they aren’t simply a group of “rebels” but run a government that rules over the largest portion of the Yemeni population, or that two-thirds of the nation’s Armed Forces sided with them. Neither will they tell you that the so-called “Yemen Presidential Leadership Council” was created in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh and that its undemocratically selected leader lives in Saudi Arabia.
In fact, the idea that the Saudi-proxy forces in Yemen are the legitimate representatives of the nation and are somehow a sovereign government is even more outlandish than when most of the Western world randomly decided that Juan Guaidó was the “internationally recognised” President of Venezuela.
But none of this will even end up mattering if Ansar Allah succeeds in uniting Yemen and reaching an agreement to liberate its territory from its US-Israeli-backed aggressors. The reason why the Arab regimes, alongside the US-UK-EU-Israeli alliance, have fought against the government in Sanaa is that they all fear the consequences of their success.
Yemen will be the only Arab nation that will not only oppose US imperialism and support the regional resistance, but will also actively fight the Israelis and work to combat the “Greater Israel Project.” The only Arab government that dared to open fire on the Israelis or impose a blockade on them, in support of Gaza, was the Sanaa government in Yemen. All the others that fought for Gaza were non-state actors.
A strong and united Yemen, with access to its resources and the ability to continue developing its military capabilities, will without a doubt be the biggest threat to US-Israeli hegemony in the Arab World. Yet, it will also spell another equation: it could well serve as an example to populations throughout the region, as to what is possible if the people fight for their liberation. No prospect frightens the Arab regimes more than this.
The impact Yemen can have on global trade, oil markets, regional power equations and ultimately the Palestinian cause for national liberation, all have the Zionist allied powers shaking in their boots. For so long, the Yemeni issue has been ignored, but that could soon dramatically change.
EU faces criticism for secret police data talks with Israel: Report
MEMO | August 15, 2026
The European Commission has been negotiating a secret agreement to share sensitive personal data with Israel’s police service, despite internal legal warnings that the deal could violate international law and put Palestinians at risk, according to a new report by civil rights group Statewatch published by Novara Media.
The draft agreement, originally negotiated with the European police agency Europol, would allow the exchange of biometric data, genetic information, location data, political views, and personal details.
Critical research indicates the deal has progressed despite a 2022 ruling by the Council of the EU’s Legal Service which deemed the proposal legally untenable.
It warned that the agreement risks legitimizing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and would undermine the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
Concerns have been raised about the potential misuse of data collected by EU police missions operating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip city of Rafah. Experts warn that if handed to Israeli authorities, the information could feed into existing military surveillance systems used against the Palestinian population.
“The data transferred via the agreement could be used as intelligence to support decisions to attack and kill Palestinians,” legal expert Eitan Diamond told Novara Media. “The EU would run the risk of arbitrarily depriving people of their freedom and subjecting them to systematic ill-treatment under hellish conditions in detention.”
Palestinian lawyer Raji Sourani condemned the talks, telling Novara Media that “the intended cooperation is rooted in the racist colonial mentality of Europe, and turns against us Palestinians, the victims of genocide.”
While the draft text tried to exclude the use of shared data in occupied territories, it contained broad exceptions for “imminent danger to life” and the prevention or prosecution of general crimes. European legal experts called the exceptions far too vague.
The negotiations build on a narrower 2018 arrangement that explicitly excluded personal data sharing and the occupied territories. Critics said the commission’s continued pursuit of the expanded deal breaches its own diplomatic policy and ignores recent rulings by international courts.
Douwe Korff, a legal scholar affiliated with Yale University, called the commission’s position “deeply concerning,” pointing to the risk of sharing sensitive information with a state “credibly accused of genocide and other crimes.”
Since October 2023, an Israeli genocide has killed 73,389 Palestinians and injured 174,266 others according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Despite a ceasefire signed in October 2025, Israeli attacks have continued in Gaza, causing further casualties and damage to infrastructure.
When sanctions become piracy with a government stamp
By Dan-Viggo BERGTUN – steigan.no – July 29, 2026
Vladimir Putin has recently announced that attacks, harassment, and unlawful interference with Russian commercial shipping will be met in the same manner as piracy. This statement will naturally be portrayed as yet another Russian threat. But before European politicians dismiss it as propaganda, they should consider a far more uncomfortable question: What do we call it when states stop merchant ships, board them, seize cargo, or attempt to determine who is allowed to sail the world’s oceans?
Since 2022, the European Union has built up an increasingly comprehensive sanctions regime against Russia. More and more vessels have been linked to what the EU terms the Russian “shadow fleet.” The ships may be denied access to European ports and face prohibitions on insurance, financing, technical assistance, and other maritime services.
These are serious measures, but it is important to be precise: A European port ban is not the same as a general right to board foreign vessels on the high seas. Nor is there any automatic right to seize cargo from a ship simply because the EU believes the trade violates European sanctions.
But the development is dangerous. The United Kingdom and several European countries are discussing increasingly offensive measures against vessels alleged to be circumventing sanctions. The ships are accused of complex ownership structures, inadequate insurance, false flag registrations, poor technical standards, or concealing cargo and movements. Some of the concerns may be genuine. Old tankers without sufficient insurance can pose a serious risk to the environment and other shipping.
But suspicion is not the same as a conviction.
The EU calls this a “shadow fleet.” Russia rejects the designation. The term is politically effective because it creates the impression that the ships are virtually lawless ghost vessels that any Western navy can intervene against. But a ship that flies a valid flag, has a crew, a registered owner, and sails outside other states’ territorial waters does not automatically lose its rights simply because its cargo is Russian or because the EU disapproves of the trade.
Nor are European countries alone in acting this way. The United States has for several years seized oil that it claims has been transported in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. American courts have issued forfeiture orders, and U.S. authorities have taken over, sold, or seized oil from foreign tankers.
As early as 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the United States had confiscated approximately 1.1 million barrels of Iranian petroleum products from four foreign-flagged tankers. U.S. authorities stated that the seizure was carried out with the assistance of foreign partners. In 2023, over 980,000 barrels of oil from the tanker Suez Rajan were seized and later sold. In 2026, U.S. authorities obtained forfeiture of the tanker Skipper and approximately 1.8 million barrels of oil originating from Iran and Venezuela.
The United States portrays this as legal enforcement of sanctions, counter-terrorism financing efforts, and the forfeiture of illicit cargo. But from the perspective of other countries, it may look quite different: One state uses its own laws and its own courts to take control of other countries’ commercial goods far outside its own territory.
What would the United States say if an Iranian or Chinese court decided to seize American oil en route to Europe? What would Norwegian authorities say if a Norwegian ship were stopped on the high seas because its cargo violated another country’s unilateral sanctions?
We would hardly call that ordinary law enforcement. We would call it theft, abuse of power, or piracy.
It must be emphasized, however, that not all U.S. seizures have occurred through armed hijackings on the high seas. Some have been carried out in cooperation with shipowners, operators, flag states, or foreign authorities. Others have been based on claims that the ship was stateless, used a false flag, or had ties to the U.S. financial system. But this does not change the fundamental problem: The United States is attempting to give its national sanctions effect across large parts of the world.
The law of the sea is built on the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas. The ship’s flag state has both the right and the duty to exercise control over the vessel. The registration ties the ship to a state that also has the right to protect it under international law.
This does not mean that merchant ships can do whatever they want. Piracy, human trafficking, statelessness, false registration, and other serious offenses may provide grounds for intervention. Coastal states also have extensive authority in their own territorial waters and ports. But economic sanctions adopted by the United States or the EU are not automatically world law.
As a veteran union representative, I myself have met Admiral Aleksandr Moiseyev on veteran affairs. He is now Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. During our meeting, he gave a detailed account of the rescue efforts following the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea in August 2000. He described the enormous technical challenges, the time pressure, and the human drama surrounding the attempt to reach the crew. All 118 people on board lost their lives.
The conversation made a strong impression on me. It reminded me that the sea is not merely an arena for military power, sanctions, and political posturing. It is also a merciless workplace where even the mightiest navies can be put to the test, and where cooperation between nations can be the difference between life and death.
Norwegian and British experts were eventually brought in to assist with the Kursk operation. This is precisely why it is tragic that the relationship between Norway, Russia, and the rest of Europe is now moving in the opposite direction. Where we once could cooperate on rescue, safety, and human lives in the High North, we now risk encountering each other with warships, boarding parties, and weapons aimed at merchant vessels.
The lessons from the Kursk should have taught us that incidents at sea can quickly escalate into catastrophes. Communication failures, prestige, secrecy, and delayed decisions can cost lives. If European or American forces stop Russian-affiliated merchant ships while Russian naval vessels are ordered to protect them, a single misunderstanding could have consequences no politician has planned for.
This lies at the heart of Putin’s recent warning.
If Western naval vessels attempt to board Russian-affiliated merchant ships, Russia may respond with escort vessels, military presence, or attempts to prevent the boarding. In such a scenario, very little is needed—a warning shot, a navigational error, or a misinterpreted order—to lead to armed confrontation, and even a nuclear conflict.
Thus, we could end up in a situation where nuclear powers face each other around a civilian tanker in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Barents Sea, or the English Channel.
Europe and the United States must ask themselves what principle they are establishing. If Western countries can stop ships because their cargo violates Western sanctions, China could later stop European ships citing Chinese sanctions. Iran could do the same in the Persian Gulf. Russia could draw up its own lists of Western vessels and claim they support hostile activities.
Do we really want a world order where the strongest navy determines what constitutes legal trade?
The conflict in Ukraine can be criticized and condemned without simultaneously tearing down the international legal rules governing global shipping. Sanctions must not become a shortcut to state-sanctioned piracy.
Norway is a maritime nation and should be among the first to demand clarity. The government must clearly state whether Norway will participate in boardings, seizures, or military stops of merchant vessels outside Norwegian territorial waters. It must also explain what international legal basis such intervention would supposedly rest upon.
Because when the great powers grant themselves the right to stop ships, seize oil, and sell the cargo, it is no longer just about sanctions. It is about who has the biggest warships.
When merchant ships become military targets, the path from economic war to actual war has become alarmingly short.
The EU Has No Plan If Peace Breaks Out in Ukraine
By Glenn Diesen | August 4, 2026
Over the past years, NATO has held “peace summits” to which Russia was not even invited, where European leaders such as President Duda spoke about peace in terms of breaking up Russia into smaller states. Now that NATO is clearly losing its proxy war, the EU demands an “unconditional ceasefire”. This is not a peace proposal but an effort to further extend the war. An “unconditional ceasefire” is a conditionality for starting negotiations, which is intended to freeze a conflict that NATO is losing, giving it time to rearm, regroup, and even send in NATO troops as “peacekeepers”.
Why has the EU boycotted diplomacy for 4.5 years and continues to do so? And why will NATO not even take NATO expansion off the table in return for a ceasefire? Would it not be wise to discuss with the other side how we failed to establish a mutually acceptable pan-European security architecture after the Cold War, which has led us into this horrific war? The EU uses smears and censorship to prevent its own public from even discussing this matter, and it will certainly not be discussed with Russia.
The EU cannot allow this war to end, as there is no plan for peace. Fighting with Ukrainians keeps the U.S. in Europe, temporarily preserves European unity, protects an unpopular political elite from the rising opposition that seeks course correction, offers military Keynesianism as an economic model for a de-industrialising Europe, weakens Russia as a strategic rival, and buys the European leaders time to prepare for a direct war with Russia. A peace agreement would require European leaders to repay the funds they have seized and partly stolen from Russia, which they also used as collateral for loans to Ukraine. Victory would give the Europeans a strong U.S. behind them and a battle-hardened Ukraine in front of them, while defeat would leave Europe without a clear role or relevance in a multipolar world. There is no plan for what to do when peace breaks out.
When the Trump administration broke with the NATO consensus of boycotting diplomacy to negotiate an end to the Ukraine War, the main objective of the European leaders was to shut down the talks. The European leaders rushed to Washington to insist that peace entails an “unconditional ceasefire” without even discussing a political settlement, and intensified deep strikes into Russia to sell the idea that Russia can be defeated. The European leaders were successful as the Trump administration began adopting the false narrative that Ukraine had “turned the tide”. While the Trump administration had initially aimed to either end the Ukraine War or outsource it to the Europeans, the proxy war in Ukraine is now Trump’s war.
If the goal was to “help Ukraine”, then NATO would not have toppled the Ukrainian government in 2014 in the effort to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit that only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted; NATO would not have sabotaged the Minsk Agreement between 2015 and 2022; NATO would not have pressured Zelensky to reverse his peace platform that won him the election in 2019; NATO would not have torpedoed the Istanbul agreement in 2022; or at least NATO would have ended the war in November of 2022 on the recommendation of General Mark Milley when Ukraine was at its strongest. Instead, “standing with Ukraine” now entails deporting Ukrainian refugees and financing military recruiters to hunt Ukrainian men on the streets to send them to die in a war that Ukraine cannot possibly win. Proxy wars are ruthless as they use the proxy as cannon fodder, yet proxy wars are always sold to the public as being motivated by empathy and support for the proxy that is unnecessarily sacrificed.
Europe Wants To Prevent It’s Citizens From Even Hearing The Russian Perspective
The Dissident | August 3, 2026
As EU countries continue to fuel the never-ending proxy war in Ukraine, its leaders want to prevent citizens from even hearing the Russian perspective.
In the most recent move, the Emmanuel Macron government in France is trying to ban the Russian-French journalist Xenia Fedorova from the country, simply for giving an alternate perspective on the Ukraine war in TV interviews.
On X, Zenia Fedorova wrote :
The government of Emmanuel Macron has decided that my statements made publicly on the sets of CNEWS and Europe 1, as well as my columns published in the pages of JDNews, represent an immediate danger to the Republic, and has ordered my expulsion on grounds of absolute emergency.
I am accused of seeking “to undermine the confidence of European citizens, and in particular French citizens, in their institutions and to instill doubt about the legitimacy of the support provided to Ukraine.”
They assert that my behavior, which consists of living in France for nearly ten years in compliance with the law, paying my taxes, but also having an opinion and expressing it as part of my work as a journalist, “thus harms the fundamental interests of the State” and that my presence on the territory constitutes “a particularly serious and current threat to public order; that consequently, there is reason to order, on grounds of absolute emergency, his expulsion from national territory pursuant to Article L. 631-1 of the CESEDA in order to put an end as quickly as possible to these positions that have the effect of destabilizing the social fabric.”
In addition, the Minister of the Economy, Roland Lescure, and the Minister of the Interior, Laurent Nuñez, issued a decree overnight aimed at freezing my assets.
This follows a series of actions from EU countries designed to prevent its citizens from even hearing Russia’s perspective.
Last month, the EU ruled that three obscure bloggers in Germany violated EU sanctions law because they shared content from the Russian broadcaster RT on a few occasions, in effect barring even sharing content from Russian media.
The EU has even placed sanctions on commentators who have no connection to Russia, and do not endorse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, most notably the retired colonel in the Swiss army, Jacques Baud, simply because he was critical of official EU policy in the Ukraine proxy war.
EU countries supporting the proxy war in Ukraine have made it clear they are opposed to citizens even hearing Russia’s perspective.
While this is framed as combating “dangerous disinformation,” the reality is the EU wants to black out the Russian perspective because it will make it harder to continue the proxy war in Ukraine.
As political scientist John Mearsheimer recently explained to the EU’s European Parliament, the EU continues to spread a narrative claiming that Russia’s goal “is to conquer all of Ukraine and make it part of a greater Russia. Once that goal is achieved, Russia will move to create an empire in Eastern Europe, much like the Soviet Union did after World War II. In this story, Putin is a mortal threat to the West and must be dealt with forcefully. In short, Putin is an imperialist with a master plan that fits neatly into a rich Russian tradition”.
But as he noted, there is no evidence backing up this narrative, and all evidence shows that Russia launched the invasion of Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a NATO member.
“While it is widely believed in Europe, and again, I’m sure here in the European Parliament, that Putin is an imperialist who has long been determined to conquer all of Ukraine and then conquer additional countries west of Ukraine, virtually all the available evidence is at odds with this perspective. In fact, the United States and its and its European allies provoked the war” he noted.
One can still oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the reality is, the war was launched after decades of U.S. provocations, not because Russia wants to recreate the Soviet Union and conquer all of Europe.
Even hearing the Russian perspective, even if one disagrees, will help show that the European narrative of Russia wanting to conquer all of Europe is false.
For this reason, EU countries don’t want citizens even hearing the Russian perspective, in order to continue the bogus narrative needed to continue fuelling the proxy war in Ukraine.
Iceland’s forthcoming referendum on EU membership
By Alfred de ZAYAS | CounterPunch | July 29, 2026
In August 2026 Icelanders will vote in a referendum whether Iceland should open accession talks with a view to joining the European Union[1].
Icelanders would be well advised to keep away from the EU, which has morphed from a peace-loving European integration movement into a war-mongering globalist machine run by a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels that operates without transparency or accountability and endorses militarization and virulent Russophobia.
In the light of Iceland’s venerable democratic traditions going back to the Thingvellir Parliament of the tenth century[2], it would be madness for the Icelanders to abandon their hard-won sovereignty and independence.
In 1992 and 93 Iceland did negotiate the EEA (European Economic Area) agreement that gave it access to the EU market but without membership and many of the obligations. The EEA agreement came into effect in 1994, and was negotiated during the period after the adoption of the Treaty of Maastricht (see below). It is important to know that the EU in the time of Maastricht was fundamentally different to EU following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. The EU is now speeding into a more centralised, authoritarian and even totalitarian future.
There is another important consideration. The Treaty of Lisbon is in many aspects incompatible with the UN Charter. Icelanders must actually choose between their obligations under the UN Charter and the commitments and actions that flow from the Treaty of Lisbon and the arbitrary decisions of the European Commission, currently under Ursula von der Leyen.
UN membership
Let us review a bit of history. Iceland joined the United Nations in 1946.
The purposes and principles of the UN are laid out in Articles 1-2 of the Chater, notably a joint commitment of all members to advance peace through cooperation, multilateralism, conflict-prevention, respect of the sovereign equality of states, the self-determination of peoples, the promotion of human rights and the right to development.
Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, stipulates: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Because of this overarching legal commitment, every UN member State must consider, before entering into any treaty or joining any other organization, whether such action would be compatible with UN membership.
Article 52 of the UN Charter stipulates that UN members can join other organizations “provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” (emphasis added)
This short paper argues that Iceland should not become a member of the European Union, which admittedly had very good beginnings, but which gradually moved away from its original peace-oriented vocation and emerged as a competing supra-national geopolitical entity with aims and activities frequently in conflict with the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions.
On the basis of the Schuman Declaration (1950) the Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) the European Common Market was established with the purpose of advancing European integration, democracy and human rights. For decades the European States worked in tandem with the United Nations and contributed to stability and prosperity in the region.
The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) created the European Union and promoted peace and human rights while respecting diversity and state sovereignty. Article 6 of the Maastricht Treaty stipulated:
“The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. 3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States…”
This arrangement was compatible with the UN Charter and guaranteed the respect of national identities and approaches in a manner consistent with the UNESCO Constitution, which also values the richness of diverse cultures and perspectives and discourages top-down homologation.
Unfortunately, the globalist movement in Europe largely homologized foreign policy, culture and even morals, in disregard of local approaches and traditions. When in 2004 the idea of a European constitution was aired, it was quickly defeated in public opinion polls and in the referenda held in France and the Netherlands in 2006. The European populations felt that the proposed constitution threatened their national identities guaranteed in the Treaty of Maastricht, that it opened the way to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism driven by a Brussels bureaucracy disconnected from the peoples of the member States of the European Union.
In the light of the impossibility to adopt the European Constitution by direct democratic vote, the bureaucrats decided in 2007 to drop the project of a European Constitution, and instead to take a short-cut relying on the parliaments of the member States, which were more easily manipulated than the populations they represented.
The Treaty of Lisbon or 13 December 2007 emerged as an Ersatz or surrogate European constitution, adopted in a questionable manner, and in any case unrepresentative of the wishes of the populations concerned.
Lip service was given to the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the EU acts (in theory) only where its member states agree unanimously. This reflects the legal norm that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. Smoke and mirrors.
In practice, however, the sovereignty of European States has been significantly reduced since 2007, and the Brussels bureaucracy has imposed rules and regulations – as well as unilateral coercive measures, wrongly referred to as “sanctions” – in an increasingly authoritarian manner, in disregard of the “margin of discretion” of supposedly sovereign European countries.
Particularly dangerous is the fact the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg sides with the European Council in most cases, notwithstanding well-based challenges from individual States. In effect, EU law has primacy over the laws of member states, even in matters of access to information, freedom of opinion and expression, morals and national security.
In its Orwellian judgment of 2 July 2026, the EU Court in Luxembourg approved the legality of EU censorship of the internet and the criminalization of social media messages including electronic links to sanctioned senders[3]. In this genuinely totalitarian judgment, not only the rights of news services to broadcast information and perspectives are being violated by EU law, but also the right of every EU citizen to access and publicly discuss politically relevant information.
Access to information and freedom of opinion and expression are at the very core of every democracy. These rights are stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee.[4]
This and other recent decisions by the European Court of Justice illustrate that there is no longer an effective recourse or remedy, because the European Court of Justice is clearly beholden to the EU Council.
Even the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has failed to protect European citizens from confiscation of private property e.g. pursuant to EU sanctions against Russia, and in clear violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Here too, the right to private property has been done away with by the supra-national decision of EU bureaucrats to issues “sanctions” on targeted countries or persons.
Because of the severity of the consequences of these measures, numerous human rights organizations, including the Geneva International Peace Research Institute[5], have presented legal briefs to the Council of the European Union enumerating the violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus far GIPRI and other organizations have received no appropriate response, other than a blanket reaffirmation from Brussels that the extra-judicial measures adopted pursuant to EU sanctions are legal.
A particularly egregious case of the new EU totalitarianism are the sanctions imposed on six European citizens for allegedly expressing views close to those of the Russian argumentation concerning the causes of the Ukrainian war since the Maidan coup d’état in February 2014. Among those impacted are the retired Swiss Colonel and intelligence officer Jacques Baud,[6] and the German journalist Husseyn Dogru.
Moreover, as I explained before the UN Security Council on 25 March 2024[7], the EU “sanctions” are not compatible with the UN Charter. For years now the European Union systematically violates resolutions of the General Assembly[8] and of the UN Human Rights Council[9], which condemn US and EU “sanctions” as incompatible with the UN Charter, international law, human rights norms and the right to development. Moreover, EU “unilateral coercive measures” make the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals nearly impossible, and, together with the illegal US sanctions regime, cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands worldwide, as determined by the British medical journal The Lancet. The imposition of such unilateral coercive measures undoubtedly constitutes the “use of force” in contravention of article 2(4) of the UN Charter and have no justification in international law in the absence of UN Security Council approval. EU “sanctions” violate the right to life, the right to development, and the self-determination of peoples.
Another worrisome development in Europe is the systematic war-propaganda and fear-mongering, the refusal to settle disputes by peaceful means, in contravention of article 2(3) of the UN Charter and the virulent Russophobia displayed by the Brussels bureaucracy, in gross violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates:
“1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[10]
In 2024 and again in 2025 the Geneva International Peace Research Institute submitted legal briefs to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to article 15 of the Statute of Rome, alleging violations of articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute by the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. EU policies are contrary to international criminal law in that they have provided and continue to provide military, political, economic, diplomatic and propagandistic support to a genocidal State, thus enabling Israel to continue the genocide against the Palestinians and to engage in acts of aggression against Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc.
Collectives of jurists in France, Italy and Germany have also submitted legal briefs challenging the actions by EU member states as contrary to the UN Charter, the Statute of Rome, the ICCPR (articles 6, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25), the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.
All of the above activities by the European Union document the fact that the initially peace-loving institution has morphed into a totalitarian organization that no longer conforms with article 52 of the UN Charter, because it does not promote the purposes and principles of the UN but actually works against them.
Iceland must be very careful in considering any kind of association with the EU. A coherent foreign policy by Iceland would reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter and avoid any treaties or association that would restrict its sovereignty and margin of discretion and violate its obligations pursuant to the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The perception of the EU as a bastion of the “rule of law” and human rights can no longer be empirically sustained. Vestiges of a positive perception of the EU are only a product of public relations, indoctrination and relentless propaganda.
Yet, in our world of Orwellian newspeak and cognitive dissonance, some – even in Iceland – pretend that it is perfectly normal to be committed to the UN Charter while working against its purposes and principles through aggressive policies adopted by the Brussels bureaucracy.
A well-advised Icelandic voter should reject any association with the European Union, because the EU is no longer the peace-loving Common Market but has morphed into a totalitarian organization that does not respect the democratic rights of European peoples but pretends to impose a one-size-fits all, one-narrative for all, on all European citizens.
All freedom-loving Icelanders are called upon to defend Iceland’s sovereignty and independence.
Notes.
[2] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/05/thingvellir-northern-europes-first-parliament/
https://www.thingvellir.is/en/education/history/assembly-site/
https://www.rferl.org/a/ecj-eu-russia-sanctions-oligarchs/33434950.html
[5] Gipri.ch
[8] Resolution 80/209 of 17 December 2025
[9] Resolution 61/9 of 27 March 2026
Pfizer Freezes Air Traffic Control Funds Over COVID Vaccine Contract Dispute With Poland, Romania
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 30, 2026
A vaccine contract dispute between Pfizer and the European Union (EU) has resulted in Pfizer freezing billions of dollars in funds earmarked for air traffic control in Poland and Romania.
Eurocontrol, an intergovernmental organization that coordinates air traffic control management across Europe, notified Poland and Romania’s air traffic control agencies earlier this month that it was freezing the funds after Pfizer enforced an April court ruling in Brussels.
The April 1 ruling requires Poland and Romania to pay Pfizer about $1.5 billion and $640 million, respectively, plus interest and fees, for additional vaccine doses, per a 2021 contract signed between the European Commission — the EU’s executive branch — and Pfizer.
Poland and Romania refused further COVID-19 vaccine deliveries in 2022, citing falling demand for the shots, according to Bloomberg. Poland also cited financial pressures it was facing after taking in refugees fleeing the conflict in Ukraine.
Brussels Signal reported Poland sold or donated some of its surplus vaccine doses. According to Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldovean, “Romania was among the European countries with the lowest COVID-19 vaccination rates.”
These actions led Pfizer to sue the countries in 2023, resulting in the April 1 ruling.
In a statement provided to The Defender, the Warsaw Enterprise Institute (WEI) said that the case, which is still ongoing pending the two countries’ appeal, is being heard in Belgium because the EU’s contract is governed by Belgian law.
Polish and Romanian authorities have said they will appeal the ruling. Polish public broadcaster TVP World reported that Poland sought a delay in the enforcement of the April 1 ruling pending its appeal, but that the Belgian court rejected this request.
Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst, who is not involved in the lawsuit, called Pfizer’s actions “outrageous and unethical,” arguing that “it could potentially endanger the safety of flights to or from Poland and/or Romania” by depriving those countries’ air traffic control authorities of funding required for their operations.
Łukasz Wojdyga, director of the WEI’s Center for Strategic Studies, took a different view. He said that while Pfizer is exercising its rights under the law, which allow it to freeze the disputed funds even despite the expected appeals, the focus should be on the flaws in the EU’s contract. He said:
“Even if this form of enforcement is allowed under Belgian law, targeting the main source of funding for an institution responsible for air-traffic safety strikes me as disproportionate and irresponsible.
“At the same time, a creditor has the right to enforce a court judgment and protect the interests of its shareholders through any lawful means.
“For that reason, the main focus should not be on blaming Pfizer for pursuing its claim. It should be on how the contract was negotiated, approved, and signed in the first place.”
Some legal and policy experts who spoke with The Defender suggested that Pfizer had other options available to it rather than immediately freezing the two countries’ funds held in Belgium. Other experts suggest that the EU’s contract with Pfizer is, itself, invalid, as it was signed through a dubious and potentially illegal process.
EU hasn’t revealed Pfizer CEO text messages, despite ruling
The EU-Pfizer contract has long faced scrutiny. For Wojdyga, the central question isn’t whether Pfizer is entitled to collect what it is owed. It’s how European and national authorities allowed such a “large, expensive and one-sided agreement to be signed, leaving taxpayers to carry most of the risk.”
According to Brussels Signal, the 35 billion euro ($40 billion) contract between the EU and Pfizer “was one of the largest in EU procurement history.” It was signed amid “claims that the EU may have paid up to fifteen times the production cost per dose, raising concerns that billions in taxpayer funds were overpaid.”
There are also questions about how European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen negotiated the contract with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and about potential conflicts of interest between the two parties.
Last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Commission violated EU law by denying The New York Times’ request to review text messages related to the contract between von der Leyen and Bourla.
The European Commission claimed it didn’t have the text messages. But according to the ruling, the commission did not provide “plausible explanations” to justify “the non-existence or non-possession” of the documents. The commission previously claimed the texts didn’t qualify as documents, according to Politico.
In 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled that the commission’s decision to heavily redact key portions of COVID-19 vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic violated transparency rules.
In 2023, the European Parliament blocked an attempt to cross-examine von der Leyen regarding the text messages. The previous year, Bourla refused to testify before the European Parliament about the contract terms.
According to Brussels Signal, “scrutiny has been directed at potential conflicts of interest involving von der Leyen’s family,” as her husband Heiko “is the medical director at Orgenesisi, a biotech company that received EU funds and partnered with Pfizer.”
According to activist Frederic Baldan, CEO of CEBiz:
“Ursula von der Leyen, without any mandate, bypassed the committees and negotiated directly with Albert Bourla via Signal messages programmed to self-destruct. She thus circumvented the anti-corruption safeguards of her own Commission. The price increased in an inexplicable manner and the quantities ordered became insane.”
Wojdyga noted that the commission did not appeal the 2025 ruling in time, “making the ruling final.” Yet, the text messages still haven’t been released. Gheorghe Piperea, a member of the European Parliament, said that “the content of those messages remains secret to this day.”
Documents leaked in 2022 showed that U.S. and EU officials pressured European drug regulators to rush approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine despite safety concerns.
According to Romanian political scientist Dragos Moldoveanu, questions remain over how the parties determined the number of doses each country would receive under the contract.
“Romania ordered 120 million doses of the vaccine, based on a ‘strategy adopted at the EU level,’ even though Romania’s population is less than 20 million people,” Moldoveanu said.
For Piperea, the EU-Pfizer contract “ought never to have existed” in the first place, because the EU took on powers it doesn’t have under the treaties of the European Union.
“The Commission violated the principle of subsidiarity that governs the shared competences of the Commission and the member states. Health policy falls within the competence of the member states, not of the Commission. The member states may be supported in these health policies, but they may not be supplanted by the Commission,” Piperea said.
This also means that if Pfizer believed the contract terms were violated, it should have sought damages from the EU, not from individual states like Romania and Poland.
However, suing the EU would have revealed “that the exceedingly narrow circle of persons who conducted the negotiations — von der Leyen … together with two or three anonymous directors from the European Medicines Agency — possessed neither the competence nor the mandate to bind the member states to payments,” Piperea said.
Wojdyga said all 27 EU governments were represented on the steering board, while the joint negotiating team with Pfizer “included the Commission and seven member states, including Poland.”
The member states were responsible for placing orders, making payments and accepting delivery under the terms of the deal.
However, “the decision-making process matters,” Wojdyga said. “Once the terms of an agreement were presented, a member state had only five working days to opt out,” after which its acceptance was considered legally binding.
He added:
“So, governments technically had a choice. In reality, they had only a few days to assess complex, multiyear financial commitments in the middle of a pandemic, under intense political pressure and amid fears of vaccine shortages. That put national governments under considerable time pressure and limited their ability to carry out a full legal, financial, and public health review.”
Baldan, who initiated a 2023 criminal case against Pfizer challenging the contract, said that in closed session, lawyers for Hungary and Poland confirmed they had “never given any negotiating mandate to von der Leyen” and that the vaccine orders were placed at the EU level and were “inexplicable” to them.
Baldan said the case resulted in a 1,000-page report by the Belgian Federal Police’s anti-corruption unit, finding that “there are sufficient elements to establish the offenses.”
However, the Belgian police handed over the investigation to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which moved to have it annulled.
“This is what allowed Pfizer to resume its civil proceedings and obtain judgments against the member states that refused to pay,” Baldan said.
Has Pfizer endangered air traffic and public safety in Poland and Romania?
Questions remain over whether Pfizer’s freezing of Poland and Romania’s air traffic control funds held by Eurocontrol will put air travel and public safety in question.
According to TVP World, the frozen funds “are critical” because they make up more than 80% of the revenue of the country’s air traffic control agency, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA, or PAZP).
Without the funds, the agency “could quickly lose financial liquidity, making it impossible to pay hundreds of air traffic controllers, whose work is essential for every passenger aircraft taking off, landing or safely flying through Polish airspace,” Brussels Signal reported.
PANSA could also lose the ability to maintain critical infrastructure, including radar installations and communication systems. “For ordinary citizens, this could mean cancelled flights and even the closure of Poland’s airspace,” Brussels Signal reported.
Romania Insider reported that the frozen funds equate to 0.2% of its GDP, posing “a significant burden at a time when the government is attempting to reduce the fiscal deficit.”
Piperea said the April ruling “arrived at a most inopportune moment in Romania, in the midst of recession and a major budgetary deficit.”
“Pfizer places the public in danger by leaving without funds the air-traffic control agency ROMATSA, and the state budget, which is already insufficient and cannot meet pensions, allowances, indemnities for persons with disabilities, and the like.”
Wojdyga said Pfizer’s actions are legal — but raise questions.
“I would not automatically equate the freezing of funds owed to Poland’s and Romania’s air navigation agencies with an immediate threat to passenger safety. Both agencies are still operating, and both governments have said they will protect their financial stability and keep services running. Pfizer also has the right to enforce its claims through lawful means.
“That said, targeting the main source of funding for agencies responsible for air traffic safety is bound to raise concerns, especially since neither agency was a party to the vaccine contract.”
“Pfizer is unlikely to close Poland’s airspace. By targeting PAZP’s revenue, however, it has shown how a poorly designed public contract can create problems far beyond the original subject of the agreement,” the WEI wrote.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Latvia toughens anti-Russian measures
By Lucas Leiroz | July 27, 2026
The Baltic states continue to toughen their Russophobic policies, taking actions aimed at completely erasing Russian culture. Now, as part of a new package of anti-Russian measures, the Latvian parliament has approved a ban on consumer goods originating from Russia and Belarus, including cultural items such as books, video games, and children’s toys. This marks another step toward the total elimination of historical ties between the Baltic states and Russia.
Parliament made the decision on July 23. Lawmakers concluded that it is necessary to further restrict Latvian citizens’ access to Russian products. Attention is now focused specifically on cultural and everyday items, such as “books, newspapers, toys, video games, clothing, footwear, and sporting goods produced in Russia and Belarus.” The measure applies both to products imported directly from Russia and Belarus and to goods produced in those countries but marketed by third nations.
Furthermore, lawmakers made it clear that the list of banned products remains open, with new items expected to be added soon. Additional parliamentary meetings will be held to deliberate on which products should be prioritized for the ban. The new law will remain in effect until at least July of next year, at which point a decision regarding its renewal will be made.
Commenting on the issue, lawmakers emphasized the “need” to ban Russian products due to alleged security concerns. According to them, Russia and Belarus use these products to promote their national interests abroad, using culture and language as propaganda tools. Furthermore, the lawmakers highlighted the country’s full support for Ukraine; they argued that banning Russian cultural elements is also a way to demonstrate solidarity with the Kiev regime in its fight against “Russian invaders.”
Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze also commented publicly on the matter, endorsing the narrative that these products serve as Russian propaganda and should be banned on security grounds. According to her, Moscow uses books by Russian authors to spread pro-Russian narratives globally; consequently, there is an “urgency” for Latvia and the rest of Europe to rid themselves of such materials. Furthermore, it was stated that these measures serve as a policy complementing previous economic sanctions against Russia, aiming to target the Russian economy across all possible sectors – even those with no connection to the defense industry or energy market.
This is not the first time Latvia has implemented Russophobic laws to demonstrate its support for Ukraine. Since 2022, the country has restricted the use of the Russian language. Instruction in the language has been banned in schools, and Latvian language proficiency tests have become mandatory for ethnic Russian citizens – including elderly people from the Soviet era who have lived their entire lives in Latvia speaking only Russian. Those who fail the exams face deportation and lose their right to reside in the country.
These policies are truly racist. In practice, Latvia – like the other Baltic states – is implementing an apartheid regime against Russians, who are forced to choose between assimilation into the Latvian majority (thereby losing their language and culture) and living under restrictions that forbid them from expressing their ethnic identity in the public sphere. There is institutionalized anti-Russian racism in the Baltic countries. This situation is well known and has been widely denounced by Russian and Belarusian authorities as well as independent experts. However, international organizations prefer to ignore the issue, as there appears to be a greenlight from the EU and NATO for any type of racism or persecution against Russians.
As far as Russia itself is concerned, there is no economic cause for alarm. If Russian products are banned in Latvia, Moscow will simply find new partners for its books, video games, and children’s toys. Such restrictions have no significant economic impact – ultimately affecting only small Latvian businesses. Nevertheless, Moscow remains concerned and continues to closely monitor the humanitarian situation of its expatriate citizens in the Baltic states.
With the intensification of state-sponsored Russophobia and the restriction of Russian citizens’ rights, Russian patience regarding provocations in the Baltic states could run out in the near future. Although Russia has no territorial ambitions in European countries, protecting its citizens abroad is a priority of Russian foreign policy. Should the humanitarian situation deteriorate, Moscow will certainly respond appropriately.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Beijing blacklists 14 EU firms after Brussels targets Chinese companies in latest Russia sanctions package
The Cradle | July 25, 2026
Beijing prohibited 14 EU companies from obtaining Chinese dual-use goods on 24 July, targeting Europe’s defense industry shortly after the EU included 14 Chinese and Hong Kong firms in its 21st sanctions package against Russia.
Announcing the measures with immediate effect, the Chinese Commerce Ministry called the bloc’s conduct “egregious” and demanded the EU “immediately correct its wrongdoing, eliminate the egregious impact, and safeguard the overall interests of China–EU relations with concrete actions.”
The restrictions cover dual-use items, goods, software, and technology with both civilian and military applications, including rare earth elements used to build drones and chips.
Parties outside China are also barred from transferring Chinese-origin dual-use goods to any listed entity, though exporters may request permission in exceptional cases or when a shipment is deemed “truly necessary.”
Rheinmetall leads the list, alongside Polish electronics producer Vigo Photonics, Italian electric motor manufacturer Lafert, French drone developer Cavok UAS, Czech truckmaker Tatra, Dutch naval engineering firm IHC Merwede, and several optics and laser companies.
Germany and France each have three entries, Italy and Poland each have two, and the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Lithuania each have one.
China’s mission to the EU lodged a formal protest, voicing “strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition” to the measures and rejecting attempts by the bloc to place responsibility for the war in Ukraine on Beijing.
It added that China “firmly opposes the EU’s unwarranted listing and sanctioning of Chinese companies and citizens.”
The 21st package subjected 51 entities to tighter export curbs on dual-use goods and technologies over their support for Russia’s military and industrial complex.
Companies based in India, Turkiye, and the UAE were listed alongside those from mainland China and Hong Kong.
Brussels targeted small trade and logistics operators in port cities like Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Dalian, while Beijing focused on Europe’s defense industry.
Cui Hongjian, a former diplomat who heads European studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the South China Morning Post (SCMP) that the disparity does not make the response any less reciprocal from Beijing’s perspective, noting that successive EU packages have named far more Chinese firms overall than China has named in return.
“Since this whole episode arose from the Russia-Ukraine war, I think it’s understandable that China is now pointing its retaliation at Rheinmetall,” Cui said. “From Beijing’s point of view, if it’s going to retaliate, the retaliation has to bite.”
Bankrupt and fraudulent: EU sanctions Russia while silent on U.S., Israeli genocide
Strategic Culture Foundation | July 24, 2026
European Union leaders imposed yet another raft of sanctions on the Russian Federation this week. This is the 21st package of political and economic strictures that the 27-nation bloc has deployed against Russia over the past four years.
The EU sanctimoniously claims that the measures are a demonstration of rebuke for Russia’s alleged unprovoked aggression and invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
This pretense of European principle is farcical.
Anyone who has objectively studied the Ukraine conflict knows that the United States and its European NATO partners incited the war by orchestrating the violent coup in Kiev in 2014, followed by the deliberate weaponizing of the NeoNazi regime that the Western imperialists covertly directed for a geopolitical confrontation with Russia. That many people aren’t aware of that history is largely due to the brainwashing propaganda of the Western media.
The EU’s sanctions policy is therefore properly understood as economic warfare, and as supplementary to a larger military strategy to defeat Russia. It is part of “Total War,” as a former French finance minister clumsily admitted in March, 2022.
While the NATO-armed Ukrainian regime steps up long-range air strikes deep in Russia in an attempt to damage oil and gas infrastructure and the Russian economy, the EU’s sanctions are aimed at achieving the same objective.
This has nothing to do with using trade and financial measures to show political and moral support for Ukraine as an alleged victim of Russian aggression. It is all about maximising confrontation with Russia to defeat it.
The use of unilateral sanctions is illegal under international law and expressly prohibited by the United Nations Charter. They constitute a form of criminal aggression. The EU is in criminal violation of international law, as is the U.S., which also blatantly wields sanctions to intimidate other nations, currently 30, including Russia, China, Iran and Cuba.
In any case, the EU’s policy meets the definition of insanity, as manifested by repeating a futile action multiple times and expecting a different result.
Russia is arguably the most sanctioned country in the world given the 21 rounds that the EU has fired and the hundreds of banks and other businesses that it has targeted. Yet Russia’s economy has not buckled, as desired.
Even more insanely, it is the European economies that have suffered grievously from the self-imposed exclusion of trade and business with Russia, particularly the loss of affordable energy supplies. The EU is rapidly deindustrializing due to soaring economic costs. Germany, once the economic powerhouse of Europe, is crippled as it imports more expensive American fuel in place of the traditional Russian supplies which historically underpinned Europe’s industries.
European citizens – a combined population of 500 million – are hit with a calamitous cost-of-living crisis that in large measure is caused by the sanctions policy of their political leaders. These so-called leaders are decimating their own economies and societies.
The bankruptcy is political and moral. The strains are showing within EU member nations, as seen from the wrangling and watering down of the latest round of sanctions. Several countries were clamoring for exemptions to limit damage to their national interests.
Greece wanted waivers on restrictions over its international shipping of Russian oil and gas. Germany and Portugal wanted exemptions from sanctions on Russian fisheries. Austria, Bulgaria, France, and Italy also appealed for curbing prohibitions to protect their various interests.
As Euronews headlined: “Chaotic sanctions negotiations expose cracks in EU front versus Russia.”
The outlet reported that the collective policy is starting to harm national interests, which is leading to infighting among the EU members.
“It’s getting more and more difficult to find common ground. We saw that this week,” said one diplomat about the fractious negotiations.
Another diplomat commented: “The [European] Commission [the EU’s executive branch] is running out of options for what to include. It has to become more creative, and every package is more complex and takes longer to negotiate.”
In other words, the policymakers in Brussels are insolvent from failing political ideas over their illegal sanctions. They are also politically bankrupt because these elitist, Russophobic officials are making European citizens suffer severe economic consequences without any democratic mandate. They are imposing a ruinous policy like a dictatorship, one that is aggravating tensions and hostilities towards all-out war.
European elites have caused two world wars already over the past century; they seem to be driving a third one.
But here is the kicker: this insane policy is a total fraud. It is bereft of any supposed righteousness or avowed concern for Ukraine and the defense of democracy.
The hypocrisy is glaringly exposed by the European Union’s indifference to war crimes that the United States and the Israeli regime are perpetrating on a massive scale.
As former European Members of Parliament Mick Wallace and Clare Daly pointed out this week, the EU leadership has said nothing about the United States waging a war of aggression against Iran now in its fifth month. Thousands of Iranians have been killed by American and Israeli bombing, and U.S. President Donald Trump is repeatedly making genocidal threats to destroy the nation, diabolically hinting at the use of nuclear weapons.
On the other side of the world, as Wallace and Daly also note, thousands of children in Cuba are being starved to death under a maximum blockade on the island country by Washington. The EU has made not the slightest criticism of the U.S., never mind any condemnation of this barbarism.
This week, as European elites were drawing up their 21st round of dubious sanctions on Russia, the same officials declined to issue any sanctions against the Israeli regime for its ongoing genocide against Palestinians, a genocide enabled by the U.S. and, it has to be said, by European countries trading with Israel.
The double standard of the EU leadership is not just idiotic duplicity. It is proof of its political and moral bankruptcy and systemic fraud. There was a time when some European politicians would speak out to oppose U.S. wars and crimes. Not anymore. The entire European political class is putrid from corruption and complicity.
On so many levels, the EU sanctions on Russia are self-defeating. The ultimate defeat is the fatal corrosion of its own institutions and abject lack of authority. European politicians are delegitimizing themselves and their claim to govern. People of Europe and around the world can see what the EU has become: an elitist warmongering project that is sacrificing its own citizens.
Iran slams EU ‘Human Rights concerns’ as sheer hypocrisy
Al Mayadeen | July 25, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has dismissed European Union claims of concern for human rights in Iran as “sheer hypocrisy,” criticizing remarks by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas regarding what she described as “human rights concerns” in the country.
Baghaei questioned how the EU’s professed commitment to human rights could be reconciled with its provision of logistical and technical support for deadly attacks “deliberately targeting the Iranian people, including civilians and vital national infrastructure,” according to the statement.
The spokesman noted that the EU has refrained from condemning “the most obvious war crimes” and has not expressed any sympathy for Iranian children killed by US and Israeli bombs and missiles, “the execution of which has been made possible by European logistical and technical support.”
Baghaei concluded by saying that this stance “is not just a loss of credibility, but a trivialization of evil and the most obvious form of hypocrisy.”
European Union announces new sanctions on Iran
On July 24, 2026, the European Union imposed new restrictive measures on five Iranian judges and a leading figure of an Iranian cyber group, citing alleged “serious human rights violations”.
The sanctioned judges serve on Iran’s regional courts in addition to Nima Salehi, founder of the Ashiyane cyber group, which the bloc said cooperates closely with Iran’s Cyber Police (FATA) and the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC). The EU accused the group of carrying out cyberattacks against domestic opponents and foreign institutions.
The new designations bring the EU’s Iran human rights sanctions regime to 269 individuals and 53 entities. The measures include asset freezes, travel bans within the EU, and a prohibition on providing funds or economic resources to those listed.
This comes amid continued US aggression on Iran, which has killed hundreds of civilians and targeted significant civilian infrastructure including bridges and desalination plants.
US attacks 16 cities in Iran in 13th consecutive night of aggression
The United States launched a new wave of attacks on Iran, marking the 13th consecutive night of US attacks, according to US Central Command (CENTCOM). The campaign, which Washington said aims to target Iranian military capabilities and threats to commercial shipping, began at 6:45 pm Eastern Time.
Iranian media reported explosions in multiple locations throughout the country. Local officials confirmed strikes in Bandar Abbas, Jask Port, Konarak Port, Ahvaz, Omidiyeh, Andimeshk, Khorramabad, Anarak, Nain, Borujerd, Taft, Shirkuh, Firuzabad, near Khondab in Markazi Province, and on Qeshm Island. Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that the US attacked 16 Iranian cities in total.
In Hormozgan Province, the deputy governor for political and security affairs said several civilians were injured during the attack on Bandar Abbas Port. IRNA reported power outages affecting parts of the port following the strikes, with provincial emergency officials later stating electricity would be restored within an hour. Iranian state television reported that air defenses were activated in Tehran as explosions were heard elsewhere.
The Khuzestan Province Council reported that four people were killed and five others were injured in attacks targeting the vicinity of Ahvaz.
Iran’s IRGC announced that its forces intercepted and destroyed a US Tomahawk cruise missile over Kahnuj in Kerman Province. According to Fars News Agency, the IRGC commander in Kahnuj said the missile was detected and destroyed while still in the city’s airspace.
Prevent the Great War
By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • July 24, 2026
A couple of weeks ago, in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, there was a NATO conference that sought yet more rearmament and militarization, steps that must inevitably lead to a new Great War. As an answer to this NATO conference, 200 ministers, members of parliament, ambassadors, politicians, activists, journalists, retired generals, academics, diplomats, military personnel and experts from many countries gathered in Ankara last weekend to prevent NATO’s new Great War. Among them were a few of our fellows, Unz Review writers, notably Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter.
The Alliance to Prevent the Great War concluded that the threats that could lead to a Great War originate from the United States, the EU and Israel. The US and Israeli attacks on Iran, NATO’s build-up of military power in Ukraine and the deployment of proxy forces against Russia, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the attacks on Lebanon — these are regional wars that carry the risk of triggering a Great War.
NATO, as an instrument of US hegemony, poses a threat to world peace. The countries targeted by NATO, foremost among them Russia, do not pose a threat to Europe. The militarisation of Europe should be stopped. The course towards confrontation between NATO and Russia must be reversed. The escalation of the conflict poses a direct threat of nuclear war. Western leaders must not cross Russia’s ‘red lines’, provoke or ‘test’ the strength of the Russian people and their president. Conference participants stated that arms supply to Ukraine must cease. Further arms supply to Kiev will sooner or later lead to an expansion of military operations in Europe.
In short, the Alliance to Prevent the Great War calls for the strategic union of four states: Russia, China, Iran and Turkey, against the US, EU, and Israel. Never before has Israel been considered such an enemy – not by Russia, neither by Turkey. Putin in his first visits to Israel tried to befriend the Jewish state, saying that there are more than a million ex-Soviet citizens in Israel, speaking Russian and maintaining family ties with Russians in Russia. However, recently Israel has become a stage for anti-Russian emigres with a strong sympathy for an independent Ukrainian state. These are mainly Soviet Jews who were born in the Ukraine, or their ancestors were from the Ukraine, and it turned them towards the Ukrainian statelet of Mr Zelensky.
Many Soviet Jews were extremely pro-American. A Russian writer Viktor Pelevin wrote once that a modern cultural Jew—whether living in Moscow or New York—often faces a subconscious dilemma, unable to definitively answer whether they are primarily a patriot of Israel or a patriot of the United States. The support of Ukraine by Israel spoiled its relations with Russia, though Israel tried to hide its pro-Ukrainian stance. A Russian-Israeli journalist Artem Kirpichonok wrote (tongue in cheek) of Israel’s contributions to the Ukraine war:
1. Israeli anti-tank weapons have been transferred to Ukraine via NATO countries. With their help, a column of Russian troops near Kharkiv has already been destroyed.
2. ‘Volunteers’ – veterans of Israeli special forces – have been deployed to Ukraine. As MP Gerashchenko stated: ‘The best of the best. They, too, want to take part in the struggle of light against darkness. Shabbat Shalom!’
3. Doctors and hospitals have been deployed to assist the Ukrainian army and the civilian population.
4. 76 per cent of Israelis support Ukraine (i.e. everyone except the Arab minority)
5. The renowned Israeli thinker Yuval Noah Hariri noted in a television interview that Putin believes Ukrainians are Russians, and that only a handful of Jews who have taken over Ukraine are preventing them from pelting Russian tanks with flowers. Thus, Putin is a psychopath and an anti-Semite.
9. Religious circles emphasise the fact that Putin launched a war against the Jew Zelensky on the eve of Purim and will therefore inevitably suffer the same fate as Haman and Stalin.
Turkey was once rather friendly to Israel, but Israel’s attack on the Mavi Marmara boat that carried Turkish volunteers to Gaza spoiled it. Israel’s genocide of Gaza turned the people of Turkey against Israel, while Israeli objections to the US sale of jets to Turkey added to the enmity. And finally, Israeli officials claiming that “Turkey is the next Iran” firmly shut this door forever. Thus has Israel been doing its part to get Russia, China, Iran and Turkey together into a strategic union. Still Turkey remains a member of NATO, and President Trump calls President Erdogan “his best friend”.
Russian relations with Iran are very good, and could be described as “strategic”. The Alliance to Prevent the Great War stated: “One of the factors that undoubtedly prevented the United States and Israel from using nuclear weapons in their attacks against Iran was the nuclear umbrella provided by Iran’s partnership with Russia and China. Had a strategic alliance between Turkey, Russia, China and Iran already been established, this would have made an American-Israeli attack on Iran impossible from the outset.”
What should be done with NATO? The Alliance to Prevent the Great War ruled:
It is not the reorganisation of NATO, but its abolition, that would serve global security. European countries would thereby also be freed from the new and onerous burden imposed by the United States on NATO members.
Among interesting speakers there was Prof Dr Ulrike Guérot of Germany. A renowned political scientist, Prof Guérot presented a radical vision for the future of Europe. Arguing that NATO has completed its historical mission, Prof Guérot stated that Europe must break free from American hegemony, transition to a neutral stance, and build its future with Eurasia, particularly with Turkey. Giving extensive space to the war in the Ukraine in her speech, Prof Guérot claimed that this conflict is a proxy war that has been prepared for a long time. Criticizing NATO’s eastward expansion policies, the political scientist argued that NATO has ceased to be a security alliance and has become an element of tension, stating: “We did not tear down the Berlin Wall; we merely moved it a thousand kilometres to the East, to Kiev. We are building a rigid NATO line and dividing the European continent.”
Prof Guérot proposed a concrete model of cooperation to reduce Europe’s dependence on the United States. She argued that a strong tripartite cooperation mechanism established between Paris, Moscow, and Istanbul could build a lasting order of peace and independence on the continent.
Responding sharply to Israel’s policies toward Gaza, Prof Guérot described the silent collaboration and ongoing arms support of the European Union as a “deep shame.” Probably Israel VS Palestine is the deepest bifurcation point between the US and the rest of mankind. While the world supports Palestine, President Trump stands for Israel, and he does not care about genocide. I think it will be his undoing.
Our Scott Ritter said: “To be honest, what happened in Ankara (the NATO conference) was an affront to Turkey’s sovereignty. We must never forget that the countries gathered in Ankara are not Turkey’s friends. Not a single one of them. Neither the United States, nor France, nor Germany, nor the United Kingdom, nor other NATO members, nor Greece.”
What took place there was nothing more than a grand political spectacle. It was a large-scale political charade staged to drag Turkey into NATO’s adventure in Ukraine and to exploit Turkey’s strategic position – painstakingly built up by President Erdogan over the last decade – in Europe’s interests and to Turkey’s detriment.
People need to understand this: everything NATO does – frankly, everything the United States does – runs counter to Turkey’s interests. Because Turkey has never been a priority. Neither for the United States nor for NATO.
NATO has used Turkey for its own interests from the very first day of its accession to the alliance. Turkey was drawn into the alliance to ensure the security of NATO’s southern flank. But that task effectively came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now they are trying to drag Turkey into an even greater quagmire: Ukraine. They want Turkey to become an active participant in a war that has dragged on for far too long, has resulted in far too many casualties, and seems unlikely to end as NATO intends – namely, with a strategic defeat for Russia.
So why did President Erdogan allow NATO’s conference to be hosted in Ankara?
I think the answer lies in the Turkish economy. I think President Erdogan was hoping to create an atmosphere of goodwill by hosting Western countries in Ankara, which could have yielded positive results for Turkey. However, I believe he will be disappointed in this regard.
On the contrary, I believe that in the coming period Turkey will continue to develop relations with Russia, China and, increasingly, Iran. This is because Turkey will realise that working together with these countries, which oppose American global hegemony and NATO’s subservient role within that hegemony, is the right path for its own future.
Larry C. Johnson said: “The Ukraine war is not simply a war between Ukraine and Russia. The West is waging a ‘NATO proxy war’, using Ukraine against Russia.”
European leaders are facing a crisis of confidence in their own countries. Examples of this include Germany’s deindustrialisation, the Volkswagen crisis and the economic downturn.
NATO’s stockpiles are depleted; factories cannot cope with the workload.
The war in Ukraine is currently ‘the most dangerous flashpoint in the world’. NATO’s preparations for direct war are increasing the risk of nuclear escalation, and Russia has reached the point where it could deploy tactical nuclear weapons.
Germany was also represented by Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, the man who commanded the German Navy and retired to avoid fighting Russians. He said:
My name is Kay-Achim Schönbach. I am a retired Vice-Admiral of the German Navy, and until 2022 I served as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy.
As a citizen of a European country and as a German, I can only express my deepest concern on this matter. Not since the dark and dangerous days of the Cuban Missile Crisis have we been so close to an escalation that could lead to a major war in Europe. And I do not believe I am the only one to have reached this conclusion.
The war in Donbas, in particular, has shown us that ignoring the historical context and failing to undertake a more in-depth and, above all, impartial examination of the causes of the conflict has been one of the fundamental factors that made this armed conflict possible.
The wars in Eastern Europe could have been avoided. We know this. We all know this.
Drawing on my own experience, I can say with confidence today that diplomacy based on mutual respect and conducted on an equal footing provided all the necessary means to prevent this smouldering conflict from escalating into a full-scale war. And I do not think I am the only one who shares this view. However, we must all acknowledge that the influential players in the international system had ample opportunities to resolve this conflict. Perhaps there was no complete agreement on every detail, but they managed to prevent the conflict from spiralling out of control.
The Admiral explained this behaviour of his superiors by “moralising and misguided idealism”, in my view this is too optimistic an explanation.
The Greek journalist Dimitris Konstantakopoulos chaired one of the sessions. Konstantinopoulos stated that Europe’s sanctions against Russia are not sustainable. Issuing a warning, the Greek expert assessed the situation as follows: “Both in Ukraine and in Western Asia, we are heading towards a very dangerous situation which, if it escalates, could even lead to nuclear war. That is precisely why we must de-escalate tensions, and I fear that very few political forces in Europe realise this. This makes the situation extremely dangerous.”
The Greek expert noted that the sanctions imposed by Europe have not worked. Konstantinopoulos said: “The sanctions have proved ineffective. However, if you wish to achieve the United States’ long-term strategic objective, they have proved effective: namely, to separate Europe from Russia (and the former Soviet Union in the past) and make Europe entirely dependent on the United States. If that was the aim of the sanctions, then they have achieved it. Incidentally, I believe that the entire operation in Ukraine — by which I mean the 2014 coup, because the Ukrainian issue did not begin with Russia’s intervention in 2022 but many years earlier — all this Western aggression in the territories of the former USSR was planned. It was a pre-emptive policy aimed at preventing a potential alliance between Europe and Russia, or, as the former French Prime Minister de Villepin put it, between Europe, Russia and China.”
It takes more than a conference to stop the coming Great War. Still, the Alliance to Prevent the Great War was a very useful discussion of the possible ways to do it. And surely much better than NATO’s own conference of trial balloons for their future war crimes.
Featured Video
Seyed M. Marandi: Iran & Yemen Unleash a New Offensive Strategy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How Hillary Clinton Lied Her Way to War in Libya
teleSUR | March 18, 2016
Declassified emails released in January and February reveal that Hillary Clinton was one of the main instruments in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya when the U.S. secretary of state personally pushed for the ousting of late Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.
Clinton’s emails reveal that she and her staff were aware that civilians they claimed to be protecting were not actually in danger from government forces. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russia warns UK will ‘pay the price’ over drones used in Ukrainian strikes
- FBI covered up Biden crime family dealings in Ukraine as ‘Russian disinformation’
- West Plans to Accuse Russia of Alleged Arms Supply to Drug Cartels – Russian Foreign Intel
- Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots
- ‘Do what Israel tells you’: US troops revolt over Iran war decision
- Iran spokesman slams Canada’s participation in war on Iran despite Trump’s hostility
- Seyed M. Marandi: Iran & Yemen Unleash a New Offensive Strategy
- Catz Boasts Oracle is providing “scary” secret technology to the Israeli military
- US mulls copying Russia’s air defense tech – Military Watch
- Ben-Gvir pushes for killing 30-40 Palestinians every night
- If Americans Knew
- The Architecture of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza
- ISRAELI MEDIA: What Israel Began in Gaza Is Spreading to Palestinians Everywhere
- ‘They’re Not Even People’: Ben Gvir Says Israel Should Kill 30-40 Palestinians in Gaza Every Night
- Israel’s duplicitous campaign to influence chatbots
- Help Is on the Way to the USS Abraham Lincoln
- A bullet in the back: Palestinian nurse faces permanent paralysis
- The ADL wants to cancel Susan Abulhawa
- Some in Gaza’s Youngest Generation May Not Even Know What Toys Are
- Ben-Gvir calls for nightly massacre of “30 or 40” in Gaza who are “not even people” – Daily Update
- Catz Boasts Oracle is providing “scary” secret technology to the Israeli military
- No Tricks Zone
- Veteran Swiss Meteorologist On Germany’s Recent Heat Wave: “You’re A Really Crazy Country”
- New Research Documents The Lack Of Any Net Decline In GBR Coral Cover Since The 1980s
- New Study Details Massive Recent Sea Ice Expansion And Cooling In The Greenland Sea
- Germany Also Saw Extreme Drought Conditions In The 1940s…Worse Than Today
- Another New Study Links Modern And Past Global Warming To Natural Changes In Cloud Cover, Not CO2
- 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
Aletho News 