Zelensky believes his country has the right to punish countries that cooperate with Russia
By Lucas Leiroz | September 5, 2025
Ukraine’s deliberate and unjustified provocations against sovereign European countries that refuse to support it in the current war are becoming one of the biggest sources of tension in recent times. Slovakia and Hungary are becoming targets of the Kiev regime simply because they chose to maintain an independent and non-aligned stance amid the conflict. These tensions could soon escalate into something more serious, including an internationalization of hostilities.
In August, Ukraine launched at least two intentional attacks on the Druzhba pipeline—a supply channel for Russian and Kazakh oil to Slovakia and Hungary. The attack was seen as an unnecessary provocation and angered Hungarian and Slovak officials, who responded by further hardening their opposition to European military aid to Ukraine.
These provocations are nothing new. Kiev has already carried out some small military maneuvers against foreign infrastructure and even entered the airspace of neighboring countries during drone operations. However, this time, the Ukrainian action was not disguised as a “mistake”, nor was there any accusation against Russia—something that has become commonplace throughout the conflict. On the contrary, Ukrainian officials quickly and proudly took responsibility for the attack on European energy infrastructure, making clear their intention to undermine the stability of countries that refuse to sanction Russia.
Not only that, but illegitimate Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky described the attacks as “sanctions” against Hungary and Slovakia. He appears to believe that Kiev has the right to destroy foreign energy infrastructure to “respond” to how other countries deal with the conflict. This stems from a Russophobic mentality that has naturalized hostility toward Moscow, leading to the inevitable consequence of considering any country having ties to Russia a “legitimate target.”
Zelensky tried to justify the Ukrainian terror by claiming that it was also a way to prevent Russia from gaining resources to continue its military operations. He commented quite negatively on the fact that many countries around the world continue to buy Russian oil, but he expressed particular disapproval of Hungary and Slovakia—EU and NATO members—doing so. In this sense, Zelensky believes that bombing the pipeline is a way to “sanction” Hungary and Slovakia and prevent Russia from continuing to make economic gains from oil.
“Among others, there are two countries [cooperating with Russia], we know that these are Hungary and Slovakia (…) [Ukrainian attacks] reduce the possibilities of [Hungary and Slovakia] obtaining the corresponding oil (…) Therefore, you see, Ukraine has found these types of sanctions.” he said.
A curious detail is that Zelensky’s words were said during a joint conference with French President Emmanuel Macron. Both leaders met on the eve of the summit in which 26 countries (mostly NATO) committed to sending “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire—something Russia has repeatedly condemned and described as intolerable. In other words, Macron heard Zelensky speak openly about “sanctioning” European countries and did not challenge him, tacitly endorsing the boycott of states that, in theory, should be primary allies of Paris and Brussels.
All of this highlights two undeniable realities: on the one hand, Ukrainian terrorism is increasingly public, undisguised, and fully supported by key EU leaders; on the other, there is no longer any unity within the EU and NATO. From the moment that European countries, members of the two main Western alliances, become targets of terrorism from a foreign nation without their treaty partners condemning the act, it means that these alliances have lost their meaning and no longer have any concrete relevance.
Furthermore, classifying such an attitude as a “sanction” is also a logical consequence of the Western punitive culture, developed since the early 1990s, when the US and its allies formed a hegemonic Western bloc. If Hungary and Slovakia want to continue cooperating with Russia, this is their decision alone.
Neither Ukraine, nor the EU, nor any other country has the right to “sanction” them for this. “Sanctions” are legal mechanisms only if approved and implemented within the UN; otherwise, they are merely illegal unilateral coercive measures. Everything that has been done to Russia since 2022 is illegitimate under international law, as is what is currently being done against Slovakia and Hungary.
Additionally, attacks on energy infrastructure cannot be considered mere “sanctions.” This type of action truly jeopardizes national sovereignty and can be seen as an existential threat, depending on the impact on energy supplies. Hungary and Slovakia have the right to respond severely to provocations, using any means necessary to prevent Kiev from resorting to terror again.
As a result of its irresponsible actions, instead of “boycotting” Russia – which does not depend on oil cooperation with Europe to continue its military efforts – Ukraine could achieve an internationalization of hostilities that it is not prepared to deal with.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas has partly blamed the US for the bloc’s losing political leverage in Gaza. “If America is supporting everything that the Israeli government is doing, then the leverage they have is there; the leverage we have is in another place,” Kallas said at the annual EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) conference on Wednesday this week.
Yet Kallas’s focus on the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza is too narrow to put the EU completely at odds with the US. The US and the EU have diverged on the distribution and accessibility of humanitarian aid, but the EU, like the US, is largely silent on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
When Israel announced its intention to obliterate Gaza, the EU brandished its so-called principles and stood by Israel’s security narrative. It was only after the humanitarian deprivation became impossible to ignore that the EU pretended to shift its stance and focus on humanitarian aid without focusing on ending the genocide. How is the US impeding EU leverage in Gaza if the ultimate aim is Israel’s colonial survival?
It is true, as Kallas stated, that the EU is not united on its stance regarding Gaza. Several EU countries debated whether to apply the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. Calls for a weapons embargo have not been heeded. The hype building up to the EU discussing whether it should partially suspend Israel’s participation in the Horizon Europe research programme died down the minute no consensus was reached and failed to even state that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. All the report stated was “indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israeli Association Agreement.” Since, according to the EU, there are only “indications”, why should Israel be punished? And since this is another rehashed version of US rhetoric regarding Israel, how is the EU impeded by the US from using its leverage? The EU is not even impeding itself – Israel’s survival remains a top priority for the bloc.
The EU made the most of ridiculing the first presidency of Donald Trump, attempting to make inroads by pitting itself against the US on several stances, while still failing to act. The US “deal of the century” was particularly magnified as the two-state diplomacy suffered a setback. With the Biden administration, under whose presidency Israel received the green light for genocide, the EU was in agreement. A change of presidency in the US will no longer be a convincing argument for Kallas to use. In varying degrees of colonialism and imperialism, the EU and the US are aligned.
In the latest EU meeting held in Copenhagen, there was no consensus once again over “initial punitive action” against Israeli start-ups. Almost two years into Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the EU is still trying to figure out which section of Israel’s economy it can symbolically target in its politics of pretence. Several governments are now speaking of taking initiatives on a national level – also belatedly. Both the US and the EU do not want to punish Israel; they are happy to stand by and let Israel complete its colonial project. “Shared values”, after all, are hard to come by.
There is no evidence Russia interfered with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s airplane during her recent flight to Bulgaria, the country’s authorities have said. The European Commission earlier claimed Bulgarian authorities had confirmed the incident.
On Sunday, upon landing in Plovdiv, von der Leyen’s pilots allegedly reported issues with their navigation systems. Brussels later told the Financial Times that her flight was “forced to circle for an hour” and claimed that Moscow had “blatantly interfered” with the aircraft, supposedly trying to jam its GPS signal.
However, Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov has outright contradicted Brussels’ claim, telling parliament on Thursday that no evidence of a Russian attack had been found and that von der Leyen’s plane did not suffer any serious issues, only short-term signal degradation which is common in densely populated areas.
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that another Israeli/US attack is likely coming, and Iran has prepared itself by developing new and more powerful missiles. Prof. Marandi also argues that the only influence the EU had over Iran was the threat of using the snap-back sanctions, and Iran will no longer listen to the EU, as the decision has been made to impose these sanctions.
The Russophobic madness of European leaders is leading them to make increasingly controversial statements. Now, the German Prime Minister claims that his country is “in conflict” with Russia, making clear Berlin’s bellicosity and his government’s willingness to maintain an escalatory hostility stance against the Russian Federation. The consequences of such statements could be serious, as they legitimize practical actions that directly impact the war between NATO and Moscow in Ukraine.
According to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Germany is “already in conflict” with Russia. He said that Moscow is “destabilizing” Germany and Europe through tactical actions such as cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, which would be a form of hybrid warfare. Furthermore, Merz suggested that Russia plans to attack EU countries to regain former Soviet territories, again spreading the myth of an “imminent Russian invasion.”
During an interview with the French broadcaster LCI, Merz commented on French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent statement, calling Russian leader Vladimir Putin “an ogre who always wants to eat more.” Merz said he completely agrees with this assessment and sees Putin in precisely the same light as Macron. Merz links Putin’s alleged “hunger” to a supposed Russian ambition for more territory, describing Russia as an expansionist country that “destabilizes European democracies.”
“That’s how I see Putin. He destabilizes large parts of our country. He is interfering everywhere, particularly on social media (…) So we are already in a conflict with Russia,” he said.
As expected, Merz presented no evidence to support his arguments. It has become commonplace for European leaders to publicly accuse Russia and Putin of various crimes without presenting any evidence to support their allegations. Merz’s claims, though serious and provocative, ultimately come across as just another instance of weak rhetoric in the EU’s broader information campaign against Moscow.
However, by stating that Germany is already in conflict with Russia, Merz takes a dangerous step forward in the tense relations between the two countries. This is a serious statement, and, when made by a head of government, it has strong and direct consequences for real policy. Russia has simply been warned by the Germans that the authorities in Berlin consider themselves in conflict with it. If German decision-makers believe they are at war with Russia and implement policies with this in mind, then the Russians must be prepared for a possible escalation of hostility.
In fact, this isn’t the first time a German official has stated that Europe is embroiled in a conflict with Russia. In 2023, then-German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock openly and directly stated that Europeans are “fighting” against the Russians. She also stated that the correct way to fight this war is through the systematic sending of weapons to Ukraine, seeking a total “Ukrainian victory” against Russia. At the time, she was severely criticized by several leaders for this statement, but Baerbock never regretted her words, which were endorsed by the bloc’s Russophobic elites.
“We are fighting a war against Russia (…) Yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks. But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together, and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia, and not against each other (…) Obviously, Ukraine needs more military support, but not only by one country like mine or the US, by all of us. We can fight this war only together”, she said at the time.
Both the former top German diplomat and the current chancellor agree that Ukraine must continue to be armed to keep the “war against Russia” away from European borders. Their narrative is that if Ukraine falls, Russia will “invade” the EU, making it vital that support for Kiev be increased to prevent the EU’s collapse. This narrative has been central to legitimizing the sending of billion-dollar military and financial aid packages to the neo-Nazi regime in the eyes of the European public, although fewer and fewer people are believing this fallacious rhetoric.
The “arm Ukraine until victory” plan, however, has already failed. The Ukrainian army is almost completely collapsed, and Russian troops are advancing deeply on the ground, making Moscow’s total victory a mere matter of time. When Russia wins the war in Ukraine and no “invasion” occurs in Europe, the narratives of leaders like Merz, Macron, and Baerbock will be refuted, and European authorities will lose all value among European citizens, triggering a major crisis of legitimacy throughout the bloc.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Flight-tracking website Flightradar24 has refuted allegations made by several media outlets and EU officials that the plane of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was subjected to GPS signal jamming.
The aircraft that carried the EU Commission chief to Bulgaria on Sunday showed good GPS signal quality along its entire route, the monitoring service wrote on X on Monday. The flight arrived only nine minutes later than scheduled, the service said, noting that some media reports erroneously claimed that “the aircraft was in a holding pattern for 1 hour.”
“The aircraft’s transponder reported good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing,” it added.
The alleged GPS issues were first reported by the Financial Times, which cited unnamed sources who claimed the pilots experienced signal blackouts so severe that they had to use “paper maps” for landing. The sources also suggested Russia was to blame for the alleged incident. Reached for comment by the FT, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reported allegations were untrue.
The claims were made official on Monday. Both the EU and Bulgarian authorities pointed the finger at Moscow.
“We can indeed confirm that there was GPS jamming, but the plane landed safely in Bulgaria. We have received information from the Bulgarian authorities that they suspect that this was due to blatant interference by Russia,” EU Commission spokeswoman Arianna Podesta told a press conference in Brussels.
The Bulgarian government also appeared to corroborate the claims the pilots had to rely on alternate navigation tools while landing at Plovdiv International Airport.
“During the flight carrying European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to Plovdiv, the satellite signal transmitting information to the plane’s GPS navigation system was neutralized,” the government said in a statement. “To ensure the flight’s safety, air control services immediately offered an alternative landing method using terrestrial navigation tools,” it added.
Sahra Wagenknecht is a prominent figure in German politics, a former member of the Bundestag and the European Parliament. Wagenknecht discusses Europe’s suborindation to the US, the need for an external enemy, the demonisation of Russia, and war enthusiasm that is destroying Europe.
Spain on Saturday condemned the US decision to revoke visas for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and 80 other officials, calling it “unacceptable” and urging the EU to take a leading role in defending Palestinian representation at the UN, Anadolu reports.
Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares talked to reporters ahead of an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Copenhagen.
“It is unacceptable that the Palestinian delegation or Mahmoud Abbas couldn’t attend the UN General Assembly … its protection, its immunity is worldwide and the European Union must be at the forefront of those that defend it. That should also be a clear message from today’s meeting.”
Albares used the announcement to reiterate Spain’s call for urgent EU action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, warning that words alone were no longer sufficient.
“The EU is doing too little, too late and doing nothing. Haven’t achieved anything. So the time of declaration is really over. We have to move forward,” he said, detailing a Spanish-proposed action plan.
“The European Union can only relate to Israel through human rights, and if there is a massive violation, as the report of the Commission has clearly indicated, we must act. This is not anymore the time of war. It’s the time for action, action to stop the war, action to break the blockade of famine from Israel to Gaza,” he added.
“Spain has proposed an action plan with things that, by the way, are nothing extraordinary. It’s just fulfilling and complying with our own European legislation or international legislation, that’s all and certainly, we are going to continue pushing forward,” he added.
Albares outlined four key measures for the EU.
“First to impose an arms embargo on selling weapons to Israel from the EU. Secondly, to enlarge the list of people that are being sanctioned, to anyone, absolutely anyone, that wants to spoil the two-state solution… Third, we have to back financially, very heavily, the Palestinian National Authority.”
“And fourth, we have to enforce and comply with all the rulings and all the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, for instance, stopping all trade with products coming from the illegal settlements, and also we propose the full suspension of that agreement into the EU and Israel,” he added.
The EU-backed Ukrainian regime’s blowing up of a major pipeline delivering vital oil supply to Europe is an astounding signal of self-destruction. It demonstrates how insane the European Union’s leadership has become in its obsession with defeating Russia, no matter the cost. The insanity means that the interests of EU member states and European citizens are willingly sacrificed. Russophobic Eurocrats who have shunned all diplomatic engagement with Moscow are in effect funding the destruction of Europe.
In another development, as Russian airstrikes on Kiev this week hit European Union and British government sites in the Ukrainian capital, EU and British politicians were outraged, condemning Russia for “barbaric attacks” on their delegations. Yet it is these same European and British politicians who are pushing conflict to the brink of no return as they insist on arming a NeoNazi regime to continue striking Russian civilian targets and refuse to listen to Russia’s historic grievances about how this conflict evolved.
The Ukrainian regime, bankrolled by EU taxpayers, launched multiple drone and missile attacks on the Druzhba pipeline, which supplies EU member states Hungary and Slovakia. The pipeline supplies those states with about 50 percent of their oil imports. The attacks knocked out pipeline infrastructure in Russian territory. Hungary and Slovakia were cut off from crude oil supplies for several days. Budapest and Bratislava angrily protested to the European Union leadership that the sabotage was an unacceptable assault on the sovereign, vital interests.
However, the European Commission in Brussels responded with remarkable indifference, noting that Hungary and Slovakia’s 90-day emergency stockpiles of oil were sufficient to carry the countries over the interruption in supply. The complacency of the EU leadership is extraordinary. So, a non-EU state cuts off the energy supply of EU members, and there is no reprimand for the sabotage. The insouciance is tantamount to giving the Ukrainian regime a green light to carry out more such attacks.
The background is even more sinister. Earlier this week, the Kiev regime’s nominal president, Vladimir Zelensky, made a veiled threat to Hungary and Slovakia that his forces would continue to blow up the pipeline if Budapest and Bratislava did not lift their vetoes on Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union. To their credit, Hungary and Slovakia have both consistently opposed Ukraine joining the bloc, warning that such a move will exacerbate the conflict with Russia and destabilize internal markets from cheap Ukrainian imports. They have also opposed doling out more EU taxpayer funds for military weapons and prolonging a slaughter.
In other words, Hungary and Slovakia have become an obstacle to the proxy war against Russia. That is not merely annoying to the Kyiv cabal and its war racket; it also, more importantly, frustrates the Eurocrat elites’ desire to expand the war, with the Russophobic obsession of defeating Russia.
The Kiev regime has for a long time been haranguing Hungary and Slovakia to terminate all oil imports from Russia, and get in line with the rest of the EU. Ukraine accuses Hungarian and Slovakian leaders of buying Russian oil with blood money and fueling the war. This is similar to the United States castigating India for continuing to purchase Russian oil, with Trump aide Peter Navarro this week absurdly calling the Ukraine conflict “Modi’s war” in a snide reference to the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Hungary, Slovakia, India, and others retort that it is their national prerogative to buy oil from Russia. They say it is not up to the Kiev regime or the United States to determine from whom they obtain their vital energy supplies. The Kiev regime and Washington are acting like bandits and mafia. It was the United States under the Biden administration that blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea in September 2022. That act of terrorism cut off Germany from Russia’s natural gas supply and led to the destruction of the German economy.
The Kiev regime shut down unilaterally the Brotherhood natural gas pipeline to the rest of Europe at the end of 2024 because it decided not to renew a decades-old transit contract with Russia. Later, the Kiev regime attacked the Turk Stream gas pipelines linking Russian gas to southern Europe. Now the regime is bombing that last oil pipeline into Europe from Russia. And all this banditry holding Europe hostage is countenanced by the Eurocrat leadership.
Where is European sovereignty here? Where is European leadership insisting that the basic rule of law must be respected and vital civilian infrastructure must not be interfered with, especially when that interference amounts to blatant acts of terrorism? Incredibly, the European Commission and the governments of Germany and Denmark, among others, continue to ignore the Nord Stream terror attacks by their American ally as if those crimes never happened. Every so often, the EU authorities find some ridiculous scapegoat to blame, like low-level Ukrainian saboteurs.
The fact is, the European elites do not care that the vital interests of European citizens are being destroyed by the Americans or the puppet regime in Kiev.
Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó correctly suggests that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other elites, like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, no doubt knew and gave their approval to the Kiev regime to deliver on its threats to blow up the Hungarian and Slovakian oil supplies. For these elites, some of whom have Nazi Third Reich heritage in their veins, their obsession with defeating Russia is all that matters, Über alles!
Of course, they will support a fascist regime in Kiev before the democratic needs of European citizens. The same mentality has led Europe to self-destruction in two world wars. Here we go again, if they have their way.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister recently declared unwavering commitment to the vision of a “Greater Israel”. He explicitly links Israel’s future to a project that extends beyond its current borders into neighbouring Arab lands. As the Israeli street has decisively turned towards to the right, the remarks of Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving leader, carried unusual weight. The significance of these remarks was underscored by the US President Donald Trump’s earlier comment that Israel is “too small”; a suggestion that its borders must expand. This is a view that is often reflected in the thinking within decision making circles in Washington.
Regional responses to Netanyahu’s remarks have been swift. Governments condemned his framing of the “Greater Israel” project as both a historic and spiritual mission, calling it a direct assault on their sovereignty and international law. Statements issued whether individually or collectively urged a firm Arab and international response. The most recent Arab League summit, meanwhile, approved the creation of a “Joint Arab Security Coordination Room,” led by Baghdad, to counter terrorism and organised crime. While modest in scope, this move hinted at a growing recognition of the need for collective Arab security mechanisms.
Netanyahu’s declaration underscored a threat that Arab states have long tried to downplay. It is one of three realities. In particular, it highlights the need for a thorough reassessment of the current framework of Arab national security, amid a series of recent developments and shifting regional dynamics.
The second reality is the Israeli strikes against Gaza and Iran, as well as its operations in Lebanon and Syria, which reflect a number of facts. Israel have laid bare the depth of its intelligence and cyber capabilities, which it has used perfectly to conduct espionage and infiltrate the countries of the region. Israel has clearly crossed a red line by killing a huge number of innocent people especially in Gaza, but also in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen. By so doing, it has stripped away any remaining illusions, about its intentions, exposing a policy making elite whose actions reflect a deeply rooted hostility toward Arabs, Muslims and Christians in the region. Israel has also concentrated efforts to weaken these countries, not only by destroying their offensive and defensive militarily capabilities, but also by stoking domestic divisions inside these countries. In Lebanon, the US urged the Lebanese leadership to withdraw Hezbollah’s weapons, potentially igniting a major conflict in the country. Also in Syria, Israel backed the Druze in Suwaida in south Syria, putting them under its protection, and targeting the Syrian military around Suwaida. And in Iran, Israel could not hide its support of any efforts to change the Iranian system. All these facts support the first reality of Netanyahu’s declaration about a “Greater Israel”.
The American and Western commitments to guaranteeing Israel’s position and to supporting its interests in the region, which has been well documented after October seventh war in Gaza is the third reality. Although Western commitment to Israel’s supremacy and dominance in the region is not new, Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, are facing escalating threats from Israel. Since their security and military systems remain tethered to the same Western frameworks that guarantee Israel’s dominance, a dangerous paradox has been created. These three dynamics together raise profound questions about the viability of Arab national security itself.
American and Western commitments to guaranteeing Israel’s military edge codified through legislation, strategic agreements, and vast financial assistance have effectively ensured Israeli supremacy. The historical record underscores this pattern. While no formal defence treaty exists between Washington and Tel Aviv, successive crises from the Iran conflict to earlier regional wars have proven that the US actually treats Israel’s security as its own. Agreements dating back to the Camp David Accords in 1979, followed by the 1981 strategic cooperation pact under Ronald Reagan, institutionalised regular military coordination. By 2016, Washington had pledged $38 billion in military aid to Israel over a decade, the largest commitment to any state in US history covering everything from the Iron Dome missile defence to advanced cyber and artificial intelligence systems. In addition, American military stockpiles are even positioned inside Israel for use in times of war.
The European Union, for its part, maintains a formal partnership with Israel. While Brussels occasionally voices criticism of Israeli settlement policies, the EU nevertheless treats Israel as a strategic partner in technology, research, and security. Cooperative projects under the Horizon research program, Galileo satellite systems, and Europol counterterrorism agreements illustrate this entrenched partnership. NATO, too, while Israel is not a member, has made it a central partner in its “Mediterranean Dialogue” since 1994. From naval operations in the Mediterranean to bilateral defence agreements with countries like the UK and Germany, Israel enjoys deep institutional ties that are exceedingly difficult to suspend, even amid humanitarian crises.
By contrast, Arab defence systems remain structurally constrained. From fighter jets to missile defence and cybersecurity, the overwhelming majority of Arab armies rely on American or European suppliers, contracts, and oversight. Agreements with the US often explicitly prohibit the use of weapons against Israel, while ensuring that Israeli forces retain technological superiority. Gulf states’ air defence networks are tied into Western early warning systems, and even Egypt, the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel, cannot update or deploy certain strategic systems without Washington’s approval. This interdependence not only erodes Arab strategic autonomy but also grants Washington effective veto power over Arab military responses. In addition, Washington’s strategy of pushing Arab-Israeli normalisation, rooted in economic interdependence and security entanglement, has only deepened this dependency, tying both Arab military capacity and economic systems into frameworks that reinforce Israeli superiority.
The current dilemma is stark; Arab security frameworks remain subordinate to Western systems that are legally and strategically bound to protect Israel’s military edge. Netanyahu’s invocation of “Greater Israel” thus appears to be more than rhetoric, it is a direct challenge to Arab sovereignty. For years, Arab governments have sidestepped the Israeli threat in their national security doctrines, focusing instead on other internal or regional challenges. But recent developments from the war in Gaza to attacks on Iranian, Lebanon, and Syria’s sovereignty, and the explicit articulation of expansionist ambitions have pushed this challenge to the forefront. What is at stake now is not simply how Arab states define threats, but also how they can build independent security structures capable of responding to them. Without such a recalibration, Arab national security risks maintaining a framework designed not to defend against external threats, but to sustain a regional order where Israel’s supremacy is guaranteed. Yet the challenge remains daunting. The intersection of three realities, the unveiling of Israel’s expansionist agenda, the unqualified US Western backing for Israel, and the structural dependence of Arab security systems on Western powers creates a near impossible environment for an independent Arab response.
The resignation of the Dutch foreign minister over the Gaza genocide exposes Europe’s moral paralysis and highlights the power of conscience against complicity in genocide.
A Crack in Europe’s Wall of Silence and Inaction
On Friday, something extraordinary happened in Europe — something almost unthinkable within the European Commission or across the Atlantic. Caspar Veldkamp, the Dutch Foreign Minister, resigned from office rather than continue serving in a government that refused to sanction Israel for war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank.
Within hours, his entire party — the New Social Contract (NSC), including Deputy Prime Minister Eddy van Hijum, the Interior and Education ministers, the Health minister, and several state secretaries — followed him out of the fragile coalition.
This was no symbolic gesture. Veldkamp is not an unknown backbencher; he is a seasoned diplomat, a former ambassador to Israel itself. Few Europeans know Israel more intimately. He witnessed the apartheid system from inside, and now the genocide in Gaza, all while the international community remains paralysed in action, but with some strong words of condemnation. Confronted with a cabinet unwilling to act, he chose conscience over complicity.
Explaining his decision, Veldkamp told reporters:
“I felt resistance in the cabinet against more measures as a result of what is happening in Gaza City and the occupied West Bank… I saw efforts to meet me halfway, but in the end the concessions were insufficient… I have too little confidence that in the coming weeks and months I could act responsibly if I am restricted from pursuing the policy I deem necessary.”
A sitting European foreign minister walked away, saying he could no longer act “responsibly” while famine raged in Gaza. That is a political earthquake.
Why It Matters
Veldkamp’s resignation matters for three reasons.
First, it exposes what many in power have sought to hide: Western governments know what Israel is doing. They know it bluntly violates international law. And yet, they succumb to pressure and choose paralysis, or even false neutrality. Veldkamp’s break makes that complicity explicit.
Second, his career makes him a devastating witness. He was no enemy of Israel; he was its ambassador, its partner, its friend. If even he resigns, it signals the moral bankruptcy of Europe’s position.
And third, this was not just one man’s choice. It was an entire party withdrawing from government, destabilising an already weakened caretaker coalition. Gaza’s genocide is no longer just a humanitarian catastrophe abroad. It is shaking European politics at home.
The Immediate Trigger: Boycotts, Arms, and Famine
The resignation was sparked by a cabinet debate over boycotting goods from Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements. Veldkamp pushed hard, arguing the Netherlands could not condemn settlements while continuing to import their products. But coalition partners — the centre-right VVD and the populist Farmer-Citizen Movement — blocked him, insisting such a boycott should only be pursued “at the European level.” Others flatly opposed any new measures.
The day before, parliament had also voted down a motion to stop Israeli-linked arms sales to the Dutch military. Even in the face of genocide, even in the week that famine in Gaza was officially declared by UN-backed experts, Veldkamp’s government, led by Dick Schoof, refused to act. For him, that crossed a moral line.
This timing matters. His resignation coincided precisely with the famine declaration — one of only four famines officially recognised in two decades. Children skeletal, mothers unable to breastfeed, families clawing at crumbs. This famine is not a natural disaster. It is solely deliberately provoked by Israel.
When Veldkamp said he was “insufficiently able to take meaningful additional measures,” he was talking about famine and mass starvation. His cabinet refused to treat the deliberate starvation of Palestinians as reason enough to act. So he walked.
The Shadow of The Hague
There is a deeper hypocrisy here. The Netherlands hosts the International Criminal Court in The Hague. This is where global justice is supposed to be enforced. It is also the city where 150,000 Dutch citizens marched in June — the largest protest in two decades — demanding sanctions and accountability.
That contrast is brutal: a government in The Hague refusing to sanction genocide while its people fill the streets, while the world’s top tribunal sits only a few blocks away. The ICC investigates genocide elsewhere — Darfur, Myanmar, and South Sudan. But when genocide is committed by Israel, backed by the U.S., Germany, and other European partners, Europe paralyses itself.
Veldkamp’s resignation exposes that contradiction. The Dutch government now stands, with Berlin and Washington, on the wrong side of history — complicit in crimes against humanity while preaching international law.
Pressure From Below
The protests mattered. Veldkamp himself acknowledged that citizens’ demands for action influenced his decision. About 150,000 people marched in The Hague — the largest mobilisation since the Iraq War. That mattered. It showed politicians that silence is not free.
This is the lesson: protest cannot always stop bombs, but it can break walls of complicity. It can make ministers resign.
Europe’s Geopolitical Paralysis
Meanwhile, Europe as a whole remains paralysed. Ursula von der Leyen, previously Olaf Scholz, and now Friedrich Merz double down on “Israel’s right to defend itself,” even after more than 60,000 Palestinians are dead and famine is officially declared. Coalition partners in the Netherlands — VVD and BBB — blocked sanctions, refusing even a boycott of settlement goods.
This is not neutrality. It is an obstruction of an action against apartheid and genocide. And it is proof of Europe’s impotence. The EU, once a self-proclaimed “normative, moral power,” now reveals itself incapable of defending the very norms it enshrines in law.
Compare with America
Across the Atlantic, silence is even deeper. Congress continues to authorise billions in military aid to Israel, blocks ceasefire resolutions at the UN, and welcomes Netanyahu as an honoured guest. Donald Trump promises to go further, boasting he would let Israel “finish the job.”
No U.S. cabinet minister has resigned. No member of Congress has said what Veldkamp said: that they cannot act responsibly under such conditions. The silence in Washington is bipartisan and total.
Europe is no better — but cracks are now visible. And those cracks matter.
A Former Ambassador Breaks Ranks
Do not underestimate the symbolic power of this break. Veldkamp was once an ambassador to Israel. He knows its system intimately: the apartheid, the settlements, the 2018 supremacist law declaring Israel a “Jewish nation-state.” He cannot be dismissed as naïve or antisemitic.
When he resigns, he carries that credibility with him — leaving his government exposed, discredited, morally bankrupt, and aligned with genocide supporters. It also leaves Europe humiliated: the Netherlands, seat of the ICC, is now complicit in the very crimes its institutions were created to judge.
The Lesson of History
Resignations over Israel’s actions are almost unheard of in Europe. Condemnations, yes. Symbolic motions, yes. But ministers sacrificing office? Rarely. That is why this moment belongs in history.
Years from now, when Gaza’s famine is remembered, when historians count the dead, they will ask, Who spoke? Who resigned? Who refused complicity? Caspar Veldkamp’s name will be among the answers.
Conscience or Complicity?
This story is not just about Dutch politics. It is about the cracks forming in the West’s unconditional defence of Israel. It is about how famine and apartheid, once denied, are now destabilising European governments and credibility. It is about the power of protest to force moral lines.
Veldkamp said it plainly: Israel is violating international law. His government refused to act. So, he left.
The choice is now ours: conscience or complicity. What do we want our children, grandchildren, and students to read about us in the history books?
The former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, laments the inaction of Brussels in the face of the ongoing “massacre” in Gaza and warns that its growing “discredit” will ultimately disqualify the bloc from implementing policies to defend human rights. However, the former diplomat, like the government of his home country, Spain, has only spoken out in support of Gaza and not taken any concrete actions.
“Someone would have to take legal action to make the European institutions do what they should do, and since it seems they don’t want to do it, there’s something called the courts of justice to take the case of inaction there,” Josep Borrell told the media at the August 25 opening of the Quo Vadis Europa course, which he directed at the Menéndez Pelayo International University (UIMP) in Santander, northern Spain.
Borrell, who headed EU diplomacy from 2019 to 2024, admitted that Brussels is doing “literally nothing” about the massacres perpetrated by the Israeli army and the induced famine.
“They say yes, maybe they’re going to make a proposal to establish some kind of sanction, but then they don’t do it,” he said.
The former diplomat also denounced the EU’s failure to fulfill its political and administrative obligations under the founding treaty of the bloc.
Borrell’s statements came in a context dominated by the resignation two days earlier of the Dutch ministers of Foreign Affairs, Interior, Education, and Health, along with four other secretaries of state, due to “resistance within the Cabinet” to taking action against Israel.
Led by Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp, ministers from the center-right NSC party had decided to ban the import of products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. However, the other two parties in the governing coalition, the liberal VVD and the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), believe the measure goes “too far.”
It also raises questions about why Borrell would make these statements during a summer school year and not utilize the influence and connections he supposedly has to lead a campaign to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. In fact, he should have made them during his term.
The first report by the UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, was released in March 2024, while Borrell concluded his term in November of that year. The report was titled “Anatomy of a Genocide,” in which she convincingly documented that a genocide was being committed in Gaza.
In 2024, a series of European committees and associations defending Palestine submitted a report to Brussels, requesting the termination of the association agreement with Israel. The report argued that Article 2 of the agreement, which pertains to respect for human rights, was being violated. In other words, Borrell was obviously aware of the situation he is now denouncing.
On the same day Borrell spoke, Israeli forces attacked the Nasser Hospital in Gaza with a double bombing, killing at least 14 people, including four journalists and several rescue workers. Spain immediately condemned the attack, calling it a “flagrant and unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law.”
In his message of condemnation on X, Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares stated that the “war in Gaza” must end and that “Spain works every day to achieve this.”
The reaction is illustrative of the way the EU and its national governments conduct themselves – issuing condemnations and more condemnations on social media, but taking no action to impose sanctions on those responsible for the famine.
Borrell’s statements serve as a kind of facelift for the Spanish government, which is also distinguished by its tendency to issue statements but not take effective measures. In fact, the Hague Group meeting to take effective measures was held in Colombia in July. Spanish representatives were present, but they did not speak out.
It is also worth noting that, unlike the Dutch Cabinet ministers, no Spanish minister has considered resigning for similar reasons. Ministers from Sánchez’s governing partner, the Sumar coalition, did not even seriously threaten to leave the government, despite the arms sales contracts with Israel remaining in effect.
Meanwhile, Borrel’s words about the need for “judicial action” are at odds with reality. Legal initiatives are already underway. For starters, South Africa filed a complaint against Israel for genocide with the International Court of Justice. Spain is not an effective party to the complaint and is not undertaking many of the actions it could be taking. In this way, Madrid evidently behaves in the same way as Borrell, just using rhetoric but not taking any actual action.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Trump claims Iran’s military is routed just as IRGC launched missiles strike American bases
RT | June 10, 2026
The Iranian military has been “completely defeated,” US President Donald Trump has claimed, warning Tehran it will “pay the price” for delaying a deal with Washington.
The warnings came after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced missile and drone strikes on American military facilities in several Arab countries in retaliation for recent US attacks. US Central Command said the operations inside Iran were carried out after an AH-64 Apache helicopter was lost near the Strait of Hormuz, an incident it blamed on Tehran.
Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday that Iran “is all talk and no action,” adding that “The Bully of the Middle East is DEAD!!!” … Full article
HEAT exposure could drive a dramatic rise in cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden across the USA over the next 25 years, with researchers warning that climate change and population ageing may combine to reverse decades of progress in heart health.
Heat Exposure Threatens Future Heart Health A new modelling study estimated that heat-attributable CVD burden could more than triple by 2050 under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, disproportionately affecting older adults and economically disadvantaged communities. … Full article
… Climate change and land use conversion have the potential to increase the frequency of encounters between snakes and humans. This situation arises due to changes in temperature and rainfall, the loss of natural habitats, and shifts in food sources, which drive snakes to move into areas closer to human activity.
Prof Mirza Dikari Kusrini, a lecturer in the Department of Forest Resource Conservation and Ecotourism, Faculty of Forestry and Environment (Fahutan) at IPB University, explained that climate change affects snakes’ behavior, distribution, and movement patterns. … Full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 