Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 30, 2026
Prof. Glenn Diesen on Neutrality Studies – May 30, 2026
NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine is morphing into a direct EU-Russia war. And the war hawks in Brussels are further escalating by attacking civilians in the Donbas and Russia proper. The doves in the Kremlin are running out of options to keep their own hawks under wraps. As things stand now, an all-out EU-Russia war is not only a possible, but by now a likely scenario. But to what end?
Press TV – May 30, 2026
Hamas has condemned the European Union’s sanctions, slamming the bloc for “turning a blind eye” to Israel’s violations of international law while targeting Palestinian resistance groups and leaders.
“We condemn the decision by the European Union Council to broaden sanctions against the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements and to include a number of their political leaders on its lists,” the Gaza-based resistance group said in a statement on Saturday.
Hamas added the sanctions are unjust and entirely biased in favor of the occupation’s narrative, reflecting a policy of double standards in dealing with the Palestinian cause.
“This decision comes as [Israel] continues to commit crimes of genocide, starvation, and forced displacement against our people and violates the ceasefire agreement, while the European Union turns a blind eye to these documented violations of international law and chooses to sanction political leaders who defend their people’s legitimate rights,” read the statement
“The attempt to criminalize the Palestinian resistance will not change the fact that our people are under occupation, their resistance is a legitimate right guaranteed by all laws and humanitarian norms,” the group highlighted.
Hamas noted that the targeting of political leaders confirms that these sanctions come as a response to pressure from the occupation and are not based on standards of justice.
The movement called on the EU to review its biased policies, cease providing political cover for Israel, and work to hold its leaders accountable instead of prosecuting the victims.
“We affirm that these measures will not undermine the will of our Palestinian people or their commitment to their legitimate national rights, especially freedom, self-determination, ending the occupation, and establishing the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” the group stated.
The EU on Friday said that it had listed ten members of Hamas’ top political leadership body as subject to a travel ban and asset freeze, prohibiting making funds or economic resources available to those named, either directly or indirectly.
Since launching its genocidal assault on Gaza on October 7, 2023, Israel has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians and wounded at least 172,000 others, the majority of them women and children.
The Israeli war has also devastated Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, destroying hospitals, schools, sports facilities, power plants, water networks and residential neighborhoods across the besieged territory.
The widespread destruction and continuing blockade have displaced much of Gaza’s population, leaving Palestinians trapped in the besieged territory and heavily dependent on humanitarian aid that enters only in limited quantities.
RT | May 30, 2026
Bulgaria is facing EU sanctions due to an excessive budget deficit, just months after joining the eurozone, Prime Minister Rumen Radev has said. He claimed that the crisis was caused by the previous pro-EU government, which massaged economic numbers to narrowly pass the threshold to join the eurozone in the first place.
Speaking at a cabinet meeting in Sofia on Friday, Radev, who is widely regarded as an EU skeptic, said that the European Commission would publish its formal report on the country’s fiscal situation on June 3, thus launching the so-called excessive deficit procedure.
Under the procedure, Sofia must bring spending from last year’s 3.5% back below the 3% ceiling by putting a binding cap on the budget deficit. If Bulgaria fails, the EU can freeze funding and go as far as to impose fines of up to 0.05% of GDP every six months on the Balkan country.
Radev blamed the situation on a “difficult legacy” stemming from “negligence, incompetence, voluntarism, populism, and financial misconduct” by the previous center-right and pro-EU Zhelyazkov government, which collapsed in December 2025 following mass anti-corruption protests.
The prime minister also predicted that “this year, the deficit will be even larger” than 3.5%. The European Commission forecasts that the deficit will hit 4.1% of GDP this year, rising to 4.3% in 2027.
“They [the previous government] lied to push Bulgaria into the euro… The bubble has burst,” he said of the budget deficit.
Bulgaria joined the eurozone on January 1, 2026, after barely meeting the criteria, especially in terms of inflation, which was the greatest hurdle. Proponents of the push sought to lock Bulgaria on the pro-West and pro-EU path, with practical monetary consequences deemed minimal as the Bulgarian lev had been pegged to the euro for decades.
However, critics have argued that the Zhelyazkov coalition – which supported eurozone membership – projected an unrealistic revenue growth, with potential to balloon the budget deficit.
A Politico report in 2025 also drew attention to a sudden and “mysterious” 82.8% cut in state-set daily hospital fees in April – a move that helped lower Bulgaria’s 12-month average inflation. At the time, an unnamed former local official told the paper that “the only reason Bulgaria has qualified is… due to state-administered prices.” According to Politico, the previous government also cut inflation by slashing rail fares by over 9%.
Radev – who has advocated for more pragmatic ties with Russia and consistently opposed military aid to Ukraine – was not against the eurozone per se, but insisted that such a decision could be made only on a public referendum.
However, the parliament blocked his request, with critics accusing him of trying to sabotage the process. Radev himself said that Bulgarian citizens were being ignored by an elite “marching toward the eurozone” and that “the representatives of the people denied the people their right to choose.”
Al Mayadeen | May 29, 2026
Russia and several of its regional allies called on Armenia to hold a referendum “as soon as possible” on potential membership in the European Union, as tensions continue to grow over Yerevan’s expanding ties with Brussels.
Speaking during a summit in Astana on Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Armenia would ultimately have to choose between deeper integration with the EU or remaining within the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
“Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan himself said that he considers it right to hold a referendum on this issue,” Putin said. “We would like this to be done as soon as possible.”
Russia warns against dual alignment
In a joint statement issued alongside the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, Moscow warned that Armenia’s pursuit of EU membership could pose “significant risks” to the economies of EAEU member states.
The statement emphasized that Armenia should clarify whether it intends to remain within the Eurasian bloc or pursue integration with European institutions.
Putin argued that participation in both systems simultaneously would be difficult to sustain, saying it was “impossible to reconcile the two.”
Armenia deepens Western ties
The pressure from Moscow comes as Armenia continues gradually distancing itself from Russia following years of tensions over regional security issues and the conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan.
In 2024, Armenia froze participation in aspects of its Russia-led security alliance, accusing Moscow of failing to adequately support Yerevan during confrontations with Azerbaijan.
The Armenian government later passed legislation declaring its intention to seek eventual EU membership, further straining relations with the Kremlin.
Under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Armenia has pursued what officials describe as a policy of “diversification,” aimed at balancing ties between Russia and Western powers.
Despite growing cooperation with the EU, Armenia remains formally part of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Moscow-led economic bloc that includes several former Soviet republics.
Regional competition intensifies
The dispute reflects broader geopolitical competition in the South Caucasus, where Russia’s traditional influence has increasingly faced challenges from Western political and economic engagement.
While Moscow has warned against Armenia drifting toward Western institutions, Armenian officials have argued that expanding relations with Europe does not necessarily require severing ties with Russia.
Putin nonetheless stated that any decision taken by Armenia would not undermine humanitarian or political relations between Moscow and Yerevan.
RT | May 26, 2026
The Russian military will begin targeting bunkers used by Ukrainian military commanders and leadership in response to Kiev’s continued terrorist attacks on civilians, senior MP Andrey Kartapolov says. Ukraine’s parliament – the Verkhovnaya Rada – and Vladimir Zelensky’s office are not on the target list, he told Parliamentskaya Gazeta on Tuesday.
In the wake of the deadly Ukrainian drone attack on a college in the Lugansk People’s Republic, Moscow announced a new strategy, pledging to systematically hit assorted targets across the Ukrainian capital in retaliation. The strike killed at least 21 people, mostly teenage girls sleeping in a dormitory, in what the Russian Foreign Ministry characterized as the manifestation of “the Nazi and terrorist nature of the Kiev regime.”
Russia’s “patience has run out,” Kartapolov said, commenting on the tragedy. Kiev’s tactics have spiraled into “blatant terrorism against our civilians,” the head of the State Duma Defense Committee stated, adding that Moscow would now abandon its self-imposed commitment not to target Ukraine’s capital.
When asked about potential targets, the lawmaker stated that neither the Verkhovnaya Rada building nor Zelensky’s office counts as a “decision-making center.” Ukrainian MPs do not control the troops, and Zelensky himself does not even visit his office any longer, the MP stated.
“Decision-making centers [are] underground fortified [military] command and control centers,” as well as bunkers used by the Ukrainian security services and leadership, said Kartapolov, himself a retired colonel general and former deputy defense minister.
Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry urged foreigners to leave the Ukrainian capital and warned locals to stay away from military, industrial, and government sites. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed the issue with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well.
The EU has openly dismissed the warnings, accusing Moscow of “unacceptable escalation.” The bloc’s foreign policy spokeswoman, Anitta Hipper, said on X on Tuesday that Brussels summoned the Russian Charge d’Affairs over the ministry’s call and stated that “the EU delegation stays in Kiev.”
The Russian military maintains that it never targets purely civilian sites in Ukraine and focuses on military or dual-use installations.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | May 21, 2026
Angela Merkel used her first major European platform since leaving office to tell the EU exactly what it wanted to hear: keep regulating speech online, and don’t worry too much about getting it wrong.
The former German chancellor, speaking Tuesday at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, urged the bloc to “continue regulating the social media” and artificial intelligence. “To believe that responsibility for spreading information is no longer necessary, that accountability – there should be no accountability for lies, then that would undermine democracy,” she told the chamber.
Lies. Who decides what counts as a lie? In the EU’s model, that question gets answered by the European Commission, by government-appointed regulators, by “trusted flaggers” that platforms are legally required to obey. Not by courts. Not through anything resembling due process.
Merkel knows this system well. Her government built the prototype. Germany’s NetzDG law, passed under her chancellorship in 2017, required platforms to delete “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours or face fines up to €50 million.
The people whose speech got censored under it included a satirical magazine, a political street artist, and an opposition party leader. NetzDG became an export product, copied by governments in Russia, Turkey, and across Southeast Asia, each adapting it to their own definition of “illegal.”
The EU took the concept continent-wide with the Digital Services Act, which requires major platforms to assess and reduce “systemic risks,” a category broad enough to cover “civic discourse,” “electoral processes,” and “public security.”
The Commission writes the rules, decides whether platforms comply, and levies fines of up to 6% of global revenue when they don’t. No independent prosecutor. X is currently challenging the first DSA fine ever imposed, a €120 million penalty from December 2025, arguing the process involved “grave procedural errors” and “systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process.”
More than 50 European NGOs have warned that the DSA’s vague terms could violate the EU Charter’s own free expression protections. The Commission’s response was to declare the law “content-agnostic” and move on.
Merkel acknowledged none of this. She told parliamentarians that “perhaps mistakes will be made, but we learn through mistakes.” That’s cold comfort when the mistakes involve censoring legal speech and silencing political opposition through systems with no judicial oversight and no meaningful appeal.
Her remarks came at the inaugural ceremony for the European Order of Merit, where she was honored alongside 19 other laureates, including Lech Wałęsa, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She framed regulation as essential to democracy. “We’ve had 75 years of European thought,” she said. “Peace, prosperity, and democracy.”
Democracy requires that citizens can speak, argue, and be wrong without a regulator deciding which claims are permissible. The EU’s apparatus does the opposite. Merkel said mistakes would be made. She didn’t say who would pay for them. The answer, as always, is the people who get silenced.
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | May 20, 2026
I argue that European states have made themselves legitimate targets by being participants in attacks on Russia. The emotional and often hysterical reactions this argument provokes reveal the extent of the radicalisation engulfing Europe.
Most countries avoid sending weapons to states engaged in war precisely because doing so risks making them participants in the conflict. Many Western leaders, from Boris Johnson to Marco Rubio, recognise that this is a proxy war. European states provide weapons, intelligence, targeting, planning, and contractors. European leaders openly speak about the need to bring the war to Russian territory and to destroy Russian refineries, while rapidly expanding the production of long-range weapons to support this objective. Attacks are now also being launched from the territory of the Baltic states. It is therefore difficult to deny that European states are directly involved in military actions against Russia. As this involvement escalates, Russia is under ever-greater pressure to retaliate and restore its deterrence. This should all be common sense, yet in Europe, recognising the march to war is considered a controversial observation. Why?
The responses I receive rarely address this argument directly. Instead, they focus on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and war crimes. Whatever one’s views on those issues, they do not alter the question of Western participation in attacks on Russia. The implicit argument seems to be that Russia is uniquely evil, and therefore the West is justified in attacking Russia while Russia is not permitted to respond. Most people would recognise that if Russia had launched missiles into Washington or London in response to the invasion of Iraq, it would have been understood as a Russian attack with unpredictable consequences. By attacking Russian forces in Ukraine, European states became involved in the conflict; by attacking inside Russia itself, they are deepening that involvement further and making a Russian retaliation inevitable. Ukraine’s right to self-defence has nothing to do with the discussion of European participation. There was a time when President Biden argued that sending F16s to Ukraine meant World War 3, today this argument would be smeared and censored in Europe as “Russian propaganda”. The instinct for self-preservation is gone.
I argue that Europeans have become radicalised because there now appears to be a widespread belief that acknowledging the reality of European involvement is treasonous. In their minds, reality is a social construction. Warning that Europe may be heading toward a direct war with Russia is condemned as “legitimising” Russian retaliation and dismissed as a “pro-Russian” position. The prevalence of constructivism and the focus on “speech acts” have led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entails legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power to construct political realities and influence outcomes. Everything is interpreted as normative statements about what one supports or wishes how the world worked, as opposed to recognising an objective reality of the world. If one does not participate in the suicidal self-delusion, then there will be accusations of having taken the side of Russia. Had this radicalised mentality prevailed during the Cold War, we would never have survived.
Academics in Europe are forced into the role of activists. It is impossible to analyse conflicts without being met with the demand to condemn Hamas, Iran, Russia and the “other” to prove you have picked our side. This is the ideological litmus test to establish if you are allowed to participate in the discussion or must be purged from polite society. The role of academics is analytical, not moralistic. The purpose is to explain motivations, power distribution and strategic behaviour. An objective analysis allows us to pursue the best policy to maximise our security. The demand to conform to the “correct” moral posture and EU-approved speech acts implies obligatory participation in the emotional and hysterical sloganeering. When the premise in any discussion is that we are in a struggle between good and evil, then security can only mean victory or deterrence. War creates peace, diplomacy is appeasement, and Europeans celebrate ignorance by criminalising the ability to recognise the security concerns of the other side.
In Europe, it is also considered “Russian propaganda” to argue that NATO expansionism provoked the Ukraine War. The overwhelming evidence supporting it is irrelevant and will under no circumstance be discussed, as it is considered an immoral argument that legitimises Russia’s invasion. Our political leaders frame all their policies as “pro-Ukrainian”: the toppling of Yanukovych, arming the far-right militias, sabotaging the Minsk peace agreement, ignoring Russian security concerns, supporting busification, boycotting diplomacy, etc. What makes this “pro-Ukrainian”? Did any of this do anything good for Ukraine? These questions cannot be asked because they are considered to be “pro-Russian” questions. Everyone has empathy for the gruesome situation in Ukraine, and would like to support those who suffer, and the European leaders have claimed the right to monopolise on what a “pro-Ukrainian” position entails – to fight to the last Ukrainian.
Similarly, warnings about Europe’s march to war with the world’s largest nuclear power by participating in attacks are viewed as treasonous efforts to reduce trust, legitimacy and support for the NATO war efforts at the behest of Russia. “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”.
Al Mayadeen | May 17, 2026
A newly published report by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) has delivered a critical assessment of the United Arab Emirates’ role in African conflicts, describing Abu Dhabi as a systematic spoiler that arms proxy forces, manipulates diplomatic processes, and bears significant responsibility for some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, all while facing virtually no political consequences from its Western partners.
The report, authored by researchers at one of Europe’s most influential foreign and security policy think tanks, which directly advises the German government and Bundestag, calls on Berlin and its European partners to fundamentally reassess their relationship with the UAE.
Sudan: The clearest case
The report presents Sudan as the most devastating example of Emirati interference. The UAE is identified as the most important military, logistical, and financial backer of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group whose war against the Sudanese Armed Forces has produced what the UN reports as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 33.7 million people dependent on aid, over 15 million displaced, and widespread extreme hunger.
The RSF’s conduct has been particularly brutal. The report details targeted violence against non-Arab minorities, including sexual violence, mass killings, attacks on medical facilities, and hostage-taking, primarily directed at groups such as the Masalit and Zaghawa.
When the RSF captured El-Fasher in North Darfur in October 2025, a UN fact-finding mission described its actions against the civilian population as bearing the hallmarks of genocide.
Emirati support for the RSF continued even after Iranian strikes on the UAE, with numerous cargo flights departing from Emirates airports to Ethiopia, apparently to ferry supplies across the border to RSF positions.
A UN panel of experts documented 458 flights involving heavy transport aircraft from Emirati military airports or the transhipment hub of Bosaso to eastern Libya between October 2024 and the end of 2025, 239 of them bound for Kufra, a key hub for RSF resupply, in likely violation of UN arms embargoes on both Libya and Darfur.
A proxy model built on plausible deniability
The UAE rarely deploys its own forces. Instead, it operates through a carefully constructed network of local proxies, private military contractors, and logistical intermediaries. Beyond the RSF in Sudan, its partners include Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan Arab Armed Forces, the Puntland Maritime Police Force in Somalia, and, in a departure from the pattern, the Ethiopian government during its war against the Tigray people.
The report details how the UAE recruited and deployed hundreds of Colombian mercenaries to Sudan via an Emirati security firm, with the US government noting in 2025 that these fighters had served as infantry, artillery personnel, drone pilots, and even trained children for combat.
Supplies to the RSF have been routed through LAAF-controlled Libya, Chad, Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda, with Abu Dhabi deploying financial leverage to secure cooperation, including a 1.5 billion dollar loan to Chadian President Idriss Déby in 2023.
The UAE also profits from gold smuggling networks in conflict zones, with members of the ruling family reported to have personal ties to both Haftar and RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.
Why the UAE intervenes
SWP identifies several overlapping motives. Economic interests are central, as state-owned logistics giants DP World and AD Ports Group have port and infrastructure projects across the continent, and military interventions serve to protect access to trade routes and strategic resources.
But economics alone do not explain the pattern. The report points to the UAE’s drive to outcompete Saudi Arabia for regional influence, a rivalry that has only sharpened since Riyadh forced Abu Dhabi out of southern Yemen.
Ideological opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood also shapes policy, with the UAE consistently backing actors who suppress Islamist movements. Personal enrichment through resource networks and ruling family ties to conflict actors adds a further layer.
Diplomatic manipulation
The report scrutinises the UAE’s use of diplomatic engagement as cover, whereby Abu Dhabi participates in international peace processes while simultaneously intensifying support for belligerents.
In September 2025, the UAE joined the Sudan Quad format alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, signing joint commitments to end external support for conflict parties. According to US intelligence reporting, however, the UAE was actively intensifying support for the RSF at the same time.
The UAE also pledged 200 million dollars at a February 2025 humanitarian conference and a further 500 million dollars at a US conference in 2026, while contributing only around 33 million dollars to the UN-coordinated humanitarian plan.
In November 2025, Emirati Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh spent four days meeting with Members of the European Parliament in Brussels. Nusseibeh’s endeavor was successful, as a Parliament resolution on Sudan adopted at the same time made no mention of the UAE’s support for the RSF, following opposition from the European People’s Party to amendments tabled by left-wing parliamentary groups.
The same pattern played out during the Berlin Libya Process in 2019-20, when the UAE pledged to halt arms transfers to Libyan conflict parties but continued them regardless. Transport aircraft flew from the Emirates to eastern Libya on the very day of the Berlin conference in January 2020.
European silence, eroded accountability
The report stresses that Western governments, including Germany, have consistently refused to name the UAE publicly in international forums, despite substantial documented evidence of its role in fuelling conflicts. No UN Security Council member has explicitly raised Emirati support for the RSF in formal meetings, either.
This reluctance, SWP argues, is not incidental but reflects a broader calculation in which trade ties, security cooperation, the UAE’s close relationship with “Israel,” and the strategic goal of preventing Abu Dhabi from drifting further toward China or Russia have consistently outweighed accountability concerns.
The UAE’s open disregard for the UN embargo on Libya from 2014 onward, the report notes, likely encouraged other states to adopt a similar approach, with the same dynamic now being repeated in Sudan.
Five recommendations
SWP outlines five concrete steps for Germany and its European partners:
The report concludes that the war on Iran, mounting tensions with Saudi Arabia, and growing reputational vulnerabilities have made the UAE more susceptible to European pressure than at any previous point, and that this window should not go unused.
By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | May 17, 2026
When military power fails to impose “deterrence,” oil becomes politics. And the Strait of Hormuz is now writing Gulf security rules instead of the Pentagon.
With Hormuz still closed and the emergency oil stock releases used to calm markets running down, prices are moving _ no matter how much some people deny it _ toward a new surge. The real problem is not the price as a number. It is the chain reaction: gasoline and diesel, shipping and insurance, raw materials, and then inflation that travels from Asia to the United States. And even if the strait opened tomorrow, the damage would not vanish. Supply chains do not reset overnight, and parts of the oil and petrochemicals flow would take time to recover.
In my previous Middle East Monitor article, I said clearly that Gulf states “have nothing but to talk to Iran now”. That was not idealism or goodwill. It was hard security math: the old formula is eroding. Bases do not protect the way people assumed, and guarantees shrink the moment they face a real test. Today, this is no longer an argument. It is a reality driven by markets before politics.
Trump and China: A visit without a lifeline — and Time is against him
Trump’s attempt to turn to China produced no clear exit. Not because Beijing is powerless, but because it sees the issue in simple terms: open the strait through practical understandings, and negotiate with Iran on realistic terms.
The problem is that Washington still wants a “surrender” wrapped in diplomatic language. Iran sees no reason to give that for free as it holds leverage in a global energy shock.
This is the core of Trump’s trap: he can say whatever he wants, but he cannot cancel economics. Markets do not negotiate. They punish.
That is why countries are now moving on two tracks: a unilateral track to protect their own interests, and a collective track to design a new framework that prevents the next shock. Saudi Arabia is stepping forward to lead the collective track, not because it loves “mediation” as a headline, but because the cost of ongoing chaos has become higher than the cost of a deal.
A New “Helsinki Act” — But without the Human Rights Basket
According to Western reporting, Saudi Arabia is floating something close to a “Gulf Helsinki Act” arrangement with Iran—modeled on the Helsinki process of the mid-1970s during the Cold War. It would not be just a Saudi–Iran deal. It would extend to the Gulf and the European Union, aiming to lock in non-aggression, structured economic normalization, and monitoring and implementation mechanisms.
The original Helsinki process was built around four “baskets”: security and non-aggression; economic cooperation; human rights and self-determination; and follow-up mechanisms. In the Middle East, copying the third basket is unrealistic. The region’s unwritten rule is non-interference. Here, states do not use “human rights” language as a tool to destabilize each other internally. So, the Saudi approach seems to focus on three practical baskets: security and non-aggression, economic cooperation and stable energy flows, and verification/implementation.
It is a practical logic: if you want an agreement that can survive, you do not plant a delayed bomb inside it.
The Hard Question: Can a Deal work without the United States?
Here is the central dilemma. A Gulf–EU–Iran non-aggression arrangement without the United States creates a dangerous gap: the Gulf and Europe commit to non-aggression, Iran commits too, but Washington and Israel still retain the ability to strike Iran. What does the agreement do then? Does it become a nice document that collapses at the first air raid?
On the other hand, bringing Washington into the deal is not easy either. The US is struggling to produce a quick bilateral agreement with Iran to end the crisis, so why would it accept a broader framework that limits its freedom of action?
This opens a third, more sensitive option: Gulf states and Europe “bypass Washington” in practice. That would mean refusing the use of their airspace and territorial waters for any military or intelligence activity against Iran. And maybe refusing to enforce sanctions that destabilize the region and recreate the Hormuz shock. This is not a small move. It would be a strategic shift.
The UAE: A Different Vision — and a Dangerous Ceiling
The Gulf is not unified on strategy. Other reporting suggests Emirati efforts to push a coordinated Gulf military “response” against Iran. The problem is not the idea of response by itself. The problem is the ceiling of objectives.
If the goal is limited deterrence to reduce escalation, that is one thing. But if the goal mirrors Netanyahu and Washington _ regime change, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, destroying its ballistic capabilities, and reshaping Iran from the inside _ that is a long war. And the Gulf does not have the luxury to absorb its costs.
Most importantly, the idea of “escaping Hormuz” through alternative pipelines is not a real solution. If peace collapses, fields, ports, and energy infrastructure across the region remain within range. And Bab al-Mandab can become another choke point. In the end, the issue is not a pipeline or a port. It is a sustainable peace that prevents the drone and the missile before it “manages” the price.
Whoever Ends the War Ends the Chaos
A way out starts from one point: ending the US–Israeli confrontation with Iran through a realistic understanding; then building a regional framework similar to “Helsinki” that locks in non-aggression, protects economies, and prevents a repeat of the strait crisis.
Saudi Arabia is trying to “hold the story together” because Washington entered, got stuck, and now wants to exit; while the Gulf cannot afford to sit between Iran’s leverage and America’s disorder.
The choice is clearer than ever: either a settlement that closes the door on choke-point warfare, or a longer crisis that bankrupts markets before it bankrupts armies. The Gulf; whether it likes it or not; no longer has the option to “wait”.
RT | May 11, 2026
French presidential hopeful Florian Philippot has called for lifting sanctions against Russia and restoring Russian energy imports. In an interview with RT, the politician claimed that Brussels-driven EU policies run counter to France’s national interests.
A former vice president of the National Front (now National Rally) and ex-member of the European Parliament, Philippot announced on Saturday that he will run in the 2027 election. He leads the sovereigntist movement ‘Les Patriotes’ and is a longtime critic of the EU, the euro, and NATO. He advocates restoring French sovereignty, reducing dependence on supranational institutions, and ending French military and financial aid to Ukraine.
“I want, and it is in my program, for France to regain its independence by leaving all the supranational globalist structures: the EU, the euro, NATO,” Florian Philippot told RT France on Sunday. “And I want a policy of dialogue and friendship with Russia, and not, as today, one of mistrust, war, and insults. All of this is absurd for our national interests.”
The politician said Paris should “take back control” by withdrawing from free trade agreements such as Mercosur, which he said “condemn French farmers to death.” He added that sanctions on Russia imposed by Brussels should be ended in order to restore the flow of Russian gas and oil.
Philippot also called for France to regain control over immigration and migration flows while pursuing a broader reindustrialization strategy. He said the country’s industrial base had been weakened under the euro and advocated restoring a national currency better suited to the French economy.
In addition, the politician pledged to expand the use of referendums, including citizen-initiated votes, as part of strengthening popular sovereignty. He also called for reducing France’s dependence on the EU, which he said is largely shaped in Berlin and Washington rather than in Paris. Philippot stressed that leaving the EU would allow France to lower energy and electricity costs.
France is heading toward a highly fragmented presidential race, with around 30 people already expressing interest in being on the 2027 ballot. These include Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of ‘La France Insoumise’, Bruno Retailleau, president of ‘Les Republicains’, Xavier Bertrand, a senior center-right politician, David Lisnard, mayor of Cannes, Laurent Wauquiez, a prominent conservative figure, and Edouard Philippe, France’s former prime minister.
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | May 8, 2026
NATO was always destined to be a temporary military alliance, united by a common enemy and threat during the Cold War. Once that threat disappeared with the end of the Cold War and thereafter the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main question asked in the 1990s was: What would be NATO’s new reason to exist? The answer to this question was to pursue unipolarity / collective hegemony in the post-Cold War era through NATO expansionism and military interventionism (“out of area or out of business”).
Russia was implicitly given the ultimatum: be a compliant civilizational student or a counter-civilizational force. Russia could accept NATO’s hegemonic role as a “force for good,” or it could resist, and then NATO would return to its former role of confronting Russia. The NATO-backed regime change in Ukraine—aimed at transforming the country from a Russian partner into a frontline state aligned against Russia— triggered the war in 2014. NATO thus began reverting to its former role of confronting Russia, yet it happened as the hegemonic era had come to an end.
Now that the former collective hegemony has been balanced and a multipolar world has emerged, NATO has yet again lost its purpose and will disintegrate. European leaders want to restore NATO’s original purpose: containing Russia. This will fail because it is based on the fraudulent narrative that Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union, rather than balancing NATO expansionism and military interventionism.
The US will, however, not return to the original purpose of NATO as the distribution of power has shifted, and will therefore not play along with the fake narratives of Europeans leaders. The US is in relative decline and cannot sustain simultaneous strategic dominance in Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. The US cannot be everywhere in a multipolar world, and it will pivot to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia. A US presence in Europe consumes too many resources and pushes Russia toward China, its main rival. However, the US is happy to outsource the conflict with Russia to the Europeans. Europe remains obedient, and Russia is weakened.
If Europe had rational leaders, they would have adjusted to the new international distribution of power by shutting this war down, making peace with Russia, establishing a common pan-European security architecture (35 years too late) that also saves Ukraine by removing it from the front lines of a re-divided Europe, and diversifying their economic ties to avoid excessive dependence on any one foreign power. However, Europe does not have rational leaders, and even arguing that weapons are not the path to peace or arguing in favour of diplomacy is smeared and censored as “pro-Russian” treason. Europe’s political class remains committed to Russophobic narratives and policies that intensify confrontation and prolong the conflict.
The trajectory now appears increasingly clear: NATO will continue to disintegrate, and the Europeans will compensate by further escalating the war against Russia. This will happen at a time when Russia is desperate to restore its deterrence by retaliating against Europe (most predictably against Germany), while the US commitment and protection of Europe are waning. The predictable consequence is that European leaders will eventually provoke a powerful response from Russia, which will rapidly escalate to what will hopefully only be a limited nuclear strike.
MEMO | May 7, 2026
The United Arab Emirates’ ruling Al Nahyan family has benefited from more than €71 million (US $80 million) in European Union farming subsidies, even as campaigners intensify calls for sanctions against senior Emirati officials over Abu Dhabi’s alleged role in the Sudan genocide.
A cross-border investigation by DeSmog, shared with the Guardian, found that subsidiaries controlled by the Al Nahyan family collected more than €71 million over six years through farmland in Romania, Italy and Spain. The payments were made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which distributes around €54 billion (US $60 billion) a year to farmers and rural areas across the bloc.
The investigation traced 110 subsidy payments between 2019 and 2024 to a network of companies and subsidiaries controlled by the UAE ruling family and Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund ADQ. The largest payments were linked to Agricost, a Romanian agricultural company which owns what the Guardian described as the EU’s single largest farm, covering 57,000 hectares.
The findings have raised fresh questions about how European public funds are being channelled to foreign state-linked investors and ultra-wealthy landowners. The UAE’s European agricultural holdings form part of Abu Dhabi’s wider food security strategy, aimed at securing crops and animal feed for a country which imports most of its food.
The revelations come as pressure grows in the UK for greater scrutiny of the UAE’s role in Sudan. Human rights organisation FairSquare has asked the British government to investigate links between Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE deputy prime minister and owner of Manchester City Football Club, and Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
FairSquare’s sanctions submission alleges that the UAE has been the “prime external driver” of the Sudan conflict and cites evidence, including from the UN Panel of Experts, that Abu Dhabi has supplied weapons, ammunition and other support to the RSF since June 2023, in violation of a UN arms embargo. The UAE has repeatedly denied arming the RSF.
The RSF has been accused of mass atrocities in Sudan, including in Darfur. FairSquare’s submission notes that the UN has described RSF violence in El-Fasher as “shocking in its scale and brutality” and bearing “the hallmark of genocide”. The group argues that the UK should examine whether Sheikh Mansour’s alleged role meets the threshold for sanctions.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Children’s Health Defense Team | December 11, 2024
This is a reprint of Chapter 1 in “The Medical-Pharmaceutical Killing Machine: Facing Facts Could Save Your Life,” by Children’s Health Defense.
The book, also available on Amazon documents “systemized medical abuse” that accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 