RT | June 3, 2026
Hungary is on the cusp of lifting its veto on Ukraine beginning formal accession talks with the EU, according to hints from Prime Minister Peter Magyar and strategic leaks from Brussels. But why now? And will he compromise on Hungarian rights?
Speaking alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin on Tuesday, Magyar said that he is “very optimistic” that a deal can be done to guarantee the rights of Ukraine’s Hungarian minority, in exchange for his government lifting the veto.
“The negotiations are progressing encouragingly,” he said, adding “I am ready to meet with Ukraine’s president at the beginning of next week, if we manage to agree on these fundamental human rights.”
Within an hour of Magyar’s statement, Politico published an article claiming that Budapest had privately “signaled it will drop its long-standing opposition to Ukraine’s bid for EU membership,” citing four unnamed diplomats.
What did Politico say?
Politico, the Axel Springer-owned Brussels insider, reported that Magyar’s government had “privately signaled openness to lifting its veto following a meeting on Monday between Ukrainian and Hungarian experts.” The Ukrainian side, the outlet claimed, provided verbal assurances that they would resolve most of Hungary’s concerns – including the Hungarian minority’s right to use their native language in schools – and formal accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova will be opened at an EU leaders’ summit on June 15.
Why was Politico’s article important?
That this story first appeared on Politico was likely no coincidence. Politico’s neoliberal, Atlantacist worldview is literally written into the constitution of its owner, Axel Springer, and its journalists’ proximity to power in Brussels has made it the outlet of choice for all kinds of strategic communications from within the EU machine – from telegraphed policy moves like Tuesday’s report, to outsourced smear campaigns.
For example, when Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever shot down the European Commission’s plan to use €185 billion ($218 billion) in frozen Russian assets to finance a massive aid package for Ukraine in December 2025, Politico responded with a hit piece portraying his country as “Russia’s most valuable asset” in Europe.
Further hit pieces – all of them citing EU diplomats and officials – followed, claiming that “Europe is failing Ukraine,” de Wever “fears retaliation from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” and “Europe still doesn’t want to pay to save Ukraine.”
Magyar’s predecessor, Viktor Orban, derided Politico as “the Brusselian elite’s official publication” after it named him 2025’s “disruptor of the year.”
How are Hungarians treated in Ukraine?
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, around 156,000 ethnic Hungarians found themselves trapped within Ukraine’s borders, after Kiev refused to recognize a successful self-rule referendum in the region of Transcarpathia. Relations between Budapest and Kiev rapidly declined from 2017 onwards, when Ukraine passed a series of laws mandating the sole use of the Ukrainian language in schools and local government.
Tensions were further inflamed after 2022, when the Ukrainian military targeted Transcarpathians in what the Hungarian Foreign Ministry called a “brutal” military draft.
Ukraine’s language laws have been criticized by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission for failing to safeguard minorities’ linguistic rights, and condemned by human rights organizations.
Why lift the veto now?
Orban maintained that Ukraine joining the EU would drag the bloc into open war with Russia, undercut Hungary’s agricultural sector, and effectively give a free pass to the corruption and criminality of the Ukrainian government. However, the Transcarpathia issue was the brightest of red lines for Orban, with the then-prime minister declaring in 2023 that Hungary “will not support Ukraine in any issue in international life until the previous laws that guaranteed the rights of Transcarpathian Hungarians are returned.”
Anita Orban, Magyar’s foreign minister (and no relation of Viktor), has maintained this policy, telling an interviewer last month that “until the situation of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine is resolved, we cannot make progress in any other area.”
Hungary’s concerns are laid out in an 11-point plan. Anita Orban has refused to say whether her government would compromise on these demands, but Politico noted that Ukraine would address “most” – but not all – of the points, and added that this would be done without “passing new legislation in Ukraine.”
All of this suggests that the language laws will not be repealed or replaced, and that Magyar will abandon some of the document’s points, which have not been made public. It is unclear, but likely, that Magyar and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen addressed Ukraine’s EU membership when they met to discuss frozen EU funding for Hungary last week.
Although Magyar said afterwards that the funding issue is “not connected in any way with the issue of Ukraine,” EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said beforehand that she expects Hungary to lift the veto ahead of the June summit. With accession a pet project of von der Leyen, and with Vladimir Zelensky set to attend the summit, it is highly likely that Magyar has come under some pressure to resolve the dispute in the coming week.
Could anyone else block Ukraine’s path to the EU?
With Viktor Orban out of office, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico is now considered the EU’s most Ukraine-skeptic head of state. However, while Fico maintains cordial relations with Russia and opposes all military aid to Ukraine, Zelensky claimed that the Slovak prime minister would support Ukraine’s EU membership bid after the two met in Armenia last month.
Has Zelensky’s veneration of Nazi collaborators harmed Ukraine’s EU bid?
Polish President Karol Nawrocki said last week that Ukraine “is not ready to be part of the European family,” after Zelensky granted the title ‘Heroes of the UPA’ to a Ukrainian commando unit. The UPA, or Ukrainian Insurgent Army, was the armed wing of Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), and collaborated with Nazi forces to murder around 100,000 Polish civilians in what is now western Ukraine between 1943 and 1945.
However, Nawrocki added that supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia remains Poland’s “strategic goal.”
Even if Nawrocki wanted to block Ukrainian accession, the decision would not be his to make. Poland’s government is run by Nawrocki’s pro-Brussels rivals, and Nawrocki would be unable to veto any accession treaty without finding a majority of MPs or senators to support him.
What if nothing happens?
Despite all the signs pointing to a deal between Budapest and Kiev, nothing is set in stone at the moment, and it’s possible that some last-minute obstacle could emerge between now and June 15. The passage of the summit with no deal would represent a setback for von der Leyen and her maximalist plans for Ukraine, but even if Zelensky secures formal accession talks, all of the old issues between Kiev and its European counterparts will return to the forefront: corruption, agricultural market disruption, and the prospect of a permanent welfare recipient joining the European bloc.
These long-term issues could be far more challenging for Zelensky and his officials to solve than the Transcarpathia impasse ever was.
RT | June 3, 2026
The European Union is pressuring Armenia to expel the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) from the country as a prerequisite to EU integration, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has alleged.
In a statement on Wednesday, the SVR said that EU officials had made severing religious ties with Moscow a condition for closer ties with the West, a policy it said is being pursued by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
The landlocked nation maintains close economic ties with Russia and hosts one of Moscow’s few military bases abroad. It is set to elect a new parliament on Sunday. Critics of Pashinyan have warned that he is steering Armenia down a path similar to Ukraine’s after the 2014 Western-backed coup. One of Kiev’s hallmark policies has been a crackdown on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which authorities accuse of promoting Russian interests.
Armenia’s religious landscape differs from Ukraine’s. The country’s dominant religious institution is the Armenian Apostolic Church, an ancient denomination that broke with mainstream Christianity in the 5th century, centuries before the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
The ROC does not recognize the Armenian Church as canonical, but regards it as a close Christian ally with shared traditions and common goals. The ROC maintains its own diocese in Armenia, encompassing five parish churches, a monastery, and two military chapels.
In its report, the SVR referenced a May statement by two Armenia-based NGOs that accused an ROC priest of influencing the upcoming election through his sermons, including those delivered at a church on the Russian military base in Gyumri. The agency said the allegations are part of a campaign orchestrated by Brussels and that EU operatives “are currently fabricating compromising evidence” to smear other Russian clergy.
Pashinyan’s government was rocked by mass protests in 2024 and 2025, as critics, including senior figures in the Armenian Apostolic Church, accused him of betraying national interests in his handling of the conflict settlement with neighboring Azerbaijan. The prime minister, in turn, accused his opponents of plotting a coup and launched prosecutions against the alleged organizers, including several members of the clergy.
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 2, 2026
The murder of 21 Russian students at a college dormitory on May 22 has yet to be fully understood in terms of the exact involvement of NATO states.
The university building in Starobelsk, Lugansk, was attacked in the early hours of the morning with 16 drones in three consecutive waves of assault. The targeting of the dormitory was deliberate. There were no Russian military installations in the vicinity.
NATO’s involvement in this act of terrorism is on multiple levels. Ukraine’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles has ramped up in recent months, in line with the massive financial support provided by the European Union in the form of a €90 billion loan, most of which is dedicated to boosting Ukraine’s drone arsenal, with European manufacturing companies working in partnership.
At another level, the Western corporate news media have largely ignored the Starobelsk atrocity and NATO’s involvement. The Western media have distorted the de facto war crime by highlighting implausible denials from the Ukrainian regime. In short, covering up.
At yet another level is the new and remarkable efficiency of Ukrainian-launched drones to evade Russian air defenses. Since the conflict in Ukraine escalated in 2022, NATO intelligence from satellite surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft has been supplying the Kiev regime with targeting data to attack Russian units.
But in recent months, NATO information flow and data analysis have taken a quantum leap regarding targeting range and lethality. Thus, the close partnership between Ukrainian and NATO drone manufacturing is amplified by the involvement of U.S.-based Palantir Technologies in operating systems.
Palantir was cofounded in 2003 by German-U.S. billionaire Peter Thiel. It has grown to become the “brains” behind operating weapon systems for the Pentagon, as well as the Israelis in their genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, and aggression towards Iran.
Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp visited Kiev on May 12, where he met with the regime leadership to firm up military partnerships for using Artificial Intelligence in attack drones. Karp was ecstatic about the global business opportunities accruing to Palantir by using the Ukraine war as a laboratory for developing technology.
He boasted that his company’s software was the “operating system” for Ukraine’s military deploying against Russia. Significantly, the Palantir boss remarked that the real-time learning and development of his company’s systems were giving Palantir a huge commercial advantage that could not be achieved in peacetime laboratories. In other words, the killing fields of Ukraine are plugging into Palantir’s profitability and global status as a company.
“It’s our software primitives or infrastructure and your people building things that are completely different from what we would have ever built on top of this,” Karp said in an interview with Ukrainian media.
“You’re doing it on the battlefield with a very small number of people and then showing the world how these things work.”
This strategic collaboration between the Kiev regime and Silicon Valley’s hottest company was also revealed in an exclusive report this week by CNN. The CNN report did not mention Palantir by name, but screenshots reposted clearly showed that the Ukrainian drone operators were using the company’s PRISMA software. As reported, the software allows the processing of vast amounts of aviation and radar data in seconds, which is then used to deploy drones that evade Russian air defense systems and hit deep inside Russia.
The success of Ukrainian-NATO drones to strike deep inside pre-war Russian territory has improved dramatically. The air strikes have reportedly damaged 24 out of a total of 33 of Russia’s top oil refineries. Last month alone, it was reported that six refineries were hit, as well as major fuel depots. The installations, such as at Saratov and Volgograd, are hundreds of kilometers inside Russia. The disruption in fuel supplies has necessitated the Kremlin’s imposition of rationing on public purchases.
Palantir’s data processing and AI are such that interception of Ukrainian drones by Russian air defenses is incorporated into the targeting programs, which permits subsequent drone waves to circumnavigate anti-aircraft systems. This feedback loop brings new challenges for defense systems.
The increase in EU and NATO drone funding and technology would account for the quantitative surge in attacks on Russian territory. The complicity of NATO states, primarily the Baltic states, in lending their territories as launch sites is also a factor. The NATO propaganda machine, too, plays a role in minimizing the civilian deaths and thereby blindsiding European and American public opposition to a dangerous provocation and escalation of war with Russia.
But the involvement of Palantir in increasing the kill machine is another crucial qualitative dimension in the escalation, whereby Ukrainian-NATO drones are evading Russian defenses and increasing their capability at hitting its deep interior and vital infrastructure.
The massacre at the Starobelsk college in Lugansk points to the systematic involvement of Palantir in executing such a deadly attack.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov (2010-14) expressed his astonishment at how 16 drones were able to penetrate Russian air defenses and hit the college in three waves. Azarov told Tass, the Russian news agency: “I think [NATO countries] are involved. Because, first, the drones that were sent flew right past all Russian air-defense systems, which means that someone guided them through. And you can only guide them if you have space reconnaissance data – it was a whole wave of 16 drones, and they passed by air-defense systems. It means they were guided through, solely thanks to the intervention of Western intelligence agencies. I think that, strictly speaking, they [NATO states] were behind this provocation,” he said.
Azarov did not mention Palantir per se. But the complex navigation ability of the NATO drones to thread through layers of Russian defense is the very kind of qualitative edge that the American software company is giving to the Ukrainian operators.
The other grave implication is that the extensive mapping of Russian targets, from oil refinery installations to fuel depots, suggests that the information supplied by the NATO “brains” has a detailed picture of what is being targeted. There is no way that the air strikes on a college dormitory could be confused with military installations that are not even present in the area.
That means Palantir and its multi-billionaire bosses like Alex Karp and Peter Thiel have blood on their hands, no matter how much they scrub their hands at their company’s newly opened office in Kiev.
In a perverse sidenote, Thiel, who was a friend of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, has a personal interest in the topic of the Anti-Christ, traveling the globe delivering exclusive lectures to wealthy audiences about Armageddon and the end of times. It’s not clear what his exact views are on manifestations of the Anti-Christ. But the murder of teenage student girls sleeping in their beds should surely be relevant to his lectures.
Orbán is skeptical, writing: “Free cheese is only in the mousetrap”
Remix News | June 1, 2026
Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar recently traveled to Brussels to discuss the country’s frozen EU funds, which have reportedly been withheld illegally up until now. Despite Magyar’s claims that the money would be released simply in return for fighting corruption, various media outlets are reporting there is much more to the deal than that, including indications that Hungary will have to implement the EU’s demand for migrant quotas under the Migrant Pact one way or another.
“Based on today’s meeting, €16.4 billion euros have been unlocked,” the Hungarian prime minister told the press after Friday’s meeting. However, that is also not true, as there are still many conditions the country must meet before the money is made available.
Officials from the EU commission were far more cautious with their description of the deal, saying the broad strokes of the deal had been determined, but conditions must still be met.
“We haven’t agreed to disburse the funds,” a senior commission official told Politico. “We’ve agreed on a list of commitments which, if completed by Aug. 31, will trigger the payment of those funds.”
In addition, inquiries made by journalists yielded no official details regarding the specific terms of the pact.
The announcement has sparked widespread curiosity regarding the concessions made by the Hungarian government, given that EU officials previously stated funds would only be released following specific structural reforms.
In fact, after the deal was announced, former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán publicly demanded transparency from Magyar regarding the negotiations.
“We call on the Prime Minister to immediately publish the details of the von der Leyen-Péter Magyar pact. What did he sell to Brussels for Hungarian interests? Free cheese is only in the mousetrap,” Orbán wrote in his post.
German media outlet Tichys Einblick appears to be highly skeptical about the deal, which discussed the questions posed by journalists after the deal was allegedly reached.
“The very second question [from journalists] concerned migration policy: Will Hungary implement the Migration Pact? Ursula von der Leyen was the first to reply: Of course, people had talked about the migration pact, it was an agreement that affected and bound all Member States equally, and there had been discussion about how to get Hungary to implement this pact too. It took her a minute to answer that.
Then came Péter Magyar, who began by saying that he too would now answer ‘briefly.’ It took him five times longer than the President of the Commission, of course, and he squirmed around a clear answer. With remarkable verbal slalom technique, he explained that the migration pact was not a big deal, that it did not mean allowing migrants into the country, that one could also contribute in other ways, such as with money or contributions to border protection. (The EU had never accepted that Orbán’s border fence was Hungary’s contribution to European migration policy).
The migration pact, Magyar continued, came about in Orbán’s time, thanks to Orbán, so to speak. In summary: The migration pact is not bad, insofar as it is bad, that is Orbán’s fault, and Hungary… Well, you had to read between the lines for that, but it was actually clear from the combined statements of the two: The Magyar government will implement the migration pact in one way or another.”
While Magyar is claiming the sole condition for securing the over €16 billion was simply stamping out corruption, clearly there could be other conditions attached.
During the press conference, Ursula von der Leyen commended the swift formation of the new Hungarian government and its proactive approach, indicating a willingness to maintain this momentum in future consultations.
Questions were also raised concerning the rule of law, an area where the commission has historically demanded strict compliance before releasing frozen assets. This financial issue remains politically sensitive for the leadership in Brussels. Von der Leyen previously faced intense criticism for her handling of Poland, where funds were released to the former right-wing government before required reforms were fully executed. Furthermore, Hungary is operating under a compressed timeframe to secure the capital.
Time constraints are also a pressing factor for Ursula von der Leyen, who faces domestic political risks and previous votes of no confidence. The broader rise of the European right wing, fueled by dissatisfaction with centralized EU bureaucracy, intensifies the pressure. Any perceived mishandling or bureaucratic delay in delivering the agreed funds could draw heavy criticism from both the left and an electorate increasingly fatigued by centralized governance.
Consequently, the Commission President must balance projecting a firm stance on institutional expectations to her political base while supporting the new Hungarian prime minister, whom she visibly favors. This urgency, however, introduces systemic risks. The European Commission was asked if a rushed implementation of reforms might precipitate a constitutional crisis, mirroring events in Poland where Prime Minister Donald Tusk utilized legally questionable measures to consolidate power and disable opponents. At the time of publication, the chief spokesperson for the European Commission had not provided a response to these inquiries to Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.
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.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Richard Booth | The Libertarian Institute | August 18, 2024
Despite the seemingly simple conclusion behind the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, the investigation was exceedingly complicated. To this day, it is still the FBI’s most massive investigation, comprised of millions of pages of evidence. Careful analysis of this paper trail shows that the official narrative of the FBI and ATF is in fact a half-truth that ignores findings supported by the records. The FBI and ATF’s positions are frequently backed up with misleading statements, and in some instances, total fabrications.
In an honest investigation, there would be no reason to concoct and disseminate lies. If we believe that the FBI and ATF investigations were fair and legitimate, then we would expect to not find so many blatant examples of dishonesty. Yet, they exist: one after another, often repeated, and affirmed as truth. Some lies are small, others large. But what they have in common is a systemic problem that speaks to the very integrity of the agencies tasked with investigating this crime. The FBI is not a person suffering from a disorder that causes delusions. If an FBI or ATF official is formulating a lie, or propagating an extant lie, there is an objective.
All too often, it appears that the aim of these agencies is to conceal an inconvenient truth, to hide something that may otherwise invalidate the official narrative or camouflage something too heinous for the public to accept. Federal agencies’ overall deceptive pattern points to shared complicity or guilt, which should be of great concern.
In this essay we’ll examine some of the lies and wrongdoing that officials at the FBI and ATF have engaged in regarding their investigation(s) of the Oklahoma City bombing. I have uncovered half a dozen examples throughout investigating this case. Initially, I did not go out of my way looking for deception. It was something I continually discovered naturally. In some cases, the lies may be related to one another and will provide insight and clarity about what happened on the morning of April 19, 1995. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 