Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Europe Wants To Prevent It’s Citizens From Even Hearing The Russian Perspective

The Dissident | August 3, 2026

As EU countries continue to fuel the never-ending proxy war in Ukraine, its leaders want to prevent citizens from even hearing the Russian perspective.

In the most recent move, the Emmanuel Macron government in France is trying to ban the Russian-French journalist Xenia Fedorova from the country, simply for giving an alternate perspective on the Ukraine war in TV interviews.

On X, Zenia Fedorova wrote :

The government of Emmanuel Macron has decided that my statements made publicly on the sets of CNEWS and Europe 1, as well as my columns published in the pages of JDNews, represent an immediate danger to the Republic, and has ordered my expulsion on grounds of absolute emergency.

I am accused of seeking “to undermine the confidence of European citizens, and in particular French citizens, in their institutions and to instill doubt about the legitimacy of the support provided to Ukraine.”

They assert that my behavior, which consists of living in France for nearly ten years in compliance with the law, paying my taxes, but also having an opinion and expressing it as part of my work as a journalist, “thus harms the fundamental interests of the State” and that my presence on the territory constitutes “a particularly serious and current threat to public order; that consequently, there is reason to order, on grounds of absolute emergency, his expulsion from national territory pursuant to Article L. 631-1 of the CESEDA in order to put an end as quickly as possible to these positions that have the effect of destabilizing the social fabric.”

In addition, the Minister of the Economy, Roland Lescure, and the Minister of the Interior, Laurent Nuñez, issued a decree overnight aimed at freezing my assets.

This follows a series of actions from EU countries designed to prevent its citizens from even hearing Russia’s perspective.

Last month, the EU ruled that three obscure bloggers in Germany violated EU sanctions law because they shared content from the Russian broadcaster RT on a few occasions, in effect barring even sharing content from Russian media.

The EU has even placed sanctions on commentators who have no connection to Russia, and do not endorse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, most notably the retired colonel in the Swiss army, Jacques Baud, simply because he was critical of official EU policy in the Ukraine proxy war.

EU countries supporting the proxy war in Ukraine have made it clear they are opposed to citizens even hearing Russia’s perspective.

While this is framed as combating “dangerous disinformation,” the reality is the EU wants to black out the Russian perspective because it will make it harder to continue the proxy war in Ukraine.

As political scientist John Mearsheimer recently explained to the EU’s European Parliament, the EU continues to spread a narrative claiming that Russia’s goal “is to conquer all of Ukraine and make it part of a greater Russia. Once that goal is achieved, Russia will move to create an empire in Eastern Europe, much like the Soviet Union did after World War II. In this story, Putin is a mortal threat to the West and must be dealt with forcefully. In short, Putin is an imperialist with a master plan that fits neatly into a rich Russian tradition”.

But as he noted, there is no evidence backing up this narrative, and all evidence shows that Russia launched the invasion of Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a NATO member.

“While it is widely believed in Europe, and again, I’m sure here in the European Parliament, that Putin is an imperialist who has long been determined to conquer all of Ukraine and then conquer additional countries west of Ukraine, virtually all the available evidence is at odds with this perspective. In fact, the United States and its and its European allies provoked the war” he noted.

One can still oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the reality is, the war was launched after decades of U.S. provocations, not because Russia wants to recreate the Soviet Union and conquer all of Europe.

Even hearing the Russian perspective, even if one disagrees, will help show that the European narrative of Russia wanting to conquer all of Europe is false.

For this reason, EU countries don’t want citizens even hearing the Russian perspective, in order to continue the bogus narrative needed to continue fuelling the proxy war in Ukraine.

August 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on Europe Wants To Prevent It’s Citizens From Even Hearing The Russian Perspective

How France waged secret chemical warfare in Algeria

Al Jazeera | July 22, 2026

This film is about how the French army secretly used chemical weapons in the Algerian independence war, in contravention of international law. The documentary presents archival evidence and personal testimony from former French soldiers and Algerian fighters, exposing France’s violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Historian Christophe Lafaye’s evidence includes a letter from a senior army commander to the government in 1956, which refers to the “use of chemical means”.

France set up a Special Weapons Unit in December 1956, using the same CN2D gas as in World War I, to target Algerian fighters in mountain caves. Of the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 incidents, only 440 attacks have been documented so far. One of the most devastating attacks was at Ghar Ben Shatouh in March 1959, in which an estimated 150 civilians were killed. Despite this, France did not formally ban chemical weapons until 1993, more than 30 years after Algeria’s independence.

August 2, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Comments Off on How France waged secret chemical warfare in Algeria

France planning third attack on former colony – African leader

RT | July 27, 2026

French intelligence services are preparing a third attack on Niger’s main airport after two assaults on the facility this year, the West African nation’s transitional leader, General Abdourahamane Tchiani, has said.

Tchiani made the allegation in an interview on state-owned RTN on Saturday to mark the third anniversary of the transitional authorities taking power following the ouster of French-aligned President Mohamed Bazoum. France condemned the July 2023 coup, refused to recognize the new authorities, and demanded Bazoum’s reinstatement.

“The June 18 attack was not the last because we are already tracking [them], since the objective has not been achieved. French intelligence is currently working to attempt a third attack,” Tchiani said.

Gunmen launched an assault on Diori Hamani International Airport in Niger’s capital Niamey on June 18, killing 13 people, including 11 security personnel and two civilians, according to the Sahel state’s Defense Ministry. At least 22 assailants were neutralized and about 20 suspects arrested. Al-Qaeda-linked Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) claimed responsibility for the attack.

The airport, which also hosts a military airbase and the headquarters of the joint Niger-Burkina Faso-Mali force, was previously attacked in January. Islamic State claimed responsibility for that assault, during which officials said 20 militants were killed and 11 arrested. Gen. Tchiani accused France, Benin, and Ivory Coast (Cote d’Ivoire) of sponsoring the violence. Paris and the two neighboring countries have denied the allegations.

On Saturday, the Nigerien leader accused French intelligence of assembling, training, and equipping militants from JNIM who were behind last month’s offensive. He said the operation was intended to simultaneously target the airport, the presidential palace, and an officer-training center in Tondibia, on the outskirts of Niamey.

Tchiani linked the attack to the withdrawal of at least 4,000 foreign troops from the Niamey airbase. He claimed France sought to portray their presence as essential to Niger’s security and their departure as a cause of permanent instability.

Niger and its neighbors Mali and Burkina Faso have battled jihadist violence for more than a decade. The three former French colonies formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in 2023 to jointly combat the insurgency after severing defense ties with Paris over alleged French aggression and its failure to contain the militants.

The AES leaders have jointly condemned what they described as a “cowardly and perfidious aggression” supported by “foreign state sponsors” against their countries.

July 27, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on France planning third attack on former colony – African leader

French Donbass Charity Founder’s Show Trial Designed to ‘Neutralize’ Dissent to Hostility to Russia

Sputnik – 15.07.2026

The criminal case against SOS Donbass organizer Anna Novikova is part of France and EU’s broader policy of “intimidating dissenters and neutralizing them to suppress domestic opposition to the official hostility to Russia,” independent French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon told Sputnik.

“In fact any support of Russia, even by quoting or circulating news reports, opinions or comments from Russian (state) media is considered in France as connivence with the enemy and therefore potentially treasonous,” with Russia deemed “de facto an enemy country,” the observer pointed out.

But the prosecution may face problems, because the law “is far from clear” regarding humanitarian aid, “and any trial can become very controversial as the accused may object the French Government’s position: Ukraine is not an ally of France or a NATO member, France has not declared war on Russia.”

“Therefore objections can be raised to the claim that assistance to the Donbass and denunciation of Ukrainian actions there is tantamount to supporting Russia’s military campaign.”

Nevertheless, “other EU countries” should be “expected to adopt similar measures or laws,” the analyst fears.

Case Flunks Even EU’s Own Fake Rule of Law Standards

Novikova’s case does not even “adhere to the three Orwellian slogans of the EU – democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights,” political analyst Dr. Greg Simons told Sputnik.

The “purely political” crackdown “is a continuation of the larger attempt to shut out any alternative views,” and was preceded by things like bans on Russian foreign-facing media, sanctions and economic warfare against critics. It will inevitably expand over time, Simons expects.

“The Ukraine issue is going to become much more sensitive and toxic politically to Europe for supporting this cause,” and Novikova’s “lawfare” imprisonment and trial are a “test case” for tightening control over the narrative on Ukraine.

It’s also an “an act of pure intimidation so that people will stop breaking the narrative” amid the growing desperation and political vulnerability of the French government, Simons suggests, pointing to President Macron’s growing vulnerability and questions on his political future, and similar trends regarding the anti-Russia ideology of Euro-Atlanticism in general.

July 15, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on French Donbass Charity Founder’s Show Trial Designed to ‘Neutralize’ Dissent to Hostility to Russia

The end of anonymity in a state-verified internet

As governments tie online speech to real-world identities under the banner of child safety, the implications extend much farther

By Onur Ozersin | The Cradle | July 8, 2026

The internet, long framed as a space of relative freedom, is entering a period of structural change driven by governments acting in parallel.

A quieter process is underway across multiple jurisdictions. Authorities are introducing identity verification requirements tied to access and participation. These measures are presented as safeguards for minors, and a number have already been written into law.

From Canberra to Washington, London to Ankara and Abu Dhabi, governments are moving to dismantle the era of anonymous internet access, embedding age restrictions and verification protocols into law and platform design in what amounts to one of the most significant shifts the digital world has seen since its inception.

A coordinated turn

The emerging model links user profiles to verified identities, going beyond routine regulation and altering how expression functions online.

As every digital post becomes indelibly linked to a real-world identity and added to a permanent database, the concept of online privacy is fundamentally inverted. Anonymity is no longer viewed as a civil right, but rather as an illicit activity.

Momentum accelerated in the UK in 2025, where more than 12,000 individuals faced detention and penalties linked to online activity.

A similar trend is unfolding in the US, where states such as Florida, Utah, and California have pushed forward with localized identity mandates. Progress on a federal equivalent, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), remains under congressional debate.

The EU has moved along a parallel track through the Digital Services Act (DSA). Presented as a regulatory framework, it has taken on an enforcement function in practice. Denmark, Greece, Italy, and Spain have been selected as early testing grounds for verification systems.

By 2026, the focus had begun to widen. The debate moved from child protection toward the regulation of political expression. In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated in early May, “I want to see the real names of everyone who expresses an opinion against us online. They should not hide behind anonymous accounts.”

Turkiye introduced comparable measures in late April. Parliament approved identity checks and a social media ban for children under 15. Following publication on 1 May, platforms were given nine months to comply.

Justice Minister Akin Gurlek described the internet as “digital chaos” and said the law would apply to platforms with more than one million users. Penalties for non-compliance include aggressive enforcement actions, such as financial sanctions, bandwidth throttling, and total network blocking.

The UAE adopted its own framework in June 2026 through Cabinet Decision No. 106. It set an official age threshold for social media use in the Arab world. Platforms are required to integrate with UAE Pass or deploy biometric verification systems. A 12-month transition period has been granted, with enforcement measures including fines and possible service suspension beginning July 2027.

While neighboring Gulf states have not yet codified specific age restrictions or identity verification mandates, parallel legislative frameworks are highly anticipated. This is particularly true for countries boasting advanced digitalization infrastructures, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Regulators are also cracking down on the primary tool used to bypass these digital borders: VPN services. European Commission Vice President Henna Virkkunen warned that identity verification measures must not be circumvented via VPNs, aligned with existing plans in France and the UK to restrict private network routing.

This crackdown marks a dramatic ideological reversal. Where European leaders previously criticized China’s rigorous internet restrictions under the banner of free speech, they are now deploying the very same enforcement mechanisms within their own borders.

Verification as a condition of access

Several proposals would require users to confirm their identity within fixed timeframes, in some cases as short as 72 hours. Failure to comply could result in account suspension and deletion of associated data.

The choice is reduced to two options. Users either attach their digital history to their legal identity or lose access to accumulated networks and content.

This requirement effectively weaponizes your entire digital past. A political argument you had years ago, an obscure question asked on an old forum, or a reckless comment made in the heat of youth will now follow you forever, indelibly stamped onto your official legal identity.

Initially restricted to government agencies, this searchable database could eventually be accessed by insurance corporations and future employers. Cross-border data sharing will likely become standard practice during international travel applications.

A possible scenario illustrates the trajectory. A visa application could include a request for a digital profile from a country of origin. Automated systems would assess that data before any human review.

The EU has already imposed sanctions on journalists covering certain geopolitical issues, including those expressing pro-Palestine views or positions aligned with Russian policy.

The scope of regulation is not limited to public content. The EU has continued to pursue its “Chat Control” initiative, which aims to enable scanning of private communications. After a temporary exemption expired in April 2026, the Council moved on 2 July to restore monitoring provisions through 2028.

This issue has prompted intense resistance from privacy advocates and a coalition of over 500 cryptographers, who warn that requiring platforms to pre-scan message content inherently compromises end-to-end encryption, effectively transforming private messaging spaces into permanently monitored state domains.

Speech under observation

Officials maintain that these measures apply to social media. The infrastructure being built has broader potential applications.

It is only a matter of time before fingerprint, retina, and facial scans become mandatory for every single action you take online.

Once that threshold is crossed, background screening will extend far beyond traditional criminal records; instead, an individual’s digital profile will become the primary determinant of their professional career. This shift seamlessly enables AI algorithms to scan every digital trace left online, pre-emptively labeling users as “risky” or “prone to crime.”

This framework inevitably chills public discourse; criticizing state policy, exposing corruption, or merely asking a question will be permanently appended to a citizen’s digital dossier. Consequently, state authorities will no longer need to actively suppress free speech.

When the penalty for dissent risks the destruction of an individual’s lifelong professional achievements, self-censorship manifests organically.

A comparable pattern is visible offline. More than 300 international students involved in pro-Palestine protests at US universities faced visa revocations and deportation last year. If visible protest carries such outcomes, the implications of permanent digital traceability are likely to be more far-reaching.

Speaking to The Cradle, journalist and technology policy expert Fusun Nebil frames the issue in broader terms:

“Perhaps the most critical point in this debate is that the internet is no longer merely a means of communication; it has also become people’s digital memory and identity. It is not enough for governments to cite seemingly legitimate justifications such as child safety, combating disinformation, and fighting cybercrime. We must seriously discuss how a digital order that completely eliminates anonymity will exert pressure on freedom of expression, political pluralism, and the culture of social criticism in the long term.”

From open forum to managed space

The internet has long functioned as a space where citizens learn and shape ideas through open discussion, progressing from early forum sites to modern social networks. However, under a system where every word becomes an official record, the survival of satire, humor, and intellectual exchange is thrown into question.

In a framework where a joke cracked at age 22 can be held up as evidence against an individual at age 40, the internet will cease to be an environment for exploration and instead transform into a vast courtroom where any spoken word can be leveraged as an indictment.

Today, traditional media such as newspapers and television channels are frequently controlled or influenced by powerful interest groups in many countries. As a result, social media platforms have become the primary spaces where citizens can freely exchange ideas.

However, introducing mandatory identity verification will almost certainly restrict the diversity of opinions in these remaining open environments.

In June 2026, the UK government launched a consultation on regulating content distribution on platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The proposals include requirements for algorithms to prioritize material from designated public service broadcasters and approved outlets.

This introduces a tiered structure within platforms. Certain sources receive visibility by design.

Exit routes and unintended outcomes

Mandating online identity verification could not only alter the nature of social media platforms, but also spark a mass exodus to the dark web. Ironically, the primary victims of this shift will be the very children these laws are intended to protect.

When governments force tech giants like Meta, X, and TikTok to implement identity checks, ordinary citizens who value privacy and young people in particular may turn to the dark web. Although mainstream platforms face frequent criticism, their moderation teams and AI systems actively remove the vast majority of harmful content.

In contrast, dark web networks lack any oversight or community guidelines. When a teenager uses the Tor network to bypass restrictions, they would not just be chatting with friends; they would enter an unmonitored environment where exploitation risks are exponentially higher than on monitored platforms.

Data concentration and exposure

The accumulation of identity data introduces another layer of risk. Large databases of biometric and personal information present attractive targets for cyberattacks.

In April 2026, concerns surfaced around the EU Age Verification App shortly after its code was made public. Security researchers identified weaknesses in its structure.

Independent specialists, including cybersecurity consultant Paul Moore and French cryptographer Olivier Blazy, immediately identified critical architectural and design vulnerabilities within the framework.

Addressing EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen directly on X, Moore issued a stark warning: “Seriously @vonderleyen – this product will be the catalyst for an enormous breach at some point. It’s just a matter of time.”

Telegram founder Pavel Durov also joined the debate, claiming that these security vulnerabilities are a direct result of the system’s fundamental design rather than a simple error: “The EU age verification app was hackable by design – it trusted the device (that’s instant game over).”

A monitored horizon

Although identity verification on the internet may seem like a step taken to protect children, whether it leads to a safe harbor or a dangerous cliff depends on how it is implemented. If the solution is based solely on enacting bans and collecting ID numbers, free communication will inevitably be pushed toward dark web networks where oversight is almost impossible.

The path to protecting children is not to lock digital doors and hand the keys over to the government. Rather, it lies in ensuring that the open internet continues to provide a space where citizens can freely express ideas without the pressure of self-censorship, while making it safe through moderation, education, and transparency.

Otherwise, by the 2030s, we may find ourselves facing not a generation protected from the harmful effects of the internet, but a generation that has grown up in the lawlessness of the dark web.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | Comments Off on The end of anonymity in a state-verified internet

And if political Cancel Culture fails?

What will Europe become if the populist sweep occurs across Europe?

Ashes of Pompeii | July 8, 2026

A couple of days ago I wrote about political Cancel Culture in Europe, how the establishment is using lawfare to try to sideline populist movements, usually right wing, across the continent. And from their perspective, it is not hard to understand why. Without cancelling these opposition groups, there seems little doubt that almost all of the establishment parties will be swept away and in a very short time, the political landscape of Europe will look radically different.

The sheer scale of this potential electoral shift means that the traditional mechanisms of political control will simply cease to function. Germany would see the AfD as either the by far largest party or actually forming the government. The UK would see Farage and Reform achieving a near absolute majority, fundamentally altering the British political system. France would face elections where the runoff is between Le Pen and Mélenchon, with both being complete outsiders loathed by the establishment for entirely opposite reasons. Spain would probably see a coalition between the right and the far right. Unlike other European countries, the Spanish right is not entirely uncomfortable with the far right, as many will have had family members who were entirely in synch with the National Catholic fascism of the past. Italy presents a fascinating case. Meloni came in as a far right outsider but adapted to become more centrist. It seems not unlikely that she will go back to her roots if all of her European peers more closely resemble where she came from than where she is now.

This sweeping transformation forces us to ask profound questions about the future of the continent. What does this mean for the EU project itself? Can a union built on ever closer integration survive when its largest members are led by sovereignists? What happens to Ursula von der Leyen personally and politically in such a scenario? Will she be forced out by a hostile council, or will she attempt to pivot her own agenda to survive? How will the European Commission function without its traditional center left/center right driving force? Will the entire bureaucratic apparatus in Brussels, itself built on this centrist tradition, face a complete dismantling?

We must also consider foreign policy and defense. What happens to the practically unified European support for Ukraine when the political winds shift so dramatically across the continent? How does this impact the cohesion and future of NATO? What becomes of the traditional EU north and south relations, or the dynamic with eastern Europe? How exactly do Hungary and Slovakia fit into this new paradigm? Do they transition from isolated outliers to the new ideological center of gravity? Will the Baltic states find themselves isolated in their hardline defense postures?

Furthermore, we must examine other continental relationships. What happens to relations with Russia and European energy security? Is Russia even interested in returning to basing much of its trade on Europe – once burnt, twice shy?

And of course, America. Many of these leaders are very pro-American, have good relations with Trump and are ideologically aligned. But how well will European sovereignty movements mesh with MAGA and America First? One thing is to be ideologically aligned, another very different thing is economic and military negotiations, and national interests.

On the domestic front, the cultural battles will undoubtedly intensify. How far would these outsiders go in dismantling wokist policies such as LGBT mandates and aggressive climate change legislation? Will they simply pause these initiatives or completely reverse decades of legislation? What happens to immigration rules and the millions of migrants already on the continent? Will mass deportations become a realistic policy goal?

It will not be surprising to see a certain amount of taming of the firebrands, just as we witnessed with Meloni before she fully embraced her current centrist posture. Governing requires compromise, and the responsibilities of state often moderate radical rhetoric. But if all of them are outsiders simultaneously, taming becomes much more difficult. There is no moderate center left to anchor them. Who would in this case do the taming?

When the core nations of Europe are all led by anti-establishment figures, the gravitational pull toward traditional compromise simply vanishes. The firebrands would have absolutely no reason to yield ground to a center that no longer holds power. Voters will demand immediate and radical changes, and leaders will have no institutional excuses to delay. The resulting political environment will be entirely uncharted territory for modern Europe.

The old consensus is dead. And either the traditional forces use authoritarian and lawfare means to maintain control, or a new, highly unpredictable era of nationalist governance is about to begin across the continent.

Of course the irony, and hypocrisy, of the political establishment’s use of authoritarianism to push back what they consider (or at least want us to consider) the “barbarian authoritarianists” will not be lost on all.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on And if political Cancel Culture fails?

French MEP Rima Hassan says terrorism trial aims to silence her pro-Palestine advocacy

Press TV – July 7, 2026

Ahead of her trial on charges of “apology for terrorism,” French Member of the European Parliament Rima Hassan says French authorities have subjected her to sweeping surveillance measures and political pressure in an effort to silence her criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Hassan, a vocal pro-Palestinian lawmaker, appeared in court on Tuesday over the French offense of “apology for terrorism,” a legal provision that criminalises certain forms of expression deemed to support or glorify acts of terrorism.

“This is a political case,” Hassan said in an interview ahead of her court date. “It’s a way of putting the Palestinian cause on trial.”

Hassan added that the prosecution is part of a broader campaign targeting her for speaking out in support of Palestine.

The European Parliament member said she has faced intense judicial and political pressure in recent months.

She described disproportionate investigative measures, including the lifting of her parliamentary immunity, retroactive surveillance, and the dissemination of false information following her detention in April.

On April 2, Hassan was taken into police custody after posting on X a quote by Kozo Okamoto, a former member of the now-defunct Japanese Red Army.

The quote read: “As long as there is oppression, resistance will not only be a right, but a duty.”

Hassan said that while in police custody in April, she was subjected to particularly intrusive questioning about her identity, origins and religion, despite those issues having “no connection whatsoever to the alleged facts.”

“This way of proceeding is part of a political climate in which Palestinians, or people perceived as such, are too often regarded as suspects before they are regarded as citizens,” she said.

“This reflex, fuelled by Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism, constructs the dangerous figure of the ‘enemy within’,” she added.

In a press release issued ahead of the trial, Hassan’s team said the quote she shared on X was “referring to a principle that lies at the heart of international law: the right of peoples to resist colonization and the occupation of their territory by a foreign army.”

According to the statement, Hassan later deleted the post to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

The post was reported to the prosecutor’s office by far-right National Rally MP Matthias Renault, the French interior minister, the European Jewish Organisation (OJE), and the League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (Licra).

The prosecution was initiated by the public prosecutor’s office, which operates under the authority of the executive branch.

Hassan said the “judicial harassment” she has faced demonstrates “how far some are willing to go to silence voices that denounce the suffering of the Palestinian people.”

The trial marks the latest legal challenge brought against Hassan over her criticism of Israel’s occupation and its genocide in Gaza. Over the past two years, 16 legal proceedings have been initiated against her, 13 of which have already been dismissed without further action.

July 7, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on French MEP Rima Hassan says terrorism trial aims to silence her pro-Palestine advocacy

Le Pen avoids 2027 race ban but faces house arrest hurdle

Al Mayadeen | July 7, 2026

A Paris appeals court upheld Marine Le Pen’s conviction over the misuse of European Parliament funds, while reducing her electoral ban enough to keep open a possible path to France’s 2027 presidential election.

The ruling confirmed Le Pen’s guilt in a case centered on the diversion of European Parliament money intended for parliamentary assistants. Prosecutors said the funds were instead used to pay staff working for her National Rally party in France between 2004 and 2016. Le Pen has denied wrongdoing.

Although the court maintained the conviction, it shortened her ban from holding elected office. The sentence was reduced to 45 months, with 30 months suspended, leaving an active ban of 15 months. Since the restriction began with the lower court’s March 2025 ruling, it is set to expire before the first round of France’s presidential election, scheduled for April 18, 2027.

That decision means Le Pen is not automatically excluded from the race to succeed President Emmanuel Macron, who cannot seek a third consecutive term. But the same ruling imposed a separate sentence of house arrest, leaving her possible campaign clouded by practical and political obstacles.

House arrest complicates campaign

Le Pen was sentenced to three years in prison, two of them suspended, with the remaining year to be served under house arrest with electronic monitoring. She was also fined €100,000.

The house arrest sentence now stands as the main obstacle to her candidacy. Before the verdict, Le Pen had said she would not run for the presidency if she had to campaign while wearing an ankle monitor, arguing that such restrictions would make it impossible to travel freely, attend rallies, and conduct a proper national campaign.

The appeals ruling therefore leaves Le Pen in a politically complicated position. Legally, her path to the 2027 election remains open. Practically, however, her ability to campaign could be limited by the conditions attached to her sentence.

Party faces strategic decision

Le Pen left the court without speaking to reporters after the verdict. She is expected to clarify her position later on Tuesday.

The decision also places the National Rally before a major strategic choice. If Le Pen decides not to run, party president Jordan Bardella, her 30-year-old protégé, is widely seen as the most likely figure to replace her as the far-right bloc’s presidential candidate.

For now, the ruling has not ended Le Pen’s presidential ambitions. Instead, it has shifted the central question from whether she is legally allowed to run to whether she is willing to campaign for the presidency while under house arrest.

July 7, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Comments Off on Le Pen avoids 2027 race ban but faces house arrest hurdle

France, Italy to form new international force for southern Lebanon

MEMO | July 3, 2026

France’s Foreign Ministry has announced ongoing preparations with Italy to form new international coalition forces to be deployed in southern Lebanon after the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) ends.

Speaking to Saudi broadcaster Al Hadath, the ministry said the multinational force would be deployed in southern Lebanon with US backing and the participation of several European countries.

It said the force would be deployed at the request of the Lebanese authorities to support the Lebanese army in carrying out its duties and to strengthen stability.

The ministry added that consultations with partners are continuing to finalise the force’s deployment mechanism, amid security arrangements linked to the recent framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel.

July 3, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on France, Italy to form new international force for southern Lebanon

Only Iran can demine Hormuz Strait under MoU with US: Deputy FM

Press TV – June 29, 2026

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi has rejected France’s bid to demine the Strait of Hormuz in collaboration with its allies, saying the operation will exclusively be carried out by the Islamic Republic.

Gharibabadi made the remarks on Monday after French President Emmanuel Macron said that his country and Oman had decided to work jointly, in coordination with partners, on demining the Strait of Hormuz to secure maritime routes and ensure free and unconditional passage through the strategic waterway.

“Under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) demining [the strait] will be carried out solely by Iran and not by any other country,” he said.

The deputy foreign minister also noted that Iran will not allow any foreign meddling in the removal of mines from the Strait of Hormuz given the current “sensitive and complex” situation in the critical energy chokepoint.

“We strongly advise France not to make the situation more complicated with its provocations,” he added.

Iran restricted transit through the Strait of Hormuz, responsible for a fifth of global oil demand, in response to the illegal US-Israeli aggression on the country that began on February 28 and came to a halt under a ceasefire on April 8.‌

On July 17, Iran and the US signed the Pakistan-brokered MoU, which calls for a permanent end to hostilities across all fronts and includes a commitment from both sides to hold further talks on a final agreement in the next 60 days.

Under the 14-point deal, Iran is required to ensure toll-free passage for commercial vessels for at least 60 days, with full restoration of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days.

Iran has stressed that the strait will not return to pre-war conditions, emphasizing its legitimate right to sovereignty over the waterway.

June 30, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Only Iran can demine Hormuz Strait under MoU with US: Deputy FM

Finland shreds nuclear weapons ban

RT | June 18, 2026

Finland has lifted a long-standing ban on nuclear weapons, allowing them to be transported through or held on its territory. The Finnish parliament claims the move will “strengthen the security” of the country, but opponents say it makes Finland “a target for nuclear strikes.”

Finland’s parliament voted on Wednesday to amend the country’s Nuclear Energy Act and Criminal Code to allow the import, transit, supply, and storage of nuclear weapons on its soil. The measure passed by 125 votes to 61.

Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen celebrated the result, declaring on social media that “this historic reform strengthens the security of Finland and of NATO as a whole.”

The removal of the ban comes three years after Helsinki renounced its decades-long policy of military neutrality and joined NATO. Finland’s accession into the US-led military bloc cratered its relations with Russia, with which it shares a 1,340 km border.

Earlier this year, Moscow cautioned Helsinki against repealing the nuclear ban, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov telling reporters that it could “lead to an escalation of tensions on the European continent.” He added that “by deploying nuclear weapons on its territory, Finland is beginning to threaten us. And if Finland threatens us, we take appropriate measures.”

Finnish President Alexander Stubb, a Russia hawk whose government has encouraged Kiev’s use of Finnish arms “against military targets also on Russian soil,” insists that he has no plans to permanently host nuclear weapons.

However, Finland is interested in participating in a French scheme that would potentially see French fighter jets armed with nuclear weapons stationed at its airbases, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said earlier this month. France has around 290 nuclear warheads, and President Emmanuel Macron has said he intends to increase that number, and position them at airbases in friendly countries, in a strategy of “advanced nuclear deterrence” against Russia.

In Helsinki, European Parliament candidate Armando Mema described the lifting of the ban as “a big historical mistake for Finland.”

“This is a highly regrettable decision that undermines the security of Finland,” he wrote on X, adding that it “is not going to make Finland safer, [it] is going to make Finland a target for nuclear strikes. Russia’s posture is going to change drastically after this irresponsible decision.”

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Finland shreds nuclear weapons ban

Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)

RT | June 18, 2026

The pro-establishment, Brussels-based publication Politico Europe, owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, has refused to publish an exclusive article written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Lavrov’s article was initially planned for publication in the Brussels-based Politico Europe, but due to a “last-minute decision by the outlet’s editorial team,” the publication was canceled, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

In the article, Russia’s highly experienced top diplomat outlined Moscow’s view of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe’s role in escalating the crisis, and the broader implications for global security. Lavrov accused European leaders of using diplomacy as a cover for NATO and EU expansion, while arguing that the West has sought to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian foothold. He also warned that the EU’s growing militarization, including discussions about nuclear deterrence and “strategic autonomy,” could increase the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Below is the full text of Lavrov’s article, as published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website:

Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security

At a meeting in London on 7 June 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.

Background

More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.

Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.

In 2013, the European Union outright rejected our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling that Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots that swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.

Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”

Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on 2 May 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.

As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.

Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.

Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.

Current situation

So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on 19 May 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”

Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.

The European Union has also given the green light to detaining merchant vessels on the high seas. Several incidents have already taken place in the Baltic and the Atlantic. At the same time, the West studiously averts its gaze from the terrorist acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.

It is widely known that European elites have invested their “political capital” in the confrontation with Russia, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into propping up the Kiev regime and ramping up the military budgets of EU member states and NATO. Europe now aims to achieve “defense readiness” against Russia by 2030. Until then, they mean to buy time by whatever means are available. In a strikingly candid remark this April, Belgium’s chief of staff put it bluntly: “We still have a few years. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying us that time.”

United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.

Risks to global security

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences.

Under the banner of “strategic autonomy,” Europe is witnessing a significant build-up of its military capabilities, including in the nuclear sphere. Paris’s intention to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to several EU and NATO member states is a source of deep concern. This will do nothing to strengthen the security of France itself or of the recipients of its so-called protection.

For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.

Russia’s position

As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.

Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.

That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.

European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.

The principle of equal and indivisible security, trampled upon by the Euro-Atlanticists, can be embodied within a new Eurasian architecture. When the time is ripe, Europe too will be able to join this great effort.

The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on 7 June 2026.

P.S. It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on 11 June 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)

« Previous Entries