US Flaunts On-Orbit Weapon to Supercharge Space Arms Race
Sputnik | September 15, 2026
Reports of a US-deployed “on-orbit” weapon confirm that the West has already turned outer space into an extension of the Ukraine battlefield, air defense historian Yuri Knutov tells Sputnik.
US and French reconnaissance satellites are already feeding battlefield intel to Ukraine’s military, with Finland about to join in, reminds the military expert, and Poland plans to deploy its own reconnaissance satellites.
Other countries are developing “inspector” spacecraft built to maneuver close to other satellites to spy on them.
Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite communications and broadband systems are used in space – and guide Ukraine’s drones.
It is fair to say that “an arms race in space is already underway,” says the pundit, and the US space weapons claim seeks to accelerate this orbital race further.
Trump’s costly Golden Dome project, touted as a global missile defense system, fits into the same aggressive vision, the military expert pointed out.
- the ground-based tier is a system that has already been partially deployed, capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, including artificial Earth satellites in space
- it partly relies on the Aegis system, as well as advanced weapon systems employing new physical principles – electromagnetic guns (that fry spacecraft electronics) and combat lasers (potentially megawatt-class, but so far 300-kilowatt)
- space-based tier to feature satellites armed with space-to-space missiles capable of intercepting ballistic missiles and destroying enemy satellites, alongside space-based lasers
“The Americans appear to have already begun building out the space-based arsenal, judging by the US secretary of the Air Force’s remarks,” adds the expert.
Ukrainian Scam Machine Rakes in $1 Billion per Month Robbing European Citizens — Report
Sputnik – September 8, 2026
Western spy agencies originally cultivated and trained Ukrainian hacker groups “to counter Russia”, but they all quickly spun out of control, mutating into fraud networks, the Aydınlık outlet reports.
As of 2026, an estimated 1,000 call centers operate in Ukraine, employing roughly 60,000 people and targeting citizens of at least 29 countries through a range of schemes—including fake investment pitches, romance-baiting, and impersonation of banks or government agencies.
Various criminal ploys are used, including threats and blackmail, and different schemes are employed for different countries — for example, fake official documents in Germany, bogus cryptocurrencies in France, “safe bank accounts” in Greece and “tax authorities” in Canada and the US.
The network’s total monthly revenue is estimated at roughly $1 billion, with a single call center alone pulling in $8 million from Germany and approximately $1 million from the Baltic states, the outlet adds.
The dangerous European illusion about a war with Russia
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 4, 2026
The Leipzig incident exposed something more troubling than the incident itself: the confidence with which German and European authorities seem to approach the possibility of a direct confrontation with Russia.
While German and European authorities go public, in what looks like a ridiculously rehearsed performance, accusing Russia of “hybrid attacks,” it seems clear to any attentive observer that Europeans are completely disconnected from reality.
The central question lies elsewhere: what would happen if Russia actually decided to attack Germany?
The answer would probably be very different from what Europeans seem to imagine.
First of all, the obvious needs to be repeated: Europe is not Ukraine.
The Special Military Operation in Ukraine is taking place in a specific territory, with its own military dynamics and within certain strategic limits. From the earliest stages of the conflict, Moscow established a clear list of strategic objectives to be achieved through conventional means of warfare, while respecting the civilian population and avoiding unnecessary escalation.
There are clear reasons for this approach in Ukraine. Despite the delusional Banderist attempts to rewrite history, the truth is that Russians and Ukrainians have always been one people, sharing common ethnic, cultural, and religious roots. Millions of Russians have Ukrainian relatives and vice versa. An unrestricted war against Ukraine would consequently affect millions of Russians. Therefore, there is nothing surprising about Russia’s strategy of military restraint.
None of this would happen in Europe.
A direct confrontation between Russia and a NATO member would produce completely different calculations. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and other European countries would not be regarded as fraternal nations occupied by coup juntas. On the contrary, they would be regarded as total enemies, against whom the use of force would face far fewer constraints, if any.
The idea that a potential Russian offensive against Europe would simply consist of more drones, sabotage, and limited attacks against infrastructure seems extremely comforting. And precisely for that reason, it is dangerous. Europeans are provoking Russia while taking the experience of Ukraine as an example of what could happen to them in a potential direct war.
But this calculation is wrong. Russian actions against Europe would be completely different. In Ukraine, Russia’s foremost concern is to spare civilians. Attacks against infrastructure are avoided, offensives are restrained, and even retaliation for Ukrainian provocations on Russian territory is often ignored simply because Russia does not want the violence of a potential escalation to result in the deaths of more Ukrainian civilians.
In Europe, the immediate and total destruction of every enemy target would be the highest priority, regardless of the humanitarian costs. Europeans are not Ukrainians, and the ties between Russia and Western Europe are not the same as the ties Russia has with Ukraine. There would be no comparable pressure within Russian public opinion for restraint in the use of force.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that restraint in the use of force in a war with Europe could actually be dangerous for Russia, since it would be dealing with countries belonging to a collective-defense bloc with nuclear capabilities. Russia would therefore be forced to launch attacks powerful enough to dismantle the offensive capabilities of its adversaries, regardless of the costs. It would be a matter of security.
This does not mean that Russia wants to start a war against Germany. Nor does it mean that every incident on German territory is automatically part of a Russian military campaign. It means that European governments should take much more seriously the consequences of turning every incident on European territory into another step toward escalation. And, of course, it means that Russia has nothing to do with the recent suspicious incidents in Europe – which could be either sabotage carried out by local militants or carefully prepared false-flag operations.
Berlin has already announced diplomatic measures against Moscow, including the closure of the Russian consulate in Bonn and measures against Russian institutions on German territory. The European Union is discussing new sanctions. The more Europe turns incidents of this kind into direct political confrontation, the greater the need to understand where the limits of escalation lie. Russia certainly does not care about diplomatic actions, but Moscow is definitely growing tired of Europe’s participation in Ukrainian terrorism.
Europeans should ask themselves whether they are really prepared to discover, through their own experience, what the Russian response would be in the event of an open war.
They definitely should not try to see these consequences.
Another European country transfers gold out of US
RT | September 3, 2026
The central bank of the Netherlands has become the latest country to move gold holdings out of the United States, announcing on Wednesday that it had transferred 86 tons of bullion to London. The bank described the move as “crisis preparedness” during a time of “increasing geopolitical unrest.”
The transfer was carried out between March and August. The bulk of the gold was moved from New York, with the rest coming from Canada. Only about 27 tons were physically transported across the Atlantic, while the remainder was accomplished through sales in the Americas and repurchases in London. Prior to the transfer, the Dutch central bank (DNB) had held 313 tons in North America.
“With this relocation, we have improved the tradability of our gold reserves,” according to a written statement by DNB Governor Olaf Sleijpen. “We expect that we will never need to use them, but we do need to strengthen our resilience and preparedness.”
The DNB’s move comes after France’s central bank sold its remaining 129 tons of gold held at Federal Reserve vaults in New York between July 2025 and January 2026, leaving it with no bullion in the United States. The proceeds from the sale were used to purchase an equivalent amount of gold in Europe.
In 2017, under the first administration of US President Donald Trump, Germany’s Bundesbank announced that it had completed the transfer to Frankfurt of 300 tons of its gold held in New York. During Trump’s second term, several prominent German economists have called for the removal of the bank’s remaining holdings from the US.
Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez repatriated about 160 tons of its gold reserves from foreign banks, a move that was completed by January 2012. However, some 31 metric tons of Venezuelan gold are still held by the Bank of England. Efforts undertaken by then-President Nicolas Maduro to bring the bullion home were stymied by Great Britain, which did not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of Venezuela’s government.
The DNB praised Bank of England-held gold as being “the world’s most easily tradable gold.” The Dutch central bank reported owning 612.4 metric tons as of the end of 2025, worth about €72 billion (about $84 billion).
The Coalition of Willing wants a continental war
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 28, 2026
The summit of the Coalition of the Willing held in Kiev on August 24, 2026 – the 35th anniversary of Ukrainian independence – made explicit a stance that until then had remained suspended between rhetoric of support and operational caution. Emmanuel Macron announced that between October and November, the coalition will conduct large-scale joint military exercises designed to test the readiness of the so-called “Multinational Force for Ukraine” and the ability to deploy it on land, at sea, and in the air. The announcement is not a symbolic gesture. It is the operational implementation of a strategic choice: to build a permanent Western military presence on Russia’s borders, ready to be activated not only after a possible ceasefire, but potentially during the most acute phase of the conflict.
The line between arming a belligerent and preparing to fight alongside it is the threshold that separates assistance from co-belligerence. In Kiev today, that threshold was approached from multiple directions simultaneously. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham authorized the European consortium MBDA to share with Ukraine the classified designs of the British components of the Storm Shadow long-range cruise missile – the French Scalp – to accelerate its production on Ukrainian soil. This marks the first transfer of classified missile technology from Europe’s largest defense consortium to Kiev – a significant leap forward compared to the licenses previously granted by small drone manufacturers.
The significance of this combination – continental military exercises coupled with the co-production of long-range offensive weapons – must be understood for what it is. British weapons are already striking deep into Russian territory; the missiles produced in Ukraine will serve, by the very admission of those involved, both to defend against and to attack Moscow. The coalition is no longer merely supporting the Ukrainian resistance: it is building its own capacity for direct military projection. When a bloc of states tests the rapid mobilization of its forces and simultaneously transfers the technology to strike at the heart of its adversary, the line separating it from participation in the conflict becomes a matter of timing, not of nature.
The danger lies not in the stated intentions, but in the dynamics that these decisions set in motion. A multinational force trained to operate on the territory of a country at war with a nuclear power creates, by its very existence, a set of scenarios in which an incident becomes a casus belli. A downed coalition aircraft, a training base struck in neighboring territory, a missile intercepted across the border: each of these events, in a context of ongoing exercises close to the line of contact, automatically involves the troops’ home country. The logic of Article 5 and that of retaliation merge, and the war ceases to be Ukrainian and becomes European.
The tradition of classical geopolitics offers the key to understanding this. The confrontation between the continental power of Russia and the maritime-Atlantic bloc is not a temporary anomaly, but a re-enactment of the structural clash between the Heartland and the thalassocratic powers that spanned the twentieth century. Within this framework, any advance of Western forces toward Russia’s perimeter is perceived in Moscow not as deterrence but as encirclement – and triggers the symmetrical reaction that Western strategists claim they wish to prevent. Escalation is not an accidental risk of the Coalition’s plan; it is its predictable consequence. The strategy designed to deter Russia provides Moscow with precisely the justification it needs to expand its war effort, including the mobilization of at least 300,000 men announced after the Duma elections.
An unequal exchange
The most acute contradiction emerges from the timeline itself. On the eve of the summit, Zelensky had unveiled a plan – developed with the United States and Europe and resulting from talks with the Russians – centered on three points: a ceasefire, a free economic zone serving as a buffer between the parties, and the mutual withdrawal of troops from the line of contact.[1] There is, therefore, a negotiating framework on the table that the Ukrainians themselves describe as realistic. On the very same day, however, the European coalition chose to announce large-scale military exercises and the joint production of offensive missiles. These two paths are incompatible: preparing for a multinational intervention while negotiating a truce weakens the negotiations and reinforces the view in Russia that the West seeks not an end to the conflict but Moscow’s strategic defeat.
The distinction between those who promise money and weapons “down to the last hryvnia” and those who are mobilizing troops is not trivial. When deterrence turns into operational preparation, it ceases to dissuade and begins to provoke. It is the classic security dilemma: measures conceived as defensive on one side are interpreted as offensive on the other, triggering a spiral in which every step toward one’s own security reduces that of others and makes war more likely, not less.
Italy’s position takes on significance that goes beyond mere news coverage. Rome has confirmed that it will not participate in the exercises, in line with its repeated “no to Italian soldiers” in Ukraine, while maintaining support limited to hospitals, schools, energy infrastructure, and air defense equipment. Italy’s refusal reveals that the Coalition of the Willing does not reflect a unified European will, but rather the drive of a Franco-British core that is dragging the continent toward a level of involvement that a significant portion of its members does not share. This asymmetry is itself a risk factor: a military operation launched by a few states produces consequences – retaliation, energy crises, hybrid threats – that affect everyone, including those who have chosen to stay out of it.
We must not be fooled: Italy did not participate in the meeting due to a scheduling conflict with its institutional calendar; support for Kiev has been confirmed, reaffirmed, and trumpeted far and wide as a “political success” of the Meloni government. Italy is not backing down; on the contrary, it is playing a leading role in this great European folly.
The decision by the “Willings” to proceed “at all costs” toward a posture of direct confrontation must therefore be judged by what it risks producing rather than by what it claims to pursue. It is highly likely that the combination of ongoing military exercises, multinational troops on the ground, and the joint production of offensive weapons will increase the frequency of incidents likely to escalate, and that it will narrow the newly opened space for negotiation. Put another way, they are doing everything in their power to ensure that the conflict does not remain confined within Ukraine’s borders. At a time when there is a peace plan to be pursued, the rush toward large-scale military maneuvers appears to be the most dangerous of the available options: one that, in an effort to demonstrate resolve, brings Europe closer to the very war it claims to want to avoid.
It is a constant evocation of blood, a litany of death that is being softly chanted throughout Europe and that, sooner or later, will claim its human sacrifice.
NATO wages hybrid war on Russia as Europe prepares for wider conflict
By Ahmed Adel | August 24, 2026
The war in Ukraine has long ceased to be a bilateral conflict between Moscow and Kiev. What began as a military operation has evolved into a sustained hybrid NATO campaign against Russia, with Ukraine receiving military assistance and intelligence sharing, European states rearming, and the anti-Russia sanctions regime continually expanding. The cumulative effect is an attempt to degrade Russia’s strategic capacity while avoiding the formal declaration of direct war.
According to Bild, military planning documents are circulating within NATO. The documents, developed by United States Army Major Andrew Pingray, lay out that the objectives in a war with Russia would be to halt an offensive and significantly weaken the Russian military’s potential. The German newspaper reports that NATO has developed a multi-phase concept for a potential large-scale conflict with Russia, often referred to as the NATO Land Warfighting Concept.
“NATO is preparing with a new concept of land warfare for a possible Russian attack in the Baltic region,” the publication says.
Bild reported that in the opening phase, combat aircraft, long-range missiles, and unmanned systems would play a central role. Along the frontiers of the Baltic states with Russia and Belarus, planners envision autonomous zones where the permanent stationing of Alliance ground forces would be minimized. From these zones, strikes could be directed against targets on Russian territory, including airfields, industrial facilities, bridges, and rail nodes. Later phases involve more restrictions on logistics and deploying unmanned systems deeper into Russian territory.
The circulating documents also state that NATO’s top priority should be suppressing the missile threat. To this end, the Alliance plans to use aircraft, missiles, and drones to destroy Russian missile systems. One of the plan’s key areas of focus is the Kaliningrad exclave of Russia, where Russian missile and air defense systems are deployed.
According to Bild, the NATO plan also includes the possibility of cooperation with Russians opposed to President Vladimir Putin. Separately, the creation of an “air bridge” for the delivery of drones and robotic systems to Russian territory, which could be used against military targets, is being considered.
Although it is unclear whether this document is a fully authorized operational plan or one of many contingency studies, its existence and partial disclosure indicate that European military planners are seriously exploring scenarios for direct conflict with Russia.
The political context for these preparations has shifted markedly. Under the previous administration, American involvement in the Ukrainian theater was more overt and expansive. The current Trump administration’s position reflects greater reluctance to commit combat forces or to underwrite indefinite European escalation.
American intelligence support, satellite reconnaissance, and the continued sale of advanced weapon systems to Ukraine have not stopped, but the heavier financial and manpower burden is being shifted to NATO’s European members. European Union countries have responded by expanding their procurement programs, particularly in air and missile defense, artillery munitions, and longer-range strike capabilities. These purchases are presented as investments that strengthen collective defense and revitalize domestic industry, thereby providing political cover for rising defense budgets amid Europe’s economic woes.
Germany has moved from limited, non-lethal aid and uniforms to a more assertive military posture, especially after the change of leadership in Berlin. The current German government has accelerated spending commitments and public rhetoric that frames Russia as an enduring threat to the EU. British and French strategic preferences continue to shape the overall direction, with the two traditional powerhouses of Western Europe encouraging Germany to assume greater responsibility as a continental military power while seeking to limit their own direct exposure.
The Black Sea, particularly the ports of Odessa and Nikolaev and the Danube delta, has taken on heightened strategic importance. Disruption of these ports affects the flow of Western military supplies into Ukraine. Russian strikes on port infrastructure are therefore attempts to sever supply lines that have been reoriented from commercial grain exports to military cargo. The substitution of Western weapons shipments for agricultural traffic along the Danube highlights the militarization of civilian infrastructure.
At the same time, a formal ceasefire that leaves the underlying security architecture unresolved would, from the Russian perspective, create new vulnerabilities rather than lasting stability, especially if Ukraine remains integrated into Western military, intelligence, and political structures and does not revert to neutrality. This is particularly important because European states are already expanding industrial capacity, stockpiling munitions, and refining doctrines for high-intensity conflict.
The ongoing hybrid campaign—integrating support, economic measures, information warfare, and societal militarization—allows the West to exert constant pressure without direct attribution to combat. If this hybrid strategy continues without a political solution that addresses Russia’s core security concerns, NATO’s planning is likely to become increasingly aggressive. Europe’s accelerated rearmament and the emerging detailed plans within NATO dispel any resistance to the idea that the conflict has now expanded beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Japan rejects Ukraine’s missile plea
RT | August 24, 2026
Japan does not plan to supply Ukraine with weapons, Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara has said. At a press briefing on Monday, he told reporters that Tokyo “is not considering any deliveries” of defensive or offensive weapons “at this time.”
Kihara was responding to Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergey Koretsky, who asked Japan on Sunday for anti-ballistic missiles, in an interview with Kyodo News.
“I would like to kindly ask one and only thing… anti-ballistic missiles,” he was cited as saying. “It’s the most important thing we need… I very much hope and count on your country.”
Koretsky took office in July and was reportedly close to disgraced businessman Timur Mindich, a close associate of Vladimir Zelensky who fled to Israel amid a corruption scandal.
“At this time, the government does not consider transferring weapons under the Self-Defense Forces Law to Ukraine,” Kihara said, referring to an overhaul in April of Japan’s defense-export policy that lifted restrictions limiting transfers to non-lethal categories and opened the door to lethal weapons exports.
He noted that Tokyo has already provided Kiev with non-lethal equipment and pledged around $20 billion in recovery, reconstruction, and humanitarian aid, signaling that it intends to keep its assistance within these bounds.
Japan’s stance on the Ukraine conflict has been marked by contradiction. Tokyo has publicly sided with Kiev, condemning Russia’s military operation and taking part in the Western sanctions. However, it has stopped short of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine, and unlike some Western nations, has retained stakes in key Russian energy projects, citing their importance to domestic energy security.
Over the past few months, Ukraine has increasingly sought new military hardware from its Western backers to counter severe battlefield shortages amid the steady advance of Russian forces. Last month, Russia announced the capture of the key Ukrainian stronghold of Konstantinovka in northwestern Donbass before launching an offensive toward the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, the last two major cities in the region still under Ukrainian control. Over the past week, Russia has liberated six settlements in Donbass.
Kiev has intensified long-range drone attacks deep inside Russia, increasingly striking energy and civilian infrastructure and prompting Moscow to denounce the raids as terrorist attacks against civilians. Last month, Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik told RT that Ukraine is trying to mask its battlefield setbacks by attacking Russian civilians and presenting the strikes as “some kind of achievement.”
Russia has long accused Western weapons suppliers of enabling Ukraine’s deep-strike campaign. A Sunday Times report last week claimed that Ukraine has used British-made drones for long-range attacks inside Russia over the past six months. Moscow maintains that this aid makes Kiev’s foreign backers direct participants in the hostilities and only serves to prolong the conflict. Earlier this month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that Russia will adopt “much harsher methods to destroy everything that enables the West to fuel Kiev’s war machine.”
The ‘coalition of the willing’, a group of Western states pushing for continued aid to Ukraine which includes the UK, France, and Germany, will convene in Kiev on Monday to discuss future weapons deliveries. Kiev is expected to seek additional interceptor missiles. The UK is set to announce that it will provide Ukraine with classified technical information needed to assemble long-range cruise missiles domestically.
Senior Iranian MP warns France over ‘constant betrayals’ after Tehran expels diplomats
Press TV – August 19, 2026
Senior Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi has condemned France’s “constant betrayals” against the Islamic Republic, warning that Paris’s continued anti-Iranian measures will only further complicate its ties with Tehran.
“The Iranian people will never forget France’s constant betrayals over issues such as contaminated blood, INSTEX and snapback,” Azizi, chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, wrote on X on Wednesday.
“Continuing this course and anti-Iranian actions will only make conditions more difficult for it,” he added.
Azizi’s reference to the INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) and snapback comes against the backdrop of longstanding disagreements between Iran and the E3 — France, Germany and the UK- over Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The three countries shut down the INSTEX mechanism in 2023. Established in 2019, the INSTEX was designed to facilitate trade between European companies and Iran, bypassing the US sanctions.
The E3 also moved to trigger the UN Security Council’s “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal last year, despite Tehran’s commitment to diplomacy and transparency regarding its nuclear program.
Azizi’s remarks came after Iran’s Foreign Ministry declared two French diplomats working at the French Embassy in Tehran persona non grata over activities that violated international law and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
In a statement on Tuesday, the ministry said the two French officials had engaged in activities contrary to international law, particularly provisions of the Vienna Convention.
The ministry said that, despite several weeks having passed since the misconduct was uncovered, France had taken no steps to address the diplomats’ actions or provide assurances against similar incidents, prompting Tehran to bar the two from entering the country.
The move follows a diplomatic dispute between Tehran and Paris that escalated in July, when the diplomats were briefly detained in Tehran after Iranian forces discovered them at a secret meeting site while carrying out a judicial order to arrest two suspects in a major case involving foreign infiltration and interference.
Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence said the two diplomats had “extensive records of violations and conduct contrary to domestic laws and diplomatic obligations.”
Azizi also referred to the issue of HIV-contaminated blood products supplied by France in the 1980s, another longstanding grievance in Tehran’s relations with Paris.
In 1985, French pharmaceutical company Institut Mérieux supplied blood-clotting products contaminated with HIV to several countries, including Iran. The products were administered to hemophilia and thalassemia patients, many of whom contracted the virus and later died.
Iran recorded its first HIV infections among patients who had received the contaminated French blood products.
Putin warns West over ship seizures
RT | August 12, 2026
Russia could seize ships carrying Western cargo in retaliation for similar actions against Russian maritime trade, President Vladimir Putin has warned.
There have been several incidents in recent months in which Western militaries have seized vessels that their governments accused of being part of a so-called Russian ‘shadow fleet’. Putin warned on Wednesday during a meeting with Pacific Fleet commanders that Moscow could take retaliatory measures wherever it deemed necessary.
“Some nations are violating the Law of the Sea by trying to restrict the movement of our civilian traders. They recently came up with the idea of seizing our ships and selling off our plundered property. This is certainly nothing short of piracy and robbery,” Putin said.
“If such a policy is implemented in practice, we will be forced to take mirror responses. And not necessarily in the waters where our ships are being raided. We’ll do it wherever and anywhere we see fit,” he added.
Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Viktor Liina reported in response that the Russian military has detailed information about Western commercial traffic.
“From April 24 to August 6 of 2026, 1,001 ships passed through the Russian exclusive economic zone, including 379 with flags of unfriendly nations,” he said. “That includes 273 general cargo ships and 71 tanks, including 26 under the British flag and nine under the French flag.”
The UK and France have carried out several interdictions of supposed Russian ‘shadow fleet’ vessels. In June, The Telegraph reported that British authorities were considering selling around 100,000 tons of Russian crude seized from a sanctioned tanker and using the proceeds to benefit Ukraine.
The term ‘shadow fleet’ is used by Western governments to describe vessels they accuse of helping Russia circumvent sanctions, particularly the price cap imposed on Russian oil. Moscow rejects the designation, saying it has no basis in international law and violates Russia’s right to conduct maritime trade.
Western governments have targeted hundreds of vessels with unilateral sanctions and have increasingly resorted to physically intercepting and detaining some of them.
Kiev has also broadened its use of the “shadow fleet” label, applying it to various Russian commercial vessels targeted in Ukrainian drone strikes, including tankers and cargo ships.
Notable ‘shadow fleet’ detentions
At least a dozen vessels have been detained by Western nations since last year as part of their campaign targeting Russian trade. The list of incidents includes:
- In March 2025, Germany seized the tanker Eventin carrying some 100,000 tons of crude. German courts later blocked the government’s attempts to sell the Panama-flagged ship.
- In April 2025, Estonia detained oil tanker the Kiwala, claiming it had no valid flag. Weeks later the ship was released.
- An oil tanker going by the names the Pushpa, Kiwala, Boracay, and others was targeted by France in September 2025, but resumed its voyage towards the Suez Canal the next month. Western media claimed it was linked to the mass hysteria over “mystery drone sightings” in Europe.
- In March 2026, French-backed Belgian forces boarded the oil tanker Ethera. It reportedly remains impounded under a €10 million ($11.6 million) bail.
- Sweden seized the cargo ship Caffa in March 2026 for allegedly carrying “stolen Ukrainian grain.” Earlier this month the country’s top court agreed to the government’s request to transfer the ship to Ukraine.
- British forces for the first time directly seized a ‘shadow fleet’ ship in June, 2026, when they targeted the oil tanker Smyrtos. Previously, the UK only provided assistance to France for such operations. The ship’s Indian master, Ajay Pant, remains in British custody pending a criminal trial for violating the UK’s anti-Russian measures.
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.
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Books
The Magnesium Handbook + The Boron Book
Two new paperbacks, in print today
Lies are Unbekoming | September 13, 2026
Two minerals your body has been receiving from food and water for as long as there has been food and water. Two minerals your body no longer gets in the amounts it needs. Two minerals modern medicine does not measure, does not restore, and does not talk about.
Magnesium and boron. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- The Andean Shadow Army
- Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov
- US Flaunts On-Orbit Weapon to Supercharge Space Arms Race
- Russia’s SVR: NATO Found No Russian Link to Leipzig Airport Incident
- US Space Weapon Claims Risk Igniting Orbital Arms Race – Expert
- If Americans Knew
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- 37 Palestinian journalists held in Israeli jails, rights group says
- Israel’s Hilltop Youth Recruits Minors to Terrorize Palestinians (with video)
- 100 Colonial Plans Advance in West Bank Since Start of 2026
- New Maps Show How Israel Has Thwarted Hopes for a Palestinian State
- Israel trying to ‘eliminate’ living conditions for Palestinians in West Bank
- Matt Gaetz’s Brilliant Exposé on Israel Partisans’ Claims of “Antisemitism”
- MAGA Didn’t Vote For War With Iran
- Truths in NAZA film expose delusions in Israeli society – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
Aletho News 