The Arctic island is not a hotspot, Apostolos Tzitzikostas has said
There is no evidence that “foreign adversaries” are targeting Greenland or that the island requires rapid investments to deploy troops there, the EU’s transport commissioner has said.
European NATO members pushed back this month against renewed remarks by US President Donald Trump about acquiring Greenland.
Trump has argued that Denmark is too weak to defend the island from a Russian or Chinese attack – which Copenhagen has dismissed as implausible. The US president did not initially rule out the use of force.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte later sought to defuse the dispute, stressing that Arctic security concerns should be addressed through NATO’s collective defense arrangements rather than a change in Greenland’s status.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Washington is “well aware” that neither Russia nor China has plans regarding the island. Beijing dismissed the claims as a pretext for expanding the US presence in the Arctic.
”Today, we don’t have intelligence showing us that the island of Greenland is targeted for invasion by foreign third powers,” Apostolos Tzitzikostas said in an interview with Euractiv, adding that he does not consider the Arctic to be a hotspot at this point.
Tzitzikostas also pushed back against claims that Chinese investments in European infrastructure pose a security risk, arguing that foreign participation in these projects is commonplace across the bloc and does not, on its own, amount to a threat.
Chinese companies have explored mining investments on the island, though several projects have been blocked or curtailed by the Danish authorities. Moscow has dismissed claims that it has any interest in Greenland.
Recent Western assessments have also played down claims of an imminent threat to Greenland. A Reuters analysis published this month said that while Russia has expanded its presence elsewhere in the Arctic and China has pursued economic interests in the region, there is no indication that either country is targeting Greenland.
The European Commission has floated an Arctic security package, with President Ursula von der Leyen suggesting new spending to strengthen the EU’s presence in the region, including the purchase of an icebreaker.
Rallies over fatal shootings led to street confrontations in Los Angeles
A coordinated ‘National Shutdown’ protest against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) erupted on Friday, with massive crowds filling the streets of Minneapolis, and culminating in intense confrontations in downtown Los Angeles.
Organizers called on Americans to abstain from work, school, and shopping in a mass strike aimed at halting what they call “ICE terror” and pressuring the federal government to end the immigration raids.
The protests were fueled by growing outrage over the fatal shootings of two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – by federal agents during recent enforcement operations in Minneapolis.
🚨 BREAKING: Absolute MAYHEM breaking out at the federal facility in Los Angeles, as rioters descend on the building
In Los Angeles, what began as a peaceful rally devolved into one of the day’s most serious clashes. Thousands of demonstrators marched through the downtown streets, many carrying signs reading “ICE Out of Everywhere” and chanting against federal immigration raids.
Rioters have overtaken an ICE facility in LA.
Complete chaos and police are doing nothing to stop it.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass are allowing this.
Police and federal agents responded with crowd control tactics – including tear gas, flash-bang devices, and baton charges – after demonstrators attempted to breach police lines and confront officers outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building.
🚨 BREAKING: LAPD has begun firing crowd control munitions into the mob of rioters outside ICE Los Angeles
They’re still REFUSING to leave, as they’re not used to pushback from city cops
Videos shared on social media show chaotic moments of police pushing back against advancing crowds, protesters throwing objects, and arrests as tensions spiked.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, large crowds joined the nationwide demonstrations, while dozens of businesses, from independent bookstores to restaurants, shut their doors in solidarity.
TODAY: Over 100,000 people in San Francisco took the streets against ICE today as part of the nationwide shutdown, flooding Mission Dolores Park in the Mission District, a historic Latino neighborhood.
In Minneapolis, aerial views show vast throngs of people flooding the core of downtown, where demonstrators gathered outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building – a flashpoint location since the controversial enforcement operations began. Thousands marched through packed streets despite frigid temperatures.
Crowds stretched across multiple blocks, with families, teachers, students, and immigrant rights advocates chanting and waving banners denouncing ICE’s presence in the city. Many carried signs demanding accountability for the deaths of Good and Pretti, both fatally shot by federal immigration agents in separate incidents this month.
Protests were not limited to Los Angeles and Minneapolis, with demonstrations, walkouts, and rallies taking place in dozens of cities including New York, Chicago, and San Diego.
Businesses, particularly small local businesses, took part in the strike by closing or altering operations, while teachers and students across the country abandoned their classrooms to join the movement. Organizers vowed that the National Shutdown would continue through the weekend with more marches, strikes, and solidarity actions.
The protests escalated as, earlier this week, top US House Democrats threatened to launch impeachment proceedings against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem unless she is fired by President Donald Trump.
Trump defended Noem in a post on Truth Social on Friday night, claiming that “Radical Left Lunatics, Insurrectionists, Agitators, and Thugs, are going after Kristi Noem… because she is a woman, and has done a really GREAT JOB!”
The US Central Command is worried about Iranian naval drills, despite staging its own war “readiness exercises”
The US military has issued a formal warning to Iran over its planned live-fire naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, while simultaneously conducting major “readiness exercises” of its own across the Middle East.
In a statement released on Friday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) urged Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy to conduct its two-day drill beginning Sunday “in a manner that is safe, professional and avoids unnecessary risk.”
“We will not tolerate unsafe IRGC actions including overflight of US military vessels engaged in flight operations, low-altitude or armed overflight of US military assets when intentions are unclear, highspeed boat approaches on a collision course with US military vessels, or weapons trained at US forces,” the command stated.
The warning comes as the US itself is executing large-scale, multi-day military drills across the region. US Air Forces Central (AFCENT) announced the exercises this week, designed to practice the rapid deployment and sustainment of combat aircraft to various “contingency locations.”
The air drills complement the naval buildup that US President Donald Trump has publicly championed. “There’s another beautiful armada floating beautifully towards Iran right now,” Trump said earlier this week, referencing a carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to Iran right now, and it would be great if we didn’t have to use them,” Trump told reporters on Thursday, adding that he prefers to resolve the tensions diplomatically. He reiterated two core demands: “Number one, no nuclear. And number two, stop killing protesters.”
Iranian state media announced the exercises following Trump’s social media post warning that the “next attack will be far worse” than previous strikes, urging Iran to “MAKE A DEAL.”
Iran responded to the threats with defiance. Its UN mission posted a warning on social media stating that it stands “ready for dialogue,” but if pushed, it will “defend itself and respond like never before.”
A deputy foreign minister said the country is “200 percent ready” and would deliver an “appropriate response, not a proportionate one,” potentially targeting US bases.
The Strait of Hormuz, where Iran plans to conduct exercises, is a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments, with around 100 merchant vessels transiting daily. CENTCOM’s statement acknowledged Iran’s right to “operate professionally” in international airspace and waters.
The cache includes more than 3 million pages, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos related to the late sex offender
The US Justice Department has published the final massive trove of documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a release mandated by Congress that reveals new details about the financier’s associations but contains no criminal allegations against the prominent individuals named.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on Friday the release of over 3 million pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images, though he noted “extensive” redactions to protect victim identities and ongoing investigations.
The cache of records, which comes over a month past a congressional deadline, concludes the Trump administration’s obligation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
High-profile names surface
The new documents, drawn from FBI investigations and Epstein’s own records, include emails that show Tesla CEO Elon Musk discussing plans to visit Epstein’s private island. In late 2013, Musk emailed Epstein saying he would be in St. Barts and asked about “a good time to visit,” with Epstein offering to send his helicopter. The visit did not materialize, and Musk has publicly stated that he never traveled to the island.
In a separate 2013 email, Epstein sent himself a document formatted as a resignation letter from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, making the sensational and unverified claim that Gates had sought help getting drugs “in order to deal with consequences of sex with Russian girls.” A spokesperson for Gates dismissed the claims as “absolutely absurd and completely false.”
The files also indicate continued contact between Epstein and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick through 2018, contrary to Lutnick’s prior claims that he cut ties in 2005. Flight manifests and schedules also name Prince Andrew, as well as other figures such as tech mogul Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon, a former adviser to US President Donald Trump.
Uncorroborated tips against Trump
A portion of the cache includes summaries of tips sent to the FBI’s public tip line, containing uncorroborated allegations of wrongdoing by Trump in connection with Epstein. The Justice Department prefaced the release with a statement that some documents “contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump,” which it labeled “unfounded and false.”
Blanche stressed that a review of Epstein’s personal emails revealed no suggestion from Epstein that Trump “had done anything criminal or had any inappropriate contact with any of his victims.” The emails instead show Epstein frequently disparaging Trump, calling him “stupid” and questioning his mental fitness.
DOJ dismisses cover-up claims
At a press conference, Blanche defended the delayed release, citing the monumental task of reviewing millions of pages. He forcefully denied allegations of a cover-up.
“There’s not some tranche of super-secret documents that we’re withholding,” he stated, adding that the White House had “no oversight” over the review process.
The release also includes new materials related to Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence, including her mugshot and naturalization certificate listing her occupation as Epstein’s “manager.”
This follows a recent court filing by Maxwell claiming 29 of Epstein’s alleged accomplices avoided prosecution, mostly through secret settlements – a claim Blanche said he was unaware of.
The final document release has failed to settle the intense speculation surrounding Epstein’s network, with lawmakers and the public sifting through the heavily redacted files for new clues about the scope of his crimes and the powerful circles in which he moved.
Unpaid dues and reduced funding could halt the world body’s core operations by mid-2026, Antonio Guterres has warned
The United Nations is at risk of running out of cash as unpaid dues and funding shortfalls by member states threaten to disrupt key operations, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned.
Guterres issued the warning in a letter to all 193 member states this week, as cited by multiple media outlets. He urged either honoring the mandatory payments or overhauling the organization’s financial rules to avoid an “imminent financial collapse.” The secretary-general said the UN faced a financial crisis that was “deepening, threatening program delivery,” with cash potentially running out by July.
The letter described a “double blow” created by a rule that forces the UN to return unspent funds on particular programs to member states, even when contributions were never paid, trapping the organization in what Guterres called a “Kafkaesque cycle.”
Outstanding dues reached a record $1.568 billion at the end of 2025, with collections covering only 76.7% of assessed contributions, leaving the organization dangerously exposed. Unless collections “drastically improve,” the UN will not be able to fully implement its 2026 budget, Guterres said.
The warnings come as US, the world body’s largest contributor, cut voluntary funding to multiple UN programs and slashed aid spending in 2025. President Donald Trump said the move was intended to “end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities.” Last week, the US officially withdrew from the UN’s World Health Organization.
In late December, the US pledged $2 billion for UN humanitarian programs, warning the international organization must “adapt or die.” UN statistics show that total US humanitarian contributions fell to $3.38 billion last year, about 14.8% of the global sum, down sharply from $14.1 billion in 2024 and a peak of $17.2 billion in 2022. Other leading Western donors, including Germany and the UK, also reduced assistance as they shifted resources to military spending, creating a severe funding crunch.
Twenty-five men reached “secret settlements” with accusers, while four others were never charged, the late sex offender’s partner has claimed
Twenty-nine alleged accomplices and co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein have avoided prosecution, most of them through “secret settlements,” the disgraced financier and sex offender’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, has claimed in court documents.
Several media outlets on Thursday reported on Maxwell’s filing dated December 2025. On Friday, the US Department of Justice announced the release of a new batch of the so-called Epstein files.
Epstein was found dead in 2019 in his cell at a Manhattan correctional facility while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison term over her role in the infamous sex-trafficking ring.
In the court papers cited by the media, Maxwell petitioned the court to overturn her conviction, citing what she described as “new evidence of the collusion between the plaintiff’s lawyers and the government to conceal evidence and the prosecutorial misconduct.”
Epstein’s former partner claimed that “new evidence reveals that there were 25 men with which the plaintiff lawyers reached secret settlements.”
According to the filing, another four of Epstein’s co-conspirators never faced charges.
It is not clear from Maxwell’s motion whether she contends that the individuals in question had also sealed similar deals with federal authorities.
Asked by a reporter about Maxwell’s allegations, Deputy Attorney General Blanche said on Friday that “to the extent that such arrangements exist, I’m not aware of them.”
Disclosures from the so-called Epstein files indicated that he had associated with many high-profile politicians and business people, including ex-US President Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, US President Donald Trump, and ex-US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to release the ‘Epstein files,’ but as president he has bristled at the issue, dismissing calls to make the documents public as a politically motivated “hoax.”
Late last year, amid sustained public pressure, Trump mandated the Department of Justice to release the first batch of heavily redacted Epstein-related documents.
The United States has now published two of the three pillars of its main strategic doctrine: the National Security Strategy at the end of 2025 and, in January, the National Defense Strategy. Only the Nuclear Posture Review remains. Many observers described US President Donald Trump’s security strategy as revolutionary. In Russia, it drew cautious and in some cases even approving reactions. The defense strategy develops many of the same ideas, although it softens the language on certain issues, including Russia. What stands out in both texts is their blunt, almost cynical tone. The usual moral packaging has largely disappeared. That clarity, uncomfortable as it may be, is useful.
The new Pentagon strategy openly breaks with the philosophy that guided US policy for decades. The language of a “rules-based world order” and the missionary liberalism of “nation-building” through regime change are effectively discarded. These doctrines, associated with Trump’s political opponents, are treated as failures that led to endless, exhausting wars such as Afghanistan. In this sense, Washington is not repenting, but drawing a pragmatic conclusion: attempts to remake other societies in America’s image have proven too costly and too unreliable.
This rejection leads to a more fundamental shift. The US implicitly acknowledges that it can no longer exercise universal control in a multipolar world. Resources must be concentrated. Commitments must be prioritized. Allies are no longer to be indulged as dependents. They are expected to pay more, do more, and demand less political autonomy in return. In effect, Washington is rationalizing its empire.
At the same time, the strategy is anything but pacifist. Its underlying philosophy is the preservation of American military superiority. Peace, in this view, is possible only “from a position of strength.” The text largely avoids ideological terms such as “democracy” or “the West,” replacing them with the language of power, interests and coercion. The US is not retreating into isolationism. Its interventionism is simply evolving. Large-scale occupations and long stabilization missions are out; short, technologically intensive strikes are in. Economic strangulation and sanctions remain legitimate tools. Not to mention selective force. “Regime change” may be rhetorically abandoned, but the forcible weakening or overthrow of unfriendly governments is still practiced.
Trump’s America accepts the existence of other power centers, including China and Russia. But this is not recognition of equality. It is a demand that these powers accept US superiority and behave “responsibly.” That is, within limits defined in Washington. This is Trump’s version of multipolarity: coexistence, but on American terms.
The strategy places homeland defense and control of the Western Hemisphere above all else. The security of the American continent is treated as inseparable from US national survival. Trump’s updated interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine envisions the restoration of near-absolute US military dominance in the Americas. The presence of non-regional powers, above all China, is to be restricted. Strategic assets such as the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico, and Greenland are treated as critical nodes. US pressure on Denmark and the European Union to secure strategic control over Greenland, linked to missile defense and Arctic positioning, fits this logic.
The second priority is the Indo-Pacific and the containment of China. Washington seeks to prevent Beijing from achieving dominance in the region, especially through control over Taiwan and access to the so-called first island chain. The US speaks of avoiding direct confrontation but insists that negotiations with China can occur only from a position of overwhelming strength. Military build-up, allied rearmament, and “intimidation” are presented as the main tools of deterrence.
The third priority is the restructuring of relations with allies. Western Europe, seen as declining in relative importance, is expected to carry a far heavier share of defense costs, potentially up to 5% of GDP. In return, allies do not gain strategic autonomy; they are expected to follow US policy, especially toward China, and to purchase American weapons. NATO remains, but its exclusive role in US strategy is diluted. Washington wants a more transactional alliance system.
Russia still appears in the strategy, but its role is downgraded compared to earlier eras. It is no longer portrayed as a direct, immediate threat to the US itself. Rather, it is described as a “persistent” challenge, primarily for NATO’s eastern members. The implication is that European allies should deal with Russia largely at their own expense, with the US in a supporting role. Washington’s main adversary is clearly the People’s Republic of China.
The strategy barely addresses strategic stability with Russia. With the New START Treaty expiring, the future of arms control is uncertain. The US appears to prefer freedom of action in developing its strategic arsenal. This is a significant signal. The architecture that underpinned nuclear stability for decades is eroding.
For Russia, several conclusions follow. First, the US under Trump will remain a geopolitical adversary for the foreseeable future, regardless of any tactical agreements, including on Ukraine. Hopes for a grand bargain or a “new Yalta” are unrealistic. Cooperation may be possible on specific issues, but rivalry will remain the structural norm.
Second, American decline should not be exaggerated. The US retains enormous military, technological, and financial power. Trump’s strategy is an attempt to halt and reverse relative decline by consolidating control over its core sphere and concentrating resources against its main competitor, China. Whether this attempt succeeds is another question. Domestic resistance and political polarization could undermine continuity. Meanwhile, future electoral shifts will also come into play.
Third, nuclear deterrence remains the foundation of Russian security policy. If arms control regimes weaken, the credibility and survivability of Russia’s deterrent must be strengthened. At the same time, Russia’s security depends not only on external balances but also on internal stability and cohesion. Periods of political transition create vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit.
US “distancing” from Europe does not reduce confrontation on the continent. Western Europe today is more hostile toward Russia than at any time in recent decades. Moscow must maintain a strategy of military and geopolitical deterrence toward NATO’s European members, including nuclear deterrence. Integration with Belarus in the security sphere becomes even more important.
In the Arctic, American ambitions could clash directly with Russian interests. Moscow will need to reinforce its northern defense infrastructure and protect the Northern Sea Route. Globally, military-technical partnership with China becomes increasingly central to Russia’s strategic position in Eurasia. In the Middle East, coordination with Beijing to support Iran’s capabilities contributes to a counterbalance against US pressure. Political and economic support for states like Cuba also fits this logic.
The overarching picture is clear. The new US defense strategy is not about withdrawal, but about consolidation and reprioritization. It outlines a more selective, more openly force-based version of American hegemony. For Russia, this means a prolonged period of structured rivalry and limited pragmatic cooperation. It also will translate to a continued reliance on deterrence. Resilience at home and deeper partnerships outside the Western bloc will be essential in responding to this new phase of American strategy.
This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
The bloc isn’t using the “full potential” of its crisis fund, its director told Reuters
The head of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) has said that cash-strapped Eurozone countries can tap into its €500 billion worth of reserves to increase military spending. The EU has already borrowed tens of billions of euros to boost its defense budgets and arm Ukraine.
Speaking to Reuters on Friday, ESM Director Pierre Gramegna said that the fund – which was originally intended to bail out debt-ridden economies during the financial crisis – could be used to let countries increase their defense spending on credit.
“In these times of geopolitical turmoil, which have triggered higher expenditure, defense costs for all countries, we must use the full potential of the ESM,” Gramegna told the agency.
“We have instruments,” he added. “It is in the best interests of Europe … to use the full potential.”
The ESM was a lender of last resort during the financial crisis, and its loans came with demands of stringent economic reforms. Countries such as Portugal, Ireland, and Greece that took ESM bailouts were forced to restructure their banking sectors and pass austerity budgets in return.
Countries using the ESM for defense purposes will not face these demands, Gramegna said. The fund will only be available to countries that use the euro, and any use of the fund for defense will require approval from all 21 of these countries, including militarily neutral Austria, Cyprus, Malta, and Ireland.
NATO’s European member states have scrambled to increase their military spending to meet the 5% of GDP demanded by US President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, the EU has struggled to revive Europe’s native defense industry, while also finding purchases of US weapons for use by Ukraine increasingly unaffordable.
One of the primary mechanisms for achieving all three of these goals is the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument. Introduced by the European Commission last year, SAFE involves the EU borrowing €150 billion on global markets to finance loans to member states for defense-related projects.
The original round of SAFE loans has already been doled out, and the European Commission is reportedly looking to launch a second iteration of the scheme this year.
Calls to strip a former Austrian foreign minister of her citizenship set an abysmally low bar for rule of law
Every time I hear about some new attempt by EU officials to sanction or otherwise institutionally punish their own people for saying things about Russia or Ukraine that they don’t like, I’m reminded how many legal rules and principles I learned in law school that they now treat as if they were printed on a roll of Charmin.
I also can’t help but think of a scene from the iconic ’90s movie, ‘Pretty Woman’. The one where the hooker, played by Julia Roberts, tells her client played by Richard Gere: “I can be anything you want me to be.”
But then it emerges that she actually has a whole lot of rules – from no kissing on the mouth to no drugs or emotional intimacy or disrespect.
Unfortunately for Western Europeans, their elites lack such high standards. The EU establishment brags about being defenders of democracy. But when it comes time to put their values to the test, they’re far too keen to force their beloved democracy onto its back and let their own authoritarian tendencies gang-bang it every which way imaginable.
In the latest example, Austrian lawmakers are reportedly seeking to strip one of their own – former Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl – of her citizenship, citing her Russian media appearances and role as director of a Russian think tank affiliated with St. Petersburg State University.
The head of the New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS) faction accused Kneissl in parliament of “symbolically spreading only one message: Austria is the antechamber to Hell, Putin’s Russia is the Garden of Eden.”
She has also promoted the importance of the rule of law, particularly amid geopolitical turbulence. “Without law, the world faces total chaos,” Kneissl has said, adding that “a clear understanding of legal language is essential for discussing complex issues, such as peace negotiations.” Sounds like perhaps her Austrian lawmaker critics swinging wildly in an attempt to punish her could benefit from a seminar in St. Petersburg.
Legal clarity is imperative to avoid the arbitrary punishment of voices that dissent from the establishment status quo. Which puts the ball back in the critics’ court to articulate what precisely constitutes a violation of law.
Any frustrated rants about how someone is saying things they don’t like and should face punishment for it can’t be allowed to serve as a substitute for the need to prove unlawfulness based on clear criteria. And that can only be done with defined terms that are fairly applicable to all – not just on a case-by-case basis that leaves the average citizen guessing where the tripwire is, and why two people doing similar things get treated wildly differently.
The unelected European Commission is basically using policy and the absolute outer bounds of executive prerogative powers (that is, the powers to decide foreign policy and national security strategy) as a substitute for the checks and balances of legal due process. And they absolutely neglect to define any terms in a way that people can understand, avoid punishment, or even argue coherently that they’re not in breach. You want to accuse someone of working for Russia? What does that even mean? It’s not like we’re talking about Russian officials here.
There seems to be a rampant and ridiculous assumption that because someone works in another country and agrees with its approach on certain things, they’ve abandoned their integrity and values at the border – along with their critical faculties. As if employment abroad automatically comes with a complimentary lobotomy.
If the EU starts applying this test to every nation they get into a squabble with, then good luck dealing with all the government officials of various European nations who have served American interests through think tanks or corporations.
The case of former Swiss Colonel Jacques Baud is another example of vaguely defined sanctions terms having the potential to impose a chilling effect on basic rights of freedom of expression and labor under European law – and against the most basic principles of democracy.
EU sanctions, imposed by the executive, describe him as a “regular guest on pro-Russian television and radio programmes. He acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda and makes conspiracy theories, for example accusing Ukraine of orchestrating its own invasion in order to join NATO. Therefore, Jacques Baud is responsible for, implementing or supporting actions or policies attributable to the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten stability or security in a third country (Ukraine) by engaging in the use of information manipulation and interference.”
Hold on. Let’s break this down, shall we? Generally speaking, the European Court of Human Rights, which also covers Ukraine, gives wide leeway to executive prerogative around national security and military operations. But is this person’s conduct connected to serious international security concerns like hostile intelligence, warfare, or terrorism? Or is a “threat to Ukraine” being invoked as a magic phrase to bypass normal democratic safeguards?
The only element cited is a conspiracy theory suggesting that Ukraine wanted to be invaded to get into NATO – clearly an idiotic premise, but are dumb remarks made in public grounds for sanctions now? Where exactly is the red line? Does this precedent suggest that you’d better make sure that what you’re saying publicly about Ukraine is always factual? If so, then who’s the arbiter of acceptable truth – and as of which update? Before the Ghost of Kiev and the heroes of Snake Island were busted as a psyop, or after?
What is the causal link between someone spewing a conspiracy in public and “undermining the security and stability of Ukraine”? Is Jacques Baud a Marvel character and this is his superpower?
And how does one avoid being a “mouthpiece,” exactly? Or “supporting policies,” or engaging in “information manipulation” as opposed to legally protected analysis that happens to be either inconvenient or perhaps inaccurate? People have to be able to regulate their conduct and foresee consequences under the law. Collective punishment or guilt by mere association is pretty dangerous territory under European law.
Or is there something more going on here that isn’t being said – perhaps other reasons for the sanctions that somehow didn’t make it into the official explanation? And if so, why not just say that?
Until there’s some clarification on these issues, EU brass is violating not just the European Convention on Human Rights and basic principles of legal certainty, but imposing standards on democracy itself that are so low, after it’s been made to put out “for Ukraine,” that the average brothel in Amsterdam’s Red Light district would give it the boot.
The top EU diplomat has said Brussels has nothing to offer Moscow in talks
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has admitted that the bloc has nothing to “offer to Russia” and therefore doesn’t expect any direct talks with Moscow. Brussels will choose “more pressure” over negotiations, she said.
Asked on Friday whether she intends to reopen diplomatic channels with Russia, as Italy and France have suggested, Kallas shot down the idea of re-engagement.
”We can’t… go to Russia and say ‘talk to us,’” she replied. “The concessions that the Americans are putting on Ukraine are quite strong, so I don’t think there’s anything we can offer to Russia on top of that. Why should they talk to us?”
Kallas previously described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “terrorist” who Europe “shouldn’t be negotiating with,” and has written off every version of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine as overly conciliatory to Russia.
With the US now mediating talks between Moscow and Kiev, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have both called on the EU to appoint a special envoy to the Kremlin, to ensure that the bloc doesn’t get sidelined while a potential peace agreement is drafted.
Like Kallas, Russia does not foresee any meaningful talks with Brussels in the near future. “If anyone wishes to talk, we will never refuse dialogue, even though we fully realize… that reaching an agreement with the current generation of European leaders will most likely be impossible,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters last week.
“They have entrenched themselves too deeply in a posture of hatred towards Russia,” he added.
“How can you discuss anything with Kaja Kallas?” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Sunday. Brussels, Peskov said, is full of “semi-literate, incompetent functionaries.”
In a speech at the European Defense Agency’s annual conference on Wednesday, Kallas said one of her key priorities is “to support Ukraine with 60 billion euro in military aid for 2026 and 2027.” Her fixation on Russia has caused discontent within the EU, with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico accusing her of banning all Russian energy imports “solely out of hatred.” Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban have both announced plans to sue the EU over the Russian energy embargo.
