The tragedy of AUKUS
AUKUS is a grotesque demonstration of the singular inability of Australian governments to question the value of these arrangements or the wisdom of America’s strategic outlook, especially when it comes to the Asia-Pacific region. All this at a time when US hegemonic power is in visible decline, and when such compliance will carry ever greater risks and financial costs.
And not the slightest attempt to consult with the public, let alone initiate a genuine national conversation on Australia’s security options, in what is a period of far-reaching change that is transforming both the regional and global landscape.
Joseph Camilleri, June 19, 2026, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/06/the-tragedy-of-aukus/
In his submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry, Joe Camilleri argues revoking AUKUS must be part of wider reassessment of Australia’s place in the world.
The decision to become a party to the AUKUS security agreement stands as one of the saddest decisions ever made by an Australian government.
It was a decision made for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way, with unfortunate outcomes in the last five years and dire consequences looming in the years ahead.
Will the submarines be delivered on time? Will they have the desired state-of-the-art capabilities? Will they deliver the desired number of jobs? These are no doubt relevant questions, but they hardly go to the heart of the matter.
What is it that makes the AUKUS pact such an ill-considered and harmful policy initiative?
The entire decision-making process from its birth to the present has been thoroughly undemocratic. The discussions that led to the agreement in September 2021 were conducted in complete secrecy. And since then, government has said or done little to take the Australian public into its confidence. The costs, be they economic, environmental, diplomatic or cultural have not been seriously addressed, nor have the alleged benefits, nor how the project will proceed in practice, nor indeed how future decisions will be made and by whom. All this has been justified by repeating the time-worn and utterly duplicitous mantra of national security.
The first statement announcing the establishment of AUKUS told us that the intention was ’to meet the challenges of the 21st century’, but with great care taken to leave the nature of these challenges unspecified. The partnership, it was claimed, would ‘deepen cooperation on a range of security and defence capabilities’, but little was said as to why enhanced defence cooperation was needed at this time, and even less as to what such cooperation would achieve in practice. Yet, within hours of being briefed the then leader of the opposition, Anthony Albanese affirmed Labor’s full support for AUKUS.
In the years that followed little has been said as to the function of the submarines, or the objectives to be served by trilateral defence cooperation. The concluding sentence of the Joint Leaders statement of March 2023 bears quoting in full:
We believe in a world that protects freedom and respects human rights, the rule of law, the independence of sovereign states and the rules-based international order. The steps we are announcing today will help us to advance these mutually beneficial objectives in the decades to come.
The question ‘how was this to be done?’ was left conveniently unaddressed.
The closest thing to an explanation of Australia’s underlying strategy was the reference by Defence Minister Richard Marles to the ‘complex strategic landscape’ that now prevailed in the ‘Indo-Pacific’ region and what he described as ’the biggest conventional military build-up that we have seen since the end of the Second World War’. In subsequent statements, Marles made it clear that the offender was China. As a trading island nation, Australia had no option but to enhance its capacity ’to project with impact’.
In the days that followed, countless words have been uttered inside and outside Parliament, but to this day the justification offered for the AUKUS partnership remains riddled with ambiguity, inconsistency and evasion. At no time has it been made clear:
- What are the specific strategic contingencies for which the submarines are intended?
- How does AUKUS fit within Australia’s broader security policies?
- What alternative security strategies were evaluated?
- What are the assumptions regarding China’s future behaviour that underpin the AUKUS decision?
And not the slightest attempt to consult with the public, let alone initiate a genuine national conversation on Australia’s security options, in what is a period of far-reaching change that is transforming both the regional and global landscape.
The democratic deficit becomes even more troubling, given the failure to consult the First Nations despite the fact that AUKUS implementation, including submarine operations, infrastructure, training, industrial production, weapons support and maritime transit, will affect a large part of Australian land and seas. The simple fact is that AUKUS carries far-reaching implications for:
- Native Title rights recognised under Australian law
- Land rights under legislation such as the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act
- Indigenous interests in sea country and coastal waters
- Heritage protection relating to sacred sites and cultural landscapes
- Rights to consultation regarding the economic, environmental and cultural implications of land use and development projects.
As a consequence of the unfortunate experiences associated with earlier defence projects, Indigenous communities are especially concerned about the likely impact of AUKUS-related activities. These concerns cannot be adequately addressed piecemeal as individual facilities are about to be developed. An immediate and systematic assessment of Indigenous rights, needs and preferences with the full participation and oversight of Indigenous communities is the only viable approach. The consultation should extend to the very rationale of the AUKUS project, since it will impact so many spaces across Country, over which, let’s not forget, the First Nations have never ceded sovereignty. When dealing with the larger questions posed by the AUKUS adventure, a dose of Indigenous wisdom would not go astray.
The rationale for the AUKUS pact rests largely on the frequently insinuated assumption – never openly stated or adequately explained – that China poses a major threat to Australian security. This assessment rests on a questionable understanding of Chinese interests and intentions, and the methods by which China seeks to expand its influence regionally and globally.
Labor, it is true, has managed to stabilise somewhat the parlous state of relations with China, including the resumption of ministerial visits between the two countries, which eventually led to Albanese’s visit to Beijing in November 2023. Importantly, most Chinese trade sanctions imposed on Australian products in 2020–21 have been lifted.
However, after four years in office, the Albanese government still depicts China as a rising power whose aggressive posturing is matched by a much expanded capacity to flex military muscle.
China, it is true, has steadily increased its military spending, which rose from $286 billion in 2020 to an estimated $312 billion in 2025. Similarly, it has expanded its military presence both in the South China Sea and around Taiwan. None of this suggests that either its military spending or its ability to project military power regionally, let alone globally, are on a scale remotely comparable to that of the United States.
Successive US administrations have nevertheless used China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea and the heightened tensions in relation with Taiwan to justify an expanded US naval presence on China’s doorstep, a position Australian governments have seen fit to support. AUKUS is therefore best understood as an expression of US strategic priorities, and Australia’s participation in AUKUS as yet another demonstration of Australia’s longstanding alignment with the United States.
Simply put, Australian governments remain wedded to the view that Australia’s security ultimately depends on protection by the United States. AUKUS begins to make sense once it is seen to be part of an overarching strategic orientation that includes ever higher levels of interoperability with the US military, multifaceted defence cooperation greatly facilitated by the 2014 Defence posture agreement, intimate links with US intelligence operations, and heavy reliance on the acquisition of expensive US military hardware.
AUKUS is a grotesque demonstration of the singular inability of Australian governments to question the value of these arrangements or the wisdom of America’s strategic outlook, especially when it comes to the Asia-Pacific region. All this at a time when US hegemonic power is in visible decline, and when such compliance will carry ever greater risks and financial costs.
The root of the problem lies in the addiction to imperial power that holds sway in the minds of many among Australia’s political, bureaucratic, military and intelligence elites. They see themselves as having unique access to an exclusive and powerful club that confers not just safety, but status and privilege – once the British club, now the American club. They have reluctantly accepted the demise of the former, but are not reconciled to the slow but steady decline of the latter. They feel most comfortable when connected to the anglophone world and, at best uneasy, when dealing with the East. This is the meaning and tragedy of AUKUS.
Senior Labor ministers, with an eye on the next election, see no value in provoking the ire of the security establishment that includes influential voices in the armed forces and the various security and intelligence agencies but also powerful elements in the civil bureaucracy, the media, think tanks and an array of other pressure groups, not least the defence industry.
Ultimately, the greatest cost of AUKUS and associated entanglements is not the financial outlay, but the continued entanglement with an imperial power in decline. Technological sophistication, high levels of military spending, and the flexing of military muscle on a global scale do not readily translate into military victory or political control. The deadly and largely ineffectual war on terror, the disastrous war in Iraq, the protracted conflict and humiliating retreat in Afghanistan, the unholy mess in Libya and Syria, and the unfolding tragedy in the Middle East, not least the folly of the Iran war, all point to the fragility and limits of US power.
The AUKUS misadventure is a highly damaging distraction that prevents Australia from addressing the crucially important task of assessing and responding to the pressing regional and global threats ahead.
Revoking the AUKUS agreement is an urgent necessity. Such a step, however, must be part of wider reassessment of Australia’s place in the world. Australia as a nation needs to pause and consider the very meaning of security in the light of the profound geopolitical, environmental, economic, technological and cultural transformation currently under way. The militarisation of security discourse and practice poses new and unprecedented dangers.
The overemphasis on military threats needs to give way to notion of human security where the accent is on reconciling divergent histories, interests and grievances within and between countries, rather than on fuelling arms races between expanding and ever costlier military arsenals.
What Australia needs more than ever is to strive for a security policy framework founded on three key principles: common security (Australia cannot be or feel secure unless its Asian and Pacific neighbours also feel secure); cooperative security (security can be achieved only when countries act in concert, bringing to the table diverse energies, resources and insights); comprehensive security (there is more to security than protection from external military threats – security also includes economic, cultural and ecological security).
Crucial to this enterprise is finding a pathway to a substantive and durable Australia–China security and cultural dialogue – to be developed in close consultation and cooperation with Asian and Pacific neighbours.
Conveying this perspective and recommendations that flow from it to the Australian government and more generally to the Australian parliament may serve some useful purpose. But such an exercise is unlikely to achieve a great deal in the short-to-medium term. The more pressing need is to address this assessment of the road ahead to the nation as a whole, and to the diverse organisations that make up Australia’s civil society.
In the light of the AUKUS fiasco, the urgent challenge before us is to cultivate an informed, respectful and ongoing national conversation about Australia’s place in the world, and the contribution it can and should make to its own security in tandem with the security of its neighbours, the security of the entire human family, and, of course, the security of the planet.
“Israel in Panic Mode? Max Blumenthal Says Iran War Backfired”
In a wide-ranging conversation with Glenn Diesen, journalist Max Blumenthal argues that the failed U.S.-Israel war against Iran has exposed new political fractures in Washington, accelerated public opposition to unconditional support for Israel, and raised questions about what comes next for a region still on the brink.
Joshua Scheer, June 24, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/24/israel-in-panic-mode-max-blumenthal-says-iran-war-backfired/
Washington Went to War to Show Strength. The World Saw Weakness.
In a new interview with Glenn Diesen, investigative journalist and The Grayzone editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal argues that the recent U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran has produced consequences far different from those envisioned by its architects. Rather than restoring deterrence, Blumenthal contends, the war exposed military limitations, deepened political divisions inside the United States, intensified scrutiny of Israel’s role in American politics, and left Washington searching for a way out of a costly confrontation.
The discussion explores the emerging Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, growing tensions between pro-Israel factions and the America First wing of the Republican Party, shifting public opinion toward Israel, and the possibility that Lebanon may become the next flashpoint in efforts to unravel the fragile agreement. Whether one agrees with Blumenthal’s analysis or not, the interview captures a moment of profound uncertainty—one in which old assumptions about U.S. power, Israeli influence, and the future of the Middle East are increasingly being challenged.
As Washington attempts to navigate the aftermath of a conflict that rattled global markets and reshaped regional calculations, the political and strategic fallout may continue long after the shooting stops. The debate now is not only about Iran, but about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy itself
Israel’s Biggest Fear Isn’t Iran—It’s Losing America
Max Blumenthal argues that the greatest consequence of the recent Iran conflict may not be military at all. The real shock, he contends, is the accelerating erosion of unconditional American support for Israel.
According to Blumenthal, the war exposed deep fractures within the U.S. political establishment. While traditional pro-Israel voices continue to dominate Washington, growing opposition is emerging from across the political spectrum. On the right, figures associated with the America First movement are increasingly questioning why U.S. resources and political capital are tied so closely to Israeli objectives. On the left, criticism of military aid and lobbying influence has become more mainstream than at any point in recent memory.
Blumenthal argues that public opinion has shifted dramatically. Polls showing rising skepticism toward military support for Israel, combined with growing frustration over foreign entanglements, suggest that a decades-old political consensus is weakening. What once seemed untouchable in American politics is now being openly debated.
The interview also explores how Israeli leaders may respond to this changing landscape. Blumenthal warns that efforts to maintain the status quo could intensify regional tensions, particularly in Lebanon, where clashes continue despite diplomatic efforts to stabilize the region. At the same time, he suggests that Israel’s political establishment is struggling to adapt to a reality in which criticism is no longer confined to the margins.
The discussion highlights a growing debate over the future of U.S.-Israel relations. The question is no longer simply how Washington will respond to Iran, but whether the political foundations of America’s long-standing alliance with Israel are beginning to shift beneath everyone’s feet.
The end of the Polish-Ukrainian love story
Behind Poland and Ukraine’s symbolic feud lies a brutal fight over EU cash, borders, and regional dominance.
23 Jun, 2026, By Ksenia Smertina, Senior lecturer at the HSE Institute for Media, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council on Eastern and Central Europe
At the heart of Polish historical literature, brilliantly adapted for the screen by film director Andrzej Wajda, is a timeless, almost archetypal Slavic narrative. Take Adam Mickiewicz’s poem, ‘Pan Tadeusz’, or Aleksander Fredro’s comedy, ‘The Revenge’. In both cases, we see two noble clans trapped in a shared space – whether within a city or castle walls – selflessly and relentlessly destroying each other over long-held historical grievances, ambitions, and boundary disputes, while the entire ‘security architecture’ around them crumbles.
The stories have different endings, but the historical circumstances are similar, which undoubtedly provides grounds for reflection on the complex fate of the Polish people. Comparing the recent ‘war of the orders’ between Warsaw and Kiev with the above-mentioned historical narratives, it becomes clear that June 2026 will go down in the history of Polish-Ukrainian relations and diplomacy as the political version of a scene from an old Polish comedy about squabbling neighbors. However, this incident demonstrates several important aspects that define Poland’s current condition and foreign policy which are worth reflecting on.
On June 19, Polish President Karol Nawrocki decided to strip Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle because a Ukrainian unit was named after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA). He also stated that Poland would not allow those who do not understand the need to renounce the “cult of totalitarianism and violence” to join the EU.
What the Ukrainian Insurgent Army was, and why Poland was offended by it?
The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) was a nationalist group that collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. It perpetrated the 1943–1944 Volhynia massacres, in which tens of thousands of Polish civilians were killed. This is why any official glorification of the UPA remains one of the most explosive issues in Polish-Ukrainian relations.
Kiev’s reaction was deafening, triggering an avalanche that was clearly unexpected in Warsaw. Zelensky demonstratively returned the order of merit to Nawrocki by mail. But the most surprising thing was the complete solidarity shown by Ukraine’s former presidents: Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yushchenko, and Pyotr Poroshenko all simultaneously announced that they would also renounce their Orders of the White Eagle and return them to Warsaw. Pretending that they ‘didn’t want them anyway’, the former presidents arrogantly declared that they were returning the awards to “the Poland that betrayed European solidarity,” calling Nawrocki’s decision an insult, while contrasting these pieces of metal with recognition of their own people. Following their lead, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Kirill Budanov, and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga also renounced their Polish orders of merit, turning one of Europe’s highest and oldest awards into a devalued bargaining chip.
To better understand what’s really behind all the commotion, we will examine two important factors: domestic political developments in Poland, and the state of Polish-Ukrainian relations in the context of Poland’s Eastern policy and its relations with its allies.
Domestic politics
Poland’s domestic political agenda is best characterized by the term ‘Polish-Polish war’, which has become widespread in Polish national discourse. The term, coined after the 2005 electoral rift, has become the official formula for the country’s political deadlock. Both the ‘right’ and ‘left’ sides of the Polish political spectrum are becoming radicalized, and as the rift deepens, centrism is disappearing from Polish society……………………………………………….
the current scandal in Ukrainian-Polish relations has, in part, been provoked by the escalation of tensions in Poland’s own domestic politics. ………………………………………………….
Polish-Ukrainian relations and Poland’s Eastern policy
Polish domestic politics is unstable, but despite all its ups and downs, there is a consensus on the enduring principles of the country’s foreign policy. Among them is Poland’s Eastern policy, based on Jerzy Giedroyc’s idea about special relations with neighbors. Warsaw saw itself as the exclusive advocate, curator, and ‘big brother’ of Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania, striving to create a controlled cordon sanitaire against Russia………………………….
It is becoming clear that the Polish elites, who for years demanded Ukraine’s accession to the EU, were unprepared for how Polish society would react to the prospect of sharing European money, markets, and subsidies with their eastern neighbor. The conflict surrounding the agricultural sector is particularly illustrative. Poland has been the main beneficiary of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 20 years, receiving billions in subsidies for its farms. Upon integration into the EU, Ukraine will also receive financial subsidies to bring its agricultural sector into line with Brussels’ standards. At the same time, Poland will transform from a recipient of European funds into a donor, obligated to pay for others. And that’s not a role that Polish society is prepared to fulfill.
Warsaw’s harsh economic blockade of Kiev should be seen in this light. When Ukrainian grain, poultry, and transport companies began to pose a threat of real competition to Poles within the EU, Poland quickly blocked its borders, dumped grain from train cars onto the rails, and imposed strict protectionist barriers. For Kiev, this was a painful revelation:…………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://www.rt.com/news/642019-end-of-polish-ukrainian-love/
Ukrainian-Polish diplomatic crisis over Nazi collaboration exposes NATO war with Russia
ABOVE: Representatives of right-wing organisations lined up on the street during a protest against the annual ‘KyivPride’ Equality March in Kiev, Ukraine, Sunday, June 21, 2026. [AP Photo/Dan Bashakov]
Alex Lantier21 June 2026, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/06/22/wzgt-j22.html
The diplomatic crisis over Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s promotion of anti-Polish Nazi collaborationist forces during World War II is stripping away the political lies in which the NATO imperialist powers have shrouded their proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. The NATO-backed regime in Ukraine is not a defender of democracy and national independence but a tool of imperialism resting upon far-right forces.
In late May, Zelensky issued a decree giving a serving military unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA.” This referred to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the military wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which collaborated with Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The OUN and its members in the Nazi auxiliary police participated in the genocide of Soviet Jews, including the 1941 Babi Yar massacre in Kiev. Many of these men went on to form the UPA, which hunted down pro-Soviet partisans in Ukraine and carried out a genocide of Poles in Volhynia in present-day western Ukraine.
On June 19, far-right Polish President Karol Nawrocki stripped Zelensky of Poland’s highest state honour, the Order of the White Eagle, which Poland awarded Zelensky a year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in 2023. Nawrocki said that after he “repeatedly signaled” his government’s concerns to the Zelensky government, its “position has not changed.” However, he added, “facts are not subject to negotiation” and “at least 100,000 Polish citizens were murdered by the UPA.”
The Zelensky regime responded by denouncing Warsaw and doubling down on its promotion of genocidal pro-Nazi forces. Zelensky mailed his medal back to Poland. Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s head of military intelligence (HUR), now head of the presidential office, said on June 20 that he had renounced Poland’s Golden Officer’s Cross of the Order of Merit, charging that in Poland, “the flywheel of hatred is unreasonably and artificially spun against our citizens.”
As a result, today, on the 85th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, a full-throated propaganda campaign is underway defending Zelensky and the UPA. Former Ukrainian presidents Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yushchenko and Petro Poroshenko have all vowed to return their Order of the White Eagle honors in solidarity with Zelensky. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha denounced Warsaw’s criticism as a “strategic mistake from which only Moscow benefits.”
Sybiha defended Zelensky’s promotion of the UPA by linking Ukraine’s present NATO-backed war against Russia to Hitler’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union. Ukrainian statements of support for the UPA, he claimed absurdly, “had absolutely no anti-Polish intent.” Instead, Sybiha argued, the goal was “honouring those who, similarly, many years ago, fought against imperial Moscow, Bolshevik-communist occupation.”
Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, was the most horrific expression of imperialist counterrevolution against the October revolution and the working class. It was a war of annihilation, planned to create Lebensraum for German imperialism by annihilating “Judeo-Bolshevism” through starvation, slave labor, and mass murder of Jews, partisans and communists. By the time the Nazi war machine was crushed, 27 million Soviet citizens were dead.
Zelensky can defend and legitimize Nazi collaborationist forces in the Soviet Union only because he knows that he has the support for this operation from the major NATO imperialist powers. At the same time as Washington, Berlin and the other NATO powers poured billions of dollars into the Ukrainian regime, in the years preceding and following the 2022 Russian invasion, the Ukrainian regime systematically rehabilitated the fascist collaborators of World War II.
Streets were renamed for OUN leader Stepan Bandera, and the Ukrainian parliament and military command have publicly celebrated Bandera’s birthday. Openly neo-fascist formations such as the Azov Battalion, whose insignia borrow directly from the Waffen SS, were fully integrated into the armed forces and celebrated by the Western media as defenders of “democracy.”
Days before the UPA decree, the Zelensky government repatriated and reburied the remains of Andriy Melnyk—an OUN leader and Nazi collaborator who had petitioned Hitler for the right to join the “crusade against Bolshevik barbarism”—in Kiev’s National Military Cemetery. Zelensky personally hailed Melnyk as “deeply respected,” declaring that Ukraine was building a “pantheon of national heroes.” The New York Times described this blood-soaked figure as a “divisive 20th Century hero.”
The intensifying glorification of fascism is an expression of the deepening crisis of the NATO proxy war and the collapse of the regime’s popular support. In these conditions, the ruling oligarchy doubles down on a falsified national history to manufacture a chauvinist mythology with which to drive workers and youth into a catastrophic war.
The turn to the heroes of the OUN goes hand in hand with the turn to dictatorial forms of rule. Zelensky’s own legal mandate as president expired in May 2024, yet he clings to power under martial law, having banned opposition parties, suppressed independent trade unions and outlawed any opposition to the war from the left.
Vance: Israeli Officials Need To Realize Trump Is the Only Head of State Still ‘Sympathetic’ to Israel
The US vice president also called out Smotrich and Ben Gvir, saying they can’t ‘kill their way’ out of every problem
by Dave DeCamp | June 18, 2026 , https://news.antiwar.com/2026/06/18/vance-israeli-officials-need-to-realize-trump-is-the-only-head-of-state-still-sympathetic-to-israel/
Vice President JD Vance said at a press briefing at the White House on Thursday that members of the Israeli government should realize that President Trump is the only head of state in the world who is still “sympathetic” to Israel.
The vice president made the comments when discussing Israeli officials who have been harshly critical of the Memorandum of Understanding President Trump signed with Iran on Wednesday.
“I guess my message to them would be twofold. Number one, Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, and he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” Vance said.
Vance also pointed to the fact that Israel is extremely reliant on US military support. “The other thing that I would say is that over the last three months, two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars,” he said.
In an interview with The New York Times, published on Thursday, Vance specifically called out Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, both of whom have rejected the US-Iran MoU.
“And I guess my response to them would be: What is your exact proposal? You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said.
The US vice president added that the Israeli ministers should “give a little bit of credit to the United States of America, which I think has been an incredible partner for the Israeli government for a long time.”
While Vance had some harsh words for Israeli officials, there’s still no sign that the Trump administration is willing to leverage military aid to Israel or threaten to cut it off to get Israel to end its war in southern Lebanon, which has continued, though at a lower intensity, since the announcement of the US-Iran MoU, which calls for a complete halt to the conflict.
Iranian officials have said that the MoU hinges on ending the Lebanon was and an Israeli withdrawal from the country. “The end of the war includes the end of occupation. Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories they occupied during this war, the war will have not been fully brought to an end,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this week.
The Collapse of the Sacred Alliance: How Israel Is Losing America
Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, June 20, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/06/20/the-collapse-of-the-sacred-alliance-how-israel-is-losing-america/
The US’s once-unwavering support for Israel is rapidly eroding due to shifting public opinion driven by open information and Netanyahu’s own actions, leading to a rethinking of US-Israel relations.
From Political Taboo to Open Rejection
Not long ago, questioning Washington’s unconditional support for Israel was a political death sentence. American lawmakers, presidential candidates, and even human rights advocates steered clear of the topic as if it were a cursed circle. Today, that circle has been broken. Since October 2023, public opinion in the United States has undergone a tectonic shift. What was built over decades with billions of dollars in lobbying efforts is collapsing before our very eyes. And the numbers are relentless.
Numbers You Can’t Ignore
American approval of Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip has fallen to a catastrophic 32 percent. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Among Americans under 35, that figure is a paltry 9 percent. Nine. Percent.
The Chicago Council on International Relations, which has tracked U.S.-Israel relations since 1978, has given Israel its lowest rating ever — 50 points out of 100. The worst score in nearly half a century.
This isn’t a statistical blip. This is a historic failure.
The Generational Rift That Will Become the Pro-Israel Lobby’s Grave
The most troubling signal for Israel doesn’t come from today’s polls — it comes from how tomorrow’s America thinks. Only one in ten young Americans approves of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Among people over 55, that number is one in two.
On Iran, the picture is the same: 15 percent of young people supported Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, compared with 55 percent of older Americans.
And mind you, this is among Democrats. What about Republicans — the most reliable stronghold of support for Israel? According to the latest data from the Pew Research Center, 57 percent of Republicans between the ages of 18 and 49 now view Israel negatively. A year ago, that number was 50 percent. The trend is accelerating.
Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky told Politico: “My constituents no longer understand why their tax dollars are being used to bomb hospitals in Gaza. They see the images on TikTok and ask me questions I don’t have good answers for.”
The Gulf Between Official Rhetoric and Reality
So what happened? Why did something built over decades collapse in just a few months?
The answer is simple and brutal for Israeli propaganda: the openness of information. Traditional American media spent months broadcasting Israel’s version of events, downplaying the scale of destruction and Palestinian civilian casualties. But social media told a different story.
Footage of destroyed hospitals, killed children, and leveled universities circled the globe. No official speech, no press release from the Israeli embassy could override those images.
Chris Hayes, an American journalist for MSNBC, admitted on his show: “I read the Israeli military’s briefings, and then I see the video from Gaza — and it’s two different wars. Trust erodes when the gap becomes too obvious.” (MSNBC, April 2, 2025)
AIPAC Is Losing Its Stranglehold
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was long considered the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington. Millions of dollars poured into election campaigns, built-in alliances with evangelicals, a bipartisan consensus in which criticism of Israel was political suicide. Today, that machine is sputtering.
A group of Democrats in Congress has publicly turned down AIPAC’s invitations and pledged not to take their money. Among them: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, and Senator Bernie Sanders.
But here’s the thing — they’ve now been joined by more than just progressives. Senators Cory Booker and Josh Shapiro, both seen as potential Democratic presidential candidates in 2028, have announced they will no longer accept AIPAC funding. California Governor Gavin Newsom has made a similar pledge.
A year ago, that would have been unthinkable. Today, it’s becoming the norm.
Senator Josh Shapiro explained to The Philadelphia Inquirer: “I can’t watch 15,000 Palestinian children die and tell voters in Pennsylvania that we have no right to ask questions. That’s not antisemitism. That’s humanism.” (The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 28, 2025)
Strange Bedfellows: The Left and the Right Against Israel
Something unprecedented is happening in modern American politics. Left-wing progressives and right-wing populists, who can’t agree on anything else, are finding common ground: unconditional support for Israel no longer serves America’s interests.
Former Trump allies — Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene — have openly accused the president of letting Israel drag the U.S. into a conflict with Iran.
Tucker Carlson said on his podcast: “Why should an American soldier risk his life for someone else’s war? Israel is a sovereign nation. Let them figure it out. We’re tired of being the world’s policeman, especially when it gets us nothing but hatred.”
Even Robert Kagan, the neoconservative intellectual and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, warned in Foreign Affairs (March 2025): “This conflict could end very badly for Israel. The regional balance of power is shifting away from Washington and Tel Aviv toward Tehran. Netanyahu’s stubbornness will come at a high price.”
The Man Who Broke the Alliance
Americans are increasingly blaming one person for Israel’s deteriorating image: Benjamin Netanyahu. According to a CNN poll, 59 percent of Americans don’t trust him. Last year, that number was 42 percent.
But here’s the most telling part — the distrust cuts across party lines. 81 percent of older Democrats don’t trust Netanyahu. And 58 percent of young Republicans don’t either.
Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead observed: “Netanyahu has done the impossible — he’s united a generation against Israel that should have been the most pro-Israel in history. Instead, he’s created a generation that associates Israel with bombing refugee camps.”
What Future for U.S.-Israel Relations?
Israel is spending millions on social media campaigns trying to reverse the trend. It’s useless. The shift is structural, not rhetorical. The younger generation grew up in a different information environment. The Democratic Party is moving decisively left on foreign policy. Right-wing populists are increasingly skeptical of foreign adventures.
For decades, Israel took America’s unconditional support for granted. Like air. Like water. Like something inalienable.
Perhaps those years were the exception, not the rule. And now Israel is about to find out what it’s like to be on the other side. Isolated. Under a microscope. Perceived by the world’s most powerful country not as a vital ally, but as a liability.
University of Chicago political science professor John Mearsheimer
Reality bites – by Walt Zlotow
22 June 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Walt Zlotow, https://theaimn.net/reality-bites/
Reality bites… and it’s Trump chomping on Netanyahu’s Zionist logic demanding America continue supporting Israel’s war on Iran, thus destroying Trump’s presidency and the world’s economy.
President Trump appears done with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s near total control of US Middle East foreign policy.
He trotted out Vice President Vance to deliver the most astonishing public rebuke ever uttered to Israel regarding their clear effort to derail the Trump peace plan with Iran by their grisly bombing and ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon.
“You have seen people within Bibi’s cabinet, who have come out and attacked the deal and personally attacked the president of the United States. Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world. Over two thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars. Anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”
Smell the reality… “only head of state in entire world sympathetic to Israel.” It does not get much more biting than that. And it’s about time. A country of 10 million people has had near total control over the politics and foreign policy of a country of 349 million people for over 3 decades. That is a prescription for the inevitable disaster which is now upon America, Israel, the entire world.
Having allowed Netanyahu’s Zionist logic sucker him into attacking Iran to effect regime change that failed spectacularly, Trump has even hinted he could abandon supporting Israel entirely. Without unlimited US weapons, diplomatic support, intel, and logistics, Israel could no longer continue their ongoing encroachment in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and destruction of Iran. Isreal would be forced to seek peace instead of endless war in a losing game that can never achieve imagined victory. That reality wouldn’t bite. It would be welcomed indeed.
The Persistence of Israel First
SCHEERPOST, June 23, 2026, Timothy Hopper for Foreign Policy in Focus
If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the latest confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, it is the remarkably short life of Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine. Trump returned to power promising to break with Washington’s foreign-policy establishment, avoid costly overseas commitments, and place the interests of American citizens above the demands of allies and foreign governments. For a brief moment, recent tensions involving Iran appeared to support that narrative. Reports of disagreements between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, combined with signals that the White House remained open to diplomacy with Tehran, created the impression that the administration might finally be pursuing a genuinely independent Middle East policy.
That impression did not last. The sudden hardening of the White House’s tone toward Tehran, followed by the decision to authorize military action against Iran, exposed the limits of Trump’s supposed break with the old order. The strike was more than a military operation; it was a test of whether “America First” could survive a direct collision with Israel’s security priorities.
The outcome suggested that it could not. More importantly, the episode highlighted a broader pattern that extends far beyond the current crisis. The Iran strike was not an isolated departure from “America First.” It was the latest example of a recurring reality: whenever American and Israeli priorities diverge in the Middle East, Trump’s record consistently shows a preference for the latter.
The evidence stretches across both Trump administrations. One of the clearest examples was his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was far from perfect, but it imposed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program while avoiding military confrontation. European allies overwhelmingly supported preserving the agreement because they viewed it as a mechanism for regional stability. American intelligence agencies repeatedly indicated that Iran was complying with its core obligations at the time of withdrawal.
Yet one government had long viewed the agreement as unacceptable regardless of compliance: Israel. Netanyahu devoted years to opposing the deal and publicly pressured Washington to abandon it. Trump ultimately did exactly that. The result was not greater American security but the collapse of diplomatic constraints, heightened regional tensions, and a path that eventually led toward direct military confrontation.
The same pattern appeared in Trump’s 2017 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the U.S. embassy. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike avoided such a move because they feared it would inflame regional tensions and undermine Washington’s ability to act as a mediator. The decision delivered a major symbolic and political victory to Israel while generating little measurable strategic benefit for the United States. It weakened America’s diplomatic position across much of the Arab and Muslim world without producing progress toward regional peace.
Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019 followed a similar logic. No urgent American national-security interest required the move. The decision did not reduce threats to the U.S. homeland, strengthen the American economy, or improve the lives of American citizens. It did, however, fulfill a longstanding Israeli objective and further aligned U.S. policy with Israeli territorial preferences. Once again, Washington absorbed diplomatic costs while Israel obtained a strategic gain…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. the Iran episode carries significance beyond the immediate military confrontation. It forces a reconsideration of the meaning of “America First” itself. If the doctrine can be suspended whenever Israeli security concerns become central to a crisis, then its practical limitations are far greater than its supporters acknowledged. The issue is not whether Trump supports Israel. Many American presidents have done so. The issue is whether support for Israel has become so deeply embedded within Washington’s political structure that even presidents elected on promises of strategic independence find themselves unable—or unwilling—to depart from it.
The most important question raised by the recent confrontation is therefore not about Iran. It is about the nature of American power and decision-making. Can American foreign policy in the Middle East be defined independently of Israeli preferences when significant disagreements emerge? Or has support for Israel become such a foundational principle that it overrides alternative conceptions of national interest regardless of who occupies the White House?
Trump’s record provides a revealing answer. From the nuclear deal to Jerusalem, from the Golan Heights to the recent strike on Iran, the pattern is difficult to ignore. The slogan “America First” may have transformed American political rhetoric, but when confronted with the most consequential Middle Eastern decisions, Washington repeatedly returned to a familiar reality. The durability of “Israel First” has proven far greater than the lifespan of the doctrine that promised to replace it. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/23/the-persistence-of-israel-first/
Taking a sledgehammer to the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The Iranian proliferation quandary. In 2011, the IAEA concluded that, prior to 2003, Iran had a nuclear weapon development program. In 2003, then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni published a religious edict that weapons of mass destruction are “haram” (religiously forbidden). The force of this edict has been debated, but the most recent Congressional Research Service report on Iran’s nuclear-weapon program states, “According to official U.S. assessments, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has not resumed it.”
Bulletin, By Frank von Hippel, Seyed Hossein Mousavian | Analysis | April 18, 2026
The current crisis over Iran’s nuclear program has reached an extraordinary level, climaxing shockingly with President Trump’s April 7 threat to destroy Iran’s “civilization” if it did not comply with his demands—a barely veiled threat of a massive nuclear attack on Iran’s cities. Any country faced with such a threat would want its own nuclear deterrent.
More broadly, the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—the expression of a global near consensus that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons and that, in the interim, the fewer fingers on nuclear triggers the better—is fraying.
In the NPT, the “P5” (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the United States; the Soviet Union, succeeded by Russia; the United Kingdom; France; and China— committed to eliminate their nuclear arsenals if the non-weapon states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor their use of nuclear material to make sure that none was diverted to weapons use.
Surprisingly few countries have acquired nuclear weapons. In 1995, the negotiators of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty judged 44 countries to be technologically capable of making nuclear weapons. But, in the 56 years since the NPT came into force, only three countries—Israel, India, and Pakistan—decided to acquire nuclear weapons outside the NPT and only one, North Korea, defected after it joined the NPT.
The nonweapon states initially agreed to membership in the NPT for 25 years. In 1995, when the 25 years were up, the Cold War had just ended and US and Russian nuclear warheads were being dismantled at a combined rate of 3,000 per year. Nuclear disarmament seemed in sight, and the NPT was made permanent. Unfortunately, during the past decade, the shrinkage of the global warhead stockpile stopped, with about 10,000 warheads still in existence, and it has begun to grow again as China builds up.
The 190 parties to the NPT that are to meet at the UN during May to review the state of compliance with the treaty have failed to reach consensus in the previous two reviews since 2010.
And then there is Iran.
The Iranian proliferation quandary. In 2011, the IAEA concluded that, prior to 2003, Iran had a nuclear weapon development program. In 2003, then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni published a religious edict that weapons of mass destruction are “haram” (religiously forbidden). The force of this edict has been debated, but the most recent Congressional Research Service report on Iran’s nuclear-weapon program states, “According to official U.S. assessments, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has not resumed it.”
In 2018, President Trump capriciously withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama Administration, in which Iran had agreed to strong limits on different parts of its nuclear program for 15 years or longer. To force Iran to give him a “better deal” than it had given Obama, Trump reinstated crushing primary and secondary sanctions on Iran’s economy. Neither the UN Security Council nor the IAEA Board of Governors said anything, but UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres did:
“I am deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the United States will be withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and will begin reinstating US sanctions… I have consistently reiterated that the JCPOA represents a major achievement in nuclear non-proliferation and diplomacy and has contributed to regional and international peace and security.”
Given the widespread opposition to the JCPOA in Congress, the Biden administration did not give a high priority to negotiating its revival. Since President Trump’s reelection, the situation has rapidly deteriorated.
On June 12, 2025, the IAEA’s Board of Governors found that “Iran has failed to co-operate fully with the Agency, as required by its Safeguards Agreement.” The focus of the board’s complaint was Iran’s inadequate explanations of the activities it had carried out during the period ending in 2003. Those were issues that the IAEA had declared closed after it summarized its conclusions in its December 2015 “Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme,” just before the JCPOA came into force in January 2016.
The day after the IAEA Board’s statement, while the United States was negotiating with Iran, Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear sites. President Trump ordered US forces to join in and bomb Iran’s buried centrifuge halls with massive bunker busters.
Again, on February 27, in a pause in a second US negotiation with Iran, the foreign minister of Oman, who was mediating the talks, reported in a “Face the Nation” interview that the negotiators had made “substantial progress” toward a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program and that Iran was willing to end its production of highly enriched uranium and blend down its existing stock. The next day, Israel attacked and killed Iran’s supreme leader and much of its military leadership, and Trump again ordered US forces to join in the intense follow-on bombing of Iran.
The UN Security Council has not condemned these attacks on Iran but has condemned Iran for its retaliatory attacks on its US-allied Persian Gulf neighbors and for its closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The IAEA also has not condemned Israeli and US attacks on facilities it safeguarded, even though the result has been Iran’s decision to block IAEA access to Iran’s bombed sites (presumably out of fear that IAEA inspections could be used by the US and Israel for targeting intelligence).
US negotiations with Iran. The key sticking point in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program since it became public in 2003 has been uranium enrichment. Iran claims it has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, uranium enrichment provides a route to nuclear weapons.
Our own view is that there is no economic justification for a small enrichment program like Iran’s. The four big suppliers: Russia; URENCO (a firm jointly owned by Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK); China; and France have more than enough capacity to supply the world’s nuclear power reactors at lower cost. Even the United States, with the world’s largest nuclear-power capacity—one quarter of the global total—has bought enrichment services from these suppliers since 2013 when it shut down the last of the three energy-inefficient enrichment plants it built to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons during the Cold War.
If countries insist on building uneconomic enrichment plants, we have advocated that those plants be under multinational control, as is the case with URENCO, which was founded in 1971 when there was still some concern that West Germany might seek nuclear weapons. Iran has expressed a willingness to put its enrichment program under multinational control but is unwilling to have it relocated to a neutral country as we recommended…………………………….
An inconsistent nonproliferation policy. Despite going to war over Iran’s uranium enrichment program, President Trump has inconsistently given both South Korea and Saudi Arabia his blessing to acquire uranium-enrichment and spent-fuel-reprocessing programs. “Reprocessing” is a chemical process used to separate plutonium, another nuclear-weapons material, from irradiated uranium fuel.
……………………………….President Trump made these agreements with the leaders of South Korea and Saudi Arabia in his usual transactional style. Rules, he apparently believes, need not be followed if a government is willing to pay enough.
President’s Trump’s disdain for the rules is endangering world order in many ways. We cannot leave defense of the nonproliferation regime for later, however. If we do, we may find ourselves in a nuclear-armed crowd. https://thebulletin.org/2026/04/taking-a-sledgehammer-to-the-nuclear-nonproliferation-regime/
A Turning Point: What the Iran MoU Reveals About the Limits of US Power
June 19, 2026, By Iqbal Jassat, https://www.palestinechronicle.com/a-turning-point-what-the-iran-mou-reveals-about-the-limits-of-us-power/
The lessons from Iran, if incorporated in the study of international relations, will be that the era in which Washington could dictate terms without consequence is steadily eroding.
Events at the G7 Summit in Evian were overshadowed by news of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This was hardly surprising since the story broke about America’s dramatic turnaround and widespread speculation about the details of the MoU, as well as the reasons for it.
It would be fair to say, thus, that the most significant outcome of the G7 Summit in Évian was not the signing of the MoU. It was the public collapse of the illusion that military superiority automatically translates into political victory.
For months, Washington and Tel Aviv insisted that Iran would eventually be forced to surrender. The language was harsh, pointed and uncompromising. Iran’s missile program would be destroyed. Its nuclear capabilities would be dismantled. Its regional alliances would be broken. Its leadership would face collapse under the combined weight of military pressure, sanctions and international isolation.
None of those objectives were achieved.
The contradiction became impossible to conceal when President Donald Trump stood before the world at the G7 and defended Iran’s right to retain conventional ballistic missiles.
The same missiles that had been presented as an existential threat suddenly became acceptable. The same missile program that justified war was transformed into a reality that Washington was prepared to live with.
Contrary to the wishful thinking of some political pundits, this was not a minor adjustment in policy. It was a public admission that the original objectives could not be achieved.
Absent from much Western reporting is the extent of this reversal. The final agreement contains no dismantling of Iran’s missile deterrent. It contains no regime change. It contains no surrender of Iran’s political system. It contains no disarmament of Iran’s regional allies. Even the nuclear issue was largely deferred into future negotiations rather than resolved through force.
The shock registered on the gaping mouths of G7 leaders as well as Israel’s war criminals was obvious, for the outcome exposed the enormous gap between public rhetoric and strategic reality.
For years, American foreign policy has been built around the assumption that economic pressure, military dominance and international isolation can force adversaries to comply with Washington’s demands. Iraq was supposed to demonstrate that reality. Libya was supposed to reinforce it. The sanctions architecture imposed on Iran was designed around the same logic.
The MoU signed by Trump at the G7, demonstrates the limits of that model.
Iran’s leadership calculated that surrender would be more dangerous than resistance. Despite suffering enormous military and economic damage, Tehran retained enough leverage to make continued escalation prohibitively expensive for its adversaries.
The critical factor was not military strength alone.
The Strait of Hormuz exposed a vulnerability that military planners could not bomb away. As energy markets reacted and global supply chains faced disruption, the economic consequences of a prolonged conflict became increasingly unacceptable. Oil prices surged. Shipping costs escalated. Insurance markets were shaken. European governments demanded an end to the crisis. Gulf states that had quietly supported pressure on Iran suddenly became advocates for de-escalation.
The beneficiaries of the original confrontation were clear. Arms manufacturers secured contracts. Security establishments expanded their authority. Lobbying organizations intensified demands for escalation. Media institutions repeated assumptions about inevitable Iranian defeat. A vast ecosystem of political and economic interests promoted the belief that only one outcome was possible.
Though the MoU demolished that narrative, the reaction from Israel was even more revealing. The Israeli political establishment expected the conflict to fundamentally alter the regional balance of power in its favor.
Instead, Netanyahu and his criminal gang of genocidaires found themselves confronting an agreement negotiated largely without their input and one that preserved many of Iran’s capabilities Israel had spent years attempting to eliminate.
The frustration expressed by them and echoed across the regime’s media was not simply about the agreement itself.
It reflected the recognition that military escalation had failed to produce the strategic transformation that had been promised.
This is why the agreement carries implications far beyond Iran, particularly for governments across the Global South who are expected to study the outcome closely.
Indeed, so will Russia and China. The lesson they will draw is not that America lacks power. The lesson is that American power now operates within constraints that did not exist during the unipolar era.
The lessons from Iran, if incorporated in the study of international relations, will be that the era in which Washington could dictate terms without consequence is steadily eroding.
The MoU therefore marks something larger than the end of a conflict. It marks another stage in the transition from a unipolar order to a multipolar one. The significance of the MoU lies not in what was announced. It lies in what was conceded.
The campaign to impose American terms concluded with Washington accepting realities it once declared unacceptable.
Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)
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
The Russian foreign minister has shared his views on NATO expansion and EU militarization, including in the nuclear sphere, and the threat this poses to global security
18 Jun, 2026 , https://www.rt.com/russia/641806-lavrov-censored-politico-article/
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 slated 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 June 7, 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 May 2, 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 May 19, 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 June 7, 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 June 11, 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.
US Finally Capitulates with ‘Memorandum’ of Surrender
Simplicius, Jun 17, 2026
The US has finally capitulated in its disastrously failed war against Iran, reportedly drafting a memorandum of understanding which is highly favorable to the Islamic Republic, and gains as concession nothing more than the promise that “Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons”—a position Iran had already long held.
The most explosive detail is the alleged $300 billion “reconstruction fund” that Iran will be entitled to once the deal is sealed.
Trump has downplayed or denied this point, with everyone seemingly perplexed as to what this massive sum entails, exactly. In the above article, Reuters writes the following:
The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations program and will not include any government money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the U.S., the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa have agreed to commit financing.
Investments pledged span energy, logistics, manufacturing and transport, the source said.
They claim it’s not a reparations program, yet the official name of the fund is the ‘Reconstruction and Development Fund’. It appears to revolve around regional entities—both corporate and governmental—providing credit lines, direct financing, etc., to Iran. As can be seen above, over half of the fund is claimed to be already committed.
Some American propaganda pundits had claimed that this fund is being pulled from Iran’s frozen assets abroad, but Reuters begs to differ, citing that as an entirely separate negotiating track:
The investment fund is entirely separate from a parallel negotiating track over the lifting of U.S. sanctions and the release of Iranian sovereign assets frozen abroad, the source said, describing the two as distinct financial mechanisms with different purposes and timelines.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-finally-capitulates-with-memorandum?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=201961444&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The U.S. And Iran Have Struck A Deal To Open The Strait Of Hormuz, But Israel May Prevent An End To The War
The U.S. and Iran have reportedly signed a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz and to begin negotiations to end the war. It is a hopeful sign that this disastrous war of choice may soon be over, but once again, Israel stands to be the spoiler.
Mondoweiss, By Mitchell Plitnick June 16, 2026
According to reports, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and formally end the fighting between the two countries was signed on Monday.
It is important to clarify that, regardless of White House statements, this is not a peace deal. It is an agreement to end the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz and a commitment to stop fighting for 60 days while an agreement is reached, hopefully. The negotiation period can be extended if both parties agree. Still, it is a important agreement that indicates a end to this disastrous war could be in sight.
But as usual Israel stands to play the role of spoiler. The one thing that is most clear is that Tel Aviv won’t give up on its long-term goal of regime change in Iran. But if this MOU actually takes effect and opens the Strait of Hormuz, that will not be achieved through this war.
…………………………………………………………………. There seems to be a consensus that the ceasefire does apply to Lebanon. Even the Israelis seem to believe this. But there is less clarity about exactly what that means.
Israel is currently occupying a large portion of Lebanon. Israeli leaders have already made it clear they have no intention of leaving.
For the time being, it seems that the MOU will allow Israel to remain in place. The language both sides have used has often featured the “end of attacks” on Lebanon. Iran obviously seeks a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, but whether they are willing to put that off to the negotiation period rather than insisting on it happening immediately remains to be seen.
Speaking on the Breaking Points podcast, journalist Jeremy Scahill said he had been told that, in exchange for refraining from retaliating against Israel for its attack on Sunday on Dahiya in Lebanon, U.S. President Donald Trump would press Israel to withdraw entirely from Lebanon.
That would be welcome if true, but it is more likely that Iran refrained from that attack so Israel would not get what it wanted from its bombing, namely the disruption of this MOU. So Lebanon still stands out as the main trigger point for blowing up this agreement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://mondoweiss.net/2026/06/the-u-s-and-iran-have-struck-a-deal-to-open-the-strait-of-hormuz-but-israel-may-prevent-an-end-to-the-war/
The interim US-Iran deal leaves the fate of Tehran’s nuclear program still to be negotiated
The interim deal between the U.S. and Iran is supposed to usher in a
two-month period that would address the most divisive issue between the
longtime adversaries – Tehran’s nuclear program. Preventing Iran from
attaining a nuclear bomb is a key reason that President Donald Trump said
he launched the war alongside Israel in February, but the tentative
agreement he has trumpeted leaves little runway to negotiate the
long-running sticking point.
The previous nuclear pact between Iran and
world powers, which Trump pulled the U.S. from in his first term, took many
months to negotiate. Few details have been publicly released about the
initial deal, set to be officially signed Friday in Switzerland, but it
generally calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to global oil shipments,
financial incentives for Iran if it meets certain benchmarks, and a 60-day
period for talks on ending the country’s nuclear program.
Daily Mail 17th June 2026, https://www.dailymail.com/wires/ap/article-15906411/Interim-US-Iran-deal-leaves-thorniest-issue-negotiated-Tehrans-nuclear-program.html
Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained
Another top Iranian official said Washington’s ‘rabid dog’ must be ‘controlled’ following Israel’s latest strike on Beirut
The Cradle,, JUN 14, 2026
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned in a statement on 14 June that there is “no point” in continuing efforts to reach a deal with Washington if Tel Aviv remains unrestrained, a few hours after a new Israeli attack on Lebanon’s capital.
“The Zionists’ aggression against the southern suburb [of Beirut] once again demonstrated that the US either lacks the will to uphold its commitments or lacks the ability to do so,” Ghalibaf said.
“You cannot gain concessions by giving the [Israeli] regime a green light. The ‘good cop, bad cop’ game has grown old. If you lack the will and the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no point in speaking about continuing down this path,” the parliament speaker added.
Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, deputy commander and deputy inspector of the Iranian military’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said Israel’s attack on Beirut’s southern suburb will not go unanswered.
Israelnews updates
“If you seek an agreement or understanding, you must discipline the Zionist regime. If this rabid dog is not controlled, it will bite your leg before the ink is dry on the agreement,” said Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s Foreign Policy and National Security Committee.
The latest Israeli airstrike on the Lebanese capital took place earlier on Sunday afternoon. The attack hit a building in the southern suburb’s Ghobeiry area. …………………………………………………………………………….. https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-warns-no-point-in-deal-with-us-if-israel-remains-unrestrained
1 This Month
of the week- – THE ONENESS of HUMANITY
We the Nuclear Free North
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (258)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 