Is the conflict winding down towards an uneasy stability or winding up for a new escalation?
In nature, nearly everything obeys the law of the pendulum. Motion begins with an impulse, accelerates under the pressure of kinetic energy, reaches an extreme point, and then, sooner or later, is pulled back toward balance. This balance is never absolute and never eternal.
It is only a temporary state of stability, a pause before the next shock, the next
Is the conflict winding down towards an uneasy stability or winding up for a new escalation?
In nature, nearly everything obeys the law of the pendulum. Motion begins with an impulse, accelerates under the pressure of kinetic energy, reaches an extreme point, and then, sooner or later, is pulled back toward balance. This balance is never absolute and never eternal.
It is only a temporary state of stability, a pause before the next shock, the next pressure, the next external force that sets the mechanism in motion again. Political history has often moved with the same rhythm. Empires expand and contract, revolutions radicalize and institutionalize, wars erupt and then search for a language of exhaustion. The current war of the United States and Israel against Iran is no exception.
An uneasy balance
The active phase of aggression against Iran, which began on February 28 with large scale US and Israeli strikes, lasted almost two months in its most intense form. The conflict opened with coordinated attacks on Iranian military, infrastructure, and leadership targets, after which Iran’s response transformed the initial strike into a wider regional confrontation. In the pendulum analogy, Iran’s retaliation became an additional impulse of kinetic energy. It did not stop the mechanism. It gave it another swing. It widened the arc of the war, pulled the Strait of Hormuz into the center of the crisis, disrupted energy flows, and forced Washington to confront the fact that military pressure alone was no longer producing political control.
Now the pendulum appears to be moving back toward its point of equilibrium. Not toward peace in the full moral sense of the word, and not toward reconciliation, but toward temporary stabilization. In politics, equilibrium is often less a triumph of wisdom than a recognition of limits. The US has discovered the limits of coercion, Iran has discovered the limits of escalation, and Israel has discovered that even military superiority cannot easily enforce a durable regional order. The region itself has once again discovered that no war around Iran remains confined to Iran.
The first round of negotiations in Islamabad failed, but it did show that diplomacy was still working beneath the surface. In early April, Iran and the US received a plan for ending hostilities, described as a two-stage framework that would begin with a ceasefire and move later toward a broader final agreement involving nuclear restrictions and sanctions relief. Later reporting described a one-page memorandum that would declare an end to the war and open a 30-day negotiation window on the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, and US sanctions.
It is clear that after destructive military action, diplomacy cannot immediately produce trust. It must first produce channels of communication and establish that the other side is capable of delivering on limited commitments. Even a bad trust, a thin trust, a distrust wrapped in procedure, may be better than no communication at all. Wars often end not because the parties suddenly believe each other, but because they begin to fear what the absence of any understanding might produce.
The first track of the reported two-track structure is a peace arrangement, or more precisely, an arrangement for stopping the war. The second track is a nuclear settlement, which would require more time, more legal formality, and probably a Security Council framework. According to reports, the emerging plan would first use a memorandum of understanding to announce an end to hostilities across several fronts, including Lebanon, while both sides would commit to respecting each other’s territorial sovereignty. After that, the parties would receive roughly 30 days to negotiate sanctions relief, compensation, the release of frozen assets, nuclear limits, and the reopening of maritime routes.
Such a formula reflects the real balance of pressure. Washington wants a nuclear agreement, but it needs the Strait of Hormuz reopened and the war politically closed. Tehran wants sanctions relief and security guarantees, but it also needs time to repair damage, restore internal economic confidence, and convert battlefield endurance into diplomatic leverage. The US reportedly offered partial sanctions relief and the release of some Iranian frozen funds as part of the emerging framework, while Iran would accept limits or a moratorium connected to uranium enrichment and maritime restrictions.
How the US played itself into a corner
The American position is weakened by a central contradiction: Washington entered the confrontation with overwhelming force, but it did not receive overwhelming political support. NATO allies praised certain objectives, but repeatedly avoided direct participation in the US campaign. Later, they refused to join Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports, proposing instead to help only after fighting ended. That was a sign that American power, while still enormous, no longer automatically produces allied obedience in wars that others consider optional, risky, or politically toxic.
Washington’s regional partners were also cautious. Gulf states may fear Iran, but they also fear becoming the battlefield on which American and Iranian escalation is settled. The Strait of Hormuz crisis demonstrated that the geography of this war gives Iran a lever that cannot be bombed away without consequences for everyone. Iran’s military response inflicted costs on American positions and assets in the region, while its control over the maritime choke point turned a war against Iran into a global economic problem.
For Washington, this is political defeat, even if the military balance remains in its favor. A great power can win battles and still lose the narrative, wreak destruction but fail to force the opponent to surrender. It can announce success and still be forced back into negotiations with the same state it intended to break. The Trump administration tried to rehabilitate its position through pressure, blockade, and the announcement of Project Freedom, an operation intended to secure or reopen passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump later paused the operation while pointing to progress in talks with Iran.
First came force. Then came the blockade. Then came an operation to overcome the consequences of the blockade and a counter-blockade. Then came a pause in that operation because diplomacy again became necessary. In chess this is called zugzwang, a state where every available move worsens the player’s position. Escalation risks a larger regional war. De-escalation looks like retreat. Maintaining the blockade hurts global trade and alienates partners. Lifting it without concessions looks like failure. Demanding total Iranian capitulation makes agreement impossible. Accepting partial compromise undermines the original rhetoric of maximum pressure.
A shaky foundation
The new de-escalation plan recognizes that Iran cannot be wished out of the regional order, that American military power cannot secure Hormuz without political arrangements, and that Israel’s preference for permanent strategic pressure cannot by itself produce a stable Middle East. If the plan is real and if the parties accept its core logic, it could become a temporary bridge from war to managed confrontation.
Yet the risks remain enormous, and the first of those risks is Israel. Any agreement that reduces pressure on Iran will be viewed by Israeli hardliners as a strategic defeat. Israel may fear that even a limited peace memorandum gives Iran time to rebuild, rearm, and restore deterrence. If Israeli leaders conclude that diplomacy is freezing the conflict on terms favorable to Tehran, they may attempt to sabotage the process through new strikes, intelligence operations, or pressure on Washington. The broader war has already included multiple fronts, and reports on the emerging state of affairs explicitly mention hostilities beyond Iran, including in Lebanon. Any front left unresolved can become the spark that pushes the pendulum outward again.
The second risk is American domestic politics. A pragmatic agreement before the midterm elections may serve Trump as a way to reduce pressure from voters tired of another war in the Middle East. But the same agreement could also be used as a pause for regrouping. Washington may accept temporary stabilization now, and after the elections return to a more coercive scenario, claiming that Iran violated the spirit of the deal. This is why Tehran must negotiate earnestly, but not dismantle its deterrence in exchange for promises that can be reversed by the next American political calculation.
The third risk is the nuclear issue itself. A peace memorandum can be short because silence often helps diplomacy. But a nuclear agreement cannot be built on silence. It must answer hard questions about enrichment, stockpiles, verification, sanctions sequencing, compensation, and the legal durability of commitments. The earlier JCPOA experience remains the shadow over any new arrangement. Iran will be justified to ask why it should accept restrictions if a future US administration can abandon the agreement. Washington, in turn will want some guarantees that it can trust Iran’s nuclear restraint after war. Resolving these mattes will take specific mechanisms, not mere rhetoric.
Still, the possibility of a new agreement is real if viewed pragmatically. The pendulum is settling toward equilibrium, if slowly, because the previous level of kinetic energy has become unsustainable. The forces that pushed the system into motion are still present, but the system seeks rest because continued motion threatens to break the mechanism.
The coming weeks will show whether the new two-stage plan is a genuine bridge or only another tactical pause. If the memorandum is signed, it may pull the pendulum into temporary balance. If Israel rejects stabilization, or if Washington treats the agreement as a pause before renewed pressure, the pendulum will again receive an impulse. And if that happens, the next swing may be wider, faster, and more destructive than the last.
The Israeli PM said he hopes to bring the “financial component” of American military aid down to zero
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that he plans to “wean” his country off US financial aid within the next decade, while blaming social media “manipulation” for declining public support for his country among Americans.
Israel is the largest recipient of aggregate US foreign aid since World War II, having received more than $30
The Israeli PM said he hopes to bring the “financial component” of American military aid down to zero
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that he plans to “wean” his country off US financial aid within the next decade, while blaming social media “manipulation” for declining public support for his country among Americans.
Israel is the largest recipient of aggregate US foreign aid since World War II, having received more than $300 billion in economic and military assistance from Washington since 1948.
Under a ten-year agreement signed in 2016, the US committed $38 billion in military aid to Israel through 2028, including $5 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system. Overall, American assistance accounts for roughly 16% of the country’s military budget.
In an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes aired on Sunday, Netanyahu was asked whether it was time for the Jewish state to “reexamine and possibly reset” its financial relationship with Washington.
“Absolutely. I’ve said this to President Trump. I’ve said it to our own people. Their jaws drop,” he replied.
“I want to draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have,” the prime minister said, stating that the process should “start now” and be completed “over the next ten years.”
Netanyahu noted that he is well aware of declining support for Israel in the US. A recent Pew poll indicated that six in ten Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of Israel, up seven percentage points since last year and nearly 20 points since 2022.
The Israeli leader outright dismissed the notion that the war in Gaza might have “contributed to this negative impression of Israel,” blaming the shift almost entirely on social media.
“Israel is besieged on the media front, on the propaganda front, and we’ve not done well on the propaganda war,” he said.
“We have several countries that basically manipulated social media with bot farms with fake addresses, to break the American sympathy to Israel.”
More than 71,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli war in Gaza, which was triggered by the deadly October 7, 2023 Hamas raid. Israeli military operations in Lebanon and Iran have also resulted in a large civilian death toll, fueling criticism among the American public and prominent commentators, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Candace Owens.
In March, US Senator Bernie Sanders filed three resolutions seeking to block nearly $660 million in arms sales to Israel, arguing that three-quarters of Democrats and two-thirds of independents oppose Washington sending weapons to the country.
Civilian infrastructure in several Russian regions, including Crimea, Krasnodar, Belgorod, Kursk, Kaluga, and Rostov, came under drone attacks on Sunday
The Ukrainian military has violated the Victory Day ceasefire more than 16,000 times since it took effect on Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.
In a statement on Sunday, the ministry said Ukrainian forces had carried out drone and artillery strikes on civilian sites in Crimea, Belgoro
Civilian infrastructure in several Russian regions, including Crimea, Krasnodar, Belgorod, Kursk, Kaluga, and Rostov, came under drone attacks on Sunday
The Ukrainian military has violated the Victory Day ceasefire more than 16,000 times since it took effect on Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.
In a statement on Sunday, the ministry said Ukrainian forces had carried out drone and artillery strikes on civilian sites in Crimea, Belgorod Region, Kursk Region, Kaluga Region, Rostov Region, and Krasnodar Region. In Belgorod alone, five civilians, including a teenager, were injured in Ukrainian drone attacks, according to regional governor Vyacheslav Gladkov.
Ukrainian troops also carried out 676 strikes against Russian positions using artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems, mortars, and tanks. Kiev’s forces launched 6,331 drone attacks and attempted eight assaults on Russian positions.
In total, the Russian MOD has recorded 16,071 ceasefire violations by Kiev’s forces since Friday, the statement said. Under those circumstances, Russian troops responded “symmetrically” by targeting firing positions, drone launch sites, and command centers.
Russian forces “continue to strictly observe the ceasefire regime and remain at previously occupied lines and positions,” the ministry stated.
The Victory Day truce announced by Russia last week to mark the 81st anniversary of the end of World War II was initially set to expire on Sunday, but following a proposal from US President Donald Trump, Moscow agreed to extend it for two more days.
Throughout the conflict, Moscow has repeatedly declared temporary truces during major religious and national holidays. Last month, Russia announced an Easter ceasefire, which the Defense Ministry said was violated by Ukrainian forces more than 6,500 times within 32 hours.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky issued several veiled threats ahead of the Victory Day celebrations, prompting Moscow to warn its foreign partners about the possible consequences. The Russian Defense Ministry warned that a retaliatory strike on central Kiev would be carried out if attempts were made to disrupt Victory Day events in Moscow, and urged residents and diplomats to leave the Ukrainian capital in advance.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said the warning apparently reached Washington and contributed to Trump’s extended ceasefire initiative. He also said that while the globalist faction of Western elites is still effectively waging war against Russia, using Ukrainians as proxies, the conflict is heading towards its end.
The remote overseas territory of Tristan da Cunha in the southern Atlantic has no airstrip and can only be reached by sea
The British Army has airdropped a team of medics accompanied by paratroopers to treat a suspected hantavirus case on the remote island of Tristan da Cunha. The patient was among the passengers who left the Dutch-flagged cruise vessel MV Hondius before the deadly outbreak was confirmed.
The cruise liner, now dubbed the “plague
The remote overseas territory of Tristan da Cunha in the southern Atlantic has no airstrip and can only be reached by sea
The British Army has airdropped a team of medics accompanied by paratroopers to treat a suspected hantavirus case on the remote island of Tristan da Cunha. The patient was among the passengers who left the Dutch-flagged cruise vessel MV Hondius before the deadly outbreak was confirmed.
The cruise liner, now dubbed the “plague ship” by some media, initially carried 175 guests and crew from 23 countries when it suffered an outbreak of a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings. The outbreak was caused by the Andes strain of hantavirus – the only one known to be capable of human-to-human transmission through close contact.
One of the passengers left the vessel on his home island of Tristan da Cunha, located in the southern Atlantic, on April 14 – three days after the first death – and reported his first symptoms two weeks later. The man is said to be in stable condition.
9,788km from the UK across the South Atlantic, one operation 🪂@BritishArmy and @RoyalAirForce joined forces to deliver urgent medical supplies to one of the world’s most remote communities, Tristan da Cunha. pic.twitter.com/uOQJP6pmcy
— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026
On Saturday, a British Royal Air Force A400M aircraft dropped two medics and six paratroopers on the island, along with oxygen and medical supplies to aid in the treatment of the case. The small island, with a population of fewer than 300, has no airstrip and is reachable only by sea.
UK specialist paratroopers and military clinicians have carried out a daring parachute operation to deliver critical medical support to Tristan da Cunha – Britain’s most remote inhabited Overseas Territory – after a suspected case of Hantavirus was identified on the island. pic.twitter.com/w0xPU8fvcw
— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026
The World Health Organization has so far reported eight hantavirus cases linked to the MV Hondius, including six confirmed cases and two still considered suspected. Three people have died from the infection. Authorities are also trying to trace the contacts of some two dozen people who disembarked at St. Helena on April 24, along with the body of the first victim.
The distressed vessel anchored at the industrial port of Granadilla in the Spanish Canary Islands, where the passengers were medically checked and ferried ashore over the weekend. Most were then repatriated to their home countries and placed in quarantine. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who personally oversaw the operation, reassured the public that hantavirus, while “serious,” is “not another COVID.”
Patient zero is believed to be a 70-year-old Dutch man, who was the first to die from the disease. According to the New York Post, he was an ornithologist who visited a landfill near the Argentinian city of Ushuaia for birdwatching shortly before boarding the ship. There, he and his wife, who also died, could have inhaled particles from the feces of local rats known to carry the disease.
Tehran has delivered its counterproposal to Washington’s conditions for ending the war via Pakistani mediators
US President Donald Trump has called Iran’s response to Washington’s latest proposal for ending the war “totally unacceptable,” after Tehran insisted it would not surrender its strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz without concessions.
The details of Iran’s response have not been made public, but according to US media reports, Tehra
Tehran has delivered its counterproposal to Washington’s conditions for ending the war via Pakistani mediators
US President Donald Trump has called Iran’s response to Washington’s latest proposal for ending the war “totally unacceptable,” after Tehran insisted it would not surrender its strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz without concessions.
The details of Iran’s response have not been made public, but according to US media reports, Tehran’s counterproposal focused on ending the war and securing guarantees that hostilities would not resume, while offering none of the nuclear concessions sought by Washington.
“I have just read the response from Iran’s so-called ‘Representatives.’ I don’t like it — TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. He previously told Axios that the Iranian reply was “inappropriate,” but did not elaborate.
Iran’s response allegedly called for a broader end to hostilities across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, before the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and further nuclear talks, according to AP. Trump, however, has continued to demand immediate restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and has repeatedly threatened to resume large-scale military action if Tehran refuses to accept US terms.
Trump has repeatedly extended the ceasefire, arguing that Iran’s leadership is divided and unable to produce a unified response. Iranian officials, however, have publicly rejected Washington’s terms as an ultimatum, accusing the US of trying to turn negotiations into surrender talks after failing to achieve its stated goals on the battlefield.
Tehran has also made clear that it views control over the Strait of Hormuz as a central bargaining chip, with Mohammad Mokhber, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, comparing the waterway’s strategic value to an “atomic bomb” and vowing that Iran would not “forfeit the gains of this war.”
The latest exchange comes after weeks of fragile diplomacy and intermittent clashes around the Strait of Hormuz, where the US has enforced a naval blockade and Iran has sought to assert control over the strategic waterway.
US officials had hoped Iran’s long-awaited response would show progress after a 10-day delay, Axios reported. An Iranian source, however, dismissed Trump’s dissatisfaction, telling Tasnim that Tehran’s proposal was aimed at protecting Iranian rights rather than pleasing the American president.
The diplomatic setback also comes as tensions rise over possible European involvement in the Gulf. France and Britain had been discussing a multinational mission to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, while Tehran has warned that any such deployment would draw an immediate response.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday reiterated his offer to help move Tehran’s fissile material stockpile
US President Donald Trump has said his country will get hold of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium “at some point,” repeating one of his key demands in peace talks.
In an interview aired on Sunday, journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked Trump what stage the war with the Islamic Republic had reached, considering that the US has yet to se
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday reiterated his offer to help move Tehran’s fissile material stockpile
US President Donald Trump has said his country will get hold of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium “at some point,” repeating one of his key demands in peace talks.
In an interview aired on Sunday, journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked Trump what stage the war with the Islamic Republic had reached, considering that the US has yet to secure Iran’s fissile material.
“Well, we’ll get that at some point, whatever we want,” he said. “We have it surveilled, you know, I did a thing called Space Force… If anybody got near the place, we will know about it. And we’ll blow them up.”
The US and Israel launched their attack on Iran in late February, framing the war as a way to preempt Tehran’s development of a nuclear weapon.
In its latest proposal, Washington doubled down on its demand that Iran promise never to develop such a weapon, stop all enrichment activities and give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Russia has repeatedly offered to aid in the peace process and help remove the material.
“Not only did we make such an offer; we already implemented it once before, back in 2015. Iran has complete trust in us, and not without reason,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists during Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on Saturday. Russia has never violated its agreements and continues to cooperate with Iran on its peaceful nuclear energy programs, he added.
Iran retains more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, according to International Atomic Energy Agency estimates. Weapons-grade levels typically require 90% enrichment and higher.
While Iran has not published a response to the latest US offer, it has consistently refused to hand over its uranium stockpile or halt its civilian nuclear program, while demanding that Washington provide guarantees of non-aggression and remove its forces from the region. Tehran has also long denied plans to build a nuclear bomb.
The Ukrainian leader’s remarks during his visit to Armenia are seen as a threat by the Russian Defense Ministry
Russia expects Armenia to explain its lack of reaction to the “anti-Russian” statements made by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky during a recent summit in Yerevan, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Providing a venue for such rhetoric goes against the spirit of partnership between the two nations, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin on S
The Ukrainian leader’s remarks during his visit to Armenia are seen as a threat by the Russian Defense Ministry
Russia expects Armenia to explain its lack of reaction to the “anti-Russian” statements made by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky during a recent summit in Yerevan, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Providing a venue for such rhetoric goes against the spirit of partnership between the two nations, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday.
Zelensky was in Yerevan earlier this week for a two-day summit of the European Political Community (EPC), an EU-led intergovernmental group launched in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. He asked for more military and financial assistance from the West while claiming that Moscow was scared that Ukrainian “drones may buzz over Red Square” ahead of Victory Day celebrations in Russia.
The Russian Defense Ministry then warned that if Ukraine attempted to disrupt the festivities with attacks, a major retaliatory strike would follow.
“We would surely expect some explanations” from Armenia, Peskov said, pointing to what he called a lack of any attempt to “balance” Zelensky’s rhetoric on the part of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who was hosting the summit. Moscow does not understand “why anti-Russian statements are coming” from Armenian soil, he added.
On Thursday, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the Armenian ambassador in Moscow to protest “opening the floor” for Zelensky’s “terrorist threats against Russia.”
Peskov maintained that Yerevan has a “sovereign right” to define its foreign policy and host any summits it wants, adding that Moscow only wants it not to take an anti-Russian position.
Relations between Russia and Armenia started to cool after Pashinyan came to power in 2018. During his time in office, Armenia lost a proxy war with neighboring Azerbaijan over the latter’s region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Pashinyan then attempted to fault Moscow for not providing military assistance at the time.
As US priorities move away from the EU, NATO faces a fragmented future shaped by Russia fears, French autonomy and Germany’s military revival
The headlines are filled with reports of growing discord inside NATO. Donald Trump openly questions the value of allies who, in his view, fail to carry their share of the burden. Western Europe complains about the unreliability of its American patron while simultaneously pledging loyalty to the Atlantic all
As US priorities move away from the EU, NATO faces a fragmented future shaped by Russia fears, French autonomy and Germany’s military revival
The headlines are filled with reports of growing discord inside NATO. Donald Trump openly questions the value of allies who, in his view, fail to carry their share of the burden. Western Europe complains about the unreliability of its American patron while simultaneously pledging loyalty to the Atlantic alliance. Beneath the daily noise, however, something far more significant is taking place: the gradual transformation of Europe’s political and military order.
For decades, the United States guaranteed Western Europe’s security while those Europeans concentrated on prosperity and welfare. That arrangement now appears increasingly unstable. Washington’s strategic priorities have shifted toward Asia and the confrontation with China. Europe remains important as a logistical and political platform for American power, but it is no longer the unquestioned center of US grand strategy.
Trump didn’t create this process, though he has accelerated it dramatically. His irritation with NATO is not simply personal caprice. It reflects a deeper American conclusion that the era of underwriting Western European security indefinitely has become too expensive and strategically distracting.
The alliance itself was built for another age and another purpose. NATO was designed to contain the Soviet Union and anchor American influence in Europe. It was never intended to become a global instrument for confronting China. Yet this is precisely the direction in which many in Washington would like to push it.
These Europeans, however, do not share America’s sense of urgency regarding Beijing. For most of them, China is an economic competitor, not an existential threat. Russia, by contrast, remains the central security obsession of much of the bloc, especially in Northern and Eastern members.
This divergence is beginning to reshape NATO from within.
France has emerged as the loudest advocate of greater Western European strategic independence. Paris retains a long tradition of military autonomy and still possesses something few other European powers can claim: a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. France cannot realistically replace the American nuclear umbrella over Western Europe, but it increasingly seeks to position itself as the ideological leader of a more self-reliant bloc.
Britain, meanwhile, continues its traditional balancing act between the EU and the United States. London insists on its independence from Brussels while simultaneously searching for external support from Washington. Northern and Eastern states remain intensely hawkish and committed to confrontation with Russia, regardless of whether the Americans remain fully engaged. Southern Europe appears far less enthusiastic, distracted instead by migration, economic stagnation and domestic instability.
As so often in European history, however, the decisive factor will likely be Germany.
Much of post-war Europe was built around one central idea: Germany must never again become an independent geopolitical force. After 1945 the country was divided, militarily constrained and tightly integrated into Western structures under American supervision.
Even German reunification in 1990 was accepted partly because Germany remained embedded inside NATO. At the time, many believed that anchoring a unified Germany within the Atlantic alliance was the safest possible arrangement for Europe.
Ironically, that very decision became one of the starting points of today’s geopolitical crisis. NATO expansion eastward created a security architecture that Moscow increasingly viewed as hostile and destabilizing.
Now, three and a half decades later, Europe may again face the prospect of a Germany becoming strategically autonomous, though this time under entirely different circumstances.
Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a “new era” in 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. For some time the slogan appeared largely symbolic. Under Germany’s current leadership, however, concrete changes are beginning to emerge.
Berlin is discussing accelerated rearmament, expanded military infrastructure and legislative changes aimed at increasing recruitment for the Bundeswehr. The debate over compulsory military service, once politically unthinkable, has returned to the mainstream.
Recent comments by Franz-Josef Overbeck, the Catholic military bishop of the Bundeswehr, are revealing. Overbeck openly called for Germany to send forces to the Strait of Hormuz and argued that compulsory military service should be restored not only for men but also for women.
His reasoning was blunt. Germany, he argued, can no longer remain on the sidelines in an increasingly dangerous world.
Many within Germany’s political establishment likely agree with him privately. Politicians, however, remain cautious because German society is still deeply uncomfortable with militarism and foreign deployments. Decades of post-war political culture have created a pacifist instinct that remains powerful among voters.
The bishop, unlike elected officials, can speak more freely.
At the same time, Germany faces mounting economic difficulties. This is not merely a temporary downturn. The old German economic model rested heavily on cheap Russian energy and export-driven industrial growth, not to mention stable globalization. Much of that foundation has eroded.
As a result, discussions that would once have been politically toxic are now occurring openly. Militarization is increasingly presented not simply as a security necessity, but also as a potential engine of economic renewal.
Only a few years ago such arguments would have sounded extraordinary in Germany. Today they are becoming part of mainstream debate.
This is where the historical dimension becomes impossible to ignore.
German political culture has long been characterized by discipline and a tendency to follow strategic paths with remarkable determination once a consensus forms. In calmer periods this can be an enormous strength. In moments of geopolitical confrontation, however, it can become dangerous.
The path on which Russia once again serves as Germany’s principal antagonist is deeply familiar from European history.
For decades after the Second World War, many believed that lesson had finally been learned. Economic interdependence between Russia and Germany was supposed to make large-scale confrontation irrational. The collapse of that assumption has shocked much of Europe.
Trump’s pressure on NATO is therefore acting as a catalyst for changes that were already underway. Western Europe is being pushed, reluctantly and unevenly, toward greater military independence. Whether this ultimately strengthens NATO or gradually hollows it out remains unclear.
The alliance is unlikely to collapse outright. Institutions of this scale rarely disappear suddenly. More likely is a gradual transformation into something narrower and more fragmented.
A core bloc focused primarily on containing Russia may emerge within NATO, while the United States shifts more of its attention toward Asia.
Whether such a bloc becomes effective will depend above all on Germany. If Berlin fully embraces rearmament and strategic emancipation from American oversight, Europe’s political landscape could change profoundly and by the end of Trump’s presidency, this process may already be far advanced.
Thus, once again, Europe may discover that history is not something safely confined to textbooks. The old rivalries and anxieties that shaped the continent for centuries have an unsettling habit of returning precisely when people convince themselves they are gone forever.
This article was first published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and was translated and edited by the RT team
The phaseout would deepen the bloc’s dependence on more expensive US gas, the Slovak prime minister has warned
The EU plan to phase out Russia as an energy supplier will end in the US reselling Russian oil and gas to Europe at far higher prices, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned.
Speaking in Bratislava on Sunday, Fico said Washington has “a huge interest in buying all transit infrastructures” across the European continent.
“So the Russ
The phaseout would deepen the bloc’s dependence on more expensive US gas, the Slovak prime minister has warned
The EU plan to phase out Russia as an energy supplier will end in the US reselling Russian oil and gas to Europe at far higher prices, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned.
Speaking in Bratislava on Sunday, Fico said Washington has “a huge interest in buying all transit infrastructures” across the European continent.
“So the Russians will supply the Americans with gas and oil at standard prices, and the Americans will sell it to us with an American high-margin surcharge. Are we such idiots already?” he said.
Already, “the share of Russian liquefied gas in Europe is increasing,” Fico added, pointing out the hypocrisy of Brussels singling out countries like Slovakia to pressure over Russian fuel supplies. “So we can’t, but France can buy liquefied gas from Russia.”
Contrary to the EU, Bratislava’s position is to “diversify the supply options for all fuels,” he said.
In February, the European Commission doubled down on long-standing plans to phase out Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027.
While the US-Israeli war on Iran and the subsequent fuel crisis have pushed Brussels to prepare for “the worst-case scenarios,” the EU will not abandon its pivot away from Russian liquefied natural gas, the bloc’s energy chief, Dan Jorgensen, told the Financial Times last month. Brussels will instead rely on more expensive supplies from the US and other partners, he said.
Just last week, Washington launched a multi-billion dollar push to invest in and build a major US pipeline project in Central and Eastern Europe, which still imports Russian gas via the TurkStream pipeline and its extension – Balkan Stream.
According to Moscow, such US projects, as well as sanctions against Russian oil companies, are part of a sweeping strategy to capture the energy market.
Washington is aiming to monopolize all international energy supply routes in an attempt to attain global economic dominance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told TV BRICS earlier this year.
Prime Minister Evika Silina has dismissed Andris Spruds after unmanned aircraft violated the country’s airspace
Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina has dismissed Defense Minister Andris Spruds after Ukrainian drones hit oil storage facilities on the Baltic state’s territory.
“The drone incident this week clearly showed that the leadership of the defense sector failed to deliver on its promise of a safe sky over our country,” Silina wrote on X.
Sh
Prime Minister Evika Silina has dismissed Andris Spruds after unmanned aircraft violated the country’s airspace
Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina has dismissed Defense Minister Andris Spruds after Ukrainian drones hit oil storage facilities on the Baltic state’s territory.
“The drone incident this week clearly showed that the leadership of the defense sector failed to deliver on its promise of a safe sky over our country,” Silina wrote on X.
She added that Spruds had lost both her trust and the trust of the public.
Spruds, however, stated that he had already decided to resign himself. He accused the prime minister of rushing to announce his dismissal for political reasons and lying about informing him and his party, the Progressives, in advance.
The incident highlights growing tensions and security concerns in the Baltic states amid the ongoing Ukraine conflict.
Several NATO countries bordering Russia have recently reported cases of Ukrainian unmanned aircraft entering their airspace and crashing instead of striking targets inside Russia. Earlier this week, Latvian officials said two drones – which the Russian military identified as Ukrainian Lyuty-type fixed-wing aircraft – crossed into the country overnight. One remains unaccounted for, while another sparked a fire near the town of Rezekne, roughly 40 km from the Russian border.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga commented on the scandal on Friday, claiming he had addressed the issue with Riga and apologized to the three Baltic states and Finland. The top diplomat also attempted to shift the blame to Russia.
Peace talks will remain stalled until the Ukrainian military leaves Donbass, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said
The Ukrainian military needs to pull back from Donbass for the peace process to move forward, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said. Talks between Moscow and Kiev will remain stalled until then, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin, adding that the Ukrainian government knows this.
Russia and Ukraine have held several
Peace talks will remain stalled until the Ukrainian military leaves Donbass, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said
The Ukrainian military needs to pull back from Donbass for the peace process to move forward, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said. Talks between Moscow and Kiev will remain stalled until then, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin, adding that the Ukrainian government knows this.
Russia and Ukraine have held several rounds of talks, including with US mediation, since early 2025, when President Donald Trump returned to the White House. The process has slowed down following the latest US-mediated meeting in Geneva in February.
According to Ushakov, any new meetings will not change the situation unless Ukrainian troops are withdrawn. “Until [Ukraine] makes the step, one can hold some more rounds, dozens of rounds [of talks] but we will remain in the same spot,” he said.
“They know in Ukraine that it must be done and they will do it sooner or later,” the presidential aide stated. Ushakov also said that Moscow maintains close contacts with Washington when it comes to the peace process, adding that Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, could visit Russia “soon.”
“The US is now more preoccupied with the Middle East crisis but they are not abandoning the Ukraine issue,” he told Zaurbin, while saying that Moscow and Washington “actively communicate by phone.”
Earlier this week, Ushakov called a potential Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbass “one serious step” that would greatly advance the settlement process. Military action would cease after that, he stated on Thursday.
The two Donbass republics voted to join Russia together with two other former Ukrainian territories – Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – in autumn 2022. In March, President Vladimir Putin stated that only between 15% and 17% of the Donetsk People’s Republic remains under Kiev’s control. In April, the Russian military reported fully liberating the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic.
The Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly refused to both recognize the status of the new Russian regions or to cede any territory to Moscow. It also maintains that recapturing the regions incorporated into Russia is one of its ultimate goals.
France is illegally harvesting its citizens’ data, while accusing social media platforms of doing the same, the entrepreneur has alleged
Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov has accused France of hypocrisy after prosecutors expanded a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X. Durov said French authorities were violating citizens’ privacy while accusing the social media platform of similar conduct.
The entrepreneur made the remarks on Sunday, just day
France is illegally harvesting its citizens’ data, while accusing social media platforms of doing the same, the entrepreneur has alleged
Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov has accused France of hypocrisy after prosecutors expanded a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X. Durov said French authorities were violating citizens’ privacy while accusing the social media platform of similar conduct.
The entrepreneur made the remarks on Sunday, just days after the Paris prosecutor’s office announced that it would seek new charges against X over alleged illegal sexual deepfakes made by the platform’s Grok AI, as well as unlawful data extraction and other crimes.
“The French government is accusing X of the very things the French government itself is doing,” Durov tweeted.
The French government is panicking. They know a major political shift in 2027 will expose their misdeeds – so they’re trying to silence free speech platforms under whatever pretext they think they can get away with.
He called on the international community to back X against what he called the French state’s “immoral assault” on the social media app.
French investigators initially launched their investigation of X and Grok in January, alleging that the platforms’ algorithms were biased and accusing the company of illegal data gathering and of possessing and spreading sexualized deepfakes created by its AI, including images involving minors.
The tech mogul has denied any wrongdoing and dismissed the legal action as a “political attack.”
Last month, the US Department of Justice reportedly denied a request from French prosecutors to cooperate in the investigation. US President Donald Trump’s administration has long been critical of what it has called attacks on free speech and political opposition in the EU and UK.
Durov’s Telegram has also faced legal troubles in France. The entrepreneur was arrested at a Paris airport in 2024 and indicted on a dozen charges after French prosecutors accused him of being complicit in crimes committed using his social media platform. Durov has since been allowed to leave France, despite the ongoing investigation.
Login
