SCOTT RITTER: Russia Retaliation on Europe No Longer In Doubt
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 14, 2026
Prediction: NATO’s Collapse & Nuclear War
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | May 8, 2026
NATO was always destined to be a temporary military alliance, united by a common enemy and threat during the Cold War. Once that threat disappeared with the end of the Cold War and thereafter the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main question asked in the 1990s was: What would be NATO’s new reason to exist? The answer to this question was to pursue unipolarity / collective hegemony in the post-Cold War era through NATO expansionism and military interventionism (“out of area or out of business”).
Russia was implicitly given the ultimatum: be a compliant civilizational student or a counter-civilizational force. Russia could accept NATO’s hegemonic role as a “force for good,” or it could resist, and then NATO would return to its former role of confronting Russia. The NATO-backed regime change in Ukraine—aimed at transforming the country from a Russian partner into a frontline state aligned against Russia— triggered the war in 2014. NATO thus began reverting to its former role of confronting Russia, yet it happened as the hegemonic era had come to an end.
Now that the former collective hegemony has been balanced and a multipolar world has emerged, NATO has yet again lost its purpose and will disintegrate. European leaders want to restore NATO’s original purpose: containing Russia. This will fail because it is based on the fraudulent narrative that Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union, rather than balancing NATO expansionism and military interventionism.
The US will, however, not return to the original purpose of NATO as the distribution of power has shifted, and will therefore not play along with the fake narratives of Europeans leaders. The US is in relative decline and cannot sustain simultaneous strategic dominance in Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and the Western Hemisphere. The US cannot be everywhere in a multipolar world, and it will pivot to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia. A US presence in Europe consumes too many resources and pushes Russia toward China, its main rival. However, the US is happy to outsource the conflict with Russia to the Europeans. Europe remains obedient, and Russia is weakened.
If Europe had rational leaders, they would have adjusted to the new international distribution of power by shutting this war down, making peace with Russia, establishing a common pan-European security architecture (35 years too late) that also saves Ukraine by removing it from the front lines of a re-divided Europe, and diversifying their economic ties to avoid excessive dependence on any one foreign power. However, Europe does not have rational leaders, and even arguing that weapons are not the path to peace or arguing in favour of diplomacy is smeared and censored as “pro-Russian” treason. Europe’s political class remains committed to Russophobic narratives and policies that intensify confrontation and prolong the conflict.
The trajectory now appears increasingly clear: NATO will continue to disintegrate, and the Europeans will compensate by further escalating the war against Russia. This will happen at a time when Russia is desperate to restore its deterrence by retaliating against Europe (most predictably against Germany), while the US commitment and protection of Europe are waning. The predictable consequence is that European leaders will eventually provoke a powerful response from Russia, which will rapidly escalate to what will hopefully only be a limited nuclear strike.
German arson case: Antisemitism commissioner’s inner circle now top suspects after police raids
Remix News | May 5, 2026
The investigation into the early 2026 firebombing of Brandenburg Antisemitism Commissioner Andreas Büttner’s home is nearing a conclusion, but the results have stunned the public.
In a dramatic reversal of the initial narrative, the Brandenburg State Criminal Police Office has executed a series of raids across Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania targeting the commissioner’s own close associates.
While the case was initially treated as an Islamist or antisemitic hate crime, the German Public Prosecutor General’s Office now identifies two men from Büttner’s “own circle,” which belongs to the left, as the primary suspects, reveals Tagesspiegel in a new exclusive report.
Initially believed to be a pro-Palestinian terror arson attack
On the night of Jan. 4, 2026, a shed on Büttner’s Templin estate was incinerated, and a red Hamas triangle – a mark of the Palestinian terrorist (sic) group – was found defaced on his front door. The attack, which caused approximately €20,000 euros in damage, triggered a massive increase in the commissioner’s personal security.
However, the “antisemitic or Islamist motive” is now being questioned following several key investigative breakthroughs.
The first has to do with DNA evidence. Forensic teams reportedly matched DNA from Lukas S. to threatening letters sent to the Brandenburg State Parliament, which branded Büttner a “Zionist pig” and a “traitor,” and expressed a clear intent to “kill” him.
One letter addressed to Büttner contained a mysterious “gray substance” and “granular substance,” which prompted an emergency response by police specialists at the parliament’s mailroom.
The second point of evidence has to do with the specific arson attack. Police discovered by chance a smoldering fire 20 kilometers from the crime scene containing gloves and barbecue lighter fluid. When investigators connected them to the arson, the items were traced back to a purchase at a hardware store in Lower Saxony that involved a debit card belonging to one of the suspects, the same one who is a business partner of Büttner.
Suspects are two Germans with deep ties to left-wing causes and combating antisemitism
The suspects, identified as Daniel R. and Lucas S., are not strangers to the commissioner; they are his “friends and business partners,” according to Tagesspiegel.
All three men are linked through a “management consulting” firm established in 2023, where Büttner is the majority shareholder and Daniel R. serves as the managing director. Furthermore, the suspects are active in a non-profit initiative for “political education and commemorative work” for which Büttner is the “sole patron.”
Despite the violent nature of the charges — which include arson and the use of “symbols associated with unconstitutional and terrorist organizations” — the trio appeared to maintain an amicable relationship after the attack.
Reports indicate they met in Berlin and Potsdam and even attended a performance of “The Flying Dutchman” at the Leipzig Opera in February.
When confronted with the news that his business partners were under investigation, Andreas Büttner maintained his distance, stating: “I had—and still have—absolutely no knowledge of this matter. Naturally not.”
He also noted he is cooperating with police, noting, “The police are investigating. I cannot say anything about this. I have confidence in the police investigation.”
The revelation complicates the wave of international support Büttner received following the fire.
At the time, Israel’s Ambassador Ron Prosor condemned the act as terrorism, stating that the Hamas triangle represented attacks on those with different views “in Gaza just as in Brandenburg.”
Federal Antisemitism Commissioner Felix Klein similarly labeled the event a “direct attack on our democracy.”
The German Public Prosecutor continues to investigate, with more details of why the attack occurred potentially coming to light in the future.
Meanwhile, commentators are addressing the remarkable details of the case and the suspects allegedly behind the firebombing.
Jan Karon, a journalist and author, wrote on X:
“Daniel R. and Lucas S., who are suspected of carrying out the arson attack (complete with Hamas triangles) on the antisemitism commissioner Andreas Büttner, practically embody the epitome of the progressive NGO complex.
The two, as the text states citing a source, had “made a business model out of mediating funding to people and organizations.” The article reconstructs their activities: nationwide courses and projects, €98,000 in funding from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, the “German Engagement Award,” the fight against racism, and an explanatory channel on YouTube.
The two men posed in 2019 at the Chancellery next to Merkel—as young people “committed to democracy.”
This was followed by invitations to the EU Parliament, the Bundestag, and the Federal Press Ball. In 2020, they founded a foundation for educational work, from which a company later emerged that sought to commemorate the child victims of National Socialism (!) —and to this end collected donations to produce 5,000 pairs of fiberglass shoes (!!).
R. and S. also planned to rebuild the destroyed synagogue in Prenzlau with donations.
They are said to have pressed the antisemitism commissioner Büttner to “fly to Israel” with Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Büttner founded a company with them that is dedicated to that (federally funded) fight.
One is left speechless.
Previous hate hoaxes
If proven that this was indeed a staged hate attack, it would not be the first time that a hate hoax occurred in recent years.
In 2022, famed German-Israeli musician Gil Ofarim was accused of lying about an alleged antisemitic incident inside the Leipzig Hotel Westin after video footage and other evidence led police to doubt his claims, but not before the case sparked national headlines in Germany.
According to the singer Ofarim, who was born in Israel but found success as a musician in Germany, an employee at the check-in counter asked him to remove his Star of David chain from sight if he wanted to be checked in. Ofarim made the claim in an emotional Instagram video entitled “Antisemitism in Germany 2021,” where he ended his story by holding up the necklace chain in question. The viral video sparked protests involving thousands of people in front of the hotel, and the claims were spread widely by antisemitism watchdogs.
After Ofarim’s claims, video footage obtained by Bild newspaper is calling into question Ofarim’s version of events, leading the case to fall apart and for the hotel employee to be completely cleared of wrongdoing after an independent investigation.
In a commentary piece on Germany’s Junge Freiheit, the Ofarim case was presented as a clear example of previous hate hoaxes that have plagued Germany in the past. Like many other cases later identified as false or misleading, the Ofarim antisemitism claim was widely reported in world media outlets, including the Guardian and CNN.
Junge Freiheit pointed to the Sebnitz case, where a mob of skinheads supposedly drowned a toddler, only for it to turn into one of the biggest debacles in Germany’s modern history. There is also the case of Mittweide, where nobody had actually carved a swastika on her forehead (police later proved she did it herself). In Müglen, foreigners were not hunted on the streets, and in Chemnitz, the same accusation that sparked a nationwide outcry has never been proven. And in Dresden, an Eritrean asylum seeker was not murdered by right-wing extremists from the Pegida movement, but killed by a fellow Eritrean.
Here’s why Iran is sovereign and Germany is not
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | May 1, 2026
Sovereignty, as defined in international law, is both crucial and complex. In the real shark-pool world of geopolitics, it is not hard to spot: if you have the ability to rule at home and resist attack from outside (any outside), then you are sovereign. Otherwise not. No exceptions.
That’s why Iran has sovereignty, but Germany does not. Iran has withstood two months of a devious and brutal war of aggression waged by the US and Israel, which in turn is “merely” the culmination of decades of assaults levied via economic warfare, assassination campaigns, and subversion.
However, Iran has not only successfully foiled the current Israeli-American blitzkrieg-and-regime-change scenario, but also put the attackers on the backfoot. Tehran’s achievement is already historic. It has changed and will change the course of history.
Germany, by contrast, cannot even defend its own vital infrastructure, as the Nord Stream sabotage and its aftermath have demonstrated. What is even worse, its governments have had no will to do so. On the contrary, they have been rewarding the Ukrainian attackers with untold billions to feed Kiev’s ultra-corruption. Their backers – certainly including the US and Poland, and most likely Great Britain, too – need not worry about any trouble from Berlin either.
Case closed: Iran is sovereign, Germany is not. If you are German and find this uncomfortable, complain to Berlin.
Against this backdrop, it is oddly fitting that it is Iran which is now exerting a powerful influence on German politics despite not having any deliberate designs to do so, whereas German calls on Tehran (or, for that matter, Moscow or Beijing) to do this and leave that – as articulated by Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul with an almost comical lack of self-awareness – come across as embarrassing: sad spectacles of an impotence that doesn’t even know itself.
Iran, on the other hand, has now had a palpable impact on what unfortunately remains Germany’s single most important foreign-policy relationship. Indeed, as the current, post-1990 “unification” (really, expansion, and that’s still a polite term) Germany is really the old Cold War West Germany writ large (and going to seeds, too), the relationship with the US is more than just important. Historically, it was literally foundational.
And here we are: It is due to Iran’s resistance that this relationship has entered a deep crisis. Of course, other factors have played (or should have played) a role as well: for instance, Washington’s ferocious, bipartisan economic warfare against its old key client (polite term) in Europe, including at least complicity in destroying vital energy infrastructure and supply options (Biden, Democrats) via massive incentives for German industry to relocate to the US (Biden, Democrats) to devastation by tariffs (Trump, Republicans).
But it is over Iran that things have now come to a head: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has openly criticized Washington’s conduct of the war, and US President Donald Trump has launched one of his social media rampages, going after Merz and Germany with, as Secretary of War (Crimes) Pete Hegseth would put it, “no quarter” given.
Trump has even threatened, in effect, to withdraw the almost 40,000 US troops from Germany. It would be stupid and self-damaging for the US to do so, but then, this is the Trump administration. Full disclosure: As a German, I hope they go ahead.
Trump has also told Merz off for wanting Iran to have a nuclear weapon (false on two counts: Iran isn’t building one, and Merz is a compliant client leader who would never dare dissent from the US and Israel) and for being bad at running Germany, which must rankle, because most Germans agree. Merz has just earned himself the worst poll ratings of any German chancellor ever.
He has made things even worse – yes, Merz can do that – by releasing an exceedingly masochistically timed interview to complain that, in essence, no one likes him. True, but saying so has only triggered a national tsunami of mockery: now he is not only vastly unpopular but derided as a wimp, who loves to dish out harsh admonishments and mean austerity but can’t take the response.
A short video clip deep-faking Merz performing a satire of MC Hammer’s classic “You can’t touch this” by singing “No one likes me” is going viral. At a town hall-style meeting, the chancellor was openly laughed at. Major mainstream media are beginning to talk about a crisis deep enough to end the current government and, even worse for Merz, about rebellious murmurs inside his own CDU party.
All of this because Merz was making remarks about the Iran War. But make no mistake: Friedrich Merz, still infamous for applauding Israeli “dirty work” (“Drecksarbeit”) in Iran last summer, has not discovered a conscience. Listen attentively to his recent statements, made before a group of high school kids, and you realize, the chancellor’s real beef with America is that Washington hasn’t done its current “dirty work” quickly and, above all, successfully. No one loves a loser, not even, it turns out, Friedrich Merz, whose prior obsequiousness toward Trump had raised eyebrows even in Germany.
Yet whatever Merz’s sordid motives, take a step back and look at this picture from the point of view of history-in-the-making: Here is the German chancellor, who claims to be ready to make his country lead Europe (yes, not a great idea, but let that pass for now), whose government is presiding over the greatest German debt-and-armament splurge since World War Two (and that against a background of profound economic crisis), and he is stumbling over Iran. So much for the rise of multipolarity and the decline of Europe.
Not because that was Tehran’s aim. As a matter of fact, the Iranian leadership probably has very little time to think about Berlin – except noting for the future that, in practical terms, it is serving as a loyal accomplice in the American-Israeli war of aggression. No, the reason Iran now impacts and shakes the American-German relationship is that Tehran has been defeating the US, and so the client state Germany is registering the public “humiliation” of America (Merz’s term) by showing immediate signs of faltering compliance.
Who in this picture is reshaping things? And who is being shaped? Here’s another way to define sovereignty. And Germany still loses.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Nuclear Apartheid: Iran’s Rise Exposes the NPT Fraud and the West’s Israel Exception
By Freddie Ponton – 21st Century Wire – April 29, 2026
The fight over Iran’s vice presidency at the 2026 NPT Review Conference looked procedural only if one ignored the history that walked into the room with it. The United States, the United Kingdom, speaking for France and Germany, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates objected to Iran’s appointment, yet Iran kept the post after a Non-Aligned Movement nomination and no blocking vote was forced, exposing a basic fact that now hangs over the treaty system. The United Arab Emirates did not merely object but formally and unequivocally disassociated itself from Iran’s election, while citing Tehran’s continuous violations of its safeguards obligations.
That moment is crucial because it revealed a shrinking gap between Western power and Western authority. The states that still dominate military alliances, financial coercion, and media narratives could denounce Tehran in New York, but they could not turn denunciation into institutional compliance, and they could not persuade the wider diplomatic field that their understanding of non-proliferation deserved automatic deference. What looked like a dispute over one vice presidency was in fact a public measure of a much deeper revolt against selective enforcement.
The bargain they broke
The deeper story begins in 1995, when the NPT was indefinitely extended on the basis of a broader political package that included the Resolution on the Middle East. That resolution called on all states in the region that had not yet done so to join the treaty and place their nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards, and the UN Secretariat background paper explicitly records that the resolution was an essential element of the outcome on which indefinite extension was secured.
The 2010 Review Conference reaffirmed that point in unusually clear language. It said the 1995 resolution remained valid until its goals were achieved, recalled the importance of Israel’s accession to the treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive safeguards, and endorsed concrete steps toward a 2012 conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The conference never delivered what it promised, and Algeria’s 2026 working paper now states bluntly that Israel’s stance helped render the 1995 resolution “devoid of substance,” while the UN Secretariat paper records that many states saw the failure of implementation as seriously undermining the treaty itself.
The Israeli exception
That is why so much of the Global South reads the current crisis through Israel rather than through Iran alone. The UN Secretariat background paper states in neutral terms that all states of the Middle East except Israel are parties to the NPT and that all states in the region except Israel have undertaken to accept comprehensive IAEA safeguards, giving documentary form to the asymmetry that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Arab states have been protesting for decades.
NAM’s own recent language is harsher because the political implications are harsher. At the 2024 IAEA General Conference record, Uganda speaking on behalf of NAM warned that a selective approach undermined the viability of the safeguards regime, expressed great concern over Israel’s acquisition of nuclear capability, and called for a total prohibition on nuclear-related transfers and assistance to Israel, while the April 2026 NAM statement to the UN Disarmament Commission again demanded that Israel renounce nuclear weapons, accede to the NPT without precondition or delay, and place all its facilities under full-scope safeguards.
That continuity was reaffirmed in the Kampala Declaration, which carried the same line through 2025 and closed the institutional bridge to the April 2026 NAM position. For the movement, this is not a side file or an ideological hobbyhorse. It is the living proof that the rules are preached as universal and applied as political.
The South’s quiet revolt
Once that history is acknowledged, the so-called silence of NAM and many Global South states on Iran’s vice presidency stops looking like ambiguity and starts looking like discipline. They did not need to issue sentimental declarations of love for Tehran in order to refuse a Western effort to re-police multilateral legitimacy, because the issue before them was larger than Iran’s image and deeper than one nomination. It was whether the same powers that had tolerated, normalized, or materially shielded the Middle East’s only non-NPT nuclear exception would now be allowed to decide who is morally disqualified from procedural office inside the treaty system.
That is why the resistance was institutional rather than theatrical. After dismissing the objections as baseless and politically motivated, Iran disassociated itself from the election of the United States as vice president, and according to one contemporaneous account, from Australia’s as well, turning the confrontation into a mirror held up to the old order. The 2025 report of the sixth session of the conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction said Israel’s refusal to join the NPT and submit all its facilities and activities to comprehensive safeguards undermined the credibility of the non-proliferation regime and imposed additional burdens on regional states, while the same report condemned attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities as a grave threat to the credibility of the NPT and the integrity of the entire IAEA safeguards regime.
In that setting, refusing to let Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and Canberra define the boundaries of legitimacy was not indulgence toward Iran, but a defense of sovereign equality against a one-sided nuclear order.
What their objection revealed
The objections from the United States, the E3, and Australia therefore boomeranged. They were intended to isolate Iran, but they instead illuminated the moral exhaustion of a bloc that speaks in the language of non-proliferation while presiding over an order in which disarmament obligations are endlessly deferred, nuclear sharing and modernization continue, and Israel’s opaque arsenal remains politically protected from the universality routinely demanded of others. The analysis from the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) long ago captured the pattern by showing how NAM kept international attention on Israel’s nuclear status and how double standards around Israel helped fuel resistance inside the regime, and the documents gathered since then show that this reading did not fade but hardened.
Australia’s place in this picture is revealing precisely because it is less central than Washington or the E3 and yet moved in lockstep with them against Iran’s vice presidency. That choice placed Canberra inside a camp that could still object loudly but could no longer command consent, and it tied Australia to a diplomatic posture that much of the Global South now experiences as selective guardianship rather than principled stewardship. The same is true of the E3, whose claim to defend the treaty sounds increasingly thin when the documentary record shows decades of unfinished obligations on the Middle East file and continued Western insistence that the burden of credibility falls primarily on disfavored treaty members rather than on the region’s protected exception.
A treaty stripped bare
What emerged in New York, then, was not simply a quarrel over Iran. In fact, we all witnessed the exposure of a treaty order whose founding compromise on the Middle East has been repeatedly postponed, diluted, and evaded, until many of the states asked to keep faith with the system now see the system itself as compromised at the core. The 2026 UN Secretariat paper, the 2026 Algeria submission, the April 2026 NAM statement, the 2024 IAEA record, and the 2025 IAEA safeguards resolution all converge on the same underlying reality that Israel’s non-accession, unsafeguarded status, and continuing exceptional treatment have become inseparable from the crisis of NPT credibility.
That is why Iran’s vice presidency is so significant, because it marks the point at which a large part of the non-aligned world stopped pretending that the greatest danger to the treaty’s legitimacy begins and ends in Tehran, and instead used procedure to register a quieter but more consequential judgment that the deeper non-proliferation crisis lies in a regime that punishes some, excuses others, and then demands respect for the imbalance it created.
On April 27th, the West could still denounce, but could no longer decide; and that, more than the vice presidency itself, is the message now being sent from the Global South to Washington, the E3, and Australia.
‘An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership’: Merz
Al Mayadeen | April 27, 2026
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday that Iran’s leadership is effectively “humiliating” the United States amid the ongoing war.
Speaking publicly, Merz argued that Washington does not seem to have a coherent plan and raised doubts about how the US intends to bring its involvement to a close.
“The Iranians are clearly stronger than expected and the Americans clearly have no truly convincing strategy in the negotiations either,” Merz said during a school visit in Marsberg, located in his native Sauerland region.
He emphasized the difficulty of disengaging from such wars, noting, “The problem with conflicts like this is always: you don’t just have to get in, you have to get out again. We saw that very painfully in Afghanistan for 20 years. We saw it in Iraq.”
Merz continued, “At the moment, I do not see what strategic exit the Americans will choose, especially since the Iranians are clearly negotiating very skillfully — or very skillfully not negotiating.”
He further stated that “an entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership,” particularly by Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC).
Economic fallout for Germany
Addressing the domestic impact, Merz said tensions in West Asia are now weighing heavily on Germany’s economy.
“It is at the moment a pretty tangled situation,” he said. “And it is costing us a great deal of money. This conflict, this war against Iran, has a direct impact on our economic output.”
He claimed that Berlin continues to “offer support in securing global trade routes“, including the potential deployment of minesweepers to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key passage for international oil shipments.
However, Merz alleged that such a move would depend on a cessation of hostilities.
Court Forces German Chancellor Merz to Open Files on 300 “Insult the Chancellor” Cases
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 25, 2026
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has used the German state to pursue around 300 criminal investigations against people accused of insulting him, and his Chancellery spent months trying to keep the public from finding out which prosecutors were handling the cases. That wall has now come down.
The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg has ordered the Bundeskanzleramt to identify every prosecutor’s office running a Merz-insult investigation, along with the file number for each one.
The ruling, which rejected the Chancellery’s appeal against an earlier decision of the Berlin Administrative Court, came after a legal challenge by Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. Until the judgment, roughly 300 criminal proceedings over alleged slights against the sitting head of government had been shielded from any journalistic scrutiny.
The legal hook for all of it is Section 188 of Germany’s criminal code, a special provision that gives people in political life reinforced protection against insult. The official English translation of the statute states that anyone who “insults a person who exercises a political office in relation to their office or in connection with their office shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.”
A politician gets to sit at the center of a prosecution aimed at a citizen who said something unpleasant about them, and the punishment on the table is years in prison.
How cases enter the pipeline is itself revealing. Citizens are encouraged by NGOs and state-run reporting portals to flag supposed insults, sometimes anonymously.
Those reports travel to the Federal Criminal Police Office, which routes them to the relevant regional prosecutor’s office. The targeted politician is then notified and decides whether to file a formal criminal complaint or whether to leave the prosecution to run without objection. The Chancellery alone receives between 20 and 30 such files every month.
Merz has said he does not sign complaints himself, but also does not block the prosecutions that have been opened in his name. Whether that account holds up against the actual paperwork is precisely what the Chancellery was trying to prevent anyone from checking.
The Chancellery’s argument in court was that no heightened public interest justified handing the information over, and that merely naming the prosecutor’s offices and file numbers could violate the rights of accused individuals. The court did not accept it. The judges held that the Chancellor’s distinctive role in these proceedings made disclosure necessary, and that neither jurisdictional objections nor the absence of urgency stood in the way.
The scale alone deserves attention. A head of government who has triggered roughly 300 criminal investigations over things people said about him is using the machinery of the state against ordinary speech at a volume that does not look like an occasional recourse to legal remedy. It looks like a policy. And the instinct, once the numbers started circulating, was to hide the details rather than defend them.
The chilling effect of a regime like this does not depend on convictions. It depends on the knowledge that a critical Facebook post, a rude placard, or a sharp comment can summon the Bundeskriminalamt, a prosecutor, and potentially a house search. A Stuttgart man who called Merz a “Suffkopf,” roughly a drunkard, saw his home searched after Merz signed a complaint against him.
The lesson lands well beyond the individuals actually charged. Self-censorship becomes the rational response, which is the real product of the law.
Section 188’s defenders describe it as protection for democratic institutions against targeted harassment of officials. The practical architecture of the provision tells a different story.
The category of “insult” is elastic. German courts have struggled for years with where sharp political commentary ends and punishable disrespect begins, and individual judges have reached wildly different conclusions on facts that look almost identical. Into that vagueness steps a provision that hands the sitting Chancellor and his office a direct line to prosecutors considering whether to put a citizen through a criminal process.
The deeper question sits where it has always sat. A democracy that lets its head of government send police to the homes of citizens who call him names has already made a choice about which it values more, the dignity of the office or the tongue of the citizen. The court has forced some sunlight into the process. The provision that makes the process possible in the first place is still waiting for someone to deal with it.
Europe’s Drone Pipeline to Ukraine Could Soon be in Russia’s Crosshairs – Analyst
Sputnik – 16.04.2026
The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement on Europe’s plan to scale up drone production for Ukraine contained an explicit warning, says military analyst Ivan Konovalov speaking to Sputnik : Europe is turning into a “strategic rear base.”
The term applies to infrastructure that, while located outside the battlefield, directly sustains combat operations.
Under this logic, European hubs supplying Ukraine with drone components, data systems, FPV drones and heavy fixed-wing UAVs are no longer a “civilian facility in a peaceful country.”
“Once the production cycle on their territory is integrated into Ukraine’s strike capabilities against Russia, the line is crossed – they become a target deep within the enemy’s operational structure,” remarks the analyst.
After Russia’s strikes dismantled Ukraine’s centralized drone production, a workaround emerged: assembly lines were set up in Bavaria and the UK, using foreign-made components, while the finished systems were marketed as “Ukrainian.”
However, European production creates a long, predictable supply chain via Poland or Romania, exposed to disruption, insurance risks, and logistical bottlenecks, says the pundit.
Large shipments are visible to reconnaissance and potentially easier to disrupt at critical junctions, he argues.
For the European economy, it will entail growing risks for cargo insurance, airspace restrictions in border regions, and potentially forced relocation of production into underground or highly dispersed facilities.
“All this is fraught with massive non-productive costs for EU taxpayers, while Russia has long adapted to counter such challenges.”
EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
RT | April 13, 2026
Compulsory military service could be reinstated in the EU, Andre Denk, the head of the European Defense Agency (EDA), has said, citing a lack of volunteers.
Several EU countries have reintroduced the draft since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, citing the perceived ‘Russian threat’.
President Vladimir Putin has dismissed claims that Russia harbors aggressive intentions against its Western neighbors.
In an interview with Spain’s El Pais published on Monday, Denk said, “we have a human resources problem, and one of the ways to solve it will be through mandatory military service” – adding that his home country of Germany will likely go down this path eventually.
Denk also urged EU nations to invest more in domestic arms production, with a particular focus on drones and anti-drone systems.
Last year, Finland announced plans to raise the upper age limit for rank-and-file military reservists by 15 years, from 50 to 65, starting in 2026.
The country, which shares a 1,340-km (830-mile) land border with Russia, abandoned its long-standing policy of military neutrality and joined NATO in April 2023.
Around the same time, Lithuania unveiled an expanded conscription plan that would run year-round from 2026 on. It reinstated compulsory military service in 2015 after a seven-year suspension.
In neighboring Latvia, Defense Minister Andris Spruds stated last September that his party, the Progressives, would seek mandatory military service not only for men, but also for women, starting from 2028.
Several months earlier, Denmark announced that it would begin drafting women this year.
In Germany, a new law that took effect on January 1 and introduces a voluntary model has sparked protests, with critics warning that it could open the door to reinstating conscription, which was suspended in 2011.
UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
The Cradle | April 13, 2026
The UK and others have rejected Washington’s plan to impose a blockade on Iranian ports and target ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz in collaboration with the Islamic Republic.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said “we are not supporting the blockade” in an interview with BBC Radio on 13 April.
Starmer added that the UK is not “getting dragged in” to the US-Israeli war against Iran. He emphasized the priority is reopening the strait, noting it is “vital that we get the strait open and fully open.”
Turkiye opposed the blockade and called for renewed diplomacy, while China warned against escalation and urged both sides to maintain stability.
The Spanish government has also condemned the US move. “It’s just another episode in this downward spiral we’ve slipped into,” Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles said on Monday, adding that US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “want to impose rules on the international community, which is illogical.”
Germany did not criticize the move. “The supposed blockade … does not mark the end of this diplomatic process,” a government spokesperson said, adding that “We see it as a move to ramp up the pressure.”
The US military’s announcement did “not mention a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, but rather a blockade of Iranian ports – that is a different approach,” the German spokesperson added.
Earlier on Monday, France announced that London and Paris will organize a conference to discuss forming a “strictly defensive” and “peaceful” mission to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
“As regards the Strait of Hormuz, in the coming days, together with the UK, we will organize a conference with those countries prepared to contribute alongside us to a peaceful multinational mission aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the strait,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.
“This strictly defensive mission, separate from the warring parties to the conflict, is intended to be deployed as soon as circumstances permit,” he added. Paris had previously rejected a US proposal on the formation of an international coalition aimed at reopening the Strait, saying it would help escort ships only when the war ended.
A Bahraini resolution to reopen the strait by force was vetoed by Russia and China right before the ceasefire was announced.
The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to Washington and its allies despite the recent ceasefire between the US and Iran.
Vessels unaffiliated with the US and Israel, including a French one, have recently been given access following coordination with the Islamic Republic.
The US threat to blockade Iran’s ports was made by CENTCOM on Sunday night. It said it would begin a blockade “of all maritime traffic entering and exiting” Iranian ports starting 10:00 am Eastern Time (ET) on 13 April.
“The blockade will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. CENTCOM forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports,” it added.
After the announcement, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said, “enjoy the current pump figures,” adding that “with the so-called ‘blockade,’ Soon you’ll be nostalgic for $4–5 gas.”
The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters of the Iranian military made a statement on Monday, accusing Washington of “piracy” while vowing to act “decisively” in order to permanently control the Strait of Hormuz and secure Iran’s waters.
Germany seeks to restrict stays abroad for men of fighting age – Berliner Zeitung
RT | April 7, 2026
German men who remain abroad for more than three months without prior approval may start facing penalties under a military-related legal requirement, according to the Berliner Zeitung.
The rule obliges men of fighting age, between the ages of 17 and 45, to obtain permission before extended stays abroad. It came into force on January 1, 2026, but April is when the first three-month period expires and enforcement may begin, the outlet has said.
Germany is in the process of a massive military buildup, with plans to spend reportedly more than €500 billion (around $580 billion) on defense by 2029. German officials have set 2029 as the deadline for the armed forces to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly denied any plans to attack NATO as “nonsense” and ridiculed Western politicians over such claims. In February Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia had “no reason” to attack the EU or NATO unless attacked first.
The new requirement, which was introduced under the Military Service Modernization Act and reportedly largely went unnoticed, previously applied only during a “state of tension” or a “state of defense,” defined as situations of heightened external threat or armed attack. Since the amendment took effect, it now applies at all times, including in peacetime. The Defense Ministry said the measure is intended to maintain a reliable registry of individuals eligible for military service.
Several EU states, including Germany, have recently moved to reintroduce conscription. The German government has said the armed forces should grow from around 180,000 active soldiers to more than 260,000 by 2035.
Students staged protests in late March in German cities against Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plans to expand military service. Demonstrators accused the government of preparing forced mobilization, with some chanting that “Merz should go to the front himself and risk his own life.”
The new rules faced criticism from the MPs in the Bundestag, with the Green Party’s security policy spokeswoman, Sara Nanni, telling Die Welt on Sunday that “citizens have a right to know quickly whether they are required to report, and if so, what their reporting obligations are.”
When addressed about the backlash by Politico on Tuesday, a spokesman for the German Defense Ministry said that it “is currently developing detailed provisions to allow for exemptions from the approval requirement, also with a view to avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.”
According to the ministry, approvals to leave the country are expected to be issued in all cases as long as military service remains voluntary in Germany.
Featured Video
Israeli Military Medics Are Training On Dead Americans
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
On ‘conflict’, ‘peace’ and ‘genocide’: Time for new language on Palestine
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | June 12, 2021
On 25 May, famous US actor Mark Ruffalo tweeted an apology for suggesting that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza.
“I have reflected and wanted to apologise for posts during the recent Israel/Hamas fighting that suggested Israel is committing ‘genocide’,” Ruffalo wrote, adding: “It’s not accurate, it’s inflammatory, disrespectful and is being used to justify anti-Semitism, here and abroad. Now is the time to avoid hyperbole.”
But were Ruffalo’s earlier assessments, indeed, “not accurate, inflammatory and disrespectful”? And does equating Israel’s war on besieged, impoverished Gaza with genocide fit into the classification of “hyperbole”? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News
- Russia-West Confrontation Fast Approaching /Dmitry Polyanskiy
- Intelligence Agency Investigating CIA Whistleblower Allegations, Official Confirms
- AIPAC Favorite Ed Gallrein Wants to Bring Back the Draft
- A decade of lies: The US-funded biolab denial saga
- Mainstream US media complicit in selling Gaza genocide, sweeping new analysis finds
- US Overseas Biolabs Probe Aims to Rein in ‘Deep State’ Bureaucracy
- ‘Death to Arabs’: Settler mobs storm Jerusalem’s Muslim, Christian quarters for ‘Flag March’
- China’s position on Iran, Hormuz remains unchanged
- Israeli Military Medics Are Training On Dead Americans
- SCOTT RITTER: Russia Retaliation on Europe No Longer In Doubt
- We Can’t Curb Nuclear Proliferation If We Don’t Acknowledge Israel’s Nukes
- 43,000 people in Gaza suffered life-changing injuries since October 2023: WHO
- Israel’s 7 October narrative under fresh scrutiny after army accused of deleting footage
- Ex-CENTCOM chief headlines lavish Israeli-American Council gala
- Israel’s 7 October rape hoax gets a 300-page reboot
- Chants of ‘death to Arabs,’ calls for destruction of Al-Aqsa Mosque in racist Jerusalem Day march
- What Fuels My Revolutionary Optimism This Nakba Day
- Gaza elders who survived the Nakba reflect on being displaced by Israel again, 78 years later
- Israel (with US assistance) perpetuates the Nakba; Palestinians remain resilient – Daily Update
- Microsoft fires head of Israeli subsidiary and other managers over surveillance of Palestinians
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
Aletho News