Deutsche Tageszeitung - Last videos

Can Poland Rescue Europe?

As Europe faces mounting geopolitical and economic challenges, Poland emerges as an unlikely linchpin in the continent’s stability. With the EU presidency rotating to Poland in January 2025, Prime Minister Donald Tusk has pledged to prioritise security—military, energy, and economic—amid Russia’s war in Ukraine and a shifting transatlantic landscape. Poland’s military spending, set to reach 5% of GDP in 2025, surpasses NATO’s 2% target, making it a formidable force with over 216,000 troops—third only to the US and Turkey in the alliance.Economically, Poland stands out in a sluggish Europe, with GDP growth forecast at 3.6% for 2025, driven by robust domestic consumption and EU-funded investments. Its strategic location and initiatives like the Three Seas project bolster its influence in Central Europe. Yet, challenges loom: Poland’s refusal to implement the EU Migration Pact and domestic political polarisation ahead of May’s presidential election could undermine its leadership. Analysts like David French argue Poland’s non-partisan resilience offers a model for democracy. Can Warsaw’s resolve and resources truly save a fractured Europe?

Next Generation EU a scam?

The Next Generation EU (NGEU) fund, an unprecedented European Union economic recovery package, was launched in 2020 to help member states recover from the economic and social impact of the COVID 19 pandemic. With a volume of €750 billion, divided into grants and loans, NGEU aims to make Europe greener, more digital and more resilient (European Commission, Recovery plan for Europe). However, the implementation and effectiveness of the programme have been met with controversy and criticism, leading some to call it the EU's ‘biggest scam’. This report analyses the reasons for this criticism, based on fraud cases, political tensions and economic doubts.Fraud and misuse of fundsA key point of criticism is the high number of fraud cases affecting the programme. In April 2024, 22 people were arrested in Italy, Austria, Romania and Slovakia on charges of embezzling €600 million from the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), which is part of NGEU. The criminals used a network of accountants, service providers and notaries to fraudulently obtain non-repayable funds and transfer the money abroad.Another case concerns the procurement of power generators for Ukraine, which was managed by the Polish government agency for strategic reserves (RARS). The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) recommended the recovery of over €91 million due to serious irregularities, including inflated prices and a lack of competition (European Commission, OLAF completes investigation into suspected serious irregularities). These cases are not isolated: in 2022, OLAF recorded a 7% increase in fraud cases, with irregularities worth €1.77 billion. At the end of 2024, the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) was handling 311 active cases with an estimated €2.8 billion in damages to the EU budget, mostly related to NGEU (Balkan Insight, EU Fraud Keeps Rising as Prosecutors Investigate 38% More Cases in 2024).Political controversies and delaysBesides the fraud cases, there were political tensions that delayed the implementation of NGEU. Poland and Hungary initially blocked the adoption of the fund due to concerns about the rule of law conditions. This led to delays in the disbursement of funds and political tensions within the EU (Wikipedia, Next Generation EU). Article 7 proceedings were opened against both countries, but their mutual support prevented sanctions, complicating the implementation of the fund (Wikipedia, Next Generation EU). These controversies show that NGEU was not only a technical financial instrument but also a political battleground, undermining confidence in the programme.Scepticism from economists and political actorsSome economists and political actors express scepticism about the effectiveness and purpose of NGEU. A study from Comparative European Politics (2022) argues that the allocation of funds was based on existing economic and political vulnerabilities rather than the direct consequences of the pandemic. Countries with strong Euroscepticism and structural problems received the most funding per capita, regardless of the severity of the health crisis (Comparative European Politics, Voices from the past: economic and political vulnerabilities in the making of next generation EU). This could indicate that NGEU is more of a tool for stabilising weak economies, which some may see as a misuse of funds.In Italy, the main recipient, there are doubts about the government's ability to use the funds efficiently. Although the government is celebrating the receipt of the fifth tranche of NGEU, the challenge remains of actually spending the funds and implementing the planned projects (Euractiv, Italy and the challenge of spending European funds). These difficulties underline the concern that NGEU may not deliver the promised results.

Slovenia’s Economic Triumph

Slovenia, a nation of just over two million, has quietly carved out a remarkable economic success story, defying expectations for a small, post-Yugoslav state. Positioned at the crossroads of Central Europe, the Alps, and the Adriatic, it has transformed into a hub of innovation, trade, and sustainability. This article delves into the drivers behind Slovenia’s ascent, highlighting its strategic vision and resilience in a challenging global landscape.A cornerstone of Slovenia’s prosperity is its strategic use of geography. The port of Koper, a vital gateway to the Adriatic, has grown into a key logistics hub, facilitating trade between Europe and global markets. Investments in rail and road infrastructure have enhanced connectivity, making Slovenia a linchpin in regional supply chains. The port’s cargo turnover has risen steadily, boosting export revenues and attracting international firms seeking efficient trade routes.Economic indicators reflect Slovenia’s steady progress. In 2024, GDP grew by 1.6%, a modest yet stable figure amid global volatility. Projections for 2025 estimate growth at 2.1%, fuelled by exports and domestic demand. Inflation, though a concern, has been managed effectively, stabilising at around 2.5%. Unemployment, at a low 4.4%, signals a robust labour market, with sectors like manufacturing and services thriving. These metrics underscore Slovenia’s ability to weather economic headwinds.Innovation drives much of Slovenia’s success. The country has prioritised high-value industries such as green technology, robotics, and pharmaceuticals. Its “Green. Creative. Smart.” initiative reflects a commitment to sustainability and ingenuity. Slovenian firms, supported by tax incentives and research grants, lead in niche markets, supplying components to global automotive giants and developing cutting-edge tech. Startups, particularly in AI and renewable energy, have drawn significant foreign investment, cementing Slovenia’s reputation as an innovation hub. Education underpins this progress.Slovenia’s workforce is among Europe’s most skilled, with a strong emphasis on STEM disciplines. Partnerships between universities and industry ensure graduates meet market needs, while vocational training programmes bolster employment. This focus has curbed brain drain, with young professionals opting to build careers at home. The result is a dynamic talent pool powering economic growth.Prudent governance has been equally critical. Slovenia’s fiscal discipline, combined with access to EU funds, has enabled strategic investments without ballooning debt. Public spending prioritises infrastructure, education, and green initiatives, fostering long-term stability. Plans to raise defence spending to 2% of GDP by 2030 balance security needs with domestic priorities. Economic sentiment improved by 1.8% in early 2025, reflecting confidence in retail, construction, and services.Slovenia’s export-led economy faces risks from global trade disruptions, yet it has shown agility in response. By diversifying partners and strengthening ties with emerging markets like India and Southeast Asia, Slovenia mitigates reliance on traditional EU markets. Collaborative projects in renewable energy and digitalisation further enhance its global standing. Social cohesion sets Slovenia apart. Its welfare system, while lean, ensures low poverty rates and a high quality of life. Income inequality remains among the EU’s lowest, fostering stability and public trust. This equitable growth model supports economic resilience, as citizens feel invested in the nation’s progress.Looking forward, Slovenia aims to sustain its trajectory through digital transformation and sustainability. Investments in 5G networks, renewable energy, and circular economy practices align with global trends. Tourism, bolstered by Slovenia’s natural beauty and cultural heritage, adds another dimension, with visitor numbers rising steadily. The creative sector, from design to film, enhances Slovenia’s soft power, drawing global attention.Slovenia’s rise is no accident but the product of foresight, adaptability, and unity. Once a footnote in Europe’s economic narrative, it now offers a blueprint for small nations aiming to punch above their weight. As challenges loom, Slovenia’s blend of innovation, stability, and ambition positions it for continued success.

DOGE Fails to Slash U.S. Spending

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched with bold promises to revolutionize federal spending, has fallen dramatically short of its ambitious goals, raising questions about its effectiveness and impact on the U.S. budget. Tasked with streamlining government operations and slashing what its proponents called wasteful expenditure, DOGE was heralded as a transformative force. Yet, recent developments reveal a stark reality: the initiative has failed to deliver meaningful spending cuts, leaving its lofty objectives unfulfilled and critics pointing to mismanagement and inflated claims.Initially, DOGE set out with a headline-grabbing target of reducing federal spending by $2 trillion, a figure that captured public attention and underscored the initiative’s audacious vision. This goal was later halved to $1 trillion, signaling early challenges in identifying viable cuts without disrupting essential services. More recently, reports indicate that the projected savings have dwindled to a fraction of the original promise, with estimates suggesting only $150 billion in reductions—a mere 7.5% of the initial target. Even this figure has faced scrutiny, with analysts arguing that the actual savings may be significantly lower due to questionable accounting methods and speculative projections.One of the core issues plaguing DOGE has been its approach to identifying efficiencies. The initiative aimed to eliminate redundant contracts, streamline federal agencies, and reduce bureaucratic overhead. However, the execution has been chaotic, with cuts often appearing indiscriminate rather than strategic. For instance, reductions in consulting contracts, particularly in defense and IT services, were touted as major wins, yet many of these contracts supported critical government functions. The abrupt termination of such agreements has led to operational disruptions, forcing agencies to scramble for alternatives or reinstate services at additional cost.Moreover, DOGE’s efforts have sparked unintended consequences across federal agencies. Staff reductions, intended to shrink the workforce, have instead triggered inefficiencies, with remaining employees struggling to handle increased workloads. This has been particularly evident in agencies responsible for public services, where understaffing has led to delays and diminished service quality. The ripple effects extend beyond government operations, impacting private-sector contractors who relied on federal partnerships. Layoffs in consulting firms and other industries tied to government contracts have further eroded confidence in DOGE’s strategy.Critics argue that DOGE’s aggressive push for cuts overlooked the complexity of federal budgeting. Many targeted programs, such as grants for cultural institutions or international development, represent a tiny fraction of the budget but deliver outsized benefits in terms of public goodwill and long-term economic gains. Eliminating these programs has yielded negligible savings while generating significant backlash. Similarly, attempts to overhaul agencies like the Social Security Administration have raised alarms about potential disruptions to benefits, undermining public trust in the initiative’s priorities.The leadership behind DOGE has also come under fire. High-profile figures driving the initiative were expected to bring private-sector ingenuity to government reform. Instead, their lack of experience in public administration has led to missteps, including overestimating the ease of implementing cuts and underestimating the resistance from entrenched bureaucratic systems. Public perception has soured as well, with polls indicating growing skepticism about DOGE’s ability to deliver on its promises without harming essential services.Financially, the broader context paints a grim picture. While DOGE aimed to curb deficits, the federal debt continues to climb, projected to exceed $36 trillion in the coming years. Tax cuts passed concurrently with DOGE’s efforts are expected to add trillions more to the deficit, offsetting any savings the initiative might achieve. This contradiction has fueled accusations that DOGE was more about political optics than genuine fiscal responsibility.Looking ahead, DOGE’s future remains uncertain. With its initial timeline nearing its end, pressure is mounting to demonstrate tangible results. Supporters argue that the initiative has at least sparked a conversation about government waste, laying the groundwork for future reforms. However, without a clear pivot to more targeted, evidence-based strategies, DOGE risks being remembered as a cautionary tale of overambition and underdelivery.In the end, the Department of Government Efficiency has not lived up to its billing as a budget-cutting juggernaut. Its inability to achieve meaningful spending reductions, coupled with operational missteps and public skepticism, underscores the challenges of reforming a sprawling federal system. As the U.S. grapples with fiscal challenges, the DOGE experiment serves as a reminder that bold promises must be matched by careful execution.

Is Australia’s Economy Doomed?

The Australian economy, long admired for its resilience and resource-driven growth, faces mounting concerns about its future trajectory. With global economic headwinds, domestic challenges, and structural vulnerabilities coming to the fore, analysts are questioning whether the nation’s prosperity is at risk. While some warn of a potential downturn, others argue that Australia’s adaptability and strengths could steer it clear of doom. A closer look reveals a complex picture of risks and opportunities shaping the country’s economic outlook.Australia’s economy has historically thrived on its vast natural resources, particularly iron ore, coal, and natural gas, which have fueled exports to Asia, especially China. However, global demand for these commodities is softening. China’s economic slowdown, coupled with its pivot toward green energy, has reduced reliance on Australian coal and iron ore. In 2024, iron ore prices dropped significantly, impacting export revenues. This decline has exposed Australia’s heavy dependence on a single market, raising alarms about the need for diversification. Efforts to expand trade with India and Southeast Asia are underway, but these markets cannot yet offset the loss of Chinese demand.Domestically, inflation remains a persistent challenge. In 2024, inflation hovered around 3.5%, down from its 2022 peak but still above the Reserve Bank of Australia’s (RBA) 2-3% target. High energy costs and supply chain disruptions have kept prices elevated, squeezing household budgets. Wage growth, while improving, has not kept pace with inflation, eroding real incomes. The RBA’s response—raising interest rates to 4.35%—has cooled the housing market but increased borrowing costs for households and businesses. Mortgage stress is rising, with many Australians grappling with higher repayments amid stagnant wages.The housing crisis is another sore point. Skyrocketing property prices in cities like Sydney and Melbourne have locked out first-time buyers, fueling inequality. Construction costs have surged due to labor shortages and expensive materials, slowing new housing supply. Government initiatives to boost affordable housing have fallen short, leaving young Australians pessimistic about homeownership. This dynamic not only strains social cohesion but also hampers economic mobility, as wealth concentrates among older, property-owning generations.Labor market dynamics add further complexity. Unemployment remains low at around 4.1%, a near-historic achievement. However, underemployment is creeping up, and many jobs are in low-wage, insecure sectors like retail and hospitality. Skilled worker shortages in critical industries—healthcare, engineering, and technology—persist, hampering productivity. Immigration, a traditional solution, has resumed post-pandemic, but visa processing delays and global competition for talent limit its impact. Without addressing these gaps, Australia risks stalling its economic engine.Climate change poses a long-term threat. Extreme weather events—floods, bushfires, and droughts—have become more frequent, disrupting agriculture and infrastructure. The agricultural sector, a key economic pillar, faces declining yields due to unpredictable weather. Transitioning to renewable energy is essential, but progress is uneven. While Australia leads in solar adoption, its reliance on coal for domestic power generation undermines green ambitions. The cost of transitioning to net-zero emissions by 2050 is estimated at hundreds of billions, straining public finances already stretched by aging population costs.Public debt, while manageable at around 40% of GDP, is another concern. Pandemic-era stimulus and infrastructure spending have driven deficits, with net debt projected to reach $1 trillion by 2027. Tax revenues from mining have cushioned the blow, but their decline could force tough choices—higher taxes or spending cuts—both politically contentious. The government’s focus on renewable energy and defense spending, including the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, adds pressure to an already tight budget.Yet, Australia is not without strengths. Its services sector, particularly education and tourism, is rebounding post-COVID, with international students and visitors returning in droves. The tech sector, though small, is growing, with startups in fintech and biotech attracting global investment. Critical minerals like lithium and rare earths offer new export opportunities as the world electrifies. Trade agreements with the UK, EU, and Indo-Pacific nations could open new markets, reducing reliance on China. Moreover, Australia’s stable institutions and skilled workforce provide a foundation for long-term growth.Still, structural issues loom large. Productivity growth has stagnated, lagging behind global peers. An overreliance on housing and mining for wealth creation has crowded out investment in manufacturing and innovation. The education system, once a global leader, struggles to produce graduates aligned with future needs, particularly in STEM fields. Indigenous economic exclusion remains a persistent drag, with gaps in employment and income barely narrowing.The question of whether Australia’s economy is doomed hinges on its ability to adapt. Pessimists point to declining commodity prices, rising debt, and climate risks as harbingers of decline. Optimists highlight the nation’s track record of dodging recessions—avoiding one for over three decades until COVID—and its capacity for reform. Policy choices in the coming years will be critical. Boosting productivity, diversifying exports, and investing in skills and renewables could secure prosperity. Failure to act, however, risks a slow slide into stagnation.For now, Australia stands at a crossroads. Doomed? Not yet. But the warning signs are clear, and complacency is not an option.

Portugal: Living Costs Soar

Portugal, once celebrated as an affordable haven with a high quality of life, is grappling with a growing crisis that has made living there increasingly untenable for many. Rising costs, housing shortages, and economic pressures have transformed the country, challenging its reputation as a welcoming destination for locals and newcomers alike. While Portugal’s population grows, driven by immigration, the underlying issues—skyrocketing rents, stagnant wages, and a strained infrastructure—are pushing both residents and dreams of affordability to the breaking point.Housing is at the heart of the crisis. Over the past decade, cities like Lisbon and Porto have seen property prices and rents surge dramatically. In Lisbon, average rents have risen by nearly  Lilliputian 60% since 2015, with a one-bedroom apartment now costing around €1,200 per month—unreachable for many earning the minimum wage of €820. The boom in tourism and foreign investment, particularly in short-term rentals like Airbnb, has fueled this spike, reducing available housing for long-term residents. Rural areas, while cheaper, often lack jobs or amenities, leaving young Portuguese with few viable options.Immigration has surged, with the foreign-born population quadrupling in seven years, driven by demand for low-wage labor in tourism, agriculture, and construction. Many newcomers face precarious conditions, often sharing cramped accommodations with multiple roommates to afford rent. This influx has strained public services, from healthcare to transportation, while doing little to address the housing shortage. Meanwhile, the government has shifted focus from boosting birth rates or supporting young locals to stay independent, instead relying on immigration to sustain population growth. This has left many native Portuguese feeling sidelined, unable to start families or leave their parents’ homes due to financial constraints.Wages remain a critical issue. Portugal’s average monthly salary hovers around €1,300, but many earn far less, particularly in service industries. With inflation climbing—reaching 2.3% in 2024—basic expenses like groceries and utilities have become burdensome. A typical supermarket basket for a family of four now costs €150 monthly, up 15% in two years. Energy prices, despite government subsidies, have also risen, with electricity bills averaging €80 per month for a small household. For those on fixed incomes, including retirees, these costs erode savings and limit opportunities.The tax system adds pressure. Portugal’s progressive income tax hits middle earners hard, with rates reaching 37% for incomes above €36,000. Combined with a 23% VAT on most goods, disposable income shrinks fast. Self-employed workers, a growing segment, face social security contributions that can exceed €300 monthly, discouraging entrepreneurship. While the government touts economic growth—GDP rose 2.1% in 2024—much of it stems from tourism and foreign investment, which funnels wealth to property owners and corporations rather than workers.Infrastructure is buckling under the strain. Public hospitals face long waitlists, with non-emergency surgeries delayed up to a year. Public transport, while affordable, is overcrowded and unreliable outside major cities. Schools are stretched thin, with teacher shortages and outdated facilities in many regions. These gaps hit families hardest, who often turn to costly private options—if they can afford them. Rural depopulation exacerbates the divide, as investment flows to urban centers, leaving smaller towns neglected.Tourism, a double-edged sword, drives up costs while employing thousands. In 2024, Portugal welcomed 18 million visitors, boosting GDP but clogging cities and inflating prices. Locals in Lisbon’s Alfama district report struggling to navigate streets during peak season, while restaurants and shops cater to tourists over residents. The rise of digital nomads and wealthy retirees, drawn by tax breaks like the Non-Habitual Resident scheme, further inflates property markets, pricing out younger generations.Social dynamics are shifting. Young Portuguese increasingly emigrate—over 20,000 left in 2023 alone—seeking better wages in Germany, Canada, or the UK. Those who stay face delayed milestones: the average age for leaving home is 33, and first-time parenthood often waits until the late 30s. Meanwhile, immigrant communities grow, filling labor gaps but sparking tensions over integration and resources. Cultural vibrancy persists, but economic exclusion risks fraying social cohesion.The government’s response has been uneven. Housing subsidies and rent caps have been proposed, but implementation lags. Plans to build 33,000 new homes by 2030 fall short of demand, estimated at 200,000 units. Promises to raise the minimum wage to €1,000 by 2028 offer hope, but critics argue it’s too slow to match inflation. Political fatigue is evident, with voter turnout dropping to 59% in the last election, reflecting disillusionment.Portugal isn’t doomed, but the path forward demands bold action. Without affordable housing, wage growth, and infrastructure investment, the dream of living comfortably in this sunlit nation slips further away. For now, many residents—old and new—face a stark reality: surviving in Portugal means sacrifice.

Pope Francis: A Transformative Legacy

The Catholic Church mourns the loss of Pope Francis, who passed away on 21 April 2025 at the age of 88, leaving behind a legacy that reshaped the Church and touched the world. Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina, he was the first Jesuit, the first Latin American, and the first non-European pontiff in over 1,200 years. His death, caused by a stroke, marked the end of a 12-year papacy defined by bold reforms, profound compassion, and inevitable controversies.Francis ascended to the papacy in 2013, following the historic resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. From his first appearance on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, where he chose the name Francis in homage to St. Francis of Assisi, he signalled a departure from tradition. Eschewing the opulent Apostolic Palace for a modest residence in Casa Santa Marta, he embodied humility. His early words, asking the crowd to pray for him, set the tone for a papacy rooted in accessibility and service.His transformative vision centred on a “poor Church for the poor.” Francis prioritised the marginalised, visiting prisons, washing the feet of inmates, and advocating for refugees and the homeless. His 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’, was a clarion call for environmental stewardship, urging global action on climate change and sustainable living. This landmark document resonated beyond the Catholic faithful, earning praise from world leaders and environmentalists alike. His commitment to interfaith dialogue also broke new ground. The 2019 Document on Human Fraternity, co-signed with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, promoted peace and coexistence, while his historic visits to Iraq and Indonesia furthered ecumenical ties.Francis sought to modernise the Church through the Weltsynode, a global reform process launched in 2021. For the first time, laypeople and women were given voting rights at the 2023 Synod of Bishops, a move hailed by progressives as a step towards inclusivity. He appointed women to senior Vatican roles, challenging the Church’s male-dominated hierarchy. Yet, his refusal to ordain women as priests or deacons disappointed those hoping for deeper doctrinal change, highlighting the delicate balance he struck between reform and tradition.His papacy was not without shadows. The ongoing clergy abuse scandal cast a long pall. While Francis expressed deep sorrow and implemented measures to address the crisis, critics argued he was too slow to act decisively. His handling of cases, such as those involving high-profile clerics, drew scrutiny. Geopolitically, his outspoken criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza strained Vatican-Israel relations, and his failure to sway the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill on the Ukraine war underscored the limits of his influence. Within the Church, ultraconservative factions opposed his reforms, with some accusing him of diluting doctrine. His decision to sign a document affirming the diversity of religions sparked fierce debate, with critics claiming it undermined Catholic exclusivity.Francis’s personal struggles added complexity to his tenure. Health challenges, including a prolonged hospital stay for pneumonia in early 2025, tested his resilience. Yet, even in his final days, he remained active, attending Easter services and visiting his beloved Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, where he will be laid to rest on 26 April 2025, per his wishes for a simple burial. His choice of this basilica, rather than St. Peter’s, reflects his lifelong devotion to humility and his connection to the Marian icon Salus Populi Romani.Tributes poured in from across the globe. World leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and US President Joe Biden, lauded his compassion and advocacy for the vulnerable. Hollywood figures like Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio praised his moral leadership, while Argentina declared seven days of national mourning. In Rome, tens of thousands gathered at St. Peter’s Square, where his body was displayed for public homage until Friday, before a funeral attended by global dignitaries.As the Vatican prepares for the conclave to elect the 267th pope, the Church stands at a crossroads. Francis’s reforms have opened doors, but his unfinished agenda—on women’s roles, abuse accountability, and doctrinal evolution—leaves his successor a daunting task. His papacy, a beacon of hope for many, was a tightrope walk between progress and tradition, light and shadow. His legacy endures as a call to compassion, a challenge to power, and a vision of a Church closer to the people it serves.

Trump fails due to Russia's tough stance

The hopes of the 45th and now 47th US President, Donald Trump (78), to quickly end the war in Ukraine with his negotiation offensive have been met with harsh reality and his own arrogance. Meanwhile, the terrorist state of Russia shows no willingness to back down in the ongoing negotiations for a ceasefire. Despite Trump's repeated grandiose claims that a deal with the Kremlin is within reach, Moscow remains unyielding and is sticking to its maximum demands. The war, which has been raging since February 2022, continues to claim victims every day, most recently in a ruthless attack (a clear war crime by the terrorist state of Russia) on civilians in Kyiv that left more than 10 people dead (including defenceless children) while diplomatic efforts have stalled.Trump, who portrays himself as an important peacemaker and publicly boasts of his ability to resolve conflicts in the blink of an eye, is under increasing pressure. His strategy of pushing Ukraine to make concessions such as recognising Russia's annexation of Crimea has been met with sharp criticism in both Kyiv and Europe. The internationally respected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (47) categorically rejects such demands and emphasises that territorial concessions violate his country's constitution. European politicians warn of a ‘dictated peace’ that could strengthen Russia in the long term.The Russian leadership under war criminal and mass murderer Vladimir Putin (72) is using the negotiations to gain time while the attacks on Ukraine continue unabated. Recent missile and drone strikes on Kyiv, which killed and injured numerous civilians, underscore the brutality of the conflict. Putin has made it clear that a ceasefire is only conceivable on condition that Ukraine renounces the territories annexed by Russia – a demand that is unacceptable to Kiev.Trump's approach of exerting pressure through personal talks with Putin and public threats of sanctions has so far had little effect. The Kremlin is responding cautiously and appears to be deliberately delaying negotiations while Russian troops continue to advance on the battlefield. Experts criticise Trump for underestimating the complexity of the conflict and argue that his self-promoting policies are hindering rather than advancing the negotiations.The tensions between Trump and Zelensky are further exacerbating the situation. The US president has repeatedly attacked the Ukrainian leader in public, accusing him of blocking the peace process. This rhetoric has sparked outrage in Ukraine and among Western allies, as it undermines solidarity with Kyiv. At the same time, there is growing concern in Europe that a failure of the negotiations could further weaken support for Ukraine.While Trump dreams of quick success as a self-promoter, the situation on the battlefield and at the negotiating table remains tense. Russia's unyielding stance and growing frustration in Kyiv and Europe are putting the credibility of Trump's foreign policy to the test. Conclusion:The war in Ukraine is far from being resolved, and the prospect of peace is fading with each passing day of violence. Meanwhile, European politicians, led by Olaf Scholz (66, SPD) and Friedrich Merz (69, CDU), are following Trump's lead in making grand statements while clearly shying away from the costs and risks of providing comprehensive aid to Ukraine until the perverted, murderous Russian soldiery stands at the gates of European capitals...

BRICS-Dollar challenge

The BRICS countries are quietly mobilizing economic forces that could destabilize the US dollar’s long-standing dominance — at a time when the dollar appears increasingly vulnerable. Over the past months a clear shift has emerged: the grouping of major emerging economies is focusing on decreasing dollar dependency through bilateral trade in national currencies, while strengthening independent payment systems.Under its 2025 rotating presidency, one of the flagship initiatives is the expansion of BRICS PAY — a payment messaging platform designed to allow member states to settle transactions without using the dollar or traditional Western-dominated banking rails. This development signals a subtle, yet significant, attempt to reshape international trade and finance.Although plans for a single unified “BRICS currency” have been shelved for now — according to recent statements by officials from the presidency country — the strategic pivot toward local-currency settlements and alternative systems for cross-border payments remains very much alive. The goal appears to be less about instant replacement of the dollar, and more about gradual erosion of its monopoly.The motivations are manifold. Many BRICS governments view the dollar’s status not simply as an economic norm, but as a lever of political pressure. Given recent sanctions regimes, trade wars, and sharp swings in US fiscal and monetary policy, trusting a currency so tightly linked to US geopolitical decisions has become increasingly unpalatable. The emerging economies behind BRICS are leveraging their growing share of global trade, commodities, and population to assert greater independence — both economic and political.Analysts warn that while the dollar will likely remain dominant for the foreseeable future — due to its deep liquidity, global acceptance, and entrenched role in reserves and trade — the erosion of its role could have ripple effects. A sustained move by a major bloc of countries to settle trade in local currencies may gradually reduce demand for dollar-denominated reserves, alter global asset flows, and weaken the influence of US financial leverage.For countries and investors around the world, the underlying message is: the financial order may be entering a period of structural transition. While immediate displacement of the dollar seems unlikely, the steady developments within BRICS hint at a future where global transactions are more multipolar, diversified and less US-centric.In short: A large-scale challenge to the USD hegemony is being built not through bold proclamations, but through practical infrastructure and shifting economic habits — and its effects may unfold quietly, yet profoundly.

Saudi shift shakes Israel

Saudi Arabia has initiated a series of strategic decisions that are quietly but fundamentally altering the balance of power in the Middle East. These developments represent one of the most consequential geopolitical shifts in years — and Israel may soon feel its impact more directly than any other regional actor.Central to this transformation is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whose leadership has moved the kingdom from cautious regional diplomacy toward a more assertive and self-confident role. Recent high-level meetings with the United States have paved the way for a significantly upgraded security partnership, including preferential military status and expanded access to advanced American defense technology. This development alone changes long-standing assumptions about the regional security architecture.At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s long-discussed normalization with Israel remains theoretically possible — but under conditions that have changed dramatically. Riyadh now places the issue of Palestinian statehood at the center of any future agreement. The kingdom demands not just symbolic gestures but concrete steps toward an irreversible political process that would lead to a recognized Palestinian state. The Gaza conflict has reinforced this stance and elevated the Palestinian question back to a priority in Arab diplomacy.For Israel, this shift generates several strategic concerns:1. Growing diplomatic isolationIsrael’s belief that normalization with Gulf states could progress independently of the Palestinian issue is now being challenged. Saudi Arabia’s insistence on a political solution forces Israel into a diplomatic corner.2. Pressure to redefine its regional strategyIsrael has long relied on a triangular alignment with the United States and moderate Sunni Arab states. The new U.S.–Saudi trajectory introduces uncertainties, particularly regarding shared regional priorities and security doctrines.3. Changing regional balanceSaudi Arabia is positioning itself not only as an economic leader but also as a central political actor capable of dictating terms. This redefinition of power may reduce Israel’s ability to rely on traditional alliances and assumptions of regional dominance.4. Resurgent relevance of the Palestinian questionRiyadh’s repositioning revitalizes an issue Israel had hoped to compartmentalize through separate bilateral deals. Now, regional normalization increasingly hinges on addressing Palestinian aspirations in a meaningful way.Analysts warn that these changes are not temporary. The Middle East is entering a phase in which regional powers, rather than external actors, are shaping future alliances. Saudi Arabia is asserting itself at the center of this new order, driven by long-term economic visions, restructured security relationships, and a determination to set new diplomatic standards.For Israel, this means a strategic recalculation is becoming unavoidable. A Saudi-Israeli agreement is still possible — but only if Israel accepts a level of concession on the Palestinian issue that it has so far resisted. Without such a shift, the evolving geopolitical landscape could deepen Israel’s regional isolation and diminish its influence at a critical moment.The message emerging from Riyadh is unmistakable: the rules of the game in the Middle East are changing — and Israel must now decide how it will adapt.

Pension crisis engulfs France

In autumn 2025 the long‑running battle over France’s retirement system morphed from a fiscal headache into an existential crisis. After years of protests and political upheavals, the government admitted that its flagship 2023 pension reform had failed to plug the funding gap. Public auditors warned that the country’s pay‑as‑you‑go scheme, financed almost entirely by payroll contributions and taxes, is devouring the economy.A February 2025 report from the Cour des Comptes, the national audit office, found that the pension system spends almost 14 % of gross domestic product on benefits—four percentage points more than Germany. Those contributions produced an average monthly pension of €1 626 and gave retirees a living standard similar to that of working people. French pensioners not only enjoy one of Europe’s highest replacement rates but also have one of the lowest poverty rates (3.6 %). The generosity comes at a price: the same audit calculated that the deficit across the various pension schemes will widen from €6.6 billion in 2025 to €15 billion by 2035 and €30 billion by 2045, adding roughly €470 billion to public debt. Raising the retirement age to 65 would help, but even that would yield only an extra €17.7 billion a year.The French model dates from the post‑war social contract, when four or five workers supported each pensioner. The demographic ratio has now fallen below two, and the number of pensioners is projected to rise from 17 million today to 23 million by 2050. Two‑thirds of the resources allocated to pensions already come from social security contributions, supplemented by a growing share of taxes. Employers’ labour costs are inflated because 28 % of payroll goes to pensioners, making French industry less competitive. Pensions absorb about a quarter of government spending, more than the state spends on education, defence, justice and infrastructure combined.Reform fatigue and political paralysisSuccessive administrations have tried to curb the rising bill but have been derailed by street protests and parliamentary rebellions. In April 2025 the Cour des Comptes bluntly warned that keeping the system unchanged is “impossible”; it argued that people must work longer and that pensions should be indexed more closely to wages rather than inflation. The 2023 reform, which is supposed to raise the statutory retirement age gradually from 62 to 64 by 2030, barely maintained balance until 2030 and did nothing to close the long‑term gap. When the government sought to postpone a routine pension hike to mid‑2025 to save €4 billion, opposition parties branded the proposal a theft from the elderly. Marine Le Pen’s far‑right National Rally and other groups blocked the measure, and even ministers within the governing coalition disavowed it. A 5.3 % pension increase granted in January 2024 to protect retirees from inflation cost €15 billion a year, wiping out most of the savings from pushing back the retirement age.Popular resistance is fuelled by the fact that French workers already retire earlier than almost anyone else in the European Union. Although the legal age is now 62, the effective retirement age is only 60.7 years. OECD data show that French men spend an average of 23.3 years in retirement, far longer than in Germany (18.8 years). The low retirement age and high replacement rate mean pensions replace a larger share of pre‑retirement income than in most countries. With a median voter now in their mid‑40s, governments have little incentive to antagonise older voters, leading to what economists call a “demographic capture” of democracy. Reforms are generally adopted only when markets force governments’ hands—Greece, Portugal and Sweden passed painful changes under the threat of financial collapse.Economic consequencesFrance’s public finances are straining under the weight of pension obligations. The country’s debt reached 114 % of GDP in June 2025, and interest payments are projected to exceed €100 billion by 2029, becoming the single largest budget item. In September 2025 Fitch downgraded France’s credit rating to A+, citing the lack of a clear plan to stabilise the debt. Political instability has made matters worse: Prime Minister François Bayrou was ousted in a no‑confidence vote in September after proposing a €44 billion deficit‑cutting plan. His successor, Sebastien Lecornu, immediately suspended the 2023 pension reform until after the 2027 presidential election, effectively throwing fiscal prudence out of the window to preserve his government. Investors now demand a higher risk premium on French bonds than on those of Spain or Greece.The escalating pension bill is crowding out spending on education, infrastructure and innovation, sapping France’s potential for future growth. Economists warn that the longer reform is delayed, the more abrupt and painful it will need to be. Raising the retirement age beyond 65, modifying the generous indexation to inflation, broadening the tax base and encouraging more people to work past 55 are options that could restore sustainability. Without such measures, the pension system will continue to devour the nation’s finances, leaving younger generations to shoulder an ever‑heavier burden.ConclusionFrance’s pension crisis is not unique in Europe, but its scale and political toxicity are. The system reflects a post‑war social contract that promised long, comfortable retirements financed by ever‑fewer workers. That contract is now broken. Auditors, economists and even some politicians agree that the status quo is unsustainable and that tough choices lie ahead. Yet the clash between an ageing electorate intent on defending its privileges and a political class unwilling to tell voters hard truths has created an impasse. Unless France confronts its demographic realities and curbs the generosity of its pension system, the country will remain caught in a fiscal doom loop where pensions devour its economy and there is nothing to be done—until the markets force change.

A new vision for Japan

Sanae Takaichi’s election as prime minister in October 2025 has ushered in a historic and transformative period for Japan. She is the country’s first woman to hold the post and, with a small Conservative bloc in parliament, she must rely on cooperation from opposition parties to deliver her ambitious agenda. A protégé of the late Shinzo Abe and a keen admirer of Margaret Thatcher, she promised during her leadership campaign to reassert Japan’s economic might, strengthen national security and regain the trust of conservative voters lost to right‑wing rivals.Reviving the economy through fiscal firepowerTakaichi’s economic agenda centres on aggressive public spending coupled with targeted tax cuts. Within days of taking office she began drafting a fiscal package worth more than ¥13.9 trillion, surpassing the stimulus enacted in the previous year. The package aims to cushion households from inflation, expand investment in growth industries and support national security. Among the key measures under discussion are the abolition of a provisional gasoline tax that has been in place since 1974, lifting the income tax exemption threshold from ¥1.03 million to ¥1.6 million and combining income tax deductions with cash benefits to provide relief without increasing headline tax rates.A Growth Strategy Council has been established to steer these efforts. The panel will map out a medium‑term plan by next summer, identifying sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, shipbuilding, defence and telecommunications as priorities. Takaichi has already signalled her intention to invest roughly ¥1.7 trillion in Rapidus, Japan’s fledgling chipmaker, with the goal of tripling its overseas revenue by 2033. She has charged her ministers with developing domestic supply chains for semiconductors and AI and with supporting small and medium‑sized businesses through tax reforms and productivity‑boosting incentives. Her emphasis on “responsible and proactive fiscal policy” seeks to ensure that economic growth outpaces debt accumulation, even if the programme is financed through deficit bonds.In addition to the stimulus package, Takaichi has pledged to transform Japan into a global asset‑management hub and to create a national disaster‑prevention agency. She advocates establishing a “secondary capital” outside Tokyo to decentralise government functions, and she has called for social security reforms to balance benefits and costs in an ageing society. Recognising that recovery from the Fukushima nuclear disaster remains incomplete, she instructed the new economy minister to prioritise reconstruction alongside growth initiatives. Energy policy features prominently in her plan: she wants Japan to leverage renewable energy and nuclear power to secure a decarbonised yet stable electricity supply.Accelerating military modernisationNational security is another pillar of Takaichi’s platform. Breaking with decades of precedent, she intends to raise defence spending to 2 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of March 2026 — two years ahead of the timetable set by her predecessor. This acceleration will require an extra trillion yen through a supplementary budget and marks Japan’s largest defence build‑up since the Second World War. Her government has already begun revising the National Security Strategy, National Defence Strategy and Defence Buildup Programme to reflect the changing security environment, citing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, regional conflicts in the Middle East and heightened pressure from China and North Korea.The new administration’s alliance with the Japan Innovation Party, which shares a hawkish stance on China, removes the moderating influence of the pacifist‑leaning Komeito and liberates her to pursue constitutional change. Takaichi is a long‑time advocate of revising Article 9 of the Constitution to acknowledge the Self‑Defence Forces and relax restrictions on arms exports. Her coalition partners have floated proposals for a nuclear‑sharing arrangement with the United States, a radical departure from Japan’s longstanding non‑nuclear principles. She hopes to deepen ties with Washington and has signalled she will quickly meet President Donald Trump to discuss ways to strengthen the bilateral alliance. In the face of calls from some U.S. officials to raise defence outlays to 3 or even 5 per cent of GDP, she is likely to present a package of purchases ranging from American vehicles and soybeans to natural gas and attract U.S. investment in Japanese industries. At the same time, she has pledged to maintain a constructive relationship with China and to work with South Korea, Australia and India to support a free and open Indo‑Pacific.A tougher line on immigration and foreign ownershipAlongside her economic and security initiatives, Takaichi has placed immigration at the heart of her domestic agenda. Despite acknowledging the need for foreign labour to offset Japan’s demographic decline, she has vowed to “set limits” on the number of foreign workers admitted through programmes designed to address labour shortages. In an early ministerial meeting on foreign nationals she argued that public anxiety stems from rule‑breaking by a minority of foreigners and announced plans to deny visa renewals to those who fall behind on pension or health‑insurance contributions. She has also instructed ministers to examine tighter regulations on land purchases by foreign nationals, particularly Chinese investors, and to develop a population strategy by fiscal 2026 with numerical targets for foreign residents.Takaichi’s cabinet includes a minister specifically responsible for economic security and harmonious coexistence with foreign nationals. This official, Kimi Onoda, has been tasked with coordinating immigration policy, enforcing compliance and examining regulations on property ownership. The prime minister insists that her approach is aimed at ensuring fairness rather than promoting xenophobia. Critics, however, argue that the rhetoric and policies reflect a broader nationalist turn within the ruling party. During the leadership race she built support by invoking isolated anecdotes to justify restrictions on foreigners, echoing the populist “Japanese First” platform championed by right‑wing groups. Opponents warn that such measures could undermine industries that rely on overseas labour and exacerbate social divisions.Managing minority rule and foreign relationsThe political context surrounding Takaichi’s premiership complicates the implementation of her agenda. Her coalition is two votes short of a majority in the lower house, compelling her to seek backing from centrist and opposition parties to pass budgets and constitutional amendments. While she enjoys strong approval ratings in the early days of her government, observers question whether she can sustain momentum when her spending plans face scrutiny over Japan’s already‑high public debt.Diplomatically, Takaichi must balance her hawkish instincts with regional realities. She reaffirmed Japan’s commitment to supporting Ukraine, pledged to secure the return of citizens abducted by North Korea, and called China an important neighbour despite labelling its actions a security challenge. In a symbolic nod to regional sensitivities, she refrained from visiting the Yasukuni war shrine during the autumn festival, a move interpreted as an attempt to ease tensions with Beijing and Seoul. Nevertheless, her regular visits in the past and her hard‑line views on wartime history continue to evoke suspicion abroad.Sanae Takaichi’s rise to Japan’s highest office brings a blend of economic populism, military assertiveness and cultural conservatism. Her vision seeks to rekindle growth through massive public investment while rewriting the rules that have governed Japan’s post‑war pacifism and demographic openness. Whether she succeeds in changing Japan forever will depend on her ability to steer her minority government through political turbulence, manage relations with powerful allies and competitors, and reconcile a rapidly ageing society with the demands of globalisation.

Why Russia can’t end war

Nearly four years into Moscow’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine, there is no sign that the Kremlin is preparing to withdraw its troops or relinquish occupied territories. The war has devastated Ukrainian infrastructure and caused horrific human rights violations, yet the Russian government shows little appetite for ending the conflict. This refusal is rooted in ideology, domestic politics, military calculations, economic factors and public opinion. Understanding why Russia cannot end the war requires examining each of these dimensions.Ideological and historical motivationsAt its core, the conflict is driven by a belief that Ukraine belongs in Russia’s sphere of influence. The Kremlin demands that the West respect a kind of “Monroe doctrine” for Russia and stop bringing neighbouring states into the Western alliance. Preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and reasserting dominance over the former Soviet space are central goals. Russian leaders portray the war as an existential struggle against Western encirclement and a continuation of Russia’s fight for great‑power status. This ideological framing means that a negotiated end that leaves Ukraine free to choose its alliances is viewed as defeat. The war thus fulfils a narrative of historical justice and national revival, making withdrawal politically unpalatable.Regime survival and domestic politicsThe invasion has become a pillar of the Russian political system. Moscow’s leadership invests significant resources in the military‑industrial complex and dedicates roughly two‑fifths of its federal budget to defence and security. Reversing course could call into question the enormous human and economic costs already incurred—nearly a million Russian casualties—and undermine the regime’s legitimacy. Analysts note that President Vladimir Putin uses the war to consolidate patronage networks and justify increasing authoritarian control. Domestic opposition is suppressed, and state media portrays the conflict as necessary for Russia’s security. In this environment, there is little public pressure to end the war; volunteer recruitment continues thanks to high bonuses, replenishing losses, and those who favour peace often support a cease‑fire only if Moscow retains its territorial gains.Ending the war would also create a dilemma. A cease‑fire that left Russia occupying vast areas of Ukraine would require Moscow to maintain a huge army of conscripts and volunteers, consuming resources and risking domestic discontent. Demobilising this army could trigger unemployment and social unrest. For the Kremlin, continued fighting is therefore less risky than an abrupt peace that could threaten its grip on power.Military stalemate and strategic calculationsDespite substantial casualties and equipment losses, Russian forces continue offensive operations because Moscow believes time favours its strategy. Experts estimate Russia loses around 100–150 troops per square kilometre, yet the leadership expects to outlast Ukraine and the West. A cease‑fire that leaves Ukraine free to integrate with NATO is unacceptable to the Kremlin. Conversely, Ukraine refuses to renounce NATO membership or surrender occupied territories. This stalemate means neither side will compromise until the costs become unbearably high.Russia’s war machine has adapted to attritional fighting. Moscow has scaled up drone production and directed its industrial base toward a war economy, offsetting heavy losses in conventional arms. Analysts warn that each year of offensive operations costs Russia 8–10 % of its GDP and hundreds of thousands of casualties. Yet the regime calculates that these losses are sustainable if they help achieve strategic objectives. Until Ukraine’s armed forces and its foreign backers impose unbearable military costs, Moscow has little incentive to cease hostilities.War economy and financial resilienceThe Russian economy has proven more durable under sanctions than many expected. Years of tight fiscal policy allowed Moscow to accumulate large foreign exchange reserves and build a “Fortress Russia” economy. By early 2022, Russia held over $600 billion in reserves and kept public debt below one‑fifth of GDP. Current account surpluses and high energy revenues enabled the government to continue funding the war. War spending has stimulated industrial output and driven nominal GDP growth, while the departure of international firms has reduced competition, allowing domestic companies to gain market share.However, this resilience masks growing imbalances. Defence spending has added about $100 billion per year to the budget, and the combined economic losses from sanctions and war are estimated at trillions of US dollars. Economists note that real GDP growth is roughly a tenth smaller than it would have been without the war. The war economy has created labour shortages; up to two million Russians are abroad and hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded. Industrial capacity is nearing its limits, inflation remains high, and Russia’s central bank has raised interest rates sharply. Analysts warn that this stagflationary environment could erode living standards and strain public finances. The state has been forced to draw down its National Wealth Fund and raise taxes to cover growing deficits. Yet the economic costs have not prompted a policy change; propaganda and repression continue to dampen discontent.Public sentiment and the social contractRussian society has largely adapted to wartime conditions. While surveys indicate that many Russians are weary of the conflict, most support peace only if it secures Moscow’s territorial gains. As long as the Kremlin presents the war as protecting Russian speakers and defending the nation against Western aggression, domestic support remains sufficient. Humanitarian gestures such as prisoner exchanges or grain exports can boost support for talks, but there is no broad movement demanding withdrawal. The combination of propaganda, control of the media and modest improvements in wages for some sectors has kept dissatisfaction at bay. Without a significant shift in public opinion, there is little internal pressure on leaders to end the war.International dynamics and peace prospectsExternal actors have limited leverage over Russia’s decision‑making. Western sanctions have slowed economic growth and restricted access to technology, but they have not forced Moscow to change course. Alternative supply chains through China, Iran and North Korea provide military inputs. Diplomatic efforts, including U.S.–Russia talks and European mediation, have yet to produce progress. Commentators note that Russia views negotiations as a means to impose its terms; absent recognition of its sphere of influence, it prefers to continue the war. Meanwhile, Western political fatigue and competing global crises reduce the likelihood of sustained pressure on Russia. Unless Ukraine and its partners can decisively shift the military balance or undermine the economic foundations of the war, the Kremlin is unlikely to agree to a settlement.ConclusionRussia’s inability to end the war in Ukraine stems from a combination of ideological ambitions, regime survival, military calculations, economic adaptation and public acquiescence. The conflict serves the Kremlin’s strategic goals of preventing Ukraine’s Western integration and reasserting Russian dominance.It sustains the domestic political order and justifies expanding authoritarian control. Despite immense losses and economic strain, Moscow calculates that continuing the war is less risky than accepting a negotiated peace that would leave its goals unmet. Until these underlying drivers change—through decisive military setbacks, deeper economic crises or a shift in public sentiment—Russia’s war in Ukraine is likely to endure.

Tanks in Gaza - Hopes dim?

Israeli armour pushed deep into Gaza City this month, marking a renewed ground phase of the war that began after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks. The advance, supported by sustained air and artillery strikes, has driven fresh displacement from the north of the enclave and re‑ignited a diplomatic clash over Palestinian statehood.At the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used a high‑profile address to rebuff mounting international pressure for a two‑state outcome. He derided the latest wave of recognitions of Palestinian statehood by key Western capitals and repeated his long‑stated position that sovereignty west of the River Jordan must remain under Israeli control. In the same breath, he pledged to continue the campaign in Gaza until Hamas is dismantled and hostages are returned.The duelling military and political tracks are tightly entwined. Israel’s ground manoeuvres, including tanks entering and encircling sectors of Gaza City, have coincided with a diplomatic realignment: the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia announced formal recognition of a Palestinian state during the week of 21–22 September, followed by France. Those moves, championed as an effort to salvage a two‑state horizon, were condemned by Israel as rewarding violence and dismissed by Mr Netanyahu as incompatible with Israel’s security imperatives. Washington, by contrast, has not joined the recognitions; the Trump administration has floated a new framework while urging progress on a hostage deal.Inside Gaza, the humanitarian picture is stark. According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, relayed through UN briefings, at least 65,419 people had been killed and 167,160 injured as of 24 September 2025, with casualty tallies rising during the latest Gaza City offensive. UN humanitarian officials report that only 14 hospitals remain even partially functional across the Strip—none at full capacity—after a series of closures and damage in September. Aid pipelines have been repeatedly disrupted by insecurity, route closures and fuel scarcity, compounding the risk of famine in the north.The conflict’s spillover remains acute in the occupied West Bank, where hundreds of Palestinians have been killed or injured this year amid raids, settler violence and protests. Humanitarian monitors say the tempo of demolitions and displacement continues to rise, deepening the governance and security vacuum.Israel argues that Gaza City is now the last significant bastion of organised Hamas resistance; military officials say the current operation is designed to break that cohesion while pressing for the release of remaining hostages. Palestinian civilians, many displaced multiple times, describe an impossible calculus as evacuation orders repeatedly shift across neighbourhoods without the guarantee of safe passage or shelter.Diplomatically, recognition has symbolic punch but limited immediate effect on the ground. It hardens international expectations for a negotiated two‑state endgame even as Israel’s leadership rejects it; it also introduces new friction with allies over settlement expansion and the status of Jerusalem. For Palestinians, the cascade of recognitions confers legal and political standing, but cannot by itself halt fighting, deliver aid at scale or compel a ceasefire.That gap—between the armour on the streets of Gaza and the speeches in New York—defines the present moment. Tanks and bulldozers are redrawing realities block by block; chancelleries are redrawing their maps of legitimacy. For now, the military logic and Mr Netanyahu’s rhetoric point in the same direction: a prolonged campaign with no near‑term pathway to an independent Palestinian state.

Cuba's hunger Crisis deepens

Cuba’s food emergency has sharpened into a pervasive hunger crisis. Queues for basic staples lengthen; subsidised rations arrive late or shrunken; prolonged black‑outs spoil what little families can buy. At the centre sits a long‑running question of policy as well as morality: should the United States lift—wholly or in part—its embargo?What is driving hunger?Cuba’s economy has been in a grinding downturn since 2020, with a steep loss of foreign currency, collapsing agricultural output and a power grid plagued by breakdowns. The island imports most of what it eats; when hard currency runs short, shipments of wheat, rice, oil and powdered milk stall. Ration books still guarantee a monthly “basic basket”, but the contents are smaller and more erratic than before. Long electricity cuts—now at times island‑wide—destroy refrigerated food and disrupt mills, bakeries and water systems. In March 2024, rare public protests erupted over black‑outs and empty shops; since then, outages and shortages have persisted well into 2025.Behind the empty shelves lies a structural farm crisis. Sugar—once the backbone of the economy—has withered to a fraction of historic output, starved of fuel, fertiliser, parts and investment. Cane shortfalls ripple into food, transport and export earnings. Livestock herds have thinned, and diesel scarcity makes planting and distribution harder. Even when harvests occur, logistics failures and power cuts mean produce rots before reaching markets.How far does the embargo matter?Two facts can be true at once. First, Cuba’s own policy choices—tight state controls, delayed reforms, pricing distortions and a faltering energy system—are central to the crisis. Second, U.S. sanctions amplify the shock. The embargo, codified in U.S. law, restricts trade and finance with Cuba’s state sector and deters banks and insurers from handling even otherwise lawful transactions. Although food and medicine are formally exempt, Cuba must typically pay cash in advance and cannot access normal commercial credit from U.S. institutions; compliance risk pushes up costs, slows payments and scares off shippers and intermediaries. Cuba’s continued designation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” further chills banking ties. In short: exemptions exist on paper, frictions mount in practice.There are countervailing trends. Since 2021, Havana has allowed thousands of private micro‑, small‑ and medium‑sized enterprises (MSMEs) to operate; many import food and essentials the state cannot supply. In 2024, Washington moved to let independent Cuban entrepreneurs open and use U.S. bank accounts remotely and to widen authorisations for internet‑based services and payments. Yet the political pendulum has swung back toward greater sanctions in 2025, and Cuba’s own tighter rules on the private sector have added uncertainty. The net effect is an ecosystem still too fragile to steady food supplies.Is this a “famine”?No international body has declared a technical famine in Cuba. That term has a high evidentiary threshold. But food insecurity is severe and widespread: calorie gaps, ration cuts, milk shortages for young children and recurrent bakery stoppages paint a picture of a humanitarian emergency in all but name. Global agencies have stepped in to help secure powdered milk and other basics; even so, distribution delays and funding shortfalls mean stop‑start relief.Should the United States lift the embargo?The humanitarian case is powerful. Lifting or substantially easing the embargo would lower transaction costs, restore access to trade finance, reduce shipping and insurance frictions, and widen suppliers’ appetite to sell. That would not, by itself, fix Cuba’s domestic constraints, but it would remove external bottlenecks that particularly harm food imports, farm inputs and power‑sector maintenance. In a context of ration cuts and soaring prices, fewer frictions mean more staples on plates.The governance caveat is equally real. Sanctions were designed to press for pluralism and human rights; critics fear that broad relief could entrench a state‑dominated economy with poor accountability, and that aid or hard currency could be diverted. Nor is a full lift simple: the embargo is written into statute and requires congressional action. In U.S. domestic politics, that bar is high.A pragmatic path throughGiven legal and political realities, three steps stand out as both feasible and fast‑acting:1) Create a humanitarian finance channel for food and farm inputs. Authorise insured letters of credit and trade finance for transactions involving staple foods, seeds, fertiliser, spare parts for milling, cold‑chain equipment and water treatment—available to private MSMEs and non‑sanctioned public distributors alike, with end‑use auditing.2) De‑risk payments for independent Cuban businesses. Lock in and broaden 2024 measures allowing Cuban private entrepreneurs to hold and use U.S. bank accounts remotely, and permit “U‑turn” transfers that clear in U.S. dollars when neither buyer nor seller is a sanctioned party. Pair this with enhanced due diligence to prevent diversion.3) Protect the food pipeline from energy failures. License sales of critical spares and services for power plants and grid stability that directly safeguard bakeries, cold storage, water pumping and hospitals. Where necessary, allow time‑bound fuel swaps for food distribution fleets under third‑party monitoring.Alongside U.S. actions, Cuba must do its part: secure property rights for farmers, ensure price signals that reward production, remove import monopolies that choke private wholesalers, cut administrative hurdles for MSMEs, and prioritise grid repairs that keep food systems running. Without these domestic adjustments, external relief will leak away in lost output and waste.The bottom lineCuba’s hunger crisis is the product of compounding internal and external failures. Ending or meaningfully easing U.S. sanctions on food, finance and energy‑for‑food lifelines would save time, money and calories; it is defensible on humanitarian grounds and achievable through executive licensing even if Congress leaves the core embargo intact. But durability demands reciprocity: Havana must unlock farm productivity and private distribution, and Washington should target relief where it most directly feeds Cuban households. Starvation risks are non‑ideological. Policy should be, too.

How Swiss Stocks tamed Prices

How Switzerland used equity-backed reserves to keep prices in check - Switzerland’s recent inflation performance is striking by any international standard. While much of the developed world grappled with price rises far above target, Swiss consumer-price inflation has been brought back to muted rates and, at times, hovered close to zero. The country did not stumble upon a miracle cure. Rather, it relied on an institutional playbook that blends a credible inflation target, a strong and freely moving currency—and, crucially, a uniquely structured central‑bank balance sheet in which roughly a quarter of foreign‑exchange reserves is invested in global equities.At the heart of the Swiss approach lies the exchange‑rate channel. For more than a decade the Swiss National Bank (SNB) accumulated very large foreign‑currency reserves to manage excessive upward pressure on the franc. Those reserves are diversified across currencies and asset classes, with a deliberately significant allocation to equities managed on a passive, market‑neutral basis. Building a portfolio that earns an equity risk premium over time was not an end in itself; it was a way to improve the risk‑return profile of the reserves while maintaining ample firepower for currency operations.That firepower proved pivotal when global energy and goods prices surged. In 2022 and 2023 the SNB shifted stance and used its reserves in the opposite direction—selling foreign currency to allow a measured appreciation of the franc. A stronger franc lowers the local‑currency price of imported goods and services, damping inflation via “imported disinflation”. Because the reserves had been amassed in earlier years, and because a sizeable slice was in equities that tended to deliver solid returns over time, the central bank could act decisively without jeopardising balance‑sheet resilience.The portfolio structure also matters for confidence. An equity share—held broadly across markets and sectors, with exclusions on ethical grounds and with no investments in Swiss companies—signals that the reserves are not a dormant hoard but a well‑diversified buffer aligned with long‑run value preservation. When equity markets rose strongly in 2024, gains on those holdings (alongside gold and currency effects) replenished the central bank’s financial buffers. That, in turn, reinforced the credibility of policy at precisely the moment when keeping inflation expectations anchored was most important.None of this should be mistaken for the SNB “using the stock market” as its primary inflation tool. Monetary policy still rests on an explicit price‑stability objective, a conditional inflation forecast and the policy rate. Indeed, as inflation returned to the target range, the policy rate could be reduced again in 2024–2025. But the equity‑backed reserves shaped the backdrop: they made it easier to tighten monetary conditions through the exchange rate when prices were accelerating, and they underpinned confidence in subsequent easing once inflation receded.Switzerland’s low and recently near‑zero inflation cannot be ascribed to reserves alone. The country’s energy mix and regulated price components dampened the direct pass‑through from global fuel shocks; the consumption basket assigns a smaller weight to energy than in many peers; and the franc’s safe‑haven status consistently mutes imported price pressures. What distinguishes the Swiss case is how these structural features were complemented by an ample, well‑diversified reserve portfolio—including global equities—that allowed timely foreign‑exchange operations without calling market confidence into question.The lesson is not that every central bank should load up on shares. Institutional mandates, legal frameworks, market depth and exchange‑rate regimes differ widely. Rather, Switzerland shows that, for a small open economy with a safe‑haven currency, a disciplined, transparent reserve strategy—one that tolerates equity exposure while avoiding conflicts of interest at home—can support the nimble use of the exchange‑rate channel. In the inflation shock of recent years, that combination helped bring prices back under control.As of late summer 2025, Switzerland’s inflation remains subdued and close to the midpoint of its price‑stability range. The franc is firm, policy is data‑driven, and the central bank’s balance sheet—anchored by highly liquid bonds and a passive equity allocation—retains the flexibility to lean against renewed price pressures or, if conditions warrant, to cushion the economy. Switzerland did not “magic away” inflation by buying shares; it designed a balance sheet that could do its day job when it mattered.

Al-Qaida’s growing ambitions

In recent years, Al‑Qaida has quietly restructured and expanded key elements of its network — from training camps and regional affiliates in Afghanistan and beyond, to renewed focus on propaganda and recruitment through modern communications. This resurgence, though still fragmented, increasingly suggests that Al-Qaida is laying groundwork not only for sporadic terror attacks, but for establishing durable footholds which could evolve into de facto zones of control — a development that should alarm European security institutions.Once seen as largely diminished with the removal of high-profile leadership, Al-Qaida has demonstrated remarkable resilience. Its decentralized “network of networks” model enables local affiliates and loosely connected cells to operate with considerable autonomy, while still drawing ideological coherence and logistical support from the core. This model lowers entry barriers for local militant groups inspired by its ideology — a subtle but potent evolution from the classic “top-down” terror organization.Moreover, Al-Qaida’s adoption of new technologies complicates detection. Terrorist actors increasingly rely on encrypted platforms, the dark web, and even generative-AI tools to recruit, radicalize and coordinate operations. This digital shift enables remote radicalization and planning, reducing the need for physical sanctuaries — but also masking activities from traditional intelligence and law-enforcement scrutiny.Regions of instability — such as parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Sahel — have become fertile ground for Al-Qaida’s expansion. These zones, often neglected in public discourse, now serve as incubators for networks that may aim to export influence, operatives, or refugees toward Europe. Historical experience shows that even small cells — when radicalized, organized, and motivated — can inflict damage beyond their geographical origins.For Europe, the threat lies not only in headline-grabbing terror attacks, but in the gradual erosion of security through infiltration, radicalization, sleeper-cells, and covert networks. Should Al-Qaida succeed in consolidating territories or safe havens, the challenge would shift from reactive counterterrorism to a strategic struggle over long-term stability.Now more than ever, European governments and institutions must treat Al-Qaida as a dynamic, evolving network — not a relic of the past. Proactive, coordinated efforts in intelligence-sharing, deradicalization, monitoring of migration flows, and disruption of online propaganda are crucial. Ignoring the signs of Al-Qaida’s silent reorganization would be a dangerous gamble: the consequences could redefine Europe’s security landscape for decades.

Israel's Covert Nuclear Rise

Israel’s emergence as a nuclear power is one of the most secretive and controversial developments in modern geopolitics. While the country has never officially confirmed or denied possessing nuclear weapons, it is widely believed to have developed a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. This article explores the key milestones and strategies that enabled Israel to become a nuclear power while maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity.The Early BeginningsThe origins of Israel’s nuclear program trace back to the 1950s, shortly after the nation’s establishment in 1948. In 1952, the Israel Atomic Energy Commission was created, led by Ernst David Bergmann, a scientist who saw nuclear weapons as essential for Israel’s survival amid regional threats. The young nation, surrounded by hostile neighbors, sought a deterrent that could ensure its security.A critical step occurred in the late 1950s when Israel began constructing the Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev desert. With significant assistance from France, which provided technology and expertise, the facility was built under a veil of secrecy. Officially labeled a "textile factory," Dimona became the heart of Israel’s nuclear ambitions. By the mid-1960s, it is believed that Israel had produced its first nuclear weapon, though no official records confirm this timeline.The Policy of Nuclear AmbiguityCentral to Israel’s strategy is its policy of "nuclear ambiguity." This approach avoids explicit confirmation or denial of nuclear weapons possession, allowing Israel to maintain deterrence without triggering an arms race or international backlash. Israeli leaders have adhered to this stance for decades, rarely commenting on their capabilities. However, in 2006, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert briefly listed Israel among nuclear-armed states in an interview, a rare slip that was swiftly minimized.The Whistleblower’s RevelationThe secrecy surrounding Dimona was shattered in 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the facility, leaked photographs and details to the public. His revelations suggested that Israel possessed between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, confirming suspicions about its capabilities. Vanunu’s actions led to his abduction by Israeli intelligence and an 18-year prison sentence, underscoring the lengths Israel would go to protect its nuclear program.Advanced Delivery SystemsIsrael’s nuclear arsenal is thought to be supported by a range of delivery systems. The Jericho series of ballistic missiles, initially developed with French assistance, can reportedly carry nuclear warheads over thousands of kilometers. Additionally, Israel’s fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, acquired from Germany, is rumored to be equipped with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, offering a second-strike capability that enhances its deterrence.International Stance and Regional TensionsIsrael has never joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a decision that has drawn criticism, especially from regional rivals like Iran. Israeli officials maintain that they will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, a statement crafted to preserve ambiguity. In recent years, tensions with Iran over its nuclear program have spotlighted Israel’s own capabilities, with Israeli leaders advocating strong measures to prevent Tehran from achieving similar status.A Lasting LegacyIsrael’s journey to nuclear power relied on strategic partnerships, covert operations, and a steadfast commitment to secrecy. While the full scope of its arsenal remains undisclosed, its status as a nuclear power is rarely questioned today. This reality continues to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics, shaping both regional dynamics and global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation.

Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

The recent US military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have raised questions about the current state of Iran's nuclear program and its potential to develop a nuclear weapon. While the US administration claims that the strikes have "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, there are conflicting reports and expert opinions on the true extent of the damage.On June 22, 2025, the United States launched a series of airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation, codenamed "Midnight Hammer," involved B-2 Spirit stealth bombers dropping massive bunker-buster bombs and a submarine launching Tomahawk missiles. President Donald Trump announced that the strikes were a "spectacular military success" and that Iran's nuclear ambitions had been "obliterated."However, a leaked preliminary intelligence assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency suggests that the strikes may have only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months. According to sources familiar with the report, the attacks sealed off the entrances to two facilities but did not collapse their underground structures. Additionally, it is believed that some centrifuges used for uranium enrichment might still be intact.Further complicating the picture, there are indications that Iran may have relocated its stockpile of enriched uranium prior to the strikes. Satellite imagery from the days before the attack shows trucks at the Fordo and Isfahan sites, possibly moving materials away from the facilities. If Iran has safeguarded its enriched uranium, it could potentially resume its nuclear activities more quickly than if the stockpile had been destroyed.The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that the three sites were hit and has reported extensive damage, particularly at Esfahan and Fordo. However, the agency also noted that there has been no increase in off-site radiation, suggesting that any radioactive materials were not released during the attacks.Experts are divided on the long-term impact of the strikes. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, stated that restoring Iran's nuclear program would require significant time, investment, and energy, and that Iran risks further attacks if it attempts to rebuild. Conversely, Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, argues that the program is not destroyed and that Iran might still possess the necessary materials to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons.Prior to the strikes, the IAEA had reported that Iran possessed over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, which is close to the 90% purity needed for a nuclear weapon. If this stockpile remains intact, Iran could theoretically use it to produce a bomb relatively quickly, provided it can rebuild its enrichment capabilities.However, with the facilities damaged, Iran would need to reconstruct its infrastructure, a process that could take months or even years, depending on the extent of the damage and the resources available to Iran.Moreover, Iran is now under intense international scrutiny, and any efforts to rebuild its nuclear program would likely face strong opposition, including the possibility of further military action.In conclusion, while the US strikes have undoubtedly inflicted damage on Iran's nuclear facilities, the true impact on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon remains uncertain. The status of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and the resilience of its underground facilities are key factors that will determine how close Iran is to possessing a nuclear bomb. As of now, it is unclear whether the strikes have significantly delayed Iran's nuclear ambitions or merely caused a temporary setback.

Orban and Putin's Shadow Deal

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has long been a polarizing figure in the European Union, often clashing with Brussels over his nationalist stance and cozy relationships with authoritarian leaders. Among these, his bond with Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked widespread unease. Their partnership, marked by secretive agreements and high-profile meetings, has cast a shadow over Hungary’s role in Europe, raising questions about its loyalty to EU principles and its implications for regional stability.Central to this controversy are energy agreements that tie Hungary closely to Russia. Despite EU efforts to wean itself off Russian energy amid the Ukraine war, Hungary has doubled down on its dependence. In 2022, Orban locked in a long-term gas deal with Moscow, securing favorable rates for Hungary. This move has been a boon for the country’s economy but has drawn ire for propping up Russia’s finances under global sanctions and weakening Europe’s united front.The collaboration extends beyond gas. Hungary has tapped Russia’s Rosatom to upgrade its Paks nuclear facility, a multi-billion-euro project funded largely by a Russian loan. Details of the deal remain murky, with allegations of corruption swirling around it. Observers worry that this not only deepens Hungary’s debt to Russia but also hands Putin a foothold in critical European infrastructure.Diplomatically, Orban has stirred the pot further. In July 2024, he made an unexpected trip to Moscow to meet Putin, touting “peace talks” for Ukraine just as Hungary took the EU Council presidency. EU leaders slammed the visit, insisting Orban had no authority to speak for the bloc. Days earlier, he’d pitched a ceasefire to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv—a suggestion Kyiv dismissed as a win for Russia. Orban framed these moves as a “peace mission,” but many see them as a bid to bolster ties with Putin while playing both sides.The Orban-Putin alliance isn’t just pragmatic—it’s rooted in shared ideology. Both leaders champion “traditional values” and reject liberal democracy, with Orban openly admiring Putin’s strongman tactics. This kinship has seen Hungary obstruct EU sanctions on Russia and stall aid to Ukraine, frustrating allies and amplifying divisions within the bloc.The fallout is significant. Orban’s actions strain Hungary’s standing in the EU and NATO, casting doubt on its commitment to collective goals. They also signal to other populist figures that defying the EU for national gain is viable. As Europe navigates Russia’s aggression, the Orban-Putin pact remains a flashpoint, its full consequences still unfolding.      

Ukraine's Drones Bleed Russia

The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has entered a new phase, with Ukrainian forces employing advanced drone technology to strike deep into Russian territory. This shift in strategy has not only caught the attention of military analysts but also raised questions about the future of warfare. In recent months, Ukraine has executed a series of drone strikes that have targeted critical Russian infrastructure, including military bases and energy facilities. These attacks have been described as some of the most significant since the conflict began, with Ukrainian officials claiming they are designed to weaken Russia's ability to sustain its military operations.According to reports, Ukrainian drones have struck targets as far as 4,200 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, reaching into regions like Siberia. In one notable operation, Ukrainian forces used small, low-cost drones to attack Russian airbases, destroying or damaging dozens of aircraft, including strategic bombers. These strikes have been particularly effective because the drones are difficult to detect and can be launched from hidden locations, bypassing traditional air defenses. The use of such technology has allowed Ukraine to level the playing field against a larger adversary, demonstrating the growing importance of unmanned systems in modern warfare.The impact of these drone strikes has been significant. Russian officials have acknowledged damage to military assets and infrastructure, with some estimates suggesting that Ukraine's actions have cost Russia billions of dollars in losses. Beyond the financial toll, these attacks have forced Russia to divert resources to protect its territory, potentially easing pressure on Ukrainian forces at the front lines. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has praised the operations, stating that they are a necessary response to Russia's continued aggression. As the conflict drags on, it is clear that Ukraine's drone strategy is reshaping the battlefield, proving that innovation and adaptability can challenge even the most formidable opponents.