Wednesday, September 2, 2026

Germany blames Russia for Leipzig airport drone attack, orders Russian consulate closed


Germany blames Russia for Leipzig airport drone attack, orders Russian consulate closed
FRANCE 24



Germany's government on Tuesday blamed Russia for an attempted attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport on 4 August using an explosive-laden drone, and announced that it would shut down a Russian consulate among other measures against Moscow. French ​President Emmanuel Macron ​said he supported the ​adoption ‌of ⁠new European sanctions ‌against Russia after the attempted drone attack.

The German government on Tuesday blamed Russia for an attempted attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport last month using a drone laden with explosives, and announced that it would shut down a Russian consulate among other measures against Moscow.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and EU chief Ursula von der Leyen vowed "full solidarity" with Berlin in response. 

"NATO will continue to strengthen our ability to deter and defend all Allies against any threat – including malign actions like those seen in Leipzig and elsewhere across the Alliance," Rutte wrote on X following talks with Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Rutte said Berlin had put forward "clear" evidence of Moscow's role in the "hybrid attack" and welcomed the measures announced in response.

"Russia's attempts to intimidate us, to undermine our unity and our willingness to support Ukraine are futile and will fail," he added.

The European Commission president, who likewise spoke with Merz, vowed to "keep the EU united despite these escalating and serious acts".

"I assured him that the EU stands in full solidarity with Germany in the face of this attack by Russia," von der Leyen wrote on X.

"The German government has taken strong measures. And the message is clear: hybrid attacks will not go without a clear response," she said, adding the bloc was preparing additional sanctions against Russia.

"We are united in our resolve to stand against Russian aggression. We will deter anyone who seeks to undermine our freedom and security," the commission chief wrote.

French ​President Emmanuel Macron ​said on Tuesday he supported the ​adoption ‌of ⁠new European sanctions ‌against Russia after the attempted drone attack.

"We ​must be united in support to ​Ukraine, France ​will continue to ​play its full ​part," he said in a post on ⁠X.

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said Tuesday that authorities found elements such as the drone configuration, components, explosives and detonator that are “known to us from other Russian hybrid operations and its war against Ukraine". He said that the device pointed to “a high degree of technical expertise” and painstaking planning, but that the execution of the plan appears to have been left to “low-level” agents.

Dobrindt told reporters in Berlin that intelligence points to “people being involved who acted on behalf of Russian state entities", though he didn't specify which ones. “Taken together, the police investigations, the pattern and intelligence findings prove a Russian responsibility for the attempted attack at Leipzig airport.” 

Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said that “with the attempted attack in Leipzig, the Russian leadership decided deliberately to do significant damage again to our already massively burdened bilateral relationship". He said that the Russian consulate in Bonn will be closed effective September 18 and the contract under which the Russian House cultural centre in Berlin is operated will be rescinded.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry told the Interfax news agency that Moscow “would respond” to what it described as Germany’s “anti-Russian decision".

Leipzig/Halle is a major hub for international freight and for providing support to Ukraine. The planes that regularly use it include Ukrainian Antonov transport aircraft.

More...

US launches new 'tanker for tanker' policy, strikes Iranian ships in Strait of Hormuz - report


US launches new 'tanker for tanker' policy, strikes Iranian ships in Strait of Hormuz - report
JP


The strikes mark the first time in recent weeks that the US has launched direct retaliatory strikes on Iranian ships in the strait, rather than preventing them from violating CENTCOM's blockade.


The US military struck two Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tankers on Tuesday in the first direct retaliatory attack on Iranian ships since the beginning of the war, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing US officials. 

The move is part of a new “tanker for tanker” policy approved by US President Donald Trump, the report said, and aims to further deter Iranian attacks on ships moving through the Strait of Hormuz.

Prior to the new strategy, the US had only prevented Iranian ships from violating the naval blockade.

The tankers were anchored off Iran's coast north of the US naval blockade line, said Axios, when US drones launched missiles and hit their engine rooms. 

The White House and US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed that the wave of strikes launched on Iran were in response to recent Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the strait, as well as American bases in the region. CENTCOM's social media comment did not name specific targets struck during Tuesday-Wednesday's strikes.

However, the attacks were part of a larger plan to prevent Tehran from rebuilding radar and missile capabilities used to attack the ships, the report added.

One US official said the strategy was to “mow the lawn” in order to reduce the risk of Iranian attacks on oil tankers and US military assets in the region, said Axios.

Around 100 Iranian targets hit on Tuesday, US official says

Around 100 targets were attacked during Tuesday’s round of strikes, Axios cited US officials as saying.

IRGC air defense sites, radar systems, mine-laying capabilities, communications sites, anti-ship cruise missile launchers and attack drone launchers were among the targets hit, the officials said.

Iran has, in response, launched attacks on Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Iraq.

The US embassy in Jerusalem issued a security warningfor American citizens in the Middle East due to rising tensions.

Similarly, Bahrain's Interior Ministry issued an alert for "potential threats in the country."

The renewed strikes degraded Tehran’s capabilities in Hormuz and “bought at least a month” of lowered threat levels for commercial tankers, a US official told Axios.

Trump claimed that he “couldn’t care less” if Iran signs an agreement in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday.

“I like our position now much better, with almost total control of the Hormuz Strait, and their economy totally collapsing,” he said in the post.



Rumors of War


Putin's Next Move: Europe Is Preparing For Something Bigger
PNW STAFF



Something has changed in the atmosphere surrounding the war in Ukraine.

For more than four years, Western governments have worried about escalation with Russia while operating under one critical assumption: the war could be contained. Ukraine would fight, Europe and America would supply weapons, Russia would threaten retaliation, and NATO would reinforce its eastern frontier.

But the fighting itself would remain largely inside Ukraine.

Recent developments are raising uncomfortable questions about how much longer that assumption will hold.

Ukrainian officials now say Russian military leaders have been ordered to prepare several possible operational scenarios for a new offensive in northern Ukraine, including the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions. That does not mean such an offensive is imminent, nor does it mean Russia has assembled the enormous force necessary to capture Kyiv.

But Kyiv appearing again in Russian military planning should get everyone's attention.

The Ukrainian capital was the great prize Vladimir Putin failed to take in 2022.

What happens if Russia decides to threaten it again?

And perhaps more importantly, what happens if this time Ukraine begins to buckle?

The answer could extend far beyond Ukraine.

Putin Needs A Way To Change The War

Russia has spent years grinding forward at enormous cost, capturing territory village by village while Ukraine increasingly strikes military, energy and infrastructure targets deep inside Russia.

But if Putin ultimately wants to bring this war to an end on Russian terms, capturing another handful of towns in eastern Ukraine may not produce the political shock necessary to force Kyiv into submission.

Threatening the capital would be different.

Even without capturing Kyiv, opening another northern front could force Ukraine to redistribute troops, stretch already limited air defenses and create enormous psychological pressure on the government.

It could also create exactly the kind of crisis Europe has spent the last two years quietly preparing for.

Look across Europe and a remarkable pattern has emerged.

Sweden has distributed updated "In Case of Crisis or War" preparedness information to millions of households. Finland has issued guidance covering everything from long power outages to military conflict. Poland has prepared civilian emergency guidance.

Then the European Union itself urged citizens to be capable of surviving independently for at least 72 hours during a major crisis, recommending supplies including food, water, medicine, radios, flashlights and cash.

This is no longer the language of survivalists preparing for some distant catastrophe.

It is government policy.

Military preparations have been even more significant.

Germany has developed Operational Plan Germany, a whole-of-society defense concept for transforming the country into a critical logistical hub if NATO must move enormous numbers of troops and equipment eastward.

Poland has pushed large-scale military training and reserve expansion. NATO has reinforced its eastern flank, established additional multinational forces and developed its most comprehensive defense plans since the Cold War.

Across Europe, subjects that would have seemed politically extraordinary only a few years ago have returned to mainstream debate: conscription, expanded reserves, hardened borders, ammunition stockpiles, civil defense, military mobility and preparing civilian infrastructure for wartime use.

Europe isn't doing this because its leaders know a war with Russia is coming.

They are doing it because they no longer believe they can safely assume one isn't.


What Happens If Kyiv Is Threatened?

This is where the situation becomes dangerous.

Imagine that Russia eventually launches a major northern offensive.

Ukrainian defenses struggle.

Russian forces begin moving toward Kyiv.

President Volodymyr Zelensky appeals to European governments for emergency assistance.

What happens next?


Britain and France have already gone much further than many would have imagined when the war began. European governments have progressively crossed one threshold after another regarding weapons supplied to Ukraine.


Now Britain and France are sharing sensitive technology enabling Ukraine to manufacture Storm Shadow/SCALP long-range cruise missiles. Moscow responded with an unusually forceful warning, saying British military installations and equipment inside Ukraine and beyond its borders could become targets in retaliation for Ukrainian strikes using British weapons.

Russia accused Britain and France of "playing with fire."

Now imagine that warning colliding with a genuine battle for Kyiv.

Would Poland simply watch Ukraine's capital fall?

Would Britain?

Would France?

Would European governments that have spent billions of dollars preparing Ukraine to survive conclude that they must finally intervene more directly rather than accept Russian victory?

Nobody knows.

But that is precisely where the dominoes begin lining up.


How The Dominoes Could Fall

A Russian offensive creates the threat of Ukrainian collapse.

The threat of collapse produces greater European intervention.

European personnel or facilities become involved.

Russia strikes them.

European soldiers are killed.

A European government retaliates.

Russia responds.

NATO moves additional forces toward Poland and the Baltic states.

Moscow interprets those deployments as preparation for further intervention.

Another incident follows.

At no point does anyone necessarily announce that they have chosen a Russia-NATO war.

Every government simply responds to the decision immediately preceding it.

That is how escalation becomes extraordinarily difficult to stop.

And Europe already has much of the military infrastructure necessary for that escalation being built around it.


Then The CIA Director Flew To Moscow

Against this backdrop came one of the strangest developments of all.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe unexpectedly traveled to Moscow aboard a U.S. military transport aircraft and met senior Russian intelligence officials.

CBS and ABC reported that Ratcliffe warned Russia against attacking NATO countries amid intelligence assessments that Moscow could attempt to test the alliance.

The Washington Post reported an additional disturbing element: new U.S. intelligence suggests Putin may view America as weakened or distracted by its prolonged war with Iran and therefore see an opportunity to escalate against American interests or allies in Europe.

The precise message Ratcliffe delivered remains disputed. President Trump has publicly downplayed the reports, describing the meeting as relatively routine and insisting Putin will not attack NATO territory.

But the trip itself remains extraordinary.

Everyone Is Preparing For Something

Perhaps the most unsettling part of the current situation isn't any single development.

It is the accumulation of them.

Russia is considering military scenarios involving Kyiv and Chernihiv.

Europe is preparing its civilians for major emergencies.

Germany is preparing its territory to become NATO's logistical highway east.

Poland and the Baltic states are strengthening themselves against Russia.

NATO is reinforcing its eastern flank.

Britain and France are giving Ukraine increasingly sophisticated military capabilities.

Russia is openly threatening British military targets.

American intelligence reportedly believes Putin may see Washington as distracted.

And America's CIA director just flew to Moscow for extraordinary discussions with Russia's intelligence leadership.

None of this proves that a larger European war is coming.

But the governments closest to the danger increasingly seem unwilling to bet that it isn't.

That may be the biggest story unfolding in Europe right now.

The great wars of history rarely began because everyone involved wanted a great war. One crisis produced a response. That response required another response. Alliances became involved. Red lines moved. Miscalculations accumulated.

Eventually nations discovered they had traveled much farther down the road toward war than anyone originally intended.

Perhaps Russia's plans for northern Ukraine will remain nothing more than contingency plans. Perhaps Putin understands that another attempt to threaten Kyiv could provoke exactly the European intervention he wants to avoid. Perhaps Ratcliffe's trip to Moscow will help prevent the next escalation rather than foreshadow it.
But Europe has spent the past two years preparing for the possibility that something much bigger could emerge from Ukraine.

Now Kyiv is appearing again in Russian military planning, Moscow is threatening European military targets, NATO is strengthening its defenses, and Washington is communicating directly with the Kremlin.

Everyone appears to be preparing for something.

We just don't know yet what that something will be—or which domino will fall first.

After Trump - Middle East Nations Already Plotting Next Moves


After Trump - Middle East Nations Already Plotting Next Moves
 PNW STAFF


Donald Trump may be the most powerful player on the Middle Eastern chessboard today, but virtually every government in the region understands something that could ultimately prove more important: Trump has an expiration date.

January 20, 2029.

Israel knows it. Turkey knows it. Saudi Arabia knows it. Qatar knows it. Iran knows it. Hamas certainly knows it.

That reality may help explain some of the seemingly contradictory maneuvering now taking place across the Middle East. Governments are negotiating with Trump, accommodating Trump and attempting to extract concessions from Trump. At the same time, they are positioning themselves for the possibility that America's next president could dramatically change the rules of the game.

They don't necessarily have to defeat Trump's policies.

Some may simply have to survive them.

This is particularly important because the Middle East Trump inherited has become even more volatile.

The war with Iran has shaken confidence in traditional security arrangements, while Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have now established the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. Their first high-level meeting under the pact is taking place as all three countries reassess their security requirements in an increasingly unstable region.

Meanwhile, Gaza remains unresolved.

The original promise was that Hamas would be disarmed and a new governing structure would emerge. Yet the process has dragged on, while Turkey, Qatar and Egypt have become increasingly important intermediaries in determining Gaza's future.

For Hamas, delay may itself represent victory.

Hamas does not necessarily need to defeat Israel militarily. If it can preserve enough fighters, weapons, financial networks and political influence to remain relevant until America's political environment changes, its prospects could look considerably different.

Iran may be calculating similarly.

Tehran has suffered enormously during its confrontation with America and Israel, yet the regime remains standing. Fighting erupted again this weekend when U.S. forces struck Iranian rocket launchers near the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran therefore has every reason to watch the American calendar.

Why make concessions today if Tehran believes a future administration might offer negotiations on more favorable terms?

Turkey may be playing the longest game of all.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan can maintain his relationship with Trump while strengthening Turkey militarily, expanding its influence in Syria, participating in Gaza diplomacy and building new strategic relationships with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The critical point is that these relationships could survive Trump.

The original article raises exactly this concern regarding the possibility of Turkey eventually receiving American F-35s. Presidents come and go. Advanced fighter aircraft don't.

The same principle applies to Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions. Nuclear infrastructure constructed during Trump's presidency could remain for decades.

That means Washington isn't simply negotiating agreements for 2026.

It may be constructing the strategic environment of 2036.

Then comes the variable every Middle Eastern capital will increasingly be watching: America's 2028 presidential election.

It would be foolish to assume that every Democratic president would abandon Israel or return automatically to Obama's Middle East policies. Democrats themselves remain deeply divided over Israel.


But the direction of the debate is unmistakable.

Forty-five members of the Senate Democratic caucus recently signed a letter sharply criticizing Israeli policies in the West Bank, while some Democrats have advocated restrictions or an outright halt to American military assistance to Israel.

Potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender Rahm Emanuel has gone further. Although he argues Democrats can remain pro-Israel, Emanuel recently warned Israelis that the current U.S.-Israel relationship cannot continue unchanged and proposed ending what he described as America's subsidy of Israel's defense budget.

Meanwhile, the Democratic grassroots are shifting as well. Candidates associated with the movement that protested Democratic support for Israel during the Gaza war have scored notable victories in 2026 Democratic primaries.

Turkey, Qatar, Iran and Hamas don't need to know who the Democratic nominee will be to recognize the possibilities.

A Democratic victory could potentially mean greater pressure for Palestinian statehood, restrictions on Israeli military operations, renewed diplomacy with Iran and greater willingness to pressure Jerusalem.

That possibility has strategic value right now.

Israel Has The Opposite Problem

For Israel, the clock runs in the other direction.

Jerusalem cannot assume it will enjoy the same freedom of action indefinitely.

That creates powerful incentives to resolve as many strategic threats as possible while Trump remains president: Hamas in Gaza, Iranian military capabilities, Hezbollah's remaining infrastructure and Turkey's expanding presence in Syria.

Everyone else can potentially wait.

Israel may believe it cannot.

And that could make the next two years considerably more dangerous.

Trump wants to remake the Middle East before he leaves office. Erdogan wants Turkey positioned for whatever comes afterward. Saudi Arabia wants maximum strategic independence. Iran wants to survive. Hamas wants to endure. Qatar wants to remain indispensable.

Israel wants threats removed while Washington is still willing to let it remove them.

All of them are watching the same clock.

Because the most important question shaping the Middle East may no longer be what Donald Trump does next.

It may be what everyone else intends to do when he is gone.


The new Heil Hitler greeting:


The new Heil Hitler greeting: 'Free Palestine'


“Heil Hitler” were the first two words, exchanged by German citizens in the 1920s, already loyal to the Nazi party, a greeting, which 100 years later, has been replaced by “Free Palestine,” indicating unwavering fidelity to the anti-Israel crowd.

Who would have thought that two words could tell you all you need to know about someone and that refusing to say them might cost you everything?

That was the hard lesson discovered by California Senator Scott Wiener, not so long ago, who, ironically, should have already been considered a card-carrying member of the Woke Zionist haters, given his championing of trans rights and personal contempt for the country he claims has committed a genocide. Yet, somehow that wasn’t enough.

Commanded to go one step further, Wiener could not pass the test without uttering the two-word pledge of allegiance, “Free Palestine,” when confronted by activists who swarmed the senator at a San Francisco bar, where a Trans March was set to take place.  

Demanding that he use the sole password of redemption, earning him the privilege of staying in their good graces, Wiener never saw that coming. Looking shell-shocked, while the screaming mob attempted to get him to turn on his own Jewish identity, the senator had to be escorted from the area to escape the verbal and physical abuse he was getting.


What was it about those two words which, if spoken, would have made all the difference despite his obvious wrong ethnicity?

As with the Heil Hitler salutation, the words immediately established the existence of a totalitarian society as well as the enforcement of a public conformity, building a type of religious devotion to the leader.

Now, “Free Palestine” has replaced the 1920s galvanizing motto, meant to solidify the accusation that Israel represents the oppressive force that has enslaved the Gazan population, keeping them an oppressed people in servitude and bondage.   

By voicing those two words, a person is immediately accepted into the virtue signaling club, exemplifying the purest character and superior social awareness that is on offer these days. The act of planting one’s flag on the “hill of moral high ground” is a pre-requisite to being viewed as possessing the right amount of disgust for whatever is being judged as the evil “flavor of the month.”

These days, that distinction has gone to Israel for nearly three consecutive years. And without proper acknowledgment of that favored revulsion, there simply is no access to being part of the “cool kids.”

The pressure to conform is real and found in the most unusual places.  Take, for example, the annual 10k race which took place in Atlanta on July 4th. As 60,000 participants approached the finish line, they were greeted by Palestinian flag-waving lunatics, attempting to block the remaining route as they linked arms together.

Protesting America’s 250th anniversary, they sought to hijack the festivities, while screaming “Free Palestine,” to a massive crowd they hoped to influence. Five were arrested in the end.

Why would those two highly-charged words be shouted at the once-in-a-lifetime patriotic celebration of a country that has provided them with unfettered freedom? Instead, they prefer to pledge their loyalties to a flag that represents coercion, subservience and death!

Do those activists even know that Hamas terrorists are the real oppressors of Gazans, who have lost everything they had before their leaders decided to go for broke by brutally massacring innocent Israelis who, for decades, offered them the olive branch of peace?