NATO 3.0 and Europe’s search for strategic responsibility

Europe’s military future is starting to take shape

RT

NATO 3.0 and Europe’s search for strategic responsibility

Perhaps the most consequential discussion in Ankara concerned NATO’s long-term evolution.

Alliance leaders increasingly describe the emerging model as ‘NATO 3.0’ – a more Europeanized bloc in which European members assume primary responsibility for conventional military power while the US retains its nuclear leadership.

In principle, this evolution makes strategic sense. Washington’s long-term focus is gradually shifting toward the Indo-Pacific, making it increasingly difficult to sustain the same military presence in Europe indefinitely.

Uncertainty around President Donald Trump’s attendance is a good indication of the doubts about America’s future commitment. Trump ultimately traveled to Ankara, remarking that his presence reflected his close relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Meanwhile, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth had considered announcing significant reductions in US troop deployments before ultimately refraining from doing so.

More importantly, the Pentagon has already launched a comprehensive review of America’s military footprint across Europe, examining troop levels, bases, and military access arrangements. Even if immediate reductions do not occur, the direction of travel appears clear.

For Europe, greater strategic responsibility offers both challenges and opportunities. Investment in counter-drone capabilities, digital infrastructure, joint procurement, resilient supply chains, and stronger domestic defense industries addresses genuine weaknesses that accumulated over decades of underinvestment. These efforts correspond naturally with a gradual American military rebalancing.

A new European military backbone is gradually taking shape around France, Germany, and Poland. 

France contributes nuclear capabilities and has become increasingly willing to discuss extending aspects of its deterrence to European partners. 

Germany has become the world’s fourth-largest military spender and is rebuilding capabilities at unprecedented speed. 

Poland already spends well above 4% of GDP on defense and intends to approach 5% in the coming years while competing with Germany to field Europe’s largest conventional army.

This transformation represents one of the most significant shifts in European security architecture since the Cold War.

More...

Turkish FM Believes Israel a Global Security Threat

Turkish FM Believes Israel a Global Security Threat

Martin Armstrong

For years, I have warned that analysts have been looking in the wrong direction. Everyone obsesses over Russia, China, Iran, or even North Korea, while ignoring one nation that has quietly been positioning itself to become the dominant regional power. That nation is Turkey.

You cannot understand today’s geopolitical landscape unless you understand that the Ottoman Empire ruled much of the Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe for centuries. Those ambitions never simply vanished.

Turkey possesses one of NATO’s largest armed forces and controls perhaps the single most strategic piece of geography on earth, the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Every major power has sought influence over that region for centuries because whoever controls the gateway between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean possesses leverage that cannot be replicated elsewhere.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that Ankara no longer views Israel as merely another country in the region. The rhetoric has become increasingly direct, and European politicians are beginning to acknowledge that the conflict extends far beyond Gaza.

According to the report from Pars Today, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan declared after the NATO summit that “The policies of Netanyahu’s government are not only our problem; they are also a burden on Tel Aviv, the region, and international security, and they constitute a threat to all of them.” He added that European leaders are “increasingly recognizing the threat posed by Israel, but have not yet found a way to confront it.”

Fidan went even further regarding Syria, stating, “We are not sure that Israel wants to see a stable, strong, transformed, and prosperous Syria.” When asked whether Israel seeks to destabilize Syria, his response was blunt: “When you look at the past and present behavior patterns of the Israeli cabinet toward the countries of the region, the answer is yes.” In another speaking engagement, Fidan warned that Israel is a security problem for the whole world.

These are extraordinary statements coming from the foreign minister of a NATO member. Even within Europe, criticism of Netanyahu has become far more common than it was only a few years ago. Governments that once hesitated to publicly challenge Israeli policy are increasingly voicing concern over the regional consequences of continued military escalation. Whether they act upon those concerns remains another question entirely, but politically the conversation has unquestionably shifted.

This is why I have repeatedly warned that Turkey must never be underestimated. The mainstream press still views Turkey as simply another NATO member. That is a serious mistake. Turkey has its own agenda. It is building influence throughout Central Asia, strengthening ties across the Muslim world, expanding its military-industrial base, and positioning itself as the indispensable bridge between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Nations that once lived under Ottoman rule are once again becoming areas where Ankara seeks influence.

The Neocons continue to believe they can micromanage the Middle East indefinitely. They fail to appreciate that every military intervention rearranges the regional balance of power. Remove one rival, and another immediately rises to fill the vacuum. That has been the lesson of history from Rome to the British Empire. It never changes.

The computer has consistently shown that the War Cycle is not confined to Ukraine or Russia. The entire region stretching from Eastern Europe through the Middle East is becoming increasingly interconnected. Israel’s confrontation with its neighbors, Europe’s growing internal divisions, the instability in Syria, and Turkey’s expanding regional ambitions are all pieces of the same geopolitical puzzle.

Those who continue to analyze each crisis in isolation will never understand what is unfolding. 

The world is entering a period where old empires, old rivalries, and old borders once thought settled are returning to the forefront. Turkey has been preparing for that reality for years. The rest of the world is only beginning to notice.

The New Blacklist: Bible Believers

The New Blacklist: Bible Believers

Imagine boarding an international flight.

The airline agent scans your passport, pauses, types a few more keys, then quietly picks up the phone. After a brief conversation, she returns with an apologetic smile.

*"I'm sorry, but you cannot transit through this country because of your criminal record."*

You ask what crime you've committed.

"Hate speech."

Your offense wasn't assault. It wasn't vandalism. It wasn't inciting violence.

You publicly affirmed what Christians have believed for nearly 2,000 years--that marriage is between one man and one woman.

If that sounds like dystopian fiction, ask Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen.

After a seven-year legal battle, the physician, grandmother, former cabinet minister, and sitting member of Finland's Parliament was convicted over a 22-year-old church booklet defending the biblical understanding of marriage. Although Finland's Supreme Court unanimously acquitted her over a 2019 social media post quoting Scripture, it convicted her for the older publication, retroactively declaring her biblical teaching to be criminal "hate speech."

Now the consequences are extending far beyond the courtroom.

According to author Rod Dreher and attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom, Räsänen recently learned she could not even transit through London's Heathrow Airport because British authorities considered her a convicted hate criminal.

She wasn't traveling to campaign. She wasn't organizing a protest. She wasn't entering Britain to preach.

She simply wanted to change planes.

That should stop every Christian in their tracks.

Most believers assume persecution begins with pastors being arrested or churches being shut down. History suggests otherwise. It usually begins much more quietly--with labels.

First you're "offensive."

Then you're "harmful."

Then you're "dangerous."

Finally, society concludes that restricting your freedoms isn't persecution at all. It's simply protecting everyone else.

That is why Räsänen's conviction matters far beyond Finland.

Across Europe, governments continue expanding hate speech legislation while the European Union explores broader standards for combating so-called hate crimes and online speech. Canada has spent years empowering human rights commissions to investigate speech complaints while proposing new online harms legislation and broader censorship measures. 

Australia has expanded hate speech laws in several jurisdictions while pursuing misinformation regulations. In the United States, many progressive politicians have advocated stronger hate speech restrictions despite the significant protections afforded by the First Amendment.

The pattern should look familiar.

First, redefine traditional Christian teaching as discriminatory.

Next, classify it as harmful.

Then criminalize it.

Finally, ensure the consequences extend well beyond paying a fine.

That final step may prove the most dangerous.

If governments can officially declare biblical teaching to be hate speech, then the conviction itself becomes only the beginning.

Today, it may mean difficulties traveling internationally.

Tomorrow?

Could governments decide that people convicted of hate crimes should be barred from holding public office because they supposedly promote "extremism"?

Could professional licensing boards conclude that pastors, counselors, teachers, physicians, or attorneys convicted of hate speech are unfit to practice?

Could universities refuse to hire professors with hate crime convictions? Could churches face increasing financial scrutiny? Could charitable organizations lose tax benefits if their leaders have criminal records tied to biblical teaching? Could banks, insurers, or employers decide that someone officially labeled a "hate criminal" represents too great a reputational risk?

None of those possibilities require outlawing Christianity.

They simply require treating Bible-believing Christians as citizens who cannot be trusted with positions of influence.

That may sound speculative--but so did the idea of prosecuting a parliamentarian for publishing a biblical booklet twenty years before same-sex marriage was legalized in her country.

History offers an important warning.

Governments have always relied on labels before they relied on force. The Roman Empire branded Christians enemies of the state. The French Revolution labeled faithful clergy enemies of the people. Communist regimes called believers counter-revolutionaries. The terminology changes with each generation, but the strategy remains remarkably consistent: redefine virtue as danger, then justify punishment in the name of public safety.

Today's preferred label is "hate."

Once that label sticks, many people stop asking what was actually said.

Päivi Räsänen's case is not simply about one Finnish grandmother or one unfortunate airport incident.

It is a glimpse into a much larger question every Christian should be asking.

What happens after the state officially labels biblical Christianity as hate?

The greatest danger may not be prison cells. It may be persuading ordinary citizens that faithful Christians deserve whatever restrictions come next.

Today it's an airport.

Tomorrow it could be a profession.

One day it could simply be full participation in public life.

The question is no longer whether governments can make biblical Christianity unpopular.

The question is whether Christians will remain faithful when obedience to Scripture carries an ever-growing personal cost.

Trump says US will strike Iranian power plants, bridges next week if no deal reached

Trump says US will strike Iranian power plants, bridges next week if no deal reached

JERUSALEM POST STAFF

US President Donald Trump said that the United States will target Iranian power plants and bridges next week, during an interview with Fox News's Trey Yingst on Wednesday.

"Will save energy targets for last," said Trump. "Next week it gets really bad for them."

"We're gonna knock out all their power plants," he said. "We're gonna knock out all their bridges, unless they get to the table and negotiate."

Trump added that Iran has "no choice" but to agree to a deal, noting that US and Iranian representatives held talks on Tuesday.

"You [Iran] won't have anything left," he said.

President Trump also alluded to the effect of recent US Central Command (CENTCOM) strikes on the Islamic regime along the Strait of Hormuz.

"We're beating them up really badly," Trump said. "They have to be beaten up."

We're hitting them very, very hard," he added. We're hitting every single thing they have along the [Hormuz] shore."

Trump noted the success of the renewed US military operations in the region, saying that it is "hard to find" targets left to strike

Trump added that he "doesn't like the idea" of charging a fee in the Strait of Hormuz, noting that Iran prefers to "spend a lot of money in the United States."

He said that US strikes against Iran would continue, stressing that American goals in the region have been "completed."

The US president described his proposed deal with Iran as a "wall" which would prevent the regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"What they [Iran] signed with Obama was a worthless piece of paper that was a road to a nuclear weapon," he claimed. "They will not have a nuclear weapon."

Regarding Iranian claims of not pursuing a nuclear weapon, Trump responded that "everything" Iran says "is a lie."

Lake Powell reaching critically low elevation levels, nearing 'dead power pool,' experts say

Lake Powell reaching critically low elevation levels, nearing 'dead power pool,' experts say

Julia Jacobo

Lake Powell, the second-largest reservoir in the U.S., is nearing critically low water elevation levels, the latest data shows.

As of Monday, water levels at Lake Powell measured at 3,524.3 feet above sea level, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation tracker.

Minimum, or "dead," power pool -- in which the water is too low to spin the hydroelectric turbines and can no longer produce hydropower -- starts at 3,490 feet of elevation, Peter Soeth, public affairs lead at the Bureau of Reclamation, told ABC News. Elevation at Lake Powell is currently about 34 feet above the minimum power pool.

Since the early 1960s, when Lake Powell initially was created by the completion of Glen Canyon Dam, the reservoir has never been lower than 5.26 million acre feet in live storage -- or the water that can flow by gravity from the reservoir through the various tubes and tunnels that can be used for reservoir release, Jack Schmidt, director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, told ABC News.

Lake Powell currently has about 5.52 million acre-feet of large storage and has lost about 4,800 acre-feet of water per day since June 1, Schmidt said.

Reservoir operations can get "very complicated" once elevation drops below 3,500 feet and live storage drops below 4.3 million acre-feet, Schmidt said. At that point, the Bureau of Reclamation would "be seriously concerned," he added.

The reservoir could reach a "dead pool" when its elevation drops to 3,370 feet, at which point water can no longer flow past Glen Canyon Dam by gravity.

In a dead pool, about 240 feet of water would be trapped at the bottom of the canyon, unable to flow to millions of people who rely on it in Arizona, California and Nevada, the Lake Powell Chronicle reported.

Full pool elevation is at 3,700 feet, according to the Lake Powell Water Database.

The Colorado River Basin is experiencing the impacts from the lowest snowpack on record, Soeth said.

Earlier this year, hydrology experts began warning that water levels in the Colorado River Basin would approach critically low levels due to the lack of snowpack over the winter months.

More than two-thirds of the West remains in drought, with much of the Colorado River Basin experiencing severe to extreme conditions, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

There could be some short-term relief in the near future. Above-average precipitation is favored across much of the West, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center. Monsoon season and an intensifying El Niño are also underway and could bring more chances for rain to the region.

However, any additional precipitation will not offset the long-term factors driving water shortages like prolonged drought conditions and historically low seasonal snowpack, according to experts.

More...