Latest news with #Nato
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
‘Ran to Daddy to avoid being flattened:' Iran's Araghchi taunts Israel using Trump's new nickname
Iranian foreign minister warned Tel Aviv that it won't hesitate from revealing its 'true capabilities' if provoked read more Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Saturday (June 28) quipped that Israel had no choice but to 'run to Daddy' to avoid being flattened by Iranian missiles, referring to US President Donald Trump's new nickname derived from a statement by Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte. The foreign minister warned Tel Aviv that it won't hesitate to reveal its 'true capabilities' if provoked. 'The great and powerful Iranian people, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had no choice but to run to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our missiles, do not take kindly to threats and insults. If illusions lead to worse mistakes, Iran will not hesitate to unveil its real capabilities, which will certainly end any delusion about the power of Iran,' Araghchi posted on X. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Notably, Rutte had called Trump 'daddy' for using strong language against both Israel and Iran during the recent conflict between the two West Asian nations. Rutte's response came when he was asked about Trump using the F-word on live TV after Israel and Iran continued trading missiles despite the ceasefire. 'Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before, the biggest load that we've seen. We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fu*k they're doing,' Trump said. Later, reports emerged that Israeli leadership was left 'stunned' and 'embarrassed' by the harsh rebuke. Warning to Trump Araghchi also Trump against using a 'disrespectful and unacceptable tone' towards Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and hurting his 'millions of followers'. 'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt supporters,' Araghchi said. Araghchi's rebuke came following a social media post by Trump on Friday in which he claimed he had prevented the assassination of the Iranian supreme leader and accused Khamenei of ingratitude. 'I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the US armed forces, by far the greatest and most powerful in the world, terminate his life,' Trump posted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death, and he does not have to say, 'Thank you, President Trump!' he said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Russia will no longer play 'one-sided' games with the West: Vladimir Putin
Russia will no longer engage in "one-sided" games with the West, President Vladimir Putin stated while addressing journalists on the sidelines of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) summit in Minsk, RT reported. According to RT, Putin said that Western nations have repeatedly betrayed Russia by not honouring their promises regarding Nato expansion and resolving the Ukraine conflict. He emphasised that Nato is using alleged Russian "aggressiveness" to justify plans to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of member states' GDP and bolster military presence in Europe. "They [the West] are turning everything upside down," Putin said at a press conference on Friday. "No one is saying a word about how we've come up to the Russian special military operation," he continued, asserting that the Ukraine conflict's origins date back decades, when Moscow was "blatantly lied to" about Nato's intentions. "What followed was one expansion wave after another," he added. RT further quoted Putin as saying that Russia's repeated security concerns regarding Nato's activities were ignored by the West. "Isn't it aggressive behavior? That is precisely aggressive behaviour, which the West does not want to pay attention to," he said. The Russian President also accused Western nations of supporting separatist and terrorist movements as long as they targeted Russia. "Everything was good as long as it was against Russia. Haven't we seen this? They [the West] saw it as well. Yet, they only talk about our aggressiveness," he said, as per RT. Putin's remarks came just days after the Nato summit in The Hague, where the alliance's members committed to increasing defence expenditure to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035. Nato's recent decision to ramp up military spending will not significantly impact Russia's security, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Thursday, according to a report by Russia Today. Speaking at a press conference, Lavrov dismissed the West's claim of a Russian threat as unfounded and reiterated Moscow's openness to peace talks if the core issues behind the Ukraine conflict are addressed. His remarks came after the Nato summit in The Hague, where member states pledged to increase defence expenditure to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035, citing the "long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security." US President Donald Trump described the agreement as a "monumental win," having long urged European allies to contribute more to their defense. Responding to a question on whether Russia views the Nato buildup as a threat, Lavrov stated, "I don't think it will have any significant effect." He added, "We know what goals we are pursuing; we don't hide them, we state them openly, and they are absolutely legitimate in terms of any interpretation of the UN Charter and international law. We know by what means we will always ensure these goals." RT reported that Moscow has consistently denied any plans to attack Nato countries, calling such accusations "nonsense" used by Western officials to justify increased military budgets. Lavrov also said Russia remains willing to engage in dialogue if Nato addresses root concerns, including its expansion toward Russia's borders and continued military support for Ukraine's Nato ambitions. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Evening Standard
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Evening Standard
Iran, China and the world at war: what this week's Nato summit really told us
Apart from the big daddy chatter, the media got hung up on the rhetorical barbed wire of America's interpretation of the Article 5 treaty obligation of an attack on one ally meaning a response from all. Trump doctrine seems to be saying 'not necessarily so,' and 'it depends what you mean by.' Article 5 in the Nato treaty does not mean an automatic response. It generates a request and requirement from the ally being attacked. The reaction depends on the degree, circumstance and severity of the attack. If Russia attacked a Norwegian Navy tug, for example, would it call for a thermo-nuclear response ?
The Sun
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Sun
From tweets to tectonics
IT began, again, with a tweet. Donald Trump, from his digital podium, declared that Iran and Israel had 'come to him' asking for peace and that he was promising a future of 'love, peace and prosperity'. The post went viral. Commentators scrambled. Headlines reframed. But beneath the performance lay the more troubling reality: real peace is nowhere in sight and never was. Just hours after this so-called peace overture, Israel unleashed another wave of airstrikes. Yet, we already know Israel's operations are routinely underwritten by US logistics and satellite support. Emir Research has long highlighted this conceptual bifurcation within the US, now increasingly visible even to the most unscrupulous observers. On one side, a political class desperate to appear in control; on the other, a war economy that no longer answers to democratic oversight. These bombings expose not only Israeli aggression but also the extent to which Washington has become operationally fragmented. But perhaps the most revealing element is not the gap between Trump's rhetoric and reality but the possibility that this gap is intentional. What if Trump's apparent incoherence is not a miscalculation but a method? His declarations of peace are routinely followed by orchestrated escalation. Not because he controls outcomes but because he wants the world to see that he does not. The deeper message is strategic: that America cannot guarantee anything because it cannot even govern itself. Treaties signed today are disavowed tomorrow. Not that we did not know this before but with Trump the exposure becomes grotesque. Trump's theatre serves a darker purpose: to collapse the perception of US reliability. His actions – whether on foreign entanglements, tariffs or climate withdrawal – teach the world that American leadership is structurally incoherent. The chaos is not accidental; it is a form of exposure. And this is not lost on foreign capital. Even long-time allies now quietly ask: If the American state cannot ensure internal coherence, how can it offer global stability? If its wars continue without presidential oversight and its treaties collapse with each administration, what does it mean to be aligned with Washington? It is in this disillusionment that real geopolitical recalibration begins. While bombs fell and tweets spiralled, the Nato summit convened with all the theatre of importance but none of the coherence. Once a cornerstone of postwar Western security, the alliance now resembles a museum exhibit: elaborate, well-lit but out of time. South Korea's absence was not a matter of disengagement. As reported by the South China Morning Post, it reflected a pragmatic diplomatic recalibration. Across the Global South, Nato is viewed increasingly as a relic: obsessed with 2% defence spending while the world burns from climate shocks, cyber threats, pandemics and migratory collapse. Even Nato members struggle to meet its goals. Reuters reports only a few are on track for the 2% target by 2025. The rest offer rhetoric, not readiness. Yet, rather than recalibrating, Nato has now endorsed a new goal of 5% defence spending by 2035. This shift reflects more about worldview than actual threat. Many in the Global South are asking: Containment of what, exactly? Is Nato defending the world or defending its relevance? The problem is not just strategic. It is existential. Nato's core logic – big-state militarism, fixed enemies, endless deterrence – is ill-suited to a world of decentralised threats and non-linear crises. The alliance now projects the image of an inward-looking bloc. Across Latin America, Africa and Asia, new coalitions are forming around infrastructure, energy resilience, digital sovereignty and climate action. These are not military alliances but post-Western lifelines. If Nato wants to remain relevant, it must shift from fortress to forum. So far, the signs are unconvincing. Something deeper is unfolding behind the theatrics of war and summits: a realignment not of blocs but of meaning. Across countries, the question is no longer whom to side with but whether the old story still holds at all. Take Iran. Its administration is probably far from universally embraced, even domestically. But its refusal to collapse under sabotage, sanctions and psychological warfare has turned it into a symbol of dignity under siege. From South Africa to Indonesia, Pakistan to Latin America, solidarity with Iran stems not from ideology but from memory. It comes from a shared experience of being coerced, demonised, dehumanised and denied narrative parity. Across Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Latin America, political leaders and civil society voices increasingly point to a common view. Iran is not being punished for aggression but for independence. The pattern is familiar: covert interference, sanctions and media vilification. These pressures mirror what many postcolonial nations face for refusing alignment with dominant powers. What the Global South is registering is a declaration of strategic sovereignty. In this climate, Malaysia has found its own voice. It does not project force or fund proxy wars. What it offers is narrative clarity. Through consistent diplomatic positioning, Malaysia has argued that peace without accountability is a false peace. Israel's nuclear ambiguity, Western impunity and the systematic erasure of Palestinian dignity are no longer seen as unfortunate contradictions. They are becoming untenable pillars of a collapsing order. In this emerging terrain, narrative is the new front line. The Global South is no longer waiting for permission. It is reframing what dignity, deterrence and diplomacy mean in a world unmoored from Western centrality. What we are witnessing is not just a contest of weapons but a reckoning of words. The old order relied on language to mask contradiction. Today, those words no longer conceal. They expose. The Nato summit only magnified irrelevance. Its metrics, even if not false, are out of sync with the world's pulse. Climate collapse does not ask for battalions – nor does a broken food system or digitally displaced generation. As for the US, the facade of unity has never looked thinner. It is no longer a singular actor but a split organism – one hand tweeting peace, the other fuelling war. This is not a strategy; it is entropy. And in the margins of this collapse, a new world is taking shape. Multipolar networks are forming not through grand treaties but through quiet refusal. These actors refuse to be lectured, intimidated or ignored. If a new system emerges, it will not be born in Cold War summits or Nato declarations. It will be built on the courage of coherence and on the dignity of those once silenced who are now speaking in full. The Global South, long treated as an audience, is now writing its own script.
The Sun
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Trump's peace tweets mask deeper global power shifts
IT began, again, with a tweet. Donald Trump, from his digital podium, declared that Iran and Israel had 'come to him' asking for peace and that he was promising a future of 'love, peace and prosperity'. The post went viral. Commentators scrambled. Headlines reframed. But beneath the performance lay the more troubling reality: real peace is nowhere in sight and never was. Just hours after this so-called peace overture, Israel unleashed another wave of airstrikes. Yet, we already know Israel's operations are routinely underwritten by US logistics and satellite support. Emir Research has long highlighted this conceptual bifurcation within the US, now increasingly visible even to the most unscrupulous observers. On one side, a political class desperate to appear in control; on the other, a war economy that no longer answers to democratic oversight. These bombings expose not only Israeli aggression but also the extent to which Washington has become operationally fragmented. But perhaps the most revealing element is not the gap between Trump's rhetoric and reality but the possibility that this gap is intentional. What if Trump's apparent incoherence is not a miscalculation but a method? His declarations of peace are routinely followed by orchestrated escalation. Not because he controls outcomes but because he wants the world to see that he does not. The deeper message is strategic: that America cannot guarantee anything because it cannot even govern itself. Treaties signed today are disavowed tomorrow. Not that we did not know this before but with Trump the exposure becomes grotesque. Trump's theatre serves a darker purpose: to collapse the perception of US reliability. His actions – whether on foreign entanglements, tariffs or climate withdrawal – teach the world that American leadership is structurally incoherent. The chaos is not accidental; it is a form of exposure. And this is not lost on foreign capital. Even long-time allies now quietly ask: If the American state cannot ensure internal coherence, how can it offer global stability? If its wars continue without presidential oversight and its treaties collapse with each administration, what does it mean to be aligned with Washington? It is in this disillusionment that real geopolitical recalibration begins. While bombs fell and tweets spiralled, the Nato summit convened with all the theatre of importance but none of the coherence. Once a cornerstone of postwar Western security, the alliance now resembles a museum exhibit: elaborate, well-lit but out of time. South Korea's absence was not a matter of disengagement. As reported by the South China Morning Post, it reflected a pragmatic diplomatic recalibration. Across the Global South, Nato is viewed increasingly as a relic: obsessed with 2% defence spending while the world burns from climate shocks, cyber threats, pandemics and migratory collapse. Even Nato members struggle to meet its goals. Reuters reports only a few are on track for the 2% target by 2025. The rest offer rhetoric, not readiness. Yet, rather than recalibrating, Nato has now endorsed a new goal of 5% defence spending by 2035. This shift reflects more about worldview than actual threat. Many in the Global South are asking: Containment of what, exactly? Is Nato defending the world or defending its relevance? The problem is not just strategic. It is existential. Nato's core logic – big-state militarism, fixed enemies, endless deterrence – is ill-suited to a world of decentralised threats and non-linear crises. The alliance now projects the image of an inward-looking bloc. Across Latin America, Africa and Asia, new coalitions are forming around infrastructure, energy resilience, digital sovereignty and climate action. These are not military alliances but post-Western lifelines. If Nato wants to remain relevant, it must shift from fortress to forum. So far, the signs are unconvincing. Something deeper is unfolding behind the theatrics of war and summits: a realignment not of blocs but of meaning. Across countries, the question is no longer whom to side with but whether the old story still holds at all. Take Iran. Its administration is probably far from universally embraced, even domestically. But its refusal to collapse under sabotage, sanctions and psychological warfare has turned it into a symbol of dignity under siege. From South Africa to Indonesia, Pakistan to Latin America, solidarity with Iran stems not from ideology but from memory. It comes from a shared experience of being coerced, demonised, dehumanised and denied narrative parity. Across Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Latin America, political leaders and civil society voices increasingly point to a common view. Iran is not being punished for aggression but for independence. The pattern is familiar: covert interference, sanctions and media vilification. These pressures mirror what many postcolonial nations face for refusing alignment with dominant powers. What the Global South is registering is a declaration of strategic sovereignty. In this climate, Malaysia has found its own voice. It does not project force or fund proxy wars. What it offers is narrative clarity. Through consistent diplomatic positioning, Malaysia has argued that peace without accountability is a false peace. Israel's nuclear ambiguity, Western impunity and the systematic erasure of Palestinian dignity are no longer seen as unfortunate contradictions. They are becoming untenable pillars of a collapsing order. In this emerging terrain, narrative is the new front line. The Global South is no longer waiting for permission. It is reframing what dignity, deterrence and diplomacy mean in a world unmoored from Western centrality. What we are witnessing is not just a contest of weapons but a reckoning of words. The old order relied on language to mask contradiction. Today, those words no longer conceal. They expose. The Nato summit only magnified irrelevance. Its metrics, even if not false, are out of sync with the world's pulse. Climate collapse does not ask for battalions – nor does a broken food system or digitally displaced generation. As for the US, the facade of unity has never looked thinner. It is no longer a singular actor but a split organism – one hand tweeting peace, the other fuelling war. This is not a strategy; it is entropy. And in the margins of this collapse, a new world is taking shape. Multipolar networks are forming not through grand treaties but through quiet refusal. These actors refuse to be lectured, intimidated or ignored. If a new system emerges, it will not be born in Cold War summits or Nato declarations. It will be built on the courage of coherence and on the dignity of those once silenced who are now speaking in full. The Global South, long treated as an audience, is now writing its own script. Dr Rais Hussin is the founder of Emir Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research. Comments: letters@
