Bas van Geffen, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

Both Bloomberg and Axios report that the US and Iran have reached a tentative deal to extend the ceasefire by 60 days as they engage in further negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. However, Tasnim reported that the text of the memorandum of understanding had not been finalized.

US Vice President Vance said that the two sides are still “going back and forth on a couple of language points,” which reportedly includes the wording on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But the Vice President said that Iran appears to be negotiating in good faith, paving the way for Trump’s approval of the ceasefire extension.

While negotiators are trying to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the memorandum, President Trump has reportedly asked for a couple of days to think about the final deal.

Energy prices fell further on the news that a deal could –again– be imminent, after the US administration made similar claims last week. Brent futures are currently down about 10% on the week. That, in turn, is lifting optimism in other markets. Yields dropped, and green figures returned on stock exchanges.

Admittedly, a 60-day extension would lessen some of the near-term tail risks – although both sides have accused each other of violating the current ceasefire. Just the past day, Kuwait intercepted a missile that Iran had fired at a US base, causing the US to respond with new “defensive strikes” on Iran.

More importantly, a ceasefire does not solve anything, unless the US and Iran manage to agree on the key sticking points during that extended ceasefire.

Treasury Secretary Bessent reminded everyone that Trump’s three red lines are unchanged: Hormuz must reopen, Tehran must end its nuclear programme, and Iran must transfer its highly enriched uranium. As we noted earlier this week, a nuclear deal still seems highly unlikely at this juncture.

Likewise, Iran still believes that it can effectively control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, together with Oman, allowing it to put down toll booths along the strait. Even though this would allow paying ships to cross, that’s not a “reopening” in Trump’s view.

The US imposed sanctions on the Hormuz Strait Shipping Authority, which is supposed to collect the toll. And Bessent warned that “Oman, in particular, should know that the ⁠U.S. Treasury will aggressively target any actors involved –directly or indirectly– in ⁠facilitating tolls for the Strait.” President Trump even threatened to “blow them up” if Oman works with Iran to control shipping through Hormuz.

It still seems unlikely that the key sticking points will be resolved soon. On that basis, we have shifted our baseline for Hormuz to remain closed for up to three more months before we see a crisis resolution. Only if either the US or Iran blinks regarding the nuclear programme, could we see a quicker end to the conflict.

Meanwhile, tensions are rising in other parts of the globe too. Talks between the US and Cuba appear to have stalled, while Cuba and China discussed agricultural cooperation, food shipments, and political support. This increases the risk that the US may resort to military aggression. China, meanwhile, claims that a Dutch frigate entered their waters – which the Netherlands disputed; and a Canadian frigate transited the Taiwan Strait, defying Chinese warnings not to do so.

And, as we’ve noted before, even if the US-Iran conflict is resolved sooner, it would still take a substantial amount of time before energy flows return to some form of normalcy. So, some further inflationary pressure is inevitable.

Policymakers are also starting to realize this. The ECB’s Schnabel noted recently that “even if the war ended today, a lot of damage has already been done to energy infrastructure and global supply chains.” She adds that higher costs will probably trickle through global supply chains and into higher goods prices.

The accounts of the April ECB meeting suggest that Schnabel is not the only policymaker who’s concerned about the size and the persistence of the inflation shock. It therefore looks like a June hike is all but a done deal. According to the minutes, some policymakers said that the decision to hold or hike was already a “close call” for them in April. This group essentially indicated that they would not have opposed a rate hike last month, if this had been proposed as the path forward.

Today’s inflation data are further cementing the case for a rate hike. French HICP inflation rose to 2.8% y/y, while Spanish HICP inflation edged up to 3.6%. Meanwhile, business surveys indicate that companies expect to raise selling prices further – although selling price expectations eased a bit in May, compared to the steep increases in the two months prior.

And, worryingly, consumers’ medium-term inflation expectations have started to pick up alongside the rise in current inflation rates. As Schnabel pointed out, these shifts in consumer expectations could be a first indication that expectations are de-anchoring.

However, we still believe that the current backdrop is less conducive to broader and protracted inflationary pressures than 2021-2022. Yesterday’s business confidence survey indicated that employment expectations continue to score below the long-term average. The labor hoarding index remains above its long-term average, but businesses appear to hoard less labor than before.

Russia is deeply alarmed about US plans to deploy thousands of additional troops to NATO’s eastern flank member Poland, slamming reports out of Washington as unacceptable and portending an escalation in the Ukraine war.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a press briefing on Thursday that sending additional American soldiers to Poland “would result in escalation of tension across Europe” and that Moscow would be forced to take “retaliatory measures”.

Given that some 5,000 troops are being moved there from Germany, she did acknowledge that reducing America’s troop presense in Europe would overall be “rational, justified, and long-overdue” step toward stabilizing what she called an “imbalanced” security situation created by NATO and Western policies.

Weeks ago, the White House began threatening a significant and historic force reduction from Germany, following Berlin officials’ repeat criticisms of the US-Israeli war against Iran. This was initially presented in media reports as part of a broader drawdown from Europe, but now it appears US forces are just being shifted around, and with 5,000 to be placed closer to Russia.

But these thousands more troops in Poland could induce Russia to respond with “military-technical measures.” Zakharova in perhaps the most provocative part of her remarks warned that NATO is pushing the continent toward a “suicidal” conflict.

In total, some 10,000 US service members are stationed in Poland, on a regular rotation, and the new Washington deployment would see thousands more added to this – from among the 80,000 deployed across Europe.

Poland shares a border with Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, setting off further concerns about targeting and drone activity: 

The deployment of additional US military forces to Poland could lead to a “qualitative escalation” of tensions between Russia and the West and force Moscow to take retaliatory measures, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

Zakharova also said that the number of drone attacks on Russian territory from the direction of Europe and Northern European states was increasing.

Moscow has expressed concern that Ukrainian drones could be using Baltic or other countries’ airspace to launch attacks on targets inside Russia, an assertion rejected by Kyiv and the three Baltic countries.

Warsaw has hit back, with Foreign minister Maciej Wewiór having told the Polish news agency PAP that allied troops in Poland were “a necessary reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank” as a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and given the Kremlin’s “escalatory rhetoric” towards the alliance.

Wewiór additionally said the “real source of escalation and tensions in Europe” remains Moscow’s “unlawful and aggressive military actions” – and not legitimate measures taken by NATO countries to defend their populations and borders.

South Africa’s parliament has scheduled for Monday the first meeting of an impeachment committee ​that will probe allegations around President Cyril Ramaphosa’s “Farmgate” scandal, Reuters reported citing the Democratic Alliance ‌party. 

The meeting is the next stage in an impeachment process against Ramaphosa that was revived by the Constitutional Court this month, in a setback for the leader for whom the ​affair has been a major embarrassment during his presidency. 

Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing ​in the scandal, in which bundles of cash were stolen from ⁠a sofa on his farm in 2020, raising questions about where he had ​acquired the money and why it was hidden in furniture.

“The good thing is that ​parliament seems to be moving forward,” said DA parliamentary leader George Michalakis.

The first order of business for the committee’s 31 members will be to elect a chairperson, he said, adding: “The DA’s strong ​opinion is that it shouldn’t be someone from the ANC.” The DA is the ​second-biggest party in a coalition government with Ramaphosa’s African National Congress party, but the DA remains ‌critical ⁠of the president and has said it will hold him accountable for any findings of wrongdoing.

Ramaphosa on Tuesday filed a legal challenge against an independent panel report which found preliminary ​evidence he had ​committed misconduct, which ⁠some legal analysts said may delay the impeachment proceedings. The president has also threatened to seek an urgent court order to halt ​impeachment proceedings if parliament moves ahead with the process while ​his legal ⁠challenge is pending.

The ANC holds about 40% of seats in the National Assembly, which means it should be able to shoot down any eventual impeachment vote, which would require ⁠a ​two-thirds majority to pass. The party’s leadership has ​said it fully backs the president. But the ANC holds only 9 seats out of 31 seats on the impeachment ​committee.

Canada is not only going the way of Europe with the country’s draconian speech laws, it is in many ways surpassing the suppression and censorship across the Atlantic.  The speed at which the population is being robbed of their freedoms is staggering, and much of this is being done through backdoor bureaucracy.  

One factor that consistently frustrated the globalist Trudeau regime during the pandemic lockdowns was the Canadian public’s access to national and international independent media.  Even with political leaders working directly with social media giants to censor users, truthful data outside of the institutional filters was still being effectively spread by alternative journalists and news sites. 

This ultimately led to a large enough backlash in Canada and the US that eventually, covid mandates had to be abandoned.  Indie journalists were central to the effort to expose pandemic fallacies promoted by politicians as “science”. 

It would seem that in Canada, the elites are quickly working to close that loophole. 

Mere proximity to the US makes censorship projects more difficult for the Canadian government, though incrementalism is well underway and “hate speech” laws in Canada are used on occasion to silence dissent, specifically on transgender issues.  But officials are utilizing two sneaky policies as a way to subvert indie media outlets without directly shutting them down. 

The first policy is the Canadian Online News Act passed in 2023.  This bill was presented as a way to force Big Tech intermediaries like Google and Facebook to share profits they derive from the flow of content created by mostly smaller digital media providers (indie media).  It requires large online platforms to compensate Canadian news outlets for making their content available—through links, snippets, sharing, or search results.      

The Act argues that platforms benefit from news content (driving engagement and traffic) without fairly sharing value with creators. It’s supposed aim is to sustain journalism, especially local and independent outlets. 

However, the opposite has happened.  Big Tech companies are blocking Canadian media instead, making it difficult or impossible to maintain traffic to their websites.  Google has cut a $100 million deal to avoid settlements with individual outlets, but once it is spread out, this money is nowhere near enough to make up for the ad revenues losses they face.

Larger corporate media outlets are able to survive because they have the money to advertise and generate their own views.  Indie outlets rely on word of mouth and link sharing, which is now being eliminated because of government regulation.

The second policy which is crushing indie media in Canada is the use of government subsidies as a designator for “official journalism”.  

Two major federal departments – Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC) – have quietly updated their media accreditation policies to prioritize or limit government responses to journalists.  Canadian bureaucrats are increasingly restricting which outlets they will talk to and will only work with those designated as Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations (QCJO). 

QCJO is a government program (administered by the Canada Revenue Agency) tied to tax credits and subsidies for journalism and it’s linked to broader media support efforts, including overlapping with the Online News Act.  

To put it plainly, government institutions in Canada are saying that only certain media outlets that receive subsidies are considered “real news”.  Eligible outlets get favored access to officials and information.  In other words, the government decides who is a journalist and who is not.

Backlash forced the government to back-peddle and clarify that QCJO status is strictly for tax/funding eligibility and not a press pass or accreditation tool to determine who qualifies as a “legitimate” journalist.  Critics argue, though, that the framework for this government filter is still in place even if they are not currently using it. 

If subsidies become a press pass, then only government funded and controlled media outlets will be able to operate in the Canadian system. 

One might question why anyone outside of Canada should care about how they regulate or manipulate their news platforms.  After all, Canada is a tiny country their impact on the rest of the west is minimal.  But this is a short-sighted way of thinking. 

It might be wiser to look at Canada as a kind of political petri dish; a beta test for regulations and controls that are likely to be tried in other countries in the near future.  Canada enforced some of the most stringent and authoritarian covid mandates of any western nation (except perhaps Australia and New Zealand).  Though this ultimately failed, it still shows that globalists view Canada as a testing ground. 

Today, the top goal of far-left governments is clearly the sabotage of independent media.  They’ve realized that they cannot assert dominance in other areas of life without first fully silencing free media.         

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

European elites are reeling from the information revolution they failed to suppress. A fresh leak exposes Germany’s state media regulators plotting a new law to compel social media platforms to automatically boost “reliable” and “trusted” mainstream outlets in their algorithms.

Sold as a defense of “media plurality” against disinformation, this scheme reveals the ugly truth: after brute-force censorship ignited a global backlash and helped propel Elon Musk’s purchase of X, authorities are now seeking to engineer the feeds themselves to favor their approved narratives while sidelining dissent.

This marks a shift from overt suppression to insidious manipulation. What began as panic over losing control has evolved into calculated digital gerrymandering. The awakening—fueled by years of heavy-handed crackdowns—created demand for uncensored spaces. Now, unable to fully extinguish that flame, regulators aim to starve alternative voices of oxygen through algorithmic favoritism.

I can assure you 2 dozen other countries are watching closely to see if Germany can get away with it. If no very visible retaliatory threat or diplomatic intervention is made here by USG, you will not believe the speed at which this cancer will spread.

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) May 27, 2026

The internal strategy paper from Germany’s Landesmedienanstalten, the network of state media authorities, outlines plans for a Digital Media State Treaty. It would grant automatic algorithmic preference to selected outlets.

The document remains in preparatory stages but is slated for presentation to politicians imminently. Thorsten Schmiege, head of the regulators and Bavaria’s media authority president, indicated a first draft could arrive this summer.

Critics rightly note the core problem: who defines “reliable” and “trusted”? The same state bodies entangled with public broadcasters that have repeatedly demonstrated bias. This isn’t about plurality; it’s about preserving a monopoly on public discourse as legacy media hemorrhages trust and audience.

Mike Benz, former State Department cyber official and vocal critic of censorship regimes, highlighted the international stakes in a pointed post reacting to the leak. He warned that dozens of other countries are watching closely to see if Germany can get away with it.

Benz stressed the need for visible US retaliatory threat or diplomatic intervention, stating that without it, “you will not believe the speed at which this cancer will spread.” He urged nipping this in the bud by whatever diplomatic, economic, or sanctions means are necessary.

This proposal doesn’t emerge in isolation. It builds directly on the patterns of escalating control seen across Europe. The EU’s “Democracy Shield” and broader Digital Services Act framework already pressure platforms into systemic content demotion under the guise of risk assessments.

Those tools have chilled speech across the continent. Germany’s move represents the next logical escalation: not just removing content, but ensuring state-aligned sources dominate what users actually see.

The EU’s €140 million fine slapped on X for alleged transparency violations formed part of a sustained assault. Musk responded forcefully, pointing to EU commissars’ role in stifling debate that could have mitigated Europe’s self-inflicted wounds.

That fine wasn’t about protecting users—it was punishment for refusing to play ball with narrative gatekeepers.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s calls for draconian measures and a full ‘Ministry of Truth’ apparatus further illustrate the continental appetite for control.

In the UK, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has pushed for a dedicated government disinformation unit, while the Online Safety Act has emerged as a comprehensive censors’ charter.

These developments show how temporary “emergency” powers metastasize into permanent architecture for managing reality.

The Digital Leviathan rose precisely to handle challenges like mass migration criticism and policy failures that elites preferred to keep hidden.

When combined with this algorithmic favoritism, the strategy becomes clear: starve challengers of reach while subsidizing compliant voices through forced visibility.

And then there are also punishments ready, such as debanking, to discourage journalists from stepping outside the approved thresholds.

Barack Obama’s infamous suggestion of a social media Ministry of Truth feels less like hyperbole and more like prophecy when viewing these coordinated efforts.

The backfire was predictable. Heavy censorship created martyrs, exposed hypocrisy, and drove users toward platforms prioritizing free expression. Musk’s acquisition of X exemplified this shift. Now, regulators adapt by gaming the very recommendation systems that exposed their weaknesses.

Advocates for this German law claim it counters “disinformative, polarizing” content. Yet the track record of the “trusted” outlets they seek to elevate undermines that claim entirely. The BBC provides a textbook case, with scandals ranging from manipulated editing exposed in the looming Trump lawsuit to further outrageous actions that continue to erode public confidence.

Public broadcasters aren’t neutral arbiters; they’re funded arms of the establishment view.

Germany’s own state media offers equally damning examples, including the fake AI-generated clip of ICE troops arresting a migrant family and systematic slander campaigns against figures like Charlie Kirk after his assassination.

These aren’t isolated lapses but symptoms of systemic narrative enforcement. When public funding meets ideological capture, journalism dies and propaganda thrives.

This aligns with long-standing critiques: legacy outlets function as extensions of the information state. Their declining relevance stems not from competition alone but from audiences recognizing the disconnect between reported reality and lived experience—particularly on immigration, economics, and cultural transformation.

Boosting them algorithmically won’t restore credibility; it will only highlight their dependence on artificial life support.

Parallel to algorithmic rigging, direct assaults on X continue under familiar banners. UK government schemes to restrict or shutter the platform over Grok’s humorous roasts, alongside outright ban threats, expose the cynicism.

Official claims of “protecting children” crumble under scrutiny, as these efforts target political speech far more than genuine safeguarding.

Spain’s far-left coalition similarly floated limitations, revealing a broader European discomfort with unmoderated conversation.

These pretexts enable deeper control. EU chat control proposals threaten end-to-end encryption, effectively ending private digital communication.

UK moves toward mandatory digital IDs with biometric tracking, combined with age verification theater, form pieces of a surveillance mosaic.

Government censorship of the internet is worse than ever in the UK, with the disinfo unit shifting focus from lockdown skeptics to mass migration critics.

Authoritarianism arrives not with tanks but with logins and compliance portals.

Germany stands at the forefront of this crackdown. Courts contemplating speaking bans against prominent politicians, alongside convictions of ordinary citizens for blunt criticism—like a pensioner penalized for calling a Green minister an “idiot”—signal a nation abandoning its post-war free speech commitments.

This environment makes the algorithmic proposal even more sinister. When the state already criminalizes mild dissent, empowering it to curate digital visibility creates a closed loop of approved thought. Independent voices face compounded marginalization online.

The German initiative forms part of a continent-wide offensive against digital liberty. These measures share a common thread: elites viewing open information flows as existential threats rather than democratic necessities. The result is a managed internet where “safety” justifies surveillance and “plurality” means enforced uniformity.

Thankfully, pushback is mounting. Concepts for a genuinely censorship-resistant internet—emphasizing decentralization, open protocols, and user sovereignty—offer technical pathways beyond centralized control. Legal and political pressure remains essential.

The Trump administration has signaled zero tolerance for European overreach. America stands ready to smash these UK and EU internet crackdowns.

Considerations of travel bans targeting officials enforcing speech restrictions, and actual entry prohibitions against anti-free-speech globalists demonstrate leverage available to free societies.

These actions protect not just American platforms but the principle of open discourse worldwide.

The ultimate solution lies in rejecting the premise that information must be managed by self-appointed State guardians. Platforms succeeding through transparency and user choice expose the fragility of legacy models. Citizens increasingly demand accountability: defund captured public broadcasters, enforce viewpoint neutrality where subsidies exist, and prioritize constitutional protections over bureaucratic comfort.

Continued overreach will accelerate the very trends regulators fear. Each attempt at algorithmic rigging further erodes trust, driving innovation toward decentralized alternatives and reinforcing public skepticism.

The information awakening wasn’t a temporary glitch—it represents a fundamental realignment toward truth over narrative. Musk’s X stands as proof: refusing to bend created the space for genuine debate that elites now scramble to recapture through backdoor algorithmic controls.

Europe’s elites face a choice: adapt to a world where ideas compete freely or double down on control and risk greater backlash. The battle for the digital public square will define the coming decade.

Platforms and citizens prioritizing unfiltered exchange hold the advantage, provided they maintain vigilance against these evolving threats—from the German proposal and EU Democracy Shield to UK child protection pretexts and domestic speech prosecutions.

Free societies thrive on open debate, not engineered consensus. The push to game algorithms in favor of propaganda houses won’t save failing narratives; it will only hasten their irrelevance while empowering alternatives rooted in user trust and technological freedom.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

A Turkish defense startup claims it has developed a spray-on radar-absorbing paint coating that could reduce the radar signature of one-way attack drones without the exorbitant costs of traditional stealth materials, a capability once only reserved for major defense primes.

Military and defense news outlet The Defense Blog reports that researcher Yunus İnce, along with colleagues at a small defense research firm, has developed a spray-on radar-absorbent material called “Kürşat 3.0.”

A Turkish startup claims it built a spray-on coating that makes drones invisible to radar — and says tests hit 43.2 dB attenuation. No independent verification yet. But if it works, stealth just got a lot cheaper.https://t.co/PTibodzoU2

— The Defence Blog (@Defence_blog) May 24, 2026

The coating reportedly consists of volcanic basalt and pumice and is designed to reduce radar return signals by up to 43 dB.

If independently validated, this would exceed the 20 to 30 dB reduction typically seen with many current radar-absorbent coatings, potentially giving low-cost drone platforms a new, cheap survivability upgrade once reserved for billion-dollar stealth military aircraft programs.

The Defense Blog offered additional color into the importance of this new spray-on radar-absorbent material:

The military logic driving interest in this kind of development is not difficult to follow.

The war in Ukraine transformed the global understanding of what small, cheap unmanned aircraft can accomplish in combat, as both sides demonstrated that drones costing a few hundred to a few thousand dollars could destroy armored vehicles, collapse supply lines, and sustain operational pressure at a scale that conventional artillery and air power struggle to match on the same budget.

The response from defenders has been a rapid expansion of electronic warfare systems, radar-based detection networks, and layered interception capabilities designed to find and destroy drones before they reach their targets.

Reducing a drone’s radar signature meaningfully complicates that detection chain at every stage, and doing so through a coating that adds negligible weight and requires no structural modification to the airframe would make the capability accessible to operators using commercially available hardware rather than purpose-built stealth platforms.

Yunus responded on X to The Defense Blog’s report, in which he says:

Here is the independent verification you mentioned. Official spectrum analyzer validation from Pamukkale University Electrical Engineering Lab: over 40 dB baseline, 43.2 dB peak attenuation. We are ready for the field.

Here is the independent verification you mentioned. Official spectrum analyzer validation from Pamukkale University Electrical Engineering Lab: over 40 dB baseline, 43.2 dB peak attenuation. We are ready for the field. 🇹🇷 pic.twitter.com/XTqAcPOfbd

— yunus (@yunus50) May 25, 2026

As we’ve previously stated, the rise of suicide drones will usher in counter-UAS systems, but with inexpensive stealth upgrades likely on the horizon, there will also be a rise in passive acoustic threat detection for the military and critical infrastructure, including data centers and power grids.

Via Remix News,

Germany’s Left Party is pushing for a major overhaul of the German electoral system by proposing that foreign residents without a German passport be granted voting rights after five years of legal residency.

To achieve this, the Left faction in the Bundestag has submitted a formal application demanding that anyone residing legally in the country for at least five years be permitted to vote in federal elections, irrespective of their nationality.

The move would serve as a major electoral boost for left-wing parties, with foreigners overwhelmingly voting for these parties when given the opportunity. Data from the Federal Statistical Office cited in the motion reveals that over 14 million people living in Germany in 2025 lacked German citizenship, a figure that includes roughly 5 million EU citizens. This foreign population has resided in the country for an average of 15 years. In other words, this pool of potential voters for the left is massive.

The initiative also urges the federal government to collaborate with individual states to implement identical changes for state and municipal elections, according to German news outlet Tagesspiegel. The party argues that the current system suffers from an expanding democratic deficit due to the fact that non-German nationals are systematically blocked from participating in federal, state, and most local elections.

The Left finds this exclusion “intolerable, “ given the democratic principles outlined in the Basic Law, arguing that it ignores the reality of Germany as an “immigration society.”

Addressing potential legal hurdles, the Left Party points out that while the Federal Constitutional Court blocked voting rights for foreigners back in 1990, this stance deserves reconsideration due to shifting global dynamics and the fact that EU citizens have since gained local voting rights. They also highlight a linguistic nuance in the constitution, observing that the Basic Law uses the word “people“ in critical sections rather than explicitly restricting terms to “the German people.”

The proposal, which is officially titled “Introduce voting rights for foreigners,” was initiated by a group of lawmakers including Ferat Koçak and the wider Left Party parliamentary group, with signatures from group leaders Heidi Reichinnek and Sören Pellmann.

This motion continues a long-standing political campaign by the Left Party, which references its own 2014 draft legislation as part of a multi-year effort to expand suffrage.

Recently, Elif Eralp, the party’s top candidate in Berlin, echoed these demands.

This has not even been the most radical demand from the Left. In 2023, then German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser proposed to give asylum seekers the right to vote in local state elections after just six months in Germany. The program, if implemented, would have translated into millions of new voters overnight.

At the time, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party was immediately critical of what it described as an attempt to stack the vote with migrants, releasing a statement that read:

“Interior Minister Faeser (SPD), as the top candidate in the Hessian state elections, is campaigning for local voting rights for all people who have lived in Germany for ‘longer than six months.’ This means that supposed ‘refugees’ from Afghanistan, Syria or Turkey would also be allowed to vote – even without German citizenship.

“The German passport is thus turned into a piece of junk. But above all: Faeser and the SPD want to attract people who have no connection to Germany at all as new groups of voters. This is not surprising, because the locals who are ridiculed as ‘non-migrants’ are running away from (Chanceller Olaf) Scholz’s SPD.”

Under current constitutional rules, federal voting rights are restricted to German citizens aged 18 and older, while Berlin state elections require voters to be at least 16. The only current exception exists at the municipal level, where EU citizens can vote for district parliaments.

In response to such demands, the Federal Ministry of the Interior website states that “Migrants living in the Federal Republic of Germany for many years have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens under German citizenship law. In doing so, they also acquire the right to vote.”

However, the Left faction argues this pathway is insufficient and the requirements for citizenship are too burdensome.

The right has long contended that the left is using mass immigration as a tool to solidify political power. Foreigners are notoriously prone to voting for left-wing parties, with the logic being that more left-wing policies means more immigration for their fellow countrymen and more social welfare benefits for them and their families.

Many of these foreign groups often tend to vote quite conservatively in their own nations while shifting to the left in Western nations, such as the case of the Turkish community in Germany, which has approximately 1.5 million individuals with dual citizenship between Turkey and Germany. Half of these Turks vote for strongman Islamist leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkish elections and then shift their vote to the left in Germany.

Read more here…

Authored by Simon Watkins via OilPrice.com,

• European officials fear Russia’s “grey war” is entering a more dangerous phase, with gas pipelines, electricity interconnectors, offshore networks, and subsea infrastructure increasingly vulnerable to sabotage and cyberattacks.

• Security sources say Moscow is escalating pressure because the Ukraine war is becoming harder to sustain militarily and economically.

• Recent incidents involving Russian-linked vessels and surveillance operations in the Baltic and North Seas have heightened concerns that Europe’s energy grid is becoming a frontline target in the broader confrontation with Russia.

While many may be focusing on the transfer of nuclear weapons from Russia to Belarus on NATO’s northeastern Baltic States border, the bloc’s security apparatus is at least as concerned about imminent attacks on the region’s energy infrastructure, a senior source who works very closely with the European Union’s (E.U.’s) energy security complex exclusively told OilPrice.com last week.

“Russia’s effectively been at war with the West since February 2007 when [Russian President Vladimir] Putin condemned NATO’s expansion to the East, which was followed by a huge cyber-attack against Estonia,” he said. “Then we had the beginning of the land pushback, with Russia’s war on Georgia in 2008, where we [the West] did nothing to dissuade him from further actions Westwards, then the first invasion of Ukraine and annexation on Crimea in 2014, where we did nothing much again [as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order], and then the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022,” he added. “We’re into the final phase now, in which we’re making a stand, and Russia’s testing how resolved we are,” he underlined.

So, what happens next in terms of Europe’s crucial energy infrastructure?

“We expect hybrid attacks of the sort we’ve seen in recent years, and more direct physical ones, which have also increased in recent months, primarily against gas infrastructure, electricity cables, offshore networks, and control systems,” said the source. “The full array of these measures has already been used by Russia in Ukraine, so they’re ready to roll out whenever Putin wants — it’s just a question of how far he’s willing to push the boundaries before he thinks we’ll react with true deterrent force,” he added. As also highlighted by the E.U. Institute for Security Studies, there have been several incidents since Russia’s full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022 in which undersea energy cables were severed by Russian-affiliated vessels. For example, in December 2024, Russian shadow fleet vessel Eagle S was apprehended by Finnish authorities after severing EstLink 2, a critical electricity interconnector linking Finland and Estonia. The ship had military-grade detection hardware in its hull, indicating a direct, premeditated, and malicious attack on European energy infrastructure. Similarly, a Russian vessel, the Scanlark, was detained by authorities after being caught launching surveillance drones and carrying spying equipment near the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Station in Finland.

“Subsea electricity interconnectors and gas pipelines in the Baltic and North Seas are also highly vulnerable to the same style of attacks, with the same capabilities also available for the targeting of power grids to trigger cascading regional blackouts across the highly interconnected European electricity grids,” the E.U. source told OilPrice.com last week. Indeed, an attempted dual nature energy-telecommunications hit was tried by Russia within the last couple of months, as revealed by the British Ministry of Defence on 9 April. Three Russian submarines were mapping and surveying vital gas pipelines in the North Sea, and undersea electricity interconnectors vital to trading power with mainland Europe. “This is all part of Russia’s ongoing grey war with the West, focused on Europe right now, which aims to critically undermine us without crossing the boundary that triggers Article 5 and outright war between NATO and Russia,” the source underlined.

The key reason why there has been a surge in the scale and scope of Russia’s grey war in recent weeks is that Putin thinks time is running out for his ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine, according to security sources in Washington and London exclusively spoken to by OilPrice.com last week and exclusively confirmed by a very high-level Moscow-based source in the current Russian Administration. Part of Putin’s belief comes from the burn rate of Russian soldiers on the frontline, with only 70% of those killed now able to be replaced by new recruits. “This is the big problem, because it means that the [recruitment] net will have to be widened to areas that could cause political problems,” said the Moscow source last week. In this context, much of the burden of the war to date has been borne by Russia’s ethnic minorities and those from poor regions, for whom the relatively high military salaries and death benefits are life-changing money for them and their families, whether they live or die. So far, the more affluent, better-connected, and more highly educated ‘middle class’ Russians from the major metropolitan hubs — specifically Moscow and St Petersburg — have been largely insulated from the war. But, with Putin’s choice now being either an end to the war on Ukrainian terms or extending recruitment to the previously protected class, this could change, although both possibilities have been prepared for.

On the one hand, Putin said on 9 May that the Ukraine war is ‘coming to an end’ — the first time in over four years of fighting that he has used this specific phrasing. 

On the other hand, Russia rolled out a unified digital conscription registry last May, which sends draft notices electronically via state portals.

The likelihood of major protests erupting if this system is used across Russia’s major metropolitan hubs may have been foreshadowed by the Kremlin’s drive to isolate the country’s internet, allowing it to suppress the kind of widespread dissent that fuelled the Arab Spring uprisings.

There are three other factors in the ‘why now’ equation for Russia, according to the Washington, London, and E.U. sources, again confirmed by the very highly placed source in Moscow.

• The most immediate catalyst was the unblocking of the €90 billion E.U. package for Ukraine, following the removal from power of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who acted as Putin’s de facto blocking vote on E.U. legislation the Russian premier did not want. Two-thirds of this money is strictly earmarked for spending by Ukraine on hard defence assets rather than just keeping the government afloat. Even without this, Ukraine has dramatically expanded its capabilities of hitting key military and civilian infrastructure targets deep inside Russia for the first time, with repeated hits on key sites connected to its ability to monetise its oil and gas resources by exports. Last year, according to industry figures, Russian oil firms suffered RUB1 trillion roubles (US$12.9 billion) in combined losses across 120 recorded energy facility strikes. But since January alone this year, Russia has already lost over US$7 billion in oil revenue, driven by the prolonged downtime of facilities and steep export reductions from disrupted Baltic Sea shipping hubs like Ust-Luga and Primorsk. Worse still for Putin is that his long-running project to keep U.S. President Donald Trump on its side has backfired as, no longer under the shackles of U.S. arms supply deals, Ukraine is no able to keep hitting any target it wants inside Russia up to 1,200 miles, putting over 70% of the Russian population within Ukraine’s crosshairs. Putin knows that this is only going to get worse, as Ukraine continues to develop the range and accuracy of its own missiles and drones with the funding from the new €90bn package.

• The second reason for Russia stepping up its pressure on the West is that Europe is moving ahead with new sanctions designed to end all imports of Russian gas and oil and cut off Moscow’s access to the financing that supports them. Liquefied natural gas imports will end by the end of this year, natural gas by 30 September next year, and crude oil and petroleum products by the end of next year. To this end, its latest (20th) Sanctions Package, adopted on 23 April, was structured specifically to cut off Russia’s financial loopholes and squeeze what remains of its energy revenue. It focuses on eliminating its Shadow Fleet of vessels still transporting Russian oil and gas covertly around the world, and on ending crypto escape routes that allow Russia to use digital assets to circumvent traditional Western banking blocks.

• And the final reason, again an unintended by-product of Putin’s misjudgement in attempting to use Trump for his maximum benefit to Russia, is that because of Europe’s uncertainty now over the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5, it is rearming at pace, at scale, and in size. Even before this current round of military build-up, the chance of Russia defeating a united European military force — without the U.S. — was minimal, which is why Moscow has continued to fight a grey war under the boundary that would trigger outright conflict. But European NATO’s membership has expanded since the Ukraine invasion, and commitments to new spending and realised new expenditure have increased dramatically.

In the end, Europe’s energy grid is no longer just infrastructure — it is the front line.

And Russia’s grey war will keep pressing against it until Moscow is convinced.

European officials fear Russia’s “grey war” is entering a more dangerous phase, with gas pipelines, electricity interconnectors, offshore networks, and subsea infrastructure increasingly vulnerable to sabotage and cyberattacks. The West is finally prepared to push back in a way that convinces Putin that he must go no further.