Tag: nato

Why Has Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart Consistently Aligned With Morocco? Questions Grow Over Family Lobbying Ties and Spain Policy

For decades, Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) built his reputation as one of Congress’s strongest anti-communist voices and a champion of freedom for Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

Today, however, many Spaniards—particularly conservatives and defenders of Spain’s territorial integrity—are asking a different question: Why has one of America’s most influential Hispanic Republicans repeatedly advanced positions that closely align with Morocco’s claims against a NATO ally?

The controversy intensified after Díaz-Balart publicly stated that the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla are “in Moroccan territory,” with language reflecting that position later appearing in a House Appropriations Committee report associated with legislation under his jurisdiction.

Spain’s government immediately rejected the characterization, reaffirming that Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain.

Those statements did not emerge in a vacuum.

Public records show that the late Lincoln Díaz-Balart—Mario’s brother and a former member of Congress—received approximately $1.2 million through his consulting firm from the Moroccan American Center for Policy, an organization registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to represent Moroccan interests in Washington.

The contract specifically prohibited lobbying Mario Díaz-Balart or his congressional staff, and no public evidence shows that Mario himself received Moroccan funds or violated any lobbying laws.

Nevertheless, the overlap between the family’s documented lobbying ties, Mario Díaz-Balart’s longstanding advocacy for Morocco in Congress, and his repeated engagement with Catalan separatist leaders has fueled criticism in both Spain and the United States.

Spanish media, political commentators, and citizens have increasingly criticized Díaz-Balart’s position, arguing that it undermines the territorial integrity of one of America’s oldest allies while closely tracking Morocco’s diplomatic narrative.

His remarks have generated widespread backlash across Spain’s political spectrum and become a flashpoint in U.S.-Spain relations.

The underlying facts are no longer in dispute: a documented family lobbying relationship with Moroccan interests, a congressional record consistently favorable to Rabat, repeated meetings with Catalan independence leaders, and public statements questioning Spain’s sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla have placed Mario Díaz-Balart at the center of one of the most contentious foreign-policy debates affecting America’s relationship with Spain.

Keep reading

Baltic Republics Foment Crises With Russia

Historically, one of the greatest dangers to a major power in the international system is letting smaller allies and clients drag that power into an unwise war. Both the United States and leading European powers seem inclined to make that blunder with respect to the Baltic republics. Too many U.S. policymakers have not only tolerated but also facilitated the obsession those “allies” (i.e. protectorates) have exhibited with defeating Russia in Ukraine and weakening their arch adversary overall.

The belligerent behavior of some of NATO’s smallest members creates the prospect of disastrous results in Europe and beyond. A crucial policymaker, Kaja Kallas, is a former prime minister of Estonia and now serves as the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice‑President of the European Commission. That does not help matters. Kallas is not only one of Ukraine’s most avid supporters, but is also an outspoken Russophobe on a wide range of issues. Kallas has received strong, vocal support from Dutch-born Ursula von der Leyen, an influential German politician and currently President of the European Commission.

Kallas has repeatedly pressed her EU colleagues as well as NATO officials and policymakers in other European governments to make no concessions to Russia with respect to territorial or other issues involving Ukraine. Any compromises, she contends, would reward Moscow’s aggression, and increase the risk of a much larger war.

The former Estonian leader combines such policy rigidity with an alarming degree of arrogance and overconfidence about Europe’s power. In one speech, Kallas asserted that if NATO simply stayed united on policy, Russia stood no chance of prevailing in Ukraine or of achieving any of its other objectives. Horrific wars have emerged throughout history from far less hubris than she routinely displays with respect to the democratic West’s policy toward Russia.

The centerpiece of the current effort by leaders of the Baltic states to exacerbate tensions with Moscow is a propaganda campaign asserting that the Kremlin is plotting to launch military attacks on vulnerable NATO members in the near future. In mid-July, the presidents of Lithuania and Latvia warned that Russia “may be preparing ‘limited kinetic operations’ against NATO’s eastern-flank infrastructure to test Article 5” – the provision in the North Atlantic Treaty proclaiming that an attack on any Alliance member will be considered an attack on all. Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs asserted that “The next few months, or even the next 12 months, will be crucial for Baltic security.”

Predictably, Russian officials dismissed the warnings as cynical cover for NATO’s own military buildup in the Baltic region. There is no question that such a provocative campaign by the Western powers has taken place and continues to do so. Indeed, a sizable buildup of NATO air, naval, and ground forces has been occurring for years. One important move was the re-deployment of U.S. F-22 fighter planes to Estonia from Poland in the spring of 2023. The most significant Russian provocations have been repeated spy plane incursions into the airspace of the Baltic republics and Russia’s other neighbors. Similar maritime incidents have taken place involving Russian naval and civilian vessels. Although Moscow’s moves are foolish and needlessly antagonistic, they are hardly in the same category as the major NATO buildups of troops, warplanes, and naval vessels.

Alarmist warnings from the Baltic governments also are nothing new, so cynical American observers might be tempted to respond to the latest flurry with indifference. However, Poland – a much more significant political and military player than the tiny Baltic countries–has been outlining similar alarming scenarios. There have been numerous warnings in recent weeks by Polish politicians, following multiple media reports that Russia could carry out a limited military or hybrid provocation against Poland in the near future. In late June 2026, a leading Polish outlet called onet.pl reported that U.S. intelligence had alerted its Polish counterparts about the possibility of a Russian attack. Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on July 3 that the warnings should be taken seriously and noted that he had been issuing similar alerts for weeks. “Poland is preparing very intensively for various scenarios,” Tusk said.

Keep reading

Belgium Arrests Canadian NATO Intern on Charges of Spying for China

Belgian prosecutors this week announced the arrest of a Canadian intern for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) who was accused of espionage.

Media investigations soon revealed the suspect is a Chinese-born Canadian national who was allegedly spying for China.

The Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s Office said it made the arrest based on a tip from NATO security services, who warned the female suspect was spending an excessive amount of time at sensitive NATO facilities and asking too many questions.

The suspect was employed as an intern at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), which is located in the city of Mons, Belgium. SHAPE handles planning and execution for all NATO operations.

“She is suspected of spying on behalf of a third country and of being a member of a criminal organization,” prosecutors said in a statement released Saturday.

The suspect’s home and workspace in SHAPE’s information technology department were raided when she was taken into custody. On Tuesday, prosecutors extended her pretrial detention by one month and the suspect immediately filed an appeal.

Canada’s CBC News on Wednesday identified the suspect as Biwei Zhang, a systems engineer who previously worked for the Canadian Space Agency and Statistics Canada. She has also used the names Claire Zhang and Catina Zhang.

CBC said Zhang’s personal and professional profiles matched the limited information provided by Belgian prosecutors, as do numerous posts she made on Facebook and LinkedIn. A group of European news outlets reached the same conclusion about her identity.

Zhang appears to be 32 or 33 years old and holds a master’s degree from the University of Ottawa, class of 2022. She reportedly worked as an economist for Statistics Canada from 2018 to 2022, then took a job as a systems engineer for the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) in May 2022. Her resume also includes work as a policy analyst for the European Space Agency (ESA) and a researcher for the World Trade Organization (WTO).

To date, there have been no details of the allegations against Zhang from Belgium, Canada, or NATO, beyond the vague description of her alarming behavior and assurances from SHAPE that her questionable activities did not interfere with operational readiness. The week since her arrest was announced has included some awkward excuses about who was supposed to vet her for a security clearance and how thorough a job they did.

The ESA told Reuters on Thursday that Zhang’s position with the agency did not require a security clearance, but she was subjected to “standard human resources screening procedures.” The WTO declined a request for comment about her work history.

NATO officials said responsibility for security clearances lay with contributing member nations, which in this case would mean Canada. Canadian Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree said on Monday that national screening procedures would be reviewed to “get to the bottom of what happened.”

According to CBC News, there was a rather large red flag in Zhang’s background: the Public Service Commission of Canada in 2023 found that she “committed fraud in an application for a position at the Canada Border Services Agency by applying under two different names and emails and failing to later clarify whether she had submitted multiple applications.”

Canada’s Globe and Mail explained that Zhang “submitted applications from two e-mail addresses, one from York University and the other from the University of Montreal and twice wrote the same standardized exams in an effort, the commission found, ‘to increase her chances of being appointed.’”

Zhang requested a judicial review of this finding in February 2024, but it was dismissed by a federal court judge.

“I think the concern level would be very high in government. Everybody wants to know what happened. There are a lot of questions to be asked,” former Canadian national security adviser Jody Thomas told the Globe and Mail.

Keep reading

Russian Missile Strikes NATO Soil In Poland As Moscow Launches Widest Ukraine Assault Yet

In the early hours of Thursday, July 30th, something happened that NATO’s bureaucrats in Brussels are desperately hoping you will not dwell on: a Russian Kh-101 cruise missile crossed the Polish border during Moscow’s massive overnight assault on Ukraine and detonated in a field near Targowisko in eastern Poland, roughly 100 kilometers from the Ukrainian frontier. The explosion left a crater reported by multiple outlets to be approximately ten meters wide — 33 feet of scorched earth sitting inside sovereign NATO territory. Polish authorities confirmed they are investigating after the crater was discovered on Polish soil, and Warsaw scrambled fighter jets to secure its airspace alongside allied aircraft, according to Reuters.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha stated directly that the Russian Kh-101 cruise missile “violated NATO airspace” and crossed into Poland, per Ukrainian officials cited by Ukrainian news outlet UNN. The BBC confirmed that Ukraine’s foreign ministry said the missile had “crossed into Poland” as part of the broader attack, “violating NATO airspace.” Poland confirmed the crater but as of publication was still formally investigating its origin — the careful diplomatic hedging of a government that knows exactly what happened and also knows that saying so plainly drags NATO to the edge of its Article 5 cliff.

The Russian barrage that spawned the Polish incident was itself one of the most extensive strikes of the entire war. According to NBC News and Reuters reporting as of the morning of July 30th, Russian air strikes killed at least 13 to 14 people across Ukraine on Thursday, including one person in Kyiv, with attacks stretching as far west as Lviv — a city not known for frontline exposure and just 70 kilometers from the Polish border.

The timing is not incidental. Russia launched this particular assault on the same day Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were both at the White House for back-to-back meetings with President Trump — meetings organized, in part, around the funeral of Senator Lindsey Graham and the continuing Iran war. Moscow clearly chose this moment deliberately, striking at maximum diplomatic noise to test whether Washington’s attention was elsewhere.

What makes the Polish crater especially significant is what it reveals about the state of NATO’s collective nerve. Article 5 of the NATO treaty — the alliance’s foundational mutual defense clause — states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. A Russian missile detonating on Polish territory is, by any plain reading of that clause, exactly the kind of event Article 5 was written for. And yet NATO’s response, as of this writing, has been to carefully avoid saying so. Alliance officials have called for “investigations.” Warsaw has called for “verification.” Brussels has issued statements urging “calm.” The hedging is deliberate and revealing: NATO is not ready to invoke Article 5 over a single missile crater, and everyone — including Moscow — knows it.

Keep reading

ARRESTED: Intern at NATO Headquarters Faces Charges of Espionage in Belgium – Canadian Woman With Chinese Origin Also Suspected of Links to Criminal Organization

NATO infiltrated.

In Belgium, home of the military headquarters for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), police made an arrest with geopolitical significance.

A ‘Canadian woman ​of Chinese origin’, an intern at ‌NATO’s military headquarters, has been detained on spying charges, Belgian prosecutors said today (25).

Reuters reported:

“’She is suspected of spying ​on behalf of a third country and of ​being a member of a criminal organization’, the ⁠Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement.

The woman ​worked as an intern at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied ​Powers Europe (SHAPE) in the Belgian city of Mons, the statement said. It did not provide further details of her identity or the country ​or organization she is suspected of spying for.”

NATO’s headquarters do the planning and carrying out all operations of the transatlantic military alliance.

“The suspect had come to the attention of SHAPE’s security services, who reported ​her to Belgian ​intelligence officials, ⁠according to the prosecutors’ statement. Investigators searched the suspect’s home and her workplace at SHAPE, and ​she was placed under arrest on Friday.

A ​SHAPE spokesperson said ⁠there was no indication that NATO or SHAPE operational readiness, command and control arrangements or ongoing tasks had been affected.”

Keep reading

NATO’s Shadow Bank: Financing a New Era of Militarisation

As the war in Ukraine continues to reshape European security, tensions surrounding Iran and the Middle East intensify, and NATO members accelerate defence spending, the alliance is entering a more openly militarised phase. Behind the familiar language of deterrence, resilience and collective security lies a deeper question: how will this expanding confrontation be financed, and who stands to benefit from it?

In this special broadcast, Kevork Almassian, host of Syriana Analysis, speaks with Mats Nilsson, senior analyst at Sweden’s Dissident Club, about the NATO summit in Ankara and the emerging financial architecture behind long-term rearmament. Their discussion examines the proposed Defense, Security and Resilience Bank, a mechanism presented as supporting allied preparedness but viewed by critics as a means of locking Western states into permanent military expenditure.

Almassian and Nilsson place Turkey’s growing regional weight, Israel’s strategic position, and the conflicts involving Russia and Iran within a wider geopolitical contest extending toward China and Eurasia. As conventional diplomacy gives way to enlarged military budgets, arms transfers and financial instruments designed to sustain them, the stakes reach far beyond any single battlefield.

Keep reading

Mark Carney can’t keep gifted NATO handgun because of Liberal handgun freeze

Prime Minister Mark Carney was unable to keep a personalized handgun presented to him at the NATO summit because of the Liberal government’s handgun transfer freeze, forcing the gift to be surrendered to the RCMP.

Discussing the incident, Sheila Gunn Reid and Tamara Ugolini said the engraved pistol highlighted what they described as an ironic consequence of Canada’s firearms laws.

“How embarrassing that they can’t even allow Carney to take this gift home,” Gunn Reid said. “That’s the state of affairs for firearms ownership in this country.”

The handgun was engraved specifically for Carney but could not legally be transferred into his possession under the federal handgun freeze.

“He can’t even make it non-fireable and bring it home as a souvenir,” Gunn Reid said. “It’s because it’s a firearm being transferred to him… it has to be immediately turned over to the RCMP for destruction.”

There have been reports that officials were considering placing the firearm in a museum as a workaround to accept it and bring it into the country.

Contrast this with the experience of ordinary Canadians, where the gun laws force historic family firearms to be surrendered and destroyed rather than put in a museum.

How can Mark Carney’s gift go to a museum when ordinary Canadians’ family history cannot be preserved in that way?

Keep reading

Eight Contradictions Behind NATO’s Summit of ‘Love’

“I just want to say there was tremendous love in that room,” President Trump declared as he wrapped up the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara.

But anyone looking beyond the carefully choreographed photo-ops saw an alliance beset by public feuds, competing visions of security, and widening political divisions.

Here are eight contradictions that defined the Ankara summit—and raise fundamental questions about NATO’s future.

1. Military Spending vs. Real Security

NATO leaders had already agreed at the previous summit to move toward spending 5 percent of GDP on military-related expenditures, but Ankara exposed how divisive that commitment remains. Trump used the meeting to chastise allies for failing to meet even the old 2 percent benchmark, arguing that most allies were not paying what they should. Spain became the main target because it refused to commit to the full 5 percent goal, prompting Trump to call it “a terrible partner in NATO” and threaten trade retaliation.

The timing made the debate especially striking. As leaders met to discuss pouring hundreds of billions more into weapons and armies, Europe was enduring one of the most severe heatwaves in its recorded history, with deadly temperatures, wildfires, strained electricity grids, and mounting pressure on public health systems. The contrast raised an unavoidable question: at a time when climate change is already killing people and overwhelming governments, why is the overriding political priority dramatically expanding military budgets instead of investing in the threats people are facing today?

2. NATO Countries Reluctant to Support Trump on Iran

The recent U.S.-Israeli war on Iran cast a long shadow over the summit. While most European leaders continued calling for diplomacy and de-escalation, the summit itself began with renewed U.S. bombing of Iranian targets after attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. During the meeting, Trump declared the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding “over,” dismissed further negotiations as “a waste of time,” and referred to Iran’s leaders as “scum.”

Trump also complained that European allies had failed to support Washington’s military campaign, saying, “We are there for them, but they are not there for us.” Spain was among the strongest critics of the war, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused U.S. requests to allow American bases in Spain to be used for offensive operations against Iran. Before the summit, Trump publicly feuded with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni after she likewise refused to allow Italian bases to be used for attacks on Iran. Germany and France also declined to participate militarily.

The contradiction was unmistakable: NATO presents itself as a defensive alliance, yet its most powerful member expected allies to support an offensive war against a country thousands of miles from the North Atlantic that had not attacked a single NATO member.

3. Europe Pushes Support for Ukraine as the United States Pulls Back

Missing from NATO’s final declaration was its previous pledge that Ukraine would eventually become a member of the alliance—a notable concession to Trump’s opposition. Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership, first strongly backed by President George W. Bush at the alliance’s 2008 Bucharest summit, has long been one of Russia’s central stated objections and was repeatedly cited by Putin as a justification for the 2022 invasion. Its omission from the declaration reflects a significant shift in NATO’s position.

The declaration pledged roughly $82 billion in military assistance for Ukraine in both 2026 and 2027, but unlike in previous years, the overwhelming share will come from European allies and Canada rather than the United States. After Washington poured well over $100 billion into Ukraine’s war effort, the United States is now stepping back. That reflects a growing sentiment among Trump supporters that the U.S. should stop financing what they see as another endless foreign war. Many European governments, however, continue to see Russia as a direct threat and remain committed to arming Ukraine rather than pushing for a diplomatic solution.

Keep reading

NATO Member Claims Ukraine Won the War

The politicians are now trying to redefine what victory means because they cannot admit the obvious. CNBC reported that Finnish President Alexander Stubb declared that Ukraine has already “won the war” against Russia because it preserved its independence and sovereignty. He said, “I say Ukraine has won,” while arguing that Russia advanced only 60 kilometers in four years. Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson joined the same fantasy, saying, “Russia is certainly not winning,” and claiming Ukraine is having “spectacular successes.” These people are playing word games while young men are still dying every day in trenches, cities are still being bombed, and Ukraine survives only because the West continues financing the war.

This is the propaganda that has kept this war going. Ukraine did not win. Ukraine was used. There is a very big difference. A country does not “win” when millions have fled, its economy has been destroyed, its population has been shattered, and its government must beg NATO for air defense, ammunition, budget support, and money to keep the state functioning. CNBC itself noted that Stubb still warned Kyiv urgently needs more NATO air defense. That alone exposes the contradiction. If Ukraine has won, why must it still plead for Patriot missiles, NATO membership, and endless Western financing?

Russia has not won either. NO ONE WINS DURING WARFARE! CSIS estimated Russia suffered roughly 1.4 million battlefield casualties through June 2026, including 400,000 to 450,000 deaths. That is a meat grinder. But the fact that Russia has suffered enormous losses does not magically mean Ukraine has won. War is not a football match where one side loses badly and the other is declared victorious by default. Ukraine has suffered staggering losses as well, with CSIS estimating 525,000 to 625,000 Ukrainian military casualties, including 125,000 to 150,000 dead. That is a generation destroyed.

The UN reported that since the 2022 full-scale invasion, at least 15,172 civilians were killed and 41,378 injured by February 2026, and the real figures are likely higher. Civilian casualties continued rising in 2026, with April marking the highest monthly toll since July 2025 and May becoming the deadliest month for civilians since April 2022. This is not victory. This is the complete failure of diplomacy, the failure of NATO expansion policy, the failure of European leadership, and the failure of anyone who believed war could be managed like a public relations campaign.

Ukraine has only held off Russia because the West turned it into a proxy war. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that the United States made available $195 billion in Ukraine-war-related spending by March 31, 2026. The EU Council states total EU support has reached €215.2 billion, including €77 billion in military support. Ukraine is now seeking another €6.6 billion from the EU’s peace fund while its own officials say total defense needs for the year are about €136 billion, with the domestic budget covering only about €53 billion. That is a state kept alive by foreign taxpayers.

Stubb is wrong because he is measuring survival as victory. Kristersson is wrong because “spectacular successes” do not change the strategic reality. Ukraine has launched impressive drone strikes and disrupted Russian energy infrastructure, but Russia is still fighting, still advancing in places, still bombing Ukrainian cities, and still forcing Kyiv to rely on NATO for survival. Ukraine may have prevented Russia from taking the whole country, but preventing total defeat is not the same as winning a war.

The neocons never cared how many Ukrainians died. If Ukraine were winning, there would be peace. If Russia were defeated, the war would be over. Instead, we have a devastated country, a shattered generation, an endless funding pipeline, and NATO leaders pretending that attrition is victory.

Keep reading

Trump’s Ankara Reversal — Ukraine Gets Patriot Manufacturing License As NATO Wraps Summit With €70B Pledge

The Ankara NATO summit closed Wednesday with Trump performing one of his signature pivots: arriving hostile, leaving warm. The substantive headline is real regardless of the theater around it — Trump told Zelenskyy the US will grant Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot air defense interceptors domestically, something Kyiv has requested for years and Washington had consistently refused. “We’re gonna give you a license to make Patriots. We’ll show them how to do it,” Trump said at a joint press conference. “I think they can produce them pretty quickly.”

Whether they can is a separate question. Patriots are expensive, technically complex, and take time to produce at scale — the manufacturing license addresses the supply-chain bottleneck in principle but is not a short-term battlefield fix. Ukraine’s air defense remains critically thin right now, not in 18 months when domestically built interceptors might plausibly come online. The real-money test is what bridge supply the US is providing in the interim. That was not spelled out publicly.

On the collective declaration: NATO allies pledged €70 billion in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine in 2026, with a commitment to sustain equivalent levels in 2027. The Guardian noted — correctly — that this “largely reflects commitments already made.” It is a re-packaging of existing pledges rather than new money, a pattern NATO communiqués repeat with reliable consistency.

Trump also used the summit to publicly savage Spain as “a terrible partner in NATO,” repeating threats to cut off trade after Madrid declined to join the US Iran campaign. He arrived demanding European allies’ support in Iran and left praising “unity” — neither characterization was quite accurate. NATO Secretary-General Rutte, for his part, called the US strikes on Iran “absolutely necessary” and told Trump: “I’m with you on this.” Whatever you think of the Iran strikes, having the NATO chief functioning as a presidential cheerleader on a non-Article 5 unilateral US military campaign is worth watching.

Meanwhile, Denmark’s PM Frederiksen felt compelled to state publicly that her country is “ready to defend every inch of NATO including our own territory” after Trump reopened the Greenland question at the summit itself. That a NATO summit requires an ally to publicly reaffirm sovereignty over its own autonomous territory speaks to how strained the foundational norms have become.

Keep reading