“We’ve now got an alliance between a Russian president who wants to destroy Europe and an American president who also wants to destroy Europe.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz

“We’ve now got an alliance between a Russian president who wants to destroy Europe and an American president who also wants to destroy Europe,” said a senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak candidly to Politico. “The transatlantic alliance is over,” the EU diplomat added.

Recent developments at the Munich Security Conference have raised profound questions about the future of NATO and the transatlantic alliance that has maintained peace in Europe for over seven decades. This alliance, founded in 1949 with just twelve members, has grown to thirty nations united by common values and mutual defense commitments. Yet today, we find ourselves at a crossroads that few could have imagined even a decade ago. As we analyze these developments, we must understand their implications and chart a course forward that ensures our collective security in an increasingly uncertain world.

The first crucial point is the shifting landscape of security guarantees. U.S. Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth's recent remarks in Brussels suggesting that 'realities' will prevent the U.S. from being Europe's security guarantor represent a seismic shift in transatlantic relations. This isn't merely a policy adjustment - it potentially signals what former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis calls 'the advent of the twilight of NATO.' The implications of this shift extend far beyond diplomatic rhetoric into the realm of practical security considerations. We must consider what this means for Article 5, the cornerstone of NATO's collective defense principle, which has only been invoked once in our history - after the September 11 attacks. The potential weakening of this commitment raises serious questions about the future of European security architecture and the deterrence that has kept peace on our continent for generations.

The current situation bears striking similarities to 1938, when appeasement policies ultimately failed to prevent conflict. As Chatham House's Keir Giles pointedly observes, the acceptance of territorial aggression in exchange for promises of peace eerily echoes past mistakes. We must recognize these patterns to avoid repeating them. The word 'appeasement' has returned to European discourse, and with it comes all the historical weight and warning that term carries. But let's be specific about what's at stake: We're witnessing patterns of territorial aggression, the undermining of international law, and the testing of alliance commitments that mirror the lead-up to previous conflicts. The difference today is that we have the benefit of historical hindsight - if we choose to use it. The question is whether we will learn from these lessons or be condemned to repeat the costly mistakes of the past.

Former German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger's statement that 'maybe Europe needed to be tasered' into self-reliance reflects the shocking reality we face. As Kęstutis Budrys emphasizes, 'We are late, really. We have to speed up and show that we have real defense, and that we are ready and capable and trained to fight.' This isn't just about military capability - it's about political will and strategic vision. We need to consider concrete steps: increasing defense spending beyond the 2% GDP threshold, developing integrated European defense industries, strengthening our cyber capabilities, and creating robust rapid response forces. The European Defense Agency estimates that we need to invest at least €300 billion in military modernization over the next decade. But beyond the numbers, we need to foster a new mindset - one that acknowledges that European security must ultimately be guaranteed by Europeans themselves.

The challenges of today are not insurmountable, but they require immediate attention and decisive action. The potential twilight of NATO doesn't have to mean the end of European security - but it does mean they must adapt to new realities. The erosion of traditional guarantees, the dangers of historical repetition, and the need for European self-reliance all point to one conclusion: the time for action is now for the EU. 

Benjamin Netanyahu does not live in the day after. He lives today. And he figures out tomorrow tomorrow.

Ezra Klein

"Benjamin Netanyahu does not live in the day after. He lives today. And he figures out tomorrow tomorrow": said Ezra Klein, in his Opinion column "How Biden’s Middle East Policy Fell Apart" (The Ezra Klein Show) published in The New York Times of today.

"If there is anything at all that onlookers agree on about Benjamin Netanyahu, it is that he does not live in the day after. He lives today. And he figures out tomorrow tomorrow. And Netanyahu’s days have gotten better. He has gone from reviled to seeing his Likud party leading in polls. His political obituary has been unwritten." 

Read the full episode here.

आतिशी के मन की व्यथा ने भारतीय राजनीति को मेलोड्रामा की एक नई ऊंचाई पर प...

"Regardless of your views on taxes or Ukraine or the deficit, a candidate who rejects established science and seeks to corrupt truth (either through unqualified flunkies in government or propaganda) disqualifies himself from the presidency"

"Regardless of your views on taxes or Ukraine or the deficit, a candidate who rejects established science and seeks to corrupt truth (either through unqualified flunkies in government or propaganda) disqualifies himself from the presidency": Said Scientific American in it's endorsement of Kamala Harris, arguing that Trump’s attack on scientific fact is singularly dangerous.

Scientific American urged readers to "Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment." It's a senseless, shortsighted move that will inflame America's disdain for science. The upside is that it could incentivize needed reforms in our ideologically slanted academic and public health institutions.

"Democrats rightly point out that democracy is on the ballot in an election in which Republican nominee Donald Trump threatens to be a “dictator” for a day and claims he has the power to suspend the Constitution." 

The prestigious magazine Scientific American argued persuasively that reality and science are on the ballot, too.

Read the full endorsement here.

“This is, in my opinion, political incontinence on our part. We are wetting ourselves and can’t do anything about. This is insane”

Steve Womack

Said: Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) commenting on a small faction of GOP leaders who were bent upon blockibg the functioning of the House. 

Leadership remains unclear what exactly the group of 11 Republicans want, and different members want different things, making it more difficult to address their concerns.

According to The Washington Post, a two-day stalemate between hard-right Republicans and GOP leaders has effectively frozen the House from considering any legislation for the foreseeable future, as both groups failed to find a resolution to the standoff that would allow the majority to vote on bills.

"McCarthy, Biden and their lieutenants had brokered a deal days before to suspend the debt ceiling until 2025 and cut federal spending, prompting outrage from several hard-right GOP lawmakers who argued that the bill did not cut spending enough — and who accused McCarthy of violating several promises that they say helped them elect him speaker. The blockade presents a high-stakes challenge for McCarthy. The conflict not only threatens McCarthy’s tenure with the speaker’s gavel, but also the House’s ability to take up any legislation, contributing to growing irritation within the razor-thin majority," the Post reported.

“This is, in my opinion, political incontinence on our part. We are wetting ourselves and can’t do anything about. This is insane,” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said. “This is not the way a governing majority is expected to behave. And frankly, I think there’ll be a political cost to it.”

Womack did not save criticism for leaders, noting that rank-and-file members had not heard from their leadership all day about what was happening Wednesday.

“You got the tail wagging the dog. You got a small group of people who are pissed off that are keeping the house of representatives from functioning today, and I think the American people are not going to take too kindly to that,” he added.

"Why do anchors and their guests behave like ghouls at a post-mortem when their patient is still alive?"

"Why do anchors and their guests behave like ghouls at a post-mortem when their patient is still alive?," asked Mukul Kesavan, a historian, novelist and political and social essayist.

Mukul Kesavan, in his article titled "BJP-bin Dakshin" in The Telegraph online, reviewed the way anchors at different TV channels were covering the live election results of the Karnataka Assembly yesterday. He specially cited a moment during the Karnataka results show when the Congress’s leads dropped to 113, a bare majority. According to him the oddest reaction to the Congress’s brief slump in the leads was Rajdeep Sardesai’s bizarre outburst on the India Today channel. "Sardesai took it upon himself to chide the Congress spokesperson, Congress leaders, and party workers for a) not working hard enough on the ground to ensure a substantial majority and b) for celebrating prematurely," he wrote.

However, when it became clear that the Congress was all set to comfortably cross the majority mark, most anchors changed their tune and started praising the Congress's overall strategy. Kesavan termed the election coverage as 'T20-style' and asked: "Why do anchors and their guests behave like ghouls at a post-mortem when their patient is still alive?"

Read the full article here.

China’s ruling Communist Party is seeking to create “client economies and governments"

"China’s ruling Communist Party is seeking to create “client economies and governments,” said Jeremy Fleming, head of the secretive GCHQ, Britain’s intelligence, cyber and security agency. Fleming said this in an address to the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London. 

"In a future crisis, Beijing could exploit information covertly extracted from client economies and governments, or use its monopoly to demand compliance in international fora. To catch a glimpse of that future, one only needs only look at how China has already sought to do just this, leveraging its influence over many smaller nations in votes over technology, ethics and foreign policy," he said.

Fleming also spoke about Russia's failure in the Ukraine war and “strategic errors in judgment” committed by President Vladimir Putin.

You can go through the full transcript of Jeremy Fleming's lecture and also watch the entire video here.