Click to see the full-size image
Written by Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week hailed Greece as an “indispensable” NATO partner – and a pillar of stability in a region marked by “geopolitical uncertainty”. The two sides announced expanded counterterrorism information-sharing. A defense agreement has been reached – worth up to $4 billion. Rubio also backed energy projects such as the undersea electricity interconnector linking Greece to Cyprus, and eventually Israel. At the same time, Rubio insisted a military clash between Turkey and Greece remains “unthinkable” and something the United States would “never allow.” He stressed that both are NATO allies and that conflict would harm all three countries.
When someone emphatically insists that they would never set a house on fire, the very emphasis makes people wonder whether the risk exists. Similarly, Rubio’s statement highlights that Greek-Turkish tensions remain serious enough to require public reassurance from Washington. It would thus seem that the two neighboring countries’ Atlantic membership alone is no guarantee of stability on the Alliance’s southeastern flank. NATO itself has in fact long been split over the “Turkish Question”.
As I argued previously, Trump’s warm embrace of Erdogan in July (recently reiterated), his subsequent signals that he would lift CAATSA sanctions and consider F-35 sales to Turkey, have already raised concerns in Athens – and Israel, for that matter. This exposed divisions, at a time when Ankara pursues strategic autonomy – while also clashing with “allies” over the Aegean, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Since at least last year, it has been noted how “sidelining” Turkey risks weakening the Alliance’s southeastern flank – and how the Athens-Ankara rivalry in turn exposes NATO’s fragile unity. These tensions predate the current US-Greece deepening of ties.
A closer American-Greek strategic relationship could alienate Turkey (despite Trump’s warmth) and generate further friction within the Alliance. Ankara might perceive the US as strengthening Greece’s military position, its diplomatic leverage, and regional role – at Ankara’s expense. Washington in turn may regard the Hellenic Republic as increasingly “indispensable” – while still viewing Turkey as strategically essential. Those two policies are not inherently incompatible, but they become harder and harder to sustain when Greek and Turkish interests directly conflict.
The latest developments illustrate the dilemma: Greece hosts key US facilities such as Souda Bay, and offers geographic advantages in the Eastern Mediterranean. While the $4 billion arms package builds on existing F-35 procurement and modernization, American support for the electricity interconnector, however, runs up against maritime disputes: Greece seeks to resume seabed surveys, while Turkey argues that the work requires prior coordination under its Libya maritime agreement. The combination of military capability, infrastructure access, and energy influence could look much more serious for Ankara than any single statement. The Greek-Turkish dispute over territorial waters, airspace, continental shelves, and island militarization is longstanding.
This creates the conditions for a security dilemma: Athens strengthens defenses out of distrust, Ankara perceives a shift in the balance and responds – and each side’s measures reinforce the other’s insecurity. Moreover, perception matters in foreign relations. Calling Greece “indispensable” does carry symbolic weight. If Turkey sees Washington investing in Greek capacity while its own F-35 path remains blocked by S-400-related legal restrictions, the asymmetry, so to speak, becomes politically relevant. Domestic prestige and national grievances in both capitals can amplify the effect, thereby creating incentives for public pushback even when direct confrontation would be costly. How can the US and NATO “balance” this?
Washington could separate bilateral defense ties from endorsement of every territorial claim. “Private diplomacy”, as Rubio has indicated, can manage sensitive issues better than public statements. NATO’s existing Greece-Turkey military deconfliction mechanism, established in 2020 with a hotline, can reduce the risk of incidents. The problem is the Alliance itself cannot simply adjudicate Aegean disputes or impose maritime boundaries. Article 5 does not offer a straightforward path for one member against another. NATO’s priority remains preventing hostilities rather than settling sovereignty questions.
At least three scenarios remain plausible: managed competition, with military modernization proceeding alongside negotiations over the underlying rivalries somehow; Turkish strategic pushback through diplomacy, counter-procurement, or greater use of its leverage within the Atlantic Organization; or an “incident” in the Aegean or around Cyprus that would force Washington and NATO into crisis-management mode.
Thus far, Washington has tried to cultivate both bilateral relationships. Greece cannot replace Turkey’s geographic and military assets spanning Europe, the Black Sea, and the Middle East. Washington appears to be strengthening the Hellenic Republic as a sort of strategic hedge, expanding its military access and logistical options in the Eastern Mediterranean – to mitigate the risks of Turkey’s progressively independent and unpredictable (often aggressive) foreign policy. Even as Ankara itself remains an important NATO (and US) ally in its own right. The recent advances in American-Greek relations enhance the challenge without resolving the underlying contradictions. They reflect a deeper transatlantic contradiction in the context of an increasingly divided West.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
The post Greece “Indispensable” To US. What About Turkey? Turkish Question Strikes Again appeared first on South Front.
Russia is seeking support for its war effort abroad – and threatening retaliation beyond Ukraine. Reports of foreign labor in drone factories, proposals to counter Starlink, and allegations of overseas recruitment show different ways Moscow could sustain its military effort and put pressure on its opponents.
Nowhere Far Enough
On October 9, Mikhail Zvinchuk, founder of the Russian military Telegram channel Rybar, was detained in Montenegro. Montenegrin authorities accused his team of using media work to interfere in the country’s politics. Rybar said they had come legally to film at Cetinje Monastery and had submitted an official filming request. Moscow’s response explains why this matters: Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, suggested replenishing an “exchange fund” with Europeans and Americans to recover detained Russians. One arrest became a warning about others to come.
Mikhail Zvinchuk, founder of Rybar, a Russian pro-war Telegram channel covering the war in Ukraine, was detained in Montenegro on October 9
Five days earlier, Medvedev had delivered the orbital version of that warning. If Russia’s Rassvet constellation were destroyed, American Starlink satellites would “come tumbling down like ornaments from a dried-up Christmas tree.” “Space is a very crowded place,” he added. “We need to be mutually courteous.” Kiev had sought sanctions and restrictions, not announced a satellite attack. Moscow was putting a military threat behind its demand that Russian communications infrastructure be left alone.
The link is not between a blogger and a satellite. It is between two threats of retaliation: damage our network and yours becomes a target; detain our people and yours may become bargaining chips. Moscow is challenging the assumption that pressure on Russia can remain a one-way transaction.
Partners Behind the Front
The space threat has a practical backdrop. Leaked documents published in July describe a closed Russian-Chinese military forum in Guangzhou in November 2023. Chinese researchers proposed several ways to counter Starlink, from legal pressure and jamming to cyberattacks and destruction. Their hardest problem was also the simplest: how to disable satellites more cheaply and quickly than SpaceX could replace them. They do not show that these systems were built or deployed.
Visualization of the planned Starlink Generation 2 constellation
Russia and China have different strengths to offer. Moscow brings battlefield experience and air-defense knowledge; Beijing brings electronics, artificial intelligence, and manufacturing capacity. Russia can show what works under fire. China can help turn those lessons into equipment made at scale. A sixth closed forum was reportedly planned for the fall in St. Petersburg.
This is why repeated technical meetings matter more than dramatic threats. A shared design, tested and improved over several years, could outlast the war that first made it useful. For Moscow, the goal is to weaken an American advantage. For Beijing, Russian experience offers lessons without having to fight the same war.
Discussion of leaked documents, the “one-to-many” concept and replacement costs
But destroying satellites is not a clean solution. Russia’s 2021 antisatellite test forced both astronauts and Russian cosmonauts to shelter aboard the International Space Station, according to NASA. Debris threatens more than the intended target. Jamming can offer a narrower response; smashing entire networks risks damaging the same orbital space Russia and China also need.
The factory floor shows another side of this partnership-building. A September report by the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team says North Korean workers are employed at Alabuga in Tatarstan, where Russia produces Geran-2 drones, and describes workers entering Russia as students. Pyongyang rejected the report as fabricated. If the findings are accurate, the bargain is straightforward: Russia gains workers, North Korea gains income. Foreign support does not have to arrive as a finished missile; it can help keep the assembly line moving.
September 2026 sanctions-monitoring report. Pages 31-32 discuss Alabuga and drone production. Pyongyang rejects the report
The Underground Price List
Recruitment abroad serves a different purpose. A September 15 U.S. indictment alleges that a Russian intelligence-linked network used Cuban and Venezuelan intermediaries to recruit inside America. Prosecutors describe payments of $1,000-$1,500 for surveillance and a $40,000 offer to kill a Russian dissident believed to be near Washington. Another alleged offer promised an American $25,000 to kill a target in Lithuania. These remain accusations, not court findings or proof of an officially declared bounty program.
Original U.S. indictment naming the alleged Russian, Cuban, and Venezuelan participants
The alleged network operated from at least 2024, before the Montenegro arrests. Its importance lies in the method: foreign intermediaries and local recruits, rather than an obvious Russian team. If substantiated, the charges would show Moscow reaching inside America through people who do not carry Russian passports.
The October 9 threat to expand the “exchange fund” signals that consular protests may no longer be Moscow’s only answer. It suggests foreign detainees could become leverage for recovering Russians. The warning to European and American governments is pointed: the detention of a Russian abroad may create a problem for their own citizens elsewhere.
Russia’s partners help it build weapons; alleged overseas networks extend its reach; threats against satellites and foreign detainees aim to raise the cost of confrontation. These are different tools, not proof of one master plan. But October’s warnings carry a common message: Moscow wants the other side to feel exposed too. Medvedev closed his latest message with a Russian proverb: “If you live among wolves, you must howl with them.”
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
The post NO SAFE REAR: Moscow’s Shadow War From Starlink to Prison Cells appeared first on South Front.
O Professor Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, antigo Presidente da República Portuguesa, vai estar em Almodôvar no dia 13 de outubro com o objetivo de participar numa sessão do Ciclo de Bibliotecas “Ler Está na Moda?”, dirigida aos alunos do Ensino Secundário Regular.
O Gabinete de Comunicação e Protocolo do Município de Almodôvar, em nota enviada ao nosso jornal, esclarece que a iniciativa decorre a partir das 14:00 horas, na Escola Básica e Secundária Dr. João de Brito Camacho, e é promovida pelo Professor Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa em parceria com a Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares (RBE).
O projeto dirige-se aos alunos do ensino secundário e assenta numa dinâmica de conversa e participação, em que os jovens colocam questões ao convidado. E para a sessão de Almodôvar, o Agrupamento de Escolas escolheu o sub-tema “Da pedra ao ecrã: como lemos, escrevemos e comunicamos?”, estabelecendo uma relação entre a Escrita do Sudoeste, enquanto importante património histórico e cultural do concelho, e a evolução dos suportes e formas de leitura, escrita e comunicação até à atualidade.
Importa salientar que o programa inclui vários momentos preparados pela comunidade escolar, nomeadamente uma atuação de Cante Alentejano, uma apresentação de dança K-Pop inspirada na Escrita do Sudoeste, a visita à Biblioteca Escolar e a apresentação de trabalhos desenvolvidos pelos alunos. A sessão principal do dia será a conversa subordinada ao tema “Da pedra ao ecrã: como lemos, escrevemos e comunicamos?”.
A visita de Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa a Almodôvar incluirá ainda uma deslocação ao Museu da Escrita do Sudoeste (MESA), equipamento municipal dedicado à valorização e divulgação deste património, que assume particular significado no contexto da iniciativa.
O tema escolhido pelo Agrupamento – “Da pedra ao ecrã: como lemos, escrevemos e comunicamos?” – parte precisamente da ideia de evolução da escrita, tendo como ponto de partida a pedra enquanto suporte ancestral das inscrições e chegando ao ecrã enquanto suporte das formas de comunicação contemporâneas.
Neste contexto, a visita ao MESA permitirá conhecer a história da Escrita do Sudoeste e a sua relação com o território, num espaço que é o único museu do mundo dedicado inteiramente a esta antiga escrita e que reúne uma importante coleção de estelas epigrafadas a ela associadas, com um conjunto particularmente significativo de peças provenientes do território de Almodôvar.
Através da nota de imprensa emitida, o Município de Almodôvar saúda a presença do antigo Presidente da República no concelho e destaca a importância de uma iniciativa que valoriza simultaneamente os jovens, a escola, a leitura e o património de Almodôvar.
Click to see the full-size image
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrived in Kiev on October 4 for an unannounced visit, accompanied by Economy Minister Katherina Reiche and a delegation of German defense and energy executives. Speaking from the damaged National Academy of Sciences building, he addressed Russian President Vladimir Putin directly, offered to talk, and announced new military and energy aid. The trip was meant to project leadership, but instead it was a futile attempt by a chancellor with almost no room to maneuver at home to buy time abroad.
Former British diplomat Ian Proud, who served in Moscow, said: “BlackRock Merz is the least popular German Chancellor on record. He doesn’t know what German self-interest is. Only his own self-interest. Political survival. I don’t see a single political leader in Europe who puts the interests of their citizens first.” Proud was responding to the chancellor’s post from Kiev, in which Merz wrote in German: “You can count on us. Germany’s own security depends on the outcome of this war. We help out of our own interest.”
An INSA poll for Bild, published on October 3, put Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc at 18%, its lowest rating in the pollster’s records, while the Alternative for Germany (AfD) reached 30%, its highest, widening the lead to 12 points. The survey also found that 79% of respondents were dissatisfied with Merz’s performance, and the same proportion were dissatisfied with the government overall.
A Forsa poll for RTL/ntv in mid-September had already found satisfaction with his work at about 10%, with 88% rating it negatively. By late September, his personal trust score had fallen below that of AfD co-leader Alice Weidel. The CDU lost Saxony-Anhalt on September 6 and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania on September 20, a result Merz himself called a disaster, with the AfD finishing first in both.
Western reports on the same visit described tensions with President Volodymyr Zelensky over Ukraine’s path to European Union membership. Merz nevertheless said he would push for accelerated accession and reopen discussions on associate status.
Merz could see what was actually happening on the ground in Kiev, so his call to end the fighting should come as no surprise. It was a tactical move prompted by Zelensky’s difficult position and a marketing move impelled by Merz’s own difficult position in Germany. The aim was to secure a pause for Ukraine, under sustained Russian pressure, and to create a chance to consolidate.
“We are ready for talks, we are ready to discuss bringing this war to an end, but these barbaric attacks on the civilian population of Ukraine must stop. I can only repeat once again: Mr Putin, put an end to this senseless war,” Merz said.
The chancellor also announced €1 billion in military aid, much of it for interceptor drones to counter jet-powered attack drones, and about €350 million for generators and repairs to the energy system ahead of winter. Zelensky said the new package included 15 agreements worth more than €8.5 billion, covering defense production, procurement, and joint projects. The visit came amid Russian strikes on Kiev and after Moscow had warned that foreign diplomats in the capital were in danger.
In essence, Merz’s statement offers no peace—only political survival. Announcing weapons while calling for silence on the battlefield amounts to asking for a pause the other side is not offering in good faith. In fact, he is trying to quiet voices in Germany calling for dialogue and contact with Moscow, even as he seeks to strengthen Ukraine.
Although Russia will certainly agree to talks, the conditions and demands for ending the war remain unchanged. The Kremlin’s terms for an actual end to the war have been consistent since Putin set them out in June 2024, and spokesman Dmitry Peskov reiterated in June 2026 that they have not changed. Ukraine’s forces would have to withdraw from all four regions Moscow claims as its own — Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye — including parts the Russian army does not hold, and Kiev would have to publicly renounce NATO membership, not merely offer a private assurance.
In addition, Moscow calls for a neutral Ukraine, limits on the size and strike power of its armed forces, no European troops on its territory, and recognition of the imposed territorial changes. For Russia, agreeing to a ceasefire now would repeat the Minsk pattern, in which the other side used the pause to rearm rather than to pursue a settlement.
Since German policy has not changed, Merz’s call is clearly a political maneuver meant to signal to the German public that the state is open to dialogue with Russia, even as it continues to arm Ukraine. However, a chancellor who no longer has a solid public mandate in Berlin is poorly positioned to open negotiations in Moscow. Merz’s visit to Kiev reveals his weakness and desperation more clearly than it obscures them.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
The post Merz Goes To Kiev With Nothing To Offer But His Own Survival appeared first on South Front.
“L’Occidente si trova a un bivio: il prossimo decennio determinerà se manterrà il suo posto al vertice del mondo o si accontenterà di un futuro di declino, sottomissione e indebolimento”. Il segretario di stato americano, Marco Rubio, ha scelto la collina della Pnice, dinanzi all’Acropoli, per un discorso che evidentemente non era rivolto solo alla Grecia di oggi, pur celebrando quella di ieri. La Pnice infatti, non solo si trova a strapiombo sull’antica agorà, ma era la sede dell’ecclesia, l’assemblea dei cittadini ateniesi. Per cui quelle parole pronunciate da Rubio sono un monito per il futuro occidentale, in un frangente internazionale in cui le pressioni economiche della Cina da un lato e quelle belliche di Iran e Russia dall’altro rappresentano il nocciolo delle nuove sfide. “Scegliamo di rafforzare il nostro Paese, senza scuse, di riprendere il controllo delle nostre catene di approvvigionamento critiche, di reindustrializzare la nostra economia, di ricostruire le nostre difese e di puntare al predominio nelle tecnologie e nei settori del futuro”.
Ecco il primo punto: le catene, i commerci, le materie prime, la scienza. Non è un caso che Rubio, al di là di tutti i riferimenti all’antica Grecia, ha inteso fare puntuali riferimenti a dossier strategici, che però è lecito ammettere fino ad oggi sono stati sottovalutati dall’occidente, in primis quello sulla terre rare (non a caso gli Usa hanno voluto riequilibrare la partita con la Pax Silica). Prima però Rubio aveva ripreso il filo della storia, ricordando che la Grecia è impressa nell’architettura del governo americano, nelle imponenti colonne e nei monumenti che adornano la capitale. “Gli antichi Greci sembrano esercitare un potere quasi mistico sulla nostra memoria. Ci invitano a tornare a loro ancora e ancora”, ha insistito, come per mescolare passato e futuro.
“Atene ci ha donato la democrazia. Platone e Aristotele ci hanno donato la filosofia. Ad Atene abbiamo assistito alla prima espressione completa di ciò che è venuto a definire l’Occidente”, ha aggiunto, sottolineando un altro elemento che si aggiunge alla lunga schiera “di prospettiva”.
Quando il ministro egli Esteri Usa dice che per gli antichi greci la ricerca dell’eccellenza era il principio cardine dell’esistenza umana e che coloro che costruirono il Partenone guardavano in alto (perché credevano che la più alta ambizione fosse quella di superare tutti gli altri, di sforzarsi di essere i migliori) tocca il punto centrale dello sviluppo futuro. L’occidente, e quindi anche l’Ue, deve cambiare angolo di visuale per ricostruire”Esistono grandi rovine in tutto il mondo. In molti casi, si tratta di luoghi in cui la Storia sembra essersi esaurita, vestigia di civiltà lontane scomparse da tempo dalla memoria collettiva. Ma l’Acropoli è diversa”, ha affermato.
Per poi entrare nel cuore del dibattito futuro quando ha detto di credere che l’Europa possa “risvegliarsi dal suo lungo sonno e riaccendere la fiamma che fu accesa qui millenni fa”.
VTM
O projeto europeu foi apresentado em Carrazeda de Ansiães e tem como objetivo reforçar a conectividade das zonas do interior, que ainda não estão bem servidas em termos tecnológicos, através da melhoria da cobertura móvel de quinta geração em 45 municípios do Norte do país.
A iniciativa, que conta com um investimento de cerca de 10 milhões de euros, prevê a instalação de 25 antenas e tem como objetivo transformar a conectividade numa ferramenta de desenvolvimento, inovação e coesão territorial.
Este projeto é o resultado de uma parceria entre a NOS e a dstelecom, que têm experiência nas áreas das infraestruturas 5G Standalone e Gigabit, bem como das empresas Innovation Point e IrRADIARE, que asseguram a componente de inovação e desenvolvimento estratégico. O consórcio integra ainda a Comunidade Intermunicipal do Douro, representando o setor público. Cofinanciado em 75% por fundos europeus, o projeto começou em 2026 e deverá prolongar-se até ao final de 2028.
Em declarações à VTM, Rui Henriques, da equipa organizadora do projeto, explicou que se pretende reforçar “a conectividade em territórios do interior e menos densamente povoados, por meio da instalação de infraestruturas 5G e da disponibilização de novos serviços”.
Artigo exclusivo PREMIUM
Tenha acesso ilimitado a todos os conteúdos do site e à edição semanal em formato digital.
ou compre apenas este artigo:
Comprar este artigo — 1,00€The post Projeto de 10 milhões quer transformar conectividade em desenvolvimento appeared first on A Voz de Trás-os-Montes.
Click to see full-size image. (U.S. Central Command)
The administration of President Donald Trump is preparing military options for renewed strikes on Iran that could be launched before the November 3 United States midterm elections, according to American media, as officials weigh whether a new offensive could produce a battlefield and political gain before voters go to the polls.
The White House has asked the Pentagon to develop strike options against Iranian targets that could be used ahead of the election, The Atlantic reported on October 7, citing two administration officials.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is compiling the plans, but their scale, targets and timing remain under debate and no final decision has been made.
Axios reported the same day that the Pentagon had instructed CENTCOM to complete preparations for a possible resumption of major combat operations in Iran.
U.S. officials said the order did not include a launch date, while U.S. and Israeli sources said operations could begin before the American elections. The plans could include extensive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure and other strategic targets.
The possibility of renewed fighting comes as the U.S. has gone several weeks without striking Iran. Trump has repeatedly suggested that the war could resume after the election, but The Atlantic reported that he told aides and advisers that a strike before the vote remained an option.
In remarks last week, Trump said the U.S. would win the war “right after the election,” while adding, “Maybe before the election.”
The administration appears to see a limited operation as a way to demonstrate progress, strengthen Trump’s position and potentially improve the political outlook for Republicans, particularly if it could be followed by lower energy prices.
Officials supporting the idea acknowledge, however, that a limited strike alone would not force Iran back to negotiations, restore normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz or quickly reduce gasoline prices.
The military buildup gives the planning greater significance. The Associated Press reported on October 8 that roughly 9,000 additional U.S. troops were being sent to the Middle East aboard a group of ships, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and an amphibious readiness group.
The deployment could bring three American aircraft carriers into the region by the end of October, raising the number of U.S. sailors and Marines there to more than 20,000.
At the same time, Washington is continuing indirect negotiations with Tehran, with significant differences remaining over a ceasefire, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and conditions for reopening the waterway.
The administration has increasingly argued that Iran has been weakened by military and economic pressure, while Iranian leaders have shown little willingness to accept a settlement on U.S. terms.
Iranian retaliation would be a central risk of any renewed campaign. Axios reported that Israeli officials expect Tehran to respond with large-scale missile attacks against Israel, while U.S. officials have warned that American troops and Gulf allies would face renewed danger.
A new offensive could also further disrupt oil supplies and push energy prices higher, potentially worsening one of the main economic problems already hurting Republicans ahead of the election.
The administration nevertheless appears to be working from the belief that enough additional military pressure could force Iran to concede and allow Trump to claim that the war had effectively been brought to an end before the elections.
That outcome remains highly unlikely. Iran has repeatedly responded to U.S. strikes with attacks of its own, and the conflict has already lasted far longer than the administration originally expected. Another U.S. offensive is therefore more likely to trigger renewed Iranian retaliation and prolong the fighting than to achieve Washington’s objectives in time for the November vote, potentially carrying the war into the elections and beyond.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence
NOW hosted at southfront.press
Previously, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.org.
The .org domain name had been blocked by the US (NATO) (https://southfront.press/southfront-org-blocked-by-u-s-controlled-global-internet-supervisor/) globally, outlawed and without any explanation
Back before that, from 2013 to 2015, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.com
The post Chasing a Victory That Can’t Be Won, Washington Eyes Attack On Iran Before Elections appeared first on South Front.
La cooperazione tra Stati Uniti e Italia sulle questioni chiave è solida e i rapporti tra i Paesi non si sono mai raffreddati. Questa la considerazione di base da fare nel giorno del Columbus Day, nonostante le schermaglie dei mesi passati fra Donald Trump e Giorgia Meloni. Non solo l’Italia ha risposto positivamente al Pentagono sulle spese per la difesa e sugli impegni militari in ambito Nato, ma l’Italia come è noto ha aderito da subito alla Pax Silica, l’iniziativa geopolitica guidata dagli Stati Uniti.
In questo senso ha siglato il relativo accordo bilaterale sui minerali critici, rafforzando i legami in materia di tecnologia e sicurezza economica, passando per l’impegno concreto e comune nell’area polare, con una serie di progetti in Antartide e in Artico a proposito di nuove rotte, carotaggio, materie critiche, energia. Non va dimenticato che nel settembre scorso il ministro degli Esteri Antonio Tajani e il Segretario di Stato Marco Rubio hanno firmato un memorandum bilaterale volto ad approfondire la cooperazione sui minerali critici, che comprende estrazione, lavorazione, riciclo e investimenti. L’accordo ha anche istituito un gruppo di lavoro tecnico, conferendo alla relazione un meccanismo operativo che va oltre le dichiarazioni politiche. I due ambiti sono dunque interconnessi, visto che la partita abbraccia ambiti iper strategici come i semiconduttori, i data center, i sistemi di difesa.
Inoltre a fine agosto l’ambasciatore statunitense in Italia, Tilman Fertitta, ha dichiarato che le relazioni erano “a un livello molto elevato” e ha definito Meloni un “leader di livello mondiale, molto rispettato all’estero”, nonostante il precedente scontro tra il primo ministro italiano e Trump. Tale rapporto è solido e resta di alto profilo, anche grazie al lavoro che l’ambasciata italiana sta facendo e le parole pronunciate da Donald Trump sul Columbus Day lo dimostrano, una volta di più: “Riveste un significato speciale anche per i nostri straordinari concittadini italoamericani. Come Colombo, essi hanno incarnato un incrollabile amore per la patria e una profonda fede in Dio, e continuano a rafforzare le nostre comunità e a spingere il nostro Paese verso traguardi sempre più ambiziosi”.
Per questa ragione ha proclamato il 12 ottobre 2026 come Giorno di Colombo, ha invitato il popolo degli Stati Uniti a celebrare questa giornata con cerimonie e attività appropriate e ha disposto che la bandiera degli Stati Uniti sia esposta su tutti gli edifici pubblici nel giorno stabilito.
There are more than 800 surveillance towers located along U.S. borders, a number that is expected to triple in the next decade. These towers, according to a government accountability report, “detect items of interest, such as people.” But interest can be fickle. As part of “Dying on Camera,” a sprawling package of features co-published by the MIT Technology Review and Times of San Diego, Lillian Perlmutter reports on the death of Graciela Gómez Hernández, one among hundreds of migrants whose final moments seem as though they should have been witnessed. “The proximity of so many deaths to high-resolution cameras leaves two distinct possibilities,” Perlmutter writes. “Either the system didn’t detect these people in distress, or it did detect them—and officials offered no response. “
Surveillance towers have proliferated in recent years, as contractors added newer camera systems that use artificial intelligence to distinguish border-crossers from other people and animals, and track their movements, at an overall cost of more than a billion dollars. Yet as the cameras scan the terrain, migrants continue to die in plain sight.
Scienza, spazio e geopolitica trovano una sintesi nell’Artico e l’Italia si approccia, come meglio non poteva fare, all’international artic year 2032. Lo spunto viene dalla Conferenza Nazionale Polare ideata e coordinata dal Cnr in collaborazione con Enea, Ingv e Ogs, con il patrocinio dei mnisteri della Difesa e dell’Università e della Ricerca. Per la prima volta la comunità scientifica italiana impegnata nelle regioni polari si è incontrata per confrontarsi sugli ultimi dati e avanzamenti della ricerca e per definire priorità e prospettive.
Una tre giorni con più di 200 partecipanti per dare fiato a proposte e priorità che confluiranno in un White Paper. Il documento costituirà uno strumento strategico per orientare le future politiche italiane dedicate all’Artico, all’Antartide e al Terzo Polo (Himalaya, Karakorum e Altopiano del Tibet), territori sempre più cruciali per comprendere le dinamiche del clima globale. Punto di partenza la consapevolezza che il tema polare è non solo strategico, ma parte integrante della visione politica di ogni paese, Italia compresa. Numerosi i progetti a cui l’Italia prende parte con successo, come Boomerang, Apegaia, Epica, Stazione Concordia assieme alla Francia, o Ice Memory che conserva carote di ghiaccio di tutto il mondo e ha il sigillo Unesco che le attribuisce il respiro internazionale.
In questo senso trova applicazione il Piano nazionale Artico del Governo che, come più volte osservato dal presidente del consiglio Giorgia Meloni, intende occuparsi a fondo di questa area del mondo. Non a caso il ministero degli Esteri ha presentato da tempo la strategia italiana sull’Artico, con l’obiettivo di preservare l’area artica come zona di pace e cooperazione, contribuire alla sicurezza della regione, sostenere le imprese che volessero investire lì e favorire la ricerca.
Un passaggio ribadito dall’ambasciatore Agostino Pinna, Inviato Speciale del ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale per l’Artico, secondo cui la tradizione scientifica italiana è un elemento che consente all’Italia di essere soggetto autorevole e credibile. A breve verrà diffusa anche la strategia Ue sull’Artico, connessa alla questione securitaria legata alle minacce ibride. Molte cose che accadono in Artico infatti hanno poi riflesso in Ue, come le materie prime, lo spazio, le rotte, l’energia. Ma anche la pace, visto che lì operano assieme Russia e Usa, nonostante i venti di guerra in Ucraina e Iran. “Il lavoro di questi tre giorni segna un passo importante verso una visione condivisa della ricerca pubblica italiana nelle regioni polari”, ha dichiarato il Presidente del Cnr, Andrea Lenzi. “L’impegno del Cnr nelle scienze polari affonda le proprie radici in decenni di ricerca, dati e conoscenze, sviluppati nell’ambito dei Programmi per l’Artico e per l’Antartide sostenuti dal ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca. Un patrimonio costruito sulla collaborazione, sul dialogo con le comunità indigene e sulla responsabilità di offrire risposte solide alle sfide ambientali e climatiche del presente e del futuro”.
“I profondi cambiamenti che stanno interessando l’Artico, l’Antartide e il cosiddetto Terzo Polo himalayano – la più vasta riserva di ghiaccio del pianeta al di fuori delle regioni polari – hanno ripercussioni sempre più rilevanti sugli equilibri climatici, sugli ecosistemi e sulla società a livello globale”, ha commentato la Presidente Enea, Francesca Mariotti. “In questo scenario, la ricerca svolta dall’Italia e dall’Enea negli ambienti più estremi della Terra assume un ruolo cruciale. Un’attività di questo tipo richiede competenze scientifiche, come quelle che mettiamo in campo in Artico, ma nulla sarebbe possibile senza le infrastrutture e il supporto logistico che Enea garantisce, con un’efficiente macchina organizzativa, da oltre 40 anni in Antartide”.
A Bruxelles stanno prendendo in considerazione una proposta che potrebbe aumentare i fastidi di Washington. Sul tavolo della Commissione europea c’è infatti la possibilità di modificare il contributo forfettario sulle grandi imprese, già inserito all’interno del bilancio comunitario per il settennato 2029-2034. L’idea è di alzare la soglia di accesso e aumentare il peso a carico delle aziende. Tra queste, ovviamente, anche quelle digitali. In questo modo, scrive il Financial Times, le Big Tech verrebbero tassate senza aggiungere una nuova imposta sui servizi digitali. Un sotterfugi per evitare che l’amministrazione di Donald Trump batta di nuovo i pugni sul tavolo. A giugno la Casa Bianca aveva minacciato di introdurre dazi al 100% per quei Paesi che introducevano una tassa sui servizi digitali – con un esplicito riferimento all’Europa. Difficilmente però il presidente statunitense non si accorgerà del trucco.
Il contributo, pensato a luglio scorso, prevede di tassare le aziende con un fatturato superiore ai 100 milioni di euro che operano sul territorio comunitario. La modifica si concentrerà sull’allargamento delle società da includere, ritoccando quindi i requisiti necessari per rientrare nella tassazione, e allo stesso tempo sull’importo che dovrebbero versare. Al momento, il sistema imporrebbe il pagamento di 100mila euro per le aziende – tutte, non solo quelle tecnologiche – con un fatturato netto compreso tra i 100 e i 250 milioni, fino a un massimo di 750mila euro per quelle che hanno ricavi minimi di 750 milioni. Il totale della cifra che finirà nelle tasche dell’Ue è pari a 6,8 miliardi di euro.
Passare dalla teoria alla pratica non sarà semplice. La discussione è accesa, proprio perché potrebbe potenzialmente comportare conseguenze non del tutto positive. C’è chi non è propenso a introdurre una tassa digitale per non inimicarsi gli americani, sostiene una fonte riservata al Ft. E c’è chi è contrario al versamento di una somma forfettaria, come previsto dal Corporate Resource for Europe (Core) per le società che offrono servizi digitali che hanno una filiale sul territorio comunitario. Da qui l’idea di estendere una tassa già esistenti a tutte le aziende, senza discriminazioni settoriali. In questo modo il risultato sarebbe duplice: verrebbe garantito un gettito in entrata superiore, senza scontentare nessuno. Almeno sulla carta.
Da quando Trump ha messo di nuovo piede alla Casa Bianca, gli europei fanno gli equilibristi per provare a tenere insieme l’interesse comunitario con un’alleanza storica. Trump e la sua amministrazione sono stati però piuttosto chiari: nessuna azienda americana deve essere trattata peggio delle altre. Il tycoon non fa sconti a nessuno. Austria, Francia, Italia e Spagna sono state già oggetto di indagine da parte di Washington a causa della loro imposta sui servizi digitali. Leggere che l’Ue ha trovato un modo per aggirare i suoi paletti non gli farà di certo piacere.
Login