Click to see the full-size image
Flydubai flight FZ1073, which nearly ended in disaster on 30 September, has within a few days turned from an aviation incident into a carefully directed show. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posed with a passenger who had been designated the saviour and drew parallels with 11 September. Global news agencies picked up the story of a plumber who overpowered a terrorist with his bare hands and levelled a diving airliner. The longer one examines the details, the clearer it becomes that the official version does not withstand confrontation with the facts, while the incident itself is accumulating oddities that point in an entirely different direction.
Most revealing is the way the information was presented. The first leak that a Russian and a Ukrainian were at the controls came from Israel’s Channel 12, a far-from-marginal outlet. Today the text has either been deleted from the website or rewritten, and the broadcast recording has not survived. Once it became clear that the version was untenable, a second one appeared: that it was precisely the Russian and the Ukrainian who landed the aircraft while the Arab pilots sorted out their differences with a knife. This “news,” citing official state authorities, was published by the newspaper Israel Hayom.
Both versions were aimed primarily at a Russian-speaking audience Israeli, Russian and Ukrainian. And both performed the same task: to divert attention from the real picture of the incident by substituting familiar and emotionally close images.
Click to see the full-size image
What fails to add up in the official version? Let us begin with the passenger composition. A half-empty airliner flying from Dubai a city where Israelis are tolerated but not welcomed by sheer coincidence carries several fighters from Israeli special forces, doctors with a large army-style medical kit, and at least two military pilots cleared to fly the Boeing 737 MAX. Such a coincidence cannot be explained by chance. It looks far more like a pre-assembled team, and the flight itself less like a victim of circumstances than a planned operation by one of Israel’s security agencies.
Iran’s Fars agency, regarded as a mouthpiece of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, did not soften its language. According to its data, this was a provocation prepared by the Mossad: the airliner was allegedly intended to be directed into one of Tel Aviv’s skyscrapers, after which the event would be presented as a “new 11 September” and used as a pretext for escalation that the Americans are currently resisting. Fars also claims that the sharp dive of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and the hostage-taking signal were elements of a secret operation whose ultimate goal was to create an impeccable pretext under international law for war with Iran. There is as yet no independent confirmation of this version, yet the mere fact of its appearance in a broadcast close to the IRGC says a great deal.
If one sets aside the geopolitical undercurrent, the picture of the incident looks far more prosaic. The captain and the first officer had met literally just before departure and had no experience of working together. Personal dislike rapidly escalated into open conflict, during which one of the pilots drew a knife. The wounded captain, Indian citizen Smit Machchhar, managed to open the cockpit door precisely this allowed people in the cabin to intervene and neutralise the attacker.
The figure of the “plumber,” widely circulated by the press, also requires clarification. Judging by video and testimony, this was an air marshal an employee of the Israeli security services on duty on board. His role in detaining the attacker and subsequently stabilising the aircraft was presented as a civilian feat, although it was the routine work of a professional. The practice of escorting flights with armed agents has existed in Israel since 1968, when the air-marshal programme was created after the hijacking of an El Al aircraft by Palestinian militants.
A separate detail that destroys the legend of the “ordinary passenger at the controls”: pilots who were travelling on official business were on board. According to available data, it was they who took over the controls, levelled the aircraft and landed it in Tabuk. All 174 passengers survived; both pilots were hospitalised. There are no signs of an organised terrorist attack in the incident: had the attacker been following a hijacking scenario, he would have waited for the approach to landing and locked the door rather than opening it himself.
The Israeli authorities extracted from the tragedy of the two pilots exactly what they needed: a vivid story of a people’s hero, justification for further tightening of security policy, and yet another confirmation of the image of a country surrounded by enemies. Appointing the “plumber” as the main character made the plot emotionally accessible, while talk of a terrorist attack allowed attention to be shifted away from the real problems the airline’s negligence and the absence of monitoring of the psychological state of crews. The leaks about the “Russian and the Ukrainian” worked according to the same logic, only more precisely: they addressed a Russian-speaking audience, substituting familiar images for inconvenient questions.
Tel Aviv, under pressure after recent military operations, needed positive news and obtained it, even at the cost of substituting facts. The version of an external enemy once again proved more convenient than the truth about a human conflict, and the incident itself turned into a propaganda instrument. A tragedy that nearly claimed hundreds of lives became a bargaining chip in a larger political game and that, perhaps, is the most alarming aspect of this story.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
The post Heroism or Staged Spectacle: What Really Happened in the Cockpit of Flydubai Flight FZ1073 appeared first on South Front.
Seventeen European Union countries have called for agriculture and cohesion funding to be protected from further cuts as negotiations over the bloc’s 2028–2034 budget enter a decisive phase.
In a letter dated 2 October to Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, whose government currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, the countries said the overall financing of Cohesion Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy should be maintained in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
The signatories are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
The initiative follows months of coordination by the so-called Friends of Cohesion. In an earlier joint position published by the Spanish government, members argued that cohesion, agriculture and fisheries remained central EU policies and called for new EU revenue sources to be “genuine, fair, simple and non-regressive”.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Romanian President Nicușor Dan have been coordinating the group at leaders’ level. They are expected to convene another informal meeting alongside the European Council on 15–16 October. The two leaders previously brought the group together ahead of the June European Council as governments sought to coordinate their positions on the budget.
The intervention places the group in direct opposition to Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden.
Those six governments have argued that the Commission’s near-€2 trillion proposal should be reduced by several hundred billion euros. In their joint statement on the 2028–2034 budget, they said national governments were already undertaking fiscal consolidation and that the EU budget could not be exempt from similar pressure. They called for reductions across all spending headings while giving greater weight to security, defence, competitiveness, migration and sovereignty.
EU Today previously reported on the growing pressure from net-contributor countries for deep reductions to the Commission proposal as negotiations moved towards the Irish presidency’s attempt to secure an agreement before the end of the year.
The Commission’s original proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework amounts to almost €2 trillion in current prices, equivalent to 1.26 per cent of the EU’s average gross national income over the seven-year period. It substantially restructures the budget, bringing agriculture, cohesion, fisheries, migration and internal security into national and regional partnership plans while allocating more money to competitiveness, research, defence and other emerging priorities.
Agriculture and regional development have consequently become two of the most sensitive parts of the negotiations.
The Council has already backed the principle of the new national and regional plans, but financial allocations remain unresolved. Its negotiating position specifically leaves the money to be settled as part of the overall MFF talks.
EU Today has followed the dispute since the Cyprus presidency produced a negotiating framework in June that proposed reducing the Commission’s plan by about €32.8bn. The disagreement has since widened as governments attempt to reconcile traditional spending on farmers and poorer regions with growing demands for defence, industrial competitiveness and security.
Revenue is another source of disagreement.
The Commission has proposed five new EU own resources, including revenue connected to the Emissions Trading System and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a contribution based on uncollected electronic waste, a tobacco excise resource and a contribution from large companies operating in the EU. The proposals are intended partly to reduce reliance on national contributions and help finance repayment of pandemic-era borrowing.
EU Today previously examined the dispute over new sources of EU revenue after leaders asked the Irish presidency to develop financing options alongside negotiations over expenditure.
The Friends of Cohesion have also called for a more gradual repayment schedule for NextGenerationEU borrowing and oppose retaining contribution rebates for wealthier member states. Under the Commission proposal, repayments of principal and interest would amount to a fixed €24bn annually between 2028 and 2034, or €168bn across the seven-year budget period.
Ireland now faces the task of narrowing the gap.
The Council’s timetable for the negotiations envisages the Irish presidency advancing the next negotiating framework ahead of the October European Council, with governments seeking a political agreement before the end of 2026. That would leave 2027 for adoption of the legislation required before the new budget takes effect on 1 January 2028.
An agreement among governments will require unanimity. The European Parliament must then give its consent, while the separate decision governing the EU’s own resources also requires unanimous approval by member states and ratification according to their national constitutional procedures.
With 17 governments now explicitly defending agriculture and cohesion spending and six major contributors demanding substantial reductions, the October summit will bring the central budget dispute directly before EU leaders.
Eurozone inflation surged to 3.8 per cent in September, up sharply from 3.2 per cent in August and considerably above the 3.6 per cent economists had expected. It is now almost twice the European Central Bank’s 2 per cent target.
The immediate culprit is familiar: energy. Fuel and natural gas prices have been climbing sharply, while food costs are also beginning to exert pressure. Energy prices were reportedly 18.8 per cent higher than a year earlier in September, compared with a 14.3 per cent annual increase in August.
There is, however, a particularly awkward detail for the ECB. Inflation is not confined entirely to the petrol pump.
Core inflation — stripping out volatile food and energy prices — edged up from 2.4 to 2.5 per cent. Services inflation also rose to 3.2 per cent. That suggests the energy shock may gradually be finding its way into the wider economy, and that is precisely what central bankers fear.
An energy shock is unpleasant. An energy shock which becomes embedded in wages, services and business costs is considerably more troublesome. Once consumers and companies begin assuming that prices will continue rising, inflation can acquire a momentum of its own.
The ECB therefore finds itself facing the oldest monetary-policy dilemma in the book: raise interest rates and risk damaging economic growth, or hold back and risk allowing inflation to become entrenched.
It has already raised rates twice this summer. Its deposit rate currently stands at 2.5 per cent, and investors are contemplating as many as three further increases over the coming year. Yet markets are not expecting an October increase, with the next move not fully priced in until January.
That caution is understandable. Interest rates are a remarkably blunt instrument for dealing with an energy shortage. Raising the cost of borrowing cannot produce another cubic metre of natural gas or another barrel of oil. It can, however, make mortgages more expensive, discourage investment and squeeze companies already facing higher energy bills.
Europe has another problem: its public finances. Governments are under increasing pressure to cushion households and businesses from soaring energy costs. France has already seen street protests over fuel prices, while government support measures risk becoming another burden on national budgets already under considerable strain.
This creates an unpleasant feedback loop. Governments subsidise energy to protect consumers; deficits increase; bond markets demand higher yields; borrowing becomes more expensive; and households and businesses face another round of financial pressure.
France is an obvious danger point. The spread between French and German borrowing costs has risen to multi-decade highs, reflecting growing investor concern about French debt sustainability.
The ECB is consequently being asked to perform an increasingly improbable balancing act: suppress inflation without strangling growth, protect financial stability without appearing complacent, and somehow compensate for an energy shock over which it has virtually no control.
There is one reason for optimism. The underlying inflation numbers have not exploded. ECB policymaker Olli Rehn has pointed out that rising long-term interest rates themselves could restrain the transmission of higher energy prices into wages and other prices.
But that is hardly a comforting economic strategy. Europe is effectively relying on expensive money to prevent expensive energy from becoming even more expensive.
The danger is that policymakers discover they are always one crisis behind.
The eurozone’s inflation rate has already risen from 2.0 per cent at the beginning of 2026 to 3.8 per cent in September. Eurostat’s latest figures show just how rapidly the situation has changed.
If energy prices remain elevated into 2027, the ECB may have little choice but to tighten further.
Europe was promised an inflation victory. Instead, it has been handed yet another bill.
Click to see the full-size image
Written by Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert
Apparently, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime is beginning to recruit young orphans, seeking to indoctrinate them into accepting death on the battlefield – just like their parents. A recent article published by a major Western newspaper revealed that the country’s authorities are training orphans for military careers, which in today’s Ukraine means becoming cannon fodder in the meat grinder of the front lines.
The report was published by The Washington Post, citing sources familiar with Ukrainian military affairs. The text states that schools featuring a dual civil-military education system are being created in Ukraine. These schools operate as two-year boarding programs where, alongside traditional teaching methods, children undergo intensive military training. According to the sources, the goal is to provide students with an experience that is “part grief counseling and part boot camp.”
Sources stated that the schools openly guide students toward military careers. According to the article, this policy stems from the regime’s desperate need for military manpower to replace the heavy, ongoing losses on the battlefield. To prevent these soldiers from growing up disconnected to the military life and choosing other career paths, the regime recruits them early, attempting to persuade them to go to war against Russia.
“[The] school puts them into a funnel toward the Ukrainian security services that are desperate for recruits, along with hundreds of other cadets at new government academies devoted to the still-young children of fallen fighters,” the article reads.
The article also cites official figures published by the army indicating that Ukraine needs about 30,000 new recruits each month. Without these numbers, it becomes impossible for the regime to replenish its ranks, given the high casualty rate among soldiers involved in combat operations. Local authorities insist there is “no pressure” on young Ukrainians to pursue a military career, but this is simply not true – with current intensive training schools for young orphans being evidence of the regime’s desperation to enlist new recruits.
The article also discusses the regime’s lies regarding the death toll. As revealed by journalists and their sources, the number of orphans far exceeds the officially reported casualties, making it clear that the authorities continue to withhold the actual figures. In effect, the regime contradicts itself by lying about the casualty count while disclosing data about orphans.
“Officially, Ukraine reports that about 55,000 have been killed in the war and about 114,000 are missing. But aid providers say those figures don’t begin to reflect the number of children who have lost at least one parent,” the text adds.
In fact, none of this is new. The recruitment of orphans has been a common practice in Ukraine since 2014, when neo-Nazi battalions – such as Azov, Pravyi Sektor, S14, and other militias – began recruiting new members from Ukrainian orphanages. Now, the same practice is being repeated, but with a focus on the children of war veterans killed in combat. Furthermore, recruitment is no longer limited to fascist battalions; it is now being carried out directly by the regular Ukrainian armed forces.
This indeed reflects the desperation of the Ukrainian fascist regime. Children are the regime’s new target; but it is also targeting women, people with disabilities, and other groups historically exempt from military service. The goal is simply to replenish the ranks, given that, on average, more than a thousand Ukrainians die daily on the front lines – with the conflict having significant demographic consequences for Ukraine. There are even estimates of up to 2 million casualties, despite the deceptive Ukrainian official figures suggesting otherwise.
Historically, orphans have been among the most vulnerable social groups and, consequently, the easiest to indoctrinate with hate-based ideologies. Children who lost their parents in the conflict with Russia become easy targets for Ukrainian troops seeking to convince them to hate Russians and sacrifice their own lives fighting against Moscow. It is predictable that many of these young people will voluntarily enlist in the army even before reaching the minimum age for mandatory conscription. Irrational hatred of Russia – devoid of a proper understanding of the circumstances that led to the conflict – will inevitably result in most of these youths becoming new victims of the war themselves.
Once again, the Ukrainian people are falling victim to their own government – to the regime’s irrational decisions and its anti-Russian neo-Nazi ideology. Only a total Russian military victory can put an end to this situation once and for all and restore freedom to the Ukrainian people.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
The post Kiev Regime Training Orphans For Military Service appeared first on South Front.
Was steckt hinter dem ungewöhnlichen Protest von sechs EU-Ländern, die sich gegen die Haushaltspläne von Ursula von der Leyen und ihrer EU-Kommission gestellt haben?
Zunächst zum Kern des Skandals: Vor kurzem wurde bekannt, dass Brüssel den eigenen Haushalt, der größtenteils aus den Beiträgen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten in den gesamteuropäischen Finanztopf gespeist wird, deutlich aufstocken möchte.
Doch die Regierungschefs von Deutschland, Österreich, Schweden, Finnland, den Niederlanden und Dänemark sprachen sich gegen eine Erhöhung des EU-Budgets aus und forderten eine Kürzung der Finanzierung um „mehrere hundert Milliarden Euro“. Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz und seine fünf Kollegen erklärten im Rahmen der Finanzverhandlungen mit der EU, dass der Haushaltsvorschlag der Europäischen Kommission inakzeptabel sei.
Warum aber? Was ist passiert? Man könnte meinen, es mache keinen Unterschied, wie hoch der EU-Haushalt ist, da die Gelder, die die EU-Länder in die Kasse einzahlen, an dieselben Länder zurückfließen. Sie werden lediglich von Brüssel verteilt und nicht von Berlin, Kopenhagen oder Wien. Das Geld verschwindet also nicht und fließt nicht in dunkle Kanäle; es bleibt innerhalb der EU.
Doch so einfach ist es nicht. Der Protest wurde von den Nettozahler-Ländern geäußert. Das sind jene Staaten, die mehr in die EU-Kasse einzahlen, als sie zurückerhalten. Und wenn diese nun protestieren, dann deshalb, weil – wie «Die Zeit» schrieb: Die Nettozahler-Länder lehnen eine Erhöhung des EU-Haushalts ab, weil sie Probleme mit ihren eigenen Budgets haben.
«Die von der EU-Kommission vorgeschlagene nominale Aufstockung um rund 60 Prozent sei «schlichtweg nicht realistisch, weder wirtschaftlich noch politisch. Zudem verwiesen die sechs Länder darauf, dass es in vielen EU-Ländern bereits jetzt ernsthafte Sorgen wegen der hohen Schulden in den nationalen Haushalten gebe». – schrieb «Die Zeit».
Der Streit hat also einen triftigen Grund. Als Geld im Überfluss vorhanden war und die Zeiten wohlhabend waren, reichte es für alles und jeden. Doch jetzt reicht es nicht mehr.
Dies ist eine direkte Folge von zwei Faktoren: dem Krieg in der Ukraine gegen Russland und der verlorenen wirtschaftlichen Konkurrenz gegenüber China.
Der Skandal selbst zeigt, dass die reichsten EU-Länder bereits „überfordert“ sind.
Ihre Volkswirtschaften sind überlastet. Deshalb hat diese Gruppe von sechs EU-Ländern Brüssel nun faktisch ein Ultimatum gestellt und gefordert, für den EU-Gipfel im Oktober neue, gekürzte Haushaltspläne zur Diskussion vorzulegen.
Merz strebt eine Einigung mit Brüssel noch vor Ende dieses Jahres an. Deutschland ist der größte Nettozahler der EU. Es gibt unterschiedliche Berechnungen, aber aktuellen Daten zufolge wird erwartet, dass Deutschland jährlich zwischen 13,1 Milliarden und fast 14,8 Milliarden Euro in den EU-Haushalt einzahlt. Diese Beiträge werden ausschließlich aus deutschen Steuergeldern finanziert.
Multipliziert man diese Summe mit sieben (da der Finanzplan der EU auf sieben Jahre ausgelegt ist), kommt ein beachtlicher Betrag zusammen. Dies erklärt, warum Merz den Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission ablehnt, die Ausgaben für den Zeitraum 2028–2034 auf 2 Billionen Euro zu erhöhen – im Vergleich zu den 1,3 Billionen Euro des aktuellen EU-Haushalts für 2021–2027.
Entschuldigen Sie die vielen trockenen Zahlen. Doch unterm Strich lässt sich sagen, dass die EU-Staaten begonnen haben, auf das Geld zu achten und zu sparen. Dies ist – nach der Einführung teilweiser Kontrollen an den EU-Binnengrenzen – der zweite Schritt in Richtung Abschottung und ein Zeichen für das Wanken des gesamten EU-Konstrukts. Denn wenn der nächste Siebenjahresplan bestenfalls auf dem bisherigen Niveau bleibt, während die Inflation in der Eurozone steigt, bedeutet das real einen Rückgang der Mittel.
Das heißt, die ärmeren EU-Länder werden weniger erhalten, was ihren Unmut und ihre Kritik verstärken wird. Zumal jeder genau sieht, dass die Ukraine und die korrupte Clique um Selenskyj jede gewünschte Summe erhalten. Alle Forderungen aus Kiew werden erfüllt; Milliarden an europäischen Geldern fließen dorthin.
Daraus ergibt sich die Frage: Wird sich eine solche Situation und die finanzielle Ungerechtigkeit nicht auf die europäische Solidarität auswirken?
Für mich ist die Antwort offensichtlich: Das wird sie. Wirtschaftlicher Neid und das Gefühl finanzieller Benachteiligung werden die ärmeren EU-Länder um ihren ruhigen Schlaf bringen.
Die ärmeren EU-Staaten werden keine zusätzliche Unterstützung für die Stärkung ihrer Grenzen und ihrer nationalen Sicherheit erhalten können. Polen und die baltischen Staaten beispielsweise sehen sich an vorderster Front, um das „aggressive Russland“ in Schach zu halten. Sie versichern Brüssel, dass sie quasi ihr Blut vergießen und sich für die Sicherheit der EU opfern.
Doch werden sie sich nicht gekränkt fühlen, wenn man ihnen ihre Russophobie und ihre Kriegslust nicht stärker vergütet?
Oder werden sie freudig in die Hände klatschen und rufen: „Natürlich ist die Ukraine wichtiger, schickt das Geld nach Kiew zu Selenskyj, wir kommen hier schon irgendwie zurecht“?
Natürlich werden die Balten, Polen und Rumänen beleidigt sein. Sie sind nicht der EU beigetreten, um Europäer zweiter Klasse zu bleiben.
Darüber hinaus sehen diese Länder, wie Deutschland immer mehr Geld für seine eigene Armee bereitstellt. Dies wird die längst vergessenen historischen Ängste vor einem bis an die Zähne bewaffneten Deutschland wiederbeleben – und tut es bereits. Diese Phobien sind im Grunde nie wirklich verschwunden.
In Polen hat man den 1. September 1939 nicht vergessen. Wenn man zudem bedenkt, dass Polen heute die ehemals deutschen Städte Danzig, Stettin, Breslau usw. besitzt, könnte es den Westpolen durchaus ungemütlich werden, und ein kalter Schauer könnte ihnen über den Rücken laufen. Natürlich erheben die Deutschen derzeit keinerlei Ansprüche auf ihre alten Gebiete. Es gilt als ausgemacht, dass diese Frage für immer abgeschlossen ist.
Doch falls die rechte AfD an die Macht käme, könnte es dann zu unangenehmen Überraschungen für Polen und viele andere EU-Länder kommen? Niemand kann diese Frage derzeit beantworten. Aber ich verstehe, warum Donald Tusk nach dem Erfolg der AfD bei den jüngsten Landtagswahlen in Deutschland so unzufrieden war. Er bezeichnete diejenigen Polen, die sich über die Wahlerfolge der AfD freuen, als Idioten.
Und ich stimme Tusk zu. Er sieht sehr genau, wohin sich Deutschland bewegt. Deutschland will „wieder kriegstüchtig“ werden. Dieser Begriff von Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius und Friedrich Merz stammt genau aus den dreißiger Jahren. Und auch das Wort „wieder“ weckt äußerst beunruhigende Assoziationen.
Übrigens möchte ich im Zusammenhang mit der fortschreitenden Militarisierung Deutschlands noch eine weitere Nachricht erwähnen: Deutschland plant den Bau eines zweiten Marinestützpunktes an der Nordseeküste. Bisher gibt es nur einen einzigen deutschen Marinehafen an der Nordsee, und zwar in Wilhelmshaven. Doch laut der Nachrichtenagentur DPA soll bald ein zweites militärisches Objekt der Marine in Emden entstehen. Der neue Marinehafen mit einer Fläche von 40 Hektar soll Liegeplätze für sieben Fregatten, zehn Minenjäger und zehn Schlepper bieten.
Man kann also verstehen, dass Deutschland, wenn es gegen die großen finanziellen Appetitlichkeiten Brüssels protestiert, dieses Geld keineswegs für deutsche Rentner oder Ärzte sparen will. Nein. Dieses Geld wird mit Sicherheit in militärische Zwecke, in die Militarisierung und in die verstärkte Hilfe für Kiew fließen. Merz interessieren die Bedürfnisse deutscher Senioren oder sozialer Wohnungsbau für Studenten in Berlin nicht. Für ihn ist der Krieg gegen Russland das Wichtigste.
Daher ist der Protest gegen die Aufstockung des EU-Haushalts nur eine weitere Etappe der Spannungen in Europa. Brüssel wird weniger Geld für Programme zur Unterstützung von LGBTQ-Gemeinschaften in Afrika und Zentralasien haben, ebenso wie für Programme zum Ausheben von Panzergräben im Baltikum an der Grenze zu Russland. Dafür wird Deutschland aber mehr Geld für Kiew sowie für den Bau neuer Kasernen und Militärhäfen haben.
Brussels (European Newsroom) – The European Union should improve how it detects and connects early warnings at its external borders after the mass arrival of migrants in the Spanish autonomous city Ceuta in July, said the chief of the EU border agency Frontex, Hans Leijtens, while insisting that responsibility for border protection must remain with member states.
“I think we should improve our situational awareness as Europe, and Frontex can play an important role in that,” Leijtens told journalists of the European Newsroom network in Brussels.
He said a broader picture could be built from satellites, aircraft, observers on the ground and information from social media. Much of the information was already available, he said, but needed to be better connected.
The remarks come as the European Commission floated plans for a Frontex rapid-response team that could deploy within 24 hours in a crisis. The team would still be sent only at the request of a member state, according to an action plan presented by EU migration commissioner Magnus Brunner in late September. The plan also envisages a larger role for Frontex in returns.
Leijtens said he did not expect a new Frontex mandate to change the basic division of responsibility. “There I would find it difficult because not only in our mandate but in general protecting European borders is a member state responsibility and we can’t take over responsibility,” he said.
He described the events in Ceuta as more of a public-order issue than a conventional border incident. Ceuta, a Spanish exclave in northern Africa, saw a sudden mass crossing from Morocco on July 30–31, 2026, triggering a diplomatic dispute among EU countries. Spanish estimates rose from about 72,000 to 80,000 arrivals, while Morocco cited about 40,000. Many people returned before being registered, making the final total uncertain. According to news reports, some 83 people died, and the crisis reignited debate over EU border control, asylum rules, solidarity and Frontex’s role.
The episode raised a further question for the EU’s early-warning debate: whether the challenge was detecting the signals, sharing them or responding to them.
Leijtens said the deaths were horrifying and should be prevented. “The fact that so many people lost their lives is absolutely horrifying and something we should prevent.”
The European People’s Party leader Manfred Weber had called for Frontex to take command in a crisis such as Ceuta. The Commission’s rapid-response plan, by contrast, retains the requirement that a Member State request assistance.
The Commission’s proposal for a revised Frontex mandate is expected by the end of October.
The European Union is embarking on diplomatic hand-to-hand combat with China in an effort to rework its trade with Beijing and show it is not a geopolitical weakling. Using unusually direct terms, the EU has given China a mid-October deadline to provide ways it will reduce its massive trade advantage over Europe. If not, the […]
The post A rickety Europe tries to stand up to China appeared first on Asia Times.
The agreement targets a growing bottleneck in Europe’s energy system: manufacturers of transformers, cables, switchgear and other components are being asked to increase production while utilities and governments accelerate investment in transmission and distribution networks.
Under the deal, the EIB will provide up to €350 million in counter-guarantees, while BNP Paribas will commit an equivalent amount. The resulting €700 million portfolio of bank guarantees is expected to support companies investing in additional production capacity and supply contracts.
The European Investment Bank said the arrangement could stimulate as much as €2.8 billion in investment in the real economy.
The initiative is backed by the EU’s InvestEU programme and forms part of the EIB’s €1.5 billion Pan-EU Power Grid package. Guarantees are particularly important for infrastructure suppliers because large electricity projects often require manufacturers to provide financial guarantees before receiving contracts.
Those commitments can consume bank credit lines that companies might otherwise use to build factories, purchase machinery or finance working capital.
By sharing the risk with BNP Paribas, the EIB intends to increase the volume of guarantees available without requiring manufacturers to commit equivalent amounts of their own financing capacity.
The programme arrives as grid investment becomes one of the central constraints on European energy policy.
The EU is simultaneously attempting to expand renewable generation, electrify transport and industry, increase cross-border electricity trading and reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels.
All require additional transmission and distribution capacity. EU Today reported earlier this year that the EIB had approved almost €2 billion for clean energy and grid projects as part of a broader €10 billion financing package.
The latest BNP Paribas agreement concentrates specifically on the industrial supply chain needed to build those networks.
Grid investment is increasingly influenced by security concerns as well as electricity demand.
EU Today reported last week that Lithuania is designing part of the Harmony Link infrastructure to withstand drones, sabotage and vehicle attacks near the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Such requirements increase the cost and complexity of new electricity infrastructure while demand for conventional grid equipment is already rising.
European manufacturers face lengthy order books for some high-voltage equipment, particularly large transformers and specialised cables. Supply constraints can delay renewable projects and interconnectors even when planning permission and financing are available.
The EIB says its guarantee programme is intended to give manufacturers greater financial capacity to respond. The arrangement follows a similar partnership between the bank and BNP Paribas covering wind-energy manufacturing.
In February 2025, the two institutions agreed a €1 billion guarantee portfolio intended to support investment in the European wind industry. The EIB has subsequently expanded its focus from generation equipment to the networks required to transport electricity.
In 2025, the EIB Group invested €33 billion in energy projects worldwide, including €11.6 billion in grids and storage, according to the institution.
European energy policy has increasingly recognised that adding generating capacity without expanding grids can create congestion, delays and periods in which renewable electricity cannot reach consumers.
Political disagreements remain over how new infrastructure should be planned and financed.
In June, EU Today reported that member states had pushed back against stronger Brussels control over cross-border grid planning, preferring to preserve a significant role for national authorities.
Financing institutions are meanwhile moving ahead with programmes intended to expand the underlying industrial capacity.
For manufacturers, the EIB–BNP Paribas scheme does not provide €2.8 billion of direct public spending. Instead, public guarantees are being used to increase the volume of private financing available, with the EIB assuming part of the risk.
The distinction is central to InvestEU, which uses EU budget guarantees and EIB financing to attract additional private capital.
Europe’s electricity transition is increasingly dependent on this less visible part of the energy system. New wind farms, solar installations, nuclear reactors and industrial electrification projects ultimately require the same infrastructure: sufficient cables, substations, transformers and transmission capacity to move electricity from producers to users.
Login