Controversial Law Threatens Czech Media Independence : Story of the Last Week
Czech people are protesting over a controversial law that threatens the independence of public service media. What’s going on? The Czech government, more precisely Minister of Culture Oto Klempíř (from the far-right Motorists Party), has proposed a law that would change how public media (= Czech television “ČT” and Czech Radio “ČRo”) are funded. Instead of being financed by licence fees paid by citizens, they would get money directly from the state budget. The government claims this will save money and cut bureaucracy. But journalists, legal experts, and media watchdogs (like Reporters Without Borders or the European Federation of Journalists) warn that this will make media dangerously dependent on the Czech government. Once funding comes from the state, politicians can decide how much (or little) money public media get based on how much those media criticize them. What are public service media? In total, there are 3 types of media: Public service media Public service media are official national media that are not-profit. This doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t make any money, it means that making money is not the main goal of their existence (unlike commercial media). The main aim is to serve the citizens, and their and their country’s interests. So instead of making only content their public wants to see or hear, they also make content their public NEEDS to see or hear as citizens – like emissions about their country’s history, news, or special broadcast during natural disasters or wars with safety instructions… Yes, such content isn’t always the most attractive, but it helps people to step outside their echo chambers and have access to verified information. Because unlike private media, public service media are more transparent about their functioning, funding, informational sources, and ethics. For this reason, public service media are also a good source for you, if you, as a foreigner, want to find out what is happening in some country and want to have it firsthand. Here is the list of public service media by country. Private/commercial media Commercial media are privately owned. There is always one person behind who is trying to get as much money as possible from advertisements placed in their programs. The ultimate goal is to create content that attracts huge numbers of people. Because the more people are watching, the more will see the advertisement (and the more money the medium makes from it). Unlike public media, commercial media have no legal obligations to provide unbiased news, educational content, or emergency information in times of crisis. Community media Community media fall in between these two categories. They are non-profit like public media, but they are not national institutions. So there are no obligations for their content production – similarly like commercial media, they can create whatever they want. Although, unlike commercial media, they are not dependent on advertising (because they aren’t supposed to make huge profits). They are funded by their members and sometimes by subsidies. And since it’s the community who pays, it’s also the community who decides what content the media will produce. IR Media belongs to this category. Types of financing of public service media Even though all public service media are financed by citizens of the countries in which they exist, there are different ways of how it’s done: What does the law propose? The proposed law would replace licence fees with direct funding from the state budget. The government argues this will save money and reduce bureaucracy, since collecting licence fees does cost some administrative resources. But what they forget to say is that it would also put the public media at their mercy… Why is the law controversial? Since the state budget from which the media would be financed is in the hands of the government, the media would also be in the hands of the government. Which is not a very hopeful prospect, given that the current Czech government includes right-wing extremists from Motorists Party, who do not hide their admiration for Nazi ideology, threaten their ideological opponents (including the Czech president), and carry out purges among state employees calling it “deratization”… The change in financing would also mean less money for public media. Licence fees currently bring in around 5 billion CZK per year (about €200 million). The government hasn’t guaranteed the same amount from the state budget, and historically, state-funded media get underfunded – especially when politicians want to silence them. Moreover, the law is poorly written and legally flawed. Experts say it lacks clear definitions of key terms and introduces experimental concepts that aren’t used anywhere else. This makes it easy to abuse – politicians could interpret the rules however they want to punish unloyal media. Why should we care? Because such a law can be easily proposed even in your country. Especially nowadays, when we observe the increase in popularity of far-right populistic movements across countries. When they manage to come to power, one of the first things they do is silencing their critics – including the media. Because such movements already do enormous efforts to convince you that you don’t need public media because you can “pay for the content you want to see”. Because someone needs to do the dirty job of covering boring, commercially unprofitable but important stuff. If public service media didn’t exist, who would it be? Because commercial media certainly wouldn’t… How can you make a difference? Follow the story: check the below-mentioned sources to get deeper information. Support independent media: whether it’s Czech public broadcasters or outlets in your own country, they need audiences and funding to survive. Pressure your politicians: if they try introducing shady laws, sign petitions, go to demonstrations, send complaints… If you’re in the EU, demand that they enforce the European Media Freedom Act. Stay alert: don’t abandon the story once it loses hype. Check out for latest developments. Sources: Public service media debate escalates: Employees on strike alert as Babiš meets Chudárek | Radio Prague International Czechia: government’s chaotic reform of public broadcasters raises alarm,
Elections in Hungary : Who is Péter Magyar ?
For 16 years, Viktor Orbán’s conservative, Eurosceptic and openly pro-Russian Fidesz party ruled (and slowly eroded democracy in) Hungary. But last Sunday’s parliamentary elections brought an end to his rule. On 12th April 2026, Hungary elected Péter Magyar and his Tisza party. Who is Péter Magyar and how much of a change he is for Hungary? Who Is Péter Magyar? Péter Magyar wasn’t always Orbán’s enemy… As a lawyer from a rich family with Catholic education, he was actually the prototype of a Fidesz party member. And so was his wife, Judith Varga, the Minister of Justice under Orbán’s government. For years, Magyar moved in Fides’s inner circle. He held well-paid positions in state and semi-state companies, including the Hungarian Development Bank or the Student Loan Center. But everything changed in 2024… From Orbán’s ally to his greatest enemy In February 2024, it was revealed that Hungary’s president Katalin Novák had pardoned a man convicted of helping cover up child sexual abuse in a state-run children’s home. The pardon was signed by Judith Varga. The scandal shocked Hungary. It was one of the first moments when some of Fidesz’s supporters started questioning their choices. Both Novák and Varga resigned. But these two were only the top of the iceberg – its underwater part remained unmelted. And Péter Magyar started to criticise it. Even though at that time he was already divorced from Varga, at first he somehow defended her in his Facebook post by saying that he “doesn’t want to be a part of a system when the true leaders hide behind women’s skirts.” However, he soon sharpened his rhetoric against Varga too and released a recording he secretly made of her. In this recording Varga describes how government officials removed evidence from court records to cover up their role in corruption. Varga responded by accusing Magyar of domestic violence. Magyar denied, calling it a smear campaign to discredit him. As a result of the whole affair, and Magyar’s appearances in the opposition media (like the below Partizán), where he criticized the Orbán government, Magyar gained visibility and peoples’ trust. Since the European Parliament elections were approaching at that time, he decided to try his political chance. Tisza party Since Magyar didn’t have the time to create a political party “from scratch”, he revived Tisza, a small, and to that point non-significant party. Tisza is a combination of the beginnings of the Hungarian words “respect” and “freedom”. Created in 2020 as an opposition to Viktor Orbán, Tisza was a conservative, pro-European party. We would find it more on the center-right / right side of the political spectrum. However, Tisza has always been (and even under Magyar still is) a populist party. Marketing itself as a party “for all” without taking a clear ideological position so it wouldn’t discourage some of its diverse voters. In the two months remaining until the European election, Péter Magyar managed to gain so much support that he ended up second with 29% of the vote. Why Magyar won? Whereas Orbán built his program on polarizing topics such as LGBTQ+ rights or migration, Magyar focused on fighting issues that everyone could agree are objectively problematic : like corruption, deteriorating healthcare or education… – even voters who wouldn’t normally vote for conservatives. Magyar also managed to market Tisza as a party that came “from below” but that is, at the same time, full of strong leaders who know what they are doing. He mobilized activists in smaller towns. This gave people the impression that with Tisza they can be directly involved in politics, and helped spread the campaign outside of the capital Budapest. At the same time, he filled key party positions with professionals with rich leadership and managerial experience they gained by working for big companies like Shell or Vodafone. Last but not least, Magyar managed to “bypass” pro-orban media by leading an intensive campaign on social media and at the same time meeting voters face to face. Even in areas with a large share of Orbán voters where other opposition parties had already given up. Why should we care ? Because under Orbán Hungary was Russia’s closest ally in the EU. Sometimes even called “Putin’s Trojan Horse”. Since many decisions in which the EU would have taken a more severe stance towards Russia (like freezing Russian assets in Europe or sending financial help to Ukraine) had to be made unanimously and Hungary blocked it. Because the Hungarian case gives hope. Even though, during his 16 years rule, Orbán damaged the democratical system (gaining control over the media, changing laws in his favour…) he didn’t destroy it completely. Magyar’s victory shows that even in a semi-authoritarian state, democracy still has a chance. But people need to fight for it – it won’t happen by itself. Because Magyar is still a populist. His political development shows that he is capable of opportunistically changing his mind as it suits him. And such people can be dangerous. They often start as reformers, but end up authoritarian. We don’t have to go too far for an example – even Orbán posed as an alternative at the beginning and look how it turned out… So we can celebrate, but we should also stay cautious. Sources Who is Péter Magyar, the former Orbán ally heading for power in Hungary? Who is Peter Magyar, Hungary’s new leader who trounced Viktor Orban? Former Hungarian insider releases audio he says is proof of corruption in embattled Orbán government Ex-wife hits out at Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar, calling him a traitor How Hungary’s Child Sex Abuse Scandal Contributed To Orban’s Downfall Meet the man behind the downfall of Hungary’s president No Safe Place: How Hungary’s Child Care Abuse Scandal Betrays Romani Children Explaining Tisza’s Hungarian breakthrough
Ceasefire between the US and Iran : Story of the Last Week
After 38 days of war between the US, Israel and Iran, on April 8th, two week ceasefire was announced What preceded the ceasefire? On 28th February, Israel and the United States “preventively” attacked Iran. You can read more in detail about this attack in our article : US & Israel Attack on Iran. Iran responded by attacking Israel back, and also attacking the allies of the United States and Israel in the region (like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, or Oman). Soon, military groups from Lebanon and Iraq joined Iran’s side. Iran also blocked the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic point in the world’s oil transportation. This led to an increase in the prices of oil and food (since oil is used for fertilizers and packaging). Donald Trump, the president of the US, didn’t expect this (although he should have). His loss of control over the situation was clearly visible in the level of hysteria in his posts on the Truth Social – a platform he created to communicate his decisions. He was alternating between announcing victory over Iran, negotiations with it, and giving it ultimatums… See for yourself: On April 8th, just hours before his last ultimatum was about to expire, he suddenly switched. And announced a two week ceasefire. How was the ceasefire negotiated ? The ceasefire may seem sudden, but in reality, weeks of negotiations preceded it. Actually, the US and Iran were negotiating even before the war started. Just two days before the “preventive” attack both countries met in Geneva to discuss Iran’s nuclear program (more details in this article). Immediately after the attack, Trump expected negotiations, which Iran denied. Negotiations restarted around mid-March, when the US delivered a 15-point plan to end the war to Iran via Pakistan. So far, this plan is not publicly available. However, the US was supposed to demand heavy restrictions of Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic-missiles, end of Iran’s support for regional armed groups (like Hizballah in Libanon), and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. In return, the US would lift nuclear-related sanctions on Iran and help it to develop a civilian nuclear program. (This is basically what the US discussed with Iran in Geneva before attacking it.) Iran refused, proposing a 5-point plan instead. In which they demanded the US to stop killing Iranian officials, end all hostilities, guarantee that no other war is waged against Iran, pay reparations, and accept Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Pakistan, the mediator in this conflict, then issued another 5-point initiative together with China. Demanding immediate end of all hostilities, start of peace talks, security of nonmilitary targets, security of shipping lanes, and respect of the United Nations Charter. On 1st April, Trump claimed that Iran asked him for a ceasefire. Iran denied it. While Trump was giving ultimatums and tweeting that “the whole civilization will die tonight”, diplomatic negotiations were culminating in Pakistan. The American side was represented by the US vice president JD Vance, US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner. The Iranian delegation was composed of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and four senior commanders from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Although the composition of this group sounds a bit like the beginning of a joke, together they negotiated a temporary ceasefire. Terms of the ceasefire The ceasefire has 10 points. However, what these points are, is not yet crystal clear… Several versions are circulating in the press. And the whole situation is complicated by the fact that before this final 10-point plan, there was another 10-point plan proposed by Iran (and strongly rejected by the US). Certain is that the ceasefire will last for 14 days, during that time attacks on both sides will stop and the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened. The versions circulating in the press most often mention these other conditions : Aftermath The ceasefire is only a temporary solution. Diplomatic negotiations continue in its background. It is possible that the US and Iran will extend the ceasefire or end the war altogether. However, it is also possible that they will not reach an agreement and, when the ceasefire ends after two weeks, they will start attacking each other again. So far, this scenario seems more realistic given that: Why should we care about it? Because a ceasefire does not mean the end of the conflict. But people often make the mistake to interpret it that way. So, they miss the “final solution”. Remember how the ceasefire in Gaza turned out? – Exactly! Sources: Khamenei’s top aide Larijani rules out negotiations with US after Trump says ‘I have agreed to talk’ — What’s next for Iran Iran rejects US ceasefire plan, issues its own demands as strikes land across the Mideast – The Washington Post U.S. Sends Iran 15-Point Plan to End War | UANI Iran dismisses U.S. ceasefire plan, issues counterproposal as strikes land across the Mideast | PBS News Five-Point Initiative of China and Pakistan For Restoring Peace and Stability in the Gulf and Middle East Region_Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China Oil, strait of Hormuz and empty threats: a timeline of Trump’s flip-flopping on the Iran war | Donald Trump | The Guardian Pakistan says ceasefire efforts underway as Iran war continues | Arab News The Islamabad Accords: Framework, Preparations, and the Long View Iran warns it will respond if Israeli attacks on Lebanon don’t stop immediately – BBC News Has Iran’s 10-point plan changed, as JD Vance claims? | US-Israel war on Iran News | Al Jazeera Iran warns it will respond if Israeli attacks on Lebanon don’t stop immediately – BBC News What is Iran’s 10-point conditions for ceasefire and negotiations – The Hindu Will the Cease-Fire With Iran Hold? | Foreign Affairs What we know about the US and Iran’s ceasefire deal
Israel’s death penalty law for Palestinians : Story of the Last Week
On March 30, 2026, the Israeli parliament (= Knesset), passed a controversial law allowing the death penalty by hanging for Palestinians living in the West Bank convicted of terrorism. What’s this law about? Let’s look at its key excerpt: “A resident of the Area who intentionally causes the death of a person, where the act constitutes an act of terrorism as defined in the Counter-Terrorism Law, shall be sentenced to death, and this punishment only; however, if the Military Court finds, that special circumstances exist for which it is appropriate to sentence the terrorist to life imprisonment, it may impose such a sentence” By “Area” law means Judea and Samaria, which is the West Bank of the Jordan. And by “resident of the Area” law means a person “who is registered in the population registry of the Area or one who resides in the Area even if not registered in said registry, excluding an Israeli citizen or an Israeli resident” 💡: For the original law see here, you can find the unofficial English translation here. Why is it controversial? By its formulation, the law explicitly excludes Israelis from the death penalty, so it doesn’t apply to everyone equally. This is a discriminatory practice that is against the constitution which says that all people are equal. According to the law, executions are fasttracked and stripped of safety mechanisms. The death penalty can be simply decided by a majority of the court without the prosecutor having to propose it. And the execution should be carried out within 90 days of the verdict. Convicted people should not be allowed to receive visitors in prison beforehand. And they can consult their lawyers only via video calls. The death penalty is the default punishment unless the court finds “special circumstances” to change the sentence to life imprisonment. However, the law does not define what these “special circumstances” are, leaving it open to interpretation. Moreover, the law is not “kosher” even according to Jewish morality… Judaic texts say, the death penalty is possible. But they also say that a court that issues a death sentence more often than once every 70 years is considered a bloody court. For this reason, some representatives of Orthodox parties also have a problem with the law. Who wanted this law? The law was presented by Israeli far-right political party Otzma Yehudit. After current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu won the 2022 parliamentary elections with his right-wing Likud party, he formed a coalition with Otzma Yehudit, and other far-right parties to gain the majority in the parliament. Otzma Yehudit is an ultranationalist, kahanist party. Kahanism is a movement aiming for the total expulsion of Palestinians from both Israeli and Palestinian territories created by Orthodox US-born rabbi Meir Kahane. Kahane later founded the Jewish Defense League and Kach party. Both of these organized numerous attacks on Arabs in the US, Israel and sometimes other countries. The Kach party was ultimately banned in Israel for its extremist views and listed as a terrorist organisation in the US. Otzma Yehudit is sometimes considered as a kind of successor to Kach. And its leader Itamar Ben-Gvir, currently serving as Israel’s National Security Minister, is not beating the allegations… In the past, he has been convicted of incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organization for carrying signs saying, “Expel the Arab enemy” and “Rabbi Kahane was right: The Arab MKs are a fifth column.” The fact that the members of the party wore noose-shaped pins to show their support of the law only underlines what kind of party it is… The law passed with 62 votes in favor and 48 against. Are all Israelis in favor of this law? Not all of them. Although after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Israel is much more radical on security issues, and the society is in favor of similar radical laws (mainly because the current far-right government fuels hostile sentiments towards the Palestinians), some Israelis, human rights organization, legal experts and Knesset members still criticise the law. Given how discriminatory the law is, it wouldn’t be surprising if the Supreme Court struck it down. Yes, the same Supreme Court whose powers Netanyahu successfully tried to limit with his so-called “judicial reform” in 2023… What does this law mean for Israel? The law, naturally, doesn’t create a good image of Israel abroad… It is criticized by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and many countries including Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Spain or Ireland… The law thus joins a series of Israeli controversies that are gradually increasing negative views of Israel abroad. The most recent such controversy was Israel’s preventive attack on Iran, joined by the United States. This attack destabilised the whole Middle East and skyrocketed oil prices. As a result, negative views of Israel are also growing in the US, which has always been Israel’s greatest ally – some Americans don’t consider the war in Iran an American war, but an Israeli war into which they have been dragged… Even inside Israel, the law risks deepening divisions. Many Israelis, especially those on the political left and within the human rights community, see it as a dangerous step toward authoritarianism. Why should we care? Because this law does not apply equally to everyone. If we do not want to live in an Orwellian novel, then that should be reason enough Because this law is a part of a broader current world trend, where democratic institutions are being weakened in the name of “higher good”, “greater efficiency”, or “reduced costs”. Don’t buy this Because this is the prime example of what happens if you let extremists into your government: not only will it disrupt order in your country, and bring injustice, but it will also ruin your foreign reputation Sources: The death penalty law for Palestinians convicted of deadly acts of terror is unconstitutional | The Times of Israel Israel: Discriminatory Death Penalty Bill Passes | Human Rights Watch Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks face
World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference : Story of the Last Week
From March 26 to 29, 2026, the World Trade Organization (WTO) held its 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in Yaoundé, Cameroon. What is the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference? The Ministerial Conference is the top decision making body of the World Trade Organization. It happens usually every two years. It brings together trade ministers from WTO member countries to set the direction of global trade. The conference is also attended by various lobbyists, or NGOs who are trying to influence the decision making. What is the World Trade Organization? The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international organization based in Geneva. Its main role is to set the rules for international trade and make sure smaller countries don’t get crusehd by economic giants. Founded in 1995, it replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The GATT was signed in 1948 to reduce barriers to international trade. Which helped rebuild the economy after World War II. Nowadays the WTO has 166 member countries. What was on the table at MC14? Fisheries subsidies – a.k.a. fight against illegal fishing The biggest deal at MC14 was an agreement to ban fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing. This agreement was negotiated back in 2022, but has only officially entered into force now. The agreement specifically bans subsidies that enable illegal, unreported, or unsustainable fishing. Like subsidies for vessels that violate quotas, fish in protected areas, or target overfished species (like bluefin tuna). Thanks to this agreement illegal fishing will lose its profitability and therefore its appeal to people. However, since this measure relies on self-reporting of governments, there are still some possible loopholes. For example, countries that profit from illegal fishing may try to manipulate the data… But that’s why the Committee on Fisheries Subsidies was established this year to oversee implementation of the Agreement. At the same time there is also the so-called “Fish fund”. WTO member countries can contribute to it to help developing and least-developed countries implement the Agreement. Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) – a.k.a. attracting foreign investors to developing countries During the Conference ministers were also discussing the IFD Agreement. Which was negotiated in 2023 at the initiative of developing countries that wished to attract foreign investors. The IFD Agreement helped them to do that. Because it introduced measures that make investing in those countries easier for foreign investors. For example, it sets consistent global rules for investing, so businesses know what to expect in any country. And since these rules can only be reformed at the international level, they are immune against local political instabilities. This gives investors a greater sense of security. The Agreement also guarantees technical assistance to developing countries and creates a global forum where they can share their practices, and help each other. Although the Agreement was concluded in 2023, it is not yet in force. That was the subject of this year’s Conference, where countries discussed the incorporation of the IFD Agreement into the legal framework of the WTO. Concretely into the 4th article of the WTO Agreement a.k.a. the Marrakesch Agreement (= the founding document of the WTO). Only after this implementation will the IFD Agreement enter into force. E-Commerce and customs – a.k.a. will we pay customs duty for sending an email? 💡 e-commerce = buying and selling of goods and services over the internet (via websites, mobile apps, social media…) Like every Conference, this year ministers debated extending the so-called “Moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions“. This moratorium ensures that cross-border electronic transmissions – like sending an email, making a Zoom call, streaming a movie, or an online payment – remain tariff-free (unlike physical goods). Although the Moratorium has been in place since 1998, when WTO members agreed not to impose tariffs on digital transmissions (because it was simpler and cheaper that way), it is not permanent. The moratorium only lasts two years, and every Conference countries must vote to renew it. But not all of them agree. While countries that export digital services (like the US) support the Moratorium. Nations that import these services (and aspire to develop their own) naturally oppose it. Because if the Moratorium wasn’t extended, they could impose tariffs on US Big Tech, which would gain them some money and reduce the foreign competition to their national tech companies. This year’s Conference discussed possible reforms to Moratorium (like making it permanent or creating a special committee for it). But in the end, the Moratorium was just simply extended as usual. Boost for small economies The ministers also adopted two measures to economically boost so-called Least Developed Countries (LDCs) = the world’s poorest nations: Why should we care? Because the decisions that are made at the conference affect the entire world market . Which means that the WTO is often directly or indirectly responsible for how much things cost. Because watching the conference and understanding what is being decided makes you realize that some countries that are considered “incompetent” are not succeeding because they are lazy and not trying hard enough… But because some decisions of the majority simply don’t work in their favor. Because in the midst of all the wars and aggressions today, the Conference where countries work together instead of fighting, restores a faith in humanity a bit. Sources WTO | Understanding the WTO – Whose WTO is it anyway? MC14 opens in Yaoundé with call to reinvigorate WTO in time of crisis Ministers exchange views on key WTO topics, consider paths forward at MC14 The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies Investment Facilitation for Development Agreementf EU and other WTO Members reach landmark deal to facilitate investment and support development – Trade and Economic Security Members participating in IFD showcase progress, urge incorporation of Agreement into WTO MC14 event calls for scaling up support for Trade in Services for Development initiative WTO | E-commerce – Briefing note – 14th WTO Ministerial Conference Members adopt a pathway to bring E‑Commerce Agreement into force via interim arrangements Adding value to cotton in Africa
Hormuz Crisis : Story of the Last Week
After the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28th February, Iran responded by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic point in the world’s oil transportation. What does this mean for the world? And how do one even block a strait? Let’s look at it: What Is the Strait of Hormuz? Strait of Hormuz is a 33 kilometres wide (at its narrowest point) strip of water between Iran and Oman connecting the Persian Gulf to the Indian ocean. It’s the only way out for oil tankers from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran itself. Every day 25% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz – or actually used to pass… Even though the Strait itself is in international waters, United Nations rules allow countries to control waters up to 12 nautical miles (= 22kilometres) from their coast – and that’s exactly what Iran is doing now. What Does “Blocking the Strait of Hormuz ” Look Like ? Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps broadcasted a message to radios of ships present in the area, that every ship that tries to pass through the Strait of Hormuz would be attacked. And it didn’t just stay with words: Iran actually fired drone and missile strikes on several commercial ships. There is also a suspicion that Iran may have laid sea mines near the strait’s entrance, making passage physically impossible without risking an explosion. What’s the Impact ? As a result of the blockade, the shipping companies are changing routes – now they are mainly using land transport through Jordan and Syria. Which takes much longer, so it costs more and delays deliveries. Due to the war in the Middle East, global oil prices already rose by 20%, hitting 120 dollars per barrel – the highest price since 2008. However, rising oil prices are not the only consequence. The blockade can also affect the development of the whole conflict. Whereas Benjamin Netanyahu (Israeli prime minister) went into this conflict determined to win at all costs, even if it took a long time, his ally Donald Trump (US president) had a different vision… He wanted a quick, decisive strike on Iran – something he would sell as an effective victory with zero costs to its voters. But with the strait blocked, this won’t work. Trump can’t declare victory if the global economy is spiraling into crisis. He could, but who would believe him? Has Something Like This Happened Before? The Strait of Hormuz blockade isn’t the first case where the maritime transport was taken hostage. During the war between Iraq and Iran in the 80s, both sides attacked oil tankers in the Persian Gulf which resulted in an increase in oil prices and panic on global markets until a ceasefire was negotiated. Another example is the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956. After Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, which was previously controlled by Britain and France. Britain, France, and Israel launched a military campaign to retake control of the canal. This led to the blockage of the canal, disrupting the flow of goods and thus increasing transportation costs. The Suez Canal was then blocked once again in 2021. When the Ever Given container ship got stuck in there for six days. This incident cost an estimated $9.6 billion per day in global trade losses. Why Should We Care? Because the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz will cause prices to rise. Not only in transport, when both gasoline and airline tickets will be more expensive, but also in food. Since oil is used not only for fuel but also for fertilizers and packaging. Remember the energy crisis in 2022 when Russia attacked Ukraine… Because the conflict could widen: Trump is already trying to drag other countries in it: Wanna Know More? Check out these articles (that were btw. used to write this article;):
War in Middle East : Story of the Last Week
After February 28, when Israel and the United States “preventively” attacked Iran, the conflict expanded to other states. Which ones? And why? Let’s break it down: Basically, there are four possibilities how other countries got dragged in the war: either they were friends of US or Israel, and because of that they were attacked by Iran; or by its allies; or they were friends with Iran, and decided to support it by attacking Israel or countries that were friends with US or Israel, or they were Iraq. Countries Attacked by Iran All these countries are somehow connected to the United States or Israel – whether it is because they have American bases on their territory, or because they maintain friendly relations with those countries. By attacking them, Iran is trying to destroy American infrastructure, as well as put pressure on their governments to distance themselves from the US/Israel, and to turn public opinion against their leaders for aligning with the West. Countries of Gulf Cooperation Council The Gulf Cooperation Council is a political and economic union of six Arab states bordering the Persian Gulf: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman. Founded in 1981 (during the Iran-Iraq War), its purpose was to protect member states from regional instability. All are oil-rich nations that rely on stability for economic prosperity, often acting as mediators in regional conflicts (eg. easing tensions between Israel, the US, and Iran). Naturally, the US-Israel strike on Iran was the last thing they wanted – it threatened their economic interests. They opposed it from the start – but still paid the price… Azerbaijan Despite being a Muslim country, Azerbaijan maintains a good relationship with Israel. Iranian drones struck its autonomous Nakhchivan region. Azerbaijan also accused Iran of planning sabotage operations on its territory – but the Iranian government denied it claiming the sabotages were organized by its enemies who are trying to frame Iran. Turkey Iran also sent two missiles to Turkey. However, NATO, Turkey is part of, neutralized them. Countries Attacking US and Israel Lebanon : Hizbollah Lebanon was drawn into the war by Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim political party and militant group operating independently of the Lebanese government (basically Hezbollah, is a state within a state). After the US and Israel attacked Iran, Hezbollah struck against Israel. Israel responded to it by attacking Lebanon back. Iraq Iran and Iraq were historically enemies (Iraq even attacked Iran in the 80s), but after Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s fall, the two grew closer. Mainly because both are now led by Shiite muslims. So that’s why, in the current conflict, Iraq supports Iran. Or actually, parts of it do. Because Iraq is divided: between the Kurds, who have a semi-autonomous Kurdish region at the north of Iraq, and the Shiit rest of the country. Whereas the pro-Iranian militias from the Shiite-dominated south support Iran, the Kurds are against it. Kurds even host American bases on their territory. Those bases were bombed by both Iran and military groups from the pro-Iranian part of Iraq. These same pro-Iranian groups also attacked Saudi Arabia and other countries. Countries Attacked by Iranian Allies Cyprus A Lebanese missile struck a British base in Cyprus. While the UK refused to join the US and Israel strikes on Iran, it offered its bases to the US for defense purposes after Iran retaliated. Jordan A longtime US ally, Jordan assisted the US during last summer’s Twelve Day War. Now, its local US bases were attacked and damaged by Iran-backed militias from Iraq. Collaterals: Syria Syria is not officially at war, but due to its geographic position, Iran fires missiles at Israel over Syrian airspace. Debris from intercepted missiles has fallen on Syrian territory, causing damage and minor injuries. What Are the Consequences? The war has reduced and logistically complicated oil exports (e.g. the insurance rates for oil shipping companies skyrocketed because their ships are now in a high risk of strike). This is driving up oil prices. Attacks on oil refineries pose regional ecological threats. For example, a missile strike on a Tehran refinery caused a massive fire, leading to acid rain over the city. Hundreds of thousands of travelers are stranded across the Middle East. Airspace closures (due to missile risks) and mass flight cancellations have left many unable to fly. Sources: A Sprawling Middle East War Explodes | International Crisis Group How the unfolding war is affecting countries in the Middle East | AP News What are the differences between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq? From Rivals to Allies: Iran’s Evolving Role in Iraq’s Geopolitics – Middle East Council on Global Affairs Iran-backed militias intensify attacks against US, Israel and allies | Iran | The Guardian How an Incident on the Azerbaijan-Iran Border Became a Test for Diplomacy in the Region – The Times Of Central Asia Why Azerbaijan is important for Israel’s security – JNS.org Syria distances itself from the US-Israeli war on Iran – Enab Baladi Kuwait cuts oil production due to Strait of Hormuz closure
Munich Security Conference : Story of the Last Week
As every year, world leaders gathered in Munich in the second week of February for one of the world’s most important meetings on global security and diplomacy. This year for its 62nd edition. Origin of Munich Security Conference The Munich Security Conference was first organized in 1963 as a small meeting of 60 countries by Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist-Schmenzin. Ewald-Heinrich was the youngest plotter of the famous attempt to assassinate Hitler in Wolf’s Lair. He was supposed to be a part of a group who would organize a coup in case of its success. All this at the age of just 22 years! After the operation went unsuccessful, he managed to cover up his resistance activities. Luckily – because if not, he would have most likely ended up with a death sentence. This way Nazis “just” sent him to the concentration camp, where he managed to survive until the end of war. What’s the Purpose of the Munich Security Conference? In 1963 he came up with an idea to organise a Wehrkundetagung in Munich. The name was a bit of a tongue twister, but there was a simple idea behind it. Von Kleist wanted to make sure such a horrendous conflict as the 2nd World War would never happen again. Therefore he organised a meeting of about 60 important world leaders and international relations experts. Together thy discuss (often hot) security topics. What started as a small private event, has groven to giant proportions over the years Famous speeches at Munich Security Conference During its 62 years of existence, some famous speeches have been given by important actors in international relations on MSC. Such as: Make no mistake, the Munich Security Conference is still a private event. Unlike official government meetings, decisions made here are not legally binding on anyone. But that’s exactly the reason why this event is so worthy to observe. Politicians here dare to be more honest about their intentions. The highlights of MSC 2026 This year’s conference was much less revolutionary… There were no groundbreaking speeches, no strong words, no magical solutions. And compared to previous years, it had overall a little more pessimistic tone. Maybe that’s why didn’t hear that much about it from press. But despite this – or perhaps precisely because of this – we should keep an eye on it. The main topics were: The Collapse of the International Order and the Rise of Destructive Policies Caused mainly by the current dominant world power United States under the leadership of its president Donald Trump. Who is democratically destructive both domestically and internationally (remember, for example, his claims to Greenland). Compared to last year, when the US criticized Europe for its freedom of speech during the Conference, this year their rhetoric was a little more diplomatic. But the message stayed pretty much the same. The US will continue to play by its own rules – whether Europe likes it or not. The quote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the US, Marco Rubio summs it all up. “We can no longer place the so-called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nation”. While Europe is still going through the 5 stages of grief over its relationship with the US, countries of the Global South, who never had many reasons to idealize the US, see the change in the international order more positively – especially as an opportunity to establish new trade agreements, now that America made itself unattractive business partner with its high tariffs. The War in Ukraine and European Security This topic is closely related to the previous one – since we only have to speak about it because certain actors chose to undermine the international order. Those actors being Russia, and more recently the US… The Greenland crisis at the beginning of this year raised an uncomfortable question: would NATO act or crumble in case of an escalation? And at the same time it gave Europe a push to start addressing its security not just through speeches, but through action. After the US decreased its military aid to Ukraine by 99 % over the last year, Europe had to step up – recently, the European Union approved a 90 billion euros loan to Ukraine. But more will be needed. However, there were no specific new proposals – only old ones that have been talked about for a long time (such as confiscating frozen Russian funds). The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy came to the Conference to stress that Ukraine would not be able to defend Europe indefinitely, and urged for increased European help and pressure on Russia and its enablers. Regional Conflicts The Munich Security Conference also addressed regional conflicts – like those which emerged in Syria after the fall of Assad regime or civil war in Sudan that has been going on since 2023 Some attention was also paid to technology, and AI. The Conference didn’t forget about climate crisis either. For example, speakers addressed the access to drinkable water that will be problematic in the future. However, due to the current tense security situation in the world, this topic remained in the background compared to previous years. Why should we care? Because the Munich Security Conference does not generate any legally binding policies, world leaders don’t try that hard to mask their controversial intentions – so it gives us an ideal opportunity to see their true collors… …and to understand the REAL reasons why they want us to support (or not) certain of their decisions. Because MSC can help us get a better overview on priorities of different countries and on relationships between them.
New release of Epstein Files : Story of the Last Week
On 30th January, the United States Department of Justice released a new series of Epstein Files. Over 3 million pages of documents, 2 000 videos and 180 000 images related to Epstein’s crimes and connections with global elites were released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a law passed in November 2025. This is what you need to know: Who Was Jeffrey Epstein? Jeffrey Epstein was born in 1953 in New York to an average working-class family. Some of his (ex)associates claim(ed) that he was a mathematical genius, but we should take it with a grain of salt… In reality Epstein was a college dropout, who had to scam his way even into his first job : a math and physics teacher at Dalton School (a prestigious private high school) by falsifying his university diploma. Although he wasn’t outright stupid, Epstein was no rocket scientist either… Dalton School soon dismissed him for not meeting its high standards. However, with his strong charisma, persuasive skills, scheming and desire to get rich, he impressed the wealthy parents of his students. One of them helped him get a job at Bear Stearns investment bank. That’s how began Epstein’s financial advisor career. After some time he started his own financial consulting firm : helping billionaires to manage their money. Which eventually made him a millionaire. Fun fact: nearly all his wealth came from working with just two clients: Leon Black and Les Wexner – and of course from scamming and shady business practices: he avoided taxes by hiding his money in offshore tax heavens (like the US Virgin Islands), he took money from his clients for projects he never delivered… Sometimes he would straight up steal from them assuming (correctly) that they wouldn’t notice or be too embarrassed to call him out. And then there was his dirtiest business: sex-trafficking. The Epstein Case: What Was It About? According to some of his students, Epstein was already giving off creepy vibes during his teacher era. He was always a womanizer, pursuing rich and famous women as a way to infiltrate elite social circles and gain access to rich clients. However, the first documented accounts of his sex-trafficking date back to the 90s. In that time he coupled up with Ghislaine Maxwell, who helped him “scout” underage girls. Maxwell would target young naive girls who came from unstable backgrounds, so they needed money, and at the same time they had no one to turn to for help. She approached them with a seemingly harmless offer: extra cash for giving massages to her friend. This “friend” turned out to be Epstein, and the “massages” prostitution. But the girls, many of them teenagers (some as young as 14), were too inexperienced to recognize the danger. When Epstein demanded sex from them in the middle of a massage, they were shocked, confused and scared. Maxwell and Epstein were also gaslighting them: framing their perverse demands as something perfectly normal – even beneficial financially. This made the girls doubt their own instincts and comply. Epstein and Maxwell “recruited” girls from all over the world. On their luxury estates – the most notorious is the Little Saint James island a.k.a. “Epstein Island” in the US Virgin Islands – they sexually abused them and sold them to their powerful friends. How Epstein got uncovered? In 2005, a woman reported to the police that Epstein molested her 14 years old daughter. The following investigations managed to gather evidence about 36 underage victims. But then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta ruined everything. Instead of punishing Epstein he made a secret so-called “non-prosecution agreement” with him. Thanks to this agreement, Epstein avoided federal (= national level) prosecution, the level his crimes demanded. He was charged only under Florida state law, which carried far lighter consequences. Instead of facing decades in federal prison, he got just 13 months in a county jail with work-release privileges that allowed him to leave for up to 12 hours a day, six days a week. The agreement also sealed the investigation, keeping the names of Epstein’s accomplices hidden and making it impossible for some of his victims to justify. Since the investigation was secret, they simply didn’t learn about it. But they continued speaking up and fighting for justice. As the years passed, new evidence emerged, the people who protected Epstein changed positions, the infamous non-prosecution agreement was found invalid, public opinion developed… Finally, in 2019, Epstein was arrested again, this time facing federal charges of sex-trafficking that could send him to prison for 45 years. However, the same year, before his trial could even began, Epstein committed suicide. He hanged himself in his jail cell. This provoked and still provokes a number of conspiracy theories. Ghislaine Maxwell, was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022. To this day she’s the only person convicted for participation in Epstein’s sex trafficking. What Are the Epstein Files? The Epstein files is a collection of all documents, mails, photos, and videos gathered during the investigations of Epstein’s crimes. Totally it makes over 6 million pages. They include court records, flight logs, financial transactions, and communications between Epstein and his associates. For years, his victims (and the public) demanded the release of these files to expose the full truth about Epstein’s network. And they partially succeeded – some heavily censored fractions of the files were made public. But it always had to be done through standard legal ways (by civil lawsuits, freedom of Information requests, or court orders…) There was no law requiring the entirety of Epstein’s files to be made public… Naturally, for many politicians, the release of the Files became an opportunity to score political points. No one seized it more aggressively than Donald Trump, who promised during his 2024 presidential campaign that he would release the Files if elected. But once in office, despite having the authority to release them, Trump’s administration blocked the process. In the end, the Congress stepped in. Congressmen (both Republicans and Democrats) teamed up and passed
Greenland Crisis : Story of the Last Week
The Greenland crisis has escalated over the past week. Greenlanders are protesting, Trump is threatening, NATO troops are on the scene… How did we get there? Donald Trump first came up with the idea of buying Greenland during his first presidency. At the time, everyone just waved it off as an absurd joke. It wasn’t until his second presidency – when he returned to power with much more radical rhetoric – that people realized he wasn’t joking. In the spring of 2025, Trump began to claim Greenland again – but this time more boldly. He even sent his son and JD Vance there to incite the locals against Denmark, which administers the island. Even though the topic faded from public attention amid other global crises, it never fully disappeared. Greenland resurfaced again when the US attacked Venezuela at the beginning of January. A few hours later, a disturbing status appeared on the Twitter account of Katie Miller. The wife of Trump advisor Stephen Miller shared a map of Greenland with the American flag and the caption “soon.” Stephen Miller later stated that “Greenland should be part of the US” and that “nobody’s gonna fight the US over the future of Greenland”. Soon, Donald Trump himself joined in. In addition to statements such as “The US would own Greenland one way or another,” he ordered special forces to draw up a plan for a possible invasion of Greenland. As a result, “Hands off Greenland” protests started in Denmark this weekend. Many European leaders also supported these protests. At the same time, Denmark, along with other NATO members like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands, sent its soldiers to Greenland for exercises. To demonstrate to Donald Trump that they are not afraid of him. Trump responded on his own social media platform. He threatened to impose tariffs on all states that participated in the exercise, which he would gradually increase. But how did Trump even come up with the claim to Greenland? Up until the 10th century, Greenland was inhabited by Indigenous Arctic people. In 985, Norse Viking Erik the Red arrived on the island, naming it “Greenland” to attract other Norsemen. Their settlements thrived for centuries but mysteriously declined by the 15th century (likely due to climate change or conflict with Inuit). In the 18th century, Denmark-Norway rediscovered Greenland during its colonial expansion. When the monarchy of Denmark and Norway broke apart in 1814, Denmark kept Greenland. And that’s when the US enters the game for Greenland for the first time In 1867, after buying Alaska from Russia, US Secretary of State William Seward tried to buy Greenland. He was not only motivated by Greenland’s vast fisheries and mineral wealth but also by its strategic location. By acquiring Greenland, he could force Canada (which lies between Alaska and Greenland) to become part of the US. But Denmark refused. US governement discussed this plan again in 1910 – but made no official offer to Denmark. However, in 1916, Denmark sold to the US another of its islands: the West Indies (now the Virgin Islands) – mainly because they were economically draining. Then came World War II. After Germany occupied Denmark in 1940, the United States signed a “Greenland Defense” agreement with the Danish ambassador, granting the US the right to build military bases on the island. After Germany surrendered in May 1945, the Danes expected the Americans to go home. But they refused. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was beginning, and the Americans were well aware of the strategic location of Greenland. In 1946, during the Truman presidency, the US proposed to pay Denmark $100 million for the island. However, the then Danish Foreign Minister Gustav Rasmussen rejected the proposal – he considered it absurd. According to him, Denmark owed America a lot for its help in the war, but not the whole island of Greenland. Ultimately, in 1951, a compromise was reached. The US and Denmark signed an agreement allowing a US military presence in Greenland in exchange for financial aid. This gave the US the control over Greenland’s defense, though Denmark retained sovereignty. Greenland’s path to independence In 1953, Greenland was integrated into Denmark, meaning that it was no longer a colony. During the 1970s, an independence movement emerged, culminating in 1979, when Greenland gained so-called “home rule” (= self-governance in certain domestic affairs). In 2008, a referendum on greater autonomy leading to eventual independence was held. The vast majority of people voted for loosening ties to Denmark. So, in 2009, Greenland upgraded to “self-government,” meaning total autonomy except for defense and foreign policy, which are still controlled by Denmark. And it also means that Greenlanders can organize a referendum on total independence from Denmark – if they want to. Do they want to? According to the Verian Group survey, 56% of Greenlanders would vote yes to Greenlandic independence if a referendum were held today. But at the same time, 45% of Greenlanders do not want independence if the standard of living is negatively affected. So, the reason the referendum hasn’t been held yet is probably due mainly to economic reasons… On the other hand, when it comes to the question of whether Greenlanders want to be part of the US, the polls show very clear no (by 85%). There have been no major US attempts to acquire Greenland since 1951 – not until Donald Trump raised the idea again in 2019. Why does Greenland matter for Trump? strategic positon Trump claims that Greenland is important to him because of its strategic position toward Russia and China, currently operating in the Arctic region and therefore posing a threat to the US. Although Russian and Chinese ships have appeared in the Arctic Ocean, their main “territory” remains the Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea, near the US state of Alaska. So, strategically speaking, Trump should be much more worried about the Russian and Chinese threat to Alaska than to Greenland. Moreover, the US