Keith Rankin, 24 July 2026 – Ever since the Soviet Union gained the ‘atomic bomb’ in 1949, the argument among geopoliticians has been that an edgy global ‘peace’ has been maintained by virtue of the principle of deterrence.

Nuclear Complacency

That principle has broken down, at least with respect to nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed Russia is being attacked, in 2026, with seeming impunity by NATO-backed Ukraine. And the principal news media outlets look away.

From 1949 to 1990 (most of the Cold War) – especially after 1955, following the frozen settlements in Taiwan and Korea – there was a clear almost unanimous understanding among political establishments that the presence of nuclear weapons in any country would deter any other country (including the United States) from mounting a ‘kinetic attack’. And that the absence of nuclear weapons made a country vulnerable to attack.

North Korea and Libya have been cited, quite recently, as proof of the principle; North Korea having nuclear weapons and being left relatively alone, and Libya not having nuclear weapons and as a result becoming a victim of one of Barrack Obama’s ‘wars of liberation’.

The received view is that deterrence kept the world from nuclear warfare in the second half of last century; with the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of a settlement made possible by deterrence.

Iran wanted to have an ambiguous nuclear program, as a deterrent. It has had a long twentieth century history of invasions, occupations, foreign-backed coups, and post-revolutionary belligerence from two nuclear-armed countries (the United States, and Israel). Belligerent geopolitics and geo-economics maintain animosities between countries; states of enmity which might otherwise diffuse and eventually disappear.

Evidence from the Ukraine War in particular shows that the principle of nuclear deterrence has been replaced by a new narrative which can best be described as ‘playing chicken’; games of chicken with existential risks.

Other forms of deterrence – for third parties, non-existential deterrence – may still have effect; Iran is testing out one of those, the time-worn strategy of blockade, which the British applied successfully (though not without cost) to defeat both Napoleon in the early nineteenth century and the Second Reich in World War One. Hence, the greater threat associated with the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

This century the principle of nuclear deterrence has been forgotten, and not only with respect to Russia. Iran has directly attacked Israel, a nuclear power, in three recent wars; albeit in response to attacks by Israel. And, last year India and Pakistan waged a short war against each other; both are nuclear armed.

The proof that the era of nuclear deterrence has come to an end is most visible with respect to the former Soviet Union. Ukraine, a country with a GDP smaller than New Zealand, routinely strikes at the infrastructure of Russia, a former superpower and the nation state on this planet with the most nuclear weapons.

Ukraine’s behaviour can only be described as ‘baiting the bear’, and has clearly been backed by Nato, especially the E3nations of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. It is clear that, whatever else Ukrainians wish their country to be, Ukraine is serving as a proxy for a wider ‘western’ agenda. When Ukrainian defence minister Mykhailo Fedorovwas reputedly sacked, recent news footage on Al Jazeera showed him on a podium with Palantir’s Alex Karp, on a podium with Mark Rutte, and also on a podium with Germany’s hawkish defence minister Boris Pistorius.

(It seems that Fedorov has now been reinstated in some form, and his rival Oleksandr Syrskyi has since been dismissed. See, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s removal of two top defence officials highlights the role of morale in long wars, James Horncastle for The Conversation, 23 July 2026.)

With the help of Palantir and Germany this year, Ukraine’s strikes have caused serious damage as far east as Siberia, and as far north as the former imperial capital, St. Petersburg. These strikes are hurting Russia, much as German air-strikes hurt the United Kingdom in 1940 and 1945; and as the German U-Boat submarines severely hurt the United Kingdom in WW1 and WW2. Nothing yet has had as much of an impact on Russia as the sinking of the Lusitania had on the United Kingdom (and also on the United States; Churchill hoped that the sinking of that ocean liner would bring the United States into that war). But it may only be a matter of time.

We also should note that war brought regime change to the United Kingdom in both 1916 and 1940. In both cases, the new regimes were significantly more belligerent towards Germany. If the West seeks regime change in Moscow in 2026, the West should be more careful about what it wishes for.

Russians do have a more strongly felt sense of history than most westerners do. They know that it was Germany’s foolish decision (even more egregious than that of Donald Trump on 28 February 2026 re Israel and Iran) to wage war on the Russian Empire in August 1914 that set of a set of geopolitical forces still in place today. And they also know that the Russian generals, in 1812, burnt down Moscow in order to save Russia from Napoleon’s invasion force. And many Russians know that the United States and United Kingdom invaded Russia in 1918 in an attempt to reverse the Bolshevik Revolution of October/November 1917; a failed military venture comparable with (though bigger than!) the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. And Russians know that it was they who liberated Europe from Nazi Germany in May 1945, and that in August 1945 Soviet Russia’s former allies turned on them just months later.

The ‘Cold’ War began with two demonstrative nuclear explosions over an already-pulverised Japan. After that, a number of fearful westerners – called ‘traitors’ by many, the Rosenbergs went to the electric chair – acted to ensure that, by 1949, Soviet Russia also had nuclear weapons. That is when the principle of deterrence was established, and since then no nuclear weapons have been deployed against a foreign power (though many nuclear tests have had severe adverse consequences for colonised populations in the Pacific and elsewhere).

Today Russia’s GDP is significantly smaller than that of France, the smallest of the E3 nations; Russia’s GDP is the same as that of Italy. Post-Soviet Russia now finds itself in another asymmetric fight for its survival as an independent geopolity. (And I say ‘geopolity’ not because there is any evidence that Russia wants to conquer its western adversaries, but because Russia’s territory is a vast and strategic landmass in a world that is warming, meaning that Russia is becoming more liveable at a time that West Europe is becoming less liveable.) Russians remember Germany’s lebensraum project in both its WW2 and WW1 guises.

Of course no country with such a small GDP as Russia can credibly sustain an attack on any much larger country, let alone a nuclear ‘power’ such as France. Ukraine is openly attacking a large nuclear power in its role as a non-nuclear proxy of the nuclear-armed NATO alliance of 32 countries. Russia clearly sees itself as being under attack from northwest Europe; and, if Russia strikes back against Ukraine’s backers, northwest Europe is a likely target.

My sense is that, in Ukraine, where the dominant politics is projected by young elites (millennials and Generation Y), and also in West Europe – where people born after 1970 increasingly hold sway – there is little practical understanding of what nuclear weapons actually are. People born before 1953 fully understood nuclear weapons because of post-war (1945 to 1962) geopolitics. The deterrence principle worked in the 1960s in part through mass protests; the ban the bomb movement, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

That geopolitics that was superseded by the Vietnam War which defused the nuclear issue while upping the ante on United States imperialism. Leftists, in becoming more anti-war, became less anti-nuclear.

Then Generation Jones (actually people born around 1958 to 1969) became sensitised to the dangers of nuclear war when the Cold War was restoked in the late 1970s (think the Olympic Games’ boycotts of 1980 and 1984). Many will remember the early-1980s’ protests in New Zealand led by Australian activist Dr Helen Caldicott; this wave of protests was much more connected to left-wing politics than the earlier wave, and also was somewhat marginalised as a mass movement through its associations with radical feminism. In the United Kingdom in the 1980s, that protest was epitomised by the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp.

We may note that the anti-Vietnam generation is conspicuously absent today in calling-out the present danger of nuclear war. We also note that people born in the mid-1950s (eg Germany’s Friedrich Merz) were too young for the first wave of anti-nuclear activism, and a bit too old for the second (more partisan) wave.

Has deterrence gone asymmetric?

We have to suppose that many influential people within NATO are discounting Russian nuclear deterrence, and are therefore comfortable playing ‘chicken’ or ‘Russian roulette’ with Russia. (We note that John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State 1953 to 1959, was perfectly comfortable advocating nuclear strikes in the years 1953 to 1955, but essentially with China as adversary; China’s lesson from that episode was to become a nuclear power.)

As I see it, the NATO cocksureness arises from what it sees as three-trick deterrence trumping Russia’s one-trick deterrence. The United States can use Europe as a giant human shield. Nato’s Article Five is projected as a form of Western deterrence at least as much as is the United States’ nuclear capability. While France and the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons, it is generally understood that they would only be deployed in the name of national rather than regional ‘defence’.

But Germany (and I understand at least some other NATO countries) has United States’ nuclear weapons on site, and full capability to deploy them, only subject to the nod of the United States president. Russia of course knows this, and believes that Donald Trump is much less likely to authorise German use of nuclear weapons than an easily-played Joe Biden might have been.

Google AI ‘thinks’ that, if or when backed into a corner, Russia will “escalate”, with the possibility of going nuclear being present but, as yet, unlikely. Google AI is of course not intelligent, in the sense that it does not think for itself; Google AI cannot overcome the framing which is ubiquitous in the western literature. Google gave no basis for the suggested “low probability” of a nuclear escalation by Russia; rather Google merely did an undergraduate-level literature review. Project Syndicate writers underplay the risk as they alert readers to it; see my Can Andy Burnham Overcome the War and Debt Bogeys? Scoop 20 July 2026.

NATO’s third trick is its anti-missile defence. Certainly the most strategic locations within NATO will be very well defended by Patriot missiles and the like; and of course Russia knows that. So Russia, if it does escalate, will almost certainly take its cue from Iran, and go asymmetric. There is of course a nuclear precedent; the nuclear war of the West against Russia began in 1945 with asymmetric strikes (from a Russian viewpoint) on Japan. The subsequent ‘Cold’ War was mostly but not entirely a ‘cold nuclear war’, a nuclear war of the imagination.

How might Russia escalate?

Those paying attention will be aware that there is a growing opinion among Russian elites and military types that Russia should escalate, and sooner rather than later, to restore nuclear deterrence. That includes a view that Russia should have done so two or three years ago; that President Putin was too liberal in holding out for a Trump-led negotiated settlement which would end the European threat to Russia, and that maybe Russia would need to perform a bigger shock today than it would have then. There is now a sense that Trump is no longer on that wavelength, so there is really no reason for Russia to keep waiting. The forces directed against Russia are, at present severe, and only becoming more severe.

Germany attacked Russia in 1914 because it calculated that an earlier attack would meet less opposition than a later attack. Will Russia attack Europe sooner rather than later, by the same logic?

For a sense of discussion by academics in both the west and Russia, a good place to turn to is Glenn Diesen’s Greater Eurasia podcasts. Diesen, a Norwegian political scientist, wrote Russophobia: Propaganda in International Politics. He was on Al Jazeera’s Inside Story this week, alongside two advocates for belligerence, from Ukraine and from London.

Given the three-prong deterrence that NATO holds (compared to Russia’s one-prong deterrence), if Russia strikes NATO, advocates of such a strike would like the action to be more performative than lethal, though sufficient to address the West’s complacency.

I see six options for a Russian escalation out of the present intensifying stalemate. The first option is already happening, with Moscow simply trying to pummel Kyiv into submission. But we already know that there has been too much tit for Russia’s tat. There are five other genuine escalatory options, any of which may or may not “restore deterrence” as the Russian proponents put it.

The first two would be either a determined non-nuclear strike on a Ukrainian nuclear power station, or a nuclear strike on some target in western Ukraine. (We commonly think of ‘plants’ – including nuclear ‘factories’ – as targets for conventional weapons; and cities as targets for nuclear weapons.)

The remaining three options would be asymmetric attacks on a likely-minimally-defended NATO target. The first anti-NATO option would be a conventional attack, comparable with the most severe Iranian strikes on UAE, Bahrain or Kuwait. The second would be an attack on a nuclear power station within Nato (probably not on a southern European nation, not on a nation bordering Russia, and almost certainly not on Türkiye). The third of these options would be a performative single nuclear strike on a target within NATO. (It is unlikely but not impossible that Russia would choose, for its first strike to restore deterrence, a non-Nato non-Ukraine ally of NATO.)

So the question then becomes, what would NATO do in response to such an attack? We already know what NATO is doing in response to the Russian attempts to pummel Kyiv; the response is escalatory in nature, not at all respecting Russia’s once much-vaunted nuclear deterrence. So, what about the other five escalation scenarios?

It is clearly not-rational to escalate a single asymmetric nuclear strike into an all-out nuclear war; but casual observers tend to presume that such a non-rational response is also a very likely response. The most likely NATO response, in my view, would be a proportional counter-attack on Russia. One tit for one tat, and hoping that it ends there, with both sides having a clearer understanding about what is at stake. Indeed Russia would be gambling on a response that was no more than proportional.

But we are already seeing the United States versus Iran war escalating, after much tit-for-tat, and with highly disproportional threats from the American president. My sense is that, in the NATO versus Russia conflict (confined to Ukraine, at least so far), in the event of a counter-escalation it is more likely to be NATO than Russia that responds disproportionately. And not least because NATO has, within its ranks, more people with ‘bring it on’ messianic attitudes towards an apocalypse. I would include the Palantir pair – Alex Karp and Peter Thiel – as such new age messianics; believers in the Dark Enlightenment who believe that some relatively small group of people and animals (as per Noah, in Genesis, and his extended family) are fated to survive a nuclear tragedy. (We note that ‘Kiwi’ Peter Thiel has opted for Argentina as a better bet than Aotearoa as a site to sit-out the ‘downside risk’ implicit in his worldview.)

Missing Empathy for Russia

There seems to be no empathy at all for Russia. First, we must note that ’empathy’ is not ‘sympathy’. Empathy towards an adversary is an understanding of what motivates that adversary, and what that adversary is likely to do in response to provocation. It is about statistical expectations rather than moral expectations: compare ‘what we expect Russia will do’ with ‘what we expect Russia to do’; the latter is what ‘we’ want ‘them’ to do. It is not good policy to label an armed foe as ‘Evil’ and to then expect it to respond to attacks in a mild-mannered way.

It has to be an example of clinical insanity for an entity calling itself ‘Good’ to do offensive (ie attacking) things to an adversary it frames as ‘Evil’, and to expect that adversary to respond in a benign manner; especially if that adversary is armed to the teeth, and had hitherto believed that those arms would deter us from attacking it.

In messianic western framing, ‘our’ adoption of the label Good gives ‘us’ (in our own minds) licence to behave in a fully evil manner in order to effectively combat the entity or entities which we have labelled ‘Evil’. And the expectation – as noted, an ambiguous word – that Evil will respond in a non-evil [indeed submissive] manner. In such an unhinged world, if the gamble pays off, it is Good that does evil things and Evil that does good things.

By looking at informed commentary based on reality – on realpolitik – rather than the kind of ‘holier-than-thou’ stuff coming out of Ukraine and Nato-in-Wonderland (an intellectual rabbit-hole if ever there was one), it’s only a matter of time as to when Russia either loses its patience and strikes a significant target within NATO, or perpetrates a nuclear strike on some target in Western Ukraine. (If you are in a rabbit-hole, stop burrowing.)

The Ukraine/Nato-in-Wonderland narrative, like the initial Cold War narrative, claims (without bothering to ask Russia) that Russia plans to conquer and occupy Europe, and maybe the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States as well. NATO even proposes a date; 2030. Russia has a GDP no larger than that of Italy. There is no way in the world that it could ever occupy or otherwise dominate the sub-continent of Europe, even if it wanted to.

What Russia clearly doesn’t want is NATO weapons of or near mass-destruction pointing at Russia from Russian-speaking lands that have, for most of their history, been part of the Russian Empire in one or other of its iterations.

There is a de-escalatory solution, in which both East and West survive, as they were in say 2019. As I understand it, Russia wants that solution and NATO doesn’t. And Russia believes that, with increasing surety, that Rusia itself has to do something the re-establish a state of deterrence predicated on the mutual fear of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the whole West operates in a state of reckless and mindless complacency. Don’t look up. The Russia-Ukraine-NATO war barely makes it into the West’s curated news media.

Nuclear war has a capacity to end all life on Earth – not just humans – and perhaps all life in the universe, given that we do not know for sure that there is life elsewhere. Is the desire to impose a western-style regime in Russia worth risking all life for? Playing down the risk does not remove the risk.

In traditional warfare there were two parties: ‘us’ and ‘them’; it was a two-party ‘game’. Is it in any way acceptable to hold hostage the majority of the people on Earth who are mere ‘third parties’? Nuclear war is a three-party game. If ‘we’ cannot frame it in any other way other than Good ‘we’ versus Evil ‘them’, then maybe ‘we’ do have to appease ‘them’ in order to avoid the possibility of a catastrophe that is (literally) infinitely worse than such appeasement. (We may note that ‘appeasement’ happens in all sorts of contexts as a part of life; part of the raising of children is teaching them to compromise.)

Complacency today echoes the complacency of 1914

Complacency was true, also, in June 1914. The First and Second Balkan Wars had been resolved, seemingly. Hardly anybody then expected that there would soon be a Third Balkan War, and that that war – stoked in part by the European news media – would explode into the greatest tragedy the world has faced, so far. The Judeophobic Holocaust was only a smallish part of the totality of that 1914 to 1945 tragedy. Yet, only 81 years after 1945, most of us in New Zealand only know about Anzac Day, the Holocaust, Dunkirk, and maybe D-Day and the 1940 (but not the 1945) London Blitz.

Even Christopher Nolan’s epic movie Oppenheimer only presented Japan in one brief scene; it conveyed the drama of nuclear war more than its horror. The nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, widely believed to have ended the 1914 to 1945 tragedy, instead ushered in a new tragedy whereby the principal allied winners of the European War in 1945 were turned onto by the secondary winners of that war. The ‘Cold War’ is not over. Just as 1914-1945 had a military interregnum from 1919 to 1939, the Cold War enjoyed an interregnum from 1990 to 2008. The geopolitical hawks in federal capitals like Washington never stopped hawking. (The Japan tragedy was actually ended by an American concession to Japan, re the continued role of the titular Emperor.)

It was the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 that Jeffrey Sachs pinpoints as the redeclaration of war on Russia; noting Clausewitz’s much quoted aphorism that “war is the continuation of politics by other means”, meaning in effect that unresolved or unresolvable politics is the prequel to war.

With hindsight, we can understand Germany’s declaration of war against Russia in 1914 as not that different to today’s war against Russia; a determined effort by Europe – or at least part of Europe – to suppress and provoke a nominated adversary. Germany was complacent then, too, believing – genuinely, but unrealistically – that Russia would capitulate in a matter of months.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

Basically we’ve got two choices: we either aggressively denormalise Israel or we watch our society become more and more Israeli.

We either collectively reject Israel, or we watch Western militaries fuse inseparably with the IDF.

We either turn support for Israel into political campaign poison, or we watch politicians obliterate our right to criticise Israel while backing increasingly evil Israeli military agendas.

We either ferociously oppose our government’s involvement in Middle Eastern wars, or we watch Israeli leaders grow more and more ecstatic as more and more Western blood and treasure flows into the war machine.

We either normalise viewing Israel as a freakish abomination, or we sit passively watching authoritarian Zionist operations like Palantir get inseparably interwoven into every level of western power institutions.

We either stand together to oppose Israel for the racist apartheid state that it is, or we watch our Muslim neighbors suffer increasing discrimination and abuse at home while our governments help massacre our Muslim brothers and sisters using high-tech war machinery abroad.

The West’s growing collective rejection of Israel is the growth of the Western conscience. The burgeoning pro-Palestine movement. The disgust with the Iran war. Young people’s cultural cringe around all things Israeli. The increasingly unapologetic eye-rolling every time “antisemitism” is used as an excuse to shut down criticism of Israel.

These are signs that we are growing morally healthier.

That’s a good thing. The more we unite around a red hot “NO” to Israel and Zionism, the harder it will be for those in power to normalise the increasing Israelification of our society.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/25/caitlin-johnstone-de-normalise-israel/

By Margot Staunton of RNZ Pacific

Fiji’s former chief prosecutor, Christopher Pryde, claims there was a racist, government-led conspiracy to get rid of him.

The New Zealand lawyer, who is in Aotearoa, spoke to RNZ Pacific Waves after corruption charges against him in Fiji were dropped this week.

Fiji’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) threw out three charges in the Suva Magistrates Court on Wednesday.

• READ MORE: Ex-Fiji Prosecutions Office Employee ‘Scared To Leave Australia’ After Leaked Corruption Allegations
• Other FICAC reports

A statement from FICAC said: “The decision was taken because FICAC has been unable to effect service on Mr Pryde in New Zealand, despite attempts to do so.”

“The proceedings concerned charges previously filed in relation to nearly NZ$150,000 in payments and reimbursements received during his tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions. Those allegations have not been determined in court,” the statement said.

“Under section 49 of the Criminal Procedure, the entry of a nolle prosequi brings the present proceedings to an end but does not prevent subsequent proceedings based on the same facts.”

‘Bitter taste’
Pryde, aged 60, has always maintained he was innocent and said the allegations against him were contractual matters rather than criminal offences.

He has previously described the charges as bogus, politically-driven and designed to prevent him from returning to Fiji to prosecute an elite group maligned in last year’s damning Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC head.

“I am left with a bitter taste towards the current Fijian government and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) because I don’t think they have played ball with me.

“They made up their mind they wanted to get rid of me and they employed all sorts of tactics in order to do that,” Pryde said.

Pryde claimed that the government’s tactics were designed to intimidate him, and should serve as a warning to expatriates keen to work in Fiji.

“Unfortunately it is a salutary reminder to other expatriates that might be considering taking up a role in public service in Fiji to be careful.” he said.

However, he added that the dispute he had had with the government and the JSC did not effect the relationship he had with the wider community, after living in Fiji for 18 years.

Alleged witch hunt
The Sitiveni Rabuka-led coalition government’s Information Director Samisoni Pareti declined to respond to questions by RNZ Pacific.

Pryde claims FICAC has accused him of evading diplomats who were sent by Fiji to serve him with legal documents.

“It’s ridiculous, they know where I live, they’ve had every opportunity over the last 12 months to serve me,” he said.

Last December, Pryde claimed the Fijian government committed an illegal act on New Zealand soil and sent foreign diplomats to stalk him at home.

“They sent people from the Fijian High Commission in Wellington to my home [in Christchurch] and harangued my neighbours by questioning them as to my whereabouts.

“They acted in an intimidatory way by staking out my home whilst I was away attending my mother’s funeral,” he said, adding that it was the subject of a formal and ongoing police complaint in New Zealand.

“The Prime Minister was made aware of this breach of diplomatic convention but chose to ignore it.”

“The witch hunt against me began when the acting Attorney-General, Siriomi Turaga, accused me of wrongdoing after I was seen with the former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at a reception at the Japanese Embassy in February 2023,” he said.

‘As long as iTaukei are on top’
Pryde was suspended on full pay for “misbehaviour” two months later and faced a further charge of receiving superannuation payments that had not been approved by the JSC in April 2024.

His superannuation ceased then his salary and all contractual benefits were “unilaterally” cut off by the Fijian government three months later.

“They [the government] want to get rid of me, it’s all part of their ethnonational agenda,” Pryde told RNZ Pacific in December 2024.

“Vulagi [foreigners] and Indo-Fijians are being replaced by iTaukei [indigenous Fijians].

“Hiring in Fiji is not based on merit, the government doesn’t care, as long as iTaukei are at the top and in control,” he said.

A tribunal exonerated Pryde on all charges in January 2025 and he was reinstated to the role, but he stayed in Aotearoa for fear he would be arrested on his return.

Several days after the Tribunal’s decision, FICAC laid fresh corruption charges on him, including receiving a NZ$100,000 gratuity without the President’s approval.

Wrongdoing denied
“I categorically deny any wrongdoing, the dispute was between myself and the JSC, whose chairman, the Chief Justice, Salesi Temo, tried and failed to convince the tribunal hearing that I had done something wrong,” Pryde said.

“Issues around the payment of the gratuity were brought up at the tribunal and they were dismissed by the tribunal. So then we have a rehash of things into another format, they failed [with the charges] in the tribunal so they got FICAC to deal with them. That’s not acceptable.”

Prime Minister Rabuka criticised Pryde last July for failing to turn up to work, seven months after he was reinstated.

President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu then suspended his NZ$185,000 salary and benefits, following a public backlash over his absence.

Pryde said he had been living on his savings over the past year and was “relieved” that the latest corruption charges were dropped.

However, he has filed a judicial review of the President’s decision to cut his pay in the Suva High Court.

Pryde refused to be drawn on whether he would take any further action or what the future held for him workwise.

This story was first published on

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/25/fijis-former-chief-prosecutor-claims-govt-conspiracy-to-remove-him/

INTERVIEW: By Eugene Doyle

In this interview with Reza Nazar Ahari, the Iranian Ambassador to Wellington, we discussed the war, the state of diplomacy with the West, issues of sovereignty, defence and the internal politics of Iran.

He provided some fascinating analysis into why the Western strategy on Iran has been so disastrously flawed.

• READ MORE: Trump insists Tehran wants deal; Israeli army, settler attacks in West Bank
• Other War on Iran reports

The US has stated many objectives, many reasons for launching the war. For Iran, what is at stake?

The Americans have come to take control of all things in Iran — not just the oil of Iran and the land of Iran, but to take control of Iranians’ own identity, our independence and our way of life.

President Trump said once during the war, “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”. In spite of having suffered enormous damage and paid a heavy price, Iran has to defend itself because otherwise there will be no Iran.

Especially in the West, the way to eliminate your enemy is not only by hard power, by artillery, by guns. There are many other means: by the media, by demonising, by culturally attacking a country, by imposing sanctions. In the last decades we have been under all of these types of attacks. We are one of the best in the world in knowing how to counter all of these attacks.

What we’re seeing from Iran is you are very powerfully standing up for Iranian sovereignty in the face of an astonishing assault.

National identity is the main asset of any nation and it should be studied first. When President Trump said, “Iran must unconditionally surrender”, it suggests he has not read the history of this nation. Surrender is the worst thing for us. It’s the same with calling for zero enrichment, giving up our missiles and our allies – they don’t understand the identity of the Iranian people.

We fought against Saddam Hussein for 8 years to ensure we did not lose a centimetre of our land. When you don’t understand things like that, it can cause many mistakes, as we have seen.

This brings us to the important role that diplomats and analysts should play in helping foreign states understand the unique culture, political dynamics, and so on, of a country.

When you look back a century, when the British Empire wanted to have influence in our region, they sent their scholars, their scientists, their researchers to our countries. They lived with us, and understood the identity of the people. I’m not arguing about bad decisions or good decisions, but the decisions were always made through that very close study.

Today “expert” Americans just sit at their desks looking at the internet without knowing what happens in the heart of Iranians, in the mind of Iranians.

What you are suggesting is that an at-distance unfamiliarity with Iranian culture has led to strategic blunders that have hurt not just Iranians but Americans and the West.

Exactly. Americans started their war against Iran on the basis of what they did in Venezuela, and also what they were told by Israelis — “You target this, you kill these people, and all the people will come out to change their government.” It was very simplistic, very superficial, which helps explain why they failed.

Another mistake by Americans is that they think they can solve their problems with guns and missiles. They think that solves all problems, without the need to rethink, to analyse and to take a more profound approach.

How should the war launched by the US and Israel on February 28 be viewed through the lens of the United Nations Charter and its core principles, for example, the prohibition on the use of force and the respect for the territorial integrity of states?

There are obvious positions stated in the Charter of the United Nations that when a country is attacked or invaded by any country, it is the responsibility of other countries to condemn the attack and to help to stop that.

New Zealand did so in the Russia–Ukraine case. It immediately condemned Russia and imposed sanctions. However, when it came to Iran, there was no condemnation of the United States or the Israeli regime, nor were any sanctions imposed on them.

In the case of Iran, some countries even expressed positions in support of the aggressor rather than the country that had been attacked.

The West loves to talk about the international rules-based order, but as you said, we seem to be moving to the rule of the gun which is a tragedy for all of us. What would your advice be to medium-sized powers like New Zealand? How should they respond to that situation?

It is strange if a country — any country — makes their policies exactly like a country on the other side of the world just because they are allied nations. I believe each country should live according to their identity, not according to their alliances.

Each country has a unique identity, has unique geography, has unique capabilities, unique history, and according to them they should identify their unique foreign policy.

When we looked back in time at New Zealand, we found a sense of independence, making your own identity. In the past, for example, I think New Zealand very correctly believed that no nuclearisation should happen around its waters from both an environmental and from an international political point of view.

What is your rapport with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

Actually, it was strange to me, because after the US broke the ceasefire, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs called me in. When the United States attacked Iran, they didn’t call in the American ambassador; they called me in! But it was an opportunity for me to explain the reason for the recent developments in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Your posting here may finish at the end of this year. Any regrets? Any final impressions?

I actually love New Zealand because it gave a very peaceful experience for me and my family. Definitely when I leave New Zealand, I will miss this country and its very good people. I have one regret in regard to my time in New Zealand. I tried but I failed to encourage a think tank in international and political affairs, a space for very serious but informal dialogue with scholars focusing on the Middle East region, diplomats, foreign policy people.

This is called Track Two Diplomacy — it is very active in many countries, including Iran. I would encourage something like this in the field of international relations and diplomacy with Iran.

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington, New Zealand. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and hosts solidarity.co.nz

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/24/iranian-ambassador-why-the-us-blundered-so-badly-diplomacy-and-ways-forward/

Asia Pacific Report

The Palestine Forum of New Zealand has condemned the latest Israeli assault on the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem, where thousands of illegal Israeli settlers stormed one of Islam’s holiest sites in a “deliberate act of provocation and religious aggression”.

The settlers were escorted by heavily armed occupation forces and led by the extremist Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“New Zealand must not remain silent,” said the Palestine Forum in a statement today.

• READ MORE: Arab and Muslim countries condemn Israeli storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque
• Eight Muslim countries condemn mass Israeli raid on Al-Aqsa
• Other Al-Aqsa reports

Eight Arab and Muslim-majority countries — Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and the United Arab Emirates — have strongly condemned the storming of the mosque compound by far-right groups and thousands of settlers.

The Palestine Forum said these actions were “neither isolated incidents nor spontaneous events”.

“They form part of a long-standing Israeli policy aimed at asserting control over occupied East Jerusalem, erasing Palestinian identity, and fundamentally altering the historic and legal status quo of Al-Aqsa Mosque,” the statement said.

The repeated military raids, restrictions on Palestinian worshippers, and intimidation of Islamic religious authorities constituted grave violations of international law, international humanitarian law, and the fundamental right to freedom of religion.

“The Palestine Forum of New Zealand is deeply alarmed by the continued silence and inaction of much of the international community,” the statement said.

‘Every failure fuels instability’
“Every failure to hold Israel accountable emboldens further violations, fuels instability, and undermines the very international legal order that democratic nations claim to uphold.”

New Zealand had long presented itself as a principled defender of international law and human rights. That commitment needed to be extended to Palestine.

“The New Zealand government cannot continue to issue generic statements of concern while Israel systematically violates international law with complete impunity.

“Silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, it is acquiescence.”

The Palestine Forum called on the New Zealand government to:

• Publicly and unequivocally condemn the Israeli government’s escalating violations at Al-Aqsa Mosque;
• Reaffirm that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory and reject any attempt to alter its legal or historical status;
• Demand an immediate end to Israeli military incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and the ongoing restrictions imposed on Palestinian worshippers;
• Support meaningful international accountability measures, including investigations into violations of international law and international humanitarian law; and
• Work with like-minded nations to ensure the protection of Palestinian civilians, religious sites, and cultural heritage under occupation.

‘Cultural heritage of humanity’
The targeting of Al-Aqsa Mosque was not merely an attack on a place of worship, said the Palestine Forum.

“It is an attack on the religious freedoms of millions of Palestinians, on the cultural heritage of humanity, and on the international legal framework governing occupied territory.”

The repeated incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque, the denial of access to Palestinian worshippers, and attempts to impose a new reality by force directly challenged decades of international consensus and numerous United Nations resolutions.

“If the international community continues to tolerate these violations without consequence, it sends a dangerous message that international law is optional and that powerful states may act with impunity.”

The Palestine Forum of New Zealand said it stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people in Jerusalem and throughout occupied Palestine.

“We call upon political leaders, faith communities, civil society organisations, and all people of conscience across New Zealand to speak out against these grave violations and to demand accountability,” the statement said.

“The protection of Al-Aqsa Mosque is not solely a Palestinian or Muslim issue. It is a universal issue of justice, human dignity, religious freedom, and respect for international law.

“New Zealand has a proud history of standing on the right side of history. The time has come to do so again.”

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/24/palestine-forum-of-nz-condemns-provocative-israeli-assault-on-al-aqsa-mosque-demands-govt-action/

COMMENTARY: By Lim Tean

“If we can’t sell oil, we will make sure you can’t too.”

That is the message Iran’s parliamentary Speaker has just sent to the entire Gulf — and to US President Donald Trump.

The Speaker, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, has delivered the starkest ultimatum of this war.

Responding to Trump’s threat to destroy one Iranian bridge or power plant for every ship attacked in the Strait of Hormuz, Ghalibaf didn’t blink. He went further.

• READ MORE: Trump weighs ‘massive attack’ as Iran’s FM blasts ‘mindless aggression’
• The illegal US war on Iran – and now the economic consequences shock
• Other Lim Tean articles

“The equation of this war is clear: either all or none. In a region where we do not sell oil, no one will sell oil. If our security is not ensured, no infrastructure will be safe,” he said.

“The security of the Strait lies in the absence of American forces. The situation of the Strait will not return to pre-war conditions.”

Read that carefully. This is not a threat to close Hormuz. It is something more sophisticated — and more dangerous. Iran is saying it will hold the entire Gulf’s oil exports hostage to its own.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar — all of them — become collateral in a dispute that is not theirs.

The Strait of Hormuz carries 20 to 21 million barrels a day — a fifth of global oil consumption. Bab el-Mandeb carries another 6 to 9 million. Between them, roughly a third of the world’s seaborne oil now sits under the shadow of a single Iranian sentence.

“They wanted to punish Iran. Punished themselves with triple-digit oil instead. 10/10 strategy,” Iran’s chief negotiator and parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said in a post on X.

Live updates: https://t.co/kGUykdVSBy pic.twitter.com/73aiqzxNcu

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 23, 2026

Surged past $100 a barrel
Brent has already responded — surging past $100 a barrel, a six-week high.

This is the Legitimacy Principle playing out in real time. When the dominant naval power — the United States — can no longer guarantee safe passage, the question of who actually controls the Strait stops being theoretical.

Iran is answering it by force of statement, before it even needs to answer it by force of arms.

Will Trump escalate further, or is this the moment Washington starts looking for an off-ramp? Either way, the Gulf states now have every incentive to start talking to Tehran directly — because Washington just showed it cannot protect them from the consequences of its own war.

Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform. He also hosts Lim’s Substack.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/24/lim-tean-irans-ghalibaf-warns-us-war-equation-is-clear-either-all-or-none/

RNZ Pacific reporters

Vanuatu’s government has issued a stinging rebuke to the country’s customary leaders who have reportedly called for revoking the appointment of the first woman to lead the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Secretariat.

Dr Anna Naupa, a Pacific politics expert and ni-Vanuatu woman, was appointed MSG Secretariat Director-General last month, with Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat describing her as “one of the nation’s top minds”.

“Vanuatu believes the success of the MSG under Dr Naupa’s leadership will depend on never losing sight of that founding spirit — solidarity, justice, and self-determination for our peoples,” Napat said.

• READ MORE: Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre blasts ‘misogynistic attack’ over MSG leadership
• Malvatumauri demands revocation of Dr Naupa’s MSG DG appointment by July 30

However, the Malvatumauri National Council of Chiefs, which is a constitutionally mandated body, has reportedly “issued an ultimatum” to Napat, “demanding the immediate revocation of Dr Anna Naupa’s appointment,” according to the Vanuatu Daily Post.

The traditional leaders want a man to head the organisation “to align with customary traditions”, according to the front page of Thursday’s edition of the newspaper.

“The council warned that if the government fails to rescind the appointment by 30 July 2026, traditional leaders across the country will initiate customary actions to challenge the decision,” the report said.

In a statement on Thursday, the Vanuatu government called the council’s stance “regressive, divisive, and an embarrassment”.

Based on merit
The government said Naupa’s appointment was based on merit and she was selected after “a rigorous, independent MSG panel process involving all MSG member countries”, adding it fully backed Naupa’s appointment.

“By dragging the entire nation into this stance, the Malvatumauri has done a disservice to Vanuatu.

“At a time when Vanuatu is being recognised internationally for leadership on climate justice, and on regional solidarity, this act seeks to drag our country backward.”

The government also condemned the Vanuatu Daily Post for publishing the council’s views.

“To platform and amplify misogyny without context or challenge is to normalise it. Our media must lift the standard of national discourse, not lower it.”

The Vanuatu Prime Minister’s Office is demanding a public apology from the Malvatumauri National Council of Chiefs to Naupa, to the women of Vanuatu, and to the people of the MSG region.

“Vanuatu’s future depends on unity, on merit, and on respect. We will not allow outdated and discriminatory attitudes to define us on the regional or world stage.”

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/23/vanuatu-govt-blasts-chiefs-demand-to-replace-first-female-msg-head-with-a-man/

ANALYSIS: By Lim Tean

America’s entire emergency oil reserve now covers 16 days. Sixteen.

The world spent 40 years building a shock absorber for exactly this war — and burned it down in five months.

What comes next isn’t just a higher petrol price. It’s a bill mailed to every fragile economy on earth, at the worst possible moment to receive one.

• READ MORE: US bombs Iran as IRGC and Houthis claim attacks on ships in Hormuz, Red Sea
• Lim Tean: You cannot bomb a strait open – Hormuz, Chabahar and the coming battle for Bab el-Mandeb
• Other Lim Tean articles

The economic consequences of war
In 1919, Keynes wrote his famous polemic — The Economic Consequences of the Peace — a warning that the true cost of the Treaty of Versailles would not be paid at the signing table, but for years afterward, by economies nobody had bothered to examine while the ink dried.

The world was so consumed by the drama of the settlement that it missed the mechanism that would define the following decade.

We are making the same mistake now, in reverse. Everyone is watching the war. Almost no one is watching the buffer.

The numbers that matter
Since February, the world has been drawing down oil reserves it spent four decades accumulating. International Energy Agency (IEA) member states held 4.1 billion barrels in strategic reserves in 2004. By 2026, that figure has fallen to 1.8 billion.

The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve — 414 million barrels at the war’s outset — had fallen to roughly 316–320 million by mid-July, its lowest level since 1983. American crude inventories overall, reserve included, are at their lowest since 1984.

Put that in terms people can actually feel: at America’s total daily consumption of just over 20 million barrels a day, today’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve alone covers barely 16 days. Sixteen days. That is the entire emergency margin behind the world’s largest economy — before commercial stockpiles and ordinary imports, which normally do the heavy lifting, have to carry the load on their own.

This is not incidental. It is the entire reason the war has felt, to most people, survivable.
Governments made a deliberate choice: burn the buffer, keep prices tolerable, buy time for diplomacy.

in March, the IEA itself coordinated the largest emergency release in its history — 400 million barrels. It worked. Prices that could have spiralled were instead managed.

But a reserve is not a subsidy. It is a loan against the future, and the bill is now due. The IEA estimates that refilling what has been drawn down will require an extra one million barrels a day of supply, sustained, for three years — a claim on the market running through 2029.

That is not a wartime cost. That is a peacetime cost, arriving after the guns fall silent, exactly as Keynes argued the costs of Versailles would.

The collision nobody is pricing
Here is the trap. The refill has to happen at scale, which means sustained buying pressure on oil for the rest of the decade. At the same time, markets are expecting a return to surplus once the war ends. Cheap oil and an aggressive refill bid cannot coexist for long — every government rushing to rebuild its stockpile at once will bid up the very barrels it is trying to buy cheaply.

The floor under oil prices for the next three years is being set in storage tanks, not on a trading screen.

What I see from the insurance market
I spent three and a half decades in marine war risk and P&I before any of this made headlines, and the insurance data tells the sharpest version of this story. Before the war, hull war-risk cover for a Hormuz transit cost roughly 0.1–0.15 percent of a vessel’s value — background noise.

During the worst weeks, that spiked as high as 4 percent for seven days of cover on some routings — a 4000-fold multiple on a single VLCC transit, turning a $150,000 cost into $5–7 million.

Rates eased when the US-Iran MoU was signed in June. Then three vessels were attacked in Omani waters this month, two UAE supertankers were struck in the strait itself, and rates snapped back to roughly 5 percent as the new market norm.

That volatility is not a shipping story. It is a leading indicator. War risk premiums move days before oil prices catch up, because underwriters are pricing the war in real time, with their own capital, before anyone else has to.

Right now they are telling you the ceasefire architecture is fragile and the reserve cushion behind it is nearly gone.

What this means for the price of everything
This is where the story stops being about oil and starts being about you. A three-year refill bid of a million extra barrels a day, colliding with markets that expected relief once the shooting stopped, does not stay in the energy pages. It moves into diesel, into freight, into fertiliser, into the price of the food on the shelf and the electricity bill in the post.

Every supply chain on earth still runs, in the end, on the price of a barrel of crude.

And it is landing on an economy that had no slack to begin with. Global growth going into this war was already sluggish — most major economies limping along on thin margins, high debt loads, and a decade of accumulated fragility. Layer a multi-year oil-price floor and a cost-of-living shock on top of that, and the honest question is no longer whether we are heading for a mild recession.

It is whether the world has the reserves — financial as much as physical — to stop a downturn like this becoming something considerably deeper. I do not say that to be alarmist. I say it because the people who priced the 4000-fold jump in war-risk insurance premiums were not being alarmist either. They were simply the first to see what was coming.

The peace will not be peace
When the war ends — and it will end — the headlines will move on. They always do. But the refill bid doesn’t end with the war. The insurance market’s memory doesn’t reset with a ceasefire. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve’s physical withdrawal infrastructure, built in the 1970s for a 25-year lifespan and now pushed well past it, doesn’t repair itself.

Keynes’s argument was never really about Versailles. It was about the danger of a world that mistakes the signing of an agreement for the resolution of its underlying economics.

We are about to make exactly that mistake again — celebrating a ceasefire while the real invoice, three years long and running through 2029, quietly gets mailed to every economy that depends on oil.

The war will end. The economic consequences of the war will not.

Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform. He also hosts Lim’s Substack.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/23/the-illegal-us-war-on-iran-and-now-the-economic-consequences-shock/

Keith Rankin, 23 July 2026 – Most people with a knowledge of history, ceremony, and English language idiom know that ‘bending the knee’ is an expression of fealty, of formal submission to an immediate superior in a dominance hierarchy.

When I entered “‘bending the knee’ prince william king charles” into Google, I got the response:

“Prince William knelt before King Charles III to perform the Homage of Royal Blood during the coronation on May 6, 2023, at Westminster Abbey. He was the sole royal duke required to do this, making a personal pledge of allegiance to the new monarch.”

Yet Christopher Hipkins, who should be able to speak like an educated man, said this on the 11am news (RNZ) today:

“We had Shane Jones effectively insinuating that Christopher Luxon performed an oral sex act on a visiting dignitary” [in this case, Narendra Modi].

Now we know that Shane Jones is an educated man, and a man of metaphor. Jones’ metaphor was a clear reference to ‘bending the knee’ as an expression of fealty, as the Prince of Wales did to his father.

For Hipkins to display his ignorance in this way is a worry. It is also a worry when anyone in a position of influence who is unsure about the meaning of something – or is faced with genuine ambiguity – defaults to the most extremely negative of interpretations. (That’s how wars begin!)

Shane Jones was making a serious point, and I did find Luxon’s behaviour towards Modi to be somewhat obsequious.

Hipkins would be better served to address the point actually being made by Shane Jones. Was Luxon’s behaviour sufficiently deferential to convey vassalage towards India? Was it as deferential as Mark Rutte calling Donald Trump “Daddy”?

Should New Zealand be explicitly deferential towards India? It’s a real question, especially in the context of geo-economics where certain alpha-politicians demand submission. I would like to hear Mr Hipkins’ answer, and not his crude schoolboy interpretations.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Asia Pacific Report

The Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre has strongly condemned a reported “ultimatum” from the Malvatumauri National Council of Chiefs demanding that the appointment of a woman as Secretary-General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) be revoked.

The Vanuatu Daily Post reports that the council has warned that if the government fails to rescind the appointment by 30 July 2026, traditional leaders across the country will initiate customary action to challenge the decision.

“This is a clear misogynistic attack on women’s leadership,” the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre said today in a statement.

• READ MORE: Malvatumauri demands revocation of Dr Naupa’s MSG DG appointment by July 30

Dr Anna Naupa‘s appointment is path-breaking for women and girls in Vanuatu and the region, marking the first time a ni-Vanuatu and a Pacific woman has been appointed to lead the MSG Secretariat,” the statement said.

“Her appointment represents an important milestone for women’s leadership and participation in regional decision-making across Melanesia and the Pacific.

“We support the statement by the Office of the Prime Minister in Vanuatu,” which pointed out that the Vanuatu government had nothing to do with the appointment as the MSG has its own recruitment process.

“Women’s leadership across the Pacific is not up for negotiation,” added the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre.

CEDAW signatory
Vanuatu is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The country also has a National Gender Equality Policy 2020-2030.

According to the Daily Post, the controversy stems from the recent appointment of Dr Naupa, who is currently based in Australia for six months, while MSG Acting DG Ilan Kiloe oversees daily operations in Port Vila.

A formal letter of concern was addressed to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on 6 January 2026, in which then acting president of the Malvatumauri National Council of Chiefs, Chief George Bumseng, outlined four key reasons why he believed the post should be held by a male officer.

Chief Bumseng, who is also chairman of the Malmemeli Ambrym Council of Chiefs, said that according to Vanuatu customs and traditional beliefs, only men were entitled to perform certain types of customary ceremonies.

He said these ceremonies were fundamental to the process of becoming chiefs and customary leaders who represented their tribes.

Chief Bumseng said in his letter that as MSG shortlisted candidates for interviews for the position of MSG director-general, the appointment should align with the nation’s traditions.

He encouraged the appointment of a male candidate to the position.

While acknowledging Dr Naupa’s qualifications, the Ambrym chief said the appointment of a female candidate to the position could risk undermining the respect accorded to customs and traditional values.

In a statement released yesterday, Chief Bumseng said the letter was issued before the appointment of Dr Naupa and he accused Prime Minister Jotham Napat of “turning a blind eye to the chiefs’ concerns”.

Chief Bumseng said that by setting a deadline of July 30, the chiefs had placed pressure on the government to reconcile regional diplomatic commitments with customary principles.

The Public Relations Officer in the Prime Minister’s Office, Kiery Manassah, said the appointment was not a decision made by PM Napat because it was separate from the Vanuatu government.

“The government has never had any say in these appointments. It is a Melanesian institution with its own process,” Manassah said.

The MSG does not specify any gender requirement for the position of director-general of the organisation.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/23/fiji-womens-crisis-centre-blasts-misogynistic-attack-over-msg-leadership/

By Christina Persico of RNZ Pacific

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/22/naurus-government-announces-plans-for-embassy-in-israel/

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

Israel’s Environment Ministry has removed the protected status of Nile crocodiles to allow them to be used in a moat guarding the country’s largest detainment camp, a move requested by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

The story has been widely covered by Israel’s English-language press, alternative media worldwide, and news sites in non-English-speaking countries.

But, in the Anglosphere, there is a virtual news blackout.

• READ MORE: Israel strips crocodiles of protected status to pave way for crocodile-infested moat — Democracy Now!
• Israel plans ‘alligator Alcatraz’ for Palestinian prisoners
• Other Israeli prison reports

Searching within New Zealand and Australian internet domains yields nothing. In the UK, only The Telegraph has reported the story; the BBC and The Guardian do not deem it newsworthy.

In the US, the only report I have seen was by the progressive independent outlet Democracy Now!

It feels nigh on impossible that a similar event in Putin’s Russia, Iran, or any number of dictatorships would go unreported by the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Age, The New Zealand Herald, or the English-language newswires.

Democracy Now’s headline — ”Israel strips crocodiles of protected status to pave way for crocodile-infested moat“ — is about as clickbaity as hard news gets.

Barbarism as state policy
Veteran Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz: “National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is taking Israel to the next stage in its development: barbarism as a legal and explicit state policy.”

“Sadism is no longer just for deviants; it is the new political correctness,” he continued.

“After years in which barbarity and sadism toward Palestinians were hidden as something shameful and repressed — and mainly as the exception to the rule — Ben-Gvir is moving them to centre stage to great applause from some of the crowd and silence from the rest.”

A relative in Israel messaged me asking whether I had seen the crocodile story — the “true reality in Israel”. She included this translated snippet from the breaking news story.

“Exclusive: The Crocodile Snatch: The Nature and Parks Authority opposed the establishment of Ben-Gvir’s crocodile prison, but Environmental Minister Silman amended the law, paving the way for the transfer of the animals. Among other things, Silman determined that the Nile crocodile is a ‘cultivated wild animal’ that can be raised within a security entity.”

That Ben-Gvir is monstrous is not news. The Australian and New Zealand governments, along with those of the UK and Canada, have banned him from entering their countries for inciting pogroms against Palestinians in the West Bank and promoting the expansion of illegal settlements.

But the monstrousness of Israel’s gulags is newsworthy — if underreported.

18,500 Palestinians detained
In March, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese released a report stating: “Since October 2023, more than 18,500 Palestinians have been detained across the occupied Palestinian territory, including at least 1500 children. Thousands remain in detention without charge or trial. Many have been forcibly disappeared. Nearly 100 detainees have died in custody.

“Detainees have been abused in unfathomable ways, including rape with bottles, metal rods and knives, starvation, breaking of bones and teeth, burning, being spat upon, and being attacked and urinated upon by dogs.”

Albanese said: “A system that has long been used to dominate, degrade and break Palestinians has evolved and hardened into state doctrine.

“It is defended by politicians, rationalised by legal institutions, sanitised by media narrative and tolerated by governments that continue to arm and shield Israel.”

The name of Ketziot Prison, where the crocodiles are to be deployed, will be familiar to some from news reports of the abuse of Freedom Flotilla volunteers held there earlier this year.

News of their mistreatment and images of Ben-Gvir abusing them cut through the Western media fog and prompted rare condemnations from Western governments.

Israel’s ambassadors in Wellington and Canberra were called in for ritual reprimands.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong described the images as “shocking and unacceptable”.

Unacceptable face
Similar statements and actions were made by the US, the UK, France, Italy, and Canada. Ben-Gvir is the unacceptable face of an apartheid regime that all those countries accept and, to differing degrees, abet.

The detained Flotilla activists repeatedly pointed out that their treatment — as appalling as it was — was minor compared with what Palestinian prisoners endure daily.

There was nothing like the same reaction from Western governments when a video of Ben-Gvir taunting imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti emerged in August last year.

Following the visit, Ben-Gvir reportedly said: “We entered Marwan Barghouti’s cell and he was crying in terror. I told the jailers to keep treating them like that,” adding, “When we enter Israel’s prisons, the Palestinian prisoners piss their pants when they see us, they piss themselves out of fear.”

The video was reported by mainstream media outlets but not as prominently as the one showing the abuse of the international activists.

Ben-Gvir is not just a comic-book villain; he is a high-ranking member of the Israeli cabinet. He has a picture of Baruch Goldstein, the convicted terrorist who killed 29 Palestinians, hanging in his Knesset office, and he himself acts as a state terrorist, marshalling the full force of Israel’s prison system and police in his campaign against Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Supporters of Israel argue that the country attracts a disproportionate amount of bad publicity.

‘Great negativity’
Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, told the Australian Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion that the ABC’s coverage of Gaza “created an impression of great negativity about Israel.”

Segal claimed there had been a “disproportionate” number of critical stories.

“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing,” she said. “The amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”

The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Israeli defence-tech start-ups working with the Defence Ministry raised nearly US$3 billion in the first six months of 2026 — three times the amount raised in all of 2025.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and Lebanon, and its bombing and assassination campaigns in the war on Iran have been a boon for the self-described startup nation.

Gaza is history’s first AI-assisted genocide, and our media are paying it too little attention, not too much.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. He has a Substack: Towards Democracy.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/22/media-avoids-israels-sadism-like-a-crocodile-infested-moat/

By Dwight de Leon in Manila

Philippines National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Melvin Matibag says the agency is still in the process of investigating the identity of the alleged hitman whom Vice-President Sara Duterte hired to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Taking the witness stand of the impeachment court yesterday, Matibag said the NBI had “persons of interest” who could help lead them to the actual assassin whom the Vice-President allegedly spoke with.

Duterte first said during her infamous virtual press conference on November 23, 2024, that she had reached out to an assassin to kill Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and former speaker Martin Romualdez, if something bad were to happen to her.

• READ MORE: Special Rappler coverage of the Sara Duterte impeachment trial
• Other impeachment reports

“I cannot disclose the identity of our persons of interest because… this is a continuing and open investigation,” Matibag said. “Our investigation will be compromised, and it will endanger our informants on the ground who can provide human intel.”

Lead prosecutor Jinky Luistro conducted the direct examination of Matibag, who said that the agency was treating Duterte’s statement not as a threat, but as a “plan” to kill the chief executive.

The prosecution’s line of questioning led Matibag to link Duterte’s November 2024 statement with two other statements related to an implied beheading of the President:

• On October 18, 2024, Duterte said she had fantasies to decapitate the President.
• On April 12, 2026, Duterte’s brother, Davao City Mayor Sebastian Duterte, told a political gathering of the RAGE Coalition that it wanted Marcos’ head.

The prosecution also played the video of Duterte punching a sheriff when she was Davao City mayor in 2011, and let Matibag read an affidavit of self-confessed Davao Death Squad hitman Arturo Lascañas that implicated the Vice-President in the extrajudicial killings in Davao City.

The pieces of evidence are meant to establish Duterte’s pattern of violence.

Republished from Rappler with permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/22/sara-duterte-impeachment-trial-matibag-says-no-hitman-yet-but-nbi-has-persons-of-interest/

BP Daily

The strongest sign that the International Criminal Court (ICC) still has teeth is that the most powerful administration in the world is trying to pull them out.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared this week that the Trump administration would use “all the tools at our government’s disposal” to “dismantle” the ICC, calling it a body run by “smug globalists” and “hostile Third World governments” whose investigations into US officials would mean “the death of the US as a sovereign and independent nation”.

Analysts and legal observers say the real motivation may have less to do with protecting American soldiers and more to do with protecting the people currently in power.

• READ MORE: Trump administration vows to ‘disable’ International Criminal Court
• NZ called on to back international law in ICC vote – ‘don’t throw in towel’
• Mamdani: Netanyahu is a war criminal, but New York cannot arrest him
• Other ICC reports

The ICC, based in The Hague in the Netherlands, was established in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The US has never ratified the Rome Statute, meaning the court does not have automatic jurisdiction over American officials.

Congress reinforced that position the same year by passing the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which prohibits cooperation with ICC investigations and authorises the president to use military force to free any American detained by the court — a provision widely known as the “Hague Invasion Act”.

What has shifted is the scale of potential exposure. Trump launched a war against Iran that legal scholars describe as illegal under international law.

A missile strike on the first day of the war on February 28 killed more than 100 children at a school in Minab in the southeastern Iran, with a preliminary military investigation concluding the US was likely responsible.

Mamdani: Netanyahu is a war criminal, but New York cannot arrest him https://t.co/8rHXkij1xH via @AJEnglish

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) July 22, 2026

Trump has also repeatedly threatened to bomb civilian infrastructure, and in April told Iran that “a whole civilisation will die tonight” unless the Strait of Hormuz reopened, language legal experts say could constitute incitement to genocide under international law.

At home, the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v United States granted presidents “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, closing the domestic accountability door.

The ICC remains one of the few avenues where accountability could still theoretically apply.

Rubio’s campaign to dismantle it is, in that context, less a defence of American sovereignty than a bid for permanent impunity.

Republished from BP Daily under Creative Commons.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/22/why-the-trump-administration-is-running-scared-of-the-global-criminal-court-in-the-hague/

By Anish Chand in Suva

Fiji’s universities have been criticised for failing to study the long-term effects of the country’s repeated political upheavals on the public service and governance, with the Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearing that a major gap in research has left important national lessons undocumented.

Academic Professor Vijay Naidu told the commission it was “a great shame” that higher education institutions had not examined how cycles of political instability had affected the quality and performance of Fiji’s public sector.

“It’s a great shame that the universities in Fiji have failed to look at the impacts of these cycles of political instability on the nature, the quality and the function of the public sector.”

• READ MORE: Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings
• Fiji coup reports

Dr Naidu drew particular attention to the University of the South Pacific, saying its once-prominent governance programme had disappeared despite the country’s history of political crises.

“The governance programme was a flagship programme of the university in the early 2000s … Well, the governance programme is gone. It’s finished.”

He questioned what that said about the role of universities in serving Fiji and the wider Pacific.

“What does it tell you about universities serving Fiji and the region when governance is such an important issue?”

Strengthening democracy
Dr Naidu said strengthening democratic institutions required sustained effort and could not be achieved overnight.

“The general democratic institutions and the checks and balances associated with them, together with a supportive democratic culture, have to be built incrementally.”

He warned that every military coup had reversed progress made in democratic governance and institution building. Fiji has suffered four coups — two in 1987, and also in 2000 and 2006.

“The analogy of switching the light on and off doesn’t work. Democracy doesn’t work that way. Each time we have had a military coup, it’s actually taken us backwards.”

Referring to earlier evidence presented by Professor Graham Hassall, Dr Naidu said the damage extended beyond the public service to the broader confidence people had in national institutions.

“The wider implication is that there is a loss of confidence.”

He said understanding the long-term consequences of political instability was essential if Fiji was to rebuild stronger democratic institutions and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/22/fiji-universities-criticised-for-great-shame-of-ignoring-coup-impacts/