Nagui anis

[Iuliia Mendel @IuliiaMendel]

For 53 hours almost nonstop, Russia has been hitting Kyiv and the region. The Ukrainian capital has gone into air-raid alert 25 times.

Warehouses and depots burned: Chocolate Roshen in Chubynske. Distribution centers for Comfy, Fora, Avrora and Budynok Ihrashok. A postal service Nova Poshta depot in Sviatopetrivske — then struck again while firefighters were still there.

UNICEF’s warehouse of aid for children and war-affected families in Chubynske is gone. That’s the second UNICEF warehouse destroyed in Kyiv region in two months.

Publishing stock burned too — A-BA-BA-HA-LA-MA-HA, Vivat, Osnovy, Readeat and others. One site lost more than 60,000 books.

At least 14 warehouses damaged across Kyiv region in two days.

WE URGENTLY NEED TO CHANGE THE STRATEGY TOWARDS DIPLOMACY. THREATS AND ESCALATION ARE OT DIPLOMACY. UKRAINE IS DYING BEFORE YOUR EYES

[Nagui anis @Nagui_A]

@ahamdyos ا التسعير حسب الوقت غير مطبق في القطاع الصناعي

[Vala Afshar @ValaAfshar]

This is considered the greatest header in the history of football.

[J @Juljula_Revo_Sy]

قلائل من النخب المصرية يقف في الجانب الصحيح من التاريخ. إبراهيم عيسى واحد منهم

[Lindsey Graham @LindseyGrahamSC]

Just had a very productive meeting with Egypt’s Ambassador to the United States, Motaz Zahran. We should all remember that Egypt -- in a historic fashion -- signed a peace treaty with Israel long ago, setting in motion a new Middle East. While Egypt has had many differences with Israel over the years, the peace treaty has held.

This type of forward-thinking leadership is going to be the norm, not the exception, soon. To our friends in Egypt, thank you for being willing to chart a new path years ago, and thank you for your continued strong partnership with the United States.

[Kirill Dmitriev @kadmitriev]

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, promised to get smarter by the end of her term and start reading books. She reports good progress — she has already started reading Marvel comics and is quoting from them. Keep it up, Kaja! 👏

[Nagui anis @Nagui_A]

@mekaw9 @grok who is this man talking

[Dalia Abou Omar @daliaAO]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

This is brilliant.
♥️ 🎶🎻

[Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage]

I have reported Alaa Abd el-Fattah to counter-terrorism police.

[THE ISLANDER @IslanderWORLD]

The real question this memo asks Western publics

Not “Did Putin once float NATO membership?”

But: what kind of system rejects peace offers that would dissolve its need for enemies?

What kind of political order hears “perhaps we could be allies” — and chooses instead to preserve a manufactured hostile frontier?

What kind of media ecosystem buries these documents, while selling the public a cartoon narrative of “good guys” and “bad guys” as if history began yesterday?

And what kind of Europe allows itself to be transformed, again, into a forward operating base, a militarized borderland, an escalatory machine, while its citizens are told this is “defense” but given austerity?

This memo is an indictment of an entire Western approach to security, a posture that prefers control over coexistence, hierarchy over equilibrium, expansion over settlement.

And that is why it matters now. Because the off-ramps were real. They were offered. They were documented. And they were refused.

[THE ISLANDER @IslanderWORLD]

Part 2/3 — NATO enlargement never rational policy policy, but a doctrine of momentum

Here’s the psychological trick that made all this possible... Western leaders talk about NATO enlargement as if it’s weather. As if it “just happened.” As if it was the spontaneous self-expression of newly independent states.

Yes, states have agency. Yes, many sought NATO membership.

But great powers also have agency — and the United States was not a neutral bystander. Enlargement became a doctrine: absorb the space, institutionalize dependency, and ensure that the European security debate has only one real answer, Atlantic leadership.

This is why the memo matters. Because it catches the machine at a moment when a different answer was on the table and still the machine kept rolling.

Putin says Russia “feels left out.” That is not childish whining. That is a strategic warning... create a security system that excludes the largest state on the continent, march it closer to Russia’s borders, and you are manufacturing the conditions for future rupture.

And the West did it anyway, by design.

The lie that poisons everything: “Russia was never open to partnership” This memo detonates that lie.

So do the broader historical record points: Putin publicly mused about Russia joining NATO if treated as an equal partner in early 2000 — again, not as a supplicant, but as a sovereign testing whether the West could handle equality.

And yet the projection narrative still sold to Western publics is that Russia is “inherently expansionist,” “genetically imperial,” permanently incapable of partnership.

The truth is more dangerous and much more damning:

Partnership was considered. It was tested. It was waved away.

Not with a dramatic rejection on camera, that would create accountability.

But with the more effective method: bureaucratic deflection, procedural humiliation, and the quiet certainty that Russia would be tolerated only as long as it stayed weak.

Why the West couldn’t accept Russia “in”

Let’s state the quiet part plainly.

If Russia becomes part of the NATO security space as an equal, then:
•Europe’s military posture can’t be permanently mobilized against Moscow.
•The U.S. can’t use “the Russian threat” as the primary adhesive for European alignment.
•The arms economy loses its most reliable marketing narrative.
•The entire post–Cold War story (victory, conversion, unipolar management) collapses into something messier: a negotiated settlement between civilizations.

That’s not a technical change. That’s a regime change, in the West’s strategic imagination.

So Russia “in” was never truly the plan.

Russia “contained,” “managed,” “disciplined,” “reformed,” “humbled,” “broken into parts,” “kept out of Europe’s decisive councils” — that was the plan.

The memo reads like a moment when Moscow is still exploring whether the plan can be changed.

History answered, no. Ukraine is the invoice for that refusal

Fast forward. The West insists NATO is “defensive,” yet expands into the strategic depth of the defeated rival.
The West insists it sought partnership, yet balks at equality. The West insists it wants stability, yet builds an architecture that guarantees permanent insecurity.

And then, when the rupture finally arrives, the West performs shock. It acts as if there were no manufactured conditions for future conflict. It screams “unprovoked” like an incantation designed to erase 30 years of deliberate decisions.

This is how wars are engineered: not by a single event, but by a long refusal to build a shared security system, a refusal hidden under slogans about democracy, values, and “the rules-based order.”

If the world wants to understand why the map of Europe looks like a wound today, it should start here... A memo where Russia says it feels left out, proposes alliance and partnership, points to 1954, and meets a West that cannot imagine security without exclusion.

Part 3/3 👇

[THE ISLANDER @IslanderWORLD]

The Memo That Should Have Ended the Cold War 2.0 and Instead Helped Write the Preface to Ukraine

There are documents that don’t merely record history, they expose it. This is one of them.

June 2001. A “restricted meeting” between President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin. Not a podium performance, not a television soundbite, not a speech crafted for domestic applause. A private conversation, the place where empires are supposed to speak plainly, where leaders test ideas that could reroute decades.

And what does the memo show?

Putin raises the idea that Russia could eventually join NATO. He says Russia feels “left out” by NATO enlargement. He points to an older fact most Western publics were never meant to internalize: the Soviet Union applied to join NATO in 1954. He argues the reasons for rejection no longer apply. He suggests, almost clinically, that perhaps Russia could be an ally — “European and multi-ethnic,” comparable in character to the United States.

Read that again slowly.

Because the propaganda version you’ve been fed for years requires amnesia: it requires you to believe Russia woke up one morning and decided to be “a threat,” as if geopolitics is a mood swing and security architecture is irrelevant.

But here is the declassified record: Russia was probing for an exit ramp. A pathway into a shared system. A new security architecture. A post–Cold War settlement that could have turned the 1990s from a hollow victory lap into a durable peace.

And it didn’t happen.

Not because it was impossible. Not because Russia “never wanted it.” Not because “the West tried everything.”

It didn’t happen because NATO, as an institution, does not know how to live without a frontier. It does not know how to justify itself without an adversary. It does not know how to maintain internal cohesion without a map that points east and says: there.

The 1954 Ghost: the offer the West never wanted to remember

The most important part of this memo is not the 2001 line, but the 1954 reference.

Because it collapses the morality play.

If the Soviet Union, a state the West defined as the existential enemy, floated the notion of joining NATO in 1954, that means something profound: the idea of Russia being inside the European security architecture is not a “Putin-era trick.” It is a recurring historical proposal, returning whenever Moscow believes there may be a rational way to avoid permanent confrontation.

And what happened then? It was refused.

Which is exactly the point: NATO was never simply a “defensive alliance.” Even in 1954, It was a structure. A protection racket. A way to organize Europe under an American strategic roof and to keep it there. If Russia enters that roof as an equal, the architecture changes. Budgets decrease, with less money for the MIC. Threat perceptions change. The entire postwar hierarchy changes.

So the West did what empires do when presented with a peace that would reduce their leverage:

It smiled, took notes, and kept moving.

“Join NATO” was never a plea, it was a test.

Some people still misunderstand the early Putin posture. They interpret it as naivete, or worse, submission.

Wrong.

This was not Russia begging to be absorbed. The consistent theme in contemporaneous accounts is conditionality, that Russia could consider joining if treated as an equal partner, but not as a defeated province invited into the emperor’s club after proving it can submit.

That distinction matters.

Because it reveals the real incompatibility:
•Russia wanted a security system where it is a partner of European security, not an object to be managed.
•The Atlantic system wanted Russia as a managed periphery, permanently “integrating,” permanently reforming, permanently conceding, never truly sovereign in security decisions.

You can’t fuse those visions. One side must yield.

So the Atlantic system chose the only thing it has ever really chosen, expansion.

Part 2/3 👇

[Orbán Viktor @PM_ViktorOrban]

We have endured a long and challenging night.

We managed to avert the immediate risk of war. We did not allow Europe to issue a declaration of war on Russia by using Russian assets.

This plan would have dragged Europe into war and imposed a financial burden of 1000 billion HUF on Hungary. We succeeded in protecting Hungarian families from this.

At the same time, 24 member states decided to grant a war loan to Ukraine for the next two years. If Ukraine is unable to repay the loan, those European countries will have to cover the repayment.

Thankfully, the V3 cooperation is active once again: Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have decided not to get on that train. By doing so, we spared our children and grandchildren from the burden of this massive €90 billion loan. Hungary’s share of the war loan would have been more than 400 billion HUF.

The bad news is that war preparations are clearly continuing in Brussels. Hungary remains the voice of peace in Europe and will not let Hungarian taxpayers’ money be used to finance Ukraine. Only a government of patriots can guarantee peace and ensure that Hungarian funds are not sent to Ukraine. If there were a Brusselian government in Hungary, they'd push Hungary into war and spend every last dime on supporting Ukraine. We cannot and will not allow this to happen!

[Kirill Dmitriev @kadmitriev]

Two peacemakers 🕊️ and the rest.

[Mia Hughes @_CryMiaRiver]

Never forget how this medical scandal began. 

Back in the 1980s, a small group of trans activists hatched a plot: to take an absurd, illogical overvalued belief—that being transgender is innate, natural, healthy—and force all of society to live in a fictional world built on it.

Given the sheer audacity of that plot, there must have been people who said it couldn’t be done. But if such voices existed, they were ignored. And the activists pressed on until they succeeded in nothing less than reshaping reality itself.

And they didn’t just persuade people to politely look the other way.

They rallied good, decent people to march in the streets demanding that teenagers sacrifice their health, their fertility, and their sexual function in the name of this belief.

They convinced governments to write laws based on a non-existent, fictional concept.

They enlisted well-meaning teachers to poison the minds of a generation with absurd lies.

And they drove doctors to amputate healthy organs and call it medicine.

If they could succeed in creating that false reality, then surely we can succeed in restoring truth.

Because our cause is not built on lies but on logic and reason. Not on ideology but on sound ethical principles. Not on harm but on healing.

My talk at @genspect’s conference in Albuquerque calls for the complete rejection of this dangerous belief.

Only by restoring truth and reality can we actually protect vulnerable people from this medical crime.

[Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal]

MEDICINE WENT INSANE THANKS TO THE WOKE MIND VIRUS

Once upon a time, medicine had rules. You needed evidence. You needed ethics. You needed to prove that what you were doing actually helped people before you cut into their bodies or rewired their hormones.

Then came the gender revolution - not a thoughtful expansion of care, but a full-blown ideological crusade dressed up in scrubs.

It started small. A few whispered claims that a boy who liked pink might actually be a girl. A gentle push for “acceptance.” But it didn’t stop there. Like all revolutions, it came with dogma, demands, and a disturbing indifference to reality.

Now, in the name of “gender-affirming care,” we have teenagers put on puberty blockers before they know how to drive. We have mastectomies on healthy 15-year-olds. We have castration called compassion.

And the medical world didn’t just go along with it - it cheered. Doctors became activists. Hospitals became clinics of affirmation, not inquiry. Anyone who asked questions - “Should we maybe slow down before cutting off body parts?” - got labeled a bigot and banished from polite society.

It was the most successful PR campaign in modern history. Not only did this ideology convince people to ignore biology, it got them to actively promote its erasure. Teachers pushing pronouns like medication. Lawmakers passing bills to hide transitions from parents. Surgeons cashing checks while teenagers lose fertility, sensation, and sometimes even the will to live.

All for what? A feeling? A phase? A political agenda wrapped in rainbow flags and rubber wristbands?

This isn’t health care. It’s a crisis cosplaying as progress. And deep down, a lot of people know it. They see the de-transitioners sharing horror stories. They see the studies being walked back. They hear the silence when someone dares to ask, “Where’s the long-term data?”

Because there isn’t any. Just faith-based medicine built on ideology, not evidence. The kind of treatment that would be banned in any other context but is celebrated here because the activists said it must be.

But the tide is turning. Some countries have already slammed the brakes. Clinics are shutting down youth surgeries. Whispers of regret are becoming roars. Even institutions that once led the charge are quietly tiptoeing backward, hoping no one notices.

Too late. We noticed.

It’s time to stop pretending that mutilating healthy bodies is an act of love. Time to stop calling sterilization "liberation." Time to put the scalpel down and pick up some common sense.

The truth is messy. But it’s not phobic to say it.

What’s phobic is letting a generation get carved up in the name of feelings while the adults who should know better smile for the cameras.

[🇦🇪 HGS @Sajwani]

READY FOR THE UAE 🇦🇪 ANYTIME ANYWHERE !

Very proud of our men and women in uniform participating today at the largest UAE Armed Forces military parade ever, Stand of Loyalty.

Proud of my son, Ammar

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

Steve Jobs explained how John Sculley destroyed Apple by thinking a 'great idea' was 90% of the work:

[Orbán Viktor @PM_ViktorOrban]

The golden illusion of Ukraine is falling apart. A wartime mafia network with countless ties to President @ZelenskyyUa has been exposed. The energy minister has already resigned, and the main suspect has fled the country.

This is the chaos into which the Brusselian elite want to pour European taxpayers’ money, where whatever isn’t shot off on the front lines ends up in the pockets of the war mafia. Madness.

Thank you, but we want no part of this. We will not send the Hungarian people’s money to Ukraine. It can be put to far better use at home: this week alone we doubled foster parents’ allowances and approved the 14th month’s pension.

Anyhow, after all this, we certainly won't give in to the Ukrainian president’s financial demands and blackmail. It's high time Brussels finally understood where their money is really going.