- Brève introduction
- Russia demands diplomatic evacuation of kyiv and threatens to launch “systematic” attacks
- US-Iran negotiations: Rubio speaks of “progress”; Strait of Hormuz remains closed
- Israel intensifies its operations in Lebanon: 31 dead in new attacks
- Wang Yi at the Security Council: Beijing is deploying its multilateral offensive
- Ebola Bundibugyo in the DRC and Uganda: WHO warns of uncontrolled spread
- Gaza: paralysis of the peace plan, execution of the Hamas leader and new attacks
- Press review
- Editorial
Brève introduction
The world woke up today, May 27, 2026, in a state of multidimensional tension without precedent in recent history. On the Middle East stage, the fragile truce between Washington and Tehran remains what we have described since day one: a porcelain architecture on which incompatible pressures converge.
The Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed to free commercial traffic, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio — the pillar of reason within an administration that alternates between wisdom and excess — ends his visit to India with signs of progress in negotiations that have yet to be concluded translated by a signed agreement.
On the European front, Russia took an unusually serious step by formally demanding the evacuation of the foreign diplomatic corps from kyiv, announcing the imminence of new waves of missiles and hypersonic drones on the Ukrainian capital – an intimidation maneuver that the European Union has resolutely rejected but which reminds those of us who have followed these affairs for decades, to the dark months of 2022.
In Lebanon, Israel is expanding its land operations in the south and attacking the Bekaa Valley despite the nominal strength of the ceasefire negotiated by Washington, perpetuating the paradox of a truce which continues to be violated daily.
In Central Africa, the Bundibugyo Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo – declared an international public health emergency by the WHO on May 20 – now has more than 1,000 suspected and confirmed cases, with cases imported into Uganda and Italy. And in New York, the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, presiding over the Security Council on behalf of Beijing during his rotating presidency in May, is deploying the discourse of multilateralism as a geopolitical counter-offensive in the face of Washington’s withdrawal into itself.
These are five fronts which, taken together, depict a world where the contained systemic divide that I have been analyzing since the beginning of this reporting cycle threatens to no longer be contained. This analysis takes into account all these fronts with rigor, without concession to wishful thinking (this comforting illusion according to which the problems resolve themselves) and without losing sight of the editorial line which presides over each of these reports: convinced Atlanticism, liberal democracy, unambiguous rejection of autocracies and terrorism, and defense of reason in the face of chaos as a new order.
Russia demands diplomatic evacuation of kyiv and threatens to launch “systematic” attacks
Facts
On Monday, May 25, in the worst attack on kyiv since the start of the 2022 full-scale invasion, Russia launched hypersonic missiles and drones that killed at least four people, injured more than ninety others, and destroyed apartment buildings, schools, a market, and infrastructure. water supply. The next day, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued an official statement warning foreign governments to “urgently” evacuate their diplomatic personnel and nationals of their country residing in the Ukrainian capital.
Minister Lavrov went further: during a telephone conversation with Secretary of State Rubio, he “officially informed” him that Moscow would launch “systematic and sustained attacks” against “decision centers and command posts”, as well as against installations where Ukraine designs and manufactures drones – which Russian diplomacy accuses of being piloted by “NATO specialists”.
The Kremlin justifies this escalation as a response to a Ukrainian attack which allegedly killed 21 people in a vocational high school in the occupied Lugansk region. The twenty-four ambassadors of the European Union in kyiv announced that they remained at their posts. Their collective response was unequivocal: “Russia wants to sow fear, panic and isolation in Ukraine. She won’t succeed. HAS”
Implications
The measure taken by Moscow is of a seriousness that brooks no euphemism. Demanding the diplomatic evacuation of a European capital is not a rhetorical gesture: it is a declaration of operational intentions and, at the same time, a textbook maneuver of psychological coercion.
Putin knows that if he manages to empty kyiv of all Western diplomatic presence, he will have won a symbolic battle of the first order – the image of the abandonment of the Ukrainian capital – which explains the entirely justified firmness of the European response. The explicit reference to “NATO specialists” in the Russian ministry’s text is also a sign: Moscow is seeking to create a narrative framework which, if the attacks materialize, allows it to present them to its public opinion as blows against the Atlantic Alliance and not against Ukraine.
On the military level, the use of hypersonic missiles against urban targets – where the Ukrainian interception capacity is by definition more limited – represents a qualitative leap compared to the pattern of previous bombings. The reaction of Rubio, who confirmed having spoken with Lavrov, is necessarily ambiguous: “Washington cannot ignore the warning, but also cannot give in to blackmail without seriously eroding the credibility of its support for Kiev at a time when negotiations with Moscow – if anything that these negotiations have real content – seem more deadlocked than ever.
Perspectives et scénarios
The most likely scenario in the short term is that Russia carries out high-intensity attacks against kyiv, whether the diplomatic corps is evacuated or not – even if the diplomatic presence makes the attack politically more costly in the eyes of the international community.
The EU’s firmness in maintaining its embassies is the right answer. An alternative scenario, less likely but not negligible, is that the Russian threat is an instrument of pressure in the negotiations linked to the peace process that Washington continues to try to put in place. In any case, the available data indicates a real and not purely deterrent escalation, which forces the allies to urgently review their systems of support for Ukrainian anti-aircraft defense.
US-Iran negotiations: Rubio speaks of “progress”; Strait of Hormuz remains closed
Facts
As part of his four-day visit to India, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the existence of an advanced negotiation plan that would include the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, followed by time-limited negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. “We have on the table what I consider to be a pretty solid foundation,” Rubio told a small group of reporters. Trump, for his part, called the deal “broadly negotiated,” while urging his negotiators “not to rush.” Iran confirmed having reached “general principles” of agreement, while refusing to mention an imminent signature.
The negotiations, led by Pakistan, are taking place in Doha and other capitals, alongside new US attacks near the strait, which Tehran has called a violation of the ceasefire. The blockade of the Strait has lasted for more than a hundred days, with oil traffic effectively paralyzed and the price of crude oil remaining at critical levels. The head of the Iranian delegation, the President of Parliament Mohamed Bager Ghalibaf, is under contradictory pressure in Tehran which makes any concession difficult.
Implications
The image that has emerged in recent hours is that of diplomacy advancing in parallel with military escalation, which breaks with the classic manual of conflict resolution, according to which kinetic operations are suspended during negotiations. This modality – negotiating and attacking simultaneously – is extremely volatile and can implode at the slightest border incident.
Rubio’s position is that of someone who understands that time is not necessarily on Washington’s side: every week that the Strait remains closed represents an accumulating economic and political cost. However, the American demand that Iran hand over its highly enriched uranium is a red line that the jihadist oligarchy of Tehran – which has built its entire survival discourse around the nuclear program – cannot cross without devastating internal consequences for the IRGC triumvirate which is now in de facto control. the Iranian state.
The paradox of decapitation that I have been analyzing since May operates here with surgical precision: the survivors of the IRGC are all ultraconservatives who do not have the ideological authority necessary to impose concessions on their peers without it destroying them politically. No one can play the role of referee; there is no Khamenei to discipline others.
Perspectives et scénarios
The critical period is between May 27 and 29. If, before the end of the week, no agreement is announced regarding the Strait, Rubio will move from diplomatic pressure to the doctrine of forced opening, with obvious military implications. The scenario of a partial agreement – reopening of the strait in exchange for sanctions relief and a freeze on enrichment – has an estimated probability of 35-40%. The scenario of a resumption of American attacks, if Tehran does not give in, exceeds 40% if the coming days do not bring concrete progress.
Israel intensifies its operations in Lebanon: 31 dead in new attacks
Facts
On the night of May 25-26, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacked more than 100 sites of the terrorist organization Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Eastern Bekaa Valley, destroying weapons depots, command centers and observation posts. An attack on the eastern town of Mashghara left 12 dead, including several members of the same family, according to the Lebanese National Information Agency.
The Beirut Ministry of Health brought the total death toll in recent days to 31. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized “more intensive” operations against Hezbollah and announced the mobilization of additional troops for deployment in Lebanon. On Tuesday, Israeli troops engaged in battle along the Litani River against Hezbollah forces who fired rockets, artillery and explosive drones. Israel warned residents of Nabatiyeh to evacuate the town.
All this is happening while the April 16 ceasefire is theoretically in force and a fourth round of direct talks between Beirut and Jerusalem is scheduled for June 2 and 3 in Washington. Since March 2, more than a million Lebanese have had to leave their homes and Israeli attacks have left more than 3,100 dead.
Implications
Lebanon has become the most fragile link in the entire architecture of negotiations on the war with Iran. Tehran has insisted that any comprehensive peace deal include a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, while Israel refuses to allow the Iranian ceasefire to commit it to its fight against Hezbollah – which it considers an existential threat in itself and not a simple appendage to the war with Iran.
This divergence of frameworks is essential: what Washington is negotiating with Tehran on the subject of the Strait and the nuclear bomb can collapse at any time if an Israeli attack on Beirut or a terrorist response from Hezbollah forces Iran to withdraw from the negotiating table. Lebanon, this martyr state that I have known since my childhood through the diplomatic tragedy that my family experienced, is today once again paying the price of being the battlefield of those who do not inhabit it, but who use it.
The terrorist organization Hezbollah, Iran’s armed wing on Lebanese soil, is neither a militia nor a resistance movement: it is a terrorist organization whose militants are, without exception, individual terrorists.
Perspectives et scénarios
The fourth round of direct Beirut-Jerusalem talks, scheduled for June 2 and 3 in Washington, constitutes the next decisive step. Its success or failure will largely determine whether the peace process with Iran can continue. A scenario of these talks collapsing – precipitated by a highly publicized Israeli attack in Beirut or by a Hezbollah operation against civilians in northern Israel – would send the overall negotiating process with Iran into a tailspin.
Wang Yi at the Security Council: Beijing is deploying its multilateral offensive
Facts
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi chaired a high-level ministerial debate at the UN Security Council on Tuesday (May 26) on “upholding the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and strengthening the international system centered on the United Nations.”
China holds the rotating presidency of the Council during the month of May. Wang implicitly attacked Washington, saying that “the purposes of the United Nations Charter have been ignored, the basic rules of international relations have been undermined, and global peace and security are in great danger,” without ever mentioning the United States or Trump by name. He urged the Council to “take a step forward and assume its responsibilities.”
Wang also expressed hope that the United States and Iran would “get closer” so that peace would return to the Middle East. He stressed that “Gaza and the West Bank are not a bargaining chip in political compromises.” China also commemorated the 55th anniversary of the reestablishment of its permanent seat at the UN.
Implications
Beijing’s diplomatic maneuver in the Security Council should not be interpreted as an exercise in multilateralist goodwill. It is in reality an image operation with strategic significance: China is taking advantage of the rotating presidency to build the narrative according to which the world order is deteriorating because of unilateral American policy, establishing itself as the guarantor of international law – which it systematically violates in the South China Sea – and positioning itself against the Global South as the responsible power facing a West in disorder.
The fact that Wang brings up the Iranian crisis to call for moderation shows that Beijing has an interest in the conflict being resolved — Gulf oil is vital for the Chinese economy — but without Washington consolidating a strategic victory that would strengthen American leadership in the region. We are facing the most refined expression of the systemic rivalry between established power and rising power with the incompatible models that I have described: China has no allies, it has “transactional partners”; she does not seek peace, but a rebalancing in her favor.
Perspectives et scénarios
The Chinese multilateral offensive will intensify in the months to come. Beijing seeks to present to the September General Assembly an assessment of its presidency of the Security Council which depicts it as an actor of stability in the face of American drift. This diplomatic activism should not be confused with authentic cooperation: on the chessboard of systemic rivalry, each Chinese multilateral initiative aims to weaken the Western security architecture, and not to strengthen it.
Ebola Bundibugyo in the DRC and Uganda: WHO warns of uncontrolled spread
Facts
As of May 26, 2026, the Ebola epidemic caused by the Bundibugyo variant – the seventeenth epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in fifty years – has recorded 105 confirmed cases, including 10 deaths, and 906 suspected cases, with at least 223 deaths, in the provinces of Ituri, North Kivu and South Kivu. Uganda has reported seven confirmed cases, including one fatality, with several linked to travelers from the DRC. The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, declared a state of public health emergency of international concern on May 20 – the first time in history that a Director-General has activated this mechanism before convening the Emergency Committee – a decision which reflects the seriousness and speed of spread of the epidemic.
The total number of suspected and confirmed cases exceeded 1,000 on May 25. Two suspected cases were detected in Italy – in the Lombardy region – on May 25 in people who had traveled from Uganda. The most alarming thing is that the Bundibugyo variant has neither a vaccine nor a specific approved treatment, unlike previous epidemics caused by the Zaire variant.
Implications
The detection of cases in Italy increases the risk of export to Europe in a way that cannot be ignored. The situation in the DRC brings together all the factors that classic epidemiology identifies as accelerators of spread: an active armed conflict in the east of the country, massive population displacements, the distrust of communities towards health systems – which last week led to a crowd to storm a Médecins Sans Frontières isolation center in Mongbwalu – and the absence of proven therapeutic tools.
The brutal reduction in US funding for global health – which this administration has pushed forward with a frivolity that is difficult to justify, even by the strictest standards of realism – is worsening an already weakened international response. The WHO is not able to deal with this epidemic with the means it would have under normal circumstances.
Perspectives et scénarios
The most risky scenario is that the spread in eastern DRC – a region lacking minimal health infrastructure and subject to the presence of armed groups – saturates the response capacity before clinical trials of experimental treatments against the Bundibugyo variant yield results. exploitable results.
The likelihood of new cases being exported to Europe or the Persian Gulf countries – both of which host a significant volume of travelers from the region – is significant. The international community, starting with the European Union, must mobilize resources urgently and without waiting for the epidemic to reach pandemic proportions.
Gaza: paralysis of the peace plan, execution of the Hamas leader and new attacks
Facts
The ceasefire in Gaza, in force since October 2025 and constantly violated, is going through its most delicate phase. UN special envoy Nickolay Mladenov said in May that the phased peace plan was “paralyzed” because Hamas refuses to disarm in the absence of political and security guarantees. On May 15, an Israeli attack in the Rimal neighborhood of Gaza claimed the life of Izz al-Din al-Haddad, leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the last high-ranking military leader of the terrorist organization.
New Israeli attacks on May 26 killed at least five Palestinians in a refugee camp in central Gaza, according to local health sources. The reconstruction of Gaza, estimated at $70 billion, has “no equivalent in modern history,” according to the Brookings Institute. The total number of Palestinians killed since the start of the war now exceeds 71,000.
Implications
The successive elimination of the military leaders of Hamas – what is called the paradox of beheading in its Palestinian version – did not lead to the capitulation or moderation of the terrorist organization, but to its retreat into clandestinity and the hardening of the positions of the survivors, who are by definition the most intransigent. Trump’s peace plan, which provides for an international stabilization force and a transitional authority supervised by Washington, faces simultaneous resistance from Hamas – which does not want to disarm – and from sectors of the Israeli right which do not want to cede control of Gaza to anyone. Palestinian authority.
Between these two vetoes, the peace process is dying while the civilian population of Gaza pays with their lives. Wang Yi was right on at least one point: Gaza and the West Bank should not be used as bargaining chips in any compromise, even if the multilateralism proclaimed by Beijing is not the solution it claims to offer.
Perspectives et scénarios
The likelihood that the second phase of the Gaza peace agreement will actually be negotiated before the summer is very low. The most likely scenario is an indefinite prolongation of the current situation: targeted Israeli attacks, lack of disarmament of Hamas, partial humanitarian blockade and political paralysis. The human cost of this status quo is unsustainable.
Press review
Below is the editorial line of the main international media over the last 24 hours concerning the news analyzed:
Médias anglo-saxons
The Times (London) highlights the Russian threat to kyiv on the front page of its digital edition with the title “Putin’s Nuclear Shadow Over Kyiv”, emphasizing the use of hypersonic missiles and the dimension of intimidation towards NATO.
The Daily Telegraph publishes an editorial titled ‘Europe Must Stand Firm’ urging allies not to abandon kyiv and calling the Russian evacuation demand an ‘act of diplomatic state terrorism’.
The Financial Times is focusing its coverage on the Strait of Hormuz negotiations, with sources in Doha confirming that Washington and Tehran are “within an inch” of a first partial agreement, while warning of difficulties posed by the Iranian hard bloc. The FT also highlights the impact of the blockage on global energy markets.
The Wall Street Journal highlights the relative success of Rubio’s visit to India, seen as a maneuver aimed at repairing bilateral relations damaged by Trump’s tariffs and Washington’s rapprochement with Islamabad. It devotes an analysis to the Lebanese front and the impossibility of dissociating the file of Hezbollah of the Iranian agreement.
The Washington Post analyzes the Russian escalation around kyiv with a strong focus on the implications for the Ukrainian peace process, questioning Trump’s negotiating strategy with Moscow and warning of the danger of responding to Russian threats with further concessions.
The New York Times publishes a report from Beirut on the humanitarian situation in southern Lebanon, with testimonies from civilians trapped between Israeli attacks and the presence of Hezbollah, and is critical in its editorial as to the continuation of Israeli operations under the ceasefire.
BBC/Reuters/AP are covering the DRC Ebola scare in depth, paying particular attention to the detection of suspected cases in Italy and the WHO’s warning about the speed of spread. The agencies highlight the prior declaration to the Emergency Committee as an “unprecedented development.”
Bloomberg/CNBC focuses on the economic impact of the Strait of Hormuz blockade, with analyzes of crude oil prices and US strategic oil reserves, and notes Rubio’s statements as a positive – albeit cautious – signal for energy markets.
The Economist publishes an analysis of Trump’s negotiating strategy with Iran, calling it “ultimatum diplomacy” and pointing out that the lack of a post-conflict plan – if the Iranian regime gives in or collapses – constitutes the most serious structural weakness in US policy in the region.
Axios/Politico highlights internal tensions in the White House over the pace of negotiations with Iran, with sources reporting discrepancies between Rubio’s more structured approach and the more erratic impulses from Trump’s circle of direct advisers.
Continental European Press
Le Monde headlines “Moscow challenges the West by threatening kyiv with a systematic offensive” and devotes its editorial to the defense of maintaining the European diplomatic corps in the Ukrainian capital.
Le Figaro analyzes with skepticism the Chinese diplomatic offensive in the Security Council, emphasizing that the multilateralism proclaimed by Wang Yi masks a project to reorganize the international system favorable to Beijing.
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) opens its edition with the Russian threat weighing on kyiv and devotes an in-depth analysis to the implications for German security policy, recalling that Berlin holds sensitive material intended to support Ukraine, whose exposure is increasing in the face of attacks targeting “decision-making centers”.
Die Welt publishes an opinion article in favor of maintaining the diplomatic presence in kyiv, calling the position of the twenty-seven EU ambassadors an “act of institutional courage”.
Corriere della Sera focuses its attention on suspected cases of Ebola in Lombardy and calls on the Italian government to immediately activate health alert and contact tracing protocols.
Arab and regional press
Asharq Al-Awsat / Arab News are closely following the negotiations on the Strait of Hormuz, with sources in Doha talking about “technical advances” but stressing that the nuclear issue remains the decisive obstacle.
Al-Jazeera devotes extensive coverage to Israeli attacks in Lebanon and Gaza, with a critical editorial bias towards Israel which, as always on this channel, must be read with the necessary reservations regarding the choice of sources and framing.
An-Nahar (Beirut) / L’Orient Le Jour report the impact of Israeli attacks on the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon in a desperate tone, emphasizing that the April ceasefire has brought no relief to the Lebanese civilian population.
Haaretz/The Times of Israel reports Israeli attacks in Lebanon with detailed coverage of military targets, while Haaretz questions in an editorial the lack of a coherent exit strategy in Lebanon.
Russian, Ukrainian and Eastern European media
Kyiv Independent/Ukrinform cover the Russian evacuation threat in detail, with Ukrainian Foreign Ministry sources calling it “shameless blackmail” and evidence for future international legal proceedings against the aggressor state.
Russia Today / TASS present the Russian attacks on kyiv as “legitimate retaliation” to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory and the evacuation announcements as a “responsible humanitarian warning”. You have to read them to understand the regime’s message, not to believe it.
Editorial
There are days when the world seems determined to contradict those who, from the comfort of wishful thinking (the illusion that things will get better on their own), insist that we are facing “temporary turbulence.” May 27, 2026 is one of those days. Five simultaneous fronts of major crises – Ukraine, Iran, Lebanon, Ebola in the DRC and the Chinese multilateral offensive – are not turbulence. These are the symptoms of an international order in full violent reorganization, whose fault lines pass exactly where this analyst has been pointing them out for years: the border between democracy and autocracy, between the rule of law and the law of force, between authentic multilateralism and that which serves as a weapon erosion.
The Russian threat to kyiv deserves to be called by its name: state terrorism. There is no other term to describe a regime that launches hypersonic missiles at residential buildings and then demands that the diplomatic world leave the capital of the attacked nation, as if the presence of embassies constituted an obstacle to its plans of destruction. The response of the twenty-seven EU ambassadors – “Russia wants to sow fear, panic and isolation in Ukraine; it will not succeed” – is the only possible response, with respect for dignity and consistent with the values we claim to defend. On this point, Europe has risen to the occasion. What it cannot afford is to continue to settle for declarations. kyiv’s anti-aircraft defense needs resources that go beyond the usual summit speeches.
On the Iranian front, Marco Rubio embodies the best that American foreign policy can offer at the moment: pragmatism without naivety, firmness without arrogance. His visit to India – an indispensable partner that the Trump administration has abused with tariffs and its rapprochement with Pakistan – is exactly the type of structured diplomacy that a world on fire needs. The problem is that in Washington, Rubio doesn’t always have the last word. The temptation to excess – this “we will get through this one way or another” which applies as much to diplomacy as to missiles – is not in itself a policy. It’s a bet. And bets in the Strait of Hormuz are paid in barrels of oil, in the lives of sailors and in the stability of an entire region.
Lebanon is once again becoming, as it was at the time when my family experienced in its flesh the tragedy of this martyred country – the kidnappings, the bombings, the attack on the Spanish embassy – the laboratory of all the wars of others. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization as a whole, without exception or nuance; each of its militants is a terrorist. But the destruction of Hezbollah cannot serve as a pretext for the destruction of Lebanon. Israel has the right to defend itself; no state can tolerate its territory being used as a rocket launch base. But the right to defense is not an unlimited blank check, and the absence of a coherent post-conflict plan – in Lebanon, in Gaza, throughout the arc of the Iranian conflict – is the most serious strategic weakness that this analyst identifies in the regional policy of the current administration. Just like, it must be said with the same rigor, in that of all his immediate predecessors.
As for China, its action in the Security Council should not be underestimated. Wang Yi does not need to win a single vote in the Council – where the American and European veto would block everything – to achieve his true objective: the construction of a narrative. Beijing is investing in the idea that it is the guarantor of multilateralism in the face of Washington’s unilateralism. It is a long-term, patient, systematic and particularly effective investment in the Global South. We, the Atlanticists, cannot respond to this speech only with declarations of principles. We must respond with action: more coherence, more presence, more respect for the international standards that we claim to defend. Because if there is one thing that harms Western leadership more than Chinese propaganda, it is our own inconsistency.
Finally, the Ebola epidemic in the DRC is the most stark reminder that the risks of the 21st century respect neither borders nor ideologies. A variant of the virus for which there is no vaccine or treatment, in a region devastated by conflict and decades of deliberate underdevelopment, with cases already detected in the heart of industrialized Europe: this is not science fiction. This is the reality of May 27, 2026. The international community, and in particular the countries which have reduced their contribution to global health with the same frivolity with which elevator maintenance budgets are reduced, owe a moral and political debt to the affected populations that it is urgent to resolve.
Ultimately, the world is not in the grip of “variable temperature wars” that can be managed with patience and rhetoric. It is on the threshold of a contained systemic fracture which could cease to be contained at any moment. What is at stake is not the stability of a region: it is the type of world our children will inherit. This prospect should be enough to demand more from our governments than well-written declarations and photogenic summits.
