Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical analysis of June 8

1. Brève introduction
2. Pope Leo XIV delivers historic and lasting speech to the Cortes Generales of Spain
3. Moral leadership of immense scope: the apostolic visit of Pope Leo XIV to Spain
4. Iran and Israel exchange their worst attacks since April: the ceasefire hangs by a thread
5. Ukraine: positive results for the month of May, but the Security Council warns of a record number of civilian victims
6. Merz informs Macron that Germany is withdrawing from the FCAS/SCAF fighter-bomber project
7. Press review
8. Editorial

Brève introduction

June 9, 2026 opens with a constellation of crises that demand analytical lucidity and moral firmness in equal measure.

On the Middle East front, June 7 and 8 were the scene of the worst resurgence of hostilities between Israel and Iran since the April ceasefire – the first negotiated by Pakistan and the second favored by Washington – exposing the structural fragility of these ceasefires devoid of underlying political architecture. True to his style, President Trump has used his Truth Social platform to urge the parties to “cease fire,” while his special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner continue negotiations that he himself describes as “on the verge of success,” but that the facts on the ground contradict with tenacious obstinacy. In this tumultuous context, the Iranian jihadist regime announces that it is stopping its attacks against Israel; Obviously, the Israeli airstrikes the previous night were, according to Israeli sources, very hard-hitting and effective.

As the Middle East flares up again, Europe receives two pieces of news of a radically opposed nature. The first, bearer of radiant hope: the historic visit of Pope Leo

The second, a source of dark concern: the definitive collapse of the Franco-German sixth generation combat aircraft program FCAS (SCAF in French), buried by the inability of Dassault Aviation and Airbus to agree on the sharing of work and technology, and by the decision of Chancellor Merz to inform Macron that the common path for the piloted fighter-bomber is formally closed. The sum of these two pieces of news paints a disturbing picture of a Europe which receives lessons in moral grandeur from the Vatican while demonstrating a stunning and deeply worrying incapacity to build its own sovereignty in matters of defense.

In the Ukrainian theater, operational data from May offer, for the first time since 2023, an assessment on the ground favorable to kyiv – almost one hundred square kilometers of territory regained – but Russian bombings on civilian infrastructure reach levels that the Council of UN security has set recent historical records. Peace diplomacy – Zelensky, Abramovich as Putin’s intermediary, the joint Franco-Anglo-German initiative – is moving forward between gestures and refusals, with Moscow rejecting the offer of direct negotiations. This analyst describes a war of constant fluctuations where each window of appeasement closes before opening completely.

Pope Leo XIV delivers historic and lasting speech to the Cortes Generales of Spain

Facts

On Monday June 8, 2026, during the third day of his apostolic visit to Spain, Pope Leo XIV appeared before the Congress of Deputies during a solemn session of the Cortes Generales – deputies, senators, presidents of regions and highest magistrates of the state – thus becoming the first pontiff in history to speak before the Spanish Parliament. The ceremony, which took place at the Carrera Palace in San Jerónimo, brought together the entire political class of the country under one roof, in a plenary room that listened to the intervention with sustained attention and reserved for the Holy Father a seven-minute ovation at the end.

The speech, hosted by the President of Congress Francina Armengol, the President of the Senate Pedro Rollán and the President of the Government Pedro Sánchez, focused on the inviolable dignity of the human person as the basis of all just legislation, the defense of life from conception to its natural decline, the migratory drama as a moral and legal question of primary importance, the ethics of artificial intelligence in the military domain – citing his inaugural encyclical Magnifica humanitas –, the risks of uncontrolled rearmament, and the essential value of international dialogue.

The Pope drew on the tradition of the School of Salamanca and on figures such as Don Quixote, Saint Teresa of Vila and Unamuno to connect Spain’s humanist heritage to the challenges of the present. This is his first speech as Sovereign Pontiff before the Parliament of a major Western democracy.

Implications

Leo XIV’s speech before the Cortes Generales is above all an act of courage. Speaking before Parliament which has just adopted the inclusion of abortion in the Constitution and which approved in 2021 the law on euthanasia – both in force – with the serenity and firmness of someone who defends principles without entering into partisan trenches requires rhetorical mastery and moral authority of the first order.

The Holy Father did not avoid the confrontation – “If life ceases to be recognized as a fundamental value, what future can our societies have?” – but he clothed it with a nobility which makes any sectarian disqualification completely impossible.

His warning regarding artificial intelligence and military artificial intelligence, which he presents as an area requiring “rigorous ethical vigilance” so that life and death decisions are not “left to automatisms”, is one of the most relevant reflections uttered this year, whatever the platform. Likewise, his reminder that “weapons can impose temporary silence but can never build authentic peace” resonates with particular force on a continent that is desperately rearming itself without having yet constructed a coherent strategic doctrine.

“Any truly just society is built on recognition of the inviolable dignity of the human person. This dignity precedes any concession from the state and cannot be subordinated to changing social consensuses. —León

Perspectives et scénarios

The impact of the speech will be lasting for several very deep and solid reasons.

First: it is the first time that an American pope, originally from the United States – of Anglo-Saxon culture and Augustinian theological training – has addressed the Parliament of a large European Catholic state in his language and with direct knowledge of its intellectual tradition; this adds a dimension of transatlantic bridge which goes beyond the strictly pastoral.

Second: as part of the visit of His Holiness Pope Leo of faith in Spain.

Third: the deep differences with the Spanish socio-communist government, although managed with skill and courtesy during official ceremonies, are structural and visible: the executive promotes the constitutionalization of abortion while the Pope defends the right to life from conception; there is no doctrinal reconciliation possible, only institutional coexistence.

The leader of the first party of the Cortes Generales, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, emphasizing that “Spain needs moral references like Leo very serious nihilistic and relativistic drift that this analyst has been denouncing for years.

Moral leadership of immense scope: the apostolic visit of Pope Leo XIV to Spain

Facts

The apostolic visit of Pope Leo XIV to Spain, which began on June 6, 2026, constitutes the first papal visit to the country since that of Pope Francis in 2011. Leo a program combining the highest institutional meetings – reception at the Royal Palace with the royal family chaired by King Felipe VI, meeting with the President of the Government, ceremony at the Congress of Deputies – and gestures of pastoral proximity – visit to the Episcopal conference, meeting with civil society at the Movistar Arena under the slogan “Weaving links” – as well as a religious highlight with the Corpus Christi mass at the Bernabéu on June 11.

The visit, greeted with immense expectation and massive popular participation, revealed the depth of the roots of the Catholic faith in Spanish society, beyond the figures of daily religious practice. The king publicly recognized in his welcome speech “the pain caused” by the abuses within the Church, stressing that these “are not representative of the immense ecclesial community.”

Implications

Leo conceptual coherence that very few institutions in the world can claim. His inaugural encyclical Magnifica Humanitas – devoted to artificial intelligence and developed in collaboration with Anthropic researchers – has already positioned the pontificate as a unique intellectual player in the global debate on the future of humanity.

In Spain, where the political-cultural divide between an increasingly radicalized left-wing secular Spain and a Spain with increasingly deep Christian roots is increasingly marked, the pope’s visit acts like a mirror that reflects this tension with a clarity that makes everyone uncomfortable. The unease of the Sánchez government in the face of a pontiff who bluntly defends life from conception and the traditional family is palpable, even if it is not politically expedient for him to express it.

Perspectives et scénarios

On a global scale, the pontificate of Leo XIV promises to be one of the most promising. He is part of the lineage of John Paul II, with extraordinarily solid spiritual and moral foundations and among the most deeply committed in recent decades.

His American origin, the fact of having been superior of the Augustinian order and a missionary in Latin America, allows him to address Europe with the authority of one who admires him without the complicity of one who suffers from within; his Augustinian training gives him a philosophical depth which transcends the immediate political debate; and its openness to dialogue with science and technology – without renouncing principles or unshakeable morality – gives it a singular credibility with new generations. Spain, in particular, will have much to gain if this visit achieves what no political poll can quantify: reminding its citizens that there are truths that precede and are superior to parliamentary majorities and dignitaries who do not vote for themselves.

Iran and Israel exchange their worst attacks since April: the ceasefire hangs by a thread

Facts

On the night of Sunday June 7 to Monday June 8, 2026 – the 101st day of the war – Israel and Iran experienced the most serious resurgence of hostilities since the ceasefire of April 8, negotiated by Pakistan. The chain of events is as follows: Israel bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut in retaliation for Hezbollah attacks against northern Israel, despite the new Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire announced on June 3 under American mediation and categorically rejected by Hezbollah; in response, Iran launched multiple missile salvos against northern Israel – the first direct Iranian attack action from its own territory since the April ceasefire –; Israel responded with “large-scale attacks against strategic defense systems” in Iran.

President Trump spoke on Truth Social on Monday to demand that Israel and Iran “immediately” stop shooting, saying that “both sides are seeking an immediate ceasefire” and that final peace negotiations were progressing. Netanyahu said Israel had suspended its attacks on Iran, but without formally recognizing a ceasefire and warning that operations in southern Lebanon would continue. Iran suspended its campaign, but warned it would resume it with “more severity” if Israeli attacks in Lebanon continued. At the time of writing, Israeli aircraft had again attacked southern Lebanon less than an hour after Iran announced the suspension of its operations.

Implications

This episode confirms the diagnosis that this analyst has supported since the first day of Operation Epic Fury: the successive ceasefires are armistices without peace architecture, tactical agreements that neither party fully respects because none has paid the political price of recognizing its real limits. Netanyahu continues to believe that military pressure will eventually bring Tehran’s dictatorial and mafia oligarchy to bend; the three generals of the triumvirate who replaced Khamenei after the February attacks – Vahidi, Zolghadr and Rezaei – do not have the personal ascendancy necessary to impose on their peers the discipline that a negotiated concession requires; and Trump oscillates between the triumphant announcement of a “total victory” and the urgent call to cease fire.

The paradox of decapitation – to which this analyst has already devoted previous analyzes – operates here in all its crudeness: the three surviving Iranian leaders are all ultraconservatives and none has enough authority to force the other two to accept conditions that resemble capitulation. The result is a regime capable of continuing the war, but incapable of concluding it with dignity.

At the same time, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, in a remarkable act of courage, publicly accused Iran of “using Lebanon as a bargaining chip” with the United States: “Have pity on our south and stop treating it and its people as a simple card to improve the terms of your negotiations “. It is a denunciation of the terrorist strategy of Hezbollah and its sponsors in Tehran which deserves to be heard and relayed.

Perspectives et scénarios

The probability that the ceasefire will be consolidated in the coming days is low as long as Israel maintains its operations in Lebanon and as long as the Iranian triumvirate does not have an interlocutor with sufficient authority to negotiate real concessions. Trump eyes ‘near final’ negotiation, but US prisoners in Iran aren’t even part of current package — they would only be transferred to the State Department if a framework agreement is reached — illustrating the extraordinary gap between rhetoric of the White House and the reality on the ground.

Scenario B – a protracted low-intensity war punctuated by periodic episodes of high intensity – which this analyst had estimated at 40% probability a few weeks ago remains the most likely scenario. Regional mediators – Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, perhaps Saudi Arabia – will play a determining role if direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain blocked by internal differences within the Iranian power triad.

Ukraine: positive results for the month of May, but the Security Council warns of a record number of civilian victims

Facts

The Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Army, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, confirmed on June 8 that Ukraine had regained almost one hundred more square kilometers than it lost in May along the front line, bringing the net gains since January 2026 to more than six hundred square kilometers — the first positive monthly assessment for kyiv since 2023. Russia’s main combat effort remains focused on the Pokrovsk sector in Donetsk Oblast and in the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk direction, where Russian forces are trying to seize commanding heights to prepare for an autumn offensive.

At the same time, the United Nations Security Council met on June 8 at the request of Ukraine and its allies to denounce the fact that Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure – particularly those of the previous week – have reached the highest levels of casualties and destruction since the start of the war. On the diplomatic front, President Zelensky published an open letter to Putin on June 4 proposing a bilateral meeting, after having met in kyiv with the oligarch Roman Abramovich as Kremlin intermediary; Putin rejected the offer of direct negotiations. On Monday June 7, the Prime Ministers of France, Britain and Germany issued a joint statement with Zelensky proposing an immediate ceasefire, freezing the current line of contact as a starting point and resuming negotiations.

Implications

The results for the month of May are the best Ukrainian operational indicator for three years, but it should not make us forget the extent of the effort that remains to be made. The Ukrainian campaign of “logistical blockade” – through the massive use of medium-range drones to destroy Russian supply trucks – is bearing fruit, but the second half is, historically, the bloodiest for Ukraine. The Franco-Anglo-German peace initiative with Zelensky — freezing the contact line — is politically understandable but strategically problematic: freezing amounts to legitimizing the current Russian conquests, which Moscow knows, and that is why it is in no hurry to accept a ceasefire that gives her what she wants without the need to negotiate.

EU sanctions – Kaja Kallas cites a cumulative impact of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion on the Russian economy – are an important element, but Moscow remains able to support the war effort, in part thanks to munitions support from Iran and North Korea. As long as Putin refuses direct negotiations, the war will continue.

Perspectives et scénarios

This analyst argues that the real negotiation window will only open when two conditions are met simultaneously: that the economic and military cost to Russia reaches a threshold that the Kremlin can no longer manage internally, and that Ukraine demonstrates its capacity to increase the cost of occupation to an unbearable level for Russian public opinion.

Neither of these two conditions has yet been met, although the Ukrainian “logistical blockade” is moving in this direction. Zelensky’s offer of direct negotiations – rejected by Moscow – gives the Ukrainian president a diplomatic advantage that should not be underestimated: any future diplomatic failure will be attributable to Putin. The crisis in the Middle East also risks diverting Western media and political attention away from Ukraine, at a time when kyiv needs this support the most.

Merz informs Macron that Germany is withdrawing from the FCAS/SCAF fighter-bomber project

Facts

On Monday June 8, 2026, the German daily Handelsblatt revealed, citing federal government sources, that Chancellor Friedrich Merz had informed President Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the EU-Western Balkans summit in Montenegro, on June 6, that Germany would not build the fighter jet sixth generation NGF, centerpiece of the FCAS (Future Combat Air System) program, known in France as SCAF.

The program, which involved Germany, France and Spain and whose cost was estimated at 100 billion euros ($116 billion), had been paralyzed for months due to the inability of Dassault Aviation and Airbus to agree on the distribution of work and technological rights. Merz informed Macron that it was impossible to overcome the blockage between the two companies. The German union IG Metall welcomed the decision. Spain, the program’s third partner, had already launched a parallel initiative with an Airbus-Indra study on a possible national system and the Siagen program led by Indra. Belgium, an observer country of the program, had already declared the FCAS “dead” and announced the purchase of eleven additional F-35As.

Germany will develop a new national aviation strategy which will be adopted on June 10 and presented at the ILA show in Berlin. France and Germany will continue to cooperate on the “system of systems” – the combat cloud – which constitutes the other part of the FCAS, but the piloted fighter is definitively buried.

Implications

What has just happened with the FCAS/SCAF is one of the most serious industrial, technological and strategic failures in the history of European integration in terms of defense. This analyst estimates that its consequences are of five different orders, all serious.

First: on the industrial level. Europe is losing the opportunity to develop its own sixth-generation air combat platform at a time when the world is moving toward the AI-drone-manned integration that defines 21st century air combat; the alternative – buying American F-35s or banking on the Anglo-Italian-Japanese GCAP as an observer country, an option which comes too late for Germany – involves technological and political dependence of the first order.

Second: economical. A contract worth one hundred billion euros in aerospace R&D&I (research, development and innovation) over two decades represents tens of thousands of highly qualified jobs, hundreds of strategic patents and a critical mass of engineers in dual-use technologies – civil and military – which is not being replenished easily.

Third: technological and scientific. FCAS was not just an aircraft: it was an ecosystem of onboard artificial intelligence, swarm drones, secure connectivity between platforms, next-generation sensors and next-generation propulsion. Losing this program means losing ten years of technological advance over China and Russia in the field of military aeronautics.

Fourth: strategic. Europe has been proclaiming its desire for strategic autonomy for a decade; the burial of the SCAF demonstrates that this autonomy is only a declaration of intentions without industrial substance.

Fifth: politics. The break between Paris and Berlin over the most ambitious European defense program occurs precisely at a time when the two capitals are trying to lead the rearmament of the continent and when the war in Ukraine makes the capacity for autonomous deterrence more urgent than ever. It is a sign of weakness that Moscow and Beijing will interpret with satisfaction.

Perspectives et scénarios

The immediate future of European combat airspace suggests regrettable fragmentation: France will explore a national solution based on the improved Rafale or on a new program with its export partners in the Persian Gulf; Germany will seek to play a role in the GCAP (Global Combat Air Program) led by the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan, even if the train is already moving too fast to accommodate a last-minute passenger on equal terms; Spain – whose position within the FCAS was already second-rate – will have to decide urgently whether it relies on the modernized Eurofighter, whether it commits more to the national Airbus-Indra path or whether it seeks a place within the GCAP.

What is clear is that Europe will not have its own operational sixth-generation fighter until 2050, while the United States deploys the B-21 Raider, the successor platform to the F-35, and China accelerates its J-20 and J-35 programs with a national emergency. Europe, which advocates strategic autonomy, buys American fighters and abandons its most ambitious programs on the altar of corporate quarrels between Dassault and Airbus. It’s a strategic shame.

Press review

Summary of coverage from major international media outlets over the past 24 hours.

The New York Times : One devoted to missile exchanges between Israel and Iran on June 7 and 8; a portrait of the Iranian triumvirate and an analysis of Trump’s negotiating paradox; secondary coverage of the Pope’s speech in Spain.

Washington Post : Analysis of the failure of the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel as a trigger for the resumption of hostilities; editorial on the inconsistency of Netanyahu’s position – stop attacks on Iran, but continue in Lebanon.

Financial Times : in the news, the collapse of FCAS/SCAF: analysis of the consequences for the European aerospace industry and the results of Airbus and Dassault; note on the impact on the GCAP program.

The Times (Londres) : Coverage of the Pope’s speech to the Spanish Parliament, focusing on friction with Sánchez’s government; report on the spectacle of the seven-minute ovation in the hemicycle.

The Guardian : Criticism of the Pope’s speech for his position on abortion and euthanasia; analysis of the polarization between secular and religious in Spain.

The World : Editorial on the failure of the SCAF as a defeat of “Defense Europe”; analysis of the consequences for Dassault and the French defense budget.

Le Figaro : Praise of the moral leadership of the Pope; coverage of the speech before the Spanish Congress emphasizing social doctrine; in-depth article on the pontificate of Leo XIV.

FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) : Exclusivity confirming Merz’s decision to withdraw from the NGF of FCAS; analysis of the impact on Franco-German relations and the future of the German defense industry.

The world : Editorial supporting Merz’s decision not to pursue the joint fighter jet project; argument that Germany needs its own program led by Airbus.

Corriere della Sera : Coverage of the papal visit to Spain as a prelude to Leo XIV’s possible trip to Italy; analysis of the American pontificate vis-à-vis the European political class.

L’Osservatore Romano : Full text of the Pope’s speech before the Congress of Deputies; in-depth article on social doctrine as a guide for democratic legislation.

BBC : Chronicle of missile exchanges between Israel and Iran with an interactive map; interview with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on the use of Lebanon as a bargaining chip by Iran.

CNN : Direct on the resurgence of hostilities between Israel and Iran; analysis of Netanyahu’s statement —suspension of attacks against Iran without recognition of a formal ceasefire—; interview with Iranian sources on negotiations with Witkoff.

Al Jazeera : In-depth coverage from Beirut and Tehran; criticism of Israel’s double standards – suspension of attacks against Iran, but continuation of operations in Lebanon – and denunciation of Western silence in the face of Lebanese civilian victims.

Reuters : Agency flash on the mutual suspension of operations between Israel and Iran; separate dispatch with the text of Merz’s declaration on the FCAS; note on the Ukrainian advance in May.

AP : Report of the Pope’s speech before the National Assembly; summary of the key points of Leo XIV’s speech on human dignity, life and artificial intelligence.

Bloomberg : Analysis of the stock market impact of the FCAS collapse on the shares of Dassault and Airbus; column on the implications for European defense budgets in the context of the July NATO summit.

Haaretz : Critical report on Netanyahu’s position: he suspends attacks against Iran under pressure from Trump, but maintains operations in Lebanon which caused the escalation; analysis of the deterioration of relations between the United States and Israel.

The Jerusalem Post : Coverage of Israeli operations in Lebanon in response to Hezbollah rockets; interview with Israeli military sources on the strategic interpretation of the missile exchange with Iran.

Arab News / Asharq Al-Awsat : Analyzing Trump’s “imminent ceasefire” statement with editorial skepticism; emphasis on the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as a means of putting pressure on the Gulf economies.

Kyiv Independent / Ukrainian Pravda : Front page presenting data on Ukraine’s net progress in May; extensive coverage of the emergency session of the UN Security Council; analysis of the Franco-Anglo-German peace proposal with Zelensky.

South China Morning Post : Analysis of the collapse of the FCAS from the angle of European rearmament and its impact on technological rivalry with China; article on the Pope’s visit to Spain as an indicator of the vitality of Western Catholicism.

Politico (Europe) : Analysis of the consequences of the end of the FCAS for European strategic autonomy and the future of the Eurofighter; article on Spain’s position at the crossroads of air defense.

The Economist : File on the pontificate of Leo XIV as “papacy of dignity” in a Europe which forgets its roots; note on the blockade of Hormuz and the price of oil.

TASS / Russia Today : Coverage of the missile exchange between Israel and Iran with emphasis on civilian casualties; interpretation of the collapse of the FCAS as a demonstration of European disunity; silence on the Ukrainian advance in May.

Editorial

Two Europes facing the mirror: the one who knows who she is and the one who doesn’t know what she wants

There are days when history chooses to condense, and June 8, 2026 was one of those days. In Madrid, Pope Leo death to algorithms without conscience, and the chimera of believing that weapons can buy the peace which is only born from justice.

In Berlin and Paris, almost simultaneously, France and Germany signed the death certificate of the FCAS/SCAF program, burying with it the greatest gamble on technical-military sovereignty that Europe has undertaken in decades. It is difficult to imagine a more eloquent metaphor for the two Europes that coexist today: the one that knows who it is and the one that does not yet know what it wants.

The visit of Leo

Leo believers and the youngest, and even exerting a considerable and growing influence among non-believers. His inaugural encyclical on artificial intelligence – written, as we know, in collaboration with leading researchers in the sector – is not a media gesture: it is an act of intellectual responsibility of the first importance, a serious attempt to provide humanity with an ethical compass for navigating the most disruptive technological revolution in history. The fact that he chose Spain for his first major speech before a Western democratic parliament says a lot about the place that this country occupies in his mental map: the humanist heritage of the School of Salamanca, the mystics of the Golden Age, the legal tradition of international law are not only historical references for Leo XIV; they are living philosophical arguments that he uses with the ease of someone who has studied them in depth.

What he said in the Congress of Deputies to legislators who approved abortion and euthanasia was, in essence, this: the dignity of the human person is not a concession of the state and cannot be subordinated to changing majorities. He did not say it with the bitterness of the preacher who rightly denounces dehumanizing legislation, but with the serenity of the pastor who is also a reasoning philosopher. And this is precisely what makes his speech so difficult to ignore for anyone with intellectual honesty. The seven-minute ovation that the hemicycle gave him – the entire hemicycle, including the deputies of the party that promotes the constitutionalization of abortion – is one of those signs that deserves careful reading: Spain listened to the Pope and applauded him; the debate on the scope and transcendence of his words has only just begun.

And while Madrid was experiencing this moment of rare institutional dignity, the European chancelleries confirmed the failure of the FCAS. It is impossible to be sufficiently critical of this disaster without falling into caricature, which is why this analyst will strive to be precise. The FCAS program did not fail for lack of money: one hundred billion euros were on the table. It did not fail for lack of technical and scientific talent: the Dassault and Airbus teams are among the best in the world. It failed because two national industries, supported by two states that have never really resolved the question of who calls the shots in Europe, were unable to agree on who leads the design of the plane. A discussion on work, industrial property, the distribution of contracts. Europe, which has been advocating strategic autonomy for ten years, has demonstrated that, when the time comes, the national sovereignty of businesses prevails over collective continental sovereignty. It’s a humiliation.

And it’s a humiliation that comes at the worst possible time. Europe is hastily re-arming, with defense budgets increasing at a rate unrelated to a coherent strategy, without a new generation combat aircraft of its own, with an eastern flank bloodied by Russia’s war against Ukraine and a southern flank on fire because of the conflict Iranian-Israeli which threatens to destabilize the entire Eastern Mediterranean. The alternative – GCAP with the UK, Italy and Japan – is a solution that comes too late, when the seats on the plane have already been allocated and the entry requirements for a possible new partner will be costly and humiliating. The American F-35s – which Germany already operates and which Belgium is in the process of acquiring – are excellent planes, but they are American planes, with protected American technology, which means strategic dependence at some point where Washington’s foreign policy, under Trump, demonstrates a level of unpredictability that even the most Atlanticist among us are beginning to find worrying.

In the Middle East, meanwhile, the dictatorial and mafia oligarchy of Tehran continues to demonstrate that the paradox of beheading is an analytical concept with very real consequences: the triumvirate formed by Vahidi, Zolghadr and Rezaei, three ultraconservatives without a common arbiter, is incapable of imposing internal discipline that a real peace negotiation would require, and also does not have the necessary legitimacy to make concessions that Khamenei – inexplicably described as “supreme” – could have presented as a decision of the highest authority of the regime. The result is a regime capable of waging war, but incapable of making peace, trapped in the same situation that has placed the world in a situation of risk of incalculable magnitude. Hezbollah terrorists continue to fire rockets into northern Israel – and that is why Israel is bombing southern Beirut – and Lebanon is, once again, the battlefield of a war that does not belong to it. Prime Minister Salam’s denunciation deserves all our solidarity and all our attention: “Stop treating us like a simple negotiating card. “It is the voice of a martyred people that deserves to be heard, and this analyst, for reasons that go beyond geopolitical analysis, embraces it without reservation.

In Ukraine, the clear reconquest of territory in May is good news which should not obscure the fact that the war is in its third year and that Moscow continues to respond with calculated brutality against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. Zelensky’s offer of direct negotiations, rejected by Putin, is as much a statesman’s gesture as it is a demonstration that peace will only come when Russia decides that the price of war is unsustainable. The Franco-Anglo-German proposal to freeze the contact line has the merit of being pragmatic and the downside of being premature: proposing a freeze when Ukraine has just regained ground for the first time in three years is a diplomatic miscalculation.

This analyst believes that the snapshot of June 9, 2026 shows us a world where moral authority is so rare that when it appears – in the guise of a pope who speaks of human dignity before a Parliament which questions it – it provokes a seven-minute ovation. This says a lot about the thirst for principles that exists in a society saturated with materialism and hedonism without a compass. And it also says a lot about the responsibility of those of us who have the privilege and the obligation to analyze, explain and, when necessary, denounce what is happening in this world in turmoil.