Plans for Gaza International Stabilisation Force in question as troop pledges stall

Copyright AP Photo

By Gavin Blackburn
Published on 28/05/2026

The Iran war has made it more difficult for Arab and Muslim leaders to openly cooperate with the United States and Israel, which many in the region view as aggressors.

The International Stabilisation Force for Gaza was announced at the inaugural meeting of US President Donald Trump's Board of Peace in February but three months on, none of the five countries that pledged troops have come through with any significant contributions.

Efforts to shore up the fragile ceasefire between Israel and the Gaza-based militant group Hamas have stalled, with Hamas refusing to disarm and Israel continuing to strike what it says are militant targets, often killing civilians.

Meanwhile, the Iran war has made it more difficult for Arab and Muslim leaders to openly cooperate with the United States and Israel, which many in the region view as aggressors and the resulting global energy crisis has put a strain on their resources.

The biggest blow to the planned force came about a week after the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February, when Indonesia put its commitment of 8,000 troops on indefinite hold.

Some 1,000 were to have been sent in April, followed by the remainder in June.

US President Donald Trump holds up a signed resolution during a Board of Peace meeting in Washington, 19 February, 2026 AP Photo

Indonesia's pledge was by far the largest of the group, which also includes Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Albania. US Major General Jasper Jeffers, who spoke at the Board of Peace event, was to command the force.

Indonesia suspended its plans over what Defence Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin said last week seemed to be a lack of commitment from a distracted Washington, saying “we have not yet received any implementation guidelines.”

“New dynamics have emerged,” he told parliament. “Because the intensity of the conflict between US and Iranian forces remains very high, the BoP has tended to be left behind. Since the BoP has been left behind, the ISF has also been left behind.”

Domestic issues may have factored into Indonesia's decision, said Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat, director of the Indonesia-Middle East/North Africa desk at Jakarta's Centre for Economic and Law Studies.

The Iran war is extremely unpopular in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country. The economy is suffering from soaring prices as a result of the conflict and there is widespread scepticism about the Board of Peace.

“If you talk to the people on the street, I don’t think they believe that the Board of Peace will actually help the people of Gaza,” Rakhmat said. There are also concerns about sending troops to the Middle East when the economy is faltering, he added.

Indonesia lost four peacekeepers who were part of the United Nations mission in Lebanon during fighting between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah. That has further soured public opinion on such international commitments, he said

Tents are scattered among the widespread destruction in Jabalia, 7 December, 2025 AP Photo

Forces committed but none known to be deployed

Kazakhstan has said its support for the stabilisation force would be limited to “the humanitarian component,” including sending medical units with a field hospital. Its Foreign Ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

Albania's Defence Ministry also declined to comment on its troop commitment, saying it was a “dynamic and ongoing process.”

Earlier this month, its chief of staff Lieutenant General Arben Kingji told reporters that while the military had “participated in reconnaissance activities,” no troops had yet been sent.

US President Donald Trump stands with other world leaders before a Board of Peace meeting in Washington, 19 February, 2026 AP Photo

He said only a few would be dispatched as part of the stabilisation force headquarters, without giving numbers, adding that further contributions would be considered.

Kosovo, which is expected to send 20 troops, said in April that it was in the “final phase of preparations.” The Defence Ministry did not reply to a request for an update.

Morocco's Foreign Ministry also did not reply. At the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace, Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita said it would deploy “high-level military officers to the joint military command of the ISF.”

Board of Peace blames stalled ceasefire on Hamas

The US military’s Central Command declined to comment or make Jeffers available for an interview, referring all queries to the Board of Peace.

Board of Peace spokesperson Brad Klapper also declined to comment on Indonesia's decision or the future of the force, pointing instead to 21 May remarks at the UN by Nickolay Mladenov, a former Bulgarian defence minister who Trump appointed as the board’s director.

Mladenov said the international force would not be able to begin operations until there was agreement and implementation of a second phase of the ceasefire, which would see Hamas disarm and Israel begin to withdraw. Israeli troops control some 60% of Gaza.

High Representative for President Donald Trump's International Board of Peace Nickolay Mladenov speaks to the media in East Jerusalem, 13 May, 2026 AP Photo

Mladenov has blamed the deadlock on Hamas, saying its disarmament is “non-negotiable” and is holding up progress on other fronts, including Israel's withdrawal and reconstruction.

“You cannot build a future with armed groups running the streets, hiding in tunnels and stockpiling weapons,” Mladenov said in Jerusalem this month.

“You cannot deliver reconstruction with militias on every corner.”
Hamas blames delays on Israel

Hamas says Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire, holding up its further implementation, and has accused Mladenov of siding with Israel.

Israeli strikes have killed more than 880 Palestinians since the ceasefire, according to local health officials. Israel says it was responding to violations of the truce.

Fighters from Hamas’ Qassam Brigades seen in Gaza City, 19 January, 2025 AP Photo

Hamas is also demanding Israel withdraw from areas seized since the start of the ceasefire, according to an Egyptian official with knowledge of the discussions, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss closed-door talks. Egypt has long served as a mediator with Hamas.

Many of the countries that have pledged forces have refused to send troops without a deal on Hamas disarming, the official said.

Vietnam vets tear apart Trump in court over 'disrespectful' DC arch

Demonstrators protesting against U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed 250-foot 'Triumphal Arch' near the Arlington Memorial Bridge in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 24, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

Alex Henderson

May 25, 2026

ALTERNET


On Thursday, May 21, the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts approved the "triumphal arch" that President Donald Trump is proposing for Arlington, Virginia across the Potomac River from Washington, DC. The arch would appear at one end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge next to Arlington National Cemetery. But a group of Vietnam War veterans, according to CBS News, are voicing their opposition to the project.

Vietnam vets Shaun Byrnes and Jon Gundersen, along with other opponents of the arch, filed a lawsuit in February in the hope of preventing it from being constructed. And they are still expressing the reasons for their opposition.

CBS News reporters Arden Farhi and Jacob Rosen explain, "They argue the project has been rushed and the administration hasn't gotten proper congressional approval. The arch, they say, would disrupt the symbolic connection between the Lincoln Memorial and the Robert E. Lee Memorial — a carefully considered sightline meant to convey unity after the Civil War. According to recent renderings, the arch would be more than double the height of the Lincoln Memorial."


Gundersen, a retired U.S. Army Special Forces officer who is now 81, views the arch as disrespectful to the many veterans buried in Arlington National Cemetery — which was opened in 1864 during the American Civil War.

Gundersen told CBS News, "I think what we're doing is being loyal to the country, and loyalty can be measured in different ways."


The 83-year-old Byrnes, a U.S. Navy veteran who served two tours of duty in Vietnam, told CBS News, "It's more about the duty I feel towards my colleagues and friends who did not come home to stand up against this project, regardless of who's in charge."

Byrnes, a Navy veteran who served two tours in Vietnam, said, "I think it's just disrespectful to those that I served with who didn't come back, and then, of course, to all those who are lying in Arlington National Cemetery."

Farhi and Rosen note that Gundersen and Byrnes "view the arch not as a commemoration of America's 250th birthday, but as a monument to one man: Mr. Trump."
Gundersen told CBS News, "We know how authoritarian dictatorships work. There's no rule of law, there's no consent of the governed, and there's monuments for the leaders there…. Even if you took private donations, is that how we want to build monuments? To the oligarchs who give money for favors? We have fought for our country. We believe in this country, and we're going to continue to the end — and I think we can change things."

Veterans furious over Trump Memorial Day post that proves he 'hates the troops'

U.S. President Donald Trump during a Memorial Day event at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia, U.S., May 25, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Alex Henderson

May 25, 2026  

ALTERNET

Early Monday morning, on Memorial Day 2026, President Donald Trump sent out a series of social media posts via his Truth Social platform — including one that used the holiday to attack Democrats. And some military veterans are calling out the attack as wildly inappropriate for Memorial Day.

Trump posted, "Happy Memorial Day to all, including the Dumocrats, who disrespect our Military and all of the tremendous success that it has had over the last year. God Bless those that have made the ultimate sacrifice. I love you all! President DONALD J. TRUMP."

One of the vets is Naveed Shah, who served in the U.S. Army during Operation Iraqi Freedom and is director of group Common Defense.

Shah didn't mince words, telling the Daily Beast that Trump has no business attacking his political opponents as unpatriotic in light of offensive things he said about veterans in the past.

Shah told the Daily Beast, "Trump has demonstrated over and over again that he hates the troops…. From calling the troops who died in WWI 'suckers and losers,' to mocking (Sen.) John McCain's five years as a POW, to attacking the Gold Star Khan family, all the way back to 2016 when he lied about donating to veterans' groups. He has never missed a chance to dishonor the people he was never brave enough to stand beside."

The Daily Beast's Leigh Kimmins notes that Trump, now 79, went to great lengths to avoid military service during the Vietnam War — only to insult McCain's military record during that conflict. The late Vietnam veteran McCain was tortured and abused by the Viet Cong during his time as a prisoner of war.

Kimmins explains, "Trump, who received five military deferments during the 1960s, four for academic reasons and one for bone spurs, started the national holiday by airing personal grievances, rather than issuing a heartfelt tribute to the nation's fallen…. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump drew immediate condemnation when he dismissed Sen. John McCain’s five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. 'He’s not a war hero,' Trump said. 'He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured.' Veterans' groups responded with fury."

The Daily Beast reporter continues, "That same campaign season, Trump attacked Khizr and Ghazala Khan — the Gold Star parents of U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004 — after they criticized him at the Democratic National Convention. Trump publicly questioned why Ghazala Khan had remained silent during her husband’s speech, suggesting she had not been 'allowed' to speak. The backlash crossed party lines, with Republican senators and veterans' organizations among those condemning the remarks."

A Minute of Silence Isn’t Enough to Reflect on the US’s Death and Destruction

Let’s stop lying to ourselves on Memorial Day and instead try exploring the full truth about war in all its evil.

By Rory Fanning ,

Truthout

May 25, 2026

Members of the "Young Marines" youth program carry a large American flag during the National Memorial Day Parade on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., on May 25, 2026.Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images

Thirty years ago, school kids touring Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. were asked what Memorial Day meant to them. “That’s the day the pools open!” they responded, as if in a chorus. Their response rippled across the U.S. and created a bit of a moral panic among the patriotic and civil-minded. The following Memorial Day, Congress sought to put the “memorial” back into the holiday. “Taps,” a 24-note bugle call adopted by the U.S. military in the late 1800s for funerals, was played on radios and televisions throughout the United States at 3:00 pm. Those celebrating the day off paused, perhaps mid-hot dog bite, to reflect on fallen U.S. soldiers. After a minute of silence, Americans resumed their fun.

What does it mean to reflect on the soldiers who died while fighting in U.S. wars? Is such a thing possible? If it is, maybe we should start with the raw numbers.

Around 25,000 U.S. soldiers died in the War for Independence; roughly 5,600 soldiers died or were wounded as they ethnically cleansed Indigenous tribes between 1785 and 1898; approximately 20,000 died in the War of 1812, mostly of disease; 625,000 died on both sides of the Civil War; 2,446 died in the Spanish-American War; 4,200 U.S. soldiers died “annexing” the Philippines; 95 died in the Boxer Rebellion; 22 died and 70 were wounded in the Mexican Revolution; at least 86 died in the occupation of Haiti from 1915-1934; nearly 117,000 were killed in World War I; 424 U.S. troops died fighting the Bolsheviks in Russia from 1918-1920; 15,000 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives in the Mexican-American War; 405,000 were killed in World War II; more than 52,000 were killed in the Korean War; more than 58,000 were killed while committing what some call a genocide in Vietnam.

We’re a little less than halfway done with this list. It feels strange packing all this death into a single paragraph, so I imagine it feels strange reading through it quickly, too. Consider standing up and walking around for a few minutes before continuing. Or at least pausing for a minute to make an effort to “memorialize” the people behind these numbers, as the government would like us to on Memorial Day, if you believe such a thing is possible.

Fifteen U.S. soldiers were killed in Lebanon in 1958; four were killed in the Bay of Pigs invasion; eight were killed in Iran in 1980; 15 U.S. soldiers died in El Salvador’s Civil War from 1980 to 1992; 265 died in Beirut between 1982 and 1984; 39 died escorting oil tankers through the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz from 1987-1988; 19 were killed in Grenada; two died in a bombing at the LaBelle Club in West Berlin in 1986; 1,231 were killed or wounded in first Gulf War from 1990 to 1991; 19 were killed aiding Kurdish refugees fleeing Iraq in 1991 in what was known as Operation Provide Comfort; 30 soldiers were killed in Somalia from 1992-1993; four died in Haiti between 1994 and 1995.

We’re almost done. Just 30 more years of American war history left.

One U.S. soldier was killed in combat operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996; 2 U.S. soldiers died in Kosovo in 1999; 3,923 U.S. troops were killed and 20,700 were wounded in Afghanistan since 2001; 36,395 were killed or wounded in the Iraq War; and 13 are said to have been killed (plus another 400+ wounded) in Donald Trump’s war on Iran (although many dispute these numbers).

Moreover, an untold number of Special Operation soldiers and CIA operatives died in clandestine occupations overthrowing governments or sabotaging this or that. The government won’t acknowledge these deaths. But we know they happen all the time.

By some estimates, U.S. is approaching 1.4 million soldiers killed and at least 1.5 million wounded in its 250-year history. That’s a total of 2.5 million U.S. soldiers killed or wounded, or 10,000 casualties a year on average over 250 years. Or, to put it another way, 500,000 fewer than the 3 million Vietnamese people who died — many of whom were burned alive by napalm — during the U.S. war on Vietnam. It’s also worth adding for context, that only 20 of this country’s 250-year history have been peaceful. Although, that number seems off too given the regularity of covert U.S. military operations and the frequency of drone strikes that occur without any media attention or official government acknowledgement. That’s a lot of death and destruction to reflect on during a minute of silence.

Can we “memorialize” death and destruction on such a scale? Numbers will never capture the horrors of war. Saying the words “ultimate sacrifice” over and over will not even remotely convey what it is like to die or be injured in war. What if we begin asking more specific questions about the wars and the nature of these deaths each Memorial Day?

For instance, how many soldiers died heroes saving their fellow soldiers’ lives, maybe jumping on a grenade? (There have been 3,552 Medal of Honor recipients, if that’s helpful.) How many soldiers died running out of or cowering in a trench in WWI? How many of the soldiers we are memorializing were burned alive by flame throwers? Shall we take a few minutes to think about the process of being burned alive? Aaron Bushnell, the U.S. servicemember who strongly opposed the genocide in Gaza, provided a window into the agony of such a death.

How many died begging for water, or for their mothers, with their guts hanging out after being struck by a bayonet in Korea? Up to 3 million Koreans were slaughtered by the U.S. between 1950 and 1953, if anyone is interested. How many U.S. soldiers were shot out of the sky in helicopters while in the process of killing civilians in Vietnam? Two million of the 3 million killed in Vietnam were civilians. Are we supposed to memorialize soldiers that died killing children in the same way?

How many officers were shot in the back by their own men during the invasion and occupation of the Philippines? How many died helping liberate Nazi death camps in WWII? How many soldiers were torn to shreds by cannonballs while defending slavery or fighting to abolish it in the Civil War? How many Black soldiers lost their lives fighting for the U.S. only to be buried in a segregated cemetery back home? How many died in acts of “friendly fire” — or worse, had their deaths covered up at the highest levels of government, as the Bush administration did with former NFL player Pat Tillman? How many soldiers lay dying while feelings of betrayal flooded their minds, knowing that they were taking their last breath to control Iraq’s oil in the service of making billionaires even richer? Surely at least a few soldiers had to consider that, given the blatant illegality of the war in Iraq. How many soldiers died looking up in the sky in Grenada, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or El Salvador knowing they were meddling in the affairs of countries they had no business being in?

Consider Tomas Young’s death, which came a decade after he was shot and paralyzed in Iraq in April 2004. Does the military update official records when someone succumbs to their injuries years later? And does the U.S. count deaths by suicide years after the given war ends in its official military death toll records? Why aren’t soldiers who died of suicide after returning from Vietnam etched in the Vietnam Memorial wall? Should we memorialize U.S. servicemembers who participate in a genocide?

What about the drone operators in Las Vegas who end up killing themselves because their jobs involve eliminating civilians and soldiers alike on a mass scale in places like Yemen and Pakistan? Are drone operators soldiers, too? Either way, when they die of suicide, they are casualties of war. How many people across the country make space in their Memorial Day moment of silence to think about these questions?

There is clearly much to reflect on and memorialize — certainly way more than a minute of silence can bear. If these reflections hold any value, they depend on us being honest about the full implications of the U.S.’s imperialist wars. Otherwise, these reflections, regardless of the intention, can be perceived as an insult to the memory of those who died.

Memorial Day 2026 will help mark the 250th birthday of the United States. The government-sponsored “reflections” on the death of all those who lost their lives will carry a heightened sense of solemnity. Gary Sinise will be hosting a Memorial Day Parade in Washington, D.C. Baseball teams will be wearing camouflage hats adorned with a red poppy to commemorate the fallen. VFW halls across the country will be raising flags by the hundreds of thousands. Many stories will be told honoring those that lost their lives for the U.S. empire. Furthermore, the corporate media and the government will be exploiting all this “patriotism” to move Americans to support the troops who have helped damage or destroy 763 schools and 316 health care facilities, according to Iranian Red Crescent Society figures, in the current war in Iran.

Will space be made for veterans who are willing to share their bloody experiences of loss and destruction this Memorial Day? What about historians who study the impact of war — will they be given time at parades this Memorial Day to communicate the true cost of war? What about the innocent victims of U.S. military adventurism — will they be able to share their experiences with war?

“You can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil,” Tim O’Brien, award-winning author of The Things They Carried, reminds us.

Memorializing certainly hasn’t prevented war, given that the U.S. does plenty of memorializing while U.S. leaders dream up new wars to enter before they end the ones that are ongoing. Let’s stop lying to ourselves on Memorial Day and instead try exploring the full truth about war in all its obscenity and evil. If we can’t figure out how to end the performative and hollow acknowledgement of the 1.4 million U.S. servicemembers who died, many for less-than-noble reasons, let’s just follow the lead of the kids in Lafayette Park and start calling it “Jump in the Pool Day.” At least that feels much more honest.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Rory Fanning
Rory Fanning walked across the United States for the Pat Tillman Foundation in 2008–2009, following two deployments to Afghanistan with the 2nd Army Ranger Battalion. He is the author of Worth Fighting For: An Army Ranger’s Journey Out of the Military and Across America, and co-author with Craig Hodges of Long Shot: The Triumphs and Struggles of an NBA Freedom Fighter. He regularly speaks at high schools and universities about his walk across the U.S. and his experience as a war resister. Follow him on Twitter: @RTFanning.

Trump Says He “Gets a Kick” Out of Criticisms He Receives for US Military Deaths

There have been nearly 400 US military casualties in Operation Epic Fury so far.

By Chris Walker , 

Truthout

May 22, 2026

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after stepping off Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on May 20, 2026.Kent Nishimura / AFP via Getty Images

Less than a week before Memorial Day weekend — a federal holiday that aims to recognize members of the U.S. military who have died in combat zones — President Donald Trump sought to downplay the U.S. casualties of his ill-defined and unauthorized war on Iran.

Speaking to reporters at Joint Base Andrews on Wednesday, Trump was asked about servicemembers’ deaths.

“We lost 13 people. … In other wars, you lost hundreds of thousands of people,” Trump said, seemingly complaining about any criticism of the war that involves discussing military deaths or casualties.

Trump further claimed that any president other than himself would have lost “a hundred thousand people” if tasked with the same military goals he’s had in Venezuela and Iran.

“I get a kick when I look at somebody on television, and they say, ‘he’s lost 13 people,'” Trump elaborated.

Trump’s comments come as the war on Iran is soon to enter its fourth month. Almost one month ago, Trump announced an indefinite ceasefire with the country, a condition of the war he claims is continuing despite ongoing skirmishes. Blockades by both sides also continue within the Strait of Hormuz. Under international law, blockades are considered acts of war.

Trump’s diminishing of those who have died in the war so far ignores the larger official U.S. casualty count. While 13 servicemembers have died, another 381 have been injured, according to the most recent numbers from CENTCOM.

Casualty reports have been infrequent, however, and it’s possible the numbers may be much higher. Indeed, a Congressional Research Service report suggests the U.S. has had as many as 42 aerial vehicles damaged during the war, indicating that damage to American military bases and war resources is more serious than the White House is letting on, and that the Trump administration isn’t being forthright about the war in general.

Earlier this year, The Intercept also reported on a “cover-up” of U.S. military casualties across the Middle East, including the omission from its official count of soldiers known to have died in Operation Epic Fury.

The news organization noted that it’s “impossible to know how many other casualties have been kept under wraps,” citing past statements by Trump, including one instance where he pushed “a complete fiction to the public.”

That incident featured an Iranian missile attack on Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq in January 2020 — itself a response to the Trump-ordered assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Trump had claimed that “No Americans were harmed” in that attack, and that the U.S. “suffered no casualties.” In fact, at least 110 U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries, a condition Trump later downplayed as being just “headaches.”

Trump’s downplaying of U.S. casualties and deaths from the Iran War comes just ahead of Monday’s Memorial Day holiday. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs website, the holiday is “the nation’s foremost annual day to mourn and honor its deceased service men and women.”

In addition to the hundreds of casualties the U.S. has suffered, nearly 3,500 Iranians, mostly civilians, have been killed in the war, with at least another 26,500 injured.

Michael T. McPhearson, executive director for Veterans for Peace, excoriated Trump for his comments earlier in the week on troop deaths.

Trump’s “flippant attitude as he talks about the deaths is disgusting and disrespectful to the families and the service members’ sacrifices,” McPhearson said in comments to Truthout.

Describing the decision to attack Iran as a clear “war of choice,” McPhearson also said the public “is tired of the U.S.’s endless wars” in general.

“President Trump’s response and demeanor confirm what I’ve known for a long time: he is a self-centered president who cares nothing about military service members, their families, and the American people,” McPhearson added.

Public support for the war on Iran is incredibly low. An Economist/YouGov poll published on Tuesday found that only 30 percent of Americans support the war on Iran, with 60 percent saying they are opposed. On his handling of the war, 31 percent say they approve of how Trump has managed things, while 59 percent say they disapprove.

 

The baby bust: how a global demographic crisis crept up on everyone

From Seoul to São Paulo, fertility rates are collapsing faster than anyone predicted. The consequences for pensions, growth and geopolitical power will define the coming century / bne IntelliNewsFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Ben Aris in Berlin May 22, 2026

Just a decade ago, the dominant demographic narrative was of "dying Russia" — a population hollowed out by the chaos that followed the Soviet collapse, shrinking through a combination of low birth rates, high mortality and mass emigration. The meme was convenient and, for a while, accurate. It is now obsolete. Russia's problem has become everybody's problem.

Thanks to what might be called "Putin’s babies" — an aggressive pro-natalist programme launched by the Kremlin at the very start of his rule, combining generous maternity payments, housing support and social pressure — Russia's demographic profile looks considerably healthier than most of the rest of Europe, even if its population is still shrinking along with everyone else's. The uncomfortable truth is that there is now nowhere in Europe where the fertility rate exceeds the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman — except Kosovo, which just scrapes above at 2.01. Every other European country sits below the line.

The crisis extends far beyond Europe. In more than two-thirds of the world's 195 countries, the average number of children born to each woman has fallen below replacement rate. In some countries the situation has become catastrophic.

Europe

Ukraine has by far the worst demographic in the world. Its mortality rate is three times its birth rate, and the population is in rapid collapse — a crisis dramatically worsened by a war that has carved a deep gouge out of the 25-to-35-year-old cohort and sent millions of women abroad. Ukraine's total fertility rate stands at 0.90, the lowest in the world. Lithuania follows at 1.04 and Poland at 1.08, with the Baltic states and Central Europe close behind. Eastern Europe as a whole has become the epicentre of depopulation.

Even Hungary, with its elaborate suite of ultra-natalist policies — tax exemptions for mothers of four or more children, interest-free loans, subsidised housing — manages only 1.31 children per woman. Bulgaria leads the EU at a still-inadequate 1.62. France records 1.56, a figure somewhat inflated by its overseas territories. Germany sits at 1.3, with a rapidly ageing population of pensioners that it will struggle to sustain financially. In March German Chancellor Friedrich Merz crunched the numbers and concluded: "We can no longer afford our social system."  In Italy, some regions have seen the fertility rate fall below 1.0, as young couples simply cannot afford a second child.

Oxford Economics' assessment is blunt. "With the influx of Ukrainian refugees abating, it would take several hundred thousand more migrants than we project to prevent a persistent fall in the eurozone's working-age population," said senior economist Riccardo Marcelli Fabiani. "Our baseline forecast is for net migration to alleviate some, but not all, of the decline." The eurozone's working-age population is expected to begin shrinking next year.

In November, residents of Turkey were reflecting on some disturbing news: fully one half of all families have no children. Turkey, despite being perceived as a relatively young country, is also experiencing a demographic crisis, with a birth rate of just 1.39 — lower than large parts of Europe.

Asia

The problem is equally acute in the markets that have typically seen populations grow alongside rising incomes. South Korea leads the world in demographic dysfunction at 0.80 children per woman — the lowest fertility rate ever recorded for a major economy. Taiwan sits at 0.72, Singapore at 0.88, Thailand at 0.87, and China at 0.93. Japan, whose ageing crisis has been extensively documented for decades, records 1.13. Even Malaysia, at 1.41, and the Philippines, at 1.7, are well below replacement.

China's situation stands out. It has long vied with India as home to the most humans on the planet and both were the only countries with over a billion people, but China has not only already lost its lead to India, it is going to lose half its population full stop, according to the IMF.

The legacy of the one-child policy has produced an age pyramid that looks more like a tower. With a working-age population of around 800mn now beginning to contract, the speed of demographic ageing is without precedent in economic history. Oxford Economics estimates that shrinking workforce dynamics will subtract approximately one percentage point from China's potential output growth by the 2050s — a compounding drag that will fundamentally reshape the country's economic trajectory. China's population, currently around 1.4bn, is projected to roughly halve over the coming decades without a dramatic reversal in fertility that shows no sign of materialising.

India remains in a lot better shape, in that its population pyramid still looks like a pyramid. With a fertility rate hovering around 2.0, it will be one of the few Asian countries to see mild population growth over the same period — though even here the middle-class effect is beginning to suppress birth rates in urban and educated cohorts.

The Middle Income Effect

Where has fertility fallen most sharply in the past decade? Not in the richest countries, but in middle-income ones. Turkey, Iran, Argentina, Thailand and Mexico all now have fertility rates well below that of the United States. The explanation lies in economics: as incomes rise to the point where a middle class emerges, birth rates fall. The incentive structure shifts. In poor families, more children mean more hands to work the land and more people to support parents in old age. Once life becomes comfortable and parents become professionals, children come to be seen as expensive choices rather than economic necessities and caregivers have less time to spend on looking after toddlers.

This middle-class effect is already visible at the bottom of India's demographic curve, where urban, educated families are shrinking in size. Latin America presents a similarly stark picture: Brazil at 1.5, Argentina at 1.13, Chile at 1.14, Uruguay at 1.15, Colombia at 1.28, Mexico at 1.38 and Costa Rica at 1.10. The highest fertility rate in the region belongs to French Guiana at 2.76 — an outlier explained by its specific demographic composition.

In the Middle East, Iran records 1.49, while the Gulf states are all well below replacement: Qatar at 1.33, Kuwait at 1.5, the UAE at 1.6, and Saudi Arabia at 2.0. Israel, at 2.87, stands as a striking outlier — one of the highest rates in the developed world and well above its neighbours.

The Exceptions: Africa and Central Asia

Two regions remain genuine exceptions to the global trend, though for different reasons and with different trajectories.

Africa remains the world's primary source of population growth. Only three African countries currently sit below replacement rate: Morocco at 1.97, South Africa at 1.7 and Tunisia at 1.45. Most African countries still record fertility rates of three or more. But the direction of travel is clear and accelerating — rates that stood at six to ten births per woman just fifteen years ago have fallen dramatically. Egypt, Africa's third most populous state, is projected to be the first to fall below two children per woman replacement before 2030 – largely to the middle class growth effect.

Central Asia, and Uzbekistan in particular, represents the other growth hotspot. With an average age below 35 and a rapidly expanding young population, Uzbekistan is bucking the global trend. One of the central challenges facing President Shavkat Mirziyoyev is creating enough well-paid jobs for an increasingly youthful electorate. Kazakhstan, by contrast, saw a 10% decrease in births last year.

What Is Driving the Collapse

The scale of the collapse has surprised even demographers. Just five years ago the United Nations predicted roughly twice as many births as have actually occurred. The demographic deterioration in high and middle-income countries has accelerated sharply in the past decade alone.

Several factors are in play. The Financial Times has reported a link between the spread of smartphones and falling fertility rates — the hypothesis being that social media suppresses the romantic interactions that lead to partnership formation. Staring at your phone all day is not very sexy. The evidence is suggestive but not conclusive, and the decline in many countries began in the 1990s, well before smartphones became ubiquitous.

More concretely, the past half-century has seen a fundamental shift in how economic growth is distributed. Since the 1970s, the gains from productivity growth have increasingly accrued to capital rather than labour — to shareholders rather than workers. Real wages in the United States, for example, have stagnated for decades even as corporate profits, dividend payments and the overall size of the economy have soared.

The cost-of-living crisis accelerating across much of the developed world is another problem: housing costs have risen far faster than incomes, particularly in major cities. Berlin's combination of restrictive planning permissions and rent control — designed to keep accommodation affordable — has produced a split market in which tenants wont leave their rent-controlled accommodation sending up prices in the unregulated new-build apartments. The upshot is a chronic shortage of affordable accommodation that is yet another a powerful disincentive to family formation.

The Economic Reckoning

What impact all this will have on the global and local economies is hard to say. But investors are already taking notice. In Oxford Economics' fourth-quarter 2025 Global Risk Survey, concern about demographic change rose sharply, with 40% of respondents identifying it as a top risk — up from 25% just two quarters earlier. The drivers are straightforward: falling fertility rates combined with accelerating ageing are fundamentally altering the structure of labour supply across most of the world's economies and putting already cash-strapped government budgets under even more pressure.

One solution already being studied by governments, investors and corporations alike is to look to artificial intelligence and robotics to fill the gap. McKinsey Global Institute estimates that existing technology could, in theory, automate around 57% of current US work hours. Work in the future will likely be a partnership between humans, AI agents and robots. But the transition raises as many questions as it answers — about which skills remain valuable, which jobs disappear, and how the gains from automation are distributed in societies already struggling with inequality.

The demographic crisis crept up on the world slowly, then arrived very fast. The babies that were not born in the 1990s, the 2000s and the 2010s are the workers, consumers and taxpayers who will not exist in the 2030s, the 2040s and the 2050s. Reversing that arithmetic, where it can be reversed at all, will take generations.

 

 

Potato futures soar 700% in less than a month on Iran war speculation

Copyright AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu

By Quirino Mealha

Published on 08/05/2026 - EURONEWS

Potato-linked financial contracts have risen over 700% in a few weeks, despite a current oversupply in Europe, due to speculative trading surrounding the volatile environment caused by the Iran war.

Potato contracts for difference (CFDs), which track the benchmark market for the commodity, have seen prices soar roughly 705% in less than a month.

Since 21 April, the cost per hundred kilograms has risen from approximately €2.11 to a staggering €18.50.

However, this price is in fact still very low compared to where the potato market was in the last two years. This is due to the underlying physical market in Europe currently suffering from a major oversupply.

After shortages and strong prices in previous seasons, farmers in countries including Belgium, Netherlands, France and Germany expanded planting areas significantly.

Favorable weather conditions then produced exceptionally large harvests, creating a substantial surplus across the European market. As a result, processors and exporters have struggled to absorb the supply, pushing farmgate prices sharply downward.

Reportedly some lower-quality potatoes intended for animal feed or industrial use have traded at extremely low or even negative prices. In those cases, growers may effectively pay transport or disposal costs to move excess stock off their farms.

The cited €18.50 benchmark generally refers to “free-buy” potatoes sold on the open market rather than potatoes already covered by fixed-price contracts between growers and processors.

Although this price is above the negative values seen in secondary markets, many producers still consider it financially unsustainable because production costs, including fuel, fertiliser, storage and electricity, have risen substantially.

The contrast between weak physical prices and sharp movements in financial benchmarks reflects the difference between commodity trading markets and the real agricultural supply chain.

Financial markets can react strongly to volatility, expectations about future harvests, weather risks, export demand or potential supply corrections, even while current physical inventories remain excessive.

In other words, the large percentage increase seen in potato-linked financial instruments does not mean potatoes have suddenly become expensive in Europe, instead, it reflects volatility in a market attempting to price future conditions linked to the current instability.

Relate

Negative effects of the Iran war

The conflict in the Middle East has severely hindered the export of essential chemicals and minerals required for industrial farming, leading to widespread fears regarding global food security.

As potatoes are a nutrient-intensive crop, the sudden lack of affordable fertiliser has direct implications for future yields and current market valuations.

To make matters worse, the regional instability has made primary shipping lanes increasingly hazardous, complicating the logistics of agricultural trade.

According to the UN, roughly a third of the world's fertilisers such as urea, potash, ammonia and phosphates normally pass through the currently blocked Strait of Hormuz.

In response to these rising costs and uncertainty, traders are seemingly repricing futures contracts and no longer prioritising the current reality of oversupply.

While for European consumers, this does not presently translate to a massive increase in the cost of a basic dietary staple, the move in potato CFDs highlights an anxious market attempting to price the several and encompassing economic effects of the Iran war.

Romania and Hungary’s Recent Elections: the Rinse and Repeat Alternating Electoral Wins of Liberalism and Nationalism 

Jeffrey Sommers – Cosmin Marian

 May 8, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail\

Photograph Source: © European Union, 1998 – 2026

Romania was late to politics which saw parties representing the left and right unite against liberals. But unite they did this week, in what the founder of Russia’s former “National Bolsheviks,” Alexander Dugin, presciently described in 2008 as movements “against the center.” Dugin predicted these left/right alliances would crush liberalism. Instead, they mostly acted performatively to knock off liberals while nationalists opportunistically seized state power to chiefly benefit themselves in new clientelist clans, rather than acting as transformative agents for advancing any national interest. The result was to just replace one set of elites (usually anchored to global interests) with another set of elites (typically anchored at the national level).

Meanwhile, two weeks prior, neighboring Hungary saw populist-right Viktor Orban replaced by his former understudy Péter Magyar and his Tisza center-right party, promising the return of Hungary to the pro-EU camp. But, the 2026 parliamentary elections were the first in post-communist Hungary where left parties failed to garner the minimum vote necessary for legislative representation.

European electorates have increasingly proved fickle in the 21st century, and more so since the 2008 financial crash. Electorates no longer are anchored to parties as they were in the previous century, where parties in power often implemented party programs and represented real class interests, at least they did before the European Union and the victory of neoliberalism under the EU’s Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Whether inside or out of the eurozone, neoliberal globalizing forces have transferred ever more power to banks and created infrastructures for capital flight from “uncooperative” states, making real change difficult.

This is all to say that much of Central and Eastern Europe lacks much of a genuine democratic left force in politics. The last popular democratic threat was Greece’s Syriza, which, 11 years ago, under their Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, challenged, if not threatened, the European Central Bank’s (ECB) power over national economies. When Syriza’s Prime Minister surrendered to the ECB, the European left was mostly killed off thereafter as electorates saw them unwilling to truly confront austerity. Thus, the political terrain has chiefly been dominated by political liberals and rightists, with the latter often being oligarchs cosplaying nationalists, or at least funding them from behind the curtain in the Emerald City of the Wizard of Oz.

Following the global 2008 financial crisis, Viktor Orban won power in 2010 in Hungary then suffering under the economic crisis. Orban might not have lasted 16 years in power if it were not for his gerrymandering of Hungary’s parliament and taking control of their judiciary. But make no mistake, Fidesz and its program of anti-immigration and taxing foreign capital once was popular.

Only a year ago, Romania soundly defeated the nationalist George Simion. Simion had to be called in as a substitute for the right-wing Călin Georgescu who was banned from running due to some trifling sums funding his social media campaign that likely was of Russian provenance. To be direct, he was really banned because he voiced Kremlin-friendly policies and had solid prospects for winning. Georgescu repackaged old superstitions as New Age hokum and combined this with policy privileging the nation over the state (EU as superstate). Simion by contrast, was a political novice coming from football ultras. That alone didn’t defeat the upstart Simion. He needed Romania’s Hungarian minority vote, but part of Simion’s youthful hooliganism consisted of kicking over Hungarian gravestones, thus blunting any sales pitch directed at Hungarians. By contrast, his liberal opponent, an all-around nice guy, math whiz and European-friendly relatable to urban educated youth, Nicușor Dan, sailed to an easy victory.

What to do in power? Romania became the EU’s tiger economy over the past decade. But Dan’s election coincided with Romania hitting the proverbial “middle-income trap” as it hit the ceiling of its development model. With public debt mounting, Romania’s liberal government imposed budget cuts (austerity) in hopes of restoring macro-economic fundamentals. The effect was to turn off the money spigot off to the many clientelist centers of power in government. These areas were represented by the Social Democrats, largely the inheritors of state institutions under communism. This clientelist “left” and then united with the nationalist political right to move “against the (liberal) center” of Romania’s government.

Thus, outside of tiny Kosovo, no left-wing party has risen to rule in Europe today, as the legacy of Syriza’s surrender to the ECB in 2015 remains. What has, however, operated since 2008 have been alternating cycles of nationalist clientelist parties that win office until electorates tire of them. At such points, liberals assume power again, until the limits of neoliberal economics reveal it can’t sustain socio-economic health. The cycle then repeats with nationalists again taking power, or as in the case of Romania, with the old sclerotic left clientist parties uniting with the nationalist right “against the center.” The question remains how long this cycle of alternating rinse and repeat takeovers of power, and failure to deliver, can continue, until a genuinely democratic movement, or truly extreme right-wing party, captures power? Sadly, unless the former can prevail before the latter, we are likely to eventually find out.

Jeffrey Sommers is a visiting professor at Babes-Bolyai University’s Center for Political Economy and professor of political economy and public policy at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Cosmin Marian is a professor and department chair of the Center for Political Economy at Babes-Bolyai University, and a research affiliate at Central European University.