World
In seeking re-election, von der Leyen has one real rival: herself
Ursula von der Leyen is often hailed as the most transformational president of the European Commission since Jacques Delors. But could her legacy backfire as she seeks re-election?
The German politician is ready for another five years at the helm of the European Union’s most powerful institution, from which she has shaped the bloc’s policies in ways that would have been unimaginable when MEPs elected her in 2019 by a razor-thin margin.
Her tenure kicked off amid a continent-wide movement of protests and strikes that thrust climate change to the very top of the agenda. It was therefore fitting that one of her first headline-grabbing moments was her presentation of the European Green Deal as a “man on the moon” moment.
The Green Deal set out the binding ambition to make the bloc climate-neutral by 2050, an irreversible shift for a borderless single market that traced its origins to a coal and steel community.
Shortly after, her executive plunged into a succession of crises, some lasting to this day.
“I had been in office for less than 100 days when the WHO declared a global pandemic,” von der Leyen said during her re-election announcement on Monday, referring to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw the entire bloc come to a standstill.
The pandemic was followed by a rise in irregular migration, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the disruption of energy supplies, record-breaking inflation and an across-the-board economic slowdown. But instead of succumbing to external circumstances, the president managed to capitalise on those crises to strengthen and deepen European integration.
Against the virus, von der Leyen spearheaded a history-making €750-billion recovery fund to jolt the bloc’s economy after crippling months of paralysis. Months later, she oversaw an unprecedented common procurement of vaccines to ensure all member states had access to the life-saving treatment on equal conditions.
When Vladimir Putin gave the go-ahead to invade Ukraine, von der Leyen proposed plans to wean the EU off Russian fossil fuels – a costly vice kept for decades as taboo – and drastically ramp up the deployment of renewables. As a result, the bloc’s dependency rate on Russian gas fell from 45% in 2021 to 15% in 2023. Meanwhile, imports of seaborne oil and coal collapsed to zero.
The president then turned the war into the long-missing catalyst that was needed to revive the project of enlargement and recommended the opening of accession talks with Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia-Herzegovina, provided the completion of reforms.
When she saw China double down on its assertiveness and stand by Putin’s side, von der Leyen came up with the concept of “de-risking” and drafted the first-ever strategy on economic security, forcing open markets to reckon head-on with geopolitical swings.
On migration, she fought to reform the bloc’s asylum policy as she tried an untested, and controversial, method to sign agreements with neighbouring countries, including Tunisia and Mauritania. And on digital, she laid out a brand-new rulebook to rein in unfair competition, unlawful content and the worst effects of artificial intelligence.
All of this elevated von der Leyen’s profile, both domestically and internationally, to heights previously unknown to her predecessors. She earned glowing coverage in, among others, the New York Times, the Guardian, Time Magazine and Forbes, which named her the world’s most powerful woman for two years in a row.
Inside the Commission, however, her penchant for ambitious policies ruffled feathers among staff, who decried her tendency to micro-manage legislation and take decisions in close consultation with only a very selected, mostly German circle of advisers. Diplomats from member states have complained about what they see as von der Leyen’s insistence on dominating the narrative by floating grand ideas in public, which can have the effect of pre-empting the outcome of internal negotiations.
Von der Leyen’s icy relationship with Charles Michel, the president of the European Council, has been the subject of endless speculation since the infamous Sofagate scandal in Turkey. Last year, Michel openly chastised the Commission for the way it designed a phased-in ban on Russian oil and the memorandum of understanding with Tunisia.
The tension surfaced again after von der Leyen received blistering criticism for her response to the Israel-Hamas war and Michel attempted to position himself as a moderate force among the diverging views of member states. The debacle from her trip to Tel Aviv resonated for weeks and seriously threatened her standing in Brussels.
Still, the Commission president managed to pull through and shake off her harshest critics. By the time she announced her campaign, no other name thrown in the ring had the gravitas to compete with her. The warm wishes sent by EU leaders bode well for her future.
“The old question of Henry Kissinger of who do you phone when you want to phone Europe? I think, at this point in time, it has an answer,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), praising how von der Leyen “very successfully” transformed the pandemic and the Ukraine war into policy opportunities.
“There’s definitely a story about political leadership,” she added. “The flipside to that style is that it has been a very centralised form of leadership which obviously created quite a bit of discontent within the institution itself.”
With no political rival standing between her and the Commission, von der Leyen inevitably becomes her sole adversary. Her legacy, built at a frantic pace in times of extreme urgency, will simultaneously serve as an argument in favour and against her re-election.
It is no coincidence that, as the June elections neared, the political discourse moved to dissect one of her key accomplishments: the Green Deal. Ever since the battle over the Nature Restoration Law, conservative voices, including from von der Leyen’s own political family, the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), have ramped up their condemnation of environmental policies which, they say, are constraining industrial production, creating excessive bureaucracy and endangering competitiveness.
The farmers’ protests that erupted in January across several European countries only reinforced the right-wing backlash and forced von der Leyen to change her tune, promising “more dialogue” to reconcile climate and agriculture. The scrutiny is set to last until, at least, the June ballot is over and might very well extend into a second presidential term where the economy, defence and high-tech take centre stage.
Faustine Bas-Defossez, director for nature at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), believes the Green Deal must return to its early days, when it was an “ambitious, transformative agenda” with “high-level commitments,” before being weakened by the “upcoming European elections and the instrumentalisation of the consequences of the war in Ukraine by some actors, in particular from the agribusiness.”
“At a time of fears, eco-anxiety and threats to democracy in several places of the world, we need political courage and hope further down the line,” Bas-Defossez told Euronews.
“The Green Deal remains the only compass we have towards a liveable future. It should therefore remain and get strengthened in the next mandate while putting a new social contract at its core.”
World
How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran
A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.
Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s
Carries 110 pounds of explosives
One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.
Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.
Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.
Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.
In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.
Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.
Air-based strikes
In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.
A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Two to three interceptors fired per drone
These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.
The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.
Anti-drone defense systems
One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.
A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.
When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.
Ship-based anti-missile defenses
Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.
Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.
“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.
Ground-based anti-missile defenses
The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Patriot missile defense system
Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.
But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.
Ground-based guns
Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.
A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar
Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds
Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.
Interceptor drones
There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.
A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Merops system: Surveyor drone
Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.
The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.
Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.
The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.
Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.
“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”
World
Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.
The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.
He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.
Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.
The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD
Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.
At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.
Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.
The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS
Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.
“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”
The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.
The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16
Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.
“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.
“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.
World
Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted
Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.
Published On 18 Apr 2026
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.
In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.
list of 4 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.
“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.
The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”
More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.
Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.
Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.
US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.
Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.
‘Two competing blockades’
Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.
“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.
“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.
Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.
“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.
-
Rhode Island3 minutes ago2 dead, 1 seriously hurt after crash on I-95 South in Warwick
-
South-Carolina9 minutes agoMissouri beats South Carolina in game two
-
South Dakota15 minutes ago
Democrats fail to field candidates for a majority of South Dakota legislative seats
-
Tennessee21 minutes agoTennessee drops series to Ole Miss with game two loss
-
Texas27 minutes agoCo‑worker confesses to killing missing North Texas man and stealing his car, police say
-
Utah33 minutes ago
Embattled Utah Rep. Trevor Lee loses county GOP convention — but wins enough support to make primary
-
Vermont39 minutes agoWomen’s Lacrosse Bested in Burlington by Vermont – University at Albany Great Danes
-
Virginia45 minutes agoSkydiver rescued after crashing into scoreboard during Virginia Tech football scrimmage