“The ice has begun to crack” between Russia and America, announced Kirill Dmitriev,  a key actor in the negotiations between Moscow and Washington to end the war in Ukraine.

*

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “already knows”.

Namely, that US American leader Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin seem to be already devising new, joint energy projects of Washington and Moscow. Which ones? Neither Zelenskyy, nor Trump or Putin reveal that… Perhaps, one connected to the collapsed “North Stream”? (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-russia-explore-gas-sale-europe-amid-ukraine-war-say-sources-2026-10-08/

” There’s intuition, there’s intelligence, and there are various details”. In that order of words, on Friday, October 16, Zelenskyy explained in Brussels his assessment that the official Washington and Moscow in mutual energy connections will not stop only at the recent agreement between Trump and Putin on the export of Russian diesel to the USA (https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-warns-trump-could-ease-more-sanctions-on-russia/).

“The gas deal is next. I’m sure of it. After the gas, they (the Americans?) will lift the sanctions, and other things,” Zelenskyy warned, during a stormy session of EU leaders, focused on formulating a profile of further financial and any other assistance to Kiev in continuing the fight against Russia’s “special military operation”. (https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-warns-trump-could-ease-more-sanctions-on-russia/).

Intuition seems to have partially failed Zelenskyy. On the same Friday evening, US President Donald Trump announced an executive order in which he waived “indefinitely” the implementation of the package of “hellish sanctions” against Russia that he signed at the end of September. (https://www.ft.com/content/836eddd7-3adc-4cbb-8527-7a0a7a277e50?syn-25a6b1a6=1).

“I am hereby waiving the application of such sanctions, restrictions and duties provided for in the Graham Act,” it stated.

The “ramp” to further sanctions against Russia seems to have been a priority now.

Meanwhile, The Lindsey O Graham—(otherwise known as a staunch ally of Ukraine) Russia and Iran Act mandates sanctions against Russian defence and energy sectors, as well as its fleet of shadow fleet of aging oil tankers.

Now, how far is Donald Trump ready to enter into new energy arrangements with Moscow, and then of what profile?Washington is not revealing its cards yet.

However, Moscow is already sending signals that the Americans and the Russians already have there something in mind.

“The ice (on the photo: Arctic ice) has, in fact, begun to break” (in relations between Russia and the US), vividly described Friday by Kirill Dmitriev, a key actor in the Russian-American negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine. (https://www.reuters.com/world/dmitriev-says-russian-wealth-fund-will-work-with-us-payment-diesel-deal-2026-10-16/), during the Russian Energy Week in Moscow.

The timing of the signalled cooperation between Moscow and Washington attracts attention.

“We are effectively implementing projects with the US, at this very moment, and we will continue to do so until the special military operation is over,” Dmitriev added, while also mentioning “the use of small nuclear power plants”…

Russians and Americans are already implementing joint projects, and will continue until the war in Ukraine ends?!

Novak Djokovic, the world’s best tennis player of all time, Meg O’Neill, the CEO of Shell, and Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, will not meet in Riyadh (on the photo) these days. The capital of Saudi Arabia seems to be becoming a “dangerous” place, the target of almost day and night rocket attacks by the Yemeni Houthis, without the prospect of an end to a ongoing barrage of actions by the “Ansar Allah” rebel movement. (https://www.telegraf.rs/english/4415121-novak-djokovic-will-not-travel-to-riyadh-six-kings-tournament-postponed); https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/bp-withdraws-riyadh-energy-conference-after-airport-attack-2026-10-11/); https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-911792).

Namely, the prestigious exhibition tournament “Six Kings” was postponed. Just like the Gulf Countries-EU summit, while the World Petroleum Congress was held without the presence of representatives of the mega-world oil companies, although the host, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, assured the invited and those gathered that “the word ‘fear’ does not exist in the Saudi vocabulary” (https://www.upstreamonline.com/energy-security/-fear-does-not-exist-in-the-saudi-dictionary-says-saudi-energy-minister/2-1-2057319).

If not fear, then “anxiety” is certainly present among many travellers – those intending to visit Riyadh these days, or to return to work at the company’s headquarters for the Middle East (https://vision2030.ai/analysis/riyadh-mandate/).

The global uneasiness regarding eventual rip to Riyadh is especially spreading, after the announcement by Yahya Sari, the military spokesman of the Yemeni rebel movement “Ansar Allah”, that for the Houthis Saudi Arabia is still their new “battlefield”… (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5m2dn7zz4nyo).

As things stand now, foreigners are beginning to bypass the desert capital of the leading Sunni monarchy, a key member of OPEC, the richest country on the Arabian Peninsula, until recently the world’s third largest customer of foreign weapons (in the period 2020-2025, 77 percent of which is from the USA). https://www.visualcapitalist.com/where-the-worlds-biggest-arms-exporters-send-their-weapons/.

Whether the Houthis will succeed in cutting off Saudi Arabia from the world is uncertain.

What is certain is that the official Riyadh, at this moment, is in the windstorm of war.

Namely, reluctant to accept Moscow’s invitation for BRICS membership, as well as Washington’s subsequent invitation to join the Abraham Accords, Saudi Arabia is now facing an offensive by the Yemeni Houthis, still without directly engaged external allies, on the battlefield from Riyadh to Bab el Mandeb…

When US President Donald Trump declares the Strait of Hormuz “New US territory” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/21/trump-strait-of-hormuz-american-territory) at the end of August, and after that,  Iranians call California a “new territory” of the Islamic Republic (https://caspianpost.com/politics/iran-labels-california-new-territory-following-trump-s-hormuz-post), what do the two countries at war in  Persian Gulf actually do with the current geographical map of the world?

Herald a new world? Provoke each other?…

Various other answers are probably possible.

For example, if the winner is establishing itself in a new territory after the successful conclusion of a certain conflict, then the geographical map valid until before that, is likely to undergo adaptation to the new reality. However, in the case of the Hormuz Strait “victory” does not seem to be in sight yet, for either of the involved parties.

On the other hand, when a participant in a still uncertainly long conflict—this time in a replica—calls a part of the opponent’s territory “his own “, how does he choose exactly that part of the territory, and not some other?

In this “cartographic case” it is known that “California hosts the largest concentration of people of Iranian descent outside of Iran, with approximately 141,000 Iranian Americans living in Los Angeles County, according to the Centre for Near Eastern Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (on the first photo). The community expanded significantly after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, establishing Westwood – better known as ‘Tehrangeles’ – as a major centre of diaspora life”…

Now, when the other day, US President Donald Trump, during the campaign for the November mid-term elections, in the context of increased fuel prices, mentioned in a series of sentences: Iran, “strikes”, Los Angeles, San Diego, the nuclear threat… there was quite a bit of confusion about what the 47th President of US actually meant and said. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/06/trump-suggests-let-iran-take-out-los-angeles-san-diego).

Trump later said : “Do you want to see the trauma? Want to see the issues? Let them hit San Diego, let them hit Los Angeles…We won’t let that happen. We protect our cities. We are protecting our country.”( https://www.kktv.com/2026/10/08/trump-tries-smooth-over-controversial-remarks-about-iran-striking-san-diego-los-angeles/).

Be that as it may.

It is certain that the key players in the conflict in the Persian Gulf sometimes associate the geopolitical map of their conflicts with California, and, Los Angeles…

Meanwhile, Tehran (pictured) and Los Angeles are separated by about 6,600 nautical miles (about 12,185 kilometers) by waterways, which the US president is considering renaming the “Ocean of Trump” or the “Ocean of America.” https://time.com/article/2026/10/12/trump-atlantic-pacific-ocean-americas-renaming-gulf-mexico-lake-ontario/.

Whatever.

And, what could Portugal’s public prosecutor’s office conclude now, after today’s assessment by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Lisbon that “Suffice it to say that we have existing protocols that regulate our presence here and the way we use our bases, and we always adhere to them out of respect for the agreements we have with our NATO allies,” Rubio told reporters at a press conference. (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/rubio-says-us-follows-protocols-on-military-base-use-as-he-meets-portuguese-foreign-minister/4082437).

Since April, the Portuguese opposition party “Left Bloc” has not been convinced that the operation of American KC-46 refuelling warplanes and other elements of the military arsenal, from the Lajes base on the island of Terceira (in the Azores) this year, was completely in accordance with international laws. (https://www.dawn.com/news/2034633/portugal-probes-legality-of-us-use-of-base-in-iran-war).

On the one hand, Portugal and the USA  have a bilateral defence agreement from the time of the Cold War, more precisely since 1951, and on this basis the 65th Air Base Wing of the US Air Force is stationed at the Lajes base in the middle of the Atlantic.

The backbone of that military base is the airstrip, which has one of the largest airfield ramps of the US Air Force in Europe. In other words, far from the conflict zone in the Middle East, the Lajes base is an extremely safe location for the preparation of operations of long-range bombers and army cargo and personnel transport.

Everything seems easy in peacetime—to comply with the agreement of 75 years ago, American warplanes take off and land from the runway at Lajes base without prior authorization from official Lisbon (https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/portugal-probes-us-use-of-lajes-base-in-iran-war-after-opposition-challenges-govt-approval/cid/2182967#goog_rewarded).

But what happens when war breaks out somewhere?

The Portuguese head of diplomacy, Paulo Rangel, points out that the use of the Lajes base was fully in accordance with international laws, and that – in the event of a conflict in the Persian Gulf, Lisbon gave authorization after Washington assured that any operation from Terceira Island (area of ​​about 400 square kilometres, 55,000 inhabitants, about 1,200 kilometres west of Lisbon) would be exclusively for defensive purposes, necessary and proportionate and limited to military objectives.

It remains to be seen what will be the conclusion of the investigation by the Portuguese Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding the submission of the “Left Bloc” party.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently warned the Europeans that they could be “complicit in aggression” if they allow the US to use bases on their territory for attacks on the Islamic Republic… (https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/araghchi-warns-european-countries-hosting-us-bases-could-be-complicit).

“Either they will sign a very fair agreement, or they will cease to exist.” With these words, at the end of last week, US President Donald Trump described the potential fate of Iran, in the event that Tehran refuses to accept the agreement with the US, according to Washington (https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-cabinet-holds-secret-camp-141137726.html).

It is uncertain whether the above: “… they will not exist”, means the same as when Trump says that Iran could be annihilated”. (https://www.modernghana.com/videonews/bbc/1/727313).

Aside from the question, when and under what conditions “that” could happen—(President Trump mentions a possible continuation of “strikes” on Iran after the November mid-term elections…), the dilemma could be too, by what method could such a goal be achieved?

The answer seems uncertain.

On the other hand, it is certain that Washington puts the end of Iran’s nuclear program at the forefront of any agreement with Tehran, i.e. that after the end of the conflict in the Persian Gulf, the Islamic Republic will never have nuclear weapons (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Mf_oCzcJ4VQ).

Washington and Tehran’s negotiators probably know how much is there between “nuclear program” and “nuclear weapons”.

Meanwhile, for Tehran, at the moment, the “opening of the Strait of Hormuz” is the first topic for negotiations on ending the conflict with Washington. (https://en.yenisafak.com/world/iran-says-strait-of-hormuz-main-focus-of-talks-to-end-us-war-3724101).

And also, until the US fulfils all seven conditions set by Iran, that “opening of Hormuz” apparently cannot happen.

In this tense moment, Washington is currently sending about 7,000 sailors and 2,000 marines to the Persian Gulf region, as well as the third war destroyer USS “Theodore Roosevelt” (https://apnews.com/article/iran-war-trump-ships-deployment-middle-east-42c23e9af0333f4bc3b4f419cc3a603e).

Iran works on several looms at the same time.

On the one hand, the head of Iranian diplomacy, Abbas Aragchi, announces “even more decisive action” by Iran in the event of a possible new aggression (https://www.tabnak.ir/en/news/7752/iran-to-give-crushing-response-to-any-aggression).

At the same time, Tehran announces diverse and fairly long-term cooperation with certain foreign partners.

With Pakistan, for example, the five-year plan to expand cooperation in the field of culture and tourism (https://www.tabnak.ir/en/news/7747/iran-pakistan-to-expand-tourism-cooperation)!

And, with the Russian “Rosatom”, the construction of a number of new “larger and smaller” nuclear power plants (https://www.saba.ye/en/news3798917.htm).

Reportedly, evaluation of “several new sites in Iran” for the construction of these new nuclear power plants is underway.

The two scenarios: that Iran “may not exist”, and that new “big and small nuclear reactors” will appear there, seem incompatible.

Somewhere, in Islamabad, Moscow… there is a belief that Iran would not be “annihilated ” after all.  

Ominous questions like these are starting to make more and more sense these days in the tense arena of the Strait of Hormuz, as tankers are now being threatened and even shot at on both sides of the front. (https://splash247.com/us-goes-tanker-for-tanker-with-iran/

 ; https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/iran-s-irgc-says-2-oil-tankers-hit-mines-in-strait-of-hormuz-warns-shipping-companies/4044966 ).

Namely, the six-month war between the USA and Israel against Iran entered a new phase at the end of August, in which Washington no longer prioritizes ensuring free navigation “for all”, nor does Tehran remind of its sovereign rights in its territorial waters above the Strait of Hormuz. At this stage, Washington and Tehran seem to be primarily interested in establishing their exclusive right to control shipping in and out of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

On this occasion, the world’s leading insurance companies are probably already making new risk calculations, because tankers: Iranian, Saudi, South Korean, Greek… in the Strait of Hormuz are becoming a legitimate military target. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj64rrne643o).

By the way, a new phase of the conflict in the Persian Gulf, in which civilian ships (eg mega-tankers) are being stalked by marksmen from Tehran, Washington, and other “unidentified culprits”, began in August. At that time, the Iranian National Guard published a list of 46 foreign tankers that bypassed the routes established by Tehran’s new regulations while passing through Hormuz, and announced a number of punitive measures against them. (https://mbiz.heraldcorp.com/article/10850736).

After that, “missiles of unknown origin” hit the Saudi VLCC Sidr, and shortly afterwards, on the same day, they caught up with the South Korean tanker Senegal Prosperity (under the flag of Liberia). Then two Iranian petro-tankers owned by NITC (National Iranian Tanker Company) were attacked by the US Navy. US officials described the action as part of a new retaliatory “tanker-for-tanker” attack tactic. Meanwhile, no one has yet claimed responsibility for the strikes on Sidr and Senegal Prosperity (collectively they have been loaded with about four million barrels of oil).

And, as of today, the US Navy “permanently disabled” three Iranian tankers in the Persian Gulf, after the Iranians acted against US warships in the region, according to the BBC.

In a” tanker-for-tanker” mission, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, raised the stakes :  “Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even greater economic cost – destroy three of yours.”

It is getting more and more dangerous nowadays in the Strait of Hormuz. 

US President Donald Trump’s announcement that “the Strait of Hormuz is US territory right now”  (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/8/22/iran-war-live-trump-says-tehran-not-ready-to-make-right-deal-to-end-war ),

and the retaliatory announcement by the Iranian consulate in Hyderabad,  that California is “Iran’s new territory” (https://www.trtworld.com/article/4b1fa88c11d2u), now offer to the international community, two new geographic maps of the world.

Trump’s map shows a US flag flying over the Strait of Hormuz. On the  Tehran’s new map, California is separated from the USA. In the background of this “mapping” is the ongoing war conflict in the Persian Gulf , initiated on February 28^th  by the Israeli-US attack on Iran with the key motive being that Tehran should never have nuclear weapons.

As things stand now, the further course of the conflict in the Persian Gulf is uncertain.

Especially after Trump’s latest decision that “the most devastating sanctions in history” will soon be imposed on Iran (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/20/trump-threatens-crush-iran-economy-war-hormuz). Also because, of the latter messages from Tehran that the introduction of such American measures is a “declaration of war” to all countries. (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/8/22/iran-war-live-trump-says-tehran-not-ready-to-make-right-deal-to-end-war). On that line,  Iran signals that it will retaliate fiercely in that case. (https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-war-devastating-response-us-threat-toughest-economic-hit-rcna593697).

Those plans by Washington and Tehran raise a series of dilemmas. For example: could the US soon start landing troops on its “new territory”? Or, how could than Iran continue to assess its “new territory” on the shores of the Pacific?

Something else is also a puzzle.

Namely, there are a handful of unresolved territorial disputes in the world, both on land and in the World Sea. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes).

What happens if some other countries soon start thinking of declaring as “their new territory” some piece of Earth (land or islands…), or some waters (parts of rivers, seas…) that would mean a lot to them now? Who could possibly be the arbiter in such cases?

Be that as it may, in the immediate maritime hinterland of the war conflict in the Persian Gulf on the Indian Ocean, there is the strategic Chagos Archipelago and within it Diego Garcia island (on the photo) with vital US military installations.

Great Britain and Mauritius on the one hand, and the Maldives on the other, cannot agree on who is to claims sovereignty over the Chagos Islands…

The listing of these locations is not accidental. Namely, it comes after today’s threat by US President Donald Trump that the US could bomb Oman if  it “gets in the way” regarding the Hormuz case.

“If Oman gets in the way ( regarding controlling the Strait of Hormuz), we will bomb the shit out of them ,” President Trump said. (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260817-trump-threatens-to-bomb-oman-if-it-gets-in-the-way-of-us-iran-negotiations/).

Trump’s first military threat to a country on the Arabian Peninsula, since the outbreak of the conflict between the USA and Israel against Iran at the end of February, followed the news that official Tehran and Muscat, after three months of negotiations, reached a mutual agreement on the “zoning” of the waterway of the Strait of Hormuz (https://en.yenisafak.com/world/iran-oman-reach-deal-on-hormuz-shipping-route-map-3721945).

As recently as last Friday, the US president announced that he would declare the Strait of Hormuz US territory when “we soon defeat Iran” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/14/trump-threat-strait-hormuz-us-territory).

A sharp reaction from Tehran followed (https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-rejects-delusions-trump-strait-hormuz-us-territory-rcna592666), but the official Muscat did not comment on the matter. It remains unclear whether the Strait of Hormuz as American territory would include both shores of that strait, or only the Iranian one?

Meanwhile, after Trump’s threat to bomb Oman, one question could be asked.

Which locations within Oman, otherwise the only country besides Iran, on the shores of the Strait of Hormuz, could be targeted by a possible US bombing, and which would be spared? Official Muscat has not yet reacted regarding Trump’s latest threat to the sultanate. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant threatened Oman with sanctions in April if it cooperates with Tehran on the arrangement of the Hormuz Strait. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/28/us-treasury-threatens-oman-with-sanctions-over-hormuz-strait)

If Muscat takes the “bomb threat” seriously, US’ entry into the naval-diplomatic arena of Hormuz, may be further hampered.

Israelis in Berbera, Americans in Bosaso: control of the southern approaches to the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea is on the actors’ radar even beyond the Yemeni Houthis

*

Two Saudi petro-tankers: Wafa and Daisy, were yesterday (August 5^th ) the target of ballistic strikes by the pro-Iranian Houthis at two distant locations: Rebel movement “Ansar Allah” targeted the first mega-ship in the northern part of the Red Sea, and the second in the Gulf of Aden area not far from the strategic Bab el-Mandeb sea passage, claiming that “the hits were precise”. (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/houthis-claim-they-hit-2nd-saudi-oil-tanker-in-a-day/4019517).

 General Yahya Saree, the spokesman of the Yemeni Houthis, presented these armed incidents as their “geographic expansion of the field of action”. (https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2026/08/05/880307.htm).

We could ask: Is there an escalation of tensions around the Red Sea, perhaps the Horn of Africa too, at a time when it seems that the drama surrounding the Pass of Hormuz seems to be subsiding? (https://www.ft.com/content/e0b10cad-3e46-4a6d-9227-eba6fe11c676?syn-25a6b1a6=1).

The answer is uncertain for now, but the number of new actors on the African coast near Bab el Mandeb is starting to grow of recently (https://www.vujic-geopolitika.com/2026/01/11/izrael-novi-akter-na-rogu-afrike/).

As for the Houthis, when they announced a naval blockade of Saudi Red Sea ports on July 20^th , the focus of their first strikes was the Saudi port Yanbu on the Red Sea. Houthi attack on the Daisy—in the extreme northwest of the Indian Ocean, far from the port of Yanbu, raises the question: What could be the motive for the Houthis to launch an armed initiative against the naval and land “Saudi targets” right now? (https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/2026/08/04/yemens-houthis-claim-drone-strike-on-saudi-target-at-najran-airport/).

In the fall of 2023, the Houthis started their armed offensive against “ships connected to Israel”, and in the name of solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. At that time, Saudi blockade of Hodeidah, a key Houthi-controlled Yemeni port—which they have this time cited as the focus of their July 20 “blockade”—was also pretty impenetrable (“legacy “since the fierce clashes in the middle of the last decade).

Whatever were the Houthi motives, then and now, Bab-el-Mandeb stands nowadays as a focal point of potential confrontation between numerous regional and global interests.

In this context, news arrives that the US military delegation headed by Major General Claude Tudor signed an agreement with the local administration of the Puntland region in Somalia on Sunday, August 2^nd , on the expansion of the US military presence in the port of Bosaso (on the photo)  in the Gulf of Aden. (https://ground.news/article/us-expands-strategic-foothold-on-somalias-coast-as-yemen-conflict-simmers).

With the aim of improving operations against terrorism, as well as helping to protect maritime security in the region.

After that, the war in the Persian Gulf, initiated by the actions of Israel and the US against Iran on February 28^th , was extended to the Red Sea region, with successive strikes by Saudi Arabian aviation on the Yemeni port of Hodeida. (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/24/saudis-strike-yemens-houthi-held-hodeida-rebel-media).  That was followed by Houthi missile strikes on Saudi Aramco’s oil installations near the port of Yanbu on the Red Sea and the city ofYazan.

Along the way, the “Encelia” tanker was hit by an unidentified missile 130 kilometres southwest of the city of Al Shuqaiq in the Yazan region, not far from the border with Yemen. Whether and how much the armed conflict between the official Riyadh and the Yemeni “Ansar Allah” can escalate is uncertain.

What is known is that the Ministry of Defence of Germany, on Thursday, July 23^rd , announced the “relocation” of the minesweeper “Fulda” and the supply ship “Mosel” from the Red Sea region (from the port of Djibouti) to the Eastern Mediterranean (https://www.eurasiareview.com/24072026-germany-withdraws-naval-vessels-from-red-sea-amid-rising-houthi-saudi-tensions/).

The unstable security situation, and the absence of an imminent mission in the region of the Strait of Hormuz were cited as the key reasons for Berlin’s decision to withdraw the two German warships from the tense zone near the strategic Bab el Mandeb passage (on the photo) on the southern approach to the Red Sea. In that direction moves towards Suez and the Mediterranean, an otherwise significant amount of energy supplies and other goods badly needed by the EU.  

Meanwhile, “Fulda” and “Mosel” arrived in Djibouti only a month ago to join the (now apparently) abandoned “Coalition of the Willing” to demining Hormuz—an initiative of London and Paris joined on paper by forty countries. (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/06/18/germany-moves-two-ships-to-djibouti-eyeing-multinational-hormuz-mission-this-summer/).

According to the earlier plans of the Europeans, “Fulda” and “Mosel” were supposed to lead the task of finding mines in the Strait of Hormuz within the “Coalition” armada.

How Brussels will understand Berlin’s decision to withdraw two warships from the anchorage in Djibouti right now is very uncertain.

Namely, on July 17^th , the EU and Djibouti concluded a strategic “Agreement on the Status of Forces for Operation Aspides” – by which the Europeans gained new opportunities for further action on the high seas between Bab el Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz. (https://www.voiceofemirates.com/en/news/2026/07/17/countering-bab-el-mandeb-threats-eu-reinforces-red-sea-naval-mission-with-strategic-djibouti-accord/).

“The European Union hereby expresses its strategic interest in maintaining security, and acting in a security role under the auspices of the Aspides and Atalanta missions here in the northwest of the Indian Ocean,” General Sean Clancy, Chief of the EU Military Committee, during a ceremony in Djibouti on July 17. By the way, the EU anti-pirates mission “Atalanta” has been in that region of the Indian Ocean since 20008, while “Aspides” was created in February 2024.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas came out in Djibouti with a proposal that “the ships that were promised to the Coalition of the Willing (for the demining of Hormuz), could, while they are now just waiting for that mission, be deployed here (to the EU Aspides mission”), since the Coalition of the Willing is not yet functional.”

Berlin seems to have some plans for “Fulda” and “Mosel” in the eastern Mediterranean…