Category World News

The English Premier League dominated the big name moves as the summer transfer window in Europe came to an end on Monday.

When the window reopens for a month in January, players will be transferable by clubs on the continent.

The most important talking points from the summertime are examined by Al Jazeera Sport:

Newcastle to Liverpool Alexander Isak

In terms of drama and finances, Isak’s move to Liverpool was the biggest transfer of the summer.

The 25-year-old’s 125 million ($167.4 million) move is a record transfer fee for the country, surpassing Chelsea’s 107 million ($143.3 million) bid for Enzo Fernandez from Argentina in 2023.

What had already been a stressful period for all parties involved was finally over thanks to the fact that the move didn’t take place until the closing day of the window.

The Swedish international made no secret of his desire to leave Newcastle, ending up spending time with Real Sociedad instead of his former club, even before expressing his disapproval on social media for breaking promises.

This summer, Liverpool had already paid a club record sum of 100 million pounds ($133.9 million) for Florian Wirtz. According to appearances, the deal could reach 116 million pounds ($156 million).

Senne Lammens, Royal Antwerp, to Man Utd

Since David De Gea left the club in 2023, Manchester United’s goalkeeping issues have been their main focus throughout this upheaval.

There were even rumors that the 34-year-old former Spanish international could be brought back to Old Trafford from Fiorentina because of how desperate the situation was.

Erik ten Hag, the then-manager, gave Andre Onana the gloves, but the Cameroonian stopper has made a number of costly errors.

Altay Bayindir’s goalkeeper replaced Onana, but he too has failed to impress, especially in the season-opening defeat to Arsenal.

For United, who had reportedly signed Argentina’s World Cup-winning keeper Emiliano Martinez, Lammens’ arrival is a gamble, worth 18.1 million pounds ($24.2)

Lammens hasn’t yet made his Belgium international debut, but the 193cm (6ft-4-inch) stopper is viewed as a long-term replacement for Martinez, who is 32.

However, United requires stability at the back, and Lammens will be in particular attention as he struggles to find his footing amid the hustle and bustle of the English top flight.

Brentford to Newcastle Yoane Wissa

Wissa’s arrival from Brentford for 55 million pounds ($73. 7 million) softens Isak’s departure from Liverpool for Newcastle and their fans.

The international from the Democratic Republic of the Congo added 19 Premier League goals to his total for the club’s 149 appearances as of 2021.

Similar to Isak, Wissa shared his feelings in a public forum on Sunday when he expressed his desire to leave the West Londoners.

The 28-year-old needs to concentrate on resolving the 27 goals Isak scored in 42 games for Newcastle last season.

A no-go for Palace defender Marc Guehi at Liverpool

On the final day of the deal, not only the confirmed transfers made headlines, but also the collapsed deals.

The prolonged courtship of Crystal Palace defender Marc Guehi by Liverpool was one of them.

The 25-year-old England international had been linked with moving to Anfield for some time, possibly even more than Isak, and even advanced to a Monday medical on Merseyside.

Due to Palace’s inability to find a replacement for the England international, the deal passed in the closing hours of the deal, which will undoubtedly be a blow to Guehi given the complex nature of the deal.

It is late for Ederson, Donnarumma, Antony, Hojlund, Sancho, and Jackson.

On the last day of the transfer window, Isak and Guehi were among the only long-term transfer targets sweating. Other rumored maneuvers also finally crossed the line.

The 32-year-old keeper joined Turkiye’s Fenerbahce for 12.1 million pounds ($16.22 million) after falling from grace at Manchester City.

He spent eight years with Etihad Stadium, where he was a key player in the club’s unprecedented four successive Premier League titles and the club’s exclusive five-trophy year in 2023.

Gianluigi Donnarumma, a surprise departure from Paris Saint-Germain, who was responsible for the Brazilian’s successful Champions League campaign. Donnarumma helped the French giants win the trophy in their first treble last year.

A five-year contract has been agreed between the Italian and City.

Three Manchester United players were all heading for Old Trafford. After being loaned to the Spanish side last season, Brazilian winger Antony made a comfortable move to Real Betis.

After leading the United line last season, Danish striker Rasmus Hojlund struggled for goals while leading the team. And for the time being, Jadon Sancho is no longer imprisoned at Old Trafford. Victor Lindelof, a Swedish defender for United, and the former England winger Victor Lindelof have both signed for Aston Villa on loan.

Nicolas Jackson’s move to Bayern Munich was another expected departure that was postponed until the last minute.

The Senegal international has since been signed on loan with Bayern having to pay 56.2 million pounds ($75.33 million) for the 24-year-old as a result of the off-season decision.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been able to rely on the United States’ absolute backing throughout his country’s war on Gaza.

While the administration of former US President Joe Biden may have occasionally expressed discomfort over the crises it was enabling in Gaza, the Donald Trump administration has yet to exhibit similar qualms, even going so far in February as to suggest that all of Gaza’s population be ethnically cleansed.

US support has been vital to Israel’s war machine, providing weapons that helped Israel kill more than 63,000 people in Gaza. Diplomatically, it uses its veto on the UN Security Council to block demands for a ceasefire in Gaza, despite the mounting death toll.

It also supported Israel in the International Court of Justice, where Israel is accused of genocide, and sanctioned International Criminal Court members who issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes.

The US’ potential complicity in what many states and agencies recognise as a genocide has been called out by rights groups, who call on it to halt its support for Israel.

But what if it did? What would happen if the US ended all support for Israel tomorrow?

We asked four experts what they think: Hamze Attar, a defence analyst; Ori Goldberg, an Israeli political scientist; HA Hellyer, senior fellow at the Royal United Service Institute and Center for American Progress; and Daniel Levy, a former Israeli government adviser.

What would happen internationally?

“I get the sense that many of the Western states that originally supported Israel are now feeling particularly helpless and are now really just willing Israel’s downfall upon it. For many, even Germany, the post-war bond that has tied them to Israel has become so frayed it probably won’t hold without the US.

“My guess is [if US support for Israel ended tomorrow] they’d all move against Israel immediately, though no one would really want to be the first.

“I don’t know what shape that would take, whether it would be sanctions, or even the enactment of Chapter 7 [of the UN Charter, authorising immediate intervention], but it would be quick.” – Ori Goldberg

What would happen regionally? Would Israel be attacked, as it claims?

“I think if you suddenly removed the US from the equation, you’d be removing the one largest single [impediment] to some kind of settlement there’s been.

“Israel’s imperative for genuinely integrating itself into the region will always be a second- or third-level priority, because American support underwrites its ability to act with impunity, as we’ve seen vis-a-vis the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the Syrians and so on.

“This idea that Israel is one step away from being attacked just isn’t the case and, many would argue, hasn’t been the case for decades.

“The Syrian army isn’t currently holding off from counter-attacking Israel because of the US. They’re holding off from attacking because they’re not interested in more wars, they know they’d face massive resistance; the same is true for others.” – HA Hellyer

What would happen financially?

“Israel is very dependent on the US financially, but it wouldn’t collapse entirely.

“Increasingly, Israel has been dependent on the high-tech weapons sector, a lot of which the US supports, in terms of aid as well as almost limitless R&D opportunities.

“But Israel also relies economically on just having the US in its corner, like a coach waiting with the towel [loan guarantees and other support mechanisms].

“I think the overnight loss of US support would make things difficult, but it wouldn’t be immediate, until we got to see massive layoffs in the Big Tech companies, and the military begin to falter.” – Ori Goldberg

What would happen in Israeli politics?

“Not as much as you think. Israel’s settler community is already high on its own stash. They’re going to continue with what they see as their God-given mission, whatever happens.

“Netanyahu would probably continue, too. He’s not a magician. Much of what he says and does is just reflective of what much of Israeli society thinks anyway.

“Sure, he’d reframe it. He could say that the reason we attacked Gaza was so that we’d never have to be dependent on another state again, but I think he’d probably survive.” – Ori Goldberg

“America really has been the gift that keeps on giving, especially to the Israeli right. If a Democrat is in power, they can say: ‘Look how well we’re managing them.’

“And if someone like Trump is in power, they can say: ‘Look, we must be doing something right: The US agrees with us.’ Either way, they gain legitimacy. Without the US, that’s not really there.

“In terms of its internal politics and its treatment of Palestinians, the US also gives Israel absolute impunity. For instance, its politicians can wage a genocidal war on Gaza or cheer on settlements with no apparent cost.

“In any other society, that cost would come from other states, or their own society’s moral compass. We don’t seem to have either of those here.” – Daniel Levy

What would happen to its military?

“If the US vanished tomorrow, Israel could probably sustain its war on Gaza for around a year, but its priorities would change as it became significantly more vulnerable.

“For instance, they’d be very aware that every bullet or bomb they used in Gaza was one less for their own defence.

“Without the US, the blocking of the commercial satellites that Israel relies upon to obscure its territory would end. This would allow its adversaries to see into its territory immediately. It would also lose the defence systems, such as Iron Dome and Arrow systems, which are partly funded by the US, leaving it much more open to attack.

“The loss of the US would also mean that Israel has to go looking for other military suppliers, most probably from NATO countries in Europe, because much of the equipment is compatible. However, with Europe already having a weapons shortfall in relation to what it sees as the threat from Russia, that’s not going to happen quickly.

“Europe is also going to charge Israel for any weapons, which – under the current military aid programme – the US doesn’t, so even if another country did step up, Israel isn’t going to be able to afford to purchase weapons on anything like the scale it has.” – Hamze Attar

What would happen in Gaza and the occupied West Bank?

“I think once the senior echelons of the army got wind of what was happening, they’d be calling for the war to end immediately.” – Ori Goldberg

“I think the central bank and the army would realise almost immediately that they didn’t have the weapons or the money to continue the war.

“After that, depending on what other states do, both regionally and in the West, the war would become politically and economically unsustainable.” – Daniel Levy

“My guess is they’d adopt a holding pattern in Gaza and the West Bank, buying themselves time. Israel’s reputation in terms of international public opinion is already rock bottom, but US support has shielded it from actual international accountability.

Kyiv’s European and regional allies have begun to work out commitments to a peacekeeping force that would enter Ukraine after a three and a half year-old ceasefire is reached following their summit with US President Donald Trump in the White House on August 18.

By the end of the week, they intend to collect those pledges.

Russia is also putting forth additional sanctions, according to Europe.

However, neither country’s position is shared on either issue.

What should you be aware of:

What promises have nations made?

Estonia has so far indicated that it will contribute at least one military unit to the peacekeeping force, and Lithuania has previously stated that it will send an unnamed number of troops.

Romania declared that it would not send troops, but instead would set up F-35 airstrikes to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian ambassador to Ankara, Turkey is considering sending troops to demine the Black Sea.

The German Armed Forces Association’s head, Colonel Andre Wuestner, told the Reuters news agency that at least 10,000 troops would be required for an extended period.

A command post in Ukraine won’t be enough, according to Wuestner, adding that there will need to be a few generals and smaller military units.

Trump’s participation in such a force was a top priority for the Europeans at the White House meeting.

Trump had stated on August 18 that the US would participate, but not with troops.

The US recently told their European counterparts that the country would contribute “strategic enablers,” such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, command and control, and air defense assets, according to The Financial Times last month.

Is it feasible to establish a peacekeeping force and make a ceasefire plan?

It is entirely theatrical,” he said. According to Keir Giles, an expert on Eurasia at Chatham House, every European leader, including [Ukrainian President] Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has to find a way to keep Trump on his side. They did it without losing sight of reality, though.

According to Giles, a ceasefire is “entirely unachievable because]Russian President Vladimir Putin is obviously not interested in ending the fighting,” but it is also undesirable.

Before Trump took office, he said, “Everyone is aware that a ceasefire was one of the worst-case scenarios possible outcomes.”

Ukraine and its allies in Europe have repeatedly criticized a truce as a chance for Putin to reorganize his forces before starting an offensive with renewed vigor. However, in February, Trump declared a ceasefire as his top priority.

They still give lip service to these ridiculous ideas because they need to humor Trump and fit in with the fantasy world that drives the Trump world, according to Giles.

Trump and Europe: Will they cooperate?

Europe and Ukraine have been exerting great pressure on Trump’s direction since August 18.

Zelenskyy and Mark Rutte, the NATO’s chief executive, met in Kyiv on August 22 to discuss the need for “Article 5-like guarantees” operating under a blueprint that includes “a crystal-clear architecture of which countries assist us on the ground, which are responsible for the security of our skies, and which guarantee security at sea.”

The collective defense clause in NATO’s Article 5 states that an attack on one NATO member is treated as an attack on everyone.

Would Trump consent to “Article 5-like guarantees,” which create an automatic defense mechanism that would cause NATO forces to conflict with Russia?

Giles remarked, “Trump doesn’t always seem to be saying anything that makes sense,” and it’s incredibly vague and unclear whether he means what he says.

With Trump, you can never be certain. Political scientist Theodoros Tsikas reaffirmed that Trump is “changeable,” but that political reality prevents him from getting too far into Putin’s camp.

He wants to end the Ukrainian conflict first so that he can pursue an energy and mineral wealth economic partnership with Russia.

In a summit between Trump and Putin in Alaska on August 15, Reuters reported late last month that Russia and the US discussed business deals that were related to the issue of Ukraine’s disposition.

According to five sources, “These deals were put forward as incentives to encourage the Kremlin to agree to terms with the Ukrainian people and to ease sanctions against Russia.”

ExxonMobil re-joined a joint venture with Gazprom, Russian gas liquefaction equipment was purchased by Moscow, US equipment for gas liquefaction, and Russian ice-breakers were also purchased by the US.

Second, according to Tsikas, Trump “wants to free up US troops in Europe to recommit them to Asia.”

He can’t allow Ukraine to fall into his hands because it will cost him a lot of money in the US, much like Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, he says in this pirouette. Trump has limitations, too. The winner’s profile is the one he sells. That image crumbles if he suffers a significant defeat, he told Al Jazeera.

Trump is willing to provide security for Europe because of these reasons, Tsikas said.

Trump: Is there a deal with Ukraine?

According to Trump’s approach to Ukraine since taking office, this assistance would not be free.

According to The Financial Times, Ukraine has offered to purchase $100 billion worth of US weapons in exchange for US security guarantees. This is backed by Europe, which has already agreed to purchase $800 billion ($820 billion) worth of US weapons for itself.

Will these extraordinary sums ever be used? Through the NATO program PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List), Zelenskyy claims Ukraine needs US weapons worth $1 billion every month.

Through PURL, European nations have pledged to pay $ 1.5 billion for US weapons purchases for Ukraine. All of this is a far cry from the funds Trump demands, which raises the question of whether they will ever be put into action.

Russia’s position is unknown.

Once Putin and Zelenskyy reached a ceasefire, a peacekeeping force would only be put in place.

Despite Zelenskyy’s readiness, Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov has twice confirmed that the meeting was postponed in recent days.

On August 21, he informed his Indian counterpart that a meeting would take place when the proposals were “well developed.”

Lavrov added that “no meeting is being planned,” but that “Putin is prepared to meet with Zelenskyy when the summit’s agenda is ready.” This schedule is insufficiently prepared.

Lavrov demanded that Zelenskyy adhere to the positions that Putin and Trump allegedly agreed to at the meeting in Alaska.

Zelenskyy said “no to everything,” and it was very clear to everyone that there are several principles that Washington thinks must be accepted, including no NATO membership.

Trump’s positions have been pushed closer to home by Russia and Europe. Putin tried to deter Trump from backing sanctions, which Europe supports, by persuading him that a ceasefire was not required for peace talks.

In a Tuesday evening address to Ukrainians, Zelenskyy said, “Russia’s only signals indicate that it intends to continue avoiding actual negotiations.” Strong sanctions, strong tariffs, and real pressure alone can change this.

Trump reiterated a two-week self-imposed deadline on August 22 before approving sanctions against Russia. In a press conference at the Oval Office, he said, “I believe we will know where I’m going in two weeks.”

Sean Hannity on Fox received a first report from Trump regarding the deadline following his meeting with Putin in Alaska on August 15.

Trump is still wedged between Russia and Europe, and as a result, his predecessor, Biden, was a staunch European ally.

Leaders in Europe are more skeptical of Russia’s intentions because they only see it in terms of politics and security.