Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s unusually direct criticism of Donald Trump marks a turning point in relations between Kyiv and Washington. With American satellite restrictions disrupting Ukrainian military operations, intelligence cooperation under scrutiny and the White House easing pressure on Russian energy exports, Ukraine faces a fundamental question: how can it defend itself when its most powerful partner is increasingly willing to accommodate Moscow?

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has abandoned much of the diplomatic restraint that characterised his dealings with Donald Trump since their confrontation in the Oval Office in February 2025. In an interview on 14 October, the Ukrainian president accused his American counterpart of moving towards Russia and choosing the wrong side of history.

His intervention followed a series of American decisions that have increased pressure on Kyiv while offering Moscow economic and diplomatic advantages. A controversial agreement involving Russian diesel exports, uncertainty surrounding the provision of American intelligence and sudden restrictions on military satellite communications have brought relations between the two countries to their most difficult point since Trump’s return to the White House.

Zelenskyy’s criticism was unusually personal. Questioned about whether he felt betrayed by Washington’s recent decisions, he acknowledged the sense of betrayal but emphasised that Ukraine’s survival could not be treated as a commercial negotiation. He said Ukraine was not selling its country and argued that an American president claiming to act as an intermediary must not favour one of the belligerents.

The shift reflects the apparent exhaustion of a strategy Kyiv has pursued for more than a year: avoid openly challenging Trump, maintain personal contact with the White House and hope that American support can be preserved through diplomatic accommodation. That calculation is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain as Washington’s demands threaten to constrain Ukraine’s military operations without producing corresponding concessions from Russia.

American leverage becomes a Ukrainian vulnerability

The immediate demonstration of Ukraine’s dependence on American technology came during the night of 13–14 October, when SpaceX imposed restrictions on Starshield, the military-grade version of its Starlink satellite communications service.

According to accounts provided by Ukrainian frontline commanders, the changes disrupted connections to terminals travelling above approximately 160 kilometres per hour, forcing the abandonment of several drone missions. The restrictions affected systems used for reconnaissance, interception and strikes against Russian military targets.

As EU Today reported on 14 October, the disruption exposed a weakness extending beyond individual drone missions. Satellite communications form part of Ukraine’s operational infrastructure, supporting the movement of battlefield information, remote weapons control and communications across areas where conventional networks are vulnerable to Russian electronic warfare.

An interruption imposed remotely by a commercial provider can therefore affect military capabilities without any physical attack on Ukrainian equipment. Decisions taken outside Ukraine’s military command structure can alter the effectiveness of systems already deployed on the battlefield.

Ukraine’s Defence Ministry subsequently opened discussions with American officials, SpaceX and NATO partners while examining alternative communications arrangements.

Later on Wednesday, former Ukrainian defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov announced that Starlink functionality at speeds up to 160 kilometres per hour was being restored. Work was still required to remove the restrictions on Starshield altogether. The partial reversal offered immediate operational relief but did not resolve the underlying dependency.

There is no established evidence that the Trump administration ordered SpaceX to impose the restrictions. Nevertheless, their timing, amid mounting disagreements over Ukraine’s military operations, has reinforced Kyiv’s concerns about relying on communications infrastructure controlled by an American company.

Intelligence warnings and the protection of civilians

The dispute over satellite access coincides with growing uncertainty about American intelligence cooperation.

Following Russian ballistic missile strikes on Kyiv on 12–13 October, Zelenskyy complained that Ukraine had received no advance warning from its international partners. The attacks damaged residential buildings and energy infrastructure, while Ukraine’s authorities raised concerns about the absence of advance intelligence.

Advance information about Russian missile launches is particularly important when ballistic weapons leave civilians only minutes to reach shelters. Intelligence cooperation also supports Ukrainian air-defence units in assessing threats and preparing interceptions.

Trump denied on 13 October that Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha likewise confirmed that cooperation continued. The absence of warnings about particular attacks therefore cannot be equated with a complete suspension of American assistance.

Yet the consequences of unreliable warning arrangements remain serious. For Ukraine, the distinction between information withheld, delayed or simply unavailable offers little protection when Russian ballistic missiles reach civilian neighbourhoods without sufficient warning.

The wider concern is that intelligence provision could become another instrument of diplomatic pressure. Accounts of negotiations over Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have raised the possibility that Washington might use such assistance as leverage. Reports of explicit threats have been disputed, but the controversy has increased uncertainty surrounding a capability central to Ukraine’s defence.

Why the diesel agreement changes the strategic calculation

The confrontation has also exposed a contradiction in Washington’s approach to the war.

Trump’s agreement allowing Russian diesel to return to international markets offers Moscow additional export opportunities at a time when Ukrainian attacks have damaged refining capacity and disrupted domestic fuel supplies.

The American administration has justified the arrangement partly through the need to ease fuel prices. Yet the initially announced quantities are modest in relation to international petroleum markets, raising questions about how much immediate relief the measure can realistically provide.

For Putin, its diplomatic significance may be considerably greater. Russia has secured a relaxation of American economic restrictions while Washington simultaneously presses Kyiv to limit attacks on the infrastructure that generates revenue for Moscow’s war economy.

The commercial implications of Washington’s sanctions reversal extend beyond the initial shipment volumes. The Treasury authorisation permits certain transactions involving Russian-origin diesel until April 2027, creating opportunities for international traders and financial intermediaries while leaving the broader sanctions framework formally intact.

Trump’s proposed energy ceasefire has compounded the difficulty. As EU Today examined earlier this week, Kyiv has offered to suspend strikes against Russian energy facilities if Moscow reciprocates. Russian attacks on Ukrainian power infrastructure have nevertheless continued.

An arrangement in which Ukraine stops targeting Russian refineries while Russia retains the ability to strike Ukrainian electricity generation would remove an important source of pressure on Moscow without protecting Ukrainian civilians.

Such an outcome would change the military and economic conditions of the war in Russia’s favour, regardless of how Washington describes its diplomatic objectives.

The White House, Congress and the limits of presidential power

Zelenskyy’s sharper language also reflects a possible reassessment of where influence over American policy can be exercised.

For much of Trump’s second presidency, Kyiv’s diplomacy has concentrated on preserving a workable relationship with the president himself. That approach assumes that personal engagement can influence White House decisions even when Trump’s broader political instincts favour accommodation with Putin.

The events of October suggest that this strategy has reached its limits.

Ukraine’s alternative is not necessarily an outright confrontation with Washington. Rather, it involves placing greater weight on Congress, the American defence establishment and the institutional relationships that have supported Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

There is a historical precedent. During Trump’s first presidency, Congress supported military assistance to Ukraine despite differences within the administration over relations with Russia. Under Joe Biden, congressional resistance also demonstrated how domestic American politics could determine the timing and scale of weapons deliveries.

The months-long delay in approving the 2024 military assistance package contributed to severe ammunition shortages at a critical stage of Russia’s offensive operations. Ukraine’s loss of Avdiivka illustrated the danger of making battlefield planning dependent on political negotiations in Washington.

The congressional elections on 3 November 2026 could alter the balance of power. A change in control of either chamber would increase opportunities for oversight, investigations and legislative pressure on the administration, although Congress cannot independently direct every aspect of intelligence sharing or presidential diplomacy.

A less compliant Congress could nevertheless make it politically harder for the White House to restrict Ukrainian assistance without explanation.

Europe confronts a more permanent problem

For European governments, the dispute carries implications extending well beyond the immediate confrontation between Trump and Zelenskyy.

The transatlantic security relationship has historically depended on the assumption that American military capabilities, intelligence networks and political commitments would remain available to European allies during a major security crisis.

That assumption is increasingly difficult to reconcile with an American administration prepared to link assistance to Ukraine with wider commercial negotiations and domestic political objectives.

The consequences are particularly acute in areas where European capabilities remain insufficient to replace American systems quickly, including satellite intelligence, strategic reconnaissance, missile defence and specialised communications.

Europe can expand weapons production, finance Ukrainian purchases and develop alternatives to American technology. Replacing the full range of capabilities provided by the United States, however, requires investment measured in years rather than months.

The problem will not necessarily disappear when Trump leaves office. His return to power demonstrated that the American foreign-policy consensus which supported European security for decades can be challenged through the electoral process.

Future American administrations may seek to restore traditional alliances, but European governments must now account for the possibility that another election could reverse those commitments.

For Zelenskyy, the immediate calculation is exceptionally difficult. Public criticism risks provoking further retaliation from a president whose administration still controls capabilities essential to Ukraine’s defence. Continued diplomatic restraint, however, has not prevented Washington from offering concessions to Russia or introducing uncertainty into Ukraine’s military planning.

His latest intervention suggests that Kyiv is no longer convinced that avoiding confrontation will preserve American support. The question is whether greater political scrutiny of Washington’s decisions can prevent a further erosion of assistance before Russia turns the resulting military advantages into territorial gains.

Mercedes-Benz chief executive Ola Källenius has warned that excluding British manufacturers from European industrial preference rules would damage automotive production on both sides of the Channel, increasing pressure on Brussels ahead of negotiations over its proposed Industrial Accelerator Act.

The head of Mercedes-Benz has warned that excluding British manufacturers from the European Union’s proposed industrial preference rules would damage the competitiveness of carmakers across Europe, challenging Brussels over legislation intended to protect European production from growing international competition.

Ola Källenius, chief executive of Mercedes-Benz and president of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), criticised the prospect of restricting British participation in the forthcoming “Made in Europe” framework during discussions in Brussels on Wednesday, 14 October.

His intervention comes as European governments negotiate the Industrial Accelerator Act, which would introduce European-content requirements affecting public procurement and certain forms of industrial support.

The proposed legislation is intended to strengthen manufacturing within the EU, but its treatment of production in neighbouring countries has become contentious, particularly in an automotive industry whose factories and suppliers operate across national borders.

European production extends beyond the EU

British manufacturing remains closely integrated with continental European automotive production despite the United Kingdom’s departure from the single market.

Components manufactured in Britain are incorporated into vehicles assembled in EU member states, while British factories depend on engines, batteries, electronics and other parts produced in continental Europe.

The value of this integrated manufacturing system depends on companies being able to source components across borders without unnecessary restrictions.

Källenius warned that excluding the UK from the proposed rules would weaken manufacturers operating on both sides of the Channel.

His position reflects industry concerns that a narrowly defined European-content regime could impose additional costs on companies already facing pressure from Chinese competition, slowing demand and substantial investment requirements.

As EU Today reported in September, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has been pressing Brussels to recognise the UK as a trusted industrial partner under the emerging framework.

Germany has also supported a broader approach that would allow selected trading partners to qualify under European-content rules where reciprocal conditions are met.

France has favoured stronger preferences for production within the EU itself, reflecting differences among member states over how far European industrial policy should extend beyond the Union’s borders.

A dispute over industrial sovereignty

The Industrial Accelerator Act proposed by the European Commission is intended to strengthen Europe’s manufacturing base and support production in strategically important sectors.

Its provisions address public procurement and industrial incentives affecting products including vehicles, steel, aluminium and clean technologies.

The Commission wants European public spending to support local industrial capacity rather than reinforce dependence on imports from major international competitors.

China has become the principal focus of those concerns because of its expanding manufacturing capacity, particularly in electric vehicles and batteries.

However, measures designed to counter Chinese industrial competition could also affect established trading partners whose manufacturers form part of European supply chains.

The United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey occupy different legal positions in their economic relations with the EU, but all maintain important industrial connections with member states.

An approach that treats their production as equivalent to imports from countries with substantially different market conditions could require European companies to reorganise existing supplier relationships.

For manufacturers, replacing a supplier may involve more than simply ordering components from another factory. Production standards, technical certification, logistics and long-term investment arrangements can make changes expensive and difficult.

Industry demands regulatory certainty

Following an ACEA board meeting on Wednesday, European manufacturers called for faster progress on the wider automotive legislative package.

In its 14 October statement, ACEA urged EU institutions to advance negotiations so that the package could be finalised early next year.

The association argues that manufacturers require a predictable regulatory framework to plan investments in electric vehicles, production facilities and new technologies.

Källenius linked the industry’s transition towards zero-emission mobility with the need to preserve employment and strengthen economic security.

European manufacturers are simultaneously investing heavily in electrification while competing against Chinese companies with established battery supply chains and significant production capacity.

The resulting financial pressures are particularly serious for manufacturers that must develop new vehicle platforms while maintaining existing factories and dealer networks.

Additional restrictions on component sourcing could complicate those decisions at a time when companies are seeking to reduce costs.

Britain refuses to follow EU tariffs automatically

The dispute has acquired a further dimension following remarks by British Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.

Speaking on Wednesday, Reynolds indicated that Britain would not automatically follow the European Union in imposing tariffs on Chinese vehicles.

The UK government maintains that trade measures must be determined according to British economic interests rather than adopted simply to align with Brussels.

That position complicates London’s attempt to secure favourable treatment under European industrial rules.

EU policymakers have argued that closer alignment on trade defences could support Britain’s claim to be treated as a trusted partner.

British ministers, however, must consider whether restrictions on Chinese imports would benefit domestic manufacturers and consumers.

The disagreement will form part of the broader economic relationship being discussed ahead of the next UK–EU summit, scheduled for 20 November.

The wider implications for EU–UK relations

The automotive dispute follows earlier negotiations over British participation in European defence procurement and other industrial programmes.

In both cases, London wants access to initiatives designed to strengthen European production while remaining outside the EU’s institutional framework.

Brussels must determine how far preferential treatment can extend to non-member countries without undermining the objectives of its industrial policy.

The Commission’s proposals have already revealed disagreements between governments favouring a tightly defined European manufacturing base and those seeking to preserve wider commercial partnerships.

Källenius’s intervention strengthens the argument that industrial protection cannot be considered separately from the supply chains on which European manufacturers depend.

The final legislation will influence investment decisions, procurement arrangements and the position of British suppliers within the continental automotive industry.

The outcome will also provide an indication of how far the EU is prepared to accommodate its closest trading partners as it attempts to strengthen European manufacturing against growing competition from China.

EU ministers have reviewed reforms introduced by Prime Minister Péter Magyar’s administration but left the Article 7 proceedings against Hungary unresolved. The European Commission has acknowledged significant progress while warning that further changes are required to restore the rule of law.

The European Union has maintained its Article 7 proceedings against Hungary despite acknowledging significant improvements in the country’s rule-of-law situation since Prime Minister Péter Magyar’s government took office earlier this year.

Ministers meeting at the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on Tuesday, 13 October, reviewed reforms introduced by the Hungarian administration and received an updated assessment from the European Commission.

The proceedings, initiated by the European Parliament in September 2018, remain open eight years after concerns over judicial independence, corruption, media freedom and democratic accountability first prompted action under the EU treaties.

No decision was announced to terminate the procedure following the latest meeting.

Brussels acknowledges progress

European Commissioner Michael McGrath said ahead of the discussions that Hungary had made substantial progress towards addressing the institutional problems inherited from the administration of former prime minister Viktor Orbán.

Speaking in Luxembourg, McGrath acknowledged improved cooperation between the Hungarian government and European institutions.

However, he also indicated that the reform process remained incomplete, noting that the new administration had been in office for only several months.

The Commission’s assessment reflects the changing relationship between Budapest and Brussels following Magyar’s election victory and the subsequent introduction of reforms intended to restore judicial and institutional independence.

As EU Today reported in June, the change of government created an opportunity to resolve long-standing disputes over the condition of Hungary’s democratic institutions and the suspension of European funding.

The latest Council discussions indicate that the EU is prepared to recognise reforms already undertaken without automatically treating them as sufficient to close the Article 7 procedure.

An eight-year institutional dispute

The European Parliament initiated the proceedings in 2018 after raising concerns over developments affecting Hungary’s constitutional system, judicial independence, corruption safeguards and civil society.

Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union provides mechanisms for responding when a member state is considered at risk of seriously breaching the Union’s fundamental values.

Under its preventive provisions, the Council can determine whether there is a clear risk of such a breach.

More severe measures, including the possible suspension of certain membership rights, require additional procedures and higher institutional thresholds.

Hungary’s case has remained within the preventive stage, with successive Council meetings examining the country’s legal and political developments.

The Council’s account of the 13 October meeting confirms that Hungarian representatives presented measures intended to address concerns raised by the European Parliament and member states during earlier proceedings.

The Commission also briefed ministers on its latest assessment.

The meeting did not produce a formal finding that the outstanding concerns had been fully resolved.

Magyar faces the consequences of Orbán’s legacy

Since assuming office, Magyar has sought to reverse elements of the institutional structure established during Orbán’s lengthy premiership.

The reforms have included measures concerning public administration, judicial accountability and the relationship between national institutions and European law.

The new government has also attempted to improve relations with Brussels after years of disputes that affected EU budget decisions, sanctions policy and cooperation over Ukraine.

EU Today has previously examined Magyar’s programme of institutional renewal and the political difficulties involved in changing institutions shaped by the previous administration.

Reforming legislation does not necessarily transform the institutions responsible for applying it.

Judicial appointments, regulatory structures, public procurement procedures and anti-corruption enforcement may all require additional measures before the effects of reform can be fully assessed.

The European Commission must therefore consider not only the laws adopted by the new government but also whether the institutions concerned operate independently and effectively.

EU funding remains a separate question

The Article 7 proceedings are closely associated with wider disputes over Hungary’s access to European funding, although the relevant legal mechanisms are different.

During Orbán’s administration, the Commission and Council used financial conditionality procedures to restrict access to certain EU resources because of concerns affecting the protection of the Union’s budget.

Magyar’s reforms have opened the possibility of reversing some of those restrictions.

As EU Today reported in September, the Commission moved towards releasing €4.2 billion following changes intended to address rule-of-law concerns.

The financial decisions involve compliance with conditions attached to EU funding and can proceed independently of the Article 7 mechanism.

Consequently, the release of money does not automatically establish that all the institutional problems identified in the original parliamentary proceedings have been resolved.

Likewise, the continuation of Article 7 does not necessarily prevent the Commission from recognising progress under separate funding arrangements.

Who can end the proceedings?

McGrath addressed the possibility of terminating the procedure during remarks before Tuesday’s meeting.

He explained that the Commission could provide its assessment but did not have unilateral authority to bring the Article 7 process to an end.

In his recorded statement in Luxembourg, the Commissioner pointed to the responsibilities of the European Parliament, which initiated the case, and the Council, which has conducted the subsequent examination.

The institutional arrangements mean that improved relations between the Commission and the Hungarian government cannot by themselves dispose of the proceedings.

The Council must consider the reforms and the remaining concerns within the framework established by the treaties.

Political agreement among member states will consequently be required to determine how the process develops.

A changed relationship with Brussels

The latest discussions take place against a substantially different political background from previous years.

Budapest has recently withdrawn objections to further steps in Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations following Ukrainian legislation addressing educational rights for Hungarian speakers and other national minorities.

The change has removed one obstacle to enlargement negotiations and reflects the government’s more cooperative approach towards other EU institutions.

Nevertheless, Hungary’s position on foreign policy and enlargement is distinct from the assessment of its domestic rule-of-law arrangements.

The Council’s examination remains focused on the institutional concerns that led to the procedure being initiated.

The Irish presidency’s summary of the October Council meeting confirms that ministers received an update rather than reaching a new formal determination.

The proceedings therefore remain open while the Commission and member states continue examining the measures introduced by Magyar’s administration.

The coming decisions will establish how European institutions respond when a new government undertakes reforms intended to reverse the conduct that originally led to action under Article 7.

For Hungary, the outcome will influence its relationship with Brussels well beyond the immediate debate over EU funding. For the Union, it will demonstrate how its rule-of-law procedures operate when political circumstances change and the member state concerned begins addressing previously identified institutional problems.

Jerry Seinfeld mocked protesters highlighting Palestinian children’s deaths, dancing onstage and saying he would send a demonstrator’s ticket money to Israel.

As the US turned 251, a familiar ritual repeated this year as American politicians lined up to toast the Navy with patriotic messages and, interestingly, images of Indian and Russian warships.

The US Navy celebrates its birthday every year on October 13, marking the day the Second Continental Congress authorized the outfitting of two armed vessels to intercept British supply ships during the American Revolution—the decision that created the Continental Navy, a force that eventually grew into the United States Navy.

As US Navy birthday wishes poured in on October 13, several US lawmakers joined the rush to pay their homage, resulting in a series of social media misfires.

For instance, Georgia Governor Brian P. Kemp posted a message with an image of three sleek gray warships steaming in formation.

At first glance, the post seems routine, but a closer look reveals the warships are Indian Navy vessels, as Dave Brown, the Deputy Washington Bureau Chief at The Wall Street Journal, and military observers pointed out.

The ships have since been identified as INS Godavari, INS Brahmaputra, and INS Beas, although a community note on Kemp’s post flags them as Kolkata-class guided-missile destroyers.

Despite criticism, Kemp has not taken down the post.

Another lawmaker, Ohio State Representative Mike Dovilla, paid his respects on X, saying: “Happy Birthday, U.S. Navy. I am proud of my service in naval intelligence and grateful to all who serve our nation with honor, courage, and commitment. To our sailors, veterans, and their families, thank you.”

Interestingly, though, Dovilla used an image of a Russian warship instead of a US one, a move that drew scrutiny, given that the lawmaker is a Navy Reserve commander and has previously served as a lieutenant commander in the Navy.

Dovilla deleted the post after observers pointed out the error.

Meanwhile, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria posted images of what has been identified as the Soviet-era cruiser Mikhail Kutuzov, now a museum ship based in Novorossiysk, Russia.

To make matters worse, Gloria wrote: “San Diego is a proud military town. Sailors and their families are a part of the fabric of our community. For 251 years, sailors have answered our nation’s call with courage,” further emphasizing his ignorance.

In another goof-up, the Republican-aligned think tank Freedom Caucus Foundation jumped on the bandwagon of errors by using a picture of the Indian Navy ship INS Trikand. 

A Mistake That Keeps Repeating 

In 2025, the US Navy’s SEAL Museum posted an image of a Russian missile cruiser to mark the US Navy’s 250th birthday. Meanwhile, several elected representatives and public accounts used images of Indian and Russian Navy warships to mark the service’s birthday.

Representative Kyle Donahue, Representative Arvind Venkat, and Representative Andy Harris used images of Indian warships in their posts, while Senator Jim Boyd used an image of a Russian battleship cruiser to pay tribute to the US Navy for its birthday.

These are just a few of the many social media faux pas that were flagged last year.

Similarly, in 2023, Representative Cory Mills and Representative David Trone’s birthday greetings featured images of a Russian warship. On the other hand, the SEAL Legacy Foundation, which supports families of wounded and fallen United States Navy SEALs, used a Russian ship to mark the occasion, whereas the official X page of Homeland Security used the image depicting a Canadian frigate. 

Things weren’t much different in 2021, when Senator Jim Risch published a heartfelt wish for the USN’s birthday, but used a photo of what was later identified as a Pattani-class offshore patrol vessel belonging to the Royal Thai Navy, potentially built by China.

While ship identification may not be a strong suit for many in the United States, it is not much different for combat aircraft.

In a major embarrassment last year, the Pentagon’s Joint Program Office  (JPO) posted an image of the Chinese J-35A stealth fighter instead of the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a Veterans Day homage post. “Today, and every day, we thank all Veterans and those currently serving for their service and sacrifice,” the Pentagon official’s post stated. However, the office took the post down as criticism mounted over the bizarre mistake.

In 2023, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna—an Air Force (USAF) veteran herself—posted birthday graphics for the US Air Force (USAF) on X and Instagram that used silhouettes of Russian MiG-29 fighters. Air Force historians and defense analysts immediately flagged the image, after which the politician took it down and blamed a junior staffer for the error.

In 2021, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi made a similar error when she congratulated the US Air Force Reserve Command on its birthday with a graphic showing Russian Su-34 Fullback strike aircraft. “Happy 73rd Birthday to the @USAFReserve! Thankful for all the reservists who are constantly on the ready to serve our nation,” Hyde-Smith said on X, along with a graphic showing four Su-34 jets in flight. 

Needless to say, she deleted the post after netizens mocked her for the error.

However, Dr. Rob Lee of King’s College in London, who specializes in war studies, joked at the time that Hyde-Smith’s post was part of the “national pastime of mistaking Russian weapons for our own” among Americans.

In an even more ridiculous mistake in 2021, the official Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) account posted a birthday graphic for the US Air Force that featured silhouettes of Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jets.

Meanwhile, one of the accounts connected to “Operation Inherent Resolve” posted a picture of two US Navy Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with best wishes to the air force, creating another embarrassing situation.

Similarly, Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign released a “Support Our Troops”  advertisement accompanied by a photo of Russian MiG-29 fighter jets flying over troops with Kalashnikov-pattern rifles. Unsurprisingly, aviation experts widely mocked it, saying it clearly wasn’t American.

Defense analysts have long noted the mechanics behind these recurring errors. For example, modern warships and fighters share enough visual DNA- gray paint, angular superstructures, and similar radar masts- that non-specialists struggle to tell them apart at a glance.

Staffers working under deadline pressure rarely pause to verify hull numbers or distinctive features, making it a low-stakes but revealing ritual.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Russian & Indian Warships Hog Online Limelight as U.S. Navy Turns 251. Social Media Gaffe Continues appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

One person has died as stormy weather with high volumes of water is sweeping across Greece, affecting mostly Greek islands. Rhodes is one of the Greek islands severely hit by the bad weather front, while Evia and the Sporades islands (Skiathos, Skopelos and Alonissos) are also at the mercy of the intense weather phenomena. RHODES […]

The post One dead as stormy weather sweeps across Greek islands appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

Amid growing anxieties in Europe over “the Russian threat”, the US Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), has unveiled what he called the alliance’s “Theory of Victory”. 

Though his Polish hosts did not seem fully satisfied, General Grynkewich assured, on October 12, at the “Warsaw Security Forum,” an annual international conference in the Polish capital, that the alliance is ready to defend itself.

Reassuring America’s reliability as an ally and Washington’s firm commitment to NATO’s Article 5, which envisages collective defense, he said that if an adversary is “foolish enough” to strike, the alliance is fully prepared to “fight tonight”.

During a panel discussion titled “Theory of Victory: How Do We Achieve Military Success Against Russia in Deterrence and Defense?” Grynkewich stated that NATO would destroy “anything and everything” that supports an attack on allied territory.

He asserted, “Should the adversary choose to press the attack or commit his reserves, we will break the warfighting system engaged against us.”

In what the experts describe as an unprecedented move to project an absolute ironclad assurance of security to the one billion citizens living under the NATO umbrella, and to send an unmistakable warning of devastating consequences to adversaries, particularly Moscow ( though he did not mention it explicitly), General Grynkewich then went on to clearly articulate key elements of what was hitherto classified as NATO’s “Theory of Victory”.

NATO had developed a well-known “Theory of Victory,” but its elements were not well understood. General Grynkewich revealed them as part of a rigorous three-phase strategic framework: “Block, Blunt, and Break”.

This triad dictates the sequential escalation and synchronization of Allied multi-domain power from the very first moments of aggression.

While Grynkewich did not explicitly mention Russia during his address, his comments clearly targeted Moscow, especially in light of NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, which identifies Russia as the most significant and direct threat to allied security.

“My theory of victory is simple: we will block the initial attack. If the attack persists, we will blunt it and prevent enemy advance,” he expla ned. “And if required, we will break the enemy’s forces and the operational warfighting system that is arrayed against us.”

Based on his elaboration, Phase One of Block is the first line of defense. It focuses on an immediate, unyielding denial of territory. If an adversary breaches an allied border, NATO’s forward land forces are trained to deploy instantaneously to halt the invading army directly at the point of contact.

Rather than letting an adversary establish a foothold or capture territory for political leverage, the “Block” phase aims to isolate the initial push. This relies on integrated multi-domain operations, using localized ground units heavily supported by air superiority, naval assets, space surveillance, and active cyber capabilities to immediately close the operational window on the attacker.

If an offensive survives the initial blocking force and persists, NATO transitions to the “Blunt” phase.

The goal shifts from containment to actively stripping the enemy of operational momentum and initiative. To achieve this, the alliance leverages highly advanced technological systems. Grynkewich highlighted the deployment of massive sensor networks, autonomous combat systems, and AI-driven multi-domain targeting to completely suppress the enemy’s ability to coordinate large-scale maneuvers or advance deeper into allied territory.

The final, most severe component of the strategy is the mandate to “Break” the adversary. If an aggressor refuses to cease hostilities or attempts to mobilize its strategic reserves, NATO will launch massive, far-reaching retaliatory actions. Grynkewich explicitly stated that this phase extends far beyond the physical front lines of the immediate conflict. NATO will target and destroy the entire overarching warfighting framework arrayed against it.

This means systematically dismantling command-and-control centers; physical supply and logistics networks; replenishment warehouses; communications arrays; and anything else sustaining the offensive force.

However, Grynkewich carefully balanced aggressive deterrence with diplomatic clarity, noting that NATO did not view a direct military conflict with Russia as imminent or inevitable. Instead, he stressed that the most effective tool for preserving peace is maintaining absolute readiness for war while keeping communication channels open to prevent miscalculations.

This updated strategy appears to draw directly on critical lessons from contemporary battlefields in Ukraine and the Middle East. It explicitly moves away from relying solely on hyper-expensive, exquisite military hardware. Instead, NATO is prioritizing a hybrid mix of technological enablers that pairs high-end precision weapons with large numbers of cheaper, scalable systems like attritable drones and counter-UAS platforms to overwhelm an adversary’s defenses effectively.

General Grynkewich reportedly emphasized three things in this regard: 

First is the “Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative (EFD),” which serves as the deployment vehicle for a vast network of low-cost, expendable drones and minimally crewed or fully autonomous reconnaissance and strike systems.

Second is “AI-Powered Targeting,” which uses artificial intelligence to sift through vast data streams generated by advanced sensors, satellite arrays, and cyber intelligence. By shortening the sensor-to-shooter loop, AI-enabled networks identify, categorize, and assign targets to artillery, missile systems, or loitering munitions in real time, long before human staff could process the raw coordinates.

Third is the “System Layering” strategy, which does not replace heavy conventional hardware such as main battle tanks or fifth-generation fighter jets but rather insulates them. Cheap, modular drone walls absorb the weight of initial saturation attacks, counter enemy mass, and clear pathways, preserving high-end kinetic platforms for decisive operations against hardened infrastructure.

Overall, the emphasis on sensors, autonomous systems, precision weapons, and integrated land, air, sea, space, and cyber capabilities recognizes that contemporary combat depends as much on information, networks, and logistics as on troop numbers.

The idea is that NATO must exploit technological advantages while producing affordable systems in sufficient quantities.

NATO has periodically revised its strategies, keeping technological developments and threat environments in mind.

During the Cold War, the alliance relied primarily on what it called “forward defense” and “flexible response.”  The forward defense strategy supposedly committed NATO to hold the inner-German border and assumed a possible retreat across deep defensive lines before counter-attacking.

The Flexible Response strategy relied heavily on the explicit threat of nuclear escalation in the theater to offset Warsaw Pact forces’ conventional numerical superiority.

After the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the Soviet Union,  NATO was said to have adopted an expeditionary, crisis-management model. In this model, deterrence was linked to political goodwill, and force structures were optimized for out-of-area counter-insurgency campaigns.

This resulted in a lean force model with thin ammunition reserves and a lack of the rapid forward mobilization needed for high-intensity, continent-scale conventional combat.

Against this background, the “Theory of Victory” is said to address post-Cold War vulnerabilities by institutionalizing a modern denial posture. It replaces reliance on early tactical nuclear escalation with conventional, technology-driven mass.

Apparently,  it abandons the concept of “liberation after occupation,” acknowledging that the civilian cost and physical destruction associated with liberating occupied territory are strategically unacceptable in the modern geopolitical environment.

Instead, it shows the capacity to neutralize an incursion early and convince potential adversaries that the cost of an attack will always outweigh any conceivable strategic gain.

Finally, by linking it to Article 5, NATO’s latest concept displays elements of calculated “strategic ambiguity”; it is id. NATO will not publicly define the exact point at which an attack would trigger its collective-defense clause, as doing so would help adversaries calculate how far they can escalate without provoking an allied response.

The ambiguity is designed to complicate enemy calculations, ensuring that hybrid operations, gray-zone provocations, or minor border incursions carry the unpredictable risk of drawing a full, multi-domain response from the alliance.

While the reactions of America’s major European NATO allies to General Grynkewich were not available at the time of writing, it is fair to guess they were reassured that Washington is prepared to fight if attacked.

However, erstwhile Warsaw Pact member and now Russia’s biggest critic, Poland, which has joined NATO, does not seem fully satisfied. Reports quoting the Polish weekly “Polityka” question the fundamental premise of NATO’s military strategy: preventing an adversary from achieving its goals, rather than launching an offensive campaign to destroy a foreign military power fully.

This perspective, detailed by defense analyst Marek Świerczyński, unpacks the structural reality behind General Alexus Grynkewich’s “Theory of Victory” speech.

He argues that beyond NATO’s institutional focus on calculated deterrence, escalation control, and defending its current borders, the alliance should fight deep inside Russia, without crossing the border, to crush the Russian military as a whole (through missile and drone firepower).

But then, this is a limited view. Overall, General Grynkewich seems to reflect that current NATO thinking is to de-escalate with Russia, not to defeat it strategically or to change its regime. The core objective of the Theory of Victory strategy is strictly containment, deterrence, and risk management.

In that sense, the name of the theory may be a little misleading.

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• The author can be reached at prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Top USAF General Reveals NATO Plan to Fight Russia — But it is Designed for Containment, Not Decisive Defeat appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Ukrainian forces have reported the sudden loss of satellite communications during high-speed drone operations after SpaceX imposed new restrictions on its military-grade Starshield service. The disruption revives questions over American control of Ukraine’s battlefield communications and follows earlier controversies involving Elon Musk’s intervention in Ukrainian military operations.

Ukraine’s armed forces have reported serious disruptions to drone operations after Elon Musk’s SpaceX introduced new restrictions on its Starshield satellite communications service overnight on 13–14 October. The changes reportedly caused Ukrainian unmanned aircraft to lose connectivity when travelling faster than 160 kilometres per hour, forcing the abandonment of several military missions.

The restrictions were confirmed by Serhiy Beskrestnov, an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on defence technologies, who said Ukrainian forces had received no advance warning. According to his account of the disruption, the new limit of 100 miles per hour applies to Starshield, the military communications service developed by SpaceX for government and defence applications.

Serhiy Sternenko, a prominent Ukrainian volunteer and former adviser to the defence minister, was among the first to report the problem. In a statement published on Wednesday morning, he said satellite connections had begun disappearing once drones exceeded the new speed threshold, disrupting several important missions. Sternenko suggested that the decision might have been taken at the request of President Donald Trump’s administration, although no evidence establishing such an instruction has been made public.

Four Ukrainian military personnel speaking to Ukrainska Pravda independently reported problems with Starshield. One commander provided footage purportedly showing two Ukrainian drones losing their satellite connections during flight and becoming unable to complete their missions.

The restrictions do not appear to affect ordinary Starlink terminals operating within their existing speed limits. However, military-grade Starshield connectivity allows Ukraine to operate certain unmanned systems at considerably higher speeds, including aircraft conducting long-range missions against Russian military and industrial targets.

Previous disputes over Starlink access

The latest interruption is not the first occasion on which SpaceX has limited Ukraine’s military use of its satellite network. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Starlink has become an essential component of Ukrainian battlefield communications, supporting frontline command systems, artillery coordination and unmanned operations.

In September 2022, during Ukraine’s counteroffensive in the south, Starlink communications failed in areas where Ukrainian forces were attempting to advance against Russian positions. A subsequent investigation published in July 2025 reported that Musk had personally ordered the suspension of service across parts of the battlefield, including areas around Kherson.

The interruption reportedly affected reconnaissance, artillery targeting and communications between military units at a critical stage of the operation. The investigation raised questions about the ability of a private technology provider to influence military operations through decisions governing access to its infrastructure.

Another controversy emerged in September 2023, when Musk acknowledged refusing a Ukrainian request to activate Starlink coverage near Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea. Ukrainian forces had intended to use unmanned naval vessels against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

Musk argued that enabling the operation could have made SpaceX complicit in a major escalation of the war. His explanation also challenged earlier accounts suggesting he had actively switched off an existing connection, rather than declined to activate coverage in the requested area.

In February 2023, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell had already confirmed restrictions on Ukrainian drone operations, explaining that the company had not intended its commercial communications network to be used directly as a weapon.

Military dependence and American leverage

The Pentagon attempted to establish a more formal relationship with SpaceX in June 2023, contracting the company to provide satellite communications to Ukrainian forces. However, the contractual arrangements and the extent of American government authority over operational restrictions have never been fully disclosed.

Ukraine subsequently gained access to Starshield, which SpaceX describes as a secure satellite network intended specifically for national security applications. Unlike the commercial Starlink service, Starshield is designed to support government communications and other sensitive operations.

The latest restrictions therefore concern a service intended for military use rather than the civilian network at the centre of earlier disputes. Their introduction without advance notification has renewed concerns about Ukraine’s dependence on communications infrastructure controlled outside the country.

The timing is particularly sensitive as Washington and Kyiv continue to disagree over Ukrainian strikes against Russian energy facilities and the terms of a possible ceasefire. Ukraine has maintained that attacks against Russia’s oil industry are part of its campaign to reduce Moscow’s ability to finance and sustain the invasion.

Nevertheless, there is currently no independently established connection between those diplomatic disagreements and SpaceX’s decision to impose the new speed restriction. Neither a technical explanation nor evidence of an instruction from Washington had been publicly established when the disruption was reported.

For Ukrainian commanders, the immediate problem is operational. High-speed unmanned aircraft depend on reliable communications for navigation, mission management and the transmission of information. A restriction introduced without warning can render previously functioning systems ineffective in the middle of an operation.

The incident has exposed a persistent vulnerability in Ukraine’s military communications arrangements: even where the necessary aircraft, operators and mission capabilities are available, their employment may remain subject to restrictions imposed by an external satellite operator.

King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia visited Ceuta on Tuesday, 13th October, in a demonstration of Spanish sovereignty over the North African territory following a migration crisis that brought tens of thousands of people across the Moroccan border and sharply increased diplomatic tensions between Madrid and Rabat.

The visit, the first by a Spanish monarch since 2007, took place less than three months after the mass crossings of 30th–31st July, when more than 70,000 people entered or attempted to enter Ceuta from Morocco. The scale of the movement overwhelmed local infrastructure and resulted in substantial loss of life.

Casualty figures differ between available accounts, with reports indicating more than 100 deaths. The royal couple paid their respects at the city’s Muslim cemetery, where many of those who died during the crisis are buried.

The King called for relations with Morocco to be conducted in good faith and with mutual respect, while reaffirming Ceuta’s position within Spain and the European Union.

Territorial dispute returns to the forefront

Ceuta and neighbouring Melilla occupy a politically unusual position. Both are Spanish autonomous cities on the northern African coast, forming part of the European Union despite their geographic location outside continental Europe.

Morocco disputes Spanish sovereignty over both territories, regarding them as territories that should come under Moroccan control. Madrid considers their status settled and maintains that neither city’s sovereignty is open to negotiation.

The July migration crisis has brought these longstanding differences back into the centre of Spanish domestic politics.

Spain has accused Moroccan border authorities of failing to prevent the mass crossings. Questions remain about whether the Moroccan authorities were overwhelmed by events, failed to act adequately or deliberately permitted the movement as a means of applying diplomatic pressure.

Evidence establishing an organised Moroccan operation has not been made public. Nevertheless, the crisis has demonstrated how profoundly Spanish border security depends on the actions of authorities on the other side of the frontier.

The Moroccan monarchy has subsequently indicated that existing migration cooperation with Spain is approaching its limits.

Migration creates pressure on Spanish politics

The consequences extend beyond the immediate border crisis. Ceuta’s population is approximately 80,000, making the number of arrivals during the two-day emergency comparable to the city’s total number of residents.

Temporary shelters were established to accommodate migrants who remained in the territory, including unaccompanied minors. Authorities subsequently undertook operations to clear informal settlements and transfer residents to reception facilities.

Spanish authorities also face questions concerning their handling of the emergency. Allegations of mistreatment involving security personnel are under investigation, while local organisations have criticised hostility towards migrants and difficulties in delivering humanitarian assistance.

Ceuta’s mixed religious and cultural population has made the political atmosphere particularly sensitive. Muslim residents form a substantial proportion of the city, and local community representatives have warned against treating entire neighbourhoods as responsible for the disorder.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government has presented the royal visit as a demonstration of national support for Ceuta. Opposition parties have accused the government of failing to defend Spanish interests adequately during the crisis.

The dispute is also unfolding ahead of Spain’s general election scheduled for 29th November, placing migration, sovereignty and relations with Morocco among the central questions facing voters.

A European border controlled through cooperation

For Brussels, the immediate question concerns the effectiveness of Europe’s migration arrangements with neighbouring countries.

The EU relies on cooperation with Morocco to prevent irregular crossings, disrupt migrant-smuggling networks and manage movements towards European territory.

Spain has traditionally supported a close relationship between Brussels and Rabat, recognising Morocco’s importance to migration management, trade and regional security.

Yet the events in Ceuta have demonstrated the vulnerability of arrangements that depend heavily on the continued cooperation of governments outside the Union.

Unlike migration routes crossing the Mediterranean, the Ceuta frontier provides direct land access to EU territory. A sudden deterioration in bilateral cooperation can therefore produce an immediate crisis without requiring migrants to undertake a sea crossing.

Wider consequences for European diplomacy

The dispute also intersects with economic competition around the Strait of Gibraltar.

Morocco has invested heavily in ports and logistics infrastructure, including Tanger Med, while Ceuta and Melilla remain economically dependent on commercial relationships with their surrounding regions.

Spain must manage competing interests: maintaining territorial sovereignty, protecting the security of its borders and preserving cooperation with a country that remains an important economic and diplomatic partner.

The European Commission has an interest in avoiding a confrontation that could undermine wider migration arrangements between the Union and North African states.

At the same time, Brussels cannot treat questions concerning the status and security of territory belonging to an EU member state as exclusively bilateral matters.

The royal couple are scheduled to visit Melilla on Wednesday, extending the political significance of the journey beyond Ceuta.

The immediate migration emergency has subsided, but the underlying disagreement remains unresolved. Spain continues to insist on its territorial sovereignty, while Morocco retains its claims and considerable influence over the practical management of the frontier.

Main Image: LIMITED PICTURES

The European Union is entering an unusually concentrated electoral period, with major national contests in Spain, France, Italy and Poland expected to alter the political composition of the European Council over the coming year.

The elections coincide with negotiations over the EU’s 2028–2034 financial framework, increasing the uncertainty surrounding agreements on common borrowing, defence expenditure, agricultural funding and the Union’s future institutional priorities.

Spain is scheduled to hold a general election on 29th November following Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s decision to seek an early mandate. France faces a presidential election in 2027, while major electoral contests in Italy and Poland will also determine the political direction of governments central to European decision-making.

Although national elections do not directly change the composition of the European Parliament, they determine who represents member states in the European Council and influence the balance of negotiations within the Council of the EU.

Spain prepares for an early election

Spain’s election will provide the first major indication of how the electoral cycle may develop.

Sánchez’s Socialist government faces substantial pressure over domestic economic and political disputes, including housing policy, while migration has returned to the forefront of political debate following the crisis in Ceuta.

The opposition People’s Party is seeking to replace the Socialists, with the possible parliamentary role of Vox remaining an important consideration.

The outcome could alter Spain’s position on EU migration arrangements, fiscal policy and aspects of European integration.

Spain is one of the Union’s largest member states and has traditionally supported closer integration in a range of policy areas. A change of government would not necessarily reverse that position, but it could change the priorities Madrid brings to negotiations in Brussels.

Domestic political pressures may also affect the government’s willingness to accept compromises on the EU’s next budget.

France faces a more consequential political transition

France’s presidential election in 2027 carries particularly substantial implications because Emmanuel Macron cannot seek another consecutive term.

The contest will determine the leadership of a founding EU member state that remains central to European defence policy, eurozone economic governance and relations with Germany.

Raphaël Glucksmann has emerged as a prominent candidate from the moderate left following his victory in the social-democratic primary, while the political centre and conservative right are preparing competing candidacies.

The National Rally remains an important electoral force, although questions concerning Marine Le Pen’s legal position complicate predictions about its eventual presidential candidate.

The French election will take place against a difficult fiscal background.

France faces continuing pressure over its public finances, with European officials urging Paris to adopt a credible 2027 budget and provide greater reassurance to financial markets.

Any incoming president will therefore inherit constraints extending beyond domestic spending choices.

France’s position in European negotiations may be influenced by the relationship between presidential authority, parliamentary support and the country’s fiscal commitments.

Italy and Poland add further uncertainty

The contests in Italy and Poland will introduce additional questions concerning relations between national governments and EU institutions.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has combined a firm position on migration with support for Ukraine and participation in European defence initiatives.

Her government’s record demonstrates that parties associated with the nationalist right do not necessarily adopt identical positions on foreign policy, economic governance or defence.

Poland’s political competition similarly includes substantial disagreements over EU institutional authority and domestic reforms, while support for national security and resistance to Russian aggression extend across much of the political spectrum.

Changes in either country’s government could alter negotiating coalitions within the Council.

However, the consequences cannot be reliably inferred from broad political labels alone. Individual governments differ in their positions on agricultural support, industrial policy, common financing and enlargement.

The budget creates an immediate test

The first substantial European policy test is already under way.

Ireland’s presidency of the Council has proposed a revised seven-year EU budget of approximately €1.62 trillion, reducing the Commission’s original proposal by about eight per cent.

The negotiating framework requires agreement among all 27 member states, giving national governments considerable influence over the final settlement.

European leaders are attempting to secure an agreement before the end of 2026, partly to avoid carrying unresolved financial negotiations into a year dominated by elections.

A delayed settlement would risk leaving politically sensitive decisions to new governments that might wish to revise previous commitments.

Implications for Ukraine and EU policy

Support for Ukraine will remain a major issue, particularly as European governments consider future financing, military assistance and the consequences of any diplomatic negotiations involving Russia.

Differences between parties over the extent and financing of European assistance could become more significant if new governments form alternative coalitions within the Council.

Migration policy, the relationship with the United States and EU enlargement will also remain areas of potential disagreement.

Yet the institutional structure of the Union limits the ability of any single election to produce an immediate reversal of policy.

Legislation requires agreement through established procedures, while many foreign-policy decisions continue to depend on consensus or unanimity.

The electoral cycle may consequently produce a gradual realignment of European negotiating positions rather than a sudden institutional transformation.

For Brussels, the immediate priority is securing agreements on the financial framework and legislative programme before domestic campaigns begin to restrict the room available for compromise.

The European Commission has approved Italy’s revised defence investment plan worth slightly more than €8 billion under the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) programme, bringing Rome closer to receiving European-backed loans intended to accelerate military procurement and strengthen the continent’s defence industry.

The decision was confirmed in Brussels on Tuesday, 13th October, by Commission spokesman Thomas Regnier, who said the updated Italian proposal had received the executive’s approval. The plan must now obtain the Council’s endorsement before the loan agreement can be signed and the first payment released.

Under the procedure outlined by the Commission, Italy would become eligible for an initial disbursement amounting to 15 per cent of its approved loan following completion of the remaining formalities. For a package worth approximately €8 billion, that would represent around €1.2 billion in initial financing.

The approval comes as European governments seek to translate commitments to increased military expenditure into procurement contracts, industrial production and operational capabilities.

Italy’s position in European defence industry

Italy is among the EU’s principal defence manufacturing countries, with substantial industrial capabilities in aerospace, naval construction, electronics, military vehicles and weapons systems.

Companies including Leonardo and Fincantieri occupy important positions in multinational defence programmes, while smaller manufacturers contribute specialised equipment, components and technologies.

The Commission has emphasised Italy’s industrial importance in explaining its support for the revised plan.

Nevertheless, approval of the financing proposal does not establish precisely how the money will be distributed among manufacturers or procurement programmes. Individual contractual arrangements will depend on the projects included in the approved national plan and the relevant purchasing decisions.

Italy had previously been associated with a substantially larger indicative SAFE allocation, but its updated application concerns approximately €8 billion.

The revised amount illustrates the distinction between the borrowing capacity initially made available to member states and the financing they ultimately seek through their national investment proposals.

How SAFE financing operates

SAFE was established in May 2025 as part of the EU’s wider effort to improve defence readiness following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The programme provides up to €150 billion in long-term loans financed through borrowing by the European Union on international capital markets.

Unlike grants from the EU budget, these loans must be repaid by the borrowing member states. Their attraction lies principally in the financing conditions available through the Union’s borrowing arrangements.

SAFE is intended to support the procurement of equipment including ammunition, missiles, artillery systems, drones, air and missile defence systems, maritime capabilities and military mobility infrastructure.

An important feature is its emphasis on cooperation between European purchasers rather than exclusively national acquisition programmes.

Under the applicable regulation, joint procurement is generally intended to involve at least two eligible participating countries, although temporary provisions allow certain purchases by individual member states.

The rules also impose requirements concerning the geographic origin of components, reflecting the programme’s objective of increasing industrial capacity within Europe and eligible partner countries.

At least 65 per cent of component costs must originate within the permitted European and Ukrainian industrial base.

European production remains the central challenge

European governments have substantially increased defence expenditure, but higher budgets do not automatically resolve shortages in manufacturing capacity.

Production lines for ammunition, missiles and complex weapons systems require specialised machinery, skilled workers, component suppliers and sufficiently predictable orders to justify expansion.

Many defence companies have traditionally operated against fragmented national requirements. Different governments have purchased equipment in relatively small quantities, often imposing separate technical specifications and procurement conditions.

This fragmentation can increase costs and complicate maintenance, training and interoperability.

Brussels hopes that the combination of common financing and joint procurement will encourage member states to coordinate orders, giving manufacturers more predictable demand.

The challenge is particularly acute in air defence and precision-guided weapons, where European forces face both urgent requirements and lengthy production cycles.

SAFE can provide financing for eligible purchases, but the speed at which industry delivers equipment depends on existing capacity and the ability to expand production.

The next steps for Rome

Italy’s plan now moves to the Council, where the required approval must be secured before the Commission and Italian authorities can conclude the financing agreement.

The Commission’s statement on Tuesday made clear that the initial payment is conditional upon completion of these procedures.

Once the agreement is signed, the first tranche will provide financing for investment under the programme, with subsequent payments governed by the relevant arrangements.

The scale of Italy’s participation gives the decision significance beyond its immediate financial value.

As one of the EU’s largest manufacturing economies, Italy will be an important test of whether European defence financing can generate procurement cooperation across national borders while strengthening existing industrial capacity.

The effectiveness of the programme will ultimately be measured through signed contracts, production increases and the delivery of equipment to European armed forces, rather than the headline amount of approved borrowing.

Italy’s Deficit to Rise Again as Rome Uses EU Fiscal Flexibility

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has reopened the debate over Britain’s relationship with the European Union ahead of a November summit in Brussels. While his government is seeking immediate agreements on trade and regulatory cooperation, the possibility of eventual EU membership raises more difficult political and economic questions.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has called for a fundamental reassessment of Britain’s relationship with the European Union, opening the possibility of closer economic integration and eventual EU membership six years after the country’s formal departure from the bloc.

Addressing Parliament on 12th October, Burnham argued that the existing arrangements were inadequate and confirmed that his government would seek progress on trade, environmental standards and mobility at a UK–EU summit scheduled for 20th November in Brussels.

His remarks represent a departure from the approach taken by his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, whose government pursued improvements to the post-Brexit relationship while ruling out a return to the single market, customs union or full EU membership.

Burnham has not committed his government to seeking re-entry. However, by placing Britain’s longer-term European position back on the political agenda, he has introduced a question that successive governments sought to keep outside mainstream policy discussions following the 2016 referendum.

A proposed reset with Brussels

The immediate negotiations concern practical arrangements affecting businesses, workers and consumers on both sides of the Channel.

London wants improved access for agricultural and food products, closer cooperation between emissions trading systems and arrangements permitting greater youth mobility between Britain and EU member states.

A veterinary and sanitary agreement could reduce checks and administrative requirements affecting food exports, although the extent of any simplification would depend on the regulatory commitments accepted by Britain.

Closer alignment of carbon emissions trading arrangements could also benefit industries exposed to competing climate-related charges and reporting obligations.

The proposed youth mobility arrangements would address some of the restrictions imposed on younger people seeking opportunities to live, study or work temporarily across the Channel.

Each agreement would require detailed negotiations over regulatory standards, enforcement mechanisms and reciprocal obligations.

The European Commission has consistently maintained that access to the benefits of the single market must be accompanied by corresponding responsibilities.

That position limits the scope for Britain to negotiate substantial economic advantages while retaining complete discretion over the rules governing the relevant sectors.

Rejoining would require a new accession process

The question of full membership involves considerably more demanding negotiations.

Britain could not simply reverse its withdrawal and restore the arrangements it enjoyed before January 2020.

Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, a country seeking membership must submit an application and complete an accession process requiring the agreement of existing member states.

Any eventual accession treaty would require ratification under the constitutional procedures of the parties concerned.

Several of Britain’s former membership arrangements would therefore become subjects for negotiation.

Before Brexit, the United Kingdom enjoyed a permanent exemption from adopting the euro, remained outside the Schengen passport-free travel area and benefited from special arrangements concerning its financial contributions.

A new application would be considered within the EU’s current legal and political framework rather than automatically restoring those earlier exemptions.

The question of adopting the euro could prove particularly controversial in British domestic politics, while negotiations over budget contributions and the relationship with the European Court of Justice would require substantial political commitments.

Debate over how quickly Britain could return

A recent report from the pro-European organisation Best for Britain argues that British accession could proceed considerably faster than is commonly assumed.

The organisation maintains that Britain’s previous membership, existing regulatory structures and longstanding institutional familiarity with the EU could reduce the technical complexity of negotiations.

It has suggested that re-entry might be achievable within a single parliamentary term under favourable political conditions.

Other specialists dispute such an accelerated timetable, arguing that the size of Britain’s economy, the complexity of its post-Brexit regulatory arrangements and the political sensitivity of membership conditions could considerably prolong negotiations.

There is also the question of whether existing member states would support Britain’s return on terms acceptable to the British electorate.

Although European leaders have indicated openness to closer cooperation, this does not amount to a collective commitment to readmit the United Kingdom.

France and other influential member states would be particularly concerned about ensuring that any accession agreement supported the Union’s institutional arrangements rather than reproducing the exceptions negotiated during Britain’s previous membership.

Domestic opinion remains divided

Opinion polling indicates that support for closer relations with the EU has increased since Brexit, with some surveys suggesting a majority would favour rejoining.

However, public attitudes become more complicated when respondents are asked about specific membership obligations, including financial contributions, freedom of movement and possible adoption of the euro.

The government would also face opposition from political parties that continue to defend Brexit.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has criticised Burnham’s approach, while Reform UK maintains that Britain’s departure should not be reconsidered.

The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, have advocated a more explicit route towards renewed membership.

Burnham has indicated that any fundamental change in Britain’s European position would require public approval. He has not established a timetable or formal mechanism for such a decision.

Brussels has its own priorities

The European Union is itself undergoing considerable political and economic change.

Negotiations over the 2028–2034 budget, preparations for possible enlargement and efforts to strengthen European industrial and defence capabilities have altered the context in which a British application would be considered.

The Union that Britain might eventually seek to join would therefore differ in important respects from the organisation it left.

For the Commission, the immediate priority is likely to be identifying practical agreements that can be concluded without reopening the entire constitutional question of British membership.

The November summit provides an opportunity to establish whether London is prepared to accept the regulatory and political obligations necessary for closer cooperation.

Burnham’s decision to reopen the debate marks a change in British political direction, but there is still a considerable distance between acknowledging the economic costs of Brexit, negotiating a more ambitious relationship and securing the domestic and European consent required for full membership.

Burnham Presses Brussels for ‘Made in Europe’ Access as Germany Seeks Looser Rules

EurAsian Times has repeatedly argued that artillery is by no means becoming obsolete. That assessment was reinforced on October 12 when Hanwha Defense USA and the U.S. Army unveiled the XM1776 Mobile Tactical Cannon—the American version of Hanwha’s K9 Mobile Howitzer—at an official naming ceremony at the HDUSA booth during the Association of the U.S. Army’s 2026 Annual Meeting and Exposition (AUSA).

HDUSA also announced that the U.S. Army has ordered nine prototype wheeled XM1776 MTC systems, with an option for nine additional MTCs.

“The XM1776 Mobile Tactical Cannon represents the launch of the U.S. Army’s new long-range precision fires modernization effort and its powerful partnership with HDUSA to produce this system at speed and scale,” said Mike Smith, Hanwha Defense USA COO and President of Land Systems. “As we celebrate America’s 250th anniversary, Hanwha is committed to delivering industrial strength, mature capability, and proven technologies that accelerate U.S. production and expand America’s artillery industrial base.”

HDUSA is establishing a Phase I site in Opelika, Alabama, that will serve as the U.S. integration and test facility for the XM1776 MTC and Hanwha’s family of K9 Mobile Howitzers. To accelerate supply chain localization, company leadership will meet with more than 70 existing and potential suppliers to develop an Artillery Industrial Base Coalition in the U.S.

Earlier, the US Army awarded Hanwha Defense USA a deal to supply K9 mobile howitzer prototypes for the new self-propelled howitzer modernization program.

“The agreement provides for the accelerated delivery of six prototype MTC [Mobile Tactical Cannon] systems, with an option for an additional 12,” the US Army said in a statement. “Soldiers will use these platforms in a series of operational experiments to assess performance, reliability, and supportability in realistic combat conditions.”

U.S. troops will operate the prototypes in a series of trials intended to help the Army evaluate its performance, dependability, and supportability. “Data and insights gained from these experiments will directly inform senior leaders’ decisions on future fielding,” the Army added.

Hanwha Defense USA had offered its wheeled K9 platform to the U.S. Army. Other contenders included Elbit Systems USA, American Rheinmetall, General Dynamics Land Systems, and BAE Systems.

The South Korean-origin Howitzer will replace the self-propelled M109A7 and the towed M777 howitzers.

“We’re focused on creating a U.S.-anchored K9 Mobile Howitzer manufacturing network – with Opelika, Alabama, as the current phase I launch point – that can deliver advanced Mobile Tactical Cannons at the speed and scale the U.S. Army needs,” Jason Pak, Hanwha Defense USA Head of Land Systems-Artillery, said in a statement.

Pak added: These are not minor transactions. They reflect US recognition that South Korean industry can deliver quality, speed, and scale that domestic yards and programs have struggled to match.

South Korea’s K9 ‘Thunder’ Howitzer 

The K9 Thunder has become one of the world’s most sought-after weapons.

South Korean defense giant Hanwha Aerospace designed and produces the K9 Thunder, a 155mm/52 caliber self-propelled howitzer. It can carry up to 48 projectiles and launch six rounds per minute.

Since its debut in 1999, the K9 Thunder has become a cornerstone of South Korea’s defense exports, accounting for more than half of global self-propelled howitzer orders. As of last year, over 1,900 K9 units have been delivered or are slated for export to various countries.

South Korea operates a large fleet of K9 howitzers, deployed along the heavily fortified demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating it from North Korea.

The K9’s ability to operate in the DMZ’s challenging mountainous terrain is a key feature, thanks to an advanced hydropneumatic suspension that helps it navigate rough landscapes with ease.

The K9’s five-man crew operates in a fully enclosed environment, protected from nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, with 19mm steel armor providing defense against heavy machine-gun rounds and shrapnel.

Additionally, a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on the turret provides close-range defense and limited air-defense capability.

More than a dozen countries have ordered the K9 Thunder and its licensed variants, with deliveries to Australia, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, India, Norway, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Vietnam completed or underway, and a further agreement signed with Spain in 2026.

Artillery Guns Still in Demand

The Ukraine-Russia war and the widespread use of drones have raised doubts about whether conventional artillery is losing relevance.

Yet both sides’ high shell consumption rates indicate that artillery remains a core source of volume firepower. Drones have supplemented artillery by enabling precision strikes, reconnaissance, and partial mitigation of ammunition shortages.

They have not, however, matched artillery’s capacity for sustained massed fires, longer-range area suppression, all-weather operation, and resistance to electronic warfare, according to assessments from Ukrainian military officials and open-source analyses of the conflict.

The post Artillery Isn’t Dead: U.S. Army Orders XM1776 Prototypes Based on South Korea’s K9 ‘Thunder’ Howitzer appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

How might a glam, rainbow, gender-bent Aslan be like Jesus? The simple answer is that he can’t be.…This Aslan is not and cannot be the Aslan of Lewis’ books.   It was Carl Trueman who introduced me to the idea of a deathwork, though the concept is Philip Rieff’s. According to Rieff, a deathwork is... Continue Reading

We want sons and daughters who are wise, who fear the Lord, who love what God loves and hate what God hates. We want children who govern their appetites, confess their sins, receive correction, work with their hands, worship with gladness, and gladly spend their lives serving the kingdom of Jesus Christ.   The goal... Continue Reading

In our modern circumstances, we frequently examine our résumé to see if it looks like King Saul’s—great career, great family, etc. Yet we forget to look at what God calls success: living faithfully before him in the circumstances he puts in our lives, waiting on his word as we live before the face of God.... Continue Reading

We must present what is good, lovely, true, and honorable in such a compelling way that our children learn to recognize the counterfeits. We want them not merely to reject poison, but to hunger for what is genuinely nourishing.   It’s important to remember that someone is always trying to sell us something. Some of... Continue Reading

The brokenhearted do not approach the throne of grace with ego and bravado; they go to God with a divine mixture of humility and dependence, offering themselves wholly to the Lord.   For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;  you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices... Continue Reading

Medicine can (and will) acknowledge that treatment has its limits. Families may decline further interventions and allow death by natural means. But there is a world of difference between eliminating suffering, ceasing medical treatments, and terminating the patient.   The child never asked to die. Unable to speak, the child could not describe its suffering... Continue Reading

You don’t need to relocate to draw near to God. Improved circumstance won’t necessarily lead to more earnestly seeking Him. He is near. And in the risen Christ He’s found.   Standing in the Areopagus, Paul made an unsettling claim. Only it’s still unsettling when we hear it today. For Paul insists that no one’s... Continue Reading