Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's former spokesperson urged him Sunday to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin face-to-face in Moscow, arguing that his past business and political connections in the Russian capital from years back could help him negotiate a peace deal there.

Iuliia Mendel, who served as Zelenskyy's spokesperson from 2019 to 2021, told Fox News Digital that the former comedian had also made his first millions in Russia and should perhaps leverage those ties to pursue lasting peace.

"When Zelenskyy was an entertainer, he often performed in Moscow," Mendel said, adding that the Ukrainian president "knows a lot of people from Putin's elite."

"He actually professionally grew in Moscow and earned his first millions in Moscow, and today he pretends that he has nothing in common with them," Mendel said.

RECOVERING FROM LUNG SURGERY, POPE LEO URGES PUTIN TO AGREE TO CEASEFIRE IN RUSSIAN-HELD UKRAINE CITY

"He needs to go to Moscow and needs to agree on compromises that are acceptable," she said, before adding that Zelenskyy "doesn't need to play his maximalist games and to play this noble actor."

Mendel's criticism came as Ukraine, Russia and the United States prepared for another round of technical-level peace talks, potentially in Abu Dhabi or Switzerland, in November.

U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have helped lay the groundwork for renewed negotiations that officials hope could finally lead to direct talks between the two leaders.

Before entering politics, Zelenskyy had built a successful entertainment career. Beginning in the late 1990s, he performed with the comedy troupe Kvartal 95, competed on the Russian-language comedy program KVN and later worked as an actor, writer and producer in television and movies. 

From the late 1990s, he performed on Russian stages and at private parties and appeared in movies shown across former Soviet republics, Mendel claimed. 

She said that after Russia annexed Crimea and launched its war in Donbas in early 2014, Zelenskyy traveled to Russia to work on the comedy film "Eight New Dates" which was released in Russian theaters in 2015.

ZELENSKYY TO SEEK OFFRAMP FOR YEARS-LONG RUSSIA WAR IN UN SPEECH AFTER TRUMP REVEALS PEACE DEAL IS CLOSE

According to a report by Business Insider, many of Zelenskyy's movies were also in Russian and were marketed to a Russian audience, David Dodson, an American movie editor who worked with Zelenskyy told the outlet.

"He was a well-loved comic, actor and performer in Russia, but after [the 2013-14] Maidan [Revolution], everything changed," Dodson said.

"People need to realize that Volodya’s movies were very big in Russia. Most of his market was in Russia. He’s always been a popular comedy star in Russia," Dobson also clarified to GQ when asked if he directed the former actor in "Eight First Dates" in Russia, released in 2012.

In 2013, the movie received the Russian National Movie Awards as the Best Russian Comedy of the Year.

In 2019, Zelenskyy also promised to relinquish ownership of a Cyprus-registered company operating a film studio in Russia after investigative journalists revealed that he and his business partners still owned three Russian companies, according to the Kyiv Post.

Zelenskyy's entertainment career made him a household name in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics before he entered politics and won Ukraine's 2019 presidential election with roughly 73% of the runoff vote on promises to fight corruption and pursue peace in eastern Ukraine.

Mendel argued that Zelenskyy's promise to bring peace at the time stands in stark contrast to the devastating war that has crippled the country and defined much of his presidency.

TRUMP ANNOUNCES IMMEDIATE ENERGY CEASEFIRE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

"Zelenskyy became the president with 73% record support," Mendel said. "Because he promised to bring peace to Ukraine."

"And now he has been presiding for almost five years (over) the largest war in Europe since World War II. This shows a lot."

"When his country is bleeding, he needs to make a peace deal for his people," she said before adding that the leader "needs to put the interests of his people first, just for Ukraine to exist as an independent state."

Whether Zelenskyy should travel to Moscow has, in fact, become a flashpoint in efforts to arrange direct peace talks.

In 2025, Putin offered to host Zelenskyy for talks in Moscow, but the Ukrainian president rejected the invitation as Russian forces continued attacking Ukraine.

"He can come to Kyiv," Zelenskyy told ABC News at the time, saying he could not visit Moscow while Ukraine remained under Russian missile attacks.

In September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Russian journalists pressed Zelenskyy on when he would visit Moscow. He replied, "On a missile."

ZELENSKYY CONGRATULATES TRUMP ON TURNING 80 IN BIRTHDAY CALL, VOWS MORE UKRAINE PEACE TALKS AT G7 ON TUESDAY

Mendel, however, argued that personal animosity between the two leaders has become the main obstacle to diplomacy.

"Today there are diplomatic efforts to try to stop this brutal and bloody war that Russia started," she said.

"But what we see now is a personal opposition between Zelenskyy and Putin that continues to grow into constant escalation in which people suffer tremendously, Ukraine's infrastructure, energy grid, and businesses are in ruins, and refugees are fleeing."

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. More than four years later, peace negotiations are deadlocked over territory, security guarantees and the terms of a lasting ceasefire.

Moscow has demanded territorial concessions from Ukraine, including areas Russian forces do not fully control.

Kyiv has rejected ceding sovereign territory and insists that any agreement include enforceable security guarantees against another Russian attack.

RUSSIA RELEASES AMERICAN TEACHER IMPRISONED ON UKRAINE MERCENARY CHARGES AFTER TRUMP PRESSED PUTIN

Mendel went on to praise President Donald Trump's efforts to break the diplomatic deadlock, calling him the first Western leader to "challenge the status quo" and consistently push for an end to the war.

"For this reason, many Ukrainians place great hope in his ability to bring peace," she said.

"A sustainable peace deal cannot be reached solely between Zelensky and Putin; it requires the involvement and initiative of a strong third party to halt the ongoing devastation."

On Friday, the White House announced that first lady Melania Trump had helped broker a temporary ceasefire in Oleshky, a Russian-occupied town in southern Ukraine's Kherson region, to allow humanitarian aid deliveries, demining operations and civilian evacuations.

An estimated 1,700 to 2,000 people remain in the devastated front-line town, many of them facing severe shortages of food, medicine and other essentials.

The White House said the ceasefire would begin Oct. 29, although Ukrainian and Russian officials have indicated that operations could begin Oct. 27.

Pope Leo also reportedly spoke with Zelenskyy and Putin about the humanitarian crisis, according to Vatican News.

ZELENSKYY ACCUSES PUTIN OF DEFYING TRUMP'S CEASEFIRE PUSH, SENDS POINTED MESSAGE TO WHITE HOUSE

"Melania Trump has become synonymous with the words of a saver and a hero, since she has brokered the deal for Oleshky," Mendel said. "This is something that is going to save around 2,000 people and that neither Ukraine nor Russia could have solved for months and months."

"That is why, you know, what Melania Trump has done is actually a case to show that where two men are fighting, a woman can actually save lives," she added.

"And this is the new approach that would show that peace really should focus on human lives, not on maps and territories."

Mendel also criticized the influence of Zelenskyy's longtime ally Andriy Yermak on his diplomatic approach, arguing that the Ukrainian president has favored confrontation over compromise.

"Mr. Yermak was teaching Zelenskiy to be a strong man in diplomacy. And what today we see is actually diplomacy that doesn't exist," she said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"It's a diplomacy of humiliation, diplomacy of constant threats, diplomacy of demands," Mendel added.

L’oligarca statunitense Elon Musk si è scagliato contro coloro che sostengono la prosecuzione del conflitto in Ucraina, definendoli la "feccia" della società.

«Sì, questo idiota è così fottutamente ottuso da non rendersi conto che le nostre politiche sono a favore del popolo ucraino. Pezzi di merda come lui vogliono che la guerra continui finché non sarà morto anche l'ultimo uomo in Ucraina, in un fosso», ha scritto su X, in risposta a un post del commentatore di Fox Josh Kraushaar, il quale sosteneva che «nessuna somma di denaro da parte di Musk può cambiare la realtà fondamentale dell'opinione pubblica statunitense».

«Sono la feccia assoluta della Terra», ha aggiunto l'imprenditore. Il commento dell’oligarca giungeva in risposta a un post dell'analista politico John Hawkins, che lo aveva difeso osservando come «l'intera idea che lui sia una sorta di mostro - semplicemente perché non vuole che decine di migliaia di persone muoiano senza motivo - sia una follia alimentata da soggetti in malafede».

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DE "Il MONDO IN 10 NOTIZIE" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI GIORNO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI

L’Iran ha ottenuto un risultato senza precedenti in una causa contro gli Stati Uniti legata alle conseguenze delle sanzioni occidentali sulla salute dei cittadini. Il tribunale per le relazioni internazionali di Teheran ha condannato il governo statunitense e alcuni suoi funzionari a versare 6,785 miliardi di dollari di risarcimento materiale, morale e punitivo alle famiglie dei pazienti affetti da epidermolisi bollosa, una rara e grave malattia genetica nota come “pelle di farfalla”.

Secondo Hamid Hashemi Golpayegani, direttore dell’organizzazione Casa EB che assiste i malati, si tratta del primo risultato finanziario ottenuto dalla Repubblica Islamica in una procedura di questo tipo contro Washington nei suoi 48 anni di storia. Al centro della vicenda ci sono le sanzioni reintrodotte dopo il ritiro unilaterale degli Stati Uniti dall’accordo sul nucleare iraniano nel 2018. Le restrizioni e l’interruzione dei rapporti commerciali da parte di diverse aziende straniere avrebbero compromesso l’approvvigionamento di medicinali, materiali sanitari e dispositivi indispensabili. Tra i prodotti diventati difficili da reperire figurao le medicazioni specializzate utilizzate per trattare le lesioni dei pazienti, realizzate dall’azienda svedese Mölnlycke, indicata dalla fonte come unico produttore mondiale di quel tipo di materiale. Nonostante le dichiarate esenzioni umanitarie per farmaci e forniture mediche, gli ostacoli finanziari e commerciali avrebbero avuto conseguenze drammatiche sui malati iraniani.

La sentenza riguarda 771 ricorrenti, ai quali le autorità iraniane hanno riconosciuto la priorità nell’assegnazione dei fondi. Teheran ha disposto che una parte delle risorse ricavate dalla vendita di un carico di petrolio statunitense confiscato nel 2023 venga destinata ai risarcimenti. Secondo quanto riferito da Fars, è già stato ordinato il trasferimento delle somme ai beneficiari. La vicenda riporta al centro una questione spesso marginalizzata nel dibattito sulle sanzioni internazionali: il loro impatto concreto sulla popolazione civile, anche quando i beni umanitari risultano formalmente esclusi dalle restrizioni. Per i pazienti affetti da malattie rare, l’impossibilità di accedere a medicazioni e trattamenti adeguati può aggravare condizioni già estremamente difficili. Il caso iraniano assume quindi anche un significato politico e giuridico: Teheran evidenzia come la sentenza sia un riconoscimento dei danni provocati dalle misure statunitensi e un precedente nella sua lunga controversia con Washington.

Il procedimento iraniano riporta sotto i riflettori il costo umano delle politiche illegali e coercitive imposte dagli Stati Uniti ai paesi che non si allineano ai diktat di Washington.

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DE "Il MONDO IN 10 NOTIZIE" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI GIORNO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI

Il presidente brasiliano e candidato Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ha definito il suo avversario, Flávio Bolsonaro, un "bugiardo" durante la giornata elettorale del 25 ottobre, dichiarando di non aver mai assistito a una mobilitazione popolare come quella vista nel corso della campagna per il ballottaggio delle elezioni del 2026.

All'età di 80 anni e con cinque decenni di impegno nella vita politica, Lula ha parlato con sostenitori e giornalisti prima di recarsi a votare a San Paolo. Il presidente ha osservato che, pur avendo seguito ogni campagna presidenziale dal 1989, non aveva mai ricevuto tante manifestazioni di affetto da parte degli elettori come in questa occasione.

Il leader progressista si è detto commosso dalle manifestazioni di sostegno e ha affermato di recarsi alle urne con un sentimento di gratitudine verso il popolo brasiliano. "Ciò che hanno fatto per me in questi ultimi giorni è qualcosa per cui non potrò mai ringraziarli abbastanza. C'è così tanta generosità, così tanto affetto, così tanto amore. Ne sarò eternamente grato", ha dichiarato.

Lula ha poi criticato Bolsonaro, accusandolo di essere incapace di dire la verità. "Affrontiamo questa elezione contro un individuo che si chiama 'Menzogna'. È incapace di dire la verità", ha asserito, per poi concludere che, a suo avviso, i brasiliani non sceglieranno qualcuno che mente per l'intera durata della campagna elettorale: "Ecco perché credo che il popolo non eleggerà un bugiardo".

European leaders are considering appointing a senior representative to negotiate with Russia over Ukraine. But the search exposes a more fundamental problem: whether Europe can transform its economic strength, military resources and political influence into an independent capacity to shape its own security.

Europe is searching for someone capable of negotiating with Vladimir Putin. Yet the question confronting European capitals is considerably more difficult than identifying a politician with sufficient experience, authority and diplomatic skill. It is whether Europe possesses the political unity and strategic independence to negotiate with Moscow on equal terms.

According to diplomatic accounts published on 22nd October, five European leaders have emerged as possible representatives: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Czech President Petr Pavel, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

No appointment has been announced, and a group of negotiators may ultimately prove more acceptable than a single representative. The initiative reflects concern that Washington’s negotiations with Moscow could produce arrangements affecting European security without sufficient European influence over their terms.

The European Commission insists that the EU is already participating in diplomatic consultations, including discussions held in Oslo on 20th October. But participation in preliminary meetings is not the same as possessing the authority to determine the outcome.

The paradox of European power

Europe’s predicament contains an extraordinary contradiction. The European Union is among Ukraine’s principal financial supporters. Its governments provide military assistance, maintain sanctions against Russia and control decisions affecting Moscow’s future access to European markets. Nevertheless, European capitals remain concerned that the decisive political framework for ending the war could be negotiated principally between Washington and Moscow.

This anxiety has intensified under President Donald Trump, whose transactional approach increasingly treats diplomatic settlements as exchanges of economic concessions and strategic advantages.

As EU Today recently examined, proposals involving sanctions relief, renewed energy cooperation and commercial opportunities raise the possibility of arrangements that depend upon European consent but are negotiated elsewhere.

Washington can discuss reopening economic relations with Russia. It cannot independently reverse European sanctions, guarantee Ukraine’s accession to the EU or decide the continent’s future security arrangements. The European Council explicitly reaffirmed this distinction in its conclusions of 16th October, insisting that decisions affecting the Union’s security and responsibilities belong to Europe itself.

The central issue is therefore not whether Europe has influence, but whether it can organise that influence into a coherent negotiating position.

Why Ukraine must help choose Europe’s representative

An equally important weakness would arise if European governments selected their representative without making Kyiv an integral participant in the decision.

Ukraine is not merely the geographical subject of negotiations. Its government controls whether a proposed settlement can acquire political legitimacy, while its armed forces determine much of what can be implemented on the ground.

A negotiated agreement rejected by Kyiv could neither reliably end the war nor provide the security arrangements that Europe seeks.

European security, moreover, can no longer be considered independently of Ukraine’s military capabilities. Ukrainian forces possess extensive operational experience against Russia, including in drone warfare, electronic warfare and long-range strikes.

Any future continental defence architecture that excludes this experience would disregard one of Europe’s most consequential military assets.

An effective European representative would therefore require a mandate developed jointly with Ukraine, rather than simply endorsed by European governments after the event.

The danger of negotiating without leverage

The proposed candidates illustrate the difficulty of combining political authority with negotiating credibility. Meloni possesses a working relationship with Trump and considerable influence within European conservative politics. Stubb combines experience of Russia’s immediate neighbourhood with access to Washington. Pavel brings military expertise and an understanding of NATO’s command structures. Yet none could independently commit Europe’s governments to financial, military or territorial-security obligations.

This is the fundamental weakness of the proposed office. A negotiator requires more than access to powerful leaders. The ability to make commitments, withhold concessions and impose costs is what gives diplomatic representation substance.

Europe possesses potentially significant instruments: sanctions, industrial capacity, financial assistance and growing defence expenditure. But these remain distributed across institutions and national governments with differing strategic priorities.

Poland, the Baltic states and Nordic governments approach Russian security threats differently from several Western and Southern European capitals. Reconciling those positions is not an administrative exercise. It is a prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy.

The historical shadow of Yalta

The search also reflects European concern about a return to great-power bargaining over the continent’s political geography.

The historical comparison frequently invoked is Yalta in 1945, when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin discussed Europe’s post-war settlement. Munich in 1938 offers another warning about negotiating territorial concessions at the expense of directly affected states. Neither precedent precisely describes the present situation.

Unlike the countries subjected to Soviet domination after the Second World War, today’s European states possess established institutions, substantial economic resources and collective defence arrangements. Ukraine, meanwhile, has demonstrated that Russia cannot simply dictate its political future through military superiority.

Nevertheless, the danger lies in accepting the underlying principle that powerful states possess a privileged right to determine the sovereignty and security choices of their neighbours.

Moscow’s demands concerning NATO, Ukrainian territory and Europe’s wider security arrangements extend beyond any conventional ceasefire negotiation.

A European representative would have to challenge that premise rather than merely negotiate the geographical limits of Russian influence.

From diplomatic representation to strategic authority

The debate inevitably leads to Europe’s military dependence upon the United States. An American withdrawal from NATO is not inevitable. Indeed, US legislation restricts unilateral presidential withdrawal. But Washington could substantially reduce its military commitments without formally abandoning the alliance.

Europe must therefore consider how much independent military capacity it requires to support its diplomatic positions. That entails coordinated procurement, integrated military planning, sustainable defence production and deeper cooperation with Britain, Norway, Canada and Ukraine. Recent security challenges in the Black Sea illustrate the difficulty of converting European diplomatic commitments into effective collective action.

These developments would not automatically create a European army or replace NATO. They could, however, give European governments greater freedom to act if American priorities diverge from their own.

The relationship between military capability and diplomacy is particularly important in dealing with Moscow. European representatives cannot expect Russia to revise its demands simply because Brussels has selected a more prominent interlocutor.

Russia would have to conclude that continued aggression carries greater costs than a settlement respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty. Europe’s diplomatic standing would then derive not from the personality of its representative but from the collective resources and political commitments behind that individual.

The immediate search for a negotiator may appear a limited diplomatic initiative. Its implications are considerably larger.

For decades, European security rested upon an arrangement in which American military power compensated for Europe’s fragmented strategic authority. The present negotiations are exposing the limitations of that model. The decisive question is not whether Meloni, Stubb, Pavel or another European leader can secure a place at the negotiating table. It is whether Europe can establish a common position, backed by Ukraine’s consent and by sufficient economic and military power, that neither Washington nor Moscow can disregard.

Without those foundations, a European envoy risks becoming a participant in decisions made by others. With them, the appointment could mark the beginning of a substantially different European role in international security.

Catherine et Jacques Saint-Martin, deux artistes plasticiens, présentent une exposition joyeuse et poétique à la boutique Minibout jusqu'à la fin du mois de décembre à Foix.

Sarmento lembra que as rendas para lá dos 2300 euros podem baixar e que não se cobrará esse valor quando os interessados não estão dispostos a pagar tanto. Mas não consegue afastar o risco apresentado pela UTAO. O ministro das Finanças afirmou este sábado ter dificuldade em perceber como a definição do conceito de “renda moderada” nos 2.300 euros possa aumentar os preços, argumentando que diminui os valores imediatamente acima, até 2.600 euros. “Tenho muita dificuldade em perceber como é que, ao fixar-se o limite da renda moderada até 2.300 euros, isso pode contribuir para aumentar as rendas. Não tenho

Les studios Paramount, basés à Hollywood en Californie, s’associent à l’artiste OakOak, grande figure de l’art urbain français, pour la sortie mondiale du film *Street Fighter*, réalisé par Kitao Sakurai. Cette...

Il fondatore di WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, ha ricordato in un post sui propri canali social - corredato da una fotografia insieme al presidente - il sostegno ricevuto dal presidente brasiliano Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva durante la sua detenzione, contrapponendo tale atteggiamento a quello di Jair e Flávio Bolsonaro.

Lula vs. Bolsonaro: I was held in solitary confinement for 1,901 days for revealing the truth about the U.S. government's killings and espionage, including against Brazil and its industries. Out of power, Lula fought for my freedom. In power, Lula discussed my persecution with Pope Francis, who decided to meet with my family and offer help. After my release, Lula and I met in Rome to mourn the Holy Father's passing. Lula was kind to my children and asked for nothing in return. In contrast, Jair and Flávio Bolsonaro did nothing and said nothing. Yet without the ability to say no to Washington and Tel Aviv, there can be no domestic policy, only foreign instructions. Those orders are always the same: "Expand our theft of resources and wages, and keep your mouths shut about us murdering children." Sellouts will surrender everything in exchange for a cut, even their own tongues.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) October 24, 2026

«Sono rimasto in isolamento per 1.901 giorni per aver rivelato la verità sulle uccisioni e sullo spionaggio da parte del governo statunitense, che hanno colpito anche il Brasile e le sue industrie», ha scritto Assange, sottolineando poi che «Lula si è battuto per la mia libertà».

Secondo quanto dichiarato dall'australiano, quando il leader brasiliano è entrato in carica, ha parlato della sua persecuzione con Papa Francesco, il quale, di conseguenza, ha deciso di incontrare la sua famiglia e offrire assistenza. "Lula è stato gentile con i miei figli e non ha chiesto nulla in cambio. Al contrario, Jair e Flávio Bolsonaro non hanno fatto né detto nulla", ha sottolineato.

Riferendosi a Bolsonaro, Assange ha inoltre avvertito che "senza la capacità di dire 'no' a Washington e Tel Aviv, non può esserci una politica nazionale: solo direttive che arrivano dall'estero". "Chi si è svenduto è pronto a cedere tutto in cambio di una parte del bottino, persino la propria lingua", ha aggiunto.

"Gli ordini sono sempre gli stessi: 'intensificate il furto di risorse e salari, e tenete la bocca chiusa sul fatto che stiamo uccidendo dei bambini'", ha denunciato.

Washington is offering Moscow sanctions relief, commercial opportunities and a possible return to European energy markets. Yet the Kremlin’s objectives in Ukraine extend far beyond economic interests, raising questions about whether Vladimir Putin has any intention of accepting a settlement that preserves Ukraine as an independent European state.

The Kremlin has announced plans for renewed negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States in Abu Dhabi during the first half of November, reviving a diplomatic process that has repeatedly failed to produce a settlement to Moscow’s war against Ukraine.

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday, 23 October, that the discussions would concentrate on post-war security arrangements. He also left open the possibility of eventual European participation, although the initial meeting is intended to remain trilateral.

The announcement follows talks in St Petersburg between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. Yet the emerging American proposals reveal a fundamental problem: Washington appears increasingly prepared to offer Russia substantial economic incentives, while Moscow has provided little indication that its political objectives in Ukraine have changed.

The economic bargain taking shape

According to details reported on 23 October, citing The Economist, the American proposals involve Ukraine abandoning its ambition to join NATO in exchange for investment, security arrangements and the prospect of European Union membership.

Russia would receive sanctions relief, renewed commercial relations with American companies and potentially the restoration of natural gas exports to Europe. A demilitarised zone in Donbas is also reportedly under consideration.

The commercial dimension extends beyond theoretical proposals.

American and Russian representatives have discussed investment in the Nord Stream pipeline system and possible arrangements involving Lukoil’s international assets. The negotiations surrounding Russian energy infrastructure suggest that Washington regards commercial cooperation as a potential instrument for securing Moscow’s agreement.

There is no established evidence that Witkoff, Jared Kushner or members of Trump’s family would personally benefit from these arrangements. Nevertheless, the involvement of investors in strategically important Russian assets raises questions about whether economic agreements might advance independently of a settlement acceptable to Ukraine.

The Trump administration has already demonstrated its willingness to relax economic pressure. On 16 October, the president waived major provisions of the Graham sanctions legislation, which he had signed into law only four weeks earlier.

As EU Today previously examined, the decision suspended measures designed to increase the economic costs of Russia’s continuing aggression. Washington justified the waiver on the grounds that sanctions could interfere with negotiations.

Why Putin’s objectives are not primarily economic

The central weakness in a settlement built around commercial incentives is the assumption that Putin’s territorial and political demands can ultimately be exchanged for economic advantages.

Russia’s objectives have never been confined to Donetsk, Luhansk or access to Western markets.

In his July 2021 essay on the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians, Putin advanced a conception of the two nations as belonging to a single historical and cultural space. His interpretation, examined by the Centre for Eastern Studies, challenged the legitimacy of Ukraine’s development outside Moscow’s political influence.

These ideas preceded the full-scale invasion of February 2022. They also followed Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its intervention in eastern Ukraine.

Putin’s demands therefore concern more than military geography. They involve the extent to which Ukraine can exercise independent political authority, determine its international alliances and integrate with Western institutions.

Even a settlement granting Moscow substantial territory could leave this larger objective unresolved.

An independent Ukraine, increasingly integrated into the European economy and protected by Western security commitments, would remain outside Russia’s political control. For a Kremlin leadership that has repeatedly questioned Ukraine’s separate historical identity, such an outcome would represent a limitation on its wider ambitions.

Putin reinforced this position on 22 October when he again described Ukrainian territory in Donbas as historically Russian.

The advantages of negotiations without compromise

This creates an apparent contradiction. Why would Moscow return to negotiations if its broader objectives remain incompatible with the proposed settlement?

One explanation is that participation itself offers Russia strategic advantages.

Negotiations can preserve diplomatic engagement with Washington, complicate attempts to introduce additional sanctions and maintain American pressure on Kyiv to accept territorial concessions.

They also provide opportunities to negotiate economic arrangements before fundamental security questions have been resolved.

For Putin, the political timetable in Washington is relevant. Trump’s presidency is constitutionally limited to January 2029. Moscow can seek to exploit the present administration’s interest in a diplomatic agreement while continuing military operations.

None of this establishes that Putin has definitively rejected compromise. However, the Kremlin’s willingness to attend negotiations is not equivalent to a willingness to abandon its demands.

Russia continues attacking Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure. As EU Today reported on 22 October, Russian forces launched 21 ballistic missiles against Kyiv shortly after Witkoff’s discussions with Putin.

The simultaneous pursuit of diplomatic engagement and military pressure allows Moscow to negotiate while attempting to alter conditions on the battlefield.

Europe cannot be treated as an economic bargaining chip

The proposed return of Russian gas exposes another contradiction in Washington’s approach.

The European Union has already adopted binding legislation to phase out Russian gas imports, with full restrictions taking effect during 2027.

The European Commission reiterated on 19 October that it had no plans to reverse its position. Reopening Nord Stream would also face sanctions, infrastructure and political obstacles, particularly in Germany.

Consequently, Washington cannot independently promise Moscow renewed access to European energy markets.

Nor can it guarantee Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Membership requires agreement among the existing member states, completion of accession negotiations and ratification of the relevant treaty.

A settlement negotiated primarily between Washington and Moscow would therefore depend on European decisions over which neither government has unilateral authority.

This helps explain the significance of Peskov’s remarks about possible European participation. Moscow needs European cooperation to secure meaningful sanctions relief and access to markets, even while seeking to negotiate Europe’s security arrangements principally with Washington.

The unresolved question

Trump’s approach rests on the proposition that economic incentives can make a settlement more attractive to Moscow than continued warfare.

Putin’s position presents a different calculation. The Russian president must weigh the benefits of restored commercial relations against the political implications of recognising Ukraine’s durable independence and Western orientation.

Those objectives may prove incompatible.

A settlement that restores Russian energy revenues without credible guarantees against renewed aggression could reduce Moscow’s economic constraints while leaving the causes of the war unresolved.

The decisive test in Abu Dhabi will therefore not be whether negotiators can agree on investment, pipelines or sanctions relief. It will be whether Russia is prepared to accept a Ukrainian state whose sovereignty, political direction and future European integration remain beyond Moscow’s control.

Until that question is answered, renewed negotiations may offer Washington the prospect of a diplomatic achievement while allowing the Kremlin to pursue objectives it has not publicly abandoned.

Mentre si torna a parlare di negoziati, le dichiarazioni dell’ex comico Volodymyr Zelensky confermano quanto resti distante una prospettiva concreta di soluzione politica del conflitto ucraino. In un’intervista all’imprenditore britannico Steven Bartlett, il presidente ucraino ha ribadito che non rinuncerà al Donbass, rilanciando al tempo stesso le accuse a Donald Trump, giudicato troppo vicino alle posizioni russe. Parole che arrivano mentre sul terreno la situazione continua a evolversi a vantaggio delle forze russe, come dimostra la caduta di Dobropolie, il 16 ottobre.

La liberazione della città, situata in una posizione strategica per il controllo del Donbass, rappresenta un passaggio significativo nella progressione militare di Mosca. Il tenente colonnello Ivan Debitski ha attribuito il successo alla sorpresa tattica, al coordinamento tra artiglieria, razzi e droni e allo sfruttamento delle condizioni meteorologiche, che hanno agevolato l'avanzata russa. La risposta ucraina continua intanto a fare affidamento sugli attacchi con velivoli senza pilota. Secondo le informazioni riportate dalla stampa, in 24 ore le forze di Kiev avrebbero lanciato oltre 1.200 droni, di cui 630 diretti verso la regione di Mosca. Un'intensificazione che mostra come, anche mentre si discute di pace, la guerra prosegua con tutta la sua capacità distruttiva. Un ruolo cruciale resta quello delle comunicazioni satellitari Starlink e Starshield, utilizzate dalle forze ucraine per coordinare le operazioni sul fronte e nelle retrovie.

Le indiscrezioni su possibili limitazioni del servizio sono state smentite dal segretario alla Difesa statunitense Pete Hegseth, secondo il quale la politica di Washington verso il regime di Kiev non sarebbe cambiata. Da parte russa, alcuni esperti sostengono che i sistemi continuino a essere operativi sul campo. La vicenda evidenzia una contraddizione di fondo: mentre l'amministrazione Trump parla della necessità di porre fine alle ostilità, il sostegno tecnologico e militare occidentale rimane un fattore determinante per la capacità bellica ucraina. E a Bruxelles non sembra esserci alcuna intenzione di invertire la rotta. Secondo Politico, l'Unione Europea intende infatti chiedere a Canada e Regno Unito di aumentare gli aiuti a Kiev per colmare un deficit finanziario stimato in 70 miliardi di euro per il prossimo anno. Una cifra enorme, che conferma quanto la prosecuzione della guerra dipenda dalla disponibilità di nuovi fondi occidentali.

Zelensky rifiuta compromessi territoriali, Mosca continua ad avanzare inesorabilmente e l'Europa cerca nuove risorse per sostenere Kiev. In questo quadro, i richiami alla diplomazia rischiano di restare parole vuote se non saranno accompagnati dalla disponibilità concreta a discutere le condizioni di una pace. Perché finanziare la guerra, rafforzare le capacità operative di Kiev e contemporaneamente dichiararsi favorevoli ai negoziati sono obiettivi difficili da conciliare senza una reale volontà di compromesso.

 

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DELLE "TRE PRINCIPALI NOTIZIE DELLA SETTIMANA" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI SABATO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI

French arbitration records show that businessman Sasan Ghandehari, a financial supporter of Nigel Farage, invested in a telecommunications venture partly owned by an Iranian foundation subsequently sanctioned by Washington. His representatives deny any wrongdoing.

A French arbitration judgment has revealed that a British businessman who has become a financial supporter of Nigel Farage previously invested in an Iranian telecommunications venture partly owned by a religious foundation subsequently sanctioned by the United States.

Hossein Ghandehari, known as Sasan, was linked through his family’s HP Trust to a project to develop fibre-optic infrastructure in Iran. Documents examined in an investigation published on 22 October show that Ori Group, ultimately owned by the trust, held 49 per cent of Omran Razavi International, with the remaining 51 per cent held by Astan Quds Razavi (AQR).

The disclosures have attracted attention because Ghandehari has pledged substantial financial support for Reform UK. They do not, however, establish that he breached sanctions or that money linked to the Iranian venture was used to fund British politics.

Iranian Venture and Sanctions

The telecommunications project originated in a contract awarded by Iran’s state-owned Telecommunication Infrastructure Company in 2012. Ori Group became a shareholder in the joint venture in 2015, although Ghandehari’s lawyers say the agreement for its stake was signed in December 2014.

AQR, based in Mashhad, administers extensive religious and commercial holdings. On 13 January 2021, the US Treasury imposed sanctions on AQR, describing it as an organisation controlled by Iran’s supreme leader and alleging that its assets benefited senior Iranian officials.

That designation came several years after the venture’s collapse in 2016. Sanctions imposed in 2021 cannot, by themselves, demonstrate wrongdoing in transactions conducted before the designation.

According to the reported arbitration material, AQR took control of the joint venture in 2016. Ghandehari’s representatives maintain that the project was intended to expand internet access and encourage political reform, and that the arrangements received approval from authorities in France and the United States.

His lawyers say the venture ended in asset seizures and persecution by Iranian authorities. They reject suggestions that Ghandehari supported the Iranian leadership, and say AQR had been a necessary local partner for infrastructure work in Iran.

Connections to Reform UK

The disclosures have renewed scrutiny of Ghandehari’s relationship with Farage. In January, Ghandehari paid for accreditation for the Reform UK leader and a member of his staff at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The House of Commons register of interests records the cost as £50,482.16. This was a declared benefit associated with an overseas visit, not a £50,000 cash donation to Reform UK.

Ghandehari has said he intends to move his tax residence from Switzerland to Britain and make regular substantial contributions to the party. He describes HP Trust as having a portfolio valued at approximately $10 billion, although the trust’s financial position has not been independently established through public accounts.

Farage has repeatedly criticised Iran’s government and supported American military action against Tehran. His public position has brought additional attention to his financial supporter’s historical dealings with an Iranian state-linked institution, although there is no evidence that Farage participated in those arrangements.

Another connection concerns John Richard Simpson, whose company Interior Architecture Landscape donated £200,000 to Reform UK in 2025. Simpson later acquired Orico General Trading, a Dubai-based business previously owned by HP Trust and involved in supplying equipment for the Iranian project.

Simpson says he took over Orico to wind down its operations after the Iranian venture failed. Interior Architecture Landscape has said the Ghandehari family is a client but had no role in its political donations, which it maintains were funded from legitimate British business.

Questions Over Political Funding

The overlapping commercial relationships have brought renewed scrutiny of Reform UK’s financing. They do not establish that Simpson’s company’s donations originated with Ghandehari, AQR or any Iranian state institution.

The Electoral Commission’s rules permit contributions from eligible UK-registered companies carrying on business in Britain, while placing responsibility on political parties to verify their funding sources. The legality of any individual donation depends on its circumstances and the applicable requirements.

EU Today has previously examined Reform UK’s decision to accept cryptocurrency donations and the questions surrounding identification of the original sources of political funding.

The latest disclosures concern a separate issue: historical commercial dealings in Iran, the ownership of connected companies and their subsequent relationships with British political donors. The arbitration material provides a documented chronology, but does not establish improper financing of Reform UK or foreign interference in British elections.

Austria has ordered four Russian diplomats to leave the country after security authorities identified activities incompatible with their diplomatic status, in a further deterioration of relations between Vienna and Moscow.

The Austrian foreign ministry announced the expulsions on Friday, 23 October. Three of the officials were accredited to the Russian embassy in Vienna, while the fourth served at Russia’s mission to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), where the diplomat worked on military security and arms control. All four have been declared persona non grata.

The decision follows findings by Austria’s security authorities, according to the details of the foreign ministry announcement. Officials have not publicly disclosed the activities involved or brought criminal charges in connection with the announcement. Moscow has indicated that it will retaliate, although the nature of its response has not yet been specified.

Vienna’s diplomatic position

The expulsions are particularly significant because Vienna hosts numerous international organisations and remains one of Europe’s principal diplomatic centres. In addition to the OSCE, the city accommodates United Nations offices and organisations dealing with nuclear policy, international development and arms control.

That concentration of diplomatic missions gives Austria a distinctive position in European security affairs. Foreign delegations enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunity, while the Austrian authorities retain the power to withdraw recognition from representatives whose conduct they consider unacceptable.

Austria’s constitutional commitment to military neutrality has not prevented successive governments from supporting European Union sanctions against Russia or condemning Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Neutrality limits participation in military alliances; it does not require Vienna to remain politically neutral over the conduct of a war.

Russian missions to international organisations also have a particular role. The OSCE brings together European, North American and Central Asian states, including Russia and Ukraine, and provides a forum for discussions on military transparency and conflict prevention. Its proceedings have become more contentious since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Repeated expulsions

Friday’s decision brings the reported number of Russian diplomats expelled by Austria since 2020 to 18. In May 2026, Vienna expelled three Russian diplomats amid security concerns involving antenna installations on Russian diplomatic buildings. Those concerns added to wider scrutiny of possible intelligence-gathering activity in the Austrian capital.

Diplomatic expulsions are a familiar response when governments suspect espionage but do not pursue ordinary criminal proceedings. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state can declare a diplomat persona non grata without publicly explaining the underlying evidence. The sending state must then recall the official or terminate their functions.

The mechanism is politically consequential but is not in itself a criminal judgment. A declaration of persona non grata establishes that the host government will no longer accept the diplomat’s accreditation; it does not establish guilt in a court of law.

Moscow has regularly responded to expulsions of its diplomatic personnel from European countries with reciprocal measures. Such retaliation can reduce the number of diplomats available for routine consular work and political dialogue, even when wider bilateral relations remain formally intact.

European security implications

The new Austrian action comes as European countries face continuing questions about Russian intelligence networks, attempts to gather military information and suspected interference activities. The circumstances of individual cases vary, and intelligence allegations cannot automatically be treated as proven simply because diplomats have been expelled.

The latest episode nonetheless illustrates how Russia’s war against Ukraine has affected the functioning of diplomacy in European capitals. Vienna must balance its international hosting responsibilities and established channels of communication with the security obligations arising from suspected abuses of diplomatic status.

The decision also comes against the background of wider European efforts to strengthen protection against strategic vulnerabilities and an expanding debate about hybrid threats to critical infrastructure.

For now, Austria has confirmed the expulsions but has not published an account of the conduct attributed to the four officials. The next diplomatic development will be Russia’s response and whether it affects Austrian representatives in Moscow.

 

The Kremlin confirmed Tuesday, September 1st, 2026, that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping discussed the possibility of a trilateral face-to-face meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, scheduled for November 18-19th, in Shenzhen, China.

The meeting is still in the planning stages but the American thug-in-chief an indispensable party has already agreed to attend. Few eyebrows have been raised so far because the American component is a habitual liar so what he says and what he does may not correlate. The Summit in China is a month away. But a chance to meet with two of his closest friends  and allies will not be missed by the evil clown in the White House.

The American thug’s most accommodating American accomplice and equally mendacious voice has simply repeated what he has said so often in the past: that it is necessary to speak with your adversaries, thus keeping the American people guessing. In the bizarre world of Donald J. Trump, Putin is not an adversary. Little Marco may still speak differently so as to present a view that most Americans share, but he is a quisling concerned about his own future. That for him is more important than anything else. Fear and ambition are two quite compelling factors.

Trump has characterized the trilateral meeting as intended for a discussion of the need for de-nuclearization among three of the world’s largest nuclear powers. However, this is another one of Trump’s lies. or simply a a cover-up. Putin has insisted for some time that China participate in trilateral talks about the war in Ukraine. Putin has also insisted that Ukraine not be invited to participate. This is simply another example of Trump complying with Putin’s wishes. That is what agents or surrogates do.

The Summit will result in a trade-off but not for Ukraine’s benefit. As far as Ukraine is concerned, it will be a sellout, like all previous summits involving Trump and the Russian thug Vladimir Putin. One can only consider Helsinki in 2018 or Alaska in 2025. The self-proclaimed American master of the deal has repeatedly proven himself incompetent at deal-making. Or perhaps his shameless results are intentional. There will be personal gain from yet another nefarious arrangement.The American thug is silent on this point. Little Marco will spin an excuse for this aberration as well. There will most certainly be some personal benefit for Trump and his family.

The President of Ukraine wakes up each day to a new betrayal by his American “ally,” more death and destruction of his people and land, but with his eyes wide open that Trump is the enemy. President Zelensky is astute and principled, but also a very good actor; he often plays the Biblical “Job,” yet even his patience has its limitations. A trilateral summit of thugs about ending the war in Ukraine without Ukraine is a non starter. Ukraine will not be bullied. The people of Ukraine will not allow that.

The agenda for the axis of evil meeting includes one more item. No one is considering denuclearizing. The power must be distributed between the three behemoths. Ukraine is certain to be sold off. Taiwan may be next. And Cuba may be another victim of the sphere of influence division of the world. Certainly Russia will give up any interest in destitute Cuba in order to take over rich Ukraine. For Russia Ukraine has been the prize for almost four hundred years.

The axis is mutually accommodating. Currently, Russia stayed out of Syria and Iran. It relinquishes Cuba. America purchases Russian diesel, integrates Russia into the world economy at the G20. China retrieves Taiwan, America and Russia agrees to stay out of any China-India conflict. With Ukraine Russia stands at the gates to Europe. America feels secure in its defensive posture by having encroached on Greenland’s military sovereignty. Everyone is happy except for the remaining almost two hundred countries in the world.

The biggest obstacle is Ukraine. The people of Ukraine remain committed to freedom and democracy. Each day I receive several inquiries from Ukraine: “When will this Trump nightmare end?” . The midterm elections remain a beacon of hope for Ukrainians and Americans alike. Trump will attend the November China summit as a lame duck with Congress set to begin his third impeachment. in January. Ukrainians can pray. Americans must vote. Let the hearings and investigations begin. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, the commander-in-chief is a traitor and a criminal. It will all come out. We the people have had enough!

 

 

Nonostante i proclami trionfali, la strategia di Washington sul fronte medioorientale continua a muoversi lungo il sottile filo del calcolo politico ed elettorale. Il presidente degli Stati Uniti Donald Trump è tornato a parlare dell'Iran, lasciando apertamente sul tavolo l'ipotesi di nuove incursioni e azioni militari contro Teheran.

"Li abbiamo colpiti duramente e potremmo farlo ancora", ha dichiarato l'inquilino della Casa Bianca di fronte ai giornalisti, rivendicando con la consueta retorica l'efficacia dei recenti raid. Un’ostentazione di forza che nasconde tuttavia una forte inquietudine interna, legata a doppio filo al consenso dell'elettorato americano in vista delle imminenti elezioni di metà mandato.

Interpellato sul possibile impatto che la gestione dell'escalation con l'Iran potrebbe avere sulle urne, lo stesso Trump ha dovuto concedere spazio al realismo: "In un certo senso, alla gente probabilmente non piace". Una rara ammissione dell'impopolarità di un nuovo coinvolgimento bellico nell'opinione pubblica, subito bilanciata con il ricorso al registro patriottico: "Ma molte persone, molti grandi patrioti, lo apprezzano davvero".

Resta ferma, nella narrazione della Casa Bianca, la giustificazione strategica dell'unilateralismo: la necessità imperativa di impedire a Teheran l'accesso all'arma atomica. "C'è un prezzo da pagare, e lo sapevo fin dal primo momento", ha concluso Trump, confermando come la politica estera della superpotenza rimanga ostaggio di un rischioso equilibrio tra escalation militare e calcolo di bottega politica.

 

La diplomazia della guerra psicologica si arricchisce di un nuovo capitolo, dove la pop culture e il simbolismo cinematografico diventano strumenti di deterrenza geopolitica. Il presidente del Parlamento iraniano, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, ha lanciato un esplicito avvertimento a Washington affidando alla piattaforma X un’immagine ispirata al celebre film Matrix. Ma con una differenza fondamentale rispetto alla narrazione hollywoodiana: nella versione di Teheran non c’è alcuna illusione di scelta o di "salvezza".

Ten pills, all bad. No red, no blue. All soot. You don’t have to take any, but if you do, you will take all. Break the manufactured matrix. Leave. https://t.co/uN0zG6iyKJ

— ???????? ??????? | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) October 22, 2026

Nell'illustrazione, il personaggio di Morpheus non offre l'alternativa tra la pillola rossa e quella blu. Stringe invece tra le mani dieci pillole grigie, ciascuna contrassegnata dai costi devastanti che gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero pagare in caso di nuova escalation militare contro la Repubblica Islamica.

"Dieci pillole, tutte cattive. Non c'è rosso, non c'è blu. È tutta fuliggine", ha scritto Ghalibaf sul suo profilo. Il messaggio rivolto alla Casa Bianca è perentorio: Washington può ancora evitare il baratro della guerra, ma se deciderà di varcare quella soglia non potrà selezionare le conseguenze a proprio piacimento. "Non sei obbligato a prenderne nessuna, ma se lo fai, le prenderai tutte. Rompi questa matrice artificiale. Vattene", si legge nel post.

Le opzioni elencate da Ghalibaf compongono un quadro dettagliato dei punti vulnerabili della società americana in caso di conflitto aperto:

Shock economico interno: Impennata dei prezzi di benzina e diesel, crollo dei mercati finanziari, esplosione dei mutui, aumento del debito e crollo dei salari reali.

Costo umano e militare: Perdita di velivoli da guerra e un numero esponenziale di soldati americani uccisi al fronte.

Geopolitica e reputazione: Danno irreversibile al patrimonio strategico e all'immagine internazionale degli Stati Uniti.

Come sottolineato dall'agenzia di stampa statale IRNA, la mossa del presidente del Parlamento iraniano mira a parlare non solo ai vertici del Pentagono, ma direttamente all'opinione pubblica americana. L'obiettivo è smontare la narrazione secondo cui un'avventura militare contro l'Iran possa rivelarsi un'operazione chirurgica a costo zero: se Washington sceglierà la strada delle armi, dovrà accettare un impatto sistemico e rovinoso per l'intero paese.

 

 

L'asse sotterraneo tra Tel Aviv e Riad non è più un mistero, ma un ingranaggio sempre più esplicito della strategia regionale orchestrata da Washington. Secondo quanto rivelato dal Jerusalem Post, che cita un alto funzionario della Difesa israeliana, Israele sta fornendo intelligence militare di alto livello all'Arabia Saudita per sostenere le sue operazioni contro il movimento Ansarullah (Houthi) in Yemen, avvalendosi della costante mediazione degli Stati Uniti.

Le Forze di Difesa Israeliane (IDF) stanno mettendo a disposizione di Riad "capacità eccezionali" per guidare e potenziare i raid aerei contro le infrastrutture dello Yemen. Un’assistenza che risponde direttamente agli "interessi nazionali di Israele e alle direttive della leadership politica", come confermato dalla fonte militare, e che sfrutta la strumentalizzazione delle spaccature confessionali regionali per ricompattare il fronte monarchico sunnita sotto l'ombrello di sicurezza israeliano.

Da Tel Aviv l'analisi è chiara: spingere i Paesi del Golfo a percepire l'avanzata yemenita come una minaccia esistenziale per giustificare un'alleanza tattica con il regime israeliano. Nel frattempo, l'aviazione saudita intensifica le incursioni su vasta scala, con l'obiettivo di erodere le capacità logistiche e militari di Ansarullah.

Per Israele, questo scambio strategico garantisce un triplo vantaggio:

Indebolimento preventivo: Riduce le capacità di una forza considerata un nemico diretto sul lungo periodo.

Laboratorio tattico: Offre all'IDF l'opportunità di osservare, analizzare e "imparare dai metodi operativi e dalle tattiche" impiegate sul campo di battaglia yemenita.

Consolidamento del fronte anti-Iran: Inquadra l'operazione nella preparazione a uno scontro globale su più fronti.

I preparativi dell'IDF si spingono infatti ben oltre lo Yemen: le forze israeliane stanno ultimando i piani per uno scenario di scontro simultaneo che coinvolge l'asse della resistenza — dall'Iran a Hezbollah, fino alle milizie irachene. Tutto questo mentre si rincorrono le voci di nuovi piani congiunti tra Tel Aviv e Washington per riaprire le ostilità dirette contro Teheran, la quale ha già avvertito che qualsiasi nuova aggressione riceverà una risposta di potenza senza precedenti.

 

A pochi giorni dalle elezioni israeliane del 27 ottobre, Tel Aviv apre un fronte di tensione inatteso contro l’Egitto, il primo Paese arabo ad aver firmato un accordo di pace con Israele. Al centro dello scontro c’è il Sinai, territorio recuperato dal Cairo dopo le guerre con lo Stato ebraico, sul quale il ministro delle Finanze israeliano Bezalel Smotrich è tornato a lanciare minacce esplicite.

Il 5 ottobre, Smotrich aveva avvertito che l’Egitto avrebbe perso la penisola qualora avesse attaccato Israele. Il 20 ottobre ha rincarato la dose, dichiarando che, in caso di aggressione egiziana, «la prossima volta non ci sarà più il Sinai». Il presidente Abdel Fattah al-Sisi ha risposto con toni più misurati, ribadendo che il suo Paese non nutre ambizioni contro nessuno e ha combattuto per recuperare il proprio territorio. Una replica che non ha placato le minacce israeliane, alimentando interrogativi sulle reali ragioni di questa escalation verbale. Secondo Murad Sadygzade, presidente del Centro di studi sul Medio Oriente, la tensione potrebbe essere sfruttata in chiave elettorale per rafforzare l'immagine di Benjamin Netanyahu come leader intransigente, indispensabile alla sicurezza nazionale. Ma dietro la propaganda elettorale si intravedono preoccupazioni strategiche concrete.

Israele guarda con crescente sospetto al rafforzamento della presenza militare egiziana nel Sinai, comprese le infrastrutture aeroportuali e le installazioni che, secondo le valutazioni israeliane, potrebbero essere destinate allo stoccaggio di missili. Il Cairo sostiene invece che il dispiegamento serva a contrastare terrorismo e contrabbando e sia coordinato con Tel Aviv. A inquietare ulteriormente Israele è il riavvicinamento tra Egitto e Turchia. I due Paesi hanno firmato a febbraio un accordo quadro di cooperazione militare e stanno approfondendo la collaborazione, anche nel settore dei droni.

La questione, dunque, va oltre le dichiarazioni incendiarie di un ministro. Mentre Netanyahu cerca di consolidare il proprio consenso, Israele osserva con crescente allarme la nascita di nuove convergenze militari nella regione. E il rischio è che il ricorso alla minaccia esterna come strumento elettorale finisca per alimentare tensioni capaci di compromettere equilibri già fragili in Medio Oriente.

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DE "Il MONDO IN 10 NOTIZIE" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI GIORNO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI

L’ex candidata presidenziale e dirigente di ‘Revolución Ciudadana’, Luisa González, è stata arrestata il 22 ottobre in Ecuador nell’ambito dell’inchiesta denominata «Caso Laberinto», relativa a presunti finanziamenti elettorali del 2023. González respinge le accuse e denuncia la deriva autoritaria del governo di Daniel Noboa, le violazioni dei diritti dei prigionieri politici e la persecuzione delle opposizioni.

La dirigente ha lanciato un appello all’unità delle forze progressiste per difendere la democrazia, mentre il suo movimento è stato sospeso per nove mesi, con conseguenze sulla sua partecipazione alle elezioni locali. Colpisce, in questo contesto, la scarsa attenzione riservata alla vicenda nel dibattito politico e mediatico europeo.

Mentre le istituzioni dell’UE e i grandi media si mostrano spesso pronti a richiamare la difesa della democrazia e dello Stato di diritto in altri contesti internazionali, la repressione denunciata dagli oppositori di Noboa non sembra ricevere la stessa visibilità.

Un doppio standard che solleva una domanda scomoda: la difesa dei diritti democratici è davvero un principio universale oppure dipende dalla collocazione geopolitica dei governi coinvolti?

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DE "Il MONDO IN 10 NOTIZIE" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI GIORNO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI