Sam Bankman-Fried and two of his co-conspirators held investments in Anthropic, the AI company that has since soared in value.
Bloomberg/Getty Images
The feds seized Anthropic shares last year from Sam Bankman-Fried's associates.
Several months later, the government sold them for $627 million.
If Anthropic IPO'd in November at $1.5 trillion, those shares would be worth nearly $4 billion.
Last year, the federal government made a windfall of $627 million when it sold Anthropic shares it had seized from associates of crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.
If it had held on to that stake, its windfall could have been a lot bigger.
The federal government last year sold shares of Anthropic that had belonged to Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh, two co-conspirators in the FTX fraud case. The proceeds went to compensate victims of the fraud, a Justice Department spokesperson told Business Insider.
Anthropic's S-1 filing on Monday revealed how much the federal government made from the sale of those shares. The prospectus doesn't name Ellison and Singh specifically. It says the government in October 2025 sold 4,453,900 Series B shares of Anthropic that "had been forfeited by former holders in legal proceedings to which we were not a party."
The figure matches up exactly with the combined $50 million in shares that Singh and Ellison purchased for $11.2261 each in Anthropic's 2022 fundraising round, and later forfeited to the government.
The shares represent about a quarter of a percent of Anthropic today. But given the company's explosive growth, they are still worth a fortune.
Anthropic hasn't yet announced the stock price for its expected November initial public offering. At a $1.5 trillion valuation, the shares would be worth a total of about $3.94 billion. That would be six times as much as the government sold the shares for a year ago.
"One of the Justice Department's top priorities is returning forfeited funds to victims through the asset forfeiture program whenever the law allows," the DOJ spokesperson said.
The feds' stake in Anthropic
How the federal government came to own a chunk of Anthropic in the first place is a story involving a notorious fraudster and a complicated criminal forfeiture process.
Bankman-Fried participated in Anthropic's 2022 Series B fundraising round with Singh and Ellison. Singh purchased $40 million of the Series B shares, and Ellison acquired $10 million.
Singh and Ellison later pleaded guilty to crimes related to their work with Bankman-Fried and testified against him at his Manhattan federal criminal trial. The jury found Bankman-Fried guilty, and a judge sentenced him to 25 years in prison. The federal government took ownership of Singh's and Ellison's Anthropic shares by April 2025.
The US Marshals Service sold Singh's and Ellison's shares, rather than hold on to the red-hot Anthropic stock, Business Insider previously reported. The US Marshals Service Complex Assets Unit is typically tasked with dispensing shares of private companies acquired through criminal forfeiture.
Now we know that Anthropic purchased the stock from the feds in October 2025 at the price of $140.9676 per share, which is the same price Anthropic set for its Series F-1 stock in a fundraising round a month earlier.
Anthropic resold the shares to nine investors at the same $627 million total price it paid to purchase them from the federal government, so it didn't make a profit from the sale, according to the S-1 filing. It's not clear which nine investors purchased the shares originally owned by Singh and Ellison. Representatives for the US Marshals Service didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Anthropic shares owned by Ellison and Singh took a different path than the $500 million in Series B shares owned by Bankman-Fried himself. His shares ended up as part of FTX's bankruptcy estate, which sold them in 2024 to a few dozen buyers for a total of $1.3 billion.
The federal government sent the proceeds from the sale of Ellison's and Singh's shares to the FTX bankruptcy estate, the Justice Department spokesperson said. Bankruptcy court filings show that the Justice Department transferred $638 million to the bankruptcy estate in late 2025.
The money has gone to repaying creditors, including FTX customers and investors who were scammed by the former crypto wunderkind.
Update: October 26, 2026 — This story has been updated to include a comment from the Justice Department.
Correction: October 27, 2026 — The federal government transferred the proceeds of the sale of Caroline Ellison's and Nishad Singh's Anthropic shares to the FTX bankruptcy estate, according to a DOJ spokesperson. An earlier version of this story misstated whether the funds had been transferred.
In a historic turn of electoral tides, Brazil’s incumbent president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated far-right opponent Flávio Bolsonaro on Sunday (25 October,) alleviating fears that a Bolsonaro-dynasty comeback would topple the world’s fourth-largest democracy.
Following a disastrous first-round election for Lula on 4 October, in which he narrowly lost a majority in Brazil’s national congress, the Workers’ party leader overturned predictions to become the first president to win the second round of voting after losing the first one.
First-round voting gave 47 percent for former president Jair Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio, and his rightwing Liberal Party, whose voters mainly represent wealthy and emerging middle classes in the south of Brazil, as well as evangelical Christians, one of the largest religious groups in the country.
Lula’s northeastern, working class, multi-racial support base only made up 45 percent of all primary votes, but climted to 51.8 percent in Sunday’s second-round of the presidential election.
Despite setting a record in being the first Brazilian president to win four non-consecutive terms, Lula’s triumph still leaves room for possible conflict.
Bolsonaro, whose campaign capitalised on continuing the work of his divisive father, who is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election, refused to concede defeat – leaving an open window for history to repeat itself.
“We’ll request the annulment of these elections,” Bolsonaro told the press after votes had been counted, accusing Brazil’s Supreme Court of having “changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game,” by ordering polls to stay open for two more hours on Sunday.
What Brazil’s nationalist candidate declared as “unacceptable” was an idea initially intended to facilitate all Brazilians’ attendance at the polls, since multiple areas were reported to have been affected by public transport problems.
Bolsonaro’s issue with the courts is another link in the chain of power-hungry promises he had made during his campaign to “re-democratise this country”.
Without guidance on what that could mean beyond his publicised desire to extend the duration of presidential terms, many voters fearfully associated his remarks with a potential coup, or with Jair Bolsonaro’s infamous liking for authoritarian rulers – including Brazil’s own 1964-1985 dictatorship.
‘Lula’s army’
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Of the 68 Palestinian journalists killed by Israel in the first 3 months of its war on Gaza, the majority were targeted while at home with their families –In depth research on the"Where's Daddy" AI program & Israel's uniquely massive killing of journalists
Commanders suspected of sexual violence during the largest and fastest slaughter of civilians in more than 30 years have been subjected to travel ban and asset freeze
Senior Sudanese commanders implicated in a “campaign of rape” have been targeted by the UK on the first anniversary of a mass atrocity that saw tens of thousands of civilians killed over several days.
A year after the fall of El Fasher, the British government said it had sanctioned military leaders from both sides in the country’s ongoing conflict whom it suspected of sexual violence during the siege of the city.
Big Law has plenty of competition for its best lawyers.
Some of the most ambitious lawyers want to work for clients in their legal departments.
New Pirical data shows which law firms have the most alumni working in Big Tech.
Big Law has a hard time keeping its lawyers.
It's not just rival firms dangling basketball-player salaries, extra vacation, and branded merch to lure away top talent.
Big Tech is competing for those lawyers, too.
New data shared with Business Insider reveals which firms send the most lawyers to the biggest names in tech.
Pirical, a legal people-analytics company, tracked lawyers who previously worked at the 200 largest law firms by revenue in the United States and now hold legal roles at seven tech companies: Google, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX. Pirical filtered out summer associates and interns.
Morrison Foerster and Wilson Sonsini tied for the top spot, each with 40 alumni working in legal roles across the seven companies. Both firms regularly represent tech startups and the investors backing them.
Latham & Watkins followed with 33 former lawyers. Kirkland & Ellis, the industry's revenue leader, ranked 11th with 21 former lawyers working at those companies, tied with Paul Hastings and Sidley Austin.
Pirical's analysis may have missed lawyers whose job titles fell outside its search criteria, said Craig Savitzky, its insights and content editor. He said newer companies, particularly Anthropic, are also likely undercounted because their legal teams are growing faster than public profiles are updated.
Big Law-Big Tech pipeline
For attorneys hoping to land a coveted job at a tech giant, a stint at a white-shoe law firm can be a stepping stone. They can trade billable-hour quotas for a seat closer to the business, attractive pay, and just one client to keep happy instead of dozens.
That combination makes these roles "some of the most highly desirable and sought-after positions" for law firm associates, said Casey Sullivan, a recruiter with CMW Legal Search.
There's another draw, Sullivan said. The companies at the forefront of artificial intelligence are wrestling with some of the thorniest legal questions of the day, from intellectual property to regulation.
"That's where the most interesting work is for lawyers," he said.
Not all law firms are equally effective launch pads. Pirical's Savitzky noted that the firms near the top of the list have deep ties to the tech industry, if not the deepest pockets.
Cooley brought in $2.4 billion in revenue last fiscal year, placing it 29th on The American Lawyer's ranking of top law firms by revenue. But it tied fourth on Pirical's list, with 29 alumni working at the seven tech companies, including nine at Nvidia, a longtime client.
Davis Wright Tremaine, which has represented Microsoft in antitrust and employment lawsuits, has 13 alumni working in the software giant's legal department. Fenwick, which advised Wiz and Fitbit on their sales to Google, has 13 lawyers at the search giant.
Business Insider also sliced the data another way, looking at which of the seven tech giants employ the most alumni from the top 25 firms on Pirical's list.
Big Law is effectively a feeder school for Google's legal team. The company employs 322 alumni of the top 25 law firms on Pirical's list, more than any other tech company studied.
That doesn't necessarily mean Google is the most desirable location for lawyers leaving Big Law. Savitzky said the numbers likely reflect the sheer size of Google's legal department and the decades it has had to recruit from top firms.
Members of the European Parliament are visiting Amazon logistics centres in Germany and Poland this week to investigate working conditions and the use of digital monitoring systems, reopening a dispute between the technology company, European legislators and trade unions over employee rights.
The fact-finding mission, scheduled for 26th and 27th October, will examine how Amazon organises work, measures employee productivity and uses automated systems in warehouses. MEPs will meet management, employees, works councils and trade union representatives, with particular attention to whether technological changes are affecting workers’ health and their ability to exercise employment rights.
The investigation comes as the European Commission prepares its Quality Jobs Act, which is expected to address algorithmic management, occupational safety and working conditions across the European economy. Amazon’s extensive logistics network makes the company a prominent example of the questions legislators must resolve.
MEPs enter warehouses after prolonged dispute
The delegation is led by Li Andersson, chairwoman of Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs Committee, and includes Belgian MEPs Liesbet Sommen and Estelle Ceulemans, alongside representatives from several other political groups.
According to the European trade union federation UNI Europa, MEPs will inspect facilities in Dortmund and Mönchengladbach on Monday before travelling to Poland on Tuesday.
The German visits will cover older warehouse operations and newer facilities incorporating robotics, allowing parliamentarians to compare different approaches to handling orders and managing employees. The Polish programme includes a major returns facility in the Katowice area.
The visit follows several years of strained relations between Amazon and the European Parliament.
In February 2024, Parliament withdrew permanent access badges from Amazon representatives following disagreements over the company’s participation in hearings and requests for visits to its warehouses.
Amazon disputed suggestions that it was avoiding scrutiny, maintaining that it had offered alternative arrangements for parliamentary visits during periods when its logistics operations were particularly busy.
Company executives eventually appeared before the Employment and Social Affairs Committee in January 2026, where they defended Amazon’s employment policies and workplace practices.
The controversy over digital surveillance
At the centre of the dispute is the increasingly widespread use of electronic systems to monitor productivity.
Warehouse employees commonly use handheld scanners, while automated systems can help allocate tasks, coordinate movements and identify delays in processing orders.
These technologies allow employers to manage substantial logistics operations with considerable precision. They also make it possible to collect detailed information about individual workers’ activities throughout their shifts.
Trade unions argue that such monitoring can create unreasonable performance pressure, particularly where targets are adjusted automatically or workers cannot challenge assessments generated by software.
The concerns are not confined to Amazon.
A European Commission survey examined by EU Today earlier this month found that 42 per cent of surveyed smaller and medium-sized businesses already used artificial intelligence or algorithmic management systems.
However, 49 per cent of respondents expressed distrust of automated systems making decisions about employees, illustrating the distinction between using technology to support management and delegating consequential decisions to algorithms.
Previous regulatory action
Amazon has already faced formal European regulatory scrutiny over workplace monitoring.
France’s data protection authority imposed a €32 million fine on Amazon France Logistique in December 2023, announcing the decision in January 2024. The regulator concluded that certain employee monitoring practices were excessively intrusive and breached data-protection requirements.
The investigation examined the collection and retention of detailed information from warehouse scanners, including productivity indicators and periods of inactivity.
Amazon rejected the regulator’s conclusions and subsequently appealed the decision. The penalty therefore needs to be distinguished from any final judicial determination of the dispute.
The case nevertheless demonstrates that workplace monitoring falls within existing European privacy legislation, independently of proposals for new employment rules.
Amazon maintains that its warehouse technology is intended to improve operational efficiency, safety and the reliability of deliveries.
In its January parliamentary testimony, the company defended its investment in employee training and insisted that workers have the right to join trade unions.
It also pointed to engagement with works councils and employee representative bodies across its European operations.
Trade unions contest the adequacy of those arrangements, particularly in Germany, where the ver.di union has repeatedly sought a collective agreement covering Amazon employees.
These competing positions will form part of the parliamentary delegation’s assessment.
Implications for EU employment legislation
The Commission’s Quality Jobs initiative addresses several questions raised by the Amazon dispute, including algorithmic management, psychosocial risks and the effectiveness of collective bargaining.
Legislators must determine how far employers should be required to disclose the operation of automated monitoring systems, how employees can contest decisions and what safeguards should apply when performance targets are generated by software.
Rules must also accommodate legitimate requirements for stock management, security and workplace safety.
The parliamentary visit will not itself establish whether Amazon has breached employment legislation. It is a fact-finding exercise intended to inform future policy discussions.
Its importance lies in giving legislators direct access to warehouse operations and employee accounts before deciding how European labour law should respond to increasingly automated workplaces.
A student movement that emerged after a deadly railway disaster has turned nearly two years of protests into an electoral victory.
Serbia’s student-led opposition has secured a decisive parliamentary victory over Aleksandar Vučić’s ruling party, according to preliminary results, ending 14 years of political dominance by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and opening a new chapter in the country’s politics.
Vučić acknowledged the defeat on Sunday, saying initial projections indicated that the Student List would win between 135 and 140 seats, compared with about 105 for his party. The result follows nearly two years of student-led demonstrations against corruption and what protesters describe as growing authoritarianism.
The Centre for Free Elections and Democracy (CeSID), a non-governmental organization, projected that the Student List would win 139 seats after 56% of ballots had been counted, against 104 for the SNS. Unofficial estimates from polling institute Ipsos put the student movement at 140 seats and Vučić’s party at 103, down 26 seats from the 2023 parliamentary election, when it secured an absolute majority.
The setback was compounded by the failure of the Socialist Party, a longtime ally of Vučić, to clear the 3% threshold for parliamentary representation. The party previously held 18 seats. Preliminary estimates also gave three seats to Serbia’s Hungarian minority party and two to the Albanian minority list.
Turnout approached 70%, the highest since the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1992 and close to the record set in the 2000 parliamentary election.
The student movement grew out of protests that began in 2024, after 16 people died when a canopy collapsed at a railway station in Novi Sad. The disaster prompted mass demonstrations across Serbia, with protesters demanding accountability over the collapse and the construction work carried out by a Chinese company following a tendering process criticized for its lack of transparency.
Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, turning the demonstrations into a broader challenge to corruption and the concentration of political power. The student movement emerged as a nationwide opposition force and sustained pressure on Vučić’s government for nearly two years.
Vučić, who had led the country for 14 years, resigned as head of state in September to run for prime minister.
Celebrations and tensions in Belgrade
The preliminary results sparked celebrations across Belgrade, where thousands gathered to dance, chant slogans and set off flares and fireworks. Crowds shouted “Victory” and “Vučić is leaving” as people embraced and wept with joy.
Slavija Square, a focal point of the mass protests against the government, filled with supporters of the student movement. At Pioneers Park, between parliament and the presidential palace, hundreds of people tore down the fence surrounding the grounds and entered the public space.
The park had been closed to the public for months and periodically occupied by groups of masked Vučić supporters, who were accused of being used as a force to confront government opponents.
The celebrations underscored the scale of the political shift after more than a decade of SNS rule. Vučić had weathered previous opposition challenges, but the student movement turned sustained street protests into an electoral campaign that defeated his party.
A decentralized political movement
The Student List has presented itself as an alternative to Vučić’s centralized model of leadership. It operates through a horizontal structure and has avoided putting forward a single public face, arguing that political decisions should be made from the bottom up rather than imposed from above.
Its slate of 250 candidates includes university professors, actors and farmers, many of them little known to the wider public.
Radomir Sajcic, a University of Belgrade professor representing the movement, celebrated the result at its headquarters. “Dear Serbia, tonight the voice of the people can be heard,” he declared. “Tonight we celebrate victory; tomorrow we will build the future.”
Sajcic also described the outcome as “a victory of courage over fear, a victory of hope over indifference, a victory of faith that Serbia can and must be different.”
The movement’s platform calls for restoring the separation of powers and the autonomy of the prosecutor general’s office, as well as increasing investment in health care and education. It also pledges to tackle corruption and individual privileges to boost public revenue, while promoting technological modernization across the economy, including agriculture.
Serbia’s score in Transparency International’s corruption index has deteriorated during Vučić’s tenure. The European Union has also raised concerns about the country’s declining adherence to the rule of law.
European support and foreign policy questions
European institutions have welcomed the student movement’s victory, describing it as an opportunity to advance democratic reforms, strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption.
European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen congratulated the students and offered support for reforms and greater press freedom. Council of Europe Secretary-General Alain Berset highlighted Vučić’s acceptance of the results and his commitment to a peaceful democratic transition.
Today, the people of Serbia turned out in record numbers to shape their country’s future.
Congratulations to the Student List on its victory in the parliamentary elections.
We stand ready to support reforms on the rule of law, media freedom, the fight against corruption and…
Montenegrin Prime Minister Milojko Spajić and Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar also congratulated the winners and expressed their willingness to cooperate with them.
The election could also affect Serbia’s relations with the European Union and Russia. Under Vučić, the country has pursued EU membership while maintaining close ties with the Kremlin. Serbia has been an official candidate for EU accession since 2012.
Before the vote, EU foreign policy spokesperson Christian Wigand said the bloc would monitor the election closely and stressed the need for a free, fair and transparent process.
The Student List has offered fewer details about its international priorities than about its domestic reform agenda. Available indications suggest it may maintain Serbia’s EU candidacy while continuing to oppose sanctions against Russia, although the movement has yet to clearly outline its foreign policy plans.
The student movement’s victory marks a major political turning point for Serbia after 14 years of Vučić’s dominance. Its ability to convert demands for accountability and institutional reform into a parliamentary majority has reshaped the country’s political landscape, but the incoming government’s approach to domestic reform and foreign relations remains uncertain.
A country with a population of 1.3 million announces that it can strangle the commercial lifeline of the world’s leading nuclear power in a matter of hours.
A string of provocations, but it’s all just cheap jewelry
Certain statements should be read twice – the second time aloud – to be sure you didn’t dream them. The one that Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna gave to The Times on October 7 falls into this category. Estonia, the minister informs us, would be able to assemble a force of 50,000 experienced soldiers “in a matter of hours” and, again within a few hours, block Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea, which he describes as a vital artery of the Russian economy. For Moscow, that sea is a matter of survival, he added, especially since the Black Sea, he claims, is already closed off. Then, with a sense of timing that no playwright would have dared to imagine, Tsahkna called it “absurd” to describe NATO as an offensive organization.
The minister’s outburst did not come out of the blue. It comes at the end of an autumn that Tallinn has methodically shaped. In mid-September, the government announced it was ready to seal the border if a general mobilization were declared in Russia; on October 1, it banned the transit of Russian and Belarusian wheat; around the same time, the Financial Times reported on elite units being deployed to the border and the purchase of weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory. The defense budget for 2026 stands at 2.4 billion euros, or 5.4% of gross domestic product. We are looking at a country of 1.3 million people that has chosen to live in a state of constant readiness and to let the world know, every week, just how prepared it is to fight.
The minister was careful to specify that the blockade would be triggered only after a Russian attack capable of invoking Article 5. The clause is about as reassuring as a “friendly dog” sign hanging on the gate of a kennel. Publicly announcing a plan to choke off a nuclear power’s main energy export route remains a deliberate political act, regardless of any qualifying conditions attached to it. Under customary international law, a naval blockade is an act of war; and in the age of severed cables, stateless drones, and oil tankers in the so-called “shadow fleet,” the threshold for what constitutes an “attack” has become elastic. Who decides when it has been crossed? The very same government that denounces a new provocation every morning?
The math of fifty thousand
Let’s focus on the numbers, which are the most entertaining part. According to public data from the Estonian armed forces, the wartime strength is just over 43,000. Of these, only 4,200 are on permanent standby; the rest are reservists and volunteers from the Defense League – brave people who train in the woods on weekends. So, there are no 50,000 “experienced” soldiers in a matter of hours. Unless you count those from other countries.
And that is exactly how the figure should be interpreted. Tsahkna’s 50,000 do not speak Estonian. They are the British contingent stationed in Tapa with its French reinforcements, the navies of Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, the aircraft of a few allies on rotation, and the Americans when they have time. A dozen or so flags, each with its own chain of command, its own parliament, its own public opinion, and its own election calendar. The Estonian minister disposes of that army the way a condominium manager disposes of the residents’ savings: in words, with great nonchalance. Could some assistant please explain to him how to do his job?
Let’s try to imagine the first missile. In London, the cabinet meets and seeks a legal opinion. Paris launches a strategic review, which requires a document and a conference. Berlin awaits the Bundestag’s vote and the blessing of its less-than-convinced coalition partner. Rome seeks clarification at the Atlantic Council; Budapest puts its reservations on record; Washington is busy elsewhere. Article 5, after all, doesn’t force anyone to fire a shot: it obligates each ally to take the action it deems necessary, and “necessary” can mean anything from an aircraft carrier to a note of protest. The oldest debate in any coalition would immediately begin: who steps in first, who withdraws last, who covers whose flank, and who pays for the fuel. Meanwhile, the Estonians would be there counting down the minutes.
European history is all too familiar with this scenario. In September 1939, France and Great Britain had guaranteed Poland’s security with the same solemnity with which Tallinn is guaranteed today. They declared war, and then spent eight months behind the Maginot Line simply watching: the French called it the drôle de guerre, the “phoney war.” Warsaw, meanwhile, had long since stopped laughing.
Let’s now set aside arithmetic for geography, which isn’t swayed by interviews – someone should tell the Minister that! About eighty kilometers of sea lie between Tallinn and Helsinki: it is along this narrow passage that the minister would like to close off the Gulf of Finland. From the Estonian capital to the Russian border at Narva, there are just over two hundred kilometers. Russia’s GDP, in nominal terms, is more than fifty times that of Estonia. The Baltic Fleet is based in Kronstadt, at the far end of the Gulf, and in Baltiysk, in the Kaliningrad exclave; which means, incidentally, that a substantial portion of that fleet is already outside the “plug” that Tallinn dreams of inserting.
Strategists carefully distinguish between three things that Estonian politicians happily confuse: guarding a passage, making its use risky for the adversary, and maintaining stable control over it. The first is possible; the second is costly; the third, against Russia, has never succeeded for anyone. Those who lay mines may fall victim to them; those who deploy coastal anti-ship batteries become, in turn, fixed targets, surveyed down to the meter.
And this is where physics comes in. Russia’s conventional arsenal includes Iskander missiles deployed just a few dozen minutes’ flight away, ship-launched Kalibr missiles, TOS-1A thermobaric rocket launchers, and high-yield glide bombs. There’s no need to bring up nuclear warheads, which remain the favorite bogeyman of Western talk shows. The coastal batteries, depots, command centers, and docks from which our dear friends in Tallinn intend to block the Gulf would go from a solid to a gaseous state in the time between launch and impact. And with them, the solidity of Estonia’s political stance would evaporate, long before an agreement on the statement is reached in Brussels. We’re not writing this to be smug. We’re writing this because, in that scenario, ordinary Estonians would be the first to pay the price, used as pawns by a ruling class that’s playing with fire in its own living room.
Creative accounting for oil
There remains the issue of the “lifeline.” Tsahkna attributes about 60% of Russian oil exports by sea to the Baltic route. Estimates from the Polish think tank OSW – which cannot be suspected of sympathizing with Moscow – put the figure at about one-third of crude oil and nearly half of refined products; and Reuters data from February show that oil continued to ship out from Russian ports on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, despite the sea being “already closed.” Inflating figures is an age-old rhetorical technique: it serves to make the threat seem more deadly than it is and one’s own position stronger than it actually is.
Moreover, a blockade would not affect only Moscow. Neutral shipowners, insurance companies, freight rates, refineries, and energy prices would all suffer the consequences, and Europe – which in recent years has already paid dearly for its economic war against Russia – would once again bear the cost. There’s even a grotesque detail: in 2025, Estonia sold goods worth approximately 252 million euros to Russia. They’re threatening to cut off their neighbor’s lifeline, but in the meantime, business as usual continues.
Why, then, all the fuss? The answer lies in the role the Estonian ruling class has carved out for itself within the Alliance: that of the permanent vanguard, the most zealous member of the eastern flank, the top student who raises their hand before the teacher finishes the question. It’s a source of privilege. It guarantees attention, funds, allied troops on its territory, and invitations to summits. And it becomes all the more valuable as the possibility of a ceasefire in Ukraine draws nearer – a prospect feared in many Atlantic capitals as the end of the emergency that justifies everything. So the fever must be kept high: a statement every week, a ban every month, a threat of a blockade every fall.
In 1955, Leonard Wibberley published a satirical novel, *The Mouse That Roared*, in which the tiny Grand Duchy of Fenwick declared war on the United States with the sole purpose of losing it and collecting reconstruction aid. The difference with Tallinn lies in the ending. The Grand Duchy counted on losing to a generous power, an ocean away. Estonia is threatening a neighboring power – one that has forgotten nothing since 1991 – and is entrusting its fate to a coalition that has never fought a real war together against an opponent of equal strength.
From apotheosis to casus belli?
Let’s recap. A country with a population of 1.3 million announces that it can strangle the commercial lifeline of the world’s leading nuclear power in a matter of hours. To do so, it relies on soldiers it doesn’t have – lent by allies it hasn’t consulted – based on oil figures that Western sources themselves downplay. It ties all of this to a war that its rhetoric makes a little more likely every day, and in the same breath accuses those who see NATO as something offensive of absurdity. If there is such a thing as the apotheosis of the absurd, it can be found at the Foreign Ministry in Tallinn.
Moscow, to tell the truth, doesn’t even need to respond. Geography does it, the balance of power does it, and the history of European coalitions – which have always found it easier to make promises than to keep them – does it. Deterrence that turns into permanent provocation ceases to dissuade and begins to seek its own casus belli. The Baltic Sea deserves mature diplomacy among the coastal states that will have to share it anyway. For now, it must settle for – a minister who roars – and an audience of allies who, at the first real blow, will look around wondering who should answer the phone.
Nearly 1,000 arrests after another weekend of demonstrations expose a government squeezed between legitimate public anger and violent disorder. France requires a conservative response that defends taxpayers, businesses and the rule of law.
France’s latest weekend of protest presents Emmanuel Macron with a question that presidential speeches cannot settle: can his government protect ordinary citizens while addressing the grievances driving them onto the streets?
Nearly 1,000 arrests were reported after Saturday’s demonstrations, with clashes in Paris and other cities. Most participants protested peacefully over education and living costs. But masked groups again turned public mobilisation into confrontation, leaving police to restore order.
From a conservative perspective, this matters enormously. Peaceful assembly belongs to the democratic inheritance France should defend. Throwing projectiles at officers, intimidating businesses and destroying property belong in the criminal courts. Economic hardship explains anger; it does not confer permission to terrorise a neighbourhood.
The Interior Ministry counted 410,000 demonstrators nationwide, while the CGT union estimated nearly 800,000. Authorities deployed 70,000 officers, supported by helicopters and armoured vehicles. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said the operation helped prevent a repetition of the previous weekend’s widespread looting.
That offers some reassurance. Yet a country requiring such an extraordinary deployment to contain weekend demonstrations has a deeper problem than crowd management. Police can clear a junction. They cannot, by themselves, rebuild confidence in a political class that many citizens believe no longer understands their lives.
The most easily overlooked people are those with the least protection: independent shopkeepers, employees losing shifts, residents trapped behind barricades and taxpayers financing the response. Their interests deserve the same attention as the demands carried on banners. Keeping a business open is also a contribution to national life.
The BBC reported that shops were boarded up, cultural institutions closed and more than 20 Paris metro stations shut. These precautions may have been necessary, but they also demonstrate how disorder imposes costs far beyond those directly involved. A disrupted capital is a warning about the erosion of everyday freedom.
The government’s responsibility therefore extends beyond announcing arrest totals. Suspected offenders should face prompt, fair proceedings, with meaningful penalties where guilt is established. Where legally appropriate, those responsible for deliberate damage should contribute towards repairs. Public confidence depends on consequences that are visible, proportionate and consistently applied.
Consistency also requires rejecting violence from every political direction. Regional authorities reported that far-right extremists fought demonstrators in Nice, where 11 people were arrested. A credible conservative position cannot excuse street intimidation because its perpetrators claim patriotic motives. The law loses authority whenever political allegiance becomes an unofficial exemption.
Nevertheless, restoring order cannot substitute for governing competently. The movement grew from complaints about school staffing and resources into broader protests over household costs. Those concerns deserve answers. Parents expecting functioning classrooms and workers struggling to afford necessities are asking whether the state delivers what it promises.
The conservative answer should begin with value for money. Before reaching automatically for additional taxation or borrowing, ministers should explain where existing resources go, which programmes deliver results and which administrative burdens consume money better spent on essential services. Public expenditure should be judged by outcomes rather than the generosity of announcements.
There is an equally strong case for policies that reward employment, investment and enterprise. A government cannot sustainably improve living standards while treating the businesses creating jobs as an inexhaustible source of revenue. Nor can it promise every constituency protection from difficult choices. Credibility requires priorities, arithmetic and candour.
Macron’s political opponents will understandably seek advantage. But opposition leaders should be judged by whether they offer workable government, including a clear rejection of intimidation. Encouraging public anger is easier than reconciling demands for better services, affordable living and sound finances. France needs politicians prepared to explain those trade-offs honestly.
The immediate task is to keep streets safe. The larger task is to make democratic government effective enough that citizens trust its decisions. France needs firm policing, accountable institutions and economic realism. Unless its leaders provide all three, each weekend of unrest risks becoming another advertisement for the failure of the governing establishment.
The violence accompanying France’s October protests has revealed how foreign influence networks can exploit domestic grievances to undermine governments and European support for Ukraine. New evidence suggests Russian-linked operations were active before the riots, raising questions about whether information manipulation is moving beyond propaganda towards the mobilisation of political unrest.
France’s violent protests have exposed a vulnerability in European security that conventional policing cannot easily address: the ability of foreign information networks to exploit domestic political crises, amplify social divisions and transform legitimate grievances into instruments of geopolitical pressure.
President Emmanuel Macron has acknowledged foreign manipulation of information surrounding the disturbances of 17–18 October but insists there is no evidence that foreign actors organised the violence itself. His assessment reflects the evidence currently available, although new investigations indicate that Russian-linked networks were actively exploiting the protest movement weeks before the worst disorder began.
On 24 October, France deployed approximately 70,000 police officers and gendarmes to prevent further violence. Yet the security operation addresses only the physical consequences of a crisis whose online dimension extends across national borders.
Researchers examined 547,471 posts and articles across nine languages. They identified 639 coordinated messages attributed with high confidence to Russia’s Doppelgänger operation, generating approximately 7.4 million views in the six weeks preceding 17 October.
The campaign used genuine concerns about living costs and public expenditure to promote a particular political argument: money allocated to Ukraine was being taken from European citizens.
This was not a random selection of grievances. France’s budget difficulties, public-service pressures and disagreements over defence expenditure provided material through which Moscow could seek to weaken support for Kyiv.
The researchers found that the operation targeted pro-European and pro-Ukraine politicians across the political spectrum. It praised selected proposals associated with Jean-Luc Mélenchon while also promoting nationalist narratives, illustrating a strategy driven less by ideological consistency than by opposition to existing European policies.
From manipulating opinion to encouraging mobilisation
Russian-linked channels were not merely commenting on existing demonstrations. They were circulating protest dates, identifying organisers and encouraging French audiences to follow the example of demonstrators in Germany.
On 28 September, the International Reporters network published an appeal urging French audiences to take to the streets. Other channels subsequently reproduced information about planned school blockades and demonstrations.
In one instance, a channel identified as Gavroche published rhetoric encouraging an attack on France’s Education Ministry.
Such activity goes beyond retrospective propaganda. It attempts to influence participation and behaviour while events are developing. Nevertheless, evidence that a network encouraged protests does not establish that it controlled the organisers or directed subsequent violence.
The original demonstrations arose from domestic grievances over schools, prices and government policy. The significance of the foreign activity lies in attempts to redirect and intensify an existing movement.
How France’s crisis was rewritten abroad
Once violence erupted, the information campaign acquired an international audience.
Alliance4Europe found that claims blaming migrants or Islam for the disturbances appeared in approximately one in 33 French-language posts, compared with nearly one in five English-language posts.
False allegations that immigrants had burned Limoges town hall circulated substantially more frequently in English than in French.
The same report identified 1,018 articles distributed through 28 websites associated with the Russian Pravda network. Their rapid republication across languages enabled a common narrative to reach audiences far beyond France.
The operation also presents a longer-term technological problem. Repeated publication of manipulated accounts can contaminate material subsequently retrieved or reproduced by artificial-intelligence systems, allowing false narratives to persist beyond the original campaign.
The political effects were visible when President Donald Trump and other foreign leaders portrayed France’s unrest principally through immigration and cultural conflict.
Speaking in Qatar on 21 October, Macron rejected these portrayals and criticised the circulation of fabricated AI-generated images. His remarks identified foreign manipulation after the riots but stopped short of alleging foreign responsibility for their organisation.
The Heritage Foundation and transatlantic networks
The transcript raises a more substantial allegation: that the American Heritage Foundation and Russia’s FSB have participated in a coordinated effort to destabilise France.
There are documented connections between the Heritage Foundation and political institutions associated with Hungary’s former prime minister Viktor Orbán.
These relationships demonstrate the development of transatlantic political networks capable of circulating common ideas about sovereignty, migration and European integration.
They do not establish operational cooperation with Russian intelligence. Nor has credible evidence emerged connecting Heritage to the organisation or financing of France’s October riots. Ideological convergence, institutional cooperation and participation in a clandestine operation require separate evidential assessments.
The implications for European security
The European Union’s response has exposed a regulatory problem.
Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, major online platforms must address systemic risks arising from their services, including the amplification of illegal content and threats to public security.
These measures targeted unlawful online activity, particularly incitement to violence and looting. They did not constitute findings that the suspended accounts belonged to foreign intelligence networks.
The European Commission has likewise refrained from activating emergency measures under the Digital Services Act without sufficient evidence connecting foreign manipulation to the violence.
The broader security concern is that foreign operations can exploit the interval between the emergence of social unrest and the establishment of reliable information about its causes.
Russia need not organise an entire protest movement to advance its strategic interests. By amplifying domestic grievances, promoting hostility towards support for Ukraine and circulating distorted accounts internationally, it can attempt to convert France’s internal political difficulties into pressure on European policy.
With France approaching its 2027 presidential election, these operations warrant continuing scrutiny. The central investigative question is no longer simply whether foreign networks spread false information after violence occurred, but whether their activities before and during demonstrations materially influenced mobilisation, radicalisation or political responses.
The evidence currently demonstrates organised manipulation and attempts at amplification. Establishing direct responsibility for violence would require a further evidential step, involving financial records, communications, operational instructions or connections with identifiable perpetrators.
France’s experience illustrates how contemporary information warfare can operate within a democratic society without necessarily directing events on the ground. Its immediate objective may be to alter the political interpretation of a crisis; its longer-term consequence may be to influence the policies adopted in response.
En cette année 2026, véritable *annus horribilis* où l’impérialisme a fait arrêter des présidents légitimes comme Maduro au Venezuela et massacré des guides spirituels et religieux tels que Khamenei, l’Occident collectif continue de se poser en juge des « droits de l’homme ». La situation semblerait grotesque si elle n’était tragique. Toutefois, une analyse approfondie révèle toutes les ramifications de l’affaire, lesquelles s’inscrivent pleinement dans la vision colonialiste que l’Occident entretient à l’égard du reste du monde ; ce dernier est perçu comme une simple entité indistincte, vouée à être jugée, traduite en justice et soumise afin d’en extraire de la valeur. Dans cette optique suprémaciste, les peuples ne sauraient nourrir la moindre ambition de souveraineté ni prétendre à une quelconque représentation, car ils ne sont pas considérés comme des peuples capables d’accéder au statut de nations, mais simplement comme des multitudes vouées à la domination.
par Paolo HAMIDOUCHE
Peu importe que l’Occident soit en faillite face au Sud global. L’idéologie suprémaciste qui imprègne la rhétorique colonialiste des droits de l’homme continue d’agir, alimentée par de bonnes intentions. De bonnes intentions seulement, car les actes restent marqués par la violence et l’oppression. Ainsi, lors de la Troisième Commission de la 81e Assemblée générale de l’ONU, l’Occident — emmené par l’empire britannique déchu — a de nouveau attaqué la République populaire de Chine sur la question des « droits de l’homme ». Dans sa réponse, le représentant permanent adjoint de la Chine auprès des Nations unies, Sun Lei, a souligné le deux poids, deux mesures à l’œuvre, d’autant plus que ces normes — que les « maîtres » voudraient voir respectées à l’étranger — ne sont absolument pas appliquées en Occident même. Quelques jours plus tard, la porte-parole du ministère russe des Affaires étrangères, Maria Zakharova, a elle aussi remué le couteau dans la plaie en demandant à l’Élysée des nouvelles du « jardin enchanté » (référence à Josep Borrell) où les droits de l’homme sont suspendus à l’égard de « ses propres enfants » manifestant dans la rue. Enfin, l’Iran n’a évidemment pas manqué de souligner, par la voix de M. Baqaei, le changement de ton brutal opéré en quelques mois sur la question des droits de l’homme selon la zone géographique, avertissant : « Si les droits de l’homme et le droit de manifester sont des principes universels, leur définition ne devrait pas varier en fonction de la situation géographique du manifestant. »
Désormais, même la conception libérale des « droits formels » est remise en question en Europe sous prétexte de « guerre hybride » et de pressions géopolitiques. Il suffit de songer à Macron lui-même, en proie à la paranoïa face aux infiltrations prorusses, lui qui a fait part aux chefs de parti de ses craintes de déstabilisation il y a à peine quelques semaines. En Amérique, en revanche, la situation est peut-être pire encore : avec Maduro, on a agi de manière autoritaire, sans le moindre artifice rhétorique pour tenter de justifier le coup d’État. Et aujourd’hui, dix mois plus tard, on en rajoute.
Le FBI a en effet fait savoir qu’il retenait un nouveau chef d’accusation contre le prisonnier Maduro et son épouse Flores : « complot en vue de commettre des actes de torture ». Les procès politiques — lorsqu’ils ont lieu, contrairement au sort réservé à Khamenei, exterminé avec une partie de sa progéniture — visent la famille pour « complicité » et se fondent, de toute évidence, sur des chefs d’accusation variables. Le caractère personnel de la responsabilité pénale devient aléatoire, tout comme le chef d’accusation est fluctuant, lorsqu’une inculpation politique est engagée par un régime ; ainsi, le « complot en vue de commettre des actes de torture » devient une infraction où l’intention délictueuse et la faute s’étendent à tout l’entourage de l’accusé. Appelons donc les choses par leur nom : il s’agit d’un procès politique, et non judiciaire. Or, l’Occident, qui en cette année 2026 s’est adonné aux procès politiques sommaires, a l’audace de se poser en « maître » — pour ne pas dire en « juge » — et de pointer du doigt la République populaire de Chine pour son mépris de la vie humaine. C’est curieux, ne serait-ce que parce que le respect de la vie humaine exigerait la reconnaissance et le respect de la diversité des formes d’organisation des populations, de l’autodétermination des peuples et de tous ces principes dont l’Occident continue de se moquer au nom de la primauté du modèle de gouvernement libéral-démocrate. Un modèle qui, plus que jamais en 2026, s’avère n’être qu’une forme au sens littéral du terme, c’est-à-dire une simple « apparence extérieure ». En effet, cette démocratie libérale recèle en son sein des failles qui en compromettent désormais la survie même. Prenons pour exemple ce qui se passe en Roumanie où, après la victoire du candidat souverainiste indépendant C. Georgescu, les élections ont été purement et simplement annulées au motif d’une « manipulation des suffrages ». Aucun « juge » des sacro-saints « droits de l’homme » occidentaux n’a trouvé à redire au fait qu’une instance constitutionnelle puisse décréter quel suffrage est « manipulé » et lequel est « intègre ». La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a même avalisé cette décision en déclarant irrecevable le recours de Georgescu. Par ailleurs, ces « juges » qui aiment discourir sur la situation politique d’autrui n’ont rien vu des conditions liberticides — dignes d’un réfugié — imposées à Julian Assange pour le « crime » de journalisme, avant qu’il ne soit contraint de faire amende honorable et de se retirer de la vie publique. C’est ce qu’a dû faire le président Georgescu en Roumanie, mais cela n’a pas suffi dans son cas. Le délit politique pèse manifestement plus lourd ; rappelons qu’un philosophe soulignait déjà auprès de ses pairs que l’enjeu, aujourd’hui, n’est plus d’interpréter le monde, mais de transformer l’état de choses existant. Pour celui qui s’engage directement en politique, il ne suffit pas de renier ses convictions et de se retirer de la vie publique, car son passé et ses relations continuent d’influer sur le présent.
En effet, la répression visant l’idéologie souverainiste en Roumanie s’est concentrée sur le dirigeant Călin Georgescu, au point de lui valoir diverses inculpations, interpellations et placements en détention provisoire (sic !), mesures qui ne se sont arrêtées ni devant son annonce de retrait de la vie publique ni devant sa personne. Comme je le rappelais précédemment, la caractéristique d’un procès politique est la disparition du principe de responsabilité pénale individuelle, car l’on a affaire à un régime politique qui s’attaque à une idée. Et comme le soulignait curieusement Medgar Evers — militant des droits civiques abattu d’un coup de fusil dans le dos par un suprémaciste dans la cour de sa propre maison, au sein de la patrie des « droits civiques » —, les idées ne s’arrêtent pas avec l’arrestation d’un homme, car « on peut tuer un homme, mais on ne peut pas tuer une idée ». On procède donc directement à l’arrestation et à l’inculpation de l’entourage immédiat, voire de toute personne professant la même idée. Ce n’est pas un hasard si le principal candidat de l’opposition roumaine, George Simion — qui porte l’idéal souverainiste dans ce pays —, a tiré la sonnette d’alarme ces derniers jours, se disant menacé d’arrestation après avoir perdu de manière inattendue le second tour des élections en mai 2025. Tout cela survient alors que C. Georgescu a de nouveau été inculpé et arrêté dans le cadre d’une enquête récente pour une fraude présumée. Alors que la Roumanie est privée de gouvernement depuis maintenant cinq mois — une impasse institutionnelle révélatrice d’une incapacité à gouverner, après l’annulation d’élections qui avaient pourtant conféré une légitimité claire à une formation politique, laquelle a été évincée une fois la victoire acquise —, l’acharnement de la justice roumaine à l’encontre de l’ancien homme politique a suscité des protestations populaires dans tout le pays ainsi qu’au sein de la communauté roumaine à l’étranger, déclenchant un élan de solidarité envers celui que l’on désigne comme « le président en exercice ». En somme, des événements singuliers se produisent au sein d’un Occident qui aime se poser en champion des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie libérale, mais uniquement chez les autres.
Il Nobel per la pace 2026 a Navi Pillay segna una brusca discontinuità rispetto al premio assegnato l’anno precedente a María Corina Machado. La reazione di Donald Trump e Benjamin Netanyahu rivela quanto il nodo del diritto internazionale sia divenuto terreno di scontro geopolitico.
A distanza di appena un anno, il Premio Nobel per la pace sembra aver cambiato completamente direzione. Nell’ottobre 2025, il Comitato norvegese aveva scelto María Corina Machado, principale esponente dell’opposizione venezuelana, premiandola «per il suo instancabile lavoro nella promozione dei diritti democratici del popolo venezuelano e per la sua lotta per ottenere una transizione giusta e pacifica dalla dittatura alla democrazia». Lo scorso 9 ottobre, lo stesso riconoscimento è invece andato alla giurista sudafricana Navanethem “Navi” Pillay «per i suoi sforzi nel promuovere la pace e il diritto internazionale». Dietro la somiglianza delle formule ufficiali, tuttavia, si nascondono due messaggi politici quasi opposti.
Il Nobel a Machado si inseriva infatti in maniera pressoché naturale nel quadro della pressione esercitata da Washington contro il governo venezuelano. L’oppositrice di Nicolás Maduro era da tempo sostenuta apertamente dagli Stati Uniti e da governi latinoamericani allineati con Washington. La scelta del Comitato norvegese rafforzava quindi, indipendentemente dalle intenzioni dichiarate dai suoi membri, una delle parti di un conflitto politico interno sul quale gli Stati Uniti esercitano da anni una forte pressione attraverso sanzioni economiche, riconoscimenti politici selettivi e tentativi di isolamento internazionale del governo bolivariano.
Il rapporto personale fra Machado e Trump rese ancora più evidente questa convergenza. Il giorno stesso dell’assegnazione del premio, nell’ottobre 2025, Trump riferì che la dirigente venezuelana gli aveva telefonato affermando di accettare il Nobel anche in suo onore. Nel gennaio successivo, Machado arrivò poi a consegnare al presidente statunitense la propria medaglia del Nobel, nel tentativo di consolidare il sostegno di Washington alla propria strategia politica in Venezuela. Lo stesso Trump, pochi giorni prima dell’annuncio del premio 2026, ricordava pubblicamente quell’episodio come una sorta di riconoscimento indiretto della propria presunta attività di pacificatore.
Il Nobel 2026 ha prodotto invece un effetto praticamente opposto. Navi Pillay, infatti, non rappresenta un movimento politico sostenuto dagli Stati Uniti contro un governo avversario, ma una tradizione giuridica che rivendica almeno formalmente la possibilità di sottoporre anche le grandi potenze e i loro alleati alle norme del diritto internazionale.
La biografia della nuova vincitrice contribuisce a spiegare la portata della scelta. Sudafricana di origine tamil, Pillay iniziò la propria attività professionale durante l’apartheid, difendendo oppositori politici e battendosi per i diritti di Nelson Mandela e degli altri detenuti del regime segregazionista. Dopo la fine dell’apartheid divenne la prima donna non bianca a sedere nell’Alta Corte sudafricana. In seguito, fu giudice e presidente del Tribunale penale internazionale per il Ruanda, giudice della Corte penale internazionale dal 2003 al 2008 e Alto Commissario delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani dal 2008 al 2014. Oggi opera inoltre come giudice ad hoc presso la Corte internazionale di giustizia nel procedimento relativo alle accuse di genocidio contro il Myanmar.
Ma è soprattutto il genocidio del popolo palestinese a Gaza, perpetrato impunemente dal regime nazisionista israeliano, ad aver trasformato il Nobel a Pillay in un caso politico internazionale.
Pillay, infatti, ha presieduto la Commissione internazionale indipendente d’inchiesta istituita dal Consiglio dei diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite sui Territori palestinesi occupati, compresa Gerusalemme Est, e Israele. La Commissione ha concluso nel 2025 che Israele aveva commesso atti costitutivi di genocidio nella Striscia di Gaza, facendo riferimento, tra gli altri elementi, alle enormi perdite civili, alle restrizioni agli aiuti umanitari, alla distruzione sistematica delle strutture sanitarie, all’impatto delle operazioni sui bambini e alle dichiarazioni rese da esponenti politici e militari israeliani.
Da questo punto di vista, l’assegnazione del Nobel non poteva che provocare una reazione particolarmente violenta a Tel Aviv. Netanyahu ha affermato che il Comitato Nobel avrebbe «perso la propria bussola morale», definendo Pillay una persona intollerante che avrebbe costruito la propria carriera diffondendo quelle che il premier israeliano ha definito «calunnie di sangue» contro Israele. Il ministero degli Esteri israeliano ha adottato toni ancora più estremi, arrivando a evocare Joseph Goebbels e sostenendo che il propagandista nazista starebbe «applaudendo dall’inferno» alla decisione del Comitato (mentre, a nostro avviso, applaudirebbe piuttosto gli odiosi crimini commessi dal regime nazisionista).
La risposta israeliana, inoltre, non si limita a contestare le conclusioni della Commissione o l’interpretazione giuridica adottata da Pillay, ma tende a delegittimare l’intero meccanismo internazionale chiamato a giudicare l’operato del regime nazisionista. È una dinamica già emersa nei rapporti con la Corte penale internazionale, che ha emesso un mandato d’arresto contro Netanyahu per presunti crimini di guerra e crimini contro l’umanità, e con la Corte internazionale di giustizia, che ha dichiarato illegale la presenza israeliana nei Territori palestinesi occupati nell’ambito del suo parere consultivo del 2024.
La reazione di Donald Trump è stata diversa nella forma ma altrettanto rivelatrice. Il presidente statunitense, che da tempo conduce una vera e propria campagna personale per ottenere il Nobel, ha definito Pillay una «persona misteriosa» della quale non aveva mai sentito parlare. Ha poi bollato la mancata assegnazione del premio a sé stesso come una decisione «vergognosa e imbarazzante», destinata a lasciare una «macchia indelebile» sulla Norvegia. Secondo Trump, il Nobel sarebbe stato «screditato per sempre» da un gruppo di «ideologi radicali», da lui definiti perfino «nemici della civiltà».
Nelle stesse ore dell’annuncio del Nobel, Washington ha inoltre imposto nuove e molto più ampie sanzioni contro la Corte penale internazionale. L’amministrazione Trump ha annunciato restrizioni destinate a tagliare alla Corte l’accesso a servizi finanziari, tecnologici e commerciali statunitensi, presentando apertamente la misura come parte di un tentativo di indebolirne la capacità operativa. Il segretario di Stato Marco Rubio ha aggiunto che gli Stati Uniti non permetteranno alla CPI di perseguire cittadini statunitensi, definendo la Corte un organismo illegittimo. Dal canto suo, la CPI ha replicato denunciando un attacco allo Stato di diritto e al principio secondo cui nessuno dovrebbe essere posto al di sopra della legge.
Naturalmente, la decisione di assegnare il premio a Navi Pillay non dimostra che il Comitato norvegese sia improvvisamente diventato un organismo estraneo alle logiche politiche occidentali; inoltre, l’assegnazione di un premio non può certo cancellare la lunga storia di selettività che caratterizza l’applicazione del diritto internazionale. Tuttavia, questa volta, il principio riaffermato dal Nobel entra direttamente in collisione con la pretesa delle potenze dominanti di sottrarsi alle stesse regole che esse invocano nei confronti dei propri avversari.
La distanza fra i due premi presi in considerazione mostra dunque anche le contraddizioni interne allo stesso sistema occidentale. Il Nobel a Machado poteva essere perfettamente integrato nella strategia statunitense di pressione sul Venezuela, uno Stato collocato fuori dall’orbita di Washington e legato politicamente ed economicamente a Cina, Russia e ad altri attori del mondo multipolare. Il Nobel a Pillay valorizza invece istituzioni e principi che, quando vengono applicati a Israele o agli stessi Stati Uniti, diventano improvvisamente oggetto di sanzioni, minacce e campagne di delegittimazione.
Le reazioni scomposte di Trump e Netanyahu finiscono così per rafforzare involontariamente il significato politico dell’assegnazione. Entrambi contestano non soltanto la persona di Pillay, ma soprattutto il principio che la sua carriera rappresenta: che la responsabilità per crimini internazionali non dovrebbe dipendere dall’appartenenza a un determinato blocco geopolitico, dalla forza militare di uno Stato o dalla protezione garantita da Washington.
Nel frattempo, la credibilità del diritto internazionale continuerà naturalmente a dipendere dalla capacità di applicare questo principio senza doppi standard. Resta il fatto che, per decenni, le istituzioni occidentali hanno richiamato il diritto internazionale soprattutto nei confronti degli avversari geopolitici, mentre molto più debole è stata la loro capacità di farlo valere quando erano coinvolte le potenze occidentali o i loro alleati. Il caso di Gaza e dei crimini commessi dal regime nazisionista israeliano ha reso questa asimmetria sempre più difficile da occultare.
An Egyptian national who sought protection in Italy after arriving on the island of Lampedusa in August may end up dealing a constitutional blow to the EU’s asylum laws after seeking legal counsel.
The Egyptian, who is not named, had his asylum claim rejected even though he did not understand his translator. His is appealing.
“Not even European Union law can conflict with our supreme principles,” his lawyer, Claudia Avenia told EUobserver earlier this week.
Aside from his own personal circumstances, his legal case is raising serious issues that could have a knock-on effect on the EU’s new asylum and migration pact, which kicked into force this past June across all 27 EU member states.
Because he is from Egypt, he was shuffled through a fast track asylum procedure. EU laws require the accelerated process from nationals who have a 20 percent chance or less of getting asylum in Europe. Egypt fits into this category.
A new EU law also meant that he was technically not yet legally inside the EU as authorities carried out health checks, identification and other assessments during a so-called pre-screening phase.
It means he was banned from stepping outside a reception centre, where he was being housed.
Lawyers describe it as the legal fiction of non-entry, similar in scope to certain areas of international airports. Rights experts had earlier warned, when the EU rules were being drafted, that this would lead to defacto detention.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
The bill banning minors under the age of 15 from using social media online from January 1, 2027, was approved by a majority in Parliament’s plenary session late on Thursday. Only ruling New Democracy (ND) voted in favor of the bill in principle. Αong opposition parties, PASOK voted “present”, while SYRIZA, Greek Solution, KKE, Niki […]
From N.Y. State Div. of Hum. Rts. V. D. Auxilly NYC LLC, decided today by New York appellate judges Sallie Manzanet–Daniels, Manuel Mendez, Barbara Kapnick, Bahaati Pitt–Burke, and Matthew Parker–Raso:
Complainant, at the time a Missouri resident, emailed D. Auxilly, a New York based business that produces and sells attire, including bridal outfits, to inquire about a bridal jumpsuit she had seen advertised on one or more of D. Auxilly's social media pages. Specifically, complainant requested information about payment options for the jumpsuit. Complainant also informed D. Auxilly that as her fiancé had "fallen in love" with it after struggling to find anything she liked, complainant wanted to purchase it for their upcoming wedding.
Dominique Galbraith, D. Auxilly's owner and operator, responded on behalf of D. Auxilly advising complainant of the payment requirements of the business but that she would not be able to make the garment for a same-sex wedding because it would go against her religious beliefs. She also urged complainant and her fiancé to reconsider getting married….
The First Amendment does not shield D. Auxilly from liability for this discrimination. Unlike the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm (2018), D. Auxilly was not asked to design and create customized items which might constitute an "expressive statement." Nor was it tasked with creating a customized wedding website, as in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). Instead, D. Auxilly refused to sell the wedding garment it had previously designed and which it had marketed to the public. While the garment likely would need to be adjusted for sizing, this potential sizing alteration would not constitute an expressive statement. Neither would D. Auxilly's "speech" be compelled here by requiring it to sell the previously designed and marketed garment.
Enforcement of the [law] here also does not violate D. Auxilly's right to free exercise of religion. The statute is "neutral, both on its face and due to a lack of evidence that it targets religious conduct for a distinctive treatment."
{[T]he Division had jurisdiction in the instant matter because the discriminatory conduct occurred in New York and its impact was felt in the state. Complainant reached out to D. Auxilly, a business which markets its clothes as "made in New York," seeking to purchase goods from this New York business. D. Auxilly's discriminatory conduct based upon complainant's sexual orientation deprived complainant of an opportunity to engage in commercial activity here. Indeed, by affirmatively labeling its products as being "made in New York" but then refusing to sell those same "New York" products to people of a certain sexual orientation, D. Auxilly implicitly associated the City and State of New York with a discriminatory act, and the impact test is satisfied. Additionally, the fact that complainant communicated with D. Auxilly online through social media rather than traveling to a New York storefront does not deprive petitioner of jurisdiction over this matter.}
Finally, we find the awards of compensatory damages [$5,000] and civil penalties proper. The award to complainant is reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by evidence before the Division, and in line with other awards for similar injuries. Likewise, the civil penalty of $20,000 is neither disproportionate to the offense nor does it shock the conscience.
My thoughts:
Bridal jumpsuit! New one on me. A quick Google Images search further enlightened me.
Pedantically speaking, wouldn't it be "her fianceé" rather than "her fiancé"?
Oh, wait, there's a legal issue here. Well, I think that there's a First Amendment right not to be compelled to create speech, such as photos, videos, and web sites, and I've argued this since 2012. But I don't think there's such a right as to fundamentally nonspeech products, even ones that people use as conventional parts of ceremonies, such as cakes or jumpsuits (as I've argued since 2017). The precise line, of course, can at times be fuzzy, e.g., as to cakes or jumpsuits that have specific expressive decorations (e.g., words, possibly rainbow designs, etc.), but it's still a sensible line; for more on that, see this amicus brief that Dale Carpenter and I put together in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
For more on the designer, see here and here; for more on the case, see here.
Melissa Franco and Michael K. Swirsky (New York State Division of Human Rights) represent the state.
On December 2, the Supreme Court will consider constitutional challenges to "assault weapon" bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, that cover widely owned rifles, including the AR-15. As the plaintiffs in those consolidated cases see it, such laws plainly violate the Second Amendment because they prohibit arms in common use for lawful purposes. In briefs filed on Wednesday, Connecticut and Cook County urge the justices to reject that test, saying a weapon's popularity is not dispositive. The relevant question, they say, is whether their rifle restrictions fit a historical tradition of banning "unusually dangerous weapons."
Cook County and Connecticut have the burden of showing that their laws are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," the test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. On the face of it, that is a daunting challenge.
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to own "bearable arms" that are "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense." That description indisputably encompasses "AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles," the firearms at issue in these cases. But Heller also recognized "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Cook County and Connecticut argue that the rifles they have deemed intolerable fall into that category.
"There is a robust historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons that
compromise public safety," Cook County says. "Such regulations, which long
predate the founding, have included outright bans and other restrictions on exceptionally dangerous weapons like launcegays, trap guns, Bowie knives, and slung shots."
Cook County argues that its ordinance is "relevantly similar" to those historical restrictions because it targets "exceptionally lethal weapons that are disproportionate to the end of self-defense." AR-15s are "offensive weapons of war designed for maximum lethality and are not customarily used for self-defense," the brief says. "The purpose and operation of the ban is consistent with our Nation's historical tradition and accounts for the exceptional dangerousness of these technologically advanced weapons."
The ban is "an appropriate contemporary restriction implemented by the legislature in response to dramatic technological change and unprecedented societal concern," the brief says. "It is tailored to respond to the particular dangers presented in areas with mass casualty exposure and acute public safety risk."
Connecticut offers a similar argument. One problem with this defense is the premise that "assault weapon" bans focus on "exceptionally lethal weapons." As critics of such laws have been pointing out for decades, the features they target, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, do not affect a rifle's basic operation. With or without them, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. And because AR-15s use intermediate-caliber ammunition, they are arguably less lethal than shotguns and many hunting rifles that are not classified as "assault weapons."
Cook County's emphasis on technological developments is also questionable. Constitutional guarantees establish principles that courts routinely apply to technologies that did not exist at the founding. Although the Framers did not have radio, television, or the internet, for example, the First Amendment nevertheless constrains government regulation of those media.
More specifically, Heller rejected the idea that modern weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment by recognizing a constitutional right to own semiautomatic pistols. The Supreme Court said "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." The Court confirmed that point in the 2016 case Caetano v. Massachusetts, which involved a state ban on stun guns.
Cook County also asserts that AR-15s are not suitable for self-defense, a claim that would be hotly contested by many owners of such rifles, who commonly report using them for that purpose. "Plaintiffs have shown that AR-15s are well-adapted for self-defense," U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan wrote in 2024, when he reluctantly concluded that New Jersey's AR-15 ban was inconsistent with Heller while expressing his dismay at that result. "Evidence has been presented to the Court that the build of the AR-15 makes it well-suited to self-defense because it is 'light weight, [has] very mild recoil, and [has] good ergonomics'; it is a weapon which is 'well suited to younger shooters, female shooters, and other shooters of smaller stature.'"
Sheridan added that "the AR-15's design features—including the effectiveness of its cartridge for self-defense use and its better continuity of fire when used with available magazines—make the AR-15 a good choice for self-defense." And he noted that "the AR-15 has been used recently in several, relatively high-profile self-defense events in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma."
Cook County and Connecticut are also wrong in suggesting that self-defense is the only "lawful purpose" that matters. While Heller emphasized the use of handguns "in defense of hearth and home," it did not say that was the full extent of the Second Amendment right. To the contrary, the phrase "lawful purposes like self-defense" implies that the right extends to other uses, such as hunting, pest control, and target shooting. The decision explicitly mentioned hunting as a "reason Americans valued the ancient right."
The briefs are misleading in another way that may prove decisive. They conflate "dangerous and unusual" with "unusually dangerous," which is not the same thing.
During the 19th century, state legislators restricted (and sometimes banned) weapons such as Bowie knives, spears, sword canes, slungshots, and brass knuckles. But the historical evidence suggests those weapons were not targeted simply because they were "unusually dangerous." Legislators were also concerned about how the weapons were typically used.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who filed a brief supporting the challenges to the AR-15 bans, notes that the 19th-century laws targeted weapons associated with "duels, brawls, and other criminal activities." And in reviewing those laws, state courts distinguished between arms favored by criminals and arms commonly used for lawful purposes.
In 1871, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that legislators could ban weapons that were "not usual" but could not ban "the usual arms of the citizen." The top courts of Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Michigan concurred that the right to arms encompassed weapons commonly owned by law-abiding people, including rifles.
AR-15s and similar rifles readily pass that common-use test. In January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry's trade association, reported that Americans own more than 32 million "modern sporting rifles," its preferred term for the models covered by "assault weapon" bans. Survey data suggest that somewhere between 16 million and 25 million Americans have owned AR-15-style rifles. Last year, a unanimous Supreme Court described the AR-15 as "the most popular rifle in the country."
According to Cook County and Connecticut, however, none of that matters. "Once it is established that a regulation pursues a legitimate public safety objective in a permissible manner, raw ownership numbers cannot immunize a firearm from regulation," Cook County says. It argues that opponents of its ordinance have misconstrued the significance of the common-use test and misunderstood how it interacts with Bruen.
"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," the Supreme Court said in Bruen. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'"
The common-use question, Cook County argues, figures only in the first Bruen step: "the inquiry whether the weapon at issue is one 'the Second Amendment protects.'" But even if ownership of AR-15s is covered by "the Second Amendment's plain text," it says, that does not resolve the question of whether they can be banned, which depends on the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test.
"This Court's decision in Bruen confirms that the Second Amendment's step-two inquiry does not insulate popularly owned firearms from regulation," the brief says. In Bruen, it was "undisputed" that "handguns are weapons 'in common use' today for self-defense," including "outside the home." But "instead of being the end of this Court's inquiry, that observation was just the beginning." The decision also included an "extended analysis" of the historical laws that New York cited to justify its "proper cause" requirement for carry permits. "If lawful common use alone were enough to forbid regulation," Cook County argues, "there would have been no need to engage in that careful and prolonged analysis."
The question in Bruen was not whether the Second Amendment precludes "regulation." It was whether New York's specific approach, which required residents to demonstrate a "special need" before they were allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, was consistent with the historical tradition. That is why the Court considered (and rejected) the purported historical analogs that New York offered.
Cook County conflates requirements for carry permits, the issue in Bruen, with an outright ban on ownership, the policy it is defending. Connecticut likewise blurs the distinction between carry restrictions and complete prohibition.
"The Bowie knife was 'widely carried by Americans of all stripes,' including 'upstanding citizens and villains' alike," Connecticut's brief says. "The widespread use of Bowie knives and other weapons for lawful purposes did not prevent dozens of States from restricting those weapons." But those laws generally restricted or banned public carry. They rarely made it illegal to acquire or possess a Bowie knife, which is the approach that Connecticut and Cook County have taken with AR-15s.
That policy is hard to reconcile with Heller. I will quote Sheridan again, since his comments made it clear that he would have preferred to uphold New Jersey's AR-15 ban. Under Heller, he said, "a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful." Given "the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point," he concluded, New Jersey's law "is unconstitutional" as applied to "the Colt AR-15 for use for self-defense in the home."
Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed and went further, extending that conclusion to "the full class of semi-automatic rifles" banned in New Jersey. "Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation," Judge Arianna Freeman, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in the majority opinion. "That principle resolves our inquiry here."
To beat back the challenges to their laws, Connecticut and Cook County will have to persuade the justices that the 3rd Circuit's understanding of Heller and Bruen is wrong, meaning they are free to ban firearms in common use for lawful purposes. That seems like a tall order, and Cook County's position is especially puzzling. According to its brief, the fact that a weapon is covered by the Second Amendment does not mean Americans have a right to possess it. The more you think about that claim, the less sense it makes.
On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that asks whether Colorado has unlawfully discriminated against a religious preschool because the school is barred from participating in the state's universal preschool program due to its refusal to accept LGBTQ families. In addition to involving multiple hot-button political and cultural issues, the case also has big implications for the future of federal antidiscrimination law.
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy is not about a state law that directly prohibits a religious preschool from operating. Rather, at issue here is a government requirement that any preschool that wants to participate in the state's universal preschool program, and receive the public benefits that follow, must first satisfy various criteria, including that "each preschool provider provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability."
According to the Catholic preschools overseen by the Archdiocese of Denver, however, complying with that rule would force the schools to violate their religious beliefs. "It is undisputed that these preschools would otherwise be eligible [universal preschool] providers," the schools told the Supreme Court. "They are excluded solely because of their religious exercise—namely, their religious practices of ensuring that all enrolling families are supportive of the Catholic Church's teachings on sex and marriage and of treating enrolled four-year-olds in accordance with their biological sex."
These schools can point to a pair of recent Supreme Court precedents that will very likely count in their favor. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Court held that if a state provides educational subsidies that help parents send their children to private schools, the state "cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious." Then, in Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court held that Maine's tuition assistance program violated the Constitution by excluding private schools that offered "sectarian" education. "A State's antiestablishment interest," the decision said, "does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."
I would expect the outcome of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy to follow in this same general pattern and hold something to the effect that when a state provides an educational public benefit, it must make some sort of accommodation for the religious views of the recipients.
In Other Legal News
Justice Elena Kagan made news a few months back when she defended her conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court from the oft-heard charge that they are totally in the tank for President Donald Trump. "I don't see this as a court that is just like, 'We're just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does.' You know, quite the opposite," Kagan said. "I think that that is a bad rap." In support of her argument, Kagan pointed to the fact that the Supreme Court had recently ruled against Trump on the two big issues that Trump himself valued the most: tariffs and birthright citizenship.
Kagan was in the news again on Tuesday, this time because she publicly blasted those same conservative colleagues for issuing decisions on voting rights and political gerrymandering that, in Kagan's words, have produced "a democracy that does not work as well as it should." According to Kagan, the Court's conservative majority "has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works."
Does this mean that Kagan has now stopped defending the conservative justices from the pro-Trump charge? Not at all. In fact, as The New York Timesput it, "she reiterated her defense of the conservative-dominated bench from a July appearance and said it was a 'bum rap' to suggest the court had been too deferential to Mr. Trump."
I don't know about you, but I find Kagan to be a refreshing public figure in these simplistic, partisan times. She is a staunch legal liberal with clearly stated objections to what the Supreme Court's conservative majority is getting up to, yet she refuses to be associated with the laziest progressive attacks on the Court. How many people of comparable public stature these days are willing to call out the shortcomings of their own side?
The battle to save the global court and its capacity to enforce accountability for the most heinous crimes is one struggle with many fronts, writes Marjorie Cohn.
A Russian ballistic missile fitted with a cluster warhead struck the historic Pecherskyi district of Kyiv overnight on 21–22 October 2026, damaging buildings near two of the Ukrainian capital’s principal religious complexes, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said.
The missile landed between the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, a UNESCO World Heritage site, and the Holy Presentation (Sviato-Vvedenskyi) Monastery. Monastery buildings, homes, shops, cafés and other civilian infrastructure sustained damage in the surrounding area.
Zelenskyy disclosed that Russian forces had used three cluster-equipped ballistic missiles during the assault. Ukrainian authorities described weapons designed to explode in the air as they approach their targets, distributing explosive submunitions over an area approximately 400 metres in diameter.
After receiving reports from officials overseeing emergency operations across Ukraine, the president accused Moscow of deliberately choosing a weapon capable of inflicting extensive civilian casualties in a densely populated district.
“This was a deliberate choice of weapon and area of deployment,” Zelenskyy said.
He maintained that there were no military installations in the vicinity and that the attack had been intended to inflict maximum damage on civilians and their property.
Religious Buildings and Civilian Properties Damaged
Pecherskyi is one of Kyiv’s oldest districts, containing religious institutions and architectural monuments associated with centuries of Ukrainian history.
Among them is the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, established in the 11th century and subsequently developed into an important centre of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
The complex includes historic churches, monasteries and an extensive system of underground caves. Together with Saint Sophia Cathedral and its related buildings, it forms part of a UNESCO World Heritage property that has appeared on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 2023.
Thursday’s explosion occurred in the area separating the Lavra from the Holy Presentation Monastery. Ukrainian authorities identified damage to buildings belonging to the latter, alongside neighbouring residential and commercial premises. Assessments of the destruction across the historic district were continuing.
This was not the first occasion in 2026 on which Russian weapons had damaged the area’s religious heritage.
On 15 June, a Russian drone struck the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra complex, causing severe damage to the Dormition Cathedral. Its roof and structural elements suffered extensive destruction, prompting UNESCO to undertake emergency stabilisation measures.
The October strike has again exposed the vulnerability of the capital’s historic religious buildings, as well as the civilian neighbourhoods surrounding them.
The Use of Cluster Weapons in Urban Areas
The reported choice of ammunition has particular implications for the investigation into the attack.
Whereas a conventional missile warhead delivers its explosive force around a principal impact point, cluster munitions release numerous smaller explosive devices capable of striking separate locations across a broad area.
In an urban environment, such weapons can cause casualties and destruction well beyond an intended target. Unexploded submunitions may remain dangerous after the initial attack, posing further risks to residents and emergency workers.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that deploying cluster munitions in populated areas creates a high likelihood of indiscriminate effects.
Under international humanitarian law, military operations must distinguish between civilian persons and objects and legitimate military targets. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
The reported deployment of cluster warheads in central Kyiv therefore raises questions about whether those requirements were observed. Zelenskyy’s account of the three missiles had not, at the time of reporting, been independently established through publicly available forensic evidence.
Russian Barrage Follows Diplomatic Contact with Washington
The Pecherskyi explosion was one incident in a much larger attack on the Ukrainian capital.
According to Zelenskyy, Russia launched 21 ballistic missiles against Kyiv in three successive waves overnight. Ukrainian authorities reported at least two people killed and more than 30 wounded, with strikes damaging apartment buildings, commercial premises, transport infrastructure and energy facilities.
The bombardment took place shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin met US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg on Wednesday, 21 October.
During their discussions, Putin indicated that Russia was prepared in principle to resume negotiations with Ukraine and the United States, potentially in November. However, no confirmed timetable emerged.
Witkoff’s visit followed consultations in Norway between American, Ukrainian and European representatives over possible arrangements to end the war.
The renewed diplomatic activity has done little to resolve the underlying disagreements. As EU Today has previously examined, Moscow continues to advance territorial demands while the parties remain divided over Ukraine’s future security guarantees.
Meanwhile, Kyiv faces an immediate requirement for additional air-defence ammunition.
Zelenskyy has repeatedly appealed for more Patriot interceptor missiles capable of engaging ballistic targets. Difficulties surrounding American military assistance and intelligence cooperation have increased tensions between Washington and Kyiv at a time when Russia is intensifying attacks against Ukrainian cities.
The latest strike also presents Ukrainian investigators with the task of establishing whether the reported use of cluster munitions against a historic civilian district constituted an unlawful attack.
For Zelenskyy, the bombardment following Putin’s latest diplomatic discussions demonstrates that Moscow’s military conduct remains unchanged. He has argued that Russia’s actions provide no evidence of a genuine intention to bring the war to an end.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has received the EU’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.
Reacting to EU Parliament president Roberta Metsola’s announcement of the prize winner on Thursday (22 October), the Hague-based court said it is “thankful” for the recognition of the court and its officials.
“This award comes at a time when the court and its officials face unprecedented challenges, including sanctions aimed at disrupting the court’s judicial mandate,” ICC president judge Tomoko Akane told EUobserver in a statement.
The parliament’s recognition “underscores the importance of […] support to enable the Court to carry out its mandate independently and impartially, in the service of justice and the victims of the gravest crimes,” said the Japanese judge.
The court’s win comes after US president Donald Trump put his weight behind Israeli efforts to discredit the international judicial body by extending sanctions against it.
The ICC investigates and tries individuals charged with war and human-rights related crimes. When it issued an arrest warrant in 2024 for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes, the US responded by sanctioning its judges.
EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the win, saying: “For victims of the world’s gravest crimes, justice means a voice. The ICC must be free to pursue its mission, independently, and without pressure or intimidation. Europe stands firmly behind president Tomoko Akane, the Court’s judges and officials, and their vital work for a world governed by rules.”
New sanctions against the court were announced by the Trump administration this month after the Nobel Peace Prize went to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge who concluded in a UN report that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Tomoka said: “While this prize recognises the work of the court in combating impunity and ensuring fair trials, it is also an important recognition of the role of international justice as a cornerstone of lasting peace. In a world marked by rising conflicts, there is no peace without justice and no security without law.”
Strasbourg stands for justice
French MEP Chloé Ridel initiated the ICC’s nomination for the Sakharov Prize on behalf of the Socialists & Democrats parliament group.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Login
