Given the vitriol gushing out of corporate media over the purchase of about two weeks’ worth of Russian diesel fuel, we just might be watching the beginning of the endgame in Ukraine.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
By Patrick LAWRENCE
Given the gush of vitriol and condemnation since Oct. 9, when Donald Trump announced his deal to import 5 million metric tons of Russian diesel, roughly 37 million barrels, one would think the president had surrendered the United States’ sovereignty to the Kremlin, or handed over the Ukrainians to the Russian army, or rankly betrayed the Europeans or altogether renounced what we picturesquely call Western civilization.
This is, indeed, what we read daily in the corporate press these days and what we are supposed to think. It is 2016 redux, it seems. Another round of Russiagate may not be far off, given 16 House Democrats have introduced a Prohibit Corrupt Russia Oil Deals Act and 12 senators now attack the diesel accord as “a gift to our adversary.”
If there is one thing essential to recall about those dreary years it is that the wobbly-from-the-first Russiagate edifice, the whole of it, was made of mis– and disinformation, hyperbole, innuendo, extravagant abuses of office and propaganda incessantly disseminated in corporate media.
It was, in short, the Deep State’s attempt to scuttle any effort to advance beyond the poisonous Russophobia it had spent a decade cultivating (taking my date from Vladimir Putin’s era-defining speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007).
It is the same again as Trump tries once more to end the war in Ukraine and refashion East–West relations, a project the old “MICIMATT”— the military-industrial, congressional, intelligence, media, academic and think tank blob — simply cannot abide.
Let us listen to this new round of rubbish with the recent past in mind.
“Donald Trump, meet Neville Chamberlain.” That is Tom Friedman, writing in The New York Times last week under the headline, “Trump’s Democracy–for–Diesel Deal Shames Us All.”
“When future students search online for ‘sellout,’ ‘appeaser’ or ‘traitor to his country’s core values,’” Friedman elaborates, “their two pictures will come up first, side by side.” There is no matching our Tom when it comes to overdrawn historical reference dressed up as intellectual gravitas.
Harold Meyerson, writing in The American Prospect Tuesday under the headline, “Why Putin Is Now Our Ally,” is unhappy that Americans are not angrier and more contemptuous than they appear to be in response to Trump’s latest démarche to Russia.
“We’ve grown so inured to Trump’s outrages,” he writes, “that his alliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime hasn’t yet stoked the level of horror and rage it deserves.”
Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime. We’re back to this, are we?
We’re also back to the good old Trump–Putin “bromance” bit, it seems, as in “Trump’s man-crush on the Russian dictator has been well documented and need not be recounted in all its unctuous detail.”
This bizarre suggestion of homophilia repeats a tiresome trope from the Russiagate years — never in the slightest documented, for the record — and this time comes from Tom Nichols, a neoliberal hack of long standing. Writing Oct. 18 in The Atlantic, Nichols wants us to see matters this way:
“Donald Trump has now abandoned pretense and is openly aiding the Kremlin in its war against a friend and partner of the U.S. The American commander in chief has abandoned the Western order, the most successful — and powerful — security arrangement in human history.”
Are we clear on all this? The corrupt, Nazi-infested regime in Kiev is America’s friend and partner, simple as that.
The Western order as we have it is the finest thing humanity has ever managed, and Donald J. Trump has forsaken this finest-ever order.
All because the Trumpster signed an agreement whereby the United States will purchase, all in, about two weeks’ worth of Russian diesel fuel.
Paranoia strikes deep, as should be plain to all as the imperium proceeds into its self-inflicted decline. Into the pages of The Atlantic it will creep whenever the topic is “Putin’s Russia” (as against “Russia”).
Trump’s ‘Simple’ Decision
How to account for this outpouring of nitwittery from all these pseuds? Why so suddenly does the world seem to be coming to an end? These are our questions.
Trump II has proven disastrously worse than Trump I, to state the obvious. He had a few good ideas the first time around: end the wars of adventure, bring the soldiers home, decommission NATO, a new détente with Moscow.
This time — and you have to credit the Trumpster for this, strange as it is to credit him with anything — he has only one. He still wants to restore relations with Russia to a working order of some kind, and this must begin with ending the war the Biden regime provoked very quickly after Trump was voted out of office.
Trump is a Manhattan property man for whom everything is transactional, we have to remember. Exploring “deals” does not figure at the higher end of statecraft — certainly not given all that is at issue between Russia and the West — but this is a question of method, not purpose. Let us not get lost in the former while losing sight of the latter.
Peaceful, constructive relations with Russia, based on an enduring settlement of benefit to all sides, are a good thing altogether to be welcomed, however often Americans and West Europeans are told any such eventuality would amount to the horror of horrors.
As everyone thinking about this has remarked, Trump’s immediate intent in striking his diesel deal is to get prices down as best he can before the midterm elections and to pretend the price crisis has causes other than the U.S.–Israeli assault on Iran.
I’m for setting the politics aside. A few days’ worth of diesel — all that can possibly arrive from Russian refineries before Nov. 3 — won’t make any difference, and Trump cannot but know this.
My mind goes to a remark Trump made on Truth Social, his digital bullhorn, at the beginning of this week in response to all the shrieking and shouting that followed his Oct. 9 announcement:
“My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.”
It is important to read this together with other things the Trump regime has got up to lately. While the United States is in plausible-denial mode, Kiev reports that it has disrupted some of the early-warning satellite intelligence vital to Ukraine’s defenses.
Elon Musk, apparently after consultation with the White House, has restricted Ukraine’s use of Starshield, the military-grade version of the Starlink communications system.
These are day-to-day lifelines. So is the Prioritized Ukraine Requirement List, the arrangement whereby the United States sells arms to the Europeans, who send them on to Ukraine. To date the volume of shipments through the P.U.R.L. channel has come to $7 billion. Trump is reportedly threatening to end the program.
Atop all this he has suspended implementation of a sanctions bill he signed into law only a month ago. Concurrently, the Witkoff–Kushner duo presented Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian dictator, with a new settlement proposal that reads to me like a condensed version of the very creditable 28–point plan they presented a year ago next month.
Something is afoot, it seems to me. I see a thought-through strategy in all this. I see renewed determination on Trump’s part.
Trump is out of the closet at last — and perfectly accurate — as he asserts that Zelensky is the principal impediment to a settlement accord and, so, should be either removed from office or forced to accept defeat and recognize Russia’s legitimate interests.
Trump’s new push to bring the Ukraine crisis to a close, to be clear on this point, is not a betrayal of the Ukrainian people. It is just the opposite.
There are a lot of reasons to question how far Trump will get either in ending the war or restoring relations with Russia to a livable détente. But if he maintains the present momentum, we may be watching the beginning of the endgame in Ukraine.
This is a “may,” conditional verb required. But it is this prospect that has all the warmongers in the MICIMATT complex in a dither.
Strange it will be if a president so wrong about so much manages to achieve the peace he is after. But maybe the Tom Friedmans and the Tom Nichols and the rest of their kind are useful as a mirror.
Maybe the extent of their panic is a measure of the Trumpster’s chances of success this time around.
© The New York Times
NICOLAS TUCAT / AFP via Getty Images
As France grapples with another weekend of cost-of-living protests, some of its most famous streets and landmarks are boarded up.
On Saturday, protesters took to the streets in major cities across France, including Paris and Marseille.
Though police in riot gear deployed tear gas and water cannons to disperse the demonstrations, the looting and rioting seen during last week's protests did not materialize.
In a statement, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said that as of 7:30 p.m. local time, authorities had made about 1,000 arrests.
NICOLAS TUCAT / AFP via Getty Images
Last weekend, student-led cost-of-living protests devolved in some places into violent riots and looting.
This weekend, the interior ministry increased its police presence, deploying some 70,000 officers across the country on Saturday. The protests drew support from various groups and organizations, including the gilets jaunes, or yellow vests.
On Saturday morning, military officers and a multipurpose intervention vehicle could be seen positioned outside Paris' National Assembly building.
Thibaud MORITZ / AFP via Getty Images
In Marseille, police deployed tear gas and water cannons to break up protests. Videos from the scene showed lines of police charging protesters.
Sameer AL-DOUMY / AFP via Getty Images
In the French capital on Saturday, thousands of officers largely prevented looting by keeping protesters to a predetermined parade route.
Videos showed demonstrations descending into melees as officers attempted to disperse crowds with tear gas and batons.
Luc Auffret/Anadolu via Getty Images
Luxury stores including Dior, Louis Vuitton, Cartier, and Moncler all have stores on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées.
Some 1,500 businesses were targeted in last weekend's vandalism, said Alexandre Bompard, the CEO of Carrefour, one of France's largest supermarket chains.
Luc Auffret/Anadolu via Getty Images
Business leaders, including Thierry Guibert, CEO of Lacoste, and Nicolas Houzé, executive chairman of Galeries Lafayette, all spoke out in the aftermath of last weekend's damage.
"We cannot allow violence to destroy what generations have put so much energy into building," Guibert wrote on X.
Mouneb Taim/Anadolu via Getty Images
Among the areas targeted in last weekend's violence in Paris were the Marais shopping district and the Place de la République.
Speaking to Business Insider's correspondent, Nathan Rennolds, last weekend, one shopkeeper in Paris said looters had "taken everything."
Wu Huiwo/Xinhua via Getty Images
In a notice on its website, the Louvre says the museum would be closed on Saturday and all reservations would be reimbursed. The Louvre closed its doors earlier this week after student protests blocked the entrances.
The Grand Palais and Musée d'Orsay are also closed for the day.
In an update issued on Thursday, the US Embassy in France warned Americans to avoid demonstrations and said curfews across the country, including in some Paris neighborhoods, might continue. It also advised Americans in Paris for the NFL game on Sunday, October 25, to exercise caution.
Muhammed Said Tako/Anadolu via Getty Images
Protests are also expected in countries including Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Albania. Police in Tirana, Albania's capital, deployed tear gas against anti-government student protesters on Saturday.
Introduction by Gospa News Editorial Staff
Peter W.H. Stassen is a highly experienced Dutch attorney and civil litigator who has practised law since 2002. A graduate of Leiden University, his career has encompassed complex civil litigation, corporate and insolvency law, directors’ liability, commercial disputes and proceedings before the Dutch courts and courts of appeal.
Early in his career, he was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee by the District Court of Oost-Brabant, and he has since completed numerous postgraduate specialist programmes, including corporate law, insolvency law, corporate liability, real estate law, international contracting, mergers and acquisitions, and civil cassation and procedural law. In 2015, he received the Grotius Fellowship.
Today, Stassen stands alone as the attorney conducting the extraordinary civil proceedings at the heart of The Narrative on Trial. His own practice describes the ongoing case as one in which he acts exclusively for citizens against the State of the Netherlands and other involved parties, placing before the Court the legal proposition that COVID-19 should be considered part of the project known as “The Great Reset.”
He is running this litigation himself: carrying the legal burden of an exceptionally substantial case and confronting defendants including the State of the Netherlands, Albert Bourla, Bill Gates, Mark Rutte and others.
Attorney Peter W.H. Stassen receives a hero’s welcome outside the District Court of the Northern Netherlands following the substantive hearing on the merits which took place today.
“They know we have crucial evidence that the whole Covid-19 narrative is fake”
Expert witnesses Sasha Latypova and Dr Joseph Sansone, as well as claimant Reggie Dijkstra offer their reflections of the day’s events.
Originally published by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. on The Defender – Children’s Health Defense website
Original Title: Gates, Bourla on Trial in Netherlands Accused of ‘Great Reset’ Scheme at Vaccine Injury Hearing
All Headlines below and links to previous Gospa News investigations have been added in the Aftermath by our Editorial Staff
An attorney for seven Dutch plaintiffs in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit against Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla accused Gates and others of orchestrating the pandemic to help usher in the “Great Reset,” a global economic, political and social system promoted by the World Economic Forum.
During oral arguments Thursday, attorney Peter Stassen told a packed courtroom that the COVID-19 vaccines were akin to a bioweapon, developed as part of a broader global effort to strip democratic and individual rights.
Speaking outside the courthouse in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, Stassen said Thursday’s hearing “was about publicly telling what is happening in this courtroom and what is the real case. The real case is that COVID-19 was not a disease but was a project.”
He accused Gates and Bourla of participating in that project, which he said was coordinated and undemocratic. He also accused the defendants of using censorship and propaganda to hide their intentions while promoting the COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective.”
COVID-19 vaccines were developed and procured as military countermeasures, bypassing the standard development and approval pipeline for such products. By developing the shots as military countermeasures, they bypassed traditional safety regulations, leading to widespread injury, Stassen said.
Stassen said that while this is a civil case, he believes the defendants’ actions constitute serious criminal offenses that violate global treaties and the Nuremberg Code.
For their part, attorneys for the defendants “claimed the shots saved millions of lives and that they were safe and effective,” said Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist, critic of the mRNA shots and one of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs.
“They basically said, like a parrot, that all of Stassen’s accusations were either conspiracy theory or based on medical reports that are from people who are not neutral in this case,” said Ido Dijkstra, a Dutch journalist and the editor-in-chief of De Andere Krant, who attended the hearing.
Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst said the defense did not respond to Stassen’s assertions that COVID-19 was a project. “There was no response to that at all, nothing.”
Journalist Penny Marie, who has reported on the case, told The Defender that Stassen’s arguments “mirror what so many people worldwide say and have experienced and investigated.”
The defendants’ legal team did acknowledge that they were “touched” by the suffering of the vaccine-injured plaintiffs. Terhorst said the five living plaintiffs face “immense problems” with their health.
Dijkstra said the presiding judge on the three-judge panel appeared to “support the mainstream narrative,” but “gave the impression that she wanted to understand Stassen’s reasoning.”
Thursday’s hearing stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines — including two who have since died — against Gates, Bourla and 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.
According to Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst, who is not connected to the case but attended the hearing, none of the defendants appeared in court.
A ruling is expected as early as December but may be delayed until February 2027.
During oral arguments, Stassen addressed the court’s refusal to allow his team’s expert witnesses to testify in person. Earlier this week, the court limited the witnesses to video statements presenting their arguments.
Defense attorneys attacked the credentials of some of the witnesses. For instance, they claimed that Sasha Latypova — a former pharmaceutical research and development executive — has only a bachelor’s degree and is unqualified to provide testimony on scientific and medical matters.
Latypova disputed the claims, telling those gathered outside the courthouse that she has a “graduate degree from Dartmouth College and 25 years of pharmaceutical R&D and regulatory experience” — including interacting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and Japanese regulators “on behalf of my clients.”
Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and another of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, told The Defender that Bourla’s attorneys questioned the credentials of another witness — Mike Yeadon, Ph.D. Fitts said she was “surprised” by their claims.
“Yeadon served as vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit and worked for many years at Pfizer. Does Pfizer make it a practice to staff the company with unqualified people in senior positions? Does this explain why Pfizer appointed a veterinarian to be the CEO?” Fitts asked, referring to Bourla.
Terhorst said it is “very strange” for Dutch courts to not allow oral testimony by plaintiffs’ witnesses, as otherwise, “it is not easy to substantiate your claims.”
Despite the limitation, Terhorst said the witnesses bolstered the plaintiffs’ case. “The case is important based on the evidence provided by key witnesses,” she said.
“I think we [gave] a very clear sign to the court that there can be not justice if the court is not willing to look further at this expert evidence, because you can come to a judgment based on truth and a real discussion between the parties,” Stassen said during the press conference.
In an interview with journalist Fiona Rose Diamond earlier this week, Stassen said the plaintiffs “felt misled” by the Dutch government and by those who promoted the COVID-19 shots in the media.
“They felt misled by the whole system … And they were misled because they were told that this was a safe and effective vaccine, and in fact, the only way out of [the] crisis,” Stassen said.
At Thursday’s press conference, Stassen added that the plaintiffs sued not just because of their injuries, but because “they want the truth.”
Fitts highlighted the significance of the case, noting that under the Dutch legal system, the vaccine-injured can file lawsuits in response to their injuries — contrasting this with legal restrictions the injured face in the U.S.
“The PREP Act has made it impossible for such lawsuits to be brought in the United States,” Fitts said, referring to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005. Under the PREP Act, anyone who produces or administers emergency countermeasures, such as the COVID-19 shots, is shielded from legal liability.
Terhorst noted that the vaccine-injured in the Netherlands face other obstacles.
“Vaccine injury is not even recognized in the Netherlands,” she said. She noted that some vaccine-injured people briefly received treatment under public health programs that the Dutch state earmarked for long COVID patients. However, this treatment was later “terminated.”
Terhorst said lawyers for the Dutch state “said nothing” during the hearing about offering compensation to these victims, including the plaintiffs and their families.
This is one of several obstacles the plaintiffs have faced as this case has progressed. Last year, another attorney for the plaintiffs, Arno van Kessel, was arrested “with considerable force,” as part of a nationwide sweep by Dutch police against alleged members of a “sovereign citizen” movement with a “potential intent to use violence” against the Dutch state.
Terhorst said van Kessel spent seven months imprisoned in a high-security prison, lost his license to practice law, is not allowed to leave the country and was fitted with an ankle monitor — which was removed Thursday, in parallel with the hearing.
A ruling is expected as early as December, though it could be delayed until February 2027.
Originally published by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. on The Defender – Children’s Health Defense website
Related articles in The Defender
RELATED ARTICLES BY GOSPA NEWS
GOSPA NEWS – BIG PHARMA – VACCINES – TURBO-CANCER INVESTIGATIONS
Maria Korneeva/Getty Images
When Hans Romine finished his architecture degree in 2025, the 24-year-old began looking for work. After about 50 job applications yielded a single interview appointment, he started feeling despondent.
That's when a friend told him about a new show called 877UNMPLYD.
The show is on Twitch, a streaming platform favored by gamers and fans, but has an unlikely host: Jeremy Zimmer, the former CEO of United Talent Agency, along with digital-savvy producer Rachel Braun. The show offers career advice, discusses labor market news, and fields live call-ins from people looking for work.
When Romine called in, he mentioned he'd spent a few months as a recreation supervisor, building morale at an isolated research station in Antarctica. Zimmer and Braun found that the most interesting part of his whole story, and told him to play it up in applications and interviews.
Romine took their advice, and when he went in for that interview, he highlighted his experiences out on the tundra. After he landed the job, he called back in to let the hosts know.
That's the kind of win Zimmer and Braun hope to replicate. Over their first season, the duo hosted 12 episodes, with one episode filmed live on the streets of New York garnering over 54,000 views.
The show is a small experiment in career guidance at a moment when the entry-level job market is getting harder to navigate — especially in New York City. A new report from Partnership for New York City, a nonprofit business advocacy group, found that the number of entry-level jobs has shrunk disproportionately among professions highly exposed to AI; entry-level postings in design, media, and writing fell by 40.6%.
Nationally, employment in white-collar industries has fallen, even as output has gone up — indicating that AI might be effectively replacing entry-level white-collar work.
That dearth of entry-level opportunities is part of what spawned the show, a partnership between TikTok savant Adam Faze and the economic mobility nonprofit Schultz Family Foundation. Judith Dubin, the head of content at the foundation, said that they'd drilled down on investments in career navigation after recognizing how difficult it is to be graduating from high school or college into the current labor market.
"The current job marketplace is so disrupted with the advent of AI," Dubin said. "It's just an additional barrier for young people."
In August, Zimmer and Braun set up a desk on a plaza at Baruch College, with a sign that said "Ask a CEO," and fielded questions from students. One student asked for advice on how to negotiate salary expectations, especially in the interview process. Braun said that not all advice-seekers are new grads: One Gen X marketer called in after being laid off, feeling pushed out of the tech industry.
Going into the show, Zimmer focused on what it must feel like when getting a job is no longer as simple as putting your head down, working hard, and expecting things to work out.
"That age-old mantra doesn't feel as relevant today," Zimmer said. He's been struck by the contrast between callers who are hyper-focused on what they want, eschewing any concern about why that can't happen, and those who are baffled that they've applied for hundreds of jobs and haven't gotten any interviews. He's found both the naivety and the determination of the callers exciting.
Braun, the show's other host and a producer, said that AI emerged as a major theme throughout their first season — both the opportunities it presented and the way that it was shaking up the entry-level job hunt.
Romine, who landed a job, hopes that employers can once again understand the value of having fresh talent on their teams. But as the labor market continues its entry-level contraction, getting a leg up — even if it's through advice on a Twitch show — is ever more important.
"In the meantime, students and graduates need to really figure out how to work the current system and make themselves stand out in such an intense market," Romine said.
: Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Uber and Lyft often talk about the flexibility of working as a driver on their apps.
That aspect of the gig has attracted moms, among other people who often want to earn money outside a 9-to-5 schedule. The job can be appealing to mothers who need to juggle school drop-offs, childcare, and other obligations of parenting.
Others, including single moms, say they feel stuck in ride-hailing work and end up having to drive for Uber or Lyft at set times anyway, depending on when the most passengers need rides.
With costs like childcare and college rising, Uber and Lyft offer some moms a way to make extra money — if they can earn enough on the apps and keep costs like gas and car maintenance under control.
Business Insider wants to speak with moms who drive for Uber, Lyft, or other ride-hailing apps. We want to hear about how you combine the gig with taking care of your kids, including both what's working and what isn't. Please fill out the survey below.
Pat Zawko
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Pat Zawko, 67, who lives in upstate New York and works full-time as a nurse. Zawko raised her grandson from birth, and she is now helping him raise her great-grandson. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
My husband and I raised our grandson from age 5 months to adulthood. We are now helping him raise his son, whom he raises as a single parent.
I was raised in upstate New York in a very rural area. I was one of nine children, the first girl after six boys. My grandmother helped shape who I am today. I didn't go to college until I was 29, and I became a nurse. I progressed to completing my Ph.D.
All our children are adopted. We made that decision very consciously. I found out that I couldn't have biological children, so in 1982, we adopted our first son. He had lots of health issues, and he was in and out of psychiatric facilities. We paid for all of his rehabs and facilities, and he didn't qualify for any subsidies back then. My husband and I decided to adopt two more children, and both of them are very successful in their adult lives.
When he was 17, he and a young lady ran away to Florida, and they had a child. They were involved with drugs, and we got custody of their son when he was 5 months old. My son died when he was 23.
Raising our grandson wasn't really a choice, and we had to do what was right. He had special needs, which brought with it an entirely new set of needs medically, psychologically, and educationally. There were many challenges in raising him. We couldn't get him insurance for about six months. My husband didn't grow up with money, and he worked very hard in his life, but he never questioned taking the money that he had saved long before he met me and pouring it into these children.
He went down a similar road to his biological father. He got a young girl pregnant, and he became a single dad. He was left with this baby. We were living in Ohio at the time, and we moved back to New York to help him. The parents of the baby's mother are wonderful people and are very supportive financially, physically, and emotionally. There's never tension between us. My great-grandson's birth mother hasn't seen him in two and a half years.
When we took in our grandson, my other children were 10 and 11. We didn't have any baby stuff. We didn't have day care. We were used to sleeping all night because our kids were pretty independent.
Getting my grandson upset the equilibrium of the family. We had to give our kids the attention they needed, but we also had a baby with different needs.
My grandson is 25 now. Back when we started raising him, nobody was talking about the financial and emotional impact that grandparents raising grandchildren has. Nobody stopped to look at how it impacts family dynamics. We couldn't get help. You're stretching out that time period when you're parenting, where you think that you can't be a grandmother because you have to parent this child.
I see it more frequently in my profession, where grandparents, some of them older than I am, bring in grandchildren, sometimes four or five little ones running around.
My grandson needs a fair amount of support with his autism diagnosis. It's a huge transition for him, and he's needed lots of support and guidance.
Now that my grandson has a son, I can finally be a grandmother; before this, we were our grandson's only parents. There were times that I felt robbed of being a grandmother with my grandson, as we had to be parents. I wanted to spoil him and send him on his way, but I couldn't.
Now I am technically a great-grandmother, and being able to be a grandmother for the first time. I am overjoyed and thrilled to finally be a grandma and not a parent. I can spoil him, play with him, teach him old songs, and send him home with his dad.
I still work full-time at 67, partly because raising grandchildren is very expensive. I often put in 12-hour night shifts at the hospital. I also had to pay for cancer treatments that ate through my retirement. We poured much of our life savings into making sure he had everything he could to become a productive member of society. He has a home and a car. He works full-time. He's able to experience success in being a parent, which neither he nor I ever dreamed was possible.
We know we did the right thing, but you don't think about the strain it puts on your finances, especially as you approach retirement in your later years. It takes a village to be successful as grandparents raising grandchildren. We don't have the energy that we did when we were 30.
For 35 years, we raised kids, and now we have to take care of ourselves, which is not nearly as easy as one might think. We feel the pinch now with our health. But these kids have been worth the investment.
My great-grandson is 3 years old, and helping raise him is the greatest thing I've ever done. He's the light of our life. They don't live far from us, and the baby often stays with us. We get to impact his life on the level that grandparents should. We're probably more active in his life than the average grandparent. He knows nothing other than absolute unconditional love.
When he comes here, we call him the "hurricane" because he trashes the house. When he leaves, we clean it up and take joy in that. He's able to be a kid. We don't need to worry about his doctor's appointments or getting him into preschool.
My other son came by and saw we had given the baby Cheetos. He said, "You would never let us eat that. How come you're letting him?" I told him it's because I don't have to worry about all the other stuff. I understand that a Cheeto is not going to ruin his life, whereas when you're raising your own children, you are so worried about everything that you're going to make a mistake that's going to derail their life.
I used to say that we can make every generation better. If my great-grandson can have a better life than his father, and his father can have a better life than his father, that's the goal.
Viaggiare a novembre senza spendere una fortuna è possibile, soprattutto scegliendo destinazioni raggiungibili con voli diretti low cost e città in cui anche il pernottamento ha prezzi accessibili. Le opportunità per organizzare un weekend o una breve vacanza non mancano.
Analizzando le offerte disponibili sui motori di ricerca per voli e hotel, e prendendo in considerazione le partenze da alcuni dei principali aeroporti italiani, sono diverse le mete interessanti per chi vuole contenere il budget.
Nel dettaglio:
Fuori dal podio ma altrettanto economici troviamo:
A chiudere la classifica ci sono infine:
Di seguito la tabella riepilogativa di tutte le offerte di voli diretti e hotel a 4 stelle utilizzati per questo articolo.
| Aeroporto di Partenza | Destinazione | Volo Diretto da | Hotel da |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milano Malpensa | Tirana | € 21 | € 34 |
| Milano Malpensa | Siviglia | € 33 | € 45 |
| Milano Malpensa | Palermo | € 30 | € 44 |
| Milano Malpensa | Agadir | € 30 | € 31 |
| Milano Malpensa | Marrakech | € 38 | € 33 |
| Milano Malpensa | Varsavia | € 30 | € 47 |
| Milano Malpensa | Cracovia | € 32 | € 30 |
| Milano Malpensa | Varna | € 49 | € 22 |
| Milano Malpensa | Manchester | € 30 | € 52 |
| Milano Malpensa | Londra | € 30 | € 44 |
| Milano Malpensa | Birmingham | € 36 | € 38 |
| Milano Malpensa | Liverpool | € 36 | € 33 |
| Milano Malpensa | Oporto | € 35 | € 43 |
| Milano Malpensa | Lisbona | € 46 | € 47 |
| Milano Malpensa | Faro | € 50 | € 57 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Praga | € 50 | € 38 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Palermo | € 30 | € 44 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Trapani | € 39 | € 37 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Siviglia | € 42 | € 45 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Sofia | € 40 | € 53 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Varna | € 46 | € 22 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Marsiglia | € 30 | € 53 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Lourdes | € 39 | € 45 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Tolosa | € 41 | € 64 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Nizza | € 51 | € 43 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Varsavia | € 42 | € 47 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Katowice | € 44 | € 41 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Cracovia | € 48 | € 30 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Tirana | € 30 | € 34 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Manchester | € 39 | € 52 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Londra | € 46 | € 44 |
| Roma Fiumicino | Birmingham | € 49 | € 38 |
| Bari | Tirana | € 28 | € 34 |
| Bari | Bologna | € 30 | € 47 |
| Bari | Venezia | € 30 | € 45 |
| Bari | Palermo | € 30 | € 44 |
| Bari | Milano | € 30 | € 45 |
| Bari | Roma | € 30 | € 48 |
| Bari | Budapest | € 32 | € 37 |
| Bari | Norimberga | € 46 | € 49 |
| Bari | Nizza | € 47 | € 43 |
| Bari | Vienna | € 47 | € 50 |
| Bari | Londra | € 48 | € 44 |
| Palermo | Madrid | € 41 | € 58 |
| Palermo | Bologna | € 27 | € 47 |
| Palermo | Venezia | € 28 | € 45 |
| Palermo | Tirana | € 30 | € 34 |
| Palermo | Londra | € 36 | € 44 |
| Palermo | Varsavia | € 41 | € 47 |
| Palermo | Cracovia | € 47 | € 30 |
| Palermo | Marsiglia | € 48 | € 53 |
| Palermo | Nizza | € 56 | € 43 |
| Palermo | Budapest | € 49 | € 37 |
| Palermo | Marrakech | € 51 | € 33 |
| Verona | Tirana | € 25 | € 34 |
| Verona | Londra | € 31 | € 44 |
| Verona | Manchester | € 40 | € 52 |
| Verona | Birmingham | € 47 | € 38 |
| Verona | Madrid | € 34 | € 58 |
Disclaimer: le tariffe dei voli e i prezzi per il pernottamento in hotel sono quelle che risultano al momento della rilevazione (ottobre 2026) e possono cambiare in base alla disponibilità, alle date selezionate, all’anticipo della prenotazione e alle condizioni delle singole compagnie aeree o strutture.
Dalle pendici dell’Etna alle isole minori, passando per le province occidentali e sud-orientali, Gambero Rosso nella sua guida Vini d’Italia 2027 ha inserito ben 31 vini siciliani, premiati con il riconoscimento “Tre Bicchieri”. A dominare la scena quest’anno non sono soltanto i rossi: tra le etichette premiate, i bianchi e i vini dolci o fortificati sono più numerosi, 20 contro 11.
La selezione siciliana del 2027 mostra come il valore del vino regionale non sia più legato a una sola tipologia o a un ristretto gruppo di denominazioni. Le migliori etichette scelte da Gambero Rosso infatti comprendono vini dell’Etna, denominazioni storiche, vitigni autoctoni e produzioni delle isole minori.
Di seguito, l’elenco completo dei vini siciliani che hanno ottenuto il massimo riconoscimento:
Anche se i vini rossi continuano a rappresentare una componente fondamentale dell’identità enologica regionale, il peso di bianchi, vini dolci e fortificati nella selezione dimostra che la Sicilia può competere non soltanto attraverso vini potenti e strutturati, ma anche con etichette caratterizzate da freschezza e precisione.
La Sicilia è uno dei territori vitivinicoli più articolati d’Italia. L’estensione dei vigneti, la varietà dei paesaggi e la presenza di numerosi microclimi rendono difficile descrivere la produzione regionale attraverso poche caratteristiche comuni. Le condizioni che si incontrano nelle aree costiere di Trapani, nei territori collinari dell’entroterra agrigentino, nelle zone sud-orientali e sui versanti dell’Etna possono essere profondamente diverse.
Questa eterogeneità costituisce una risorsa economica e produttiva importante perché permette alle aziende di lavorare su vitigni differenti, sviluppare identità territoriali riconoscibili e raggiungere segmenti di mercato che cercano prodotti con caratteristiche specifiche. La qualità, però, non dipende soltanto dalla varietà coltivata, ma anche dall’altitudine, dall’esposizione dei vigneti, dalla composizione dei suoli e dalle scelte adottate in cantina.
Il Grillo è uno dei protagonisti di questa evoluzione. Storicamente legato anche alla produzione del Marsala, oggi viene interpretato in modo sempre più articolato, dando origine a vini fermi capaci di esprimere freschezza, struttura e carattere territoriale. Anche il Carricante contribuisce a definire il nuovo volto della viticoltura isolana, trovando sull’Etna condizioni particolarmente favorevoli per esprimere acidità e tensione gustativa. Un vitigno in crescita è infine il Catarratto, che sta progressivamente superando la reputazione di uva destinata prevalentemente alle produzioni di grandi volumi, anche se quest’anno non figura tra le etichette premiate.
Non a caso, l’Etna occupa una posizione centrale nella selezione dei Tre Bicchieri 2027. Le sue condizioni pedoclimatiche, la presenza di vigneti in quota e la diversità dei suoli contribuiscono a creare vini con caratteristiche differenti rispetto a quelli prodotti in altre aree dell’Isola. Questo è un valore aggiunto per le aziende, che oltre alla quantità venduta, devono puntare a costruire un’identità riconoscibile e posizionare le proprie bottiglie in fasce di prezzo coerenti con la qualità espressa, così da differenziare l’offerta siciliana in un mercato internazionale competitivo.
La selezione della guida Vini d’Italia 2027 comprende numerose espressioni della produzione enologica del Trentino Alto Adige.
Dai Pinot Bianco e Chardonnay ai Pinot Nero, Lagrein e Gewürztraminer, fino ai vini delle valli alpine, i migliori vini della regione premiati con i Tre Bicchieri da Gambero Rosso raccontano una viticoltura capace di valorizzare territori, altitudini e vitigni differenti, con etichette che si distinguono per qualità e identità.
Gambero Rosso nella sua guida ha dedicato due sezioni alle produzioni vitivinicole di questa regione, pubblicando due elenchi distinti per il Trentino e l’Alto Adige.
La scelta rispecchia la diversa identità dei due territori vitivinicoli, caratterizzati da tradizioni produttive, denominazioni, vitigni e condizioni pedoclimatiche specifiche:
Il Trentino si presenta alla selezione 2027 con 14 etichette. Il riconoscimento valorizza soprattutto il Trentodoc, espressione del metodo classico di montagna, ma non si limita alle bollicine. In questo elenco dei migliori trovano spazio anche vini fermi bianchi e rossi.
Ecco la lista completa dei vini trentini che hanno ottenuto i Tre Bicchieri nella guida Vini d’Italia 2027 di Gambero Rosso:
L’Alto Adige conta invece 26 etichette premiate con i Tre Bicchieri 2027. La lista comprende vini bianchi, rossi, spumanti e interpretazioni di vitigni aromatici, mettendo in evidenza la capacità del territorio di valorizzare le caratteristiche di singole zone e vigneti.
Questi sono i vini altoatesini premiati nella guida, con le rispettive annate e cantine produttrici:
Mentre l’attenzione pubblica è concentrata sulle vetrine rotte di Milano, nel Sud Italia si allargano le proteste che, in questi giorni, hanno visto mobilitarsi il comparto della panificazione artigianale. Anche in questo caso c’entra il caro prezzi, che sta aggravando la situazione di chi già denuncia da tempo i rapporti sempre più complicati con la grande distribuzione organizzata.
Le contestazioni arrivano dalla Calabria e, anche se diverse, si intrecciano con quelle degli autotrasportatori, poiché riportano al centro il tema del costo del cibo e della sostenibilità economica delle piccole imprese.
La mobilitazione dei panificatori è iniziata il 16 ottobre 2026 a Cosenza, quando 31 artigiani dell’Alto Ionio cosentino hanno deciso di unirsi alla protesta degli autotrasportatori lungo la statale 106, nella piana di Sibari. Dopo una prima serrata di due giorni, la manifestazione è proseguita fino a martedì 20 ottobre, per far luce sulle difficoltà di un settore composto in larga parte da piccole imprese familiari.
A preoccupare è stato soprattutto l’annuncio relativo a possibili aumenti dei listini all’ingrosso che, se confermato, renderebbe impossibile mantenere in equilibrio i conti senza trasferire integralmente sui consumatori l’aumento delle spese. Il prezzo del pane potrebbe infatti passare da 3 a 3,80 euro al chilo a partire dal prossimo novembre in alcuni esercizi.
L’aumento ipotizzato è pari a 80 centesimi al chilo, ovvero circa il 26,7% in più rispetto al prezzo iniziale. Se applicato, significherebbe spendere 4 euro in più per acquistare cinque chili di pane rispetto a quanto si pagherebbe con il listino precedente.
Secondo quanto riferito da Monti al Corriere della Sera, tra le voci che stanno incidendo maggiormente sui bilanci c’è la farina, il cui prezzo sarebbe aumentato di 10 euro al quintale dalla metà di settembre, ma anche i rincari del gas e dell’elettricità, indispensabili per alimentare i forni e mantenere operativi i laboratori.
Un ulteriore elemento riguarda i materiali per il confezionamento. Per carta e plastica, gli aumenti segnalati arriverebbero fino al 50%, con un impatto significativo sulle attività che devono preparare e consegnare quotidianamente il pane a negozi e supermercati.
Accanto al caro materie prime, c’è poi il problema del costo del lavoro. La panificazione artigianale richiede spesso turni notturni o nelle prime ore del mattino, perché il pane deve essere pronto per la vendita quando i clienti iniziano la giornata. Questo comporta spese maggiori per la gestione del personale, che si vanno ad aggiungere ai rincari del periodo, e che rendono insostenibile il proseguimento di molte attività.
Pino Cesarini, panificatore che lavora insieme a tre familiari e due dipendenti, ha richiamato l’attenzione proprio sulla necessità di agevolazioni contributive per le assunzioni. A lui si è unito anche Eugenio Bettarini Briatico, panificatore di Francavilla Marittima, che ha evidenziato le difficoltà di sostenere salari e spese crescenti. Questo perché per le imprese di dimensioni ridotte, mantenere un organico sufficiente è essenziale, ma può diventare economicamente difficile quando aumentano le spese e i ricavi non crescono allo stesso ritmo.
Tra le ragioni della protesta c’è infine il rapporto con la grande distribuzione organizzata. Produttori e panificatori che riforniscono supermercati e che sono coinvolti nella mobilitazione hanno denunciato pressioni sui listini di vendita e una gestione penalizzante dei margini commerciali. Nello specifico, secondo le testimonianze degli operatori, alcuni supermercati avrebbero preteso di trattenere per sé fino al 50% dei rincari applicati al prezzo del pane al pubblico, lasciando ai panificatori una quota insufficiente a coprire gli effettivi aumenti dei costi delle materie prime e dell’energia.
È anche per questo che i panificatori chiedono di rivedere i rapporti lungo la filiera, affinché la distribuzione del rischio commerciale non finisca per gravare soprattutto sui produttori più piccoli.
“Assisterete al più grande aumento dei prezzi dei biglietti aerei, direi, della storia in Europa nei prossimi 12 mesi”, lo ha dichiarato Michael O’Leary, amministratore delegato di Ryanair. L’avvertimento è stato lanciato il 20 ottobre 2026 durante una conferenza stampa a Bruxelles e, stando alle giustificazioni date dal Ceo, non sembrerebbe essere oggi un’eventualità così improbabile.
La previsione di O’Leary si fonda su due fattori principali:
Si tratta di due dinamiche che, agendo contemporaneamente, potrebbero spingere verso l’alto i prezzi dei biglietti. Quando il costo del carburante cresce rapidamente, infatti, le compagnie devono decidere come assorbire la spesa aggiuntiva. Possono quindi ridurre i margini di profitto, cercare risparmi in altre aree oppure trasferire almeno una parte dei maggiori costi sui passeggeri, attraverso tariffe più elevate.
La combinazione tra carburante più caro e minore disponibilità di posti, poi, potrebbe creare le condizioni per un trend al rialzo sempre più sostenuto. Quando la domanda rimane elevata ma diminuisce il numero di sedili disponibili, come in ogni economia, le aziende hanno un maggiore margine nell’aumentare i prezzi, soprattutto sulle rotte e nelle date più richieste.
L’amministratore delegato di Ryanair, nel suo intervento, ha parlato di aumenti compresi tra il 10% e il 20% nel giro di un anno. Se le cose dovessero andare veramente così, gli incrementi riguarderebbero senza alcuna distinzione sia i voli low cost che le tratte standard, fino a ripercuotersi sugli spostamenti a medio e lungo raggio (nazionali e internazionali).
Di seguito, alcuni esempi di quanto potrebbe arrivare a costare un volo:
| Prezzo attuale | Con aumento del 10% | Con aumento del 15% | Con aumento del 20% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 € | 33,00 € | 34,50 € | 36,00 € |
| 50 € | 55,00 € | 57,50 € | 60,00 € |
| 100 € | 110,00 € | 115,00 € | 120,00 € |
| 200 € | 220,00 € | 230,00 € | 240,00 € |
| 300 € | 330,00 € | 345,00 € | 360,00 € |
Il peso maggiore ricadrebbe sulle famiglie. Per quattro passeggeri, ad esempio, quattro biglietti da 100 euro ciascuno costerebbero complessivamente 400 euro. Con un aumento del 20%, la spesa salirebbe a 480 euro (80 euro in più per lo stesso viaggio, a parità di condizioni).
L’impatto potrebbe essere ancora più significativo per chi deve acquistare biglietti per le vacanze, quando la domanda tende a concentrarsi in periodi specifici e le tariffe possono già essere elevate.
Anche se O’Leary ha parlato in generale di aumenti per il mercato europeo, non indicando precisamente quali rotte diventeranno più costose, dalle sue parole sono emersi alcuni indizi sui fattori che potrebbero rendere determinati collegamenti particolarmente esposti ai rincari.
Molti vettori utilizzano strategie di copertura finanziaria, note come hedging, per proteggersi dalle oscillazioni dei prezzi del carburante. Attraverso questi strumenti, una compagnia può bloccare in anticipo il costo di una parte del carburante che prevede di acquistare nei mesi successivi, riducendo l’esposizione a eventuali rialzi del mercato.
La stessa linea è stata seguita da Ryanair che, come riferito dal Ceo, quando il conflitto in Iran è iniziato, alla fine di febbraio 2026, aveva già coperto circa l’80% del proprio fabbisogno di carburante fino a marzo 2027, a un prezzo di 67 dollari al barile.
La situazione, però, cambierà a partire da aprile 2027. Per il periodo successivo, Ryanair avrebbe coperto soltanto il 15% del proprio fabbisogno di carburante a un prezzo di 85 dollari al barile, rimanendo quindi esposta alle oscillazioni del mercato per la parte restante. E dalle dichiarazioni di O’Leary, anche molte altre compagnie europee si trovano in una posizione simile.
Il governo ha approvato un nuovo decreto legge che riconosce contributi a fondo perduto ai comparti agricoltura e pesca, destinati a far fronte al fenomeno del caro gasolio. Dopo giorni di proteste, il Consiglio dei ministri del 22 ottobre 2026 ha stanziato 70 milioni di euro.
Alle imprese agricole, in particolare, sono destinati 60 milioni di euro, con un aiuto calcolato sulle spese sostenute per l’acquisto di carburante.
La misura destinata al settore agricolo consiste in un bonus pari al 20% delle spese sostenute per il carburante, entro il limite massimo indicato di 45 centesimi per litro, nel periodo indicato dal decreto.
L’importo effettivamente riconosciuto dipenderà quindi dalle spese documentate, non sarà automatico e non concorrerà alla formazione del reddito imponibile. La misura, infatti, è esente da imposte sul reddito.
Potranno essere restituite, nei limiti individuati dall’esecutivo, le spese per il carburante sostenute nel periodo che va dal 1° giugno al 15 ottobre 2026. Gli acquisti effettuati al di fuori di queste date sono esclusi. Di conseguenza, per gli operatori agricoli sarà fondamentale conservare e verificare la documentazione relativa agli acquisti di carburante, in modo da poter dimostrare gli importi sostenuti e la loro riferibilità al periodo agevolato.
L’esecutivo, al momento, ha comunque stanziato solo le risorse per i contributi. Per l’attivazione degli stessi e l’effettiva entrata in vigore si dovrà attendere apposito decreto attuativo, con il quale dovranno essere definite le disposizioni operative applicabili.
Il Consiglio dei ministri ha individuato l’Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura (Agea) come soggetto incaricato a erogare il contributo alle imprese agricole in possesso dei requisiti richiesti. Il pagamento è previsto mediante accredito diretto sul conto corrente del beneficiario.
Anche in questo caso, per conoscere i termini di presentazione delle domande, la documentazione necessaria e gli eventuali criteri di priorità in caso di richieste superiori alle risorse disponibili, sarà necessario fare riferimento alle istruzioni attuative.
A seguito delle proteste che hanno interessato diverse regioni in tutta Italia e dopo lo stop di diversi importanti impianti produttivi, il decreto legge approvato il 22 ottobre 2026 ha previsto anche altre misure per l’autotrasporto, per contenere l’impatto dei rincari e garantire la continuità dei servizi.
Nel dettaglio, per le imprese di trasporto merci sono state sbloccate ulteriori risorse per i crediti d’imposta relativi all’acquisto di gasolio. Si tratta di:
Il provvedimento introduce inoltre la possibilità, per le imprese di autotrasporto di merci per conto terzi iscritte all’Albo nazionale degli autotrasportatori, di chiedere la sospensione dei canoni di leasing relativi ai veicoli impiegati nell’attività fino al 31 marzo 2027, con una proroga del termine finale del contratto per un periodo corrispondente a quello della sospensione.
Poiché la misura è orientata alla gestione della liquidità, le operazioni interessate non possono essere revocate fino alla stessa data, così da consentire alle aziende di liberare risorse da destinare alle spese correnti, compreso il carburante, in una fase di particolare pressione sui margini.
Il decreto interviene infine sui contratti di autotrasporto di durata superiore a trenta giorni, prevedendo la pubblicazione e l’aggiornamento trimestrale, da parte del ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, dei valori percentuali relativi all’incidenza del costo del carburante. Per i contratti non stipulati in forma scritta, i valori minimi diventano un parametro obbligatorio per il calcolo delle fatture.
Login