We can learn a lot from a long-dead labor leader about how to reckon with technology that threatens our jobs.

Starting in May, Ukraine's 3rd Army Corps began exploiting gaps in Russian lines just north of Sloviansk in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast. Five months later, the corps and its supporting drone units had cleared Russian troops from 277 sq km of northern Donetsk, inflicting what the corps says were 8,000 Russian casualties and pushing the Russian 20th and 25th Combined Arms Armies back across a key terrain feature: the Zherebets River.

On 14 October, the 3rd Army Corps declared victory in its Operation Vivaldi. "Four seasons of Vivaldi are over. But the music plays on," the corps wrote on Telegram.

It was unclear at the time what the corps meant. Its commander, Brig. Gen. Andrii Biletskyi, has since been seconded to lead Ukraine's new Center Group of Forces. But it's clearer now. According to at least two observers, Ukrainian troops have continued attacking along the Zherebets River—and have even crossed the river at several points.

If true and confirmed, the crossings could ratchet up the pressure on the battered Russian 20th and 25th Combined Arms Armies following their hasty and chaotic retreat from their former salient north of Sloviansk. The Zherebets should have been a natural defensive barrier for the Russians.

Sheltering on the river's eastern bank, the Russians could have rested, reset, and reinforced in preparation for a renewed offensive next year. But if the Ukrainians keep attacking, rest might be impossible. And that could force the Russians to rethink any plans for a fresh push toward Sloviansk and neighboring Kramatorsk, the last two big free cities in Donetsk.

But an extension of Operation Vivaldi isn't without risk for the 3rd Army Corps. If the corps pushes too far, too fast across a difficult obstacle, it could expose itself to counterattack.

Ukraine's "Vilvadi" counteroffensive in the Lyman direction has not stopped, despite claims to the contrary.

Ukrainian forces have made new advances in several different areas over the last couple of weeks, crossing the Zherebets River onto its eastern bank at multiple different…

— AMK Mapping (@AMK_Mapping_) October 26, 2026

Continuing counteroffensive

Ukraine's Vivaldi counteroffensive in the Lyman direction "has not stopped, despite claims to the contrary," the mapping account AMK Mapping explained on Monday after noting possible Ukrainian forces on the eastern side of the Zherebets in recent weeks. "Ukrainian forces have made new advances in several different areas over the last couple of weeks, crossing the Zherebets River onto its eastern bank at multiple different locations." AMK Mapping also noted that many Ukrainian assaults over the past month had been repelled and that casualties were likely rising.

AMK Mapping isn't alone. On Monday, mapper Suriyak also logged Ukrainian troops on the far side of the Zherebets in three key settlements: Makiivka, Novosadove, and Terny. "They are establishing a significant bridgehead," Suriyak wrote.

The possible Ukrainian river crossings could defy recent expectations. "The Ukrainians have continued their push and advancement toward the Zherebets River," mapper Clément Molin wrote on 20 October. "They have reached it at several points, and Russian forces no longer control any territory west of this river—with the exception of the forest east of Lyman."

Ukrainian-Russian war. Day 1700-1704:
Situation on Luhansk front: During the last two weeks, Ukrainian army has managed to secure new positions on the western bank of the Zherebets River, including the south of Makiivka and the rest of Novolyubivka. However, military… pic.twitter.com/zfi1Txv3eA

— @Suriyak (@Suriyakmaps) October 26, 2026

But Molin didn't expect the 3rd Army Corps to force the river, a risky maneuver under the best of circumstances. "Despite various rumors, I have not been able to confirm that the Ukrainians have actually crossed the river," Molin wrote.

Instead, he expected the Ukrainian corps to do what the defeated Russian field armies were trying to do: consolidate in new positions and get ready for the next round of major fighting, potentially next year. "For the time being, I believe the Ukrainians will focus on consolidating their gains and adopting a defensive posture."

If indeed the 3rd Army Corps has crossed the Zherebets, it's a possible indication that the corps still has some combat power in reserve—and is eager to prolong its momentum for as long as possible, even if that means heavier losses in risky river crossings.

A major clash could occur if and when the 3rd Army Corps tries to seize full control of Terny, which anchors the Russian line on the east bank of the Zherebets. Two years ago, Terny was the site of intensive fighting as Russian forces fought their way across the Zherebets on their long march toward Sloviansk. That battle was a costly victory for the Russians as they sent mechanized column after mechanized column across a drone kill zone toward Terny.

The worst outcome for the outnumbered Ukrainian troops in northern Donetsk may be a mirror image of the Russian march through Terny in 2024. Yes, the Russians eventually captured Terny and secured a bridgehead on the western bank of the Zherebets. But the Russians overextended as they kept pushing toward Sloviansk, roughly 40 km to the southwest of Terny.

It's that overextension that afforded the 3rd Army Corps the opportunity to counterattack and roll back the hard-won Russian gains. To preserve its own recent victory on the western side of the Zherebets, the 3rd Army Corps may want to choose caution. Ukrainian forces "need to organize a coherent and solid defensive line," Molin advised.

That may mean not attacking across the Zherebets—despite the temptation to do so.

A new investigation into the activities of Google, Meta and other technology companies has intensified scrutiny of EU plans to revise data-protection legislation, placing Ireland and Germany at the centre of a dispute over corporate influence and European digital sovereignty.

European technology policy has become the focus of a dispute over corporate lobbying after researchers documented extensive contacts between major technology companies and political decision-makers during negotiations to revise EU data-protection rules.

An investigation published on 28 October by Corporate Europe Observatory and the German transparency organisation LobbyControl alleges that leading technology companies mounted a coordinated campaign to influence European governments and legislators.

The findings come one week after EU member states agreed a negotiating position on the Digital Omnibus, a legislative package intended to simplify aspects of European data-protection, privacy and cybersecurity regulation.

The campaigners argue that the proposed changes risk weakening existing safeguards in order to accommodate the commercial requirements of artificial intelligence developers.

Ireland, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, has rejected suggestions that its handling of the legislation was improperly influenced by technology companies.

The dispute exposes a fundamental disagreement over the balance between commercial innovation and the protection of personal information.

The scale of the lobbying campaign

According to LobbyControl’s investigation, non-European technology companies recorded 103 meetings with representatives of Germany’s federal government between May 2025 and September 2026.

Google accounted for 28 meetings, Microsoft 18, Amazon 16 and OpenAI 11.

Germany’s Digital Minister, Karsten Wildberger, participated in 18 meetings with representatives of major technology companies, the researchers reported.

In Ireland, the organisations identified extensive engagement involving Meta, Google and politicians ahead of the country’s assumption of the EU Council presidency in July.

Their findings indicate that Meta engaged with 41 Irish parliamentarians over the Digital Omnibus, while Google recorded 30 meetings.

The researchers also identified 655 lobbying meetings concerning the legislation involving members of the European Parliament.

According to their analysis, approximately 83 per cent represented business interests, compared with 11 per cent involving civil society organisations or trade unions.

These figures demonstrate the intensity of corporate engagement, although the existence of lobbying meetings does not, by itself, establish that particular legislative provisions were adopted because of that activity.

Why the Digital Omnibus matters

The legislative package forms part of a broader European Commission initiative to reduce administrative burdens and improve competitiveness.

Its provisions address several areas of digital regulation, including the General Data Protection Regulation, commonly known as GDPR.

The proposals seek to simplify compliance obligations, clarify the treatment of personal information and revise rules governing certain forms of data processing.

One particularly contentious issue concerns the use of personal data in developing and operating artificial intelligence systems.

AI developers require large quantities of information to train and improve their models. However, the collection and processing of personal information remain subject to European legal safeguards.

Technology companies have argued that regulatory complexity can discourage investment and make it more difficult for European businesses to compete internationally.

Privacy campaigners maintain that simplifying regulatory procedures must not become a mechanism for reducing substantive protections.

The disagreement concerns not merely administrative paperwork but the legal circumstances under which companies may process information relating to identifiable individuals.

Ireland rejects allegations of improper influence

Ireland occupies a particularly sensitive position in the debate.

The country hosts major European operations of several American technology companies, including Google and Meta, and has substantial economic interests in the digital sector.

At the same time, its presidency of the EU Council requires it to coordinate negotiations between member states.

According to RTÉ’s reporting on the investigation, the Irish government strongly rejected the allegation that it had weakened data safeguards in response to corporate pressure.

A presidency spokesperson emphasised that Ireland’s responsibility was to facilitate agreement between member states and that the negotiating mandate approved on 21 October enjoyed broad support.

The Council has presented the proposed changes as a means of reducing compliance costs while preserving established privacy protections.

In its official statement, the Council said its mandate retains the existing definition of personal data and introduces additional provisions governing pseudonymisation.

It also includes safeguards relating to sensitive information used for biometric verification and AI systems.

These details are significant because they demonstrate that the negotiating text contains protections alongside proposed simplifications.

Germany’s role in the negotiations

Germany has also emerged as an important participant in the controversy.

The investigation points to close contact between the German government and international technology companies during discussions about the future of European digital regulation.

Berlin has supported reducing administrative restrictions that it considers obstacles to innovation and the development of competitive AI technologies.

For Germany, the issue is connected to wider concerns about industrial competitiveness, investment and Europe’s dependence on foreign technology suppliers.

Yet an unresolved question remains.

Measures designed to assist European innovators may also benefit established American companies whose extensive computing infrastructure and data resources give them advantages over smaller competitors.

Consequently, easing restrictions does not necessarily guarantee a stronger European technology industry.

The European Parliament holds the next decision

The Council’s negotiating position does not make the Digital Omnibus law.

The European Parliament must establish its own position before negotiations between the institutions can determine the final legislation.

Parliamentarians will therefore have an opportunity to examine the treatment of personal data, the safeguards attached to AI development and the relationship between regulatory simplification and individual rights.

The lobbying investigation is likely to become part of that debate.

Its central political significance lies in the competing interpretations of European technological sovereignty.

For governments seeking investment, regulatory flexibility may provide an instrument for improving Europe’s international competitiveness.

For privacy organisations, the same flexibility could increase the influence of companies already dominant in global digital markets.

The outcome will help determine whether Europe’s future digital framework preserves the existing balance between commercial data use and individual protections, or establishes a different relationship between the two.

The European Parliament’s employment committee has highlighted the need for regulating automated control of workers after visiting Amazon warehouses in Germany and Poland this week.

Seven of the committee MEPs visited Amazon warehouses employing some 5,000 workers on Monday and Tuesday (26-27 October) ahead of the Commission’s Quality Jobs Act proposal expected in December.

The trip follows the committee’s hearing on working conditions in Amazon in January, where workers raised concerns about efficiency goals, safety, and surveillance using AI tools, which may be regulated more rigorously as a part of the upcoming act.

According to a 2023 survey by UNI Europa, a labour union federation, about a half of Amazon’s employees said their work had a negative impact on their mental and physical health.

Workers’ progress throughout the day is usually watched through security cameras, but also the work badges scanned in check points in various locations in the warehouse, and scanning devices used to identify products. 

In the city of Sosnowiec, home to one of Amazon’s Polish warehouses, employees are overworked by “constant pressure of being judged, which is very hard to cope with mentally,” Agata Wypiór, recently-named vice secretary of Amazon’s European Works Council and Solidarność union leader told EUobserver.

Leaving worker management and performance monitoring to algorithms means “these processes become almost invisible,” Li Andersson, head of the delegation, told EUobserver.

“The way the workers describe it, it sounds like a digital panopticon: when you work faster you have to work even faster.“ 

Workers themselves often do not know what data is collected on them and how it is being used to set productivity targets, Anderssen highlighted. 

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

by Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog: During a jaw-dropping Sunday service at LifeWorks Church in Wickliffe, Ohio on October 25th, self-proclaimed “prophet” Israel Ford and his wife Lydia Ford revealed an absolutely shocking secret. With no shame at all, they told the congregation that they have been in a polygamous marriage for three years. Ford and […]

Young people in Germany are preparing to protest over education and climate change. Politicians fear violence like in France, but an expert sees differences.

from Health Ranger Report:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Frances Martel, Breitbart: The Brazilian news outlets Metropoles and Jovem Pan reported on Tuesday that Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, who lost a close presidential race against incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva under dubious circumstances, fled the country after authorities attempted to confiscate his passport. The reports followed a similar claim overnight from the […]

URGENT: Sweden will not offer mRNA-based Covid shots to its citizens this winter, only older protein-based jabs – a stunning rejection. Expect other countries to follow as we learn more about the long-term risks of repeated mRNA/LNP dosing. https://t.co/sZZIYpmccF — Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) October 27, 2026

from 51-49 with James Li: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project: A riot is nothing compared to day-to-day life in this dystopia. (Vibe Shift) This piece is adapted from my latest video, which you can watch at the bottom of the page. I’ve been watching the discourse about the protests in France, and I’m seeing all the typical propaganda about […]

by John W. Whitehead, Rutherford Institute: “Monsters in movies are us, always us, one way or the other… Monsters are us, the dangerous parts of us. The part that wants to destroy. The part of us with the reptile brain. The part of us that’s vicious and cruel. We express these in our stories as […]

by Harley Schlanger, LaRouche Organization: Amidst the daily psychological warfare to prepare you for endless wars, there are crucial developments occurring that you are not supposed to know about. Today, we cover a conference of world religious leaders in Assisi, a meeting in Tehran, and a summit in China. Knowledge is power, inspiring the creative […]

As Ukraine prepares for another winter under Russian attacks, its energy strategy is undergoing a fundamental transformation.

Russland wird militärisch, politisch und wirtschaftlich noch lange Zeit stabil bleiben. Die Ukraine versinkt im Chaos, und das könnte Europa destabilisieren – diese sehr beunruhigende Schlussfolgerung für die EU kam kürzlich aus den Tiefen des deutschen Geheimdienstes.

Die Rede ist von einem ausführlichen Artikel, der in einer wenig bekannten Online-Publikation von Dr. Ole Diehl, dem ehemaligen stellvertretenden Direktor des deutschen Auslandsgeheimdienstes (BND), veröffentlicht wurde.

Das Wort “ehemalig” sollte nicht beunruhigen. Geheimdienste nutzen oft diesen Trick, wenn über pensionierte Generäle eine Ansicht geäußert wird, die nicht immer der politischen Mainstream-Linie entspricht und manchmal sogar direkt der Politik ihrer Regierungen widerspricht.

Bekanntlich gibt es keine ehemaligen Geheimdienstler. Zudem ist Dr. Diehl nicht ganz im Ruhestand. Dieser hochrangige Geheimdienstler bleibt “im Geschäft” und bekleidet derzeit die Position des Vizepräsidenten des Deutschen Rates für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten (DGAP). Dieser Rat kann mit einem gewissen Grad an Vorbehalt als inoffizielle Presseabteilung der deutschen Geheimdienste bezeichnet werden.

Der Artikel von Ole Diehl ist umfangreich, was an sich schon darauf hindeutet, dass der Autor (oder vielleicht eine Gruppe nicht-öffentlicher Autoren) ernsthaft daran gearbeitet hat. Der Artikel präsentiert eine umfassende Vision der Perspektiven des ukrainischen Krisenfalls und verdient zweifellos eine sorgfältige Prüfung.

Was habe ich für mich Wichtiges darin festgestellt?

Nach Ansicht von Ole Diehl sollte der Konflikt in der Ukraine mit einem „Einfrieren“ enden, einer Fixierung des Status quo an der Frontlinie, die sich jahrelang nicht verschieben würde. Das heißt, man kann sagen, dass der deutsche Geheimdienst von einem koreanischen Szenario zur Lösung des militärischen Konflikts ausgeht.

Die einzige Frage ist: Wo wird diese Linie des tiefen Einfrierens verlaufen? Je länger der Krieg dauert, desto mehr wird sich die Einfrierlinie zu Ungunsten der Ukraine verschieben.

Ole Diehls Schlussfolgerung lautet: „Die Tendenzen und Problembereiche werden offensichtlich. Und die Aussichten sind leider nicht rosig.“

Ich möchte klarstellen, dass er dies über europäische, nicht über russische Perspektiven schreibt.

Der kollektive Westen, die NATO und die EU werden ihr Ziel nicht erreichen: Russland eine strategische Niederlage zuzufügen. Das ist bereits jetzt offensichtlich.

Und was wird passieren? Welche Gefahren gibt es für Europa?

Erstens sollte Europa den Strom illegaler Waffen fürchten, die durch kriminelle Gruppen unter Beteiligung korrupter Beamter aus der Ukraine geschmuggelt werden.

Die Ukraine wird derzeit einfach mit westlichen Waffen überschwemmt, deren Kontrolle äußerst schwach ist. Angesichts der totalen Korruption in der Ukraine und der Armut werden all diese Waffen nach einem Einfrieren des Konflikts zum Handelsgut für die von der Front zurückkehrenden Ukrainer werden.

Ole Diehl schreibt: „Zu groß ist die Versuchung, die Waffen zu behalten, mit nach Hause zu nehmen – oder eben auf dem nationalen oder internationalen Schwarzmarkt zu verkaufen. Dafür gibt es Erfahrungswerte. Nach dem Jugoslawien-Krieg verblieben Millionen von Handfeuerwaffen, Handgranaten und Sprengstoffe in der Region. Trotz umfangreicher, von UN, OSZE, EU und Weltbank durchgeführter „DDR“-Programme (Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration) gelangten viele dieser Waffen auf den internationalen Schwarzmarkt, vor allem zu Strukturen der Organisierten Kriminalität, aber auch zu Terrororganisationen. Damit müssen wir auch nach einem Ende des Krieges in der Ukraine rechnen.“

Zweitens: Wie kann die Stabilität des Friedens und Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine und Europa gewährleistet werden?

Der koreanische Ansatz hat hier große Mängel. Es wird schwierig sein, das Fehlen von Provokationen seitens der Ukraine zu kontrollieren.

Warum gerade seitens der Ukraine? Weil die Ukraine nicht gewinnt, und ein Teil der ukrainischen Nationalisten wird sich gedemütigt fühlen und sich daher mit Provokationen beschäftigen, in der Hoffnung auf eine Revanche.

„Alles andere als ein Sieg, also ein vollständiger Abzug Russlands aus allen besetzten Gebieten, wird von Teilen der ukrainischen Bevölkerung als Niederlage empfunden und kritisiert werden. Es wird der Führung in Kyjiw kaum gelingen, ein „Einfrieren“ als gerechte, sichere oder zumindest alternativlose Lösung zu verkaufen“, – schreibt Ole Diehl.

Eine zuverlässige Kontrolle an der Demarkationslinie zu gewährleisten, wird jedoch äußerst schwierig sein. Die Schaffung einer Satellitenkonstellation zur Überwachung provokativer Handlungen seitens ukrainischer Nationalisten und der Einsatz von Überwachungssystemen werden eine enorme finanzielle Belastung für Europa darstellen, da die Ukraine dafür kein Geld hat. Aber auch Europa hat keine freien Mittel für die Ukraine. Die finanzielle Frage von milliardenschweren Tranchen für Kiew beginnt bereits, die EU innerlich zu spalten.

Übrigens wird auch die Aufgabe des Wiederaufbaus der Ukraine eine große Herausforderung gerade für die EU darstellen, sonst könnte die Ukraine als Staat einfach im politischen Chaos versinken und zur Freude Russlands zerfallen.

Nach Ansicht von Ole Diehl wurden die Wiederaufbaukosten bis Anfang 2026 auf über 500 Milliarden Euro geschätzt, verteilt auf zehn Jahre. Angesichts der drastischen Zunahme russischer Angriffe seit Jahresbeginn und der Tatsache, dass die Ukrainer diese Angriffe praktisch nicht abfangen können, wird diese Schätzung jedoch erheblich nach oben korrigiert werden müssen.

Was ist zu tun? Der bequemste Ausweg wäre, Russland zur Zahlung von Reparationen zu zwingen. Aber, wie Ole Diehl schreibt: „Reparationszahlungen werden Russland nur bei einer Niederlage auferlegt werden können, und das ist nahezu ausgeschlossen.“

Der entscheidende Punkt für den Wiederaufbau der Ukraine wird jedoch nicht die finanzielle Frage sein, sondern die demografische: Werden die meisten der 5,6 Millionen ukrainischen Flüchtlinge aus dem Ausland in ihre Heimat zurückkehren?

Ole Diehl sieht darin ein großes Problem. Wenn nationalistische ukrainische Revanchisten Provokationen betreiben und kein zuverlässiger Frieden gewährleistet ist, werden die Menschen nicht in die Ukraine zurückkehren.

Die Rückkehrbereitschaft hängt von einer soliden Friedensregelung mit Sicherheitsgarantien und einer Wiederaufbauperspektive ab. Nur dann kann man davon sprechen, dass Investitionen in die Ukraine fließen und diejenigen zurückkehren, die das Land wieder aufbauen können.

“Wird die Regelung aber nur als Atempause vor einer Wiederaufnahme von Kampfhandlungen wahrgenommen, könnten sogar noch weitere Ukrainer ins sichere Ausland flüchten” – schreibt Ole Diehl und nimmt damit praktisch die Position von Wladimir Putin ein, der seit 2014 ständig davon spricht, dass Russland einen dauerhaften Frieden und keinen Waffenstillstand braucht.

Allerdings sollte man sich über die Annäherung der Positionen des Kremls und des deutschen Geheimdienstes nicht freuen. Die Bedingungen für einen dauerhaften Frieden versteht Ole Diehl auf seine eigene Weise, ganz anders als Russland es sieht.

Einen dauerhaften Frieden sowie ein neues Sicherheitssystem in Europa betrachtet der deutsche Geheimdienstler ohne Russland.

Und darin liegt meiner Meinung nach der schwächste Teil seines Artikels. Ole Diehl verliert sich in langen Überlegungen über Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine seitens der NATO oder einen schnellen EU-Beitritt. Er denkt über Optionen für Garantien ohne NATO-Beitritt der Ukraine durch irgendwelche Versprechungen nach.

Für mich klingen all seine Vorschläge kindlich naiv. Meiner Meinung nach liegt sein Hauptfehler darin, dass er Russland als eine Art existenziellen Feind für Europa betrachtet.

Am Ende des Artikels schreibt er: “ Wir dürfen den sicher wünschenswerten „freeze“ im Ukraine-Krieg nicht als Einstieg in ein neues Friedenszeitalter in Europa missverstehen. Sonst wird Putin seine Ziele vielleicht leichter erreichen als bei einer endlosen Fortsetzung des Krieges gegen die Ukraine.

Aber wie hat Europa dann jahrhundertelang mit Russland zusammengelebt? Und es hat doch gut zusammengelebt.

Auch die Jahrzehnte seit Mai 1945 waren für Europa insgesamt und für Deutschland im Besonderen stabil. Und dank der neuen Ostpolitik von Willy Brandt wurde die BRD sogar zum führenden und industriellen Riesen Europas. Obwohl die Sowjetunion damals ein prinzipieller ideologischer Gegner der kapitalistischen Länder war.

Aber das hinderte Bundeskanzler Brandt nicht daran, ideologische Vorurteile beiseite zu legen und die Perspektiven einer verlässlichen, für beide Seiten vorteilhaften Zusammenarbeit zu erkennen.

Leider, ist Ole Diehl kein Willy Brandt. Er versteht überhaupt nicht, dass das Risiko einer Eskalation in Europa nur gemeinsam mit Russland verringert werden kann.
Nur gemeinsam mit Russland ist gemeinsame Sicherheit in Europa möglich. Und ohne Russland wird es keine Sicherheit geben. Davon bin ich absolut überzeugt.

In a drawer at the herbarium of Kew Gardens, in southwest London, there is a dry twig collected in Ghana in 1974. (A herbarium is a library of pressed, dried plants, and Kew’s is among the largest in the world.) Its berries are tiny balls, each about the size of a match head, and they […]

Holocaust survivor exchanged Crisco, coffee and cigarettes for Torah sash and ark cover looted on Kristallnacht, brought them to US where they eventually went on display in Phoenix

Press TV – October 27, 2026

Members of the United Nations Security Council attend a meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. (File photo)

China has denounced Washington’s policy toward Iran, blaming US and Israeli attacks for halting IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, while Russia has challenged the legality of a UN Security Council meeting on Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program.

The UN Security Council held a meeting on Tuesday to discuss Iran’s nuclear program after the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to refer Tehran’s nuclear dossier to the council.

During the meeting on Tuesday, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations Fu Cong criticized US and European policies toward Iran, saying military attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities had directly blocked IAEA inspections.

“The US and Israeli military attacks on nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards are the direct reason the agency has been unable to conduct inspections,” the Chinese representative said.

He also blamed Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its subsequent “maximum-pressure” campaign for the current crisis.

“The unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA and the implementation of the maximum-pressure policy are the root causes of the current crisis,” Cong said.

The Chinese diplomat also criticized Britain, France and Germany, saying the three European countries had failed to fulfill their commitments.

The representative said the mechanism for re-imposing UN sanctions on Iran, commonly known as the snapback mechanism, had fundamental legal and procedural flaws.

Russia’s representative, Vassily Nebenzia, also challenged the legality of holding the meeting under the “non-proliferation” item of the Security Council’s agenda.

“We are compelled to take the floor on a point of order in connection with yet another attempt to flagrantly violate the Security Council’s rules of procedure and convene a meeting under a non-existent agenda item.”

He said that under Resolution 2231 the council had concluded its consideration of Iran’s nuclear program on October 18, 2025, and removed the “non-proliferation” item from its agenda.

He also rejected claims that earlier UN resolutions on sanctions against Iran had been reinstated, saying such claims “have no legal basis whatsoever.”

Nebenzia said Russia and China had proposed holding the briefing under the agenda item “Threats to international peace and security,” arguing that “repeated strikes against Iran’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure under IAEA safeguards” posed such threats.

The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on September 9 proposed by the United States, France, Britain and Germany calling for Iran’s nuclear file to be referred to the Security Council. The resolution passed with 23 votes in favor, eight abstentions and three votes against.

The referral marked the first time in 20 years that Iran’s nuclear file had been sent to the Security Council over alleged violations of its non-proliferation obligations.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful. Tehran has also criticized the resolution, saying Western countries are disregarding its cooperation with the IAEA and the consequences of US and Israeli military attacks on nuclear facilities under agency safeguards.

Iran has also criticized the United States and the three European countries for pursuing the resolution, saying their actions undermine impartiality of the IAEA Board of Governors.

The Security Council meeting was requested by Western countries and Bahrain. Russia and China objected to holding it, prompting a procedural vote.

The proposal to convene the meeting passed with 11 votes in favor, two against and two abstentions. Russia and China voted against the proposal. As a procedural matter, the vote was not subject to the council’s veto mechanism.

The United States and Israel launched unprovoked aggression against Iran two times in June 2025 and February 28 amid indirect talks between Iran and the US.

Other than military and civilian facilities, including hospitals and schools, Iran’s safeguarded peaceful nuclear facilities were targeted by the aggressors in both wars, as the international community and the IAEA were reticent.