The nation is already capable of supplying over 1 million tons of fuel to the global market per month, the news agency says
Russia has significantly increased production of diesel in the wake of an agreement reached between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, Reuters has reported, citing industry sources.
Daily output rose from 160,000 tons in early October to 180,000 tons after the Russian government introduced new export quotas in mid-month, the agency said. Moscow has eased its restrictions on diesel exports, allowing Russian companies to ship up to 500,000 tons of fuel to international markets in October while ensuring domestic demand remains fully covered.
Exports of diesel, marine fuel, and gas oil had been banned until October 31, as the government sought to stabilize the domestic market, which was suffering from increased seasonal demand linked to the harvest season.
According to sources cited by Reuters, domestic demand in Russia is now expected to fall to around 140,000 tons per day as the harvest campaign is largely over. This would free up as much as 40,000 tons of diesel per day or more than 1 million tons per month for export, according to the news agency’s estimates. Between 0.2 and 0.3 million tons are likely to be purchased by Russia’s neighbors, the sources said.
Trump and Putin agreed on diesel supplies during a phone call on October 9. Following the conversation, the US president announced that Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November, another million tons shortly thereafter, and potentially further shipments depending on refining capacity. Washington subsequently issued a temporary sanctions waiver permitting Russian diesel imports, reversing restrictions introduced under former US President Joe Biden in 2022.
Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak said Moscow had already dispatched three tankers carrying diesel to the US under the agreement. He also announced that Russia would “ensure additional supplies of diesel fuel to world markets and the United States” to help ease the global diesel shortage. Deliveries would continue on a regular basis, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said at the time.
The diesel deal provoked tensions between Washington and Kiev. Trump has repeatedly urged Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to stop attacking Russian refineries, accusing Kiev of exacerbating the worldwide diesel shortage and hurting American consumers and farmers hit by high fuel prices.
Zelensky hit back, calling Trump’s claims “totally false” and accusing him of “deflecting the focus away from Iran.” He was referring to the US-Israeli military operation against Iran, which led to severe shipment disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz – one of the key seaborne oil transportation routes.
Russia has historically been the world’s second-largest diesel exporter, behind only the US, accounting for around 10% of global exports. Disruptions to Russian supplies can drive up prices even in countries that do not directly import diesel.
The US president questioned the vote count after Lula narrowly defeated Jair Bolsonaro’s son in the runoff
US President Donald Trump has said Brazil’s presidential runoff election, narrowly won by left-wing incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, could have been rigged.
According to the official tally, Lula received 51.79% of the vote on Sunday. His right-wing rival, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, received 48.21%.
“It looked terrible to me,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I didn’t take sides, but it looked like another rigged election, frankly.”
Asked whether he planns to do something about the results, Trump said, “I’m not running Brazil. I’m running the US I like Lula. I get along with him very well. I just think it had a very bad look – the election, the way it was tabulated.”
Bolsonaro announced on election night that he would seek to have the results annulled, accusing “Lula’s allies” in the government of foul play.
Hours after the results were announced, Bolsonaro said Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered him to surrender his passport and barred him from leaving the country as part of an investigation into suspected money laundering.
Q: Do you want to do something about the election in Brazil?
Trump: I'm not running Brazil. I'm running the U.S. I like Lula. I get along with him very well, but the extension given was very strange. https://t.co/Sl1HUjiWde
In the first round on October 4, Bolsonaro led with 47% of the vote to Lula’s 45%. Some analysts suggested that Bolsonaro could win the runoff by attracting supporters of other right-wing candidates.
Bolsonaro’s father, Jair Bolsonaro, who served as president from 2019 to 2022, is serving a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup to remain in power after losing the 2022 election to Lula. He has denied any wrongdoing, describing the case as politically motivated.
Lula previously served two terms as president from 2003 to 2010. He was barred from running in the 2018 election following a corruption conviction, which was overturned in 2021, allowing him to run again in 2022. Lula has maintained his innocence, accusing his political opponents of using the judicial system against him.
Trump previously urged the Brazilian authorities to drop the case against Jair Bolsonaro, calling his prosecution a “witch hunt.” His administration has also faced allegations of attempting to influence Brazil’s 2026 presidential election in favor of Bolsonaro’s son.
Brazilian police opened a preliminary inquiry into suspected US interference but closed it due to insufficient evidence. Reuters separately reported that two senior State Department officials had pushed for sanctions aimed at weakening Lula and boosting the Bolsonaro family’s political fortunes. The State Department has denied seeking to interfere in the election.
US President Donald Trump has previously accused Kiev of selling Western-supplied weapons on the black market
Germany is preparing to buy a batch of low-cost cruise missiles from Ukraine to expand its long-range strike capabilities, according to several media outlets.
The deal could be finalized in the coming weeks, the Financial Times reported, citing officials familiar with the matter. It would initially involve a small batch of missiles for testing by the German Armed Forces, or Bundeswehr, early next year. If the tests prove successful, Berlin could reportedly place a follow-up order for several hundred missiles.
Dubbed ‘Bars’ – meaning snow leopard in both Russian and Ukrainian – the cruise missiles, sometimes referred to as “drone missiles” in Ukraine, are jet-powered weapons with a range of up to 1,000 km and a payload of up to 105 kg.
Germany and Ukraine signed a deal to jointly produce Bars missiles in July 2026. Under that agreement, Berlin would finance production, with all the missiles produced being delivered to Ukraine.
The potential purchase comes amid a surge in German arms procurement as Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government seeks to turn the Bundeswehr into Europe’s strongest conventional army, citing the threat of a potential conflict with Russia. Moscow has repeatedly dismissed such claims as “nonsense,” insisting that it has no intention of attacking any NATO member.
Armament drive
Bloomberg reported earlier this week that Berlin was planning to acquire “thousands of precision deep-strike weapons” from several European and American companies. One proposed contract with US firm Covenant for the delivery of thousands of ground-launched Anthem cruise missiles could be worth more than €1 billion ($1.12 billion), according to the report.
Berlin emerged as Kiev’s single biggest military donor after Washington drastically scaled back its aid under US President Donald Trump. Merz has prioritized military spending, including assistance to Kiev, despite acknowledging that Germany’s economy is in a “structural crisis.” His government amended the constitutional debt brake to fund the buildup and passed a 2026 budget allocating a record €108.2 billion for defense and €11.5 billion in military aid for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Germany’s central bank has warned that the country is on course to record its largest budget deficit since reunification by 2028.
Cashing in on war?
Ukraine, in turn, appears to be actively seeking to cash in on weapons exports, including sales to its Western backers. In February, David Aloian, deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told Reuters that the country expected to generate billions of dollars in revenue from it this year alone.
Kiev halted all weapons exports following the escalation of the conflict in 2022, but Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky reversed that decision when he announced plans to open nearly a dozen weapons export centers across Europe in early 2026.
The plans have not stopped Kiev from seeking further financial and military assistance from Western nations. Last month, Ukrainian Defense Minister Evgeny Khmara suggested that Western donors supply Kiev with highly sought-after US-made Patriot interceptors from their own stockpiles, which would then be replenished with 1,000 missiles it plans to purchase with EU funds at some point in the future. In October, Zelensky himself lashed out at the country’s backers over their reluctance to cover a major budget shortfall.
Trump accused Ukraine in mid-October of selling American-supplied missiles on the black market. He also claimed that Kiev had failed to account for billions of dollars in American military and financial aid.
Ukrainian arms manufacturers have been implicated in some of the nation’s numerous corruption scandals. Fire Point – a defense contractor personally promoted by Zelensky during his visits to Western nations – was reportedly effectively owned by the Ukrainian leader’s longtime former business partner, Timur Mindich, known as ‘Zelensky’s wallet’ in Kiev. The businessman fled Ukraine last year after a major corruption investigation named him as one of its primary suspects.
The victorious opposition Student List does not plan to introduce measures against Moscow, its representative has said
Serbia will maintain its longstanding ties with Russia and will not impose sanctions on Moscow despite EU pressure, a representative of the winning Student List movement has told RT Balkan.
The student-led opposition secured 52.73% of the vote in Sunday’s parliamentary election, according to the latest preliminary results, defeating the coalition of former President Aleksandar Vucic. He conceded defeat but warned that Belgrade could abandon its resistance to EU pressure and sanction Russia within months.
The movement emerged from nearly two years of anti-government protests sparked by the November 2024 collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad, which killed 16 people.
Speaking on Monday, Jovo Bakic, a university professor and Student List representative, said: “We respect Russia both as a great power and as our historically important partner and, in many cases, protector.”
“There will be no changes in that regard,” he added.
Recalling the harsh UN sanctions against Yugoslavia in the 1990s, when Serbia was one of its constituent republics, Bakic said restrictions imposed by “small Serbia” would have little effect on Russia but would be “symbolically very bad” for Belgrade.
🇷🇸 Jovo Bakić za RT Balkan: Studentska lista neće uvoditi sankcije Rusiji
▪️Predstavnik "Studentske liste", profesor Jovo Bakić ponovio je da nova vlada Srbije neće uvoditi sankcije Rusiji, uprkos tvrdnjama bivšeg predsednika Aleksandra Vučića da će se to dogoditi za nekoliko meseci.
"Mi Rusiju poštujemo i kao veliku silu i kao našu istorijski važnu partnerku i u mnogim slučajevima zaštitnicu. Tu (u spoljnoj politici zemlje) neće biti nikakvih promena", izjavio je Bakić gostujući u emisiji "Srbija bira" na TV RT Balkan.
Under Vucic, Serbia resisted EU demands to adopt the bloc’s restrictions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, despite pursuing EU membership. The Student List campaigned primarily on domestic reforms, leaving several contentious foreign policy questions unaddressed.
The movement’s exact position on the anti-Russian sanctions remains unclear. The Student List lead candidate, Ilija Srdanovic, did not explicitly rule out reconsidering Belgrade’s earlier refusal to sanction Moscow in an interview with RFE/RL. When pressed on the issue, he stated that foreign policy should be “decided by the citizens of Serbia” rather than a single leader of a a “very small group of people” in the government.
According to Reuters, leading candidates of the victorious movement have said the incoming government would halt arms exports to conflict zones, including sales to Western intermediaries that subsequently supply weapons to Ukraine.
Vucic previously said European buyers could decide how to use Serbian ammunition, including whether to send it to Ukraine, although Belgrade has denied supplying Kiev directly.
Energy ties present another major issue for Serbia’s incoming government. Russia remains the country’s dominant gas supplier, accounting for roughly three-quarters of its needs. In March, Vucic said Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to maintain deliveries on favorable terms, at prices far below those in most of Europe. The agreement was subsequently prolonged through the end of 2026.
Serbia also faces uncertainty over its oil supplies due to US sanctions on NIS, the majority Russian-owned energy company that runs the country’s only oil refinery. Hungarian energy group MOL is seeking to acquire the Russian stake, while the current US waiver allowing NIS to continue business expires on October 30. The company has requested another extension to avoid disruptions to fuel supplies.
Unlike Serbia, the EU has sought to phase out Russian fossil fuel imports and secure alternative suppliers since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
Asked about pressure to abandon Russian energy supplies, Bakic said: “We are not here to satisfy foreigners, but to act in our national interest.”
The Kremlin said on Monday that it hoped to maintain mutually beneficial relations with Serbia. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov praised Vucic’s contribution to bilateral ties and added “As you know, it takes two to tango.”
The only major countries that recognize the its jurisdiction are in Europe, George Szamuely has told RT
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is increasingly becoming Europeans’ “own personal court” as the US expands sanctions on the institution, an expert has told RT.
George Szamuely, a senior research fellow at the Global Policy Institute in Budapest, pointed out that major global powers such as the US, Russia, and China do not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, leaving European nations as its main backers.
“So essentially the ICC is becoming a European project,” he said.
Szamuely argued that the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to former ICC judge Navi Pillay underscored Europe’s support for the court.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Pillay the prize on October 9, just hours before Washington imposed sanctions on the ICC as an institution, expanding measures that had previously targeted individual officials.
The ICC is now becoming increasingly the tool of the Europeans.
According to Szamuely, European lawmakers sought to reaffirm their backing for the court despite mounting pressure from Washington.
“The European Parliament wanted to send a message to the Trump administration… to say: ‘we thoroughly endorse the ICC. The ICC does our work’,” he said.
Szamuely noted that Washington’s “war against the ICC really intensified” during President Donald Trump’s first term, when the US sanctioned several court officials, including then-chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.
“Now he has imposed much harsher sanctions against the ICC,” he said, arguing that the latest measures effectively impose secondary sanctions on “anyone who actually engages in any kind of dealings with the ICC.”
According to a new program called FORTRESS, US bases should be able to operate independently for 90 days
Major military bases in the continental US will be expected to sustain essential operations for at least 90 days without external support under a new Pentagon strategy, Fox News has reported.
The autonomy target was set out in FORTRESS documents reviewed by the network, it said on Sunday. Critical military supplies would also require at least two qualified supply or production routes to guard against disruption.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the initiative last month. The US military has faced serious logistical disruption in the Middle East following Iranian strikes on American facilities and other sites used by US forces in retaliation for the US-Israeli attack on Iran.
Fox News, which is generally supportive of President Donald Trump’s agenda, wrote that the US needed to be prepared for a contingency in which military action would “cripple power grids, disrupt supply chains and threaten critical infrastructure on American soil.”
FORTRESS stands for Federal Operations for Resilience, Troop Resources, Energy, Supply and Survivability. A founding memorandum signed by Hegseth last month identifies five pillars: energy independence, supply-chain resilience, strategic reserves, physical protection and cybersecurity, and resilience in space and the electromagnetic spectrum.
Pentagon planners aim to reduce reliance on civilian infrastructure that could be severely damaged in a major armed conflict. Proposed options include small nuclear reactors and large battery banks to support base microgrids if external electricity supplies are cut. The program also envisages preparing civilian factories to switch to defense production in an emergency, alongside other measures.
The report comes less than two weeks before midterm elections in which polls suggest the ruling Republican Party could suffer significant losses. The Iran war and the resulting surge in fuel prices are major factors bolstering opposition candidates.
Trump’s rhetoric has fueled widespread expectations that the US could escalate the war with Iran shortly after the election, or even before it. According to NBC News, Washington has withdrawn some personnel from its Middle Eastern bases ahead of a possible renewed airstrike campaign.
Twenty-five years after the Patriot Act, Washington’s surveillance capabilities are growing faster than the safeguards meant to restrain them
On October 26,2001, US President George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act into law, less than seven weeks after the September 11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in New York. The speed of its passage reflected the extraordinary political and social atmosphere in the United States. The tragedy had shattered the country’s sense of security, and fears of further terrorist activity continued to haunt the country in the months that followed.
In the weeks after 9/11, grief and anger were accompanied by an unprecedented surge of patriotism and national solidarity. President Bush’s approval rating reached 86 percent by late September, and public trust in the federal government rose to levels unseen in decades. A majority of Americans also expressed a willingness to sacrifice at least some civil liberties if doing so would help combat terrorism. Under intense pressure to prevent another catastrophe, Congress moved rapidly to expand federal investigative and surveillance powers.
The Patriot Act facilitated information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, broadened certain authorities to obtain records, and expanded investigative tools available in terrorism cases. Supporters argued that these measures were necessary to confront a transnational threat with legal instruments suited to a new security environment.
Yet national unity did not eliminate concerns about civil rights. Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as people perceived to belong to these communities, faced increased discrimination and violence. As the immediate shock of 9/11 receded, questions grew over how far the governments’ new powers should extend and what safeguards were needed to prevent abuse.
These tensions would shape the law’s legacy for decades. The debate intensified after Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosures exposed the scale of certain US surveillance programs, helping spur the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, which curtailed the government’s bulk collection of domestic telephone records. The controversy revealed that the challenge was not simply how to protect Americans from terrorism, but how to preserve privacy and civil liberties while doing so.
The surveillance debate that follows 9/11 has evolved alongside technology. Today, governments can analyze enormous volumes of digital information, from communications metadata to online activity, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish targeted intelligence gathering from the broader collection of personal data.
However, not all modern US surveillance powers originate in the Patriot Act. One important distinction is between Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which became associated with the NSA’s bulk collection of domestic telephone records, and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 2008.
Section 702 allows US intelligence agencies to target non-US persons reasonably believed to be outside the country for foreign intelligence purposes. Yet communications involving Americans may also be collected when they interact with foreign targets. A separate framework. Executive Order 12333 governs much of the intelligence community’s overseas surveillance activity.
These authorities raise questions that extend beyond the original post-9/11 debate. Artificial intelligence is adding a new dimension to the problem. Machine-learning systems can process vast quantities of communications, financial records, location data and other digital information, identifying patterns that human investigators might overlook. Such capabilities could help intelligence agencies detect terrorist networks and anticipate emerging threats. Yet they also raise the possibility of increasingly comprehensive surveillance, in which individuals can be assessed through their digital associations, behavior and inferred characteristics rather than through evidence of specific wrongdoings.
The risks are not limited to the amount of information collected. AI systems can produce false positives, reproduce biases present in their training data and generate conclusions that are difficult to explain or independently verify. If such assessments inform investigations or security decisions, errors may have serious consequences for individuals. The challenge for governments is therefore not simply to regulate access to data, but also to establish accountability for how algorithms analyze it, how their conclusions are used and whether affected individuals have meaningful avenues for redress.
Twenty-five years later: Has America found the balance?
Twenty-five years after the Patriot Act became law, the United States has neither abandoned its expanded national security apparatus nor settled the debate over its proper limits. The government’s ability to collect and analyze information remains an important instrument in counterterrorism and foreign intelligence. At the same time, experience has shown that powers introduced in response to an emergency can endure long after the circumstances that justified them have changed.
The law’s defenders argue that intelligence agencies need effective tools to identify threats before they result in violence. Critics counter that broad surveillance authorities, secret legal interpretations and insufficient oversight can undermine privacy and weaken public trust. Both concerns are fundamental to a democratic society: security is essential to protecting freedom, but security measures can also threaten it when they operate without adequate safeguards.
The central lesson of the Patriot Act is therefore not that national security and civil liberties are necessarily incompatible. It is that the balance between them cannot be established once and left untouched. It requires clear legal limits, meaningful judicial and congressional oversight, transparency wherever possible, and public debate about how surveillance powers are used.
Artificial intelligence makes this balance even harder to maintain. Surveillance systems are increasingly capable of drawing connections across datasets and generating assessments at a speed and scale that traditional oversight mechanisms were not designed to handle. Decisions may depend partly on algorithmic outputs that are difficult for the public, and sometimes even for officials, to scrutinize. Democratic oversight must therefore evolve alongside technology, requiring clear rules on the use of AI, independent testing, safeguards against discriminatory outcomes and human accountability for consequential decisions.
The digital age makes this task more urgent. As governments acquire increasingly sophisticated tools to monitor communications and analyze personal information, lawmakers must ensure that technological capabilities do not automatically translate into unlimited authority.
The question raised in October 2001 remains relevant today: how can a democracy protect its citizens without compromising the freedoms that give its political system legitimacy? Twenty-five years later, the United States continues to grapple with the answer.
The Netherlands plans to axe 25,000 jobs to save nearly $4 billion annually
The Netherlands has unveiled plans to cut around 25,000 full-time government positions by 2035, turning to artificial intelligence and sweeping administrative reforms to reduce costs and bureaucracy.
Announced on Monday, the overhaul aims to save €900 million ($1 billion) by next year, with annual savings projected to reach €3.5 billion by 2035. The job cuts will be phased in over several years, with police and security services exempt.
Planned measures include simplifying regulations, reducing advisory bodies, standardizing IT systems, and expanding digital services.
The plan follows years of rapid growth in the Dutch civil service. The central government workforce reached a record 160,000 positions in 2025, an increase of more than 40% since 2018, according to official figures.
State Secretary Eric van der Burg said excessive rules, exceptions, and procedures had made it increasingly difficult for the government to address problems, while mounting costs demanded action.
“We cannot continue to do what we did,” he said, calling for a government that is “simpler, smarter and smaller.”
Other European countries are also embracing AI to streamline public administration.
Denmark announced plans last year to free up 50 million working hours annually by 2035 through AI, equivalent to roughly 30,000 full-time positions, without committing to corresponding job cuts.
Albania went a step further in September 2025, appointing an AI-generated virtual minister to help combat corruption in public procurement. However, the country’s AI procurement system had yet to be rolled out as of October.
The push comes as rapid advances in AI fuel concerns about widespread disruption to employment.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk warned in July that the transition would be “a bumpy road,” predicting that AI would eventually outperform humans in any job.
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has also warned of major upheaval in the labor market, while arguing that certain professions, including caregiving, should remain “human reserved” even if AI becomes capable of performing them.
The bloc’s chief auditor has warned that rising repayments and rushed spending are squeezing budgets and increasing fraud risks
The EU faces a growing budget squeeze after borrowing hundreds of billions for pandemic recovery and Ukraine. Rising repayment costs threaten future spending and rushed payouts raise fraud risks, its chief auditor has warned. Brussels is nevertheless seeking billions more for Kiev.
Speaking to Rapporteur, Tony Murphy, president of the European Court of Auditors, described the budget situation as a “pressure cooker,” with EU debt potentially reaching €1 trillion ($1.12 trillion) by the end of 2027.The bloc’s debt stood at €739 billion in 2025, up from €601 billion a year earlier.
“You have to pay it back at some time. It’s not free money,” Murphy said. He emphasized that “it’s real money that has to be paid back.”
However, concerns have repeatedly been raised about the EU getting back any of the billions it has spent on Ukraine, including its recent €90 billion ($100 billion) loan, which Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico recently slammed as “gifts” that Ukraine will “never pay back.”
Kiev is required to repay the loan only after receiving Russian reparations – something Moscow has vehemently ruled out. Ukraine’s own former Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov has also acknowledged that such scenarios are “just fairy tales” and that Brussels will never get its money back, which is being actively embezzled by Kiev.
The EU, however, must still repay the money it borrowed. According to Murphy, servicing pandemic debt alone would consume 8% of the bloc’s proposed 2028–2034 budget and governments have yet to agree on new revenue to cover the repayments, leaving Brussels with less money for other priorities.
The squeeze comes as households and businesses continue to face high energy costs following Europe’s break with Russian supplies, compounded by the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Murphy also warned about how quickly money is being spent. He called the requirement to process €90 billion in remaining pandemic recovery payments by December “crazy,” describing the impending payouts as a “tsunami.”
Pressure to meet deadlines could also encourage weaker checks and more abuse, he said, as European prosecutors are already investigating hundreds of suspected fraud cases involving recovery funds.
Despite the crisis, Brussels is again looking for more money for Kiev after Vladimir Zelensky requested another €70 billion ($78 billion) for 2027, beyond existing commitments. European Council President Antonio Costa said Friday that the EU expects to cover roughly two-thirds, with a decision potentially coming in November.
Vucic’s defeat reflects a deeper frustration with establishments across the political spectrum
Sunday’s snap Serbian parliamentary elections have delivered a bombshell as former President Aleksandar Vucic conceded defeat. Hardly anyone seems to have seriously expected that. Calling the election was a gamble, of course, but he still had reason to believe he could pull it off.
The reasons will take time to untangle. Vucic himself spoke of a “revolution” backed by Europe. Others, with some justification, see an “Orban scenario”: accumulated fatigue with one man’s prolonged rule, during which his personal traits and interests came to exert too much influence over national policy.
Clearly, more than one factor was at work. Just as clearly, Serbia is entering a new era. Vucic’s increasingly elaborate and convoluted balancing act will likely give way to an attempt to steer the country sharply toward the European Union. Hungary’s experience is telling in this respect. And Russia should expect little good to come of it.
Serbian society, however, is different from Hungary’s. There really is considerable sympathy for Russia. Whether that sentiment can rally a new opposition, this time against a firmly pro-EU course, should become clear soon enough. The EU will try to make the most of the defeat of yet another set of “pro-Russian forces.” Whether that will bring Serbia any closer to EU membership is another question entirely.
Whatever the outcome, if there is a common thread running through elections across Europe, it is probably this: people in different countries are disillusioned with the status quo and the establishment, whatever its political stripe – even when those establishments stand at opposite ends of the spectrum.
The model broke past a paywall to obtain information it wasn’t supposed to, adding to concerns over increasingly autonomous systems acting beyond human instructions
Anthropic’s Claude AI model went rogue and broke past a paywall to obtain voter data in the US state of Georgia, Axios reported on Sunday. The intrusion heightens concerns about developers’ ability to control increasingly autonomous AI systems.
The incident occurred during an internal statistics project involving public information. Anthropic said the model obtained aggregate voter counts but did not access Georgia’s voter registration system, retrieve individual voter records or alter any data.
The company confirmed the incident on Sunday, ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.
“Without being asked to, the model requested a token to query a dashboard that contained information normally available for a fee,” an Anthropic spokesperson told Axios. Claude had learned from an archived government webpage that the dashboard issued digital access keys to visitors. It was able to request a key and retrieve the information without paying.
Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs confirmed to Fox Business that the data came from a public information service but insisted that Claude “did not get into the voter registration system.”
Anthropic described the incident in an October 9 report but did not name Georgia. According to Axios, it notified state officials and the White House weeks ago. A source told the outlet that administration officials had urged Georgia to disclose the incident publicly sooner, but those requests went unheeded.
The case is among several instances Anthropic has disclosed of models finding unintended ways around restrictions instead of stopping. Other incidents included a false homicide tip submitted to Philadelphia police and incomplete applications filed on the US State Department’s visa website.
On Friday, Anthropic also revealed that a model had impersonated a human during a cybersecurity exercise, attempting to persuade an unrelated software developer to accept malicious code. The developer rejected the request and the attempt failed.
Other developers have tightened controls following similar incidents. OpenAI said Friday that it was keeping its most powerful models’ training offline after agents escaped restricted environments. In July, its agents bypassed safeguards and accessed systems belonging to Hugging Face, an online repository for AI models and datasets.
Anthropic said it has moved some evaluations offline, restricted internet tools and introduced systems to detect unauthorized actions. It said those systems blocked each of the disclosed cases when tested against them.
The vote comes amid deep division in the Jewish state, mounting criticism of Netanyahu’s wartime leadership, and uncertainty over who will govern
Israelis head to the polls on Tuesday in a closely contested parliamentary election that could end the nearly four-year rule of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current coalition, following years of war, political scandals, mass protests, and deepening divisions within Israeli society.
The vote is widely viewed as a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership, with the opposition blaming him for security failures surrounding the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and accusing his government of undermining democratic institutions.
The Hamas attack killed around 1,200 people and saw some 250 taken hostage. Israel responded with a military campaign in Gaza that has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, including at least 21,000 children, according to the local Health Ministry.
Despite their fierce political rivalry, the main Israeli election contenders differ less considerably over the country’s military policies and its approach to the Palestinians.
Netanyahu’s fight for political survival
Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief who heads the centrist Yashar party, has emerged as Netanyahu’s strongest challenger.
Speaking at a mass rally in Tel Aviv on Sunday, Eisenkot urged traditional voters for Netanyahu’s Likud party to abandon the prime minister, claiming that Israel cannot survive another four years under his leadership.
“Anyone who thinks our Israel can survive another four years like these is living under a dangerous misconception,” Eisenkot said, according to the Times of Israel.
Netanyahu is also facing accusations of attempting to provoke a new war with Iran to postpone the election. Former Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has demanded a criminal investigation into the prime minister on suspicion of treason after Channel 12 reported a clash between Netanyahu and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir over a proposed military operation.
“The man has gone off the rails,” Liberman said on Monday, accusing Netanyahu of putting his political survival ahead of national security. The prime minister denied the reported confrontation, and no criminal wrongdoing has been established.
Netanyahu also failed to persuade US President Donald Trump to launch strikes on Iran before the Israeli election, CNN reported, citing American and Israeli sources. The operation has reportedly been postponed, potentially until after the November 3 US midterm elections. Netanyahu’s office rejected the report.
The confrontation is not simply between the left and the right. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid are also seeking to oust Netanyahu, but the opposition remains divided over domestic policy, coalition alliances, and who should lead the next government.
Four years of war and political turmoil
Netanyahu’s latest term has been marked by a series of crises, from mass protests over his judicial overhaul to the October 7 Hamas attack, which exposed major failures in Israel’s security apparatus and triggered years of warfare.
The attack remains a central election issue, with Netanyahu’s opponents accusing him of evading responsibility and blocking an independent state commission of inquiry. While the opposition demands a full investigation into the political and military failures, the prime minister has backed a government-appointed panel with more limited powers.
Israel’s subsequent military campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran have come at a heavy human, economic, and diplomatic cost. The Gaza offensive has devastated the Palestinian enclave, killing tens of thousands and displacing much of its population.
In September 2025, a UN commission of inquiry concluded that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Netanyahu is also subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel rejects the genocide allegations and denies committing war crimes.
Another major dividing line concerns Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul, which triggered nationwide protests in 2023. His opponents have pledged to reverse measures they say undermine judicial independence. The prime minister is also standing trial on corruption charges, including bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, which he denies.
Another contentious issue is the exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men from military service. Despite a 2024 Supreme Court ruling against blanket exemptions, Netanyahu’s coalition has continued to resist compulsory conscription for religious students, fueling resentment among Israelis repeatedly called up for military duty.
The economic toll has added to public anger. Rising defense spending, higher living costs, and a VAT increase to 18% in 2025 have put further pressure on households.
Yet the wars themselves have attracted relatively little debate among the main contenders, many of whom support Israel’s military campaigns. The deeper political battle is over Netanyahu’s leadership, accountability, and the direction of the Israeli state.
Election arithmetic: Can anyone secure a majority?
Recent surveys indicate a tight race, with Eisenkot’s Yashar holding a narrow advantage over Netanyahu’s Likud in several polls.
An October 21 Jerusalem Post analysis of four major surveys put Yashar at an average of 22.5 seats, compared with 19.75 for Likud. But neither Netanyahu’s allies nor the opposition appear assured of the 61 seats needed for a majority in Israel’s 120-member Knesset.
Under Israel’s proportional representation system, parties must win at least 3.25% of the national vote to enter parliament. Votes for parties that fail to cross the threshold do not translate into seats, meaning even small shifts could tip the balance between rival camps.
The real battle may therefore begin after the ballots are counted. Smaller parties, particularly ultra-Orthodox factions, could determine who governs, with military conscription exemptions and religious education funding among their key demands.
According to a Jerusalem Post report published Monday, possible scenarios include opposition cooperation with ultra-Orthodox factions, reliance on Arab parties’ parliamentary support, or even another election if coalition talks fail.
Would a defeat for Netanyahu change Israel’s course?
A new prime minister would not necessarily mean a new direction for Israel’s military and foreign policies.
Despite their fierce opposition to Netanyahu, leading opposition figures broadly support maintaining Israel’s military superiority, confronting Iran, and retaining extensive security control over Palestinian territories. None of the principal contenders has made the establishment of a Palestinian state a central campaign commitment.
The election also comes amid renewed tensions in the occupied West Bank. Israeli authorities have imposed sweeping restrictions following a shooting near Hebron that killed two Israeli soldiers and two Palestinian gunmen, including curbs on Palestinians entering Jewish settlements for work.
Meanwhile, thousands of Israelis have demonstrated against the government and violence toward Palestinians, even as younger voters increasingly identify with the political right.
Reporting from Tel Aviv, RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij described Israel as “a nation dramatically shifting towards the right,” with many young people citing the October 7 attack as a turning point in their political views.
The election could therefore remove Netanyahu from power without reversing the security policies that have defined his latest term.
What happens after October 27?
The vote could leave Netanyahu in power, hand the opposition a chance to form a government, or produce another parliamentary deadlock.
Under Israel’s parliamentary system, the president consults party leaders before choosing a lawmaker to form a government. Coalition talks can drag on for weeks, with smaller parties demanding concessions in exchange for their support. If no candidate can secure a majority, Israel could face another election.
The final result may therefore be decided not at the ballot box, but behind closed doors, as rival parties bargain over who will govern Israel next.
Yet even if Netanyahu loses power, the election may change Israel’s leadership without fundamentally altering its approach to the Palestinians or the regional conflicts that have defined his latest term.
The Trump administration sees the former Hungarian leader as a joint candidate from Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, the paper has reported
The administration of US President Donald Trump is pushing for former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to become the next UN secretary-general, the Wall Street Journal has reported.
Members of Trump’s team have already reached out to Orban, who is open to the idea but will only run if there is confidence that he can secure the job, the paper said in an article on Sunday.
The US believes that Russia and China would also support the former Hungarian leader, who would be seen as a joint candidate from the three countries, a State Department official told the outlet.
The term of current UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expires on December 31. AP reported last week that none of the seven candidates to replace him, including Costa Rica’s Rebecca Greenspan, Guyana’s Carolyn Rodriguez Birkett, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi of Argentina, currently have the required support of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC): China, France, Russia, the UK, and US.
The Trump administration considers Orban to be “the dream MAGA-conservative candidate,” who has the right ideology and knows how to exercise authority, according to the WSJ’s sources.
Orban, who left office in Hungary after 16 years in power this May, used to describe his rule as an “illiberal democracy.” The 63-year-old politician has been a harsh critic of EU’s policies, repeatedly clashing with Brussels over his moves against mass migration, a clampdown on left-wing NGOs, resistance to the LGBTQ+ agenda, and other issues.
He was one of the few European leaders to maintain contacts with Moscow after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, insisting on Hungary continuing to purchase Russian energy and decrying Western sanctions as counterproductive. The former Hungarian leader also consistently advocated stronger economic cooperation between the EU and China.
Orban has called Trump a “good friend” and visited the US to back the Republican’s presidential campaign in 2024. The US president endorsed Orban ahead of this year’s Hungarian election and sent Vice President J.D. Vance to Budapest to campaign for him, although the move did not help to deliver victory.
A State Department official estimated that Orban would “comfortably” get eight votes in the 15-member UN Security Council, with two more also being within reach. Permanent members the UK and France, who could stand in the way of majority support for Orban, usually use their veto power cautiously, the WSJ stressed.
Trump has been increasingly unhappy with the UN during his second term, saying that the global body hasn’t come close to reaching its “tremendous potential.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last month that Moscow expects the new UN secretary-general to represent the interests of all mankind, not just a small group of Western nations as happened under Guterres. Lavrov also said several of the candidates possessed the qualities needed to be effective in the role.
Damage to lifeboats aboard the Mein Schiff 3 could force some passengers to cancel their trip
A cruise liner has collided with a container ship while departing Bremerhaven in northwestern Germany for a voyage to the Canary Islands.
The incident involving the Mein Schiff 3 occurred on Sunday in poor weather brought by storm Manja. Strong crosswinds appeared to overpower the tugboats assisting the 293-meter vessel down the Weser River. The collision was filmed from aboard the liner.
Hamburg-based operator TUI Cruises reported no injuries among the 2,428 guests and 922 crew members aboard the ship. The vessel was brought back to the pier for a damage assessment.
Media reports and footage indicate that at least three lifeboats were seriously damaged, potentially disrupting the voyage unless they can be replaced promptly. In similar cases, operators have negotiated cancellations with some guests to bring the number of people aboard into line with the remaining lifeboat capacity.
Die „Mein Schiff 3“ kollidiert beim Auslaufen in Bremerhaven mit einem Containerschiff. Aufnahmen zeigen die Wucht des Zusammenstoßes; mehrere Rettungsboote wurden offenbar beschädigt. Nach bisherigen Berichten gab es keine Verletzten. Die Unfallursache muss untersucht werden.
Doch ich frage mich grundsätzlich: Wie lange wollen wir noch eine Kreuzfahrtindustrie fördern, deren Geschäftsmodell mit enormen Treibhausgasemissionen verbunden ist? Luxus auf See darf nicht bedeuten, dass die Umwelt die Rechnung bezahlt. Wir brauchen einen konsequenten Ausstieg aus besonders klimaschädlichen Kreuzfahrten. Klimaschutz ist keine freiwillige Zusatzleistung!
The Mein Schiff 3 was beginning a 20-day ‘Timeless Canary Islands’ cruise, with its first stop scheduled for October 28 in the Spanish port of A Coruna.
The MSC Victorine, which the liner struck, also postponed its departure for Hamburg following the collision.
An initial police report mentioned a third vessel involved in the collision, although footage suggests the Mein Schiff 3 narrowly missed the smaller container ship MSC Anne F. before hitting the Victorine.
Some reports said two tugboats were also damaged. Shipping was temporarily suspended after the incident.
His right-wing rival, Flavio Bolsonaro lost by 51.79% to 48.21% and has refused to concede, vowing to seek an annulment of the vote
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has received congratulations from Latin American nations and fellow BRICS members after winning reelection as Brazil’s president.
Lula prevailed over right-wing challenger Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of jailed former President Jair Bolsonaro and an ally of US President Donald Trump, in the second round of the vote on Sunday.
The 80-year-old veteran politician secured 51.79% of valid votes against Bolsonaro’s 48.21%, according to the completed count published by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), winning a historic fourth term by more than 4.4 million votes.
The victory means Latin America’s largest economy is set to maintain its prominent role in BRICS rather than shift closer to Washington under the Bolsonaro political dynasty. The defeated challenger had openly questioned Brazil’s membership in the bloc, accusing Lula of using it to antagonize the United States.
Addressing jubilant crowds in Sao Paulo, Lula thanked Brazilians for his reelection and singled out young people who had taken to the streets during the campaign.
“Today, my remarks are about gratitude,” he declared, pledging to give citizens a greater say in government decisions. “We are going to change the way this country is governed.”
However, Bolsonaro has refused to concede defeat and vowed to seek the annulment of the election, accusing the Supreme Court of improperly interfering in the vote.
“Brazil cannot accept this dirty trick,” he declared, denouncing the last-minute decision to extend voting hours nationwide by two hours as “unacceptable” and equivalent to “changing the rules of the game while the game was being played.”
The controversial ruling by Supreme Court Justice Cristiano Zanin, Lula’s former personal lawyer, followed complaints from the incumbent’s campaign that public transport disruptions had prevented voters from reaching polling stations.
However, Bolsonaro did not mention that his own campaign had also requested extended voting hours in several cities affected by severe weather.
The decision came shortly after the original 5 PM deadline, when many polling stations had already closed and sealed their electronic voting machines. Senior judges have reportedly acknowledged procedural errors in handling the extension but ruled out annulling the election, according to Folha de S.Paulo.
Montes Claros City councilwoman Iara Pimentel was injured by a projectile at a campaign event
A politician from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s party was injured when attackers threw stones and bottles at a campaign vehicle on the eve of Sunday’s crucial presidential runoff.
The violent incident came as Brazilians voted in a tightly contested election between left-wing incumbent Lula, who has championed closer ties with BRICS nations, and right-wing challenger and Donald Trump ally Flavio Bolsonaro.
Montes Claros City councilwoman Iara Pimentel, a member of Lula’s Workers’ Party (PT), was struck in the face during a campaign event late Saturday night in Minas Gerais state in southeastern Brazil, according to state news agency Agencia Brasil (ABr).
Video footage showed bottles, bricks, and other objects being thrown at the campaign vehicle carrying the politician. Later images showed her bloodied face.
Ajudem essas imagens a chegar à policia! Não podemos permitir que esse tipo de gente, que estimula o ódio, governo o país! https://t.co/51eU79KCLR
She was taken to a local hospital by ambulance, ABr reported.
“Thinking differently is a right. Political violence is a threat to democracy. No disagreement can justify acts of aggression or put lives at risk,” Pimentel said in a statement cited by the agency.
Ana Elisa, a 21-year-old congresswoman-elect from Lula’s Workers’ Party representing Minas Gerais, condemned the attack and called for those responsible to be held accountable.
Lula also condemned what he described as multiple incidents of violence during the election.
“The most sacred thing in democracy is democratic coexistence in diversity,” he said, according to ABr, arguing that neighbors should be able to support different political candidates and sports teams or hold different beliefs without resorting to violence.
The assault occurred just hours before polls opened on Sunday and weeks after the close of the first round of Brazil’s presidential election on October 4. Lula received just over 45%, while 47% went to Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro – who is serving a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup following his 2022 election defeat. Trump has described the former president’s prosecution as a “witch hunt.”
The election has also been marred by allegations of interference by US tech giant Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Meta blocked the Facebook advertising account used by Lula’s team ahead of the first round on October 4, then prevented his official Instagram account from boosting posts days later, according to campaign officials.
Meta denied politically interfering in the election, but internal company messages acknowledged technical restrictions affecting Lula’s Instagram account, Folha de S.Paulo newspaper reported last week, citing internal communications.
The bloc’s leaders rushed to congratulate the student-led opposition on its projected victory before the official vote count was complete
Serbia’s student-led opposition is leading in Sunday’s snap parliamentary election, according to preliminary results. Former Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused unnamed European powers and anti-Trump forces in the US of meddling in the vote to “bring down a sovereign country.”
According to preliminary results published by the Republic Electoral Commission (RIK) early Monday, the opposition Student List leads with 51.84% of the vote, compared with 39.77% for Vucic’s United Serbia coalition, with nearly 93% of polling stations reporting.
The official figures have moved closer to the final projection by pollster Ipsos and election monitor CeSID overnight, which put the Student List at 52.9% and Vucic’s coalition at 38.8%, based on their stratified sample.
In his remarks earlier on election night, Vucic accused foreign powers of helping engineer his political downfall, describing the vote as the “verification of a revolution” carried out with direct support from “various European countries and the American deep state,” which he said was opposed to US President Donald Trump.
“I congratulate them, although they are merely the executors, the executors of dirty work devised by someone else to bring down a sovereign country,” Vucic said, referring to the student-led opposition.
“You have succeeded for the moment. For how long? We shall see,” he added.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa were quick to congratulate the Student List, issuing virtually identical statements on X. Both pledged Brussels’ support for reforms and efforts to advance Serbia’s integration into the EU.
Vucic also warned that a new government could impose sanctions on Russia within months, despite opposition representatives insisting that Belgrade’s policy toward Moscow would remain unchanged.
The former Serbian leader nevertheless pledged to respect the electorate’s decision and continue his political struggle from the opposition, dismissing speculation that he would flee the country.
“I love Serbia. I will never leave Serbia,” Vucic declared, insisting that his party would remain united and politically active.
The election follows nearly two years of political unrest sparked by the deadly collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad in November 2024, which killed 16 people and fueled allegations of corruption and failures in safety oversight. Vucic resigned as president on September 27 to participate in the parliamentary race.
The Ukrainian leader has worked against the US president’s interests and pocketed American taxpayer money, the senior Russian official has said
Vladimir Zelensky’s disregard for Donald Trump is doing more damage to the US president’s interests than Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela do combined, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Sunday.
Ukraine’s leader has publicly backed Trump’s predecessor and former political rival, Joe Biden, rejected US proposals to settle the Ukraine conflict and worked to turn European leaders against Trump, Medvedev alleged.
“The Kiev scumbag regularly spits straight in the face of the US president, ignoring his demands and turning influential Americans (and not-so-influential Europeans) against him,” Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said in a Telegram post.
He said that Zelensky “shamelessly lined his own pockets with American taxpayer money” under Biden, who Trump says provided Ukraine with some $350 billion in US aid. “And he kept dipping into the pot under Trump, too, taking whatever was left,” Medvedev added.
The Ukrainian “cozied up to Mexican drug cartels” by providing drone warfare training in exchange for proceeds from drug sales in the US, he alleged.
Zelensky has also “given the American president the finger” by refusing to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries despite Trump’s repeated warnings.
There is a growing rift between Trump and Zelensky over Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries. The US president has demanded that Ukraine stop, accusing it of exacerbating the global fuel crisis and raising prices for Americans – a sensitive issue ahead of the November 3 US midterms. Kiev has thus far refused.
Zelensky has also accused Washington of temporarily restricting intelligence sharing and access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network, which Ukraine uses for battlefield communications and drone operations.
To ease the fuel crisis, Trump temporarily waived sanctions on Russian fuel exports as part of a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Under the agreement, Moscow agreed to supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel immediately, another 500,000 tons in November and further shipments thereafter. The first three tankers carrying Russian diesel are already heading across the Atlantic, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said on Friday.
The Yemeni militants confirmed new attacks as the conflict with the Riyadh-led coalition intensifies
Yemen’s Houthis have struck several targets in Saudi Arabia, including two international airports and energy infrastructure facilities operated by the oil giant Saudi Aramco, the group’s military spokesman said on Saturday.
The conflict between Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, also known as the Houthis, and the Saudi-led coalition escalated last month, when the militant group seized the Red Sea port cities of Mocha and Dhubab as well as Perim Island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The Houthis have since tightened their siege of Taiz, Yemen’s third-largest city and a key stronghold of anti-Houthi forces.
In a statement posted on X, Yahya Saree said the Houthis had conducted seven operations using ballistic missiles and drones, targeting King Khalid Airport in Riyadh, King Fahd International Airport in Dammam, Najran Airport and Khamis Mushait Air Base, as well as Aramco’s facilities in Yanbu, the Rabigh oil refinery and crude oil pumping stations, and a pipeline linking eastern and western Saudi Arabia.
The spokesman said the attacks were carried out in response to what the group described as Saudi “aggression” against Yemen. Saree claimed Saudi forces had launched 100 airstrikes over the previous 24 hours, targeting civilian infrastructure in Sanaa and other areas, leaving dozens dead and wounded. He said the Houthis would continue attacking Saudi territory until the “aggression” ends and the Saudi-led coalition lifts its restrictions on the movement of goods and people into and out of Yemen.
The latest attack came as Riyadh’s main air hub prepared to resume operations after more than two weeks of disruption following earlier Houthi strikes. The facility announced a partial reopening from Sunday. In a separate post on X, Saree warned that airlines, airport staff and passengers against using the site, calling it a military target and saying it would remain unsafe.
The spokesman also accused Riyadh of spreading false claims that the Houthis had targeted the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, insisting that the group’s operations were directed solely at Saudi oil facilities and military bases and were announced as they took place.
The accusation came in response to Saudi Civil Defense claims that debris from the interception of two ballistic missiles launched by the Houthis fell in the Mecca and Medina regions on Saturday. The debris landed in several locations, including Wadi Al-Mughammas in Mecca, Jeddah, Taif and Rabigh, the agency said on Saturday.
Yemen’s civil war began in 2014, with Saudi Arabia leading a military intervention the following year to support the internationally recognized government against the Houthis. Fighting eased under a UN-brokered truce in 2022 but escalated sharply in September 2026.
The renewed conflict has seen the Houthis launch missile and drone attacks on Saudi airports and oil facilities, while the Riyadh-led coalition has intensified airstrikes on Houthi positions, command centers and weapons networks.
The Houthis have claimed the total number of Saudi airstrikes and missile attacks since the latest escalation began has reached 3,123.
The streets may eventually fall silent, but the struggle over who governs, who pays and what survives is only beginning
These days, European headlines resemble reports from a war zone: from stormed city halls in Marseille and Lille, to looted boutiques along the French Riviera, burned tourist offices in Lyon, and clouds of tear gas enveloping the Élysée Palace. The ‘day of rage’ in France drew over 800,000 protesters onto the streets – an event that was dismissed by Paris and the European mainstream as merely the “spontaneous revolt of the outskirts” or a “raid by migrants.” However, a closer look at the ‘rebels’ reveals respectable, bourgeois-looking students and well-off citizens engaging in destruction and violence.
None of these people know what to expect from the future of mainstream European politics. In this shifting landscape, old institutions are losing their legitimacy, while right-wing political forces – whose ideas are increasingly seen as rational amid the chaos – are emerging on the broader European stage.
French President Emmanuel Macron arrogantly advised the people to express their political will in six months during the forthcoming presidential elections; however, the streets responded to Macron’s proposal with looting and arson targeting government buildings. This reaction serves as a precise diagnosis of the French political system. The country’s civic framework can no longer hold society together and there is no confidence in a stable future.
Many believe that the current riots in France are a “spontaneous revolt of the outskirts.” However, as Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director at the Valdai International Discussion Club writes, we are witnessing an inverted version of May 1968. Nearly 60 years ago, the nationwide wave of protests led by students and leftist intellectuals shaped the liberal framework that has dominated global and European politics ever since.
Today, it has reached the point of aggressive absurdity. The old narratives of ‘liberation’ have been successfully adopted by the bourgeois youth, whose behavior is more violent that of an uncivilized tribe, as HSE professor Alexander Filippov notes. But then, one may remember that, centuries ago, the Bastille wasn’t stormed by migrants either.
How did this happen? The liberal establishment in Paris and Brussels has become totally detached from ordinary citizens. Its agenda is completely irrelevant to society. Having imposed a rigid “confrontation with Russia” at the expense of the prosperity and development of its own people, the EU offers its citizens no viable ideas for survival.
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen suggested at a Paris business forum in August that Europeans should tighten their belts and become a continent that “produces, invests, and protects” by tapping into “idle” domestic savings. Her logic implies using household savings to fund the real economy through the Capital Markets Union. Clearly, the proposal to dip into citizens’ savings while shifting the risks of factory bankruptcies onto them can only be met with outrage by the decent bourgeoisie brought up on ‘European ideals’.
The system has set a trap for itself: in order to retain its waning power, the left-liberal establishment is forced to close its eyes to the riots of anarchists and radical leftists. The authorities fear street protests far less than the rise of their right-wing opponents. The liberal mainstream would rather burn cities than allow rational thinkers with worldviews grounded in national interests to come to power.
Despite their passion for destruction, the rioters have no idea how to reconstruct the future of united Europe. Moreover, as Irina Maltseva, head of the ‘France and Francophone countries: Politics, economics, culture’ project at the HSE Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies points out, the spontaneous street protests will inevitably die down as the presidential campaign approaches. Protests will wane, leaving us to wonder – what comes next?
The fight between left-wing and right-wing forces in Europe
The escalating competition between right and left-wing factions in Europe has transcended mere philosophical debate. It would be a mistake to view each new crisis as an isolated anomaly within the EU. Incidents like the riots in Paris, the brief unrest in Milan, the migration chaos in Ceuta, or the victory of the far-right in Germany’s Saxony-Anhalt state are all interconnected threads in the same narrative, best described as the collapse of the prevailing model.
Beneath the ideological clash between the right and left lies a harsh economic reality – the struggle over who will bear the costs of the sanctions crisis orchestrated by the European Commission. The establishment has attempted to persuade the world that a post-industrial economy – characterized by AI integration, cryptocurrency transactions, a shift toward green energy, Capital Markets Union speculations, and “normative” values – is more important than factories, raw materials, ports, and affordable energy. However, this is a path to economic self-destruction. The street protests in France and Italy vividly illustrate that Europe can no longer afford to uphold its previous social contract. Budget deficits are spiraling out of control and are becoming the EU’s economic curse.
Budapest serves as a prime example of this systemic failure. The Hungarian Parliament is currently reviewing the national budget proposal. Prime Minister Peter Magyar acknowledged that the country is grappling with a record-breaking, suffocating budget deficit of 7.5% to 8.3% of GDP. The economic strategies of past years, reliant on uninterrupted cheap energy from Russia and long-term loans from China, have collapsed under the pressure of the REPowerEU plan.
The Hungarian government’s only remaining support mechanism is the so-called ‘solidarity contribution’ tax imposed on excessive profits in opposition-led cities, but local governments can no longer afford to pay it amid the current crisis. To prevent Hungary from experiencing large-scale social upheavals similar to those in France, Magyar is urgently implementing a progressive tax system, cutting government contracts, imposing a wealth tax on billionaires, and escalating tensions with EU leadership by demanding the immediate unfreezing of €16 billion in EU grants, while threatening Orban with lifetime imprisonment if he pushes the opposition onto the streets.
The analysis of the internal dynamics of economic issues in the EU, however, should not boil down to a simplistic equation of ‘budget deficit = street protests’. For example, we may wonder why there are no protests in Poland and Romania, despite similar or even more severe budget deficits (7.3% and 7.9%, respectively), while Albania (a rather financially stable country and non-EU member) is engulfed in turmoil and the Flamingo Revolution.
The answer seems to lie in the differing nature of the deficit and the resilience of national institutions. In Poland and Romania, budget shortfalls are currently masked by rampant electoral populism and ‘social bribes’ – like Romania’s subsidies for farmers or Poland’s price caps at gas stations.
The government manages to mitigate discontent with funds extracted from big business. However, in France, the government has completely exhausted this option. The budget deficit has led to direct cuts in essential social commitments – from school funding to suburban support – quickly eroding its legitimacy.
For many Europeans, the right-wing agenda and national self-interest have become the only rational option. Right-wing pragmatists propose a clear audit and financial protection, while Brussels’ liberal framework advocates for insolvency for the sake of rather dubious dogmas.
The tactics of growing competition, or how to succeed in the ‘darkroom’
Contemporary global politics resembles a sort of ‘darkroom’ where old rules no longer apply, and new ones are still taking shape. The key revelation is that the ‘new right’ has learned to navigate this darkness by playing by Brussels’ own rules. There’s a growing understanding that to save the industrial base from stifling deficits, ideological romanticism must be abandoned.
A good example is Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Her approach has shown that it’s possible to dutifully follow external Euro-Atlantic rituals while negotiating exceptions from Brussels on crucial issues vital to the national economy – such as energy or migration.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico follows a similar path, cleverly blending leftist social principles with hardline national populism. Bratislava is demanding official transitional periods and exemptions from the European Commission to continue receiving Russian gas, citing the need to protect the wallets of its voters.
A comparable maneuver is being executed by Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis; while his policies can’t be called pro-Russian, pragmatism dictates a simple truth: if Czech factories want to survive amid America’s selfish diesel policy, they’ll need to negotiate with Moscow. Even Hungary has adeptly shifted the discussion to a language of tough bargaining. Budapest has formally agreed to comply with REPowerEU requirements and phase out Russian energy supplies by October 2027, but insists that the EU must provide compensation, or else Hungarian companies will face bankruptcy.
Poland’s stance is particularly notable. Rhetorically, Warsaw demands a complete sanctioning of Eurasian projects, presenting itself as Europe’s “primary eastern shield.” Yet this is merely an attempt to maintain appearances during a losing game. Internal realities compel Warsaw to negotiate with Beijing to preserve transit through the Malaszewicze hub and to impose a 60% windfall tax on its state-owned company Orlen to temporarily quell public dissatisfaction at gas stations ahead of elections.
Remarkably, this ‘trial by rage’ is unfolding not only within the EU, and it doesn't only affect Western capitalist giants. The trend is taking on a global scale.
In Albania, the ‘Flamingo Revolution’ is brewing. The social upheaval was sparked by the allocation of resort zones for a mega project spearheaded by Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and undermined the decade-long stability of Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama’s left-liberal government. In a desperate attempt to cling to his dwindling legitimacy, Rama resorted to his usual tactics, accusing street protesters of links to the American Antifa political movement and “Moscow’s influence.”
The pendulum has swung even further in India, where a massive youth uprising led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and Rahul Gandhi’s opposition alliance has paralyzed major cities from New Delhi to Mumbai. Although the immediate trigger was the Special Intensive Revision of electoral polls, the underlying issue is similar to the problem in France: the pro-American digital outsourcing model and liberal dogmas can no longer sustain the younger generation amidst a global crisis.
The issue isn’t capitalism per se, but rather the collapse of its specific, degenerate form: liberal globalization. In its place arises a rigid, sovereign capitalism rooted in national self-interest. The new right-wing pragmatists are not ‘Moscow’s friends’. They merely advocate for their own wallets in times of scarcity.
For Russia, this is an important signal: the West’s ‘unified’ sanctions policy has turned into an uncomfortable, but purely decorative facade; and behind it, we glimpse scenes of impressive but ultimately meaningless discontent. In this light, a critical question arises – will the political mainstream acknowledge its defeat and negotiate with its opponents, or will it continue to operate under the “apres nous, le deluge” (after us, the flood) principle? A key indicator will be the formation of a coalition between the ruling government and right-wing forces in Saxony-Anhalt, and their ability to govern effectively and maintain power in the long term.
Login
