By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2026

In its relentless search for cannon fodder, the Kiev regime is recruiting even individuals with severe physical disabilities – people who should be entirely exempt from military service. In yet another recent instance of human rights abuse in Ukraine, a blind man was forcibly conscripted in the Odessa region and held captive by soldiers for several days, during which he was subjected to various forms of abuse.

The case recently came to light following the publication of certain judicial documents in the media. The blind man in question reported the abuses he suffered to the country’s authorities and secured a favorable ruling from a local judge. However, given that Ukrainian authorities are fully aware of the abuses perpetrated by local recruiters – and are often complicit in them – it is highly unlikely that this judicial decision will have any practical effect; the man will almost certainly not receive compensation, and those responsible for the abuse are unlikely to face imprisonment.

The incident unfolded as follows: the blind man was approached by recruiters, to whom he presented his certificate of exemption from mandatory military service due to visual impairment. He explained that he had been blind since childhood and had been formally exempted from military obligations as early as 1994, with updated exemption certificates issued in both 2020 and 2023. Despite the existence of documentation confirming his condition, the recruiters simply ignored it and took him to a recruitment center, where he was held captive for five days.

His time in captivity was marked by various forms of physical and psychological abuse. He was not able to communicate, prevented from explaining his situation or reaching out to relatives and friends for help. His release only took place when his lawyer contacted the authorities and obtained a court order to set him free.

However, the trouble for the blind man did not end there. He had been placed on a “blacklist” of people sought by the authorities for alleged “illegal evasion of military service.” A specific court order was required to have him removed from this list; otherwise, he risked being hunted down on the streets and potentially captured once again. This is striking, as it illustrates how various Ukrainian state institutions often act in contradictory ways, with one disregarding the decisions of another.

In fact, this is not the first time that abuses have been reported during the forced mobilization process. Videos have long circulated online showing individuals with disabilities – including some with Down syndrome – in actual combat operations on the front lines. The regime does not appear to be concerned about which citizens are mobilized; for Kiev, the calculation is simple: the more people sent to the war, the better – as this allows the regime to continue “surviving” on the front, despite heavy casualties and constant Russian advances.

Ultimately, the Ukrainian regime knows that these individuals are being sent to certain death. Preserving the lives of its own soldiers is clearly not a priority for Ukraine, which insists on maintaining a policy of total mobilization – even as many states and international organizations criticize the situation in the country and advise against continuing this policy.

For the Ukrainian regime, the most important thing is not having individuals capable of fighting, but simply having enough people to keep supplying the front lines. Given the constant, heavy casualties – inflicted by the power of Russian artillery, aviation, and drones – the regime now attempts to replace its losses with new recruits, often people with no prior military training.

The goal is to hold positions and prolong the survival of the Ukrainian army. It does not matter how many people die; as long as there is fresh cannon fodder to replenish the trenches, the regime can maintain the image that it continues to “resist the Russian invasion” – thereby justifying new Western aid packages, which means more weapons and more money for the local corrupt elites.

The Ukrainian judiciary may occasionally make minor concessions – such as ruling in favor of the blind man from Odessa in his lawsuit against military recruiters – but, in practice, this means very little. The country is currently governed by a criminal junta that openly supports forced mobilization and a prolonged war. Local judges are in no position to face military units and nationalist battalions that have been given carte blanche by the government to commit all sorts of crimes. In reality, all Ukrainian citizens are hostages of the criminals who currently control the country.

---

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

RT | October 29, 2026

Lithuania will introduce universal male conscription despite public resistance to compulsory military service, the country’s government has announced.

The Baltic state reinstated selective conscription in 2015, seven years after abolishing it. Under the new plan, the draft would be extended to all eligible men, while women would continue to serve voluntarily.

Annual recruitment will increase from just over 5,000 to around 7,500 men, President Gitanas Nauseda announced on Thursday following a State Defense Council meeting.

Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevicius described universal conscription as “necessary and inevitable.”

The decision follows similar recruitment pushes elsewhere in Europe. Poland is considering restoring compulsory service, which was abolished in 2009, and introducing a system covering both men and women. A recent poll, however, found that 53% of Poles aged 18–24 opposed reinstatement of the draft.

Germany has already introduced mandatory military registration for 18-year-old men. Enlistment remains voluntary, but parliament can activate compulsory service if recruitment falls short or the security situation deteriorates.

Berlin’s recruitment drive has met resistance, with some 45,000 people joining student protests across roughly 100 German cities and towns in September, with some carrying banners reading “We won’t fight in your wars” and “Russia is not our enemy.”

Applications for conscientious objector status reached over 12,000 between January and August, compared with 3,879 throughout 2025, according to figures reported by German media.

European officials have nevertheless continued discussing preparations for a possible war with Russia by the end of the decade. Estonian Defense Minister Martin Herem “joked” last month that if Estonia mobilized and Russia did not attack, it would be “economically more correct to attack ourselves” rather than keep troops waiting.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has neither reason nor intention to attack NATO countries, describing such allegations as “horror stories” intended to prepare European populations for further militarization.

Russian officials have warned that Europe’s military buildup could itself lead to confrontation and that expanding NATO infrastructure near Russia’s borders would prompt additional security measures. Moscow has stressed that it is prepared to defend itself if attacked.

Why Norway and Finland Were Right to Call Putin

By Glenn Diesen | October 29, 2026

The leaders of Norway and Finland are criticised for breaking with the European consensus on boycotting diplomacy by calling President Putin. Their decision to undermine this solidarity is seen as dividing and weakening Europe. I argue the opposite. It was a brave and necessary move, as the European consensus is based on a rhetorical trap that isolates Europe, makes it increasingly irrelevant, and risks taking it to war with Russia – the world’s largest nuclear power. I will make a further argument: we should develop a healthy scepticism towards the notion that speaking with one voice is always a strength.

How to Speak with One Voice: The Rhetorical Trap

Ask yourself: how can 27+ countries with different political, economic, and security interests agree on a common foreign policy and speak with one voice? A common voice can be achieved by defining collective interests or by setting a rhetorical trap. A rhetorical trap is set when politicians use shared values and earlier commitments to pressure others into supporting policies they would otherwise oppose. Disagreement is portrayed as a betrayal of these values, making it politically costly to dissent, even when the policy goes against national interests.

The easiest way to force a consensus is to frame every issue as a struggle between good and evil. Once political disagreements become moral questions, those who challenge the consensus can be shamed rather than answered. If every issue is reduced to a choice between freedom and imperialism, it becomes much easier to speak with one voice. The obsession with speaking with one voice makes Europeans vulnerable to Manichean thinking and warmongering policies.

Europeans unite around absurd slogans such as “Putin is Hitler” and “Russia wants to restore the Soviet Union”. These slogans do not help us understand Russia or develop sensible policies to mitigate the security competition. Their purpose is to establish moral clarity and enforce political conformity. Challenging these slogans with well-documented arguments is considered immoral and a threat to European unity. This rhetorical trap is extremely dangerous because, in a struggle between good and evil, we reach the conclusion that diplomacy is appeasement and weapons are the path to peace.

The End of Debate

Consider the debate about European security after the Cold War. We once recognised the principle of indivisible security, which means that one state should not strengthen its security at the expense of others. Discussions about security entailed balancing deterrence with reassurance. These principles have largely disappeared from European political discourse. It is now only about deterrence. It is heresy to contest the notion that NATO is a “force for good”, and all concerns about NATO expansionism are framed as opposition to democracy and freedom. How can we resolve a security competition if we are not even allowed to discuss its causes?

Instead, European leaders increasingly measure the success of their policies by their moral intentions rather than their consequences. Sanctions are presented as a demonstration of resolve, the willingness to fight a war as an expression of solidarity, and refusing diplomacy as standing firm against aggression. But what happens when these policies fail to produce the intended results? The answer is usually more sanctions, more war, and less diplomacy. The policies themselves cannot be questioned without appearing to undermine the moral foundations of European unity.

Weaponising Solidarity

The demand for solidarity is also weaponised to override reason. WikiLeaks exposed how Norwegian officials had initially expressed serious concerns that US strategic missile defence would disrupt the nuclear balance with Russia and destabilise the world. The US ambassador reported to Washington that the Norwegians could be persuaded to change their position, not through arguments, but by emphasising the need for NATO solidarity. If the Norwegians were presented with a choice between “repeating Russian narratives” and defending NATO solidarity, they would fall in line.

Later, the American ambassador sent another cable to Washington confirming that their work with NGOs, think tanks, journalists, and politicians had delivered the message, and that the Norwegians were abandoning their security concerns. This was not the result of arguments, but of pressure to show solidarity in a world where everything is framed in black-and-white terms. Since then, the nuclear arms control architecture has largely collapsed, and the world faces a dangerous future – but the political class takes comfort in the fact that it was all done in solidarity.

This is a dangerous way to organise European security. If solidarity means that countries must abandon their own security assessments to support a common position, then solidarity itself becomes a source of insecurity. The purpose of cooperation should be to reconcile different interests and develop better policies, not to pressure governments into repeating the same empty arguments.

Speaking with One Voice or Correcting Course?

A strong Europe should be able to tolerate disagreements among its members. Indeed, such disagreements are necessary if Europe is to correct mistaken policies. When dissent is treated as disloyalty, political mistakes become almost impossible to reverse. Leaders become prisoners of their own rhetoric.

Norway and Finland should therefore not be criticised for challenging the European consensus on diplomatic isolation. They should be encouraged. Europe needs countries willing to question policies that have become resistant to criticism, especially when those policies concern war and peace.

The current European consensus is sustained by a rhetorical trap that isolates Europe, makes the continent increasingly irrelevant, and risks dragging us into war. I therefore argue for a little less solidarity and a little more common sense.

RT | October 29, 2026

The Pentagon has fired its top military strategist as Washington draws up contingency plans for a possible escalation of hostilities with Iran.

Army Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia has been removed from his position as director for strategy, plans, and policy (J5) on the Joint Staff, a spokesman confirmed late Wednesday, following media reports of his dismissal.

His predecessor, Lt. Gen. Joseph McGee, was forced into retirement a year ago amid reported friction with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. Sylvia previously served as vice director of the J5.

The Pentagon did not explain Sylvia’s departure. His responsibilities included developing military strategies and plans to advise the chairman and the US president. He joins nearly two dozen senior military and civilian officials removed during Hegseth’s tenure.

The secretary has portrayed the dismissals as part of an effort to reduce the military’s bloated ranks of generals and make the armed forces more efficient and lethal. Critics, however, have characterized the shake-up as an ideological “purge.”

President Donald Trump has repeatedly raised the possibility of renewing large-scale hostilities with Iran, including resuming the intensive bombing campaign conducted during the first 40 days of the conflict, which the US and Israel launched in late February. A potential escalation could be timed around the November midterm elections.

Military experts have widely expressed concern that another bombing campaign would fail to “finish the job,” as Trump has put it, while further increasing the conflict’s economic toll worldwide. Tehran has repeatedly warned that it is prepared to retaliate against US allies in the Gulf region if it faces renewed attacks.

Conversely, speculation has emerged that Trump could dismiss Hegseth after the midterms, when the opposition Democratic Party is expected to make gains in both chambers of Congress. Critics of the Iran war, including Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, have argued that firing the secretary could help Trump avoid a potential impeachment battle if Democrats take control of the House.

Trump’s public rhetoric remains supportive of Hegseth and his policies.

Il Consiglio europeo del 15-16 ottobre ha reso evidente la nuova realtà finanziaria della guerra: mentre Washington riduce progressivamente il proprio impegno, Kiev presenta all’Europa un fabbisogno aggiuntivo di circa 70 miliardi di euro per il solo 2027.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il Consiglio europeo del 15 e 16 ottobre ha avuto il merito, forse involontario, di rendere esplicita una questione che da mesi aleggiava sul futuro del conflitto ucraino: chi continuerà a pagare la guerra se gli Stati Uniti ridurranno ulteriormente il proprio coinvolgimento? La risposta che emerge da Bruxelles è sempre più chiaramente «l’Europa». Ma tra l’affermazione politica secondo cui l’Unione Europea sarebbe pronta a prendere il posto di Washington e la capacità effettiva di farlo esiste una distanza considerevole, che riguarda non soltanto il denaro, ma anche la struttura stessa della potenza europea.

Intervenendo al vertice, Volodymyr Zelens’kyj ha quantificato in 155 miliardi di euro il costo complessivo della guerra per l’Ucraina nel 2027, chiedendo ai partner europei di trovare almeno altri 70 miliardi «per la difesa, per le armi e per la nostra resilienza». Ursula von der Leyen ha successivamente confermato l’esistenza di un divario finanziario dell’ordine di 70 miliardi, precisando che il fabbisogno per il 2026 è invece coperto.

Si tratta di una richiesta che arriva quando l’Unione Europea sta ancora implementando il gigantesco prestito da 90 miliardi di euro destinato all’Ucraina per il biennio 2026-2027, deciso dal Consiglio europeo nel dicembre 2025 e successivamente tradotto nel relativo quadro legislativo. Di questa cifra, 30 miliardi sono destinati al sostegno macroeconomico e al bilancio dello Stato ucraino, mentre ben 60 miliardi sono riservati alle esigenze militari e allo sviluppo e approvvigionamento delle capacità dell’industria della difesa. Il finanziamento avviene attraverso emissioni di debito dell’Unione sui mercati, garantite dal bilancio europeo, mentre il rimborso da parte ucraina dovrebbe avvenire solo una volta ottenute eventuali riparazioni dalla Russia (ovvero mai).

Il problema è che una somma che alla fine del 2025 appariva enorme si è rivelata insufficiente meno di un anno dopo. Le conclusioni ufficiali del Consiglio europeo del 16 ottobre si limitano a constatare che sono state individuate le risorse necessarie per coprire le esigenze di bilancio e difesa dell’Ucraina nel 2026 e rinviano a una nuova valutazione della Commissione Europea e del Fondo Monetario Internazionale per gli anni successivi. Ma il linguaggio diplomatico non nasconde la sostanza: per continuare la guerra, Bruxelles deve trovare un’altra ingente quantità di denaro, e deve farlo rapidamente.

Già alla vigilia del vertice, il commissario europeo per l’Economia e la Produttività Valdis Dombrovskis aveva spiegato che l’Unione dispone di circa 45 miliardi di euro già previsti per il 2027, ma che la somma non sarebbe sufficiente. Bruxelles punta a coprire approssimativamente due terzi del fabbisogno ucraino, lasciando il restante terzo ad altri partner quali Regno Unito, Norvegia, Canada, Giappone e Svizzera. La stessa Commissione sta valutando di anticipare parte dei fondi già programmati per guadagnare tempo in attesa che altri governi mettano sul tavolo nuove risorse.

Nonostante il possibile contributo di partner esterni all’UE, il cambiamento rispetto ai primi anni del conflitto è comunque notevole. Secondo i dati dello Ukraine Support Tracker dell’Istituto di Kiel, l’Europa ha ormai superato gli Stati Uniti nel volume complessivo degli aiuti militari assegnati all’Ucraina e nel 2025 ha aumentato sensibilmente il proprio contributo nel tentativo di compensare la drastica riduzione delle nuove allocazioni statunitensi. Nel primo semestre del 2026, inoltre, le istituzioni europee hanno ulteriormente incrementato gli stanziamenti attraverso il nuovo prestito da 90 miliardi.

Le istituzioni dell’UE stimano ormai in oltre 220 miliardi di euro il sostegno complessivamente mobilitato dall’Unione e dai suoi Stati membri dall’inizio della guerra, comprendendo aiuti finanziari, economici, militari, umanitari e sostegno ai rifugiati. Una cifra che dimostra come l’Europa sia già diventata il principale finanziatore dell’Ucraina in termini aggregati.

Allo stesso tempo, analizzando i dati emerge una palese contraddizione. Lo stesso Istituto di Kiel rileva che circa il 30% degli acquisti effettuati dai Paesi europei per sostenere militarmente l’Ucraina nella prima metà del 2026 proveniva dall’industria statunitense. Nel meccanismo NATO PURL, destinato a soddisfare le esigenze prioritarie ucraine, oltre il 90% degli armamenti provenienti da scorte esistenti era di origine nordamericana. Lo Ukraine Support Tracker ha sintetizzato il problema sottolineando come l’Europa continui a dipendere dall’accesso ai sistemi d’arma statunitensi, mettendo a nudo le vulnerabilità sia economiche che militati di Bruxelles.

Il problema riguarda soprattutto quelle capacità che non possono essere semplicemente sostituite aumentando uno stanziamento di bilancio: intercettori Patriot, intelligence satellitare, allarme precoce contro i missili balistici, comunicazioni militari satellitari, manutenzione e munizionamento per piattaforme di origine statunitense. Anche gli F-16 forniti da Paesi europei continuano a dipendere in misura significativa da componenti, armamenti e assistenza tecnica nordamericani.

Allo stesso tempo, il progressivo disimpegno dell’amministrazione Trump pone l’UE davanti al problema strategico che per anni è stato rimandato. Gli Stati Uniti, infatti, possono diminuire i trasferimenti finanziari e militari diretti verso Kiev sapendo di possedere comunque alcune delle capacità tecnologiche decisive dalle quali gli alleati continuano a dipendere; l’UE, invece, può aumentare la quantità di denaro impegnata senza acquisire automaticamente la capacità di sostituire Washington nelle funzioni più sofisticate della guerra.

Gli sviluppi delle ultime settimane rendono tale vulnerabilità ancora più evidente. I rapporti tra Donald Trump e Volodymyr Zelens’kyj si sono ulteriormente deteriorati, mentre Washington ha drasticamente ridotto le forniture dirette di armi e ha dato segnali di voler utilizzare alcuni strumenti di sostegno – dall’intelligence ai sistemi satellitari e alle forniture militari – come leve nelle trattative con Kiev e Mosca. Gli Stati Uniti non sono scomparsi dal conflitto, ma il loro ruolo sta cambiando: sempre meno finanziatore incondizionato dell’Ucraina e sempre più potenza esterna che conserva gli strumenti indispensabili per condizionarne le scelte.

A Bruxelles, nel frattempo, rimane soprattutto un salato conto da pagare.

Anche sotto il profilo puramente finanziario, tuttavia, il passaggio di consegne è tutt’altro che semplice. Il prestito europeo da 90 miliardi è stato possibile attraverso un nuovo ricorso al debito comune garantito dal bilancio dell’UE. Il primo ministro estone Kristen Michal ha già indicato apertamente che un nuovo prestito europeo appare la soluzione più probabile per coprire il fabbisogno aggiuntivo del 2027. Ma già il precedente pacchetto era stato approvato tramite cooperazione rafforzata, con la partecipazione di 24 Stati membri e l’esclusione dagli obblighi finanziari di Repubblica Ceca, Ungheria e Slovacchia.

In altre parole, persino il consenso sul finanziamento dell’Ucraina è meno uniforme di quanto suggerisca il linguaggio delle dichiarazioni finali.

A questa divisione politica se ne aggiunge una economica. L’Europa si trova contemporaneamente ad affrontare bassa crescita, elevato indebitamento pubblico, costi energetici ancora pesanti per famiglie e industria, aumento delle spese per la difesa e pressioni derivanti dall’invecchiamento della popolazione. Il Fondo Monetario Internazionale prevede una crescita dell’Eurozona di appena l’1,2% nel 2027 e segnala che il debito pubblico medio potrebbe passare dall’88,7% del PIL nel 2025 al 91,2% nel 2027. Alla luce di questi dati, lo stesso FMI chiede a gran parte dei governi europei nuovi sforzi di consolidamento fiscale.

Nasce così una contraddizione politica difficilmente sostenibile all’infinito. Agli Stati membri viene chiesto contemporaneamente di rispettare le regole fiscali, aumentare drasticamente la propria spesa militare, finanziare la transizione energetica e industriale, proteggere sistemi sociali sottoposti a crescente pressione e trovare decine di miliardi aggiuntivi ogni anno per sostenere lo Stato ucraino.

La risposta delle istituzioni europee è che il costo del mancato sostegno a Kiev sarebbe superiore a quello dell’assistenza: una vittoria russa renderebbe l’Europa meno sicura e imporrebbe spese militari ancora maggiori nel lungo periodo. È l’argomento fondamentale utilizzato per giustificare il trasferimento progressivo dell’onere finanziario dagli Stati Uniti al continente europeo. Ma proprio perché tale impegno viene ormai presentato come strutturale e potenzialmente pluriennale, il problema del consenso pubblico diventa inevitabile.

Le tensioni politiche sono già visibili: in Francia, Marine Le Pen ha messo in discussione la possibilità di continuare ad aumentare indefinitamente il contributo francese ai programmi europei per l’Ucraina; in Ungheria e Slovacchia, la resistenza a nuovi impegni è ormai consolidata. E il 2027 sarà un anno elettorale particolarmente delicato in diversi Paesi europei, circostanza che spiega perché alcuni governi vogliano chiudere un nuovo accordo finanziario prima che il tema finisca al centro delle campagne elettorali.

Alla luce delle considerazioni emerse, la domanda, dunque, non è più soltanto chi pagherà per l’Ucraina nel 2027. È fino a quando l’Europa e gli europei saranno disposta a pagare, quanto di quel costo verrà trasferito sui bilanci e sui contribuenti degli Stati membri e quale sarà il prezzo politico di una strategia nella quale Washington conserva buona parte del potere decisionale mentre Bruxelles assume una porzione sempre maggiore degli oneri economici.

By Jack Hunter | The American Conservative | October 28, 2026

Donald Trump and his coalition have rocked the Republican party more than any other right-wing movement this century.

So much so that some Republicans now long for the party as it was before MAGA, the ostensibly “traditional” pre-Trump GOP.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is one of them. The senator, who decided not to run for re-election this year, is promoting a new book that presents himself as, if not a Never Trumper, then at any rate a dissident from MAGA. “What [Trump’s] done is he’s created a coalition that, in my opinion, will not stay with Republicans once we go back to traditional Republican platform priorities,” Tillis said of the GOP’s future in an interview last week. “I think a lot of the elements of the populism that Trump created to expand a base that made him successful running for president, I don’t think that stays with the party long term.”

On X, The Blaze’s Auron MacIntyre shared a clip of Tillis saying this and added, “They’re admitting out loud that they’re running out the clock on Trump so they can return the GOP to factory neocon settings.”

MacIntyre is not wrong.

Another figure who longs for the GOP before Trump is Rahm Emanuel, the former chief of staff to President Obama who is currently making a bid for the 2028 Democratic nomination. He wants Democrats to embrace what he calls “McCain-Romney Republicans” who now vote Democrat.

“The top story from the 2026 cycle will be the electoral opening Democrats seized—and will have to maintain,” Emanuel wrote for the Wall Street Journal last Wednesday. “Most important, the McCain-Romney Republicans, who are politically homeless, need to be welcomed into Democrats’ governing and electoral coalition.”

Emanuel urged his fellow Democrats to make common cause with these kinds of centrist Republicans, and to avoid embracing the hard-left socialist Democratic candidates who are faring well at the moment.

“Millions of McCain-Romney voters are redefining their political identities, and they will be most responsible for Democratic gains in November,” Emanuel explained. “These voters don’t want to be associated with MAGA, and they see themselves as free agents.”

It’s true that many Republican voters who might go for Democrats this election don’t want to be associated with MAGA. But they might not want to revert to the supposed good ol’ days of John McCain, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush either.

President Ronald Reagan’s former Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman shared Emanuel’s op-ed and added, “McCain-Romney neocon warmongering GOP campaign loot collectors from the MIC (military-industrial complex)? You are barking up the wrong tree, Rahm.”

Stockman is on point.

Tillis and Emanuel are both right that voters, and especially Republicans, are mad at Trump and his party, and most predict this anger will be on full display in the upcoming election.

But both are wrong to dismiss populism. The establishmentarian politics that Tillis and Emanuel represent within their respective parties is what so many voters were rejecting when they embraced the current “Drain the Swamp” president.

Populism is not only not the problem, it’s not likely to be going anywhere. The upcoming midterm elections won’t mark some return to party-elite form, but another populist revolt against the apparently insincere populism Americans voted for two years ago.

This isn’t rocket science: Trump’s coalition is mad because the erstwhile “no new wars” president who promised to put America first and keep prices low instead started a brand new war at the behest of Israel and the expense of working-class Americans. The Republican establishment was also on board with the war—until recently, when even a few historically hawkish candidates in tight races have started saying it should end.

On the Iran War, the issue that seems to be defining Trump’s second term the most, this president has delivered what the neocon favorite Mitt Romney seemed to promise as the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, and what the 2008 GOP nominee and neocon favorite John McCain campaigned on. Trump is now compared to that most “traditional” of 21st century Republicans, George W. Bush. The former president’s brother, Jeb Bush, has praised Trump for starting a war with Iran. Marc Thiessen, an alumnus of the George W. Bush White House, is a big fan of Trump and his war. And the neoconservative pundits Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro now praise Trump for having a foreign policy that looks a lot like what was on offer from McCain and Romney.

On the other side of the aisle, many of the Democrats challenging Republicans in seats once thought safe are finding success with populist campaigns that focus on combatting rising prices, opposing the overwhelmingly unpopular war, and, perhaps most amusingly, putting America First. Abdul el-Sayed, the Democrat who is running against “traditional” Republican Mike Rogers for Senate in Michigan, has regularly appeared on Fox News and constantly pitches to (former?) MAGA voters.

It’s worth noting that there was a Republican party before Trump, under whose banners Tillis was first elected to the Senate in 2014. This is how POLITICO reported Tillis’s victory in the GOP primary for that seat: “Tillis Beats Tea Party in N.C.: The GOP establishment scored a victory Tuesday when its preferred candidate soundly defeated a pair of grass-roots insurgents in a North Carolina primary.” One of those insurgents was Greg Brannon, who had the endorsement of the Tea Party Republican and war skeptic Rand Paul. (Paul, of course, won his own Senate seat in 2010 by running against the pre-Trump, pro-war neoconservative-marinated Republican brass.)

There was a Republican uprising against the party’s establishment well before Trump burst on the scene, and Tillis was definitely not part of it.

In fact, there was much dissent and intra-party challenging of Republican elites in those post-Bush years. Obama’s 2008 victory was largely a rejection of the old GOP and its wars, which McCain fully embraced, and Romney’s 2012 loss was due in no small part to Americans not wanting another extension of Bush-Cheney.

The “traditional” McCain-Romney Republicans haven’t been popular enough to win a presidential election since Bush in 2004, and the first Republican to do so won by calling Dubya a liar and his war in Iraq a “big, fat mistake.”

Now Trump is making his own mistake in Iran, and many of his 2024 voters appear eager to correct their mistake this year. Not because they yearn for a return to the Republican party as it was before him, but because Donald Trump promised to beat that party and dispose of it—and has failed.

---

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us. Jack has written regularly for the Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, Spectator USA, Responsible Statecraft and has appeared in Politico Magazine and The Daily Beast. Hunter is the co-author of the The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Sen. Rand Paul.

L’isteria crescente delle classi dominanti – e dei mass media da essi finanziati – ormai buttano tutto nel calderone del “nemico interno”: agenti russi, cittadini pagati dai russi, ingerenze islamiche e, ovviamente, i partiti della sinistra e i comunisti.

Segue nostro Telegram.

E’ stato sufficiente che l’edizione di giovedi del giornale Politico.eu scrivesse qualche riga per mettere in moto una valanga, rivelando che l’Unione Europea ritiene di trovarsi di fronte all’escalation delle operazioni ibride russe e che si sta preparando all’eventualità che, prima o poi, queste azioni provochino delle vittime in Paesi Ue o Nato. Insomma quasi un auspicio che da qualche parte ci scappi il morto da poter strumentalizzare ai fini della propaganda di guerra, sia sul fronte esterno che sul fronte interno.

Si tratta di uno scenario che in Italia abbiamo purtroppo visto e subìto spesso: dalla strage di Piazza Fontana in poi. Su questo, nostro malgrado, potremmo tenere delle lectio magistralis a tutti gli altri paesi europei che non hanno sperimentato tragedie e orrori analoghi

Il giornale Politico.eu riferisce di una riunione di diplomatici della Ue a porte chiuse, senza telefonini e senza assistenti ha valutato il rischio di attacchi gravi, “capaci di provocare vittime su larga scala”. Due fonti diplomatiche hanno confermato a Politico che una riunione degli ambasciatori presso l’Ue, svoltasi mercoledì scorso, ha riguardato proprio questo tipo di scenario.

Per una fonte diplomatica citata dal sito, “data la portata e la vastità dell’azione russa, è inevitabile che prima o poi vi siano delle vittime. È pura fortuna che non ce ne siano ancora state”.

“È abbastanza ovvio che, quando la Russia utilizza strumenti sempre più letali per mettere alla prova la nostra preparazione e la nostra volontà di adottare contromisure, a un certo punto ci saranno delle vittime”, ha dichiarato a Politico la finlandese Teija Tiilikainen, direttore del Centro europeo di eccellenza per il contrasto alle minacce ibride. “Prima o poi, intenzionalmente o meno, questo è ciò che accade”.

Se diversi cittadini di Paesi membri dell’UE o della NATO venissero uccisi in quello che sembra essere un attacco, la pressione ad agire sarebbe enorme per entrambe le istituzioni. “Temiamo fortemente che a un certo punto venga tolta la vita a un nostro alleato”, ha affermato un diplomatico della NATO, il che renderebbe la pressione ad agire “molto alta”, riporta ancora Politico.eu.

Ma l’isteria ormai è talmente dilagante che alcuni Paesi membri della Ue, ritengono che debba essere la Nato e non l’Unione Europea la sede opportuna per trattare di questi argomenti e delle possibili soluzioni, soprattutto perché le riunioni della Ue sarebbero troppo “porose” per la fuga di notizie o di informazioni sensibili.

A rendere il tutto ancora più strumentalizzabile ai fini della mera propaganda di guerra esterna ed interna in Europa, vi è anche il tentativo di leggere le proteste giovanili e popolari in Francia come eterodirette o articolazioni di progetti di destabilizzazione. E in questo gioco sporco tutto fa brodo, dalla guerra ibrida della Russia alle ambizioni dell’islam politico.

“Quello che sta accadendo in Francia non è altro che immigrazione di massa fuori controllo“, ha scritto Donald Trump il 6 ottobre sul suo social Truth riferendosi agli scontri e alle manifestazioni che stanno attraversando la Francia. Per il presidente americano “non si tratta delle scuole”, ma dell’”Islam che vuole prendere il controllo di un Paese un tempo grande“.

A fargli eco è subito arrivato l’eurodeputato lepenista Fabrice Leggeri, esponente del gruppo della destra dei Patrioti al Parlamento di Strasburgo, secondo il quale “sulle proteste in Francia Trump non ha del tutto torto”. Perché, ha affermato durante un punto stampa al Parlamento Europeo, “le rivolte in corso, le rivolte dei cosiddetti studenti o presunti studenti, sono di fatto strumentalizzate dall’estrema sinistra e, come sappiamo, l’estrema sinistra è infiltrata da elementi islamisti”.

L’isteria crescente delle classi dominanti – e dei mass media da essi finanziati – ormai buttano tutto nel calderone del “nemico interno”: agenti russi, cittadini pagati dai russi, ingerenze islamiche e, ovviamente, i partiti della sinistra e i comunisti.

Se al posto degli ebrei mettiamo gli islamici, sono esattamente gli stessi nemici messi all’indice in Europa dai nazifascisti negli anni Trenta.

Articolo originale:  contropiano.org

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | October 28, 2026

The needle may not have moved on ending the Ukraine war but the joint phone call on October 27 by Finland’s President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre to Russian President Vladimir Putin can be regarded as a defining moment. The two Nordic leaders insisted that their initiative was taken solely in their capacity as neighbours of Russia rather than on behalf of Europe, but the fact remains that their initiative was borne out of their exclusive meeting in Oslo on October 20 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US special envoy Stephen Witkoff.

Russian expert opinion is that it is unlikely that Oslo and Helsinki acted without the consent of Brussels [EU] and Kyiv. But no one is making an issue of the white lie. Clearly, European countries are attempting to re-establish direct communication channels with Russia. Entry of Finland and Norway in the negotiation process indicates that even Ukraine’s most vocal supporters are shifting their position in favor of dialogue with Russia. According to official data, Norway has provided Kyiv with nearly €17 billion in aid, while Finland has provided €5 billion.

On October 21, Witkoff flew into St. Petersburg from Oslo to transmit some fresh proposals on Ukraine in light of his discussions, which is leading to the first trilateral US-Ukraine-Russia talks since the start of the year, tentatively planned for early November in Abu Dhabi. Zelensky said Stubb and Støre debriefed him after the call to Putin and that he was grateful for their “active support.” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha remarked that the call had been “the right approach”.

The two Nordic leaders stated that their 90-minute call from Helsinki to Putin was part of “the diplomatic efforts to end the war and promote peace and stability in Europe”; the conversation had been “frank and substantive.” Støre added that there were “big differences in views” with Putin.

European Union is a divided house on how to go about engaging with Russia after riding the high horse all through the tumultuous years since Moscow’s ‘special military operation’ began in February 2022. But they are sensing that the last train is leaving the station and they should be on board.

However, President Donald Trump is estimating from the feedback received from Witkoff on Putin’s reaction to the peace proposals – which followed his own call to Putin on October 9 – that an opportune moment is at hand to advance the peace process. By the way, Trump must be having a ‘feel good’ over the mutually respectful working relationship between the Kremlin and his spouse Melania that resulted in a localized humanitarian ceasefire in the Russian-occupied city of Oleshky in the southern region of Kherson brokered by the US First Lady. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has suggested that the ceasefire in Oleshky could be a model for other areas of the contact line as well – “especially when it comes to the positive, coordinating participation of American negotiators, including First Lady Melania Trump.”

In the downstream of the recent US-Russia Diesel Deal, a payment system needs to be put in place and Trump is reportedly considering the lifting of sanctions on the Russian Direct Investment Fund (an at least $10 billion sovereign wealth fund created by the Russian government to co‑invest in the Russian economy). Suffice it to say, a door is opening for large projects involving American companies in other areas in the Russian economy as well.

Trump has virtually mothballed the Lindsey Graham Act empowering him to sanction Russia’s oil and gas exports. He is reportedly also planning to have an agreement to import large volumes of Russian fertilizer to meet the demands of the American farmers. In political terms, Trump would probably explain all this as a strategy to ‘incentivize’ the Russian side to be flexible at the negotiations but it will no doubt give stability and predictability to the overall Russian-American relationship.

The Kremlin readout of Putin’s phone conversation with the two Nordic leaders made three key points: first, it was emphasised that the thrust of the forthcoming trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine and the US at Abu Dhabi in early November is “intended in particular to discuss ways to ensure the security of both Russia and Ukraine once a complete cessation of hostilities is reached.”

Second, Putin underscored that “a just and lasting peace would be possible only if the interests of the Russian Federation are considered in full and without any conditions attached.” Third, Putin took exception to “the EU and NATO’s confrontational policies which result in prolonging the hostilities.” The reference is to the escalatory moves by European powers.

Of course, the trilateral talks in November are not going to bring the conflict to an end. The EU countries are more focused on their status in a conflict resolution than apply themselves to making constructive proposals in the negotiating process, so their inclusion in the current format is irrelevant not possible for the time being. On the other hand, Moscow would realize that creating a new European security architecture without European participation is impossible.

The Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov previously noted that dialogue with Europe is necessary, as it is the European Union that supports Kyiv. Peskov also previously spoke of openness to negotiations with Europe. There is no question that further developments depend largely on relations between Europe and the US. Most European countries continue to look up to Washington.

In the entire history of the ex-colonial European powers, this week would have been a most humiliating experience, having to go to the Kremlin to engage with Putin whom they used to demonize like nobody’s business till the other day. The two Nordic politicians, according to Ushakov, sheepishly asked Putin whether it is possible for Zelensky to have a meeting with him. These are the first signs that they are disowning and dispossessing Zelensky now that he is becoming a liability. Brussels is having a problem to find money for him to tide over the period till an agreement is reached. No one is willing to contribute – not even Germany – since everyone knows this money is never going to be returned.

The unkindest cut of all is the suggestion from Witkoff and Jared Kushner that EU countries should resume sourcing Russian oil and gas. The two American negotiators gently advised that Nord Stream gas pipeline could be repaired and used. Per European media reports, American companies are talking to the Russians about reviving Nord Stream and selling Russian gas to the European market.

RT | October 28, 2026

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has put a major new weapons package for Ukraine on hold until after the US midterm elections, according to La Repubblica. The move comes as her ruling coalition faces mounting resistance to arming Kiev.

The long-delayed 13th military aid package remains stuck despite repeated assurances that Rome will continue to support Ukraine, the Italian outlet reported on Tuesday. Initially expected in July, the shipment was pushed back to September, then delayed again, with a decision now potentially postponed until after the November 3 US congressional elections.

La Repubblica noted that the delay has cast doubt on whether Meloni will deliver on promises made to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to send more Aster 30 interceptor missiles for Kiev’s SAMP/T air defense systems by the end of October.

The Italian parliamentary intelligence committee has yet to review the decree authorizing the shipment, while Rome continues to declare its support for Ukraine without specifying when the weapons will be delivered.

Earlier this week, Italian media reported that Meloni’s government is split over further arms supplies to Kiev. Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the League party, has opposed further weapons deliveries, while Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti, also from the League, has reportedly resisted signing off on the package. In December 2025, Tajani rejected Italy’s immediate participation in the US-led PURL scheme, under which NATO members bankroll American weapons for Kiev, citing ongoing peace talks. “If we reach an agreement and the fighting stops, weapons will no longer be needed,” he said.

Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, meanwhile, have pushed for continued military assistance, leaving Meloni caught between her government’s commitments to Kiev and opposition from a key coalition partner.

According to La Repubblica, Rome is also holding off on further arms deliveries until the US midterms, which could strip President Donald Trump’s Republicans of their control of Congress. The November 3 vote will determine control of both chambers, with Democrats leading Republicans 53% to 44% in an October 22-26 Reuters/Ipsos poll. The delay could stretch even further as Italy heads toward its own elections in 2027. Silver Bulletin’s October 27 forecast also indicated that Democrats were strongly positioned to retake the House, while the Senate remained less certain.

Public opposition to arming Kiev is growing in Italy. A September Termometro Politico poll found that 55.4% of Italians opposed further weapons shipments, against 38.8% in favor. Ukraine’s EU membership bid has also split opinion, with a May survey showing 32% backing eastward enlargement and 26% opposed.

Russia has warned that Western weapons deliveries to Ukraine prolong the conflict and obstruct peace efforts. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has accused European countries of fueling the fighting, while Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that any shipments carrying foreign arms into Ukraine would be considered legitimate military targets.

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – October 27, 2026

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 27, 2026

Western politicians and media claim that Russia is bogged down in a Ukrainian quagmire. We are told that Russian forces are taking heavy losses, held in a stalemate by gritty Ukrainian soldiers. Nearly five years after invading, it is claimed, Russia’s military is still confined to Ukraine’s far eastern territory with little progress.

But this upbeat Western narrative is flawed and wearing thin. The NATO-backed Ukrainian regime is straining from collapse. The grinding losses on the battlefield, as disproportionate body exchanges attest, the corruption within the Kiev regime, the dredging of conscripts to include women, and the incessant pounding by Russian air strikes are exposing a state teetering on defeat.

Even U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have sobered up from drinking the Kool-Aid about Ukraine winning. He’s peeved and telling Vladimir Zelensky it’s time for him to step aside and cut a peace deal.

There is a growing foreboding sense that European NATO leaders are dreading the inevitable implosion of their “Ukraine project”. As German MEP Michael von der Schulesburg pointed out in an interview with Glenn Diesen, European politicians are increasingly uneasy that their lies about Ukraine will soon be blown wide open. There will be hell to pay for bankrupt economies and impoverished societies, all based on lies.

Still, it is a fair question: why aren’t Russian forces making more rapid advance along the 1,000 kilometer front line? If the Kiev regime is so shaky, why isn’t Russia finishing it off quickly?

Aiden Minnis, a British-Irish volunteer serving in the Russian army, said he believes that victory is coming and is inevitable. But he explains that the advance is deliberately slow. The “meatgrinder” people refer to about the battlefield is not just about inflicting losses of military personnel. He says the conflict in Ukraine is being fought strategically as an attritional war to defeat the Western NATO alliance.

“We have defeated the Ukrainian army three times over from the losses it has suffered,” says Minnis. “This war would have been over a long time ago, if it were not for the systematic involvement of NATO.”

The amount of weaponry and personnel that NATO has funneled into Ukraine is on a scale that few in the West can imagine, he noted.

“NATO effectively runs and directs the war for Ukraine. That includes generals and special forces from NATO countries inside command structures and military units in Ukraine, and not always sheep dipped into the foreign legion either. Some are outright working without cover.

“They use NATO radars and intelligence to conduct combat operations and terrorist attacks inside Russia. None of the fighting, or rather 90 per cent of it in Ukraine, would be possible without massive Western assistance,” says Minnis.

For example, the EU is donating €90 billion to Ukraine just for 2026 and 2027 alone, never mind the €200 bn it gave from 2022 to 2025. About one-third of this money is used to manufacture and supply drones. This vast expenditure has transformed Ukrainian territory into a giant high-tech killing field. Traversing such territory is an unprecedented challenge.

Aiden Minnis left Britain in 2023 as a volunteer to fight for Russia. He has served in Donetsk and Lugansk as a sapper clearing explosives, as well as in the evacuation of civilians and wounded. Currently, he is deployed as a rifleman in a regiment on the front line in Kharkov Oblast near Kupiansk.

The British media have called him a criminal and a traitor. He says he doesn’t care because he has no intention of returning to the United Kingdom.

“I am labelled a traitor, but I only ever swore allegiance to one country… Russia, and I never broke it. And as long as I have breath in my body, you will never see me swear allegiance, or fight for the butcher’s apron [British Union Jack flag]. My soul is Irish and now Russian.”

Minnis says that what the Western media report about the war in Ukraine is “total lies”.

He says that Russian forces are making slow but relentless advances along most of the frontline. The pace is incremental because the Russian military is trying to minimize casualties among its troops and the civilian population.

“If you look at the exchanges of dead soldiers that are agreed upon from time to time, the Ukrainian side’s casualties are 10 times those of Russia.

“Also, despite the scale of this war – the biggest in Europe since World War Two – the number of civilian deaths is relatively low, and that’s because Russia is trying to minimize these casualties,” he says.

Minnis says that another factor that makes advances slow-going is that the NATO-backed regime uses tactics of boobytrapping buildings with civilians inside them. He says that when Russian forces take a village or town, the houses are often rigged with explosives, with families inside. This makes for painstaking work by sappers to defuse boobytraps.

And, of course, the massive deployment of drones is a big problem for infantry. The European Union and Britain have flooded Ukraine with drones that create “death zones.”

“The use of drone walls is in place of dwindling Ukrainian conscripts. These death zones make our ground progress difficult.”

However, Minnis said NATO’s deployment in Ukraine is a double-edged sword. The 27-nation military bloc has certainly made a Russian victory more difficult to achieve. It has prolonged the proxy war with millions of Ukrainian casualties.

But this war of attrition is grinding down the NATO arsenal with colossal impact. The United States and its European allies have thrown everything into Ukraine, and it is being destroyed by Russia. It’s a giant demolition site. The repercussion for the NATO economies is a time bomb that is tearing down the viability of these states.

Ukraine is a quagmire for NATO, not Russia. The battlefield does not have to move westwards; the Western powers are being sucked under.

In World War Two, the Soviet Red Army pushed all the way to Berlin. In today’s war, the new Berlin is in Ukraine, where Russia’s enemies are being ground down, hollowed out, and buried.

Aiden Minnis adds: “Russian leader Vladimir Putin is fighting this war very humanely; dare I say such a thing is possible in a war. But it’s a two-fold strategy: it’s to limit civilian casualties, but also a war of attrition, because what’s happening in real time is the demilitarisation of Ukraine, which won’t be able to wage a war again once this war is won by Russia, and also the demilitarisation and deindustrialization of NATO countries.”

By Deng Xiaoci | Global Times | October 27, 2026

Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills he mistook for menacing giants, Washington appears to be sounding the alarm over alleged threats in outer space, even as it presses ahead with its own military buildup in orbit.

In its latest assessment, released on Monday, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) claimed that China could deploy space-based directed-energy weapons by the late 2020s, while also highlighting Russia’s expanding anti-satellite capabilities, according to SpaceNews.

However, the claims come even as the US itself accelerates the militarization of outer space, having already publicly acknowledged deploying weapons in orbit while advancing its ambitious Golden Dome missile defense initiative.

Chinese military affairs expert Song Zhongping told the Global Times that Washington’s approach represents a classic case of “thief crying stop the thief,” as the US seeks to justify its own buildup of offensive and defensive space capabilities by portraying China and Russia as threats.

According to SpaceNews, the DIA’s latest assessment, contained in the 2026 edition of Challenges to Security in Space, claimed that China already possesses multiple ground-based laser systems capable of disrupting, degrading or damaging satellites in low-Earth orbit.

The report further alleged that Beijing may field space-based directed-energy weapons by the late 2020s, along with more powerful ground-based systems capable of threatening satellites in orbit.

Directed-energy weapons use concentrated electromagnetic energy, including lasers and high-powered microwaves, to interfere with or damage targets. Such systems could potentially disrupt satellite electronics or impair optical sensors, according to SpaceNews.

The US intelligence report also highlighted Russia’s alleged development of kinetic anti-satellite weapons, including the Burevestnik system, which it described as a developmental co-orbital anti-satellite weapon launched from a modified MiG-31 aircraft.

It further reiterated Washington’s assessment that Moscow is developing a satellite designed to carry a nuclear weapon. Moscow has said that Cosmos 2553, a satellite linked by US intelligence to the alleged program, was intended to test electronic systems under radiation conditions.

Song said the latest US intelligence assessment reveals two distinct strategic calculations behind Washington’s claims against China and Russia.

By hyping China’s potential development of space-based weapons, the US is seeking to justify its own deployment of offensive weapons in orbit, while claims about Russia’s anti-satellite capabilities aim to make the case for strengthening the defenses of American space assets, Song noted.

Such claims could also help the US administration secure additional congressional funding for an integrated space warfare architecture combining offensive and defensive capabilities, he said.

Notably, the latest allegations stand against the backdrop of Washington’s increasingly explicit pursuit of military capabilities in space.

On September 14, US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink publicly acknowledged that the US already possessed on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending its military forces against hostile actions. The announcement marked a significant development in Washington’s public posture toward space warfare, although the US military did not disclose the specific capabilities, the number deployed or their deployment dates.

Meanwhile, Washington is pressing ahead with its Golden Dome missile defense initiative, which includes the development of a constellation of space-based interceptors. According to an official US Space Force release in July, the program aims to develop interceptors capable of engaging missiles during their boost, midcourse and glide phases.

According to an official US Space Force release in April, the service has established the Space-Based Interceptor (SBI) program to develop a space-based missile defense system, with plans to demonstrate its integration into the Golden Dome architecture by 2028.

Song noted that the US is increasingly seeking to transform outer space from a domain used primarily to support military operations through reconnaissance, communications and navigation into a domain for direct offensive and defensive operations.

He said Washington’s pursuit of space-based weapons, including capabilities envisioned under the Golden Dome initiative, reflects its broader ambition to maintain military superiority by integrating advanced technologies and extending military operations into space.

China, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space and opposed attempts to turn it into a battlefield.

In its latest position paper titled China’s Position on Strengthening Outer Space Governance, released on October 23, the Chinese Foreign Ministry warned: “The risk of an arms race in outer space and the trend of turning outer space into a new theater of conflict have become the gravest threat and challenge to space security.”

The document further stated: “States should oppose offensive military policies in outer space and take all possible measures to prevent an arms race in outer space.”

Song warned that Washington’s push to integrate artificial intelligence into military systems and expand offensive and defensive capabilities into space could transform outer space from a domain supporting military operations into a battlefield, threatening other countries’ space assets and potentially accelerating an arms race and increasing the risk of conflicts triggered by miscalculation, he said.

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – October 26, 2026

RT | October 26, 2026

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 (825 billion) in 2025, up from €601 billion ($671 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.

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 26, 2026

South Korea is rebelling against U.S. dominance. It is witnessing a formidable opposition movement against the United States’ historic control over the Asian country’s military forces.

There is also growing pressure on the South Korean government to refuse demands by U.S. President Donald Trump for Korean troops to deploy in the Persian Gulf.

A major driver of this surging opposition movement is the widely held concern that Washington is maneuvering South Korea to fight a war with China.

Political analyst KJ Noh explains that the Korean people perceive the United States as positioning their country as a proxy to fight an eventual war with China, in a similar way to how Ukraine is being used as a front line to provoke Russia.

“The U.S. empire is making South Korea into the next Ukraine,” says KJ Noh. “It is weaponizing South Korea.”

This is analogous to how Ukraine was groomed and weaponized since 2014 to serve as a proxy for the U.S. and NATO to confront Russia.

He points out that China has always been the main target for American imperial planners seeking to extend U.S. hegemony. Pentagon Generals have openly spoken about going to war with China since 2025. Several strategic documents cite the imperative of confronting China for the U.S. to pursue its ambitions of global dominance.

Recently, the American commander in South Korea, General Xavier Brunson, referred to the country as “a dagger pointed at China” and “an unsinkable U.S. aircraft carrier.” Such brazen comments have sparked even broader opposition.

KJ Noh contends that U.S. strategists assumed defeating Russia and Iran would be relatively easy, paving the way for the main target: China. However, the protracted war in Ukraine and Trump’s debacle in the Persian Gulf have delayed the war plan against China.

Nevertheless, Korean people understand that when the U.S. empire gets around to attacking China, their country will be deployed as Uncle Sam’s proxy.

Historically, for the past 76 years, Washington has exerted full control over the South Korean military. This was enabled by the U.S. using fascist collaborators from the Second World War to control South Korea – a legacy that persists among the deep state in South Korea.

KJ Noh surveys a history of genocidal violence perpetrated by the U.S. empire in South Korea to wipe out political opposition movements. The scale of mass murder and mass graves is shocking and hardly known in the West.

Despite the brutal oppression over many decades, there is still a defiant consciousness among Koreans who refuse to be vassals of the U.S.

Koreans do not want to do Uncle Sam’s dirty work any longer, and they do not want their country to be dragooned into a proxy war against their Asian neighbor, China, with which much of the Korean economy has beneficial relations.

This is why Koreans are demanding that the United States finally hand over Operational Control of the country’s military. President Lee Jae-myung reflects the popular will by calling on Washington to comply. It is also why the Korean people and government are refusing Trump’s peevish calls for deployment in the Persian Gulf. Given the history of loyal Korean service in U.S. wars, this latest defiance is a watershed in relations.

Sputnik – 25.10.2026

Even as the US diesel deal with Russia that was brokered by Donald Trump could help bring the price of oil down, the Democrats’ Russophobia “is leading them to try to sabotage the deal,” Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov, managing editor of CovertAction Magazine, tells Sputnik.

“Trump may be making some steps at the beginning to try to end the conflict in Ukraine, whereas the Democrats, I think, want to escalate that conflict. And they are totally irrational,” he adds.

Only a small number of Democrats opposed the anti-Russian sanctions bill, arguing that it is “totally irrational and is going to have a very negative effect on the US economy.”

“This is a case in point where this hysteria about Russia and Russophobia reaches the extent that the government is actually advocating for positions that are very harmful to the American economy and to American workers or farmers — even though the Democrats purport that they are more for the working people.”

American farmers complain that they cannot stay in business due to the cost of fuel, the soaring cost of living does a number on the budgets of working Americans, and many businesses in the US are struggling.

“Some of that also has to do with the war spending of the government and all the money they put into warfare, including Ukraine. That is the thing that Democrats are so hypocritical about. Because they just want to spend more and more billions on Ukraine,” notes Kuzmarov.

“That is what has been ruining the American economy and American society over decades now — the excessive military spending. The Democrats undercut their claim to be for the working people or for farmers if they are trying to sabotage an economic arrangement that would actually work to bring the cost of fuel down.”

Meanwhile, more and more Americans may start seeing the numerous opportunities for economic deals with Russia, potentially leading them to “put more and more pressure on the government to ease relations, restore regular diplomatic relations, end the war in Ukraine, stop the sanctions, and restore ties for the benefit of both countries.”

The Europeans are also “increasingly protesting their governments’ policies and the position they have taken against Russia,” seeing how purchasing more Russian oil and gas would have been beneficial to the European economies.

American people ended up being the losers in their government’s scheme to weaken Russia through the Ukrainian conflict, with billions of dollars that are “needed here in the United States” being lost in the process.

“Ukraine has sacrificed generations of its youth now, its economy has been devastated, and it has become more of an autocratic country under Volodymyr Zelensky,” Kuzmarov says, noting that US Democrats support the “destruction of Ukraine” rather than Ukraine itself.

“That has been destructive for everybody except the weapon contractors and maybe the Wall Street financial firms that own those weapon contractors.”

On October 22, The Washington Post reported that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had asked companies involved in Russian diesel imports to preserve relevant documents as Democrats prepared for a possible probe.

Strategic Culture Foundation | October 23, 2026

Diplomacy, as the saying goes, is the art of the possible. A peaceful settlement to the war in Ukraine is possible if all sides were to engage in genuine diplomacy. That’s the easy, more civilized way.

If not, Russia will achieve peace the hard way through complete military victory.

Diplomacy is being prevented because European politicians, in particular, are held hostage by their own twisted ideology and false propaganda.

Ironically, the NATO proxy war in Ukraine was intended to “strategically defeat” Russia. It turns out, however, that it is the NATO axis that is staring at a historic defeat. The chaos surging across Europe is a manifestation of that failure, driven by higher energy prices and reckless, unsustainable militarism.

Thus, peace in Ukraine is concomitant with peace in Europe, and diplomacy would expedite that to obviate more instability and suffering.

But diplomacy is incompatible with parties who possess a diseased mentality of Russophobia.

Diplomatic engagement involves putting pragmatic interests first, ahead of ideological bias. The pragmatic interest of everyone surely should be to find an end to this nearly five-year war that has caused millions of casualties and runs the risk of escalating to a general war in Europe.

The Trump administration appears to be renewing peace efforts by dispatching a presidential envoy to Russia this week. Russian President Vladimir Putin cordially greeted American envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg. It is unimaginable that any European politician or envoy would be capable of that rudimentary courtesy. Putin reiterated that Russia’s door is open for negotiations.

Diplomacy can create a path to peace sooner, as internationally renowned Professor Jeffrey Sachs advocated in an eminently reasonable presentation this week.

Key issues for a peace agreement include: 1) indivisible security for all; 2) permanent neutrality status for Ukraine; 3) an armistice, not a temporary ceasefire, based on current lines of conflict; and 4) a declaration by NATO to halt its eastward expansion.

The framework for peace proposed by Sachs is similar to Russia’s position. It addresses the causes of conflict rather than only its symptoms.

Professor Sachs points out that these are not new principles. They were recognized and agreed upon in the past by the United States, its European allies, and Ukraine. In the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the U.S., Soviet Union, and European states accepted the principle that security is not a zero-sum game. All states must have a mutual right to security.

On the issue of permanent neutrality of Ukraine, that was declared in its constitution when it established independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The seeking of NATO membership for Ukraine overturns that principle. It was the United States under President GW Bush that initiated the drive for NATO membership with the Bucharest Declaration in 2008, which was repudiated by Russia with the warning that it would inevitably lead to conflict, as history proves.

Sachs also points out that the United States and its NATO allies must return to the pledge made to the Soviet Union in 1989 that there would be no eastward expansion of the military bloc. It is basic common sense that the encroachment of NATO forces on Russia’s borders is destabilizing and a source of confrontation. The relentless expansion is a violation of the principle of indivisible security. Would the United States accept a situation where Mexico was installing Russian or Chinese military forces?

As for the cessation of hostilities and the drawing of territorial lines, that is a thorny issue. Moscow claims that it has a historical right to the territories east and south of the Dniper River, including Sumy, Kharkov, Kherson and Odessa, in addition to the Donbass and, of course, Crimea.

What is unrealistic is for Ukraine to claim the total return of territories that Russia has taken since 2022 (and 2014 in the case of Crimea). From Russia’s point of view, and many international historians would concur, the post-1991 composition of Ukraine was an artifice. It arbitrarily incorporated lands that were historically always part of Russia. These lands were donated to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet leaders in dubious schemes of demographic manipulation that did not respect the antecedent cultural Russian ties.

In any case, a framework for a permanent peaceful settlement is feasible if all sides engage in honest discussions that recognize the historical background.

When U.S. President Donald Trump met Russia’s Putin in Anchorage back in August 2025, there seemed to be an acceptance by the American side of Russia’s perspective on addressing “root causes”. Subsequently, Trump failed to follow through on what appeared to be a breakthrough meeting in Anchorage. Part of the problem was the Europeans and the Kiev regime thwarting Trump’s initiative and throwing obstacles in the way of negotiations. European leaders insisted on a temporary ceasefire and NATO peacekeepers, and have persisted in treating Russia like a pariah.

The international context has shifted in a way that makes Trump more amenable. His disastrous war with Iran has blown fuel prices sky-high for American consumers. With the mid-term elections only weeks away, the White House needs some good news to prevent a political wipeout for the Republicans.

Trump made a deal with Putin two weeks ago for diesel supplies from Russia to ease the pain at the pump for American voters. Essential to that is for Ukraine to stop air strikes on Russian oil facilities. The corrupt puppet president in Kiev, Vladimir Zelensky, is defying Trump with churlish remarks and threats to keep striking Russian oil refineries and depots.

One positive thing from the rift with Zelensky is Trump viewing him as the obstacle to a peace deal. Trump is now openly castigating the Ukrainian former comedian and calling for a new president in that country.

The cocaine addict Zelensky, with his loathsome war racketeering, is hanging on to power by a thread, and only because of continuing support from European leaders. These elitist European politicians are driven by anti-Russian ideology and servility to the futile geopolitical agenda of strategically defeating Russia. Europe is witnessing a social upheaval bordering on revolution over the fallout from the soaring cost of living, which is, in turn, a consequence of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine. But the elites have no way to address the chaos because they are the problem.

For all his flaws, and there are many, at least Trump is willing to engage in diplomacy. He is not encumbered with hatred of Russia. His understanding of the root causes of the war may be limited. But at least his administration has the basic quality of respecting Russia as an equal and listening to Russia’s perspective. That is a modicum for negotiations and the art of the possible.

By contrast, the European elites and their pet regime in Kiev are incapable of engaging in any diplomacy. They are obsessed with unattainable and sinister ideological prejudices that hark back to Nazi Germany and the belief that Russians are “subhumans” to be conquered. They have no respect for Russia, nor are they capable of any intelligent, honest discussion about the causes of conflict.

Jeffrey Sachs contends that Trump could promptly end the war and create peace if he were to make a clear policy announcement that the United States is returning to a position whereby it respects indivisible security for all, including Russia, accepts permanent neutrality of Ukraine with no future as a NATO member, and declares that NATO ends its eastward expansion. A rational path to peace is possible.

There will be howls of condemnation from the Kiev regime and its European sponsors. There will be howls too from within the U.S. establishment who share the European ideology of demonizing and belligerence towards Russia. Trump may be so weakened by the mid-term elections that it is not politically possible for him to make such a policy announcement.

So be it. Russia will continue to win its military objectives and demand its rightful terms of peace. Diplomacy offers an easy way to peace. But if the West insists on the hard way, then Russia will deliver that way too. The Europeans and Kiev regime will pay an even higher price with their own implosion.

By Patrick LAWRENCE | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 24, 2026

Given the gush of vitriol and condemnation since Oct. 9, when Donald Trump announced his deal to import 5 million metric tons of Russian diesel, roughly 37 million barrels, one would think the president had surrendered the United States’ sovereignty to the Kremlin, or handed over the Ukrainians to the Russian army, or rankly betrayed the Europeans or altogether renounced what we picturesquely call Western civilization.

This is, indeed, what we read daily in the corporate press these days and what we are supposed to think. It is 2016 redux, it seems. Another round of Russiagate may not be far off, given 16 House Democrats have introduced a Prohibit Corrupt Russia Oil Deals Act and 12 senators now attack the diesel accord as “a gift to our adversary.”

If there is one thing essential to recall about those dreary years it is that the wobbly-from-the-first Russiagate edifice, the whole of it, was made of mis– and disinformation, hyperbole, innuendo, extravagant abuses of office and propaganda incessantly disseminated in corporate media.

It was, in short, the Deep State’s attempt to scuttle any effort to advance beyond the poisonous Russophobia it had spent a decade cultivating (taking my date from Vladimir Putin’s era-defining speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007).

It is the same again as Trump tries once more to end the war in Ukraine and refashion East–West relations, a project the old “MICIMATT”— the military-industrial, congressional, intelligence, media, academic and think tank blob — simply cannot abide.

Let us listen to this new round of rubbish with the recent past in mind.

“Donald Trump, meet Neville Chamberlain.” That is Tom Friedman, writing in The New York Times last week under the headline, “Trump’s Democracy–for–Diesel Deal Shames Us All.”

“When future students search online for ‘sellout,’ ‘appeaser’ or ‘traitor to his country’s core values,’” Friedman elaborates, “their two pictures will come up first, side by side.” There is no matching our Tom when it comes to overdrawn historical reference dressed up as intellectual gravitas.

Harold Meyerson, writing in The American Prospect Tuesday under the headline, “Why Putin Is Now Our Ally,” is unhappy that Americans are not angrier and more contemptuous than they appear to be in response to Trump’s latest démarche to Russia.

“We’ve grown so inured to Trump’s outrages,” he writes, “that his alliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime hasn’t yet stoked the level of horror and rage it deserves.”

Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime. We’re back to this, are we?

We’re also back to the good old Trump–Putin “bromance” bit, it seems, as in “Trump’s man-crush on the Russian dictator has been well documented and need not be recounted in all its unctuous detail.”

This bizarre suggestion of homophilia repeats a tiresome trope from the Russiagate years — never in the slightest documented, for the record — and this time comes from Tom Nichols, a neoliberal hack of long standing. Writing Oct. 18 in The Atlantic, Nichols wants us to see matters this way:

“Donald Trump has now abandoned pretense and is openly aiding the Kremlin in its war against a friend and partner of the U.S. The American commander in chief has abandoned the Western order, the most successful — and powerful — security arrangement in human history.”

Are we clear on all this? The corrupt, Nazi-infested regime in Kiev is America’s friend and partner, simple as that.

The Western order as we have it is the finest thing humanity has ever managed, and Donald J. Trump has forsaken this finest-ever order.

All because the Trumpster signed an agreement whereby the United States will purchase, all in, about two weeks’ worth of Russian diesel fuel.

Paranoia strikes deep, as should be plain to all as the imperium proceeds into its self-inflicted decline. Into the pages of The Atlantic it will creep whenever the topic is “Putin’s Russia” (as against “Russia”).

Trump’s ‘Simple’ Decision

How to account for this outpouring of nitwittery from all these pseuds? Why so suddenly does the world seem to be coming to an end? These are our questions.

Trump II has proven disastrously worse than Trump I, to state the obvious. He had a few good ideas the first time around: end the wars of adventure, bring the soldiers home, decommission NATO, a new détente with Moscow.

This time — and you have to credit the Trumpster for this, strange as it is to credit him with anything — he has only one. He still wants to restore relations with Russia to a working order of some kind, and this must begin with ending the war the Biden regime provoked very quickly after Trump was voted out of office.

Trump is a Manhattan property man for whom everything is transactional, we have to remember. Exploring “deals” does not figure at the higher end of statecraft — certainly not given all that is at issue between Russia and the West — but this is a question of method, not purpose. Let us not get lost in the former while losing sight of the latter.

Peaceful, constructive relations with Russia, based on an enduring settlement of benefit to all sides, are a good thing altogether to be welcomed, however often Americans and West Europeans are told any such eventuality would amount to the horror of horrors.

As everyone thinking about this has remarked, Trump’s immediate intent in striking his diesel deal is to get prices down as best he can before the midterm elections and to pretend the price crisis has causes other than the U.S.–Israeli assault on Iran.

I’m for setting the politics aside. A few days’ worth of diesel — all that can possibly arrive from Russian refineries before Nov. 3 — won’t make any difference, and Trump cannot but know this.

My mind goes to a remark Trump made on Truth Social, his digital bullhorn, at the beginning of this week in response to all the shrieking and shouting that followed his Oct. 9 announcement:

“My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.”

It is important to read this together with other things the Trump regime has got up to lately. While the United States is in plausible-denial mode, Kiev reports that it has disrupted some of the early-warning satellite intelligence vital to Ukraine’s defenses.

Elon Musk, apparently after consultation with the White House, has restricted Ukraine’s use of Starshield, the military-grade version of the Starlink communications system.

These are day-to-day lifelines. So is the Prioritized Ukraine Requirement List, the arrangement whereby the United States sells arms to the Europeans, who send them on to Ukraine. To date the volume of shipments through the P.U.R.L. channel has come to $7 billion. Trump is reportedly threatening to end the program.

Atop all this he has suspended implementation of a sanctions bill he signed into law only a month ago. Concurrently, the Witkoff–Kushner duo presented Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian dictator, with a new settlement proposal that reads to me like a condensed version of the very creditable 28–point plan they presented a year ago next month.

Something is afoot, it seems to me. I see a thought-through strategy in all this. I see renewed determination on Trump’s part.

Trump is out of the closet at last — and perfectly accurate — as he asserts that Zelensky is the principal impediment to a settlement accord and, so, should be either removed from office or forced to accept defeat and recognize Russia’s legitimate interests.

Trump’s new push to bring the Ukraine crisis to a close, to be clear on this point, is not a betrayal of the Ukrainian people. It is just the opposite.

There are a lot of reasons to question how far Trump will get either in ending the war or restoring relations with Russia to a livable détente. But if he maintains the present momentum, we may be watching the beginning of the endgame in Ukraine.

This is a “may,” conditional verb required. But it is this prospect that has all the warmongers in the MICIMATT complex in a dither.

Strange it will be if a president so wrong about so much manages to achieve the peace he is after. But maybe the Tom Friedmans and the Tom Nichols and the rest of their kind are useful as a mirror.

Maybe the extent of their panic is a measure of the Trumpster’s chances of success this time around.

RT | October 24, 2026

Billionaire Elon Musk has accused US politicians of putting Kiev’s interests ahead of their own country’s, alleging that American taxpayer money sent to Ukraine is being laundered back into political campaigns.

Writing on X on Friday, the SpaceX founder suggested that financial interests could explain why some American lawmakers remain staunch supporters of Kiev in its conflict with Russia.

“Some of that US taxpayer money comes back through multiple laundry machines to fund political campaigns in America, which is why you see some politicians caring more about Ukraine than America!” Musk wrote, without identifying the beneficiaries.

In March, US outlet Just the News cited a declassified intelligence summary describing a plan to divert hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid earmarked for clean-energy projects in Ukraine into then-President Joe Biden’s 2024 reelection campaign.

Trump shared the report on Truth Social, while then-US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard reportedly asked officials at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to investigate whether the alleged scheme had been carried out.

Musk also accused Ukrainian elites of profiting from Western assistance while ordinary Ukrainians bear the human cost.

“The former have grown very rich off the hundreds of billions flowing to Ukraine, while the latter’s children are conscripted to die in trenches,” he wrote.

Kiev’s increasingly coercive mobilization campaign has been marked by numerous documented cases of forced detentions and violent confrontations involving recruitment officers. Corruption investigations have also exposed schemes allowing wealthier Ukrainians to evade military service.

Ukraine has been rocked by major corruption scandals involving figures close to Vladimir Zelensky. One centered on his longtime associate Timur Mindich and an alleged $100 million bribery and money-laundering operation at state nuclear energy company Energoatom. The scandal forced senior officials from office, including former presidential chief of staff Andrey Yermak, while Mindich fled Ukraine.

Ukrainian investigators have also uncovered what they say is fraud to the tune of $5.6 million involving military drones purchased at prices up to 90% above market rates.

Even Kiev’s staunchest European backers have criticized its failure to deliver promised anti-corruption reforms, warning that billions of euros in assistance could be withheld.

Zelensky is seeking at least €70 billion ($81 billion) in additional foreign assistance for 2027, estimating Ukraine’s total conflict-related spending needs for next year at €155 billion.

European Council President Antonio Costa said on Friday that the EU expects to cover roughly two-thirds of the additional funding, or around €46.7 billion, with a decision potentially coming in November. That sum would come on top of the €45 billion already earmarked for Kiev next year.

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | October 22, 2026

From military speeches to civil-defense drills, Europe’s leaders are openly preparing their countries for conflict. Jefferey looks at the warnings coming out of Britain and the polling that suggests the public may not be ready to answer the call.