The Ukrainian leader has demanded an additional €70 billion from the EU to continue the war with Russia
Italian far-right MEP Roberto Vannacci has accused Vladimir Zelensky of treating Europe like an “ATM” after the Ukrainian leader requested another €70 billion ($79 billion) in aid.
Zelensky demanded more money on Friday, just months after the EU approved a massive €90 billion loan to support Ukraine through 2027. “The war will cost 155 billion euros next year. And we need at least 70 billion euros more from you – for defense, for weapons, and for our resilience. This is a realistic amount,” he said at an EU summit in Brussels.
Vannacci said Italian taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for further aid to Kiev.
“Zelensky has found some suckers who give him all the billions he asks for, so he just keeps on asking for more,” the MEP said in a video on social media on Friday. He argued that Zelensky’s demands have continued to mount, citing Kiev’s alleged budget shortfalls of €27 billion in 2026 and €32 billion in 2027, followed by a fresh €70 billion demand on top of the €90 billion loan approved in April.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has also rejected the proposed funding, stressing that Bratislava would not participate in another EU financial mechanism for Ukraine. Hungary has adopted a similar position, Fico said, according to Slovakia’s TASR news agency on Friday.
Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic secured exemptions from the financial obligations of the previous €90 billion loan, which EU leaders agreed late last year and finalized in April 2026. Fico has argued that the loan, which is intended to be repaid using future Russian reparations, is effectively a gift that EU members will never recover.
Moscow has long argued that Western military aid only burdens the European taxpayer and prolongs the conflict – which Russia sees as a NATO-led proxy war fought using Ukrainian manpower.
Protests over rising living costs and demands for increased education spending have swept the country for weeks.
The bell tower of the 143-year-old town hall in the French city of Limoges collapsed on Saturday evening after the building was set ablaze amid nationwide protests over the rising cost of living. The incident came as clashes between police and demonstrators escalated across France, with officers firing tear gas as tens of thousands took to the streets demanding economic relief and education reform.
The unrest followed weeks of student-led protests that began last month at a high school in Creteil, near Paris, over teacher shortages and deteriorating school facilities. Initially focused on education reform, improved learning conditions and increased funding, the movement has since converged with broader demonstrations against inequality and the rising cost of living. Labor unions have also joined the protests amid opposition to the government’s proposed 2027 budget and concerns over public spending cuts.
In Limoges, a city in west-central France, masked protesters set fire to the 19th-century town hall, AFP reported, citing a regional official. Videos circulating on social media show the building’s bell tower giving way and collapsing as flames engulf its supports.
The fire caused extensive damage, with the roof collapsing onto the lower floors and much of the facade destroyed. Local officials described the historic building as largely destroyed. No injuries were reported among those who had been inside.
🔴🇫🇷🔥 ALERTE INFO | Le clocher de la mairie de Limoges s’est effondré. https://t.co/gVB9oUXoB1
“The roof has collapsed onto the lower floors, except in the west wing, and two-thirds of the exterior has already disappeared,” local prefect Maurice Barate said, as quoted by AFP.
Violent clashes were reported in Paris, Marseille, Rennes, Toulouse and Angers.
Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said 1,200 people had been arrested nationwide, while Interior Minister Laurent Nunez reported that 150 police officers had been injured.
Footage from Paris showed police confronting protesters, while masked demonstrators threw objects and fireworks.
In Marseille, protesters broke into city hall, smashing open the door and spray-painting the walls, according to local newspaper La Provence. Fires were also reported in several cities, including at a tourist office in Lyon.
French President Emmanuel Macron has urged demonstrators to remain calm and respect people and property, while authorities have blamed violent incidents on what they describe as ultra-left groups.
Police tactics have also drawn scrutiny following reports of serious injuries among young protesters.
À la mairie du 7e arrondissement de Lyon, deux mariés font un clapping avec les manifestants, chaudement applaudis https://t.co/mWVjkHrnqF
Nunez has warned that security forces could use intermediate weapons, including stun grenades, if violence erupts during Saturday’s demonstrations.
Marseille : plusieurs dizaines de manifestants ont pénétré brièvement samedi dans le hall de la mairie, sur le vieux port, après avoir enfoncé la porte en criant "c'est la Révolution, on prend la Bastille". Ils ont été dispersés par des forces de l'ordre ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/QMtEYxYZTK
The protests echo the 2018 Yellow Vest movement, mounting further pressure on Macron as high public debt pushes French borrowing costs to 20-year highs.
Discover-Tech exploited digital advertising infrastructure to track targets and deliver spyware, according to two research teams
Israeli ad tech company Discover-Tech exploited online advertising infrastructure to track targets and help deliver spyware to dozens of devices belonging to Al Jazeera staff and members of other entities, according to investigations by the Canadian cybersecurity watchdog Citizen Lab and New York-based ad security firm Confiant.
The researchers said Discover-Tech used a sprawling network of online ads to identify potential targets, monitor their activity and facilitate the compromise of their devices.
“The core finding is the weaponization of ad infrastructure for advanced staging, preliminary targeting, and payload delivery, characterized by exceptional technical sophistication, robust anti-interception measures, and surgical micro-targeting,” Confiant said in its findings.
Devices belonging to staff at the international news network Al Jazeera were among those infected through malicious ad placements, which operated silently, without visible pop-ups or suspicious links. The Qatar-based media network condemned “the spyware attacks targeting a number of its staff,” describing them as an “assault on press freedom,” and called for those responsible to be held accountable.
The investigation also linked the malicious activity to Israeli spyware developer Candiru, which has been blacklisted by the US and rebranded as Integrity Labs, and Israeli surveillance technology provider Intelos. The companies allegedly exploited ad inventory on major platforms, including Google, Russia’s Yandex and US ad tech platform Beeswax to track targets and compromise consumer devices.
Discover-Tech used a system called Controlium to turn routine ad auctions into a surveillance tool. Over four months, it served ads across nearly 200,000 websites and mobile apps on Android and iOS devices in dozens of countries. According to Confiant, the company generated about 10 million ad impressions daily, harvesting device fingerprints, IP addresses, authentication tokens, cookies and other personal data, including without consent where required under EU privacy rules. Citizen Lab also identified a group linked to Discover-Tech, dubbed Dark Cartographer, which allegedly exploited vulnerabilities at mobile carriers and matched advertising IDs with phone numbers to track subscribers on a large scale.
Geographic data revealed sharp spikes in traffic that researchers said pointed to targeted intelligence-gathering operations rather than routine commercial advertising. Palestine was the most heavily targeted territory, where Discover-Tech accounted for nearly 2% of all digital ad impressions, peaking at around 10% on April 7. The activity also reached sensitive networks, including the Armenian prime minister’s office, international organizations, courts, universities and defense institutions. Investigators detected targeted connections to Candiru servers in nine countries, with Belgium accounting for 56% of recorded activity, followed by the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Mexico and Spain.
Confiant described the campaign as highly sophisticated, citing its anti-interception measures and precise targeting capabilities. Citizen Lab said the findings provided the first public technical evidence that spyware could be delivered through online ads without users clicking on anything, a technique researchers dubbed “AdFection.”
The alliance’s race to be ready by 2029 raises a dangerous question: when does the ability to fight become the temptation to strike?
On October 5, 2026, at the Warsaw Security Forum, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) Alexus Grynkewich unveiled a military strategy titled ‘Theory of Victory’.
The strategy covers the next few years and outlines NATO’s preparations to counter a potential “Russian attack.” While the details are likely classified, the main points have been made public. Here are the key publicly disclosed aspects of NATO’s ‘victory’ plan:
Economic exhaustion of the adversary: The development of military and industrial capabilities that would make continued hostilities costly and futile for the aggressor. Here, NATO is positioning itself as the defending party.
Destruction of support infrastructure: Strikes against the enemy’s infrastructure, targeting not only the attacking forces but also the entire system sustaining the armed forces – logistics, command centers, supply lines, and reserves.
2029 as the operational readiness benchmark: By 2029, the US Armed Forces and NATO’s European allies must complete the main preparations for countering potential global threats and must be ready to address any external challenge.
NATO’s technological superiority: This point emphasizes achieving comprehensive technological dominance through the widespread use of drones and AI-driven combat management systems.
That’s the ‘theory of victory’; now, it has to be put into practice. Certain types of political documents don’t present any interest as long as they’re stored in bureaucratic folders – no one cares about numbers, timelines, logistics, and readiness levels. But once they enter the public domain, they quickly acquire symbolic meaning. A “defense plan” becomes a “war plan,”“deterrence” turns into “targeting,” and a simple date on a calendar becomes a prophecy. This is precisely the case with this strategy. Formally, NATO’s plan doesn’t contain anything sensational: it talks about strengthening the eastern flank, preparing equipment and resources, expanding exercises, aligning industrial capabilities with evolving needs, setting readiness targets, integrating air and missile defense systems, creating logistical routes, and developing crisis response scenarios. All of this has been part of NATO’s alarmist yet necessary routine for decades. However, this time, something new has been added: a deadline!
And the deadline – 2029 – resonates not just as an administrative milestone but as a psychological turning point.
The question that comes to mind is both simple and unsettling: how dangerous is it to prepare society, the military, and politics for a threat that may be driven by fear rather than grounded in reality? ‘Being prepared’ is one thing; but can it lead to the idea that ‘since we’re prepared, we can be the first to act’?
Let’s talk about the potential threat. The rhetoric, plans, and timelines all point to a specific year: 2030. Various Western ‘seers’ suggest that this is when ‘Eastern hordes’ will charge westward. In other words, Western analysts anticipate a Russian assault on NATO countries around this time. At the same time, NATO leadership candidly states that currently, the threat from Russia is assessed as minimal. But by 2030, Russia will be ready!
It’s tempting to call this the “mythical Russian threat,” but the term “mythical” has been used so often that it has lost its meaning. It seems to create a divide between those who “believe in the threat” and those who “perceive reality.” However, geopolitics rarely fits neatly into black-and-white categories. A threat can be simultaneously real, exaggerated, distorted, and dangerous, precisely because it contains a kernel of truth.
In reality, Russia doesn’t even have the personnel and resources to attack NATO – unless one assumes such an attack would be suicidal in nature. Nevertheless, the existence of an external enemy provides excellent justification for any political initiatives, and this concept seems to have been embraced by NATO as the primary driver for development.
According to NATO’s charter, it is strictly a defensive alliance. Article 5 discusses collective defense, not preemptive strikes. Regional plans, exercises, troop movements, and forward basing are designed as deterrents: to demonstrate to potential adversaries that aggression would come at too great a cost. However, active preparation for defense and the resulting substantial military buildup could offer politicians new options that might tempt them to act.
Finally, measures that one state views as protective can be perceived by another as a threat to its security. This sets off a spiral of escalation and mutual intimidation, pushing both sides into a standoff where they’re heavily armed for ‘deterrence’ yet unable to pass each other without starting a conflict. Although NATO’s plans may appear defensive on paper, they trigger this very mechanism – especially when accompanied by public rhetoric like “Russia could attack in a few years,”“Europe must be prepared by 2030,” or “the window of opportunity is closing.” While these statements may reflect genuine concerns, they also create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course, in defense planning, timelines are essential. Without them, the military risks becoming a bureaucratic museum, while the defense industry could turn into a shop selling antique rifles. However, deadlines have a downside; they turn preparedness into a race. In public discourse, 2029 begins to sound less like a guideline and more like a deadline. By 2029, forces, equipment, munitions, logistical routes, command structures, trained reserves, integrated air defense systems, intelligence networks, and industrial capacities should be in place. This goal is quite reasonable for a military document.
But it raises a key question: what happens if someone in NATO eventually says, “We’re ready!”? This may first emerge as a report or assessment and may then be proclaimed as a political achievement; next, it may be used as an argument, and in times of crisis it may very well become a temptation to act.
The logic of preemptive action always appeals to those who fear they might miss the boat. ‘If we wait, our adversary will grow stronger. If we strike now, we can avert a major war’ – this reasoning is as old as time and often deeply manipulative; it appears rational until it leads to death and destruction.
Preemptive “threat prevention” is an oxymoron. According to this logic, to prevent a war, one must start a war; to avoid a strike, one must strike first; to protect the status quo, one must disrupt it. Most importantly, no one can guarantee that retaliation will be limited, that escalation will stop at the desired threshold, that nuclear weapons will not be used, that allies will remain loyal, or that the public will bear the costs of the war.
The temptation exists. But can we halt escalation before it spirals into a full-blown crisis? There may still be a chance.
Firstly, transparency is crucial. We’re not talking about the disclosure of combat plans, but about clear signals regarding the kinds of actions that are considered defensive; limitations on certain military exercises; the types of forces that are not intended for a first strike; and the types of communication channels that will remain open even during crises.
Secondly, rules for de-escalation are necessary. These could include notifications about military activities, major exercises, limitations on movements near borders, incident verification mechanisms, military hotlines, and agreements on the actions of drones, aircraft, and vessels in contested areas.
Thirdly, political leaders must consistently distinguish readiness from resolve. There is a difference between being prepared to defend oneself and launching a preemptive strike. This distinction needs to be emphasized not just in official documents but also in public statements.
Fourthly, we need responsible journalism and analytical insight. What’s required is neither naive reassurance – claiming there’s no threat – nor panic-driven claims that war is imminent. The goal should be to reflect the complexity of the world. A threat can be considered significant, but it may not necessitate war; and deterrence can be firm without leading to aggression.
And lastly, we must work to restore at least minimal arms control frameworks. Without them, each side will feel compelled to run faster, even if the race leads both to jump off a cliff.
The year 2029 could be when Europe becomes stronger and more resilient. Or, it might be the year when someone declares, ‘We’re ready, and we can do anything!’ The former concept is about deterrence; the latter is deterrence in its perverted form. It’s crucial for all parties in this race to understand this clearly.
Foreign Minister Wang Yi has urged West Jerusalem to reverse settlement expansion and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza during talks with President Isaac Herzog
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has urged Israel to halt and reverse the establishment of settlements in the occupied West Bank, describing the Palestinian issue as the “greatest historical injustice of this century,” according to a statement released by Beijing following his meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog.
The two officials met on Thursday on the sidelines of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) summit in Baku, Azerbaijan.
Wang said achieving peace and reconciliation in the Middle East remained a cornerstone of Chinese foreign policy, stressing that a two-state solution was the only viable path toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Chinese diplomat also warned that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remained critical despite the ceasefire reached a year ago.
“The immediate priority is to fully open access to Gaza,” Wang said, arguing that two million civilians must not be left struggling to survive or exposed to a worsening humanitarian catastrophe.
He added that Israel should “stop and reverse” its efforts to forcibly establish settlements in the West Bank.
Herzog, meanwhile, said Israel wanted peace but continued to face “security threats.” In a post on X, he claimed Iran and its regional allies were the primary dangers.
The meeting comes amid continued Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, which Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War. Most countries consider the settlements illegal under international law, a position Israel disputes, citing historical claims and security concerns. Settlement construction has long been a major obstacle in negotiations over a Palestinian state.
According to figures compiled by UN agencies and settlement monitors, more than 750,000 Israeli settlers lived in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 2025. The same year, the Israeli authorities approved 54 new settlements and established 86 additional outposts.
Settlement expansion has also coincided with rising violence against Palestinians. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs documented 1,828 settler attacks causing casualties or property damage in 2025, up from 1,420 in 2024 and 1,189 in 2023 – the highest annual total since monitoring began in 2006.
China has repeatedly backed Palestinian statehood and sought a greater diplomatic role in the Middle East. Beijing brokered the restoration of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023 and hosted talks between rival Palestinian factions in 2024, although the resulting reconciliation agreement has yet to be implemented.
Kiev has accused Washington of cutting the Ukrainian military off from the satellite communications services provided by Elon Musk’s company
US President Donald Trump claimed on Friday that he did not order restrictions on Ukraine’s military access to Starlink satellite services, adding that he did not believe SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had done so either.
Ukrainian state and military officials earlier this week accused SpaceX of abruptly restricting access to Starlink satellite communications services and Starshield, its military-grade version, which Kiev relies on for frontline drone operations. Musk responded that Starshield is owned and controlled by the US government. The billionaire stressed that Starlink should be used only for civilian and defensive purposes, arguing that employing its systems for offensive operations would be “inappropriate for a commercial company.”
The development followed US President Donald Trump stepping up pressure on Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries, which he blames for surging global energy prices. Trump has also repeatedly urged the Ukrainian leader to hold a long-overdue presidential election.
At the same time, Washington lifted sanctions on Russian diesel exports following talks with the Kremlin, prompting criticism from Zelensky. On Friday, the US President stated that he waived penalties aimed to target Moscow’s economy and countries purchasing Russian energy, which had been signed into law just a month ago.
“Well, I don’t know if it was anybody because it wasn’t me, and I don’t think it was Elon,” Trump said when asked who had been behind the alleged suspension of the Starlink systems. “And from what I understand, it’s the same as it’s always been.”
Reuters reported on Thursday, citing officials briefed on the matter, that people “inside the White House” had instructed the Pentagon to impose speed restrictions on Starshield terminals. The report did not name the people who allegedly issued the directive, while a senior US official told Bloomberg at the time that Trump had not personally ordered restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Starshield.
On Friday, The Telegraph cited four sources familiar with the discussions as saying that Musk had approached Trump with the proposal to introduce speed limits on the system. One of the sources told the newspaper that Trump “agreed” with the suggestion, paving the way for the Pentagon to execute the slowdown.
The reports came as Washington continued to ramp up pressure on Kiev to accelerate efforts to reach a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Earlier this week, Zelensky claimed that the US had threatened to stop sharing intelligence with Kiev if it continued to ignore Trump’s demands to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure.
Ukrainian officials have also complained about receiving no advance warning from the Americans before Russian missile strikes. The White House has not confirmed the claims.
Media reports emerged earlier this month that the US had also threatened to halt the procurement system that provides Ukraine with weapons to press authorities in Kiev to stop attacks on Russian energy infrastructure.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this week that Russia was unaware either of the Starlink slowdown for the Ukrainians or that intelligence sharing had been cut off. Peskov noted that “overall, of course, it would be better if such amazing technology… was not used for military purposes at all.” Moscow has persistently condemned Western military aid to Ukraine, arguing that it only serves to prolong the conflict without changing the outcome.
Israel Katz is being investigated over the alleged abuse of activists from the Gaza-bound aid flotilla, the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office has said
Italy has expended its probe into the alleged torture and sexual abuse of activists from the Gaza-bound aid flotilla by Israel’s security forces to include Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and twelve other high-ranking military, police and prison officials, the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office has said.
Israel intercepted dozens of yachts in international waters and arrested more than 800 volunteers from various countries in October 2025 and May 2026, who were attempting to break West Jerusalem’s naval blockade of the Palestinian enclave. They were held for days before being deported.
The investigation was launched by Rome earlier this year after some 50 Italian nationals, who were part of the Global Sumud Flotilla missions, complained about being mistreated in Israeli detention, among other things reporting at least 15 cases of sexual abuse and rape. The probe had initially beeen centered on the country’s far-right national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. A similar inquiry was initiated by France.
The Rome prosecutor's office said in a statement on Friday that the case against the Israeli officials concerns suspected torture, kidnapping, personal injury, robbery and damage.
The activists detained after the 2025 mission reported beatings, injuries, death threats, insults and accusations of terrorism, the statement read. The participants of the second mission claimed to have been subject to even harsher treatment by Israeli security forces, including beatings in the dark and the use of tasers and rubber bullets, it added.
Prosecutors said they had sent a request for judicial assistance in the investigation to Israel in June, but it remains unclear if they received a response from West Jerusalem.
Italian law allows crimes committed abroad against Italian citizens to be prosecuted by Rome. If the probe finds the charges warranted, the country could formally request a trial of the Israeli officials.
Katz and Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir, who is now also under investigation, haven’t yet commented on the development. Ben-Gvir brushed off the Italian probe in June, saying that he would “continue to stand proudly alongside our fighters.”
West Jerusalem has repeatedly rejected accusations of mistreating the activists and described the flotilla missions as political provocations designed to aid the Palestinian armed group Hamas. The Israeli prison service said that the detainees were held “in accordance with the law, with full regard for their basic rights.”
Israel claims the blockade of Gaza is necessary to prevent weapons from getting into the enclave. It also denies withholding supplies for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, almost 2 million of whom have been displaced since the outbreak of the conflict in October 2023, according to UN figures.
West Jerusalem sent its forces into Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led incursion in which some 1,200 people lost their lives and 250 others were taken hostage.
Israel’s airstrikes and ground offensive have cost the lives of more than 74,000 Palestinians, including at least 21,000 children, in Gaza over the past three years, the local health ministry has said. Over 1,500 deaths happened despite a US-brokered ceasefire being in effect in the enclave since October 2025.
The US president has invoked a national-interest exemption to suspend sweeping penalties under the Lindsey Graham bill
US President Donald Trump has suspended sweeping new sanctions against Russia that he signed into law just a month ago, invoking a national-interest exemption to waive penalties targeting Moscow’s economy and countries purchasing Russian energy.
In an executive order issued on Friday, Trump waived sanctions and tariffs mandated by the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, including proposed 500% tariffs on imports from Russia and 100% tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil and gas.
“I have submitted to the Congress a certification that the issuance of such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States and a report explaining the basis for the certification,” Trump wrote.
China and India, the two largest buyers of Russian crude oil, were expected to be among the countries hardest hit by the legislation.
The bill, championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham, has been described by supporters as a “bone-crushing” measure aimed at driving Russian energy exports out of the global market. Hawkish US lawmakers argued that existing restrictions had allowed Moscow to circumvent economic pressure.
Trump lifted sanctions on Russian diesel exports earlier this month in an effort to curb rising energy prices ahead of the US midterm elections. The move sparked outrage in Ukraine and among America’s European allies, prompting a bipartisan group of US senators to accuse Trump of betraying Kiev.
According to US media reports, Trump decided to ease sanctions after Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky refused to halt strikes on Russian energy facilities, which Trump blamed for high energy prices.
On Friday, US Representative Gregory Meeks introduced a bill in Congress seeking to block the diesel agreement with Russia. The Democrat accused Trump of “cozying up to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and striking self-enriching deals instead of standing with Ukraine.”
Trump has defended the agreement as beneficial to American consumers and consistent with his “America First” agenda. In response to the backlash, he attacked Zelensky as “not a good guy for us to deal with” and suggested that Ukraine needed “a new president.”
Russia has maintained that it has adapted to mounting Western economic pressure, while describing the Graham bill as a hostile move that would undermine Trump’s efforts to broker peace between Moscow and Kiev.
“[Russian] diesel has begun reaching global markets, and it will have a certain positive effect on stabilizing oil markets,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.
Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s investment envoy and a negotiator on Ukraine, hailed the waiver as “an important and historic moment.” Economic cooperation serves the interests of both countries, “contributes to global economic stability, and lays the foundation for building trust and achieving lasting peace,” he wrote on X.
The US president has said he would welcome his Russian counterpart at the Florida summit despite opposition from European allies.
US President Donald Trump has said he would welcome Russian President Vladimir Putin at the upcoming G20 summit in Florida, despite efforts by Ukraine and other European countries to isolate Moscow.
After returning to office in early 2025, Trump broke ranks with many of his Western allies, who had suspended high-level meetings with Russia over the Ukraine conflict.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed last month that Putin had been invited to the summit, scheduled for December 14–15 in Miami.
“I don’t know if he’s coming. I would certainly love to have him,” Trump told reporters on Friday when asked whether the Russian leader would attend.
Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said last month that the Kremlin was grateful for the invitation but had yet to decide whether Putin would attend. He added that Russia would “actively participate in the work of the G20.”
The invitation drew criticism from EU officials and a bipartisan group of US senators. “It’s clearly, I think, the wrong path to normalize people who are starting wars,” said Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat.
Trump:
I would certainly love to have Putin at the G20.
I don’t know if he’s coming. https://t.co/nc7NJMRESQ
Following a phone call with Putin earlier this month, Trump lifted sanctions on Russian diesel exports in an effort to curb rising energy prices ahead of the US midterm elections. The move drew further criticism from Ukraine and its European backers, with Ukrainian leader Zelensky saying he felt betrayed. Trump responded by suggesting that Ukraine should get “a new president” and describing Zelensky as “not a good guy for us to deal with.”
Trump has revived direct negotiations with Russia, which were largely suspended under his predecessor, Joe Biden, following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. His efforts to mediate a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev have caused friction with Ukraine and Washington’s European allies.
US presidential envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have visited Moscow together three times since December 2025, while Witkoff has made eight trips to the Russian capital since Trump returned to office.
Trump and Putin last met in person on August 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska.
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov attended a G20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors in Asheville, North Carolina, on August 31–September 1, 2026. It was his first in-person appearance at a G20 meeting since February 2022.
The Israeli prime minister is facing mounting accusations over what he knew before the Hamas attack, with a crucial election less than two weeks away
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing mounting accusations that he ignored warnings ahead of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, as a bitter blame game over one of Israel’s worst security failures emerges in the final weeks of the election campaign.
Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar has filed a defamation suit against Netanyahu, accusing him of falsely blaming intelligence officials for the attack despite receiving repeated alerts about security threats.
The Hamas-led assault killed around 1,200 people in southern Israel, with another 251 taken hostage. Israel’s subsequent military offensive in Gaza has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, according to the local health authorities.
Bar is seeking nearly $1 million in damages, claiming he warned the prime minister of growing danger in the months preceding the assault. He says a long trail of documents will expose Netanyahu’s account of events as false.
“Israel’s worst disaster has become political kryptonite,” RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij reported from Jerusalem on Friday, as the country prepares to vote on October 27.
Netanyahu, however, maintains that Bar failed to alert him to the imminent threat on the morning of the attack, despite discussing warning signs with senior military officials. He has accused the former intelligence chief of failing to take measures that could have prevented the bloodshed.
Further questions have been raised by Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil, who claims officials attempted to alter the recorded time of a phone call made on the morning of October 7.
The prime minister has also denied reports that he received advance warnings from Egyptian intelligence and UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed. The claims have drawn criticism from political rivals, including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot.
Questions have also emerged over Netanyahu’s handling of the subsequent Gaza war. Former Israeli hostage negotiator Nitzan Alon has suggested that political considerations delayed a deal that could have brought captives home much earlier.
“We could have possibly saved hostages who were killed in captivity, and we missed this opportunity,” Alon said, adding that an earlier agreement might also have saved thousands of lives on both sides.
Katie Zacharia is leaving the role following criticism of her debut briefing and questions about her legal credentials
Katie Zacharia is stepping down as US President Donald Trump’s press secretary after just five days on the job, the White House confirmed on Friday.
A conservative political commentator, Zacharia has faced widespread criticism over her handling of her debut press briefing and allegations that she misrepresented her legal credentials.
Trump cast doubt on Zacharia’s future in the role while speaking to reporters outside the White House. “Honestly, if I were you, I’d reconsider,” he said, adding that he had spoken to her shortly beforehand. “Katie, do you need this? I don’t think you need this.”
Several hours later, White House communications director Steven Cheung said Zacharia would be “transitioning into a new role that will be announced at a later date.”
Zacharia posted a photo of herself with Trump in the Oval Office on X, saying that “it was an honor to work for him.”
President Trump is a kind, wonderful, gracious, thoughtful, enthusiastic, and hardworking man. I wish more Americans appreciated him. No one will ever make America great the way he has and continues to.
It was an honor to work for him. https://t.co/Tp4NizrhE2
According to the New York Times, Zacharia largely read from a script during her first and only press briefing on Tuesday and ended the Q&A session after just five and a half minutes. Critics also accused her of misrepresenting herself as a lawyer after she failed to confirm whether she had passed a US bar exam. Zacharia later claimed to have passed a bar exam in China, where she worked for a Beijing-based law firm in the 2010s.
Zacharia’s five-day stint marks the shortest tenure of any White House press secretary in US history. She succeeded Karoline Leavitt, who had held the position since Trump returned to office in January 2025.
During his first term, Trump fired White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci in July 2017, just ten days after his appointment, following a profanity-laden phone call with a reporter in which he attacked senior administration officials.
At her first press briefing, Zacharia announced that Trump had asked US Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle, the former fiancée of his son Donald Trump Jr., to resign following allegations of misconduct.
Several high-profile officials have left the Trump administration this year, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and Navy Secretary John Phelan.
This week did not start well for Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, who was apparently blindsided by US President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend sanctions on Russian diesel supplies after talks with the Kremlin. The deal won’t alleviate the global diesel shortage, but it’s already cooling speculative markets and easing pressure on Trump ahead of next month’s midterm elections.
Backed into a corner, Zelensky began throwing haymakers. Accusing the American president of empathizing with dictators, Zelensky demanded air defense missiles from the US before vowing to continue his drone campaign against Russia’s refineries – with or without American support.
The US apparently sent a warning signal to Zelensky by throttling the Ukrainian military’s access to SpaceX’s high-speed Starlink and Starshield satellite communications services, which are vital tools in guiding attack drones used against Russia, and in detecting incoming retaliatory strikes. Neither Trump nor SpaceX CEO Elon Musk would take responsibility for the communications drop-off, but even if they had, their message would likely have fallen of deaf ears.
Retaliation was swift, from both Moscow and Washington. Russian forces used missiles and drones to strike six power plants in Kiev, Kharkov, and the surrounding regions, as well as military logistics hubs and data centers. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that it shot down four missiles out of 39, confirming reports that Zelensky launched the refinery strikes knowing Ukraine lacked adequate air defense supplies to repel the retaliation.
Trump went on to savage Zelensky in a Newsmax interview on Thursday. “I’m not a big fan of Zelensky. They’ve destroyed that country,” he said, before accusing the Ukrainian leader of selling missiles given to him by the US “on the open market.”
“Zelensky is not a good guy for us to deal with,” Trump concluded.
Nord Stream trial begins
As Ukraine doubles down on its infrastructure war, the costliest infrastructure attack in history is finally being litigated in a German courtroom. Sergey Kuznetsov, a Ukrainian military officer, went on trial in Hamburg this week, accused of leading the team that sabotaged the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines in September 2022, an act that German prosecutors consider a “war crime.”
Kuznetsov is staying silent, refusing to admit or deny a role in the bombing. The evidence against him is circumstantial, and his lawyers are confident that without a confession, he “cannot be convicted.”
As RT has explored in depth, the prosecution’s version of events is riddled with plot holes and inconsistencies. However, to pick apart the alternative story – that the pipelines were destroyed in a CIA operation – would call the relationship between Washington and Berlin, the foundation of the postwar liberal order, into question.
While a guilty verdict against Kuznetsov would directly implicate the Ukrainian military in a war crime against its largest foreign donor, the trial, at least at this stage, appears set up to avoid this outcome.
Russiagate resurrected
Speaking of reopening old wounds, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham dug up the bloated corpse of ‘Russiagate’ this week to bolster his efforts to undo the 2016 Brexit referendum and rejoin the EU. Burnham claimed that he had “clear” evidence that Russia interfered in the vote, in which Britons voted by 51.89% to 48.11% to leave the union.
Just as the original ‘Russiagate’ claims against Trump fell apart under questioning, Burnham’s allegation crumbled once subjected to some basic scrutiny. The British PM was unable to back up his accusation when grilled in Parliament, and his foreign secretary, Stephen Doughty, humiliated himself on national television when he attempted to evade questioning on the claim.
However, Burnham couldn’t be faulted for his timing and opportunism. As he spoke of Russian bots and influence campaigns in Parliament on Monday, Zelensky, his Polish and Baltic backers, and his army of internet supporters claimed that a Ukrainian strike on a Yandex data center in Russia the previous day had wiped thousands of “Russian bots” from social media.
As it turned out, none of this was true. The strike interrupted the activity of Yandex’ web crawler bots, which archive websites for search users, but with the help of an AI-created graph and some creative interpretation of the word “bot,” the hoax made it all the way to the Warsaw Security Forum.
French riots spread
French students took part in a fifth wave of demonstrations this week, which they say are aimed at securing more school funding and better learning conditions. Every wave of protests thus far has descended into rioting and vandalism, and this week’s marches were no different, with participants torching cars and battering police officers with cobblestones and fireworks in Paris.
RT’s Nadege Abderazzak watched heavily armored police baton-charge crowds of rioters in the French capital on Wednesday, noting that officers now outnumber protesters two-to-one at some rallies.
With French President Emmanuel Macron determined to increase military spending and continue arming Ukraine, France’s financial situation is in dire straits, and right-wing National Rally leader Marine Le Pen is on track to win the country’s next presidential election.
Meanwhile, Albanian students have taken a page out of their French counterparts’ book. After large protests demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama and opposition leader Sali Berisha over corruption allegations, a crowd of students breached the fence of the Education Ministry in Tirana on Wednesday and torched the building.
Rama’s response has also drawn from the Western playbook, with the Albanian PM accusing protesters of waging “hybrid war” against the country.
What we’re watching
Zelensky may be in Trump’s bad books, but he can still count on the support of Macron, Burnham, and the rest of his European backers, whom he met in Brussels on Thursday and Friday. In his address to the European Council on Friday, the Ukrainian leader asked for another “70 billion euros” for ammunition, missiles, and air defense. Should Ukraine “fall,” Zelensky warned, another 20 million Ukrainian migrants will flood into the EU.
We’ll be keeping an eye on what kind of promises the cash-strapped Europeans make after this blatant shakedown.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will fly to Tehran on Monday for talks with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi. The two diplomats are expected to focus on de-escalating the simmering US/Iran conflict in the Middle East, and any progress on this front will likely be reflected in global energy markets.
Lavrov will also meet Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic on Friday, ahead of critical parliamentary elections on October 25. Amid student protests, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic called the election early and stepped down to run as prime minister, a high-stakes move that turned the vote into a referendum on his nine years in power. With pro-Western students and right-wing ‘patriotic’ forces squeezing Vucic from either side, we’ll be keeping an eye out for polls, protests, and interference from the usual suspects.
Photographer Heidi Levine was mobbed despite wearing clear press identification just ten days after an AFP journalist was injured in a similar attack
Washington Post photographer Heidi Levine has been badly beaten by Israeli settlers and stripped of her equipment while covering attacks on Palestinians harvesting olives in the occupied West Bank.
The assault occurred on Friday near the village of Abu Falah, the latest in an ongoing string of attacks staged by organized settler groups. Masked settlers have repeatedly attacked Palestinian villages, hurling stones and setting orchards on fire in an apparent effort to disrupt the autumn harvest. The Israeli military, which is usually present, has taken little to no action against the settlers.
Levine, a veteran photographer who has covered conflicts across the Middle East and elsewhere for decades, was caught in a settler charge on the Palestinians. The mob threw the journalist, who was wearing a blue protective vest clearly marked ‘PRESS,’ to the ground, repeatedly kicking her while stealing her cameras and phone.
“They just kept kicking me and kicking me, like probably 50 times,” Levine told reporters after the incident.
Footage from the scene shows the immediate aftermath, with Levine seen prone on the ground after the settlers were repelled by the villagers. The journalist was badly shaken but apparently spared more serious injuries thanks to her protective vest and helmet.
Severe settler + soldier attack on olive harvesters in Abu Falah. American WaPo journalist Heidi Levine badly wounded. Machine gunfire—at least one Palestinian shot. Tear gas. Soldiers assaulting journalists. pic.twitter.com/He61cNYk0c
The photographer was evacuated by Palestinian paramedics and treated at a hospital in Ramallah for her injuries. Later on, another group of journalists was reportedly pelted with stones by settlers at the site. Oren Ziv, a journalist who also witnessed the attack, reported that at least one Palestinian was wounded by gunfire. It was not immediately clear whether Israeli settlers or the military fired the shots, but the IDF reportedly did nothing to stop the violence.
The Washington Post strongly condemned the attack and called for a full investigation. “While we are relieved that Heidi has received medical care and is safe, we are outraged by this unwarranted attack on a journalist doing her job and urge a thorough investigation and follow-through from authorities,” Matt Murray, executive editor of the Post, said in a statement.
Ten days earlier, veteran Palestinian photographer Jaafar Ashtiyeh, who has been working with AFP, suffered a similar assault during a settler raid on Palestinian olive farmers. The journalist, marked as press, was attacked by armed Israeli settlers, who beat him with rifle butts and robbed him of his equipment. The violence was reportedly witnessed by an IDF unit that did not intervene.
Journalists documenting settler violence have increasingly become victims of it. The Committee to Protect Journalists documented at least 16 incidents involving 35 Palestinian, Israeli, and international journalists in the first eight months of 2026 alone, with the figures already surpassing those recorded in 2025.
Former Congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew his 2024 bid to lead the Justice Department following similar allegations
Two women have filed a federal lawsuit accusing former US Representative Matt Gaetz, President Donald Trump’s first pick for attorney general, of participating in a sex trafficking ring while serving in Congress. Gaetz has faced similar allegations for years, and has denied any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit, filed in Florida on Thursday, alleges that Gaetz and several other men, including former Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg and former Florida legislator Christopher Dorworth, sexually exploited the plaintiffs between 2017 and 2019.
The women, identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, are seeking unspecified damages under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Greenberg recruited financially vulnerable young women through the dating website SeekingArrangement.com and introduced them to Gaetz.
The lawsuit alleges that Gaetz had sex with Jane Doe 1 and a 17-year-old girl at a July 2017 party where narcotics were distributed. He allegedly paid the minor $400 in cash and transferred $500 to Jane Doe 1 three days later.
Gaetz and Greenberg subsequently made at least 19 payments to Jane Doe 1, ranging from $150 to $1,000, the complaint claims. Jane Doe 2 alleged that she first had sex with Gaetz in exchange for money in October 2017.
The plaintiffs also accused the defendants of providing drugs and financing trips to Miami, Las Vegas, the Bahamas and other destinations in exchange for sex.
The men allegedly used “their public office, power, and wealth to prey on the economic vulnerability of Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. Both women were in their early twenties when they met Gaetz.
Greenberg pleaded guilty to federal charges, including sex trafficking of a minor, in 2021 and was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Responding on X on Thursday, Gaetz appeared to mock the lawsuit, posting a photo of three women in swimsuits overlooking the ocean in the Bahamas.
“Jane Doe Strikes Again!” he wrote, sarcastically questioning why nobody had responded to the women’s supposed cries for help on Instagram. He later told reporters he looked forward to disproving the allegations.
Jane Doe Strikes Again! Two adult women sued me today alleging they were sex trafficked to the Bahamas. I’m shocked nobody responded to their repeated cries for help, posted to instagram. https://t.co/HPvX2xypzs
In December 2024, the House Ethics Committee reported finding “substantial evidence” that Gaetz had paid women for sex, including a 17-year-old girl, and used illegal drugs while in office.
A separate Justice Department investigation ended in 2023 without charges.
Gaetz withdrew from consideration to be Trump’s attorney general in November 2024 after several Republican senators signaled opposition to his nomination over the allegations.
The Houthis are turning cheap strikes into expensive problems for Riyadh, targeting the infrastructure that keeps its economy running
The Houthis continue to strike Saudi Arabia despite Riyadh’s threats of a forceful response and promises to enlist outside partners to defend the kingdom.
By targeting airports and oil infrastructure, Ansar Allah is seeking to raise the cost of Saudi involvement in Yemen’s conflict and force the kingdom’s leadership to reconsider the terms of a settlement.
The latest wave of Houthi attacks has targeted facilities of particular importance to Saudi Arabia. On the evening of October 13, a strike hit Saudi Aramco’s headquarters in Dhahran, home to the company’s key management operations. The Saudi Energy Ministry reported a fire, though miraculously no one was killed.
Ansar Allah also claimed strikes on an oil refinery in Riyadh and King Khalid International Airport. The choice of targets suggests the Houthis want to put virtually all of the kingdom’s oil revenue at risk and disrupt its international air connections.
These targets also suggest that the movement is trying to influence Saudi leaders’ decisions directly. Oil infrastructure generates government revenue, airports connect the country to the outside world, and confidence in the kingdom depends on the security of both. Even limited damage can therefore produce an impact far greater than the cost of the weapons used.
The Houthis have their own history of confrontation with Saudi Arabia. The movement emerged in northern Yemen, fought a series of wars against the central government between 2004 and 2010, and seized the capital, Sanaa, in 2014. Its rise was rooted in Yemen’s political system, local conflicts, and the collapse of state institutions. Iranian support strengthened an already established force with its own social base and political objectives.
The Saudi intervention in 2015 cemented Riyadh’s position as the movement’s principal foreign adversary. For the kingdom, the aim was to prevent a hostile force from consolidating power along its southern border and to support Yemen’s internationally recognized government. For the Houthi leadership, the war became both a threat to its survival and a rallying cause. Invoking foreign aggression allowed the movement to portray its struggle for domestic supremacy as a defense of national sovereignty.
That logic remains relevant to the current escalation. Saudi support for an offensive by Yemeni government forces threatens the Houthis’ territorial gains and bargaining position. Striking deep inside the kingdom allows them to raise the price of that support. Their apparent calculation is to make continued Saudi involvement in the war carry a recurring cost on Saudi soil.
The movement’s demands are concrete: an end to strikes, limits on assistance to its Yemeni adversaries, the lifting of transportation and trade restrictions, and agreements on revenues and payments. These issues were under discussion long before the latest escalation. The framework for a roadmap presented by the UN in December 2023 included a nationwide ceasefire, payment of public-sector salaries, the resumption of oil exports, and an easing of restrictions on Sanaa airport and the port of Hodeidah.
By increasing Riyadh’s costs, Ansar Allah hopes to extract concessions and retain control of the territory it has seized. A ceasefire on those terms, however, would consolidate the movement’s position without resolving how power should be shared in Yemen.
Attacks on Saudi Arabia also serve Ansar Allah’s domestic political interests. The movement uses its ability to strike deep inside the kingdom to bolster its standing among supporters. Confrontation with Riyadh also allows the Houthis to cast themselves as Yemen’s defenders against foreign intervention and use that claim to justify their bid for power.
Iranian military and technological assistance has undoubtedly expanded Houthi capabilities considerably. But the relationship with Tehran does not erase Ansar Allah’s own interests in Yemen’s power struggle or its confrontation with Saudi Arabia. Reducing the movement’s actions to the execution of Iranian orders fails to explain either the conflict’s local roots or the Houthi leadership’s objectives.
A more accurate description would be a partnership with unequal resources in which the Yemeni side retains substantial autonomy. Weakening Saudi Arabia may serve both partners’ interests, but their preferred terms for ending the war may differ. Ansar Allah must consider conditions on Yemen’s battlefields and the survival of its own rule. Agreements between Iran and outside powers therefore do not guarantee an automatic halt to Houthi operations.
The economics of war
The development of domestic missile production and an expanding network for procuring components make it harder for Riyadh to bring Houthi attacks to an end. If the movement can replenish its arsenal from several sources, restricting Iranian supplies will have only a partial effect. An agreement with Tehran alone would therefore be insufficient to secure Saudi facilities. Much will depend on whether the Houthis themselves believe continued strikes serve their interests.
Nor do the Houthis need to match Saudi Arabia in the quantity or quality of their weapons. They can choose their targets and pause between attacks, while the kingdom must continuously defend airports, oil facilities, and cities across a vast territory. Even a single hit can disrupt a facility’s operations, trigger flight cancellations, or bring business activity to a halt. Purchases of American air defense systems reduce that threat but do not eliminate it. Riyadh’s problem is that military superiority has yet to deprive its adversary of the ability to inflict economically painful blows. That is precisely the capability the Houthis are trying to turn into negotiating leverage.
Saudi military spending exceeds $82 billion per year, yet the kingdom still struggles to protect its infrastructure from Houthi attacks. This exposes the gap between the cost of the weapons it has purchased and their effectiveness in this particular war. Advanced fighter jets and missile defense systems give Riyadh a considerable advantage, but detecting small drones and low-flying cruise missiles requires extensive radar coverage and rapid information sharing between units. Without those capabilities, expensive equipment cannot reliably detect and engage targets in time.
In a prolonged confrontation, the disparity in weapons costs also becomes significant. According to cited estimates, a Patriot interceptor costs more than $3 million, while some Houthi drones cost just $15,000–25,000. Defenders have to use such interceptors against cheap aircraft to protect far more valuable assets. But sustained defensive operations deplete stocks that cannot be replenished quickly, particularly amid strong global demand for air defense systems. This gives the Houthis an opportunity to wear down the kingdom’s defenses even when most of the aircraft they launch fail to reach their targets.
Technical difficulties are compounded by the structure of the Saudi armed forces. The separation of the regular military and the National Guard has historically served, in part, to protect the monarchy against a coup. But separate chains of command and highly centralized decision-making can hinder coordination and limit commanders’ initiative. Another weapons purchase, then, will not solve the problem on its own. Even additional detection and interception systems will deliver limited results if information arrives late and coordinating a response takes too long.
The Houthis can reasonably expect these shortcomings to take time to address, leaving them able to continue inflicting painful blows in the meantime. Domestic production and broader supply networks help sustain that campaign. The movement does not need to destroy major industrial facilities or shut down air travel altogether; a recurring threat is enough to make airlines reconsider routes, investors postpone decisions, and Saudi leaders spend more on protecting infrastructure.
Statements by Türkiye and Pakistan expressing their readiness to defend Saudi Arabia do not yet provide grounds to expect either country to enter the war fully, much less fight the Houthis inside Yemen. At an October 5 meeting, the parties to the Mecca Agreement announced that they would provide forces and equipment for the kingdom’s defense. The political weight of those promises, however, will depend on whether the allies can actually reduce the number of attacks and the damage they cause. As long as the strikes continue, Houthi leaders may view such declarations as rhetoric unlikely to be followed by a dangerous expansion of the war.
Ankara’s position reinforces that calculation. Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan outlined possible assistance with air defense, electronic warfare, and technical support, while explicitly ruling out Turkish troops taking part in offensive operations on foreign soil. Türkiye has thus set clear limits on its role from the outset.
Pakistan also has reasons to avoid direct intervention. Joining the war in Yemen would mean additional military spending and the risk of worsening relations with neighboring Iran. It would therefore be premature to expect Islamabad to take on the task of defeating the Houthis on Riyadh’s behalf. Its commitments to the kingdom leave room for a role limited to defending specific facilities and providing military assistance.
A similar distinction applies to the American position. Intelligence sharing and targeting assistance support Saudi operations, but they do not mean Washington is willing to stop the attacks at any cost. The Houthis appear to be counting on precisely these limits to outside involvement. Their bet is that the kingdom’s allies will help it defend itself but will be reluctant to become embroiled in a prolonged war to achieve Saudi objectives in Yemen.
Until that support produces a substantial reduction in attacks, threats to bring in allies may carry little weight with Ansar Allah.
***
The Houthis are seeking to demonstrate that continued Saudi intervention will bring losses that neither a vast defense budget nor foreign partners can prevent. If that pressure prompts Riyadh to scale back assistance to their adversaries or accept settlement terms favorable to them, the movement will have an opportunity to translate its battlefield gains into lasting political advantages.
Such an outcome would also benefit Iran by weakening Saudi Arabia’s position. Its most immediate consequence, however, would be to strengthen Ansar Allah itself in the struggle for power in Yemen.
Washington is shifting toward pragmatic cooperation with Moscow while the EU remains driven by ideology, Karin Kneissl has said
Washington’s diesel deal with Moscow has exposed divisions within the West over its anti-Russian stance, as the US shifts toward a more pragmatic approach, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl has said.
US President Donald Trump announced the agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, easing sanctions on Russian diesel imports until April 2027 in an effort to bring down soaring fuel prices. The move marks a departure from the Western sanctions policy imposed on Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.
Speaking to TASS on Friday, Kneissl described the agreement as more than a “symbolic breakthrough,” pointing to the 300,000 tons of Russian diesel expected to reach the US and global markets by November.
“The EU says that this undermines the West’s united position. However, one could also say that this marks a shift by the US toward a more pragmatic approach, while the EU continues to pursue a purely ideological line,” she stated.
The agreement has drawn criticism from European leaders attending a two-day EU summit in Brussels this week. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis accused Trump of sidelining the bloc, telling reporters that “Trump, by doing that business with Putin, stabbed us in the back. We have to do something.”
Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev, however, welcomed the agreement, arguing that lower fuel prices were essential to Europe’s economic competitiveness. “Any step in reducing fuel prices and to guarantee our competitiveness, we appreciate,” he said.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described the agreement as a “gift to Putin,” while defending Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed on Friday that the bloc would maintain its sanctions against Moscow despite Washington’s decision to ease restrictions on Russian diesel.
Brussels’ hardline stance contrasts with that of EU member Slovakia, which remains heavily dependent on Russian energy and has sought to maintain economic ties with Moscow. Prime Minister Robert Fico has repeatedly called for diplomacy rather than continued military support for Kiev.
The dispute has also strained relations between Washington and Kiev. Trump has repeatedly urged Vladimir Zelensky to halt Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries, blaming the attacks for pushing up global fuel prices.
Zelensky criticized the diesel agreement as a “weak decision” and accused Trump of “betrayal.” Ukraine continued targeting Russian energy facilities, including a refinery in Ryazan Region on Thursday, prompting Trump to condemn the attacks as a “disgrace.” At Friday’s summit, Zelensky sought additional financial and military assistance from European leaders but left empty-handed, with only renewed promises of support.
The confrontation comes as global diesel supplies remain under pressure from the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has severely disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
The International Energy Agency agreed on Thursday to accelerate the release of emergency oil reserves, including more than 20 million barrels of diesel, in an effort to ease shortages and bring down prices.
President Donald Trump’s peace push has ignited a bitter feud with Vladimir Zelensky
The administration of US President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries while pursuing landmark diplomacy with Moscow in a bid to bring down soaring fuel prices at home and revive stalled peace negotiations.
The overtures have left Vladimir Zelensky fuming, reigniting the bitterest public confrontation between the two since their explosive Oval Office showdown in 2025. Zelensky has fiercely criticized Trump’s Russian diesel deal and defied his demands to stop attacking Russian refineries, saying he feels “betrayed” by Washington.
In response, the US president branded the Ukrainian leader “not a good guy for us to deal with,” while suggesting that Ukraine needs a “new president,” referring to Zelensky’s long-expired presidential term.
As the dispute escalated, American officials reportedly threatened to restrict intelligence sharing and weapons supplies to Kiev, while Ukrainian commanders sounded the alarm about serious disruptions to the Starlink network, which the military heavily relies on for logistics, reconnaissance, and drone control.
Trump’s peace push has also put him on a collision course with Zelensky’s EU backers. US negotiators reportedly proposed unfreezing some Russian sovereign assets – an idea categorically rebuffed in Brussels. Zelensky then attempted to drum up support at a slightly farcical summit in Brussels where he demanded EU and NATO membership; both of which have been rejected outright in Brussels.
Moscow has welcomed Trump’s diplomatic offensive while opposing any temporary truce with Kiev, arguing that the pause will only allow Ukraine to recuperate its battered forces.
Here is how Washington is using its pressure tools and economic incentives to mediate the Ukraine conflict and meet domestic interests.
Russian diesel to the rescue
The state of US-Russia relations took a sharp turn on October 9, when Trump struck a surprise diesel deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to allow additional Russian supplies onto American and global markets. The arrangement – announced just weeks before the US midterm elections – envisaged the release of more than 300,000 tons of Russian diesel, followed by larger shipments in the coming months. Trump pitched the deal as a way to rein in soaring fuel costs for American consumers, truckers and farmers.
According to a Reuters report, Trump’s envoys also told their Ukrainian counterparts that the US hoped that the deal could help soften Russia’s position on the peace talks.
Zelensky erupted, accusing Washington of making a “weak decision” and using Kiev’s delegation as “a front” for the agreement. Trump brushed aside the criticism, telling Zelensky to “focus on making a deal, not talking about that.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the arrangement as “mutually beneficial” and serving the interests of the global market while denouncing “the destructive position” of European countries on the matter.
Zelensky tramples over Trump’s red lines
The diesel deal came after weeks of increasingly forceful demands from Trump that Kiev halt strikes on Russian oil refineries.
Since September, Trump has publicly – and in an increasingly sharp tone – urged Zelensky to stop his attacks, saying on Thursday that “all he’s doing is making the world oil price higher” while denouncing the Ukrainian leader’s approach as “a disgrace.”
According to Axios, Zelensky ignored at least half a dozen American requests to stop attacking Russian refineries before Washington did the deal with Moscow, and Zelensky threw his toys out of the pram.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak confirmed on Wednesday that Ukrainian drones had targeted two Russian oil refineries: in Ryazan and Saratov Regions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described Zelensky’s behavior as “a direct and blatant challenge to President Trump.”
The Russian Defense Ministry issued its own warning, vowing to step up strikes on Ukraine’s military-related targets in response to Zelensky’s threats to attack oil facilities.
The Trump-Zelensky clash went beyond angry exchanges, with the apparent fracture having dire implications for Ukrainian troops on the ground, according to multiple media reports. The Financial Times reported that US officials had warned Ukrainian and European counterparts that continued refinery strikes could result in the suspension of intelligence sharing and the NATO-managed PURL mechanism, through which European countries purchase American weapons for Ukraine.
Zelensky subsequently confirmed that Ukrainian commanders had received warnings about a possible intelligence cutoff, although he acknowledged that cooperation had not stopped. Trump also denied suspending intelligence sharing, insisting that “we are helping them, and we are sharing intel.”
Yet on Tuesday, Zelensky complained that Kiev had received no advance warning from its partners about a Russian ballistic missile attack. He did not identify which countries had failed to provide the alerts.
At the same time, Ukrainian commanders reported serious disruptions to Starshield, the military-grade version of Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service. As a result, Ukrainian drones could not operate at speeds exceeding 160 km/h in many cases, making them more vulnerable to Russian air defenses and derailing some missions altogether.
While some Ukrainian officials already suspected that the disruptions were linked to the Trump-Zelensky feud, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing sources, that the order to restrict Starshield had originated inside the White House. A senior US official, however, denied that Trump personally ordered the restrictions. Later, Ukrainian officials reported that some Starshield connections had been restored.
Elon Musk – who has also been critical of Zelensky – confirmed that major decisions on Starshield rest with the American military or the president.
As the feud escalated, Trump turned his ire on Zelensky’s leadership, accusing him of squandering repeated opportunities to end the conflict. “I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, adding that “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president.”
Trump’s jabs at Zelensky’s dubious legal status hark back to February 2025 when the US president branded the Ukrainian leader “a dictator without elections.”
Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, and he has refused to hold new elections, citing martial law. Russia has since declared him “illegitimate,” saying that his status is a major obstacle to signing a binding agreement.
In response to Trump’s criticism, Zelensky said that Kiev was ready to hold elections if Moscow agreed to a comprehensive 60-day ceasefire. Russia, however, offered a truce only on the day of any vote, arguing that Kiev would use a longer pause to recuperate its battered forces and receive more weapons from the West.
Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner proposed unfreezing some of the €300 billion in sovereign Russian funds held in Euroclear in Belgium, and transferring them to a financial vehicle overseen by Washington, according to the Financial Times.
The EU has sought to seize the funds outright, but has faced strong resistance, particularly from Belgium, over fears of costly litigation, Russian retaliation, and damage to Europe’s financial reputation.
While US officials reportedly see the issue of Russian sovereign assets as part of a comprehensive peace agreement, the proposal “startled” Kiev’s intransigent European backers, who flatly rejected the initiative, and refused to relinquish control over the assets.
In addition, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing a US official, that the Trump administration was weighing sanctions relief for vessels belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet” used to transport oil from Russia, which would allow it to bring down fuel prices.
Begging in Brussels: the €27 billion hole
With his relations with Trump in tatters, Zelensky traveled to Brussels on Friday to seek financial and military backing from the EU. In a not-so-veiled swipe at the US president, he thanked unelected EU officials as “real leaders” upon his arrival.
However, Kiev’s demands for more money have already met resistance from the EU. After announcing an unexpected $27 billion defense budget hole in August, Zelensky requested the EU front load part of the €90 billion loan meant for 2027 already this year.
Brussels declined to endorse Kiev’s deficit figures while pressing it to hurry up with stalled reforms – including those tackling rampant corruption – to unlock the funds already available.
Zelensky’s bickering with Trump is forcing the EU to take an increasingly adversarial stance towards the US. According to the Financial Times, EU officials planned to urge the Ukrainian leader behind the summit scenes to tone down his public criticism of Washington.
“It might be true, but it doesn’t always need to be said out loud,” one person familiar with the discussions told the newspaper.
Barely recovering from his Oval Office clash with Trump last year, Zelensky has once again gone against Ukraine’s most important backer by repeatedly ignoring American warnings over refinery strikes and challenging Washington’s diesel deal with Moscow.
As Ukraine struggles to contain Russia’s advances on the battlefield and prop up a collapsing economy while turning to the reluctant EU for help, Trump refused to cut Zelensky any slack and step back from his demands when America’s interests are at stake – and now Ukraine is facing the threat of a complete Starlink cut-off and a halt to crucial intelligence sharing.
The Ukrainian leader has reportedly agreed to a proposed 100-day pause in attacks in exchange for satellite coverage extending deeper into Russia
Vladimir Zelensky is open to stopping attacks on Russian oil refineries for 100 days in exchange for a 300 km extension of Starlink satellite internet service coverage for the Ukrainian military, the Wall Street Journal has said.
The report comes as US President Donald Trump has ramped pressure on Zelensky to end the strikes, which he blames for surging global energy prices. In his interview with Newsmax on Thursday, Trump called Ukraine’s actions “a disgrace.”
In an article published the same day, the WSJ said that Republican Senators Roger Wicker and Kevin Cramer brought the deal to the Ukrainian leader during their visit to Kiev last Friday. The outlet claimed that it was told by unnamed sources that Zelensky had agreed to the proposal.
The extended Starlink coverage should help Ukraine target missile launchers inside Russia, according to the report.
Kiev, which is experiencing an acute shortage of US-supplied Patriot air defense missiles, has been struggling to contain Russia’s large-scale missile and drone strikes against military-related infrastructure across Ukraine. Moscow says the raids are being carried out in response to Ukrainian terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Russia, including energy facilities.
The Ukrainians, who have relied heavily on Starlink during the conflict with Russia for battlefield communications and controlling drones, have been “terrified” by the slowdown of satellite internet provided by Elon Musk’s SpaceX company this week, the WSJ said.
On Wednesday, Ukrainian officials and frontline commanders complained that Starlink terminals had suddenly stopped working when UAVs flew faster than 100 mph, disrupting some combat missions. According to Reuters, the order to slow down the service came directly from the White House. Zelensky said on Friday that Starlink’s speed has increased over the last couple of days, but the restrictions haven’t been fully lifted yet.
Earlier this week, Zelensky confirmed reports that the US had threatened to stop sharing intelligence with Kiev if it kept ignoring Trump’s demands to cease energy strikes inside Russia. Officials in Kiev also complained about receiving no advance warning from the Americans before Russian missile strikes.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday that Russia was unaware of the Starlink slowdown for the Ukrainians, noting that “overall, of course, it would be better if such amazing technology… was not used for military purposes at all.”
Last month, Peskov warned that allowing Starlink to be used to facilitate strikes deep into Russian territory would be “a very harmful, potentially dangerous and misconceived step.”
The American authorities apparently don’t require consent from Musk to expand the coverage of Starlink’s military component, known as Starshield, for Ukraine. The SpaceX CEO said earlier this week that its systems “are owned and controlled” by the US government, with the Pentagon and the US president deciding on the limits on their speed or usage.
On Sunday, Musk backed Trump’s suggestion that “it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president.” In a comment to a White House video with the US president’s criticism of the Ukrainian leader, the entrepreneur said that “Zelensky has gone too far.”
Zelensky reportedly wanted to personally discuss the expansion of Starlink coverage with Musk during his US visit to Washington in July, but the SpaceX CEO turned down the meeting.
A courtroom gave the defeated Reich’s leaders a chance to defend themselves – and the world a record of crimes they could no longer conceal
On the night of October 16, 1946, 10 individuals were hanged in the Nuremberg prison. These were the main Nazi criminals who had been captured and brought to trial.
Despite the horrifying scale and brutality of the crimes, the Nuremberg Trials remain one of the most controversial proceedings in world history.
Justice instead of revenge
The idea of an international tribunal to address Nazi atrocities had been considered for some time. In 1942, the Soviet Union established a special Extraordinary Commission that gathered information about these crimes. Tragically, it had a lot of work to do. The USSR became the primary battleground for the bloodiest and most brutal war in Europe.
The range and nature of the crimes committed on Soviet soil were staggering: genocide against multiple peoples, mass killings on various grounds, all sorts of war crimes, deliberate attacks on medical facilities and civilian infrastructure, arbitrary executions, economic exploitation, and sexual violence. Essentially, every town liberated from the Nazis had enough evidence to warrant its own tribunal. When the concentration camps were liberated, it became clear that Allied propaganda had not exaggerated but rather understated the extent of Nazi atrocities.
In addition to the Soviet government, the exiled governments of occupied countries – Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Norway, France, and Yugoslavia – also wanted to hold the Nazis legally accountable for their crimes.
The outlines of the future tribunal began to take shape in the fall of 1943 during a conference in Moscow attended by the foreign ministers of the ‘Big Three’ – the USSR, the UK, and the US. The three powers agreed that Nazi leaders who committed crimes across multiple nations should be tried by an international court.
At that time, even the idea of lynching Nazi leaders seemed valid. Benito Mussolini was executed along with his mistress by Italian partisans on April 28, 1945, without any trial. Their mutilated bodies were publicly displayed. No one mourned Mussolini; similarly, no one would have objected if a Red Army soldier had shot Hitler.
Sporadic acts of vigilante justice also occurred as the war neared its end. A well-known incident involved American soldiers executing the staff of the Dachau concentration camp. Polish troops beat to death Oscar Dirlewanger, the commander of a punitive brigade responsible for countless deaths in Belarus and Poland.
Yet vigilante justice was not what the Allied leaders envisioned.
It became clear that the crimes committed were not only widespread but complex. Determining individual responsibility was not always an easy task. The Nazis had taken measures to conceal their atrocities whenever possible; for example, they buried the remains of over 100,000 people, mostly Jews, after executing them at Babi Yar ravine near Kiev. Furthermore, once the Reich collapsed and arrests began, everyone began shifting blame onto one another, particularly onto those who had already died.
By April and May of 1945, most of the individuals who would eventually be tried at Nuremberg had been apprehended. Of course, many key figures were never tried.
For obvious reasons, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels and Hitler himself were absent from the trial: both had committed suicide before they could face justice. Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, was captured by two freed Soviet prisoners, yet during a medical examination, he swallowed a poison capsule and died. Heinrich Müller, the leader of the Gestapo, likely shot himself in late April or early May 1945. His body was discovered months later in a temporary grave.
The fate of Martin Bormann, Hitler’s private secretary and head of the party chancellery, was unknown for many years. He went missing, which in 1945 could imply that he had fled under an assumed identity. However, today we can say with certainty that Bormann was killed in the final hours of the defense of Berlin, while attempting to break out of the encircled city alongside a column of German troops.
Twenty-four people were tried in Nuremberg. The most prominent among them was Hermann Göring, the commander of the Luftwaffe, who held numerous official and unofficial positions, served as Hitler’s close associate, and was considered the second most powerful man in the Reich.
Other figures included the Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories and the Nazis’ chief ideologist Alfred Rosenberg; Chief of the Armed Forces Command Wilhelm Keitel; Minister of Foreign Affairs Joachim von Ribbentrop; and the head of the security service Ernst Kaltenbrunner.
Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice was chosen for the trials for several practical reasons. It had direct access to the prison, was in relatively good condition, and was well-equipped to accommodate large numbers of people.
The decision was made to conduct the trials according to established legal standards, allowing the defendants the right to defend themselves. The Nazis found attorneys to represent them. Admiral Karl Dönitz took an interesting approach: he secured a maritime law specialist as his lawyer, but said that if he were not allowed to work with him, he would choose the admiral of the Allied forces who commanded submarines as his lawyer.
Rosenberg pursued a different strategy by trying to recruit Hans Frank, who was also being tried for war crimes as the governor of occupied Poland, and happened to be a lawyer by training. However, this request was denied. Furthermore, since the court needed to address the criminal status of certain organizations, and Martin Bormann was absent from the trial, the court appointed its own attorneys. The judges were from the USSR, the US, the UK, and France.
A significant challenge arose from the fact that some legal norms were developed during the trial itself. As a result, defense attorneys argued that the court was fundamentally unlawful since it relied on laws that did not exist at the time the defendants committed their crimes. Certain participants stated that Nuremberg represented “victor’s justice.” This sentiment partly fueled Winston Churchill’s earlier wartime suggestion to execute the political leadership of the Reich outright. The problem was that such a trial was unprecedented – nothing similar had ever been attempted before – and required the unveiling of many layers of guilt to find the responsible persons.
For example, one of the most repugnant acts leading to the mass death of people was the so-called Barbarossa Decree issued in May 1941. This document was signed by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, chief of the German armed forces. It effectively removed accountability for crimes committed by Wehrmacht soldiers and officers against Soviet civilians. Such actions could only be punished if they harmed German interests. If a soldier looted and killed a peasant, Keitel technically bore no responsibility, as the soldier operated within the legal framework that existed at the time.
Additionally, during the trial, Keitel’s attorney attempted to shift all blame onto the dead Hitler, citing that Keitel “was just following orders.” Moreover, the fact that the USSR did not sign several international agreements designed to protect war participants, especially prisoners of war, compounded the issue. The mortality rate among Soviet POWs during WWII exceeded 50%; in absolute terms, 3.3 million out of 5.7 million documented prisoners died. And this was just a small part of the challenges faced by the judges at Nuremberg.
The prosecution comprised four categories of crimes: crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, war crimes, and general conspiracy crimes. There was a significant challenge in aligning the legal positions of the USSR, the UK, and the US. Soviet law existed as an independent branch but was rooted in continental legal principles; meanwhile, the British and Americans relied on their own legal frameworks; for instance, the concept of ‘conspiracy’ was unique to these countries and was not typical in Soviet or German law.
Additionally, the Allies often favored a compromise stance whenever they could have been held accountable for similar actions themselves. This enabled Admiral Dönitz to mitigate his own sentence: although German submarine forces under his command fought ruthlessly, British and American submarine forces could have been accused of similar conduct.
Witnesses, evidence and Göring’s defiance
In some cases, the Allies had to make real compromises with their conscience. One such case involved Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, who participated in the proceedings as a witness. This man had directly overseen mass killings during counter-partisan operations in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and Poland.
A horrifying tactic employed by his subordinates involved rounding up villagers in partisan areas into one building, which was then set ablaze. The mass slaughter of Poles during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 is another example of his policy – about 15 civilians were killed for every lost insurgent.
Zelewski understood that his survival depended on betraying others, so he turned on everyone, revealing their darkest secrets. Hermann Göring shouted from the defendant’s stand, “You disgusting traitor, swine!” but there was nothing he could do. Ultimately, a German court sentenced him to life in prison, not only for his wartime actions but also for murders committed during the power struggles in Germany in the 1930s.
The tribunal had volumes of documents to examine. American judge Robert Jackson later recalled that he had approached stories of Nazi atrocities with skepticism before the trial, but was horrified by the reality that unfolded before him. He was particularly struck by an SS report detailing the destruction of ghettos – Jews leapt from burning buildings, and some attempted to crawl away on broken legs; they were hunted down like game.
While most defendants tried to speak evasively, Hermann Göring stood his ground until the very end. He was informally dubbed ‘Fuhrer of the Defendants’. Göring urged his co-defendants to remain defiant and not to confess. He showcased his skills as an orator, made sarcastic remarks, and effortlessly parried the initial accusations.
According to him, Gestapo actions and concentration camps were just a response to the terrorist actions of the communists; and the extermination of Jews was merely harsh rhetoric, there were no actual plans for their annihilation. He claimed to have had no hand in any acts of aggression, insisting he was always taken by surprise by such acts. He also maintained that the Reich had to strike preemptively against the USSR to defend itself from potential Soviet aggression. As for the humanitarian catastrophe in occupied territories – that was the fault of the Soviet authorities and their scorched-earth tactics; and any crimes committed by German soldiers were merely isolated incidents.
Göring steamrolled over Justice Robert Jackson with his shameless demagoguery. However, the Allies had seized enough documents to bring down the Reichsmarschall. Soviet prosecutor Roman Rudenko and British prosecutor David Maxwell-Fyfe hammered Göring with his own orders that led to mass starvation. Göring knew that he intended to starve millions and openly discussed it in his circles.
In contrast, Albert Speer, the Minister of Armaments, didn’t plead for mercy; he acknowledged his guilt and presented himself as a humble technocrat, successfully avoiding the gallows.
The defense generally argued that the Nuremberg Tribunal established no new legal norms, yet the entire legal framework had been crafted specifically for this trial. Moreover, the conspiracy concept (one of the four main charges) allowed individuals to be condemned for being affiliated with criminal organizations. This was an unprecedented model in continental European law, including German law, and many lawyers deemed it inapplicable.
Even the term ‘genocide’ was used retroactively, having only emerged during the trial itself. Additionally, the defense reduced the discourse to the notion that the defendants were either uninformed or inadequately aware of the crimes being committed, while the actual perpetrators were presumably already in their graves.
The verdicts and the gallows
Out of 24 defendants, only 12, including Göring and Keitel, received death sentences. In reality, there were only 11, as the fate of Bormann remained unknown. Three others received life sentences – including naval commander Erich Raeder and Minister of Economics Walther Funk – but both were released in the 1950s. Rudolf Hess, one of Hitler’s associates, was sentenced to life in prison and committed suicide in 1987 at age 93. Albert Speer and the leader of the Hitler Youth organization Baldur von Schirach both received 20-year sentences. Interestingly, three people were acquitted: propagandist Hans Fritzsche, diplomat Franz von Papen, and financier Hjalmar Schacht.
Two others managed to evade justice altogether. Party official Robert Ley committed suicide before the trial even began, while Göring somehow obtained poison and took it just hours before his execution.
On the evening of October 15th, three gallows were erected in the prison gymnasium. Before midnight, the condemned were roused from their cells and led out. Execution began just after one o’clock, and by 2:45 AM, it was all over. The bodies were transported to Munich for cremation, and their ashes were scattered.
But that wasn’t the end of it. Following the main trial, there were 12 ‘mini-trials’ which focused on Nazi doctors, judges, and the case of the Einsatzgruppen (paramilitary death squads), among others. In total, 142 more individuals were found guilty, with 13 sentenced to execution. Many of these defendants were just as monstrous as those hanged in the primary trial. For instance, doctors were accused of a range of inhumane experiments on human subjects, including frostbite experiments, the deliberate poisoning of victims, and intentional infection with deadly diseases, among other atrocities.
Among those hanged was Waldemar Hoven, the chief physician at the Buchenwald concentration camp, who conducted gas poisoning experiments on inmates. A whole team of SS officers was convicted in connection to the Einsatzgruppen case. For unclear reasons, out of 24 individuals, only a few were actually executed, despite all being directly responsible for the murders. Among those executed was Paul Blobel, who organized the mass killings at Babi Yar. Additionally, separate trials occurred in various countries under their national laws. In Norway, 12 Germans and 25 collaborators were executed. In Poland, Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, was hanged following a separate trial.
***
The Nuremberg Tribunal was an impressive judicial process, and the Allies’ decision to hold it deserves commendation. The trial wasn’t perfect and it’s true that it departed from traditional methods of justice. Many legal norms were established retroactively; moreover, in the subsequent trials, many Nazi criminals managed to escape justice. However, Nuremberg wasn’t merely about ‘victor’s justice’. No one would dare say that those horrific criminals were hanged unjustly. Most importantly, while the principles of justice established in Nuremberg may have been imperfect, they are still effective in situations reminiscent of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis.
The Ukrainian leader turned to Brussels following a bitter public falling-out with US President Donald Trump
Vladimir Zelensky has emerged from the EU summit in Brussels with fresh promises of support but no deal on the additional €70 billion ($79 billion) he is demanding for Ukraine. Instead, European leaders tasked the European Commission with finding ways to meet Kiev’s growing financial needs, leaving the question of who will foot the bill unanswered.
The Ukrainian leader arrived in Brussels following a bitter public falling-out with US President Donald Trump over Washington’s decision to ease sanctions on Russian diesel supplies. His demands have put further pressure on Kiev’s European backers, who are already struggling with soaring energy costs, strained budgets and the prospect of a difficult winter.
Zelensky rejected the arrangement, saying he felt “betrayed” by Trump and called the US president’s decision “weak.”
Trump then called for Ukraine to get a “new president,” and questioned Zelensky’s willingness to reach a settlement with Moscow.
Zelensky announced continued refinery attacks and complained of restrictions on American intelligence support and Starlink services.
On Thursday, Kiev hit a refinery in Russia’s Ryazan Region, despite Washington’s clearly expressed expectations and objections.
Trump called the attacks a “disgrace” and accused Zelensky of “driving up fuel prices for everyone.”
On Thursday night, after Zelensky arrived in Brussels, Trump went hard in an interview with Newsmax. “He says he wants to settle, but he doesn’t,” Trump said, adding that Zelensky was harder to deal with than Putin. He also alleged that US missiles supplied to Kiev had been sold on the “open market.”
Washington also announced it would prioritize its own munitions stocks over others. “Once we are really stocked, we will start letting our allies buy them from us,” Trump said.
The summit also failed to break the deadlock over frozen Russian sovereign assets held in Belgium. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz continued to push for the funds to be used to support Kiev, despite his unpopularity at home, while flatly rejecting a US proposal to include them in a peace settlement. After the talks, Merz acknowledged that “there were no decisions, but there was an exchange of views,” warning that the €90 billion loan already agreed for Ukraine “will not be enough.”
Login
