The missile landed between the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, a UNESCO World Heritage site, and the Holy Presentation (Sviato-Vvedenskyi) Monastery. Monastery buildings, homes, shops, cafés and other civilian infrastructure sustained damage in the surrounding area.
Zelenskyy disclosed that Russian forces had used three cluster-equipped ballistic missiles during the assault. Ukrainian authorities described weapons designed to explode in the air as they approach their targets, distributing explosive submunitions over an area approximately 400 metres in diameter.
After receiving reports from officials overseeing emergency operations across Ukraine, the president accused Moscow of deliberately choosing a weapon capable of inflicting extensive civilian casualties in a densely populated district.
“This was a deliberate choice of weapon and area of deployment,” Zelenskyy said.
He maintained that there were no military installations in the vicinity and that the attack had been intended to inflict maximum damage on civilians and their property.
Pecherskyi is one of Kyiv’s oldest districts, containing religious institutions and architectural monuments associated with centuries of Ukrainian history.
Among them is the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, established in the 11th century and subsequently developed into an important centre of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
The complex includes historic churches, monasteries and an extensive system of underground caves. Together with Saint Sophia Cathedral and its related buildings, it forms part of a UNESCO World Heritage property that has appeared on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 2023.
Thursday’s explosion occurred in the area separating the Lavra from the Holy Presentation Monastery. Ukrainian authorities identified damage to buildings belonging to the latter, alongside neighbouring residential and commercial premises. Assessments of the destruction across the historic district were continuing.
This was not the first occasion in 2026 on which Russian weapons had damaged the area’s religious heritage.
On 15 June, a Russian drone struck the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra complex, causing severe damage to the Dormition Cathedral. Its roof and structural elements suffered extensive destruction, prompting UNESCO to undertake emergency stabilisation measures.
Ukraine’s Security Service subsequently published evidence identifying fragments of a Russian Geran-2 drone recovered from the site.
The October strike has again exposed the vulnerability of the capital’s historic religious buildings, as well as the civilian neighbourhoods surrounding them.
The reported choice of ammunition has particular implications for the investigation into the attack.
Whereas a conventional missile warhead delivers its explosive force around a principal impact point, cluster munitions release numerous smaller explosive devices capable of striking separate locations across a broad area.
In an urban environment, such weapons can cause casualties and destruction well beyond an intended target. Unexploded submunitions may remain dangerous after the initial attack, posing further risks to residents and emergency workers.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that deploying cluster munitions in populated areas creates a high likelihood of indiscriminate effects.
Under international humanitarian law, military operations must distinguish between civilian persons and objects and legitimate military targets. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
The reported deployment of cluster warheads in central Kyiv therefore raises questions about whether those requirements were observed. Zelenskyy’s account of the three missiles had not, at the time of reporting, been independently established through publicly available forensic evidence.
The Pecherskyi explosion was one incident in a much larger attack on the Ukrainian capital.
According to Zelenskyy, Russia launched 21 ballistic missiles against Kyiv in three successive waves overnight. Ukrainian authorities reported at least two people killed and more than 30 wounded, with strikes damaging apartment buildings, commercial premises, transport infrastructure and energy facilities.
The bombardment took place shortly after Russian President Vladimir Putin met US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg on Wednesday, 21 October.
During their discussions, Putin indicated that Russia was prepared in principle to resume negotiations with Ukraine and the United States, potentially in November. However, no confirmed timetable emerged.
Witkoff’s visit followed consultations in Norway between American, Ukrainian and European representatives over possible arrangements to end the war.
The renewed diplomatic activity has done little to resolve the underlying disagreements. As EU Today has previously examined, Moscow continues to advance territorial demands while the parties remain divided over Ukraine’s future security guarantees.
Meanwhile, Kyiv faces an immediate requirement for additional air-defence ammunition.
Zelenskyy has repeatedly appealed for more Patriot interceptor missiles capable of engaging ballistic targets. Difficulties surrounding American military assistance and intelligence cooperation have increased tensions between Washington and Kyiv at a time when Russia is intensifying attacks against Ukrainian cities.
The latest strike also presents Ukrainian investigators with the task of establishing whether the reported use of cluster munitions against a historic civilian district constituted an unlawful attack.
For Zelenskyy, the bombardment following Putin’s latest diplomatic discussions demonstrates that Moscow’s military conduct remains unchanged. He has argued that Russia’s actions provide no evidence of a genuine intention to bring the war to an end.
If the State considers itself to be at war, why does it not state so where the Constitution requires it to do so?
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The Ravenna case
It all begins in Ravenna, a historic city and major Italian port on the Adriatic coast. The port of Ravenna is a civilian port: bulk cargo, fertilizers, containers, cruise ships. Yet in a brief filed this summer with the Council of State, the State Attorney General’s Office attributed “military significance” to it within the country’s maritime defense system. The reason lies in a single sentence: making certain data public would pose an unacceptable risk because “a ‘piecemeal’ and ‘hybrid’ world war is underway, involving, among others, Italy as well.”
The data did not consist of routes, schedules, or ship names. They were aggregate figures: the amount of military equipment that left the port in 2025, broken down by four-month period and categorized as exports or transit. Journalist Linda Maggiori had requested this information in January under the general right of access to public information—Italy’s equivalent of the FOIA—which does not require justification. On October 13, Il Fatto Quotidiano turned the statement into a national issue. On October 16, the Sixth Section of the Council of State rejected the Customs Agency’s appeal.
In February, the Customs Agency, which reports to the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), denied the request entirely, citing national security, public order, and commercial confidentiality. Maggiori, represented by attorney Andrea Maestri, filed an appeal with the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court (TAR), which on July 1 partially upheld the appeal: the quantities must be made public because the numerical data is “neutral,” while the destinations may remain confidential. Customs, represented by the State Attorney’s Office, filed an appeal. The Council of State upheld the Regional Administrative Court’s ruling: the administration failed to demonstrate either the necessity or the concrete nature of the harm. It also noted “apparently contradictory” conduct, as the Livorno Customs Office had previously provided similar data without objection.
In February 2025, approximately 13 metric tons of forged parts bound for an Israeli defense company were seized in Ravenna without export authorization; the proceedings are ongoing, and the presumption of innocence applies. It appears that on October 14 of this year, another 4 metric tons were at the port.
What does “war” mean, who decides, and the arms law
The word has three meanings, and memory confuses them. The first is constitutional. Article 11 establishes that Italy “rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means of resolving international disputes.” Article 78 entrusts the Chambers with the authority to declare a state of war and to grant the necessary powers to the government; Article 87 assigns the declaration of war to the President of the Republic. In the history of the Republic, a state of war has never been declared: neither in 1991, nor for Kosovo, Afghanistan, or Libya.
The second meaning is international: under international humanitarian law, armed conflict exists de facto, but supplying weapons to a belligerent party—according to prevailing legal opinion and that of the International Committee of the Red Cross—does not make one a party to the conflict. The third issue is political-strategic. “Hybrid warfare” (cyberattacks, sabotage, disinformation below the threshold of armed conflict) and “proxy war” are analytical tools, not legal categories. In a judicial ruling, therefore, a political term was used to justify an exception to a legal right. The Council of State rejected the postponement.
Parliament declares a state of war, authorizes missions (Law 145/2016), and receives the annual report on exports. The government authorizes exports through the UAMA of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Prime Minister is the sole custodian of state secrets (Law 124/2007), under the oversight of COPASIR. The President of the Republic chairs the Supreme Defense Council. The Ministry of Defense signs the classified aid packages for Ukraine. The State Attorney’s Office, which reports to the Prime Minister’s Office, defends government agencies in court: its briefs are legal documents, not foreign policy statements. No minister has yet clarified whether they agree with the statements made therein.
Moreover, the information has never been classified as a state secret. Customs authorities have invoked the relevant provisions of Article 5-bis of the Transparency Decree (Legislative Decree 33/2013), which allow for a refusal only if necessary to avoid “concrete harm” to national security, defense, or international relations.
Law No. 185 of 1990 prohibits the export and transit of arms to countries engaged in armed conflict in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, to countries whose policies conflict with Article 11, to countries under embargo, or to those responsible for serious human rights violations. However, it excludes government-to-government transfers and transits for NATO forces. The annual report to Parliament (Art. 5) lists authorizations by country and company, not by port: no public document specifies how much passes through a single port. This is the gap that the Ravenna petition sought to fill. According to the Peace and Disarmament Network, the government’s reform bill, approved by the Senate in 2024 (A.C. 1730), would reduce the data included in the report; based on the sources consulted, it has not yet been definitively approved.
Those who defend confidentiality argue that harmless data—aggregated and cross-referenced with maritime tracking data—could reveal supply routes: this is the argument used by the Trieste Customs Office to deny an identical petition. Also important are obligations to allies and corporate confidentiality. Those advocating for transparency point out that Law 185 stems from the idea that arms require more public oversight, not less, because they pertain to Article 11 and, in the case of free transfers, involve public funds. An annual total does not enable hostile actions, and data published in Livorno does not become dangerous simply because it is in Ravenna.
Secrecy has a legitimate place. The Constitutional Court has linked it to national security since Ruling 86/1977 and reaffirmed this in the Abu Omar case (106/2009). Secrecy becomes problematic when it loses its criteria: concrete evidence of harm, proportionality, a time limit, consistency among agencies, and oversight by a judge or Parliament. The argument of a “piecemeal world war” failed on all counts. It did not identify any harm, rejected the Regional Administrative Court’s (TAR) compromise solution, treated data from a past year as if it were an ongoing operation, and contradicted the Livorno ruling. If merely invoking a widespread conflict suffices, then that justification applies to any data and indefinitely: hybrid wars, as described in official documents themselves, have no declared beginning nor anticipated end.
That language has a specific origin: the Ministry of Defense’s non-paper from November 2025, according to which Italy is already embroiled in a hybrid conflict. Committees and unions believe that part of Ravenna’s cargo is destined for Haifa and Ashdod: the withheld data would make it possible to verify this.
The political paradox
The government states in Parliament that Italy is not at war; one of its agencies writes the same in court to conceal a figure. The case was successfully closed, but only thanks to a journalist willing to pursue the matter through two levels of appeal. Yet, even with the case closed, the gravity of what was stated remains.
If the state deems the international situation serious enough to restrict the right to information, that assessment cannot be confined to a customs office or a legal brief. The logic of Article 78 applies even on a small scale: whoever invokes the exception must answer for it before Parliament. All that is needed is the uniform publication of quantities for each port—as requested by the Ravenna Region and Municipality—their inclusion in the report on Law 185, and a review of the classifications by COPASIR, with predefined deadlines.
An emergency becomes permanent when no one declares it and no one revokes it. One question remains for Parliament: if the State considers itself to be at war, why does it not state so where the Constitution requires it to do so? And if it does not consider itself to be at war, by what authority does one of its bodies write as much?
Sacrifica ciò che è scomodo, mai il progetto. Il “pal-washing” in azione.
Un copione già noto
Il 9 ottobre 2026 il Comitato norvegese per il Nobel ha assegnato il Premio per la pace a Navanethem Pillay, giurista sudafricana di 85 anni, già giudice della Corte penale internazionale e Alta commissaria Onu per i diritti umani. La motivazione parla di una persona che ha aperto la strada a un ordine giuridico globale più completo. Il presidente del Comitato, Jorgen Watne Frydnes, ha aggiunto che il premio è un messaggio per chi attacca e mina il sistema internazionale e le sue istituzioni. Il verdetto è dichiaratamente politico, ed è su questo piano che va discusso.
La stessa figura che nel 2011 avrebbe «abbattuto» Gheddafi, spianando la strada al saccheggio del petrolio libico e alla schiavitù dei migranti africani, ora «abbatterebbe» Netanyahu, e preparerebbe così la riabilitazione di Israele. Il filo logico non sarebbe la morale né la pace, ma l’agenda dell’Open Society di George Soros: sacrificare i soggetti diventati scomodi, mai l’essenza del progetto. Qualcuno l’ha battezzata «pal-washing». La domanda di fondo è seria, perché chiede se dietro premi e giurisdizioni dell’ordine liberale ci sia una regolarità.
Occorre sottolineare che il copione è già noto. Vi ricordate quando Barack Obama ricevette il premio Nobel per la pace, inaugurando guerre su guerre? O vi ricordare i personaggi in cerca d’autore come Machado, Mohammadi, o i difensori dei criminali Ucraini? Ma andiamo per ordine.
Atto Primo: la Libia
Nel febbraio 2011 Pillay, Alta commissaria, chiese al Consiglio per i diritti umani un’azione vigorosa per fermare le violenze e chiamare i responsabili a risponderne; il Consiglio condannò le violazioni e istituì una commissione d’inchiesta. Il passaggio successivo toccò al Consiglio di sicurezza: il rinvio alla CPI con la risoluzione 1970, poi la 1973, approvata con dieci voti favorevoli e cinque astensioni (Brasile, Cina, Germania, India, Russia). Nessuno sostiene che Pillay abbia deciso la guerra. Conta la sequenza: il linguaggio dei diritti umani aprì la porta, quello della protezione dei civili autorizzò la forza, e l’operazione scivolò verso il cambio di regime. Già in aprile Lavrov accusava la NATO di eccedere il mandato, e un ministro francese ammetteva che il cambio di regime avrebbe richiesto un nuovo voto.
Poi i costi. Nel 2017 l’OIM documentò aste di migranti subsahariani nel sud della Libia, venduti per somme tra 200 e 500 dollari. Il nesso con il crollo dello Stato dopo il 2011 è la lettura più plausibile, benché la fonte documenti il fenomeno e non la sua causa. Il prezzo lo pagarono la Libia e i migranti; la cornice giuridica ne uscì, sul piano formale, intatta, anche se la controversia sul mandato avrebbe poi pesato sui veti di Mosca e Pechino in altri dossier.
Atto Secondo: Bibi
Il 21 novembre 2024 la Camera preliminare I della CPI emise mandati d’arresto per Netanyahu e per l’ex ministro della Difesa Gallant, per crimini di guerra e crimini contro l’umanità. Pillay aveva lasciato la Corte nel 2008, ma ha presieduto la Commissione d’inchiesta Onu che il 16 settembre 2025 ha concluso che Israele ha commesso genocidio a Gaza. Qui il «pal-washing» trova il suo meccanismo. Il diritto penale internazionale lavora su persone: un imputato, un’imputazione, un periodo. Se il caso si chiude con la sorte di un leader, si apre una cesura narrativa, il prima e il dopo di un uomo, dopo la quale lo Stato può presentarsi come reintegrato. La Libia offre l’analogia: là il caso si chiuse con la caduta di un uomo.
I limiti del percorso giocano a favore della lettura. La Corte non ha una polizia e l’esecuzione dei mandati dipende dagli Stati parte; la Commissione non è un tribunale e non parla a nome dell’intera Onu; lo stesso Comitato, riferisce AFP, ha detto che spetta a una corte stabilire se vi sia genocidio. Il premio non produce effetti giuridici, lo sappiamo, però produce legittimazione per un circuito che promette giustizia e non può garantirla.
Dobbiamo, poi, considerare che dinamiche del genere le abbiamo già viste più volte all’interno dell’ordine globalista che domina in Occidente. L’Open Society Foundations si presenta come il maggiore finanziatore privato al mondo di gruppi per giustizia, democrazia e diritti umani, attivo in oltre cento paesi, e Pillay ha ricevuto lo Stockholm Human Rights Award, lo stesso che nel 2011 è andato a Soros e a Neier. Sembra proprio che si ripeta di nuovo il pattern della agenda sorosiana, fatta di fondazioni, ONG, tribunali, commissioni e burocrazie che condividono un lessico e un orizzonte, quello di un ordine liberale da perfezionare e mai da rimettere in discussione. Chi opera dentro quel lessico può denunciare un governo, un leader, perfino uno Stato, ma non può contestare i presupposti dell’ordine che gli dà legittimità.
Alcuni obietteranno che la Commissione di Pillay attribuisce la responsabilità a Israele come Stato, non soltanto ai suoi leader, il che contraddice l’idea di un’operazione puramente personalizzante. Il secondo è la reazione. Netanyahu ha accusato il Comitato di aver perso la bussola morale, il Ministero degli Esteri israeliano ha parlato di una grottesca strumentalizzazione del premio, e Washington ha annunciato sanzioni contro la CPI poche ore dopo l’annuncio. Tutto vero. Ma avrebbe senso e valore se il sistema occidentale non fosse marcio fin dalle sue fondamenta, se il suo sistema giuridico funzionasse, ma così non è, sotto nessun aspetto (e abbiamo avuto già sufficienti dimostrazioni – non scordiamoci anche il caso Epstein).
Se nei prossimi dodici mesi la caduta politica di Netanyahu verrà presentata come chiusura del caso, anziché come una tappa di un procedimento che riguarda lo Stato, il «pal-washing» guadagnerà peso. Se i procedimenti proseguiranno oltre la sua persona, e se gli Stati parte eseguiranno i mandati, forse ne perderà. Allo stato delle prove la tesi è plausibile e, fino a smentita comprovata, questo è l’ennesimo Nobel della non-Pace, che non possiamo chiamare “guerra”.
Depuis plusieurs années, nos dirigeants politiques, refusant d’accepter leur perte de puissance, recourent dans l’arène internationale à des faux et à des mensonges répétés. Petit à petit, ils perdent de l’influence, mais à force de jouer, ils provoquent les conditions nécessaires pour débuter une Troisième Guerre mondiale. Elle ne surviendra pas par erreur, ni par hasard, elle sera le fruit de leur obstination.
par Thierry Meyssan
Nous savons tous que, si les guerres se déclenchent lorsque des évènements particuliers surviennent, elles ont des causes profondes, bien distinctes. Il s’agit généralement de conflits de territoire ou d’influence. La Troisième Guerre mondiale pourrait être déclenchée par une escarmouche en Ukraine ou au Moyen-Orient, mais elle aura pour véritable cause un affrontement entre deux visions de l’ordre du monde : d’un côté, la grande majorité des États, réunis autour de la Russie et de la Chine, souhaite respecter le droit international, tandis que, de l’autre, « l’Occident politique », soucieux de ne rien perdre de ce qu’ils ont gagné en écrasant les peuples du Sud, préfère s’en remettre aux « règles » qu’ils ont imaginées au G7.
Cela fait huit ans, que Sergueï Lavrov, ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, a mis en évidence ce choix. Huit ans que « l’Occident politique » le poursuit comme si de rien n’était.
Le 28 septembre 2018, à la tribune de la 73° session de l’assemblée générale des Nations unies [1], il posa ce constat : « nous assistons tous à une collision de deux tendances opposées. D’une part, nous voyons le renforcement des principes polycentriques de l’ordre mondial, le développement constant de nouveaux centres de croissance économique, l’aspiration des peuples à préserver la souveraineté et à choisir des modèles de développement qui sont cohérents avec leurs identités nationales, culturelles et religieuses. D’autre part, nous voyons le désir de plusieurs États occidentaux de conserver leur statut autoproclamé de “leaders mondiaux” et de ralentir le processus objectif irréversible d’établissement de la multipolarité. »
Il poursuivait : « Nous observons l’offensive du révisionnisme belliqueux contre le droit international moderne. Les attaques ont été lancées contre les principes fondamentaux du règlement du Moyen-Orient, le Plan d’action global conjoint sur le programme nucléaire iranien, les engagements dans le cadre de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce, l’accord multilatéral sur le climat et beaucoup d’autres. »
Et plus loin : « Il est révélateur que les attaques agressives contre les institutions d’information s’accompagnent de tentatives de “privatiser” les structures de secrétariat [de l’ONU] et de leur accorder les mêmes droits qu’aux organes intergouvernementaux dans l’espoir de les manipuler plus tard. »
Il est difficile d’imaginer que certains puissent s’accrocher à leurs privilèges indus au point de provoquer une apocalypse. Et pourtant…
Toujours en 2018, après le retrait unilatéral des États-Unis de l’accord sur le nucléaire iranien (JCPoA), trois anciens empires européens, l’Allemagne, la France et le Royaume-Uni (E3), ont d’abord souhaité compenser le retrait US puis, vu leur incapacité à violer les règles de leur suzerain, ont affirmé que les sanctions antérieures contre l’Iran s’appliquaient encore.
Ils avaient pourtant voté la résolution 2231 du Conseil de sécurité [2] qui y a mis fin.
Commence alors une longue période durant laquelle l’Allemagne, la France et le Royaume-Uni (E3), faisant preuve d’une constante mauvaise foi, ont, à de nombreuses reprises, tenté de réimposer les sanctions contre l’Iran antérieures au JCPoA. Ces trois États ont prétendu qu’ils pouvaient revenir en arrière car l’Iran ne respectait plus ses engagements en ignorant que ce sont les États-Unis les premiers qui n’ont pas respecté les leurs.
Les échanges de lettres entre les différents négociateurs du JCPoA se sont intensifiés. Cependant, jamais les E3 n’ont accepté de reconnaître, ainsi que l’exigeaient les deux autres, la Chine et la Russie, que le traité ne permettait pas de revenir en arrière sans examen du non-respect par les États-Unis de ses engagements.
C’est bien là le cœur du problème : « l’Occident politique » refuse de reconnaitre ses torts et tente de maintenir les situations où il disposait d’un avantage.
Le 19 septembre 2025, conscients qu’ils ne pouvaient pas appliquer seuls les fameuses « sanctions », les E3 ont demandé au Conseil de sécurité de les rétablir. La Chine et la Russie leur ont opposé leur veto et ont proposé de relancer les négociations du JCPoA. Mais les anciens empires européens ont préféré corrompre des fonctionnaires internationaux. Ces derniers ont publié deux faux comptes-rendus de la réunion du Conseil, afin de faire accroire que le rejet de la proposition sino-russe suffisait à rétablir les sanctions [3]. Pis : contre l’avis du Conseil, le secrétaire général a publié des instructions les rétablissant [4]. La remarque de Sergueï Lavrov, en 2018, sur la « privatisation » des Nations unies se trouvait vérifiée.
Ne croyez pas que les choses en soient restées là.
Le Royaume-Uni a repris les « sanctions » contre l’Iran, en janvier, puis les États-Unis, fin mars 2026. Ces décisions ont été mal interprétées par la presse qui y a simplement vu un épisode de l’actuelle guerre du Golfe alors qu’il s’agissait de la reprise de ce que les États-Unis n’avaient pas osé faire lorsqu’ils se sont retirés unilatéralement du JCPoA, puis les E3.
Rappelons que le terme de « sanction » ne peut, en droit international, que désigner une décision prise par le Conseil de sécurité après un débat contradictoire. Ce à quoi nous assistons sont des « mesures coercitives unilatérales », adoptées sans débat contradictoire et violant la Charte des Nations unies.
Le président allemand, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a qualifié la guerre israélo-états-unienne contre l’Iran, le 22 mai 2026, « d’évitable ». Il a déploré le retrait unilatéral des États-Unis du JCPoA, disant : « Il aurait été préférable de maintenir cet accord. Les conséquences que nous constatons aujourd’hui ne se seraient pas produites. » Pour conclure : « Cette guerre est inutile ».
Ce faisant, Frank-Walter Steinmeier manifeste sa conscience de la responsabilité franco-britanno-germanique dans l’actuelle guerre du golfe. Bien que, simultanément, il manifeste la même supériorité que ses complices en parlant de guerre « évitable » ou « inutile », deux qualificatifs qui n’ont pas leur place en droit international.
Il y a trois semaines, le 17 septembre 2026, les E3 ont convoqué une réunion du Conseil de sécurité sur « la non-prolifération ». Ils ont, à nouveau, tenté de faire rétablir les sanctions contre l’Iran et se sont heurtés à nouveau aux vétos chinois et russe [5]. La presse occidentale ne s’en est pas fait l’écho, elle aurait dû reconnaître la mauvaise foi de ses gouvernements.
Faire usage de faux documents, mentir effrontément et veiller à camoufler ses fautes, c’est rendre la guerre possible.
Constatant qu’ils ne pouvaient plus progresser aux Nations unies, les États-Unis et les E3 les ont contournées. Ils ont activé la Proliferation Security Intitiative (PSI), un réseau étatique, créé en 2003 par le président George W. Bush, sur les conseils de John Bolton [6]. Celui-ci a trouvé une quarantaine d’États — dont les E3 — pour signer, le 2 octobre 2026, une déclaration absurde [7] : elle réaffirme que Téhéran ne remplit pas ses engagements du JCPoA, sans dire qu’il en est dispensé depuis le retrait unilatéral des États-Unis. Puis, elle pose que ce manquement justifie l’opération Economic Outcast (« Paria économique »), que Washington vient de lancer contre Téhéran.
Par cette opération, le secrétariat au Trésor tente d’affamer le peuple iranien. La Chine et la Russie ont déjà dit qu’ils s’y opposeraient. Les signataires, au contraire, annoncent qu’ils l’appliqueront.
Certes, seuls un gros tiers des États qu’ils avaient sollicités ont signé ce texte. C’est déjà bien assez pour faire une guerre.
Pour la première fois dans un texte de ce type, les auteurs affirment, sans rire, leur « adhésion à l’ensemble du droit international et des cadres pertinents, y compris les résolutions du Conseil de sécurité ». Oui, vous avez bien lu, c’est au nom de la résolution 2231 et de la réunion du conseil du 17 septembre dernier que les signataires feront le contraire de ce qui a été décidé collectivement.
Comme nos dirigeants ont conscience de jouer avec le feu, ce texte est absent de leurs sites officiels. Il faut aller sur celui de la Proliferation Security Intitiative (PSI) pour le trouver.
À l’évidence, à force de faux et d’usage de faux, à force de mensonges et de menaces, nous provoquerons, sans le vouloir, la Troisième Guerre mondiale qui nous emportera.
Publié à l’origine par voltairenet.org
[1] « Remarks by Sergey Lavrov to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly », par Sergueï Lavrov, Réseau Voltaire, 28 septembre 2018.
[2] « Résolution 2231 », adoptée le 20 juillet 2015.
[3] « Le Conseil de sécurité s’oppose au maintien de l’allégement des sanctions de l’ONU contre l’Iran » et « Nucléaire iranien : le Conseil de sécurité entérine le retour aux sanctions de l’ONU contre l’Iran en rejetant une prorogation de la résolution 2231 de 2015 », Nations unies.
[4] « Le secrétariat général rétablit les sanctions contre l’Iran », ONU (secrétariat général), Réseau Voltaire, 27 septembre 2025.
[5] « Compte-rendu de la réunion du 17 septembre 2026 », Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.
[6] « John Bolton et le désarmement par la guerre », Réseau Voltaire, 30 novembre 2004.
[7] « Déclaration commune à l’occasion de l’anniversaire du rétablissement des restrictions des Nations Unies imposées à l’Iran et liées à ce pays », Réseau Voltaire, 2 octobre 2026.
Login