Um homem, com cerca de 65 anos, ficou ferido com gravidade na sequência de um acidente com uma árvore, ocorrido esta manhã na zona industrial de Chaves, na freguesia de Santa Cruz Trindade.
À VTM, o 2° Comandante dos Bombeiros Voluntários de Salvação Pública, Ricardo Rebelo, referiu que a vítima estaria a cortar uma árvore quando foi atingida pela mesma.
O alerta foi dado às 10h57. Para o local foram mobilizados cinco operacionais dos Bombeiros de Salvação Pública, a Viatura Médica de Emergência e Reanimação (VMER) de Chaves, uma ambulância do INEM de Chaves e dois veículos da Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR), com um total de cinco militares.
A vítima foi considerada ferido grave e transportada para o Hospital de Chaves.
As circunstâncias em que ocorreu o acidente são, para já, desconhecidas e estão a ser investigadas pelas autoridades.
Russia’s demands for the extradition of International Criminal Court judges and Washington’s sweeping sanctions against the institution have converged within days. The two governments have different grievances, but the consequences of their actions increasingly overlap, raising questions about the political relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the future of international criminal justice.
Russia and the United States have intensified their campaigns against the International Criminal Court (ICC) almost simultaneously, exposing an increasingly consequential convergence between the policies of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
On 8 October, Moscow demanded the extradition of ICC President Tomoko Akane and eight other current and former officials. The following day, Washington announced sanctions against the court as an institution, extending earlier measures against individual judges and prosecutors.
The timing raises an obvious question: are these independent campaigns arising from different disputes with international justice, or do they reflect a broader political understanding between Washington and Moscow?
There is no publicly established evidence of a coordinated operation or an agreement between Trump and Putin to undermine the ICC. Nevertheless, the strategic consequences of their respective actions are remarkably similar. Both weaken an institution pursuing criminal proceedings against political leaders whom the two governments seek to protect.
Different grievances, overlapping interests
Russia’s hostility towards the ICC is directly connected to the arrest warrant issued against Putin in March 2023 over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories.
The court subsequently issued warrants against senior Russian military commanders, including Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, over alleged crimes involving attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.
Moscow’s response has been to pursue ICC personnel through its own criminal justice system. The latest extradition demands follow convictions handed down in absentia by a Russian court in December 2025.
Washington’s confrontation with the ICC has a different immediate origin. The Trump administration objects to the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals and Israeli officials, particularly following the arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has presented the American campaign as a defence of US sovereignty. Yet the sanctions announced on 9 October are not confined to the Israeli proceedings or any investigation involving American personnel.
They target the institution itself, potentially disrupting financial transactions and commercial relationships essential to its operation. This distinction matters because a court-wide restriction necessarily affects investigations beyond those cited by Washington. That includes Ukraine.
The Anchorage question
The political context cannot be separated from the relationship between Trump and Putin, including their meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, in August 2025.
The summit formed part of Trump’s efforts to negotiate directly with Moscow over the war in Ukraine. The American president has repeatedly treated relations with Putin as a question of diplomatic bargaining, seeking arrangements that might produce an agreement where conventional Western pressure has failed.
Against this background, suggestions that pressure on the ICC might form part of a wider accommodation with Moscow warrant scrutiny. However, the proposition that Trump specifically offered Putin assistance in neutralising the court during their Anchorage discussions remains unsubstantiated. There is no verified public account establishing such a commitment.
A more defensible conclusion is that Washington’s independently declared campaign against the ICC also advances an important Russian interest. For Putin, the benefit is clear. Measures designed to restrict the court’s financial and administrative capacity could complicate investigations into Russian conduct, irrespective of the American administration’s stated intentions.
The relationship therefore need not involve explicit coordination to produce politically significant results.
Why sanctions against the institution matter
The escalation from targeting individual prosecutors to sanctioning the entire ICC represents a substantial change. Previous American measures imposed personal and financial restrictions on selected officials. The latest approach threatens the broader infrastructure upon which international criminal proceedings depend.
The court requires banking facilities, secure communications, technology services and commercial suppliers. American sanctions can reach beyond US territory because of the international financial system’s dependence on dollar transactions and American service providers.
The ICC had already anticipated this vulnerability. According to details disclosed in September, the institution has pursued alternatives to American software and financial services to reduce its exposure.
Nevertheless, operational continuity and investigative effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing. The court may remain formally functional while facing additional costs, delays and restrictions affecting prosecutors, investigators and international cooperation.
For Ukraine, this is particularly significant. The ICC holds and evaluates evidence connected to alleged Russian war crimes, including the deportation of children and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Its proceedings preserve a judicial process independent of whatever diplomatic settlement Washington and Moscow might eventually negotiate.
Weakening that capacity would not invalidate existing warrants or automatically destroy evidence, but it could make the pursuit of accountability more difficult.
Europe’s response and its limitations
The European Union now faces a dispute with Washington over an institution that European governments have spent decades supporting.
On 9 October, eight governments issued a joint statement, reaffirming their support for the ICC and rejecting the American sanctions. The signatories included Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, Japan and Canada.
The European Commission also indicated that the EU was prepared to take measures necessary to preserve the court’s operations. Such assurances are politically important, but they do not automatically resolve the practical consequences of American restrictions.
European financial institutions and technology suppliers must consider their own exposure to US sanctions. Sustaining the court may require alternative payment arrangements, commercial protections and potentially further European regulatory intervention.
The EU has discussed extending its blocking statute to shield European operators from the effects of American sanctions. Whether that mechanism can provide sufficient protection remains uncertain.
The dispute also extends beyond the ICC’s current investigations. Ukraine and the Council of Europe are developing a separate Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, designed to address jurisdictional limitations preventing the ICC from prosecuting Russia’s leadership for the decision to launch the invasion.
The two institutions have distinct legal mandates, although cooperation between them is envisaged. Undermining the ICC would not automatically prevent the special tribunal from operating, but it would weaken an important part of the wider international accountability framework.
A convergence with consequences for Ukraine
Washington and Moscow have not adopted identical positions towards the ICC. Russia seeks to discredit and punish the officials responsible for pursuing Putin. The Trump administration is attempting to restrict the court’s authority and operational capacity, principally in response to proceedings involving Americans and Israelis.
Yet their actions converge at precisely the point where the ICC’s independence becomes politically inconvenient. The distinction between motive and consequence is essential. It would be premature to describe the American sanctions as evidence of a secret bargain struck in Anchorage. It would be equally mistaken to overlook the assistance these measures could provide to Moscow.
The broader concern is that the United States, traditionally central to Western efforts to hold Russia accountable for its invasion of Ukraine, is now applying pressure to one of the principal institutions carrying out that work.
For European governments, the immediate question is no longer simply whether they support the International Criminal Court. It is whether they are prepared to protect its practical independence when the political and financial pressure comes not only from Russia, but also from Washington.
The United States is one of the few developed Western democracies that still carries out the death penalty, with dozens of executions every year.
However, even by American standards, the execution planned for December is unusually severe.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, sentenced to death in 2013 by a general court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), will be executed by firing squad at Fort Hood, Texas, and that the execution will be public.
The Pentagon has since said it will livestream the execution.
It was here in Fort Hood, Texas, that Major Hasan opened fire inside a crowded medical readiness center at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and injuring 32 others in 2009.
Before opening fire on unarmed soldiers, Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar.” He also shot at the backs of soldiers fleeing toward the parking lot.
Hasan later said it was an effort to stop them from going to Afghanistan and killing his fellow Muslims.
This will mark the first U.S. military execution in over 60 years, the first military execution by firing squad since World War II, and the world’s first-ever officially livestreamed execution.
This undated photo provided by the Bell County Sheriff’s Department shows former Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan. Credit via X.
The last time the U.S. military carried out an execution was in 1961, when Army Pvt. John Bennett was executed by hanging.
The last time the U.S. military carried out a death sentence by firing squad was in 1945.
The best-known case is Private Eddie Slovik, shot by a 12-man firing squad in France in January 1945 for desertion, the only U.S. soldier executed for desertion during the Second World War and since the Civil War.
Nearly 10 months later, Dan J. Lee was executed by the U.S. military’s firing squad in the Philippines in November 1945 for murder and/or rape.
Hasan, therefore, could become the first U.S. servicemember to be executed by a firing squad in over eight decades.
His execution could also become the world’s first officially live-streamed death penalty.
Public executions were common in the medieval period.
In “Discipline and Punish,” French philosopher Michel Foucault writes that the death penalty was a “spectacle.”
“Public torture and execution of criminals provided one of the most popular spectacles of eighteenth-century France,” Foucault wrote in his book.
However, gradually, most countries outlawed public executions.
The UK abolished public executions in 1868 with the passing of the Capital Punishment Amendment Act 1868, which moved all executions behind prison walls.
France followed suit in 1939. In the U.S., the last public execution was carried out in 1936.
Amnesty International said in its report on executions in 2025 that it knew of at least 17 public executions – 11 in Iran and 6 in Afghanistan.
The U.S., therefore, joins a handful of countries like Iran and Afghanistan where public executions are still carried out.
Notably, the U.S. is currently at war with Iran and fought a 20-year-long war with Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021.
The question, then, is what precisely Washington hopes to achieve by joining the league of its adversaries?
Live Streaming of Death Penalty By Firing Squad
It is noteworthy that the general court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) only awarded the death sentence to Hasan in 2013.
Military appeals later affirmed that sentence. The Supreme Court declined review in 2025.
In October 2026, Defense Secretary Hegseth recommended death by firing squad, and President Trump approved the recommendation.
Hegseth later said that the execution will be public, with the Pentagon clarifying that it will be live-streamed.
Hegseth explained part of the reason himself.
“Execution by firing squad. Army major betrays his country. Radical Islamist kills a bunch of Americans at Fort Hood. Of course, we’re going to do it at Fort Hood and do it on a Thursday. We’re going to do it at 1 o’clock, which is when he did it, and it’s going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad,” Hegseth said in an interview with Jack Posobiec on Real America’s Voice.
“It was a radical Islamist attack in uniform inside the ranks, and so he’s going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be. And we’ll make sure that people can watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand that there are serious consequences for these types of things.”
“Army firing squad for convicted terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan, the jihadist who opened fire on unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009. He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ during the attack,” Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said.
The remarks make it clear that the Pentagon wants to send a strong message against internal threats and reassert the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s (UCMJ) ultimate authority.
It is notable that while, in theory, the UCMJ has the power to award the death penalty for criminal behavior in the armed forces, in practice, the awarding of the death penalty by the UCMJ, and its actual implementation, has had a chequered history.
The UCMJ and Death Penalty
UCMJ is the federal criminal code and procedural system that governs the U.S. armed forces.
The UCMJ was enacted in 1950 and took effect in 1951.
The code creates one uniform system of military justice for all branches. Its rules apply to active-duty members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force; certain reservists on duty; and others such as prisoners of war or retired members.
Service members place US flags at Arlington National Cemetery during the Annual Flags-In Ceremony in Arlington, Virginia, on May 22, 2025, as part of the Memorial Day holiday on May 26. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP)
Its stated objective is to promote justice, maintain good order and discipline, support efficiency and effectiveness in the armed forces, and thereby strengthen national security. It balances the military’s need for discipline and readiness with procedural protections for the accused.
It contains punitive articles that define both uniquely military offenses, such as desertion, absence without leave, insubordination, and disrespect, and ordinary crimes, like murder, larceny, and sexual offenses.
The general courts-martial under the UCMJ have the authority to impose the death penalty.
From its founding in 1951 till 1961, the U.S. Army carried out 10 executions awarded by the UCMJ, all by hanging.
The last military execution in the U.S. was carried out in 1961, after President Eisenhower approved it.
However, in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment in the Furman v. Georgia case, effectively placed a temporary moratorium on the death penalty across the United States.
In 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed an order that set detailed rules for military death-penalty trials.
It established that the court-martial could not sentence someone to death just because the crime was serious. The prosecutors must also establish one more “aggravating” factor, such as the killing of more than one person, or killing someone during robbery.
Furthermore, the panel could impose the death sentence only if all members agreed on guilt and the sentence. Under these rules, the UCMJ authorized capital punishment again.
From 1984 till mid-2000s, the military sought the death sentence against the accused in 47 cases.
The panel, however, awarded the death penalty in only 15 out of those 47 cases. Even in these 15 cases, many were later reduced to life imprisonment on appeal or commuted.
For instance, former President Barack Obama commuted Dwight Loving’s 1989 sentence to life in 2017.
Currently, four men remain under a UCMJ death sentence: Ronald Gray (1988), Hasan Akbar (2005), Timothy Hennis (2010), and Nidal Hasan (2013).
Notably, former President George Bush approved Gray’s death sentence in 2008, becoming the first U.S. President since Eisenhower, after a gap of 47 years, to approve a death sentence awarded by the UCMJ.
However, a federal judge stayed that execution so Gray could challenge the sentence in court. His execution has still not been carried out.
Now Trump has become only the second President to approve the death sentence awarded by the UCMJ in 65 years.
Hasan’s death sentence is set for December 3.
Notably, President Trump has not only approved Hasan’s death sentence, but also approved his execution by a firing squad and its live-streaming.
Hasan’s execution, therefore, could mark the return of military executions in the U.S. after over six decades.
Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
As Russian missiles continue to devastate Ukraine, Germany’s disgraced former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder finds time to celebrate Vladimir Putin’s birthday. His latest Moscow pilgrimage is another reminder of the scandalous relationship between German political power and Russian energy money.
There are few spectacles quite so nauseating as a former democratic leader enthusiastically embracing the dictator whose aggression has brought death and destruction to Europe.
Yet there was Gerhard Schröder, Germany’s former Chancellor, grinning alongside Vladimir Putin at the Russian president’s 74th birthday celebrations, apparently oblivious to the moral obscenity of the occasion.
According to Reuters, Schröder visited Putin’s home in Moscow, where the two old friends were photographed smiling and shaking hands against a suitably cosy backdrop of traditional Russian furnishings.
How touching. While Ukrainians endure another year of Russian bombardment, Schröder enjoys the hospitality of the man responsible.
The photographs could scarcely provide a more damning illustration of how completely one of Germany’s former leaders has lost his moral compass.
From German Chancellor to Kremlin’s Favourite German
Schröder’s relationship with Putin has long since ceased to be merely an embarrassing personal friendship. It represents one of the most troubling examples of the revolving door between European political office and Russian commercial interests.
Having served as German Chancellor between 1998 and 2005, Schröder promptly embarked upon a remarkably lucrative second career in the Russian energy industry.
His involvement with Nord Stream was particularly scandalous.
While still Chancellor, Schröder championed the Baltic Sea gas pipeline linking Russia directly to Germany. Shortly after leaving office, he accepted a senior position with the consortium responsible for the project.
The arrangement raised an obvious and deeply uncomfortable question: had German energy policy been shaped exclusively by national interests, or had the groundwork also been laid for an exceptionally rewarding retirement?
There is no need to allege criminal wrongdoing to recognise the appalling appearance of a conflict of interest.
Schröder subsequently became chairman of the supervisory board of Rosneft, Russia’s state-controlled oil giant, in 2017.
This was three years after Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea, when any responsible European statesman should already have understood the dangers of strengthening Moscow’s financial and strategic position.
Instead, Schröder continued to prosper within the Russian energy establishment.
Nord Stream: The Pipeline That Helped Putin
The Nord Stream controversy was never simply about natural gas.
It was about geopolitical leverage, European security and the extraordinary willingness of successive German governments to disregard warnings from Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states.
Those countries understood precisely what Berlin preferred not to acknowledge: energy dependence on an authoritarian Russia was a strategic vulnerability.
Schröder became one of the most prominent advocates of precisely that dependence.
The Nord Stream 2 project subsequently became entangled in further controversy surrounding a foundation established in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, ostensibly for environmental purposes, which helped companies involved in completing the pipeline navigate American sanctions.
The foundation received €20 million from Nord Stream 2 AG. The affair prompted parliamentary scrutiny and questions about Russian corporate influence over German political decision-making.
Schröder’s involvement in the wider Nord Stream enterprise remains a central feature of that controversy.
No Shame, No Apology
Even Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 failed to produce the moral reckoning that Schröder’s conduct demanded.
He eventually relinquished his Rosneft position and declined a proposed Gazprom board appointment. His political reputation, however, was already in ruins.
The Bundestag stripped him of his parliamentary office and staff privileges. His own Social Democratic Party faced demands to expel him, although attempts to remove him ultimately failed.
Yet Schröder apparently remains incapable of recognising why his behaviour disgusts so many Germans.
His latest Moscow appearance has provoked outrage from Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whose government described the birthday visit as profoundly immoral. SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil condemned it as completely unacceptable.
A Useful Friend for the Kremlin
There is another dimension to this disgrace.
Putin has previously suggested that Schröder could serve as an intermediary in negotiations concerning European security. European governments understandably rejected the proposal.
Why would Europe entrust its security to a man whose professional judgement has been so closely associated with Russian commercial interests?
Schröder’s latest Russian appointment, on the supervisory board of supermarket operator Hyperglobus, merely reinforces the impression that Moscow remains an irresistible attraction.
Perhaps he regards himself as a bridge between Russia and Germany. If so, it is a bridge built upon extraordinary political misjudgement.
Schröder is entitled to choose his friends. Europeans are equally entitled to judge him by those choices.
History will remember that, while Ukraine fought for its survival, a former German Chancellor travelled to Moscow to celebrate the birthday of Vladimir Putin, the man directing its destruction.
It is difficult to imagine a more humiliating epitaph for a once-powerful European statesman.
President Donald Trump announced an agreement with Vladimir Putin on Friday, 9th October, under which Russia will resume substantial diesel exports to American and international markets, despite Washington’s existing sanctions against Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.
According to Trump’s announcement following the telephone conversation, Russia will immediately release more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel, followed by 500,000 tonnes in November and another million tonnes shortly afterwards. A further three million tonnes could become available once Russian refining capacity permits.
The announcement was accompanied by a temporary authorisation from the US Treasury allowing transactions involving Russian diesel until 7 April 2027. It represents a substantial departure from the administration’s recent sanctions policy, which had sought to restrict Russian energy revenues and strengthen Washington’s negotiating position over Ukraine.
The timing is politically significant. Trump faces congressional midterm elections on 3 November, while diesel prices have become a growing economic concern for American businesses and consumers. The agreement gives the White House an opportunity to present itself as addressing fuel costs, although its practical effect on prices remains uncertain.
Russian diesel cannot resolve the global supply shortage
Trump has linked the proposed Russian deliveries to his administration’s efforts to restore energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the combined measures will produce a rapid reduction in diesel prices.
The disruption of maritime energy supplies following the confrontation with Iran has, however, created a problem considerably larger than the quantities Russia has initially promised.
The first two deliveries amount to approximately 800,000 tonnes. Even including the subsequent million tonnes, the announced volumes are modest relative to global consumption. Their arrival may provide temporary relief in individual markets, but there is little evidence that they could independently reverse the wider shortage.
Russia’s capacity to maintain larger exports is also uncertain.
Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have disrupted production and contributed to restrictions on petroleum exports. Moscow has periodically imposed limits to protect domestic supplies, while damaged facilities require repairs before returning to normal operations.
The condition of those refineries is explicitly acknowledged in Trump’s announcement, which makes the proposed additional three million tonnes dependent on their recovery.
This introduces a further contradiction. Washington is seeking Russian diesel at precisely the moment Ukraine is attempting to reduce Moscow’s capacity to refine and export petroleum products.
The economic benefits of the agreement may consequently depend partly on developments in a military campaign that the United States has previously supported through intelligence cooperation with Kyiv.
Zelenskyy rejects sanctions relief without Russian concessions
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded critically to the agreement, describing the relaxation of economic pressure as a concession to Putin that had not been accompanied by any meaningful Russian commitment to de-escalation.
In his response to the American decision, Zelenskyy argued that Moscow would exploit renewed export revenues to prolong its war rather than make concessions towards a settlement.
Ukraine has indicated that it remains prepared to consider reciprocal measures concerning attacks on energy infrastructure. Such arrangements would require Russia to stop striking Ukrainian facilities in exchange for restrictions on Ukrainian operations against Russian energy targets.
No comparable undertaking was announced as part of Friday’s diesel agreement.
This distinction is central to Kyiv’s objections. Sanctions relief has traditionally been regarded as leverage to obtain changes in Russian behaviour. In the present arrangement, Moscow stands to receive additional commercial opportunities without publicly agreeing to alter its military campaign.
Lukoil negotiations raise further questions
The agreement also comes amid separate discussions concerning the international assets of Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer.
The discussions have reportedly involved figures connected to Trump’s diplomatic efforts, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside Russian representatives.
On Friday, another development complicated the proposed transaction when Carlyle withdrew from the competition to acquire Lukoil’s international assets, previously valued at approximately $22 billion.
The negotiations illustrate the extent to which potential commercial cooperation has entered the broader American-Russian relationship.
There is no verified evidence, however, that the diesel agreement was concluded to facilitate a particular acquisition or benefit individuals connected to Trump’s administration. The commercial negotiations and Friday’s sanctions decision remain separate developments unless further evidence establishes a direct connection.
Washington and Europe move in different directions
The American decision creates an additional complication for European sanctions policy.
The contrast with Washington’s diesel authorisation is substantial. While European governments are attempting to restrict Russian petroleum revenues, the United States is providing a temporary legal route for renewed sales.
The development also recalls the difficulties already examined by EU Today in its reporting on sanctions enforcement against Russia’s shadow fleet, where differences in national restrictions and their application have complicated efforts to control petroleum exports.
For Moscow, the significance of Friday’s agreement extends beyond the immediate revenue generated by diesel sales. It establishes that the United States is prepared to relax particular economic restrictions before securing a settlement over Ukraine.
Whether the arrangement ultimately lowers American fuel prices will depend on production, shipping and international market conditions. The diplomatic consequence is already apparent: Russia has obtained an opportunity to restore part of its international energy trade without accepting publicly announced conditions concerning its war against Ukraine.
For Kyiv and European governments, the question is whether this remains a narrowly defined response to an energy shortage or marks the beginning of a broader American policy of separating commercial relations with Moscow from negotiations over Ukraine.
In Ephesians 1:21-23, Paul declares that Christ has won a victory and now reigns over “all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.” In Christ, God completed his plan of uniting heaven and earth (1:10) by... Continue Reading
To wave sinful identity banners in pride is to miss the very point on the tip of the nail that went through Jesus’ willing hands. Labeling ourselves with the things that God hates is to hate God himself. We are to count his cost, not just our own.While we may think our sins aren’t harming... Continue Reading
We are, of course, not the first to ponder the meaning of life, so we would be foolish not to consider how those who preceded us have struggled with this question. Perhaps the most renowned effort to locate meaning in a world without God is represented by atheistic existentialist philosophy. Existentialism powerfully captures the emotions... Continue Reading
In the midst of the exile, when God’s vine has been all but destroyed, they pray for God to raise up a root of dry ground. It reminds us of Isaiah, where just after the vineyard is destroyed in Isaiah 5, a stump remains in Isaiah 6, from which a shoot will come forth in... Continue Reading
Does foul language adorn the Gospel? Does slandering opponents help anyone see the Gospel? Does misrepresenting a point of view help persuade people of the Christian faith? If you lob muck at people over the trenches, don’t be surprised if they grow it back in your face…and it sticks. And the anonymous voice? Don’t do... Continue Reading
Paul explains that our understanding of these other things is partial. This is easier to see if we print verses 9, 10 & 12 without verse 11 (which we’ll get to next). For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. … For now... Continue Reading
To see my salvation realized. To hear the judgement call sound forth, “Righteous!” To hear the words, “Well done,” and to know its significance. To finally enter into the rest that I so long for now. Finally home. I long for the inheritance untouched by corruption. The sweet unbroken fellowship between God and... Continue Reading
Jesus accused the religious leaders of using their generosity as an excuse for dodging God’s call to righteous living, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without... Continue Reading
For months, MAGA Republicans in the House Ways and Means Committee have been targeting BreakThrough News for our editorial judgment and viewpoints they don’t like. The Committee is abusing their powers in a blatant attempt to shut us down. Now, they’ve taken things to another level.
We just received a new letter from Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO). The letter lists the names of our reporters and editors and threatens to individually subpoena each of them to a deposition in Washington if we don’t yield our legal rights, including First Amendment privileges.
Because we’ve held strong in defense of our First Amendment rights, they are now going after our journalists: Rania Khalek, Zoe Alexandra, and Amanda Yee have all been personally named, along with other staff.
We are making an urgent appeal for your support. Stand with us and fight back against Trump’s repression of the press by taking the following steps:
Sign the petition telling the House Ways and Means Committee to stop its attempts to intimidate our journalists. This is a clear abuse of power and an attack on the press that we all need to resist.
Rania Khalek, Zoe Alexandra, Amanda Yee, and the BT staff work around the clock to do critical reporting on the entire world: from West Asia to Africa, across the Americas and Asia. Yet Rep. Smith now wants to drag our reporters to Washington, D.C.
These MAGA politicians, using an old playbook, say anyone challenging their warmongering policies is a “foreign agent” of China. But that’s a lie. Many of their biggest billionaire donors do extensive business in foreign countries, including China. What they’re really trying to do is discredit and destroy anyone that tells the truth to the U.S. public about Trump’s domestic and foreign policies.
BT is an independent news organization, which receives no editorial direction from any outside force. All major donations have come from U.S. organizations, using U.S. financial institutions, and complying with all U.S. laws. We’re audited and file a complete tax return to the IRS every year, just like everyone else.
So what’s this really about? It’s intimidation of the press, pure and simple. MAGA has made it a sport to target critical reporters just for doing their jobs. But unlike huge media outlets like the New York Times or CNN, we aren’t a billion-dollar company with an army of lawyers. We’re relying on grassroots support, and people of conscience who care about free speech, to come to our defense so we can stand strong.
Our lawyers already provided a comprehensive reply to the House Committee in August, pointing out the serious legal flaws in their demands and failures to provide a valid legislative purpose. And like before, Rep. Smith has come back with a new letter with a new legal rationale for the continued harassment. The fact that his explanation keeps shifting shows that the real goal is to target us, and that there is no legitimate legislative purpose. While his Congressional district in Missouri has one of the highest poverty rates in the country, this is how he’s spending his time and taxpayers’ money.
The pressure from the House Ways and Means Committee is escalating. We are a small organization now taking on the power of the federal government and, while they are wrong, we have to take it seriously. We need you to help circulate this alert far and wide, to sign the petition in our defense if you haven’t already, and to make a donation to protect our outlet and the future of independent media.
We will keep all of you posted as we enter this next stage of the fight.
After 321 days at sea, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier (CVN-72) returned to San Diego, with its island superstructure showing rows of silhouettes of ships, drones, and other targets reportedly destroyed during Operation Epic Fury.
The USS Lincoln arrived at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego on October 8, concluding a long deployment that included extended operations in the Middle East.
Before the USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in San Diego, the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth presented the carrier crew with the Presidential Unit Citation, the military’s highest unit-level award for valor.
Calling the mission “historic,” Hegseth noted that the carrier conducted “3,693 combat flights, sinking 64 Iranian warships, launching 450 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, and shooting down 77 one-way aerial attack drones.”
Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao lauded the carrier crew in a post on X, saying, “Congratulations to @CNV_72 and all of CSG-3 on this well-earned Presidential Unit Citation for their extreme heroism over the last 10 months in defense of our homeland.”
The citation says the defense included 40 days in combat and an “ironclad maritime blockade against Iran in support of Operation Epic Fury.”
During Hegseth’s recent visit to the carrier before it arrived home, he said, “I’m the only thing standing between you and home,” and that his intention was, “Once they pull up to the dock, we’re getting out of the way.”
The Pentagon released an image of Pete Hegseth standing on the deck of the carrier and examining the superstructure, which was stenciled with a list of targets the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (CSG) destroyed during a 321-day deployment.
Subsequently, Hegseth published another image showing the full extent of the markings, with “Operation Epic Fury” written above rows of ship and drone silhouettes (seen below).
File: USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) aircraft carrier arrived at San Diego featuring kill markings
The carrier’s arrival with these markings aligns with the US Navy’s long-standing practice of recording unit or group combat results after major operations.
Observers counted approximately 174 markings on the island superstructure. These traditional victory symbols are attributed to Carrier Strike Group 3’s collective actions, including carrier air-wing sorties, destroyer operations, Tomahawk launches, and air-defense engagements.
What Targets Did The Lincoln CSG Neutralize?
The visible markings include silhouettes representing 23 anti-ship missiles, 34 surface ships, 122 unmanned aerial vehicles, 10 submarines, and what appears to be a large bomb marked “1403.”
The aircraft carrier features 34 kill marks of surface ships neutralized in the sixth month of the conflict in the region. Although official information is scarce, these targets could include warships, corvettes, and even unmanned surface vessels used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) publicly confirmed the destruction of several ships. Some high-profile targets include the Shahid Bagheri carrier, the IRIS Makran forward base ship, the Jamaran-class corvettes, and all four Shahid Soleimani-class catamaran missile corvettes.
The US Navy also neutralized multiple Bayandor-class corvettes and other frigates, several fast-attack craft and missile boats, at least 16 mine-laying vessels, and multiple auxiliaries and support vessels.
It is hard to say which of these vessels the Lincoln carrier group neutralized, but reports say the group operated in the Arabian Sea and, at times, closer to the Gulf of Oman during the early phase of Operation Epic Fury.
The group could have struck these targets with Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from escort Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, such as the USS Spruance, USS Michael Murphy, and USS Frank E. Petersen, or with F-35C Lightning IIs and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from the carrier’s air wing.
The aircraft carrier features about 100+ triangular silhouettes that resemble the Shahed-136 one-way attack drones that were extensively deployed by the IRGC in its strikes on US military assets. However, they could also potentially reference other similar kamikaze drones, given Tehran’s massive inventory of these low-cost assets.
The escort ships—the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers doubling as critical air-defense assets alongside the aircraft carrier-could have downed these drones. These state-of-the-art warships are equipped with the Aegis Combat System to detect, track, and engage drones at medium to long range with Standard Missiles such as the SM-2 or SM-6, and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM).
The carrier itself has self-defense systems such as the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS). Furthermore, F-35s and Super Hornets operating from the carrier may have shot down some of these incoming drones.
Notably, the island carries 23 missile silhouettes. Hegseth credited the strike group with destroying 21 anti-ship cruise missiles. The citation does not say whether those were stopped by escort ships, by F-35s and Super Hornets, or by the carrier’s own Rolling Airframe Missiles and Phalanx guns.
File: US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth assessing the kill markings on USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier
USS Abraham Lincoln also prominently features 10 submarines, which is unsurprising given that US CENTCOM focused on decimating Iran’s Russian-built Kilo-class and other submarines during the conflict.
For example, a Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet that flew from the USS Abraham Lincoln on combat missions in the Iran war was spotted with submarine kill markings earlier. Jeff Rojas photographed the aircraft, which belongs to VFA-41, a Navy fighter squadron known as the “Black Aces,” on October 1.
How the aircraft destroyed an Iranian submarine is unclear, but Rojas said, “I assume that it was dry-docked and they dropped a laser-guided bomb.”
The US missiles damaged many Iranian submarines, including some produced indigenously, that were docked in ports during early bombardment, but neither the Navy nor CENTCOM has publicly claimed that Navy fighter jets were involved.c
Instead, the US military earlier said it used air-launched AGM-114 Hellfire laser-guided missiles, probably fired from MQ-9 Reaper drones, and ground-launched Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles against submarines in particular.
However, the CSG may have taken out at least some of these submarine targets with Tomahawk missiles.
Most details, including specific individual ship sinkings by Lincoln CSG platforms or the exact methods used, rely on official claims and open-source analysis rather than independent battle-damage assessments available in the public domain.
Interestingly, the number of targets the War Secretary cited in his address differs significantly from the number of kill markings visible on the flattop. Neither the United States Navy nor the Department of War (DoW) has clarified why the flattop bears only 34 surface ship kill marks, even though Hegseth counted 64 in his address, or why the carrier lists 106 drones while Hegseth’s estimate was far more conservative at just 77.
Although these markings are often symbolic or selective rather than a strict, audited one-to-one accounting of every engagement, a reason for the discrepancy is awaited.
A Mission Marred With Chaos
The carrier’s prolonged deployment garnered national attention after Stars and Stripes, the news outlet affiliated with the US Armed Forces, reported on deteriorating conditions aboard the carrier, a major mental health crisis, and worsening living conditions in August 2026.
“Interviews with active-duty sailors and family members, along with dozens of public social media comments and posts by crew members, describe sailors struggling with exhaustion and declining morale, including reports of suicidal thoughts and at least one instance where a crew member was prevented from jumping overboard,” the report underlined.
After this explosive disclosure caused a stir and exposed the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao, and CENTCOM leadership dismissed much of the coverage as misrepresented or dishonest, while acknowledging challenges of extended deployments. Nonetheless, the report and the public reaction paved the way for the carrier’s return and a stopover in Thailand last month, giving the crew much-needed respite
The Secretary of War also pushed back against the allegations of the Navy being stretched thin and a crisis about the carrier, including reports of eight sailors who attempted suicide. “Lincoln into some sort of a symbol, a symbol of dysfunction or a symbol of low morale or a symbol of a failed mission,” Hegseth said, adding, “what makes the US military and the US. Navy and all these sailors different is that you adapt and that you’re resilient and you overcome — you finish the mission nonetheless.”
That said, aircraft carriers have been instrumental in the Iran War, which has dragged on for months despite periods of lull and negotiations. Two carriers—the USS George Washington and USS George H.W. Bush—are currently deployed in the theatre, with a third, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, expected to arrive later this month amid a spike in tensions.
Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
Three years after Israel launched its genocidal aggression on the Gaza strip, massacres and mass destruction continue to take place on a daily basis, despite the US-brokered ceasefire deal that was reached in October 2025.
The nominal truce was preceded by two other short ceasefire agreements. The first was reached in November 2023 and lasted for only one week, while the second was sealed in mid-January 2025 and collapsed two months later.
For three entire years, the world has borne witness to one of the most heinous genocides in modern history, which has resulted in the killing of at least 75,000 Palestinians, according to the latest official health reports, with women, children, and the elderly comprising 56.2% of the death toll. Meanwhile, 82% of Gaza’s structures have been destroyed.
Starvation and the total blockade of aid have also been used as weapons of war against the Palestinian population in the war-ravaged territory.
As soon as it was launched, the US-backed fierce Israeli military campaign expanded beyond Gaza to include other parts of West Asia, including the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria.
About 9,000 people have been killed in Lebanon, more than 1,136 in the West Bank, dozens in Yemen and scores of others in Syria.
The systematic targeting of journalists
The genocide in Gaza has been characterized by the systematic targeting of journalists and media workers, with the death toll reaching more than 260, according to Naser Abu Baker, President of the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate (PJS).
Abu Baker told BreakThrough News that over the same period, 550 journalists were wounded, and over 200 were arrested.
“All of this underscores a systematic policy implemented by the Israeli occupation, which primarily aims to prevent the truth about the crimes committed in the Palestinian territories by the Israeli occupation against the Palestinian people from being documented and transmitted, especially in the Gaza Strip,” he emphasized.
The chief of PJS noted that the targeting of Palestinian journalists by the Israeli forces began over one decade before the October 7 attacks.
“PJS documented more than 9000 assaults on journalists in the occupied Palestinian territories between 2012 and 2023. More than 56 journalists were killed during that period, including three foreign journalists,” Abu Baker clarified.
Another silent genocide has been committed against Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons
Simultaneously with the events in Gaza, the Israel Prison Service escalated a brutal crackdown against the Palestinian Prisoners’ Movement, intensifying a campaign that began in early 2023.
While around 5,200 Palestinian political prisoners were held in Israeli detention prior to October 7, 2023, the number jumped to 9,600 after the outbreak of the Israeli genocidal aggression on Gaza. Many of those prisoners have been placed under administrative detention without charge.
These latest figures only represent the prisoners whose whereabouts inside Israeli detention centers were documented by Palestinian prisoners groups. Thousands of additional Palestinians remain unaccounted for and are believed to have faced enforced disappearance amid the ongoing Israeli military operations in Gaza.
During the past three years, Palestinian prisoners have endured miserable detention conditions, including medical neglect, deprivation of adequate food and hygiene supplies, as well as physical and psychological torture.
This horrific situation culminated with the endorsement of an Israeli law mandating the execution of Palestinian prisoners by hanging.
On the third anniversary of October 7, Raed Abu al-Hummus, head of the Palestinian Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, delivered a message to international human rights organizations via BreakThrough News.
“I call on international human rights organizations to practice their stated objectives, to truthfully convey our message, and to form a parallel front to our heroic prisoners’ front inside the prisons, in an attempt to protect them from these violations, from this far-right monster seeking to slowly kill them,” Abu al-Hummus stated, referring to Israel’s Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir.
It’s not about the Israeli far-right; it’s about the entire Zionist movement, says Omar Assaf
While some media outlets and political analysts suggest that Israel’s intensified atrocities in recent years represent the policy of the far-right wing solely, the Palestinian grassroots believe that they constitute the very core of the Zionist movement.
Palestinian political activist, freedom fighter and former prisoner in Israeli jails Omar Assaf argued that “the genocide does not reflect a policy of an individual or a current within the Israeli government. It rather reflects a general policy, because the Zionist movement as a whole was founded on the exclusion of the Palestinian people, expelling them, and looting their land.”
“Therefore, if this far-right government is practicing genocide, this does not mean that the next government will be a government of peace,” Assaf asserted.
Despite three years of unspeakable atrocities and over 78 years of military occupation amid the total silence and inaction of the international community, the Palestinian people remain steadfast and resilient in their homeland, refusing to leave or surrender.
Washington has extended its sanctions campaign against the International Criminal Court to the institution itself, threatening its banking arrangements, technology services and commercial contracts. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned European allies that the United States will seek to dismantle the tribunal unless its activities are curtailed.
The administration of US President Donald Trump imposed comprehensive sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Friday, 9th October, extending Washington’s campaign against individual judges and prosecutors to the financial and operational infrastructure of the Hague-based tribunal.
The measures prohibit transactions with the ICC under American jurisdiction and potentially expose companies providing services to the institution to US penalties. Banks, insurers and technology suppliers could face restrictions, threatening the court’s ability to maintain essential operations.
In a statement announcing the measures, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that Washington intended to deprive the tribunal of resources unless it abandoned proceedings that the administration considers an infringement of American sovereignty.
“Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC,” Rubio said.
He also directed an explicit warning towards Washington’s European allies, many of which are parties to the ICC’s founding Rome Statute while relying on American military capabilities for their defence.
The administration expects those governments to restrain the court, Rubio said, linking their security dependence on the United States to Washington’s demands concerning international criminal justice.
The latest sanctions apply to the institution itself, extending their potential consequences to organisations and businesses maintaining commercial relationships with the court.
The US Treasury has issued four general licences allowing certain transactions involving telecommunications, software, pensions and ICC detainees. The exemptions are limited and leave broader restrictions in place.
The administration has also provided a period for American companies to wind down existing commercial arrangements.
The practical consequences could extend beyond US businesses. International banks and service providers with exposure to American financial markets may reconsider their relationships with the ICC to avoid sanctions risks.
The tribunal has spent months preparing for such restrictions. It has moved office computers away from Microsoft products towards open-source alternatives and established new arrangements for banking and health insurance.
Rubio’s warning to American allies introduces a direct confrontation with European governments that have undertaken treaty obligations to support the ICC.
All 27 EU member states are parties to the Rome Statute. Within NATO, only the United States and Turkey remain outside the court’s membership.
Washington’s demand that allied governments restrain the tribunal places those countries under pressure to reconcile their commitments to international criminal justice with their defence relationships with the United States.
The ICC’s registrar, Osvaldo Zavala Giler, has urged the European Union to consider activating its blocking legislation, designed to protect European operators against the extraterritorial application of certain foreign sanctions.
Such action would require political decisions in Brussels and would not automatically eliminate the commercial risks associated with American restrictions.
Rubio said the sanctions had been structured to allow member states to negotiate a settlement addressing Washington’s objections. He warned that further measures could follow if those negotiations failed.
ICC rejects attempts to interfere with proceedings
Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan condemned the sanctions and insisted that the court would continue its work.
In her response to the American announcement, Khan described the measures as an attempt to undermine international law and the independence of the judiciary.
She said the court would continue its investigations and prosecutions across all active cases.
Washington’s confrontation with the ICC has intensified since the tribunal issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes committed during the Gaza conflict.
The United States has also opposed investigations involving American military personnel in Afghanistan.
Although neither Washington nor Israel recognises the court’s jurisdiction, the Rome Statute permits the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over certain crimes committed on the territory of member states, irrespective of the nationality of the suspects.
The same jurisdictional principle underpins proceedings against Russian officials over alleged crimes committed in Ukraine.
The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023 over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.
Russia pursues ICC officials as Washington imposes sanctions
Friday’s announcement follows a separate escalation in Moscow’s campaign against the tribunal.
As EU Today reported on 9th October, Russian prosecutors have demanded that the Netherlands extradite ICC President Tomoko Akane and eight other current and former court officials.
The requests follow their convictions in absentia by a Moscow court in December 2025 for their involvement in proceedings against Russian officials.
The Netherlands, which hosts the ICC, is not expected to comply with Moscow’s demands.
The Russian and American measures arise from different disputes, but both seek to exert pressure on the tribunal over judicial proceedings involving their respective governments or allies.
The ICC’s earlier condemnation of American sanctions warned that targeting judicial personnel threatened the court’s independence and obstructed access to justice for victims of international crimes.
Sanctions coincide with Nobel Peace Prize announcement
The American measures were announced hours after South African jurist Navi Pillay, a former ICC appeals judge, was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for her contribution to international criminal justice.
Pillay served on the ICC’s Appeals Chamber between 2003 and 2008. The Nobel committee drew attention to political attacks against international judicial institutions in explaining its decision.
The timing was coincidental, with the American sanctions having been prepared before Friday’s award.
The ICC currently has 125 member states and an annual budget of approximately €196 million. Its investigations encompass alleged crimes in Ukraine, the Palestinian territories, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and several other jurisdictions.
The new sanctions could significantly restrict the court’s access to the financial and commercial services on which those investigations depend.
For the European Union, the immediate question is whether its governments will provide practical protection to an institution whose independence they have repeatedly pledged to defend.
Washington has made clear that it expects the opposite: European allies should use their influence to curtail the court’s activities or face further American measures.
Um homem de 61 anos foi detido ontem (8 de outubro), ao final do dia, pela Polícia Judiciária (PJ), por fortes indícios de ter matado a companheira, durante a manhã, na localidade de Ferreiros de Avões, no concelho de Lamego.
Segundo a PJ, o crime terá ocorrido no interior da residência do casal, na sequência de desentendimentos entre ambos. O homem terá recorrido a uma navalha para agredir a companheira, provocando-lhe ferimentos fatais.
De acordo com informações confirmadas à VTM por uma fonte da GNR de Viseu, o homem dirigiu-se ao posto da Guarda por volta das 15h00, onde terá afirmado que tinha matado a mulher. Uma patrulha deslocou-se à habitação, onde encontrou a vítima já sem vida.
A investigação teve início logo a seguir ao conhecimento dos factos, na sequência da comunicação do aparecimento do corpo da vítima, por parte do suspeito.
O detido tem antecedentes policiais por violência doméstica e deverá ser presente a primeiro interrogatório judicial, para aplicação das medidas de coação consideradas adequadas.
A investigação prossegue sob a direção do Ministério Público.
France and Germany have rejected reports that their Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) project has collapsed, asserting their joint program to develop a next-generation battle tank remains on track.
On Thursday, France’s armed forces chief Fabien Mandon told parliament that Germany had decided to leave the battle tank program.
On Friday, French Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin said the MGCS project was still on course, speaking during German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s visit to the country.
“We would like to tell you, together with my colleague Minister Boris Pistorius, that MGCS remains a current and active project,” Vautrin said alongside the German defense minister in Le Haillan outside the southwestern French city of Bordeaux.
Pistorius said that he “fully” agreed.
“The MGCS project is not finished. It has not been abandoned. Nobody has stopped it. On the contrary, it is a flagship project of Franco-German cooperation.”
The 140 mm smoothbore ASCALON gun fires 130 cm telescoped rounds and is designed for scalable effects. Nexter is proposing the ASCALON as the MGCS main armament. (Photo: Nexter)
On Thursday, Mandon told French lawmakers the two armies had spent several years “to define what a future battle tank should be”. “The outcome is not good,” Mandon told lawmakers.
“We had hoped to build a future tank in cooperation with the Germans, but unfortunately we have to acknowledge that the Germans have decided to leave the project.”
Later on Thursday, he issued a statement softening his remarks, saying: “Although delayed, the program is continuing and remains highly relevant.”
Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)
Launched jointly by France and Germany in 2017, the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) aims to develop a next-generation battle tank to replace France’s Leclerc and Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks.
It is a “system of systems” project that includes a main battle tank and a network of other combat systems, such as artificial intelligence (AI) for decision-making, advanced sensors, robotics, and onboard unmanned aerial vehicles.
Earlier this June, Rheinmetall’s CEO warned that France may pull out of the MGCS project. “There is always a risk, but nothing has been decided yet,” Armin Papperger told Welt am Sonntag, adding that Paris is planning to drastically cut funding for the project.
A German government spokesperson later questioned the MGCS project, saying it was doubtful a joint tank would be built and that the project would likely focus on “platform-independent” technologies.
Concept artwork showing four different MGCS vehicles based on a common chassis. (Via Hensoldt)
Meanwhile, Jean-Paul Alary, CEO of KNDS, the Franco-German company developing the tank, had said at the Eurosatory show in France that, although he could not comment on the MGCS’s current state because it is a political matter, it would be “very bad news” for Europe if the project failed.
The MGCS has remained embroiled in crises and beset by delays, much like the now-abandoned FCAS. Disagreements over the tank’s design, technology, and industrial responsibilities have plagued the MGCS for years.
In short, Berlin wants a stronger, better-armed tank for a potential battle with Russia, while Paris prefers a lighter tank for worldwide deployment. Political and budgetary tensions also persist over which country’s industry should lead.
The project was initially intended to be led by the Franco-German joint venture KNDS, comprising Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter. However, Germany allegedly leveraged its considerable political support to push for Rheinmetall’s involvement. Tensions have since grown between the KNDS and Rheinmetall over leadership of program “pillars,” production shares, and contracts.
From a French perspective, Rheinmetall’s involvement has altered the project’s delicate power dynamics, creating discontent and increasing frustration.
Moreover, the project has reportedly been starved of funding. As Rheinmetall CEO Papperger recently noted, the shareholding companies have received only €25 million ($29 million) since the project’s inception.
Meanwhile, France has grown uneasy with Germany’s increasing assertiveness and its emergence as Europe’s preeminent economic and, increasingly, military player, as veteran journalist Prakash Nanda of EurAsian Times noted.
“They are constantly fighting against the mismatched temperaments of their leaders, their orthogonal domestic politics, and the irreconcilably diverging strategic cultures at the heart of their deep states,” Carnegie Europe’s Strategic Europe wrote in a blog last month.
A core divergence lies in strategic outlook: France consistently advocates for greater European strategic autonomy, while Germany remains more committed to robust transatlantic ties with the United States. Meanwhile, economic and trade policies add another layer of friction, with the two powers often diverging on EU-level decisions regarding fiscal rules, industrial strategy, and market access.
France and Germany have struggled to rein in their powerful defense companies, leaving three major European projects — the Eurodrone, the FCAS fighter program, and the MGCS tank program — in serious difficulty. The FCAS has already collapsed, while the other two now risk failure.
Contact the author (s) at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
School ceilings keep falling on students’ heads across the country in the last couple of days, where such incidents are being reported on a daily basis. Shortly before classes ended for the weekend, a large piece of plaster fell from the ceiling injuring a 14-year-old student. The boy at Thermi Gymnasium by Thessaloniki was hit […]
Login
