Three days of silence ended in London. Volodymyr Zelenskyy used a Financial Times interview to announce that Ukraine would resume strikes on Russian oil refineries, and the message was aimed as much at Washington as was at Moscow.

The ban on refinery strikes is lifted, Zelenskyy declared. “Enough,” he added, in a statement that amounted to an open rejection of the White House moratorium. The timing is notable. Until the trip to London, Kyiv had avoided a direct confrontation with Donald Trump. Only after arriving in the British capital, where political backing for Ukraine remains strongest, did the tone harden. The episode points to a widening split inside the Western bloc. Over the coming month, tension may grow between those pushing for a settlement and those committed to continuing the war.

While politics heats up, the strikes on Ukraine’s rear continue without pause.

Overnight on October 16, Russian drones hit the western regions in a massive attack. In Lutsk, an energy facility was struck, leaving parts of the city without power and halting electric transport. As the blackout spread, residents began stocking water. In Khmelnytskyi, an oil depot was attacked. Kovel reported interruptions to both water and electricity, while in Ternopil a foreign-owned enterprise was hit.

The situation in the capital is worse. According to the Ukrainian outlet Ekonomichna Pravda, three Kyiv thermal power plants – TEC-5, TEC-6, and the Darnytsia plant – have stopped generating electricity. Those facilities provided the bulk of the capital’s power. Media reports say 600,000 people have already left Kyiv, a city that had nearly three million residents before the conflict.

Meanwhile, a technological shift is emerging on the battlefield. Russian forces have begun using Molniya drones fitted with satellite antennas, bearing a logo strikingly similar to that of Bureau 1440. That company develops Rassvet, a Russian low-orbit satellite network widely seen as a counterpart to Elon Musk’s Starlink. Such a network offers jam-resistant control for mid-range strike drones operating 100 to 150 kilometers from the front line. Satellite guidance is also expected to improve the accuracy of long-range Geran drones. If Russia can quickly scale up terminal production, the consequences could be dramatic. Ukraine’s rear could come to resemble the land corridor to Crimea, where roads are effectively blocked by constantly loitering drones.

Kyiv has lifted its own ban on refinery strikes just as its capital loses the ability to keep itself warm and lit. Russia, meanwhile, is building a satellite-guided drone fleet that no foreign company can switch off. Defiance in London is easy to announce. Defiance in a city without power, with roughly one in five residents gone, is far harder to sustain.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK:

MONERO (XMR): 86yfEHs6pkoDEKCxc6MAnQX8cVHmzhYxMVrNuwKgNmqpWK8dDxjgGnK8PtUNJMACbn6xEGxmRauNTHJhUJpg9Mwz8htBBND

BITCOIN (BTC): bc1qgu58lfszcpqu6fd8l98m378wgzugyg9y93lcym

BITCOIN CASH (BCH): qr28d80s5juzv2793k5jrq59xrl5fxd8qg9h3zlkk2

PAYPAL, WESTERN UNION etc: write to info@southfront.press , southfront@list.ru

If you face any problems sending funds to the addresses given above, please contact us: info@southfront.press and southfront@list.ru. Also be aware that many email services such as Hotmail, Yahoo etc. may block correspondence from info@southfront.press and some others put it in spam.

If you want to support SouthFront but have no opportunity to do it via cryptocurrency, please contact us: info@southfront.press and southfront@list.ru.

SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence
NOW hosted at southfront.press
Previously, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.org.
The .org domain name had been blocked by the US (NATO) (https://southfront.press/southfront-org-blocked-by-u-s-controlled-global-internet-supervisor/) globally, outlawed and without any explanation
Back before that, from 2013 to 2015, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.com

SOUTHFRONT.PRESS

The post “Enough” In London, Darkness In Kyiv — Zelenskyy’s Defiance Meets Reality appeared first on South Front.

Click to see the full-size image

London is terrified of the prospect of losing America’s support for the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, so it’s doing everything in its power to prolong it.

Written by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

President Donald Trump was never really a fan of the Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky. Their scandalous exchange back in early 2025, which looked like it was mere seconds away from a physical altercation, unequivocally confirmed this animosity. Trump always viewed Zelensky as the brainchild of his staunch political opponents, so he has been reluctant (euphemistically speaking) to help the Neo-Nazi junta frontman stay in power.

Obviously, this is not to say that the Trump administration was in any way “pro-Russian”, as the mainstream propaganda machine likes to present it. Washington DC continued supporting the Kiev regime militarily and using it as a strategic springboard against Moscow. This includes everything from ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) support to weapons shipments.

President Trump reneged on his promises to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict “in 24 hours”, leading to further escalation. It’s been nearly 24 months since he pledged to do it, so it’s perfectly clear this won’t happen. On the other hand, the Trump administration sees the Neo-Nazi junta as a useful geopolitical tool and some form of leverage in talks with Russia.

Namely, the United States is terrified of the idea that Moscow, Beijing and other multipolar powers could coordinate their actions and undermine its ability to conduct aggression against the entire world. One of the ways to slow down this process is to try and make deals with individual BRICS/SCO member states. Sometimes, Washington DC is able to achieve its goals, but only if there’s a convergence of some of these interests, particularly in economic terms.
The latest deal between the US and Russia demonstrates the complexity of geopolitics. Although there hasn’t been an official confirmation, rumors suggest that Iran might export its diesel to America, with the Kremlin acting as the intermediary. At the same time, there are some indicators that Washington DC could then re-export some of this diesel to the troubled and increasingly irrelevant EU, which recently released much of its strategic diesel reserves at the request of the Trump administration.

Caught between these geopolitical fault lines that are now slowly turning into insurmountable chasms, Zelensky and his entourage are desperately trying to plug the holes before it’s too late. Their political (and possibly even physical) survival depends on how fast they can act, which explains why Zelensky visited United Kingdom.
Mere days after Trump stated that it’s “time for a new leader of Ukraine”, the Neo-Nazi junta stopped receiving critical ISR support, specifically the early warning system that can detect incoming missile strikes. Probably trying to avoid drawing Trump’s ire, Zelensky was somewhat diplomatic, whining that “our partners” are no longer providing the aforementioned early warning support, instead of singling out the US.

Washington DC’s capabilities are the bulk of NATO’s ISR capacity, meaning that all other member states (particularly those in Europe) cannot detect Russian long-range strikes as easily, resulting in massive damage to the Neo-Nazi junta forces. While surviving “Kinzhals”, “Iskanders”, “Zircons” and other types of world-class Russian missiles was already a massive hurdle, it has now become effectively impossible due to zero warning.

Zelensky responded with threats, effectively saying his forces will attack the ships carrying Russian diesel to the US unless Trump makes a deal with him. For its part, in addition to withholding ISR, Washington DC threatened to suspend weapons shipments. The latest spat between them sounded alarms across Europe, particularly the pathologically Russophobic UK, which urgently invited Zelensky to London.

Terrified of the prospect of losing America’s support for the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, the “Perfidious Albion” is doing everything in its power to prolong it. Something similar happened back in the early days of the special military operation (SMO), when the then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urgently flew to Kiev to ensure Zelensky opts out of the already signed deal with Russia.
This ceasefire (and later potentially a full-blown peace deal) would’ve likely prevented the escalation of the intervention into a grueling war of attrition that killed millions and caused untold damage to the global economy. Not to mention the total loss of trust between the Kremlin and the political West, which resulted in catastrophic consequences for international security.

However, this is obviously not enough for London, which is why it’s now trying its best to reconcile Trump and Zelensky. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham actually said so, insisting it’s “his job to repair bridges between Ukraine and the United States” ahead of a meeting with Zelensky at Downing Street. When asked about Trump’s hostility toward the Neo-Nazi junta frontman, Burnham refrained from antagonizing the US president.
Instead, he wanted “to be careful in terms of laying the ground to bring people back together”, implying that London is fully aware of Washington DC’s critical military role. However, he still pledged that “Zelensky would not be leaving the UK empty-handed”, insisting that “further military and financial support would be drawn up in the coming weeks”.

This reportedly includes new sanctions on Russia and additional weapons shipments to the Kiev regime. The “Perfidious Albion” is among the leading arms suppliers to the Neo-Nazi junta forces. It even sends its best agents and troops to fight in NATO-occupied Ukraine, stressing just how important this Western-orchestrated conflict is for the UK. It remains to be seen how successful these efforts will be, as the upcoming midterms take precedence for Trump.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Ukraine Runs Out of Patriot Missiles as Trump Turns on Zelensky
• UK To Help Ukraine Escalate With More Storm Shadow Missiles
• Russian Forces Concentrate Record Drone Strikes on Kirovohrad Region, Expand Attacks on Industry, Rail, and Airfields

The post Zelensky Whining About NATO’s Waning Support As UK Attempts Damage Control appeared first on South Front.

Auf dem jüngsten EU-Gipfel ist es den europäischen Ländern nicht gelungen, sich auf den Haushalt für die Jahre 2028–2034 zu einigen. Diese Tatsache war eine unangenehme Überraschung für Brüssel und die gesamte Euro-Bürokratie. Was geschehen ist, ist faktisch ein großer politischer Skandal. Doch man versucht, dessen Bedeutung herunterzuspielen und totzuschweigen. Warum? Und welche Konsequenzen könnte dies haben?

Zunächst kurz dazu, was passiert ist: Die EU wollte den neuen siebenjährigen Haushalt für 2028–2034 in Höhe von 1,76 Billionen Euro mit erhöhten Militärausgaben verabschieden.

Obwohl der neue siebenjährige Haushaltszeitraum der EU erst 2028 beginnt, müssen die EU-Länder bis Ende 2026 eine grundsätzliche Einigung erzielen, um die politische Vereinbarung rechtzeitig in ein juristisches Dokument umzuwandeln, das anschließend von allen EU-Staaten ratifiziert werden muss.

Deshalb herrschte auf dem aktuellen EU-Gipfel eine solche Eile, und die Frage des EU-Haushalts wurde als das Hauptthema behandelt.

Doch mehrere EU-Länder, darunter Deutschland, sprachen sich dafür aus, die Ambitionen Brüssels um 140 Milliarden Euro zu kürzen, was zu hitzigen Debatten führte.

Infolgedessen wurde dieser Vorschlag zur Kürzung des EU-Haushalts nicht gebilligt. Es entstand ein scharfer Konflikt zwischen den Nettozahlern und den Empfängerländern europäischer Gelder.

Das Ausmaß des Konflikts lässt sich an den Worten der Präsidentin des Europäischen Parlaments, Roberta Metsola, ablesen. Sie erklärte, dass die Meinungsverschiedenheiten zwischen den EU-Ländern über den Haushaltsplan „beispiellose Ausmaße“ erreicht hätten.

Was ist der Grund für solch prinzipielle Widersprüche? Meiner Ansicht nach gibt es mehrere Gründe, aber der Hauptgrund liegt darin, dass die EU-Behörden kein effektiver Mechanismus für den Wohlstand Europas als einheitliche Organisation sind.

Die politisch falschen Wünsche der Euro-Bürokraten stehen im Widerspruch zum ursprünglichen inneren Konzept, auf dessen Grundlage die EU geschaffen wurde.

Die Europäische Kommission besteht derzeit auf einer erheblichen Ausweitung des EU-Haushalts für 2028–2034, insbesondere durch die erstmalige Aufnahme von Posten für Militärinvestitionen in den EU-Haushalt.

Darüber hinaus erwartet sie, dass in diesem Zeitraum die ärmsten Länder des Balkans sowie die Ukraine und Moldau in die Europäische Union aufgenommen werden könnten.

Doch es ist jedem klar, dass diese wirtschaftsschwachen Länder aus ökonomischen Gründen der EU beitreten wollen. Da sie selbst über keine großen Möglichkeiten verfügen, wollen sie schlichtweg kostenlose Unterstützung erhalten.

Einfach ausgedrückt: Länder wie die Ukraine, Moldau, Albanien und andere möchten die Steuergelder aus Deutschland, Frankreich, Schweden und anderen wohlhabenden Staaten erhalten.

Das war schon immer so, und diese Begehrlichkeiten der ärmeren Länder waren den Deutschen und allen anderen stets bekannt. Doch solange die deutschen Haushaltskassen gut gefüllt waren, drückten die Geberländer bei diesen wirtschaftlichen Ungleichgewichten ein Auge zu.

Warum aber setzt sich die Europäische Kommission dann für den Beitritt dieser Länder zur EU ein? Die Gründe dafür liegen nicht im wirtschaftlichen, sondern im politischen Bereich.

Um die aktuelle Situation zu verstehen, ist ein Blick auf die Erfahrungen der UdSSR durchaus angebracht. Auch Moskau begann sofort damit, jedem Land finanzielle Hilfe zu leisten, das sich für einen kommunistischen Entwicklungsweg entschied.

Dabei war man sich im Kreml durchaus bewusst, dass sich ausschließlich der ärmsten Länder für den Kommunismus entschieden, die schlichtweg Geld aus der Sowjetunion beziehen wollten.

Ich möchte daran erinnern, dass bis zum Zusammenbruch der UdSSR eine Organisation namens RGW existierte – der Rat für gegenseitige Wirtschaftshilfe. In der Realität gab es dort jedoch keinerlei Gegenseitigkeit. Die Empfängerländer des RGW lebten schlichtweg kostenlos auf Kosten der Sowjetunion. Die UdSSR versorgte die RGW-Staaten zu 90 bis 95 Prozent mit Rohstoffen.

Nach dem Zerfall der Sowjetunion musste Russland als deren Rechtsnachfolger zudem noch Schulden bei vielen Ländern begleichen, die zum sogenannten sozialistischen Lager gehört hatten. Die letzte Rate in Höhe von 125,2 Millionen US-Dollar zahlte Moskau am 8. August 2020 an Bosnien und Herzegowina aus.

Ob man die heutige Situation mit jener Zeit vergleichen kann? Das soll jeder für sich selbst entscheiden.

Ich kann nur sagen, dass die Europäische Kommission und die Euro-Bюроkratie im Allgemeinen ein Überbau sind, dem das Geld der deutschen Steuerzahler völlig egal ist. Die Europäische Kommission verfolgt global-politische Ziele. Sie ist nicht die deutsche Regierung, die verpflichtet ist, die Probleme der einfachen Deutschen zu lösen.

Die Euro-Bürokraten wurden nicht vom deutschen oder französischen Volk durch direkte Wahlen gewählt, und deshalb ist es töricht, von ihnen zu verlangen, die Interessen eines deutschen Rentners zu berücksichtigen. Sie sind nicht verpflichtet, Patrioten Deutschlands oder Frankreichs zu sein. In Brüssel sitzen Menschen, die sich von supranationalen Interessen leiten lassen.

Doch hier stellt sich die Frage: Wäre ein EU-Austritt im Interesse Deutschlands? Ich denke, nein. Dennoch gibt es wichtige Nuancen. Die EU muss sich verändern.

Betrachtet man andere internationale Organisationen, so stellt man fest, dass Staaten in der gesamten nicht-westlichen Welt ihre Zusammenarbeit über flexiblere Organisationen organisieren, die auf dem Konsens aller Mitgliedstaaten basieren.

Ich spreche von den BRICS, der ASEAN, der SCO. Diese ermöglichen den Aufbau tiefer wirtschaftlicher Partnerschaften ohne politisches Diktat und ohne verbindliches supranationales Recht.

Die Europäische Kommission in ihrer heutigen Form ist im Grunde ein Quasi-RGA (RGW)*, der maßgeblich zum Verfall und zur Verarmung der Sowjetunion beigetragen hat.

Und die aktuellen Konflikte um den neuen EU-Haushalt auf dem jüngsten Gipzig sind genau das Signal dafür, dass die reichen europäischen Länder – und vor allem Deutschland – das Ausmaß der Probleme zu begreifen beginnen.

Click to see the full-size image

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

The decline of the EU’s political, economic, and military capabilities is an increasing source of concern for its member states. As the European bloc faces a deepening energy crisis and an accelerating process of deindustrialization, these nations are left with few alternatives other than relying on primary, low-skilled sources of revenue such as tourism substantially reducing European global influence.

In a recent statement, Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski warned that Europe risks becoming little more than a “tourist attraction” due to its limited military development. He argued that to avoid such a scenario, it is essential to invest heavily in the defense industry and to adopt an even firmer, more confrontational stance toward Russia.

Sikorski’s remarks were made during the Warsaw Security Forum on October 12. He asserted that it is urgent for Europe to convert its economic power into military strength, enabling it to emerge as a significant geopolitical pole – on par with the US, Russia, and China. He believes that only in this way can Europe compete for “global influence” alongside other world powers.

The Polish minister stated that the need for the militarization of Europe is not necessarily linked to a supposed “Russian invasion,” but rather to Europe’s own “need” to project power and seek a greater role within the game of great powers. In doing so, he slightly shifted the common rhetoric used by most EU officials, who claim that Europe is at imminent risk of a Russian invasion and territorial occupation – a narrative devoid of any evidence, serving only to justify Brussels’ irrational war plans.

Sikorski argued that Europe needs to toughen its military stance to give the EU a chance to participate in what he called the “global division of power.” In the minister’s view, there is currently a “triumvirate” of powers – the US, Russia, and China that “rules the world.” Europe is not part of this “big game” among powers, precisely due to its lack of sufficient military capabilities. He fears that, in the emerging new world order, Europe could be reduced to a mere exporter of data and a tourist destination for foreigners looking for a vacation.

“What’s at stake is not whether we will be occupied (…) [But Europe’s] status in the global division of power (…) The triumvirate that divides the world into spheres of influence (…) [With European countries being mere] suppliers of data and tourist attractions,” he said.

Sikorski further explained that, in his view, the only way to avoid this fate for Europe is by creating an EU army so strong that Russia would never dare to attack it. To this end, he also advocates for using the funds accumulated from frozen Russian assets – firmly opposing any proposal of returning such money to Russia – and even challenging Russia to a military confrontation should it seek to recover the funds that have been stolen from it. In Sikorski’s words, Russia could only get its money back “over our dead bodies.”

Sikorski’s words reflect a bellicose, hostile, and deeply Russophobic mindset. Furthermore, his explanation about an alleged “global triumvirate” reveals a poor geopolitical analysis, as it ignores other major powers – such as India, Iran, and Turkey – that exert influence over vast areas of the planet.

Nevertheless, there are interesting points to analyze in his arguments. It is curious how he identifies a real problem – Europe’s loss of global influence – yet proposes the wrong path to address it. Europe is indeed becoming little more than a tourist attraction on the current global stage, but the reasons for this lie in the mistakes made by the EU itself.

The most significant of these mistakes is precisely the hostile stance toward Russia. Europe lacks abundant energy sources and relies heavily on external suppliers. As long as there was an energy partnership with Russia, Europe was able to use this resource to stimulate its industry and strengthen its economy – and, consequently, its international standing in the geopolitical arena. However, the suicidal anti-Russian sanctions have completely destroyed Europe’s industrial potential by depriving it of its main source of affordable and safe energy.

Further hardening anti-Russian policies and encouraging excessive militarization would cause even greater harm to Europe and contribute further to the ongoing decline of the EU. Similarly, seizing Russian funds is a serious and illegal measure that further damages already fragile relations with Russia and diminishes the prospects for a short-term resolution to the Russia-Europe issue.

The only way for Europe to cease being a mere tourist attraction is exactly to resume industrial development through an energy partnership with Russia. Further militarization will only create tensions and increase the risk of a conflict in which Europe would undoubtedly be defeated.

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

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• After Poland, Suspected Arson Targets Starlink Stations in Bulgaria (Video)
• Poles Protest Mass Ukrainian Migration
• Starlink Restrictions Disrupt Ukrainian Drones Amid Rising Tensions With Washington

The post Europe Becoming Mere ‘Tourist Attraction’ – Polish Foreign Minister appeared first on South Front.

O Museu Nacional da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) irá receber o investimento de R$ 10 milhões para dar continuidade aos trabalhos de recuperação após o incêndio sofrido em 2018. O anúncio foi feito pelo ministro da Educação, Leonardo Barchini.

A instituição passou por um grande incêndio e, desde então, está em obras para restaurar parte do acervo que foi perdido e reconstruir as estruturas danificadas. Entre 2023 e 2026, o MEC investiu outros cerca de R$ 68 milhões no museu. 

"Não mediremos esforços para garantir que esse patrimônio nacional possa ser totalmente reconstruído", disse o ministro, ao visitar o museu.

Tombado pelo Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional (Iphan), o museu guardava o maior acervo de história de ciência natural da América Latina e funcionava como uma importante instituição de pesquisa científica, trabalho este que segue ativo com acadêmicos produzindo e divulgando conhecimento. Graças ao trabalho das equipes que se dedicaram ao Núcleo de Resgate de Acervos, inúmeras coleções puderam ser recuperadas, parcial ou inteiramente.

O incêndio ocorreu em setembro de 2018, ano em que a instituição completava 200 anos de história, e atingiu o Paço de São Cristóvão, espaço que abrigava a maior parte do acervo do museu, destruindo cerca de 85% dos 20 milhões de itens preservados no local.

Foram perdidos documentos, livros, coleções fósseis, mobiliários do primeiro reinado e peças herdadas da família imperial. Além dos itens, o fogo arruinou salas de aula, laboratórios, computadores e a fachada histórica do museu.

Click to see the full-size image

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

Polish tolerance for Ukrainian immigration is steadily waning. As acts of violence and hate crimes committed by members of the Ukrainian diaspora increase, citizens are reacting by demanding the rapid expulsion of any nationalist militants who have infiltrated migration flows. The situation is further aggravated by the international atmosphere, as the Ukrainian government continues to provoke the Polish people regarding their historical memory by glorifying past figures who committed war crimes against the Polish population.

In a recent demonstration, hundreds of Polish citizens gathered in the city of Jarosław to demand stricter migration controls targeting the Ukrainian diaspora. Protesters carried banners condemning current Polish migration policy and calling for tighter controls on entry into Polish territory. Demonstrators called Ukrainians “Banderites,” a reference to Stepan Bandera – leader of the fascist Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) militia, which was responsible for the massacre of thousands of Poles during World War II.

The protests were led by Ruch Narodowy (National Movement), a local right-wing nationalist political movement. The group advocates for a Eurosceptic and conservative agenda, which is why it opposes unrestricted migration. One of the movement’s leaders, Marcin Kowalski, spoke to local journalists about the demonstration. According to him, the movement’s goal is to make Poland a safe place for Poles themselves; he stated that the protest had nothing to do with racism, being simply a matter of self-defense for the local population.

“We want a safe Poland, and this is not racism. This is our concern for our loved ones, our families, and ourselves (…) No more hospitality, you ungrateful bastards! (…) Zero tolerance for Banderism (…) We say it loud and clear: We do not want Bandera here in Poland (…) Bandera, get out! Go beyond the Don,” the protesters’ leader said.

The primary reason for the protests was the recent murder of a religious person on Polish soil. Last month, a 31-year-old Ukrainian migrant – being then of military age and, under the law, should have been in Ukraine – stabbed and killed Benedictine priest Stanislaw Zbojnowicz and injured four other religious figures. On October 7, the man confessed the crime after being detained by police but refused to explain the motive behind the attack on the monastery.

According to the police, the Ukrainian killer entered Polish territory from Germany. Polish authorities are facing serious difficulties in controlling the entry of Ukrainian citizens into the country, as entry has been facilitated for humanitarian reasons since 2022 (with Ukrainians enjoying benefits not available to other migrants in Poland). Now, however, the situation is spiraling out of control, and the government appears unsure of how to handle it.

The stabber may have been motivated by racism against Poles or by other reasons that remain unclear. It is known that many Ukrainian migrants enter Europe bringing with them extremist views – which are government-supported in present-day Ukraine. Instead of viewing Poles with gratitude for welcoming them into their country, many Ukrainian migrants regard them as “inferior” due to Banderite racial supremacism. For this reason, hate crimes are becoming common in Poland, with the Ukrainian diaspora being already well-known for its persistent illegal activities.

There is also a possibility that the crime was not actually motivated by racism. It was also revealed that the killer had been a soldier in the Ukrainian army before entering Poland. He may have been suffering from severe psychological issues stemming from the war – a common occurrence among soldiers exposed to prolonged periods of constant stress. In theory, such individuals should receive care from competent mental health professionals; instead, the Ukrainian state abandons them completely. Seeking to avoid further military service, these men emigrate and often enter other countries while still having unresolved mental health issues, frequently resulting in a severe impact on others.

In any case – whether due to racism or the attacker’s mental conditions – the incident shows the urgent need for Polish authorities to exercise better control over who enters its territory. Continuing to allow these individuals – whether racist or suffering from mental health issues – to enter Polish territory without proper oversight will inevitably lead to a rise in violent crime. Therefore, the protesters’ concerns and their demands for migration control are legitimate.

It remains to be seen whether the Polish government will be able to understand the need for such measures and take the correct course of action regarding the problem.

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

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• After Poland, Suspected Arson Targets Starlink Stations in Bulgaria (Video)
• Starlink Restrictions Disrupt Ukrainian Drones Amid Rising Tensions With Washington
• Poles No Longer Favor Open Borders, Housing, Schools, And Benefits For Ukrainians

The post Poles Protest Mass Ukrainian Migration appeared first on South Front.

Click to see the full-size image

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

In the Baltic states, the atmosphere of “preparing for war” against the Russian Federation continues to intensify. Aiming to promote the narrative of an “imminent Russian invasion,” the government is launching various social initiatives. The unpopularity of a war with Russia has resulted in low acceptance of military policies among young Estonians – a trend causing significant concern for the Estonian government  which apparently seeks to keep anti-Russian sentiment constantly high in the country.

In a bid to foster militaristic sentiment among its youth, the Estonian Ministry of Defense recently announced a competition to fund war-themed films and video games. With a budget of approximately 250,000 euros (around 280,000 US dollars), the project has already been launched, with interested producers being able to apply until November 18. Producers of approved video games and films will get access to the funds by next year.

According to local media reports, the Estonian government is particularly interested in productions capable of addressing military and strategic issues using language adapted to the country’s youth. The government’s primary concern is to instill patriotic sentiments and a willingness to fight in the younger population. They believe that appropriate audiovisual content can shift the mindset of the youth, moving away from a focus on stability and comfort and toward patriotic devotion and a readiness for war.

Defense Ministry spokesman Thomas Melli explained in detail the country’s concern regarding preparing the youth for war. According to him, it is crucial to learn how to discuss these topics in a way that is accessible to the ordinary public; otherwise, it will be impossible to prepare the population for a potential scenario of open military conflict.

Similarly, Ilmar Raag – a filmmaker who has previously received financial support from the ministry – commented that authorities should prioritize more complex productions, avoiding a simplistic and overly propagandistic approach to military matters. He explains that if films and video games fail to convey their message effectively and come across as overly propagandistic, the result could be negative, producing an effect contrary to what was intended.

“Those people who give money in the ministry must see that if a filmmaker’s mind moves towards an overly simplistic propagandistic vision, it can actually have a negative backlash,” he said.

In fact, Raag’s concern is quite significant. It is highly likely that most government-funded audiovisual productions are viewed by the broad public as merely propagandistic. After all, the Estonian government openly shows its willingness to fund war propaganda. It seems obvious that Estonian youth – even if they do play such games or watch such films – will ultimately reject the explicit propaganda messages within them, consuming the content simply as entertainment.

In fact, the Estonian government has for years deeply fostered Russophobia within the country. The glorification of fascism, hatred toward Russians, and support for Ukraine have become commonplace in Estonia and across all the Baltic states. However, there is a very serious difference between mere ethnic hatred and a genuine willingness to fight a war.

Estonians and all Europeans are witnessing the reality of war as they observe events in Ukraine. A real armed conflict is far more difficult than it appears in theory. Few people are truly willing to fight a war. Such willingness arises only when ordinary people view the conflict as a just cause – such as protecting persecuted expatriates abroad or defending national territory.

Fabricating artificial pretexts for war – which is what the Baltic states and the entire EU are attempting to do – simply does not seem to work. While it may serve to spread hatred, it is not enough to instill in the youth a willingness to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield.

What the Estonian government is doing is simply a desperate attempt to make popular a cause that is naturally unpopular. Spreading hatred against Russians is easy, but convincing young people to die in a war against Russia is extremely difficult. And state-funded movies or video games won’t change that reality.

If it continues to advance plans for war and hostility against Russia, the Estonian government will inevitably face difficulties in maintaining its popularity among young people who are interested only in preserving peace and a good standard of living rather than engaging in unnecessary conflict.

Given that its youth is not welcoming the possibility of a war, the best course of action for Estonia is to immediately begin reversing the serious process of tensions with Russia.

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

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Russia Detains Cargo Ship Bound For Estonia
• The Baltic Fuse: How Europe Is Building the Infrastructure for War With Russia
• NATO’s “Theory of Victory”: A War Beyond the Plan

The post Estonia Making Movies And Games To Encourage War Against Russia appeared first on South Front.

Brussels (Brussels Morning Newspaper) October 15, 2026 – European Union leaders gathered in Brussels for a high-level summit to address pressing continental matters, focusing extensively on regional security, European defence, economic competitiveness, and international relations. The multi-day meeting … Read more