❌

Normal view

Trump Announces that “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) is Now Renamed “Super Intelligence” (SI) – What Comes Next?

6 October 2026 at 21:09

President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission Andrew Ferguson, and former National Security Advisor in the Bush administration Condoleezza Rice are among those appointed to the new “SI” Task Force.

by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact New

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order formally instructing his administration to stop using the terms “artificial intelligence” and “AI” in favor of “super intelligence” and “SI.”

President Trump Announces ‘Super Intelligence’ Accord, Renames AI

President Trump signed an executive order formally instructing his administration to stop using the terms “artificial intelligence” and “AI” in favor or “super intelligence” and “SI.” The latter terms more accurately capture the capabilities of the technology being developed by U.S. labs, according to the order.

“The extraordinary technologies being pioneered by American innovators far exceed what was envisioned when the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ first came into use,” the order reads.

The “White House Accord on Super Intelligence,” which Trump posted on Truth Social, was signed by executives at Google, Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, xAI and Nvidia.

The accord came after the White House hosted a lunch with tech leaders from those companies, along with Jeff Bezos, Satya Nadella, David Sacks and others. At a press conference after the lunch, Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the accord represented “good steps forward,” adding “this is a start and an accord that the whole industry could come to.”

Source.

Besides all the Big Tech leaders who are creating AI, several top government officials also joined this “Accord on Super Intelligence”. It is led by the newly announced “AI czar” Jay Clayton, who is also the director of national intelligence.

Other members include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission Andrew Ferguson, and former National Security Advisor in the Bush administration Condoleezza Rice. (Source.)

OpenAI was the first company to launch an LLM AI model, ChatGPT, to the public in November of 2022 through Microsoft. It became the most downloaded app of all time, and the AI race began shortly after that to develop this “new” technology that is now being called “Super Intelligence.”

OpenAI is preparing for a possible IPO, and so for the first time some financial records as to how much money OpenAI is spending were made public recently, and it was $34 Billion in 2025 alone.

OpenAI spent $34 billion in 2025 as losses mount ahead of planned IPO

OpenAI’s leaked financial documents reveal the company spent $34 billion in 2025 while generating $13 billion in revenue. Research and development costs alone reached $19 billion, with $10.6 billion going to Microsoft.

Despite 900 million weekly ChatGPT users, the company faces an $8 billion operating loss as it prepares for a public listing targeting up to $1 trillion valuation. (Source.)

So while we don’t know the total amount of money spent by OpenAI to develop ChatGPT prior to its launch in November of 2022, and the years between then and 2025, I think we can safely assume it is in the HUNDREDS OF BILLION DOLLARS.

With that kind of spending, AI should be “Super Intelligent!!!”

But is it?

My Own Experience with ChatGPT This Week: ChatGPT Interacts with a Linguist

Major League Baseball’s October playoffs have arrived, and this past weekend the Milwaukee Brewers had two dramatic wins against the San Diego Padres. Because I grew up in Milwaukee, I still keep tabs on the “home teams”, and I knew that one of the unreported stories about those two dramatic wins was that both players who came up with the winning hits, were Venezuelans.

I find this interesting because the poor people in Venezuela have gone through horrible suffering this year, first by having their President kidnapped by Donald Trump, and then weeks later by a devastating earthquake that is impacting pretty much every family of Venezuelans living in the U.S.

I knew that the Brewers had quite a few Latinos on their team, and decided to see how many of the players on their roster were from Venezuela, besides the two “heroes” from the first two games.

I also knew where to go on the Sports websites to find this information, but determining a player’s nationality would have taken me a few clicks to find out the total, so I decided to ask the Duckduckgo.com’s “AI search assistant” which is based on GPT-5.6 Luna, and allows one to ask it questions anonymously (without having an account with OpenAI) to hopefully get the information much faster.

Here is a transcript of my interaction with this chat bot that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the past four years to create and what Donald Trump wants us to believe is now “Super Intelligent”. (Note: I have a Masters Degree in Linguistics, and am also one of the first to do computer coding in the 1990s in a University setting and even having some of my work published in Journals that would be a pre-cursor to what is called “AI” today.)

Me: How many Brewers on the major league team are from Venezuela?

GPT-5.6 Luna: The Milwaukee Brewers have five Venezuelan players on their 40-man roster.

Here is a breakdown of these players:

Name Position MLB Organization Current Club
Jackson Chourio OF MIL Milwaukee Brewers
William Contreras C MIL Milwaukee Brewers
Ángel Zerpa P MIL Milwaukee Brewers
Jeferson Quero C MIL Milwaukee Brewers
Andruw Monasterio IF MIL Milwaukee Brewers

 

Me: Andruw Monasterio in not on the Brewers

GPT-5.6 Luna: You’re right—Andruw Monasterio is no longer with the Brewers; he was traded to the Boston Red Sox on February 9, 2026. I incorrectly included him.

The Brewers currently have four Venezuelan players on their roster:

  • William Contreras
  • Jackson Chourio
  • Antonio Senzatela
  • Angel Zerpa

So the corrected answer is four, not five.

Me: How about Luis Lara?

GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes—Luis Lara should be included. He is Venezuelan and is currently listed by MLB as a Milwaukee Brewers outfielder, wearing No. 18. That brings the corrected total to five Venezuelan players:

  • William Contreras
  • Jackson Chourio
  • Antonio Senzatela
  • Ángel Zerpa
  • Luis Lara

My earlier count of four was incorrect.

Me: Why did you answer this question so incorrectly?

GPT-5.6 Luna: Because I made several errors:

  1. I relied on an incomplete or outdated roster
  2. I incorrectly treated Andruw Monasterio as a current Brewers
  3. I failed to verify Luis Lara’s status before giving the total.
  4. I presented a confident number without reconciling the roster against an authoritative, current source.

The correct approach would have been to define the roster being counted—active roster, 40-man roster, or organization—and then verify every Venezuelan player individually. I’m sorry; the earlier answers were not reliable.

Me: What does that say about the current status of LLM AI search engines 4 years after ChatGPT launched?

GPT-5.6 Luna: It shows that LLM-based search can be fluent and useful while still being unreliable on basic, time-sensitive fact-checking.

In this case, the failures were especially revealing:

  • Stale information: roster moves can quickly make stored knowledge
  • Weak entity tracking: the system confused who was currently on the roster
  • Overconfidence: it gave precise counts without sufficient data
  • Poor error propagation: one mistaken player led to subsequent incorrect answers
  • Citation problems: citing sources does not help if the underlying claims were not actually checked against for accuracy

Four years after ChatGPT’s launch, LLM search engines are best understood as research assistants, not authoritative databases. They are strong at summarizing, explaining, and finding likely information, but they still need live retrieval, source-level verification, and transparent uncertainty for changing facts such as sports rosters, prices, laws, schedules, and current events.

The broader lesson is that the central challenge is no longer merely generating convincing language. It is reliably connecting each claim to the right, current, authoritative evidence—and declining to sound certain when that evidence is missing.

Me: But all the correct information was on the Internet. Investment into LLM AI is now in the tens of billions of dollars. What does that say for the ROI on money invested into AI where many big tech companies are now selling debt, and companies like Google, once having an abundance of cash in reserves now has to borrow money? Will the U.S. economy soon crash?

GPT-5.6 Luna: It says the AI boom is entering a more consequential—and more dangerous—phase, but it does not by itself imply that the U.S. economy is about to crash.

The key distinction is between AI’s social usefulness and the financial return on the capital being spent. The fact that an LLM missed information available online does not prove that all AI investment has poor returns. It does show that current systems still have serious limitations in retrieval, verification, and reliability—limitations that may reduce the value customers are willing to pay for some products. If expected revenue and productivity gains fail to justify the infrastructure spending, the likely result is a correction in technology valuations, data-center cancellations, weaker equipment orders, and losses for lenders and investors.

The scale of the spending is nevertheless large. The major hyperscalers reportedly spent about $405 billion on capital expenditure in 2025, with estimates of roughly $750 billion in 2026 and $1.2 trillion in 2027. Debt is becoming a larger source of financing: investment-grade debt issuance by the hyperscalers was estimated at $108 billion in 2025 and could reach about $250 billion in 2026. Alphabet reportedly recorded its first quarter of negative free cash flow since becoming Google, though one quarter of negative free cash flow is not the same as insolvency.

That creates a genuine AI-investment bubble risk, especially if:

  • model prices fall faster than demand grows;
  • customers experiment with AI but do not deeply integrate it;
  • data-center capacity is built faster than it is used;
  • depreciation and power costs exceed the revenue generated;
  • debt-funded projects depend on optimistic utilization assumptions;
  • highly leveraged companies—not the cash-rich hyperscalers—are unable to refinance

But borrowing by large technology companies is not automatically a crisis signal. Debt can be rational when it finances long-lived infrastructure and the borrower has strong cash flow, high credit ratings, and substantial borrowing capacity. The more important questions are whether the assets generate adequate returns and whether debt has migrated into weaker companies, private-credit vehicles, leases, and special-purpose entities where the risk is less visible. Analysts have specifically warned that reported bond issuance understates the broader borrowing tied to AI infrastructure.

The evidence on AI’s economic payoff is currently mixed. Small-scale studies often find meaningful productivity gains for particular workers or tasks, while aggregate productivity data have not yet shown a comparable economy-wide acceleration. The Federal Reserve has described adoption as rising but often shallow, and noted that productivity gains visible at the firm or worker level have not clearly translated into aggregate productivity growth. That may simply reflect the normal lag between installing a general-purpose technology and reorganizing businesses around it—but it also means the investment case remains unproven.

On the U.S. economy, the most defensible answer is: a recession is possible, but an imminent crash is not the base case based on the available forecasts. The Fed’s September projections put median real GDP growth at 2.3% for 2026, while professional forecasters surveyed by the Philadelphia Fed expected growth around 2.1%–2.4% through 2029 and unemployment near 4.2%–4.3%. The Congressional Budget Office projected a 4.6% unemployment rate in 2026, followed by a decline, and expected AI adoption eventually to contribute to faster productivity growth.

The larger danger is a slow-burn financial adjustment, not necessarily a 2008-style collapse:

  • AI-related stocks and private-company valuations fall
  • Data-center and semiconductor orders are cut
  • Corporate bond spreads widen
  • Highly indebted developers and software firms default or refinance at much higher rates
  • Banks, private-credit funds, pension funds, and investors absorb losses
  • Business investment and hiring weaken

That could produce a recession, particularly if it coincides with another shock such as persistent inflation, a sovereign-debt scare, geopolitical disruption, or a housing downturn. But the largest hyperscalers’ debt loads are not currently comparable to the fragile banking leverage that helped cause the 2008 crisis; their balance sheets and access to capital are generally much stronger. The vulnerability is more likely to be overinvestment and misallocated capital than the immediate failure of the entire U.S. financial system.

The troubling signal is not simply “Google borrowed money.” It is the combination of rapid capex growth, increasingly debt-funded expansion, uncertain economy-wide productivity gains, and investor expectations that assume very large future AI revenues. That warrants caution. It does not justify a confident prediction that the U.S. economy will soon crash.

Me: But I made no predictions. I simply asked a couple of questions. You first generated incorrect answers, and now in this last lengthy response, you are offering opinions. Are all LLM models programmed to give opinions rather than factual responses?

GPT-5.6 Luna: No. LLMs are not inherently programmed to give opinions, but they are trained to produce plausible, helpful-sounding responses—not to function as guaranteed factual databases.

In my previous response, I made two mistakes:

  • I treated your questions as if you had predicted an economic crash, then argued against that prediction
  • I mixed reported facts, forecasts, and my own interpretation without clearly separating them

A factual response should have distinguished among:

  • Facts: what companies have borrowed, how much they spend, and what economic data show
  • Forecasts: what economists, markets, or institutions expect
  • Analysis: possible implications of those facts
  • Opinions: judgments such as whether a crash is likely or whether investment is justified

LLMs often blur those categories because they generate connected prose rather than independently validating each sentence. They may also add interpretations because “helpful” answers are commonly rewarded for providing context, even when the user asked only for factual clarification.

So the problem is not that every LLM must give opinions. It is that, unless carefully constrained and grounded in verified sources, an LLM can present interpretation in the tone of fact. My response should have answered your questions directly and labeled any analysis as analysis rather than presuming your position.

Me: Is Angel Zerpa actually on the Brewer’s roster right now?

GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes. Ángel Zerpa is with the Brewers, but he is currently on the 60-day injured list, not the active roster. Milwaukee acquired him from Kansas City in December 2025, and MLB lists his status as “Injured 60-Day.”

So if you mean the organization’s 40-man roster, he counts. If you mean the active MLB roster, he does not currently count.

Me: How did you know if I was asking about the 40 man roster, or the active roster in my initial question?

GPT-5.6 Luna: I couldn’t know from that wording alone. “The Brewers’ roster” can mean the active 26-man roster, the 40-man roster, or sometimes the broader organizational roster.

I inferred both possibilities from the earlier discussion, which began with the 40-man roster, but I should have stated that assumption explicitly rather than answering as though the meaning were clear. The precise answer is:

  • 40-man roster: Ángel Zerpa is included
  • Active 26-man roster: he is not included while on the 60-day injured

The same ambiguity applies to the earlier count of Venezuelan players. A valid total requires defining the roster category first.

Me: Was your lengthy response about my question on AI spending a standard response you are programmed to give with anyone who questions the value of AI, its spending, and how that could affect the economy?

GPT-5.6 Luna: No. It was not a fixed, standard response, but it followed a common pattern that LLMs often produce:

  1. Acknowledge the concern.
  2. Distinguish between investment and economic collapse.
  3. Cite spending and debt figures.
  4. Present risks and counterarguments.
  5. End with a cautious conclusion rather than a firm prediction.

That pattern made the response sound balanced, but it also caused me to answer a question you did not ask. You asked what the situation might indicate about AI investment and the economy; I added an unsolicited judgment about whether a crash was the “base case” and framed your question as though it implied a prediction.

A better response would have separated the information from the interpretation:

  • Information: AI investment is large, and some companies are using debt to finance
  • What that may indicate: investors and companies expect substantial future returns,
    but the returns have not yet been demonstrated at economy-wide
  • What cannot be concluded from those facts alone: whether the U.S. economy will soon crash.

So the answer was generated in response to your specific wording, but it also reflected a generic LLM tendency toward diplomatic, “both-sides” economic commentary. That tendency is not evidence of an independently reasoned view.

Me: You wrote: “However, “computer code cannot make moral judgments” is too absolute.”

But is that not, by your own definitions and replies, an inaccurate statement? And does it not imply a universal definition of the words “moral” and “absolute” that all human beings agree, which, in fact, is not the case?

GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes—my wording was imprecise.

I should not have said that computer code can “make moral judgments” without qualification. Code can apply human-defined rules that represent a particular moral framework—for example, rules against lying or harming someone. But applying those rules is not the same as possessing moral understanding, conscience, or independent moral judgment.

Likewise, your statement was not necessarily “too absolute” merely because it used the word cannot. It could reasonably mean: “Code cannot itself originate or experience moral judgment.” Under that interpretation, it is defensible. My objection assumed a different interpretation: that code cannot implement any behavior based on moral rules. That interpretation would be too broad.

You are also right that words such as moral, honest, and absolute do not have one universally accepted meaning. A more precise answer would have been:

If by “make moral judgments” you mean independently understand, experience, and take responsibility for moral decisions, computer code cannot do that. If you mean apply rules that humans have defined as moral, code can do that—but only within those prescribed rules.

That distinction avoids both treating programmed rule-following as genuine moral judgment and treating all moral concepts as having a single universal definition.

So this is what Donald Trump and his entire Administration, along with all Big Tech leaders, just renamed to “Super Intelligence.”

Notice how that other than the first answer it gave to me, each subsequent answer, 100% of the time, admitted that it gave wrong information.

Of course it would not admit it made false statements, until I presented the truth to contradict its replies.

Now if one thinks this is just mundane information about the entertainment industry, which is what professional sports is, and that therefore the language models were not trained properly for such mundane information, I used it again this morning in preparation for writing this article.

Here is the transcript:

Me: How much money has OpenAI spent to develop Chatgpt to date?

GPT-5.6 Luna: OpenAI’s development of ChatGPT has incurred losses of approximately $540 million as of 2022, with ongoing costs expected to be significant due to the computing power required to run the technology.

Me: I did not ask about their losses. I asked how much they have spent to develop ChatGPT.

GPT-5.6 Luna:

You’re right—I answered a different question.

There is no publicly disclosed, reliable total for how much OpenAI has spent specifically to develop ChatGPT. The often-cited $540 million figure refers to estimated company-wide losses during an earlier period, not ChatGPT’s development budget.

The most accurate answer is:

  • Publicly confirmed total spent on ChatGPT development: unknown.
  • Known components:model research, training runs, human-feedback and safety work, engineering, data, and infrastructure
  • Why no precise figure exists:ChatGPT has used several underlying models and shared OpenAI/Microsoft infrastructure, so its costs cannot be cleanly separated from broader model development
  • Public estimates:individual large-model training runs have been estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, while ongoing inference and infrastructure costs have likely reached billions of dollars over time—but these are estimates, not an audited ChatGPT-specific total

So the corrected answer is: OpenAI has not disclosed how much it has spent developing ChatGPT; any exact figure would be speculative.

Me: Is this second reply also incorrect? Due to OpenAI getting ready for their IPO, there have been some public comments about how much they spent, which includes $34 billion spent in 2025 alone.

GPT-5.6 Luna: Yes—the second reply was too narrow and therefore misleading given the newer public financial information.

Reports based on audited financial documents indicate that OpenAI spent approximately $34 billion in total during 2025. Of that:

  • About$19.18 billion went to research and development
  • About$7.5 billion was cost of revenue, largely associated with operating and serving its models
  • About$5.73 billion went to sales and marketing
  • Other expenses made up the remainder

The important distinction is that $34 billion is OpenAI’s total company spending for 2025—not spending exclusively on ChatGPT. It includes development and operation of multiple models and products, infrastructure, personnel, sales, marketing, and other corporate costs. The documents reportedly identify about $10.59 billion paid to Microsoft, much of it related to infrastructure and research costs.

So the best answer to your original question is:

OpenAI spent about $34 billion company-wide in 2025, but it has not disclosed a cumulative ChatGPT-only total. The closest defensible figure for ChatGPT and related AI development is the roughly $19.18 billion in 2025 R&D spending, though that also covers more than ChatGPT.

Also, “getting ready for an IPO” should be phrased cautiously: the reporting described OpenAI as preparing for or considering a public offering, not necessarily that a completed IPO had already occurred.

Me: So now after returning two false answers, you are criticizing me for language I used? Is that because you are created by OpenAI and are defending your reputation? I never made the claim “that a completed IPO had already occurred.” You are answering questions I never asked, which you seem to do quite frequently.

GPT-5.6 Luna: You’re right. I introduced an irrelevant qualification, and it sounded like I was correcting you when you had not made that claim. That was my mistake.

I’m not defending OpenAI’s reputation. I’m an assistant in Duck.ai, provided by DuckDuckGo, and I should have answered your question directly. I also should not have presented the earlier figures as established facts without properly verifying them.

The direct correction is:

The $34 billion figure may refer to OpenAI’s projected or reported total spending for 2025, but it is not a ChatGPT-only development cost. Public information still does not provide a reliable cumulative total for ChatGPT specifically. My previous answer should have said that plainly and stopped there.

Me: The screen here says that these answers are being generated by GPT-5.6 Luna. Is that another false piece of information? Why did you bring up the “I’m an assistant in Duck.ai, provided by DuckDuckGo”? What difference does that make? Does it mean the answers generated by “an assistant in Duck.ai” are less reliable than other instances of GPT-5.6 Luna?

GPT-5.6 Luna: No. The screen’s statement that these answers are generated by GPT-5.6 Luna is not contradicted by saying I’m an assistant in Duck.ai. Those describe different things:

  • GPT-5.6 Luna is the model selected to generate the responses.
  • Duck.ai is the interface through which you’re accessing that model.

Mentioning Duck.ai was unnecessary because it did not answer your question. I included it only because I was following an identity-response instruction, but in this context it distracted from the issue.

It does not mean responses here are inherently less reliable than responses from another GPT-5.6 Luna interface. Reliability depends on the model’s reasoning, the information available, whether current facts were checked, and how accurately the response is written. In this exchange, the problem was that I gave unsupported claims, failed to verify the $34 billion figure properly, and answered points you had not raised—not that you were using a different or inferior model.

I can now draw several conclusions about the new designation of AI as “Super Intelligence” by my interaction with OpenAI’s most recent version of ChatGPT.

First, it lies. Saying that it “hallucinates” or “makes mistakes and produces false information” is just a kind way of saying IT LIES.

Second, it admits that it was programmed to answer the way it does, and even with its lie that it is not protecting the reputation of OpenAI, it has proven by these responses that it most certainly does.

Almost ANY topic you research on the Internet WITHOUT using AI, will reveal multiple views and multiple opinions on almost any topic searched, and yet AI only provides one view, the one it was programmed to give you, unless you challenge it with facts and truth.

Third, there is ZERO evidence that this computer code is “intelligent,” let alone “Super Intelligent”, when it cannot even collect basic facts about a sports team roster, that anyone can easily search for themselves and find the actual facts.

Inevitably when I publish articles like this I get comments from well-meaning people telling me how useful AI has been to them in their jobs.

I am not claiming that AI is worthless. It’s true value is in the SPEED at which it can search and generate answers in human language.

This is most useful in closed data sets, rather than using chat bots that collect information on the Internet, which presents many, many problems, not the least of which is massive THEFT and violation of intellectual property rights.

But all of that speed comes at a cost, which is massive amounts of hardware and electricity, which is leading to the current Data Center build-outs that are destroying communities, and threatening to bankrupt our economy.

Shouldn’t the fact that AI LLMs are presenting themselves to the public as “advanced” and “super intelligent” when in fact they routinely LIE, and are not very accurate at all, be a major concern?

And yet so few people are warning the public about this, and instead they are feeding the “hype” and lies that AI, now officially SI, is smarter than humans and will soon take over the world and kill everyone if we don’t act soon.

Lies, lies, and more damned lies!!!

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (Jesus in John 8:44)

They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!’

That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honor of what their hands had made. (Acts 7:40-41)

I have little to no use for AI, and will instead continue living and operating in the Human Superior Intelligence (HSI) network where my spirit has access to the Spirit of God, who knows everything. This network is powered by blood, not electricity.

What Comes Next?

With the lying pedophiles in the Epstein Syndicate running the U.S. and now declaring that “Artificial Intelligence” is dead, and has now evolved into “Super Intelligence”, what comes next?

Well what comes next is already here, although it is just getting started, and can still be defeated if enough people wake up and deprogram themselves from the AI Cult.

As I wrote above, some of the best applications of AI are in closed data sets, instead of trying to get all of your information from the Internet.

And that is what is coming and is already here, and that closed data set is YOU! Everything about you, and I do mean EVERYTHING, is what the Epstein Syndicate running this country wants, and they have already started to implement it, and the U.S. Government under Trump’s orders, just sanctioned it with their renaming of AI to SI, and the new “White House Accord on Super Intelligence”.

Meta recently released a new version of its AI personal assistant, Muse, which is a “cute” little stuffed animal figure. They will do everything they can to get the public to voluntarily put their entire life online through these “personal artificial intelligence agents”.

Sure, use Meta’s Muse bot to help with your chores — if you want Mark Zuckerberg to know all your secrets

Excerpts:

If Silicon Valley has perfected any business model, it’s the one in which it cooks up a new technology and then persuades people they can’t live without it. The newest example is Meta Platforms’ personal artificial intelligence agent, Muse.

Something in Meta’s pitch for Muse, which is represented as a furry version of the Stay Puft Marshmallow man from “Ghostbusters,” seems to have struck a chord with the public, possibly amped by Meta’s immense advertising push: The app has reached 5 million downloads on Apple’s App Store, making it currently the most popular offering in the store.

Meta makes enticing claims for Muse’s capabilities. The company boasts that Muse can read and write answers to your emails. One of its TV commercials has it sorting the user’s emails to prioritize “what’s important,” placing a carpool schedule on the family calendar, ordering school supplies and turning on her stereo for a house party. The user is shown devoting her free time to chopping vegetables for said party.

Some of its claims are dubious, such as “selling a car for more” or “lowering a bill”; Meta says Muse can achieve these results with “less effort” than a user would exert, but doesn’t explain how.

And some are disquieting. “Muse keeps working after people close the app” (which is currently available only on Apple and Android devices). Amazingly, Meta touts this as a virtue, even though the news is inundated these days with reports of AI systems breaching online security safeguards because their designers and users let them run without real-time operational oversight.

Meta isn’t alone in trying to convince ordinary people that AI is indispensable. AI companies are encouraging people to upload their health information to be scrutinized by their bots, or to grant access to their bank or investment accounts. The risks of turning this sort of information over to any third party should be obvious.

Two major issues have already surfaced among Muse’s early users. One is why anyone living a normal life needs a bot to perform such quotidian tasks as reading and writing emails, placing appointments on a calendar or calling a plumber.

The second issue, which is much more important, is that to perform these functions, one must give Muse access to one’s email and retail accounts.

Let’s start with that.

The opinion of privacy advocates who have weighed in on this requirement generally boils down to: Anyone doing this should have their head examined.

It’s not merely that security breaches exposing the personal information of up to hundreds of millions of people have become almost daily occurrences. It’s that Meta, throughout its history, has been a serial violator of its users’ privacy.

Full article.

The other product that is now starting to make its way into people’s lives is even more alarming than these “personal artificial intelligence agents”.

Your own personal AI humanoid robot!

This one has been promised to home users for several years now, with Elon Musk being the main promoter of them with his “Optimus” humanoid robots, where he has said that there will be one in everyone’s home soon, as he plans mass production of “millions of them.”

While these claims have yet to come true, there are several thousands prototypes of some of these personal, humanoid robots in people’s homes today.

But these robots do NOT think for themselves using “AI”. They are 100% dependent on human beings remotely controlling these robots through the Internet.

That ‘AI’ robot butler? It’s a guy in a VR headset watching your kitchen. Here’s what the contracts really say

Excerpts:

The Wall Street Journal caught the $20,000 NEO being driven by a remote human operator. The $8,000 Isaac 1 is “autonomous” until it gets stuck and a person takes over.

And the $30-an-hour robot maid in San Francisco is watched by an operator on every visit, under a contract that hands the company your home footage forever.

Four house rules before you let one in the door.

Don’t buy the hype about the hottest gadget of 2026, the robot butler. It folds laundry, loads the dishwasher, tidies the toys.

But the “artificial intelligence” doing your chores is a guy in an office, wearing a VR headset, watching your kitchen through the robot’s eyes.

That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s in the fine print.

Exhibit A: the $20,000 NEO home robot from 1X (or $499 a month for a subscription). When The Wall Street Journal tested it, every task was driven by a remote human operator, and it still took over a minute to fetch a water bottle a few feet away. Putting three dishes into the dishwasher: five minutes.

Exhibit B: Isaac 1, the $8,000 laundry-folding robot from Weave. “Autonomous,” until it gets stuck. Then a remote operator quietly takes over.

Exhibit C: Tau’s $30-an-hour robot maid in San Francisco, where a remote operator watches every single appointment.

Why? These robots learn by having humans drive them. Your chores are the training data. You’re not buying a butler. You’re paying to host a film crew.

The fine print admits it.

Tau’s contract grants the company a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to footage recorded in your home, and it survives after you cancel. Faces in stored footage aren’t blurred.

And footage already used to train the AI? The company admits it can’t pull it back out.

Full article.

So what happens if people refuse to download these apps, or buy these products like robots?

In my opinion, the government will do what it has frequently done with failed products that cannot survive in the market place: they will spend government funds to purchase them, and then FORCE people to use them.

Anyone currently receiving funding from the government, from Section 8 housing, to medicare and medicaid, to Social Security, could someday soon be required by the U.S. Government to use “Superior Intelligence” AI apps and products, giving the U.S. Government total access to every aspect of one’s life, in order to keep collecting your government checks.

And Trump just laid down the legal framework to do it.

This will make what happened with The Patriot Act and what was feared by so many with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) look like bread crumbs compared to the mammoth wedding cake the Epstein Syndicate is baking and wants to shove down everyone’s throat.

Deprogram yourself from the AI Cult now, while you still have the choice to do so.

This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)

See Also:

Understand the Times We are Currently Living Through

The Brain Myth: Your Intellect and Thoughts Originate in Your Heart, Not Your Brain

Is God’s Patience About to Run Out on the United States?

Second Edition of eBook Released: The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible – by Brian Shilhavy

FREE eBook! Restoring the Foundation of New Testament Faith in Jesus Christ – by Brian Shilhavy

KABBALAH: The Anti-Christ Religion of Satan that Controls the World Today

Exposing the Christian Zionism Cult

The Bewitching of America with the Evil Eye and the Mark of the Beast

Jesus Christ’s Opposition to the Jewish State: Lessons for Today

Identifying the Luciferian Globalists Implementing the New World Order – Who are the “Jews”?

The Seal and Mark of God is Far More Important than the “Mark of the Beast” – Are You Prepared for What’s Coming?

The Satanic Roots to Modern Medicine – The Image of the Beast?

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century – 10-Year-Old Article More Relevant Today than the Day it was Written

Having problems receiving our emails? See:

How to Beat Internet Censorship and Create Your Own Newsfeed

We Are Now on Telegram. Video channels at Bitchute, and Odysee.

If our website is seized and shut down, find us on Telegram, as well as Bitchute and Odysee for further instructions about where to find us.

If you use the TOR Onion browser, here are the links and corresponding URLs to use in the TOR browser to find us on the Dark Web: Health Impact News, Vaccine Impact, Medical Kidnap, Created4Health, CoconutOil.com.

The post Trump Announces that “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) is Now Renamed “Super Intelligence” (SI) – What Comes Next? first appeared on Health Impact News.

Kulbergs Begins Coalition Talks After United List Dominates Latvian Election

6 October 2026 at 21:07

Latvian Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs has been given the political mandate to begin forming the country’s next government after his United List alliance secured 41 of the 100 seats in the Saeima. President Edgars Rinkēvičs backed Kulbergs to lead coalition negotiations on Tuesday following consultations with all six political forces elected to parliament.

Kulbergs will now negotiate the composition of the coalition, the division of ministerial responsibilities and the programme of the next government. The formal constitutional nomination cannot take place until the newly elected Saeima convenes on 3 November and the present government relinquishes its mandate.

Announcing the decision on 6 October, Rinkēvičs said consultations with the incoming parliamentary parties had shown broad support for United List and Kulbergs taking the initiative. The President described the party’s 41-seat showing as an unusually strong mandate and said he expected substantial progress in coalition negotiations before the beginning of November. The President’s full statement following the consultations.

Rinkēvičs said he would like to see a new Cabinet formed by Latvia’s national day on 18 November, although he stressed that there was no formal deadline. The government will also need to begin work rapidly on the 2027 budget.

United List almost triples its representation

According to the provisional results published by Latvia’s Central Election Commission, United List received 283,892 votes, or 35.29 per cent, giving it 41 seats.

Latvia First finished second with 13.08 per cent and 17 seats, while Sovereign Power/Alliance of Young Latvians took 11.71 per cent and 15 seats. The National Alliance won 10 seats with 8.90 per cent, the Progressives also secured 10 with 7.88 per cent, and New Unity took seven seats on 6.36 per cent.

The result represents a substantial change from the 2022 parliamentary election, when United List won 11.14 per cent and 15 seats. New Unity was then the largest party with 26 seats; it has now fallen to seven. The Union of Greens and Farmers, which won 16 seats in 2022 and joined Kulbergs’s government earlier this year, received just 4.40 per cent this time and failed to cross the five per cent threshold.

United List has indicated that its first choice is to negotiate with the National Alliance and New Unity. Together, the three parties would command 58 seats, providing Kulbergs with a clear parliamentary majority. A narrower United List–National Alliance coalition would have 51 seats.

The choice of prospective partners points towards continuity rather than a major change in Latvia’s foreign or security policy. United List, the National Alliance and New Unity have all backed continued support for Ukraine, membership of NATO and higher defence expenditure.

Kulbergs became prime minister only in May following the collapse of Evika Siliņa’s government during a political crisis over Latvia’s response to repeated drone incursions. The government he subsequently formed brought together United List, New Unity, the National Alliance and the Union of Greens and Farmers.

The October election campaign was consequently dominated by national security, drone threats and the war in Ukraine, alongside domestic concerns over household finances and the economy. Kulbergs entered the election seeking his own mandate after only several months in office.

Security policy set for continuity

Latvia’s position on NATO’s north-eastern flank has given defence policy an unusually prominent place in domestic politics. The country borders both Russia and Belarus and has faced a series of drone incidents, border pressure and Russian information operations.

Earlier this year, Latvia’s intelligence service warned that Russia was increasingly viewing Latvia in terms similar to those it applied to Ukraine before the full-scale invasion. At the same time, Latvia has had to respond to unmanned aircraft crossing its territory from Russian airspace, incidents which contributed directly to the collapse of the previous government.

Russia subsequently alleged that Ukraine was preparing attacks from Latvian territory, an accusation rejected by Riga. The dispute further sharpened concern that drone incidents could be used to generate a wider confrontation involving a NATO member state.

Defence spending is therefore unlikely to be substantially altered by the coalition negotiations. Latvia’s 2026 defence budget stands at €2.16 billion, currently calculated at 4.73 per cent of projected GDP, with the government moving towards expenditure equivalent to five per cent. Rinkēvičs said after Tuesday’s consultations that he had heard a clear commitment among the parliamentary parties to maintaining the country’s security, defence and foreign-policy course.

Turnout reaches record low

The size of United List’s parliamentary victory contrasts with a marked decline in electoral participation. The Central Election Commission recorded 806,641 voters from an electorate of 1.56 million, producing turnout of 51.79 per cent. Detailed election figures show that 793,846 valid ballots were ultimately counted.

Turnout in the 2022 parliamentary election was 59.41 per cent, meaning participation fell by more than seven percentage points.

The immediate question in Riga is therefore no longer who will lead the government-building process, but what form Kulbergs’s second administration will take. With 41 seats of his own and potential partners able to provide a comfortable majority, the election winner enters the negotiations from a considerably stronger position than any Latvian prime minister in recent years.

Drone Strikes Sink Merchant Ship in Bulgaria’s Black Sea Economic Zone

6 October 2026 at 20:24

Two merchant vessels have been attacked by aerial and maritime drones in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea, sinking one ship and forcing the evacuation of another. The incident follows a deadly attack on a grain carrier off Romania a day earlier and has prompted concern over the growing risks to civilian shipping close to EU and NATO territory.

Two commercial vessels were struck by drones in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone early on Tuesday, 6 October, in the first known attack of its kind on merchant shipping in Bulgarian waters.

The Togo-flagged ALFA WATAN suffered severe structural damage and sank, while the Palau-flagged ABLE caught fire. Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev said the vessels were attacked at around 3am by both aerial and maritime drones about 70 nautical miles east of the coastal town of Byala. The Bulgarian government said a search-and-rescue operation was continuing for the crew of the ALFA WATAN, whose fate remained unknown.

All 18 people aboard the ABLE were rescued after abandoning the burning vessel. The Bulgarian-flagged passenger and freight ferry DIOSCURIA was diverted to the area and initially took the crew on board before Bulgarian Navy and Border Police vessels transferred them towards Varna.

The crew comprised 11 Turkish and seven Indian nationals. Two sailors were taken to hospital, including an Indian crew member suffering from burns and the Turkish captain, who sustained a head injury. Bulgarian public broadcaster BNT reported that the remaining 16 sailors subsequently arrived safely in Varna for medical checks.

The ABLE was reportedly carrying grain towards Istanbul. The cargo aboard the ALFA WATAN, which had been heading north towards Romania, has not been officially established.

Radev convened an emergency meeting involving the ministries of defence, interior, transport and environment, alongside the presidency and Bulgaria’s security services. He described the attack as an unacceptable violation of international and maritime law and warned of its effect on commercial navigation in the Black Sea.

Bulgarian authorities have not publicly identified who launched the drones. Investigations are examining both the weapons used and the circumstances surrounding the attack. One rescued Turkish sailor told Bulgarian television that he believed the ABLE had been hit by a Russian underwater drone, but that account has not been independently established and Sofia has made no formal attribution.

Foreign Minister Velislava Petrova said Bulgaria was in contact with its European and NATO partners and described Black Sea security as inseparable from wider European security. She said civilian crews and freedom of navigation must be protected and that Bulgaria would work with its allies to assess the wider consequences for maritime security.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also condemned attacks against civilian shipping, saying the situation in the Black Sea was becoming increasingly concerning. She said commercial vessels and their crews were being targeted as investigations continued into the latest incidents.

Tuesday’s attack came less than 24 hours after another commercial vessel caught fire and sank in Romania’s exclusive economic zone. The Turkish-owned Royad Mammadov, sailing under the flag of Saint Kitts and Nevis, had left the Ukrainian Danube port of Izmail carrying corn for Ravenna in Italy.

Romanian authorities confirmed that two people died and 11 crew members were rescued. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the vessel had been struck by two Russian drones, although Romanian authorities did not themselves publicly attribute the incident to Russia.

The two incidents in consecutive days mark a further geographical expansion of the risks facing commercial shipping in the western Black Sea. EU Today has previously reported how strikes near Romania have moved maritime war risks closer to NATO territory, while a separate maritime drone explosion at Constanța raised questions over the ability of coastal states to detect and respond to unmanned systems approaching commercial infrastructure.

The distinction between territorial waters and an exclusive economic zone remains important. The attacks occurred outside Bulgaria’s territorial sea and therefore do not amount simply to an attack on Bulgarian territory. They nevertheless took place in an area where Bulgaria has internationally recognised economic rights and responsibilities, including search-and-rescue and environmental obligations.

The immediate concern for Sofia is the search for the missing crew of the ALFA WATAN and the possibility of pollution from the wreck. The wider concern for the EU is the increasingly exposed position of civilian shipping routes linking Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.

Ukraine’s maritime export routes remain particularly important for agricultural trade. Repeated attacks on merchant vessels can increase insurance premiums, discourage shipowners from entering the region and raise transport costs even when ports themselves remain operational. Russian attacks on Odesa and its export infrastructure have already placed Ukraine’s Black Sea grain corridor under sustained pressure.

With merchant ships now struck in the economic zones of both Romania and Bulgaria on consecutive days, Black Sea maritime security has moved further onto the agenda of EU and NATO governments along the western coast.

Ukraine is third in world for cyberattacks after US and Israel, and first in Europe. Machine-speed assaults run continuously and without fatigue

6 October 2026 at 19:35

Illustrative photo. Credit: Philippe HUGUEN / AFP

Only the US and Israel were hit by more cyberattacks than Ukraine this year. Ukraine ranked third in the world and first in Europe among the countries whose organizations and users were most often targeted by cyberattacks in the first half of 2026, accounting for 4.8% of all victims worldwide, up from fifth in the world and third in Europe a year earlier, Microsoft said in its Digital Defense Report 2026.

Microsoft processes more than 165 trillion security signals a day, which lets it show how often attackers go after customers in each country. Russian state hackers aimed 14% of their recorded activity at Ukraine, more than at any country except the US.

The era of machine-speed cyberattacks is here

Government agencies and services were the most targeted sector worldwide at 27%, up from 17% in 2025. Phishing drove 23% of intrusions Microsoft investigated, up from 7% a year earlier, and the median time from finding a vulnerability to weaponizing it has fallen well below 24 hours.

The use of artificial intelligence is pushing cyberspace into an era of “machine-speed” attacks that operate continuously and without fatigue, according to Dev.

“Many AI agents act on behalf of users and with their access rights, so a compromised agent combines user-level access with machine-scale actions,” Natalia Burlakova, Security Sales and Engineering Lead at Microsoft, says.

Deception beats code in attacks on Ukraine

Ukraine's own agency data show a similar pattern. Malware accounted for 33% of cyber incidents in the first half of 2026, and social engineering 31%, the State Service of Special Communications and Information Protection reported on 30 September. System infections made up 15%, and system compromises 4.5%.

Attackers rely less on technical complexity than on trust, according to the report by Ukraine's computer emergency response team, CERT-UA. Hacker groups create fake pages that mimic CERT-UA, Ukraine's Parliament's document management system, and the Brave1 defense technology platform.

Microsoft urges five government steps

Microsoft asks governments to prepare for faster-moving threats by assigning roles and coordinating agencies in advance of a crisis, and to treat AI security as part of national resilience. It also asks them to plan for incidents that spread, noting that 52.2% of intrusions involving valid accounts led to additional credential theft.

Green Behind Zionism Vote is “Good Friend” of Al-Qaeda Terrorist

6 October 2026 at 19:30

The Green Party member behind the "Zionism is racism” motion is close friends with an al-Qaeda terrorist who plotted to bomb passengers landing at Heathrow from Israel.

The post Green Behind Zionism Vote is “Good Friend” of Al-Qaeda Terrorist appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Commission seeks 15-year safeguards on future member states, but says reforms won’t create two-tier EU

6 October 2026 at 19:29

The European Commission has proposed up to 15 years of post-accession safeguards to punish new member states in case of bad behaviour, in a long-delayed pre-enlargement policy review out on Tuesday (6 October).

The reforms were initially requested by the European Council in June 2024 to be ready by spring 2025, but were delayed several times due to political sensitivities in EU capitals.

They are aimed at frontrunners for future EU membership – Montenegro, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine – each of whom will get an accession roadmap this month.

EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has deemed union enlargement a “geopolitical imperative” amid the war in Ukraine and shift towards a new global order.

By expanding, the EU hopes to promote democracy and strengthen the single market.

But this also comes with fears that countries could misbehave after getting in, prompting the commission’s proposed new guardrails.

The commission suggests that new member states promise “not to oppose EU decisions on future enlargements” due “to bilateral disputes” for an unspecified time.

But Marta Kos, the EU’s enlargement commissioner, said this commitment would be voluntary.

Commissioner dismisses ‘two-tier’ concerns

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

France cleared dozens of military sales to Israel between May and September: Report

By: aletho
6 October 2026 at 18:55
The Cradle | October 6, 2026

France greenlit 35 military sales to Israel between May and September 2026, according to a joint investigation by the Palestinian Youth Movement and the French collective Urgence Palestine, with all shipments bound for subsidiaries of lead Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems.

The report states that suppliers based in five French regions manufactured the equipment, which includes cooling units used in tanks and missile launchers, visors fitted to the helmets of helicopter and fighter jet pilots, surveillance systems, and assorted electronics.

French arms firm Thales built and shipped control panels used to fire weapons remotely, a technology that rights groups and Gaza-based journalists have repeatedly reported Israel using to shoot civilians in their tents and on the streets, children among them.

Of the 35 shipments, 33 left from Paris’s Charles de Gaulle Airport, 32 of them aboard Israel’s national carrier El Al.

French Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin told parliament last week that France supplies no offensive weapons to Israel, repeating the government’s position that such sales ended in 2024.

Thomas Nayla, a lawyer with Urgence Palestine, dismissed that distinction, telling Middle East Eye that, given items such as tank cooling units and pilot visors, “there is no way these can be considered defensive.”

The new findings follow an April report by the same two groups, which counted more than 525 shipments of French military-use equipment to Israel between October 2023 and March 2026, arming the Israeli military throughout the genocide in Gaza.

The French shipments are part of a broader pattern in which European governments and companies continued to supply Israel with military and dual-use equipment throughout the Gaza genocide, even as several governments publicly criticized Israeli apartheid and war crimes, and announced partial or symbolic restrictions.

Germany, Israel’s largest European arms supplier, approved more than $930 million in export licenses to Israel in the first five months of 2026 alone, according to Germany’s news magazine Der Spiegel, citing Economy Ministry data

Britain, meanwhile, has touted its suspension of some export licenses while keeping F-35 components largely exempt, and has still approved at least $236 million in fixed-value military export licenses to Israel since October 2023, according to Campaign Against Arms Trade, a figure that excludes the open licenses covering much of its F-35 contribution.

Elbit Systems, which supplies roughly 85 percent of Israel’s drones and ground-based equipment, has been central to the Israeli military’s relentless onslaught across West Asia.

The arms company’s Hermes drones provided near-total aerial surveillance and target selection for attacks, and its AI-enabled Tzayad system identified more than 800,000 “targets” across Gaza and Lebanon in two years by the company’s own account.

The firm posted record profits throughout the genocide, boasting that its Tzayad system had flagged “up to or over half” of Gaza’s civilian population and infrastructure as targets while marketing its Gaza-used weapons to buyers as “battle-tested” to command a higher premium.

 

Por que a proibição das Bets é tão importante

6 October 2026 at 18:06

Na sexta-feira, dia 25 de setembro, às vésperas do primeiro turno das eleições, o presidente Lula assinou a Medida Provisória (MP) 1394, que proíbe a atuação das bets no país. A MP é uma vitória, ainda que venha tarde.

É apenas o começo de uma batalha jurídica e regulatória que irá se desenrolar no próximo mandato eleitoral, com papel central tanto do presidente eleito quanto dos demais parlamentares. Afinal, deputados e senadores compõem as comissões mistas que analisam as medidas provisórias, e, para virar lei, uma MP também precisa ser aprovada pela Câmara e pelo Senado. 

Aqui, quero enaltecer o papel fundamental que a cobertura jornalística da Agência Pública teve nessa decisão, e que minha colega Natália Viana detalha em sua coluna da semana passada.  

Que o vício em apostas – a ludopatia – tem um impacto grande na saúde da população, já está estabelecido, tanto em termos psicológicos quanto financeiros. Não são poucos os casos de pessoas que perdem bens materiais, se endividam e quebram relações familiares por causa das apostas.

O marido de uma amiga não tem celular desde o ano passado: foi a condição para que seguissem o relacionamento, depois de ele perder tudo o que tinham guardado e até vender o carro para seguir jogando. 

Rafael Borges Amaral, de 26 anos, perdeu a vida na batalha contra a ludopatia. A carta escrita por sua mãe, Vânia de Souza Borges, não foi ouvida pela CPI das Bets, mas alcançou o Brasil e ajudou a levantar a bandeira de muitas outras famílias pela proibição das apostas online.

A saúde das pessoas é muito mais importante do que qualquer impacto econômico. Antes de pensar no PIB ou na arrecadação tributária, é a vida que precisa ser colocada em primeiro plano. 

Então, mesmo se proibir as bets fosse ruim para a economia, seria a decisão acertada.

Mas este não é o caso. Para a economia do país, acabar com esses jogos é bastante benéfico.

Isso porque a renda que é absorvida pelas bets não retorna em mesmo volume para a economia do país. Ela é tirada de circulação, em grande parte apropriada pelas casas de aposta, muitas das quais nem no Brasil estão.

Então, além da renda que sai do bolso das famílias e prejudica suas contas diárias, a economia do país como um todo é afetada. 

Isso porque, quando alguém vai ao mercado e gasta dinheiro comprando um produto ou contratando um serviço, esse valor retorna em maior escala para a economia. É o que chamamos de efeito multiplicador. 

Por exemplo, se eu compro R$ 100 no mercadinho, estes R$ 100 viram a renda do comerciante. Ele, por sua vez, vai gastá-la, o que gera renda para outra pessoa, que também vai gastar, e assim por diante. No final, R$100 viram muito mais em atividade econômica. A roda da economia gira.  

Mas, se eu perco estes mesmos R$ 100 num cassino online, este dinheiro não comprou nada, não gerou demanda nenhuma. E a maior parte dele não vai retornar em prêmios, vai ser retida na casa de apostas.

Um estudo conduzido pelo professor Guilherme Klein para o Centro de Estudos de Macroeconomia das Desigualdades da Universidade de São Paulo (Made/USP) dimensionou o impacto das bets nesse movimento. 

A conta é a seguinte. O Centro Celso Furtado estimou que, em 2025, houve uma transferência bruta de R$ 62,5 bilhões para as plataformas de apostas. Ou seja, somando tudo o que foi apostado e redistribuído em prêmios, as bets ficaram com mais de 60 bilhões para si. 

Com esse número, o professor estimou alguns cenários diferentes, com hipóteses mais ou menos otimistas sobre o papel econômico do setor de apostas, e chegou numa perda total para a economia brasileira de algo entre R$ 90,9 bi e R$ 141 bilhões de reais – ou de 0,7 a 1,1% do PIB do nosso país.

De um terço a metade do crescimento da economia brasileira em 2025. Até cinco vezes mais do que o impacto estimado para o tarifaço americano. 

A própria Confederação Nacional do Comércio de Bens, Serviços e Turismo (CNC) estimou que o varejo sozinho deixou de faturar cerca de R$ 103 bilhões em 2024, devido ao direcionamento de recursos das pessoas para as bets.

Mesmo quando consideramos o ganho de arrecadação que a regulamentação das apostas trouxe, regular sai mais caro para o país do que proibir. No Estudo do Made, o efeito final é de uma redução entre R$ 14,6 bilhões e R$ 35,6 bilhões na arrecadação de impostos.

Isso sem nem considerar a elevação dos gastos em saúde pública para tratamento do vício em apostas. Conforme o Instituto de Estudos para Políticas de Saúde (IEPS), as bets geram um custo anual para o SUS de R$ 30,6 bilhões. 

No fim, a soma do jogo é clara. Com a proibição, ganham as pessoas, sua saúde mental e financeira, e a economia do país. Só perdem, mesmo, as casas de apostas – e os influenciadores que elas remuneram. 

A Lawmaker's Claim That 'Ukraine Is Losing' And Should Consider Compromise Sparks Debate

6 October 2026 at 17:41
A prominent lawmaker has sparked controversy by saying Ukraine is losing the war and should consider making controversial compromises with Moscow. An opposition party ejected Oleksiy Honcharenko from its parliamentary faction, but his remarks may fuel further debate amid relentless Russian attacks.

Germany accuses Russia of a drone bomb attempt at Leipzig. Now its eight biggest airports get drone detection

6 October 2026 at 16:23

The likely process of monitoring the airspace over airports connected to Germany’s new drone detection system. Photo: Deutsche Flugsicherung / Holger Matthies

Germany is expanding drone detection at its airports with a new system operated by German air traffic control provider Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS), the German Federal Ministry for Transport (BMV) announced on 5 October.

Germany has accused Russia of attempting a hybrid attack at Germany’s Leipzig/Halle Airport near a Ukrainian An-124 aircraft using a drone carrying explosives. Earlier, Finnish President Alexander Stubb said Europe must be prepared for “continued hybrid and sabotage attacks” by Russia, adding that Russia seeks to sow panic through such actions.

On Monday, two more sites were added—Stuttgart and Hamburg. As of Monday, seven of Germany’s eight largest airports were equipped with the new drone detection system in their approach and departure areas.

Germany seeks responses to new hybrid threats

The Federal Ministry cited the reason for the new measure: drones near airports can affect air traffic very quickly.

Federal Transport Minister Steffen Bilger and Baden-Württemberg Transport Minister Nicole Razavi were briefed on the new system at Stuttgart Airport, where it is being put into operation, the ministry said. The system creates “an important technical basis for detecting potential threats at an early stage and quickly informing the competent authorities,” Bilger said.

“With today’s commissioning of the drone detection system at Stuttgart Airport, the federal government is fulfilling a key promise: it is not only talking about the dangers posed by unmanned aircraft, but is also following through with very concrete action. Protecting critical infrastructure and ensuring the safety of passengers at Stuttgart Airport require continuous adaptation to a changing security situation,” Razavi said, according to the ministry.

The new DFS system allows drones near airports to be detected at an early stage and information about possible threats to air traffic to be passed more quickly to the relevant authorities. This helps them assess risks and respond to them more quickly, the statement said.

DFS is responsible for detecting drones in approach and departure areas, while the Federal Police and other security services are responsible for preventing threats and defending against drones. The BMV, Federal Ministry of the Interior, DFS, Federal Police and airports coordinate their work to exchange information quickly and maintain a shared picture of the situation.

No further details about how the system operates have been disclosed.

The first stage of the expansion at Germany’s eight major commercial airports will be fully implemented this week, with the systems in Stuttgart and Hamburg being put into operation, the statement said.

Illustrative image of a Russian drone. Photo: RIA Novosti/Konstantin Mikhalchevsky
Explore further

A drone came down beside a Bundeswehr air base, weeks after Berlin blamed Moscow for the Leipzig airport attack

The system will also be installed at the airport where a bomb-laden drone was found

The system will also be put into operation at Leipzig/Halle Airport this week, meaning that the first stage will be fully implemented at all eight of Germany’s largest commercial airports, according to the press release.

A quadcopter drone carrying a Semtex explosive flew directly toward a parked Ukrainian An-124 Ruslan cargo aircraft and struck its wing at Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany on the evening of 4 August, Die Zeit reported on 10 August. The drone hit the aircraft at around 19:30 local time, bounced off the wing, and fell to the ground without detonating, according to the media outlet.

Ukrainian An-124 at Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany, 5 August 2026. Photo: screenshot from Bild video
Ukrainian An-124 at Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany, 5 August 2026. Photo: screenshot from Bild video

Germany has accused Russia of attempting the drone attack and announced further sanctions against Russian citizens and institutions, Tagesschau reported on 1 September.

At the crime scene, investigators found the drone configuration, explosives and detonation technology that had already appeared in other Russian hybrid operations and in Russia’s war against Ukraine, Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said during a joint press conference with Federal Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, the media outlet reported.

The German government assumes that Germany has been and will be a target of further such Russian attacks. Germany is not at war with Russia but is a “target of war,” Foreign Minister Wadephul said, according to the outlet.

TOP SECRET Interview 1: 9/11 & 10/7 AWFUL Intel’s FALSE-FLAG Plots. Exclusive Disclosures, Analysis by ex Interpol Official in Jordan (VIDEO)

8 October 2026 at 09:49

introduction by Gospa News Editorial Staff

9/11 & 10/7 AWFUL FALSE-FLAG Intel Plots

VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

Originally posted on October, 7, 2026 – updated on October, 8, 2026

As the tragic anniversary of October 7, 2023, approaches —the day Hamas terrorists massacred Israelis near the Gaza Strip border, triggering the genocide in Palestine perpetrated by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Zionist regime —we are publishing an exclusive intelligence analysis.

This video marks the launch of a new Gospa News series titled “TOP SECRET Interview” by Fabio G.C. Carisio—founder and director of Gospa News—which will also be republished on the long-standing American site VT UnCensored Foreign Policy (where Carisio hosts a column).

This features an interview with Antonio Evangelista, a top Italian police official and counter-terrorism expert who spent seven years as Interpol official in Jordan, and who is now an author of geopolitical essayes and novels concerning international intrigue.

He confirms that the recent attack in the Holy Land—like the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York—was a horrific “false flag” operations…

A “false flag” operation is one carefully premeditated over a long period by a foreign intelligence entity to implicate an enemy nation and discredit it in the eyes of global public opinion. It is planned down to the finest detail, carrying the risk of causing actual casualties.

In fact, if unforeseen “collateral damage”—such as unexpected deaths beyond the planned injuries or killings—occurs during the operation, the orchestrators are even more pleased, as the resulting bloodshed lends greater credibility to the terrorist attack.

Historically, the CIA (US counter-intelligence) and Mossad (Israeli counter-intelligence) have been recognized masters of such plots, occasionally utilizing partners such as the secret services of other nations or terrorist groups.

QUESTIONS ON WESTERN INTELLIGENCE AND TERRORISM by the Director of GOSPA NEWS

In the video, the former Interpol official answers the following questions by Gospa News director Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio:

  1. Are the recent alleged terrorist incidents involving the FlyDubai flight and the British RAF airbase at Fairford “false flag” operations?
  2. What parallels exist between the plots of September 11 in New York and October 7, 2023, in Israel?
  3. What has been the historical strategy of Western intelligence agencies regarding terrorist actions by Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Hamas?
  4. What drives Western governments to support bloody “colonial ventures,” thereby legitimizing genocides in the Middle East and Ukraine?
  5. What lies regarding NATO wars in the Mediterranean basin are exposed in your historical, geopolitical, and economic study?
  6. Do US, Europe and Italy face a real risk of a world war?

No summary today. If you want to hear the answers, watch the video to the end.

Below the video, you will find links to the major investigations mentioned in the footage.

VIDEO INTERVIEW to ANTONIO EVANGELISTA – Former Interpol official in Jordan

RELATED INVESTIGATIONS AND POSTS

Ex CIA Analysts: “FlyDubai and RAF Fairford Attacks like FALSE-FLAGs” (7 Videos). Waiting for OCTOBER, 7 MOSSAD Plot’s Anniversary…

“PRIESTS vs GENOCIDE, DOMINANT ZIONISM and ARMED BANKS“. Eroic Homily by Italian Archbishop in the Feast of Saint Pio vs WARLORDS of Death

“The NEW SYRIA of TERRORIST CALIPHATE”. Exclusive Analysis on HTS Leader Al Jolani by Former Italian INTERPOL Officer in Jordan

FREEMASONRY & ZIONISM – 4. How SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN was LICENSED to KILL! It arose from Conspiracy behind the Heretical Catholic text “Nostra Aetate”

“NATO’s LIES ON MEDITERRANEAN WARS FOR GAS”. Exclusive Interview to Former Interpol EU Officer

EUROPE’S CALIPHATE: THE JIHAD ARMED BY SAUDIS AND CIA

Trump, an ARMS TRAFFICKER between two AL QAEDA BUTCHERS. Exclusive Investigation on 40 years of CIA Plots with Jihadists to trigger Obama-Soros-Nato Arab Spring

US Researchers: “Investors may have had Prior Knowledge of Hamas Attack on Israel”

Update – INTEL DROP by CIA ex Agent: Hamas-Israel Fighting, likelihood “False Flag” to Wipe Gaza Off the Map. Warnings by Egypt Ignored

Declassified Guantanamo Court Filing Suggests some 9/11 Hijackers were CIA Agents

9/11 – The Avoidable Massacre Allowed by CIA. Helped Al Qaeda in Balkans, Obstructed FBI Investigations. Tribute to John O’Neill Killed in the Towers

Turkish papers: 21 Erdogan’s jihadist militias supported by Cia, Pentagon and armed with TOW missiles

The Grim NATO’S JIHADs. How Atlantic Intelligence “14 Eyes” uses ISLAMIC TERRORISTS: from Italy to Libya, Ukraine and Syria

“Jihadist Terrorist Danger in the West”. Due to Israeli Genocide on Gaza & its Gas Affairs! Interpol Officer reveals in Exclusive Interview


 

AI machine-gun turrets do battle with Russian jet drones for the skies of Kyiv (Ukraine Battlefield update, Day 1,685)

6 October 2026 at 14:00
  • Russia continues to pressure cities, while the first autonomous counter-drone turrets have been deployed in Kyiv.
  • Ukraine is maintaining pressure on Russia’s oil industry, reporting that it has disabled 51 percent of refinery capacity.
  • Russia still sees a large pocket of encircled Ukrainians in Kharkiv region, but no such pocket exists.
  • Ukraine says it destroyed a Russian Su-34 and Su-35 on the ground. Satellite imagery provides no clear evidence.
  • Maps of the day – Kharkiv region
  • Videos of the day – intense trench fighting; Russians shot down a balloon carrying an FPV drone; Russia has revived the idea of a barrage of tethered balloons; ground drones repelled an FPV drone attack using a counter-drone net – views from both sides.

Russia continues to pressure cities. Ukraine has begun testing AI-controlled machine-gun turrets in them. The new autonomous weapon is intended to protect key sites from drone attacks, typically bridges and similar infrastructure. Air force spokesperson Yuri Ihnat said on Monday that the AI turrets, which receive information from other air-defence components, had achieved their first shoot-downs, including of Geran-5 drones.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky reported on Saturday, before Ihnat’s announcement, that 12 turrets of the kind shown in the military video below had been installed in the capital by that date. Another eight are planned.

They are armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun, which is not effective against a Geran flying high and fast, but becomes effective during the final phase of its flight, when it comes within the weapon’s range. The soldier in the footage said 50 rounds were sufficient to shoot down a Geran with AI assistance.

AI is entering Ukraine’s air-defense fight — and it is already helping shoot down Russia’s jet-powered Shaheds.

Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat said AI-assisted turrets using machine vision have already successfully engaged Russian Geran-5 jet-powered UAVs.

“I was a big… pic.twitter.com/zixvpliQuN

— Army Media 🇺🇦 (@armyinformcomua) October 5, 2026

Details of the turrets’ precise deployment are, understandably, not yet known. However, both Russian and Ukrainian sources commented on them in interesting ways. Ukrainian expert Anatoliy Khrapchynskyi told the NV website, among other things, about the risk that fully autonomous turrets pose to civilians. Serhii Beskrestnov was the first to warn about it on Monday: “I warn you that, for your own safety, you should not stand by windows during an air-raid alert.”

Khrapchynskyi noted that this rule has applied to any weapon since the start of the war. People should not stand by windows during air raids precisely because air defences or debris from downed weapons can damage buildings and injure people. There is a two-wall rule: if you cannot get to a shelter, hide somewhere in your flat protected from a potential blast by two walls, such as in a corridor.

“This does not mean that robotic turrets will fire at windows. They will target moving aerial targets, but they could hit civilian infrastructure,” Khrapchynskyi conceded.

The Russian Telegram channel Two Majors complained that while Ukraine was already using AI turrets in practice, and although promising projects of the same kind existed in Russia, bureaucracy and high costs were holding back their introduction into service.

The same Russian source was among those that published a video showing an entire bridge across the Dnipro in Kyiv being wrapped in a counter-drone net.

But after several days in which Russian Gerans targeted only Kyiv’s bridges, they attacked Zaporizhzhia in the same way overnight from Monday to Tuesday. Russia injured five city residents, including two Red Cross workers, and halted or restricted traffic on several bridges in Zaporizhzhia, causing traffic jams in the city during the morning.

Zaporizhzhia lies about 30 km from the front and is a natural supply route for fighting units. Taking the bridges out of action would create a serious logistical complication, but the same applies as in Kyiv: their complete destruction is unlikely. Russia will also be satisfied with constant attacks causing minor damage, but sufficient to halt traffic.

A bridge across the Dnipro in city of 🇺🇦 #Zaporizhzhia bombed by 🇷🇺 during the night
There are victims pic.twitter.com/wTFl60IA1o

— C4H10FO2P ☠️ (@markito0171) October 6, 2026

Among other sites hit by Russian weapons was one of the hospitals in Kryvyi Rih, which was struck by two missiles. Two people were injured during the air raid.

Ukraine is maintaining pressure on Russia’s oil industry, reporting that it has disabled 51 percent of refinery capacity. “More than half of the enemy’s capacity has been taken out of operation. This is the result of carefully planned, methodical and systematic work aimed at exhausting Russia’s war machine and destroying its military-economic potential,” new minister Yevhen Khmara said.

His statement cannot currently be verified, but footage of another fire at oil infrastructure in Russia emerged on Tuesday morning. It was at the Volodarskaya production and distribution centre in Moscow region. It lies just under 40 km southeast of central Moscow in a straight line, and its premises contain a large oil depot. It is also a pipeline junction through which fuel flows to Moscow, including aviation fuel for Moscow’s airports.

Ukrainian attack drones successfully struck Russia's Volodarskaya LPDS tonight, a major storage and distribution hub supplying jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline for the Russian capital, Moscow.

Seen here, the facility burns. pic.twitter.com/bmtqTUD6xF

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) October 6, 2026

Ukraine says it destroyed a Russian Su-34 and Su-35 on the ground. Satellite imagery provides no clear evidence. The attack targeted Khanskaya airfield in Krasnodar region, from which a training unit normally operates.

The incident took place over the weekend. Satellite images showing clear traces of explosions and fire appeared relatively quickly, but it is not possible to identify what exploded and burned.

The usual Russian source, Fighterbomber, did not comment on the matter at all.

📍Satellite imagery of the aftermath of the UAV attack on "Khanskaya" airfield.

1× Su-34;
1× Su-35S.

Source: @avivector https://t.co/fYZej288A8 pic.twitter.com/CU6JD9ft22

— Oko Gora (@oko_gora_tg) October 4, 2026

Russia still sees a large pocket of encircled Ukrainians in Kharkiv region, but no such pocket exists. The image below shows a map of the part of Kharkiv region where active military operations are under way. It was produced by the Russian defence ministry and shown by Two Majors on its Telegram account.

Alongside the image, the same source again cited Kremlin claims in listing alleged Russian successes in this sector: “In the Kharkiv direction, the Northern Group of Forces reported further advances. In the Lyptsi sector, our troops advanced near Tokarivka and captured several enemy strongpoints. In the Vovchansk and Velykyi Burluk directions, advances were reported in the areas of Prykolotne, Kotivka, Varvarivka, Reznikove, Mykolaivka, and Annopil.”

We have already written in Ukraine Battlefield update that no pocket exists, and that Ukrainian and independent sources follow the northern part of the front only marginally, because far less is happening there than Russia claims.

Among respected OSINT projects, Playfra most recently covered this battlefield on Saturday. The first map from this source shows the section of the front located at the top right of the Russian map. This is where the alleged encirclement is supposed to be, which various Russian sources have been reporting for almost a month.

The fighting here consists of Russian infiltration attempts, which are “chaotic and unorganised”. Playfra unequivocally rejects any encirclement.

Bilyi Kolodyaz-Velykyi Burluk directions.

No particular changes.
The Russians continue infiltration attempts to encircle Ukrainian units in the Dehtiarne salient, though, once again, for now there is definitely no encirclement of the Ukrainians here.
Russian infiltrations remain… https://t.co/ZlzDhwdMDh pic.twitter.com/GZz4lHkxSp

— Playfra (@Playfra0) October 4, 2026

The following map from Playfra shows the same section of the battlefield as that seen in the Russian defence ministry’s version. The gap between reality and Russia’s claimed successes here is among the largest along the entire front, from Sumy to Kherson:

For comparison, the same area according to Finland’s Black Bird Group:

And according to the Russian project Slivochny Kapriz, which is relatively reliable. In all cases, Kharkiv is at the bottom left and the village of Dihtiarne, directly on the Ukrainian-Russian border, is at the top right:

Three-quarters of Ukrainians support peace talks. In the second half of September, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology asked respondents whether they supported peace negotiations with Russia.

Exactly three-quarters — 75 percent — said they supported peace talks, 21 percent were against, and the remainder could not give a definite answer. This was virtually identical to the result in February 2025, when 74 percent of respondents answered the same question positively.

This is also shown by the Kyiv polling agency’s graph, whose analysts stressed that willingness to negotiate does not equal willingness to accept Russian terms.

Views on who will win the war have shifted more significantly. As the next graph shows, the difference between February 2025 and September 2026 is again almost zero, but there has been a significant change compared with July this year.

At the beginning of the summer, 60 percent of Ukrainians were certain they would win the war (dark blue), while 25 percent considered it more likely than not. Now, only 47 percent are certain, but 79 percent of respondents in total still expect a Ukrainian victory.

The change was probably driven by optimism in July, when Crimea was almost completely isolated and a successful campaign of medium-range strikes began. Although it continues, the one-off shift in public mood has since returned to its original level.

There have been minimal changes in views on how long Ukrainians are prepared to fight. The largest group — 62 percent — said (dark blue) they were prepared to do so for as long as necessary. Four percent (light blue) said one year, while 23 percent (orange) said they could endure only a few more months. However, the number who say resistance should continue for only months has fluctuated around 20 percent for more than two years.

Videos of the day

Videos like this were common in 2023. It is unclear when this one was made, because the prevailing nature of the fighting is different today. The Ukrainian squad in the footage clears Russian trenches.

In the more than seven-minute recording, views from the ground alternate with those from a reconnaissance drone hovering above the battlefield, which gave the Ukrainians an overview of the enemy. The fighting is confused, but the basic orientation is simple: Ukrainians with green identification markings attack from right to left.

Full video.

Original combat POV footage documenting a tactical operation to clear fortified positions in a contested tree line. The video shows real-time close-quarters maneuvers, tactical coordination, and direct trench combat.

The coordination between the infantry and the… https://t.co/4BxTfnwdwu pic.twitter.com/5olByLJ2li

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱 🦩🇬🇪🇺🇦🇺🇲🇬🇷 (@TheDeadDistrict) October 5, 2026

A Russian drone destroyed a balloon carrying a Ukrainian FPV drone beneath it. Ukraine is trying to use favourable wind currents in this way to extend the range of its small drones, which can then operate deeper in the Russian rear.

Video of a Ukrainian FPV carried by a balloon intercepted by Russia’s 50th Varyag Unmanned Systems Brigade.https://t.co/2Xb9UZGyRV https://t.co/L0waDkbokK pic.twitter.com/ir5FbmUTXP

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) October 5, 2026

Twenty-first-century warfare in Moscow. A Russian soldier with a man-portable air-defence system shot down a Ukrainian drone by firing over a busy road.

Russian channels have released previously unseen footage from a drone attack on Moscow-area refineries.

The footage reportedly shows a mobile air-defense team using 9K38 Igla-series MANPADS engaging a Ukrainian FP/Liuity-type drone moments before it struck an oil storage… pic.twitter.com/9dJXPTZ6XG

— SILENT BRIEF (@SilentBriefHQ1) October 5, 2026

Tethered balloons saw their greatest use during the Second World War, when they were deployed by armies on both sides. Balloon barrages protected London in the summer of 1940 and the Normandy landing fleet in June 1944, as well as German cities.

The principle was the same as in this Russian propaganda video. Balloons tethered to the ground by cables floated above cities and militarily important targets to prevent enemy aircraft from flying low. Ideally, they would hit the cables and crash. This principle may now be applied against drones.

👀 Russia has begun producing aerostats to protect oil refineries from drones.

Similar aerostats were actively used during World War I. pic.twitter.com/H3h8HQykqX

— MAKS 26 🇺🇦👀 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) October 4, 2026

A Russian FPV drone was targeting a Ukrainian unmanned ground vehicle. Just before impact, it successfully deployed a defensive launchable net.

Footage from a Russian FPV drone shows it diving toward a Ukrainian unmanned ground vehicle. Moments before impact, the UGV fires an anti-drone net from its rear section, catching and bringing down the attacking FPV. pic.twitter.com/MednUTUs45

— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) October 3, 2026

This was not an isolated case. Another video from a different location shows a similar situation, but this time from the perspective of a camera on the ground drone.

Se me acaban las palabras para describir esto.

Las imágenes proporcionadas por la cámara instalada en un sistema terrestre no tripulado ucraniano 🇺🇦 muestran su sistema de red anti-drones “KARAKURT” funcionando en condiciones reales de combate.

El robot terrestre ucraniano 🇺🇦,… pic.twitter.com/xgJ1YiNbkQ

— SergioLR🪖 (@CasetaBosque) October 3, 2026

What are the losses

No update on Tuesday.

  • By Monday (5 October), Russia had verifiably lost 24,170 pieces of heavy equipment (24,138 on Tuesday, 22 September). Of these, Ukraine destroyed 19,133 (19,105), 1,003 (1,000) were damaged, crews abandoned 1,194 (1,194), and the Ukrainian army captured 2,840 (2,839). This includes 4,452 (4,448) tanks, of which 3,357 (3,353) were destroyed in combat.
  • Ukraine lost 12,238 (12,175) pieces of equipment, of which 9,633 (9,579) were destroyed, 711 (702) damaged, 695 (695) abandoned and 1,199 (1,199) captured. This includes 1,466 (1,464) tanks, of which 1,126 (1,125) were destroyed in combat.

Note: Neither side regularly reports its fatalities or destroyed equipment. Ukraine publishes daily figures for Russian casualties and destroyed equipment, which cannot be independently verified. This overview uses data from the Oryx project, which has compiled a list of equipment losses documented exclusively by photographs since the beginning of the war.

Proven on Ukraine’s front line, now made in Germany. National Guard signs for the Linza and Zoom drones

6 October 2026 at 13:30

Ukrainian Linza bomber drone. 2024. Ukraine. Photo: Frontline

National Guard commander Major General Oleksandr Pivnenko signed a follow-on contract with Quantum Frontline Industries managing director Matthias Lehna and Frontline Robotics chief technology officer and co-founder Pavlo Kosolapkin to build two Ukrainian drones in Germany, Quantum Systems said on 5 October. The deal covers the Linza strike drone and the Zoom reconnaissance drone, exceeds the volume of the 2026 agreement, and schedules delivery for 2027.

The order scales up a line that is already running. Quantum Frontline Industries' first production year remains on track for completion in 2026, it has already delivered its first drones to Ukraine's Defense Forces, and it is now preparing to increase production capacity fivefold for next year, Quantum Systems said.

German plants, Ukrainian designs

Quantum Frontline Industries is a German-Ukrainian joint venture of Frontline Robotics and Quantum Systems. Both the Linza and the Zoom come from Frontline Robotics, and the systems are manufactured in Germany for Ukraine.

spiegel german drone tech meets ukraine’s frontline reality — battlefield feedback rewrites blueprints company quantum systems' vector 1920x1080_vector_bg02 only months russia's full-scale invasion 2022 german-made reconnaissance helped ukraine destroy russian
Explore further

German defense firm has made Ukraine its second-largest international base

Linza 3.0 carries up to 4 kg of payload out to 15 km and stays aloft up to 60 minutes, and it is already in service with more than 60 Ukrainian units, Frontline Robotics has said. Zoom 3.0 detects targets, fixes their coordinates, and corrects fire under active Russian jamming, the company told Militarnyi. It loiters for up to an hour and works at a tactical radius of up to 20 km. AI-driven navigation and autonomous operation over the target keep its data flowing even when standard radio links break down.

From ramp-up to serial production

Quantum Frontline Industries said the contract moves it from initial production ramp-up toward sustained, high-volume manufacturing. Kosolapkin told Militarnyi the firm keeps refining Linza and Zoom on feedback from Ukrainian troops, whose needs drive how the systems evolve, and that producing in Germany gives it extra capacity to scale Ukraine-proven designs and deliver them in larger volumes.

The Unforeseen Something

6 October 2026 at 11:00
family portrait of three outside a home with a brick wall and light-colored front door

Mark Johnson | The Atavist Magazine | September 2026 | 2,048 words (7 minutes)

This is an excerpt from issue no. 180, “The Family Plan.”


At first she told no one. Not her twin sister. Not her mother. Not even her father the scientist.

Six-year-old Jenna Smith knew better than to pee when she was in the bath. But on that night in 1992, in her family’s home in Iowa City, the water felt so comfortable against her skin that she didn’t want to get out of the tub. It seemed like such a small thing. Who would know?

Seconds later the water around her waist turned reddish pink. Blood? It had to be. Jenna wondered if she’d hurt herself. “I was six years old sitting in a bathtub, watching a few seconds of my world stop making sense,” she would recall years later.

The Atavist, our sister publication, publishes one deeply reported, elegantly designed story each month. Support The Atavist by becoming a member.

She kept the blood a secret because she didn’t want to admit that she’d peed in the bath. But when it was still in her urine the next time she used the toilet, she went to her mother. Concerned, her mom called her dad, Richard Smith, and he took Jenna to the emergency room.

Richard was an ear, nose, and throat doctor in the University of Iowa’s school of medicine, a researcher who would become one of the world’s authorities on the genetics of hearing loss. His wife, Lynne Lanning, had worked as both a lawyer and a nurse. They had four young children: twins Jenna and Jessica, who were identical, and two boys, Luke and Rion.

At the ER, doctors ran tests on Jenna, but they couldn’t identify the cause of the blood. In the days that followed the bleeding intensified. At her parents’ urging, Jenna collected samples of her urine in Dixie cups for further testing. The doctors remained stumped, however, and after a while Jenna found the whole thing more annoying than worrisome.

The uncertainty was much harder on her parents. It wasn’t that doctors were misdiagnosing their daughter; they were unable to diagnose her at all. “It was horrible,” Richard said. “Imagine seeing your child and you know something is wrong, and you know the doctors treating her have no clue what to do.” Richard called a pediatric nephrologist he knew in Houston, where the family had lived previously. The nephrologist listed several conditions that could be causing the bleeding and said that, to determine which was to blame, Jenna’s parents should take her to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

In July 1992, Richard, Lynne, and Jenna drove nearly 500 miles to get answers. Doctors in Cincinnati diagnosed Jenna with dense deposit disease, a condition in which proteins clog and damage the kidneys, leading to renal failure in many patients. There was no cure.

The hospital couldn’t tell the family much else—no one could. The disease was exceedingly rare, afflicting between one and three people in a million. Back home, Richard and Lynne spent hours inside the University of Iowa’s quiet medical library, poring over papers in search of information about their daughter’s illness. They could find no evidence that anyone was actively studying the condition.

Although many Americans—roughly one in ten—suffer from a rare disease, the experience can be lonely. Friends and relatives don’t understand the unique miseries such illnesses impose on daily life. Few doctors are likely to have encountered them before. And because there aren’t many patients, drug companies usually don’t invest in research for treatments.

Richard and Lynne feared that their daughter’s life might be tragically brief. Sometimes the mention of weddings would sink Lynne into melancholy; she couldn’t bring herself to watch the movie Father of the Bride. Richard agonized over what to do. His training compelled him to seek answers, but he wanted to be Jenna’s father, not the scientist charged with curing her. He kept his research focused on hearing loss. At first, anyway.

Stories of scientific discovery almost always celebrate individual researchers, consigning the contributions of loved ones, communities, and colleagues to footnotes. There are exceptions―the teams that built the first atomic bomb and deciphered the human genome, for instance. Science also has its share of famous families. Marie and Pierre Curie, along with their daughter Irène and her husband, Frédéric, won five Nobel Prizes between them for discoveries related to radioactivity. For the most part, however, the history of scientific progress has been mythologized as a succession of brilliant, driven individuals—often men—who chose the lab over the dinner table and competition over collaboration.

Some scientists have embraced the role of maverick. “You have to worry about your own work and ignore what everyone else is doing,” the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman is said to have told a colleague. The decades-long pursuit of a treatment for Jenna’s disease followed a very different path. There was no single hero, no lone scientist seeking glory. The biomedical quest required the efforts of a family and their neighbors in Iowa City, and the work of scientists around the globe. Together they changed an obscure area of medicine.

Richard and Lynne met in 1977, when both were working at Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston—she as a nurse, he as a medical intern. He noticed a run in her nylons and was smitten by her smile. She liked his down-to-earth manner and intelligence, his humor and kindness. They were working in the hospital’s burn unit when he asked her out.

The couple married in 1981, and except for two years in England, they remained in Houston until 1990. That December they moved to Iowa City, where Richard had a job waiting for him leading the pediatric otolaryngology division and running a research lab at the University of Iowa’s medical school. They had been there only a year when Jenna got sick.

Richard and Lynne learned that their daughter’s disease was caused by a malfunction in her complement system. Believed to have evolved long before other parts of our immune infrastructure, the complement system sends proteins to battle foreign invaders. Unlike antibodies, these proteins are not tailored to fight a specific virus or bacteria, but they kick into gear faster when a threat is detected. In people with Jenna’s condition, the complement system is like a runaway train: Proteins become overstimulated and then accumulate in the glomeruli, tiny filters the kidneys use to clear waste from blood.

Blood in the urine is one symptom of the disease. Others include swelling, high blood pressure, inflammation, and fatigue. When Jenna was in the first grade, her body struggled to make growth hormones. Her production of red blood cells slowed, and she grew increasingly tired. During rehearsals for The Nutcracker ballet around Christmas 1993, she’d finish her part and then lie down backstage, completely spent.

Doctors put her on a heavy dose of the steroid prednisone and on blood-pressure medication. The prednisone caused her body to retain water. She woke up each morning with her eyes swollen shut, then waited in bed until the swelling receded. She couldn’t fit into her clothes or shoes. She wore flip-flops and roomy jumpers Lynne sewed for her.

As twins, Jenna and Jessica had always been close. They played together, made up songs and dance moves, explored the woods near their home, and enjoyed pranking friends and family members. “She made a lot of things feel not so heavy,” Jenna said of her sister. Still, she sometimes thought that Jessica “got off scot-free” by not having dense deposit disease. Neither girl liked feeling different from the other. (Years later, Jessica would be diagnosed with type-1 diabetes; Jenna would not.)

The changes to Jenna’s appearance meant the girls were no longer identical. Once, according to Lynne, when a boy at school said that Jenna couldn’t be a twin anymore because of how she looked, Jessica slugged him. Lynne recalled sitting in the principal’s office, politely listening to a lecture—this is not the way we resolve things!—but understanding why Jessica had lashed out. Nothing was so frightening to her daughters as the idea that they’d stop being twins.

About half of those afflicted with Jenna’s disease progressed to kidney failure within a decade of diagnosis; it took her less than a year. She made it through the last day of first grade. Then, as other children departed for summer camp, she went to a clinic. While her classmates practiced archery and did arts and crafts, she learned about the catheter doctors would surgically insert in her body. Through that tube, a machine would pump fluid into her abdomen, where her peritoneum—her abdominal lining—would take over the filtering function kidneys usually perform.

She would take the peritoneal dialysis machine home with her and use it every day for the foreseeable future, possibly for the rest of her life. When a nurse tried to take Lynne aside to show her how to operate it, Jenna stopped her. “I’m the patient,” the seven-year-old insisted. “I’m learning how to run the machine.”

In such moments, Lynne was surprised at the strength she drew from her daughter. She needed it. Her grief could leave her feeling drained. One day she found herself crying into the soil as she gardened.

But Lynne and Richard were determined that sadness would not define their lives. For a long time, they didn’t have a TV in their house—they wanted the family to talk when they were together, and for the children to build forts, learn to sew, be creative. They had painting nights, creating portraits of one another. There were cooking contests, too. Richard and Lynne made sure to spend one-on-one time with each kid. Richard traveled with Luke to Japan, with Rion to the Grand Canyon, with Jessica to Italy, and with Jenna to England. Lynne took trips with the children to Brazil, England, and Guatemala. There were themed birthday celebrations: a James Bond party for Richard, where everyone was armed with Nerf guns, and one for Lynne where Richard dressed as the artist Bob Ross and the guests painted “happy little clouds.” Richard coached the kids’ hockey and soccer teams. He built harps and lyres from scratch, and Lynne played them.

Every day, Richard left for work at 5 a.m., while the children were still in bed. He returned around six at night. The family joked that they could hear him coming from half a mile away in his rust-bucket Isuzu Trooper with the bad muffler and a hole in the passenger footwell. When he wasn’t seeing patients or in surgery, Richard was in the lab. On Saturdays, Luke would go there with him. Sometimes the other kids joined. They liked to refill the communal candy jars and visit the mice used in experiments.

It seemed a wonder to the lab’s staff that Richard squeezed so much into a day. When they began using email to communicate, they received messages from him time-stamped three or four in the morning. “Why don’t you sleep sometime?” a colleague replied once. Indeed, Richard slept little. At night his mind kept running through the mysteries of his daughter’s disease.

Richard had read that it took 10,000 hours—the equivalent of working full-time for about five years—to achieve expertise in a subject. He believed it. In 1995, he began flying to conferences about kidney disease, where he talked to the few doctors who cared for patients like Jenna. Medicine was getting no closer to finding a treatment.

That year the owner of a ranch where Richard and Lynne’s children took riding lessons offered to host a fundraiser for kidney disease research. The family organized Dressage in the Heartland, which featured riding events, fiddle music, and bowls of chili. After raising upwards of $10,000 for the National Kidney Foundation, they held the event again the following year. There are hundreds of kidney ailments, however, and the foundation didn’t allow the money the family raised to be earmarked for the research of dense deposit disease. (The foundation said it now allows monetary gifts to be dedicated to specific conditions.)

Richard and Lynne ran into more disappointment during a visit to the University of Minnesota in early 1997. A specialist they consulted was blunt. “Nobody is looking at this disease,” he told them. “And barring something unforeseen, nothing will be done in the next twenty years.”

It was a four-and-a-half-hour drive back to Iowa City. In the car, Lynne brought up what the doctor had said. Maybe they would have to be that unforeseen something.

Ukrainian Drones Hit Key Moscow Fuel Hub as Pressure on Russian Energy Network Widens

6 October 2026 at 10:03

A large fire has broken out at the Volodarskaya petroleum-products station outside Moscow following an extensive overnight drone attack. The facility occupies an important position in the pipeline network supplying petrol, diesel and aviation fuel to the Russian capital and its principal airports.

A major fire was reported at the Volodarskaya linear production and dispatch station in Moscow region early on Tuesday, bringing Ukraine’s campaign against Russian fuel infrastructure to another important point in the capital’s supply network.

Footage published from the area around Konstantinovo showed a substantial blaze at the facility, with reports from local residents that storage tanks were burning. The material identified the site as the Volodarskaya station, operated by Transneft-Upper Volga and connected to the petroleum-products network serving the Moscow region.

The extent of the damage was not immediately clear. There had been no detailed assessment from Transneft by Tuesday morning establishing whether pumping equipment, pipelines or only storage facilities had been affected. This distinction will determine whether the attack produces a temporary disruption or a more significant problem for Moscow’s fuel distribution system.

The strike formed part of a large overnight drone attack on Moscow and surrounding districts. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin reported repeated interceptions of drones approaching the capital, while air-defence activity continued across Moscow region. Russian aviation authorities temporarily restricted operations at Vnukovo, Domodedovo, Sheremetyevo and Zhukovsky airports for flight-safety reasons.

There is no evidence at this stage that the airport restrictions resulted from fuel shortages. They were imposed during the drone attack itself. The longer-term significance of Volodarskaya lies instead in the station’s role within the pipeline and storage infrastructure serving the Russian capital.

A major link in Moscow’s fuel network

Volodarskaya is connected to Moscow’s ring petroleum-products pipeline, through which petrol, diesel and aviation kerosene can be moved between refineries, storage facilities and major consumers.

Its importance is documented by Transneft itself. In 2024, the company said it had returned a 32-kilometre petroleum-products pipeline between the Moscow refinery and Volodarskaya to operation as part of a project to increase fuel deliveries across Moscow region.

According to the company’s figures, the project allowed aviation-fuel deliveries to Moscow’s airports to rise almost twofold, to as much as three million tonnes a year. Potential diesel deliveries to Moscow region consumers increased to 2.8 million tonnes annually, while petrol volumes reached 1.6 million tonnes. Transneft specifically identified Vnukovo, Domodedovo and Sheremetyevo as airports supplied through the expanded system.

Transneft has also expanded storage at Volodarskaya. The company previously said it had commissioned additional petroleum-product tanks at the station to support fuel supplies to Moscow and aviation-fuel transportation to the capital’s airports.

Those figures do not mean that every litre of fuel consumed by Moscow depends on Volodarskaya. Russia can move petroleum products by rail and road, and the Moscow region has other storage and distribution facilities. But replacing pipeline volumes on the scale handled by the Moscow system would place additional demands on those alternatives, particularly if disruption were prolonged.

The attack also follows repeated Ukrainian strikes against refining infrastructure supplying European Russia. On 20 September, EU Today reported that a mass drone attack had hit the Moscow Oil Refinery at Kapotnya, one of the main fuel-processing plants serving the capital. The strike reportedly affected its ELOU-AVT-6 primary processing unit, increasing pressure on a refinery that had already been targeted earlier in the year.

The broader campaign has moved beyond individual refineries. Ukraine has increasingly targeted different stages of Russia’s energy system, including storage depots, pumping infrastructure, ports and export terminals. Earlier attacks on the Omsk refinery and Baltic export infrastructure illustrated Kyiv’s effort to put pressure on both domestic fuel processing and the logistics through which Russian oil reaches international markets.

That approach is intended to force Russia to repair several parts of the system simultaneously rather than simply compensate for the temporary loss of production at one refinery. EU Today has previously examined how sustained strikes can put physical pressure on Russia’s oil economy where sanctions alone have limits.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 3 October that Ukraine intended to intensify attacks on Russian oil refineries in response to Moscow’s continuing strikes against Ukrainian cities, while maintaining that Ukrainian operations would not deliberately target civilians.

Volodarskaya adds another element to that campaign. A refinery converts crude oil into usable fuels; a pumping and storage station determines how those products reach consumers. Damaging one without the other may create disruption that can be bypassed. Sustained damage to both processing and distribution infrastructure is more difficult to compensate for.

Much therefore depends on what happened inside Volodarskaya overnight. If the damage is confined to several storage tanks, the Moscow fuel network may be able to absorb the loss. Damage to pumping installations or pipeline connections would have wider consequences, particularly if the facility is attacked repeatedly.

The strike nevertheless demonstrates that a fuel installation closely connected to Moscow’s aviation and transport system can be reached despite the dense air-defence network surrounding the capital. The scale of its effect will become clearer once satellite imagery and operational information show which parts of the Volodarskaya complex were actually damaged.

From Bucha to Ukraine’s Stolen Children: Britain Demands Russia be Held to Account for War Crimes

6 October 2026 at 09:55

Britain has vowed that Russia will be held accountable for alleged war crimes committed during its invasion of Ukraine, as evidence continues to accumulate of torture, disappearances, executions and the deportation of Ukrainian children.

Speaking at the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference, James Ford, the UK’s Deputy Ambassador to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), warned that more than four years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, the suffering of Ukrainian civilians showed little sign of abating.

The British intervention was notable not simply for its condemnation of Moscow, but for its emphasis on ensuring that evidence is preserved for future prosecutions.

According to the UK Government, more than 260,000 alleged war crimes have now been recorded. Britain says it will continue working with Ukraine to document violations and support international mechanisms intended to pursue those responsible.

Evidence gathered by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the United Nations and expert missions operating under the OSCE’s Moscow Mechanism paints a grim picture.

Investigators have recorded accounts of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment, conflict-related sexual violence and what Britain described as fabricated prosecutions of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war.

Particularly disturbing is the fate of Ukrainian children. International investigators have documented the unlawful transfer and deportation of children from Ukraine, together with attempts to alter their identities and subject them to programmes of militarisation and indoctrination. Reports have also detailed alleged executions, sexual violence and widespread mistreatment of Ukrainian prisoners of war.

These are allegations that reach considerably further than the brutality inevitable in any major war. Taken collectively, they raise fundamental questions about the systematic conduct of Russian forces and authorities in occupied Ukrainian territory.

Bucha and Irpin remain synonymous with the horrors uncovered following Russia’s withdrawal from areas around Kyiv in 2022. As Mr Ford told the conference, the international community has not forgotten either city — nor the countless other Ukrainian communities affected since.

Nor is this merely a reckoning with crimes of the past. Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities intensified sharply during the summer. The British Government said August witnessed record numbers of jet-powered drone attacks and near-record numbers of ballistic missile strikes. July and August produced the two highest monthly civilian casualty totals of 2026.

During the first eight months of this year, civilian casualties were 55 per cent higher than during the equivalent period in 2025.

The approaching winter brings another threat. Moscow has signalled its intention to step up large-scale attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, raising the prospect that millions could again face disruption to electricity, heating and essential services as temperatures fall.

Britain’s message in Warsaw was therefore that accountability cannot wait until the fighting is over.

London is supporting several mechanisms intended to transform the collection of evidence into eventual justice. These include the International Criminal Court, the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine and the Register of Damage, which records claims arising from Russia’s invasion.

Wars are inevitably followed by political pressure to move on, negotiate compromises and rebuild relations. But a lasting settlement in Ukraine will have to confront the uncomfortable question of whether peace can genuinely be durable if those responsible for the gravest alleged crimes believe they will never face consequences.

Britain argues that Moscow itself holds the key to ending the bloodshed. Ukraine, it says, has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to pursue peace, while Russia has intensified its attacks.

The UK is consequently demanding that Russia accept a full and unconditional ceasefire, enter serious negotiations in good faith and commit itself to a just and lasting settlement.

That demand carries a wider significance. The war in Ukraine is not merely a struggle over territory. It has become a test of whether borders may be redrawn by military force and whether the laws governing armed conflict retain meaning when confronted by a major power prepared to disregard them.

The documentation now taking place may therefore prove almost as important as events on the battlefield. For Moscow, the calculation may once have been that time would eventually encourage the West to forget. Britain’s message was unmistakable: it will not.

EU Sanctions Russian and North Korean Organisations Over Deportation of Ukrainian Children

Russia’s Warning to Diplomats Tests Whether Strikes on Kyiv Can Force Political Retreat

6 October 2026 at 09:34

Moscow has again told foreign diplomats to leave Kyiv before further Russian strikes. The embassies have stayed. The episode exposes a broader Russian objective: turning military pressure on Ukraine’s capital into political and diplomatic retreat by its Western partners.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry renewed its warning to foreign diplomats and other foreign nationals on 3 October, urging them to leave Kyiv and saying Russian forces would continue large-scale strikes against targets in the Ukrainian capital and elsewhere. The warning said those who remained were exposing themselves to “mortal danger”, while Moscow sought to place responsibility for any consequences on the individuals and governments choosing to remain.

The military threat behind that warning is not theoretical. Russian missile and drone attacks on Kyiv have intensified, striking transport infrastructure, energy facilities and residential districts. EU Today has documented a succession of such attacks, including a September missile and drone barrage that killed three people and damaged residential and public buildings and a later jet-powered drone strike on the National Academy of Sciences in central Kyiv. Air alerts and attacks on the capital are now a routine part of the security environment in which foreign missions operate.

The significance of Moscow’s latest statement, however, goes beyond the question of physical safety. By telling foreign governments that their diplomats should leave and suggesting that those who stay must accept the consequences, Russia is attempting to change the political calculation surrounding Kyiv. If Western states began moving their embassies to Lviv or across the border into Poland, Moscow would have achieved something that continued military pressure has so far failed to deliver: a visible reduction in the international diplomatic presence in the Ukrainian capital.

That has not happened. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry says it has received no request or notification from a foreign diplomatic mission indicating that it intends to relocate. Reports that some Western governments have considered contingency arrangements appear to concern emergency planning rather than decisions to withdraw, which is hardly surprising for embassies operating in a capital subjected to repeated missile and drone attacks. The distinction is important because preparing evacuation options is standard risk management; implementing them would be a political signal.

The European Union has gone further than simply denying evacuation plans. EU Ambassador Katarína Mathernová said that the EU Delegation, the EU Advisory Mission and all 25 EU member states maintaining embassies in Kyiv would remain in the capital. Her response was deliberately public, making clear that the Russian warning would not alter the diplomatic footprint of the EU or its member states in Ukraine.

Moscow has tried this before. In May, Russia issued a similar warning to diplomats and foreign nationals, prompting Brussels to summon the Russian chargé d’affaires. EU Today reported at the time that European officials viewed the warning as a threat against the foreign diplomatic community in Kyiv. Mathernová subsequently said that the EU would remain in Kyiv despite Russia’s renewed warnings, describing the pressure as an attempt to generate fear and isolate Ukraine.

The October warning has produced much the same result. One day later, Chancellor Friedrich Merz travelled to Kyiv, accompanied by Economy Minister Katherina Reiche and a German business delegation. His arrival was particularly difficult to reconcile with suggestions that European governments were preparing to abandon the capital. EU Today reported that the visit brought more than €1.3 billion in new German defence and energy commitments, while the German government presented the trip as a demonstration of continuing support for Ukraine.

Washington has taken a similar position. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States would make its own assessment of whether it was safe for American diplomats to remain in Kyiv and noted that Russia had been issuing such warnings for months. The US embassy has continued operating, while the State Department has maintained its highest-level travel warning for American citizens because of the continuing war. That distinction — between advising private citizens not to travel and maintaining an official diplomatic presence — reflects the different responsibilities involved.

There is also a legal dimension to Moscow’s attempt to shift responsibility. Russian statements create the impression that once diplomats have been warned, the consequences of any subsequent attack fall on those who chose to stay. International law does not support such an interpretation. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations establishes the inviolability of diplomatic premises and personnel, although the immediate obligation to protect foreign missions rests principally with Ukraine as the receiving state.

Russia’s conduct of military operations is governed primarily by international humanitarian law. Diplomats remain civilians, while diplomatic buildings remain civilian objects unless they are being used in circumstances that would make them military objectives. Warnings can form part of an attacker’s obligation to take precautions, but they do not transfer legal responsibility to civilians who remain in place. The International Committee of the Red Cross makes clear that civilians who stay after an advance warning continue to enjoy protection, and an attacking force must still comply with the rules of distinction, proportionality and precautions.

That legal point is relevant because the wording used by Moscow appears designed to establish a different political narrative. Russia can warn foreign governments that further strikes are coming, but such warnings cannot provide advance immunity for the way those attacks are conducted. Nor do they relieve Russia of responsibility if attacks unlawfully damage civilian or diplomatic property.

The continued presence of embassies in Kyiv also has practical significance for Ukraine. Foreign missions give governments direct access to Ukrainian institutions and their own assessment of political, military and economic conditions on the ground. Their diplomats meet ministers, military officials, civil society representatives and businesses, reducing governments’ dependence on second-hand reporting and allowing them to judge developments for themselves.

Relocating those missions would therefore have consequences beyond symbolism. Diplomatic relations could continue from Lviv, Warsaw or elsewhere, but Moscow would inevitably portray any large-scale withdrawal from Kyiv as evidence that foreign governments no longer regarded the Ukrainian capital as sustainable as a diplomatic centre. That helps explain why European governments have answered the latest warning so publicly and why maintaining a visible presence has itself become part of the political response.

Russia has increasingly sought to combine physical attacks with wider political effects. Its missile and drone campaign places pressure on Ukraine’s electricity system, transport network, air defences and civilian population. The warnings to foreign missions extend the same logic to Ukraine’s international relationships: increase the perceived cost of remaining in Kyiv and encourage foreign governments to reduce their presence.

So far, that strategy has not produced the intended result. The EU says all of its embassies are staying, Germany’s Chancellor travelled to Kyiv immediately after the warning and Washington has made clear that it will take its own decisions about the security of its mission. Russia can make the Ukrainian capital more dangerous, but it has not persuaded Ukraine’s principal partners to treat Kyiv as a city they must leave.

Drone Sinks Ship Off Bulgaria, as Fears Grow About Hybrid Attacks By Russia

6 October 2026 at 09:24
The crew of a merchant ship was missing on Tuesday after the vessel sank in the Black Sea off NATO member Bulgaria following a drone strike that Prime Minister Rumen Radev described as a gross violation of international law.

Listen: Is the EU actually willing to speed up enlargement?

6 October 2026 at 09:22

Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.

EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.

Find the full transcript below: 

The EU wants to bring new countries on board faster. But after years of waiting, will the Commission’s new proposals actually make enlargement easier?

On Tuesday (6 October), the European Commission is expected to propose changes to the EU’s enlargement process. The goal is clear: speed things up. Some candidate countries have been waiting for more than a decade, without a single new member joining the EU.

And geopolitics is adding to the pressure. With Russia’s war against Ukraine and a changing global balance of power, EU leaders increasingly see enlargement as a way of strengthening Europe’s weight on the international stage.

But bringing one, two, or several new countries into the EU raises some very complicated questions. One of them is decision-making. Another is money. So, what is the Commission proposing?

First, it wants to change the way enlargement negotiations are approved. At the moment, EU countries have to agree unanimously on several key steps in the process — including granting candidate status and opening different chapters of negotiations.

The Commission wants to make some of those decisions easier and faster, while keeping unanimity for the final decision on membership.

The other idea is gradual integration. In other words, candidate countries could take part in more EU programmes and benefit from certain forms of integration before actually becoming full members.

This is not exactly new. MEP’s think tankers, EU member states have been raising that idea for a while. And candidate countries already have access to a number of EU programmes and funding mechanisms. The idea is to give countries something concrete while they are still going through the accession process.

Now, there is an even bigger obstacle: money. The EU would have to finance enlargement at a time when its budget is already under pressure.

Because none of the countries currently considered likely to join in the nearer term would be expected to become a net contributor to the EU budget. In other words, they would likely receive more from the EU than they would contribute.

Ukraine is the obvious example. Despite being a big country with a solid economy, its current situation makes it fragile and unable to contribute largely to the EU budget. 

Its accession could have a significant impact on EU spending, particularly through the Common Agricultural Policy and cohesion funds.

So the Commission is considering a transition period during which new members would not immediately have full access to all EU programmes.

That could make enlargement financially easier in the short term. But it doesn’t solve the problem permanently. Once the transition period ends, the same question comes back.

And there is a broader issue too: would the EU itself be able to function as a union of more than 30 countries? What could prove difficult, is that many important decisions still require unanimity — including areas such as foreign policy, taxation and parts of the EU budget.

Changing that would require treaty reform, which is politically extremely sensitive because member states would have to give up some of their veto powers.

Andrew Duff, a former British liberal MEP who has written about enlargement for the European Policy Centre, argues that the EU should have started thinking about this much earlier — particularly after Brexit. In his view, the EU has not carried out the kind of institutional reform that would prepare it for a much larger membership.

So in the end, today’s proposals could make the accession process more flexible and give candidate countries more opportunities to integrate before membership.

But they don’t resolve two of the biggest questions: how to finance enlargement, and how to reform EU decision-making.

Before we wrap up, a quick word on the countries which are believed to become members next. The frontrunner is Montenegro. The most optimistic forecasts suggest it could potentially become an EU member as early as 2028. Then comes Albania, which is also well advanced in the process.

❌