The State Department told Fox News Digital that President Donald Trump's views on France are "spot on" after French President Emmanuel Macron criticized foreign leaders for making "unacceptable and stupid comments" about the protests rocking the European country.

Speaking at a midterms rally on Monday, Trump said that "the migrants have taken over France" and that the country should close its borders following a weekend of anti-government demonstrations that evolved into rioting and looting. He added that France, a "once great nation," is "being conquered, looted and burned to the ground by migrants, jihadists and communists who hate Christianity" and "the Western civilization itself."

Macron then claimed Wednesday that "there was foreign manipulation of information" following the protests, including AI-generated images that showed scenes that never happened in France, which gave way to "unacceptable and stupid comments from many people including foreign leaders." Macron said he was referring to Trump, "among others," and also mentioned, "We’ve had people claiming that we were invaded by hordes of migrants and Islamists, which is completely false," The Associated Press reported.

When asked for a reaction to Macron's remarks, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott told Fox News Digital that Trump "is on point as he is consistently on point."

"He has been clear about the dangers of mass migration for years, especially since the beginning of this administration, but certainly long beforehand as well. The president has secured the border on day one when it comes to the United States of America," Pigott said. "But we've also been clear from the State Department's perspective that we are going to oppose international institutions, for example, that seek to impose an agenda upon sovereign nations to encourage mass migration.

FRANCE'S MACRON BLAMES PROTESTS ON 'ULTRA-LEFT GROUPS WHOSE AIM IS TO BRING DOWN THE REPUBLIC'

"Mass migration is inherently destabilizing. It is inherently destabilizing. It is something that we don't believe solves problems, but actually creates problems. And this is something the president has raised time and time again. He's raised it in reaction to these recent protests," Pigott added.

"He's also raised it directly to world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly. Two years in a row raising this issue, calling for an end to the destructive policies of illegal amassed migration. Illegal amassed migration that, by the way, only helps criminal cartel groups. That's something we see in our own hemisphere, for example," Pigott continued. "The fact that cartel groups have traveled along these migration pathways. So the president is spot on, he's bringing attention to this issue, he is taking action to address this issue and, from the State Department's perspective, we have also taken concrete action to end the era of mass migration."

FRANCE'S RIOT CHAOS FUELS FARAGE'S WARNING THAT MASS IMMIGRATION FAILURES COULD HAUNT ANOTHER COUNTRY NEXT

The Louvre and other major museums in Paris will be closed on Saturday as more protests are scheduled in the French capital, according to the AP. Reuters also reported that businesses in central Paris have started boarding up their windows over concerns of violence.

French officials said more than 3,000 shops were looted, and some 2,500 people were taken into police custody in connection to last weekend's nationwide protests.

"One of things that we really stress to Americans is that when they're traveling abroad, if they could please register for the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). That program lets you tell us which countries you're going to so that we can provide real-time information to Americans in the country that have registered," Pigott told Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

"Speaking generally, when it comes to Americans that need assistance, we have personnel across the world at the State Department, at embassies and consulates that are working 24/7 to help the American people. If you have an issue when you're abroad, please contact the embassy or consulate," he added. "There are people that are there to help you that can provide information. Everything from a lost passport to responses to a security situation, that is something that is hugely important and a huge factor for the State Department."

Washington is offering Moscow sanctions relief, commercial opportunities and a possible return to European energy markets. Yet the Kremlin’s objectives in Ukraine extend far beyond economic interests, raising questions about whether Vladimir Putin has any intention of accepting a settlement that preserves Ukraine as an independent European state.

The Kremlin has announced plans for renewed negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States in Abu Dhabi during the first half of November, reviving a diplomatic process that has repeatedly failed to produce a settlement to Moscow’s war against Ukraine.

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday, 23 October, that the discussions would concentrate on post-war security arrangements. He also left open the possibility of eventual European participation, although the initial meeting is intended to remain trilateral.

The announcement follows talks in St Petersburg between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. Yet the emerging American proposals reveal a fundamental problem: Washington appears increasingly prepared to offer Russia substantial economic incentives, while Moscow has provided little indication that its political objectives in Ukraine have changed.

The economic bargain taking shape

According to details reported on 23 October, citing The Economist, the American proposals involve Ukraine abandoning its ambition to join NATO in exchange for investment, security arrangements and the prospect of European Union membership.

Russia would receive sanctions relief, renewed commercial relations with American companies and potentially the restoration of natural gas exports to Europe. A demilitarised zone in Donbas is also reportedly under consideration.

The commercial dimension extends beyond theoretical proposals.

American and Russian representatives have discussed investment in the Nord Stream pipeline system and possible arrangements involving Lukoil’s international assets. The negotiations surrounding Russian energy infrastructure suggest that Washington regards commercial cooperation as a potential instrument for securing Moscow’s agreement.

There is no established evidence that Witkoff, Jared Kushner or members of Trump’s family would personally benefit from these arrangements. Nevertheless, the involvement of investors in strategically important Russian assets raises questions about whether economic agreements might advance independently of a settlement acceptable to Ukraine.

The Trump administration has already demonstrated its willingness to relax economic pressure. On 16 October, the president waived major provisions of the Graham sanctions legislation, which he had signed into law only four weeks earlier.

As EU Today previously examined, the decision suspended measures designed to increase the economic costs of Russia’s continuing aggression. Washington justified the waiver on the grounds that sanctions could interfere with negotiations.

Why Putin’s objectives are not primarily economic

The central weakness in a settlement built around commercial incentives is the assumption that Putin’s territorial and political demands can ultimately be exchanged for economic advantages.

Russia’s objectives have never been confined to Donetsk, Luhansk or access to Western markets.

In his July 2021 essay on the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians, Putin advanced a conception of the two nations as belonging to a single historical and cultural space. His interpretation, examined by the Centre for Eastern Studies, challenged the legitimacy of Ukraine’s development outside Moscow’s political influence.

These ideas preceded the full-scale invasion of February 2022. They also followed Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its intervention in eastern Ukraine.

Putin’s demands therefore concern more than military geography. They involve the extent to which Ukraine can exercise independent political authority, determine its international alliances and integrate with Western institutions.

Even a settlement granting Moscow substantial territory could leave this larger objective unresolved.

An independent Ukraine, increasingly integrated into the European economy and protected by Western security commitments, would remain outside Russia’s political control. For a Kremlin leadership that has repeatedly questioned Ukraine’s separate historical identity, such an outcome would represent a limitation on its wider ambitions.

Putin reinforced this position on 22 October when he again described Ukrainian territory in Donbas as historically Russian.

The advantages of negotiations without compromise

This creates an apparent contradiction. Why would Moscow return to negotiations if its broader objectives remain incompatible with the proposed settlement?

One explanation is that participation itself offers Russia strategic advantages.

Negotiations can preserve diplomatic engagement with Washington, complicate attempts to introduce additional sanctions and maintain American pressure on Kyiv to accept territorial concessions.

They also provide opportunities to negotiate economic arrangements before fundamental security questions have been resolved.

For Putin, the political timetable in Washington is relevant. Trump’s presidency is constitutionally limited to January 2029. Moscow can seek to exploit the present administration’s interest in a diplomatic agreement while continuing military operations.

None of this establishes that Putin has definitively rejected compromise. However, the Kremlin’s willingness to attend negotiations is not equivalent to a willingness to abandon its demands.

Russia continues attacking Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure. As EU Today reported on 22 October, Russian forces launched 21 ballistic missiles against Kyiv shortly after Witkoff’s discussions with Putin.

The simultaneous pursuit of diplomatic engagement and military pressure allows Moscow to negotiate while attempting to alter conditions on the battlefield.

Europe cannot be treated as an economic bargaining chip

The proposed return of Russian gas exposes another contradiction in Washington’s approach.

The European Union has already adopted binding legislation to phase out Russian gas imports, with full restrictions taking effect during 2027.

The European Commission reiterated on 19 October that it had no plans to reverse its position. Reopening Nord Stream would also face sanctions, infrastructure and political obstacles, particularly in Germany.

Consequently, Washington cannot independently promise Moscow renewed access to European energy markets.

Nor can it guarantee Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Membership requires agreement among the existing member states, completion of accession negotiations and ratification of the relevant treaty.

A settlement negotiated primarily between Washington and Moscow would therefore depend on European decisions over which neither government has unilateral authority.

This helps explain the significance of Peskov’s remarks about possible European participation. Moscow needs European cooperation to secure meaningful sanctions relief and access to markets, even while seeking to negotiate Europe’s security arrangements principally with Washington.

The unresolved question

Trump’s approach rests on the proposition that economic incentives can make a settlement more attractive to Moscow than continued warfare.

Putin’s position presents a different calculation. The Russian president must weigh the benefits of restored commercial relations against the political implications of recognising Ukraine’s durable independence and Western orientation.

Those objectives may prove incompatible.

A settlement that restores Russian energy revenues without credible guarantees against renewed aggression could reduce Moscow’s economic constraints while leaving the causes of the war unresolved.

The decisive test in Abu Dhabi will therefore not be whether negotiators can agree on investment, pipelines or sanctions relief. It will be whether Russia is prepared to accept a Ukrainian state whose sovereignty, political direction and future European integration remain beyond Moscow’s control.

Until that question is answered, renewed negotiations may offer Washington the prospect of a diplomatic achievement while allowing the Kremlin to pursue objectives it has not publicly abandoned.

Mentre si torna a parlare di negoziati, le dichiarazioni dell’ex comico Volodymyr Zelensky confermano quanto resti distante una prospettiva concreta di soluzione politica del conflitto ucraino. In un’intervista all’imprenditore britannico Steven Bartlett, il presidente ucraino ha ribadito che non rinuncerà al Donbass, rilanciando al tempo stesso le accuse a Donald Trump, giudicato troppo vicino alle posizioni russe. Parole che arrivano mentre sul terreno la situazione continua a evolversi a vantaggio delle forze russe, come dimostra la caduta di Dobropolie, il 16 ottobre.

La liberazione della città, situata in una posizione strategica per il controllo del Donbass, rappresenta un passaggio significativo nella progressione militare di Mosca. Il tenente colonnello Ivan Debitski ha attribuito il successo alla sorpresa tattica, al coordinamento tra artiglieria, razzi e droni e allo sfruttamento delle condizioni meteorologiche, che hanno agevolato l'avanzata russa. La risposta ucraina continua intanto a fare affidamento sugli attacchi con velivoli senza pilota. Secondo le informazioni riportate dalla stampa, in 24 ore le forze di Kiev avrebbero lanciato oltre 1.200 droni, di cui 630 diretti verso la regione di Mosca. Un'intensificazione che mostra come, anche mentre si discute di pace, la guerra prosegua con tutta la sua capacità distruttiva. Un ruolo cruciale resta quello delle comunicazioni satellitari Starlink e Starshield, utilizzate dalle forze ucraine per coordinare le operazioni sul fronte e nelle retrovie.

Le indiscrezioni su possibili limitazioni del servizio sono state smentite dal segretario alla Difesa statunitense Pete Hegseth, secondo il quale la politica di Washington verso il regime di Kiev non sarebbe cambiata. Da parte russa, alcuni esperti sostengono che i sistemi continuino a essere operativi sul campo. La vicenda evidenzia una contraddizione di fondo: mentre l'amministrazione Trump parla della necessità di porre fine alle ostilità, il sostegno tecnologico e militare occidentale rimane un fattore determinante per la capacità bellica ucraina. E a Bruxelles non sembra esserci alcuna intenzione di invertire la rotta. Secondo Politico, l'Unione Europea intende infatti chiedere a Canada e Regno Unito di aumentare gli aiuti a Kiev per colmare un deficit finanziario stimato in 70 miliardi di euro per il prossimo anno. Una cifra enorme, che conferma quanto la prosecuzione della guerra dipenda dalla disponibilità di nuovi fondi occidentali.

Zelensky rifiuta compromessi territoriali, Mosca continua ad avanzare inesorabilmente e l'Europa cerca nuove risorse per sostenere Kiev. In questo quadro, i richiami alla diplomazia rischiano di restare parole vuote se non saranno accompagnati dalla disponibilità concreta a discutere le condizioni di una pace. Perché finanziare la guerra, rafforzare le capacità operative di Kiev e contemporaneamente dichiararsi favorevoli ai negoziati sono obiettivi difficili da conciliare senza una reale volontà di compromesso.

 

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DELLE "TRE PRINCIPALI NOTIZIE DELLA SETTIMANA" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI SABATO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI

Exclusive: Angela Eagle tells utility bosses next price review ‘must focus on value for money for customers’

• UK politics live – latest updates

Ministers will make an unprecedented intervention in water bills and how companies prioritise investment, directing bosses to bring down costs and stop leaks and sewage overflows.

Angela Eagle, the environment secretary, has told suppliers in England and Wales she plans to intervene in the next price review – conducted by the water regulator, Ofwat.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

© Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

French arbitration records show that businessman Sasan Ghandehari, a financial supporter of Nigel Farage, invested in a telecommunications venture partly owned by an Iranian foundation subsequently sanctioned by Washington. His representatives deny any wrongdoing.

A French arbitration judgment has revealed that a British businessman who has become a financial supporter of Nigel Farage previously invested in an Iranian telecommunications venture partly owned by a religious foundation subsequently sanctioned by the United States.

Hossein Ghandehari, known as Sasan, was linked through his family’s HP Trust to a project to develop fibre-optic infrastructure in Iran. Documents examined in an investigation published on 22 October show that Ori Group, ultimately owned by the trust, held 49 per cent of Omran Razavi International, with the remaining 51 per cent held by Astan Quds Razavi (AQR).

The disclosures have attracted attention because Ghandehari has pledged substantial financial support for Reform UK. They do not, however, establish that he breached sanctions or that money linked to the Iranian venture was used to fund British politics.

Iranian Venture and Sanctions

The telecommunications project originated in a contract awarded by Iran’s state-owned Telecommunication Infrastructure Company in 2012. Ori Group became a shareholder in the joint venture in 2015, although Ghandehari’s lawyers say the agreement for its stake was signed in December 2014.

AQR, based in Mashhad, administers extensive religious and commercial holdings. On 13 January 2021, the US Treasury imposed sanctions on AQR, describing it as an organisation controlled by Iran’s supreme leader and alleging that its assets benefited senior Iranian officials.

That designation came several years after the venture’s collapse in 2016. Sanctions imposed in 2021 cannot, by themselves, demonstrate wrongdoing in transactions conducted before the designation.

According to the reported arbitration material, AQR took control of the joint venture in 2016. Ghandehari’s representatives maintain that the project was intended to expand internet access and encourage political reform, and that the arrangements received approval from authorities in France and the United States.

His lawyers say the venture ended in asset seizures and persecution by Iranian authorities. They reject suggestions that Ghandehari supported the Iranian leadership, and say AQR had been a necessary local partner for infrastructure work in Iran.

Connections to Reform UK

The disclosures have renewed scrutiny of Ghandehari’s relationship with Farage. In January, Ghandehari paid for accreditation for the Reform UK leader and a member of his staff at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The House of Commons register of interests records the cost as £50,482.16. This was a declared benefit associated with an overseas visit, not a £50,000 cash donation to Reform UK.

Ghandehari has said he intends to move his tax residence from Switzerland to Britain and make regular substantial contributions to the party. He describes HP Trust as having a portfolio valued at approximately $10 billion, although the trust’s financial position has not been independently established through public accounts.

Farage has repeatedly criticised Iran’s government and supported American military action against Tehran. His public position has brought additional attention to his financial supporter’s historical dealings with an Iranian state-linked institution, although there is no evidence that Farage participated in those arrangements.

Another connection concerns John Richard Simpson, whose company Interior Architecture Landscape donated £200,000 to Reform UK in 2025. Simpson later acquired Orico General Trading, a Dubai-based business previously owned by HP Trust and involved in supplying equipment for the Iranian project.

Simpson says he took over Orico to wind down its operations after the Iranian venture failed. Interior Architecture Landscape has said the Ghandehari family is a client but had no role in its political donations, which it maintains were funded from legitimate British business.

Questions Over Political Funding

The overlapping commercial relationships have brought renewed scrutiny of Reform UK’s financing. They do not establish that Simpson’s company’s donations originated with Ghandehari, AQR or any Iranian state institution.

The Electoral Commission’s rules permit contributions from eligible UK-registered companies carrying on business in Britain, while placing responsibility on political parties to verify their funding sources. The legality of any individual donation depends on its circumstances and the applicable requirements.

EU Today has previously examined Reform UK’s decision to accept cryptocurrency donations and the questions surrounding identification of the original sources of political funding.

The latest disclosures concern a separate issue: historical commercial dealings in Iran, the ownership of connected companies and their subsequent relationships with British political donors. The arbitration material provides a documented chronology, but does not establish improper financing of Reform UK or foreign interference in British elections.

New PM has prioritised small fixes to show voters Labour can make a real difference, and government insiders are delighted at the public’s reaction

In the first episode of Armando Iannucci’s political satire The Thick of It, the hapless minister Hugh Abbot is in the back of a taxi, frantically brainstorming for an on-the-hoof policy he can announce to the assembled national press.

“So you want something sexy and eye-catching, and that is free and universally popular and instantly applicable. No one can possibly object to it,” says the addled junior adviser Ollie Reeder. “Well, really, you should have said something before then, because I’ve got a file about that fucking thick of that back in the office.”

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

© Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

© Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Austria has ordered four Russian diplomats to leave the country after security authorities identified activities incompatible with their diplomatic status, in a further deterioration of relations between Vienna and Moscow.

The Austrian foreign ministry announced the expulsions on Friday, 23 October. Three of the officials were accredited to the Russian embassy in Vienna, while the fourth served at Russia’s mission to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), where the diplomat worked on military security and arms control. All four have been declared persona non grata.

The decision follows findings by Austria’s security authorities, according to the details of the foreign ministry announcement. Officials have not publicly disclosed the activities involved or brought criminal charges in connection with the announcement. Moscow has indicated that it will retaliate, although the nature of its response has not yet been specified.

Vienna’s diplomatic position

The expulsions are particularly significant because Vienna hosts numerous international organisations and remains one of Europe’s principal diplomatic centres. In addition to the OSCE, the city accommodates United Nations offices and organisations dealing with nuclear policy, international development and arms control.

That concentration of diplomatic missions gives Austria a distinctive position in European security affairs. Foreign delegations enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunity, while the Austrian authorities retain the power to withdraw recognition from representatives whose conduct they consider unacceptable.

Austria’s constitutional commitment to military neutrality has not prevented successive governments from supporting European Union sanctions against Russia or condemning Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Neutrality limits participation in military alliances; it does not require Vienna to remain politically neutral over the conduct of a war.

Russian missions to international organisations also have a particular role. The OSCE brings together European, North American and Central Asian states, including Russia and Ukraine, and provides a forum for discussions on military transparency and conflict prevention. Its proceedings have become more contentious since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Repeated expulsions

Friday’s decision brings the reported number of Russian diplomats expelled by Austria since 2020 to 18. In May 2026, Vienna expelled three Russian diplomats amid security concerns involving antenna installations on Russian diplomatic buildings. Those concerns added to wider scrutiny of possible intelligence-gathering activity in the Austrian capital.

Diplomatic expulsions are a familiar response when governments suspect espionage but do not pursue ordinary criminal proceedings. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state can declare a diplomat persona non grata without publicly explaining the underlying evidence. The sending state must then recall the official or terminate their functions.

The mechanism is politically consequential but is not in itself a criminal judgment. A declaration of persona non grata establishes that the host government will no longer accept the diplomat’s accreditation; it does not establish guilt in a court of law.

Moscow has regularly responded to expulsions of its diplomatic personnel from European countries with reciprocal measures. Such retaliation can reduce the number of diplomats available for routine consular work and political dialogue, even when wider bilateral relations remain formally intact.

European security implications

The new Austrian action comes as European countries face continuing questions about Russian intelligence networks, attempts to gather military information and suspected interference activities. The circumstances of individual cases vary, and intelligence allegations cannot automatically be treated as proven simply because diplomats have been expelled.

The latest episode nonetheless illustrates how Russia’s war against Ukraine has affected the functioning of diplomacy in European capitals. Vienna must balance its international hosting responsibilities and established channels of communication with the security obligations arising from suspected abuses of diplomatic status.

The decision also comes against the background of wider European efforts to strengthen protection against strategic vulnerabilities and an expanding debate about hybrid threats to critical infrastructure.

For now, Austria has confirmed the expulsions but has not published an account of the conduct attributed to the four officials. The next diplomatic development will be Russia’s response and whether it affects Austrian representatives in Moscow.

President Donald Trump is holding back on sweeping new economic penalties Congress handed him to squeeze Russia.

He is betting that keeping those sanctions in reserve will help bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, a strategy drawing criticism from Republican allies amid questions about whether Moscow believes he will ever use them.

Over roughly a week, the administration waived most of the new Russia sanctions and tariffs enacted last month while separately easing restrictions on Russian diesel exports, moves one foreign policy expert described as Trump's most significant effort yet to unwind economic pressure on Moscow.

"It's probably the biggest effort that the Trump administration has made to start unwinding the U.S. sanctions architecture that's been in place against Russia since 2022 or even earlier in some cases," Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP TRIES DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH RUSSIA TO BRING AMERICANS RELIEF AMID ONGOING WAR WITH UKRAINE

Trump argues that imposing the new penalties could drive Russia away from peace negotiations. But Brands said repeatedly holding back economic punishment risks convincing Putin that Washington is unwilling to follow through on its threats.

"The threat of imposition may lose some credibility if over a period of time you've demonstrated that you would prefer not to impose those penalties in the first place," Brands said.

REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS BREAK WITH TRUMP ON DIESEL DEAL WITH RUSSIA

The decision has drawn criticism from Republicans who helped advance the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, including Trump allies who worked with his White House to pass it.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who played a leading role in passing the legislation and joined Trump in the Oval Office when he signed it last month, said Tuesday the administration should be turning up economic pressure on Moscow.

"It is my belief that we need to use economic firepower to help drive Putin to the table," Britt told Semafor. "I believe that Russia is at the darkest point that they've been at in this entire war, and now is the time for us to turn up the pressure."

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said Congress had coordinated the legislation's timing with the White House, making Trump's decision to waive most of its new penalties particularly surprising.

"This was an act of Congress that we had worked with the White House on," Capito said. "We had timed this to when the president and the White House felt it was a good time to move forward with this, where it could be effective."

Other Republicans were more blunt in their criticism.

"Beyond irresponsible," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., wrote on X. "What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?"

"It's unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day," he added.

Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., the lead sponsor of the legislation named for her late brother and a Trump-endorsed candidate, said she would "choose to keep the pressure on Russia" because "I don't trust Putin and I don't trust Russia."

The Graham Act, signed into law in September, provided for steep tariffs targeting Russia and major purchasers of Russian energy, along with sanctions on Russian financial institutions and foreign entities doing significant business with them.

Congress also included presidential waiver authority, which Trump invoked to put most of the law's new Russia penalties on hold.

Brands said including a waiver was not necessarily a mistake, even if it ultimately allowed Trump to avoid imposing the penalties lawmakers had sought.

"It's really tough to craft a sanctions or tariffs bill that forces the president to do something, and typically you don't want to do that because there are always circumstances one can imagine in which you might want to be able to waive sanctions," he said.

Trump has defended his decision as necessary to keep Putin at the negotiating table.

"My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don't want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table," Trump wrote Sunday.

In his formal certification to Congress, Trump said imposing the Graham Act penalties now "would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a durable and comprehensive peace." He left open the possibility of imposing them later to "incentivize resolution" of the war.

Brands acknowledged that holding sanctions in reserve can give a president bargaining power, but questioned whether Putin believes Trump is prepared to follow through.

"The challenge is that it's been clear for about 18 months now, since Lindsey Graham started pushing this bill in the first place in the early parts of 2025, that the president simply doesn't have much appetite for squeezing the Russian energy export system to the degree that people like the late Senator Graham envisioned and desired," Brands said.

The administration has separately eased existing restrictions to allow more Russian diesel onto the market, a move intended to relieve pressure on global fuel prices.

Trump has criticized Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, arguing they are straining diesel markets. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has described sanctions relief as a "carrot" that could encourage Russia to de-escalate.

Brands said the immediate financial benefit to Moscow from diesel relief is probably "fairly marginal." The more consequential decision, he argued, was Trump's refusal to activate the broader sanctions and tariffs Congress authorized.

"There's a potential for pretty serious pressure to be exerted if he had used both the sanctions authorities and essentially the secondary tariff authorities to go after purchasers of Russian energy products overseas," Brands said.

Such measures could "put a fairly significant squeeze on the Russian war economy" while discouraging other countries from doing business with Moscow, he added.

Brands acknowledged that squeezing Russian energy exports could further strain global energy markets when Trump is focused on lowering fuel prices at home.

But he argued that the larger risk lies in what Putin concludes about Washington's willingness to sustain economic pressure.

"Putin's theory of victory in Ukraine for a long time has been that at some point the West, particularly the United States, will get tired of the costs of confrontation with Russia and support for Ukraine," Brands said.

The concern, he explained, is less about the immediate revenue Moscow gains from additional diesel exports than the possibility that easing restrictions reinforces Putin's belief that Washington is growing tired of confronting Russia.

"The risk you run here has less to do with the precise dollar or ruble amount that Russia will gain by being allowed to export some additional diesel than with the strategic signal you're sending that, in fact, the U.S. is getting tired of applying economic pressure against Russia and that the U.S.-Ukraine relationship is entering another period of conflict and divergence," Brands said.

Brands sees little prospect for a negotiated settlement in the immediate future and argued that changing Putin's calculation would require convincing him that the costs of continuing the war outweigh the potential gains.

"I think the only way you get there is by continuing to support Ukraine so it can take an increasing toll on Russia on the battlefield and by finding ways of ramping up rather than ramping down the economic pressure on Russia," Brands said.

Trump's waiver does not eliminate sanctions against Russia that predated the Graham Act, and the administration can revisit the new penalties.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The dispute now centers on whether keeping those penalties in reserve strengthens Trump's hand with Putin — or diminishes their value if Moscow doubts he is willing to use them.

 

The Kremlin confirmed Tuesday, September 1st, 2026, that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping discussed the possibility of a trilateral face-to-face meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, scheduled for November 18-19th, in Shenzhen, China.

The meeting is still in the planning stages but the American thug-in-chief an indispensable party has already agreed to attend. Few eyebrows have been raised so far because the American component is a habitual liar so what he says and what he does may not correlate. The Summit in China is a month away. But a chance to meet with two of his closest friends  and allies will not be missed by the evil clown in the White House.

The American thug’s most accommodating American accomplice and equally mendacious voice has simply repeated what he has said so often in the past: that it is necessary to speak with your adversaries, thus keeping the American people guessing. In the bizarre world of Donald J. Trump, Putin is not an adversary. Little Marco may still speak differently so as to present a view that most Americans share, but he is a quisling concerned about his own future. That for him is more important than anything else. Fear and ambition are two quite compelling factors.

Trump has characterized the trilateral meeting as intended for a discussion of the need for de-nuclearization among three of the world’s largest nuclear powers. However, this is another one of Trump’s lies. or simply a a cover-up. Putin has insisted for some time that China participate in trilateral talks about the war in Ukraine. Putin has also insisted that Ukraine not be invited to participate. This is simply another example of Trump complying with Putin’s wishes. That is what agents or surrogates do.

The Summit will result in a trade-off but not for Ukraine’s benefit. As far as Ukraine is concerned, it will be a sellout, like all previous summits involving Trump and the Russian thug Vladimir Putin. One can only consider Helsinki in 2018 or Alaska in 2025. The self-proclaimed American master of the deal has repeatedly proven himself incompetent at deal-making. Or perhaps his shameless results are intentional. There will be personal gain from yet another nefarious arrangement.The American thug is silent on this point. Little Marco will spin an excuse for this aberration as well. There will most certainly be some personal benefit for Trump and his family.

The President of Ukraine wakes up each day to a new betrayal by his American “ally,” more death and destruction of his people and land, but with his eyes wide open that Trump is the enemy. President Zelensky is astute and principled, but also a very good actor; he often plays the Biblical “Job,” yet even his patience has its limitations. A trilateral summit of thugs about ending the war in Ukraine without Ukraine is a non starter. Ukraine will not be bullied. The people of Ukraine will not allow that.

The agenda for the axis of evil meeting includes one more item. No one is considering denuclearizing. The power must be distributed between the three behemoths. Ukraine is certain to be sold off. Taiwan may be next. And Cuba may be another victim of the sphere of influence division of the world. Certainly Russia will give up any interest in destitute Cuba in order to take over rich Ukraine. For Russia Ukraine has been the prize for almost four hundred years.

The axis is mutually accommodating. Currently, Russia stayed out of Syria and Iran. It relinquishes Cuba. America purchases Russian diesel, integrates Russia into the world economy at the G20. China retrieves Taiwan, America and Russia agrees to stay out of any China-India conflict. With Ukraine Russia stands at the gates to Europe. America feels secure in its defensive posture by having encroached on Greenland’s military sovereignty. Everyone is happy except for the remaining almost two hundred countries in the world.

The biggest obstacle is Ukraine. The people of Ukraine remain committed to freedom and democracy. Each day I receive several inquiries from Ukraine: “When will this Trump nightmare end?” . The midterm elections remain a beacon of hope for Ukrainians and Americans alike. Trump will attend the November China summit as a lame duck with Congress set to begin his third impeachment. in January. Ukrainians can pray. Americans must vote. Let the hearings and investigations begin. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, the commander-in-chief is a traitor and a criminal. It will all come out. We the people have had enough!

Throughout the history of Middle Eastern wars, one strategic mistake has been repeated time and again: great powers achieve victory on the battlefield, only to give their defeated adversaries an opportunity at the negotiating table to transform military defeat into political triumph. President Donald Trump faces precisely this danger. After eight months of war, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite suffering devastating military and economic losses, continues to seek political survival through nuclear blackmail, threats to global energy security and the deliberate prolongation of negotiations. Washington must not allow a regime that has paid a heavy price for its reckless adventurism to regain, through a hastily negotiated agreement, the very position it occupied before the war.

The developments of Oct. 20 demonstrate that Tehran has abandoned none of its familiar tactics of confrontation, intimidation, bluffing and extortion. On the one hand, Islamic Republic officials speak of negotiations and ending the war; on the other, they impose imaginary conditions on Washington that, if accepted without credible guarantees, could dismantle much of America's leverage.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Islamic Republic's Supreme National Security Council — a former terrorist affiliated with the Islamic terrorist group Mansouroun, who even sought to visit the United States in the 2000s but was opposed by the CIA — emphasized during his meeting with Pakistan's army chief that not a single gram of Iran's enriched uranium would leave the country.

IRAN RULES OUT TRANSFERRING URANIUM TO A THIRD COUNTRY

Meanwhile, Abbas Araghchi — a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps member acting as foreign minister — has made reopening the Strait of Hormuz conditional upon acceptance of Tehran's proposed plan. Far from demonstrating a genuine willingness to compromise, these positions reveal the regime's determination to preserve its instruments of coercion on the eve of a potential agreement.

The most significant issue, however, lies in the political calculations of the Islamic Republic's rulers. Tehran is deliberately dragging out negotiations to weaken Trump's political standing ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections — in other words, to exert psychological pressure on the American president.

IRAN REGIME UNDER PRESSURE AS REBEL GROUPS ESCALATE ATTACKS IN VOLATILE SOUTHEAST

This is no longer merely a dispute over centrifuges or economic sanctions. The Islamic Republic is attempting to weaponize the exhaustion of war, the anxieties of American voters and rising energy costs as instruments of political pressure against the president of the United States. Such calculated deception must be understood in Washington as part of Tehran's asymmetric warfare strategy, not dismissed as an ordinary diplomatic tactic.

The Strait of Hormuz stands at the center of this calculation. The terrorist organization known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has claimed — without presenting any evidence — that Iranian naval mines prevented three oil tankers from passing through the waterway. Nevertheless, the widespread disruption of regional shipping is an undeniable reality.

TRUMP'S MOAB THREAT COULD PUT IRAN'S DEEPEST BUNKERS IN AMERICA'S CROSSHAIRS

The Islamic Republic understands perfectly well that it does not need to win a conventional naval battle to inflict economic pain on the United States. It need only increase the risks facing oil tankers, drive up insurance and transportation costs and keep global energy markets trapped in uncertainty. Under this strategy, commercial tankers become hostages to Tehran's security calculations, while American consumers pay the price of the Iranian regime's policies at the gas pump.

This is the very essence of the rogue Islamic Republic's asymmetric warfare: a form of conflict in which military weakness is compensated for through economic, propaganda, intelligence and proxy instruments. Tehran possesses limited capabilities in a direct confrontation with American military power, but it can exploit maritime routes, militia networks, cyberattacks and influence operations to multiply the costs of the crisis.

IRAN SETS RED LINES FOR US TALKS: LIFT SANCTIONS, END THREATS — 'NOT A GRAM' OF URANIUM LEAVES

Reports of efforts by Iran and Russia to intensify unrest in France, together with the rearrests of two suspects in Britain on suspicion of intelligence cooperation with Iran, serve as further reminders that Western security concerns extend far beyond the Persian Gulf. Ignoring this pattern would undoubtedly be a dangerous mistake. The Islamic Republic came to power through terrorism, sustained its rule through terrorism, destruction and manufactured crises, and its eventual collapse may likewise be possible through war.

The nuclear file exposes another danger. Tehran's insistence on retaining its enriched uranium, while simultaneously demanding relief from economic and military pressure, raises a fundamental question: If the Iranian regime genuinely intends to address international concerns, why does it refuse to demonstrate flexibility over one of the most sensitive components of its nuclear program?

IRAN IS TRYING TO ‘CREATE A ROT FROM WITHIN’ THROUGH ‘INFORMATION WARFARE,’ ANALYST WARNS

Uranium enrichment does not, by itself, prove a decision to manufacture nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, enriched uranium stockpiles, centrifuge capacity and the possibility of independent monitoring remain decisive factors in assessing the risk of a nuclear breakout. An agreement that postpones these questions while granting Tehran immediate and irreversible concessions could merely defer the crisis to an even more dangerous stage rather than resolve it. The principal global threat remains Islamic terrorism and Iran's transnational terrorist network.

Trump must recognize the distinction between ending military operations and eliminating a security threat. The destruction of military equipment, damage to facilities and degradation of the Revolutionary Guards' operational capabilities — however extensive — do not automatically mean the elimination of the rogue mafia regime's command structure, political will, or capacity for reconstruction.

HOW SAUDI ARABIA'S DEFENSE VULNERABILITIES COULD BECOME TRUMP'S PROBLEM AMID HOUTHI ONSLAUGHT

Over the decades, the Islamic Republic has demonstrated its ability to exploit periods of reduced pressure to rebuild its military and security structures and its terrorist networks. Accordingly, America's measure of success must not be limited to the cessation of missile launches or the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Genuine success will come only when the regime's ability to repeat those same threats has been curtailed.

Another mistake must also be avoided: equating Iran with the Islamic Republic. The Iranian nation and the ruling establishment in Tehran are two fundamentally different realities. For years, the Iranian people have paid the price of domestic repression, systemic corruption, international isolation and the regime's regional adventurism. No sustainable American strategy should portray the survival of the Islamic Republic as synonymous with stability in Iran.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

On the contrary, a policy that merely guarantees the regime's security in exchange for temporary concessions could deprive Iranian society of the opportunity to shape a different future. While safeguarding its own national security interests, Washington must defend the Iranian people's right to determine their country's political future, without bargaining away their destiny behind the closed doors of a security agreement. The Iranian people want regime change.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

To prevent such an outcome, the Trump administration needs a clear strategic framework and a decisive course of action. Any agreement must include explicit nuclear commitments, enforceable independent monitoring, credible verification mechanisms, guarantees for maritime security and clearly defined consequences for violations. Sanctions relief and the release of financial resources must not be granted in advance without securing genuine concessions. Threats against commercial vessels must never become an instrument through which Tehran acquires political control over one of the world's most vital waterways. Diplomacy has value when it reduces threats.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ERFAN FARD

 

 

Nonostante i proclami trionfali, la strategia di Washington sul fronte medioorientale continua a muoversi lungo il sottile filo del calcolo politico ed elettorale. Il presidente degli Stati Uniti Donald Trump è tornato a parlare dell'Iran, lasciando apertamente sul tavolo l'ipotesi di nuove incursioni e azioni militari contro Teheran.

"Li abbiamo colpiti duramente e potremmo farlo ancora", ha dichiarato l'inquilino della Casa Bianca di fronte ai giornalisti, rivendicando con la consueta retorica l'efficacia dei recenti raid. Un’ostentazione di forza che nasconde tuttavia una forte inquietudine interna, legata a doppio filo al consenso dell'elettorato americano in vista delle imminenti elezioni di metà mandato.

Interpellato sul possibile impatto che la gestione dell'escalation con l'Iran potrebbe avere sulle urne, lo stesso Trump ha dovuto concedere spazio al realismo: "In un certo senso, alla gente probabilmente non piace". Una rara ammissione dell'impopolarità di un nuovo coinvolgimento bellico nell'opinione pubblica, subito bilanciata con il ricorso al registro patriottico: "Ma molte persone, molti grandi patrioti, lo apprezzano davvero".

Resta ferma, nella narrazione della Casa Bianca, la giustificazione strategica dell'unilateralismo: la necessità imperativa di impedire a Teheran l'accesso all'arma atomica. "C'è un prezzo da pagare, e lo sapevo fin dal primo momento", ha concluso Trump, confermando come la politica estera della superpotenza rimanga ostaggio di un rischioso equilibrio tra escalation militare e calcolo di bottega politica.

 

La diplomazia della guerra psicologica si arricchisce di un nuovo capitolo, dove la pop culture e il simbolismo cinematografico diventano strumenti di deterrenza geopolitica. Il presidente del Parlamento iraniano, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, ha lanciato un esplicito avvertimento a Washington affidando alla piattaforma X un’immagine ispirata al celebre film Matrix. Ma con una differenza fondamentale rispetto alla narrazione hollywoodiana: nella versione di Teheran non c’è alcuna illusione di scelta o di "salvezza".

Ten pills, all bad. No red, no blue. All soot. You don’t have to take any, but if you do, you will take all. Break the manufactured matrix. Leave. https://t.co/uN0zG6iyKJ

— ???????? ??????? | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) October 22, 2026

Nell'illustrazione, il personaggio di Morpheus non offre l'alternativa tra la pillola rossa e quella blu. Stringe invece tra le mani dieci pillole grigie, ciascuna contrassegnata dai costi devastanti che gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero pagare in caso di nuova escalation militare contro la Repubblica Islamica.

"Dieci pillole, tutte cattive. Non c'è rosso, non c'è blu. È tutta fuliggine", ha scritto Ghalibaf sul suo profilo. Il messaggio rivolto alla Casa Bianca è perentorio: Washington può ancora evitare il baratro della guerra, ma se deciderà di varcare quella soglia non potrà selezionare le conseguenze a proprio piacimento. "Non sei obbligato a prenderne nessuna, ma se lo fai, le prenderai tutte. Rompi questa matrice artificiale. Vattene", si legge nel post.

Le opzioni elencate da Ghalibaf compongono un quadro dettagliato dei punti vulnerabili della società americana in caso di conflitto aperto:

Shock economico interno: Impennata dei prezzi di benzina e diesel, crollo dei mercati finanziari, esplosione dei mutui, aumento del debito e crollo dei salari reali.

Costo umano e militare: Perdita di velivoli da guerra e un numero esponenziale di soldati americani uccisi al fronte.

Geopolitica e reputazione: Danno irreversibile al patrimonio strategico e all'immagine internazionale degli Stati Uniti.

Come sottolineato dall'agenzia di stampa statale IRNA, la mossa del presidente del Parlamento iraniano mira a parlare non solo ai vertici del Pentagono, ma direttamente all'opinione pubblica americana. L'obiettivo è smontare la narrazione secondo cui un'avventura militare contro l'Iran possa rivelarsi un'operazione chirurgica a costo zero: se Washington sceglierà la strada delle armi, dovrà accettare un impatto sistemico e rovinoso per l'intero paese.

 

 

L'asse sotterraneo tra Tel Aviv e Riad non è più un mistero, ma un ingranaggio sempre più esplicito della strategia regionale orchestrata da Washington. Secondo quanto rivelato dal Jerusalem Post, che cita un alto funzionario della Difesa israeliana, Israele sta fornendo intelligence militare di alto livello all'Arabia Saudita per sostenere le sue operazioni contro il movimento Ansarullah (Houthi) in Yemen, avvalendosi della costante mediazione degli Stati Uniti.

Le Forze di Difesa Israeliane (IDF) stanno mettendo a disposizione di Riad "capacità eccezionali" per guidare e potenziare i raid aerei contro le infrastrutture dello Yemen. Un’assistenza che risponde direttamente agli "interessi nazionali di Israele e alle direttive della leadership politica", come confermato dalla fonte militare, e che sfrutta la strumentalizzazione delle spaccature confessionali regionali per ricompattare il fronte monarchico sunnita sotto l'ombrello di sicurezza israeliano.

Da Tel Aviv l'analisi è chiara: spingere i Paesi del Golfo a percepire l'avanzata yemenita come una minaccia esistenziale per giustificare un'alleanza tattica con il regime israeliano. Nel frattempo, l'aviazione saudita intensifica le incursioni su vasta scala, con l'obiettivo di erodere le capacità logistiche e militari di Ansarullah.

Per Israele, questo scambio strategico garantisce un triplo vantaggio:

Indebolimento preventivo: Riduce le capacità di una forza considerata un nemico diretto sul lungo periodo.

Laboratorio tattico: Offre all'IDF l'opportunità di osservare, analizzare e "imparare dai metodi operativi e dalle tattiche" impiegate sul campo di battaglia yemenita.

Consolidamento del fronte anti-Iran: Inquadra l'operazione nella preparazione a uno scontro globale su più fronti.

I preparativi dell'IDF si spingono infatti ben oltre lo Yemen: le forze israeliane stanno ultimando i piani per uno scenario di scontro simultaneo che coinvolge l'asse della resistenza — dall'Iran a Hezbollah, fino alle milizie irachene. Tutto questo mentre si rincorrono le voci di nuovi piani congiunti tra Tel Aviv e Washington per riaprire le ostilità dirette contro Teheran, la quale ha già avvertito che qualsiasi nuova aggressione riceverà una risposta di potenza senza precedenti.

 

La photographe Marine Lanier est en résidence artistique à Bagnères-de-Bigorre jusqu'en juin pour préparer une exposition sur l'astronomie et la montagne. Cette initiative s'inscrit dans le cadre de l'ouverture de la...

Economic fallout from war in Middle East adds to pressures on consumers and on chancellor before budget

Consumer confidence in the UK has fallen at the fastest rate outside the Covid pandemic since the 2016 Brexit vote as the escalating economic damage from the war in the Middle East hits Britain.

With less than a week before John Healey’s first budget, the latest barometer from the data company GfK indicated confidence plunged by 11 percentage points in October to -24 amid pressure on consumers from the rising cost of living.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian

© Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian

© Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian

A pochi giorni dalle elezioni israeliane del 27 ottobre, Tel Aviv apre un fronte di tensione inatteso contro l’Egitto, il primo Paese arabo ad aver firmato un accordo di pace con Israele. Al centro dello scontro c’è il Sinai, territorio recuperato dal Cairo dopo le guerre con lo Stato ebraico, sul quale il ministro delle Finanze israeliano Bezalel Smotrich è tornato a lanciare minacce esplicite.

Il 5 ottobre, Smotrich aveva avvertito che l’Egitto avrebbe perso la penisola qualora avesse attaccato Israele. Il 20 ottobre ha rincarato la dose, dichiarando che, in caso di aggressione egiziana, «la prossima volta non ci sarà più il Sinai». Il presidente Abdel Fattah al-Sisi ha risposto con toni più misurati, ribadendo che il suo Paese non nutre ambizioni contro nessuno e ha combattuto per recuperare il proprio territorio. Una replica che non ha placato le minacce israeliane, alimentando interrogativi sulle reali ragioni di questa escalation verbale. Secondo Murad Sadygzade, presidente del Centro di studi sul Medio Oriente, la tensione potrebbe essere sfruttata in chiave elettorale per rafforzare l'immagine di Benjamin Netanyahu come leader intransigente, indispensabile alla sicurezza nazionale. Ma dietro la propaganda elettorale si intravedono preoccupazioni strategiche concrete.

Israele guarda con crescente sospetto al rafforzamento della presenza militare egiziana nel Sinai, comprese le infrastrutture aeroportuali e le installazioni che, secondo le valutazioni israeliane, potrebbero essere destinate allo stoccaggio di missili. Il Cairo sostiene invece che il dispiegamento serva a contrastare terrorismo e contrabbando e sia coordinato con Tel Aviv. A inquietare ulteriormente Israele è il riavvicinamento tra Egitto e Turchia. I due Paesi hanno firmato a febbraio un accordo quadro di cooperazione militare e stanno approfondendo la collaborazione, anche nel settore dei droni.

La questione, dunque, va oltre le dichiarazioni incendiarie di un ministro. Mentre Netanyahu cerca di consolidare il proprio consenso, Israele osserva con crescente allarme la nascita di nuove convergenze militari nella regione. E il rischio è che il ricorso alla minaccia esterna come strumento elettorale finisca per alimentare tensioni capaci di compromettere equilibri già fragili in Medio Oriente.

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DE "Il MONDO IN 10 NOTIZIE" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI GIORNO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI

L’ex candidata presidenziale e dirigente di ‘Revolución Ciudadana’, Luisa González, è stata arrestata il 22 ottobre in Ecuador nell’ambito dell’inchiesta denominata «Caso Laberinto», relativa a presunti finanziamenti elettorali del 2023. González respinge le accuse e denuncia la deriva autoritaria del governo di Daniel Noboa, le violazioni dei diritti dei prigionieri politici e la persecuzione delle opposizioni.

La dirigente ha lanciato un appello all’unità delle forze progressiste per difendere la democrazia, mentre il suo movimento è stato sospeso per nove mesi, con conseguenze sulla sua partecipazione alle elezioni locali. Colpisce, in questo contesto, la scarsa attenzione riservata alla vicenda nel dibattito politico e mediatico europeo.

Mentre le istituzioni dell’UE e i grandi media si mostrano spesso pronti a richiamare la difesa della democrazia e dello Stato di diritto in altri contesti internazionali, la repressione denunciata dagli oppositori di Noboa non sembra ricevere la stessa visibilità.

Un doppio standard che solleva una domanda scomoda: la difesa dei diritti democratici è davvero un principio universale oppure dipende dalla collocazione geopolitica dei governi coinvolti?

LA NOTIZIA CHE HAI LETTO FA PARTE DE "Il MONDO IN 10 NOTIZIE" - LA NEWSLETTER CHE OGNI GIORNO ALLE 7.00 DEL MATTINO ARRIVA NELLE EMAIL DEI NOSTRI ABBONATI. 

SCOPRI COME ABBONARTI A L'ANTIDIPLOMATICO E SOSTENERE LA NOSTRA LUNGA MARCIA

CLICCA QUI