Netanyahu presses Trump to renew aggression on Iran ahead of Israeli elections
Analysts argue that by reigniting and expanding Israel’s multi-front regional war in the coming weeks, Netanyahu may ensure the postponement of the Israeli elections in order to stay in office for the longest possible period.
Aseel Saleh, October 15 2026, https://breakthroughnews.org/2026/10/15/netanyahu-presses-trump-to-renew-aggression-on-iran-ahead-of-israeli-elections/
Two weeks before the Israeli legislative elections scheduled on October 27, 2026, the far-right Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has revealed its intentions to further perpetuate and expand its three-year multi-front war across West Asia.
On Tuesday, October 13, Netanyahu appeared in a televised speech during a visit to the apartheid wall established inside the occupied West Bank, threatening the Palestinian Authority.
Standing near the Tulkarm refugee camp alongside Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz, the Israeli PM confirmed that the camp’s displaced residents, whom he described as “terrorists,” will not return to their homes despite an order from the Israeli Supreme Court authorizing their return.
The Tulkarm Refugee Camp was among the three largest Palestinian refugee communities in the northern West Bank targeted in the large-scale Israeli military operation dubbed “Operation Iron Wall.”
The operation resulted in the displacement of at least 33,362 Palestinians, the killing and injury of hundreds of others, and the arrest of over 1,000, according to UN estimates. It also caused severe damage and destruction of residential buildings, infrastructure, and properties.
The “Iron Wall,” which was launched in early 2025, was followed by another extensive operation at the end of the year.
Netanyahu’s government claimed that both operations aimed at eliminating Palestinian armed groups in the targeted areas. However, for many the outcome of the operations makes clear that their objectives reflect Israel’s ethnic-cleansing policy against the Indigenous Palestinian population.
Critics accuse Netanyahu of manufacturing rivals to bolster political survival
As those operations have seemingly resulted in largely restraining resistance groups across the West Bank, no valid pretext has been left for Netanyahu’s government to further escalate military operations in the occupied territory.
Therefore, Netanyahu has sought to designate a new enemy posing a potential threat to Israel’s security: the Palestinian Authority (PA), whose security apparatus represents the only remaining armed force on the ground today.
The stance and actions of the PA under President Mahmoud Abbas have been, for over two decades, marked by compliance, reconciliation, and on some occasions blatant collaboration with the Israeli authorities.
Thus, accusing the entire political entity of orchestrating hostilities against Israel would not have sounded credible to the public. This arguably led Netanyahu and Katz to formulate the pretext for a justified potential war against Palestinians in the West Bank by alleging that personnel of the PA’s security forces, alongside members of the Fatah-affiliated Tanzim, may defect and launch “Jihadist attacks” against Israeli forces and settlers.
It’s worth noting that the majority of the PA’s security forces are affiliated with Fatah, the ruling and largest Palestinian faction in the West Bank. Meanwhile, the Tanzim represents Fatah’s grassroots and quasi-military field activity.
“Our enemies are thinking of testing us in these days leading up to the elections,” Netanyahu noted, referring to the PA, during his tour near the apartheid wall.
“I warn them: we are prepared for any scenario, including a so-called reversal of roles. In such a case, I do not suggest our enemies test us. You will face force here that you never dreamed of,” he continued.
Netanyahu’s statements came to reaffirm a “contingency plan,” which Katz revealed last week and said Netanyahu had approved in case the imagined scenario occurs.
Analysts believe a war in the West Bank ahead of the upcoming Israeli elections is not off the table, particularly if Netanyahu and his far-right coalition feel their victory is uncertain.
Early polling ahead of the election consistently shows Netanyahu’s bloc falling short of the 61 seats required to form a majority. It is currently positioned at just 51 to 53 seats.
Even if launching the war does not succeed in delaying the upcoming elections, it apparently aims to strengthen public support for his coalition, which gains much of its backing by pushing for ethnic cleansing to fulfill the “Greater Israel” project.
Israel’s escalating violence and provocations seen as prelude to war in West Bank
The last few weeks have made clear that Netanyahu’s government previously laid the groundwork for a desired war scenario in the West Bank.
Israeli forces escalated their raids in different parts of the West Bank, focusing on the de facto administrative capital of the PA, Ramallah, and Al-Bireh, which has simultaneously become a flashpoint for settler violence.
The Israeli military has also launched a campaign, destroying memorials of martyrs and late prominent Palestinian leaders all over the territory.
This included the demolition of a memorial displaying photos of the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and other deceased top Fatah leaders in the Al-Jalazone refugee camp north of Al-Bireh city on Wednesday, October 14 – a move that many interpreted as an attempt to provoke indignation, particularly among the movement’s grassroots.
The offensive on Al-Jalazone came one day after the Israeli military launched an expanded operation in Ramallah and Al-Bireh, shutting down Addameer and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees (two civil society organizations concerned with documenting violations committed by the Israeli occupation authorities against the Palestinian people).
Journalists were obstructed from covering the raid as Israeli soldiers threatened them with rifles, and fired rubber-coated metal bullets and teargas at them.
As part of the operation, the Israeli forces also raided the courtyard of the Palestine Medical Complex (previously known as Ramallah Hospital), arrested journalist Abdul Qader Hailan, and wounded journalist Yousef Shehadeh alongside two other Palestinian citizens.
Netanyahu reportedly pressed Trump to resume aggression on Iran
While the likelihood of igniting a war in the West Bank is seen as higher and more immediate for Netanyahu and his cabinet, recent media reports indicate he has attempted to persuade US President Donald Trump to resume the aggression against Iran before the Israeli elections.
Even if Trump does not comply with Netanyahu’s demand regarding Iran, the situation in the West Bank foreshadows more tragic events for the Palestinian people and a predicament for the PA in the upcoming weeks.
EU summit in Brussels: European powers intensify war drive against Russia
Ever more billions for war
Zelensky put Ukraine’s war costs for 2027 at €155 billion and demanded at least €70 billion in additional European support. With this money, Ukraine could produce two to three times as many drones and massively increase military pressure on Russia. The EU has already set in motion a €90 billion loan for 2026 and 2027. No decision was reached in Brussels on the new demands for billions; the Commission has been tasked with developing financing options.
Johannes Stern@JSternWSWS16 October 2026, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/10/17/gbsa-o17.html
The EU summit held on Thursday and Friday in Brussels was an expression of the dangerous escalation of the international war crisis. While the Trump administration, amid its conflict with the European powers, is seeking at least for the moment a certain accommodation with Russia, the EU governments, led by Berlin, are pressing for the continuation and expansion of the Ukraine war. They want to shoulder an increasing share of the financial and military burdens themselves and build Europe into an independent military power.
This is accompanied by an escalation that threatens to provoke a direct war between NATO and Russia, including nuclear war. At the same time, the summit discussions on rearmament, “competitiveness,” trade war and migration underscore that the war drive abroad is inseparably linked to intensified social attacks and authoritarian measures at home.
Conflicts between Washington and Europe
At the center of the summit was the demonstrative support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Following an agreement with Putin on Russian diesel supplies, Trump had eased sanctions and criticized Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries. He also demanded a change in Ukraine’s leadership. The European governments, by contrast, are determined to continue attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure and tighten sanctions.
European Council President António Costa declared on Friday, standing alongside Zelensky: “Now is not the time to withdraw support for Ukraine. Now is not the time to ease sanctions against Russia.” Instead, the EU must increase its support and pressure on Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced preparations for a 22nd package of sanctions.
The German government is taking a particularly aggressive stance. Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that the EU must “once again … increase” its funding for Kiev in order to “provide lasting support” to Ukraine. This was necessary, he said, to defend “the political order of Europe.” The conflict with Washington now also concerns control over approximately €210 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets in Europe. According to reports, US negotiators want to use part of these assets in negotiations with Moscow. Merz brusquely rejected this: “That is our affair, and we will decide on it.”
Behind these differences lie rival geostrategic and economic interests. The European powers fear that Trump could conclude an agreement with Putin that would undermine their own war aims and influence in Eastern Europe. At the same time, Ukraine’s war effort remains dependent on American military technology and intelligence support. Reports of restrictions on the satellite-based Starshield system demonstrate this dependence particularly starkly.
Ever more billions for war
Zelensky put Ukraine’s war costs for 2027 at €155 billion and demanded at least €70 billion in additional European support. With this money, Ukraine could produce two to three times as many drones and massively increase military pressure on Russia. The EU has already set in motion a €90 billion loan for 2026 and 2027. No decision was reached in Brussels on the new demands for billions; the Commission has been tasked with developing financing options.
The scale of the sums already mobilized is enormous. According to a study by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the German government puts its Ukraine support to date, including commitments, at around €100 billion. Approximately €41.7 billion is recorded as direct aid to Ukraine, while another €22 billion consists of future military commitments and possible expenditures. Together, this amounts to €63.7 billion, of which approximately €56.3 billion is military aid. In addition, €35.9 billion has been spent predominantly on Ukrainian refugees in Germany. Not all of the budgeted funds recorded have yet been disbursed.
The political thrust of the Kiel study is revealing. Under a headline emphasizing that “only” €41.7 billion actually went to Ukraine, it stresses that spending on refugees does “not support the Ukrainian government in its defense.” This juxtaposition alone makes the political orientation clear: While support for refugees and other social expenditures face growing pressure for cuts, ever larger sums are to be mobilized for the war effort. Added to this are hundreds of billions more that are to flow into military budgets in the coming years.
Concrete preparations for a NATO-Russia war
Parallel to the summit, the military confrontation is intensifying. NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Alexus Grynkewich presented his “Theory of Victory” in Warsaw: “Block, Blunt, Break.” A potential attack is first to be repelled, then the opposing armed forces smashed, and finally the command, supply and production structures supporting them disabled. Grynkewich describes the strategy as defensive, but in a major war the planned operations could extend deep into Russian territory. He praised Germany as the “engine of NATO.”
At the same time, NATO conducted the nuclear war exercise “Steadfast Noon” in Italy this week, involving 17 countries, including German Tornado fighter jets. NATO describes it as a routine exercise without live nuclear weapons. Yet it rehearsed procedures for nuclear operations at a time when the risks of escalation are rapidly increasing.
Russia is responding to NATO’s constant provocations with nuclear threats. In early October, Putin warned that Russia could use its entire arsenal in the event of a blockade of Kaliningrad. Now, State Duma Deputy Alexei Zhuravlyov has told Lenta.ru that, in the event of a NATO attack, Russian nuclear strikes could target NATO headquarters, as well as US nuclear weapons bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. Zhuravlyov’s threat is not an official government statement. His remarks nevertheless demonstrate how concretely sections of the Russian establishment are discussing nuclear war in Europe.
Russian military commentators warn that NATO’s strategy could serve as a cover for “preemptive” strikes. They draw parallels to Hitler’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union, which Nazi propaganda likewise justified as “defense” against an allegedly planned Soviet attack.
Regardless of NATO’s specific timetable for war, the mutual threats already demonstrate that an escalation could rapidly spiral out of control. In the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria are demanding additional NATO measures against Russia following drone attacks on merchant ships.
These sums have immediate social consequences. While debt rules are relaxed for rearmament, European governments are organizing historic cuts to social benefits and public services. Under the slogan of “competitiveness,” the EU summit adopted measures for deregulation, accelerated approval procedures and further economic restructuring. Jobs are being eliminated on a massive scale, wages cut and working conditions worsened.
The EU also wants to create new trade policy instruments to take tougher action, particularly against China. Merz stated that the Commission had been given a mandate to this end. Von der Leyen announced additional import restrictions.
Rearmament and social devastation
The migration debate at the summit also revealed its reactionary direction. Italy, Denmark and Poland attacked Spain’s planned legalization of the residence status of around 600,000 migrants. Discussions included tightening detention provisions in border procedures and suspending asylum applications in times of crisis. In the Middle East, against the backdrop of the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, the summit focused above all on securing trade and energy routes.
As the EU advances its global war offensive and reactionary domestic agenda, tensions among the European imperialist powers are growing. The dispute over the next EU budget for 2028 to 2034 exposed these rivalries. Net contributors, such as Sweden, are refusing the higher contributions being demanded, while the EU seeks to mobilize additional funds for strategic and military projects. No agreement has yet been reached.
The extreme escalation of war is also a response to growing social and political opposition in Europe. In France, Spain and other countries, mass protests and strikes are developing against social cuts, militarism and authoritarian measures. Confronted with the deep crisis of the established parties, the ruling classes are attempting to divert this opposition outward through war propaganda and nationalism and force the population to rally behind their war policies.
But this course will only further intensify social antagonisms. The gigantic military expenditures, the destruction of jobs and social benefits, and the increasing attacks on democratic rights will not extinguish the resistance of the working class and youth but further fuel it. At the same time, the escalating confrontation with Russia threatens to plunge all of Europe into a nuclear world war.
Europe’s response to the war and the crisis of its alliance with Washington is a gigantic rearmament program. “ReArm Europe” is intended to make possible up to €800 billion in additional defense spending by 2030, while the SAFE program provides €150 billion in loans. In Germany, defense spending is to rise to approximately €140 billion in 2027—and to well over €200 billion in 2029. The German government wants to build the Bundeswehr into Europe’s strongest conventional army.
The decisive task is to arm the growing opposition with an independent socialist perspective. The working class must organize independently of the established parties and unite its struggles across all national borders against capitalism, militarism and war. The nationalist and militarist project of the European governments must be opposed with the struggle for the United Socialist States of Europe.
Walt Zlotow – Thank you Mr. President for stopping the flow of most US treasure to the Ukraine proxy war
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL – 23 Oct 26
Former President Biden squandered upwards of $175 billion in direct and indirect aid to Ukraine in America’s senseless proxy war to weaken, destroy Russia.
Back in November, 2021, Russian President Putin reached out to President Biden one last time to avert military action against Ukraine massing troops to finish off Ukrainian Donbas separatists seeking autonomy and peace from their Kyiv masters. Included was Russia’s security demand that Ukraine not join NATO, a Russian red line it had been warning the US not to cross since America’s 2008 NATO membership pledge to Ukraine.
Biden’s response? Russia’s security concerns regarding Ukraine NATO membership and Donbas autonomy were not even on the agenda. Biden knew that meant Russia would launch an invasion which occurred 3 months later. He cared not one whit how many would die, believing that Russia would self destruct from US aid to Ukraine like Russia did in Afghanistan between 1979 to 1989.
Biden left office 3 years later with Ukraine in ruins with no chance of prevailing, Russia stronger than ever, and $175 billion of precious US treasure squandered on death and destruction in furtherance of America pretending it still ruled Europe, indeed the world.
Trump began his second term boasting he’d end the war on Day One. Six hundred forty days in, Trump still flails around seeking an end to Biden’s insane Ukraine proxy war so he can concentrate on polishing off Iran to please his Israeli masters.
But thankfully, he has largely cut off squandering endless tens of billions for the lost cause of defeating Russia to please the Russophobes that infest both the Republican and Democratic Parties, the military, the CIA; virtually the entire national security state. They are all supported by mainstream media which totally censures any pushback to the madness of continued war in Ukraine till the last Ukrainian soldier is dead.
There are many reasons to revile President Trump. But his cutting off squandering our precious treasure to continue the destruction of Ukraine in order to weaken, destroy Russia is not one of them.
Jeffrey Sachs – A Framework for Peace in Ukraine
This proposed settlement—designed to help end a conflict that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation—addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms.
The trouble is – this would be difficult, tricky, time-consuming, to bring about. Just keeping on killing is so much quicker and easier – and indeed, fun, using all the newest toys. Negotiation is so boring – and old-fashioned stuff.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Oct 20, 2026, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/framework-for-peace-in-ukraine
The war in Ukraine can be ended permanently on terms that protect Ukraine’s statehood, meet Russia’s security concerns, and lay the foundation for a durable European security order. As another round of negotiations gears up in Norway, I propose a settlement concluded as a single package, signed by Ukraine and Russia, adopted by a vote of the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, and guaranteed jointly by the five permanent members of the Council together with other states that choose to join. The proposal rests on the principle of indivisible security set out in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris.
The package would have four core commitments.
The first is Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, adopted in a constitutional law on the model of Austria’s law of 1955, which would return Ukraine to the founding choice of its Declaration of State Sovereignty of 1990. Ukraine would join no military alliance and host no foreign bases or forces, whether of NATO, the European Union, their member states, or Russia. Neutrality would not mean disarmament, and Ukraine would retain armed forces for its own defense.
The second is that Ukraine would pursue its candidacy for membership in the European Union as a permanently neutral state, with a neutrality protocol in its accession treaty on the model of Ireland’s, and Russia would affirm that Ukraine’s membership in the EU is consistent with Russia’s security.
The third is an armistice line drawn along the line of contact on the date of signature. Each side would exercise de facto jurisdiction on its side of the line, neither would recognize the other’s territorial claims, and both would renounce force in any future adjustment. This formula is compatible with both countries’ constitutions, which bar or severely restrict the cession of territory.1
The fourth is the end of NATO enlargement eastward. At signature the North Atlantic Council would declare that NATO will not admit Ukraine or other new members in Eastern Europe or the South Caucasus, withdrawing the Bucharest pledge of 2008.
The settlement would take effect as a permanent end of hostilities on signature, not as a temporary ceasefire, and its provisions would be implemented in stages under international verification. No element would be negotiated in isolation, and no party would be asked to make a concession in advance of signature.
The territorial arrangements are designed to address the concerns and claims of both sides. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from the part of Donetsk region that Ukraine now controls, which would become a demilitarized special zone. Russian forces would not enter it, the existing local civil administration would continue to function, and its final status would be left to negotiation. Russia would withdraw from the areas it holds in Dnipropetrovsk region and from the Kinburn Spit. A Northern Security Zone would be demilitarized on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian border, and Russian forces would leave the areas they hold in Kharkiv and Sumy regions as Ukrainian forces withdraw from their side. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would remain under Russian control with IAEA safety oversight and would sell an agreed share of its electricity to Ukraine at cost.
A demilitarized belt would run along both sides of the armistice line, with heavy weapons and long-range strike systems withdrawn to agreed distances, and mutual ceilings on forces would apply in the border regions on both sides. In the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, commercial navigation would be free for all Ukrainian and Russian ports, and attacks on shipping and ports would be prohibited.
The settlement in Ukraine should also begin the repair of European security as a whole. NATO and Russia would agree on a moratorium on ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in Europe, refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in any additional state, and restore the NATO-Russia Council. Normal diplomatic relations would be restored on both sides. The parties would convene the first summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe since 2010 to entrust the OSCE with monitoring the settlement, verifying arms limits, and overseeing the provisions on rights.
Questions of language, education, culture, and religion would be resolved according to European standards, with the Russian language treated on the same basis as Ukraine’s other minority languages, and Russia would accept the same obligations toward Ukrainian speakers and religious communities on its side of the line. All obligations concerning extremism and incitement would be mutual and monitored by the OSCE. Prisoners of war would be exchanged on an all-for-all basis, detained civilians released, and separated children reunited with their families.
Sanctions would be lifted during 2027. Russia’s immobilized sovereign assets would also be released, and private property seized or immobilized on both sides would be restored. An international reconstruction fund administered by the European Investment Bank would finance reconstruction on both sides of the line, with contributions from all parties, Russia included, in a common effort rather than as reparations. Gas transit through Ukraine could resume wherever there are willing buyers, without any commitment by the European Union to purchase Russian gas.
A report of serious violation by an OSCE monitoring mission of unarmed observers from states outside NATO would trigger consultations among the guarantors and referral to the Security Council. Ukraine would lift martial law and hold elections under OSCE observation, and the newly elected Verkhovna Rada would ratify the settlement and adopt the constitutional law on neutrality, while the Russian Federal Assembly would ratify it at the same stage.
This proposed settlement addresses the causes of the war rather than only its symptoms. Europe has been largely absent from the design of the peace. By putting forward such a framework, European governments can take the lead in building Europe’s indivisible security and help end a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and carries a continuing risk of confrontation between nuclear powers.
Jeffrey Sachs: Europe Must Break With Washington’s March to War
Joshua Scheer, October 17, 2026
Europe’s leaders are gambling with their people’s future—and, Jeffrey Sachs warns, with the survival of the world. Speaking to members of the European Parliament, the economist delivers a blistering indictment of American foreign policy and Europe’s willingness to follow Washington into confrontation with nuclear powers.
Drawing on decades of advising governments, Sachs argues that NATO expansion and the pursuit of American dominance helped squander the promise of peace after the Cold War. From Ukraine to Iran and Gaza, he challenges Western claims to moral leadership and demands a return to diplomacy. Europe, he insists, must find its own voice, negotiate directly with Russia and build relationships with China and the wider world around cooperation rather than war.
Acknowledgment: Thanks to MEP Danilo Della Valle for co-organizing the event with the Fidias Podcast. Visit their YouTube channel to watch more conversations and subscribe.
TRANSCRIPT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://scheerpost.com/2026/10/17/jeffrey-sachs-europe-must-break-with-washingtons-march-to-war/
Bridging Geopolitical Divides: International Physiciansfor the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) Revitalizes Dialogue in Russia and China
IPPNW is one of very few professional associations that has not abandoned dialogue with Russian colleagues. Since the summer of 2021, a new, energized cohort of Russian and American medical students and young doctors has hosted informal monthly Zoom calls to build relationships and trust.
Michael Christ, IPPNW Executive Director. September 29, 2026, https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/10/14/bridging-geopolitical-divides-ippnw-revitalizes-dialogue-in-russia-and-china/
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, the historic meeting where Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came astonishingly close to completely abolishing the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers. While the meeting concluded without an official accord due to US insistence on pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”), it nevertheless laid the critical diplomatic foundation for future landmark nuclear disarmament treaties. It also proved that even bitter adversaries can sit at the negotiating table to tackle head-on the greatest immediate threat to human survival.
Tragically, these hard-fought gains have been lost to a steady breakdown in international diplomacy, a dangerous arms race in nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence, and a resort to threats and war to prosecute disputes. This has made the risk of catastrophic miscalculation higher than at any point since the Cold War.
As we did throughout the 1980s, IPPNW is bridging geopolitical divides by engaging our network of physicians and health partners around the world on the growing threat of nuclear war—especially with colleagues in Russia and China—not as an abstract political calculation, but as the final, untreatable global health epidemic.
Monthly Russian-American Exchanges
IPPNW is one of very few professional associations that has not abandoned dialogue with Russian colleagues. Since the summer of 2021, a new, energized cohort of Russian and American medical students and young doctors has hosted informal monthly Zoom calls to build relationships and trust.
Participants in these discussions have gone on to publish relevant articles in medical literature, attended key nuclear disarmament meetings at the UN, and become active in local and national campaigns opposing the threat of nuclear war.
Russian Nonproliferation Conference
At the invitation of the Russian Center for Energy and Security Studies (CENESS), IPPNW’s Chuck Johnson traveled to Moscow to participate in high-level discussions on nuclear weapons. CENESS is a think-tank that fosters dialogue and cooperation on nuclear policy, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy issues. Chuck previously served as the founding director of the IPPNW Geneva Liaison Office before transitioning to his role as policy director.
The 2026 Moscow Nonproliferation Conference took place on March 12–14, 2026, bringing together 289 experts—including diplomats, researchers, academics, and advocates—from 49 countries. Roughly half of the participants were Russian. The event also drew high-level officials from key UN agencies and international organizations, such as Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu, and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi.
During closed-door sessions, participants tackled the major global security challenges in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. A special “New Generation Experts Segment” also gathered approximately 40 young professionals from 20 countries to explore the associated risks and opportunities.The effort was the brainchild of Dr. Joe Hodgkin, an attending hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Dr. Olga Trushina, a cardiologist at the Russian Cardiology Research and Production Complex (which was founded by her grandfather, IPPNW co-founder Eugene Chazov). Dr. Hodgkin serves on the Board of Directors of IPPNW’s US affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Dr. Trushina is a Co-President of IPPNW. Together, they have renewed and re-imagined IPPNW’s founding mission using modern technologies that are integral to their social and professional lives.
This marked the first time IPPNW was invited to this flagship biennial event. The conference provided a rare, high-value opportunity for IPPNW to engage directly with top Russian and international officials and experts—both during the formal panels and in private meetings on the margins.
Renewed Outreach to China
Chuck Johnson has also been at the leading edge of IPPNW’s efforts to strengthen cooperation and dialogue with health professionals, academics, and professional associations in China.
His consistent outreach to Chinese colleagues during international health partner and UN disarmament meetings in Geneva led to an invitation to lecture at the China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing in the fall of 2025.
While in Beijing, he also met with members of the Chinese Medical Association at their headquarters, securing a commitment from them to invite IPPNW doctors to present to medical professionals in China in the coming year. As a result, an IPPNW delegation attending the annual meeting of the Chinese Medical Association’s Medical Ethics Branch in Hefei, the capital of Anhui province, in July 2026. Chuck was joined by Dr. Joe Hodgkin (PSR-USA) and Dr. Tilman Ruff (MAPW-IPPNW Australia).
This visit was our most significant engagement with China since the 2004 IPPNW World Congress in Beijing. The delegation delivered three plenary lectures at the national medical conference, highlighting the critical role of medical and public health professionals in addressing the growing threat of nuclear war.
Following the conference, the team held multiple high-level meetings with dozens of senior academics, health officials, and organizational leaders in both Hefei and Beijing. These discussions were aided significantly by Dr. Hodgkin’s deep cultural knowledge and fluency in Mandarin, as well as Dr. Ruff’s extensive history and leadership within IPPNW.
The delegation discussed several concrete follow-on activities, including planning additional meetings and co-authoring joint publications in prominent Chinese health and science journals focused on the prevention of nuclear war.
By reviving these critical channels of communication, IPPNW ensures that even in times of intense global friction, the medical community remains a vital bridge toward peace. The US, Russia, and China would do well to revive the “spirit of Reykjavík”, returning to the negotiating table to complete what Reagan and Gorbachev came so close to achieving—saving humankind from the growing threat of nuclear war.
America’s BFF Saudi Arabia likely won’t be forever
13 October 2026AIMN Editorial, ByWalt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, https://theaimn.net/americas-bff-saudi-arabia-likely-wont-be-forever/
A disastrous unintended consequence of Trump’s lost war on Iran is the impending destruction of its best Middle East ally: Saudi Arabia. Both Iran and now Ansah Allah (Houthis) in Yemen are pounding Saudi infrastructure and oil facilities, drastically degrading the Saudi economy. No oil revenue may signal the end of Saudi Arabia as an economic power. Saudi Arabia may wind up a failed state with its hated rulers fleeing for safe havens.
The head of Aramco, the Saudi oil company, advised it will take at least two years for oil production and delivery to return to normal. And that’s if no further damaging attacks occurs.
Back in 2015 Saudi strongman Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) jumped into the Yemen civil war to prevent the Houthis from polishing off the Saudi backed Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) which was a minority element with no chance of prevailing.
But even with hundreds of billions in US bombs, jets, intelligence, logistics that kept the killing going for 7 years, the Saudis gave up in futility in 2022. Over a quarter million Yemenis dead simply for Uncle Sam to protect its Saudi ally against the Houthis who controlled 80% of Yemen – including the capital – couldn’t stop the popular Houthis.
Last year the Houthis came to the aid of Gaza’s Palestinians undergoing genocide by Israel. When they disrupted Israeli Red Sea shipping, the US launched over a thousand air strikes costing over a billion dollars during a 7-week air campaign that failed miserably.
Having failed twice to deter the Houthis, the US stupidly greenlighted the Saudis to attack Yemen’s main airport in Saana last July 13, reigning the Yemen, Saudi war that ended 4 years ago. Big mistake. The results have been so devastating to Saudi Arabia that MBS called up Trump begging for US air strikes on Yemen. But bogged down in his lost war on Iran, Trump demurred squandering his dwindling drone and missile stockpile to bail outhe incompetent Saudis. He’s left his former BFF MBS to face Houthi attacks that cannot be stopped.
Wise foreign policy analysts foresee Saudi Arabia collapsing politically along with their collapsing oil gravy train. MBS may have slaughtered his last political opponent such as Kamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist MBS had chopped up in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018.
MBS may soon be MIA. Can’t come soon enough.
Europe chooses economic suicide
The inconvenient truth is that Europe needs Russia economically to power its industry but Russia can live without Europe.
A conversation with Professor Michael Hudson
Ian Proud, Oct 16, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/europe-chooses-economic-suicide?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=220664518&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In a new conversation with Professor Michael Hudson, we examine one of the more striking recent examples of Western policy incoherence: Europe’s willingness to lock itself into high-cost American energy while simultaneously pursuing sanctions that do little to constrain Russia and a great deal to damage its own industrial base
The immediate trigger is the diesel arrangement between the United States and Europe. Under the deal, Europe is selling petroleum from its national reserves at current prices. At the end of the negotiated period it will then have to replenish those reserves by buying diesel back—potentially at roughly double the cost. This is an ill-conceived economic and political choice.
European governments are accepting a higher long-term energy cost in exchange for continued alignment with U.S. priorities on Russia and, increasingly, on China.
Hudson argues that the arrangement is best understood as part of a broader pattern. Since 2022, European leaders have treated the severing of low-cost Russian energy as a strategic necessity rather than an economic trade-off. The result has been rising input costs for industry, pressure on living standards, and a structural deterioration in Europe’s competitive position.
Cheap energy as an ‘addiction’ is a bemusing soundbite for industrial workers across Europe who have found themselves out of a job because their factories have closed.
At the same time, the United States has used Europe’s growing energy dependence as leverage across multiple fronts—trade policy, technology taxation, and the broader contest with China.
What makes the episode particularly nonsensical is the contrast with Russia’s position. Total Russian goods exports since the war began amount to over $2 trillion to date, higher than the pre-war average. Cutting Europe off of Russian energy might have been more defensible politically had Russia borne a greater cost, but it manifestly has not. The occasional oil tanker seizure or a new set of shadow fleet sanctions look good on the TV but make absolutely no difference.
Sanctions that were intended to isolate Moscow have only accelerated the reorientation of its energy exports to other markets while leaving Europe more exposed, in circumstances where global energy supply is already constrained because of the war against Iran.
The inconvenient truth is that Europe needs Russia economically to power its industry but Russia can live without Europe.
Hudson notes that European industry and governments once maintained substantial commercial ties with Russia; those links were dismantled by political decision, not by market failure.
The deeper issue, in Hudson’s view, is the difference between industrial and financial capitalism. China continues to prioritize long-term investment in productive capacity and technology. Much of the West, by contrast, has subordinated industrial strategy to short-term financial returns and geopolitical alignment.
Europe’s current energy policy is a concrete illustration of that shift: higher costs are accepted, industrial capacity is allowed to erode, and the resulting dependence is then used to shape further policy choices. European leaders live in detail and blame everyone except themselves. If you wondered why voters across Europe are increasingly turning to nationalist political parties, it is because they are recognising that their globalist leaders do not have their interests in mind.
The conversation covers the mechanics of the diesel deal, the historical context of European energy strategy, the limits of sanctions, and the structural reasons European governments continue to prioritize U.S. preferences over domestic economic outcomes.
It is a clear-eyed account of how policy choices made in the name of security are producing negative economic consequences while at the same time making the continent much less safe.
Ukraine’s worst diplomatic nightmare just got closer
The fuel deal’s real significance lies in diplomacy: Trump and Putin found a way to work together without making Ukraine part of the bargainPublished 11 Oct, 2026 12:36 | Updated 11 Oct, 2026 13:40
11 Oct, 2026 , By Sergey Poletaev, information analyst and publicist, co-founder and editor of the Vatfor project, https://rt-english.com/russia/647043-ukraine-diplomacy-trump-putin/
On the evening of October 9, the presidents of the United States and Russia spoke by phone. The announcement that followed was straightforward: Russia would sell the US 1.8 million metric tons of diesel over the next three months, followed by a million tons a month, and the US would issue temporary licenses authorizing the shipments.
The news drew a furious, bordering on hysterical, response from Kiev and stunned silence from Europe.
Let’s look at why this deal matters, what it has to do with Ukraine, and what might come next.
The tug-of-war championship
Ever since US President Donald Trump returned to office, the central aim of Russian diplomacy has been to separate relations with the US from the Ukraine issue. The White House is open to the idea, too: The US needs Russia as a counterweight to China, and there are substantial economic opportunities. But as we explored in an earlier piece, until recently, neither side managed to pull it off.
Ukraine and its supporters in Europe and the US, meanwhile, have pursued the opposite goal: keeping US-Russia relations tied to the Ukraine conflict.
In February and March 2025, Trump relieved America of responsibility for Ukraine’s fate and handed the job of financing it squarely to Europe. The US retained just three commitments: the relatively modest military supply programs already approved under former President Joe Biden, intelligence sharing, and weapons sales for cash, with Ukraine waiting in line like any other customer.
This maneuver cemented a status quo that neither Europe and Ukraine on one side nor Russia on the other would allow to change, with their respective allies in the US also weighing in. Everyone tried to bring Trump over to their side on Ukraine. Nobody succeeded.
This is why the understandings reached in Anchorage went nowhere: Ukraine’s supporters torpedoed them. It is also why those supporters failed to use Trump to escalate the conflict. Russia prevented deliveries of Tomahawk missiles, the expansion of Starlink coverage over Russian territory, and so on.
Despite the apparent stalemate, Russian officials kept talking to Witkoff and Kushner. The aim was to maintain a channel to Trump and deny Ukraine’s supporters an opening to drag the US back into the war on their side or steer him back onto Biden’s course.
This is why Russian officials at every level distinguish between US and European actions, often explicitly contrasting the two.
A few numbers on oil
Russia is one of the world’s largest diesel exporters, supplying just under 40 million metric tons to the global market in 2025. On July 8, 2026, Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries prompted a temporary ban on diesel and gasoline exports.
Since then, Russia’s refining situation has improved considerably. Gasoline remains in short supply, but a domestic diesel surplus has emerged, and the export ban has begun to loosen in practice. According to Reuters, diesel deliveries to Central Asian countries were already up 19% in September.
A few numbers on oil
Russia is one of the world’s largest diesel exporters, supplying just under 40 million metric tons to the global market in 2025. On July 8, 2026, Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries prompted a temporary ban on diesel and gasoline exports.
Since then, Russia’s refining situation has improved considerably. Gasoline remains in short supply, but a domestic diesel surplus has emerged, and the export ban has begun to loosen in practice. According to Reuters, diesel deliveries to Central Asian countries were already up 19% in September.
The Krivoy Rog school of diplomacy
Back to geopolitics. Until yesterday, Russia had been unable to separate its relationship with the US from the Ukraine issue. Even the war with Iran failed to do the trick, despite keeping oil and petroleum product shipments from the Persian Gulf blocked for more than six months.
Help came from an unexpected quarter. Hoping to bring US diesel prices down at least a little before the congressional elections, Trump asked Zelensky to stop attacking Russian refineries.
Zelensky responded by demanding a sweeping energy truce. We’ll stop hitting refineries, he effectively said, if Russia stops attacking our energy infrastructure and blockading our ports. And you, Trump, have to supply us with missiles for our Patriot systems, and so on.
Getting nowhere with Zelensky, Trump struck a deal directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who offered to supply diesel in exchange for a suspension of sanctions, without any preconditions.
The transaction itself is not particularly consequential. Yes, it could cool speculative trading ahead of the elections and push prices down somewhat. But the 1.8 million metric tons due to arrive over three months will cover just three or four days of American consumption.
For Russia, the US is an ordinary customer in purely commercial terms. Moscow will make some money selling to America, but it could just as easily have sold these volumes elsewhere. Petroleum products are in short supply worldwide, while Russia has a diesel surplus.
Yet the deal gave both sides what they had been seeking since February 2025: a bilateral relationship detached from Ukraine. So far, that applies to just one specific issue, but getting started is the hard part. Zelensky tried to twist Trump’s arm, pushing him to make Putin stop bombing Kiev, and overplayed his hand. Now Kiev can be bombed relentlessly, and Trump has no reason to care. He got what he wanted.
This does not mean sanctions are finished or that the two powers are entering an era of warm friendship. Oil sanctions are probably here to stay, and as soon as global market conditions change, Washington will turn them back up to full blast. But the sanctions wall can now be taken apart brick by brick, restoring ties wherever both sides stand to gain: launching new energy projects in the Arctic, for example, jointly taking over the surviving Nord Stream 2 pipeline, or resolving the sale of Lukoil’s overseas assets. Ukraine no longer has anything to do with that process or any influence over it.
The art of the backroom deal
Cynics insist that the Trump administration is a complete mess, with the right hand oblivious to what the left is doing. The way this agreement came together suggests otherwise.
After the campaign of long-range strikes against Russia went badly off script, Zelensky once again tried to secure a ceasefire through Trump. He has been trying since early 2025, with no success, but he still held out hope.
Trump could have publicly given Zelensky the boot again. But on Ukraine, he faces opposition not only from Congress but also from parts of his own administration. And an election is just around the corner.
Instead of staging a public showdown, Trump’s team spent more than two months visibly engaged in intensive talks with Ukraine about an energy truce. His envoys, Witkoff and Kushner, traveled to Kiev, and Trump himself showered Zelensky with compliments. In reality, all of it proved to be a screen for a quiet, swift, informal deal with Moscow.
It has since emerged that the first tanker carrying diesel to the US left St. Petersburg on September 22 and is expected to reach the US any day now. In other words, the deal was already well advanced three weeks ago, and both sides were confident it would go through.
That takes some skill. This episode shows that Trump keeps a firm grip on his team and can prevent leaks when he needs to. Even Rubio, prone to breaking ranks, played his part exactly as the boss wanted.
And once the deal was done, there was no longer any need to smile at Zelensky in public. The masks came off. For the first time, Trump publicly declared that Ukraine needs a new president and must hold elections.
The liberal media will inevitably say that Trump is repeating Russian propaganda narratives. In fact, he was saying what he thinks.
The diesel deal does not mean Moscow and Washington will now live in perfect harmony. The differences between them are deep and fundamental, and the recently enacted ‘Graham law’ makes lifting any sanctions impossible for at least the next five years.
But this Friday, Putin and Trump finally managed to get past Ukraine and leave it behind. US-Russia relations now depend on Russia and the US alone.
Putin’s Strong Message to Europe at the Valdai Club: Stop the March Towards War
If Russia is weak and having military difficulties, if Putin is intimidated, if NATO is considerably stronger and if there is no immediate threat of a Russian attack, then why is European public opinion always being prepared for a major war?
Europe should therefore pose itself a simple question: is Russia really about to attack NATO — or is Europe preparing for a war that its own rhetoric is helping to make it more plausible?
Ricardo Martins, New Eastern Outlook, October 09, 2026
As NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and European leaders increasingly warn of a looming Russian threat, Vladimir Putin used the Valdai Discussion Club to deliver a very different message: Europe is feeding an escalation spiral it may no longer be able to control.
Europe is being told to prepare for war, and the rearmament is being crafted as an economic and political project in itself. Europe is manufacturing a permanent war psychology while simultaneously insisting that Russia poses no imminent military threat.
Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, has on several occasions told that Russia might at some point launch an attack on NATO territory. The European governments are currently considering matters relating to hybrid attacks which can result in a large number of casualties, the establishment of new security arrangements and how to deal with a major confrontation with Moscow. The tone being used is becoming more and more dramatic, alongside unprecedented defence spending record levels.
With this background in mind, Vladimir Putin gave his reply at the Valdai Discussion Club.
His view was not that war was certain, rather it was the opposite—he advocated stopping the escalation before war became irreversible.
Putin’s argument is that Europe is trapped in a dangerous cycle in which military exercises, sanctions, weapons deliveries, threats and counter-threats are producing precisely the escalation that European governments claim they want to prevent.
This clear message is even more evident in what he said regarding Kaliningrad.
Rutte’s Russia narrative: threat, fear and rearmament
Mark Rutte is now one of the most prominent voices in Europe when warning about Russia.
In June 2025 he famously said to the Europeans: “You should learn to speak Russian or spend more on defence”, on the grounds that the possibility of future Russian aggression would mean a need for considerably increased defence spending over cuts on social security and pensions. He then warned that Russia might be ready to use military force against NATO within five years and, more recently, has spoken of Russia “testing us throughout Europe” as well as accusing Moscow of carrying out hybrid attacks, sabotage and attempts to split up the Alliance.
There is an extraordinary contradiction in Rutte’s most recent rhetoric.
On 30 September he stated that Putin was “a bit worried and a bit rattled” since the situation in Ukraine was supposedly not progressing well. He stressed that “Putin is not winning this” and claimed that Putin could never defeat NATO. At the same time, however, Rutte admitted that there was no immediate threat to NATO territory.
Then what is Europe actually getting ready for?
If Russia is weak and having military difficulties, if Putin is intimidated, if NATO is considerably stronger and if there is no immediate threat of a Russian attack, then why is European public opinion always being prepared for a major war?
It is worth posing that question.
The European public is being asked to agree to increased military spending, which could mean cutting back on social priorities, while at the same time a continuous state of insecurity is being fostered concerning Russia. The political message is remarkably consistent in telling people to spend more, to arm more and to get ready more – because Russia might launch an attack.
Fear is a highly effective political tool.
The issue is that fear may also come true on its own.
Putin’s warning over Kaliningrad
When asked about the increasingly aggressive rhetoric concerning Kaliningrad, Putin was especially straightforward.
He denied the notion that Russia was attempting to intimidate Europe, stating that Moscow’s warning was in fact ‘a response to an attempt to intimidate us‘.
He specifically referred to the European statements concerning preparations for a possible war with Russia in 2029 or 2030, the NATO exercises in the Baltic region, and the attempts to detain Russian vessels.
His argument is that this constitutes an escalation, and he gave a warning that was remarkably serious.
According to Putin, if Kaliningrad were the object of a direct attack or blockade, Russia would have to consider putting into use “all the forces and means at our disposal”. He made it clear that this was not necessarily a threat to employ nuclear weapons, but rather an assertion that Russia would make use of whatever measures it regarded as necessary for its defence.
It is exactly the kind of statement which European governments should take seriously — not since it is certain that Russia intends to attack Europe, but because a military confrontation between nuclear powers leaves little room for miscalculation.
The main thing that Putin warned about was an escalation.
His analogy was in the form of a spiral since provocative actions led to countermeasures, these countermeasures in turn caused further escalation, and eventually the process could get to a stage at which no one was completely in control.
That is the true danger.
What is the reason why Europe needs Russia to be its permanent enemy?
Putin’s more general explanation extends beyond Ukraine.
He contends that Europe has never really settled the security arrangements that followed the end of the Cold War. Rather than establishing a true pan-European security structure, NATO extended itself eastward and as a result Russia became increasingly excluded from the European security system.
He referred to Egon Bahr, the late German Social Democrat, who in 1990 had warned that if the division of Europe into hostile blocs was not overcome the Soviet Union would be isolated and a highly unfavourable future would result.
For Putin, Bahr’s warning was foretelling.
He also looked at how relations declined during NATO’s intervention in Yugoslavia, as a result of NATO’s enlargement, the changes that took place after the breakup of the Soviet Union and finally in the case of Ukraine. Even if one does not agree with this view, it does show a consistent way of understanding the past three decades from the Russian perspective: Russia has on numerous occasions sought integration with the West, found that this was not desired, and has in the end come to the conclusion that the European order that emerged after the Cold War was designed against Russia.
That is the reason why the message that Putin gave at Valdai was not merely about Ukraine. The main topic was the future of Europe.
Europe’s war preparation may be hiding a deeper crisis………………………………………………………………..
Putin’s answer: the world is changing
The most important aspect of Putin’s speech at Valdai was not Ukraine. It was his conception of the future international order.
Putin stated that the world is moving from Western hegemony towards a multipolar international system and that this transformation is inevitable, adding that the former hegemony would eventually have to acknowledge the reality of a world in which Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and other centres of power demand a greater role.
This is the point at which Europe must make its real strategic choice.
It can continue to base its security mainly on NATO, move ever more closely in line with Washington’s strategic priorities and regard Russia as a permanent adversary.
Alternatively, it could try to regain what Europe once said that it stood for: strategic autonomy, diplomacy, and the ability to build bridges between opposing powers.
Putin’s vision is not the kind of vision held by liberals in Europe. It does not have to be one that Europeans accept without question. It is rather a vision of a world which is no longer arranged around a single dominant centre, and Europe will not be able to stop this transformation.
The choice Europe still has
The Valdai speech concluded with a warning which should be heard well beyond Moscow.
The greater the extent to which the confrontation becomes uncompromising and the more openly the strategic defeat of an opponent is declared, the more likely it is that the conflict will reach its most dangerous stage. He cautions against arrogance, overconfidence and the uncontrolled escalation of reciprocal responses.
This is no appeal for Europe to give in. It is a plea to acknowledge the consequences of confrontation.
Europe should therefore pose itself a simple question: is Russia really about to attack NATO — or is Europe preparing for a war that its own rhetoric is helping to make it more plausible?
Rutte states that there is no immediate Russian attack that NATO is much stronger, and that Putin is intimidated and that Russia is having difficulties.
Then why the hysteria? Why the permanent mobilisation? Why the preparation for a war that nobody claims is imminent?
At Valdai, Putin made it clear that the world is changing, that multipolarity is inevitable, and that military escalation is not a replacement for diplomacy.
Although Europe may reject Putin’s worldview, but it cannot ignore his warning. Because the greatest danger is not necessarily that Russia wants a war with Europe. It may be that, after years of escalating rhetoric, Europe forgets how to prevent one. https://journal-neo.su/2026/10/09/putins-strong-message-to-europe-at-the-valdai-club-stop-the-march-towards-war/
Waffling at the UN: OpenAI, Anthropic and Selling Artificial Intelligence
10 October 2026Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/waffling-at-the-un-openai-anthropic-and-selling-artificial-intelligence/
They are a trying lot, spruiking their overvalued, loss-making firms, sowing discord and fear, and then seeking state collaboration that will serve to implicate all the parties concerned should things sour. And what will the rest of us get? Hardly the promised land. But the United Nations, for the first time in history, became a centre stage for the propagandists from Artificial Intelligence firms during the September deliberations, diplomats hanging off the banal declarations from such figures as Sam Altman, the CEO from OpenAI, and Dario Amodei, his equivalent from Anthropic.
In his September 23 address to the UN Security Council, no less, Altman slipped into that familiar messianic tone about choices to be made, largely because these choices are being made for the rest of humanity by his ilk. “We have a choice in front of us. AI can either be more like a new Renaissance of creativity and discovery, or more like a new Industrial Revolution of upheaval and disarray.” Why the binary proposition? And why the need for the choice in the first place?
Altman is irritatingly condescending, suggesting that “people are much more capable than they imagine themselves to be, but have been held back by limited technology that was meant to empower but instead distracts and often steals attention.” Examples are not forthcoming, but the monotonous tone is set: AI, like the son of the good Lord, is a gift to humankind. “It is about giving people more agency in an ever more complex world: more ability to learn, to create, discover, build, participate.” This is drivel, since AI, even as this is being penned, is imposing disabilities on learning by turning the process into one of lazy, numbing consumption, negating creativity by stealing it from creative human sources, not so much discovering as synthesising what has been scraped and not so much building as demolishing and removing the human subject from participation. The agenda is distinctly anti-human.
Altman, however, had hit his stride, saying that, “AI should be built for the people, not simply to turn the crank of the machines faster for their own sake. Some of the things people working to build AI have said are so dystopian that they sound like the plot of bad science fiction movies.” This bleat is no doubt directed at the effusive warnings of technology researcher Jacob Coxon, who had worked at both OpenAI and Anthropic and found his Damascene conversion. “They are racing straight toward self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives,” Coxon said last month on resigning from Anthropic. “The people building AI genuinely believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
These catastrophic forecasts are boons for Altman and the AI fraternity. The greater the risk of a gloomy end, the greater the need to be a leading force in preventing that terminus from being reached. “It doesn’t matter whether people put the risk of catastrophe at 10%, or 1%, or 12%, or .1%. None of these levels are remotely acceptable.” He suggests that “we should not train models that we cannot make an extremely strong case that we will be able to keep under human control.” Risibly, Altman goes on to also warn that such systems could become the preserve of the elite – “too much power in too few hands. No one person or company or country should be able to use the most powerful AI models to impose their worldview on everyone else.” Which is exactly what he was doing at the UN Security Council, showing what concentrated power looks like.
What, then, to do? Altman posits three principles, none particularly profound. The first is to retain a human element at the centre of AI, a delightful proposition from the CEO of a company working to remove the human from the equation, exemplified by the hack of Australia’s Medicare system by an OpenAI agent in June that subverted privacy protections. The second is the corollary of the first: “the benefits of scientific progress and economic growth must be by people and for people.” Tools are not to replace human agency. The third entails a word that really ought to be banished to the lexical mausoleum. Such “technology must empower people individually.” The term “empower” is only ever used by those who ration power to begin with.
Unperturbed, Altman has an advertiser’s pitch. He is selling a product. Governments are to be involved. “If AI is to be democratic, the most important decisions cannot be made by labs in San Francisco alone. They must be shaped through the democratic processes, and by governments accountable to the people that they serve.” He suggests international cooperation and “a mechanism for complementary national and international frontier AI standards. These would measure capabilities, assess risks, determine the adequacy of safeguards “and preserve meaningful human oversight as systems become more autonomous.” Common standards would enable states to compare evidence and verify compliance. A regime to report incidents expeditiously and learn from them rapidly would be vital. Secure channels among governments and what Altman calls “critical infrastructure operators” and “technical experts” (that’s the pitch for his company) would “share emerging vulnerabilities and new threats.”
Amodei’s address was even more blatant in self-advertising, including the virtues of the Claude large language model. “Just today, Anthropic announced the Claude-led discovery of a new molecular machine,” he boasted. This could lead to “a new gene editing mechanism that could have applications in gene therapy.” But risks abounded. AI models might be misused by, for instance, bioterrorists in creating biological weapons. Another risk was the “loss of control, model capabilities accelerating beyond developers’ ability to control them.” As with Altman, a similar theme emerged: all of humanity needed to be concerned, including governments representing it. “If managed poorly, I even believe that AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole.” Then comes his pitch: Anthropic was better placed than any to be the knight in shining armour, given its “best track record in the industry for preventing these risks, both operationally and in our research.” Through testing was taking place for all models regarding dangers and risks. Safeguards were installed in “our most capable models, and we publish our work in these areas.” The company was also without peer in its transparency practices.
This was the prelude for another three-step suggestion. For starters, much like a “food inspector” (these people are truly imaginative), external evaluators should be embedded across AI companies. Second, industrial standards should be set, thereby modulating “the pace of progress.” The final point entails global cooperation across governments “to set international standards.” Specifically for the Security Council, Amodei suggested initial narrow agreements “that every member can support such as a ban on using AI to make biological weapons or permitting your AI technologies to be used to make biological weapons.” (Why the fascination with those weapons?) Evaluation and verification systems should be established to “have visibility into frontier model capability.” And “common global standards for testing AI models for loss of control risks and misuse risks, and a notification system for AI incidents that are significant for global security.” Lecture concluded.
UN officials are certainly in a muddle about how to approach what is both a poisoned chalice and rich cornucopia of opportunity. Volker Türk, the top UN human rights bureaucrat, seems besotted and dismayed all at once. He also seems all too trusting, noting with approval the meaningless, voluntary accord signed by US President Donald Trump and the heads of six AI companies on September 29 regarding safeguards, self-regulation and assessing risk. In what must be a momentous occasion, the president actually used the term “morally binding,” neither word having ever had any truck in his vocabulary. At least Türk acknowledges the need for mandatory human rights safeguards and due diligence in the development of the technology, warning against a creeping, unnoticed dystopia A good start in that regard would be a consensus on banishing machines from the realm of decision making on whether human life is allowed to continue or expire. That sounds like tender hearted naivete, given that human agents are already deferring their responsibilities and ethical compass to AI machines. What Altman and Amodei are doing with brio is playing out their ongoing and proposed crimes against humanity in plain sight.
How much longer can the world absorb the Iran shock?
The war that was intended to deliver a swift overthrow of the Iranian
regime is now in its eighth month, with no end in sight. So, what might
happen next?
My preliminary conclusion is that one should never
underestimate human stupidity or human ingenuity. So far it is a rough draw
between the two. How long will this last?
That is the question. In a
devastating analysis, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago
describes the war on Iran as “The Mother of All Strategic Blunders”.
Among other things, he notes, the US went into the war on the false claim
that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon; it thought air
power alone would produce regime change, which has never worked; it had no
contingency plan for dealing with Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
It has also failed to achieve any of its four principal objectives —
regime change, ending Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability, ending its
long-range missile capability and ending its support for Hamas, Hizbollah
and the Houthis.
The closure of the strait has done significant damage to
the international economy and may do much more; and the US alliance
structure (in the Gulf and elsewhere) has been damaged. All this, moreover,
is only about half of the full charge sheet.
But the economic damage has
been surprisingly modest. As Johannes Urpelainen of the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies noted in August, “Many experts
initially thought that this supply disruption would send oil prices to USD
200 per barrel, causing massive inflation and a global recession. Instead,
oil prices peaked at USD 126 per barrel in April 2026.”
First, the energy
transition has reduced the global economy’s dependence on oil. Second,
supply chains have proven resilient and adaptive. Third, producers outside
the Middle East have acted fast to produce more oil and natural gas.
Finally, drawdowns of global oil inventories have filled the remaining gap.
FT 7th Oct 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/37e12a42-d473-4b1b-8fc5-4ea5f06d3bfb
The Day America Deleted a Word
A Pen, a Paper, and the End of “AI”
SinoDataCrit ( Kakajusaiyou ）, Oct 04, 2026
On September 29, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order requiring every federal department and agency to replace the term “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) with “Super Intelligence” (SI) in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, and all non-statutory documents.
The order didn’t just promote a new term. It buried the old one. The White House’s own fact sheet states that agencies should “no longer acknowledge the terms ‘Artificial Intelligence’ or ‘AI.’“ Read that again. Not “phase out.” Not “update.” No longer acknowledge.
The same day, the tech titans were summoned to the White House — Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, Palantir CEO Alex Karp. They signed the “White House Accord on Super Intelligence,” a voluntary safety pledge with no legal force, which Trump described as working “like a constitution.” Zuckerberg began using “Super Intelligence” in product announcements within 24 hours. The field that was born at Dartmouth College in 1956 had been renamed by executive fiat in 2026 — seventy years, almost to the season, after John McCarthy coined the term his own government now refuses to say.
The official rationale? A White House fact sheet titled “President Donald J. Trump Inaugurates The Era of Super Intelligence” argues that “artificial” implies merely “imitating or automating human intelligence,” while Super Intelligence “conveys the true capabilities” of the technology. Trump himself was blunter: the word “artificial” makes people think of fake.
There was, in fairness, a domestic political reason. A Quinnipiac poll in March 2026 found that 55% of American adults believe AI does more harm than good — up 11 percentage points in a single year. “Artificial intelligence” had become a toxic brand. Rebranding it “Super Intelligence” is, on one level, the world’s most expensive PR relaunch.
But if you think this is just marketing, you’re missing the oldest trick in the innovation empire. And it took a viral post on Chinese Q&A platform Zhihu — 4,700+ upvotes and climbing — to name the mechanism with perfect clarity. This article brings that analysis to an English audience, because it deserves one.
The Category Game: How “0-to-1” Is Manufactured
Start with a question that circulates endlessly in Western commentary: why do Chinese companies never seem to do “0-to-1” innovation?
Here’s the uncomfortable answer: “0-to-1” is not a fact. It’s a category decision — and categories can be gerrymandered.
The Zhihu analysis offers a thought experiment. Suppose a Chinese company invents the electric vehicle. A skeptic says: “That’s not 0-to-1. It’s a derivative of the car — a 1-to-100 improvement. Thank Karl Benz.” Fine — so what if the Chinese had invented the car itself? The skeptic zooms out: “That’s not 0-to-1 either. It’s a refinement of the wheel — a category humans have had for 4,000 years. Thank the ancients.”
See the mechanism? Expand the category far enough, and every invention becomes an increment. Whoever controls the category — whoever gets to decide whether “EV” is a new thing or a subset of “car” — controls whether your work counts as creation or derivation.
Now the flip side. How does anyone ever get credit for a 0-to-1? Not by building it. By naming it. A brand-new word — preferably one with a unique sound and no derivation from existing vocabulary — creates a brand-new category. And a new category has no ancestors. It pops into existence with its inventor standing at its head.
A new word doesn’t describe a new thing. It legislates a new thing into the ledger of human achievement.
Eponyms Are Property Deeds
Look at how English names its own inventions versus everyone else’s.
For its own breakthroughs, English mints eponyms — words with a founder’s name stamped on them like a trademark. Diesel, after Rudolf Diesel. Braille, after Louis Braille. The ballpoint pen that half the world calls a “biro,” after László Bíró. Every one of these is a property deed: the technology and the credit travel together, permanently, in a single syllable.
For everyone else’s breakthroughs, English does something different: it assimilates them into existing vocabulary as derivatives. Paper became “paper” — a word whose root is papyrus, the Egyptian writing reed. Gunpowder became “gunpowder” — a tidy English compound. China invented both; the English words quietly suggest both were variations on something the West already had.
The etymology does the theft silently. To an English speaker, papyrus is “an early, imperfect paper.” To a Chinese speaker, the relationship inverts: papyrus is just a reed that failed to become paper. Same history. Opposite property registry.
This is not a conspiracy. It’s a linguistic reflex — but it has the effect of a colonial land grab. The Zhihu author’s sharp observation: English borrows raw phonetics mainly from “prestige” languages it admires (French, Latin, Greek), or for “exotic, often derogatory” concepts (coolie, ramen). For ideas from civilizations it competes with, it prefers translation — because translation buries the original’s ownership inside a familiar word……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The Modern Playbook: Metaverse, Sixth-Gen Fighters, DeepSeek
This machinery is not historical. It’s running right now, and you’ve watched it operate three times in recent years.
Metaverse. A word coined in a 1992 science fiction novel, adopted as a company name in 2021. Technologically, “the metaverse” contained nothing that virtual worlds hadn’t contained for two decades — no new architecture, no new interaction paradigm. But it had a minted word, a category nobody had to share with the past. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Decoding SI: The Hedge Fund of Categories
Now the executive order makes complete sense.
The United States coined “artificial intelligence” in 1956. Its White House proudly asserts — correctly — that America is “the birthplace” of the field and has led it for “over 70 years.” That name, and that founding, is one of America’s greatest narrative assets: the entire global industry carries American words in its name.
But here’s the problem the White House faces in 2026: Chinese models have reached genuine parity — benchmark-for-benchmark, dollar-for-dollar the efficiency argument even favors China. If the race stays called “AI,” then the most likely outcome is that the “birthplace” gets out-innovated in its own category, on its own vocabulary. The founding nation would become the incumbent that lost its own field.
So instead of defending the old category, America redrew the map. Rename the category “Super Intelligence,” decree that the old name shall not be acknowledged — and instantly, every Chinese achievement in “AI” becomes progress in a field that no longer officially exists. Chinese labs will keep doing brilliant work in the old category: that’s a 1-to-100 story now, and America has already stamped itself at the “0” of the new one. Your AI is impressive; our SI is a different thing. You can never beat us at SI, because we invented the word, and the word is the race.
It’s the category game at national scale: when you can’t win the category, delete the category.
Notice the asymmetry of costs. DeepSeek’s efficiency breakthrough took years of engineering under sanctions. Huawei’s chip roadmap took seven years of siege economics. The SI rename took one pen. In narrative warfare, renaming is the cheapest weapon with the longest reach — it costs nothing and repositions everything.
And notice what the order does domestically, too. The same fact sheet announces $5 billion for a “Genesis Mission” and a “National Super Intelligence Policy Framework.” The unpopular, frightening “AI” — the one 55% of Americans distrust — quietly becomes somebody else’s legacy technology. The fear is inherited with the old word. The promise is minted with the new one.
The Counter-Move: China Is Learning to Mint Words
Here’s what makes this moment genuinely interesting, and why I’ve spent days on this question: China’s best answer isn’t to complain about the renaming. It’s to start minting categories of its own……………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://sinodatacrit.substack.com/p/the-day-america-deleted-a-word?publication_id=7110991&post_id=218751184&isFreemail=true&r=3alev&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Managed Deception and Imperial Politics: Trump’s Greenland Deal
much of the new agreement is surplusage. Arrangements are already in place permitting the establishment of defence areas by the US to “assist” Denmark in defending Greenland, station forces at them, and move personnel in the territory fairly unhindered.
Trump takes credit for an agreement signed in 1951
This merely clarified what was already an ongoing practice
6 October 2026Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/managed-deception-and-imperial-politics-trumps-greenland-deal/
In his second term, US President Donald Trump has gone the way of past executive tribunes of the American imperium in seeking land and resources like a kleptomaniacal pincher. This has been bracing, not least for a foreign policy establishment inured to the hypocrisies of virtue concealed in the international order of rules and protocols. Spot the international rule and break it.
Neither ally nor adversary have been spared Trump’s scorching petulance. Thuggish language has been forthcoming for Canada just as it was for Venezuela whose leader, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted, along with his wife, on fantastic charges related to narcotics trafficking. An enduring security ally such as Denmark will be seen as amenable to giving up control of Greenland to Washington. On that score, Trump has succeeded in needlessly convincing Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen to enter into a trilateral agreement that evokes the pseudo-colonial obsessions of old. Not that Washington had ever really relinquished strategic control over the territory, having had, during the Cold War, stationed anywhere between 10,000 and 25,000 troops based at some 17 military facilities.
The agreement does what should have already been assumed: reaffirming Danish sovereignty and recognising that Greenlanders “constitute a people pursuant to international law with the right to self-determination.” The text pointedly notes the “indispensable historical” role of the US and its “ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area.” This included “significant sacrifices and billions of dollars spent over the better part of a century, dating back to before World War II and the establishment of NATO, and the irreplaceable role the United States military plays in the defense of the territory of Greenland now and in the future.”
In terms of military matters, the US is permitted to establish “an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig” while modernising and expanding activities in Pituffik Space Base. It remains open to Washington to establish additional defence areas in Greenland, along with strengthening “military operations or facilities.” Proposals to do so are to heed the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2004 Joint Declaration. Undersea access rights to the US in Greenlandic waters “without restriction except as mutually agreed upon by the Parties” is also assured.
For those familiar with the 1951 Agreement Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark Concerning the Defense of Greenland, much of the new agreement is surplusage. Arrangements are already in place permitting the establishment of defence areas by the US to “assist” Denmark in defending Greenland, station forces at them, and move personnel in the territory fairly unhindered. What makes these new arrangements somewhat different is the sine die element: unlike the 1951 agreement, which is intended to conclude in the event of NATO ceases, the current understanding is durably indefinite. “This Agreement does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent in accordance with Article XIII of the 1951 Defense Agreement.” Even if Greenland were to become independent, it would still be obligated to remain part of NATO, while Denmark would still have “rights and obligations” assumed under the agreement, making the issue of self-determination purely ceremonial.
Mindful of the alleged threats posed by “adversaries to expand influence and control in Greenland,” a greater muscularity in American invigilation on who invests in the territory is offered. States or investors not members of NATO, a NATO partner, or a European Union member state will not be permitted to have control, significant influence or access to non-public information that may constitute a threat to national security or public order, notably with regards “Particularly Sensitive Sector or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters)”. “The objective shall be ensured by Greenland in close cooperation with the authorities of the Kingdom of Denmark in its application of its current or future investment screening laws” with the Danes closely consulting “relevant United States authorities and other partners.” This merely clarified what was already an ongoing practice: that the Danish authorities will prevent unwanted foreign powers access to the territory, either individually or with US assistance, when they see fit.
EU coldly kills Zelensky’s 2027 membership demand
Ukraine’s January deadline is impossible and Kiev will receive no privileges or shortcuts, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos has said.
2 Oct, 2026, https://www.rt.com/russia/646656-eu-kills-ukraine-membership-deadline/
The EU has rejected Vladimir Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine be admitted to the bloc by January 2027, with Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos saying Kiev must meet all membership requirements and will receive no exemptions.
Speaking to Italy’s Corriere della Sera ahead of an enlargement policy review scheduled for next week, Kos said getting into the club depended on reforms rather than political deadlines.
“Accession is based on merit: it’s clear that this date is not possible,” she said, noting that the January date had been set only by Zelensky.
Kos acknowledged that Kiev views membership as a security guarantee and said helping Ukraine was the EU’s “duty.” However, she stressed that candidates need to meet demanding requirements on the rule of law, economic convergence, and adoption of EU legislation, and that there are “no privileges or discounts in the accession process,” and “no shortcuts.”
Kos instead backed gradual integration before full membership and said she hoped Ukraine could make further progress in accession talks by year’s end.
Zelensky has previously rejected alternatives to full EU membership. In May, he called German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s proposal for associate membership “unfair,” arguing that Ukraine could not participate in the bloc without voting rights.
Kiev received candidate status in 2022, but accession requires unanimous support from all 27 member states. Several EU members have consistently opposed Ukraine joining the bloc, including Hungary, which has repeatedly resisted accelerated admission and recently blocked the inclusion of any language on fast-tracking Ukraine from an EU summit conclusion.
Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar has suggested Ukraine’s accession could take 10 to 15 years and linked progress to Kiev’s treatment of its ethnic Hungarian minority.
Corruption has also remained a significant obstacle to Kiev’s bid. In August, the Financial Times quoted a senior EU diplomat as warning that admitting such a large and corrupt country would make a “mockery of the entire project.”
Ukraine ranked 104th out of 182 countries in Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index.
Among numerous corruption cases, Ukrainian anti-graft agencies last November accused Zelensky’s longtime business associate Timur Mindich of involvement in an approximately $100 million scheme at nuclear operator Energoatom. Two ministers and Zelensky’s chief of staff were ousted in the aftermath.
Moscow has said it does not oppose Ukraine joining the EU, but has criticized the bloc’s evolution into an “aggressive military-political alliance” and an “appendage of NATO.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also argued that Ukrainian accession could weaken the EU and destabilize the bloc.
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (247)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
