A Gaza Plan that Sidelines the Palestinian State
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 25, 2025
The UN may have blessed Washington’s new Gaza plan, but it reads less like a peace blueprint and more like a manual for managing occupation. Behind the diplomatic fanfare lies a resolution so riddled with contradictions that it could bury — not revive — the prospect of Palestinian statehood.
The “Peace” Plan
The US-backed “peace” plan may bring a halt to active fighting, but it does not — and cannot — deliver peace for Palestinians. At best, it promises a managed quiet under continued Israeli domination. The Trump administration has framed the initiative as a “pathway” to a political resolution, yet the plan carefully avoids the one political reality that matters: Israel’s entrenched refusal to permit Palestinian statehood in any meaningful sense. Within Israel, the backlash to any hint of Palestinian sovereignty has been immediate and ferocious. Last week, far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich publicly demanded that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repudiate all references to statehood, with Ben-Gvir threatening to collapse the governing coalition if Netanyahu failed to comply. Netanyahu has since reassured them — and Washington — that no Palestinian state will be created under his watch. That political reality is already shaping Israel’s conduct on the ground: despite the nominal ceasefire embedded in the plan, Israel continues to bomb Gaza, implying that “security operations” are exempt. Yet the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the US plan offers no enforcement mechanism, no timetable, and no conditions to bind Israel to any political endgame. In practice, it hands Israel full discretion to shape the conflict’s trajectory and its eventual outcome in real time.
The plan’s proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) is presented as the key instrument for “restoring order” in Gaza, but the details reveal a deeply asymmetric security architecture. The force will operate under Israel’s operational umbrella — not under an independent UN peacekeeping mandate, and certainly not as a neutral guarantor of civilian protection. Israel has already narrowed the mission to a single objective: disarming Hamas, a demand Hamas has categorically rejected. For states such as Pakistan, which have signalled support for the ISF, the mission is framed in broader terms — the demilitarization of Gaza as a whole. Yet demilitarization, under this plan, is a one-way street. Israel retains full military freedom: ground deployments, aerial strikes, and intelligence operations can continue without restriction. Palestinians, by contrast, are expected to surrender not only armed resistance but any organised capacity to resist Israel’s occupation, settlement expansion, or annexation — even peacefully. This is not a roadmap to stability; it is a security regime designed to institutionalise Palestinian political paralysis. By stripping Palestinians of all coercive or collective leverage while preserving Israel’s overwhelming military advantage, the plan guarantees an imbalance so severe that no political process can emerge from it. Supporters of the ISF may hope the force will facilitate reconstruction or governance, but the structure of the mandate ensures the opposite: it entrenches Israeli control while outsourcing its enforcement to international actors. Far from opening the door to statehood, the plan cements the very conditions that have made such a state impossible. Under these terms, the prospects that the plan will deliver anything of value to Palestinians — let alone genuine sovereignty — are virtually nil.
The Plan and the Arab world
The plan’s swift acceptance across much of the Arab world is not a reflection of regional confidence in its substance. Rather, it reflects geopolitical fatigue and shifting priorities. After a year of devastating images from Gaza, Arab governments face intense domestic pressure to do something, yet lack either the leverage or the appetite to meaningfully confront the US or Israel. Endorsing the plan allows them to claim diplomatic engagement without assuming responsibility for achieving what the plan itself refuses to deliver. For many Arab capitals, particularly those already normalizing ties with Israel or dependent on US security guarantees, the plan functions less as a political blueprint than as a diplomatic escape hatch.
Nowhere is this contradiction clearer than in Saudi Arabia’s position. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) travelled to the United States this month for high-level meetings, including with President Trump. Publicly, MBS restated Riyadh’s long-held line: Saudi Arabia is willing to join the Abraham Accords, but only if there is a clear and irreversible roadmap to a Palestinian state. Yet Riyadh has conspicuously refrained from criticizing a plan that contains no such roadmap. This silence is not accidental; it is strategic. Saudi Arabia’s overriding objective is to secure a sweeping defence pact with Washington, one that would formally guarantee US protection and enable the kingdom to acquire advanced weapons systems. During his visit, a sweeping defense package was signed, which elevated Saudi Arabia to the status of a “major non-NATO ally,” a move that opens the gates to easier arms transfers and logistical cooperation. On the same trip, Trump confirmed a sale of F-35 jets to Riyadh, marking the first time such fifth-generation fighters would be sold to an Arab country.
That deal, however, is politically impossible for Washington unless Saudi Arabia’s relations with Israel are moving toward normalisation. The Trump administration, unlike the Biden administration before it, sees Saudi–Israeli normalisation as the centrepiece of its regional architecture. Trump called both Israel and Saudi Arabia great allies. MBS understands this and is carefully calibrating his moves, signalling rhetorical support for Palestinian statehood to maintain credibility within the Arab and Muslim worlds while avoiding any criticism that could jeopardize US willingness to finalize the defence agreement. Riyadh’s acceptance of a plan that objectively undermines Palestinian aspirations is therefore not a policy contradiction; it is a diplomatic performance. The kingdom is balancing between two audiences — one domestic, sentimental, and politically sensitive; the other strategic, transactional, and sitting in Washington.
For the Palestinian cause, however, this choreography is devastating. It signals that the Arab world’s most powerful state is willing to sidestep Palestine’s central demand — an enforceable path to sovereignty — in exchange for advanced fighter jets and more. In this sense, the plan is not only shaped by US and Israeli priorities; it is enabled by Arab governments that have recalibrated their regional ambitions away from Palestinian self-determination and toward their own national security bargains.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
Fugitive Zelensky-linked extortion suspect kept dossiers on officials – investigators
RT | November 25, 2025
The criminal network allegedly overseen by Ukrainian businessman and long-time ally of Vladimir Zelensky, Timur Mindich, had access to confidential information on dozens of Ukrainian officials, lawmakers, journalists, and security personnel, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) has reported.
Mindich fled Ukraine just hours before his home was raided earlier this month amid a sweeping corruption probe that has implicated cabinet-level officials and shaken the Zelensky administration.
Appearing before the parliamentary anti-corruption committee on Tuesday, NABU director Semyon Krivonos and chief detective Aleksandr Abakumov detailed the extent to which the group had infiltrated state institutions.
According to Abakumov, investigators discovered 527 dossiers maintained by the alleged ring, noting that the sensitive personal information they contained could potentially be used as leverage. The records included files on 15 NABU personnel, among them three detectives directly involved in the Mindich case. There were also profiles of 16 members of the Verkhovna Rada, including the head of the anti-corruption committee, 18 serving or former ministers and deputy ministers, ten journalists, and nine officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Abakumov said.
NABU believes the database was compiled with the assistance of compromised officials inside Ukrainian law enforcement bodies.
Krivonos said the investigation is advancing rapidly and that additional disclosures are expected soon. He rejected media claims that NABU is withholding materials for “geopolitical reasons,” amid reports that Washington is pressuring Zelensky to accept a compromise peace plan with Russia.
“We are not releasing only those materials that are being deeply studied to establish all facts,” he insisted.
NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office were established after the 2014 coup in Kiev as Western-designed institutions intended to operate independently of the Ukrainian government. Earlier this year, Zelensky attempted to place both agencies under the Prosecutor General’s Office, but reversed course following outcry from foreign donors.
Hungary: Major opposition news portal funded by USAID, NED as well as Soros foundation to spread disinformation
Remix News | November 21, 2025
Hungary’s Office for the Protection of Sovereignty has revealed new details regarding the Telex news portal and the funding it has received from the United States, including USAID.
Telex has claimed that it does not depend on foreign funding, but year after year, according to an analysis by the Office, it has received money from foreign governments, including the U.S., and Brussels, reports the Mandiner news portal.
Of note is that Telex received $10,000 through the Internews EPIC applications implemented within the framework of USAID’s activities in Hungary.
USAID and its activities have since been terminated by the Trump administration.
According to the office, headed by Tamás Lanczi, the president of the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty, Telex received the money from the machine controlled as a political weapon by the democratic American government through the “Independent Media Center.”
The Office for Sovereignty Protection has already identified the Internews Foundation in previous reports as a key player in the media manipulation machine that the American deep state has been operating for more than four decades.
Among the organization’s funders are: USAID, used by the Biden administration to fund political interventions around the world, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been described in detail in the office’s previous reports.
NED, Mandiner notes, played a major role in the illegal foreign campaign financing of the opposition coalition in the 2022 parliamentary elections.
Internews provides media outlets not only with money, but also with technology and content suitable for spreading narratives, which must represent given values and messages and produce activity on designated topics.
The condition for the support, the Office emphasized, is the creation of narratives that allow the American progressive elite to put pressure on the governments and decision-makers of the given countries, and to influence the citizens of the given country.
The organization is highly active in the Central European region, primarily in Hungary and Poland. Its joint media development programs with USAID have played a role in the operation of certain Hungarian media outlets since 2010 in the form of tenders, professional training, and infrastructure support.
The Office’s investigations revealed that, in exchange for money, Internews expects the media outlets to make the topics it determines part of the public discourse, to frame narratives that are contrary to the interests of the client as disinformation, and to provide the funded editorial offices with mandatory content.
As Tamás Lánczi wrote previously, “Telex.hu journalists received almost HUF 200 million of U.S. government money.”
The president of the Office for the Protection of Sovereignty announced that documents reviewed by his organization show that the project called Telex Academy was also implemented with a grant of approximately $740,000 from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) of the United States Department of State.
The vast majority of the money was paid to Telex journalists.
EU says Ukraine needs €135 billion fast, Orbán laughs off funding proposals for corrupt Zelensky regime as ‘absurd’
Remix News | November 20, 2025
The letter sent by European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen to EU leaders urging swift action on Ukraine’s “pressing financing needs” for 2026-2027 has now been leaked for all to view.
Calling its financial gap “significant,” the EU commission leader calls for rapid, flexible and sustainable financing, with the first payments to be available “by the beginning of the second quarter of 2026.”
“There should be fair burden sharing with international partners,” the letter, leaked by Politico, adds.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has called the letter “absurd,” especially as Ukrainian President Zelensky is facing a massive corruption scandal, amounting to close associates of his having robbed the country of some $100 million, with at least one, Timur Mindich, fleeing to Israel. Other top ministers have been implicated, including the country’s justice minister, who has been suspended from his role.
Zelensky’s polling numbers have reportedly fallen to below 20 percent, there are calls for the entire government to resign, and even ardent supporter Poland is seeing MPs draft resolutions for Ukrainian aid to end.
Meanwhile, Brussels is expecting EU member states to pony up more cash, fast.
Von der Leyen gave three possible solutions to do this: non-repayable grants from member states, a preferential loan from EU credit market sources, and a “compensation loan” linked to frozen Russian assets.
She especially emphasizes that the security of all of Europe is linked to that of Ukraine.
“The bottom line is that Europe needs a sufficiently strong defense posture to credibly deter its adversaries, as well as respond to any aggressions. An essential and inevitable pillar of this defense posture is the security and the strength of Ukraine,” she said.
According to the EU commission, Kyiv expects a total financial deficit of €135.7 billion over the next two years, on top of the aid already promised. However, even before the latest bombshell scandal, EU and German authorities were pointing out rampant corruption across Ukraine, with even polling from Ukraine itself showing the vast majority of Ukrainians blame Zelensky for the corruption issues facing the wartime country.
According to IMF forecasts, the Ukrainian economy will need significant external resources even if the war ends in 2026.
The commission describes in detail the three financing options: direct support from EU member states would require “€45 billion per year, i.e. at least €90 billion;” the EU credit market facility would require mandatory member state guarantees; and the model based on frozen Russian assets would risk contagion of financial and legal risks, especially if it were interpreted as “confiscation” by third parties.
The letter also discusses using all three options separately or in combination, as long as Ukraine gets what it needs when it needs it.
Von der Leyen closes her letter with a call to “rapidly reach a clear commitment on how to ensure that the necessary financing for Ukraine will be agreed at the next European Council meeting in December.”
Orbán had a terse response to all three options and the letter in general, which he posted on X. Calling the “magic trick” of joint borrowing “absurd,” he dismissed money tied to Russian assets as a path filled with “lengthy legal wrangling, a flood of lawsuits and the collapse of the euro.”
As to member states offering up funds, the Hungarian prime minister laughed it off: “As if they had nothing better to do.”
“So let’s choose common sense. Let’s stop funding a war that cannot be won, alongside the corrupt Ukrainian war mafia, and focus our strength on establishing peace,” he concluded.
Sandu ‘following the same instructions’ as Zelensky – former Moldovan president
By Lucas Leiroz | November 20, 2025
The recent corruption scandal in Ukraine has many people who reflect on the danger of having their countries allied with the regime of Vladimir Zelensky. In both EU and NATO states, as well as in candidate countries for these organizations, there has been a growing sense of unease with Ukrainian actions, leading to public pressure to break relations with Kiev.
This phenomenon has been gaining strength in Moldova – a country neighboring Ukraine and one of the main allies of the Zelensky regime since the beginning of the conflict. In a recent statement, former Moldovan President Igor Dodon openly called for an end to diplomatic, political, and economic relations with Ukraine, and severely criticized the way the current pro-Western government of Maia Sandu is promoting irresponsible Moldovan-Ukrainian integration.
Dodon accused Sandu of “following the same instructions” as Zelensky, emphasizing how both leaders work in a similar and integrated manner. Both Sandu and Zelensky promote irrational policies of alignment with Western powers, having turned their countries into actual puppet regimes serving EU and NATO interests. Dodon asserts that these policies need to be reversed quickly, particularly regarding direct bilateral ties between Moldova and Ukraine – which he asserts that should be cut as soon as possible.
“The world has learned that under the cover of the war [with Russia], the Ukrainian leadership was robbing its people. Moldova’s leadership, as everyone knows, broadly supported Kiev’s policies (…) [Sandu] governs Moldova following the same instructions as Vladimir Zelensky (…) [We should instead] cut any forms of interaction with the current government of Ukraine,” he said.
Dodon’s sentiments are not uncommon. The Kiev regime has increasingly caused unease among its own allies. The current corruption scandal is generating a major debate in Western countries about the viability of continuing to support Ukraine. Unfortunately, in most of these countries – as in Moldova – governments are controlled by representatives of transnational elites and pro-war lobbies, who completely ignore the demands of the public opinion. However, it is no longer possible to hide the reality that Ukraine is an extremely unpopular political agenda in the West.
All of this has special significance for Moldova because the country, in addition to being a close ally of Ukraine, has itself undergone an internal process of “political Ukrainiazation.” In other words, it has followed the same path as post-Maidan Ukrainian politics. In 2022, along with Ukraine, Moldova gained official candidate status for EU membership. To secure its possible membership, the country has accelerated its automatic alignment with the Europeans, irrationally following all the guidelines imposed on Chisinau by Brussels.
Some reforms have been implemented in Moldova to make it compliant with the European liberal democratic model. However, what has most impacted Moldovan internal stability is the constant Western pressure on Chisinau to adopt coercive and violent measures to assimilate the regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia. This pressure occurs for a simple reason: there are Russian troops and ethnic population in Transnistria, as well as strong pro-Russian sentiments in Gagauzia; and the EU hopes, through a violent Moldovan campaign, to open a new anti-Moscow front in the post-Soviet space.
Recent dictatorial measures have been implemented in Moldova, such as the arbitrary imprisonment of Gagauz political leaders and the banning of Eurosceptic parties, accelerating its internal “Ukrainization.” Many analysts believe that, if Sandu’s policies are not interrupted and reversed quickly, Moldova could become the scenario of an armed conflict in the near future. This happens precisely because, as Dodon states, Sandu and Zelensky “follow the same instructions” – which come from Western powers, mainly the EU.
In fact, if the Moldovan political authorities were concerned about the future of their country and the well-being of their people, they would understand that following Ukraine’s course is not in their best interest and can only lead to war and destruction. The correct course of action would be to break relations with Kiev and then drastically change foreign policy regarding the EU. Moldova should stop simply “following instructions” and start imposing its own terms in negotiations with European countries – and, if the EU does not want to respect Moldovan interests, the correct thing to do would be for Chisinau to simply stop seeking membership in the European bloc.
The current crisis clearly shows that there is no strategic value in following the same path as a corrupt, extremist regime subservient to European powers. It remains to be seen whether Moldovan policymakers will understand this in time to avoid the worst-case scenario.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Ukraine is drowning in a swamp of corruption – and the West is trying to make it look like a good thing
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 19, 2025
In Ukraine, the front lines are crumbling and so is the Zelensky regime. While Kupyansk and Pokrovsk are falling, the shockwaves of the Energoatom Mafia scandal keep reverberating, internationally and at home in Kiev.
At this point, two ministers have resigned. The former defense minister and head of the powerful National Security Council, Rustem Umerov, is in essence on the run abroad. According to the usually well-informed journalist Anatoly Shariy, Umerov is offering the FBI in the US to turn – protected – witness. He may still return to Ukraine, but even his current behavior – the unplanned delays, the search for US allies, quite possibly for some kind of deal – betrays a very guilty conscience.
Likewise, Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko has declared her readiness to cooperate with Ukraine’s own anti-corruption prosecutors at NABU, which is in reality a branch of the FBI implanted in Ukraine. Clearly, Sviridenko is also looking for a deal, letting it be known that she is ready to talk and name names, as long as they let her get away with the absurd claim that she knew it all but wasn’t part of it.
Zelensky’s most intimate companion, chief consigliere, autocratic enforcer, and overbearing eminence grise, Andrey Yermak, is also deeply – and unsurprisingly – implicated, under the gangster slang name ‘Ali Baba’, in the Energoatom Mafia scandal, and his head is clearly on the political chopping block.
Details could be multiplied ad nauseam. Take, for instance, the fact that we now know that the gangster pseudonym ‘Professor’ did not stand for former Justice Minister German Galushchenko – no worries, though: He’s still an Energoatom mobster, just not that one – but the wife of former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, Svetlana.
While her husband features as ‘Che Guevara’ in the Energoatom scandal, ‘Professor’ Svetlana – in real life (or pretend?) an academic at Kiev’s prestigious Taras Shevchenko University – happens to be very close besties with Elena Zelenskaya. Yes, that would be Vladimir Zelensky’s spouse (when his intense schedule with Yermak leaves time for her). According to Shariy, Svetlana-bestie-of-Elena is implicated in shady deals around the habit of Kiev’s elites of building themselves palaces, and she also received a cool $500,000 (in cash) from ‘Sugarman’, aka Aleksandr Tsukerman, another key Energoatom player on the run.
In short, if they think they have a swamp in Washington, they haven’t seen Kiev yet. But of course, they have. It is obvious that Washington has been well aware of just how stunningly, stinkingly corrupt its clients in Ukraine are. Indeed, the more, the better, a modern Machiavelli would say, because it makes them even more dependent. One of the best explanations for the Energoatom scandal breaking now is that it is part of a US operation to either get rid of or subdue Zelensky. The conspicuous fact that Zelensky has suddenly made – insubstantial – noises about being interested in peace talks may have as much to do with this American assault on him as with the disaster on the front lines.
This is the context that also explains a recent trend in Western spin-for-Ukraine. Absurd as it is, the claim that the Energoatom mess is really a good sign if you only look close enough is spreading as if on cue. The underlying logic is not only daft but simple. Take, for instance, a recent specimen of the genre: According to Polish TVP quoting the American Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), the Energoatom scandal “hurts Ukraine yet proves it’s on the right track,” because “a case of this scale exposed by domestic institutions is proof of Ukraine’s anti-corruption system working.”
Where to even begin? Let’s just break it down in order of appearance: ‘A case’ – as in one case – only proves that there is much more to come. In Ukraine, there is widespread consensus that what happened at Energoatom is peanuts compared to what has been going on in the defense sector, bloated with literally hundreds of billions of euros and dollars from the West. This is exactly why ex-Defense Minister Umerov is running scared. The first evidence of his personal involvement in corruption is emerging already. Energoatom is merely the crack in the dam. When the dam breaks, so will the system, all of it.
‘Domestic institutions’? That one is genuinely funny. The only reason NABU and SAPO – Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies – are still alive is that they are not domestic. In reality, for those who don’t believe in Santa Claus, they are US implants – in the case of NABU, explicitly so. They survived Zelensky’s attempt to raze them this summer only due to Western support.
‘Proof’? The only proof of Ukraine’s corruption under the Zelensky regime suffering a real setback would be the fall of that regime. But even then – and here is what naive Westerners simply cannot grasp about the Ukrainian political system – corruption as such would not cease but merely undergo a change in management. How do we know? Because this law of Kiev politics has been tested again and again. The last time, by the way, in 2014, when then-President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a regime change operation made easier by his flagrant graft and nepotism. And yet, here we are again.
There is added irony in Poland channeling an American think tank to spread absurd spin about Ukraine’s hyper-corruption: According to X post by former Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller, the Polish authorities may well have helped one of the very worst Energoatom Mafia leaders, Timur Mindich – aka ‘the president’s purse’, that is, Zelensky’s – to evade arrest. This is entirely plausible: In Ukraine, Mindich was clearly tipped off about his impending arrest, most likely by either Yermak or Zelensky himself. Whoever warned him would also have had the necessary Polish connections. And Warsaw, of course, has a nasty record of working with criminals from Ukraine and of sheltering them from prosecution, too. Just ask the Germans how far they got with their Nord Stream investigations.
Ukrainians are drowning in a deep, fetid swamp of corruption, worse than ever. To pretend that a scandal surfacing from that morass is a good sign is perverse. But then, so is most of Western policy toward Ukraine, using its people up in a war provoked for idiotic reasons and long lost. Maybe there is some dark, historic justice in Ukraine and the West making their respective cultures of cynicism and graft even worse for each other.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Zelensky Signs Deal to Buy 100 Fighter Jets From France
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 17, 2025
During a meeting with French President Macron, Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a major weapons deal for Rafale fighters and drones. The warplanes will be delivered over the next decade, and Paris said training Ukrainian pilots will take at least three years.
“One of the most productive visits of this year, and certainly a new step in our strategic partnership with France. We have signed a historic agreement providing for a new fleet of fighter jets for Ukraine: 100 Rafales,” Zelensky wrote on X Tuesday.
He continued, “We will also receive highly effective French radars as well as new SAMP/T air defense systems, designed to precisely counter the types of missiles used against Ukraine. We have also agreed on the supply of air-to-air missiles and guided aerial bombs.”
The letter of intent signed by Zelensky will also see the transfer of drones and anti-drone systems to Ukraine.
Marcon and Zelensky did not provide a timeline on the transfer of the Rafales or who would pay for the weapons. Rafales cost over $100 million per plane. A French official said it would take at least three years to train the Ukrainian pilots.
Zelensky said Paris agreed to provide Kiev with some immediate security assistance. “France is additionally preparing a new package of military aid, which we will receive by the end of the year,” the Ukrainian leader wrote on X.
Zelensky was in France to attend a meeting of the “coalition of the willing.” The group is a bloc of European countries working to fill Kiev’s massive budget deficits. On Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent a letter to the leaders of the European Union’s member states, arguing that it was essential for the bloc to plug Ukraine’s $157 billion budget gap over the next two years.
Part of von der Leyen’s proposal calls for European nations to use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort. Zelensky said he believed the coalition of the willing would be able to come to an agreement on this issue.
“I believe that in the end we’ll reach an agreement to push this topic to the end and be able to use Russian assets for the European defense package, for Ukrainian production, and for the most part for the air defense systems from the United States of America,” he said.
EU to spread legal costs of attacking Russian assets – Politico
RT | November 17, 2025
The EU has pledged to spread the financial and legal risks of using Russia’s frozen central-bank assets to fund the government in Kiev, Politico reported on Monday. Belgium, where most of the money is held, has rejected the plan without such guarantees.
The European Commission is seeking to issue a €140 billion ($160 billion) loan secured against the immobilized sovereign assets held at the Euroclear clearing house in Belgium. The scheme is based on the assumption that Moscow will eventually pay reparations to Ukraine, an outcome widely seen as unlikely. Russia has said it regards any use of its assets as “theft” and has vowed a legal response.
According to Politico, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has circulated a memo to EU capitals spelling out how member states would share the risks with Belgium. The document says the bloc is prepared to cover potential legal and financial fallout even if disputes arise years later.
Belgium, which has a bilateral investment treaty with Russia dating back to 1989, has warned it could face lengthy and costly litigation if Moscow mounts a legal challenge. Von der Leyen said the guarantees would also cover obligations stemming from bilateral investment treaties.
Around $200 billion of the roughly $300 billion in Russian sovereign reserves frozen by the West since 2022 are held at Euroclear. The clearinghouse has threatened to sue the EU if the bloc attempts to confiscate the assets.
The memo reportedly also set out two fallback options should governments ultimately decide against using the Russian funds. Both alternatives would require the EU to pony up its own resources to support Kiev, thus shifting the burden onto European taxpayers.
European Commissioner for Economy Valdis Dombrovskis said last week that the bloc cannot continue providing loans to Ukraine in light of growing concerns over Kiev’s ability to repay them.
The Kremlin has warned that channeling Russian funds to Ukraine would “boomerang,” and threatened to target up to €200 billion in Western assets held in Russia in retaliation.
CRAZY New BLOOD PRESSURE Guidelines Could HURT MILLIONS
Dr. Suneel Dhand | November 4, 2025
This really needs to be discussed. Recommendations are way different from other advanced countries.
New Hypertension Guidelines: https://www.heart.org/en/health-topic…
Doctors of Ojais Channel:
/ @doctorsofojais
Dr. Dhand’s Website: https://www.drsuneeldhand.com
The intel scandal behind Prince Andrew’s twisted Epstein exploits
By Kit Klarenberg · The Grayzone · November 16, 2025
In an interview with The Grayzone, author Andrew Lownie details shocking findings of his research into Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Describing Andrew as his “Super Bowl trophy,” Epstein used the prince for intel, which he passed to foreign spy agencies. Lownie says further revelations threaten to “bury” the Royal Family.
Prince Andrew’s decades-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was “earlier, longer, and far more intimate than anyone has previously admitted,” historian Andrew Lownie told The Grayzone. Their friendship was so depraved that even Epstein, the self-proclaimed “king of kink,” was shocked by the Prince’s sexual appetites, according to Lownie’s new book, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York.
Based on years of research in BBC archives, interviews, and leaked emails, Lownie’s investigation provides a chilling portrait of a man shielded by royal privilege, addicted to sex from childhood, and ultimately undone by his alliance with the world’s most notorious pedophile. The historian reveals that Epstein not only supplied Andrew with a steady stream of underage girls, but also gathered intelligence from the prince, and dutifully passed it along to Mossad and other spy agencies.
“The Prince was a useful idiot who gave Epstein respectability and access to political leaders and business opportunities,” Lownie explained to The Grayzone. “Meanwhile, Epstein offered Andrew an opportunity to join the super rich and enjoy a lifestyle to which he had long aspired, an endless supply of women, a chance to make lots of money, and someone who would bankroll his lavish lifestyle as well as settle Sarah Ferguson’s debts.”
Lownie revealed that Epstein was able to gather a steady flow of sensitive intelligence from Andrew, including potential blackmail material which he could hawk to foreign governments. Epstein’s one-time ‘mentor,’ the serial fraudster Steven Hoffenberg echoed this account, claiming Epstein referred to Andrew as his “Super Bowl trophy.” While the British royal unwittingly spied on Epstein’s behalf, he simultaneously compromised himself, making him into a perfect tool.
For much of his life, Andrew enjoyed an astonishing level of protection and indulgence from his mother, Queen Elizabeth. A former worker interviewed by an Australian outlet divulged that royal staffers were terrified by the prince’s impunity, and largely avoided standing up to his compulsive bullying because “Her Majesty almost always backed him and he fully exploited that.”
Lownie told The Grayzone Andrew’s explosive tantrums at Buckingham Palace, which reduced some targets to tears, were a “virtually daily” occurrence.
A source close to Andrew revealed to Lownie that the prince began exhibiting unusual sexual tendencies when he was only eight years old. The problem only worsened when Andrew lost his virginity at age 11 after a friend’s father hired two escorts for the boys. Andrew reportedly informed the source that by the time he was 13, he had already slept with over half a dozen girls, leading the source to conclude that the prince had been “a victim of sexual abuse at a very young age.”
Thanks to Andrew and Epstein, the cycle of abuse allegedly continued with a number of young girls — most notably, Virginia Giuffre. When her allegations against the Prince became public in 2015, a BBC team secretly travelled across the US, reviewing police files, while interviewing the pair’s victims at length. Along the way, they unearthed emails between Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell discussing Giuffre.
The emails offer no indication either were unaware of Giuffre, or any sense her allegations were bogus. Lownie says the BBC team’s lead investigator told him, “instead Andrew and Maxwell worked together to build a dossier about Virginia [Giuffre] to leak to the media.” In other words, the pair colluded to smear one of their victims in the court of public opinion, before legal action could be initiated. When a suit was finally initiated on her behalf, Andrew paid out handsomely rather than face scrutiny.
Lownie believes full disclosure of Andrew’s involvement with Epstein could permanently sink the House of Windsor. A former Buckingham Palace staffer told him, “they’d never be able to bounce back from it,” as the resultant scandal “would bury them for good.” Lownie’s source cautioned, “if the unconditional truth is ever released, the British public would try to impeach the Royal Family — after all, many of Andrew’s wrongdoings were done on the British taxpayer’s tab.”
Andrew’s sexual depravity shocks even Epstein
Canadian journalist Ian Halperin was the only reporter to interview Epstein at length before the financier’s death. He provided Lownie with exclusive access to his records. They show Epstein was surprisingly candid about his predilection for underage girls, to the extent of openly arguing pedophilia should be decriminalized. Along the way, the pedophile offered a number of explosive revelations about Andrew, who he described as his “closest friend in the world.”
In one email, Epstein insisted he and Andrew were “very similar,” as they were “both serial sex addicts” who’d even “shared the same women.” Andrew was “the only person I have met who is more obsessed with pussy than me,” he attested. Based on “reports” Epstein received from their mutual sexual conquests, Andrew was “the most perverted animal in the bedroom,” he wrote. Epstein expressed awe at the degeneracy of Andrew, who he said possessed “the dirtiest mind I’ve ever seen,” concluding: “He likes to engage in stuff that’s even kinky to me – and I’m the king of kink!”
Lownie also provides evidence that the depraved duo crossed paths far earlier than is claimed by Andrew. According to a statement by the prince after Epstein’s death, he insisted they met in 1999 and subsequently saw each other “probably no more than only once or twice a year.” In reality, Andrew’s private secretary places the start of their friendship in “the early 1990s,” Lownie explained. Flight logs from Epstein’s private jet, nicknamed the Lolita Express, reveal that Andrew’s occasional partner, Sarah Ferguson, travelled on the aircraft with her children as early as April 1998.
By 2000, the royal had become a fixture at elite Stateside social events hosted by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the publishing heiress who met Andrew during the 1980s at Oxford University. As their friendship developed, Andrew and Ferguson often stayed at Epstein’s palatial New York and Florida homes.
These trips have largely been concealed from the public, which is perhaps understandable given the purpose of his visits.
“Whenever Andrew was in town, I’d be picking up young girls who were essentially prostitutes,” Epstein’s personal driver, Ivan Novikov, recalled to Lownie. “One time I drove him and two young girls around 18 to the Gansevoort Hotel in the Meatpacking District. Both girls were doing lines of cocaine. Prince Andrew was making out with one of them.”
All the while, Epstein and Maxwell were insinuating themselves into the top echelons of the British aristocracy. According to one now-deleted British media report, Andrew invited Epstein and Maxwell to attend events at Windsor Castle and Sandringham in 2001, including Queen Elizabeth II’s 74th birthday that August. The article, which has since been scrubbed from London’s Evening Standard website, quoted a friend of Ferguson’s as saying Andrew’s lewdness was so undisguised that he “travels abroad with his own massage mattress.” According to the Evening Standard, the “very manipulative” Maxwell introduced Andrew to a “sex aid entrepreneur” at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago.
The same piece described Andrew traveling around Phuket, Thailand with Maxwell, frequenting “sex bars in the area’s red light district”, and visiting Los Angeles with his friend and “self-confessed drug dealer” Brett Livingstone-Strong. During this time, Andrew was apparently so infatuated with Epstein and his clique that he opted to stay at the pedophile’s Miami beach mansion rather than attend his daughter Eugenie’s 12th birthday party at Disneyland Paris, Lownie reveals.
Andrew’s fall from grace
In May 2007, Epstein began negotiating an unusually lenient plea deal with Florida authorities after local police uncovered a trove of evidence implicating the financier in a national sex trafficking conspiracy. Finally, English-language media began scrutinizing the potentially pedophilic implications of the financier’s bond with Prince Andrew for the first time. Another since-deleted Evening Standard report on their friendship noted Epstein’s Florida mansion was filled with pictures of nude girls, with two cameras found hidden in clocks.
The net significantly tightened in December 2014, when lawyers filed court papers in Florida alleging Andrew was one of several prominent figures who’d raped Virginia Giuffre at Epstein’s arrangement. The pair purportedly had sex in London, New York, and on Epstein’s private island, Little Saint James. In the latter case, Giuffre claimed to have been involved in a “disgusting” orgy with Andrew, Epstein, and multiple girls who “all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18.”
The filings also alleged Andrew had lobbied on Epstein’s behalf after his arrest, working to ensure he received a light sentence. Epstein repaid the favor by clearing Sarah Ferguson’s substantial debts. British media reacted with shock: “Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused,” blared one mainstream headline. That day, a seemingly frantic Andrew emailed Maxwell: “Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts.”
Buckingham Palace issued a firm denial, stating “any suggestion of impropriety” by Andrew “with underage minors is categorically untrue,” and that he “emphatically denied the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts.” Until Epstein’s death, the British media seemingly accepted the royal line. But Andrew’s now-notorious November 2019 Newsnight interview revived public suspicions, and ignited a new wave of scrutiny.
Over the course of an hour-long grilling, the Prince offered a series of preposterous excuses for his friendship with Epstein, while failing to credibly explain his time with Giuffre. For example, he claimed her account of him sweating profusely while they danced together at a London night club couldn’t be true, as he was unable to sweat at all because he suffered a scientifically implausible “adrenaline overdose” during the Falklands war.
Next, Andrew attempted to justify a four-day December 2010 visit to Epstein in New York, during which paparazzi documented a young woman leaving his town house, and a friendly walk he enjoyed with the prince through Central Park. (The tweet below incorrectly dates the footage from 2011; it was filmed on December 6, 2010).
In his Newsnight interview, Andrew claimed he initiated the meeting to break off ties with the financier following his conviction for sex trafficking offenses. He insisted that he felt the need to end their connection in person, due to his “tendency to be too honourable,” but struggled to explain why this necessitated a four-night-long stay, replete with a dinner party in his personal honor.
The prince claimed he opted to stay at Epstein’s mansion as “it was… convenient” — apparently overlooking the British consulate and numerous upmarket hotels which could have provided an alternative to staying with a convicted sex offender.
Furor over Andrew’s performance erupted as soon as the interview was broadcast, with one royal observer dubbing it, “nuclear explosion level bad.” Yet the Prince was initially satisfied with his public self-immolation. The Guardian reported at the time that Andrew “was so pleased with how things had gone that he gave the Newsnight team a tour of the palace afterwards.”
Andrew’s British state protection crumbles
Days after the disastrous interview, Andrew’s ex-girlfriend disputed his account of the 2010 visit with Epstein, stating that the prince’s main purpose was to determine whether the financier had “any dirt on him.” The pair reportedly also discussed securing $200 million funding for mysterious energy company Aria Petroleum, prompting Epstein to inform close contacts at JP Morgan that the prince sought to represent the interests of a Chinese commercial entity.
From this point on, Andrew withdrew from public life. Under pressure from British Army apparatchiks, he was stripped of his military awards and decorations. Charities distanced themselves from the royal, while polls indicated a majority of Britons believed he should be extradited to the US to face questioning. In May 2020, Andrew permanently resigned all his public roles over his Epstein connections. In the meantime, pressure began building in the US for the Prince to speak to Giuffre’s lawyers and federal investigators.
In his Newsnight interview and subsequent official statements, Andrew claimed he was happy to assist with any investigation into Epstein’s abuse. But the American prosecutor who led investigations into the financier and his associates in New York, Geoffrey Berman, reported he was repeatedly stonewalled by Buckingham Palace. Contacting royal lawyers was difficult enough in the first place, he said, and he described their communications as having quickly devolved into an never-ending series of questions.
“What kind of an interview will it be? Are there any protections? Is there this? Is there that? And where do you want it to take place?” Berman recalled. “It was an endless email exchange, and it was clear we were getting the run-around. He was not going to sit down for an interview with us.” Finally, Berman asked the State Department to dispatch a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) request to British police, demanding an interview with the prince.
US prosecutors “almost always got what we asked when we put in an MLAT request,” Berman recalled. “But that was not what happened with Prince Andrew. We got absolutely nowhere. Were they protecting him? I assume someone was.”
Andrew’s state-level protections began to dissolve, however, after a December 2020 investigation by the Daily Mail into Giuffre’s claim that Andrew had sex with her when she was just 17. His alibis for the dates in question had been incinerated.
In August 2021, Giuffre’s lawyers filed suit against Andrew in a US court for “sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The action raised the prospect of Andrew giving sworn testimony proving his inability to sweat on the witness stand. Members of the Royal Family, including Ferguson and their daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, also faced the threat of grilling under oath. Rather than go to court, the House of Windsor settled for as much as $16.3 million.
Andrew Prince no more as scandals proliferate
For the first time, Buckingham Palace began to firmly distance itself from Andrew. As Lownie recorded, the media was informed that the Queen would no longer bankroll his legal fees. After a lifetime of protecting her son from the consequences of his excesses, fear of further damaging admissions may have motivated the monarch’s decision.
Those fears were well-founded, as Lownie revealed that Andrew emailed Epstein in February 2011, months after claiming to have cut off all contact with the financier following their four day 2010 ‘farewell’ summit in New York.
In that email, Andrew promised to “keep in close touch,” stating, “we are in this together and will have to rise above it,” and promising, “we’ll play some more soon!!!” That same year, Sarah Ferguson expressed her affinity and gratitude to Epstein in a separate covert email exchange. Sources suggested to Lownie that Epstein had supplied her with hundreds of thousands of dollars, far in excess of the £15,000 she claims to have received from the serial sex abuser.
In a 2011 interview, Ferguson said “having anything to do” with Epstein had been a “gigantic error of judgment” on her part. She added, “I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children… what he did was wrong and… he was rightly jailed.” Shortly after though, she contacted Epstein claiming she “did not, absolutely not, say the ‘P word’ about you.” Ferguson apologised for letting him down, stating “you have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family.”
This October 30, as furor over Epstein’s activities engulfed the Trump administration, Buckingham Palace issued a shock declaration. Prince Andrew will be stripped of his titles, honors, and stately home, and now simply be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor – in effect excommunicated from the British Royal Family for life. While no formal explanation for the unprecedented move was provided, it was clear they were determined to cleanse Epstein’s stain from their house.
“These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him,” the royal statement read. “Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”
But Andrew’s erasure from the spotlight, termination of his assorted patronages and curtailment of public duties may have come too late. After years of alternating between silence over his sexual abuse or flatly denying the allegations, Buckingham Palace faces the threat of further disclosures. As Lownie makes clear in his newly released book, Entitled, new details of the prince’s perversions could discredit the royal family for good.
Is Trump protecting pedophiles in the Epstein files?
By George Samuelson | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 17, 2025
Following a batch of newly released emails from Jeffrey Epstein, the late child offender, it appears thus far that U.S. President Donald Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing. So why is he acting so suspicious?
On November 12th, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released some 20,000 emails from the files that suggested Donald Trump may have known more about Epstein’s underage sex-trafficking activities than he previously admitted.
In an email exchange between Epstein, who committed suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial, and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein notes that an alleged victim had “spent hours at my house” with Trump.
“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump,” Epstein wrote in an April 2011 message to Maxwell, who is awaiting trial from federal prison in the United States.
“[Victim] spent hours at my house with him,, he has never once been mentioned,” he continues.
“I have been thinking about that…” Maxwell replied.
In another email between Epstein and journalist Michael Wolff from 2019, Epstein writes that [Victim] mara lago… [redacted]… trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever.. of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.’
While the email exchange looks tantalizingly close to some form of guilt on the part of the U.S. leader, it is not a smoking gun. That’s largely because the redacted ‘victim’ mentioned in the above email messages is none other than Virginia Giuffre, who was 17 years old when she was lured away from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club to work for Jeffrey Epstein.
Giuffre, who committed suicide in April, was deposed in November 2016 as part of her lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. In the course of the deposition she maintained that Trump never attempted to have sex with her. She also responded under oath that she never saw Trump at any of Jeffrey Epstein’s residences.
Over the years, Trump and Epstein had rubbed shoulders in elite social circles in New York and Florida. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, Trump said he had known Epstein for 15 years, calling him a “terrific guy” who was “a lot of fun to be with.”
In that same interview, Trump added, “it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
So, if there is nothing more to the story between the disgraced billionaire pedophile and the American president, why are Trump and other top officials so reluctant to release the remainder of the files to public scrutiny? (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing”).
Is the U.S. leader covering for himself or for others in the knowledge that there may be far more incriminating revelations in other messages? The answer appears to be obvious and self-evident, but whatever the case may be, Trump is putting intense pressure on Republicans to block release of the remainder of the files now in possession of the Justice Department.
CNN reported that the White House summoned representative Lauren Boebert – one of four Republicans in the House who have signed a special discharge petition to release the files – to a meeting in the Situation Room with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, and FBI director, Kash Patel, to discuss her position. Trump failed to get a reversal from Boebert, as well as other lawmakers contacted by the White House, including South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace. But the administration had other cards to play, it seems.
Perhaps Republicans and Democrats alike were of the opinion that a conveniently timed government shutdown – the longest in history, in fact – would make the public forget about Mr. Epstein. If that was the goal it also failed. After the government reopened for business, the late swearing-in of the Democratic representative Adelita Grijalva brought the number of signatures on the discharge petition to the magic number of 218 required to force a vote on legislation demanding the release of all files on Epstein within 30 days.
Meanwhile, the U.S. president’s efforts to portray the files as part of an elaborate ‘Democrat Hoax’ is not working among his MAGA constituents, many of whom cast a vote for Trump specifically on the grounds that the files would be made public. In July, much to the anger and frustration of the Republican base, the Justice Department released a memo that pointed to a “lack of evidence” to continue with the investigation.
“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” the memo said. “There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
“No further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted,” the memo continued.
If the Trump White House was of the opinion that the American people would forget the Epstein case, they were sadly disappointed. They smelled a rat and they would not rest until the matter was brought to its final conclusion.
“The best-case explanation for the Trump administration on their mishandling of the Epstein case is rank incompetence,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, in a statement. “But the much likelier explanation is that Trump and wealthy people around him have things to hide.”
Will those hidden things be brought to the light of day? Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely. Even if the discharge petition passes the House, it still needs to get through the Senate and be signed by Trump, who certainly does not want to be seen as the person left holding the hot potato. The question remains: how much will the Republicans suffer at the ballot box if they continue to ignore the Epstein case?
Western aid feeding Ukrainian corruption – Italian deputy PM
RT | November 15, 2025
Western assistance to Kiev risks ending up in the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian officials, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has warned, citing a major scandal that recently shook Ukraine’s government. He also argued against further military aid, warning that the EU was on “the path of death.”
Salvini spoke as the Italian government approved its 12th package of military support for Ukraine and promised electrical generators for the coming winter. The decision coincided with a major scandal in Kiev over an alleged $100 million energy graft scheme involving Timur Mindich, a close associate and former business partner of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky.
Moscow responded to the news by calling it evidence of a “bloody hydra” of Ukrainian corruption reaching beyond the country’s borders and draining Western taxpayers’ money. Politico also reported on Saturday that the EU was also concerned over “endemic corruption” in Ukraine.
“It seems to me that corruption scandals are emerging, involving the Ukrainian government, so I would not want the money of Italian workers and pensioners to be used to fuel further corruption,” Salvini told reporters in Naples on Friday.
He added that ending the conflict depends on “silencing the weapons” and bringing both Moscow and Kiev to the negotiating table. Salvini also argued that it should be in Kiev’s interest to halt the fighting as soon as possible, pointing to continued Russian gains on the battlefield.
“To think that sending weapons to Ukraine means Ukraine can regain the lost ground is naïve, to say the least,” he said, adding that he did not believe “prolonging this path of death will help anyone.”
Salvini has previously criticized what he sees as escalatory rhetoric from other EU leaders. In August, he responded to French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion that EU nations could send troops to Ukraine by saying Macron should go himself. “If Macron wants, he can go – but I think he’ll go alone, because not even one Frenchman would follow him,” Salvini said at the time, prompting a brief diplomatic spat between Rome and Paris.
