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.
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.
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 Standardreport 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).
A reminder of when Prince Andrew visited Jeffrey Epstein at his apartment in New York in December 2011… 3 years after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Prince Andrew can clearly be seen behind the door at the end of the video. pic.twitter.com/5vtfcwts0H
— Ragged Trousered Philanderer (@RaggedTP) April 12, 2021
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.
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 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.
Israel wants to strike a 20-year security agreement with the US, doubling the duration of the previous one and emphasizing “cooperation” between the two nations rather than one-sided reception of military aid, Axios has reported, citing officials familiar with the matter.
The current 10-year framework agreement for long-term security assistance to Israel is set to expire in 2028. The $38 billion deal was signed under the Obama administration, making it the third in a string of ever-growing security packages for Israel. The two previous deals were worth some $21 and $32 billion, respectively.
The US poured additional military aid into Israel during the conflict with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. According to recent estimates by the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs, the additional assistance amounted to nearly $22 billion. Moreover, the Pentagon spent up to $12 billion to prop up Israeli operations across the Middle East during the conflict.
West Jerusalem would like to sign the deal next year and has reportedly added unspecified ‘America First’ provisions to appease the Trump administration.
“This is out-of-the-box thinking. We want to change the way we handled past agreements and put more emphasis on US-Israel cooperation. The Americans like this idea,” an unnamed Israeli official told the outlet.
Israel reportedly proposed using some of the funds allocated under the pact for joint research and development, rather than funneling it all into direct military aid. The research areas could involve AI-related defense tech, as well as the Golden Dome missile defense initiative, an Israeli official told Axios.
US President Donald Trump announced his Golden Dome initiative, whose name is reminiscent of the Israeli Iron Dome anti-aircraft system, early this year. The system is envisioned as a space-integrated shield capable of intercepting missiles from anywhere in the world and is expected to involve space-based components and options for preemptive strikes. The Congressional Budget Office has projected the program’s cost could exceed $542 billion over two decades.
The global temperature did not change in October compared to August. The cooling trend remains intact. The American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) foresees a cool LA NINA developing in the Pacific this winter, which will lead to a further decline in global temperatures as well.
Belém – All that fuss for nothing
The 30th World Climate Conference in Belém is not yet over, but it is already becoming apparent that the event, announced as the “Conference of Truth,” will go down in the history of climate conferences as a turning point.
No head of state from the four largest CO2-emitting nations—China (33%), the USA (12%), India (8%), and Russia (5%)—is showing up in Belém.
Even before the conference, the New York Times headlined: “The whole world is fed up with climate policy.” And the fact that Bill Gates, one of the biggest supporters and sponsors of climate policy, explicitly warned against excessive, shortsighted climate policy just 14 days before the conference, and put prosperity back in focus — a major blow.
Glenn Beck, a prominent American television host, explains the change of heart by Bill Gates: “It’s not about science, it’s about Trump.” Expressed differently: it’s not about conviction; it’s about damage control for his own company, which is planning multibillion-dollar investments in data centers in the USA and globally. And given the situation, these will have to rely on electricity from new gas-fired power plants in the short term, as the reactivation of old nuclear power plants will not suffice, and the construction of new nuclear power plants will still take several years in the USA.
Only 1/3 of the states actually submit a plan
For the Climate Conference in Belém, states had to report on their future plans for the use of coal, oil, and gas. The fact that only one-third even submitted a statement already hints at the dissolving importance of the climate issue in most nations around the world. But the reports that were submitted are revealing. Most states reported continuously increasing use of coal, oil, and gas. The reports show an increase in global coal usage by 30%, oil by 25%, and gas by 40% by 2030 compared to 2015. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hoped to reduce global CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2015; now they are continuing to rise.
Only Europe onboard
Only Europe remains unshakably committed to the goal of achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Germany, the industrial heart of Europe, is even more ambitious and, according to Axel Bojanowski, is “the ‘leader’ among industrialized countries: It aims to be climate-neutral by 2045 – a self-destructive plan: Germany’s reduction will inevitably be compensated by rising emissions in other EU countries. This is because the European Emissions Trading System ensures that emission allowances not used in Germany are consumed in other EU countries.
It is becoming increasingly clear what the Wall Street Journal meant when it called Germany’s energy policy the ‘dumbest in the world.’
A few days before the conference, the European states agreed on a common goal, namely to achieve a 90% CO2 reduction by 2040 compared to 1990. 5% of the self-commitment could come from emission reductions abroad, which, of course, must also be expensively paid for. The German Minister for the Environment celebrated this agreement as “good news for the German economy, as everyone would now have the same competitive conditions.”
This statement reveals how little the German federal government and its ministers understand the global economy. As if German industry only exports goods to European countries. German goods, however, compete in a global market that does not have the burdens of CO2 taxes and high energy prices on German products and can therefore always offer them more cheaply. 50% of exports go to countries outside the EU.
Chancellor Merz and his Environment Minister Schneider are blatantly downplaying the German situation. Germany has set self-imposed shackles with the Climate Protection Act that will become highly painful in the coming years.
German climate policy: “script for an economic catastrophe”
Welt journalist Axel Bojanowski: “The German Climate Protection Act, cemented by the Federal Constitutional Court, seems to be a script for an economic catastrophe. It only allows Germany a remaining budget of 6.7 gigatonnes of CO2, which is likely to be used up by the early 2030s. According to the law, penalties, shutdowns, and restrictions on freedom are then threatened to meet the climate goals.”
6.7 gigatonnes was the remaining permissible budget after the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2020 onwards. As of today, only 3.6 gigatonnes of this remain. The buffer is reduced by about 0.5 gigatonnes each year. By 2032 at the latest, the remaining budget will be exhausted, and Germany will have reached the end of the line set by the Federal Constitutional Court. This will happen in the next legislative period, not just in 2040.
Chancellor Merz whitewashes
And in his 5-minute speech in Belém before a half-empty hall, Chancellor Merz spreads negligent whitewashing: “The economy is not the problem. Our economy is the key to protecting our climate even better.” Does the Chancellor not know the perilous state our industry is in?
Scandal surrounds tropical forest Ffund (TFF)
Probably the only outcome of the Belém conference will be the establishment of an investment fund, proposed by Brazilian President Lula, to finance the protection of tropical forests.
The fund works as follows: Donor countries pay $25 billion into the fund. Private investors (investment funds) are supposed to pay in $100 billion. The donor countries receive a return of about 4.0-4.8%, which corresponds to the return on their government bonds, as they generally have to raise the money through government debt. The return for private investors is 5.8% to 7.2%. The fund’s money is invested in emerging market government bonds, which yield comparatively high interest due to the higher risk (Brazilian government bonds are currently at 12.25%). Private investors are served first, followed by the donor countries. If anything remains after the distribution of profits to private investors and donor countries, the amount is paid out to 74 countries with tropical forests. It is hoped that this way, $3-4 billion will be distributed annually to the tropical forest countries.
The catch is this: To entice investors, private investors are given preference in the payment sequence: first the private ones, then the donor states. Furthermore, the donor countries must insure the fund against default. A default by an emerging market could quickly lead to the fund’s insolvency. In that case, the taxpayers of the donor countries would be held liable and, in an extreme scenario, lose their capital.
Disadvantageous for the German taxpayer
In preparation for Belém, there was fundamental disagreement over Germany’s participation in the fund between the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellor’s Office. The Chancellor’s Office clearly advocated for participation and a contribution of at least $1 billion. It was assisted by the Ministry for the Environment under Minister Schneider and the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development under Minister Alabali-Radovan. The Ministry of Finance, under Lars Klingbeil, strongly objected, viewing the fund as a billion-dollar risk and doubting the viability of the fund’s structure.
And indeed, the model is structurally disadvantageous for the German taxpayer. One could also say: We are subsidizing the returns of private investors with public money and providing the default guarantee for BlackRock and Co. That is why the Federal Ministry of Finance is persistently blocking Germany’s participation in the fund. It can be unequivocally stated that the Federal Ministry of Finance has thus far bravely defended the interests of the German taxpayer against the interests of BlackRock and Co.
This is the background to Chancellor Merz being unable to name a figure (“a noteworthy amount”) in Belém. The billion € or $ is now supposed to be found in the budget reconciliation for the 2026 federal budget, which is taking place this week, so that the federal budget can be adopted on November 28. It is to be expected that the SPD will concede. But it could be a Pyrrhic victory for Chancellor Merz, who would then visibly be prioritizing the interests of international financial investors, especially if the fund were to run into difficulties.
Whether the fund will ultimately materialize is still questionable, as it only comes into effect if the donor states commit to $10 billion. So far (excluding Germany), $5.6 billion has been raised.
The USA and the UK have already declined.
If the fund comes into being, the investment companies will profit first, with high returns secured by states, and then the emerging markets, which can sell their high-risk government bonds. Whether the tropical forest will benefit in this confusing financial jungle is not yet certain. The biggest risk remains with the donor countries, who are putting their taxpayers’ money at risk with the catchy story of saving the rainforest.”
In yet another sign of the rampant corruption in Ukraine, Ukrainian security forces raided the apartment of Timur Mindich, a businessman associated with President Volodymyr Zelensky. However, the oligarch had already left the country just hours before, likely after being tipped off by an insider.
Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) says that $100 million is believed to have been siphoned off due to a “money laundering operation,” and other associates were involved. The 15-month investigation featured 1,000 hours of wiretapping and resulted in 70 raids, according to NABU.
There are numerous reports speculating that Mindich, who has close connections to Israel and just celebrated his birthday there, fled to Israel, but so far, most media reports do not disclose his destination country.
In a statement, NABU indicated that several individuals had formed a criminal gang and built “a large-scale corruption scheme to influence strategic enterprises in the public sector, in particular Energoatom.”
The scheme involved forcing Energoatom’s counterparties to pay kickbacks of approximately 10 to 15 percent of contract values in order to avoid having payments for services or goods blocked, or possibly losing their status as suppliers, the bureau reported.
NABU indicated that the raids and arrests were a part of an operation code-named “Midas,” with the initial investigations already launched in 2024.
“Particular attention was paid to cryptocurrencies. Most operations, including cash withdrawals, took place outside Ukraine. For example, during foreign delegations of representatives of state bodies and the management of state-owned energy sector enterprises,” NABU notes.
Mindich, 46, is from the city of Dnipro in central Ukraine. He is a film producer and former business partner of Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.
He reportedly has links to Israel. Mindich celebrated his birthday in Israel in September, returned to Ukraine in mid-October and then went to Israel again, according to Ukrainska Pravda’s sources.
Mindich is also a long-time friend of Zelensky, with whom he co-owned production company Kvartal 95 until Zelensky transferred his stake to partners after being elected president in 2019.
Mindich also co-owns Green Family Ltd, a Cypriot firm that co-founded film production companies in Russia, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).
Kolomoisky told Ukrainska Pravda in 2022 that Mindich had introduced him to Zelensky before he became president.
In 2019, Zelensky drove an armored car provided by Mindich, RFE/RL reported.
Notably, Zelensky ran into serious hot water with the entire European Union when he attempted to eliminate NABU’s independence, which sparked outrage in Brussels. At the time, it sparked the first large-scale protests in the city since the war broke out. Zelensky was forced to backtrack, but the investigation into his associate may have played a vital role in Zelensky’s efforts to neuter NABU.
As part of the investigation, NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) released excerpts from audio recordings featuring conversations between individuals using the pseudonyms “Rakieta,” “Tenor,” and “Karlson.” They discussed investments in the energy sector, the distribution of bribes, and potential personnel changes within the Ministry of Energy and Enerhoatom itself.
According to reports from the website “Ukrainska Pravda,” the suspects include Mindich as well as Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko, whose home was also searched. He previously served as energy minister.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the matter in his evening address, emphasizing the need to hold those responsible accountable.
“All effective measures against corruption are crucial. The certainty of punishment is essential. Enerhoatom currently provides the largest share of energy production in Ukraine. Cleanliness at this company is a priority,” Zelenskyy said.
Already, three in four Ukrainians believe Zelensky is at fault for corruption in the country. This latest case is sure to ramp up pressure on his regime, which refuses to hold elections.
According to a survey conducted by the Foundation for Democratic Initiatives and the Kyiv International Sociological Institute, with the support of the Prague Center for Civil Society, 77.6 percent of Ukrainian respondents blame the Ukrainian leader for endemic corruption.
Notably, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is coming under fire from the EU for refusing to move forward with Ukraine’s EU membership, despite the fact that it is rife with corruption, is currently engaged in a war with Russia, and has abandoned democracy long ago, including canceling opposition parties, refusing to hold elections, and shutting down numerous media outlets.
Russia recognizes how embarrassing the raids on Zelensky’s associate are and how potentially dangerous they are for his continued rule.
Vladimir Rogov, chairman of the Commission of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, stated that “Mindich is one of Zelensky’s main wallets, but not the only one. Now there is a surge of panic and fear in Zelensky’s entourage. And troubled times are coming for Zelensky himself.”
He described “panic” inside Zelensky’s regime, and he said that his entourage is now accusing NABU of working with Russia.
“It will look doubly ridiculous. NABU is a purely American tool for controlling funds and combating Zelensky’s exorbitant thievish appetites,” Rogov said.
Germany has pledged to provide Ukraine with an additional €40 million in an effort to prop up its power generation during the winter, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has said. The announcement comes as Ukraine’s energy industry finds itself mired in a corruption scandal allegedly linked to an ally of leader Vladimir Zelensky.
Speaking on Tuesday, Wadephul said Berlin was “helping Ukrainians survive another winter of war with an additional €40 million ($46 million).” The diplomat noted that this year alone Germany has already spent €9 billion on military aid for Kiev.
A day earlier, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) announced that it was investigating a “high-level criminal organization” which allegedly profited from contracts involving state-owned nuclear energy company Energoatom.
According to the authorities, the ring forced Energoatom officials and contractors to pay kickbacks for state contracts. Formal charges have so far been brought against seven unnamed individuals. The Ukrainian media has claimed that one of the suspects is Timur Mindich, a close associate and former business partner of Zelensky. The businessman allegedly fled Ukraine just hours before his home was raided by NABU agents.
Mindich’s personal and business ties to the Ukrainian leader are understood to date back to when Zelensky was actively involved in the entertainment industry.
An opinion poll conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in September indicated that 71% of respondents believed that the level of corruption in Ukraine has increased since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in February 2022.
In recent years, Ukraine has been rocked by a string of corruption scandals.
In August, several high-ranking officials were detained over a scheme involving the purchase of electronic warfare systems. Earlier this year, a food supply fraud case worth nearly $18 million within the Defense Ministry came to light.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has claimed that Western aid has to a large extent been “stolen” in Ukraine due to widespread corruption.
Former US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz has similarly described Ukraine as “one of the most corrupt nations in the world.”
Commercial nuclear power has turned into the welfare energy de jure. It is politically correct despite many decades of failure to compete against other forms of thermal energy. Uranium might be the ultimate energy density-wise, but nuclear fission (and more so nuclear fusion) is the most complicated, expensive, fraught way to boil water.
Commercial nuclear power was government-created in the 1950s and remains government dependent today. (Stay tuned: my primer on the history of this energy source is forthcoming. [1]). Regarding the present, consider this example from Jamie Smyth, editor of US Energy, who wrote:
Nuclear technology company Oklo has no revenues, no licence to operate reactors and no binding contracts to supply power. But this has not stopped the Silicon Valley-based start-up from riding a wave of investor enthusiasm that has propelled its stock market valuation above $20bn, a rise of more than 500 per cent since the turn of the year.
He provided the background.
The company, backed by technology boss Sam Altman and with close ties to Donald Trump’s energy secretary, has set ambitious targets to deliver commercial power to its first customers in 2027, having broken ground on its pilot in Idaho last month.
Oklo, led by the husband-and-wife team Jacob and Caroline DeWitte, envisages a future powered by a new generation of small modular reactors that use liquid sodium rather than water as a coolant. The company is seeking to become a leader among businesses that will supply energy hungry data centres with the power they need to fuel the artificial intelligence boom.
Yet the surge in its shares, buoyed by enthusiasm from retail investors who make up an outsized proportion of its shareholders, has worried experts who fear the stock has become wildly overheated. It is among the highest valued pre-revenue businesses listed in the US.
A government play, like Tesla. Political capitalism with the US DOE ready to subsidize commercial nuclear power. Nuclear is the new subsidy baby, or welfare queen, the politically correct replacement for wind/solar/batteries under a new political regime.
The siren song of “competitive” nuclear power continues into its seventh decade. Taxpayer and ratepayers beware.
———————
[1] “Nuclear Power: A Free-Market Perspective.” American Institute for Economic Research, forthcoming.
Today, Americans for Public Trust released a new report exposing how a group of foreign “charities” has spent almost $2 billion bankrolling U.S. policy fights and advancing an extreme climate agenda.
“It is extremely alarming that five foreign charities have quietly poured almost two billion dollars into advocating for the most extreme liberal policies and protests in the United States. Since current laws regulating foreign giving to U.S.-based nonprofit organizations are hindered by a lack of oversight and exploitable exemptions and loopholes, foreign actors have been able to advance their radical and dangerous interests virtually unchecked. Congress needs to address these serious shortfalls in our laws to protect American interests and keep foreign influence out of our politics.” — Caitlin Sutherland, Executive Director, Americans for Public Trust
Fast Facts:
Five foreign charities have quietly funneled almost $2 billion into U.S. policy fights, litigation, research, protests, lobbying, and the nonprofit sector to advance their extreme, foreign, activist climate agenda. The groups support a radical green agenda including: the managed decline of oil and gas, climate protests, opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline, and more.
Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF): QCF, out of the United Kingdom has given $530 million in foreign money to 41 U.S.-based groups from 2020 to the present, including: ClimateWorks Foundation, Growald Climate Fund, The Grantham Foundation, Arabella’s Windward Fund, and the Sunrise Project.
KR Foundation: The KR Foundation, a Danish charity, has given over $36 million in foreign cash to 53 U.S.-based groups from 2015 to 2024, including: The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Stop the Money Pipeline, Fossil Free Media, The Associated Press, and Oil Change International (OCI).
Oak Foundation: OF, based in Switzerland, has given over $750 million in foreign money to 152 U.S.-based groups from 2014 to 2024, including: The Environmental Law Institute (ELI), Community Change – the fiscal sponsor for Free DC -, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), Arabella’s New Venture Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and The Tides Center.
Laudes Foundation: Since 2020, The Laudes Foundation, another Swiss-based charity, has poured almost $20 million into 17 U.S.-based groups, including: The Pulitzer Center for Crisis, Ceres, Community Initiatives, and The World Resources Institute (WRI).
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation: CIFF, based in the United Kingdom, has given over $553 Million in foreign money to 39 U.S.-based groups from 2014 to 2023, including: The Energy Foundation China (EFC), The Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and The Sunrise Project.
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj
By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.
But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.
So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? ... continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 