The toxic gas was released in an attempt to slow the Russian advance, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said
Ukrainian troops have blown up an ammonia pipeline and caused a toxic spill during their retreat in Donetsk Region on Thursday, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.
The Soviet-era Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline carried the highly toxic liquefied gas from Russia to Ukraine prior to the escalation of the conflict between the two countries.
“The Ukrainian Armed Forces mined a branch of the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline,” and blew it up to slow the advance of Russian forces in the Donetsk People’s Republic, the ministry said in a statement on Thursday.
The blast resulted “in the release of residual ammonia through the damaged section,” it added. No Russian troops were hurt as a result, the ministry said.
In a video published by the MOD, clouds of gas are seen billowing from under the ground and spreading into the surrounding countryside.
Earlier this year, Russia warned that Kiev was preparing to provoke a major ecological disaster by sabotaging a different portion of the pipeline and blaming it on Moscow.
In July, Major General Aleksey Rtishchev, the commander of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, accused international chemical weapons watchdog OPCW of ignoring Russian reports of Ukrainian violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention, but taking Kiev’s accusations at face value.
A section of the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline in Kharkov Region was blown up in 2023, injuring several civilians, in what Moscow called Ukrainian sabotage.
Deliveries of the long-range missiles to Kiev would erase all recent Russia-US diplomatic gains, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said
Vladimir Zelensky has urged US President Donald Trump to provide Ukraine long-range Tomahawk missiles and added that if such a step leads to a ceasefire, Kiev will nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Last month, US Vice President J.D. Vance said that Washington was mulling sending Ukraine Tomahawks, which have a maximum range of 2,500km (1,550 miles), meaning Kiev could potentially use them to attack Moscow and numerous other Russian cities.
“Now, an important signal is the strengthening of Ukraine by all possible means. And this is one of those opportunities that is important to me – Tomahawks,” Zelensky told journalists on Thursday, according to RBC-Ukraine.
Zelensky added that if Trump could help bring about a ceasefire, “he should be nominated for the Nobel Prize, we will nominate him on behalf of Ukraine.”
The missiles could “sober up the Russians” and “make them sit down at the negotiating table,” he was cited as saying. Moscow has argued that Kiev, emboldened by military support from Western Europe, has brought the peace process to a standstill.
According to Axios, however, White House officials have expressed concern whether the US could control the use of Tomahawks once they’re in Ukrainian hands.
Trump recently said that he had already made up his mind about whether he would supply the missiles but did not say what that decision was. “I’m not looking to see escalation,” he added.
In February, he accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III” for refusing to negotiate with Russia, when the Ukrainian leader’s visit to the White House devolved into sharp mutual recriminations.
Trump’s diplomatic outreach to Moscow since the start of his second term has led to the resumption of direct peace talks over the Ukraine conflict.
However, all the diplomatic progress the two sides have achieved would be wiped away if Tomahawks are provided to Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday.
Participants from around the world are encouraged to share their vision of the future
Russia’s second international essay competition ‘Open Dialogue – 2026’ has been officially opened for submissions, inviting participants from around the world to share their vision of the future of humanity, society, and the planet.
The National Centre RUSSIA opened submissions on October 7 at the 2nd International Symposium “Inventing the Future.”
“I am pleased to announce that we are launching a new, second international essay contest. We once again invite young, energetic authors, representatives of different professions and cultures to demonstrate their views on the future: the future of man, society, economies, and the entire planet,”said Maxim Oreshkin, deputy head of the presidential administration.
Oreshkin, who’s also the deputy chairman of the National Centre RUSSIA organizing committee, expressed confidence that the new ideas submitted will be as diverse and inspiring as those from the previous edition. The most innovative concepts, he said, will form the basis of the second Open Dialogue meeting and a forthcoming report titled: ‘The New Economy: Competition for Positive Development.’
“Open Dialogue can rightfully be called an international event. As part of it, the author’s essay contest was held, in which any person living on our planet could take part. We received 700 works in 16 languages from applicants representing more than 100 countries around the world. One hundred authors came to Moscow and talked about their ideas, proved their viability, their importance for the development of mankind,” Oreshkin emphasized.
Another essay contest held earlier this year, “Dreams of the Future,” brought together 4,000 young participants aged 14 to 18 from across Russia. The project was dedicated to promoting the legacy of Russian and Soviet science fiction. The competition aimed to engage young people with the works of classic sci-fi writers and inspire them to pursue science, creativity, and the realization of new ideas.
The second Open Dialogue essay contest is scheduled to take place in the spring of 2026 at the National Centre RUSSIA. Participants must submit their entries by December 26 of this year.
A Western-centric gaze distorts Trump’s Nobel case. The world needs the balance of a multicentric vision.
“Blessed are the peacemakers in spirit, for theirs is the Nobel Prize.” (The Author)
Rarely has an award decision electrified the world like a World Cup final. Frenzied debates erupt across continents: Does US President Donald Trump merit the Nobel Peace Prize?
To both champions and critics, the answer seems a no-brainer. Yet beneath the surface lies a real conundrum – precisely why the question sparks endless controversy.
For Trump, the Nobel Peace Prize is a personal trophy, a matter of prestige, not principle; for the world, it counts because it is a powerful global symbol defining what kind of leadership and pursuit of peace is worth celebrating.
To reward Trump or not to reward him – this is a dilemma perfectly suited to the timeless art of disputation known as the quaestio. Latin for “question”, the name is as elegantly minimalist as calling Frank Sinatra simply “the Voice”.
Introduction: The art of disputation 101
The quaestio was the engine that powered the scholastic mind: structured, relentless, and dazzlingly precise.
In a veritable intellectual crescendo, a thinker began with a precise, probing question, engaged opposing views, measured the wisdom of authorities, and forged a final answer through disciplined reasoning – honed by conflict and crystalized into piercing, truthful, and enduring insight.
The quaestio, presented as a ring composition, prized clarity over chaos, reason over rhetoric. In this gladiatorial arena of the mind, argument was not about winning – it was about thinking better. Remarkably concise despite the question’s complexity, and mapping the full spectrum of pros and cons, it served as a perfect cheatsheet for analysts and debaters alike.
Today, the quaestio is an urgently needed tool for reasoning sharply amid the noisy spectacle of public maelstrom. Its enduring value is starkly evident in debates about Trump, where extreme personality, staged drama, and endless controversy fuel cognitive distortions – mental shortcuts that cloud perception and derail judgment.
Trump’s bombastic tweets, theatrical rallies, and shocking claims hijack attention, feeding vividness bias – the tendency to latch onto dramatic details while losing sight of the full picture. We fixate on the spectacle – the unruly hair, the provocative insult, the radical policy stunt – while substance, brought into relief by nuance, context, and consequence, fades from view.
In a hyper-toxic, politicized landscape and climate, the quaestio is a potent, indispensable antidote: Elevating intellect over instinct, it sharpens the mind to resist seduction and fosters deliberate, measured, and rigorous thinking – even amid heated debates, relentless polarization, sensational controversies, pervasive chaos, and total confusion.
Think of the obiectiones (“objections”) as the opening volley with the strongest arguments against the position the debater ultimately defends.
Often introduced with videtur (“it seems”), this section sets the stage, demonstrating serious engagement with opposing views; it clarifies the stakes, revealing the question’s complexity and tension; it primes the ground for credible resolution, making the subsequent thesis and refutations more convincing after the toughest challenges have been preempted. It also doubles as rehearsal for live debate, enabling the debater to foresee and counter the full range of objections.
However unpalatable it may be to Never-Trumpers, three interrelated reasons can be offered for why the US president might, in fact, merit the Nobel Peace Prize.
1. Cultivating harmony
The Bible says, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9, KJV). Those who support Trump may contend that where others ignited and prolonged wars, the US president acted as peacemaker-in-chief, fostering understanding and connection across divides through diplomatic breakthroughs.
In his first term, the US president facilitated the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations. In his second, Trump claimed to have “ended seven unendable wars” in only seven months – a boldly oxymoronic play on words, rhetorically sharp if nothing else.
2. Practicing restraint
Trump has seemingly demonstrated a capacity for measured action, reducing US military involvement. Supporters argue that this reduced violence and lowered the chance of unintended escalation.
He has prioritized withdrawing US troops from protracted, unpopular wars – most notably in Afghanistan and the broader Middle East – striking deals like the US–Taliban agreement to scale back America’s combat entanglements abroad.
3. Preserving equilibrium
Apparently, Trump also focused on maintaining stability and preventing escalation. In recent years, he has taken hardline stances and actions, such as striking Iranian nuclear sites and resorting to deterrence diplomacy, which supporters claim have held back Iran’s nuclear ambitions and prevented a greater regional arms race.
II. The guiding authority (sed contra)
The sed contra (“but on the contrary”) is a transitional component marking the dramatic pivot of the disputation: After enumerating all objections, the debater invokes authoritative sources as a striking counterpoint, delivering decisive words of wisdom that elegantly pave the way to the ultimate answer.
What authority could be better suited to the question at hand than Alfred Nobel himself, the creator of the eponymous prize?
When Alfred Nobel read his own obituary condemning him as “the merchant of death,” he saw the looming verdict of history. Deeply shocked and full of remorse, he set out to leave a different legacy, one that would celebrate reconciliation rather than destruction.
Channeling his guilt into generosity, he devoted part of his fortune to establishing the Peace Prize as a moral counterbalance to the instruments of destruction he had invented – awarding those who build bridges instead of bombs.
In drafting his will in 1895, the chemist and industrialist bequeathed not just a fortune, but a moral compass for the ages to the world. Beyond recognizing the “greatest benefit on mankind,” as his other prizes were also meant to do, Nobel stipulated that the Peace Prize should honor “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
It was an idealistic formula – part moral vision, part political challenge – designed to reward those who turn power toward peace. More than a century later, it remains a formidable test.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee interprets that guidance each year, weighing nominations from parliamentarians, academics, former laureates, and other qualified proposers. Even though its deliberations are sealed for fifty years, the resulting pattern is clear: The prize recognizes not transactions but transformations.
Measured against Alfred Nobel’s litmus test, Donald Trump’s record, from his first presidency through his return to power, offers an instructive contrast between ambition and achievement, spectacle and substance – marked by flashes of diplomacy but little lasting peace.
1. Fraternity between nations
Trump’s supporters point to the Abraham Accords, summits with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and recent ceasefire claims in the Caucasus and Gaza as evidence of bold statecraft. Yet fraternity demands trust, not just photo ops.
Trump’s withdrawals from the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord, and other multilateral agreements frayed alliances and deepened suspicion. “America First” often meant America alone, eroding the cooperative spirit Nobel sought to honor.
Whereas the inventor turned philanthropist envisioned fraternity among nations, Trump preached dominance over them, wrapping foreign policy in slogans of supremacy and exclusion. Trump’s self-centered, unilateralist diplomacy may produce lucrative deals, but not enduring peace.
2. Abolition or reduction of armies
Trump also fails Nobel’s second test. US military spending and arms sales grew sharply under his watch, while his administration dismantled key arms-control treaties such as the INF and Open Skies accords.
Despite talk of new disarmament initiatives, none has materialized. His so-called end to “endless wars” largely substituted drones and contractors for soldiers – a shift in tactics, not philosophy.
3. Promotion of peace congresses
Trump staged summits that dominated headlines, but Nobel’s “peace congresses” implied enduring frameworks for mediation and trust. No such institutions emerged under Trump’s watch. His diplomacy was personalistic, episodic, and often transactional – driven by optics rather than structure.
In conclusion, measured against Nobel’s will, Trump is a showman of peace rather than its architect. His initiatives produced headlines, not harmony; leverage, not equality.
By the 1895 standard – international brotherhood, disarmament, and enduring institutions – Trump falls dramatically short of Alfred Nobel’s vision. Granting him the Peace Prize would leave the Nobel Committee exposed to future embarrassment at the hands of a decorated and unhinged figure.
The Peace Prize was meant to transcend power and vanity, not validate and glorify them; far from a medal for treacherous self-interest, it demands nobility and humility.
In an ironic twist, Trump disqualifies himself from the Nobel Prize precisely because he craves it too intensely – his obsession becoming its own undoing. In contrast, a leader indifferent to accolades faces virtually no limits.
The harder we clutch desire, the more it slips through our fingers. Who, seeking nothing but canonization, became a saint? An anxious lover repels the beloved; a golfer overanalyzes the perfect swing and botches it; a writer forces inspiration only to meet a blank page – all proof that obsession often backfires.
Napoleon’s relentless hunger for power pushed him to conquer all of Europe, yet the very intensity of his ambition led him into the Russian winter and the ruins of exile, his dreams undone by their own gravity.
Determined to resist political pressure from figure like Trump, the Nobel Committee would likely uphold this guiding principle: “Peace prizes aren’t for performers. They’re for those who bleed quietly so others don’t have to.”
The inventor who once armed the world dreamed, at last, of disarming its pride. To honor Trump would be to reload it.
The respondeo (“I answer”) is the heart of the argument, settling the debate – the author’s direct, answer to the question posed, synthesizing authority and reason in a coherent, logical argument. At its best, this final verdict demonstrates intellectual mastery by showing how complex or conflicting points can be harmonized, turning scattered contention into clarity.
The overall verdict is clear and simple: Trump is literally “ig-nobel”. Measured against both a traditional and innovative yardstick, Trump has failed to live up to Alfred Nobel’s three-fold ideals and thus does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
The time-honored standard: The traditional interpretation of Nobel’s triad
Though few Nobel Peace Prize winners have ever fulfilled all three of Alfred Nobel’s original criteria – fraternity between nations, disarmament, and the promotion of peace congresses – the triad remains the moral core of the prize.
Past Nobel laureates like Bertha von Suttner and Léon Bourgeois embodied the sublime triptych fully; others, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Malala Yousafzai, reflected only parts of it, as the Nobel Committee broadened “peace” to include justice, human rights, and humanitarian work.
But Donald Trump, as a head of state wielding armies and treaties, carries a unique responsibility to uphold the full spirit of Nobel’s will, and must be measured by its complete standard, not a modern, flexible reading. Nobel certainly wrote his will with leader like him in mind – those who hold the power to wage or restrain war.
And by that measure, the record is unforgiving: Trump’s diplomacy has generated headlines, but fraternity has frayed, disarmament stalled, and peace institutions weakened. The will’s words still stand – and by them, Trump falls short.
An innovative yardstick: Enlightened multilateralism 2.0
We have now reached the innermost core and crux of the quaestio, central in place and essence alike. At this critical juncture, the question of Trump’s Nobel worthiness comes most sharply into focus.
Viewing Trump solely through a Western-centric lens yields a one-sided assessment of his Nobel prospects. Serving as a counterweight to the faltering Western order, a new paradigm – one that rejects destructive liberalism and embraces the traditional East – offers a fairer measure: I call it “nation-focused multicentricity” – enlightened multilateralism 2.0 – grounded morally in tradition, politically in equality among sovereign, peace-forging nations, and economically in what might be termed a “transeurasian growth triangle”.
By innovatively reimagining peace as a harmonious concert of sovereign nations in genuine fraternity, this new model could advance Alfred Nobel’s objectives in a post-modern context.
Measured against the standard of multicentric mutual sovereignty, Trump once again falls short. A self-serving nationalist strongman, he exalts his own nation and coerces others, turning patriotism into rivalry and replacing fraternity with force. Rather than fostering harmony, his notorious “bullying” breeds tension, stoking regional and global sparks that threaten to ignite the next great war – in essence, sowing precisely the discord the Nobel ideal sought to avert.
Refuting the counterarguments (ad obiectiones)
Think of the ad obiectiones – “(sc. replies) to objections” – as the debater’s mic drop that closes the argumentative loop: “Here’s why your objections don’t stick.” This final round of meticulous rebuttal ensures that every counterargument is carefully considered and resolved, transforming each doubt into an opportunity to reinforce the credibility of the conclusion. Once more, the debater demonstrates rigor, showcasing both thoroughness and logical precision.
Proponents may claim that Donald Trump’s actions merit the Nobel Peace Prize, yet a closer examination exposes profound shortcomings. In diplomacy, his initiatives often produced spectacle rather than lasting understanding; in military affairs, his posture favored coercion over restraint; in matters of international stability, his policies amplified tension rather than fostering fraternity.
Reply to objection 1: Cultivating harmony
Quotes from Scripture alone are no proof – even the Devil cited the Bible when he tempted Jesus in the desert.
Consider this: The Bible even says, “There is no God” (Psalm 53:1, KJV). Context matters, though – the startling claim is introduced by the words, “The fool hath said in his heart”!
The aforementioned peacemaker verse must be read alongside the opening of the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3, KJV). “Poor in spirit” has many layers of meaning, but one is freedom from self-centeredness – a quality Trump clearly does not exhibit, his pride remaining a defining trademark. Beyond this inner disposition, his actions have achieved little more than a fragile calm at best.
Trump’s approach to diplomacy has been characterized by transactional dealings and a disregard for multilateral institutions, raising serious questions about the sustainability and inclusivity of his peace initiatives.
The Abraham Accords, often cited as a hallmark of Trump’s diplomatic success, facilitated normalization between Israel and several Arab nations. However, critics contend that these agreements overlooked the Palestinian issue, potentially entrenching regional divisions rather than fostering comprehensive peace. The omission has been cited as a factor contributing to subsequent escalations in the region, including the launch of Israel’s war on Gaza in 2023.
Similarly, the economic normalization agreements between Serbia and Kosovo, while historic, have been criticized for their superficial nature. Kosovo’s independence, declared in 2008, remains unrecognized by Serbia and several other countries, rendering the agreements less impactful than portrayed
Similar doubts linger as regards the other wars that Trump claimed he has “ended” – including a non-existing war between Albania and Azerbaijan – given the emphasis on quick-win ceasefires without a resolution of the root causes of the conflicts.
While Trump emphasized reducing US military involvement, actual developments on the ground revealed glaring shortcomings.
Trump’s administration professed to reduce U.S. military involvement, most notably through the U.S.-Taliban agreement. However, the subsequent rapid collapse of the Afghan government in 2021 and the resurgence of the Taliban highlighted the agreement’s lack of foresight and its failure to ensure lasting stability.
Additionally, Trump’s approach to military intervention has been inconsistent. In 2020, he ordered the extrajudicial killing of Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander widely considered the second-most powerful figure in the Islamic Republic. Legal experts deemed the strike unlawful. While advocating restraint, his administration later authorized airstrikes on Iranian targets, escalating tensions in the Middle East and contradicting the principles of de-escalation.
The administration also contributed to war that Israel launched on Gaza in 2023 by providing financial support, weapons, and diplomatic cover to the Jewish state. In his war on drugs, Trump opened a new front by targeting suspected drug traffickers in international waters.
Domestically, Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops domestically raised concerns about the politicization of military power and the potential erosion of democratic norms.
Reply to objection 3. Preserving equilibrium
Trump also made several disruptive moves that unsettled fragile geopolitical equilibria. Far from acting as an integrator, he often sowed division rather than fostering peace. His disregard for expert intelligence and preference for unilateral military action have been cited as key factors contributing to increased instability.
Trump’s administration took a hardline stance on Iran, enacting policies criticized for exacerbating regional instability, prompting Iran to accelerate its nuclear program rather than deterring it.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 – a major shift in US foreign policy – and subsequent actions undermined multilateral efforts to address nuclear proliferation, raising concerns about the long-term effectiveness of his approach.
Trump’s aforementioned decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, despite intelligence assessments suggesting Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, has been labeled as “patently illegal” by critics. But this unilateral action not only violated international law, but it also undermined efforts aimed at regional stability.
In conclusion, while the supporters of Trump, a convicted felon, are highlighting certain diplomatic achievements, a comprehensive evaluation reveals a pattern of actions that often undermine long-term peace and stability, contradicting the ideals upheld by the Nobel Peace Prize.
In particular, Trump’s approach often prioritizes short-term gains and personal accolades over enduring diplomatic solutions and adherence to international norms, while policy implementation is plagued by glaring inconsistencies. For these reasons, his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be endorsed.
Conclusion: In search of multicentric statecraft
From the man who invented and produced dynamite was born a prize for those who defuse conflict, ensuring that Nobel’s name would stand not for war’s instruments but for peace’s possibility.
His Peace Prize honors restraint as much as initiative, and structure as much as style. To merit it, a leader must be a true integrator and do more than broker deals: He must cultivate trust, protect freedom (including media freedom), uphold the rule of law domestically and internationally, dismantle the machinery of war, promote global cooperation, and nurture the institutions that sustain peace.
By that enduring measure, Trump – explosive in nature, yet far from tamed – remains well outside Nobel’s design. His mindset of blunt domination clashes with the integrative skills required to lead a balanced, multicentric world, one that prizes restraint over dominance and shared responsibility over endless unilateral intervention. In this emerging global arena, Gordian knots cannot be cut with a sword, nor can an egg be made to stand upright simply by cracking its base.
Who, then, would be a worthy contender for the Nobel Peace Prize – a leader capable of meeting the demands of a “multicentric statesman” acting as peacemaker-in-chief?
In today’s era of enlightened multilateralism 2.0 – centering on cooperation of equal, sovereign nations – Sheikh Mohammed Al Thani, Qatar’s prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, stands out as a competent peace-leader for a complex, turbulent world.
Bridging East and West and embodying resilient courage, he has mediated between Hamas and Israel, even after his country was bombed by the Jewish state. Qatar’s hosting of Al Jazeera, a fearless media voice challenging Western dominance, adds to the symbolic stature.
Greta Thunberg, by contrast, advances peace through global civic activism, championing green transformation and Palestinian sovereignty, influencing states from outside formal power structures. Her courageous activism – from embarking on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza to confronting Israeli patrols – reflects principled conviction matched with bold action, even when it risks alienating her supporters.
Both personalities fit the new paradigm – one through multicentric statesmanship and diplomacy, the other through transnational advocacy and principled pressure – highlighting how a multicentric view expands the definition of what constitutes meaningful contributions to peace.
────────────────────── ⁂ ──────────────────────
Haunted by the power of his own inventions, Alfred Nobel, though Swedish, placed the Peace Prize in Norwegian hands to save it from the grasp of nationalism. Peace, he believed, must stand above power and pride.
In his time, Sweden and Norway shared a crown but not a conscience; Sweden was proud and militarized, Norway smaller and more liberal. Nobel, weary of nationalism and wary of Swedish militarism, believed Norwegians might judge peace with cleaner hands, unswayed by nationalism and political vanity.
What began as a subtle rebuke of Swedish militarism became a lasting symbol – that peace belongs not to the mighty, but to the impartial. By separating peace from power, he made Oslo the world’s conscience and ensured his final invention exploded not cities, but the boundaries of nationalism.
A century later, awarding that prize to Donald Trump – a man who exalts nationalism over humanity, glorifies dominance, and treats diplomacy as mere transaction and spectacle – would, in a sad irony, invert Nobel’s intent and desecrate his vision.
To honor Trump would not only distort Nobel’s legacy; it would demonstrate that even the world’s most valuable moral award is not immune to the politics of power, but instead dragged back into the very politics that the inventor of dynamite sought to transcend.
Nobel envisioned peace as humility in power and fraternity in difference. Trump’s diplomacy, shrewd yet self-serving, speaks another language – one of leverage, not reconciliation. In the end, Oslo must remember: The Nobel Peace Prize was meant for those who transcend borders, not for those who build them.
Moscow maintains close and trust-based relations with both West Jerusalem and Tehran, the Russian president has said
Russia is acting as an intermediary between Israel and Iran, President Vladimir Putin has said. West Jerusalem has turned to Moscow for assistance in conveying to Tehran its commitment to peace and its desire to avoid confrontation, he added.
Moscow is working closely with Tehran to ease tensions around the Iranian nuclear program, Putin said at the Russia-Central Asia summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, on Thursday. Russia also wants to help revive “constructive cooperation” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Israel relies on Russia’s partnership with Iran to convey messages to the Islamic Republic’s leadership, Putin said.
“We continue our trust-based contacts with Israel and receive signals from the Israeli leadership asking us to convey to our Iranian friends that Israel, too, is committed to further de-escalation and is not interested in any form of confrontation,” the president said.
Moscow believes that diplomacy is the only way to resolve the issues linked to the Iranian nuclear program, the Russian leader said.
Earlier this week, Putin spoke by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They discussed a possible settlement to the Gaza war and US President Donald Trump’s peace proposals. The Iranian nuclear program and stabilizing the situation in Syria were also on the agenda, according to the Kremlin.
Russia offered its assistance in establishing dialogue between Israel and Iran following the recent hostilities between the two nations. In July, Putin told Netanyahu that Moscow was ready “to contribute in every possible way to finding a negotiated solution” to the tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.
Putin was among the few world leaders to contact both Israel and Iran immediately after the first strikes between the two nations in June in an effort to defuse tensions. West Jerusalem and Tehran ended up exchanging strikes for 12 days. At the time, Moscow also proposed several compromise frameworks to all parties, according to Putin.
The age of Western moralising is over — the world is now truly multipolar
Every October, the Valdai Discussion Club gathers as a kind of intellectual weather vane for global politics. This year’s 22nd session, titled: ‘The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use’, felt less like a debate than a diagnosis – the world has crossed a threshold. Multipolarity is no longer an emerging idea; it is the reality we inhabit.
The leitmotif of Valdai 2025 came from President Vladimir Putin himself, in words directed toward Western Europe: “Calm down, sleep peacefully, and deal with your own problems.” It was both a rebuke and a reminder – that the age of blaming Moscow for every domestic failure should be over, and that the real crises of the West lie within.
For years, Valdai was seen as an intermezzo – a pause between acts in the great geopolitical performance. That illusion is gone. The ‘polycentric world’ has ceased to be a hypothesis. There will be no return to unipolarity, no revival of Western tutelage over global affairs. The emerging order may still be turbulent and uncertain, but it is now the order – fluid, competitive, and irreversible.
Putin’s address captured this new mood. His message was pragmatic, even philosophical: The world’s problems are too grave to waste energy on fabricated conflicts and imaginary threats. “There are so many objective problems – natural, technological, social – that expending energy on artificial contradictions is impermissible, wasteful, and simply foolish,” he said.
This is less about ideology than survival. In an age of cascading crises – climate shocks, economic dislocation, wars of information and infrastructure – the call is for sobriety. And it is Western Europeans, more than anyone, that seem in need of it.
The West looks inward – but too late
Putin’s remarks to the Western Europeans was not mere trolling; it was diagnostic. The region, once confident in its civilizational mission, now frets about Moscow’s ‘hand’ in everything from elections to farm protests. The paranoia betrays insecurity – a subconscious awareness that the region’s problems are largely homemade: Demographic decline, deindustrialization, energy dependence, and political exhaustion.
Russia has moved on from this drama. The Kremlin no longer seeks Western validation or fears Western reproach. The conversation has shifted toward Asia, the Global South, and ‘the rest of the nations’ now forming their own centers of gravity. The world has ceased revolving around Washington and Brussels.
This year’s Valdai theme – Instructions for Use – was not a metaphor for a machine but a manual for coexistence in the new age. The task, as framed by the conference, is no longer to restore order but to navigate disorder – systematically, without panic or dogma. As Putin noted, we are entering “a long period of searching, often moving by trial and error.” This search must be guided, not chaotic.
What distinguishes Valdai from Western forums like Davos or Munich is precisely this realism. There is no pretense of a moral monopoly, no talk of ‘the rules-based order’. Instead, it accepts that no single civilization, not even Western civilization which long dominated, holds the key to the 21st century. The old map no longer fits the terrain.
A broader conversation
Another notable shift is the composition of the forum itself. The Valdai meetings once felt like a polite duel between Russia and the West. Today, that dynamic has vanished. Delegates from Asia, Africa, and Latin America now fill the halls, and their concerns – from technological sovereignty to food security – are treated as central, not peripheral. The ‘global majority’ is no longer an audience; it is the chorus.
Even the word ‘inclusivity’, now derided in Western bureaucracies, finds genuine meaning here – not as a slogan, but as a structure. The same week that the Pentagon banned the term, Moscow practiced it in earnest.
The West’s ideological fervor – its need to moralize every conflict – has become its weakness. Russia’s stance, by contrast, is pragmatic, even stoic: The recognition that the world is too complex for binary thinking, that each civilization must now define its own path.
In this, the Valdai Forum has become less an echo chamber for Russian policy than a mirror for the shifting global psyche. The world’s leading powers, both old and rising, are groping toward a balance – one defined not by domination, but by coexistence. The new era, messy and multipolar, may yet be freer. If only the old empires can learn to calm down.
The Alaska summit still serves as the foundation for the development of bilateral relations, an aide to President Vladimir Putin has said
Moscow and Washington remain in constant contact based on the “agreements and understandings” reached during the Alaska summit between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said.
“We continue working with the Americans on the basis of the agreements reached by the presidents in Anchorage,” Ushakov told Russia’s Channel One on Thursday. The Russian and US administrations hold regular consultations, he added.
According to Ushakov, the agreements reached during the mid-August summit do not sit well with Kiev and its European backers – “those who do not want the Ukraine crisis to be resolved peacefully.” However, he emphasized that “this does not mean they are not working.”
Both the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin have referred to a “pause” in dialogue between the US and Russia about settling the Ukraine conflict. On Wednesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that the “powerful impetus” for the peace process generated by the Alaska summit had been extinguished, primarily by European “supporters of war.”
Although no breakthrough was achieved in Alaska, both sides hailed the meeting as constructive. Moscow has since emphasized that Kiev appears to lack genuine interest in peace. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier on Thursday that Moscow’s peace proposals remained unanswered and that the process was “not moving forward.”
In recent weeks, Trump has also voiced frustration over the lack of progress toward a settlement. Late last month, he appeared to shift his stance, declaring that with sufficient European funding, Ukraine could capture all of its former territories – a position Moscow dismissed as unrealistic.
Russia maintains that it is open to a peace deal, provided that the realities on the ground and Moscow’s legitimate security interests are taken into account. Last week, Peskov said that Putin remains ready and willing to host Trump in Moscow as per the invitation extended after the Alaska summit. However, there are currently no plans for another meeting between the two presidents, the Kremlin said on Thursday.
The organization has received “guarantees” from the US that the hostilities will not continue, Khalil al-Hayya has said
The Gaza war is over, a senior Hamas official, Khalil al-Hayya, has said, adding that the peace plan put forth by US President Donald Trump would mark the start of a “permanent ceasefire.”
The militant group received some “guarantees” from Washington and other mediators that the hostilities would not continue, he told Gaza residents in a televised address on Thursday.
According to al-Hayya, the Gaza-based Palestinian militant group “dealt responsibly with the American president’s plan” and submitted a response aimed at preventing further bloodshed. He did not elaborate on the nature of the response but said that the deal, which was reached in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, includes providing the Palestinian enclave with humanitarian aid, opening the Rafah border crossing, and exchanging prisoners.
“Everyone confirmed that the war has completely ended,” the official said, vowing to work with all national and Islamic forces to complete the next steps envisioned by the agreement.
His words came as the Israeli cabinet was still voting on the ratification of the agreement. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said ahead of the vote that he and his party would oppose Trump’s peace plan and would leave the government if Hamas is allowed to retain control over Gaza. He also described the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli hostages as an “unbearable price” to pay for the agreement.
Earlier media reports suggested that Israeli forces would be required to withdraw to a pre-set line within 24 hours, leaving Israel in control of around 53% of the Palestinian enclave. Hamas would release all living hostages within 72 hours of West Jerusalem ratifying the deal. In return, Israel would free 250 Palestinians serving life sentences and 1,700 Gazans detained since 2023, including all women and minors.
According to Israeli Channel 12, West Jerusalem would only allow the prisoners to go free after the 72-hour period, during which Hamas is expected to release all Israeli hostages. The group still holds around 48 hostages; Israel believes that around 20 are still alive.
The Israel-Hamas war began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led fighters attacked the Jewish state, killing around 1,200 people, and taking around 250 hostages. Israel’s subsequent military operation in Gaza has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians, according to local officials. It also led to unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian disaster in the enclave.
At least 21 Venezuelans have been killed by the American troops for “narcotrafficking” without evidence, judge or jury
The United States is once again targeting Venezuela, in Washington’s long quest for regime change in the country.
What the Trump administration falsely claims is a war against so-called Venezuelan drug smugglers, has seen the extrajudicial killings of 21 Venezuelans in the past few weeks. US troops, aircraft and warships have been moved near Venezuelan waters, which some fear indicates a coming US war on the country.
The US military made several separate attacks over the course of the past month on boats US President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have claimed were carrying drugs “enroute to poison Americans”. Neither Trump nor Hegseth provided any evidence or the specific locations of the incidents.
One would think that the legally appropriate way to deal with drug traffickers (if that is in fact what the Venezuelans were to begin with) would be to arrest them and put them on trial. Instead, the men were killed on sight, apparently with missiles that also conveniently destroyed all the evidence. Trump’s justification was to claim they were “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists” and that they “POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests.”
To sum it up, we have extrajudicial assassinations in international waters, without congressional approval.
Furthermore, on September 12, 18 armed US personnel from the US Navy destroyer USS Jason Dunham boarded and occupied a local tuna fishing vessel Carmen Rosa for 8 hours in Venezuelan waters, in yet another direct provocation of Caracas.
In addition to the criminality of these acts, the whole pretext is simply phony. Aside from the fact that Washington has a very long track record of flimsy pretexts for attempted regime changes around the world, and in Latin America in particular, the irony about this particular accusation against Venezuela is that it is well known that the US has an equally long history of drug running.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has rejected Trump’s accusations, and said Venezuela has eliminated all major drug-trafficking operations on its soil, and vanquished prominent gangs, including the Tren de Aragua.
According to Pino Arlacchi, during his time as head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the areas he travelled frequently to were Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Brazil, “but never to Venezuela. There was simply no need.”
He maintains that, contrary to the Trump administration’s accusations (“geopolitically motivated slander”), the Venezuelan government’s “collaboration in the fight against drug trafficking was among the best in South America, rivaled only by Cuba’s impeccable record.”
According to Arlacchi, “Colombia produces over 70% of the world’s cocaine. Peru and Bolivia cover most of the remaining 30%,” further noting that the routes for reaching the American and European markets are via the Pacific to Asia, through the eastern Caribbean towards Europe and overland through Central America towards the US. “Geographically, Venezuela is disadvantaged for all three main routes, as it borders the South Atlantic. Criminal logistics mean that Venezuela plays only a marginal role in the grand theater of international narcotrafficking.”
US War buildup around Venezuela
Chas Freeman, a respected former US diplomat who served the State Department in various capacities over 30 years, said in a recent interview that the current Trump administration’s actions are “part of a longstanding 21st century effort to overthrow the government of Venezuela.”
“Very clearly the Trump administration, and I think Marco Rubio in particular, are trying very hard to engineer regime change in Caracas.”
In August, the US announced a $50 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Maduro (keeping in mind the US earlier this year removed the much smaller $10 million bounty on known al-Qaeda/ISIS terrorist Abu Mohammed al-Joolani, aka Ahmed al-Sharaa, the so-called “president” of Syria with the blood of countless civilians on his hands).
Under the war-on-drugs pretext, the Trump administration with its newly dubbed Department of War has moved five (of 10 planned) US F-35 aircraft to Puerto Rico, following the relocation of at least eight naval vessels, one nuclear-powered submarine, and an estimated 4,000 troops to the region.
In response, Venezuelans continue to mobilize against the US threats, with a 4.5 million-person-strong people’s militia. This is in addition to the 95,000 to 150,000 active members of the Venezuelan army.
The decades-long US meddling in Venezuela has never been about human rights, drugs or whatever the current US-endorsed “legitimate president” of Venezuela says. It has always been about subjugating the country and controlling its resources, especially its massive crude oil reserves.
In his first term, in 2019, Trump not only backed the wildly unpopular grinning puppet Juan Guaido as “interim president” in President Maduro’s Venezuela, but the US administration also carried out a series of sabotage operations in the country in its attempt to sway popular opinion towards Guaido.
It failed spectacularly. I was in Venezuela at the time and saw the outcome of what the Venezuela government called US sabotage on its electrical grid, causing a country-wide power outage for six days. Subsequent physical attacks on the electrical grid, including arson, caused more outages.
US media claimed Venezuela was in a state of chaos, that there was no food available, and that President Nicolas Maduro had no popular support base.
As I wrote back then, I arrived three days into the outage, and aside from darkened buildings, emptier streets than usual, and, in subsequent days, long lines at water dispensaries and ATMs, I saw no instability. Instead, I saw and learned of Venezuelans working together to get through the effects of the power outage, with ample food in supermarkets and street markets I visited, including in the poorest barrios.
I also saw massive rallies of support for Maduro and against US interference in Venezuela. Many of those participating were from Caracas’ poorest communities, Afro-descendant Venezuelans that are not given a voice by corporate media but who articulated to me very clearly their understanding of the US interests in destabilizing Venezuela.
Chas Freeman calls the US objectives in Venezuela a misreading of Venezuelan politics.
“The fact is that there is a 4.5 million man armed militia in Venezuela which has been mobilized against a possible invasion or a coup attempt. You don’t have a 4.5 million man militia armed if you’re not confident of your position in power and your authority.”
This latest foolishly-concocted, criminal, attempt to destabilize the country is likely to fail as resoundingly as the previous ones. But as in the previous interventions, the US will once more, without remorse, cause the deaths of Venezuelan civilians. It already has.
American strikes off Venezuela, which have killed Colombian citizens, are not about drugs, according to President Gustavo Petro
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has accused the US of trying to start a war in the Caribbean under the guise of an anti-drug campaign, adding that Colombian citizens were killed in the latest strikes off the coast of Venezuela.
In a post on social media on Wednesday, Petro claimed that the campaign is not about narcotics but rather resources in the region. The White House dismissed the claim as “baseless,” according to Reuters.
The US has been conducting airstrikes targeting suspected drug-smuggling vessels near Venezuela, in what it described as an effort to curb narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean. Washington has long accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of having ties to drug cartels. Maduro has denied the accusations and has insisted that the attacks are part of an attempt to depose him.
In recent weeks, the US has sunk at least four boats it claimed were carrying narcotics off the coast of Venezuela, killing more than 20 people.
“Evidence shows that the last boat bombed was Colombian, with Colombian citizens on board,” Petro wrote.
The Columbian president claimed the US campaign was not about drugs but about control of natural resources. “There is no war against smuggling; there is a war for oil,” he wrote, calling the attacks “an aggression against all of Latin America and the Caribbean.”
For years, Colombia was regarded as Washington’s closest partner in South America. Through Plan Colombia, a multibillion-dollar US aid initiative launched in 2000, successive Colombian governments granted US forces access to local bases and backed US-led efforts to isolate Venezuela. That policy shifted after Petro was elected in 2022. He moved to restore diplomatic relations with Caracas and called for a more independent foreign policy and regional cooperation.
