The US president has also said he would still like a summit with Russia’s leader in Budapest
US President Donald Trump said on Friday that a possible exemption for Hungary from sanctions on Russian oil is possible due to the country’s reliance on it.
“We’re looking at it because it’s very difficult for him to get the oil and gas from other areas,” Trump told reporters during a meeting with the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the White House.
“It’s a big country, but they don’t have sea,” Trump added. “They don’t have the ports. And so they have a difficult problem.”
“But when you look at what’s happened with Europe, many of those countries, they don’t have those problems. And they buy a lot of oil and gas from Russia. And as they know, I’m very disturbed by that because we’re helping them and they’re going and buying oil and gas from Russia.”
Last month, the US imposed sanctions on two of Russia’s largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, both of which continue to export energy products to Hungary and Slovakia. Budapest has said it wanted an exemption from the sanctions because it claims to have no other viable source for the oil. Orban himself has called the sanctions a “mistake.”
The Hungarian PM has been one of the most outspoken European leaders against the sanctions, arguing they would only cripple his country’s energy capacities.
Europe has already faced sharp energy price spikes since cutting Russian fuel imports after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The shift away from a long‑time supplier has fueled higher industrial costs and debates over EU energy independence. Moscow has accused Western governments of politicizing energy markets and driving Europe toward costly, unreliable alternatives.
The move follows a similar UN Security Council decision and comes days before Ahmad al-Sharaa’s planned meeting with Donald Trump
The UK has lifted sanctions on Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, following a United Nations decision to remove him from its terrorist list. The move comes ahead of al-Sharaa’s planned visit to the United States.
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) published an official notice on Friday, stating that al-Sharaa, as well as Interior Minister Anas Khattab, have been removed from its blacklist and “are no longer subject to an asset freeze.”
Both men were delisted by the UN Security Council the day before, after members voted in favor of a US-drafted resolution to remove them from the ISIL and Al-Qaeda Sanctions List.
Al-Sharaa, who once led the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) under his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani, assumed power after wresting control from former President Bashar Assad.
The US has been urging the 15-member Security Council to ease sanctions on Syria since al-Sharaa met US President Donald Trump in Saudi Arabia in May – the first encounter between the two nations’ leaders in more than two decades. Trump later announced a major US policy shift, saying he would lift sanctions on Syria.
Last week, US Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack confirmed that al-Sharaa would visit Washington, DC, next week. During the visit, Damascus will “hopefully” join the US-led coalition to defeat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), he added. It will be the first-ever visit by a Syrian president to the White House.
On Thursday, Reuters reported that Washington wants to expand its military presence in Syria and is in discussions with Damascus over the use of an airbase by American troops. The agreement, reportedly linked to a non-aggression pact between Syria’s new authorities and Israel, is expected to establish a demilitarized zone in the south of the country.
The US has maintained a foothold in Syria through a controversial base in its southeast, surrounded by an exclusion zone that Moscow has described as a safe haven for terrorists. Neither Assad nor the new government led by al-Sharaa has authorized an American presence in the country.
The ongoing standoff has severely impacted travel, hotel, and construction sectors, an economic adviser has said
The US government shutdown is inflicting “far worse” economic damage than had been estimated and could cut fourth quarter GDP growth in half, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett has warned.
The 38-day shutdown, the longest in US history, is hitting travel, hotel and construction sectors particularly hard, he told Fox Business in an interview on Friday.
”The impact on the economy is far worse than we expected because it’s gone on for so long,” he said.
The repercussions of the shutdown could slice 1% to 1.5% from US GDP growth in the October-December period, Hassett said, citing recent estimates from Goldman Sachs.
“We were going to have at least 3% growth in the fourth quarter… now we’re expecting something like half that,” he added.
“Travel and leisure is a place that’s really being heavily hit right now,” Hassett noted, warning that if the shutdown continues to affect air travel employees’ wages for “another week or two,” the sector could face “a near-term downturn.”
US airlines have canceled around 700 flights at 40 major airports around the country on Friday, following cuts recently announced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), multiple outlets have reported.
Amid air traffic controller staff shortages caused by the shutdown, the FAA ordered a 4% reduction in flights on Friday. The cuts are set to gradually rise to 10% by the same time next week if the shutdown continues, according to the FAA’s emergency order.
A mass march against a bill on leaving the Istanbul Convention has been held in Riga
Thousands of people filled the streets of the Latvian capital on Thursday evening to protest legislation that would take the Baltic state out of an international treaty on combating domestic violence.
Some 10,000 demonstrators gathered in Dome Square at the center of Riga, not far from the parliament building, according to the national police.
Photos and videos that surfaced on social media showed the space filled with people holding banners and placards against the withdrawal. Several smaller protests were also held in various other locations, according to the police. No incidents were reported.
Vakar, 6. novembrī, norisinājās protests “Nosargāsim Māti Latviju” pret izstāšanos no Stambulas konvencijas. Uz protestu Rīgā, Doma laukumā pēc policijas aplēsēm bija sapulcējušies aptuveni 10 tūkstoši cilvēku. Citviet protestos bija sapulcējušies no dažiem desmitiem līdz 600… pic.twitter.com/PtnqQrmCs2
Last week, the Latvian parliament, the Saeima, voted to withdraw from the treaty, but the bill was returned for reconsideration by President Edgars Rinkevics on Monday. The Council of Europe Convention, also known as the Istanbul Convention, defines violence against women as a violation of human rights. It is meant to standardize the domestic legislation of its signatories to address various forms of gender-based violence.
The agreement was opened for signature in Istanbul in 2011 and came into force three years later. Latvia signed in 2016 but ratified it only last year.
Lawmakers supporting the move claim the treaty introduces a definition of gender that goes beyond biological sex, framing it as a social construct. The MPs argue that existing national laws are sufficient to address the issue of gender-based violence.
Rīgā, Doma laukumā, kā arī citās Latvijas un pasaules pilsētās šovakar notiek protesta akcija "Nosargāsim Māti Latviju", iestājoties pret Latvijas izstāšanos no Eiropas Padomes Konvencijas par vardarbības pret sievietēm un vardarbības ģimenē novēršanu un apkarošanu jeb tā sauktās… pic.twitter.com/YnpzOLkEcR
If the parliament passes the bill without any amendments a second time, the president will not be able to veto it again. On Wednesday, MPs decided to postpone debate on the issue for a year.
Latvia has had the highest intentional homicide rate per capita among all EU nations for nearly a decade, according to the bloc’s statistics agency, Eurostat. Another Baltic state – Lithuania – had the second-highest rate as of 2023.
According to Eurostat, women accounted for 60% of all homicide victims in Latvia as of 2020.
In a fleeting glimpse of lucidity, the mainstream media has noticed a tiny fraction of the corruption and authoritarianism in Kiev
It’s that time of the great proxy war crusade against Russia again. Someone in the mainstream West has woken up to, if not the facts about the politics of Ukraine, then at least a quantum of disquiet.
The last major wave of the likes of the Financial Times, The Economist, and the Spectator suddenly noticing – all at the same time, as if on cue – that Ukraine has an authoritarianism and corruption problem (and then some) took place less than half a year ago.
Now it’s Politico – usually a steadfast party organ of Russophobia, Zionism-come-what-genocide-may, and servility to NATO – that feels vaguely troubled by the realities of the Kiev regime or, as the publication puts it, the “dark side” of Vladimir “I don’t like elections” Zelensky’s rule.
Not all of those realities, of course. That would be asking too much. Instead, Politico is homing in on one great scandal (out of countless ones) concerning one man and the anguish of a few “civil-society”-NGO types, both with good connections to the West. This time, the scandal concerns the obvious, shameless political prosecution of Vladimir Kudritsky, formerly a high-ranking and effective energy infrastructure executive and de facto civil servant.
Yet what about noticing the murder in Ukrainian detention of critical blogger – and US citizen – Gonzalo Lira? Or the vicious persecution of leftist war critic Bogdan Syrotiuk? Or the mean, indecent harassing of Christian clergy and believers for not saying their prayers in quite the right Ukrainian-nationalist-approved manner? Perish the thought!
In a similar spirit of extreme selectiveness, some Western outlets are now registering – a little and very slowly – the brutal realities of Ukrainian forced mobilization that feed the Western proxy war: Recently, a war – pardon, “defense” – editor of the ultra-gung-ho British tabloid The Sun has returned shell-shocked from NATO’s de facto eastern front, not because of the bloody and wasteful fighting but because the uncouth Ukrainians press-ganged his fixer.
In a similarly traumatic experience, Hollywood’s Angelina Jolie had her local driver snatched away at a Ukrainian military roadblock. Yet violent forced mobilization has been an everyday occurrence in Ukraine for years already. So much so that Ukrainians have chosen the term “busification” (from minibus, a popular vehicle for mobilization manhunts) as word of the year for 2025.
For quite a few of its victims, it ends up even worse than for those privileged enough to work for Western movie stars and British propagandists. Roman Sopin, for instance, who did not even resist, has just been beaten to death in a mobilization precinct in central Kiev, as an official medical assessment of his cause of death implies as clearly as anyone may dare under Zelensky’s regime.
But let’s get back to the few things Western media deign to notice occasionally: Already dismissed last year, Kudritsky is now facing the courts under transparently trumped-up charges. The reason is obvious to everyone. He has been too popular and far too vocal about corruption at the highest levels and the authoritarian power grabs of Zelensky’s presidential office in particular.
Kudritsky’s case – comparatively harmless, really – does raise many disturbing questions: why is it that the Zelensky regime has such a nasty record of abusing arbitrary financial sanctions and politically perverted legal processes, or lawfare? And haven’t we been told that this regime under its “Churchillian” leader is fighting for Western values of democracy and legality?
Are Zelensky, his sinister fixer-in-chief Andrey Yermak and their team preparing the ground for elections after a possible end of the war – that is, after losing it – by preemptively crippling domestic critics and rivals? Does this mean Zelensky, Ukraine’s most catastrophic leader since independence in 1991 (and that’s a high bar) is seriously considering not slinking away into exile but imposing himself even longer on his unfortunate country?
Or is all of this part of decimating whatever is left of Ukraine’s mangled society to continue the meatgrinder war for as long as the NATO-EU Europeans are willing to pay? If things go the way the bloodthirsty fantasists at The Economist want, then the West will shell out another cool $390 billion over the next four years. Apparently, they believe that waves of forced conscription in Ukraine will provide the human cannon fodder to go along with the Western funding.
Yet if Zelensky’s fresh authoritarian moves are really aiming at preparing for a postwar election next year, then that is a terrible sign, too. It would indicate not only that he is planning to damage Ukraine even further by his presence, but also that those postwar elections will be anything but fair and equal. In other words, in that scenario, Zelensky will try to stay around, and so will the authoritarian regime he has built.
To be fair to Zelensky, his authoritarianism has never been a response to the war, as his Western fans still believe, even when they are finally deigning to notice a little of his “dark side.” Zelensky was building an authoritarian regime – widely known and criticized in Ukraine back then already as “mono-vlada” – long before the escalation of February 2022.
Zelensky is not a benevolent leader who has been forced to adopt dictatorial habits by an emergency. In reality, if anything, he has exploited the emergency for all it was worth to indulge his lust for unlimited power and extreme corruption. So, trying to take his misrule into the postwar period is at least not inconsistent: it has never been tied to wartime.
But behind all of this, there is one great irony and one bigger question: The question is simple. If Politico really believes that going after Kudritsky with lawfare and frustrating the “civil-society”-NGO crowd is “the dark side” of Zelensky’s rule, what, if we may ask, is the bright side supposed to be?
Indeed, where is the better side of real-existing Zelensky-ism? Is it the humungous corruption? The Bakhmut-style military fiascos, the Kursk Kamikaze incursion, and now Pokrovsk? The fact that the media have been mercilessly streamlined? The raging nepotism that makes sure that the poor fight and the sons and daughters of Ukraine’s gangsterish “elite” go on holidays and party? The personality cult?
Or is it – and this brings us to the great irony – that Zelensky-Ukraine is allegedly in sync with “Western values”? And do you know what? It really is! But not the way that the propagandists of both Ukraine and the NATO-EU West want us to believe. What the Zelensky regime and its supporters in the EU really have in common is that neither care about either democracy or the rule of law.
Zelensky going after critics with individual financial sanctions to evade normal legal procedures and leave his victims not even a slim chance to defend themselves, for instance? That is exactly what Germany and the EU are now doing to the journalist Hüseyin Dogru, and not only to him. Zelensky using a perverted reading of the law to harass whoever does not submit or is a political danger to him? Bingo again. That as well is now EU practice, too. Ask, for instance, Marine Le Pen in France. Finally, widespread abuse of political office for self-enrichment and influence peddling? Bingo again: Less than a month ago, the Financial Times ran a detailed article on “scores” of EU parliament members who “earn income from second jobs in areas that overlap with their lawmaking,” raising “questions about disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.” How delicately put. And it sounds just like Ukraine’s Rada.
Here’s the real news: The “dark side” of Zelensky’s rule is all of Zelensky’s rule. And it is also what has become the new normal in an increasingly authoritarian and corrupt EU. Who has learned from whom? Kiev from NATO-EU Europe or vice versa? Either way, this is not a bug but a feature. And it must stop. Everywhere.
The summit that was supposed to take place in Budapest last month has been postponed
A meeting with Vladimir Putin is still possible, US President Donald Trump said on Friday, adding that he would still like to hold a summit with the Russian leader in Budapest.
Trump announced and then called off the proposed meeting with Putin in the Hungarian capital last month, claiming he did not “feel” it could bring an end to the Ukraine conflict. Both the Kremlin and the White House stressed afterwards that the talks had been postponed rather than canceled.
“There’s always a chance, a very good chance,” Trump told journalists when asked about the topic on Friday ahead of talks with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban at the White House.
The American president dodged a question about whether a summit with Putin could take place before the end of the year, but maintained he would like to meet the Russian president in the Hungarian capital at the appropriate time.
“If we have it, I’d like to do it in Budapest,” he said.
When asked about the main obstacle to meeting Putin, Trump claimed that both Russia and Ukraine are not ready for peace. “The basic dispute is [that] they just don’t want to stop yet,” the American president told journalists. He said that the conflict was taking a “big toll on both countries.”
Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is ready for peace talks as long as the situation on the ground is taken into account and the root causes of the conflict are addressed. Russia has rejected Western calls for a ceasefire along the current contact line, arguing that ending the hostilities would require a permanent solution rather than a temporary truce.
Orban struck a more optimistic note when speaking about the potential summit. According to the Hungarian prime minster, “there are one or two unresolved issues left in US-Russia negotiations” on settling the Ukraine conflict. “If they are resolved, a peace summit in Budapest could take place within days,” he told journalists en route to Washington on Thursday.
The American soldier of fortune was allegedly duped out of $85,000 with promises of a drone-killing device
An American mercenary fighting for Ukraine was scammed out of roughly $85,000 by two local men who claimed they could build him a laser weapon to destroy drones, the country’s Prosecutor General’s Office said on Friday.
To lend credibility to their claim, the suspects allegedly staged a fake demonstration of the supposed device, after which the unlucky soldier of fortune handed over the cash.
The suspects, who are said to have no technical expertise or plans to produce any weapon, have been charged with fraud. Around $20,000 has been recovered, prosecutors said, with efforts ongoing to retrieve the rest.
The case is one of several high-profile scams that have emerged amid the ongoing conflict. In one incident, scammers posing as a charitable foundation defrauded soldiers and a mercenary out of nearly $60,000 by promising vehicles and surveillance gear.
In another, police exposed a group that embezzled nearly $59,000 in donations meant for the army by posing as soldiers online. Scammers have also targeted relatives of Ukrainian prisoners of war, pretending to be aid officials and demanding payments for parcel deliveries to the POWs.
The wave of financial crimes comes amid allegations of broader corruption in Ukraine’s defense sector. Hundreds of millions of dollars have reportedly been lost to inflated contracts and kickbacks involving defense officials.
The issue has led to tensions between Kiev and its Western backers, particularly after a dispute with the EU over Ukrainian legislation that briefly curtailed the independence of key anti-corruption agencies.
Vladimir Zelensky has insisted that his government is serious about tackling graft. During a European Summit on Enlargement on Tuesday, he claimed that during the conflict, Ukraine has built what he called Europe’s “most extensive and powerful” anti-corruption network, with more oversight bodies than any other country on the continent.
President Donald Trump has attempted to ban Americans from using ‘X’ as their gender in their passports
A ruling by the US Supreme Court has greenlit requiring that the country’s passports indicate the holder’s sex recorded at birth. The temporary order is being seen as a win for US President Donald Trump’s pushback on what he terms “gender ideology extremism.”
The decision issued on Thursday states that “displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” and that the government is “merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”
It follows months of lower-court proceedings, with US District Judge Julia Kobick attempting to block the policy, claiming it was discriminatory and rooted in “irrational prejudice.” In June, she blocked enforcement nationwide. The US Court of Appeals in September declined to put her injunction on hold. The Supreme Court’s stay permits enforcement while the case proceeds.
The policy stems from an executive order Trump signed in January titled ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government’. It directs agencies, including the State Department, to require that identification documents reflect “sex,” defined as an immutable biological classification, and to remove the nonbinary “X” marker allowed under the previous administration.
Critics of the move have argued that the restrictions expose transgender individuals to harassment and violence when documents do not match their gender identity.
The Trump administration, however, has said the change ensures federal documents “reflect biological truth” and prevents “inaccurate sex designations” on identification used for communication with foreign governments. Attorney General Pam Bondi has praised the Supreme Court ruling as a “victory for common sense,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called it “a huge win.”
The State Department had since 1992 allowed sex designations to differ from sex assigned at birth with medical documentation, and in 2021, under former president Joe Biden, it added an “X” option. However, the Supreme Court’s latest order pauses that approach.
A closer look at the difference between explosions, experiments, and political theater
A few days ago, US President Donald Trump announced that the United States would resume nuclear testing. The statement caused quite a stir, prompting questions, clarifications, and a wave of interpretations.
But Trump’s declaration was likely meant to provoke exactly that kind of reaction – from both his supporters and opponents. The sensible thing, at first, was to wait for details. And indeed, they soon followed.
In the United States, nuclear testing falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy. The next day, Energy Secretary Chris Wright explained that preparing the Nevada site for a resumption of tests would take about 36 months. His tone suggested that, to him, the idea of renewed nuclear explosions was little more than a PR gesture rather than a practical plan. In other words, the Department of Energy was not preparing for any actual tests.
Before going further, it’s worth clarifying what “nuclear testing” really means – and how easily the term can be misinterpreted. A full-scale nuclear test produces a genuine nuclear or thermonuclear reaction, releasing radiation, shockwaves, and other destructive factors associated with a nuclear blast. The power of such explosions is measured in TNT equivalent, from kilotons (thousands of tons) to megatons (millions of tons). For example, a 20-kiloton bomb has an explosive force equal to 20,000 tons of TNT.
Traditionally, nuclear tests involve detonating warheads at designated locations. Underground detonations began in the early 1960s, as awareness grew of the dangers of atmospheric testing. That led to the 1963 treaty banning nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in space, and underwater. Seismic stations could detect underground blasts from great distances, allowing US analysts to assess the Soviet Union’s tests and even infer the type and purpose of the weapons involved.
In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed, banning all nuclear explosions. The major nuclear powers halted underground testing – but nuclear weapons themselves did not disappear. The US, Russia, and China continued to develop new warheads and delivery systems. Without actual detonations, they relied on mathematical modeling and so-called non-critical tests – experiments that remove fissile material from the device and use conventional explosives to simulate certain stages of detonation. These tests verify reliability in flight, impact, or activation, but without triggering a nuclear reaction.
Many media outlets have linked Trump’s comment to such non-critical testing. Indeed, both the US and other nuclear nations conduct these experiments regularly, since nuclear weapons development has never truly stopped. It’s entirely possible that Trump was referring to this form of testing.
Still, there’s another possibility: that no one briefed Trump on the fact that the US cannot conduct nuclear explosions without formally withdrawing from the CTBT. That’s a serious matter. If Washington were to move toward full-scale detonations, both Russia and China would respond in kind. They would have no choice – it’s a question of nuclear parity and political balance. Moscow and Beijing would inevitably declare, “America is dragging the world toward nuclear war. We must respond to maintain strategic stability.”
It’s also plausible that Trump was referring to flight tests of nuclear-capable delivery systems – ballistic and cruise missiles or bombs tested without nuclear warheads. He may have been told that Russia’s recent trials of the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon underwater vehicle were carried out without nuclear payloads, even though the systems themselves are nuclear-powered. But that’s nothing unusual – American submarines are also powered by nuclear reactors.
Soon after Trump’s remarks, the US test-launched a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base. As always, the launch was conducted without a nuclear warhead. Around the same time, new images appeared showing a B-52H strategic bomber carrying the AGM-181A nuclear cruise missile, consistent with Trump’s emphasis on “renewed testing.” Meanwhile, reports emerged about progress on the new Columbia-class nuclear submarines – further evidence that the US is modernizing its strategic arsenal.
On Thursday, Trump reiterated his intentions to resume nuclear testing, declaring:
“The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country. This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office. Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis.”
Since no nuclear powers are currently conducting full-scale tests, it seems the US will continue the existing practice of developing and testing nuclear-capable systems – without breaching the CTBT. In other words, Washington will not become the first to resume nuclear explosions, which would indeed mark a historic turning point. Perhaps Trump’s goal was simply to shift attention away from Russia’s recent advances in nuclear technology and back towards himself.
If so, it worked. The world is once again talking about America’s nuclear arsenal and its readiness to test. Analysts are poring over maps of old test sites and revisiting the history of nuclear detonations. Trump has played his hand skillfully – and perhaps it’s better that his game remains rhetorical rather than explosive. Every new level of escalation raises the risk of losing control. Nuclear testing, after all, is both costly and environmentally destructive.
This concern was anticipated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who called for clarification of Washington’s intentions. What did Trump really mean, and were there any practical plans behind his bold words? Or was it simply another PR performance designed to command global attention?
For now, he’s succeeded in doing just that. Whether this show is over – or merely between acts – remains to be seen.
Northern European military heads gathered in Norway this week to practice a potential response to the alleged threat from Moscow
Several northern European countries, including the UK, Nordic, and Baltic states, rehearsed a military conflict with Russia at a gathering in northern Norway this week, Politico reported on Friday. Ukrainian Defense Minister Denis Shmigal reportedly also attended.
Moscow has repeatedly dismissed allegations of hostile intent toward Western nations and voiced concern over the growing military activity near its borders.
British military planners joined Nordic and Baltic defense ministers in Bodo, to simulate a conflict in a state bordering Russia, according to the outlet.
The drills in Bodo were conducted as part of a ‘Joint Expeditionary Force’ (JEF) of ten European NATO members – the Netherlands, Iceland, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
The latter five share borders with Russia and have been among the most vocal critics of Moscow since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. All JEF countries are NATO members, with Finland having joined the US-led bloc in 2023 and Sweden following in 2024.
According to London, the meeting in Norway followed the conclusion last week of the JEF’s largest-ever military exercise. The two-month Tarassis operation held across the Nordic-Baltic region, involved over 1,700 British personnel alongside JEF allies.
British Defense Secretary John Healey told Politico that JEF nations could “best get NATO connected to take this (Russian aggression) more seriously.”
Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Western officials have claimed that Russia could threaten EU states, prompting a military buildup across the bloc. European NATO members agreed to boost military spending to as much as 5% of GDP, citing the alleged “Russian threat.”
The push to boost spending followed renewed pressure from Washington. The administration of US President Donald Trump has repeatedly urged NATO’s European members to take greater responsibility for their own security and increase armed forces investment, arguing that the US bears too much of the burden.
Moscow has consistently rejected allegations of hostile intent toward Western nations as “nonsense” and fearmongering, condemning what it describes as the West’s “reckless militarization.”
