Brussels believes that choosing welfare over propping up Kiev is “heresy,” the Hungarian prime minister has said
Prime Minister Viktor Orban has accused the EU of seeking to strip Hungarian families of additional funding to finance Ukraine’s fight with Russia.
In a post on X on Friday, Orban said that “Brusselian bureaucrats have their hands out, trying to take money from our families so they can shovel it over to Kiev. Brussels calls putting families first heresy. We call it common sense.”
Orban tied the dispute to his domestic policy of redistributing tax revenue and expanding benefits, including the existing 13th-month pension and plans to phase in a 14th-month payment, arguing “the money is in a better place with Hungarian families than in Kiev.”
The EU is financed by member-state contributions and shared revenues, meaning that supporting Ukraine entails either higher national payments or EU-level borrowing that is later serviced via budgets. Last month, several media outlets reported that the US and EU had proposed a ten-year plan to the tune of about $800 billion designated for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Orban, who has consistently opposed financial support for Ukraine, castigated the roadmap as a “shock,” warning that it would plunge the bloc into debt. Likewise, he has criticized the already approved €90 billion ($106 billion) EU loan for Ukraine for 2026–27. Hungary, along with several other EU members, opted out of the plan.
Brussels, meanwhile, has regularly withheld parts of Hungary’s EU funding over rule-of-law disputes and purported failure to adopt reforms. The recent suspension of more than €1 billion came ahead of the country’s parliamentary elections set for April.
Hungary has been one of the most outspoken critics within the EU of large-scale financial and military support for Ukraine and of the sanctions on Russia. Orban has repeatedly argued that sanctions have failed to end the fighting while driving up energy prices, weakening European competitiveness, and placing an unfair burden on households. He has also opposed Ukraine’s ambitions to join the EU and NATO, warning that this would draw the bloc into a direct conflict with Russia.
Cheers for Team USA were drowned out by jeers when the screens in San Siro Stadium showed the vice president and his wife
US President Donald Trump expressed surprise after hearing that Vice President J.D. Vance was booed at the Olympics opening ceremony in Italy.
The Winter Olympics officially opened on Friday, with the traditional Parade of Nations at Milan’s iconic San Siro Stadium.
Team USA entered the stadium to applause, though when the cameras briefly showed Vance and his wife Usha waving American flags from the stands, the booing began.
“Oops… those are a lot of boos for him… whistling, jeering, some applause. Not a long shot for him on the screen there,” CBC commentator said on the live feed. The video quickly went viral on social media.
Trump, speaking aboard Air Force One on Friday, said he hadn’t seen the broadcast but found the reception “surprising.”
Given his and his president's attitudes and actions, the booing was nothing surprising. Has anything like this ever happened to an American politician at the official opening of the Games in Olympic history? pic.twitter.com/1ZVqOK0zt5
“That’s surprising because people like him,” he said, adding that Vance is “in a foreign country, in all fairness – he doesn’t get booed in this country.”
Reporter: ''Did you see that the VP Vance got booed at the Olympics?''
Trump: ''That’s surprising because people like him.''
“In my 22 Olympics it probably has happened but I sure don’t remember it,” longtime USA Today sports columnist Christine Brennan wrote on X. Some people suggested the frosty welcome was linked to public discontent over recent US policies.
It’s very rare to hear boos at an Olympic opening ceremony. In my 22 Olympics it probably has happened but I sure don’t remember it. Vice President JD Vance just got booed when he appeared on the big screen. The US athletes, on the other hand, received loud cheers.
US-EU relations have been strained since Trump returned to office last year, marked by trade disputes, tariffs, digital regulation clashes, the Ukraine conflict, and Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, an autonomous territory of EU member Denmark.
Domestic unrest over Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement also appears to have spilled into Italy. Hundreds protested in Milan on Friday against the presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel assigned to provide security for the US delegation.
Vance was not alone in getting booed. Team Israel also received a frosty welcome. They said they anticipated a hostile reception due to the Gaza conflict and global support for the Palestinians.
The Winter Olympics run from February 6 to 22. Thirteen Russian athletes will compete under neutral flags due to Russia’s Olympic Committee suspension over Ukraine-related sanctions – a decision Moscow has denounced as political.
Lasting stability in Europe will depend on a “strong partnership” between Brussels and Ankara, Marta Kos has said
The EU is looking to rekindle its contentious relationship with Türkiye, Politico reported on Friday, citing EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos.
Kos said Brussels will need a “strong partnership” with Ankara once the Ukraine conflict is settled.
Relations between Ankara and Brussels have worsened in recent years amid stalled EU accession talks, disputes over the Customs Union, migration tensions, and Türkiye’s foreign policy. The EU also accused Türkiye of democratic backsliding over what it calls repression of opposition to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – a label Ankara rejects as politically motivated, accusing Brussels of double standards.
However, according to Kos, Türkiye’s potential role in a post-conflict order – including as a peacekeeper and regional powerbroker in the Black Sea – could make it a critical partner.
“Peace in Ukraine will change the realities in Europe, especially in the Black Sea region. Türkiye will be a very important partner for us,” Kos told the outlet in a written statement ahead of her two-day visit to Ankara. “Preparing for peace and stability in Europe implies preparing a strong partnership with Türkiye.”
During her visit, Kos met with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Both sides reaffirmed Türkiye’s EU candidate status and highlighted cooperation on security, connectivity, and economic integration. Fidan, however, stressed the urgent need to modernize the 30-year-old Customs Union, which Ankara says disadvantages the country, particularly in trade and market access. Amendments are contingent on Cyprus lifting its veto on Turkish participation tied to Ankara’s refusal to allow Cyprus-flagged vessels in its ports.
Ahead of the trip, Kos also announced that the European Investment Bank will return to Türkiye with €200 million in renewable energy loans, after suspending new lending in 2019 over Cyprus disputes.
While a NATO member, Türkiye has refused to join Western sanctions on Russia and maintains close energy, trade, and diplomatic ties, relying on Russian gas and hosting Russia’s Akkuyu nuclear project. Türkiye has also hosted Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul and brokered the now-defunct 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative.
Ankara has repeatedly emphasized maintaining balanced ties with both Moscow and Kiev, presenting itself as a mediator and guarantor of regional stability. It has signaled conditional willingness to join post-conflict Ukrainian security or peacekeeping operations if a political settlement and international mandate are in place, though no formal commitment has been made.
Moscow has repeatedly rejected any Western military presence in Ukraine, whether labeled as peacekeepers or otherwise. Moscow will treat any deployment of Western troops in Ukraine as “foreign intervention,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned last month.
The university’s education programs are indoctrinating the military with “globalist and radical ideologies,” the defense secretary claims
The Pentagon is cutting all professional education ties with Harvard, saying the university pushes ‘wokeness’, tolerates anti-Jewish harassment, and works with Chinese-linked research, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has announced.
In a statement on Friday, Hegseth said the department is “formally ending ALL Professional Military Education, fellowships, and certificate programs with Harvard University,” calling the decision “long overdue.”
“Harvard is woke; The War Department is not,” he added.
File this under: LONG OVERDUE
The @DeptWar is formally ending ALL Professional Military Education, fellowships, and certificate programs with Harvard University.
Hegseth said that in the past, the Pentagon sent “our best and brightest officers” to Harvard in hopes that the university would better understand “our warrior class.” However, “too many of our officers came back looking too much like Harvard – heads full of globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks,” he claimed.
Hegseth also accused Harvard of creating a climate that “celebrated Hamas,”“allowed attacks on Jews,” and still “promotes discrimination based on race.” He alleged that “campus research programs have partnered with the Chinese Communist Party,” adding that similar relationships with other schools will be reviewed.
The Pentagon said the cutoff starts with the 2026-27 school year; currently enrolled personnel can finish their courses.
The administration of US President Donald Trump has long sparred with Harvard as the university resisted its demands to overhaul its admissions and governance policies, as well as improving campus discipline following pro-Palestinian protests sparked by the Hamas-Israel war and unprecedented devastation in Gaza.
The administration attempted to freeze Harvard’s federal funding, though in September 2025, a federal judge struck down the decision, arguing that it overstepped its authority and that the allegations of anti-Semitism were used as a “smokescreen.”
Trump has since intensified the pressure, saying earlier this month that he would seek $1 billion in damages from Harvard over the allegations of anti-Semitism.
Harvard President Alan Garber has rejected the accusations as political intimidation, saying, “the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” He added that Harvard has always sought to fight anti-Semitism, calling this a “moral imperative.”
The West’s most irresponsible debate is happening in the European Union
The debate over whether nuclear weapons stabilize the international system or make it more dangerous has accompanied the atomic age from its very beginning. Both sides of the argument can sound persuasive. Yet recent discussions in Western Europe suggest something more troubling than disagreement: a growing frivolity toward weapons whose sole historical purpose has been mass annihilation.
Supporters of nuclear proliferation argue that atomic weapons are, above all, instruments of deterrence. In their view, nuclear arms protect weaker states from coercion and force stronger powers to replace military pressure with diplomacy. Many scientists and strategists have long believed that nuclear weapons reduce the likelihood of major wars, since no rational state would knowingly risk escalation to mutual destruction.
The Cold War confrontation between the USSR and the United States is often cited as proof. Despite intense rivalry, neither side crossed the threshold into direct conflict. The same logic is applied today to India and Pakistan, whose acquisition of nuclear weapons is widely believed to have prevented large-scale war between them.
Opponents of this view counter that nuclear weapons should remain in the hands of a limited number of states with the institutional capacity to manage them responsibly. Most countries, they argue, lack the political culture, experience, and control mechanisms required to handle such weapons without catastrophic error. In this reading, nuclear arms resemble fire: powerful, useful in specific contexts, but never a toy. The familiar rule applies, matches are not for children.
Yet this argument, too, has its contradictions. There are no clear examples of nuclear proliferation directly triggering disaster, which fuels suspicion that warnings about proliferation sometimes serve to preserve an exclusive monopoly rather than genuine global safety.
As a result, there remains no definitive answer to whether the spread of nuclear weapons makes the world safer or more dangerous. Meanwhile, reality continues to evolve. India and Pakistan possess nuclear arms. North Korea openly declares itself a nuclear power. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, even if it maintains official ambiguity.
What has reignited the debate most recently is not Asia or the Middle East, but Western politics, specifically the crisis within the so-called collective West and shifts in US foreign policy. Former Brazilian diplomats have even suggested that Brazil should consider developing its own nuclear weapons, citing Washington’s increasingly explicit claim to exclusive influence over the Western Hemisphere.
But it is Europe where the discussion has taken on its most peculiar form. Calls have emerged to extend French and British nuclear “umbrellas” to cover all European NATO members. French President Emmanuel Macron has spoken openly on the issue, and Wolfgang Ischinger, former German diplomat and long-time head of the Munich Security Conference, has echoed similar ideas.
Ischinger’s reasoning is especially revealing. According to this line of thought, Western Europe needs its own nuclear deterrent not primarily for security, but to “assert itself” in the eyes of the US, Russia, and China. Germany, he suggested, could then serve as a “bridge” between the bloc and Washington, reassuring the Americans that their allies do not intend to act independently.
This framing exposes the depth of Western Europe’s intellectual decline on strategic questions. Nuclear weapons are not instruments of prestige, bargaining chips in alliance disputes, or tools for psychological posturing. Historically, they have mattered only to states facing existential threats.
North Korea is the clearest example. Israel is another. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal reflects its demographic and strategic imbalance with India. For the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons were a way to avoid a direct military clash with the US and, at one point, to restrain China’s ambitions.
It is difficult to imagine any comparable threat facing Europe today. No major power is preparing to annihilate the continent. Russia, in particular, seeks something far more modest: an end to Western interference in its internal affairs, the cessation of security threats on its borders, and the restoration of economic ties destroyed by political confrontation. EU leaders understand this perfectly well, yet continue to behave as if they require protection from an impending apocalypse.
This leads to a second conclusion. Western Europe’s nuclear rhetoric is not about security at all. It is a symptom of growing fractures within the West itself. While American rhetoric has changed sharply, US nuclear weapons remain stationed in Europe. Washington talks about reducing its military footprint and pressures allies over Ukraine and even Greenland, but it has not withdrawn its deterrent.
Still, these signals have provoked panic in European capitals. Macron’s statements and the enthusiastic support they receive from German strategists reflect anxiety, not strategy. Talk of nuclear weapons has become a tactical move in Europe’s quarrel with Washington, little more than a rhetorical lever.
If matters ever became serious, neither France nor Britain would surrender control over their nuclear forces to Berlin, let alone Brussels. The British, in particular, prefer to avoid risks themselves while encouraging others to step forward first. Everyone understands this, yet the discussion continues because Western Europe no longer treats the most consequential questions of global politics with due seriousness.
Accustomed to limited influence and dependent security, the half-continent now reaches for the atomic bomb as a way to frighten the Americans. As if Washington does not understand perfectly well what such talk signifies. Nuclear weapons become another prop in political theatre.
This is where the danger lies. Western Europe has become an inexperienced and irresponsible actor, and widespread nuclear rhetoric inevitably appears threatening to others. Ironically, the region that once shaped international law and diplomacy now displays less strategic culture than many former colonial states in Asia and Latin America.
Nuclear weapons do not represent a desirable lifestyle. They are not instruments of self-assertion. They do not contribute to a “beautiful life.” They exist solely as tools of last resort, carrying immense moral and political responsibility. To treat them as symbols in media-driven disputes is not just foolish, it is dangerous.
It would be far better if Western Europe relearned this lesson before the world once again finds itself standing at the edge of catastrophe.
This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.
The White House says a staffer posted a video depicting the former president and his wife as apes by mistake
US President Donald Trump has declined to apologize after a video depicting former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle as apes was posted on his Truth Social account. The now-deleted clip was condemned by both Democrats and Republicans as racist and deeply offensive.
According to Axios, the video was posted to Trump’s account on Thursday night and remained online for nearly 12 hours. The AI-generated clip was originally created by an account that posts pro-Trump memes.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt dismissed the backlash on Friday morning as “fake outrage.” The video was later taken down, and a White House official said a “staffer erroneously made the post.”
Trump distanced himself from the incident when questioned by reporters. Asked whether he would apologize, he replied, “No, I didn’t make a mistake.”
“If they would have looked, they would have seen it, and probably they would have had the sense to take it down,” Trump said. Asked whether he condemned the video’s content, he replied, “Of course I do.”
“I guess during the end of it, there was some kind of a picture that people don’t like. I wouldn’t like it either, but I didn’t see it,” Trump said on Air Force One.
Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House. The President should remove it. https://t.co/gADoM13ssZ
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, accused Trump of posting “this disgusting video” deliberately. “F**k Donald Trump and his vile, racist and malignant behavior. This guy is an unhinged bottom-feeder,” Jeffries said in a video address on Instagram.
Republican Senator Tim Scott condemned the video as “the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House.”
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said the post amounted to “a grave failure of judgment” and called for “a clear and unequivocal apology.”
Marshal of the Sejm Wlodzimierz Czarzasty has said the US president does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize
The US Embassy in Poland announced that it would cut ties with Polish parliamentary speaker Wlodzimierz Czarzasty after he said US President Donald Trump does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
On Monday, Czarzasty denounced Trump’s tariff policies and his plan to annex Greenland from Denmark. He also criticized the president for downplaying the contribution of America’s NATO allies during the war in Afghanistan. Czarzasty further described Trump’s proposed global Board of Peace as “illusory” and accused him of undermining the EU, UN, and NATO.
“I will not support President Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize because he doesn’t deserve it,” the Polish official said.
In a post on X on Thursday, US Ambassador to Poland Tom Rose accused Czarzasty of damaging bilateral ties. “Effective immediately, we will have no further dealings, contacts, or communications with Marshal of the Sejm Czarzasty,” Rose wrote, citing the “outrageous and unprovoked insults.”
Effective immediately, we will have no further dealings, contacts, or communications with Marshal of the Sejm Czarzasty, whose outrageous and unprovoked insults directed against President Trump @POTUS has made himself a serious impediment to our excellent relations with Prime…
Czarzasty denied any wrongdoing. “I consistently respect the US as Poland’s key partner. That is why I regretfully accept Ambassador Tom Rose’s statement, but I will not change my position on these fundamental issues for Polish women and men,” he wrote on X.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk responded by saying, “allies should respect, not lecture, each other.”
Mr.Ambassador Rose, allies should respect, not lecture, each other. At least this is how we, here in Poland, understand partnership.
Panie Ambasadorze Rose, sojusznicy powinni się szanować, a nie pouczać. Przynajmniej tak w Polsce rozumiemy partnerstwo.
In his reply to Tusk, the US envoy reiterated that Czarzasty’s “despicable, disrespectful and insulting comments about President Trump” could damage relations with Washington. Rose described Trump as “the greatest friend Poland has ever had in the White House.”
Trump sparked outrage among European officials and veterans last month when he claimed that America’s allies “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines” in Afghanistan. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the remarks “appalling,” prompting Trump to later praise UK soldiers on social media.
The new restrictions were announced right after the two countries wrapped up indirect talks in Oman on Tehran’s nuclear program
Any agreement on Iran’s nuclear program can only be reached through “calm” dialogue free of pressure and threats, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said after indirect talks with the US in Oman on Friday. Shortly afterward, Washington announced a new round of sanctions against Tehran.
Araghchi welcomed the resumption of dialogue with the US after “eight turbulent months” and called the eight-hour negotiations in Muscat on Friday, mediated by Oman’s foreign minister, a “good start.” Both sides share a “consensus” on the need to continue the talks, Tehran’s top diplomat said in a statement.
Moments after the talks ended, the US Department of State announced restrictions against 15 entities, two individuals and 14 vessels, accusing them of being linked to what it called “the illicit trade in Iranian petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemical products.” It said the move was part of a “maximum pressure campaign” launched by the administration of President Donald Trump.
Speaking to journalists on Friday, Araghchi said that the Iranian delegation “made it clear” that any dialogue should be free of threats or pressure. In a post on X, he added that Iran “enters diplomacy with open eyes and a steady memory of the past year.”
According to the minister, the past eight months have created the atmosphere of “great distrust” that needs to be overcome.
Tensions between the two nations have run high since the US struck nuclear facilities in Iran last June, and escalated further in light of widespread anti-government protests that gripped the Islamic Republic in December and January. Tehran accused the US and Israel of instigating the unrest.
In recent weeks, Washington has deployed an ‘armada’ led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to the Middle East, demanding that any potential deal limit uranium enrichment and restrict Tehran’s ballistic missile program. According to Araghchi, the talks in Muscat focused only on the nuclear program.
Iran has maintained that its program is purely peaceful in nature. Washington unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions against Tehran, prompting the Islamic Republic to gradually scale back compliance and enrich uranium to 60% purity.
No ideology can stand up to literal power. Countries that generate it survive
Energy policy reveals the true structure of power. Liberal speeches are filled with essentially meaningless abstractions such as ‘values’ and ‘moral purpose’. Nuclear power plants speak of survival. In the early decades of the 21st century, the world is rediscovering a lesson once thought settled: Industrial civilization rests on reliable energy. Nations that forget this principle drift into dependency. Nations that remember it regain strategic freedom.
Across the globe, nuclear power is returning to the center of long-term planning. This shift signals more than a technical adjustment. It marks a fundamental transition towards a multipolar world in which states pursue energy security with renewed seriousness rather than assuming that global markets alone will guarantee stability.
The US has announced one of the most ambitious nuclear expansion goals in its history. Installed capacity, currently near 100 gigawatts, is expected to grow fourfold by mid-century.
Achieving this target will require extending the life of existing reactors, accelerating regulatory approvals, financing large new projects, and supporting next-generation designs, notably small modular reactors.
This effort is essentially a strategic recalibration. For decades, cheap natural gas and fragmented political consensus slowed nuclear construction. Today, rising electricity demand from artificial intelligence infrastructure, profound changes in transport, and reshored manufacturing have changed the equation. Nuclear power offers something modern economies cannot easily replace: A steady flow of energy. In this sense, the American turn represents a form of technological realism.
Energy independence strengthens diplomatic flexibility. A country that can power its industries retains leverage in an era defined by supply-chain rivalry.
France arrived at this conclusion long ago. Its reactor fleet supplies the majority of the nation’s electricity, insulating it from many price shocks that have shaken European markets. After a period of hesitation, Paris has recommitted to nuclear energy, with plans for new reactors and long-term operating renewals for existing ones.
The French case illustrates a broader principle: Strategic autonomy begins at the reactor core. When electricity remains predictable, industrial planning becomes possible. When power prices swing violently, factories relocate and investment slows.
Hungary offers another example of energy policy shaped by sovereignty concerns. The expansion of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant, built in cooperation with Russia, reflects Budapest’s determination to secure long-term energy stability.
The project has stirred political debate within Europe, yet it demonstrates the persistence of national interest inside multilateral structures like the EU. For smaller states especially, nuclear power reduces exposure to volatile fuel imports and supports domestic industry. Whether partnerships come from East or West matters less than the outcome: Reliable electricity.
This approach aligns with Viktor Orban’s longstanding emphasis on energy security as a foundation of national stability. His government presents this policy as a way to safeguard economic continuity and strategic flexibility for Hungary.
Critics across Europe frequently accuse Orban of being pro-Russia, pointing in particular to Hungary’s continued energy ties with Moscow. Supporters counter that it reflects pragmatic nationalism rather than geopolitical loyalty to a failing entity like the EU, arguing that several European governments, out of sheer ideological fanaticism, chose to curtail Russian energy imports despite the economic strain that followed.
Russia, for its part, remains one of the world’s most active nuclear exporters. The State Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom) has pursued projects across Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Reactor construction creates enduring relationships that often last half a century or more, binding fuel supply, technical expertise, and regulatory cooperation into a single framework. This export strategy carries geopolitical weight. Infrastructure shapes alignment. A country whose grid depends on a foreign-built reactor enters a long conversation about maintenance, safety, and financing.
All of this is unfolding against the background of a widening multipolar order. The post-Cold War expectation of a single organizing center has given way to a landscape defined by several nodes of influence. Energy infrastructure increasingly reflects this diffusion.
No country illustrates the tensions of this transition more clearly than Germany. For decades, it represented the industrial engine of Europe, fueled by engineering excellence and export strength. Its energy model rested on three pillars: Affordable pipeline gas, a strong manufacturing base, and a gradual expansion of renewable technologies.
Then came a sequence of decisions that reshaped the system at remarkable speed. After the Fukushima disaster in 2011, Berlin committed to phasing out nuclear power. The final reactors closed in 2023. Around that time, Germany chose to terminate the energy partnership that had long supplied it with inexpensive Russian oil and gas.
The simultaneity of these decisions produced a structural break. Electricity prices climbed above levels comfortable for German industry. Chemical producers reduced output. Some manufacturers explored and implemented relocation. Policymakers accelerated liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports and expanded renewable capacity, yet the transition imposed near-impossible strain. Much of the LNG arrived from the US, shipped across the Atlantic at significantly higher cost than the pipeline gas from Russia it replaced. Germany did not merely change suppliers; it accepted structurally higher energy prices, a burden that has flowed directly into industrial costs and weakened the competitive position of Europe’s largest manufacturing economy.
Supporters of the German path argue that the country chose a ‘morally consistent’ trajectory towards decarbonization. Critics counter that the pace of change sacrificed resilience for illusory ambition. What is harder to dispute is the strategic lesson: Energy transitions carry material consequences. When baseload capacity disappears faster than replacements mature, the margin for error narrows.
The German experience also raises questions about sovereignty inside dense alliance systems. Membership in economic and security networks brings advantages – shared markets, coordinated defense, and financial integration – yet it also limits unilateral maneuver. Every modern state balances autonomy against interdependence. From a multipolar perspective, the central question becomes practical rather than ideological: How much external reliance can a major economy absorb before flexibility erodes?
Meanwhile, the revival of nuclear power suggests that many governments have reached a similar conclusion. Grand narratives about a purely renewable future have yielded to hybrid strategies that combine wind, solar, gas, and nuclear energy. Reliability has returned as the governing metric. Even climate policy is evolving in this direction. Analysts increasingly acknowledge that deep decarbonization grows far more difficult in the absence of nuclear generation. Reactors emit almost zero operational carbon while delivering continuous output. For planners tasked with keeping grids stable, the appeal is obvious.
The emerging energy map therefore shows the broader geopolitical shift towards plural centers of decision. The US invests in advanced reactors. France doubles down on its nuclear tradition. Russia exports technology. Smaller European states hedge their bets. Across Asia, nuclear construction is advancing at breathtaking speed. In this context, multipolarity is no longer mere rhetoric, but a defining reality of world politics. Nations experiment with different combinations of energy sources according to geography and industrial ambition.
The larger lesson may be psychological. Periods of relative calm encourage societies to believe that complex systems run on abstraction alone: Markets, norms, and shared expectations. Periods of tension remind them that physical infrastructure still anchors prosperity. Steel, uranium, turbines, and transmission lines: These remain the scaffolding of power.
Nuclear energy does carry risks. Construction costs can spiral. Public opposition can stall projects. Waste storage demands long-term planning. Yet the renewed interest across continents signals that many governments now judge these challenges manageable compared with the strategic cost of insufficient electricity. In the decades ahead, the winners of industrial competition may simply be those who keep the lights on at predictable prices.
The return of the atom is more than a technical revival. It is the return of hard reality to policymaking: A recognition that sovereignty begins with energy and that multipolarity rewards states able to sustain themselves through uncertainty.
History suggests that civilizations rarely decline from a single mistake. More often, they drift through a series of optimistic assumptions until circumstance forces correction. The present nuclear renaissance hints that a correction is underway. Power, in the end, is literal. Nations that generate it endure.
The World Economic Forum has launched an investigation into its CEO Borge Brende over links to the late pedophile financier
The World Economic Forum’s reputation has been “tainted” by revelations that its CEO Borge Brende reportedly had dinners with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev has said.
Several documents among millions released by the US Justice Department last week, including Epstein’s personal emails, mention Brende attending dinners with Epstein and communicating with him by email and text. In a statement on Thursday, the WEF said it had launched an investigation into the revelations.
According to Dmitriev, who also heads Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, the disclosures and the ensuing probe undermine the credibility of the WEF and its flagship Davos forum in Switzerland.
“Davos’s reputation is so tainted,” Dmitriev wrote in a post on X on Friday, pitching Russia’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) as a better alternative. “All good people from the WEF should move to the [SPIEF] instead. The WEF can stay focused on discussing Epstein’s legacy and the lessons learned from his network-building.”
The WEF said Brende, who has served as CEO since 2017 and was previously Norwegian foreign minister, fully supports the investigation and requested it himself. Brende, in turn, claimed he met Epstein only in 2018 – a year before the disgraced financier’s death in a New York prison – and that three dinners and “a few emails and SMS messages,” allegedly strictly professional, constituted the full extent of their contact.
“I was completely unaware of Epstein’s past and criminal activities,” Brende insisted, as cited by Reuters, even though it’s widely known Epstein was convicted as a sex offender in 2008, years before the two met.
The Epstein files mention numerous high-profile Western figures, linking some to either Epstein’s sex trafficking network or questionable financial dealings. None have been charged so far, but the disclosures have prompted resignations, probes, and reviews worldwide, with all those named denying wrongdoing.
Commenting on the files, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the West of covering up Epstein’s crimes, arguing the case exposes the hypocrisy of a justice system that shields elites.
“Nothing in the West is investigated – just like the Epstein case – when it implicates ‘global elites,’” she wrote in a Telegram post on Friday. “Ironically, their crimes are now captured in photos and videos – and yet, they claim ‘it’s not all that clear.’”
