In an interview on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, senior Arizona Democrat Senator Mark Kelly threatened ‘young service members’ with prosecution for following President Donald Trump’s orders to attack drug boats in the Caribbean Sea.
Kelly made the threat in comments to host Martha Raddatz, saying the Trump administration was “putting young service members at great, legal jeopardy.”
RADDATZ: OK, I want to talk about Venezuela. The Pentagon is now sending a carrier strike group. You know the massive amount of firepower on a carrier strike group. What is your take on what is happening with these suspected drug boats. Is it legal?
KELLY: It’s questionable. And the White House and the Department of Defense could not give us a logical explanation on how this is legal. They were tying themselves in knots trying to explain this. We had a lot of questions for them, both Democrats and Republicans. It was not a good meeting. It did not go well. They have a secret list of 20 something — 24 organizations that they have now authorized to use — use kinetic action against without the normal approach that we have for law enforcement. Hey, we don’t want drugs in this country, especially fentanyl. But all these drugs, we — we should be working really hard to interdict them and prosecute the individuals that are smuggling drugs, not putting young service members at great, legal jeopardy.
Note: ABC omitted Kelly’s word “jeopardy” from the transcript even though it was clearly audible in the broadcast.
From Toshiba to Huawei: America’s Long War on Superior Competitors
For decades, the United States championed free markets and fair competition—until it no longer had the upper hand.
Today, oligarchs like Peter Thiel—a key player in the U.S. security apparatus and founder of Palantir, the taxpayer-funded surveillance and profiling giant built with CIA backing—say competition is “bad for business.”
In Thiel’s world, monopoly is not just acceptable; it is the true engine of innovation and profit, turning the American ideal of open markets on its head.
In reality, Washington’s “commitment” to free markets was always lip service. The U.S. has consistently tried to crush superior competitors of its major corporations. Economic warfare is nothing new.
Take Toshiba: According to an August 1992 Los Angeles Times article, it was Japan’s leading chipmaker in the 1980s, commanding about 80% of the global market for dynamic random access memory (DRAM) in 1987.
Like Huawei today, Toshiba became a U.S. target under the banner of “national security.”
After Toshiba and a Norwegian firm sold advanced milling machines to the Soviet Union in 1986—just as other European companies had done—Washington pounced.
It imposed a sweeping two- to five-year ban on all Toshiba products, claiming a threat to U.S. security. This blow cleared the way for American chipmakers, while other foreign companies that sold similar equipment to the USSR escaped unscathed.
Or consider Alstom, once hailed as the “jewel of French industry.” A world leader in energy and transport technology, it competed head-on with U.S. giant General Electric in the early 2010s.
Then came Washington’s move: In 2013, Alstom executive Frédéric Pierucci—author of The American Trap: My Battle to Expose America’s Secret Economic War Against the Rest of the World—was arrested at a New York airport on disputed bribery charges linked to a contract in Indonesia.
Pierucci recalled being offered a draconian choice: Plead guilty and walk free within months, or risk 125 years in prison. Several Alstom executives were also detained, and U.S. courts imposed a $772 million fine.
Facing this form of coercion and relentless legal pressure, Alstom was compelled in 2014 to sell its core energy and grid divisions to GE, effectively dismantling a major European competitor.
The pattern repeats elsewhere. Under massive U.S. pressure, Switzerland was forced to abolish banking secrecy and its anonymous numbered accounts, long a cornerstone of its financial industry.
Meanwhile, U.S. states quietly maintained their own system of anonymous shell companies, turning America into the world’s largest haven for money laundering and tax evasion. It became the preferred refuge for Latin American drug cartels to safely stash their ill-gotten gains.
Offshore financial centers in Panama, Singapore, and the Caribbean were rocked by leaks and scandals—but never U.S. institutions. That was no accident: The NSA and other U.S. spy agencies target foreign banks, not American ones. Whether Toshiba, Alstom or Swiss banking, the story is the same: Washington weaponizes “law,” “security” and “ethics” to eliminate rivals, then adopts the very practices it condemns abroad.
But Huawei—and by extension, China—is a different kind of target. Unlike Japan, France or Switzerland, China cannot be easily coerced into submission. On the contrary, the U.S. campaign against Huawei is far more likely to backfire, turning into a decisive defeat for the Western aggressors—as the rest of this article will show.
The Economic Battlefield: How the U.S. Took Aim at Huawei
Before August 29, 2023, the world had witnessed an almost cinematic struggle: the United States, the planet’s most powerful nation, waging an economic war against a single private company.
Huawei, a rising global telecom titan, faced devastating sanctions, crippling supply-chain blockades, relentless legal battles, and the high-profile arrest of CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada on largely baseless accusations.
Countries worldwide were pressured to ban Huawei from 5G networks, and the company was officially labeled a “national security threat.” To outsiders, Huawei seemed on its last legs.
Then came August 29, 2023. Quietly, and without fanfare, Huawei listed the Mate 60 Pro on its website. At first, tech experts were puzzled, then shocked, finally incredulous. Inside this sleek smartphone was the Kirin 9000S—a 7-nanometer System-on-a-Chip with full 5G capability.
To outsiders, it was just a chip. To those following the U.S.-China tech rivalry, it was a declaration: Huawei had not only survived—it had struck back. The Mate 60 Pro sold more than 14 million units in China, blending technological triumph with patriotic pride.
Rising from the Ashes: Huawei’s Journey to National Champion
The economic war against Huawei and other Chinese companies has fueled a wave of patriotic consumption across China. Many consumers are turning away from Western products in favor of domestic brands, supporting local innovation, boosting homegrown industries, and reinforcing China’s drive for technological self-reliance.
The Relentless Engineer: From Poverty to Huawei’s Pinnacle
Ren Zhengfei, Huawei’s founder, was no ordinary CEO. Born in 1944 in poor rural Guizhou, he grew up in a family facing severe financial hardship. His youth was marked by the Cultural Revolution, his father’s imprisonment, and long stretches of adversity. These struggles shaped his philosophy of chī kǔ—“eating bitterness”—a mindset that would later define Huawei’s corporate culture.
After years as an engineer in the PLA’s Engineering Corps, Ren found himself among many officers forced to transition to civilian life when Deng Xiaoping’s sweeping 1980s reforms downsized the military to redirect resources toward economic growth. Lacking other professional opportunities, he turned to entrepreneurship as a way to put his technical expertise to use—and to make a living.
In 1987, with just 21,000 yuan (about $5,000), Ren moved to Shenzhen and founded Huawei. At first, the company operated as a small reseller of PBX switches, but it soon embraced reverse-engineering and self-reliance. By 1993, Huawei had successfully developed its first domestically produced digital switch, signaling that survival—and ultimately success—depended on technological independence.
Context: From Planned Economies to Market Power
Fifty years ago, economic activity in China and the USSR was dictated by central planners. Today, China is the world’s #1 exporter and deeply embedded in global market capitalism.
But what does “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” really mean?
In The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism, Harvard-trained Chinese economist Prof. Keyu Jin describes a “Local Mayor Economy,” where officials compete to foster private enterprises that align with Communist Party objectives. Each five-year plan sets priorities—GDP growth, environmental protection, electric vehicle development, and more—and officials are evaluated on their performance, with top achievers rewarded through promotion.
While the Party sets national strategy, execution depends on a dynamic interplay among private companies, state-owned enterprises, and local officials—all competing to meet ambitious targets. This competition has made China’s economy one of the most dynamic arenas in the world, fueling relentless innovation and technological breakthroughs, even as it seeks to narrow wealth gaps and advance the goal of “shared prosperity” (共同富裕, gòngtóng fùyù).
Ren’s military-inspired “wolf culture” fueled Huawei’s global rise. Rather than confronting Western giants directly, the company conquered underserved markets in Africa, Latin America and Russia with aggressive pricing, flexible financing, and exceptional service.
By the mid-2000s, Huawei had partnered with 31 of the world’s top 50 telecom operators. The company then expanded into consumer electronics, launching the Ascend, Mate, and P series, along with its in-house Kirin chips. By 2018, Huawei had overtaken Apple in China and was challenging Samsung globally—triggering intense U.S. scrutiny and sanctions.
On a metro train, Chinese kids and mothers can be seen wearing smartwatches—a sign of how quickly Huawei has caught up, overtaking Apple as the market leader. Beyond smartwatches, Huawei also holds an edge with smart glasses, while Apple has yet to release any.
Project Delete America: The Path to Survival
With international smartphone sales crippled, Huawei enacted an audacious strategy internally dubbed “Project Delete America”—systematically removing U.S. technology from its ecosystem. HarmonyOS replaced Android, Huawei Mobile Services replaced Google apps, and domestic chip production accelerated. The Mate 60 Pro and Kirin 9000S became the ultimate symbols of this comeback—a technological middle finger to the U.S. blockade.
Beyond Smartphones
Huawei’s ambitions extend far beyond phones. Its cloud services rival global leaders, AI chips and large-language models drive next-generation innovation, and Intelligent Automotive Solutions power smart vehicles for companies like SERES and Chery. Its IoT and industrial automation solutions modernize ports and critical infrastructure. Huawei is more than a smartphone company—it is a diversified technology powerhouse, transforming entire industries and turning Western coercion into a catalyst for innovation.
At its stores, Huawei now showcases smartphones, wearables, and new cars packed with smart technologies—from advanced infotainment and connectivity features to autonomous driving solutions—highlighting its expansion beyond consumer electronics into automotive.
Huawei also offers a comprehensive suite of cloud services—including AI computing, data storage, cybersecurity, and enterprise solutions—supported by a full-stack ecosystem spanning telecom infrastructure, custom chips, edge-to-cloud platforms, and AI innovation.
The Cost of Comeback
Revival came at a price. In 2024, revenue hit $120 billion, but net profit fell 28%. R&D consumed over 20% of revenue, and 67% of operations were concentrated in China, leaving the company exposed to domestic fluctuations. Technological gaps remain—SMIC’s 7nm chips lag behind TSMC’s 3nm and 2nm processes—but Huawei’s engineers, innovation and sheer willpower suggest more surprises are ahead.
Behind the trees but not behind its competitors, Huawei’s R&D center in Shenzhen is a key innovation hub, home to thousands of engineers and scientists working on 5G, AI, semiconductors and cloud technologies. Despite—or perhaps because of—global sanctions and supply chain blockades, Huawei continues to invest heavily in R&D—more than $20 billion annually—enabling it to remain competitive with, and in several areas already surpass, Western tech giants.
Geopolitical and reputational hurdles persist. European investigations, including the 2025 Brussels probe, and Huawei’s exclusion from industry associations highlight ongoing Western pushback. Yet Huawei has reclaimed the Chinese market and is steadily advancing in the markets of the future—where the global majority resides—rather than in the declining West.
Huawei’s Defiance: Innovation, Sovereignty and the Fall of Western Dominance
The United States, a nation less than three centuries old and a global superpower only since the end of World War II, is taking on China—a civilization with five thousand years of history and a dominant economic power for much of the last two millennia, with a role as a key supplier to the Roman Empire long before the birth of Christ. Against this backdrop, Huawei’s rise is nothing short of legendary.
A private company under relentless assault from the world’s most powerful state, Huawei has defied expectations through bold, audacious innovation. The Mate 60 Pro and Kirin 9000S are more than devices—they are symbols of resilience, ingenuity and unyielding defiance. Every breakthrough across multiple technologies cements Huawei’s place as a global force the West can no longer ignore.
The message is unmistakable: China will no longer tolerate bullying or humiliation. It is asserting its technological might and sovereignty, sending a stark warning that underestimation comes at a steep price.
Beyond Huawei, China’s vast, affluent, and rapidly growing middle class—the largest in the world—stands in stark contrast to the shrinking, indebted middle class of the U.S. This demographic and economic reality positions Chinese companies—and firms across the Global South—to dominate the next era of global markets, even as Western corporations struggle with stagnation and decline.
Huawei’s journey is a clarion call: The balance of technological and economic power is shifting, Western dominance is faltering, and efforts to contain China have only accelerated their own decline.
Tel Aviv has handed Gaza’s warfront to death squads and collaborators, using the cover of a ceasefire to wage a proxy campaign against the resistance.
With the already violated ceasefire in place, and Israeli occupation forces implementing a phased withdrawal, Gaza remains under siege, this time through Tel Aviv’s use of armed collaborator militias.
Drawing on tactics refined in Syria, these death squads have been unleashed to assassinate resistance figures, sow chaos, and undermine what remains of the Hamas-led administration.
Three proxy groups backed by Tel Aviv have since escalated their military campaigns against Gaza’s security forces and society. These militias of collaborator death squads have been used to stir chaos on direct orders of the Israeli army, seeking to establish bases of control in the portions of the territory that Israel has yet to withdraw from.
Upon the cessation of hostilities between the Israeli military and Palestinian resistance factions, at least 7,000 security personnel affiliated with the Hamas-led civil administration took to the streets of Gaza to establish law and order. Yet, almost immediately, they were confronted with ambushes, and armed clashes broke out in a number of areas of the territory.
In particular, the armed clashes in northern Gaza have received the most attention in the media, with Israeli and a handful of Palestinian Authority (PA) aligned personalities attempting to sell the situation as a “civil war.”
Collaborator militias exploit the Gaza ceasefire
Amid the chaos, the son of senior Hamas leader Bassem Naim was shot in the head by proxy forces. Mohammed Imad Aqel, son of a prominent Qassam Brigades commander, was murdered by members of the Doghmush clan. And Saleh al-Jaafarawi, a prominent journalist, was kidnapped, tortured, and shot dead at point-blank range.
At the beginning of October, in Khan Yunis, the Majayda family reportedly collaborated with Hossam al-Astal under Israeli air cover, launching attacks on security positions – a key example of Tel Aviv’s use of clan structures to advance its proxy war strategy.
“The Majaydeh clan from Khan Yunis – which fought Hamas a week ago – announces it has disarmed. The clan, which received assistance from the Israeli army in airstrikes against Hamas members, said it has handed over its weapons to Hamas. Hamas is settling scores across the strip and showing everyone who is in charge.”
To counter the threat posed by these armed collaborators, Hamas formed two new specialized units. The first, Sahm (Arrow) Forces, is comprised of officers from the civil security services. The second, the Resistance Security Force (Amn al-Muqawamah), includes fighters from Hamas’s military wing, as well as those from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Fatah al-Intifada, and other factions.
A senior security source in northern Gaza tells The Cradle that a document containing a hit list was discovered during a raid on a collaborator’s hideout. Although the document itself could not be shared, the source claims it noted that Israel’s “goal is to create chaos, to carry out assassinations, allow for lawlessness, and to fight the resistance through its collaborators.”
This account was reinforced in a KAN Newsinterview, in which the leader of one collaborator militia confirmed that the Israeli army is providing his forces with security support and authorization to operate beyond the so-called Yellow Line. Roughly 54–58 percent of Gaza is still under the occupation army’s control.
US advisors recently informed Axios that Washington is working on an Israeli-backed plan to create pathways for Palestinians opposed to Hamas to live outside of Israel’s Yellow Line. To this effect, the Israeli military is currently marking this line by installing cement blocks and security equipment to demarcate its boundaries.
According to Israel Hayom, the American-Israeli plan seeks to use Gaza reconstruction funds to begin rebuilding hospitals, schools, and homes inside the territory that is jointly controlled by the Israeli army and its ISIS-linked proxy groups.
Under this scheme, Palestinians will be presented with the choice to live under Hamas along the coast or inside the newly constructed areas. It appears as if a proposed multinational military force will also be used to help implement such a model.
Despite this, the collaborator groups currently operating there do not enjoy popular support, and Israel is continuing to demolish the remaining civilian infrastructure located there. Meanwhile, all the major families, segments of whom began fighting Gaza’s security forces, have issued statements aligning themselves with Hamas and against any collaborators in their midst.
The Ramallah-based PA has also expressed its interest in vying for power in the Gaza Strip, yet Israel has at least publicly rejected this idea over fears that this will put it in a stronger position to demand a Palestinian State. Nevertheless, the PA has been part of a propaganda campaign designed to delegitimize Hamas as a political entity in Gaza and accuses it of indiscriminately targeting its opponents.
Tel Aviv retools death squads as ‘Popular Forces’
Throughout the two-year Israeli war on Gaza, humanitarian aid convoys were routinely looted in the southern enclave, triggering food shortages and creating a booming black market. The looting initially involved armed clans and petty criminals who charged extortionate bribes for aid access. But following the 6 May invasion of Rafah, the phenomenon transformed into a more coordinated enterprise.
That evolution gave rise to the Abu Shabab militia, a gang led by convicted drug trafficker Yasser Abu Shabab, who has long-standing links to ISIS affiliates in Sinai. His fighters, many from the Bedouin Tarabin clan, have ties stretching from Israeli-occupied Bir al-Saba (Beersheba) to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
A Hamas official familiar with the file on drug trafficking tells The Cradle:
“These individuals were known to routinely cross into the Sinai and maintained close ties to extremists. These criminal elements were also tied to the Ansar Bait al-Maqdis group [ISIS in the Sinai] and later Wilayat Sinai that came after it. These people do not have a coherent ideology and will shift over time, they are criminals, which is why they are also involved in activities like drug smuggling, and their connections come through familial ties.”
Following the surface of footage of these militants driving around in SUVs bearing Sharjah license plates registered in the UAE, sources belonging to Al-Akhbar claimed that Emirati intelligence has been cooperating with these militia forces.
A month prior to the introduction of the Abu Shabab aid looting gang to the scene, Israel’s top human rights group B’Tselem had issued a report accusing Tel Aviv of “manufacturing famine” in the enclave. A later investigation conducted by Sky News revealed that while most Palestinians were suffering a severe food shortage, the Abu Shabab gangs were living a life of luxury, with an abundance of stolen aid, along with vehicles and weapons supplied by Israel.
This group, despite becoming infamous throughout Gaza for stealing aid from humanitarian organizations, demanding a $4,000 bribe fee for each truck, was soon to be destined for a task much more pernicious.
In November 2024, the Israelis saw that it was time to give their aid looting cadres a facelift, as the Washington Post interviewed Yasser Abu Shabab himself, who is portrayed as a criminal by necessity and claims that “Hamas has left us with nothing.”
Amid the January ceasefire, the gang resurfaced as the “Popular Forces,” now dressed in Israeli tactical gear and openly operating with occupation military backing.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) even published an op-ed supposedly authored by Abu Shabab titled “Gazans are finished with Hamas.” Local sources confirm to The Cradle that the militia leader is illiterate and could not have authored a piece in Arabic, let alone English.
By June, former Israeli minister Avigdor Lieberman publicly accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of backing ISIS-linked militias in Gaza. Netanyahu not only confirmed the collaboration – but defended it. Then, in September, Haaretzreported that Popular Forces militias were receiving direct orders from the Israeli army and Shin Bet.
Israel’s proxy model expands across Gaza’s clans
As the Israeli military was experiencing a manpower crisis, recently struggling to recruit 60,000 soldiers for operation “Gideon’s Chariots 2” to occupy Gaza City, it made the decision to expand this proxy militia strategy.
In August, Israel worked alongside Hossam al-Astal, a former member of the PA’s Preventive Security Forces (PSF), to form the “Counterterrorism Strike Force” (CSF) that would run operations in the Khan Yunis area of Gaza. Astal, according to two security sources speaking to The Cradle, had long been suspected of holding ties with the Israeli Shin Bet.
Alongside the CSF, new groups like the “People’s Army Northern Forces” (PANF) have emerged in Jabalia and Beit Lahia. Led by Ashraf Mansi, who had been openly praised by Abu Shabab. The PANF consists of drug dealers and ex-Jaish al-Islam fighters, some linked to ISIS. The group even held an armed parade after the ceasefire, before engaging in clashes with Gaza’s Radaa security unit, which captured several of its fighters.
In Gaza City, the Doghmush clan launched a violent campaign to assert control over parts of the north. It raided civilian homes, looted properties, and allegedly murdered prominent figures. After the killing of journalist Saleh al-Jaafarawi, Hamas cracked down, arresting dozens and killing up to 40 armed members of the clan.
The family has long developed a negative image throughout Gaza, due to actions committed by certain elements within it, dating back decades to before the Intifada, when individuals from the Doghmush family would steal cars from Israeli-held territory. The Mukhtar of the clan was assassinated by Israel back in 2023, and according to local reports, groups of men within the family have been arming themselves throughout the war.
Soon after tensions escalated, especially surrounding the murder of Jaafarawi and the clashes that ensued on Sunday, the Doghmush family released a statement disavowing collaborators and “transgressors,” reminding the public of how many members of the clan were killed by Israel. It is still unclear whether the militants from the Doghmush family were working alongside the PANF militia or were operating as a solo force motivated by control of territory.
However, the Doghmush clan represents a more complex case. While certain elements have openly collaborated with Israeli intelligence, others have refused such alliances. The clan is divided, with some fighting Hamas for over two decades, and others remaining within resistance ranks.
Reports have also linked segments of the clan to Dahlan networks and Emirati funding, alongside Salafi militant ties.
Salafist group Jaish al-Islam, once led by Mumtaz Doghmush, was responsible for the 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Initially allied with Hamas, the group later turned against it, pledging allegiance to Al-Qaeda and even kidnapping two Fox News journalists.
Hamas has long battled Salafist militants inside Gaza, including Jund Allah and the Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade. In 2009, it crushed Jund Allah in Rafah after the group attempted to declare an “Islamic emirate.” By 2015, the Omar Hadid Brigade was dismantled. In 2018, ISIS formally declared war on Hamas.
Today, Israel’s proxy fighters recycle the same Salafi justifications. Popular Forces fighter Ghassan Duhine, for instance, cited ISIS fatwas branding Hamas as apostates who deserve death.
But despite Israeli efforts to fragment Gaza’s internal cohesion, many families and clans have pushed back. The Majayda family has denounced collaborators, as have key members of the Tarabin clan.
“Israel hoped to install these agents to run concentration camps for Palestinians, like they planned in Rafah with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation,” a senior Hamas official tells The Cradle. “But our people can see through all of these conspiracies.”
While Tel Aviv pretends its military campaign is on pause, the facts on the ground reveal otherwise. Israel has outsourced the next phase of its war to collaborators, criminals, and extremists – executing its war objectives through mercenaries while claiming plausible deniability. It is a page taken straight from its playbook in Syria, now recycled in Gaza with deadly effect.
The US navy has killed at least 32 people in air strikes on boats allegedly trafficking drugs off the coast of Venezuela
US intelligence has assessed that little to no Fentanyl trafficked to the US is being produced in Venezuela, contradicting recent claims from US President Donald Trump to justify airstrikes on alleged drug boats, Drop Site News (DSN)reported on 24 October.
Trump claimed last month that boats targeted in US airstrikes in the Caribbean were carrying Fentanyl to the US.
“Every boat kills 25,000 on average — some people say more. You see these boats, they’re stacked up with bags of white powder that’s mostly Fentanyl and other drugs, too,” Trump said.
US strikes on vessels operating in international waters in the Caribbean Sea since September have killed at least 32 people.
However, a senior US official directly familiar with the matter stated that Fentanyl is not being produced in Venezuela and sent to the US.
“The official noted that many of the boats targeted for strikes by the Trump administration do not even have the requisite gasoline or motor capacity to reach US waters,” DSN reported.
The lack of intelligence linking Venezuela with fentanyl production is further evidence that the strikes are driven by an effort to topple the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Trump has used allegations of Venezuelan drug trafficking, including claims without evidence that Maduro is leading a drug cartel, as the justification for overthrowing the socialist government.
In a post on social media, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth equated the alleged threat of Venezuelan drug cartels to that of Al-Qaeda.
“Just as Al-Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people,” Hegseth said, adding that “there will be no refuge or forgiveness – only justice.”
His comments come just a few weeks after the founder of Al-Qaeda in Syria, Ahmad Al-Sharaa, met with US officials in New York. Sharaa seized power in Damascus in December, declaring himself president, with US backing.
Two sources familiar with discussions at the White House told DSN that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is the driving force behind the regime change effort.
Secretary Rubio has earmarked millions of dollars previously allocated for “pro-democracy” measures in Venezuela to prepare for a war.
The sources cited Rubio’s desire to access Venezuela’s vast oil resources as the reason for seeking regime change.
On Friday, the Pentagon confirmed it was deploying the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to the Caribbean Sea, adding to the thousands of troops deployed to the Venezuelan coast.
The same day, Trump announced he was imposing sanctions on Colombian President Gustavo Petro and his family, accusing him of failing to stop the flow of cocaine entering the US.
The sanctions come after Trump described Petro as an “illegal drug leader.”
In a statement on X, Petro called the sanctions a “paradox,” reminding Trump that Colombia has long partnered with the US in counter-narcotics operations.
“Fighting drug trafficking for decades, and effectively, has brought me this measure from the government of the very society we helped so much to stop their cocaine consumption,” the Colombian president wrote.
“A complete paradox — but not one step back, and never on our knees.”
President Donald Trump and his Zionist Billionaires are funding a new addition to the White House that is being advertised as a “Ballroom”.
I am naming this new addition to the White House “Pedophile Palace” which is a true symbol of American Culture here in 2025, and it is in honor of Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein financial system that runs the United States today.
It is also in keeping with the sexual scandals that have constantly been happening in the White House throughout its history, from the affairs between John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe to the sexcapades of Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky to the homosexual prostitution rings that rocked the White House under Reagan and Bush to the Richard Nixon and Billy Graham child sex trafficking rings that led to Watergate.
According to reports in the media, Donald Trump is going to name the Ballroom after himself, but it really should be “The Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump White House Ballroom“, because it is the Jeffrey Epstein financial system that runs the U.S. and empowers the Zionist Billionaires who run it.
Besides Zionist Billionaire Donald Trump, here is a list of some of the other Billionaire donors funding Pedophile Palace that the White House released this week and published by CNN.
From crypto billionaires to cabinet members: What to know about the donors paying for Trump’s ballroom
Excerpts:
As demolition crews this week bulldozed the White House’s East Wing to replace it with a massive ballroom, President Donald Trump has emphasized that the dramatic changes will come at “zero cost to the American Taxpayer.”
Instead, the donors picking up the tab include some of the country’s biggest corporations, including many who have business before the federal government, along with many longtime supporters of the president, according to a CNN review of a donor list released by the Trump administration.
Trump has been recruiting donors for the construction project for months, showing off renderings and scale models to Oval Office visitors. Now estimated to cost $300 million, the work is being funded by private, tax-deductible donations routed through the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall.
The president has said he will personally pay for some of the project, but the White House hasn’t specified how much. At least one donation of $22 million from Google was made on “behalf” of Trump as part of a legal settlement over the president being banned from YouTube in 2021, court documents show.
The ballroom donors were feted at a White House dinner last week. Now that the demolition has begun, here’s who’s paying for the overhaul of the country’s most famous residence.
Adelson Family Foundation
Miriam Adelson, a billionaire who made her fortune in casinos alongside her late husband Sheldon and has been a major Trump donor, runs this philanthropic foundation. Trump awarded Adelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018.
Miriam and Sheldon Adelson have been some of Trump’s top political donors since his first presidential bid, giving more than $30 million to pro-Trump PACs and his campaigns over the years. Miriam also gave $1 million to the president’s 2025 inaugural committee.
The foundation’s stated aim is to “strengthen the state of Israel and the Jewish people,” and Trump has publicly praised Adelson and her support of Israel. Adelson, who is the majority owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, has also donated to lawmakers and PACs that support pro-gambling and sports betting legislation.
Altria Group
Previously known as Phillip Morris, tobacco giant Altria Group is the seller of Virginia Slims, Marlboro and Parliament cigarettes in the United States.
A subsidiary, Altria Client Services, LLC, gave $1 million to a Trump-associated PAC in May 2025, $1 million to the president’s 2025 inaugural committee and $500,000 to his 2017 inaugural committee.
Amazon
Amazon billionaire founder Jeff Bezos told the world he was “optimistic” about a second Trump presidency late last year, saying he appreciated his “energy” around reducing regulations.
Amazon gave $1 million to Trump’s 2025 inaugural committee and made an in-kind donation of almost $900,000 for digital services and advertising supporting the event. The company also gave about $58,000 to his 2017 inaugural committee.
Amazon Web Services – the company’s cloud computing platform – earned more than $500 million from federal contracts over the last three years, government data shows.
Apple
Apple CEO Tim Cook served on Trump’s American Workforce Policy Advisory Board during his first term. He attended the president’s 2025 inauguration along with other tech leaders, and this summer presented Trump with a customized 24-karat gold-and-glass statuette in the Oval Office while announcing plans to invest $100 billion in US jobs and suppliers.
The company secured a major win this summer, when smartphones were exempted from heavy tariffs levied on goods imported from India.
Coinbase
Coinbase, one of America’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, was founded in 2012 by CEO Brian Armstrong. The corporation, which went public in 2021 with a valuation of about $100 billion, helps users buy, sell and store cryptocurrencies.
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued the company in 2023 for allegedly acting as an unregistered broker, but the Trump administration dropped the lawsuit earlier this year. Coinbase had said it was not in violation of any law.
Coinbase gave $1 million to Trump’s 2025 inaugural committee.
J. Pepe and Emilia Fanjul
Jose “Pepe” Fanjul and his wife Emilia are part of a Cuban-American family that owns a massive sugar conglomerate. The Biden administration had previously blocked a company partially owned by the Fanjul family from shipping sugar to the US over allegations of forced labor practices, which the company denied.
The Trump administration lifted that block in March.
The couple have given more than $3 million to Trump’s campaigns and associated PACs going back to 2016.
In July, Trump announced he persuaded Coca-Cola to release Coke made with cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup – a move that could benefit the sugar industry. The US government has long supported the domestic sugar industry and boosted prices. Brazil, the largest exporter of sugar to the US, was hit by a 50% tariff in July.
Google
Google and its parent company Alphabet have joined Trump administration initiatives to promote AI education, and CEO Sundar Pichai praised the administration’s investments in AI at a White House event last month.
Google-owned YouTube agreed to pay $22 million towards Trump’s ballroom project as part of an agreement settling legal claims brought by Trump over his removal from the video platform.
Among other deals, the company was awarded a contract in July worth up to $200 million related to AI capabilities at the Department of Defense.
Harold G. Hamm
Harold Hamm is the billionaire founder of Continental Resources, a natural gas and petroleum production company based in Oklahoma City. Considered a pioneer in hydraulic fracking, Hamm is one of the richest oil men in America and among the richest men in the world, according to Forbes.
In his second term, the Trump administration has significantly curbed environmental regulations and opened up more oil and gas production on federal lands – all issues Hamm supports and reportedly pushed for in 2024.
Hard Rock International
Hard Rock International is owned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida and includes a global chain of theme-bar restaurants, casinos, hotels and museums. Hard Rock International in 2017 purchased an Atlantic City, New Jersey, casino that was once owned by Trump. It re-opened the following year as Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City.
Hard Rock’s board chairman Jim Allen had previously served as vice president of operations at the Trump Organization, Trump’s business and real estate conglomerate. He also serves as the CEO of Seminole Gaming.
The Laura & Isaac Perlmutter Foundation
Isaac Perlmutter sold Marvel Entertainment to The Walt Disney Company in 2009. Perlmutter and his wife, Laura, have supported healthcare and education initiatives through their foundation, including a more than $50 million donation to NYU’s Langone Medical Center earmarked for cancer research.
The couple have given more than $23 million to Trump’s campaigns and supporting Super PACs since 2016.
The Pentagon’s largest aerospace and defense contractor, Lockheed Martin projects more than $74 billion in sales this year. In a statement about its ballroom donation, a spokesperson for the company said it is “grateful for the opportunity to help bring the President’s vision to reality and make this addition to the People’s House, a powerful symbol of the American ideals we work to defend every day.”
They earned more than $40 billion from federal contracts over the last year, according to government data.
The Lutnick Family
Howard Lutnick joined the Trump administration as Secretary of Commerce after decades as CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial services firm. Lutnick handed the reins of the company to his 27-year-old son, and his other son also works at Cantor.
Howard Lutnick gave a total of more than $9 million to a pro-Trump Super PAC, Trump’s 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns and associated fundraising committees.
Since Lutnick’s appointment, he has focused on implementing Trump’s tariff strategy. Lutnick, who has said he is heavily invested in cryptocurrency, has also pushed for pro-crypto policies during his tenure.
Meta
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once banned President Trump from Facebook and Instagram, and the president once threatened him with criminal investigations. But since the 2024 election, Zuckerberg has taken steps to endear himself to the president and his MAGA supporters.
Earlier this year, the social media giant ditched its fact checkers and named Dana White, the Ultimate Fighting Championship president and a Trump ally, to its board. Zuckerberg also dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
The General Services Administration approved Meta’s AI model for use across government in September. The company is also helping to develop military products.
Microsoft
Microsoft has been somewhat quieter than other tech firms about its support of President Trump and his administration. CEO Satya Nadella didn’t sit front row during Trump’s inauguration, unlike Meta’s Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Bezos and Google’s Pichai.
Nadella has met with Trump, including attending a tech dinner at the White House last month, shortly before the president called for the company to fire a former Biden official who serves as its chief of global affairs.
Microsoft was paid roughly $1.4 billion from federal contracts over the last three years, government data shows.
Palantir
Founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel and several associates, the data analytics firm provides services for several government agencies, including Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service and the Army. Thiel has been a longtime supporter of the Republican Party, a friend of Vice President JD Vance and an early supporter of President Trump.
Earlier this year, CNN reported that the Department of Government Efficiency, then run by Thiel ally Elon Musk, was using Palantir to build a database to speed up immigration enforcement.
Palantir inked a deal with the Army in July worth up to $10 billion over the next decade.
Stephen A. Schwarzman
Stephen A. Schwarzman is a GOP megadonor and the co-founder of global investment firm Blackstone. He served as the chairman of a business advisory council during Trump’s first term. Schwarzman announced in 2022 that he would not back Trump for a second term, but reversed course in 2024, citing concern with the rise of antisemitism in the US.
He gave more than $4 million to pro-Trump political groups and Trump’s campaigns since 2017.
McWhorter is a fascinating (and funny) lecturer, especially when he demonstrates the tones used in Chinese and other Asian languages.
Sino-Tibetan is a family of languages that arose in China and migrated north. Its most important subfamily is Tibeto-Burman, a collection of languages spoken in Northeast India, Tibet and Burma.
Ancient Chinese used suffixes and prefixes, like most languages, to convey subtle differences in meaning. At some point Chinese suffixes and prefixes were replaced by tones to make the language easier for non-Chinese slaves to learn the language. At present most modern Chinese words are one syllable, with tone changes expressing different meanings.
For example baragjat (eight) in proto-Sino-Tibetan has been simplified to bā in Mandarin. Mjwiad (sleep) has been simplified to mèi in Mandarin and mwe (to enjoy sleep) in Burmese.
McWhorter gives the example of the tone change in the English words “pack” and “back.” Most English speakers don’t hear the tonal difference because they’re listening for the consonants. In Chinese-related languages initial and final consonants have dropped off but the tonal differences remain.
Tibetan consists of 25 related languages. Classical Tibetan wasn’t tonal, but modern Tibetan languages are.
In Burmese the final consonants persist in written language, but are no longer pronounced.
In early 2020, a torrent of harrowing videos and photographs came out of China depicting victims supposedly being ambushed by a deadly contagious disease that was being called “coronavirus.” The alarming visuals shocked and terrorized populations from East to West.
Some scenes showed people collapsing on the streets and dying on the spot. Others showed victims foaming at the mouth. We saw frightening images of dead bodies piling up and equally ominous images of government officials in hazmat suits hovering over these lifeless bodies.
It was understandable that such haunting images not only created a worldwide frenzy of fear and hysteria but also set the stage for what would become an unprecedented series of global lockdowns and an unmatched epoch of medical tyranny.
But . . . there was one big problem with these deadly depictions and viral videos. Upon closer examination, all of them appeared to be fakes and fabrications.
That’s right. The images launched “round the world” that ignited the coronavirus mass hysteria campaign, which in turn led to worldwide lockdowns and incalculable destruction, were staged artifacts of mass media manipulation.
Example #1: A video out of Wuhan, China, was said to be evidence of the deadly effects of the “new coronavirus.”
Though this video is no longer available, when it circulated widely on social media, it apparently showed a pile of “covid victims” covered in blankets waiting to be picked up and carted away. The hype that accompanied the scene claimed that China was dealing with “no ordinary virus.” The video provocatively asked, “Is it [an] intentionally released bio-weapon?” The question had the effect of seeding in the global public’s consciousness a possible “alternative explanation” for this enigmatic pathogen.
It was later revealed that the Wuhan “body pile” video was in reality showing people sleeping in the streets in Shenzhen, China—more than 600 miles away from its supposed source. But why were so many Chinese subject to such a sad predicament? It seems the government had set up a permit system for entering and exiting the city to prevent the spread of “the virus,” and these victims were not issued the requisite permits.
Example #2: Another video out of China the same year panned on a poor man who was vomiting blood.
This gory video showing a man riding on public transportation and puking up blood was posted on Instagram on January 29, 2020. The caption alongside the video suggested that the man was infected with a new coronavirus strain (the “Wuhan virus”). The story hysterically (and falsely) implied that he was experiencing “violent coronavirus symptoms.”
Yet, upon investigation, it was revealed that the video in question dated back to February 14, 2019, and stemmed from an incident involving a 52-year-old male passenger traveling on the Chonqing Rail Transit who had fainted, vomited blood, and died. A review of his medical history found that he suffered from advanced liver cancer.
Example #3: A man who collapsed at an airport in Thailand was said to have been a victim of Covid.
When a Facebook user posted the photo of a Chinese man lying face down on the floor of a Thailand airport, the image naturally went viral. Naturally, too, the media insinuated that his plight was caused by “the virus.”
The strange and scary caption read: “At the airport right now, a Chinese person is suddenly knocked to the ground. The third floor is under control. The government is really taking care of it. No more photos allowed. It’s very scary.”
This made-for-TV extraterrestrial-like interpretation of his condition was ultimately supplanted by a much more mundane explanation. Turns out the man who had fallen out of his chair had been drinking heavily, had passed out, and had fallen on the floor at the Suvarnabhumi Airport.
It seemed like there were dozens of similar clips. In reality there were only ten or so, all taken in different places but circulating madly through social media in early 2020. Many of the Western media outlets promoting these videos and images wrote fearmongering headlines like “Coronavirus horror: Social media footage shows infected Wuhan residents ‘act like zombies.’”
In the thick of this fusillade of Grade B corona-horror imagery, the two most famous photographs not only exemplify the campiness of the entire covid theater production but also beg the question of where exactly these images came from and who put them out there.
Example #4: Most of us saw the Wuhan man who “fell dead” from covid.
On February 3, 2020, the UK’s Daily Mail published a one-minute video montage of people in various places in Wuhan purportedly dropping like flies. Accompanying this mosaic was a short description:
“Apocalyptic footage shows people collapsing suddenly in Wuhan city centre as fellow residents and emergency services jump into action to help them. The city has been suffering from an outbreak of a new respiratory virus known as the Coronavirus.”
The pièce de résistance of this set of “live” images was the dramatic and farcical footage of a man falling flat on his face—though he puts his hands out to break his fall.
Example #5: A dead man lay on an empty street at China’s “ground zero.”
Perhaps the most famous of all the photographs from this era was the image that, according to The Guardian, “captures the chilling reality of the coronavirus outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan.”
Upon close inspection, however, the authenticity of the image and the veracity of the story seem a tad inconceivable—to put it diplomatically.
We see a man who is understood to be lying dead on the sidewalk. He is wearing a face mask and, according to what we’re told, he’s holding a plastic shopping bag in one hand while lying perfectly still in a prone position. More bizarre still, if he’s not dead, he appears to be looking straight up to the sky, and his arms are hanging neatly by his side. How, we ask, could someone drop dead in such a perfectly comfortable resting position?
The two medical staff standing near the body are in hazmat suits and are staring at the camera, clearly not attending to the man who we’re led to believe is experiencing a deadly medical crisis.
The male is wearing a full hazmat suit with gloves. Why is his colleague, an astronaut-looking woman in her hazmat suit, not also wearing gloves? After all, she’s standing directly over the “infected body.” Surely she would don gloves to deal with a cadaver that was potentially flattened by the most infectious pathogen known to humanity. Right?
And, by the way, who is taking the pictures of this pair? Oh! Agence France-Presse/Getty war zone and international crisis photographer Héctor Retamal, of course. His photos of this scene later won awards. (For those readers not in the know, French Agence France-Presse is one of only three major Western news agencies. AFP was previously involved in various war zone deceptions, such as in Syria.)
Where does all this lead? What’s the “why” behind everything?
While some skeptics posit that these fake images and videos were circulated by the Chinese government to scare Western populations, a closer analysis shows that most of this footage was in fact shared by US-funded NGOs critical of the Chinese regime. That is, by “Voice of Hong Kong” and Taiwan-based TomoNews US as well as by major Western media outlets.
Looking at the totality of the covid operation, we can ask ourselves: Who benefited most from those early videos being catapulted out of China?
And not just China. Shortly after that, Italy produced its own fabricated covid mythologies. They were followed by theatrics concocted in the US.
Spectral pulse-wave analysis revealed significant post-vaccine cardiovascular dysfunction consistent with increased arterial stiffness and impaired vascular function.
A new peer-reviewed paper from Taipei Medical University has reported that 91% of Moderna mRNA-1273 recipients developed cardiovascular side effects during the observation period—within one week of receiving the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine.
Using advanced spectral pulse-wave analysis, the researchers detected statistically significant post-vaccine changes in arterial pulse amplitude and phase — patterns consistent with arterial dysfunction and increased vascular stiffness.
These were objective, quantifiable changes in how the arteries function — the same alterations seen in hypertension, reduced vascular elasticity, and early endothelial stress.
[…]
The study measured the radial pulse wave — the tiny pressure wave your heartbeat sends through your arteries — in 203 adults before and after Moderna vaccination.
Researchers used a computer model to break down each pulse into harmonic frequencies, like separating a sound wave into musical notes.
They analyzed:
Amplitude (Cn): how strongly arteries expand with each beat
Phase (Pn): how synchronized the pulse wave is as it travels through the vascular system
Variability (CVn): how stable the body’s cardiovascular regulation is
These are sensitive markers of vascular health used in early heart disease detection.
KEY FINDINGS
185 of 203 participants (91%) experienced cardiac, vascular, or combined cardiovascular side effects following Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccination.
Statistically significant post-vaccination changes in spectral pulse-wave indices (Cn and Pn) were detected in participants reporting cardiac or vascular side effects.
These changes were consistent with increased vascular stiffness and reduced arterial elasticity, indicating altered blood-flow dynamics after Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccination.
No significant differences were observed between groups before vaccination, confirming the changes appeared after the Moderna shot.
Measurements taken 7 ± 3 days post-injection showed the alterations persisted at least one week.
Standard clinical tests (ECG, blood counts, chest X-ray) remained normal in many participants, indicating these were subclinical, measurable vascular changes.
The authors concluded that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine “caused a local mismatch between vascular elastic properties,” likely due to inflammation and immune activation in the vessel wall.
The study explicitly cites spike protein–driven endothelial inflammation, platelet activation, and autoimmune mimicry as plausible mechanisms.
IMPLICATIONS
Subclincial Heart Injury
Even “healthy” recipients without obvious side effects showed quantifiable cardiovascular dysfunction.
This suggests that standard blood tests and ECGs may miss early or subtle vascular changes detectable by spectral pulse analysis.
Cumulative Risk
Repeated exposure to spike-producing injections could amplify these vascular changes over time.
Early Detection Tool
The authors note that this non-invasive technique could be adapted for real-time monitoring of vascular stress following mRNA vaccination.
The authors concluded:
Subclinical vascular changes induced by Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine could be effectively detected by noninvasive real-time pulse distribution analysis.
Translation: Even if you feel fine after the shot, your arteries might tell a different story.
As Russia tightens its grip across the front, Kiev faces the harsh reality of a shrinking army and a lost initiative
The past month has seen an intensification of fighting along several key sectors of the front – from Kupiansk and Liman in the north to Pokrovsk and Gulaipole in the south. Yet, beneath local advances and positional shifts, broader structural trends are shaping the balance of forces on both sides. The following overview examines these dynamics before turning to detailed assessments of each direction.
The state of the forces
The gradual deterioration of the Ukrainian army continues. As has been the case throughout the year, desertion remains the main source of manpower losses within the Armed Forces of Ukraine. During the first nine months of this year, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office opened more than 160,000 cases of desertion – a third more than during the entire previous period, starting in February 2022.
This is not traditional desertion – the case of a conscript sneaking away for cigarettes – but large-scale abandonment of posts. According to available data, despite a partial amnesty that lasted until late summer, only about seven to eight percent of those who deserted have returned. Most simply go home, bribe a local police officer, and disappear from view. With a shortage of both police and prison space, this tactic largely succeeds.
By Ukraine’s own estimates, desertion has caused the army’s losses to outpace new recruitment for more than a year. Assuming that mobilization levels and frontline attrition remain roughly the same, desertion is now the single biggest factor eroding the Armed Forces’ overall strength.
Ukrainian sources estimate a monthly decline of 10,000 to 15,000 personnel as of the summer – most of them experienced, regular soldiers. No comparable replacements are arriving at the front in terms of motivation or fitness, and as experience shows, the higher the desertion rate, the greater the combat losses.
Efforts to compensate for personnel shortages with unmanned systems have also failed. The much-publicized “wall of drones” has not provided an impenetrable defense, and with manpower running low, drones alone cannot sustain a stable defensive network.
The Russian army faces its own difficulties – exhaustion, high costs of assault operations, and no excess of manpower – yet the system of contract recruitment has largely neutralized the problem of desertion. According to official data, over 350,000 volunteers have signed contracts since the beginning of the year, averaging nearly 40,000 per month.
The biggest crisis for Ukraine’s military since 2022 unfolded in August near Pokrovsk, where Russian forces breached defenses to a depth of around 15 kilometers along a 4–5 kilometer front. Although that advance later slowed, it forced the Ukrainian command to withdraw reserves from other key directions – notably Kupiansk, Liman, and Zaporizhzhia – exacerbating existing defense crises there.
This summer and autumn marked the first time in four years that Ukraine’s Armed Forces have not launched a major offensive. By contrast, previous seasons saw large-scale campaigns: the Kharkov and Kherson operations in 2022, the summer counteroffensive in 2023, and last year’s cross-border raid into the Kursk region, which extended into spring 2024.
At present, Ukraine’s army remains on the defensive, conducting only occasional counterattacks. Judging by the scale of desertion and the depletion of reserves, there is little indication that new large-scale offensives are possible. While isolated operations similar to the one in Kursk cannot be ruled out, they are unlikely to succeed.
Against this backdrop, the situation on the ground is evolving unevenly. While some sectors remain locked in positional fighting, others have seen clear shifts in control and momentum. The following overview examines the key directions where the dynamics have been most pronounced over the past month.
Kupiansk
Kupiansk remains the only active front line in the Kharkov region worth highlighting in this month’s overview. The Russian army pulled out of the city in September–October 2022, and since then, the area has seen mostly positional fighting with occasional flare-ups. Kupiansk has served as Ukraine’s main stronghold in this sector, and its capture would open the way for a potential advance toward Kharkov.
Fighting continues inside the city itself. Over the past month, Russian troops have taken control of the city center, the railway station, and most of the Yubileyny district in the south. The rest of Kupiansk remains a gray zone, with little sign of organized Ukrainian resistance. At this point, it appears to be only a matter of time before Russian forces establish full control over the city.
The fall of Kupiansk would secure Russia’s bridgehead in the Kharkov region and expose the northern flank of Ukraine’s defenses, potentially forcing Kiev to redeploy reserves from other critical sectors.
Liman
Like Kupiansk, Liman was lost by Russian forces in the fall of 2022. It is the last major city in the Donetsk People’s Republic north of the Seversky Donets River. Strategically, retaking Liman and Sviatogorsk to the west would complete a northern arc around the Slaviansk–Kramatorsk urban cluster – a pre-war industrial hub of roughly 400,000 people and the largest population center still held by Ukraine in Donbass.
Russian troops are steadily tightening their hold around Liman. As seen elsewhere, a semi-encirclement often signals that a direct assault is near. To the north, Russian units have advanced 7–8 kilometers along a 35-kilometer front, crossed the Nitrius River, and secured sections of the Kharkov–Liman–Artemovsk railway at two points. Among the settlements captured are Derilovo, Novoselovka, Zarechnoye (now under full control), and Yampol.
The buildup around Liman indicates that Russian forces are shaping the battlefield for a larger offensive. Success here would bring them within striking distance of the Slaviansk–Kramatorsk line – the central axis of Ukraine’s defense in Donbass.
Seversk
Seversk is another key position on the approach to the Slaviansk–Kramatorsk line. The offensive here is synchronized with the battles for Liman, as Seversk provides the only direct route to Slaviansk from the front. This area had been relatively quiet since 2023, but active fighting has now resumed.
At present, Seversk is under partial encirclement by Russian forces. Over the past month, the front has drawn closer from the north and west, while the southern outskirts – including Zvanovka and Sviato-Pokrovskoye – remain under Ukrainian control. The Russian army appears set to apply its established tactics: flanking maneuvers from the north, through Dronovka toward the Liman road, and from the south toward Reznikovka, likely to precede a full-scale assault. With primary supply routes already under observation by FPV drones, the Ukrainian garrison in Seversk faces a progressively worsening situation in the coming weeks.
The tightening ring around Seversk suggests that Russian forces are preparing for a coordinated northern push toward Slaviansk. If Seversk falls, the entire northern line of Ukraine’s Donbass defenses could begin to unravel.
Chasov Yar – Konstantinovka
Konstantinovka stands among the main objectives of this year’s offensive campaign. As a major logistical hub with modern infrastructure – high-rise residential districts, active industry, and a network of underground facilities – it offers ideal conditions for a prolonged defense.
Heavy fighting continues around the city. North of Chasov Yar, Russian forces have extended their control along the key line of the Seversky Donets–Donbass canal, advancing up to four kilometers along a front roughly 10 to 11 kilometers wide. The settlements of Pleshcheevka and Kleban-Byk on the southeastern approaches to Konstantinovka have been fully secured, breaching the city’s outer defensive belt and setting the stage for a possible encirclement. For now, however, a direct assault appears premature: the Ukrainian garrison remains well supplied via urban routes and the railway link from Druzhkovka, which connects further to the Slaviansk–Kramatorsk stronghold – Ukraine’s central logistical base in Donbass.
The breach of Konstantinovka’s outer defenses marks a critical step in Russia’s southern advance. Sustained pressure here could force Ukraine to commit reserves from the Slaviansk–Kramatorsk line, gradually weakening its overall defensive posture in Donbass.
Pokrovsk and the Dobropolye Bulge
The decisive battles of this autumn are expected to unfold around Pokrovsk and the Dobropolye bulge to its north. Following an unexpected Russian breakthrough in August, Ukrainian command redeployed reserves from other sectors – notably from Kupiansk and Gulaipole (more on that below) — in an effort to cut off the salient at its base along the Nikanorovka–Novotoretskoye–Shakhovo line.
Russia, in turn, reinforced its grouping to widen and secure the breach. Over the past month, the front line has largely stabilized, which is now clearly reflected on operational maps. Key developments include the Russian assault on Vladimirovka – a critical stronghold on the northeastern flank – and a reported, though still unconfirmed, Ukrainian push toward Novotoretskoye from the southwest.
Fighting around Pokrovsk itself has also intensified. After a brief operational pause in September, hostilities resumed in October, with combat now reported inside the city center. Visible progress suggests that this front, too, is approaching a decisive stage.
The Pokrovsk–Dobropolye axis is shaping up as the central theater of this campaign season. Control over Pokrovsk would not only collapse Ukraine’s western Donbass defense but also open a direct path toward the Dnieper line.
Gulaipole
Gulaipole, the birthplace of Nestor Makhno – revered in Ukraine as the father of practical anarchism – holds a symbolic place in the country’s history. A century ago, during the Russian Civil War, this area was home to a short-lived peasant republic with Gulaipole as its capital.
Today, the surrounding steppe offers little in the way of natural defenses. Over the past three months, Ukrainian forces here have faced growing difficulties as manpower shortages and the transfer of reserves to the Dobropolye bulge have weakened their positions.
Since September 20, troops from Russia’s Eastern Military District have advanced 6 to 12 kilometers along a 26-kilometer front, capturing ten settlements and crossing the Yanchur River in the south. The next operational goal is to extend control along the entire river and secure the Pokrovsk–Gulaipole road – a move that would effectively place Gulaipole in a semi-encirclement and set the stage for an eventual assault.
Continued Russian progress in the Gulaipole sector could transform a localized advance into a broader southern envelopment, threatening Ukraine’s remaining defensive depth in Zaporizhzhia region.
Orekhov
The Orekhov front has emerged as the second main axis of Ukrainian offensive activity, following the Dobropolye bulge. Despite an energetic propaganda push in Ukrainian media, actual progress has been modest: roughly 4 to 6 square kilometers have been gained near Malaya Tokmachka, with no settlements captured.
This direction offers little potential for a breakthrough. Just behind the current line lies the so-called “Surovikin Line” – a deeply layered Russian defensive system that effectively stopped Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. Given this, it is reasonable to assume that the recent actions near Orekhov serve mainly as a diversion, aimed at forcing the Russian command to shift part of its forces from the Gulaipole sector and ease the mounting pressure there.
The Orekhov push appears less an attempt to achieve operational success and more a tactical distraction. With defenses intact and Ukrainian gains minimal, momentum in this sector remains firmly with Russia.
Overall assessment
As October draws to a close, the front remains active along nearly its entire length, yet the overall dynamics are now clearly defined. Russia has maintained steady tactical momentum – particularly around Kupiansk, Liman, and Pokrovsk – while Ukraine’s ability to counterattack or reinforce has visibly weakened. Desertion, exhaustion, and a shrinking pool of trained personnel have turned what was once a temporary manpower issue into a structural crisis for Kiev’s armed forces.
Russia’s advances remain methodical rather than spectacular, reflecting a long-term strategy of attrition. The consistent application of pressure – simultaneous offensives across several axes combined with precision strikes on logistics – has forced Ukraine into a reactive posture. In effect, the Ukrainian army is no longer dictating the tempo of the war but struggling to hold its existing lines.
Dialogue between the two nations has been “virtually reduced to zero” due to Tokyo’s unfriendly stance.
The Kremlin welcomes Japan’s desire to sign a peace treaty with Russia, spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday. This follows a statement by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who told parliament that pursuing an agreement is part of her government’s foreign policy agenda.
Japan and Russia never signed a peace treaty after the end of World War II. The absence of a treaty stems from a longstanding dispute over the four southernmost islands of the Kuril archipelago, which were incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1945 as part of the postwar settlement. Tokyo, however, continues to claim what it calls the Northern Territories.
“The Japanese government’s policy is to resolve the territorial issue and finalize the peace treaty,” Takaichi told parliament.
The Kremlin responded by saying the statement is “rather to be welcomed.” Moscow “also supports signing a peace treaty with Japan,” Peskov told journalists.
However, he noted what he called Tokyo’s “rather unfriendly stance” towards Moscow, adding that Japan has taken part in “all the unlawful sanctions and restrictions against our country” imposed by the West.
Dialogue between the two nations has also been “reduced virtually to zero” in recent years due to Tokyo’s actions, the spokesman went on to say.
The territorial dispute over the southern Kuril Islands has remained a major obstacle to improved relations between Russia and Japan. Although Tokyo renounced its claims to the islands under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, it later said the disputed islands are not part of the Kuril archipelago. Russia, however, maintains that all four islands are part of its sovereign territory.
Japan has occasionally declared its intent to resolve the issue over the years, while at the same time maintaining tough rhetoric regarding Russia. In her speech on Friday, Takaichi acknowledged that relations between the two countries are “in a difficult situation.”
The Most Revolutionary Act 