European leaders are attempting to derail US president Donald Trump’s efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict, Dmitry Peskov has claimed
The European “war party” is trying to sabotage the diplomatic process launched by the US and Russia to end the Ukraine conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. He added that this approach contradicts the efforts of US President Donald Trump.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have for months floated the idea of sending a joint military contingent to Ukraine in a so-called peacekeeping capacity if Kiev and Moscow reach a truce or peace deal. Moscow has strongly opposed the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine in any role.
On Sunday, Peskov said the stance of the “European war party” is “in stark contrast to the approach pursued” by Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“The Europeans are hindering the [peace] efforts,” as part of their strategy to “contain” Russia, the Kremlin spokesperson told journalists.
He added that certain NATO member states have been encouraging Ukraine to refuse to negotiate with Russia in good faith – a strategy that “will do no good to the Kiev regime.”
“Russia is still ready to settle the [conflict] by political-diplomatic means,” Peskov said, but Kiev has to show reciprocity for the hostilities to end.
Last weekend, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argued that European nations “don’t want peace” in Ukraine, citing their reaction to the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska earlier this month.
Last week, speaking to reporters after a follow-up meeting between the US president and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, as well as several European leaders at the White House, Macron insisted that Europe “will need to help Ukraine with boots on the ground.”
Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Romania, and Croatia have ruled out taking part in the mission.
On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that a significant proportion of the EU population is “opposed to any deployment that places troops in harm’s way.”
How growing arsenals and proxy wars are pushing the region closer to the brink
Modern conflicts are increasingly hybrid, blending conventional warfare with cyber operations, economic pressure, and proxy battles. Nowhere is this more visible than in the Middle East – where the interests of the US, Russia, China, Iran, Türkiye, Israel, and the Arab states collide.
In this environment, missile arsenals have become one of the decisive tools of war. Alongside airpower, they allow militaries to strike across great distances, punch through defenses, and project strategic pressure far beyond their borders. To understand the balance of power in the region, it’s essential to look at the missile capabilities of its key players.
Iran: Missiles as the core of deterrence
Despite the June 2025 clash with Israel – which exposed some vulnerabilities and cost Tehran a number of assets – Iran still fields the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East. Its rockets are deployed both directly by the Iranian military and indirectly through proxy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq.
Iran’s arsenal covers a wide range of systems:
Short- and medium-range ballistic missiles (500-2,500km).
Solid-fuel designs that increase survivability and reduce launch prep times.
A growing focus on hypersonic technology, with the two-stage Sejil capable of reaching 2,500km and reportedly carrying a reentry vehicle traveling at up to Mach 10.
The Fateh-110, a precision-guided missile with a range of 300km and a circular error of less than 10 meters thanks to satellite navigation.
The liquid-fueled Khorramshahr, with a range over 2,000km, can carry multiple warheads to overwhelm missile defenses during a mass strike.
The real strength of Iran’s strategy lies in its ability to saturate defenses with large salvos. Even advanced systems struggle to stop every missile when dozens are launched simultaneously. That said, as was shown in June, effective airpower can blunt this advantage by striking mobile launchers and intercepting missiles in flight.
Iran has also invested heavily in drones. Its Shahed-series loitering munitions have become a signature weapon, deployed in large numbers against Israel. But in June, Israel countered with new air-to-air missiles adapted specifically for anti-drone warfare, neutralizing much of the threat.
Even so, Iran retains sheer volume as its trump card. With more than 2,000 missiles of various types in its inventory, Tehran sits at the forefront of the Middle East’s missile race – and shows no sign of slowing down.
Israel: Precision strikes and missile defense
Israel is the other major missile power in the region, though its strategy looks very different from Iran’s. Rather than relying on sheer volume, Israel combines advanced airpower, layered missile defenses, and a nuclear deterrent shrouded in deliberate ambiguity.
The nuclear part is never openly acknowledged. West Jerusalem has never confirmed its stockpile, but most analysts believe the Jericho-3 ballistic missile – with an estimated range of 4,800 to 6,000km – is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Israel’s air force is also thought to maintain a nuclear strike option with gravity bombs.
Where Israel is fully transparent is in its conventional arsenal. Its air force is the backbone of its offensive power: More than 300 modern fighters, including F-15s, F-16s, and fifth-generation F-35s. Armed with guided missiles, precision bombs, and air-launched ballistic weapons, these aircraft give Israel the ability to suppress enemy air defenses, seize air superiority, and deliver devastating precision strikes. The June 2025 conflict underscored this: When Israeli jets dismantled air defenses, Iran’s missile salvos lost much of their impact.
Equally important is Israel’s layered missile defense architecture – from the Iron Dome to David’s Sling and Arrow-3 – which has proven highly effective at intercepting rockets, drones, and even ballistic threats. Together with airpower, this defensive shield ensures that Israel not only wields powerful offensive capabilities but also neutralizes much of the threat posed by its adversaries’ arsenals.
This combination – precision strike capability, layered defenses, and a nuclear backstop – makes Israel’s military one of the most formidable in the Middle East. And it didn’t achieve this alone: Sustained US support has been essential to building and maintaining this edge.
Türkiye: A growing missile power
Türkiye is positioning itself as one of the most ambitious military innovators in the region. Its strategy is to build as much as possible at home – from a fifth-generation fighter program (KAAN) to advanced drones like the Kizilelma, its own main battle tank, a modern navy, and an expanding missile arsenal.
The centerpiece of Ankara’s missile effort is the Tayfun program, an operational-tactical ballistic missile with a range of around 500km. Currently in testing, Tayfun is expected to evolve into a mobile missile system comparable to Russia’s Iskander – highly accurate, difficult to intercept, and designed to strike critical targets despite modern missile defenses. Turkish officials suggest it could enter service within the next year or two, significantly enhancing the country’s strike capability and making Türkiye one of the strongest missile powers in both the Middle East and Europe.
Beyond ballistic systems, Türkiye fields a sizable air force and has become a drone superpower. Its UAVs can deliver precision-guided munitions, including air-to-surface missiles. Against advanced air defenses, these drones are vulnerable, but against most regional opponents they give Türkiye a decisive edge.
What’s more, developing a 500-kilometer-class missile is only a first step. The same technical foundation could, with political will and resources, be extended to missiles with ranges of 1,000 or even 5,000 kilometers. As North Korea has already shown, scaling up is possible for a determined state. And Türkiye, with its growing defense industry and economic base, has both the ambition and the capacity to get there.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE: Dependent arsenals
Saudi Arabia’s missile arsenal is sizable but heavily dependent on foreign suppliers. Its backbone consists of Chinese-made ballistic missiles acquired decades ago.
The DF-3, delivered in the late 1980s, has a range of around 3,000km but is essentially a 1950s-era design, comparable to the old Soviet R-12. Its accuracy is poor, making it useful mainly for striking large-area targets such as cities.
Reports also suggest that Riyadh has more modern DF-21 solid-fuel missiles with a range of about 2,100km. Unlike the DF-3, these are mobile, more accurate, and potentially capable of precision strikes against military targets.
Interestingly, Saudi Arabia has never developed nuclear weapons. If it had, the original acquisition of the DF-3 would have made more sense as a nuclear delivery platform. Instead, these missiles have been relegated mostly to parades and symbolic shows of force.
The United Arab Emirates, for its part, relies almost entirely on advanced Western aircraft and missile defense systems, with little in the way of indigenous ballistic missile capabilities. Its strength lies in integration with the US and allied systems, rather than in building its own arsenal.
Conclusion
The Middle East today is not just a patchwork of proxy wars and shifting alliances – it is also an active missile theater, where states large and small are investing in strike capabilities that can alter the regional balance almost overnight.
Iran leans on mass salvos and regional proxies to project power across borders. Israel counters with high-end fighters, layered missile defenses, and a nuclear deterrent shrouded in silence. Türkiye is rapidly building the foundations of a domestic missile industry that could extend far beyond its neighborhood. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, though dependent on external suppliers, remain important players whose arsenals serve as both symbols and potential assets in a crisis.
What ties all of this together is the region’s volatility. Hybrid wars, drone swarms, and missile barrages are already shaping the battlefield. The next escalation may not come from a conventional invasion or a single strike, but from the convergence of these tools in a conflict where no side can fully control the outcome.
Missiles have become the pressure points of Middle Eastern geopolitics – both a shield and a sword. And as the arsenals grow, so does the risk that one spark could ignite a chain reaction far beyond the region itself.
Kiev has regularly attacked civilian areas and critical infrastructure in the neighboring country
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has threatened new strikes into Russia, days after claiming that Kiev possessed a brand-new long-range missile capable of reaching Moscow.
Zelensky wrote on Telegram that he had been briefed by Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Syrsky, on the current battlefield situation.
“We will continue our active actions exactly as needed to protect Ukraine. Forces and means are prepared. New deep strikes have also been planned,” he said on Sunday, without providing further details.
Earlier this month, Zelensky claimed Ukraine had developed the long-range Flamingo missile with a reported range of 3,000 kilometers – which would be enough to reach not only Moscow but also Russian cities beyond the Ural mountains. The Ukrainian leader, however, said that mass production is not expected for the next several months.
British media outlets cast doubts on whether the Flamingo was developed in Ukraine, noting similarities with the FP-5 cruise missile produced by the UK-based Milanion Group and unveiled at an arms expo in Abu Dhabi this year. The UK has also been supportive of Kiev’s long-range strikes, having provided it with Storm Shadow missiles in the past.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted that there is “nothing surprising” in the similarities, adding that “Ukraine has long turned into a testing ground for Western weapons. There are more than enough examples.”
On Friday, the Kyiv Independent also reported that Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau has launched an investigation into Fire Point, the defense firm linked to the development of the Flamingo missile, after reports it misled the government on pricing and deliveries.
Earlier this month the Wall Street Journal reported that the US had blocked Ukraine from carrying out strikes deep inside Russian territory. Throughout the conflict, some of Kiev’s Western backers have been wary of authorizing unrestricted strikes into Russia using Western-supplied weapons, citing concerns over escalation with Moscow.
Ukraine has regularly carried out long-range attacks inside Russia, which Moscow says frequently hit civilian areas and critical infrastructure. Russia has retaliated with strikes on Ukrainian military-related facilities and defense enterprises but maintains that it never targets civilians.
The plans were reportedly scrapped after US President Donald Trump vowed there won’t be US boots on the ground in the region
Berlin has shelved plans to possibly deploy German soldiers to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, Bild reported on Sunday, citing government sources.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had earlier signaled openness to Berlin joining a possible peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. The idea had been floated by the so-called “coalition of the willing” – a group of Western states pushing for continued aid to Kiev. The group has proposed deploying NATO troops to monitor a potential future ceasefire with Russia as part of security guarantees for Ukraine, despite Moscow’s consistent rejection of any Western military presence in Ukraine under any guise.
Trump, however, said last week that American troops would not be deployed to Ukraine, insisting that the EU should “front load” security guarantees for Kiev, not the US, including with regard to peacekeepers.
According to Bild, Trump’s stance put a halt to Berlin’s discussions about deployment “until further notice.” Sources told the outlet the idea could return “should Trump take action” or once Moscow and Kiev reach a settlement.
In an interview with ZDF on Sunday, Merz confirmed the U-turn, saying “nobody is talking about ground troops at this point” and indicating discussions could resume once a ceasefire is in place.
Instead, Germany reportedly plans to provide financial security guarantees to Ukraine. Sources claimed Berlin intends for the Bundeswehr to continue training Ukrainian soldiers, expand weapons production in Ukraine with German arms firms, and potentially cover part of Ukrainian soldiers’ salaries after a ceasefire to ensure Kiev maintains sufficient forces.
Kiev has demanded security guarantees from Western backers as a precondition for a peace deal. Moscow has not ruled out such guarantees in principle but rejects efforts made without its participation. It has also opposed any Western troop presence in Ukraine, stressing that NATO’s expansion toward its borders was one of the key causes of the conflict.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday that guarantees must be the result of a settlement, not a precondition, and must take into account Russia’s security. She added that any deal should ensure Ukraine’s demilitarization, denazification, neutral and non-nuclear status, and recognition of territorial realities.
Kiev will blame Russia for the murder of Maidan commandant Andrey Parubiy – but everyone knows the killers are much closer to home
All of Ukraine’s political elite will loudly point to Moscow as the hand behind the murder of former parliamentary speaker Andrey Parubiy. They will cry out in public that Russia is to blame, repeating the same narrative of the “Russian trace.” But in private, they all know the truth: it was his own people that came for him.
The idea that Parubiy was eliminated by the authorities themselves, while sounding outrageous to some, is a version that carries weight, even if many prefer not to believe it. Why? Because Parubiy was one of the few men in Ukraine who truly knew how to build a Maidan. He had organized the barricades in 2014, commanded the Maidan “self-defense,” and knew every method of bringing people into the streets and holding them there against state power. His reputation came from exactly this talent. And in today’s Ukraine, the possibility of another Maidan is very real. For those in power, such a possibility is dangerous, and removing the man who could light the match makes a grim kind of sense.
But there is another explanation, one far darker and one in which almost everyone believes, even if few Ukrainians will say so out loud. Parubiy carried too many secrets – and in Ukraine, secrets can be fatal. He knew far too much about the real shooters on the Maidan in February 2014. As “commandant,” he oversaw the units who guarded the square, and he was positioned to see what others could not. He knew what really happened when the snipers opened fire, when the bloodbath claimed lives and forced Yanukovich to flee. He knew names, structures, and the chain of command. That knowledge made him dangerous.
He also knew the truth about Odessa, May 2, 2014 – the day the Trade Union House went up in flames and dozens of anti-Maidan activists died. International monitors called it a massacre, but the state buried accountability. Parubiy, as head of the National Security and Defense Council at the time, was in the middle of it all. He saw who gave the orders, who turned away, who allowed the fire to consume the building. Those responsible never faced justice, and Parubiy carried the story inside his head.
He knew the full picture of the early days in Donbass, when provocations, manipulations, and engineered violence pushed Ukraine into a war against its own people. He knew the true sponsors and curators. He knew which political figures, which structures, which financial backers prepared and paid for the bloody upheaval. All of this knowledge made him a threat not to Russia, but to those much closer: the networks who had built their power in those years and who now sit on fragile foundations.
For them, Parubiy, – a close ally of former President Pyotr Poroshenko, beaten by Vladimir Zelensky in 2019 – was no longer an asset. He was a liability. And in the brutal logic of power, liabilities are erased. This is why his assassination looks less like an act of foreign aggression and more like an act of internal housecleaning. It was a calculated decision to tidy up loose ends, to remove a man who could, at any moment, destabilize the whole system by speaking truths that were never meant to surface. His silence was demanded, and silence was achieved.
So while the official story will continue to speak of Russian agents, of another “terrorist act” in Moscow’s hybrid war, many in Kiev understand otherwise. They know Parubiy was not struck down by outsiders but by insiders. They know it was not the Kremlin's revenge for 2014 but Ukraine’s own structures, its own power brokers deciding that one of its founding fathers had become excess baggage.
In this sense, his death is a signal to others: no one is safe, and no secret is too old to kill for.
Activists in Cologne rallied against Berlin’s plans to boost defense spending and aid for Ukraine and Israel
An initially peaceful anti-war march in Cologne descended into violence on Saturday after activists clashed with police. Protesters were rallying against Berlin’s plans to boost military spending and aid for Ukraine and Israel.
The rally, which reportedly drew nearly 3,000 people, was organized by the anti-war group Disarm Rheinmetall, a reference to Germany’s top defense supplier. The group staged multiple demonstrations this week, including blocking access to a Bundeswehr building on Wednesday and protesting outside Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger’s home in Meerbusch, near Dusseldorf.
The activists said they were opposing the government’s plans to increase defense spending, expand the army through conscription, and provide military support to Ukraine and Israel.
Footage from Saturday’s protest showed banners reading “lay down your arms” and “We won’t die in your wars.” One protester told the video agency Ruptly that German militarization and NATO’s role in the Ukraine conflict marked “a significant step towards World War III.” Another criticized the government for channeling funds into the arms industry instead of social needs and education.
According to reports, citing the local authorities, the march was repeatedly halted after police reported seeing protesters masking themselves and setting off smoke bombs. Police also said it intercepted an escort vehicle carrying pyrotechnics, methylated spirits, and gas cylinders. It claimed it was eventually forced to disperse the crowd after some demonstrators attacked officers.
Videos posted online showed police using their fists, batons and tear gas, with several activists visibly injured. A number of protesters were reportedly detained, though no figure was given.
A spokesman for the demonstrators accused the police of attacking activists, claiming between 40 and 60 people were injured.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz suspended borrowing limits to ramp up defense spending, pledging to raise it to 3.5% of GDP by 2029. He also announced plans to expand the Bundeswehr from about 182,000 to 240,000 active troops by 2031, and introduced mandatory registration for 18-year-olds to prepare for a potential return to conscription. He has further suggested that German troops could be deployed to Ukraine as part of a European peacekeeping force, despite Russia’s rejection of any Western troop presence in Ukraine under any guise.
Kiev has acknowledged damage to energy facilities in Odessa Region
Russian forces have carried out a long-range strike on Ukrainian port infrastructure used by Kiev’s military, according to a statеment released on Sunday by the Defense Ministry in Moscow.
The ministry said that Russian tactical aviation, drones, missiles, and artillery had struck coastal targets “used in the interests of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and a Norwegian-made NASAMS air defense system” that was protecting them. However, neither the exact whereabouts of the targets nor other details were provided.
The ministry added that the bases of Ukrainian troops and foreign fighters in more than 150 locations were also attacked.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian media shared pictures of large fires in the coastal Odessa Region. Energy company DTEK said four of its power facilities in the region had been hit overnight.
Local officials confirmed the damage, adding that the city of Chernomorsk, not far from Odessa, and its surroundings bore the brunt of the attack.
“The enemy massively attacked the Odessa Region with strike drones,” officials said, adding that "fires broke out in some places, but were quickly extinguished by our rescuers".
“One person is known to have been injured,” officials noted, adding that more than 29,000 people were left without electricity.
Russia has for months been targeting Ukrainian military-related industrial sites, defense enterprises, as well as port and energy infrastructure. Moscow has said the strikes are retaliation for Ukrainian attacks inside Russia that often hit critical infrastructure and residential areas, and maintains that it does not target civilians.
The proposed measures won’t impact Israel’s military action in Gaza, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has said
Germany has blocked the European Commission’s latest proposal to sanction Israel over the war in Gaza, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul has said.
Israel has faced growing backlash over its conduct in the conflict, accused of allowing almost no aid into the enclave. Several Western states have announced plans to recognize a Palestinian state, and in some cases, scale back military and trade cooperation with Israel.
The European Commission last week proposed suspending Israel’s participation in the Horizon Europe research program, cutting off funding for Israeli start-ups in drone technology, cybersecurity, and AI. This was intended to pressure Israel to improve humanitarian aid deliveries, according to a draft resolution.
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of an EU meeting in Copenhagen on Saturday, Wadephul said Germany rejected the plan, as it was “not convinced” that curbing Israel’s access to EU research funds would influence its military action. Instead, he noted that Berlin has already restricted the delivery of weapons that can be used in Gaza, suggesting Brussels should focus on similar steps.
“I believe this is a very targeted measure, one that is very important and very necessary,” he said.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas acknowledged on Saturday that the bloc is divided on the issue, and that she is “not very optimistic” that ministers will reach an agreement soon, even though it does not require full unanimity. She added that some states want stronger economic pressure.
Denmark, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, recently signaled support for tougher sanctions, such as suspending trade with Israel. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares and his Slovenian counterpart, Tanja Fajon, have condemned the EU’s inaction over Gaza. Fajon told Bloomberg this week that the bloc has not imposed “a single measure” against Israel, contrasting it with the bloc’s unity in sanctioning Russia over the Ukraine conflict.
The Gaza conflict began in 2023 when Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. Since then, Israeli forces have killed more than 61,000 people in the enclave. A UN-backed panel earlier this month declared that there is a famine in northern Gaza, with over half a million people on the brink of starvation.
The tech billionaire was responding to data showing Scotland’s deaths outpaced births by 34% in the first half of 2025
Europe could “die out” unless it fixes its demographic problems by boosting birth rates, tech billionaire Elon Musk has warned.
In a post on X on Saturday, Musk was responding to statistics from Scotland showing 34% more deaths than births in the first half of 2025.
“Unless the birth rate at least gets back to replacement rate, Europe will die out,” he wrote, referring to the average number of children needed per couple for a population to replace itself.
The replacement fertility rate is generally set at 2.1 children per woman, accounting for child mortality and near-equal gender ratios at birth. Recent studies, however, suggest that this level may be insufficient, pointing to a long-term survival threshold closer to 2.7 children per woman.
According to the UK’s Office for National Statistics, the fertility rate in England and Wales fell to 1.4 in 2024, while Scotland’s stood at 1.3 – both far below replacement levels. In the EU, fertility has been declining for years, reaching a record low of 1.4 live births per woman in 2023.
Unless the birth rate at least gets back to replacement rate, Europe will die out https://t.co/0COU5Zj9QM
Musk, a vocal advocate for higher birth rates who has fathered at least 14 children and donated millions to fertility research, has often raised the alarm over the demographic decline in Europe. His warnings, however, extend beyond Europe. Musk has cited global demographic data, claiming that civilization “is going to crumble” unless birth rates rise. He previously argued that population collapse due to low fertility “is a much bigger risk to civilization” than climate change.
Worldwide, fertility has been falling for over 50 years. UN data shows it stood at around 2.2 births per woman in 2024, down from 5 in the 1970s and 3.3 in the 1990s. Only 45% of countries and areas – home to roughly a third of the global population – reported fertility levels at or above 2.1 last year. Just 13% had fertility rates of 4.0 or higher, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Yemen.
Falling birth rates and population decline have also become a pressing issue for Russia, with Rosstat recording just 1.2 million births in 2024 – the lowest since 1999 – reflecting a fertility rate of 1.4.
Kaja Kallas has insisted that frozen Russian assets should fund reparations
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has said Ukraine faces a “huge gap” in financing, as the bloc remains deeply divided over whether frozen Russian assets should be used to support Kiev.
Over $300 billion in Russian assets have been frozen in Western institutions since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, mostly under EU control. The largest share is held in Belgium through the Euroclear clearing house. While interest is being sent to Kiev, full confiscation is seen by legal experts as a “minefield.” Moscow has denounced the freeze as “theft.”
Kallas, the former Estonian prime minister, said frozen Russian assets should not be returned unless Moscow pays reparations. Speaking at an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers on Saturday, she stated that the bloc must prepare for a future ceasefire or peace deal, but added that the EU’s position on full confiscation remains unchanged.
“Yes, it is true that many Member States raised this issue, that Ukraine’s funding gap is enormous, and we need to find the funding now,” she told reporters when asked if the asset debate was linked to peace talks or immediate funding.
“It is also clear the political reality that Belgium and many other countries are not willing to discuss it now in this, but everybody agrees still that Russia should pay for the damages, not our taxpayers,” she said.
Poland and the Baltic states have backed the full seizure of frozen Russian central bank assets to support Ukraine, while Belgium, France, and Germany have raised legal and financial concerns. Earlier this week, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever likened the funds to “a goose that lays golden eggs,” warning that confiscation could trigger systemic risks and should be deferred until peace negotiations.
Euroclear-linked officials and Belgium’s foreign minister have echoed this stance, citing potential breaches of international law and damage to the euro’s credibility. Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg also cautioned that acting without a solid legal foundation would be “an enormous setback, and basically a disgrace” for the EU. The US has suggested using the assets as leverage in peace talks.
The Chinese leader praised the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a guardrail of global stability
Chinese President Xi Jinping has welcomed top leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, at the 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Tianjin on Sunday.
More than 20 heads of state and representatives from ten international organizations are attending the gathering.
The summit, which wraps up on September 1, unfolds against the backdrop of rising global tensions – from the Ukraine conflict and Israel’s war in Gaza to escalating trade disputes sparked by US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies. The summit will address regional security, economic cooperation, and cultural ties, along with transport, energy, digitalization, AI, and green development.
On September 2, Putin will travel to Beijing for talks with Xi focused on trade, security, the Ukraine conflict, and ties with the US. The next day, he will take part in events marking the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. He is also expected to hold around ten bilateral meetings with leaders including India’s Narendra Modi, Türkiye’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Iran’s Masoud Pezeshkian.
The two leaders have met on the sidelines of the SCO summit as both nations look to stabilize relations following long-standing border tensions
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Tianjin on Sunday, marking a key diplomatic engagement as New Delhi and Beijing move to stabilize relations. The two leaders met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, hosted by China this weekend.
This is Modi’s first visit to China since 2018. The meeting follows months of efforts by both countries to restore ties strained by prolonged border tensions. The leaders previously met last October in Kazan, Russia at the BRICS summit.
”Our relationship got a positive direction. There is peace and stability on the borders,” Modi said. He also noted the resumption of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, an important pilgrimage to Mount Kailash and Manasarovar in the Tibetan autonomous region of China, as well as plans to resume direct flights between the two nations.
“The interests of 2.8 billion people of both countries are linked to our cooperation. This will also pave the way for the welfare of the entire humanity. We are committed to taking our relations forward on the basis of mutual trust, respect and sensitivity,” Modi stated.
⚡️World Focus on SCO Summit: PM Modi Shakes President Xi’s Hand Prior to Meet on Sidelines #SCO2025
The meeting comes as the two nations work to restore ties after a prolonged chill triggered by a deadly border clash in June 2020. It also takes place against the backdrop of Washington’s recent 50% tariffs on India, which were imposed by the administration of US President Donald Trump in response to the country’s trade policies and continued oil trade with Russia.
The meeting between the leaders of the world’s two most populous nations was preceded by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to New Delhi. During the visit, the two countries held the 24th round of talks between the special representatives on the boundary question, co-chaired by Wang Yi and Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval.
Following the talks, both sides agreed on several steps to improve border management, resume direct flight connectivity “at the earliest,” and reopen border trade. They also agreed to support each other’s presidency of the BRICS grouping in 2026 and 2027.
Beijing earlier voiced strong support for New Delhi in response to US tariff threats. “The US has imposed tariffs of up to 50% on India and is threatening to impose more,” China’s ambassador to India, Xu Feihong, said.
”China firmly opposes it. In the face of such acts, silence or compromise only emboldens the bully. China will firmly stand with India.”
Meanwhile, senior officials from Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi have discussed reviving the Russia-India-China (RIC) dialogue, a trilateral cooperation format envisioned decades ago as a counterbalance to Western dominance, promoting a multipolar world order.
The Labor Ministry has revised the list, with ‘Mohammed’ replacing ‘Michael’ at number one
‘Mohammed’ and ‘Ahmad’ are among the most common names of welfare recipients in Germany, according to newly revised figures released by the federal government. ‘Olena’, a Ukrainian variant of Helen, is the only female name in the top ten.
Germany’s unemployment rate reached 6.4% in August, with the total number of jobless people exceeding 3 million for the first time in a decade. According to Federal Employment Agency data, 5.42 million people were receiving welfare benefits at the end of 2024 – of which 48% were foreigners, compared to 19.6% in 2010.
The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party had requested information on the most common first names of recipients to support its argument about the failure of integration.
In June, the Labor Ministry replied that the leading names were ‘Michael’, ‘Andreas’, and ‘Thomas’, followed by ‘Daniel’, ‘Olena’, and ‘Alexander’ – prompting media ridicule of the AfD. However, the initial list did not combine different spellings of names, such as ‘Thomas’ and ‘Tomas’, ‘Mohammed’ and ‘Mohamed’, listing them separately.
The revised data placed ‘Mohammed’ – spread across 19 spellings – in first place with nearly 40,000 entries, followed by ‘Michael’ with around 24,600 and ‘Ahmad’ with more than 20,600. ‘Olena’ remained the only female name among the top ten, with around 14,200 entries.
Germany is the EU’s top migrant destination and the world’s third-largest refugee-hosting country, according to UN data. Under former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-border policies, more than a million people arrived from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq during the 2015 migrant influx. In recent years, the country has granted temporary protection to 1.2 million Ukrainians and received 334,000 asylum applications in 2023, nearly a third of the EU total.
The migrant crisis has strained housing, public services and finances, contributing to the rise of the AfD, which has recently led national polls as Germany’s most popular political party.
The AfD came in second in February’s federal election with 152 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag, but was excluded from coalition talks. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (BfV) has designated the AfD a “confirmed extremist entity.” While that classification was temporarily suspended, senior officials have continued to seek legal grounds to pursue a formal ban of the party.
The Russian president is set to meet with the Chinese, Indian, and other world leaders during a packed four-day visit
President Vladimir Putin has arrived in Tianjin at the start of a four-day official visit to China, where he will take part in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit and attend events marking the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II.
The Russian leader’s Ilyushin Il-96 aircraft touched down on Sunday morning in the northern Chinese city, where President Xi Jinping is hosting the SCO gathering.
The summit, which runs through September 1, is expected to focus on strengthening regional security, expanding economic cooperation, and deepening cultural and humanitarian ties among member states. Leaders will also discuss transport, energy, digitalization, artificial intelligence, and green development. A final declaration and a long-term strategy through 2035 are due to be adopted.
Putin will later travel to Beijing for bilateral talks with Xi on September 2. The discussions are expected to cover economic cooperation, international security, and regional issues, with particular attention to the Ukraine conflict and relations with the US. On September 3, he will attend Victory Day commemorations in the Chinese capital.
During the visit, Putin is also scheduled to hold around ten bilateral meetings with foreign leaders on the sidelines of the summit, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
Kremlin aide Kirill Dmitriev has accused European leaders of prolonging the conflict with “impossible demands”
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special economic envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, has accused the EU of deliberately undermining US-led peace efforts in Ukraine, following media reports that Washington increasingly believes European leaders are obstructing negotiations.
In a series of posts on X, Dmitriev said Brussels is “sabotaging a real peace process” by encouraging Kiev to pursue what he called “impossible demands.” His remarks came after reports in Axios and The Atlantic that the White House is growing frustrated with EU governments for undermining US President Donald Trump’s peace initiative.
“EU warmongers exposed… Even Washington now sees it – EU leaders are prolonging the conflict in Ukraine with impossible demands,” Dmitriev wrote, urging the bloc to “drop Biden’s failed logic” and “stop sabotaging a real peace process.”
“I warned about these efforts to sabotage the Trump peace plan before,” he added in a separate post. The envoy, who was part of the Russian delegation at the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin, also criticized a recent Politico report on Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, which he described as an attempt to discredit the American side’s mediation.
“Afraid of a peace plan, EU/UK warmongers push ‘foreign influence’ ops in the US and worldwide to undermine US-Russia talks. Dialogue will prevail – more key people see the massive effort to derail progress,” he wrote.
Dmitriev has previously praised Trump for seeking what he described as a “real solution” to the conflict. He has also denounced Brussels’ repeated sanctions packages against Russia, arguing that they are aimed at prolonging the war and blocking cooperation between Moscow and Washington.
Moscow has long insisted on a peace agreement that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. It has demanded that Ukraine maintain neutrality, stay out of NATO and other military blocs, demilitarize and denazify, and accept the current territorial reality – including the status of Crimea and other regions that voted to join Russia in referendums in 2014 and 2022.
Some European leaders “continue to operate in a fairy-tale land,” an unnamed White House official told the publication
The White House believes certain European governments are quietly obstructing efforts to end the Ukraine conflict by encouraging Kiev to push for unrealistic demands, despite publicly endorsing President Donald Trump’s peace initiative, Axios has reported.
Trump administration officials are increasingly frustrated with what they describe as the EU’s “maximalist” position and its expectations for Washington to shoulder the burden while contributing little themselves, the publication wrote on Saturday.
“The Europeans don’t get to prolong this war and backdoor unreasonable expectations, while also expecting America to bear the cost,” an anonymous senior US official said. “If Europe wants to escalate this war, that will be up to them. But they will be hopelessly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”
“Some of the Europeans continue to operate in a fairy-tale land that ignores the fact it takes two to tango,” another unnamed source said.
Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska this month and later hosted Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in Washington. He pushed for a lasting peace rather than a ceasefire. He also threatened to impose tariffs and sanctions on both Ukraine and Russia if they failed to make meaningful progress in talks.
Trump’s frustration with both Kiev and the EU allies has also grown in recent days, according to The Atlantic, which reported that the president now sees Ukraine and its European backers as standing in the way of a negotiated settlement. During private conversations, Trump has reportedly voiced dissatisfaction over Zelensky’s unwillingness to consider concessions and the EU’s refusal to support what the White House considers a “realistic” outcome.
“He just wants this over. It almost doesn’t matter how,” a senior official told The Atlantic, adding that Trump has urged Ukraine to “show some flexibility.”
Moscow has long insisted on a peace agreement that eradicates the underlying causes of the conflict. It has demanded that Ukraine maintain neutrality, stay out of NATO and other military blocs, demilitarize and denazify, and accept the new territorial reality – including the status of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as part of Russia – territories that voted to join the country in referendums in 2014 and 2022.
The US president had previously insisted that his Russian counterpart first meet the Ukrainian leader one-on-one
US President Donald Trump has stated that he believes a trilateral meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky will happen.
Following his recent summit with Putin in Alaska, Trump pushed for a one-on-one between the Russian president and Zelensky ahead of any trilateral gathering. The Kremlin has not ruled out a bilateral meeting, but stressed it should serve as the final stage of talks once tangible progress has been made in the peace process.
In an interview with the Daily Caller on Friday, Trump was asked whether a trilateral meeting is still planned.
“A tri would happen. A bi, I don’t know about, but a tri will happen,” the US president said. “But, you know, sometimes people aren’t ready for it.”
According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, while Russia is still interested in direct talks with Ukraine, preparation for such a meeting is not “very active.”
“All our positions have been communicated,” and Ukraine has submitted its own provisions, he said on Friday. “Further discussion is necessary.”
Moscow has already agreed to “show some flexibility” on a number of points that Putin and Trump discussed in Alaska, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told NBC News last week.
The US president later presented his proposals at a follow-up meeting with the Ukrainian leader and his European NATO backers, but “Zelensky said no to everything,” Lavrov said.
The reaction of Kiev’s Western sponsors at the talks “indicates that they don’t want peace,” the top diplomat said.
European NATO leaders have increasingly pushed for “security guarantees” for Ukraine in the form of Western “peacekeepers” or “reassurance forces” – something Moscow has stressed it would never accept, warning of potential uncontrolled escalation.
Moscow has condemned the EU’s recent militarization and longstanding military support for Ukraine. It has consistently described the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war waged by the West and maintained that any settlement must address Russia’s security concerns and the root causes of the crisis, including NATO’s continued eastward expansion.
Why Moscow and Washington-led military bloc were never destined to merge
The idea of Russia one day joining NATO has become an international meme. To many it seems so absurd that it reads like a parody. Yet the notion continues to resurface in political debate, like a ghost that refuses to leave the stage.
The latest revival came in 2022, when Russia and the West entered their most dangerous standoff in decades. Commentators wondered aloud how relations had sunk so low and whether a different path had ever been possible. More recently, former US congressman and Trump ally Matt Gaetz suggested that Russia should be accepted into NATO as a way to resolve the conflict in Ukraine.
Even Der Spiegel added fuel, publishing documents showing that under Bill Clinton the US did not entirely reject the idea of Russian membership. It was Germany and others in Western Europe, the magazine reported, who feared that opening NATO’s doors to Moscow would mean the alliance’s slow dissolution.
So who exactly blocked the path? The closest Russia ever came to joining NATO was in the early 1990s, just after the Soviet Union's collapse. Boris Yeltsin’s government openly declared NATO membership a long-term goal. There were serious conversations at the highest level. But they didn't lead anywhere.
Part of the reason lay in Washington itself. A powerful bloc of the American elite was against any Russian presence in NATO’s inner circle. From its inception, NATO had been designed as a US project, structured around American leadership. Russia, even weakened, retained military parity, global influence, and a sphere of interests that could not be subordinated. Unlike Poland or Hungary, it was not a junior partner to be absorbed. There cannot be two heads in one alliance.
The other part of the reason was philosophical. NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Ismay, famously defined its purpose in 1949: “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” By the 1990s, the German question had been solved by reunification. But if NATO also gave up the “Russian threat,” it risked losing its reason for existing altogether. With the Soviet Union gone, the alliance drifted into an identity crisis. Accepting Russia would have hastened what many in Berlin and elsewhere already feared – the death of NATO itself.
What if Russia had joined?
Let us imagine the alternate universe where Russia did sign up. Would it have resolved tensions with the West, as Gaetz suggests? Or would the quarrels have simply moved inside the tent?
To answer, one can look at the example of Türkiye. Ankara has been part of NATO since 1952 but remains the odd man out. Turkish geography, culture, and ambitions often clash with those of its European and North American allies. Russia, had it joined, would likely have occupied a similar outsider role – but on a far grander scale, with nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
There is, however, a crucial difference. Türkiye has been tolerated because it controls the Bosphorus and Dardanelles and does not challenge NATO’s overall dominance. Russia never viewed itself as a regional player but as a European power in its own right. Europe has always been Moscow’s primary sphere of influence – just as it is Washington’s. To coexist peacefully, one side would have had to step aside. Neither ever intended to.
Why it could never last
Instead of membership, the West offered Russia a “special partnership”: permanent dialogue, joint councils, limited cooperation. But this fell apart quickly. Moscow demanded equality. Washington, triumphant after the Cold War, refused to treat Russia as anything other than a defeated state. Pride collided with pride. The dialogue reached a dead end.
Even if full membership had been offered, the story would have ended the same way. Russia and the United States would inevitably have clashed over the balance of power inside the alliance. At best, this would have produced a messy divorce. At worst, Russia might have split NATO by drawing away countries that were themselves uneasy with US dominance.
In truth, Russia has always been “too big to join.” The alliance could absorb small and medium states – even awkward partners like Türkiye or Hungary. But not a country capable of rivaling America itself.
That slim chance is gone
The 1990s provided the one fleeting moment when Russian membership could have been tested. It passed. By 2025, the question is no longer hypothetical. The chance is gone forever.
And NATO itself is no longer what it was. In the United States, voices once confined to the margins now argue that the alliance is a burden, not an asset. In Western Europe, trust in Washington is eroding. Dreams of “strategic autonomy” grow louder. NATO staggers on, but without clarity of purpose.
Against this backdrop, Russia’s place in NATO is not simply unrealistic – it is absurd. Our country has its own path, its own burdens, and its own battles. The alliance may continue to search for reasons to justify itself. But Russia has no need to be part of that “celebration of life.”
Whether one calls it fate or irony, the verdict is the same: Russia and NATO were never meant to merge. Not in the 1990s, not today, not even in an alternate universe.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
The EU wants to spend tens of billions of euros on Ukraine’s military, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said
The EU is “preparing for a long war” rather than seeking peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said.
The European Commission has effectively acted as the “Ukrainian Commission,” prioritizing Kiev’s interests over those of its own member states, he said on X after a meeting of the bloc’s top diplomats in Denmark on Saturday.
“At today’s EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Copenhagen it became clear that Brussels and most member states are preparing for a long war, not peace. They want to send tens of billions of euros to Ukraine for soldiers’ salaries, drones, weapons, and the operation of the Ukrainian state,” Szijjarto said.
“There was huge pressure for the fast-tracked EU accession of Ukraine, new sanctions on Russian energy,” as well as to provide €6 billion ($7 billion) more to arm Ukraine, he added.
The EU Commission once again acted as a Ukrainian Commission, serving Kiev’s interests over those of member states.
The European Commission entirely ignores “Hungarians in Transcarpathia and our energy security, still refusing to answer the joint letter we sent with Slovakia on Ukraine endangering our supply route,” Szijjarto said.
Already strained ties between Kiev and Budapest recently deteriorated further after multiple Ukrainian attacks on the Druzhba oil pipeline, a key conduit that carries Russian and Kazakh crude to Slovakia and Hungary. Budapest has also accused Kiev of violating the rights of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region.
Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev and has criticized Brussels for imposing sanctions on Moscow. It has also opposed Ukraine’s membership in both NATO and the EU.
Meanwhile, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, promised to further arm Ukraine and “increase pressure on Russia,” in remarks made after Saturday’s foreign ministers’ meeting.
Moscow has long condemned Western military support of Kiev in the conflict, which it views as a NATO proxy war. Russia has also criticized the EU’s growing militarization and increasingly bellicose rhetoric.
Western European leaders “are once again trying to prepare Europe for war – not some hybrid war, but a real war against Russia,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in July.
Login
