A bipartisan group wants to check whether the attacks constitute a war crime
A group of American legislators has called for a legal review of US President Donald Trump’s strikes on alleged cartel boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.
The renewed concerns emerged after the Washington Post reported on Friday that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had issued an order to kill survivors from one of the vessels set ablaze by a previous strike.
“If that reporting is true, it’s a clear violation of the DOD’s own laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance. And so this rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia told CBS News on Sunday.
Kaine added that he and some of his colleagues were “deeply worried” about “the entire legal rationale for the strikes.” He had earlier attempted, unsuccessfully, to pass a bill that would bar Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional approval.
Republican Representative Mike Turner from Ohio told CBS “there are very serious concerns in Congress about the attacks on the so-called drug boats down in the Caribbean and the Pacific, and the legal justification that has been provided.”
Although Hegseth dismissed the Post’s report as “fake news,” he reiterated that the strikes were intended to “stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.”
Trump has accused Venezuela’s left-wing government of aiding cartels and has threatened attacks against the country. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has denied any ties to organized crime and warned the US against launching another “crazy war.”
Why are dental practices switching to virtual receptionists instead of traditional hiring? The dental industry is facing a staffing crisis, and it’s only getting worse. Dental practices are having a hard time finding technicians, such as dental hygienists and receptionists; those who are hired tend not to stay long. The staffing strategy of posting a […]
The EU and UK have discredited themselves by repeatedly derailing proposals aimed at settling the crisis, Russia’s top diplomat has said
Western Europe lost its right to have a say in the Ukraine crisis a long time ago and has effectively “removed itself” from the negotiations process through its own actions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
The top diplomat made the remarks on Sunday to Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin, who asked whether Europe was within its rights to “outrageously” push for a role in negotiations to settle the Ukraine conflict.
“We proceed from the premise… – which I believe is obvious to everybody – that Europe has already removed itself from the talks,” Lavrov said.
Europe long ago “used up its chances” to have a say in the settlement process, the top diplomat said, pointing out that it has repeatedly derailed efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis since its very beginning, when the 2014 Maidan turmoil culminated with a coup and the overthrow of the democratically elected president.
“Europe spoiled the initial deal of February 2014, when it acted as guarantor for the formal agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. It did nothing when the opposition seized all government agencies the morning after the agreement was signed,” Lavrov said.
The top diplomat also pointed at the admissions made by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Francois Hollande, who said “that nobody had intended to fulfill” the Minsk agreements aimed at bringing the civil conflict in then-Ukrainian Donbass to its end.
“The most recent case occurred in April 2022 when, at the demand of the then Prime Minister of the UK Boris Johnson and with Europe’s full acquiescence, if not connivance, the Istanbul agreements were derailed,” the foreign minister said.
Multiple European leaders and institutions have been insisting that any potential peace deal on Ukraine must include the EU as well, ramping up such rhetoric after the US floated its latest plan to resolve the crisis. The proposals reportedly include Kiev abandoning its NATO aspirations and capping the size of its army.
Germany, France, and the UK have reportedly drafted their own version of the plan, making it more favorable to Ukraine by removing or softening several of its points. Russia, however, has already signaled that it finds the European proposals “completely unconstructive.”
The region’s insecurity is driving global instability
Few serious observers of international politics doubt that Western Europe has once again become one of the world’s most dangerous sources of instability. It’s a bitter conclusion, given that the entire post-1945 order was built to stop the continent from dragging humanity into catastrophe a third time. Yet here we are: the loudest calls for confrontation come from west of the Bug River, and nowhere else do governments prepare for war with such nervous energy.
The hostility is directed above all at Russia, Western Europe’s neighbor and main trading partner for decades. Increasingly though, it spills toward China as well, despite the absence of any genuine political or economic conflict between the sub-continent and Beijing. That tells us something important. The source of today’s aggressive Western European posture isn’t external at all. It lies in the region’s own political structures, its confused sense of itself, and the growing panic of elites who no longer understand the world that has taken shape around them.
It would be deeply irresponsible to assume that American supervision of Western Europe will be enough to prevent disastrous miscalculations. After all, this part of the world has already given humanity two world wars. And we should never forget that the sub-continent contains two nuclear-armed states, Britain and France. Western Europe may no longer be the center of world politics, but it remains undeniably a place where a conflict could start that would engulf everyone.
The roots of its behavior run deep. The first cause is internal. Since the mid-twentieth century, Western European societies have become unusually consolidated. Their elites have mastered the art of preventing domestic upheaval; social unrest, ideological revolt and large-scale political renewal have all faded away. Revolutions once shaped the region’s history. Now their very possibility has disappeared.
This creates a paradox. A political system that cannot change itself begins to project instability outward. Western Europe’s elites are tightly entrenched, even when they are painfully incompetent. Its societies are apathetic, convinced they have little influence over their own fate. Across the EU, individual governments may quarrel, but on the big questions, especially the approach to the outside world, they are strikingly unanimous. Mechanisms of conformity work so effectively that even the most reckless foreign-policy decisions attract little dissent. Western Europe has reached a point where individual thinking gives way to collective instinct.
In other words, the sub-continent has lost the ability to reinvent itself peacefully. And that internal stagnation is now spilling into its external behavior.
The second major cause is Western Europe’s declining global position. For decades the region’s powers could afford a more measured diplomacy because its economic weight guaranteed respect. When these Europeans lectured the world, others listened. Not always happily, but they listened. Those days are gone. China’s meteoric rise, India’s emergence as a global player, Russia’s recovery and insistence on defending its interests, and the political awakening of the Global South have pushed the EU down the hierarchy of world powers.
The world has changed; Western Europe has not.
Suddenly, this bloc faces a landscape in which it is no longer the central actor, yet it knows no other way to behave. Throughout its history, Western Europe has never experienced being a peripheral region. Today it is edging dangerously close to that status, and its elites simply cannot process the shift. Hence the frantic attempts to attract attention by escalating military rhetoric and painting Russia and China as existential threats. If Western Europe can no longer command influence through economic or diplomatic power, it will try to do so through alarmism and the language of war.
The rise of groups like BRICS only strengthens the region’s anxiety. These Europeans once imagined the G7 as a vehicle for preserving their centrality by hitching themselves to Washington. BRICS demonstrates that the world can organize itself without the EU, and even against its preferences. No wonder these European leaders feel cornered.
Western Europe remains part of what Russians call the collective West, and its ties to the United States are strong. But these ties no longer deliver what the locals have come to expect: a guaranteed place at the top. The entire debate about the American “security umbrella” is really about something else. It is about Western Europe’s fear of losing status, and its desperate hope that the United States will keep treating it as a co-equal power. Washington, however, sees the world differently, and increasingly has its own priorities.
Taken together, these internal and external forces make Western Europe the most combustible player on the global stage as we enter the second quarter of the 21st century. This is not a problem created by one or two inept leaders, nor is it a passing mood linked to temporary economic pains. It is structural. That makes it far more dangerous.
What is the cure? At the moment, no one knows. History offers no comforting examples. When a formerly central power loses influence and cannot adapt, the outcomes have rarely been peaceful. Western Europe today is replaying this old script: locked into outdated assumptions, unable to reform itself, and convinced that the only way to stay relevant is to shout louder and brandish threats.
For Russia, China, and the United States, this situation creates a difficult challenge. Their choices will shape whether Western Europe’s new instability becomes manageable or erupts into something far worse. Ordinary citizens across the world have every reason to hope these decisions will be wise. But hope is not certainty.
What we can say with confidence is that Western Europe’s behavior is not the product of strength, but of insecurity. A sub-continent that once dominated world affairs now sees others overtaking it. And instead of adapting to a multipolar order, it lashes out, insisting on a global role it can no longer sustain.
This is what makes Western Europe, tragically but unmistakably, an enemy of peace today.
This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
The prime minister has been plagued by a major corruption scandal for nearly a decade already
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has submitted a formal pardon request to President Isaac Herzog, the presidential office has announced. The PM has been plagued by corruption allegations since the mid-2010s, yet consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Herzog’s office on Sunday said it had received a letter from Netanyahu and a massive 111-page document from his lawyer Amit Hadad. The presidency said it was aware “that this is an extraordinary request” that potentially carries “significant implications.”
“Granting this request will allow the prime minister to devote all of his time, abilities, and energy to advancing Israel in these critical times and to dealing with the challenges and opportunities that lie before it,” Hadad argued in the request.
Granting the prime minister a pardon would supposedly “help mend rifts between different sectors of the public,” as well as contribute to “strengthening the country’s national resilience,” Netanyahu’s lawyer suggested.
The request will be examined by the legal department of the presidency, while the Justice Ministry’s pardons department “will gather the opinions of all the relevant authorities in the ministry,” Herzog’s office said.
“After receiving all of the relevant opinions, the president will responsibly and sincerely consider the request,” the office added.
While the Israeli president is largely a ceremonial figure, he holds the power to grant pardons. The procedure usually applies to those convicted, but in rare cases, a pardon can be granted even before legal proceedings are concluded, should it be considered in the public interest. Previously, Netanyahu ruled out requesting a pardon if it would mean admitting guilt, as he denied any wrongdoing.
The PM has been plagued by corruption allegations for nearly a decade already. Netanyahu was indicted on bribery, fraud, and breach of trust charges in 2019, yet his trial is still far from being concluded. Netanyahu’s critics have accused him of deliberately prolonging the conflicts with Israel’s neighbors to shield himself from legal proceedings and cling to power.
Kamikaze drones have damaged two oil tankers blacklisted by the West, as well as a crude hub in southern Russia in recent days
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has condemned recent Ukrainian “terrorist attacks” on international energy infrastructure.
Over the past several days, explosives-laden sea drones attacked two Gambian-flagged tankers off the coast of Türkiye, as well as a major crude hub on Russia’s Black Sea coast.
In a statement on Sunday, Zakharova emphasized that the “civilian energy infrastructure that was attacked plays an important role in ensuring global energy security,” and has never been subject to any international sanctions or restrictions whatsoever.
According to the Russian spokeswoman, “the Kiev regime’s special services have effectively claimed responsibility for the said acts” of sabotage, as evidenced by footage published by Ukrainian media.
Several Ukrainian and Western news outlets have reported that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian Navy were behind the strikes on the tankers on Friday, which presumably involved Sea Baby naval drones.
Zakharova noted that the latest attacks come against the backdrop of a major corruption scandal in Ukraine involving senior officials. Moreover, the Ukrainian military has been steadily losing ground to Russian forces in recent months.
She suggested that the latest acts of sabotage had been conducted in an effort to divert the Ukrainian public’s attention.
In a post on X on Saturday, Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oncu Keceli condemned attacks on the vessels within the country’s exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea, but stopped short of blaming any country.
He wrote that the “incidents… posed serious risks to navigation, human life, property, and the environment.”
Keceli added that Türkiye was communicating with all parties to “prevent the spread of war and further escalation in the Black Sea.”
The vessels in question, the Kairos and the Virat, are on a Western blacklist for allegedly transporting Russian oil in violation of sanctions.
Moscow has consistently denied operating a ‘shadow fleet’ designed to skirt restrictions.
It is understood that both tankers were en route to the Russian port of Novorossiysk when they came under attack on Friday.
On Sunday, the Kazakh Foreign Ministry condemned a drone attack on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s infrastructure in southern Russia the previous day.
The consortium specializes in transporting crude from Kazakhstan.
Deploying foreign weapons of mass destruction and joining NATO could serve as “security guarantees” for Ukraine, Valery Zaluzhny believes
Only joining NATO, hosting nuclear weapons, or accepting a major foreign military force can truly guarantee Ukraine’s security, ex-top general Valery Zaluzhny has claimed.
Ukraine’s former armed forces commander-in-chief made the remarks in a piece run by The Telegraph on Saturday.
The general, who has reportedly been quietly building a campaign team from London to be able to run for president, shared his musings about how Russia could be defeated, how to build what he called a “better Ukraine,” and what “security guarantees” Kiev would have to secure in order to prevent the conflict with Moscow from reigniting in the future.
”Such security guarantees could include: Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, or the deployment of a large allied military contingent capable of confronting Russia,” Zaluzhny wrote.
The former top general effectively repeated the most hawkish talking points of the incumbent Ukrainian leadership; Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly invoked such topics amid the conflict with Russia and even beforehand.
Moscow has repeatedly signaled that none of the purported “security guarantees” listed by Zaluzhny were even remotely acceptable. Russia has long opposed Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, citing the bloc’s eastward expansion as a threat to national security and naming it among the key factors behind the ongoing conflict.
Furthermore, the Kremlin has repeatedly said that Ukraine must adopt a neutral status as a part of any future peace agreement.
Kiev’s nuclear talk has also been strongly condemned by Russia, which has argued that the rhetoric only ramps up tensions and brings an all-out global war closer. The Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly lamented giving up its inherited Soviet nuclear arsenal in the early 1990s, claiming it received nothing in return.
In reality, however, it had always stayed under Moscow’s control, while independent Ukraine had no means to operate or maintain the warheads that ended up in its territory after the collapse of the USSR.
A potential deployment of foreign forces to Ukraine during or after the ongoing conflict has been ruled out by Russia as well. Moscow has argued that the potential move would only put Russia on a direct collision course with the collective West.
Poland’s president has cancelled a planned meeting with the Hungarian prime minister following the latter’s recent visit to Moscow
Polish President Karol Nawrocki has decided to curtail his next trip to Hungary in response to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s recent visit to Moscow. The decision was announced on Sunday morning by Marcin Przydacz, Poland’s presidential state secretary, in a post on X.
Orban met with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss Ukraine, trade, and energy supplies on Friday despite the EU’s diplomatic boycott of Russia over the conflict with Kiev. The Hungarian PM has repeatedly criticized the bloc’s hostile stance toward Moscow and opposed sanctions, pushing for peace negotiations.
Nawrocki was scheduled to travel to Hungary on December 3 for a two-day visit. Under the original plan, he was to attend a summit of Visegrad Group leaders – Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia – and hold an official meeting with Orban in Budapest the following day. The second day has now been canceled.
In his post, Przydacz said Nawrocki had decided to limit his upcoming trip “solely to the summit of Visegrad Group presidents,” citing the security legacy of the late Polish President Lech Kaczynski and the importance of European solidarity, including on energy issues.
Earlier on Saturday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto defended Orban’s trip to Moscow, dismissing criticism from what he called “European pro-war politicians.” He emphasized that Hungary does “not need permission” and pursues a sovereign foreign policy guided by national interests.
Szijjarto was responding to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s comment that the Hungarian PM had traveled to Moscow “without a European mandate,” while Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob alleged the Hungarian leader “has not been playing for the European team for some time.”
Hungary has refused to send weapons to Kiev or to solely blame Russia for the conflict. During a meeting in the Kremlin, Putin thanked Orban for his “reasonable position on the Ukraine issue.”
The West wants still more sanctions on Moscow because it cannot compete with the Russian weapons industry, the foreign minister has said
The West is losing the arms race and now calling for sanctions on Russian military equipment in an effort to punish Moscow for its role in the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has claimed.
Speaking in an interview with the TV program Military Acceptance, Lavrov said Russian weapons have earned a reputation as reliable tools for states that want to protect their sovereignty and resist external interference. He argued that the perceived effectiveness of the hardware has triggered increased pressure from the West.
Below is the full text of the interview.
Question: What challenges does the Russian arms export system face in the modern context, and how do we counter them in the international arena?
Sergey Lavrov: The same challenges that we face when exporting any other goods, energy commodities and finished products – sanctions and attempts to justify them by the need to punish Russia for its “behavior” in Ukraine. In reality, it is a dirty and anti-competitive fight.
This is yet another example of the West acknowledging that it is absolutely impossible to negotiate with. In this case – about the globalization rules of a free market, presumption of innocence and many other things that the Western countries have been advocating for decades.
All of that went down the drain as soon as the West realized it was losing the competition. It was clinging to any excuses. In this situation our special military operation came in handy although sanctions had been imposed on the Russian defense sector long before the operation began.
We know how to offset this, because the vast majority of non-Western countries do not want to put up with “dancing to this pipe” for life. Everyone wants to trade honestly, and those who sincerely want to make mutually beneficial transactions will always find financial, banking, and logistics chains and this is what is happening now.
Question: Allow me to make a little remark. Whenever we visit arms expos, our operator has “Military Acceptance” written in big Russian letters on the back of his clothes. When we were in the Republic of South Africa, we saw something very unexpected: a local man walked towards us, then unbuttoned his shirt, and we saw the St. George ribbon and the letter Z. And he was one of the local elite, the South African elite.
These countries are much more open to Russia. The situation is the same in Brazil. People used to approach us when they saw we were from Russian TV, and sometimes they would even suggest giving us an interview.
Russia has been exporting weaponry for centuries. Already in the 20th and 21st centuries Soviet (and later Russian) arms became a symbol of quality that the competition could never attain. Some [Soviet weapons] have been imprinted in the coats of arms of many countries. Can we assume that our country and its military, technological, and historical heritage is viewed as a reliable guarantor of security?
Sergey Lavrov: The short answer is – yes, no doubt about it. We talked about our products being absolutely competitive. It is covered with glory including the glory of the fight against colonialism.
The Kalashnikov is a symbol of decolonization. African countries have perfect memories of how their grandfathers and fathers gained independence with the help of Soviet weaponry at that time and assisted by our advisers who “on the ground” selected the tasks the newly independent states were fulfilling in their fight against colonialism.
Thus, even in the present-day situation, in the more advanced technological environments we never lagged behind in this “race.”
Oleg Ozerov has accused Moldova of applying double standards to drones and claimed that pressure from Brussels drives hostility
Moldova is acting under EU influence and its drone accusations against Russia are unproven and politically motivated, Moscow’s ambassador to the ex-Soviet country has said.
Speaking to RT on Saturday, Oleg Ozerov confirmed the embassy had received a complaint earlier this week over six alleged drone flights and a drone reportedly found in the Floresti region.
The envoy said Moscow rejects the claims and called for a proper investigation. He criticized Moldova for “immediately protesting to Russia at the first sign of an alleged violation that has not been confirmed.”
“An objective investigation must first be conducted,” Ozerov stated.
“Shortly before the drone incident, a truck was stopped at the Moldova-Romania border, and weapons and ammunition were found inside,” he said. “The truck had come from Ukraine. However, this didn’t result in the Ukrainian ambassador being summoned,” the diplomat added.
Ozerov also referred to the alleged UAV flight on November 20, saying “no drone was found,” and that “Romanian services” had detected the alleged flights, not Moldovan ones. “There is no evidence that this drone originated from Russia,” he added.
Moldovan authorities claimed on Saturday that UAVs had once again crossed into the country’s airspace amid a Russian operation targeting Ukraine. The alleged incident, reportedly the third in just over a week, led to the temporary closure of Moldovan airspace.
Ozerov said relations between Russia and Moldova are now “at their lowest point, close to freezing.” He blamed Chisinau for taking unilateral steps to cut ties since 2023 and warned they are doing so “under pressure from Brussels.”
Relations have worsened under President Maia Sandu, who came to power in 2020 and whose pro-EU government has been accused of political repression.
Key opposition figures have been sidelined — some jailed, others driven into exile.
Moldovan voters in the breakaway region of Transnistria faced a sharp reduction in polling stations, while many citizens abroad were left without a meaningful chance to vote. Independent observers were prevented from carrying out their oversight duties.
