Vladimir Putin’s possible return to a G20 summit in Florida in December risks normalizing Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, the EU’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Saturday.
“Normalizing Russia coming back to these international fora is just normalizing war crimes being committed every day now” in Ukraine, Kallas said in an interview with Bloomberg TV.
She added that Russia’s war in Ukraine conflicts “with U.N charter principles that all these countries around the table have signed up to.”
Putin hasn’t yet confirmed whether he would attend the December summit hosted in the U.S. His last in-person attendance at a G20 meeting was in 2019 — three years before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Kallas’ remarks come amid growing frustration among EU countries over Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov’s attendance at a G20 ministerial gathering in Atlanta.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was hosting the meeting, called off the traditional family photo after European officials refused to stand beside Lavrov.
Kallas said in the interview that “we don’t want to stand next to him [Lavrov] in this fora,” because he’s been placed under international sanctions.
However, she added that Lavrov’s presence meant “we can also immediately fight back on these lies” from Russia.
Kallas hailed the U.S. decision on Friday to sell 500 Patriot missile interceptors to Ukraine as a “very positive development” and called on allies to toughen sanctions against Russia.
A former Prime Minister of Estonia, Kallas has emerged as one of the EU’s most vocal critics of Russia.
In the interview, she rebuffed reported calls from the Pentagon for NATO countries, including the Baltic states that border Russia, to tone down their criticism of the Kremlin.
“The question is if you don’t talk about the threat, is it going away? I think it’s not going away.”
LONDON — U.K. Chancellor John Healey is set to deliver an unexpected increase in defense spending at his first budget on Wednesday, as Britain strains to reach its NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035.
Healey — who quit as defense secretary in the dying days of Keir Starmer’s government over a funding row — hopes he can show how Britain will start to reach that target now that he’s safely ensconced in the powerful Treasury.
Until last week, it was assumed that the top finance minister would defer decisions on ramping up funding until next year’s multi-year, government-wide spending review. So Wednesday’s move could represent an early win for the Ministry of Defence in Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s new government.
But with regular warnings in the press and in public about Britain’s unpreparedness for conflict, there’s much more to watch for beyond Wednesday’s headline hike. POLITICO walks through the seven key details and defense industry demands.
1) How will Healey play the numbers game?
Healey’s government-rocking resignation back in June was explicitly over a refusal in Downing Street and the Treasury to commit to spending3% of GDP on defense by 2030.
Now that he is leading the Treasury, Healey is under pressure to deliver on that. But even that keeps Britain shy of the bigger NATO aim.
On existing plans, U.K. defense spending is set to rise to 2.7% next year and remain flat until 2030. Healey’s first move will be to fill the £4.7 billion black hole in defense funding in the Defence Investment Plan — meant to overhaul the armed forces and improve readiness — published earlier this year.
More money is now expected beyond this, briefed to the media in recent days as a “down payment” towards spending 3% on defense by 2030.
But two government officials, granted anonymity like others in this article to discuss internal thinking, said the pathway to meeting NATO’s larger, 3.5% target will only come in next year’s spending review, not the budget.
Even on the smaller measure, the margins for the chancellor are tight, with government spending rules and debt targets leaving little room for maneuver. Mike Martin, an MP on the House of Commons Defense Committee, told POLITICO: “They have got themselves into a straitjacket over defense spending and none of this will be resolved before the next election. This is why I think an early general election is inevitable.”
2) Will the chancellor move to funnel private capital into defense?
Britain’s defense industry has long called for more direct government spending on domestic contracts. But the sector also wants more private capital flowing into U.K. firms, and will be looking to Healey to set the conditions.
The Financial Times reported last week that Healey will allocate £15.4 billion to the country’s National Wealth Fund and £5 billion to the British Business Bank — a share of which could end up with defense companies.
Two key details to watch here are whether the government claims this money counts towards its wider defense spending commitments, or whether any cash is allocated purely for defense firms. Potential reforms to and incentives for pools of private capital, such as pension funds and venture capital funds, to invest in defense would also be welcomed by the sector in this budget — but the industry may be left waiting.
One of the government officials cited above said that a Defence Finance and Investment Strategy is slated for December, with a Defense Investment Summit coming December 1.
3) Where does Healey stand on global defense team-ups?
On Sunday evening, the Treasury disclosed that it would not join the Canadian-led Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB) — a proposed multinational financial institution with its own AAA credit rating that aims to provide cheap loans for countries to invest in defense.
The U.K. had previously considered joining the bank, or merging it with its own separate initiative, the Multilateral Defence Mechanism (MDM) — a planned scheme for joint defense procurement, stockpiling and supply chains for member countries.
But a joint statement with Ottawa said that the institutions will now work in partnership.
The MDM currently has £400 million allocated from June’s Defence Investment Plan, while none of the other member nations — the Netherlands, Finland and Poland — have confirmed whether they have contributed capital to the project.
Now that uncertainty over Britain’s membership of the DSRB has gone, the government will be looking to flesh out its plans for its own MDM.
4) Can the chancellor slash energy and manufacturing costs?
Two industry figures told POLITICO that one of the biggest barriers to doing defense business in Britain — making it less attractive than other nations — is the country’s comparatively high energy costs.
However, slashing costs for energy-intensive industries, including the industrial base of the defense sector is expensive, and schemes aimed at reducing costs — such as the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme – already exist. Measures reportedly under consideration this time around appear to focus more on reducing households’ energy costs than on supporting businesses.
A third industry figure predicted that ministers would not offer immediate support for business energy bills because “every possible option” for instant help “is too expensive.” But a defense industry investor said the Treasury is, however, looking at reducing the financial burden of machinery — which they said is a key issue for small firms wanting to ramp up production as part of the supply chain.
5) What does Buy British actually mean?
The government has been consulting with the defense sector and wider British industry over what exactly constitutes a British company under its plans to implement a new “Buy British” scheme.
The plan aims to bring together Andy Burnham’s pledges of re-industrialization and more evenly-spread growth across the country, and comes after the EU proposed its own Made in Europe procurement plan to try and boost the bloc’s own firms.
The push is also designed to build sovereign capability, which has become increasingly important to Britain amid fears that the U.S. is an unreliable ally. The recent row over Ukraine’s constrained access to the Starlink satellite system has exacerbated such concerns.
Early suggestions indicate the government will take a broad definition — in a potential boost for multinational defense giants. Rupert Pearce, the Ministry of Defence’s National Armaments Director, told a recent industry event that, from his perspective, French defense company Thales, which has a headquarters in the U.K., “is a British company.”
6) Will Healey move further on AI and hybrid defenses?
Ahead of the budget, Healey’s Treasury announced a series of AI-specific policies with potential defense applications.
These include £165 million for AI-driven detection and surveillance of biological threats — a move first teased by the boss of Britain’s MI5 intelligence service.
The government will also put £60 million into its Sovereign AI fund to invest in British tech companies, including autonomous systems, robotics, and advanced manufacturing.
Watch to see whether the chancellor waves around more promises of boosting British resilience to malign actors on Wednesday.
7) Will Donald Trump even notice?
Britain’s comparatively slow progress on defense spending has already caught the eye of the Trump administration.
Warren Stephens, the U.S. ambassador to the U.K., warned earlier this year that Britain must make “sustained investment” in defense, rather than focusing on “other spending priorities,” and warned against “backloading” defense spending to a later date.
A lack of a meaningful movement on defense spending — or at least eye-catching claims from opposition parties that Healey has fumbled it — could grab the attention of Trump’s team this time around. The timing is tricky: the Pentagon is currently undertaking a review of American military assets stationed in mainland Europe and the U.K.
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was not buff, at least to our knowledge. He didn’t exercise in public or show off his abs, and there is no record of him ever leading his troops in calisthenics or challenging his peers to a pull-up contest. As far as we know, he didn’t even have any tattoos.
Eisenhower may not have been a “beardo” or a “weirdo,” in the recent words of Pete Hegseth, but were he alive today he would in all likelihood call the defense secretary a wimp and possibly even a radical. The 34th president would almost certainly not see him as a “warrior,” a term Hegseth uses as shorthand for a muscled, tough bully who is ready to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the enemy at a moment’s notice.
Despite this, Eisenhower remains one of America’s most celebrated generals, the man who led the Allied invasion of Europe, served as Army Chief of Staff, helped create NATO and served as its first Supreme Allied Commander. While he never served in combat, Eisenhower rose in the ranks because of his exceptional talent for strategy, logistics and diplomacy, skills which used to be held in high regard in the military.
Not too long ago, it was once understood that, in the modern world, a “warrior ethos” is more a matter of brains than brawn, and it was Eisenhower’s gift for coalition management, logistical organization, discipline and strategic patience that made him a successful war-time leader.
But those qualities are now out of fashion. When Donald Trump tapped Hegseth, the “Fox and Friends Weekend” co-host, to be his defense secretary, it was largely because the president thought Hegseth looked like he came out of “central casting” — a square-jawed, Sgt. Rock-style cartoon hero. They had become acquainted when Hegseth had taken up the cause of a group of men accused of war crimes, and persuaded Trump to intervene on their behalf, which he did over the loud objections of the military brass.
Hegseth had the attitude Trump wanted to lead the military, a man who wouldn’t feel restrained by all those rules and regulations that had made America, in his view, a weak, loser country under previous presidents. Once installed at the Pentagon, the secretary began modeling his “warrior ethos” very quickly by personally leading the charge on the front lines of America’s most important battleground: the culture war. He vanquished diversity, equity and inclusion policies one by one, and got rid of any of the women and people of color who had been promoted over the butch white men. He called all the brass to sit and listen to him lecture them about what a true military leader should be. After all, Hegseth has served as a platoon leader in the National Guard and as a prison guard for a little while, so he knew what he was talking about. And he has demonstrated time and again that he is in pretty good physical shape by doing jumping jacks and jogging with enlisted men wherever he goes, which is apparently the only authentic test of military leadership.
Meanwhile, Hegseth has presided over a policy of murder on the high seas, ordering the military to summarily kill people in small boats in the Caribbean and Western Pacific who, according to the Pentagon, are suspected of running drugs. He is also in charge of the military that is losing the war in Iran, a conflict to which he seems oddly disconnected, busy as he is with planning a (later canceled) public execution, holding prayer meetings, mandating testosterone testing and all that jogging.
Even though Hegseth would surely have fired Eisenhower long before the future president ever became a five-star general for lacking the proper “warrior ethos,” he does seem to like the idea of basking in the reflected glow of the monumental victory Eisenhower led in World War II.
Even though Hegseth would surely have fired Eisenhower long before the future president ever became a five-star general for lacking the proper “warrior ethos,” he does seem to like the idea of basking in the reflected glow of the monumental victory Eisenhower led in World War II. The secretary is also clearly entertaining the idea of running for president, which Eisenhower successfully did twice, after helping to rebuild Europe. (Incidentally, Eisenhower fully endorsed changing the name of the War Department to the Defense Department in 1949, a decision Hegseth and Trump have attempted to reverse.)
Hegseth obviously sees himself as a modern leader of similar stature to Ike. According to The Washington Post, when Hegseth assumed the office, he spied a relic that once belonged to Eisenhower: a handmade globe the general had reportedly used during the war, which even bore some markings he may have placed there himself. Hegseth demanded that it be moved to his office. He had furloughed people who handled such things during the partial government shutdown over immigration, and since he famously lacks patience, Hegseth sent a couple of flunkies to retrieve the historic object immediately.
Not realizing its weight, and with no experience in caring for precious artifacts — or, according to the report, listening to words of caution — the crew dropped the globe and broke it. They ended up just leaving it where it stood, with a huge hole in it.
There are metaphors, and there are metaphors, but this one is just too on the nose. Eisenhower and America helped rebuild the world after World War II, understanding that to survive in the nuclear age, the old, primitive ways were just too dangerous. They used diplomacy and alliances to build a bulwark against the kind of aggression that Germany and Japan had unleashed on the world, and despite some marked abuses and exceptions, that order largely held for 70 years.
Then Trump and his acolytes like Hegseth came along. With little care for the vast responsibility they held to keep the fragile planet stable and safe, and with no knowledge or experience of how to do so, they have broken the world order that Eisenhower led and represented. And it doesn’t seem as if they think it matters.
These are reckless people who think the government is cosplaying reality television, where all that matters is looking tough and projecting strength through cartoon clichés and cheap propaganda. The symbolism of that globe and what it meant completely escapes them, just as Eisenhower’s legacy has been dismissed by them wholesale.
Other than winning D-Day and commanding NATO, Eisenhower’s most famous moment was perhaps his January 1961 farewell address as president, when he warned about the military-industrial complex, which he said could sap resources from the public, threaten democratic governance and social balance, and put profit ahead of national security. His warnings were realized long ago, but now the Trump administration is taking it to an entirely different level. Hegseth is demanding a total of almost $1.5 trillion dollars for the Pentagon in 2027, calling it a “generational investment.” And Elon Musk, with his Starlink system, now appears to be operating more or less on his own, putting global security at severe risk.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar — but sometimes it isn’t. This administration has broken the world, and nobody knows whether it can be fixed. But even if it can be pieced back together, it will never be the same.
KYIV – At least one person was killed and 34 wounded in Kyiv as the Russian army attacked Ukraine with ballistic missiles and attack drones overnight, the capital city’s prosecutor’s office reported on Thursday. Overall, 12 Ukrainian regions were under bombardment, authorities said.
“Russian ‘humanitarians’ have launched three waves of ballistic missile strikes against Kyiv, using a total of 21. Unfortunately, the city has sustained significant damage and multiple hits, affecting residential buildings, energy infrastructure, a railway station and the metro, shopping centers, and industrial enterprises. Even a monastery is among the damaged sites,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post on Telegram after the attack.
Ukrainian forces reported shooting down 181 out of 210 Russian drones but none of the ballistic missiles.
Zelenskyy said Russia launched its attack “almost immediately” after talks between U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended Wednesday.
Witkoff left St. Petersburg after praising Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian,” a word U.S. Vice President JD Vance suggested was tied to the release of Stephen Hubbard, a U.S. citizen detained by Russia since 2022. “We’re getting close to ending the war. We may be closer now than ever before,” U.S. President Donald Trump said shortly after the talks.
Ukrainian forces said they killed and wounded a record 2,250 Russian soldiers – the largest number of Russian casualties in 24 hours since 2022, Ukrainian Army General Staff said in a press statement sent to POLITICO on Thursday.
Also on Thursday, Russia’s defense ministry reported shooting down 808 Ukrainian drones over 17 regions, including Ukrainian occupied territories.
In a throwaway comment this week, Donald Trump made clear that he does not regard the war in Ukraine as a conflict with fault on both sides. “Russia frankly has been fine on Ukraine,” the U.S. president said. “They have not been doing that much.”
To residents of Kyiv — who have endured weeks of intensifying bombardment — and Ukraine’s allies across Europe, the remark confirmed a growing impression that the U.S. is taking Russia leader Vladimir Putin’s side in the war.
“American negotiators have been trying to push Ukraine into surrender for already almost two years,” the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas told the European Parliament on Tuesday. The reason Ukraine hasn’t “surrendered on Putin’s terms” so far is because Europe has been providing so much support, she added.
As they scratch their heads for explanations for Trump’s latest turn against Ukraine, some European officials and diplomats think it comes down to the president’s personal preferences, as much as his country’s political aims.
“I do think it’s a personal thing,” said former British Cabinet minister David Lidington, now distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a leading security think tank in London. “Trump is self-centered — his personal predilections for dictators and autocrats, his desire to give opportunities to U.S. businesses … are very important parts of his motivation.”
In private, EU officials agree. “Trump doesn’t like [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. He just doesn’t like him,” said one government official who has observed both men closely. “That makes it harder to get the U.S. to help on peace. Everything is a rational business deal with Trump, until it’s not.”
A diplomat from an EU country — granted anonymity, like others in this report, to discuss sensitive matters — said the inconsistent Trump could change his mind again and reverse recent moves against Ukraine. The U.S. president has chopped and changed on many issues, “except one thing,” the diplomat said. “He seems to be supportive of the Russians.”
“He’s been critical of Ukraine, the EU, NATO, but hardly ever said anything critical about Putin. It is striking. We have to deal with an administration that seems to be more pro-Russian than anything else,” the diplomat said.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mounting losses
For Ukraine and its European allies, the idea that nothing can or will change Trump’s feelings about Zelenskyy is a bleak one. After four-and-a-half years of war, Kyiv is running low on funding, air defenses and — amid swelling support for Europe’s populist right — facing a potential loss of political support in the months ahead.
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff met the Ukrainian president and the leaders of Norway and Finland for talks in Oslo on Tuesday, and will head to St. Petersburg to discuss peace proposals with the Russian leadership on Wednesday as the White House pushes hard for a ceasefire. One option Putin will be offered is a three-way leaders’ summit with Trump and Zelenskyy.
Previous efforts to get the Russian president to attend such a meeting have failed, however, and EU diplomats do not believe Putin is showing any genuine desire for a ceasefire. That is partly what makes Trump’s hostility toward Zelenskyy so problematic.
“There is a clear consensus across Europe that Putin does not want peace,” a second EU diplomat said. “He will need to be forced into peace.”
U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives for talks at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on Aug. 15, 2025. | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
But instead of making demands of Putin, Trump has ratcheted up his pressure on Zelenskyy, even amid escalating Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities this month. Ukraine’s leader is feeling the strain, as he told his EU counterparts in private meetings in Brussels last week, according to the first diplomat.
In a succession of highly critical comments in recent days, Trump has said Zelenskyy “doesn’t care” and “doesn’t want to end this war;” and should be replaced as leader or as Ukraine’s negotiator. “President Putin would like to see a settlement,” Trump said. “President Zelenskyy could have solved this war, or he could have made a deal, many times.”
The Oval Office beating
Trump’s animosity may date back to an incident during his first term in 2019, when he urged the Ukrainian leader to help with an investigation into Joe Biden, who eventually defeated Trump in the following presidential election, Lidington said. A succession of hostile encounters in the years since — including in the Oval Office in February 2025 — have reinforced the impression, he said.
“It was clear that in the infamous meeting in the White House that Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance had planned that public beating-up of Zelenskyy and it struck me then that there was a strong personal element to this,” said Lidington.
“I think there’s another element, which is that if you look at the people Trump tries to court, it tends to be autocratic strongman — and it is ‘man’ — leaders,” Lidington said.
He recalled attending a dinner with world leaders in 2018 to mark the centenary of the end of World War I in Paris. French President Emmanuel Macron and the German chancellor at the time, Angela Merkel, were playing joint hosts “at the top table,” but Trump was not interested in making small talk with either of them, Lidington said.
“It was pretty obvious from the body language that Trump was impatient with them and one of the people he really wanted to talk to was [Turkish leader Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan and other people who were a bit more in that strongman image that he likes to portray himself,” he observed.
‘Strange stories’
A senior official from a European country familiar with the Ukraine talks said Trump’s motives were partly political, partly about calculating what would be profitable and partly about personalities.
“They are currently in an election cycle and need someone to blame for rising prices,” the official said. “In general, Trump tends to like various types of people and leaders. He actually has a fondness for successful and cheerful people.”
In recent days, Zelenskyy has warned his country is suffering more civilian casualties because the U.S. has cut back on support, including Starlink and Starshield services that help Ukraine defend itself against Russian attacks and plan operations. “We still have no explanation for this, just different strange stories,” Zelenskyy told U.S. congressmen on Monday.
This month, the advanced warnings of incoming Russian missile attacks from U.S. partners have failed to come through as normal. Ukraine is also running low on Patriot missile interceptors, he said.
The Pentagon has not issued an official comment on the Ukrainian complaints. The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said 328 civilians were killed and more than 2,000 wounded across Ukraine last month, an 85% increase compared to September 2025. The U.N. said that the first two weeks of October were among the deadliest for civilians in Ukraine in years, driven by increased missile and drone strikes.
The first EU diplomat quoted above said many European governments were irritated that Trump had cut them out of his conversations with Putin so far. “There is probably much more dialogue between the Americans and the Russians than we might know,” the diplomat said.
Tuesday’s meeting with Witkoff in Norway raised the possibility that direct engagement with Putin might be back on the cards, for Zelenskyy at least.
“Today was a good day for peace,” Finland’s President Alexander Stubb said after attending the talks in Oslo. “On a substantive and technical level we have actually made a lot of progress under the radar in the past week or so,” Stubb said.
The process is now going in the right direction again, he added. “Hopefully, we don’t do any backtracking.”
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the country had not changed its policy on sharing early warnings of Russian missile attacks with Ukraine and that the Pentagon was not deliberately withholding air defense missiles.
“There’s nothing being deliberately denied to Ukraine,” Rubio said during a visit to India Tuesday, calling reports that the U.S. was not giving Ukraine early warning of Russian ballistic missile attacks “outrageous.”
“Everything they’ve been doing with Ukraine remains the same,” he said of U.S. Department of Defense policy. “That has not changed. Nothing has changed.”
Rubio’s comments come as Russia escalates its attacks and Washington moves toward positions more favorable to Moscow, raising European concerns that the U.S. is not a dependable source of support for Ukraine.
Rubio was speaking shortly after the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas accused Washington of trying to force Ukraine to surrender to Russia. “American negotiators have been trying to push Ukraine into surrender for already almost two years,” she told the European Parliament on Tuesday morning.
On military equipment, Rubio said Ukraine’s urgent appeals for more interceptors for Patriot air defense systems had to be balanced against U.S. needs — which are trying to restock thanks to the war against Iran— as well as the demands of other allies.
“I know one of the things that President Zelenskyy has been talking about is that he’s been trying to buy interceptors. And I understand. So does every other country in the world,” Rubio said. “I also talked to Saudi Arabia today. They’d like interceptors. Israel would like interceptors. We would like interceptors. Every country in the world would like interceptors.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday accused the U.S. of holding back on sending air-defense missiles paid for by allies under the NATO-led Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List program.
“Unfortunately, the Pentagon is delaying the delivery of missiles that our partners have already paid for through the program PURL,” Zelenskyy said during a video briefing to U.S. lawmakers.
Zelenskyy also said that the U.S. is not always alerting Ukrainian authorities about incoming Russian ballistic missiles; such attacks have become more frequent and are killing people across Ukrainian cities.
“Unfortunately, we did not receive an early warning from our partners about the first wave of the Russian ballistic missile attack last night. And we are still facing speed restrictions on Starlink and Starshield services in various sectors of the front. The U.S. side has not provided Ukraine with any explanations regarding either of these two issues,” Zelenskyy said in the Monday call.
U.S. early warning “always worked and then suddenly it malfunctioned. Nobody in Ukraine believes in this,” an official familiar with the matter told POLITICO on condition of anonymity. “Americans first said it happened because of weather conditions, then it was a software malfunction, then something else … They do not provide an official explanation.”
However, Rubio said the U.S. was looking into why Ukraine had problems with information about Russian missiles on Oct. 13 and 18, saying, “perhaps it was an internal issue in terms of them being able to take the information that was being provided and systemize it and react to it.”
“I think the important takeaway for you is that there has not been some deliberate political directive to go out and harm Ukraine,” Rubio said.
Ukraine is also complaining that Elon Musk’s Starlink has throttled back speeds on its internet connections in Ukraine, making it difficult to intercept Russian drones.
Zelenskyy said Tuesday that he had raised the issues with Rubio.
“I am grateful for his willingness to help and his clear position. First, it’s about interceptors against ballistic missiles, which are needed to protect lives. Second, it’s about early warning of Russian ballistic missile attacks, which is vital. Third, it’s about the situation around Starlink/Starshield, which needs to be restored,” he said in a social media post.
The growing frictions with the U.S. come as President Donald Trump ramps up pressure on Kyiv to stop hitting Russian oil refineries and to reach a peace deal with Moscow.
“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine … They have not been doing that much,” Trump told reporters on Monday.
Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Norway on Tuesday for a new round of talks on ending Russia’s war against Ukraine.
U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said that 328 civilians were killed and more than 2,000 wounded across Ukraine last month, an 85% increase from September 2025. The U.N. said that the first two weeks of October were among the deadliest for civilians in years, driven by intensified missile and drone strikes.
This story has been updated. Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.
For a sizable chunk of its existence, the United States has been remarkably effective at manufacturing death at scale. In the years since World War II, as steel production slowed and agriculture became one big subsidy, untimely ends became one of the few things you could still expect the U.S. to make itself.
The business of bomb-dropping boomed through economic downturns and outsourcing pushes. NAFTA and the Great Recession couldn’t put a dent in America’s output of explosive ordinance. The lack of a military draft or a requirement to declare war kicked the death factory into overdrive, with defense budgets growing every year. The death toll in Iraq reached one million in the same year that Lehman Brothers collapsed. As the U.S. economy teetered on the brink, President Barack Obama was sending multi-million dollar drones to strike Yemeni weddings. Outside of a few million protestors that no one felt the need to listen to, most Americans were fine with the whole business, but with one caveat: They didn’t want to see it.
Decades after the televised spectacle of the Vietnam War, after which the Pentagon restricted what media outlets could cover, multiple wars in the Middle East were presented as a bloodless spectacle on cable, with shock-and-awe filmed and broadcast on CNN from a safe remove. In the rare instances where Americans were forced to see the deaths of Iraqi civilians up close — such as the infamous 39-minute “Collateral Murder” footage which was released by Wikileaks in 2010 — it turned public opinion against the wars permanently. That revulsion was one small part of the establishment backlash that put Donald Trump in the White House.
The same president who decried “American carnage” in his first inaugural address has inspired an unusual bloodlust in his MAGA base, offering up real-world violence in lieu of a prosperous economy or lower gas prices.
But something has shifted in the ensuing years. The same president who decried “American carnage” in his first inaugural address has inspired an unusual bloodlust in his MAGA base, offering up real-world violence in lieu of a prosperous economy or lower gas prices. Whenever his public approval ratings have flagged, most notably when voters rejected his 2020 re-election bid, Trump has stoked his base with calls to violence.
He eventually won that second term four years later, a sign from the universe that there would be no real consequences for reveling in violence. Since then, Trump has shown an extreme lack of care for the brutal — and sometimes deadly — effects of his policies. Worse still, many of his supporters seem to hunger for more bloodshed, celebrating each new instance of a Trump policy ending in death.
Some of this was to be expected. Americans are remarkably skilled at compartmentalizing the bureaucratic ways U.S. actions lead to deaths globally. When Elon Musk’s inartful Department of Government Efficiency cuts to government funding and the Trump administration’s attacks on the U.S. Agency for International Development started racking up a body count, the mood within the MAGA coalition was more indifferent than celebratory. But Trump and his messengers have a tendency to make everything more crude and less abstract.
That’s why it shouldn’t have come as a surprise when administration officials shared footage of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean. Where previous administrations were content to project strength around the globe through quasi-legal military actions for a small audience composed of other world leaders, Trump may as well have projected the operation on the side of one of his resorts.
Given the appetites he has built up among his supporters, it shouldn’t have shocked us to see them cheer the strikes on alleged drug runners. Former conservative fighters against government overreach — the sort who once lamented the deaths of militant separatists like LaVoy Finicum and Vicki Weaver — praised Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents when they killed protesting citizens. Republicans who warned about government tyranny for years celebrated scenes of people being snatched off the street and into unmarked cars. Third-party deportations, intentionally cruel detentions and partnerships with black-box prisons, like the notorious CECOT in El Salvador, created the conditions where deportees will inevitably die.
The only consistent thread in these examples is a desire to see people they don’t like get hurt or killed.
But it’s not enough for the MAGA movement to witness death in the real world. The growing conservative media market is filled with examples of people — mostly non-white or non-Christian — meeting grisly ends. “Citizen: Vigilante,” a film starring Armie Hammer that was boosted by Elon Musk, follows a landlord who kills his way through an unnamed European city after migrants attack a young girl. The Daily Wire’s bloody “Run Hide Fight: Infidels” is set on the campus of a similarly anonymous liberal arts college, and it luxuriates in bloodlust. Blue-haired liberals get their throats slashed while gay men are thrown from buildings.
In that context, Pete Hegseth’s recent call for a public execution is hardly strange. The defense secretary floated the idea of broadcasting the death by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, a former major in the Army, who was convicted in 2013 of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, four years before. In his court-martial proceedings, Hasan said he carried out the attack in response to U.S. killings in Afghanistan. He is scheduled to be executed on Dec. 3.
“We’ll make sure that people are able to . . . watch it, that it’s public,” Hegseth told Real America’s Voice, “because people need to understand that … there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”
Hegseth’s plan to livestream Hasan’s execution was initially supported by Trump. But on Thursday, following widespread outcry that spanned the globe, the president announced on Truth Social that he was calling off the broadcast. Still, he still half-supported the aborted snuff film, saying that it “might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM.”
Trump’s supporters didn’t need to wonder if he was drawing a line at broadcasting a grisly death. Earlier this week, the president shared footage featuring the last moments of a man who was killed by a tiger in a U.K. zoo. He followed that up with an AI-generated video that struck a celebratory tone, showing Trump chasing away a tiger while remaining unharmed.
On the other side of a computer screen, his MAGA base must have been laughing along.
Pete Hegseth is odd. This isn’t just a personal opinion, though there’s no doubt that he gets widely mocked for his carefully cultivated public persona, which is a mix of megachurch preacher, gym rat and Robert Duvall’s napalm-huffing character in “Apocalypse Now.” The fact that the defense secretary is different is simply a statistical reality.
It’s not just that he’s a white evangelical Christian, a group that, according to PRRI, makes up only 13% of the population. Hegseth’s church, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, is extreme even for the right, with a leader who argues against women’s suffrage and teaches that slavery was the height of “mutual intimacy and harmony” between the races. Even within MAGA, those remain fringe positions, despite great efforts by some Christian nationalists to reignite “debate” on such long-resolved issues.
All this means it’s hard not to laugh when Hegseth pontificates about his hatred of “weirdos.” Although he has a war to fight in Iran, somehow he finds time to focus his attention on what he clearly sees as the greater battle: remaking the military according to the demands of his very white, very male, very right-wing vision.
“No fatties, no t******s, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals,” Hegseth said during a Sept. 30 speech at the U.S. Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. He didn’t explicitly say “no women,” but his kicker — “with testosterone testing on top” — made the implication plain. The “no beardos” demand may seem strange, but as Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times explained, it’s coded racism. Hegseth ended medical exemptions that allowed beards for people, mostly Black men, with certain skin conditions. This may explain why he has no problem when white men have beards, as seen on his church leader, Doug Wilson, or the many celebrities the defense secretary likes to take photos with. (Hegseth himself sported a beard in 2018.)
“Wimps,” “radicals” and “weirdos” are more ambiguous pejoratives, but Hegseth’s recent actions suggest his definitions are expansive enough to cover the vast majority of Americans. He’s been on a firing spree, demanding a 20% cut of the Pentagon’s top brass in an apparent effort to expunge those he deems “woke.” The move comes after nearly two years of blocking promotions for and pushing out Black and female military leaders. Hegseth also rewrote the list of religions recognized by the Pentagon, narrowing from over 200 faith categorizations to a mere 31 — 22 of which are Christian. He claims this is to simplify the bureaucracy, but his motives are likely more disturbing: to stigmatize non-Christians and restrict the definition of “Christian.” The Air Force is already forcing service members to register their religious beliefs under the truncated list, drawing criticism from atheists and others whose belief systems are not included as options.
Last week, Hegseth upped the ante by announcing the formation of the Office of Religious Affairs “to strengthen the moral, ethical and spiritual readiness of our warfighters.” Despite boilerplate claims that this action will not “compel religious participation” or “diminish the free exercise rights” of service members, both the policies and pomp surrounding the announcement made it clear that the goal is to promote Hegseth’s version of Christianity — and shame anyone who does not adhere to it. The office will be run by the defense secretary himself and, in ominous language, promises to fund “research, technology, and analytical tools to support and assess spiritual fitness,” which sounds like a data-gathering operation to ensure troops meet Hegseth’s esoteric views on proper religious practice.
“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God,” Hegseth said in his announcement, using language from the Book of Ephesians that will be sure to resonate with Christian evangelicals.
Taken together, this purge helps clarify what Hegseth means when he’s talking about “weirdos” and “wimps,” as well as other slurs like “t******s.” He’s hostile to women, the LGBTQ+ community, people of color and anyone who doesn’t adhere to his vision of conservative Christianity — although it’s worth noting that with his message of peace and love, Jesus Christ himself would not be accepted by Hegseth as a Christian.
The secretary may have gone to Princeton University, but he hasn’t yet grasped the concept of irony. The people he deems “weirdos” far outnumber those in his narrow category, presumably of non-weirdos, many times over.
Hegseth has tried to justify his position and rhetoric by arguing that a proper military should only contain “the real 1%” of supposedly superior people. But as Eliot Cohen of The Atlantic notes, this claim is ignorant of history. You need large numbers to win wars, which inherently means that armies can’t be elitist institutions.
Hegseth has a real math problem on his hands. His “real 1%” of alleged non-weirdos is just not enough people to staff a modern military, especially in times of war. His solution appears to be to hit the road, trying to recruit more mini-Hegseths to enlist. On Sept. 19 he embarked on the Send Me Tour in an effort to reach out to people in white evangelical-heavy parts of the country with a Bible-heavy pitch about how Jesus wants them to fight for their country. Both the tour’s name and the secretary’s stump speech rely heavily on Isaiah 6:8; Hegseth equates God’s call to the prophet to be faithful with his own plea for evangelicals to join the military.
In a response video, Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat from Georgia who is also an ordained minister with multiple theology degrees, didn’t mince his words. “Pete Hegseth is busy twisting the scriptures yet again . . . When Isaiah answers that call, it is not a call to go into battle.” Instead, Warnock said, “Isaiah challenges corruption” and “those who would crush the poor.”
Those objectives, of course, are not remotely Hegseth’s. His creation of a hierarchy that places white, straight men at the top and relegates everyone else into an underclass of “weirdos” and “wimps” ignores the Bible’s historical context — and actual meaning. Anyone who doubts that can simply examine his behavior in office and his monomaniacal focus on sorting America’s service members into a worthy-unworthy dichotomy, based solely on how much they adhere to his own self-serving ideals of what a soldier should look like.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is putting religion closer to the top of the Pentagon’s chain of command.
Hegseth announced the creation of a new Office of Religious Affairs during his State of the Force address Wednesday. The office will report directly to Hegseth and advise Pentagon leadership on religious policy, funding and the “spiritual readiness” of U.S. service members.
“No staff filters, no bureaucratic dilution — a direct line to the secretary,” Hegseth said.
The office will also oversee the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and advocate for funding for religious programs across the military.
The Pentagon memo establishing the office says it cannot “compel religious participation” or diminish the rights of service members, civilian employees or family members “of any faith or no faith.”
“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,” Hegseth said. “God is good. Evil is not. And America’s military must understand the difference.”
Hegseth also criticized what he called the military’s previous embrace of “political correctness and secular humanism” and claimed fewer than 5% of service members identify as nonreligious.
“So 95% of our force recognizes an Almighty God,” he said.
The Pentagon’s most recent publicly released data, from 2019, found roughly 70% of active-duty personnel identified as Christian. Nearly a quarter had an unknown or unclassified religious affiliation.
The office follows a series of changes Hegseth has made to religious life in the military. The Pentagon this year condensed more than 200 religious affiliation codes to 31, initially eliminating specific classifications for atheists, Unitarian Universalists, pagans and Wiccans, among others.
Hegseth has also hosted Christian worship services at the Pentagon. During one service in March, he prayed for God to enable U.S. troops to inflict violence “against those who deserve no mercy.”
President Donald Trump’s war against Iran, which just passed its seven month mark, is deeply unpopular among Americans, new polling continues to suggest. A survey from the Associated Press/NORC Research Center published Thursday reports that 71% of adults disapprove of how Trump is handling the Iran war, started alongside Israel in late February, while 69% say the war has not been worth fighting.
“More than half of adults say the country as a whole, the national economy, and their local economy are worse off since Trump was reelected in 2025,” the survey reports. “Most Americans (73%) say the country is heading in the wrong direction, including 92% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans.”
The president seems to realize this growing frustration could cost Republicans dearly in the midterm elections next month, possibly losing GOP control of the House, Senate or both. “It’s possible,” Trump mused to reporters outside the White House Thursday. But he continues to insist that the Iran war is worth it — ostensibly to prevent the nation from obtaining a nuclear weapon, despite the nuclear stockpiles of both the U.S. and Israel — while doubling down on threats and deploying even more troops to the region.
On Thursday, officials told the Wall Street Journal the Pentagon is sending a third aircraft-carrier strike group and additional Marine Corps ships to the Middle East, expected to arrive at the end of November. It would add around 10,000 more troops to the region, putting further strain on the Navy, which has been under pressure from near-record deployments and supply shortages.
But it does seem like Trump is waiting until after the voting to renew bombing Iran, as the Journal reported in late September. In a sprawling interview with Time published Thursday, the president said as much. “Because by annihilating Iran, we’ve created peace in the world,” he said. “With Iran, I don’t think you could ever have peace.”
Login
