Apple’s Mac Mini M4 is one of the best mini computers you can buy, and it’s $150 off. While it’s a good deal on a new, older-generation model, it’s more expensive than it was at launch.
The Fellow Aiden Precision Coffee Maker is a smart, high-end machine that offers pour-over quality. You can get it refurbished from the brand for 25 percent off.
LONDON — Nigel Farage has been careful to downplay his closeness to Donald Trump to a MAGA-loathing British public. But to U.S. conservatives, it’s a different story.
“There are very few human beings I know with whom I agree on so much as I do with Donald Trump,” the Reform UK leader told an American podcast. “And I admire his guts and I admire his courage.”
During an interview with Trump-aligned commentator Benny Johnson on Sept 30., the veteran Brexiteer struck a markedly warmer tone toward the U.S. president than in any of his recent remarks for a British audience.
“Donald’s been a friend for many, many years. I’m a regular at Mar-a-Lago,” Farage boasted on the Benny Show. “I get on with many of his family. We have a laugh together — I mean, he’s a proper bloke.”
In Britain, Farage has publicly dampened his closeness to Trump as he tries to position himself as a contender for U.K. prime minister, particularly since the war with Iran.
“I haven’t really been in touch with Trump for many months,” Farage said in an interview with Times Radio in April, as the U.S. and Israel got bogged down in a price-spiking conflict with Tehran.
A spokesperson for Farage told POLITICO: “Nigel has never hidden his relationship with the President. However, he has been a critical friend over Canada, Greenland, Ukraine and various other issues.”
Farage, whose right-wing Reform insurgency has been a disruptive force to traditional British politics, had to correct his initial support for the war, which has been perceived negatively in U.K. from the off.
Initially Farage said that Britain should “do all we can” to support the U.S.-Israeli action in the Middle East. He’d later go on to say “let’s not get ourselves involved in another foreign war.”
But Farage clearly sees his links with the U.S. right as deeply important, too. As he told Johnson, there have been numerous trips to D.C. and Mar-a-Lago — even if allies have also noted their relationship has cooled since 2024 and not all his Palm Beach visits have yielded meetings with Trump.
Farage noted on the show that there are things they don’t see eye-to-eye on, but was keen to stress they are “friends and allies” who “agree on quite a lot.”
he world is starting to understand that there is no way to fully and lastingly protect itself from President Donald Trump.
The man just can’t let things go — and he’ll get creative to get what he wants.
The latest blowup over Ukraine is emblematic of Trump’s wily persistence, and it suggests a challenging two years lie ahead for the international set even if Democrats gain some power in the midterm elections.
Not that long ago, Trump seemed to have patched up ties with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Kyiv made gains against Russia. Trump signed legislation last month that was championed by his late friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to impose heavy new sanctions and tariffs to punish Russia for its war on Ukraine.
This month, the original Trump — the one who fawns over Russian leader Vladimir Putin and despises Zelenskyy — roared back. He waived many of the legislation’s penalties on Russia, moved to buy Russian diesel and signaled he’s more interested in doing business with Moscow than seeking justice for Kyiv. Ukrainians suspect the U.S. has pressured them by throttling its satellite connections and intelligence-sharing. (The Trump administration disputes much of this.)
“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump said Monday as he welcomed the idea of an arms control summit with Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping that might include talks about Ukraine.
The lesson, foreign officials and others steeped in diplomacy tell me, is that you cannot truly change Trump’s mind or stop his overall trajectory. Even if Trump seems briefly chastened or stages a tactical retreat, he will eventually return in new, often-surprising modes to push his original views and goals. He will try to exhaust you into submission.
Imagine how startling it is to be Ukrainian these days as Trump pressures you to make concessions to Russia by blaming you for a global energy crisis he caused by launching a war on Iran. Or what it’s like for officials across European capitals trying to craft a response, knowing there’s never an end to the process.
“There is no immunity to Donald Trump. He makes a deal in order to make a better deal the next day,” one senior European official mused, having been granted anonymity because the topic involves sensitive diplomacy.
It’s hard to blame world leaders who think they’ve learned to manage Trump only to be bewildered by a sudden left hook on his part. Foreign policy is often driven by hope when you lack good options. And Trumpology is a confounding, but still a relatively new, subfield.
Besides, Trump’s messaging is inconsistent, incoherent and nonstrategic — characteristics that can obscure his single-minded pursuit of his goals. So the global actors dealing with him — whether it’s the Gulf Arab states who shower him with gifts or the Canadians furious over his trade and territorial threats — sometimes think they’ve come to terms with him only to find they’re fighting on a newly configured plane.
A Supreme Court ruling that gutted many of Trump’s tariffs earlier this year was good news in many capitals. But since then, the so-called Tariff Man has moved to impose the import taxes under pretexts not considered by the court, including turning to accusations involving forced labor.
The White House doesn’t dispute Trump’s aggressive tactics.
“There is no greater fighter for America First interests than President Trump — and he is willing to look anyone in the eye to deliver wins on behalf of the United States,” spokesperson Anna Kelly told me in a statement.
The Greenland saga shows the limits of trying to mollify Trump.
In his first term, Trump wanted to buy the frozen island. The idea was shelved amid global laughter, but authorities in Greenland and Denmark made it clear to Trump that they welcomed more U.S. investment in the Danish territory.
In his second term, Trump huffed and puffed about an all-out U.S. takeover of Greenland, only to agree in September to an expanded U.S. military footprint that he could have gotten anyway under existing, decades-old diplomatic accords without all the drama. The whole affair has led to lingering anger in Europe about what Canada’s leader called a “rupture” in the global order — but many European officials hoped that the saga had faded away.
Yet, it’s far from certain that Trump has given up on possessing Greenland. Just days ago, he touted on social media plans to start oil, gas and mineral exploration in “our new and beautiful Greenland.”
The use of “our” is more than a little suggestive.
Defying Trump, too, can get you only so far.
Brazilians effectively told Trump to take a hike when he used tariffs and sanctions to punish the country for charging its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, in a coup attempt.
A few months later, as Bolsonaro was about to start his prison sentence, Trump seemed to admit defeat in his effort to help his political ally. “That’s too bad,” he said in November 2025, with little emotion. (“Brazil Defied Trump and Won,” The New York Times declared.)
World leaders are doing what they can to make their countries Trump-resistant, if not all-out Trump-proof.
That has meant everything from diversifying their sources of trade and security alliances to joining Trump on ventures that, on the surface at least, can be helpful to them. (Then there are the many countries, especially in Africa, that diplomats privately tell me are happy to be off Trump’s radar.)
My takeaway from watching all of this, though, is that it’s not enough to stay one step ahead of Trump. You have to stay several steps ahead, and you have to be wildly imaginative about the lengths to which Trump and his devoted aides are willing to go to complicate your life.
The second Trump administration is filled with people who have turned to unique, bizarre and clever interpretations of law and reality to push his agenda. It’s not always clear who is behind which move, but it’s hard to imagine Trump isn’t fine with most of what’s happening.
It’s why a teenager is being held in immigration detention for the actions of his grandmother decades ago. It’s why Congress can scream and shout about its spending orders yet Trump ignores it.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said other nations should not hope that the Republican Party will shed Trump’s worldview, including his disdain for allies, once Trump’s out of power.
“I would love for our allies to know that we have consistent common adversaries that we’re going to work together to fight. I just don’t know that you can make that guarantee,” Murphy, a frequent Trump critic, told me. “That’s painful to say, but given the state of the Republican Party right now, it’s true.”
I understand why Ukraine and the European Union are trying to diversify their sources of intelligence and military industrial bases as Trump keeps chasing love from Russia.
Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claims, the reality is that the United States can no longer be trusted for such security assistance.
But it’s not enough to find new intelligence partners or weapons manufacturers. You have to ask bigger questions, like, “What are the untapped streams of intelligence that no one knows are out there? What’s a potential weapon no one has considered? How can I acquire what I need before Trump stops me?”
Governments need to have plans — now — for scenarios that seem completely crazy. Better to be wrong than unprepared.
Still, even if you do all of that … “I don’t think it’s possible to stay two or three steps ahead of Trump,” said Charles Kupchan, a former senior national security official during the Obama administration who apparently enjoys raining on parades.
“He acts on impulse,” argued Kupchan, who has a new book out on the crumbling world order. “We need to try to limit the damage he’s causing and ride him out.”
A Democratic win in November’s midterms — one or both chambers of Congress — is unlikely to do much to rein in Trump’s actions abroad during his final years, current and former U.S. and foreign officials tell me.
He still has the veto and has been willing to ignore congressional demands. There’s also the fact that presidents have significantly more power to act in unilateral ways overseas than they do domestically.
Ukraine, the European Union, the world — all will be dealing with a politically wounded Trump who’s likely to double down on what he feels he must have.
Fox News’ closing argument for the final midterm elections of Donald Trump’s political reign is increasingly frantic. The network promised its viewers prosperity. With early voting underway in most states, its best pitch now is footage of burning streets in France.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Fox repeatedly sold Trump’s return to office as the cure for high prices. As economic indicators began to disappoint toward the end of 2025, the network pivoted to promises that 2026 would bring an economic boom. Once again, that prosperity has failed to materialize. Now, with the year nearing its end and Fox’s leading personalities struggling to explain why voters should reward Republicans for their stewardship of the country, the network has changed its pitch: Forget what Republicans promised to do for you. Be terrified of what Democrats will supposedly do to you.
Jesse Watters said the quiet part out loud on “The Five” on Oct. 15. Polling, he explained, shows the MAGA base is engaged and locked in, while “the non-MAGA faction and independents” are where Republicans are exposed. He cited an interview with Caroline Sunshine, a former Disney star turned MAGA operative, who told him the GOP could not simply sell the great stuff Trump had done because accomplishments “don’t motivate.”
“You got to go out and have fear porn,” Watters concluded. “You have to say, ‘These people are going to take your healthcare, they’re going to let in the Third World, they’re going to jack up your taxes,’ and that’s what’s going to get people to come out to vote. You have to say, these people are scary and dangerous.”
His fellow host, Greg Gutfeld, apparently delighted, replied, “Good for you, fear porn!”
Fox’s fear-mongering is a performance for the converted, intended to escape the studio through Trump’s Truth Social feed and whatever the mainstream press can be induced to cover.
Notice whom Watters said he was worried about. MAGA is engaged. It is the “non-MAGA faction and independents” who trouble Republicans — precisely the voters least likely to be persuaded by the insular world of “The Five.” Fox’s fear-mongering is a performance for the converted, intended to escape the studio through Trump’s Truth Social feed and whatever the mainstream press can be induced to cover.
The result is a campaign by the network that has the instability of an advertising operation testing different nightmares. The targets change, but the pitch remains the same. One day it is rioting in France. The next it is a Democratic senator’s comments about prosecuting officials who break the law. Now Fox is turning its cameras toward the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar, scrutinizing her family’s movements and encouraging speculation about her whereabouts. The instruction never changes: Your dissatisfaction with the people in power must not become a vote against them.
Sean Hannity has called this “the single most important, consequential midterm election in our lifetime,” warning that Democrats would “shred your Constitution” on behalf of a “radicalized leftist democratic socialist communist movement.” Republicans, Hannity conceded, may be “imperfect” and even “pathetically weak,” but “Democrats are completely insane.” He has also claimed Democrats want to abolish the family and seize control of Americans’ assets, food and healthcare. Laura Ingraham warned Wednesday that Democrats want the public to “submit or be crushed.”
Coincentedally, Fox’s October surprise arrived on cue. What began as student protests over conditions at a high school north of Paris has expanded into a broader protest movement, with large demonstrations across France. Although the overwhelming majority of demonstrators have marched peacefully, scattered violence over the weekend gave Fox the footage it needed. Media Matters tallied at least five hours and 18 minutes of network airtime devoted to the unrest between Saturday and Wednesday morning. Monday alone accounted for two hours and 22 minutes, with the subject raised in every hour of programming from 5 a.m. until midnight.
Ingraham called the footage a “reality check” for anyone who doubts the stakes of the midterms, claiming a Democratic victory would bring the same chaos to the United States. Brian Kilmeade, co-host of “Fox and Friends,” warned viewers that “this type of stuff is coming here.” Hugh Hewitt was even blunter: “It’s coming here.” Kayleigh McEnany, the former Trump press secretary now collecting a Fox paycheck, called the scenes “very instructive” as Americans decide who should lead the country.
The argument presented by Fox hosts was as crude as it was consequential: French unrest became evidence of what American Democrats supposedly intend to unleash at home. The network offered little reason to believe that the political circumstances in France were transferable to the United States. It did not need to establish that connection. It needed viewers to feel it.
Then came the feedback loop that has defined the Trump era. The president, who often posts in real time while watching Fox, declared Sunday morning that “France is burning” and demanded that the U.S. close its borders. By Monday evening, footage of the protests had made its way into his stump speech for embattled Sen. Roger Marshall in Kansas, where video clips had already been screened for rallygoers. Trump described France as a nation being conquered by migrants, jihadists and communists hostile to Christianity and Western civilization. Democrats, he claimed, wanted to bring the same destruction to America.
House Speaker Mike Johnson joined the pile-on, posting that France was “descending into chaos because they wanted OPEN BORDERS.” POLITICO reported that Republican operatives saw the story as a potential jolt for their campaigns, with party sources saying that linking the perceived anarchy to Democratic policies would be a focus of the GOP’s closing message. Fox News Digital further amplified the narrative by publishing an investigation identifying what it called “a transnational network of communist and socialist organizations” linked to the French movement.
The process is familiar: Fox finds a frightening story, strips it of context and recasts it as a warning about Democrats. Trump amplifies the coverage, giving the story the authority of the presidency. Republican operatives then convert the resulting panic into a campaign message, which Fox can cover as a political development in its own right.
This is a campaign-season ritual. In 2014, the fearmongering centered on Ebola. In 2018, it was migrant caravans. In 2020, the Hunter Biden laptop became an obsession. In 2022, Fox returned to the old-fashioned panic over “America’s crime crisis.” In 2024, it was Kamala Harris being for “they/them.” Each story was presented as an urgent national threat with implications for the election.
This year’s French panic, however, appears to have sputtered. While Trump continued invoking the unrest on the campaign trail, by Wednesday morning Fox’s coverage had fallen sharply. The network was already moving on to its next outrage: days-old comments from Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat and former CIA analyst.
At a University of Chicago event on Oct. 13, Slotkin discussed how Democrats might hold Trump administration officials accountable if they regained power. She said she wanted to pursue significant cases against officials who enabled unlawful conduct and to make prospective employees think carefully about the legal risks of working for the administration.
“I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, that sounds fun, I might get an opportunity,’” Slotkin said. “I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.’ I want that deterrence message.”
There is a legitimate debate to be had about how Democrats would exercise investigative and prosecutorial powers if they regain control of Congress, and politicians should be careful not to imply that public servants are presumptively guilty because of whom they work for. But Slotkin’s stated target was officials who enable unlawful conduct, not young conservatives as a class. Her remarks concerned the prospect of legal accountability, not a blanket prohibition on conservative participation in government.
Fox seized on the comments as evidence that Democrats intend to intimidate young conservatives out of public service. Slotkin pushed back, arguing that the Supreme Court’s grant of presidential immunity did not extend to people who commit illegal acts at a president’s direction.
So then the network turned its attention to Omar, exposing just how selective its concern about intimidation can be.
Earlier this month, federal agents searched Omar’s home near Washington under a judicially authorized warrant. Citing unnamed sources, Fox reported that the investigation concerned immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child. The allegations remain allegations; the existence of an investigation does not establish wrongdoing by the congresswoman.
Fox did not merely cover the search. Its reporters were at her door on the morning it happened. On Oct. 20, Fox News Digital published an article centered on Omar’s daughters arriving at the residence. The report described her eldest daughter, Isra Hirsi, pulling into the driveway after dark and carrying a bag into the house.
The headline read, “Omar’s daughters show up at scene of DC raid as rumors swirl about embattled rep’s location.” A promotional post on X asked, “Where is Ilhan Omar?” and explained that the congresswoman had not been spotted publicly since the search and that Fox was “tracking new activity at the residence.” It described her daughters’ arrivals and noted that her husband had continued to appear outside the home.
The framing was unmistakable. Fox was not simply reporting on the status of an investigation. It was inviting viewers to treat the movements of Omar’s family as clues in a mystery, while encouraging speculation about the congresswoman’s whereabouts. One of the daughters, when approached by Fox News Digital, responded with a pointed question: “What’s your problem?”
It is a fair question. The public has a legitimate interest in allegations involving an elected official. That interest does not automatically extend to tracking her children’s movements or turning their arrival at a family home into a political spectacle. Fox’s reporting made the family part of the story without establishing why their ordinary activities were relevant to the investigation.
The episode also exposes the hypocrisy of Fox’s Slotkin coverage. The network wants viewers to believe that Democrats’ talk of accountability will intimidate young conservatives into avoiding public service. Yet its own reporters are making the movements of a Democratic official’s children into content, inviting public harassment and targeting.
Fox’s fixation on Omar has long gone beyond policy criticism. Its personalities have repeatedly invoked her Somali background and Muslim identity to cast her as an alien presence in American politics.
Fox’s fixation on Omar has long gone beyond policy criticism. Its personalities have repeatedly invoked her Somali background and Muslim identity to cast her as an alien presence in American politics. Kilmeade recently seized on an account of the congresswoman being disappointed by the homelessness she encountered in New York after arriving in the United States to accuse her of being ungrateful. The implication was that Omar’s criticism of the country was itself evidence of a defective character.
That framing makes the doorstep surveillance more disturbing. Omar is not simply a politician whose positions can be challenged. She is a perpetual outsider whose loyalty is always in question and whose private life is treated as fair game. When Fox’s cameras turn toward her family, the distinction between political journalism and political harassment becomes harder to defend.
The network’s rapid succession of panics reflects the problem at the heart of the Republican campaign. Trump promised to make Americans more prosperous. Fox helped sell that promise. But with voters still confronting the cost of living and increasingly skeptical of the administration’s performance, the network has little incentive to dwell on whether Republicans have delivered. It is far easier to insist that the alternative would be worse.
Fear can be a powerful political tool. But it has limits. It works best when voters have little direct evidence with which to test the claims being made to them. Fox’s message is competing with a reality its audience can see for itself: The economy is not delivering the uncomplicated prosperity Trump promised, and dissatisfaction with the direction of the country is creating opportunities for Democrats.
The network can show its viewers burning streets in France. It can portray a senator’s comments about legal accountability as a threat to an entire generation of conservatives. It can turn a congresswoman’s family into the subject of a lurid guessing game. None of that answers the basic question now facing voters: Have Republicans earned another two years in power?
The president of Cyprus wrote to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling for the EU to resume talks on its mutual defense clause.
“I cannot overstate the importance of this provision for the EU and its Member States, especially in times of geopolitical uncertainty,” Nikos Christodoulides wrote in a letter dated Oct. 20 addressed to von der Leyen, seen by POLITICO.
Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty states that if an EU member is faced with “armed aggression,” other members have an obligation to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power.”
The defense clause article had risen up the agenda because of mounting geopolitical threats, including U.S. President Donald Trump’s undermining of the transatlantic alliance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and hybrid warfare campaign against the EU, and wars in the Middle East.
“Given the gravity of the challenges we face, Cyprus would welcome the resumption of discussions at the relevant preparatory bodies. I would therefore appreciate an update on the proposals under consideration, as well as a timeline for the next steps,” Christodoulides wrote.
The EU gamed out how the clause would work in practice with exercises earlier this year. Cyprus’ six-month presidency of the European Council, which ended on June 30, prioritized the issue after Iranian drones struck a British base on Cypriot soil in March.
But the topic has largely fallen off the bloc’s radar, as the EU turns its attention to negotiating its seven-year, almost €2 trillion budget and finding more funding for Ukraine.
Article 42.7 is not scheduled to be discussed at any European leaders’ summits in the foreseeable future, confirmed an EU official, granted anonymity to speak freely.
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.
Czech President Petr Pavel says a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine was “quite close” – until President Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Russian diesel.
In an interview conducted on Tuesday with the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which includes POLITICO, Pavel said coordinated U.S.-European sanctions on Russian oil, oligarchs, and other industries were putting Russia “under strain.” But the deal Trump announced earlier this month, in which Russia would supply hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel to the U.S., gave Russia “time to breathe.”
“It will be much harder now,” said Pavel. “Russia uses this momentum to get out of pressure, and it’s kind of a moral boost for them.”
The White House on Wednesday said Trump “successfully negotiated” the deal in order to supply the global market with “massive amounts of diesel and bring prices down.”
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post to social media that the deal “plays into Russia’s hands” and allows Russia “to kill more, wage war for longer, have even less respect for America, and inflict even greater losses and damage on the world.” He accused Trump of using peace talks in Florida as a “smokescreen” as the administration pursued its deal with Russia.
Zelenskyy’s criticism was the latest indicator of rising tensions between Kyiv and Washington. Trump has repeatedly expressed frustrations with Zelenskyy, accusing him of elongating the war. By contrast, of late he has spoken warmly of Putin and said this week that “Russia frankly has been fine on Ukraine.”
But Pavel offered the Ukrainian president words of support on Wednesday.
“I believe that President Zelensky and the whole of Ukraine is a victim of a conflict,” said Pavel. “So, I would be probably the last to blame Ukraine for being guilty of the conflict. It was not Ukraine who attacked Russia. It was not Ukraine who was threatening Russia.”
He added that Trump shows a more open approach to Russia than any European leader.
“To some extent, he may be attracted by Vladimir Putin as a leader with authority, but I don’t think that … President Trump sees it from a position of a struggle between democracy and autocracies because he’s looking at it simply from the point of view of economic prosperity for the United States,” Pavel added.
Though Pavel indicated concerns about the diesel deal, he declined to say the U.S. had betrayed Ukraine or other European partners.
“I don’t know yet if we can call it betrayal, but I would call it a mistake,” he said. “Because … it’s now giving Russia a new hope: New hope that they can disregard Europe, they can disregard Ukraine, they can focus on making a deal with the United States, potentially with China, and arranging all things up to their priorities and strategies. I believe that it’s clearly against our interest in Europe.”
Pavel also didn’t rule out a future in which European countries would buy Russian oil, but added that it “will take time” before that happens.
“If one day Russia is a country respecting other countries’ sovereignty and borders, why not have regular business with such a country? But Russia is not there yet,” he said.
The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network harnesses the resources of the company’s newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, The Telegraph, Onet and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms: online, print, TV and audio.
KYIV — Jordan O’Brien has fought for Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began, including during the 2022 liberation of Kherson and the 2024 incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. But after years of service, O’Brien says he would warn other foreigners against joining up, citing the bureaucratic problems he has faced.
O’Brien, a New Zealander, complained about red tape and a state apparatus that appears to have little understanding and compassion for people volunteering to fight for a foreign country. If that isn’t fixed, Ukraine may have a harder time attracting desperately needed recruits, hampering its effort to continue resisting Russia.
“If Kyiv wants more foreign fighters, it needs to fix the ridiculous bureaucratic bias that screws all of us foreigners over who have already fought for Ukraine,” said O’Brien, who has been sentenced in absentia by Russia to 14 years in prison for fighting alongside Ukraine.
As of August, the defense ministry said some 16,000 foreigners from 72 countries were serving in the Ukrainian armed forces, giving crucial help to a 900,000-strong military that is chronically short of recruits.
The volunteers are facing a looming deadline. The Ukrainian parliament last year passed a law mandating that foreigners serving in the military have to file paperwork by Nov. 10 to get temporary residence permits.
“If nothing changes, then after November 10, a significant number of the foreigners defending Ukraine will technically be in the country illegally,” Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Liubov Halan said in a social media post.
That clashes with the official recruitment information given to foreign volunteers, which says their contract “is the basis for legal long-term stay in Ukraine.”
“Even though I can prove I was serving in the Ukrainian army, they still make it impossible for us foreigners; none of them have any respect for people who fight for Ukraine, and they treat us like illegal aliens,” O’Brien said.
“I have been in three different Ukrainian units, and all of them have made mistakes in my military contracts or done them in a way that is not legally correct, so when I go to immigration to apply for the residency that I fought hard for, they ended up giving me a fine that I had to pay on the spot because my information was incorrect in my contract,” O’Brien added.
The Ukrainian military ombudsman’s office has fielded more than 300 complaints this year from foreign volunteers and their families related to granting combatant status, early termination of contracts at the soldier’s request and ensuring timely medical care.
In a report for the Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis think tank, an American volunteer said that neither he nor most of his comrades had received their UBD — the document confirming combat participation that opens the door to veteran status in Ukraine.
Part of the issue is due to an uneven transition from paper identification to digital military IDs that has left out many foreign volunteers.
A study by the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper earlier this year found that language barriers are a big problem, especially for Spanish-speaking Colombians who constitute the largest group of foreign service members. The study also found that if a veteran has been discharged from the Ukrainian forces, they can sometimes face deportation.
Kyiv is waking up to the problem.
“We highly value everyone’s contribution and fully recognize the state’s responsibility to uphold their rights and legitimate interests,” said Liudmyla Kalenchuk, head of the soldiers’ rights department in Ukraine’s military ombudsman’s office.
Last month, the defense ministry started a working group aimed at improving terms of service, legalization and treatment of foreign soldiers and their families. The Ukrainian parliament is also working on legislation to simplify and extend deadlines to legalize the stay of foreign fighters in the country and lift other bureaucratic burdens.
“Many foreign fighters are unable to complete the process of obtaining a residence permit, as they are carrying out combat missions far from their unit’s base and cannot simultaneously gather the necessary documents and visit the migration service,” said Halan.
Kalenchuk argued that legalization problems are not widespread, but did say there are vulnerable categories of service members — for instance, those who lost their passports while serving, including citizens of Russia, Belarus and South Africa.
Foreign fighters
Ukraine opened its doors to foreign volunteers like O’Brien in the first hours of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, when the country’s survival was at stake, said Meaghan Mobbs, president of the R.T. Weatherman Foundation, an NGO helping war veterans and their families.
“No one could have predicted either the extraordinary number of foreigners who would answer that call or that Russia’s war of aggression would continue at this scale for years,” Mobbs said. “What began as an emergency wartime mechanism became something much larger and more permanent. The system now has to catch up.”
Russia also recruits foreign fighters, many from poorer countries keen to get cash or Russian citizenship. Its North Korean allies are also fighting alongside Russian forces.
Ukraine offers foreigners a freedom-fighting cause, combat experience, deals worth up to $10,000 per month for dangerous front-line duty and the possibility of quitting the three-year contract after six months of service. The pay is the same as that received by Ukrainian soldiers.
About 8,000 foreign volunteers serve in the ground forces, while the remaining 8,000 are dispersed among the National Guard, special transport service and other units, said Kalenchuk.
In its recruitment information, Ukraine says volunteers should be between 18 and 60 years of age, fit, legally allowed to enter Ukraine, andthat military and combat experience is an advantage. Only people who understand English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian or Ukrainian are accepted.
The flow of foreign recruits is growing, from some 100 a month in 2022 to 600 a month now. About 40% come from Latin America.
Most come to Ukraine to help fight against Russia, while some add that pay and the opportunity to gain combat experience are also motivating factors, Kalenchuk said.
Ukrainian units have differing abilities to receive, train, communicate with and administer foreign personnel.
“Foreign volunteers themselves also vary enormously in experience, capability and motivation. Ukraine has learned a tremendous amount since 2022 about what makes a foreign volunteer genuinely valuable, and those lessons should shape what comes next,” Mobbs said.
Family complaints
As well as red tape linked to residence status, foreign fighters also complain about not being paid, not being given adequate medical care, the lack of official combatant status that gives social benefits and protections, and inadequate provision of food and military supplies, the military ombudsman’s office said.
There is also criticism over how Ukrainian bureaucracy deals with the families of volunteers.
More than 10% of the complaints to the ombudsman’s office come from families requesting official confirmation of whether a volunteer is missing or has been killed in action, Kalenchuk said.
“For me, this is where the shortcomings become very personal. These are mothers, fathers, wives and children whose loved ones traveled thousands of miles to defend a country that was not their own. Some families have told us they feel forgotten after that sacrifice — or even maligned when they ask difficult questions or push for answers. That should never happen,” Mobbs said.
According to her, some families have learned of deaths from fellow soldiers, or via social media, before receiving official notification. Families can spend months navigating military units, ministries, diplomatic missions, identification and repatriation procedures, and compensation and benefits under Ukrainian law without one clear pathway or person responsible for guiding them.
Wounded volunteers are entitled to free medical treatment and a special payout in the event of disability. Families of fallen soldiers receive compensation of 15 million hryvnia (€300,000).
“Grief is difficult enough without having to become an expert in the bureaucracy of a foreign country at war,” Mobbs added.
However, she said there is reason for optimism. The Weatherman Foundation helped organize a meeting between Halan, the deputy defense minister, and families of nine American volunteers who were killed or went missing.
“What mattered to me was that she listened. The families were able to explain directly what had happened to them and where the system had failed them. The ministry is now working on administrative and legislative changes, and we are committed to helping turn those experiences into solutions,” Mobbs said.
The ministry will take this experience into account in its work on supporting foreign military personnel and their families, Halan said.
“They are sons of their own homeland, yet in a moment of crisis, they became brothers to the Ukrainian people and soldiers in the Ukrainian army. Therefore, we have an obligation to ensure that their families receive high-quality support at every stage of their interaction with the Ukrainian state,” Halan added.
Unless the country’s approach to foreign volunteers changes, O’Brien said he would warn potential volunteers against signing up.
“The military HR system and the civilian departments need significant change because right now I tell everyone to stay away from Ukraine, because you won’t be looked after if anything goes wrong and even with a lawyer on my side it’s an uphill battle to do anything,” O’Brien said.
But when asked if he regrets fighting alongside Ukrainians against Russia since 2022, O’Brien said no.
“I joined because Russia is a terrorist regime that needs to be stopped,” he said, adding: “I stay with Ukraine because it is the people that I fight for, not [President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy or the government or the departments who continue to fuck us over again and again, but the everyday Ukrainians who just want to live in peace.”
Donald Trump speaks during an RNC fundraising event at Mar-a-Lago on October 16, 2026. | Eric Lee/Getty Images
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.
Welcome to The Logoff: President Donald Trump is cozying up to Russia again.
What’s happening? On Wednesday, Russia released an American prisoner, 74-year-old retired teacher Stephen Hubbard, back to the US. The US, Trump said in a social media post, “out of respect for President Trump, was not required to give anything in return.”
Hubbard’s release is unquestionably good news. But Trump is wrong: In just the last month, his administration has delivered for Russia in more ways than one, often inexplicably and despite bipartisan condemnation.
What is Trump doing for Russia? Late last week, he waived upcoming economic sanctions on Russia that he had only recently signed into law after they passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. He also:
Announced — seemingly without talking to either party — a Russia-Ukraine “energy ceasefire” favorable to Russia (which has since fallen apart);
Temporarily interrupted US intel sharing with Ukraine and played a role in interfering with Ukraine’s access to Starlink, which helps power the country’s drone warfare against Russia; and
Called on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to be replaced.
Last month, Trump also invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to the annual G20 summit later this year, which would mark Putin’s first appearance since 2019.
What does Trump get out of all of this? There’s Hubbard’s release, but taking that on Trump’s own terms (muddled though they are), the US didn’t give anything to secure it — which means that all of those favors have amounted to not much at all, other than papering over Russia’s role as an international bad actor and breaking with US allies in Europe.
Why does this matter? Trump’s Russia embrace comes at an awful time for Ukraine, which, as the New York Times reported earlier this month, is facing a Russian campaign to “freeze Ukrainians into submission” as winter approaches. Nevertheless, on Wednesday, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff called Putin a “humanitarian.”
And with that, it’s time to log off…
I was delighted to learn about the US’s new national park yesterday, its 64th. Chiricahua National Park — until Tuesday, only a national monument — is the first new park in six years. Located in southeastern Arizona, it’s also called the “Wonderland of Rocks,” according to the Washington Post; you can read more about it here with a gift link.
Have a great evening, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow!
BRUSSELS — There is a growing realization among European governments that they may soon need to nominate someone to face Russian leader Vladimir Putin in direct talks on a peace deal for Ukraine.
The main problem is deciding who should take on such a hazardous task.
The question gained urgency this week after U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Russia to offer Putin a three-way summit with Donald Trump and Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an effort to press for a ceasefire.
“President Putin disregards the European Union as an authority,” Czech President Petr Pavel said Tuesday in an interview with the Axel Springer Global Reporters’ Network, of which POLITICO is a part. “He doesn’t want to talk to Ursula von der Leyen, he doesn’t talk to Kaja Kallas. He stopped talking to other European leaders, including Emmanuel Macron.”
He added that the EU should “identify a person or a group of people who would speak for Europe. Not necessarily representatives of the EU or NATO, but simply leaders who would be given a mandate by the others to negotiate.”
Czech President Petr Pavel speaks during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 23, 2026. | Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images
In recent days, Trump has dismayed Ukraine and its European allies by talking over their heads with Putin and appearing increasingly willing to take Russia’s side in the almost five-year war.
That has reignited debate in Brussels and beyond about the need for Europe to have its own direct line to the Kremlin to safeguard the region’s interests and bolster Ukraine’s ability to resist a lopsided deal.
“Much as it sticks in the craw, I do think a channel of some kind to Putin would be a good thing to have,” said David Lidington, a distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “I am not optimistic that it would achieve anything much in the short term, but to have a channel which can then be used as and when an opportunity arises is not a bad thing.”
Diplomats and officials disagree on who would be the best person to represent Europe.
Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, has negotiated directly with Trump on trade, while the president of the European Council, António Costa, has previously opened a line of communication with the Kremlin through his office. EU High Representative Kaja Kallas is another potential player who speaks for European interests as a whole.
But the Brussels bubble needs to accept that a deal with Putin and Trump won’t be dictated by EU protocols, in the view of a diplomat from a European Union country who, like others in this article, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
“We cannot show up with two or three people all speaking on behalf of the EU,” the diplomat said. “The choice of who ends up representing the EU will be based on what would provide the most value, not personal power struggles or narcissistic preferences.”
Will Stubb step up?
One name outside the EU’s machinery that is gaining attention is Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland. Two key factors count in his favor: He has arguably the best relationship with Trump among EU leaders, and Finland has long experience of dealing with Russia — the two countries share a 1,300 kilometer border and have been at war in the past.
Finland’s President Alexander Stubb delivers a joint press conference after a meeting on the situation in Ukraine on October 20, 2026 in Oslo. | Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images
“Stubb is of interest because of Finnish knowledge of and traditional dialogue with Russia,” the diplomat said. “They know more than anyone on our side [about] what it takes to feel secure in such a situation.”
A second EU diplomat noted that Stubb was “the only person who has come forward so far” to show high-level political leadership, and could serve as a European envoy at a future peace summit. Stubb was in Norway with Zelenskyy and Witkoff on Tuesday for negotiations ahead of the U.S. envoy’s visit to Russia to meet Putin.
Also attending the gathering in Oslo was von der Leyen’s most senior aide, Bjoern Seibert, who has joined meetings of national security advisers as part of the Coalition of the Willing to support Ukraine.
A third European diplomat said it was vital that the EU itself be represented in the talks, instead of a small grouping of powerful countries such as Germany, France and the U.K.
That means both Seibert and Pedro Lourtie, the top aide to Costa, must have seats at the table during preparatory talks, the diplomat said, and that EU member countries must be properly updated on progress.
Calling Costa
According to a fourth EU diplomat, European leaders asked Costa at last week’s summit in Brussels whether it might be time for him to talk to Putin. “Costa said, no, he’s not going to talk to Putin now,” they said. “But Costa should start talking to Putin if we want to play a role in the negotiations. By not speaking, we are playing into the hands of our opponents.”
The fourth diplomat said Costa would be a better choice than von der Leyen or Kallas, who are both seen as too invested in the Ukrainian side to represent the EU effectively at leader level. Kallas in particular has been outspoken in her criticism of Trump. “Costa comes across as more of an honest broker,” they summarized.
The European Commission insists the EU is already present at the peace talks, flagging Seibert’s presence in Oslo on Tuesday. “The main aim [in Oslo] was to explore if the parameters are there for a possible move to trilateral or even multilateral talks with Ukraine and Russia present at the same table,” European Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho told reporters on Wednesday.
She said the talks had focused on territory, security and post-war prosperity for Ukraine; Witkoff is expected to debrief Ukraine and the Europeans after his trip to meet Putin. “What is very important is that we are sitting at the table, that we are able to present our position, and that we can engage in what is a shared objective to put an end to this horrific war,” she added.
Gerardo Fortuna and Paul Ronzheimer contributed to this report.
Login
