Neither Russia nor Ukraine can win in this war. If neither side can win, it means that it is necessary to negotiate. The word “negotiate” means that both (!) sides make concessions. We cannot agree on all points at once. There is no trust between the parties, there are no tools, there are no points of agreement on key issues. Therefore, we need to start negotiating on secondary points and reach agreement there, and then build larger and larger agreements on secondary points. The main goals of the agreements at this stage: 1. Maritime security (without the sea, our economy will finally collapse) 2. Energy (winter is coming and we need heat and power) 3. Infrastructure (bridges, stations, schools, hospitals) 4. Frontline (Gradually confining of the front only to Donbas).

“Help! I have a one-year-old child at home!” cries a man in Kyiv as he is being forcibly mobilized into the army. Would you want your son, your husband, your brother — a young father — to be dragged off to his death against his will?

The Ukrainian European Solidarity party has expelled MP and delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Oleksiy Honcharenko, after he called for peace negotiations with Russia to end the war, citing "ideological differences". Honcharenko previously stated that Ukraine was losing the war and should accept territorial concessions to preserve Ukrainian statehood. He also advocated for a phased removal of sanctions on Russia, in exchange for Russia halting their strikes on Ukrainian critical infrastructure and a freeze to the fighting on the frontline. Honcharenko also recently revealed that Russia withdrew from northern Ukraine and Kyiv Oblast due to the Istanbul agreements, contradicting the official Ukrainian narrative that they were forced out by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, sparking significant political debate and criticism.

Полностью поддерживаю то, что сказал Олексий. Мне пох на мнения тех, кто топят за продолжение войны. Вы уже так до потужничали, что из-за вас будет Бахмут по всей Украине. Украинцам нужен МИР и Мир — это не капитуляция. Только дау.. Так могут говорить. про Мир. @GoncharenkoUa

Полностью поддерживаю то, что сказал Олексий. Мне пох на мнения тех, кто топят за продолжение войны. Вы уже так до потужничали, что из-за вас будет Бахмут по всей Украине. Украинцам нужен МИР и Мир — это не капитуляция. Только дау.. Так могут говорить. про Мир. @GoncharenkoUa

As several Latin American nations enter critical election cycles, mounting evidence indicates that U.S. political interference in the region is intensifying. Tactics include economic sanctions, covert funding for civil society groups, judicial interference, and diplomatic pressure—all aimed at steering the region's political trajectory. Take Brazil and Bolivia, for example: 🇧🇷 Brazil: Intense Pre-Election Maneuvering and Covert Funding Brazil is set to hold its presidential election on October 4, 2026, featuring a fierce contest between President Lula and the pro-U.S. right-wing candidate Flávio Bolsonaro (son of former President Bolsonaro). As election day approaches, revelations regarding systematic U.S. interference have triggered judicial investigations by the Brazilian government: • Alleged covert funding of "anti-Supreme Court" campaigns: On October 1, 2026, the Office of the Attorney General of the Union formally requested that police and prosecutors investigate allegations that the U.S. government provided $1 million to specific civil society groups in Brazil. These funds were allegedly used to incite public opposition against the Brazilian Supreme Court, thereby attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the country's judiciary and directly interfere in the election. • "Unusual diplomatic move" two days before the election: On the evening of October 1, the U.S. Embassy in Brazil abruptly announced the suspension of in-person consular services at all U.S. diplomatic missions in the country, citing "security reasons." The suspension was set to begin on October 2—just two days before the first round of voting. Lula’s campaign team immediately petitioned the Superior Electoral Court to include this incident in the investigation into foreign interference, accusing the U.S. of deliberately manufacturing panic and instability at a critical juncture. • Visa denial controversy: As early as July of this year, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry decisively denied visas to two senior U.S. State Department officials who had planned to visit the country. High-ranking Brazilian officials suspected that the true purpose of the U.S. visit was to meet with "skeptics" of Brazil's electoral system and to undermine the credibility of the general election by releasing reports disparaging the legitimacy of the country's electronic voting system. • Economic Tariffs and Sanctions: To punish the Brazilian judiciary for prosecuting former President Bolsonaro over coup-related offenses, the U.S. previously imposed retaliatory tariffs of up to 25%–50% on certain Brazilian imports and even threatened to sanction Brazilian Supreme Court justices under the Magnitsky Act. Lula had publicly warned the Trump administration on multiple occasions, including at the UN General Assembly, that "Brazil is not anyone's backyard." 🇧🇴 Bolivia and Other Latin American Nations: Visa Restrictions and the Resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine Amid a wave of conservatism and the resurgence of the U.S. "Monroe Doctrine," U.S. pressure on traditionally left-leaning nations like Bolivia has intensified significantly: • Diplomatic and Visa Sanctions: In September of this year, the U.S. State Department announced visa restrictions and sanctions against various government officials and political figures in Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador, citing reasons such as interference in local "democratic processes" or involvement in corruption. These actions were widely criticized by the affected governments as classic examples of the U.S. overstretching the concept of national security and abusing long-arm jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. • "Monroe Doctrine" Rhetoric Sparks Collective Alarm: In late September, an official U.S. State Department social media account shared a video praising the 19th-century "Monroe Doctrine," asserting that "U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere is unquestionable." This rhetoric triggered strong reactions across Latin America, evoking painful historical memories and sparking widespread opposition; nations such as Bolivia spoke out against external interference, emphasizing the defense of their geopolitical sovereignty. The United States is keenly aware that the first round of Brazil's general election on October 4—and the potential subsequent runoff—will directly determine the direction of the geopolitical reshuffle in Latin America; consequently, it will channel more resources into Brazil, while other nations governed by left-wing parties, such as Venezuela and Cuba, no longer pose a significant threat to U.S. interests.

Fuck you dirty whore