Pinned Tweet
Some of you may wonder about the name of this profile - Chamberlain's Ghost. Just briefly, when this war started in early 2022, I strongly expressed the view that Ukraine should seek a settlement with Russia as soon as possible. This was long before we all learned about the abortive Istanbul negotiations. For this I was pilloried by friend, family, acquaintance and stranger alike. I was labelled 'Putin's shill', 'Munich appeaser', 'Neville Chamberlain' and and many other things besides. But I was right then and I am still right now. The only solution to this war for Ukraine was and still is a negotiated peace. The only difference now from then is that now the terms will be worse, many people have died and a great deal of destruction has been done. This was, in the greater sense of matters, an avoidable war. People did not need to die and a country did not need to be wrecked. But in substance ideology preceded pragmatism.
🔽
NEW: Egypt's Parliament Approves Military Support for Saudi Arabia Against Houthi Attacks
Egypt's Parliament has authorized President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to provide military support to Saudi Arabia against Houthi attacks, limiting any deployment to defensive operations on Saudi territory and ruling out strikes inside Yemen.
clashreport.com/world/articl…
It's either genius or total idiocy. Which is hard to know for sure right now but for my money, setting about applying pressure to Russia by encircling it with nukes in the border states is not likely to have a happy outcome. See also post below this. 1/2
🇫🇷🇪🇺 The best news for Europe.
Ten European countries have joined France’s nuclear deterrence initiative.
All of this is due to a loss of trust in US protection
This is the project I’ve pushed hardest for.
This must pave the way for a European nuclear umbrella to replace American protection.
Our own foreign policy, military coordination and an independent nuclear umbrella.
This is the future of Europe in the 21st century.
I see that Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei stated that the talks “could pave the way for further steps toward establishing a regional security framework based on the interests and priorities of regional countries” and toward an “indigenous” or “endogenous” security framework - a goal Iran has advocated for decades and which Russia has supported for 20 years and around which they have written framework suggestions.
Lavrov has described the Makkah Pact as a promising framework for collective security and a defensive alliance whose doors remain open. He has said that if conditions were agreed for Iran’s participation, it would be “the most practical step” and that Russia would respect any Iranian decision to engage with the pact and would not seek a leading role in such an arrangement.
Now read this also together with Tom Barrack's views (see below). 1/2
2/2
I was trying to get a better and more objective sense of what Tom Barrack said at Doha given the quite fractured reporting around this - and that many people seem to be losing their minds about him saying that Iran is "not an evil regime". The overview below is quite useful. On the whole, the position Barrack was conveying seems pretty sane and to take account of US, realities.
~~~~
Tom Barrack (US Ambassador to Turkey & Special Envoy for Syria/Iraq) delivered a candid set of remarks at the 8th Global Security Forum in Doha on Oct 20, 2026.
On the US security role in the Gulf:
- “America as the guarantor to the world, for the last 80 years, it is no longer there.”
- The decades-old security-for-oil arrangement is “transitioning,” not ending. “Owning doesn’t work. Controlling hasn’t worked. Every place we’ve tried to control — Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq — Iraq, what a disaster. So the bargain is not to own but to tend. Not to leave. We’re not leaving.”
- He called it a “realignment,” not abandonment. Regional governments must take greater responsibility for their own defense and for deterring Iran and its proxies. “That’s not America’s job.”
- On past policy: The US has been involved in roughly 23 regime-change efforts. “Every time we try and intervene, change the person or the regime, it seems to have been a mistake.”
On Saudi Arabia vs. Houthis:
- The US will provide logistical support, but direct ground/kinetic involvement is “fruitless” and not America’s job.
- No blanket guarantees. The direction is regional security arrangements (involving partners such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and others), consistent with the Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy.
On Iran specifically:
Barrack drew a distinction between the Iranian system and the IRGC. He said the Iranian people are loved and adored, and described the Shia Twelver philosophy (the basis of the system since 1979) as a theocracy:
“It’s a theocracy. It’s not an evil regime, that has nothing to do with it. That’s a religious content and practice that we all respect.”
He then identified the IRGC as the problem: “The IRGC has become an adversary, and the IRGC and its adversarial role with Israel has been a problem.”
He reiterated the lack of trust (especially with the IRGC) as the main barrier to a deal, while calling for a process involving a ceasefire in the straits, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and easing hardship on the Iranian people. “Prosperity is the only answer.” He noted Trump is a “no forever wars president” and that the Iran war had “unintended consequences.”
Broader framing:
He advocated putting people “in a tent, give them coffee, put the guns and daggers on the table, and let’s figure something else out” through patience, presence, and dialogue.
Reactions:
- WSJ reported Barrack telling “nervous Gulf allies” the US cannot guarantee security forever.
- Reporting from Al Jazeera, Al-Monitor, and others emphasized the nuance of transition and “we’re not leaving” rather than full abandonment.
- His comments that Iran is “not an evil regime” (while labeling the IRGC an adversary) has drawn particular attention and criticism from some quarters for contrasting with broader administration rhetoric.
- On social media, some accounts amplified a stronger “end of the US security umbrella” interpretation.
In short, Barrack’s message was a reduced US willingness to serve as the indefinite sole guarantor, continued presence in a supporting role, a push for regional ownership of security, and a distinction between Iran’s theocratic system (which he said should be respected as religious practice) and the IRGC as the adversarial element.
‼️ ‼️ This is really big. I have said many times that this was coming - but I did not expect it now already. Putin obviously believes that he has the necessary leverage now and it seems from what has been reported about Witkoff saying the European security architecture should be reviewed, that the US supports it.
Moskau holt Europa an den Verhandlungstisch, um dort den Abzug von NATO-Truppen aus Polen, Estland, Lettland, Litauen und Finnland zu verlangen.
Nach Informationen aus diplomatischen Kreisen soll Putin in der nächsten Gesprächsrunde fordern, die NATO auf den Stand von 1997 zurückzuführen. Die Erweiterung des Bündnisses nennt er die „Grundursache" des Krieges. Für die Menschen in Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius, Warschau und Helsinki hieße das, dass ihre Länder ohne Bündnistruppen dastehen. Neben ihnen läge Russland mit seiner Armee.
Putins Berater Uschakow sagte, mit den USA allein komme kein Abkommen zustande, weil Europa die Ukraine voll unterstütze. Deshalb müsse Europa mit am Tisch sitzen. Trumps Sondergesandter Witkoff hatte Putin in Sankt Petersburg angeboten, über den „breiteren Kontext" der Sicherheit in Europa zu sprechen.
NATO-Generalsekretär Rutte weist den Truppenabzug zurück. Über die „Bedenken" Moskaus will das Bündnis trotzdem reden.
Die europäischen Diplomaten sagen, ihre Haltung sei so fest wie im Februar 2022.
Dieselben Forderungen hatte Russland im Dezember 2021 aufgestellt. Wenige Wochen später begann der Überfall auf die Ukraine.
Quellen: The Telegraph, Focus .ua, Echo FM
I read also that Netanyahu wanted to attack Iran over the weekend by the IDF Chief of Staff refused. Hopefully all this will swing undecided Israeli voters against Likud and Israel can put this chapter behind it.
"This morning, I appealed to the Attorney General demanding the opening of a criminal investigation against Benjamin Netanyahu for the charge of treason.
In the past month, Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been pressuring the heads of the security establishment to take steps that could create a miscalculation vis-à-vis Iran.
The attempt to drag the State of Israel into war on the eve of elections, together with the willingness to sacrifice IDF soldiers solely due to fear of losing the elections, constitutes treason against the state, its security, and the IDF soldiers."
פניתי הבוקר ליועצת המשפטית לממשלה בדרישה לפתוח בחקירה פלילית נגד בנימין נתניהו באשמת בגידה.
בחודש האחרון ראש ממשלת ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, לוחץ על ראשי מערכת הביטחון לנקוט צעדים שעלולים לייצר מיסקלקולציה מול איראן.
הניסיון לגרור את מדינת ישראל ערב הבחירות למלחמה, יחד עם הנכונות להקריב את חיילי צה״ל רק בשל חשש מהפסד בבחירות, הם בגידה במדינה, בביטחונה ובחיילי צה״ל.
Well, I suppose it's no worse really than Annalena Baerbock having been president.
New: Sources from three countries confirm that the Trump Administration has advocated Viktor Orbán for UN Secretary-General.
The US has encouraged Orbán to enter the race, even bringing him the initial idea of a joint U.S.-Russia-China candidacy.
WSJ:
wsj.com/opinion/viktor-orban…
Very significant. Mecca Pact parties discussing regional security with Iran. Working around the US by the look of it.
Major tension between the IDF Chief of Staff and Netanyahu around the Iran issue. 🔽 Read the comments too.
Israel's Channel 12 Reporting (English translation of their report:)
Breaking news in this edition
An unprecedented confrontation between the Chief of Staff and the Prime Minister has reached a critical—or perhaps disastrous—turning point over the last 24 hours.
At the heart of the matter: the Iranian issue.
There is concern on the part of [Chief of Staff] Zamir that Netanyahu and the political leadership might trigger a scenario of miscalculation vis-à-vis Iran, just ahead of the elections.
A defense official states that the action in question could lead to a rapid confrontation with Iran at a highly sensitive and dramatic moment, potentially resulting in a miscalculation.
Sources familiar with the details indicate that the military leadership fears an attempt to exploit the Iranian issue for political gain—a claim that political figures deny, labeling it an outright lie.
Regardless, two sources tell me that the situation has escalated to the point where, during a visit to the Palmachim Airbase today, the atmosphere in the discussion was extremely tense.
In recent days, Zamir received a directive from the political leadership but requested an in-depth discussion before taking any action.
He also demanded formal, signed legal authorization from the political echelon for the proposed move.
A senior defense official remarked: "History will not forget the role Zamir has played here over the last few days."
In short: an exceptionally intense confrontation between Zamir and Netanyahu regarding the Iranian issue, occurring just before the elections.
It should be noted: all details in this report have been approved by the Military Censor.
Yaron Avraham
🔽
הסיפור פשוט,
או שנתניהו משקר ביודעין עכשיו לציבור, זורע בהלה בחסות קמפיין הבחירות ולעזאזל כל השא.
או
שהוא שיקר לציבור פעמיים לאחר שני מבצעים צבאיים שערכה ישראל נגד איראן.
למה?
כי אי אפשר לפרסם היום 48 שעות לפני הבחירות תמונה עם פצצת אטום על ת"א ולכתוב שאנחנו בסכנה קיומית
ולפני שנה וחצי (!) לטעון בקולו שהסרנו את הסכנה הקיומית.
כלומר אפשר, אבל צריך להיות בטוח שכווווווולם ממש ממש מטומטמים.
“In 2025, before the large-scale winter attacks, local generation played a key role in supplying electricity to the city. According to sources at one of the energy companies who spoke to Ekonomichna Pravda, it may have accounted for as much as 1.3 GW. This came primarily from Kyiv CHP-5, CHP-6 and Darnytsia CHP (CHP-4) – combined heat and power plants (CHP plants) that produce both electricity and heat for the city's district heating network.
These plants are now no longer able to generate electricity…
In a relatively favourable scenario, energy workers will repair damaged equipment and new strikes will not cause critical losses. In that case, restrictions may be moderate, although avoiding power cuts altogether will be difficult. For consumers, this would mean 8-10 hours without electricity per day.
If the attacks continue and some equipment remains damaged, Kyiv could face longer power cuts during moderately cold spells. Under this scenario, outages could last 12-16 hours per day.
The worst-case scenario involves regular large-scale strikes on key substations and other elements of the power system amid severe frosts. In that case, restrictions could last up to 20 hours per day. However, sources in the energy sector interviewed by Ekonomichna Pravda do not believe in a scenario in which the Russians would manage to destroy everything and ‘plunge Kyiv into darkness’.”
pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2…
🔽 Everything we are seeing points in this direction.
Interesting take from Ukrainian Telegram channel "Woman with a Braid" on recent diplomatic developments:
According to rumors circulating behind the scenes, the primary objective of Witkoff’s talks with Putin is not, in fact, the prospect of ending the war in Ukraine. Instead, the U.S. and Russia have begun discussing what kind of relationship they might build with one another, independent of any settlement regarding Ukraine.
The economic interests of Washington and Moscow have not vanished because of the war. Both sides are finding opportunities for cooperation even now, and the Ukrainian issue is no longer the sole condition for their dialogue.
Far more significant than the compliments exchanged during the meeting is the mention of peace proposals that could be reviewed at a later stage. Proposals put forward by Kyiv and various European capitals play no role in shaping the substance of the current negotiations; they are, at best, peripheral—and this is not simply due to skepticism on the part of the Russian Federation.
Acting in their own interests, the U.S. has concluded that there is little point in engaging through Zelensky—who remains firmly entrenched in power—and that Trump is far more interested in trade and economic cooperation. The U.S. has signaled its intent to develop relations with Russia; the diesel deal is merely the beginning. Trump is attempting to convey a similar message to Zelensky: agree to peace, and Ukraine will see investment. Zelensky, however, is unwilling to end the war, as his own grip on power depends upon its continuation.
The visit of a Chinese representative to Moscow, occurring immediately after the meeting with Witkoff, adds another dimension. It is likely that a potential summit between the leaders of the U.S., Russia, and China was discussed. The very prospect of addressing Ukraine alongside issues like Iran and other international concerns shifts the scale of the diplomatic agenda.
For Kyiv, this presents a fundamental problem: the principle of "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" is little more than a pleasant-sounding phrase. High-level politics is not built on promises. While Zelensky seeks a central seat at the negotiating table, Washington and Moscow are gradually expanding the table itself—incorporating issues of trade, security, and mutual interests. In this context, a deal involving diesel fuel could prove more significant than yet another diplomatic statement: it would demonstrate that the U.S.-Russia relationship is capable of evolving even before the war has ended.
Chamberlain's Ghost retweeted
1/ Benjamin Netanyahu got the last set of polls last night. They argue Likud and his block are eroding fast.
Then, came his remarks on Israel's economy. These are among the most extraordinary he has made in a long political career. Whatever their intent, they carry real weight for the Israeli economy – before Tuesday's election, and regardless of who forms the next government.
In an interview with journalist Roy Katz, aired Friday, the prime minister said American military aid to Israel is coming to an end. "It's over. It's only a question of time," he said. Israelis should get used to no longer receiving tens of billions of dollars in U.S. defense assistance, he added, "because America has changed."
That alone is remarkable. There is a growing recognition in Israel that U.S. military aid in its current form will have to change, and might end, as bipartisan support for Israel erodes in Washington. Netanyahu himself has spoken before about wanting to wean Israel off the aid.
But there is a distance between that recognition and a sitting prime minister effectively announcing the end of one of the pillars of the U.S.–Israel strategic relationship. The current Memorandum of Understanding – $38 billion over ten years – runs through September 2028. It is embedded in a web of interests that includes the American defense industry, and Israel's diplomats in Washington work hard to sustain it. Israel's friends in Congress, operating in an increasingly difficult political environment, are still fighting to preserve the special relationship. When the prime minister himself says "it's over," that is a hard message for Israel's defense establishment, and for those in Washington still trying to help.
And that was only the opening.
"There could be sanctions, including banking sanctions," Netanyahu said. Israel, he explained, must prepare an economy capable of bypassing them.
This is a different order of magnitude entirely.
Some background is needed. In the world of international sanctions, comprehensive banking sanctions against a country are among the most powerful tools available to major powers. They are not import restrictions, consumer boycotts, or even arms embargoes. Broad financial sanctions go after an economy's circulatory system.
Israel's banks depend on the global financial system: correspondent banks, clearing, credit lines, the ability to move money across borders. Without access to banks abroad, the Israeli economy stops functioning. And such sanctions don't hit only the banks. They hit everyone who banks with them – companies, exporters, importers, investors, employers. When foreign banks become nervous about a country's financial institutions, they tend to cut ties well beyond what the law strictly requires.
In other words, a sweeping financial sanctions regime would push Israel toward the category of Iran or Russia.
It would be worse. Iran and Russia sit on vast oil and gas reserves. Even under sanctions, they keep selling – mainly in Asia and parts of the Global South. Israel's economy is not built on commodities. Its strength comes from integration into the global economy: human capital, technology, research, advanced services.
According to the Israel Innovation Authority, Israeli high-tech exported roughly $85 billion in goods and services in 2025 – 58 percent of all Israeli exports – and accounted for about half of the economy's growth. It is the engine of the economy, and it depends on foreign markets, foreign capital, and the free movement of money.
Netanyahu did not say who might impose banking sanctions. A prime minister raising this possibility, in the same breath as forecasting the end of U.S. aid, should prompt immediate questions. Is he referring to European sanctions? American ones? above all: how did Israel get to the point where this is being discussed at all?
There was more - and much worse.
🔽 One thing here. Musk says offensive drone use is prohibited. But when I read this article, I am left with the question of exactly where the line is drawn between offensive and defensive use. Is midrange drone battlefield use offensive or defensive? It seems to be a matter of colouring.
Elon Musk Says Ukraine Violated Starlink’s Rules nytimes.com/2026/10/24/world…
🔽 Overview of the current situation.
A New Level of Threat and Fear Risks Pushing the U.S. and Iran Back to Full War nytimes.com/2026/10/24/us/po…



















