Foreign Affairs Tomahawks for Ukraine? No. But That’s Not the Story. The president has recaptured the spirit of Alaska. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky walked into the White House last Friday for a meeting with President Donald Trump. He was feeling confident after two “very positive and productive” phone calls with Trump, calls which gave him hope that, for the first time, Ukraine might obtain cruise missiles with a range sufficient to strike deep inside Russia. The Ukrainian leader’s confidence seemed justified. Trump had told reporters that he might tell President Vladimir Putin of Russia, “Look, if this war is not gonna get settled, I may send them Tomahawks.” And yet, after the White House meeting Zelensky was feeling “very negative,” according to one European official who spoke to the Financial Times. Trump told the Ukrainians that he will not be providing them long-range Tomahawk missiles, at least for now, so Zelensky walked out empty handed, his hopes dashed. While the mainstream media focused on Trump’s refusal to provide Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, that was not the big story. After all, Trump was never going to give Tomahawks to Ukraine at this time, for four reasons. The first is that the U.S. needs all the Tomahawks it has, so it can’t afford to send many to Ukraine. The U.S. produces fewer than 200 a year and has purchased only 202 since 2022. The military went through at least 124 in recent conflicts with Iran and the Yemeni Houthis. Restocking is not only slow but expensive: Tomahawks cost at least $1.7 million each. When Zelensky told Trump that “we need Tomahawks,” Trump replied, “We want Tomahawks also. We don’t want to be giving away things that we need to protect our country.” The second reason is that Ukraine does not currently possess any of the platforms capable of launching Tomahawk missiles. Though some solution could possibly be engineered, it likely would take too much time. There are land-based Typhon launchers that the U.S. could send Ukraine, but very few are now available. The third reason is that Tomahawks, even if Ukraine could launch them, would not provide a magic bullet for improving the battlefield situation. Though the missiles are long-range and precise, the U.S. could not provide Ukraine with enough to alter the course of the war. Military experts also say that, if the U.S. can spare anything, they are most likely to part with older Tomahawk models, which Russian air defenses are quite capable of intercepting. Putin told Trump on their recent phone call that “Tomahawks wouldn’t change the situation on the battlefield, but would harm U.S.–Russian relations and the peace process.” And that leads to the fourth reason. Enabling Ukraine to strike deep within Russia would risk unacceptable escalation in return for little advantage. Ukraine could not use Tomahawk missiles without the guidance of classified Pentagon satellite targeting data. Russia would know that there were U.S. technical personnel on the ground and that there was direct U.S. participation in strikes on Russia. Although the U.S. does not currently arm Tomahawks with nuclear missiles, the missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and there would be no way for Russia to determine whether an incoming Tomahawk missile was armed with a conventional or nuclear warhead. Putin reportedly said recently that a decision to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine “will ruin our relations [with the United States] or at least the emerging positive trend in these relations”. Trump’s refusal to provide Tomahawks to Ukraine was, for all these reasons, predictable and hardly a big news story. The real news was that the Trump pendulum has swung back to the Alaska summit position that Ukraine must give up territory to Russia to end the war. The reversal is somewhat surprising. In late September, Trump posted on Truth Social that “Ukraine is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back.” He was brought to this conclusion by two premises: that Russia had failed to make significant territorial gains since the war began and that Russia was in big economic trouble. In his meeting with Zelensky, Trump rejected both premises and reversed his conclusion. In their August meeting, Zelensky had made use of a map of the battlefield to show Trump that Russia had gained little ground in Ukraine since early in the war. Russia, the argument went, was not really winning. According to Ukrainians in the room, Trump listened intently and never returned to his previous position that Ukraine would have to give up territory to negotiate a peace. But in the meeting last week, Zelensky faced a very different Trump. When Zelensky once again showed Trump the map, Trump threw the map aside and said he was “sick” of seeing it. In what reportedly became a “shouting match,” Trump told Zelensky that “If [Putin] wants it, he will destroy you.” Trump also deflated Zelensky’s economic argument that a struggling Russian economy would soon force Russia to switch from fighting to negotiating, telling the Ukrainian president that Russia’s economy is “doing great.” Trump publicly suggested a return to the Alaska position with a Truth Social post after his meeting with Zelensky that declared that the two warring sides “should stop where they are.” That would leave Ukrainian territory behind the Russian line. The return to the position that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia to end the war was not just an off-the-cuff remark by Trump. Behind the closed doors of the meeting, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, was “press[ing] the Ukrainian delegation about handing over Donetsk,” while Trump was “urg[ing] Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept Russia’s terms for ending its war.” Trump would later tell Fox News that Putin is “going to take something, he’s won certain property.” Explaining what that “something” might be, Putin reportedly told Trump that Moscow “would be willing to surrender parts of two other regions of Ukraine [it] has partly conquered, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, in exchange for full control of Donetsk.” Though the refusal to sell Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine captured the media spotlight, the more significant, and more unexpected, news is that Trump’s policy pendulum seems to have swung back to pushing to end the war through a negotiated settlement. The president seems again to recognize that Ukraine cannot win back all its land and will have to cede some territory to Russia. For those worried about U.S.–Russia escalation and pessimistic about Ukraine’s chances of victory, the swing back to Alaska is a welcome development. The post Tomahawks for Ukraine? No. But That’s Not the Story. appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Hungary’s Foreign Minister: Trump Is Ukraine’s Only Hope for Peace Péter Szijjártó sat down with The American Conservative for an explosive interview about Ukraine, Poland, national sovereignty, and peace. As the White House ramps up pressure on Moscow to end the war in Ukraine, supporters of peace negotiations hope that a previously announced Trump–Putin summit in Budapest remains in the offing. One person who thinks it does is Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, who recently sat down with The American Conservative to discuss tensions between Hungary and Poland, efforts by the European Union to erode national sovereignty, and the prospects for peace in Ukraine. Thank you for speaking to TAC. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been talking about peace for a while. Now we see both President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump interested in Budapest being a peace venue, despite EU opposition and despite the previous baggage of the last Budapest memorandum. What role do we see Hungary playing in the forthcoming Budapest summit, and how does that vindicate the position of the ruling party? Well, first of all, I have to tell you that the only hope for peace to be made in Ukraine is President Trump. That was one of the reasons why we have crossed our fingers for him to win the elections here, because we all knew that if the Democrats had stayed in power, they would have further fueled the conflict, and there would have been no hope for peace to be made. So, the only hope for peace to return to Central Europe is President Trump.  For the last three and a half years, for the time the war has been on, Hungary has been the only country which has stood up for peace from the very beginning; we never delivered weapons to Ukraine. We always wanted to avoid the money of our taxpayers being sent to Ukraine, although we have received all the refugees, without question. But we always had a clear understanding that this war will never end on the battlefield. The only place where this war can end is a negotiating table, and the only way this war can end is diplomacy. And therefore, we support all peace initiatives. At the very beginning of the war, we made it very clear that we are ready to assist any peace initiative with all our capacities, and we were reached out to last Thursday by President Trump, then by President Putin, and told that they agreed on Budapest as a location, which made us very happy. We are happy that this takes place in Budapest, because we will provide all necessary circumstances and logistics for a successful peace summit.  But from the very first moment that this was announced, we knew that there would be many who would do everything in order to prevent this summit from happening. Therefore, I’m pretty sure that until this meeting takes place, we will see and hear fake news, leaks, statements about this summit not happening. We have to count on that, because there are so many who are counter-interested in peace. European leaders and Ukraine. So, they are doing their best using their media to spread news, fake news, leaks, claiming that this summit will not take place.  But as of, as of now, you’re confident that this is on the track? I mean, what we have received as information will take place, and I trust President Trump and President Putin more than the liberal media. You recently said, “Brussels is preparing for war, and they want Europeans, including Hungarians, to pay the price. As part of this war preparation, the EU Commission has drafted a 7-year budget that is more about Ukraine than about the European Union.” Recently, you also said, “Discussing economic security in Denmark at the meeting of EU trade ministers. Yet the greatest threat to Europe’s economy doesn’t come from outside, but from Brussels itself.” Could you please elaborate on what these threats are? The European Union over-politicizes and over-ideologizes everything. They over-politicize and over-ideologize even the most rational things in the world as well. This is very dangerous, because it is a pro-war integration effort. Leaders of the European Union have done everything since President Trump took office to undermine his peace efforts. The European leaders want to send all the European money and all the European military equipment to Ukraine. The European leaders consider this war as if it was their war. The European leaders consider this war in a way that if Ukraine doesn’t win, Europe loses as well, which is the incentive to continue the war, right? On the other hand, they over-ideologize and over-politicize the very physical issue of energy supplies as well, which is crazy. Energy supplies should be considered as physical nature based on geography, but the European Union considers it as a political issue, which is crazy, because with politics, with statements, with press conferences, you cannot heat or cool your flat, your house, right? You need energy, and you can only buy energy from where you have infrastructure leading to you. And geography determines infrastructure. Geography determines energy policy, and they simply don’t understand it. So therefore, the biggest threat to the European Union is the bureaucrats sitting in Brussels.  You have been outspoken about your support for Russian energy. I quote, “I want to say that we really cherish our cooperation with our Russian partners and colleagues on the field of energy. Why? Because of our experience. We have never been let down.” Of all the ministers, you seem to be the one who is in support of a more equidistant foreign policy of Hungary. My question is a little different: Do you think that in our age of growing imperialism, that might be difficult to defend, especially while you’re part of the EU? Well, our strategy is very simple. We want a strategy called economic neutrality, which means that we do not over-politicize and do not over-ideologize rational issues. We use our national interest as a starting point. We can only look at our own issues through our own angle, and we expect others to respect that. We base our foreign policy strategy on mutual respect. We never had the inspiration to interfere into domestic issues of others. We never had the ambition to tell others how to live, what to do, how to decide. Prime Minister Orbán is the only European politician who can, who can maintain a respect-based relationship with all the leaders of global powers. He is the only European leader who can simultaneously talk to President Trump, President Putin, and President Xi. He is the only one because we always carried out a political strategy which was based on mutual respect, and this has been valued by partners for the last 15 years. The European liberal mainstream tried to portray us as if we were isolated. But the reality is that this is being disproven by the fact that we are supposed to be the host of the peace summit. The fact is that it is the European Union which has been isolated.  The European Union has isolated itself from us politically, with the European liberal leaders wanting to satisfy liberal media in the last years by bashing President Trump. They have isolated themselves from China, considering them as a systematic rival, which is stupid. They have their own system. We have our own system. We don’t interfere in theirs, and we expect them not to interfere in ours. Third, they have isolated themselves from Russia, with all the sanctions. We [Europeans] have isolated ourselves from Africa, while putting out these crazy ideologies of LGBT and other stuff as a precondition to economic cooperation with African countries, which the Chinese don’t do.  So, the European Union has isolated itself from all the major players of global politics and global economy. While we Hungarians have been able to keep a good relationship in every direction. So, on your recent public spats with, for example, the Polish Vice Premier, Radek Sikorsky— He loves me. Yeah. Of course. You have been in public spats with the Polish Deputy PM Radek Sikorski. However, it appears that Poland is increasingly an outlier, and the rest of the Visegrad 4 [Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia], are slowly aligning themselves with the Hungarian vision. Is this the start of a permanent rift between right-wing central European countries in Europe?  Look, we are so different from the current Polish government. The former Polish government was a great ally of ours— But still very antagonistic to Russia— We respect that because we have different locations, we have different history, we have different experiences, okay? We never judged their stance towards Russia. We have a different one. But we never considered their approach as bad, because they are Polish and we are Hungarians. They think in a Polish way. We think in a Hungarian way. That’s it. You have to respect that. So, we have no problem with that. The strength of Visegrad cooperation was exactly that, that we only cooperated on issues where we had a similar position, and we respected the fact that there are issues where we have different positions. I mean, come on, you have different positions in a marriage as well. Right? Not to speak about four countries.  So, this is a very artificial way of thinking. You know, I was never disturbed by the fact that we looked at the issue of the war in Ukraine in a different way. But we never criticized each other, but the Poles took all the possible chances to attack us.  You mean the Polish government?  Yeah, the current Polish government, yeah. I mean Mr. Sikorsky is one of the most pro-war politicians in Europe. And since I am a pro-peace politician, it’s obvious that we differ. That’s going in the interview.  I hope so. Anyway, I got used to it. I got used to it. And as long as he’s in position of power, as long as I am in position, we have to understand that we have a totally different approach towards the main issues of the current global development. Regardless of Hungarian elections, the trends in Europe are towards EU consolidation. What is the worst-case scenario in front of Hungary in your calculation? Well, first of all, Brussels has been trying to step over member states for a very long time now; this is the major debate in the European Union. The war and the challenges around us are making this debate more spectacular. This debate has been between the Federalists and the Sovereignists. The Federalists want to build the United States of Europe. They want the European Union to be an integration. We don’t want that. We want the European Union to be a strong integration of sovereign countries which are allowed and ready to stick to their national specificities.  So, we are not ready to give up our culture, our sovereignty, our religion, our history, our heritage. No, we are not trying to give that up. We want to remain Hungarians in Europe. It is the European Union treaty which says that, regarding the enlargement of the European Union, unanimity is required. If this is being overcome, this is a clear violation and regulation of the European treaty. Is Brussels, or are the liberals in Europe ready to violate the treaty?  It is not that they are ready. They are already doing it. So, for example, when the ban on Russian oil and gas imports was made as a decision, it was a clear violation of the European Union treaty. Why? Because this is a sanction by content, and sanctions you can only decide unanimously. Therefore, they have put it in a fake framework of trade. Regarding trade measures you need a qualified majority vote. But this is not a trade measure by substance. This is a sanction.  So, with that, they have seriously breached and seriously violated the EU treaty. So it is not that they are only ready to do that, but they consistently do that, and I’m pretty sure that they will try to step over the member states regarding the enlargement as well. Now, when it comes to the elections, and the worst- and best-case scenarios: Yes, it’s obvious what is at stake. It is the sovereignty of the country at stake. Why? Because as long as we have a national government, a patriotic government, we can protect ourselves from the attacks on our sovereignty.  What are these attacks? For example, Brussels wants us to receive a large number of migrants. Brussels wants us to allow LGBT organizations to spread all over in schools and kindergartens as well. They want us to be dragged into the war. So they want to take away our sovereignty. The national government so far was successful in rejecting that. We have not been dragged into the war. We don’t allow migrants, we don’t allow LGBT organizations to enter schools and kindergartens and so on. No war, no migration, no gender nonsense. We were able to keep that. Once a puppet government replaces, God forbid, the national government, the country will be dragged into the war. Migrants will enter the territory of the country, and the LGBT organization will spread gender ideology. That’s what is at stake, whether a national government or a puppet government instructed by Brussels will govern the country. Brussels is heavily backing the opposition movement. They know that if the opposition enters into power, they will do everything that is being instructed from Brussels. So the stake of elections is clear: national government or a puppet government.  Thank you. The post Hungary’s Foreign Minister: Trump Is Ukraine’s Only Hope for Peace appeared first on The American Conservative.

Not the most realistic tune. The post The Genesis song Phil Collins said was impossible to play live first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

I write from a quiet, mountainous part of Central Europe. The scenery is idyllic, and the fall air is crisp. But much as the case has been in my other recent trips to the European continent, the sights I see and the conversations I hear are all underscored by a similar haunting concern: Will there even be a Europe, in any cognizable sense of the term, a century from now? All across the continent, fertility rates have plummeted, and the Christianity that defined the civilization for two millennia is viewed as a quaint relic of a bygone era. The combination of modern European Union political and economic integration on the one hand, combined with imposed mass immigration from foreign (namely, Islamic) cultures on the other hand, has led to a place where sense of home and hearth is diminished — and along with it, community, meaning, and purpose. (RELATED: How Islam Conquered Catholic Spain — Again) In Britain, two Jews were killed following a synagogue attack by a Syrian immigrant on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. In Germany — yes, Germany — Jews have already been advised for years against wearing a kippah head covering in public. More generally, Europeans’ personal happiness levels have seemingly gravitated away from church and children, the traditional sources of meaning, and toward a discomfiting positive correlation with the size of a nation’s welfare state. (RELATED: Trump Is Europe’s Alarm Clock) The stunning Louvre museum heist earlier this week in Paris offers an uncanny encapsulation of the broader society-wide phenomenon. On Sunday, thieves disguised as construction workers stole, during broad daylight, eight pieces of the French crown jewels estimated to be worth roughly $100 million. And perhaps the most astonishing aspect of this real-life caper is this: As of this writing, the thieves have not been caught. (RELATED: France Was Once a Prosperous, Wealthy, and Safe Place) At best, European political and cultural elites have no interest in protecting and preserving their culture; and at worst, they have an interest in seeing that culture replaced root and branch. The utterly humiliating inability of French authorities to either prevent the theft of the literal crown jewels or promptly arrest the perpetrators after the fact is the most poetic possible way to demonstrate a point that has come up in so many of my conversations this week: At best, European political and cultural elites have no interest in protecting and preserving their culture; and at worst, they have an interest in seeing that culture replaced root and branch. (RELATED: France: A Country Perpetually at Odds with Itself) Back home in the United States, the situation is in some ways not so different. It was concern about decades of reckless American immigration policy and elite-driven cultural decadence, above all, that first propelled Donald Trump to the White House in 2016. The chief difference in this respect between the United States and Europe, besides America’s more robust (if still declining) church, is thus primarily a political one. Trump is now a two-term president, whereas the only major European country to have a right-of-center leader today is Italy. Viktor Orban of Hungary cannot do it all by himself. Amidst the prevailing transatlantic cultural currents of nihilism, childlessness, and general dissatisfaction, it has never been more important that political leaders offer a robust defense of their respective homelands and a compelling vision for those homelands’ future. Sincerity of religious conviction and the utilitarian value of religious community are both time-tested ways of offering meaning and stability in a person’s life, but there is a role to be played by an anodyne nationalism as well. Following religious conviction, pride in one’s homeland, and confidence in its future is the sentiment that very well might induce the most people to get married and have children. If one hates his country and thinks it is evil, or even if he merely thinks the future of his country looks positively dire, he might well be less inclined to make the tremendous investment of bringing new life into the world. What is the point, one might well conclude, of raising children in a hellish, dystopian future? Trump’s political success is partially due to his keen understanding of this very phenomenon. One can always quibble on the merits or demerits of a certain policy approach, but Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” tagline grasps at an ineluctable truth: America, for various reasons, had been in decline, but the man in charge now understands that and plans to turn things around. Across Europe, there is much that can be learned from the Trump example. (RELATED: Trump Is the Colossus That Bestrides the World) But that begins with evincing a simple desire to defend the existence and perpetuity of one’s culture. It begins with a meaningful determination to prolong the lifespan of a particular nation, in Edmund Burke’s famous sense of the term, as a social compact between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. In Paris, perhaps it begins by defending the nation’s literal crown jewels. Surely that isn’t too much to ask for, is it? READ MORE from Josh Hammer: Democrats Still Haven’t Learned Any Lessons Operation Divide MAGA The Folly of ‘Palestinian’ Statehood To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star: By now you will probably have heard that Russia recently released a tranche of intelligence documents (KGB and/or GRU, presumably) relating to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.  Most of the current reports and summaries seem to convey the idea that Soviet intelligence was trying to […]

BREAKING: President Trump says he’s ending all trade negotiations with Canada.

Family traditions can do more than warm hearts—they can point future generations straight to Jesus. This prayer helps you pass down more than memories.

Discover how an unexpected journey from the U.S. Army to Congress led to a pivotal role in missionary aviation, demonstrating how God prepares us for service in unforeseen ways. Explore the powerful story of how specialized skills and established relationships were uniquely leveraged to provide critical disaster relief after Hurricane Helene, showcasing the practical application of faith in action.