The U.S. general that serves as NATO’s top commander says Russia is “not looking for a conflict.” Europe’s political class should listen attentively. Deterrence and readiness matters. But manufacturing panic about an imminent Russian attack on NATO is not going to change the focus of the United States to secure peace for Russia and Ukraine. These efforts require strength, calm, and facts — not hysteria. ft.com/content/751d4555-9e8c…

Long overdue. The men and women who served this country — and their families — deserve truth, care, and accountability. Amazing reporting by @C__Herridge on this issue over the years.

In a rare moment of candor from Brazil’s highest court, Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) Justice André Mendonça has confirmed what free speech advocates have warned about for years: aggressive new judicial rules on social media platforms are creating a dangerous chilling effect that leads to widespread preemptive censorship. The admission came during discussions on the Marco Civil da Internet, Brazil’s framework for online regulation. Mendonça acknowledged that vague interpretations of “joint responsibility” for content—coupled with the threat of heavy fines—push platforms to remove even doubtful or borderline material rather than risk punishment. Instead of waiting for clear violations, companies now err on the side of deletion to protect themselves from Brazil’s activist judiciary.

Radical positions cause a reaction. Sometimes if you push too hard you break it.

Difficult times ahead. truthsocial.com/@realDonaldT…

“Brazilian courts have issued secret orders directing U.S. social media companies to take down certain political content and to suspend the profiles of U.S. residents, sometimes globally, as well as prohibiting the platforms from disclosing these orders to profile owners. Brazilian courts have also subjected U.S. social media companies to financial liability for failing to comply with these orders by imposing significant fines for non-compliance; restricting their access to assets, accounts, and payment processing systems in Brazil; and in at least one case, by shutting down a site altogether..” — United States Trade Representative ustr.gov/about/policy-office…

🇺🇦 Head of Ukraine's Presidential Office Kyrylo Budanov, known for being one of the most aggressive voices in Kyiv: "Zelensky has instructed officials to try to end this war as quickly as possible, preferably before winter." 2 days ago Zelensky told CBS News directly: "Before the winter, we need to find a way, diplomatic way, to sit and to speak." He explained why. Russia began losing battlefield initiative in December 2025, giving Ukraine a stronger negotiating hand that lasts only until Moscow's next winter energy offensive begins. What does Ukraine give up to make that deadline? And does Russia have any reason to take a deal while it still can rebuild? Source: @TabzLIVE

One of the greatest movie monologues of all time.

This is how "democracy" works in the EU Parliament: Cutting off an MEP’s microphone, then sanctimoniously lecturing him lon "freedom of speech" 😂😂😂

Let’s talk about why the United States designated PCC and Comando Vermelho as global terrorist organizations. What is their international reach, really? PCC has evolved from a prison-born criminal fraternity into a transnational cocaine logistics platform. The IISS describes PCC as a major player in the international cocaine trade, expanding from Latin America into West Africa and Europe through violence, bribery, and logistics control. The @WSJ has framed PCC as one of the world’s major cocaine powers operating across nearly 30 countries with direct access to coca producers in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, and alliances with global syndicates. Comando Vermelho is more territorial and violent inside Brazil, but it is no longer just a Rio drug gang. Brazilian Federal Police information indicates CV operates in eight South American countries, controls strategic trafficking routes, and provides logistics for international drug shipments to Europe and Africa. CV has penetrated the Colombia-Peru-Brazil Amazon border region and become a key partner for narcos and armed groups in Peru and Colombia, with notorious influence around Tabatinga and Leticia. So the issue is not whether PCC and CV publish ideological manifestos @LulaOficial. The issue is what they actually do. They control territory. They terrorize civilians. They command prison networks. They move narcotics across continents at an industrial scale. They project violence, intimidation, and logistics far beyond Brazil. And they corrupt institutions at the highest levels. PCC and CV are not merely “Brazilian public security problems.” They are regional and global security threats.

PCC is now a top-tier Latin American criminal power, comparable in strategic importance to the major Mexican and Colombian organizations, though with a different model: prison governance plus global cocaine logistics. Comando Vermelho is a major regional armed-criminal power, dominant in parts of Rio and expanding through Amazonian and South American routes. Together, they represent Brazil’s version of the cartel-state challenge: not simply crime, but criminal governance with transnational reach. There is no official map saying “PCC controls X square kilometers” or “CV controls Y square kilometers.” That is not how these groups operate. Their control is nodal and networked: prisons, ports, favelas, trafficking corridors, border towns, river routes, logistics hubs, retail drug markets, and corrupt state interfaces. PCC is Brazil’s most internationally connected criminal organization, with roughly 40,000 members and at least 2,000 operating across 28 countries. Its international expansion is tied to cocaine logistics, alliances with the Italian ’Ndrangheta and Balkan criminal groups, and routes into Europe, Africa, and Asia. Comando Vermelho remains deeply territorial in Rio de Janeiro, where it has exercised control in favelas for decades. Americas Quarterly describes CV as Brazil’s oldest major criminal faction, with long-standing territorial control in Rio’s favelas. El País reported that CV has about 30,000 members and that it has expanded in the last decade through alliances with regional groups and has reconquered neighborhoods in Rio through violence since 2022. The CV governs territory in the classic criminal insurgency sense with armed presence, checkpoints/barricades, retail drug markets, informal rules, intimidation, services, transport control, extortion, and violent exclusion of state authority. A 2025 Small Wars Journal analysis even noted CV’s development of a ride-sharing app as evidence of how it is integrating digital tools into illicit economies and territorial control in Rio.

Guatemala aceita intervenção dos EUA para operações contra facções e narcotráfico veja.abril.com.br/mundo/guat…

O argumento de que a designação do PCC e do Comando Vermelho como organizações terroristas pelos Estados Unidos “ameaça a soberania brasileira” inverte completamente o problema. A ameaça à soberania brasileira não vem dos EUA reconhecer a realidade. A ameaça à soberania brasileira vem de facções criminosas que controlam territórios, impõem regras paralelas, aterrorizam populações civis, corrompem agentes públicos, lavam bilhões, traficam drogas e armas através de fronteiras e projetam sua atuação para além do Brasil. Soberania é a capacidade efetiva do Estado de controlar seu território, proteger sua população e impedir que organizações criminosas substituam o poder público. O argumento de que PCC e CV não poderiam ser tratados como organizações terroristas porque “não têm bandeira política” é juridicamente estreito e empiricamente ingênuo. Essas organizações talvez não publiquem manifestos ideológicos como grupos revolucionários clássicos. Mas exercem poder político no sentido mais concreto possível porque controlam comunidades, intimidam autoridades, influenciam eleições, paralisam cidades, impõem toque de recolher, ordenam ataques contra agentes públicos e usam violência sistemática contra civis para preservar domínio territorial e econômico. A designação americana não transforma o Brasil em alvo. Ela mira organizações criminosas específicas que representam ameaça transnacional. Também não autoriza automaticamente intervenção militar em território brasileiro. Esse espantalho serve mais para criar pânico político do que para explicar o direito aplicável. O efeito concreto da designação é ampliar ferramentas contra financiamento, logística, facilitadores, lavagem de dinheiro, movimentação internacional, apoio material e redes de suporte. Ou seja onde essas facções são mais vulneráveis. Também é curioso ouvir preocupações abstratas com soberania quando as principais vítimas da perda de soberania são os brasileiros que vivem sob domínio criminoso. Para a mãe que não pode sair de casa porque uma facção decretou toque de recolher, para o comerciante extorquido, para a família atingida por guerra territorial, para o policial assassinado e para a comunidade abandonada à governança criminal, a soberania brasileira já foi violada há muito tempo — não por uma designação americana, mas pelo poder armado das facções. A pergunta correta é por que o Estado brasileiro permitiu que essas organizações crescessem a ponto de se tornarem uma ameaça hemisférica. Se o Brasil tivesse desmantelado sua infraestrutura financeira, contido sua expansão internacional, protegido suas fronteiras, impedido sua infiltração institucional e recuperado os territórios dominados por facções, talvez EUA não tivesse sentido necessidade de agir. Isso não é uma medida anti-Brasil. É uma medida contra o PCC e o Comando Vermelho. O verdadeiro ato pró-Brasil é reconhecer que o povo brasileiro é a primeira e maior vítima dessas organizações e que a cooperação internacional contra elas deve ser bem-vinda, não tratada como ofensa nacional. O Brasil deveria responder não com indignação performática, mas com cooperação, inteligência financeira, extradições, bloqueio de ativos, repressão à lavagem de dinheiro e uma estratégia nacional séria para recuperar territórios dominados pelo crime organizado. A soberania brasileira não será protegida defendendo a sensibilidade diplomática de facções criminosas. Será protegida destruindo o poder delas. oglobo.globo.com/brasil/noti…

➡️ Por que Lula não queria que EUA classificasse PCC e CV como terroristas metropoles.com/brasil/por-qu…

Last year Lula’s government urged the Trump administration not to designate PCC and Comando Vermelho as terrorist organizations. And yet Brazil’s most powerful criminal factions kept growing, expanding across borders, terrorizing civilians, corrupting institutions, and threatening security beyond Brazil. Today’s designation of Brazil’s largest criminal organizations as foreign terrorist organizations is a principle with wider relevance. Sovereignty carries responsibilities. When Brazilian actors project coercive power beyond Brazil’s borders and Brazilian authorities are unable or unwilling to act, they should not assume the issue will remain purely domestic.

The EU is reportedly moving toward a process that could strip the Europe of Sovereign Nations party — associated with Germany’s AfD and other right-wing parties — of legal status and EU funding for allegedly failing to comply with “EU values” because its members engaged in speech that officials in Brussels deem offensive to human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and human rights. When institutions decide that certain political movements are too offensive, too dangerous, or too “anti-democratic” because of their speech to compete on equal terms at the ballot box, where is the line between defending democracy and pre-selecting the choices available to voters? In Brazil, we have seen the same logic expand for years by pushing censorship orders, platform regulation to curtail speech, criminal cases that render leading candidates ineligible, and efforts to control the digital public square before elections. The U.S. First Amendment tradition starts from the opposite premise. The answer to dangerous or offensive political speech is more speech, public debate, and voters deciding at the ballot box. What most Americans have never accepted is unelected officials deciding in advance which views are acceptable enough to be spoken or which candidates are acceptable enough to compete.

Oh I see. I guess “Ukraine” is pinning it on @kajakallas — now it is clear. Thank you.

Got it. So who was not telling the truth? @kajakallas or “Ukraine” which is the term she used in her remarks as to who told her America left?

But @kajakallas says it’s closed! Who should we believe????