Russia and Ukraine have both confirmed the start of a localized ceasefire around the Russian-occupied town of Oleshky at 03:00 Kyiv time (01:00 GMT), marking a consequential humanitarian development since the previous check.
• Russian confirmation: The Defence Ministry announced it had stopped shelling toward Ukrainian-held Kherson to prepare for a humanitarian operation.
• Ukrainian confirmation: Human rights commissioner Dmytro Lubinets said the ceasefire had begun and Ukraine was fulfilling its commitments.
• Purpose: Enable food and medical deliveries and civilian evacuations from Oleshky, where residents face severe shortages.
• Scope: The agreement applies to designated areas around the humanitarian operation, not the entire Russia–Ukraine front.
Verification: The announcements from both governments are independently documented by Reuters. Actual compliance throughout the designated area, completed aid deliveries and civilian evacuations have not yet been independently established.
Fighting continues elsewhere
Reuters separately confirmed that explosions were heard in Kyiv early Tuesday. The Kyiv Independent reported another wave of Russian ballistic missiles, but fresh casualties and damage from that wave remain unconfirmed.
Military assessment: This is a meaningful but geographically limited pause, not a broader peace agreement or evidence of a change in territorial control.
Its immediate significance depends on whether both sides maintain the ceasefire and civilians receive assistance.
WHO is Making Billions from the War on Iran? Ron Paul Exposes the Real Winners of america’s Endless Wars!
27 October 2026 | Washington
In a sharply critical article published by Antiwar.com, former US Congressman Ron Paul challenges President Donald Trump’s claims that the United States is making enormous profits from rising oil prices during the war against Iran.
At a recent campaign rally, Trump boasted:
“We’re making a fortune. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Trillions of dollars.”
Ron Paul’s response is simple:
Who exactly is “we”?
1. The American People are Not Profiting
While Trump celebrates rising energy revenues, ordinary Americans are struggling with inflation, stagnant wages, expensive gasoline, and economic uncertainty.
Paul cites an Economist/YouGov poll showing that inflation and living costs remain Americans’ greatest concerns.
2. The Real Winners: Oil Giants and Weapons Manufacturers
According to Paul, the principal beneficiaries are politically connected corporations operating within America’s military-industrial system.
Oil companies benefit from higher energy prices, while defense contractors profit from expanding military operations, weapons production, and government spending.
The longer the conflicts continue, the greater the opportunities for these corporations to secure lucrative contracts.
3. War has Become a Business Model
Paul points to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Ukraine as examples of Washington’s prolonged military involvement.
His central argument is that corporations connected to government power can profit regardless of whether America wins, loses, or becomes trapped in another military stalemate.
Meanwhile, taxpayers finance the wars, and politically influential companies receive the contracts.
4. Politicians and Corporations Reinforce Each Other
Paul describes a system in which government spending enriches favored businesses, while political donations help sustain the politicians who support continued military intervention.
He also argues that antiwar politicians, including Thomas Massie, face political retaliation for challenging this arrangement.
5. The Constitutional Warning
Paul recalls that America’s founders deliberately entrusted Congress with the authority to declare war to prevent excessive military power from becoming concentrated in the executive branch.
He warns that endless warfare encourages corporate dependence on government, weakens democratic accountability, and transfers wealth from ordinary citizens to politically connected elites.
The Geopolitical Conclusion
Ron Paul’s argument challenges the economic justification for Washington’s military interventions.
The war against Iran may generate enormous revenues for certain American industries, but those corporate gains do not necessarily translate into prosperity for American households.
His warning is that when powerful economic interests benefit from prolonged conflict, the political incentive to pursue peace becomes weaker.
The central contradiction:
American families pay more for fuel and daily necessities, while powerful corporations profit from the very conflict driving those costs higher.
For the military-industrial establishment, war can be profitable even when the country itself pays an enormous price.