The authorities in Gauteng have sought data on undocumented learners following reports of children being left without guardians
A growing number of undocumented schoolchildren in South Africa have been left without their parents following a recent wave of repatriations targeting illegal immigrants, Gauteng Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Sports, Arts, and Culture Lebogang Maile said during a provincial legislature session on Tuesday.
Addressing the critical issue of children without guardians, Maile pledged to devise a plan to tackle the concerns surrounding undocumented learners. He stated, “I have already asked the national department of education for a list of all the undocumented children in our schools at the instruction of the courts that we must accept them. We are examining their ages and which schools they attend, and we want to assess the financial implications of supporting their education”.
In addition to addressing the plight of undocumented learners, Maile touched on another pressing issue: corruption within schools, noting that reports from recent school visits reflect this persistent challenge. “The second issue is corruption in schools. We have received a report in this regard. This is coming up from the visits that we are having in the schools and communities,” he added.
While the Gauteng Department of Education boasts a generous budget of R70.9 billion, exceeding that of the sports, arts, and culture sectors, which stands at just over R1.055bn, Maile insisted on the importance of safeguarding the province’s rich cultural heritage.
As part of strengthening the province’s rich cultural heritage, Maile has committed his department towards unveiling eight new heritage sites with a sports, arts and culture budget made up of R719.4 million from the Provincial Equitable Share and R336.3m in Conditional Grants.
“Our heritage work remains central to preserving the identity and memory of our people. During this financial year, the department will declare eight heritage sites and implement twenty national symbols awareness programmes to deepen constitutional values, social cohesion and public consciousness, particularly among young people,” he stated.
Maile further elaborated that libraries continue to play a strategic role in building a reading culture and bridging the digital divide. The department allocates R297.6m towards Library and Archival Services, including R194.8m transferred to municipalities to sustain and modernise community library services.
“We are investing R2m towards 160 computers for libraries and R5.1m towards reading programmes aimed at strengthening literacy across Gauteng communities,” he added.
When it comes to infrastructure backlogs and other challenges facing the education system, Maile indicated that challenges arise from rapid in-migration, urbanisation, overcrowding, infrastructure backlogs, and growing learner demand, particularly in township, informal settlement, and inner-city schools.
“These pressures require us to think differently about education delivery, infrastructure planning, and long-term sustainability. To respond to these challenges, we are increasing the department’s budget from R68bn in 2025/26 to R70.9bn in 2026/27, representing an increase of R2.9bn, or 4.3%. This increase allows us to strengthen key interventions while maintaining our focus on quality, access, and equity”.
Kiev is trying to widen the conflict by threatening Minsk, the Russian foreign minister has said
Russia is ready to invoke its security guarantees to Belarus if Ukraine follows through on threats to strike targets on its territory, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned.
Lavrov made the remarks during a round-table discussion on the West’s role in the Ukraine conflict on Monday. He was commenting on Vladimir Zelensky’s demand that Minsk dismantle or disable what Kiev claims are Russian-linked relay stations along the Belarus-Ukraine border. Zelensky gave Belarus one week to act, warning that Ukraine would otherwise destroy the equipment itself.
The Russian foreign minister described the ultimatum as a threat against a sovereign state, stating that “this is obviously aimed at dragging Belarus directly into the conflict and expanding the geography of hostilities.”
He noted that Russia and Belarus have had a security guarantees treaty in force since March 2025 under the Union State framework.
The pact treats an attack on either Russia or Belarus as an attack on the Union State and allows both sides to use all available military and technical means, including nuclear weapons, to repel aggression and threats to their sovereignty or territorial integrity.
“If necessary, we are ready to take the full range of measures provided for by the treaty to ensure the security of our ally and, of course, the security of the Union State,” Lavrov said.
Minsk has said it will not dismantle the equipment or halt fuel deliveries to Russia, similarly warning that an attack from Ukraine would trigger a response.
Lavrov also criticized the EU for what he said was support for Zelensky’s threats, citing remarks by a European Commission spokeswoman who accused Belarus of aiding Russia and said Ukraine has the right to self-defense.
The foreign minister stressed that Europe cannot act as a neutral mediator in the conflict while arming Ukraine, expanding the sanctions on Russia, and backing threats against Belarus.
Russia and Belarus have expressed concern over increasing NATO activity near their borders, including the Gallant Boar 2026 drills being held by Lithuania, Poland, and France near the Suwalki Corridor, a narrow area between Belarus and Kaliningrad Region, Russia.
Belarusian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Sekreta said Minsk is closely watching the exercise and accused Europe of embracing a militarized ideology. “Who are they planning to fight again?” he said.
Russia and Belarus have denied that they have any plans to attack NATO or the EU unless attacked first. They have accused Western states of using the Ukraine conflict, NATO drills, and military buildups on the bloc’s eastern flank to prepare for a direct confrontation with Russia and Belarus.
The outspoken highly-paid executive, who has led the service for a decade, has threatened retaliation against the central bank
A US-educated executive who has headed Ukraine’s national postal service for a decade does not have the professional competence required for the position, the country’s central bank has ruled.
Ukrposhta chief Igor Smelyansky has faced years of criticism over his salary, reportedly the highest in Ukraine’s public sector, as well as his dismissive communications style. The regulator responsible for financial oversight has demanded that he be removed from his post within five days, while the postal chief has threatened to strike back.
In a sharply worded ruling published on Tuesday, the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) cited multiple violations by the state-owned company, including alleged anti-money laundering failures. Smelyansky’s qualifications, the regulator concluded, “do not meet the professional requirements” for the top executive of a major payment operator.
Ukrainian postal chief threatens central bank
Smelyansky has dismissed the ruling as “nonsense” and claimed it was a personal attack by NBU head Andrey Pyshny, whom he accused of corruption.
“Do you know the possibilities that a lawyer with experience working in the US has? Be careful about your assets and don’t try to move them,” he warned, addressing Pyshny. “I hope you will be leaving the post soon.”
Smelyansky, a graduate of Georgetown and George Washington Universities, worked in Ukraine’s banking sector before taking over Ukrposhta.
Central bank ruling like ‘a Russian strike’
The postal chief, who presents himself as an efficiency-focused reformer, has said his monthly salary of $21,500 is lower than what he earned in the private sector.
He has claimed that managing a state-owned enterprise is more difficult and less emotionally gratifying than working for a private company.
“I received two degrees in the US, for which I paid back a student loan of $200,000. Who would I owe?” he said in a recent interview. “My salary covers more taxes for the armed forces than those of people decrying my salary.”
Smelyansky has insisted he will remain in his high-paying job until martial law is lifted, meaning not before the conflict with Russia is resolved. Ukrposhta plays a role in Ukrainian military logistics, and its storage facilities have been targeted by multiple Russian strikes.
He claimed Ukraine’s central bank under Pyshny is as damaging to the national postal service as Moscow, but added that Ukrposhta knows how to “recover from enemy attacks.”
Backlash over sexualized schoolgirl images
In February, Smelyansky labeled a critic of Ukrposhta’s recent rebranding “a whore,” while on another occasion he described people working for minimum wage as “sick in their heads.”
Another controversy involved Ukrposhta’s St. Valentine’s Day campaign, which featured sexualized images of schoolgirls and a “post of love” theme. Smelyansky later called the campaign “a mistake,” while the advertising firm behind it deleted the most provocative images.
A technical malfunction caused the explosion at the complex, where an Iranian attack in March halted operations
Twelve Indians are among the 13 killed in a blast at a Ras Laffan gas facility on Monday, the Qatari authorities say.
Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi said the blast at the Barzan plant in the Ras Laffan LNG complex was due to a “technical malfunction,” ruling out any “hostile” action.
Qatar suffered Iranian missile and drone attacks during the recent Middle East conflict triggered by US-Israel strikes on Iran, with the Ras Laffan facility extensively damaged in March.
The Indian Embassy in Doha said the Qatari authorities confirmed that 12 of the deceased were from India. The 66 reportedly injured are Qatari, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Kenyan, Ghanaian, Tanzanian, Nigerian, and Nepalese nationals, Qatari officials said.
The Qatari authorities said the injured are in stable condition and are receiving medical treatment.
Qatari authorities have confirmed that 12 Indian nationals have unfortunately passed away in the Ras Laffan incident yesterday night. We extend our deepest condolences to the bereaved families and prayers for the departed souls.
The Indian Embassy said officials are in touch with the authorities to extend “all possible help to the Indian nationals and their families affected by this incident, including ensuring that the mortal remains of the deceased are sent back to India at the earliest.”
“This was an accident and not sabotage or hostile in nature… plant production was... completely stopped since December 2025 due to urgent maintenance... it was first restarted again only two days ago,” al-Kaabi was quoted as saying by Al Jazeera.
The Ras Laffan Industrial City around 80 km north of Doha houses the world’s largest LNG export complex and produces around a fifth of global supply.
Qatar Energy did not provide details on the extent of the damage in the blast. Al-Kaabi, who is also the CEO of the state-owned company, said the blast “will not affect in any way our exports to the world.”
Qatar is India’s largest LNG supplier, accounting for nearly half of the country’s imports. Qatar owns nearly all of the plant, with ExxonMobil holding a small share.
The explosion occurred as workers were restarting operations at the complex. There was no gas leakage, Qatar’s Interior Ministry said, adding that the incident does not pose any danger to public safety.
Aden Duale has been ordered to explain why construction continued at an American-backed quarantine center
A senior Kenyan health official has been found in contempt of court over the continued construction of a controversial US-backed Ebola quarantine facility, despite an earlier judicial order halting the project.
High Court Justice Patricia Nyaundi ruled on Monday that government authorities had failed to comply with existing conservatory orders and allowed work on the facility to continue.
The court summoned the cabinet secretary of health, Aden Duale, to appear on June 23 to explain the government’s actions.
“The court cannot permit its orders to be rendered hollow,” Nyaundi said, as quoted by Reuters.
The case stems from a petition filed in May by rights group Katiba Institute, which claimed that the proposed facility could pose a public health risk in a country that has never recorded a single case of Ebola.
In a separate finding, the court concluded that the Health Ministry had disclosed all available documents related to the project.
According to Katiba Institute, the records did not include environmental and social impact assessments or emergency contingency plans typically associated with high-risk health facilities.
“The fact that construction continued in direct violation of a High Court order shows that the government believed it could operate entirely above the Kenyan judicial system,” the institute’s executive director, Nora Mbagathi, noted.
The quarantine facility issue drew attention last month, after Washington announced a $13.5 million initiative to boost Kenya’s Ebola preparedness amid an outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo).
Despite a High Court order halting the project, Reuters reported that about 20 flights carrying equipment and personnel landed at the base between May 23 and May 31.
The project has also triggered strong opposition among local residents. Protests against the construction of the US-backed quarantine facility reportedly turned deadly, with at least three people being killed during unrest linked to demonstrations over the site.
The controversy comes amid a broader Ebola crisis in Central Africa. DR Congo is currently battling its 17th recorded Ebola outbreak. Health authorities have linked the latest outbreak, which emerged in May, to the Bundibugyo strain of the virus, for which there are currently no approved vaccines or specific treatments.
As of June 22, the country had reported 1,048 confirmed cases, including 267 deaths and 112 recoveries. Neighboring Uganda has also recorded infections, with 19 confirmed cases, two deaths, and ten recoveries.
The new channel will help resolve incidents in the strategic waterway amid conflicting guidance for shipowners
Iran has agreed to set up a ‘hotline’ with the US and other countries to “prevent and resolve any misunderstandings” involving ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has said.
The strait will henceforth be “managed under Iranian arrangements” and will “never return to what it was before the war,” Ghalibaf said on Monday, returning from the first round of talks with the US in Switzerland.
“Problems can arise in the Strait of Hormuz, so we agreed to establish a center and a communications line so that if issues occur, we can resolve them more quickly within a 30-day period,” Ghalibaf was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.
The communications line will not be used to obtain Iranian permission for passage through the waterway, he added, saying clearance procedures will remain separate. Instead, it will serve as a mechanism for resolving issues involving ships and clarifying potential incidents.
Galibaf stressed that Iran will “implement international laws precisely” and move quickly to resolve any incidents or misunderstandings involving ships transiting the waterway.
“Naturally, just as problems may arise in Lebanon or elsewhere, problems can also arise in the Strait of Hormuz,” Ghalibaf said. “As you’ve seen, on some nights there have even been clashes.”
Washington and Tehran agreed on a roadmap toward a final accord following Qatar- and Pakistan-mediated talks at the Swiss resort of Buergenstock at the weekend. While no joint statement was released, mediators said the sides agreed to a 60-day path toward a final deal, further technical negotiations, and the creation of a high-level committee to oversee the process.
Tehran said the talks focused heavily on practical economic measures, including the release of $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets and the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ports and shipping.
Although shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has resumed, shipowners remain deeply uncertain about how to navigate the waterway, amid conflicting instructions from Iran, the US, and Western insurers.
Iran has warned that vessels could face penalties or be forced to turn back unless they obtain prior clearance from Tehran and follow designated routes closer to the Iranian coast.
The US and some Western insurers, meanwhile, have advised vessels to use routes along the Omani side of the waterway under the protection of US air cover, according to three shipping industry executives.
The conflicting guidance has left shipowners uncertain over which route to take, despite the strait remaining open to commercial traffic.
US actions are freezing rather than resolving the country’s divisions
The political rift and dual power structure in Libya that emerged after the 2014 House of Representatives (HoR) elections persists to this day, despite numerous attempts to unify the country.
During this period, Libya lived through its second civil war; although the war ended with a ceasefire in October 2020, two competing centers of power remained: one based in Tripoli, in the west of the country, and the other in Benghazi, in the east.
Last year, two new initiatives for reaching a settlement were launched. The first initiative comes from the US, and the second is yet another attempt by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) to prepare the country for national parliamentary and presidential elections.
The secret mission of Trump’s in-law
Reports of US negotiations with Libyan political and military leaders surfaced shortly after US President Donald Trump’s return to office. These talks were led by the senior adviser to the US president on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs, businessman and diplomat Massad Boulos.
In late April 2025, the US State Department announced that it had held a series of meetings with Saddam Haftar, the son of Khalifa Haftar, commander-in-chief of the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF) – also known as the Libyan National Army (LNA) or the Libyan Arab Army (LAA). Saddam was appointed Khalifa’s deputy in August 2025.
“The United States will continue to engage officials from western and eastern Libya and to support Libyan efforts to unify their military institutions as Libyans secure their autonomy,” the State Department said.
The talks in Washington were conducted by Boulos, who is of Lebanese descent. Libyans have nicknamed him ‘Tiffany’s father’ due to the fact that his son, Michael Boulos, is married to Trump’s youngest daughter, Tiffany.
Massad Boulos’ activities consist of implementing a pragmatic plan to unite the country’s military and economic institutions. A key episode in this strategy was a secret meeting in Rome on September 3, 2025, at which major figures from the two opposing Libyan camps met face to face for the first time. These were Saddam Haftar and Ibrahim Dbeibeh, the adviser and nephew of Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, prime minister of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in Tripoli. Boulos acted as the mediator and main negotiator on the American side.
Several similar meetings were held later, including one in Paris in January 2026, which was also mediated by Massad Boulos. Details of the negotiations later surfaced in the media.
In particular, the negotiators discussed the appointment of Haftar as head of the Tripoli-based Presidential Council (PC), which fulfills the role of the country’s president during the transitional period and is headed by Mohamed al-Menfi. The current head of the GNU, Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, will also retain his position.
At the military level, according to the plan presented by Boulos, Khaled Haftar (Saddam’s brother and the LNA chief of the General Staff in Benghazi) will remain in charge of the military leadership in the east of the country, General Salah ad-Din an-Namrush (the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces in Tripoli) will remain in charge in the northwest, and a third figure, whose identity has not yet been established, will be in charge in the south.
A unified budget, mutual integration of the armed forces, and a strengthened economic partnership with the United States was also discussed. As part of the plan, Washington is actively lobbying for the interests of American oil and gas companies, attempting to balance the influence of Russia and other countries.
Many of the plan’s aspects are being kept under wraps by officials, but Boulos himself recently admitted in an interview with the Financial Times that he is working to unite the country’s disparate institutions under a single leadership, while simultaneously promoting investments by American oil companies in Libya. The LNA leadership soon issued a statement welcoming the US initiative.
Some aspects of Boulos’ plan have already been successfully implemented. For example, on April 11, 2026, the Central Bank of Libya announced that the House of Representatives and the High Council of State (HCS), an advisory body in the west of the country, had approved the first unified budget in over 13 years.
Furthermore, Boulos’ initiatives laid the foundation for the first joint military exercises to be held in many years between the country’s eastern and western forces, as part of the annual Exercise Flintlock – a training event for special operations forces conducted under the auspices of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).
In April 2026, Exercise Flintlock took place in Libya for the first time in history, in the port city of Sirte.
Boulos’ initiative and the secret negotiations between Saddam Haftar and Ibrahim Dbeibah are fundamentally changing the nature of the political rift in Libya. Instead of institutionally unifying the country through elections, the US is essentially promoting a pragmatic plan for power-sharing between the two dominant clans – the Haftar family and the Dbeibah family.
This has a dual effect on the power divide: On the one hand, the plan reduces the risk of a new large-scale war and temporarily defuses the acute geopolitical confrontation between Tripoli and Benghazi, transforming it into a pragmatic business alliance between the two families; on the other hand, it is creating new divisions within the two camps.
In the east of the country, Saddam’s brother, Belqasem Haftar, who heads the Libyan Development and Reconstruction Fund, has sharply opposed the plan. He rejected US-sponsored economic agreements, claiming they “obstruct the national development project.”
The authorities in the west, as well as paramilitary groups in Misrata and Tripoli, who fought against Haftar for years, perceive Saddam’s appointment as head of the Presidential Council as a betrayal by Dbeibah.
Moreover, Boulos’ plan completely ignores existing legitimate government bodies. This fact has united them against the US. The High Council of State and the Presidential Council of Libya officially declared the deal illegal and outside the framework of the Libyan Political Agreement. The agreement was signed on December 17, 2015, in the Moroccan city of Skhirat under UN auspices and laid the foundation for the creation of several government structures that are still in effect in the country.
The grand mufti of Libya, Sadiq al-Ghariani, also rejected the American initiative, and urged Libya’s western military brigades to unite against the ‘Boulos project’.
The Presidential Council sees the American initiative as a direct threat to its existence, as the Boulos plan calls for the elimination of the current leadership of the council and the transfer of the chairmanship to Saddam Haftar. Realizing that Dbeibah negotiated with Haftar behind his back, Mohammed al-Manfi initiated the creation of a unified national Libyan front, joining forces with the HCS and HoR to block the Boulos plan.
Furthermore, the council is actively seeking support from loyal military groups in western Libya, convincing them that the American initiative leads to the establishment of a one-man military regime.
It’s worth noting that the swift actions of the US prompted Libya’s advisory bodies to accelerate the implementation of the UN initiative. On June 18, the HCS, HoR, and PC agreed on a roadmap that calls for holding simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections by February 17, 2027 (a significant date, as February 17, 2011, marked the beginning of mass protests and the civil war that led to the overthrow and assassination of Muammar Gaddafi).
Since the Boulos plan generally proposes to entrench the existing status quo, the US is effectively admitting the failure of the UN plan, aimed at preparing the country for general elections.
In contrast to America’s power-sharing deal between the clans, the UN, through its UNSMIL mission, led by Ghanaian lawyer and diplomat Hanna Tetteh, is promoting an official, inclusive Political Roadmap. Hanna Tetteh’s plan was presented on August 21, 2025, during her address to the UN Security Council.
The Political Roadmap is supposed to be implemented over 12-18 months and is built upon three main pillars:
The first is the Electoral Framework. It includes the adoption of a single, legally sound electoral framework for holding simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections, thereby eliminating the option of appointing leaders ‘from above’; it also involves reforming and ensuring the full financial independence of the High National Election Commission (HNEC); and updating laws based on the work of the 6+6 Joint Committee formed by the HCS and HoR.
The second objective is the Unified Government. It calls for the formation of an inclusive transitional government led by technocrats and built on consensus between the House of Representatives and the High Council of State rather than family quotas. This government is temporary; its sole aim is to prepare the country for the elections.
The third part of the plan is Structured Dialogue launched in Tripoli and aimed at engaging the entire Libyan society in the political process. It supposes the development of a common vision for the future structure of the state, the transparent distribution of oil revenues through independent oversight bodies (rather than through personal agreements between the clans), the institutional unification of the army, and the withdrawal of foreign forces from the country (as opposed to the joint exercises with AFRICOM), as well as the launch of transitional justice processes and the protection of human rights.
Despite Hanna Tetteh’s negotiations with various Libyan and foreign officials, the UN Roadmap, like previous UN initiatives, failed to achieve success, and encountered the usual delays or sabotage by Libyan political leaders.
The country’s key institutions – the HCS and the HoR – cannot agree on the constitutional foundations for holding the elections. One of the main issues is the restructuring of the High National Electoral Commission, which is one of the key objectives of the UN plan. Tetteh also acknowledged the failure of the UN plan, citing the usual delays in economic, social, legal, and security matters.
“The main cause of this dysfunction is a divided government, with limited coordination and unilateral action on both sides,” Tetteh stated.
This failure is also demonstrated by the security situation in western Libya, particularly the events in Zawiya, a city around 40 km from Tripoli, where armed clashes regularly occur between local militias loyal to the various government structures of Tripoli.
Local clashes involving heavy weapons have resulted in civilian casualties, destruction, and the shutdown of the local oil refinery (the second largest in the country). A resumption of clashes near the refinery on May 8-9, 2026, resulted in deaths and injuries. Over 80 people were urgently evacuated from the fighting zone by the Red Crescent.
The rise of such groups – a legacy of the protracted conflict following the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi – is the result of clans fighting for control over oil resources, smuggling networks, and illegal migration routes to Europe.
The UN’s inability to control local authoritarian leaders in western coastal towns like Zawiya or to achieve a permanent ceasefire remains the primary reason for the continued failure of broader UN mediation initiatives.
However, UN officials still have hope. Most recently, Hanna Tetteh announced a ‘two-step approach’: if major players continue to block the process, the UN will bypass them by convening a broad national conference involving elders, women, youth, and civil society in order to pressure leaders to make concessions. However, given the experience of past years, it is unclear how such an approach will help implement the UN plan.
Boulos’ behind-the-scenes deal effectively reflects Washington’s policy in Libya, even though formally, the US, like the EU, supports the proposed UN mechanism, seeing it as a way to legitimize the government. However, several EU countries act inconsistently when it comes to the UN initiative. For example, Italy and France, which are concerned about illegal migrants arriving from Libya and have their own energy and security assets in the country, are interested in stabilizing the situation.
Italy is critically dependent on Libyan gas supplies and views a settlement as a guarantee of uninterrupted energy supplies to Europe. Furthermore, Rome views the unification of the Libyan authorities and the creation of a single government (as proposed by Boulos) as an opportunity to block the main illegal migration routes via the Mediterranean Sea.
It’s notable that Rome has become the platform for negotiations between the representatives of the eastern and western parts of Libya. As for Paris, it aims to prevent Libya from becoming a power vacuum that would fuel Islamist terrorism in North Africa and the Sahara. Along with Italy, France officially joined the list of countries that welcomed the initial steps toward implementing the US plan (in particular, the signing of a unified budget for Libya).
Türkiye, which has demonstrated a surprising degree of flexibility, also supported the American initiative. While remaining the main military patron of the Government of National Unity, Ankara has begun forging ties with Saddam and Belqasim Haftar. Türkiye’s primary goals are to protect its construction contracts in the east and to secure the potential recognition of the 2019 Turkey-Libya Memorandum of Understanding on the Delimitation of Maritime Jurisdiction Areas by the country’s eastern authorities.
Cairo, which traditionally backs eastern Libya, also welcomed the US plan. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty stated this during a telephone conversation with Boulos, emphasizing, however, that the process of unifying national institutions would pave the way for holding presidential and parliamentary elections as soon as possible, which is more in line with the UN Roadmap.
As for Russia, it pursues a unique policy of ‘equal distance’ (or ‘equal proximity’) in Libya, maintaining strong contacts with both the east and the west. Moscow’s positive role consists in maintaining a strategic balance of power, preventing a resumption of a full-scale civil war, and facilitating economic recovery.
At the same time, eastern Libya remains Russia’s main geopolitical anchor in the region. Russia maintains a military and technical presence there through the Russian Defense Ministry’s Africa Corps. The presence of Russian specialists at key LNA bases (such as Jufra and Sirte) acts as a deterrent for western groups. In the Fezzan desert region of southern Libya, Russian forces are helping the LNA control the borders with Chad and Sudan, blocking the logistics of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and arms smugglers, and stabilizing the entire Sahel region.
Contrary to the general view that Russia only supports Haftar, Moscow has accomplished a powerful diplomatic breakthrough in western Libya in recent years. In August 2023, the Russian embassy in Tripoli reopened. Russian companies (including Gazprom EP International and Tatneft) have resumed geological exploration and work on old contracts in the Ghadames and Sirte basins.
The political leadership of western Libya (including Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah) regularly holds official talks with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Dbeibah has publicly declared improved relations and a commitment to a strategic partnership with Moscow.
Despite reports by Western media that one of the goals of the Boulos plan is to oust Russia from Libya’s political life, contacts with Moscow play a stabilizing role for Libya and allow the authorities in Tripoli to avoid becoming completely dependent on US dictates or Turkish military bases.
At the same time, Moscow advocates for an inclusive process within the framework of the UN Security Council that would lead to national elections. Russia maintains that a stable peace agreement is impossible without the participation of all Libyan factions, tribal alliances, and the consideration of the interests of both the east and the west.
Despite the support of many parties both within Libya and outside of it, America’s actions are not healing the divisions in the country, but only temporarily freezing them. They reduce the likelihood of a sudden war for Tripoli, but at the same time, by relying on a deal between the elites, they undermine the democratic process promoted by UN structures.
Opinions regarding the Boulos plan are mixed: Some believe it is a rare opportunity for stabilization, while others think it poses a risk of external dictate and the entrenchment of local elites.
In the long term, the creation of the Dbeibah-Haftar ‘family consortium’ makes Libya’s political system even more fragile, as it rests solely on the balance of interests of two specific families whose internal stability may be shaken after the departure of their leaders.
Guinea warns that operators who fail to comply will have their licenses suspended or mining agreements terminated
Guinean President Mamadi Doumbouya has banned the export of raw gold, directing all production to be refined domestically as part of a push to expand local value addition in the West African nation’s mining sector.
The measure follows talks between the president and industrial and artisanal mining operators, as well as gold buying offices, on June 19, and takes effect immediately.
“Any operator who, after the expiry of this deadline, continues to export raw gold will have its license suspended, its mining agreement terminated, and will answer for its actions before Guinean justice,” Doumbouya warned, according to his office.
Guinea holds significant gold reserves and ranks as the sixth-largest producer in Africa, with production of 69.3 tons in 2025, according to the World Gold Council. The former French colony is also the world’s leading producer of bauxite, accounting for around 33.2% of global output in 2024, US Geological Survey data shows.
President Mamadi Doumbouya said Guinea has “unfortunately been among the poorest nations in the world,” despite being “one of the richest lands in Africa.”
He said the country’s “gold leaves its soil every day in raw form, loaded onto planes, taken to foreign refineries to be processed” and sold elsewhere while Guinea “receives crumbs.”
“I put an end to this today. Guinean gold will be melted in Guinea, certified in Guinea, valued in Guinea before being exported to international markets,” he declared.
The government said the measure is designed to boost local value addition and accelerate industrialization in a country where mining remains the backbone of the economy.
Under the new framework, refining is expected to take place at the Nimba Gold Refinery in Gbessia, a state-backed facility in the capital, Conakry. The plant is expected to process up to 2,000 kg of gold per day and an estimated monthly capacity of 520 tons. It is designed to produce internationally certified bullion and handle industrial waste streams containing precious metals, according to the presidency.
Doumbouya, who first came to power in 2021 after a military takeover and later won the presidency in an election last December, has also tightened oversight of Guinea’s bauxite sector, revoking and reassigning mining concessions while pushing for greater local processing.
Similar policies have been rolled out elsewhere in Africa in recent years. Zimbabwe, the continent’s leading lithium producer, has restricted exports of unprocessed lithium concentrates, while Tanzania and Uganda have already banned exports of unrefined minerals and metals, including gold and copper.
Keir Starmer’s likely successor offers a fresh coat of paint over the same unpopular policies
British Labour MP Andy Burnham looks set to be airdropped into Downing Street to replace Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He’s promising “renewal for our party and our country,” after the sitting prime minister effectively burned the greatest parliamentary majority in over a hundred years with scandals, a lack of empathy, and a notoriously belligerent line on the country’s relationship with Israel.
However, despite the premature hailing of Burnham as someone who could reinvigorate the Labour vote, all signs point to him delivering Starmerism without Starmer.
Starmer resigned on Monday as the most unpopular prime minister in modern British history, six weeks after the Labour Party lost almost 1,500 seats in local elections across England. His resignation opened a leadership contest that Burnham – a Labour veteran that served under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who re-entered parliament after winning a by-election in Makerfield, Manchester last week – is all but guaranteed to win.
An endorsement by fellow Labour contender Wes Streeting followed, essentially sealing the deal. Burnham will likely be anointed prime minister later this summer on the back of fewer than 25,000 votes in Makerfield.
“The country expects stability, seriousness and a continued focus on the issues that matter most and that is what it will get,” Burnham wrote on social media. “The Labour movement has always been at its strongest when it looks forward with confidence…and we will make sure this transition is a positive process of renewal for our party and our country.”
The Andy Burnham aesthetic
At first glance, Burnham represents an aesthetic break from Starmer, who has been described as “wooden” and “lacking in charisma.” Speaking in a slightly working class northern accent and clad in a simple shirt and jeans, Burnham goes to great lengths to set himself apart from the “Westminster bubble” inhabited by suit-and-tie southerners like Starmer.
The North vs South-off in the battle to be British Prime Minister - which pitch will win out? pic.twitter.com/r0CKtH6Z5s
The British media have largely accepted this framing. The Financial Times has described him as a man who bases his policies on conversations with voters in supermarkets, while The Times has described his views as shaped by the “class-conscious history of Catholicism in the north,” as well as his time as a church altarboy.
Should he get the job, he will be the first Roman Catholic in British history to become prime minister. But scratch the PR-friendly surface, and Burnham starts to look more and more like the prime minister he’s set to replace.
Are Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer really that different?
Aesthetic differences aside, Starmer and Burnham are both products of the same political pipeline. Both were educated in England’s most elite universities, with Starmer studying at Oxford and Burnham at Cambridge. Both represent the centrist, managerial ‘New Labour’ of Tony Blair, not the left-wing Labour of Jeremy Corbyn. Back in 2015, both tried and failed to prevent Corbyn from wresting control of the party after Ed Miliband’s resignation, with Starmer endorsing Burnham’s failed leadership bid.
🚨 WATCH: Andy Burnham has just left Manchester and is set to arrive in London at 1:09pm pic.twitter.com/ngUA1huyAa
Starmer eventually succeeded Corbyn in 2020, using accusations of anti-Semitism to oust one of Britain’s most vocal supporters of Palestine. He has since reshaped the party as an Atlanticist, pro-Israel political force, and there is no indication that Burnham will abandon this course.
Labour’s losing message on Israel
Labour’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is existential for the party. Under Starmer, Palestine Action was listed as a terrorist organization, and the PM called for the “policing of language” and banning anti-Israel protests. As a result, Labour’s left-wing base has abandoned the party in droves, switching allegiance to the explicitly pro-Palestinian Green Party. Against public protests and complaints from his own MPs, Starmer refused to call for a ceasefire in Gaza in late 2023 and publicly affirmed Israel’s right to cut off power and water to the strip’s two million residents.
Burnham, like Starmer, is a member of Labour Friends of Israel – a group that only a quarter of Labour MPs have joined. He backed Starmer’s coup against Corbyn, describing the party as “embroiled in an anti-Semitism crisis.” And in his 2015 leadership bid, he promised that his first overseas trip as prime minister would be to Israel, which he praised for its “long history of protecting minorities and promoting civil rights.”
Andy Burnham in the 2015 Labour Leadership Election:
"The first country I will visit if elected is 'israel'"!
None of this will ingratiate Burnham with Labour’s left wing. Nor will it help him with Muslim voters, two thirds of whom say they will no longer consider voting for the party, according to a poll taken last month.
Starmer famously marched against the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 but prevaricated when the US and Israel began striking Iran in February. After an initial public statement in which he condemned Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempts to impose “regime change from the skies,” Starmer went on to allow the US military to conduct what he called “defensive” strikes on Iran from British bases.
For his part, Burnham voted in favor of joining the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a decision that he has since described as “agonizing.” However, he went on to vote against formal inquiries into Britain’s conduct in Iraq and has said little about the war on Iran, describing it as “not simple.”
Like Starmer and every Conservative PM since 2022 – Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak – Burnham is staunchly pro-Ukraine, promising to “stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
Can voters trust Andy Burnham on immigration?
Although immigration policy is largely a right-wing concern, more and more of Labour’s voters back tougher border controls in the wake of the so-called ‘Boriswave’: the post-Brexit surge in non-EU immigration that has seen more than 4 million migrants arrive in the UK since 2020. According to a YouGov poll, half of Labour’s 2024 voters now think Starmer is handling immigration badly, while 49% want overall immigration numbers reduced, according to a separate Ipsos survey taken last year.
Starmer managed to cut net migration in half from 2024-2025, and although Burnham has said the figures “need to fall further,” his past views suggest that voters will not take his current position at face value. Burnham called on the Conservative government to accept more Middle Eastern asylum seekers in 2015 and advocated for social welfare payments for newly-arrived migrants in 2019.
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has branded Burnham “open-borders Burnham” over these positions. With Reform winning as many seats in last month’s by-elections as Labour lost, and with the party’s tough immigration policies three times as popular as Labour’s, it is highly unlikely that Burnham will be able to turn around Starmer’s polling on the issue.
New prime minister, new taxes
Starmer took office during an unprecedented decline in British living standards and immediately began imposing new taxes to fill a £22 billion ($29.9 billion) hole in public finances. Spending increases on healthcare, education, and policing were limited, and between July 2024 and November 2025, Starmer’s government imposed a new tax or increased an old one every ten days, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Unlike Starmer, Burnham has promised a quasi-socialist surge in public spending. On the campaign trail in Makerfield, he called for a sweeping wave of nationalization, energy price caps, public housing construction, and defense spending hikes. However, his appointment of MP Miatta Fahnbulleh as economic adviser suggests that the end result will be the same for the British taxpayer.
In order to pay for this ambitious agenda, Fahnbulleh, whose father worked in the government of former Liberian President Samuel Doe, has proposed the imposition of a wealth tax and windfall taxes on oil and gas, hikes in capital gains and property taxes, and increases in property and dividend taxes.
Nigel Farage demands elections
Burnham is on the cusp of becoming the UK’s sixth prime minister in seven years. Only three of these – Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Keir Starmer – actually won a general election, and none served a full five-year term. None have managed to turn Britain’s cratering economy around, none have offered any kind of shift in foreign policy, and none have reduced immigration to a level acceptable to voters.
British PMs since 2016 and how long they spent in power:
“Andy Burnham knows this,” Farage wrote in a blog post on Monday. “He doesn’t care about our borders, our rotten high streets, our energy bills or our collapsing finances. That’s why he didn’t even try and campaign on his own ideas – because he doesn’t have any. His plan for government is to act as continuity Starmer, and hope the rest of us are too stupid to notice.”
Whereas Burnham has called for an “orderly and responsible” transition of power, Farage has demanded a general election, but Starmer has insisted on installing a successor “to ensure the Labour Party secures a second term in office.” With the party’s first term set to drag on until 2029, few expect Burnham to make it that far. All Starmer has done is to ensure that, whenever an election is called, it is Burnham’s, and not his, to lose.
Russian investigators say two women were unknowingly recruited to deliver improvised explosive devices
Ukrainian special services attempted to use two Moscow women as unwitting suicide bombers in a double-tap attack on a Russian law enforcement facility, investigators say.
The operation began last week when the two suspects, aged 19 and 47, traveled from Moscow to Pyatigorsk, a city in Stavropol Region, Russia in the North Caucasus, according to statements released on Tuesday by the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Investigative Committee. The women were reportedly unaware of each other and did not know that the courier jobs they accepted were intended to be suicide missions.
Investigators said the 19-year-old suspect was detained on Saturday while heading toward a checkpoint near the intended target. The 47-year-old woman later aroused suspicion as she approached the same area, the authorities said.
Both women allegedly collected backpacks containing improvised explosive devices from caches in Pyatigorsk. The bombs were destroyed in controlled detonations, according to video footage released by the FSB. The video also shows the second suspect crying, thanking the officers for saving her life and saying that Saturday was her birthday.
Russian officials believe the Ukrainian handlers intended the first courier to trigger a security response, while the second was meant to inflict maximum casualties among law enforcement personnel.
The authorities did not explain how the devices, each equivalent to around 2 kg of TNT, were supposed to be detonated or why they failed to explode. Both women have been charged with terrorism-related offenses.
The FSB has reported several cases in which it claimed Ukrainian operatives used people as unwitting suicide bombers. The first high-profile incident took place in October 2022, when a commercial driver was reportedly tricked into transporting a bomb across the Crimean Bridge. He was killed in a remotely triggered explosion, along with four other civilians traveling nearby.
Recent alleged attacks include a woman and a man who were reportedly instructed to deliver explosive devices disguised as a Christian icon and a portable speaker to the FSB’s regional headquarters in Crimea.
Russian officials claim that Kiev is resorting to terrorist tactics due to setbacks suffered on the battlefield. The CIA helped Ukraine overhaul its special services after the 2014 coup, turning them into proxies for espionage operations focused on Russia, according to media reports.
Berlin will buy a 40% stake in defense giant KNDS, putting it on par with Paris, as the two countries continue to militarize
Germany and France are preparing an unprecedented joint state takeover of the EU’s largest tank maker, as the two countries continue their militarization drive.
The two governments announced the deal involving Amsterdam-headquartered KNDS on Monday, saying they have finalized the framework governing the company’s ownership, with the countries set to have equal shares.
Germany is expected to purchase 40% of the stock, while the French government will reduce its holding from 50% to 40%, thus leaving a free-float of only around 20%.
Germany’s stake would be acquired from the Wegmann family, KNDS’s current German shareholder, though the contract is still awaiting the final signature and the green light from the Bundestag’s parliamentary budget committee.
Neither Germany nor France has announced the value of the deal, but a Reuters source said the German stake purchase will value KNDS at €15 billion to €18 billion ($17.1 billion to $20.5 billion).
KNDS has a portfolio ranging from Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks to artillery and armored vehicles, and is a key supplier to European militaries. Formed in 2015, the company has equipped Ukraine’s military with Leopards and Caesar systems and opened a Ukrainian subsidiary to support local repair and ammunition production.
The German government said its planned stake “will secure long-term influence on a company that is strategically significant for European security and defense capability.”
French President Emmanuel Macron also hailed the deal, saying that “together with Germany, we are taking a major step for our defense sovereignty today.” He added that the partnership was giving the two countries “the means to defend themselves, produce and innovate on their own,” in pursuit of “a sovereign Europe that protects and chooses its own destiny.”
Macron has for years pushed for European strategic autonomy amid a growing rift with the US, warning the continent must not be a “vassal” of Washington. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has been more cautious but increasingly tilted the same way, warning last year that European nations must end what he termed a defense “free-ride” on the US.
Citing an alleged “Russian threat,” both countries have embarked on expedited militarization, aligning themselves with NATO’s target defense spending of 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Moscow has repeatedly dismissed speculation that it could attack NATO, with President Vladimir Putin labeling the claim as “not only pure insanity but also a deliberate provocation.”
While the new Franco-German deal marks a milestone in military cooperation, the KNDS announcement came just weeks after the collapse of the joint FCAS project to build a next-generation fighter jet by 2040. The venture failed due to an estimated €3.2 billion in sunk R&D costs and irreconcilable disputes between Dassault and Airbus over leadership of the program.
Tu-160 strategic bombers flew over neutral waters in the Barents and Norwegian seas, the Defense Ministry has said
Russian Tu-160 nuclear-capable strategic bombers have conducted drills over the neutral waters of the Barents and Norwegian seas, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday. The mission took place amid tensions between Moscow and NATO over the Ukraine conflict.
The aircraft were escorted by MiG-31 fighter jets and conducted mid-air refueling drills during what the ministry described as a routine patrol flight over the Arctic region between Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. According to the ministry, the bombers were shadowed by fighter aircraft from unspecified foreign countries during parts of their 16-hour mission.
“All flights of the Russian Aerospace Forces are conducted in strict accordance with international rules governing the use of airspace,” the ministry said on Telegram.
Russia and Belarus conducted their first joint nuclear exercise last month. President Vladimir Putin said nuclear deterrence protects the sovereignty of both countries at a time of “growing global tensions, as well as the emergence of new threats and risks.”
Moscow has warned that NATO’s military support for Ukraine and the growing militarization of Europe could lead to a broader conflict.
“A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote in a recent op-ed that was rejected by Politico Europe.
Lavrov also expressed “deep concern” over France’s proposal to extend its nuclear deterrent to Germany and other NATO members.
Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum this month, Putin reiterated that Russia would not attack a NATO member unless Russia is attacked first.
A massage therapist sparked debate online after being filmed arguing about Muslims in a grocery store
More than $140,000 has been raised online on behalf of a Texas woman filmed making anti-Islam comments in a grocery store.
The 44-second video which surfaced on Sunday shows a woman in blue medical scrubs confronting two other women who remain off camera.
The woman, identified by media reports as massage therapist Dasha Kilpatrick, says: “Islam is a terrorist organization, not a religion. I’m very educated on this subject. You need to leave. You’re not welcome here. This is not a Muslim country. This is a Christian country.”
One of the women is heard responding, “You need to leave,” while another says, “We have citizenship here.”
The altercation was reportedly filmed inside an H-E-B supermarket in Conroe, Texas.
After Kilpatrick faced backlash online, a fundraiser was launched on the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo. As of Tuesday, it raised $140,178.
This is not an outlier or an isolated incident. Perhaps the most disturbing part is the conviction this woman has in believing neighbors shopping at HEB are a threat to her and her country. This "hate virus" is a contagion we must confront with facts, truth, and unity. #txlegepic.twitter.com/Sg30vqknhp
— Rep. Suleman Lalani, M.D. (@DoctorLalani) June 21, 2026
“Dasha’s been fully doxxed, fired, and canceled for daring to speak truth in her own country. She’s now dealing with lost income, threats, and the mob coming for her holistic practice,” the fundraiser page states.
Texas State Representative Suleman Lalani described Kilpatrick’s remarks as “disturbing.”
“This ‘hate virus’ is a contagion we must confront with facts, truth, and unity,” he wrote on X.
Inner Light Holistic Healing, a business where Kilpatrick was reportedly listed as an employee, has been flooded with negative reviews.
Others, including Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, expressed support for Kilpatrick.
“I stand with Dasha, do you?” Mace wrote on X.
Anti-Muslim incidents in the US have increased in recent years amid debates over immigration, conflicts in the Middle East, and concerns about Islamist terrorism.
President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order restricting entry from several Muslim-majority countries during his first term in office, has recently accused Democrats of covering up several high-profile fraud cases in Minnesota involving Somali Americans.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it received 8,683 complaints of discrimination and bigotry last year, the highest annual number since the organization began publishing the data in 1996.
The British people are celebrating the prime minister’s resignation, the former MP has told RT
Outgoing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has turned the UK into an “authoritarian hellhole,” with more people being jailed and arrested for social media posts than in any other country in the world, former MP George Galloway has told RT.
Starmer announced on Monday that he would step down as prime minister and Labour Party leader by September, citing a widespread internal revolt against his leadership.
Speaking to RT’s Rick Sanchez, Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 for his vocal opposition to the Iraq War, welcomed the move.
“I danced on his political grave,” he said. “He has turned the United Kingdom into an authoritarian hellhole.”
Galloway argued that Starmer, who assumed office in July 2024, had made the UK subservient to the interests of Israel, Ukraine and the EU.
The British people were “rejoicing” at his departure, Galloway said, suggesting that Starmer’s plunging approval ratings had made him a liability for Labour. Only 18% of Britons viewed him favorably in mid-June, according to YouGov.
“He’s a creature of the deep state,” Galloway said, referring to Starmer’s work as Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service prior to his election to Parliament in 2015. He added that Starmer had “a whole string of deep-state preoccupations,” citing what he described as “the injustice to Julian Assange” and the decision not to prosecute BBC presenter and serial sex offender Jimmy Savile.
“That doesn’t mean the next fellow will be better,” Galloway said.
Andy Burnham, the newly sworn-in MP for Makerfield, is widely seen as the frontrunner to become the next prime minister. “It’ll be a coronation… this is a democratic outrage,” Galloway said.
In 2024, Starmer became the UK’s first Labour prime minister since 2010 and the sixth person to hold the office in the span of a decade. He decided to leave office after more than 100 Labour MPs urged him to step down and several key ministers resigned from his government.
The agency deliberately allowed some shipments of illegal deadly drugs to go through to build bigger cases, the outlet’s sources say
The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) let hundreds of thousands of illegal fentanyl pills reach the streets of New Mexico between 2023 and 2025 – potentially leading to deadly outcomes – to focus on building bigger drug cases, The Associated Press reported on Monday, citing law enforcement sources and records.
Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid roughly 50 times stronger than heroin, is manufactured largely in clandestine Mexican labs using chemicals sourced from China. A dose as small as two milligrams – a few grains of salt – can be lethal, making it far deadlier per unit than cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin, with the drug itself cheap to produce and not dependent on crop seasons.
The drug is associated with two main dangers: while for opioid addicts, it has replaced heroin as their primary high, for the broader public, it acts as a hidden poison, often disguised as counterfeit prescription pills.
The US has been reeling from the fentanyl epidemic since 2013, with tens of thousands dying from overdoses yearly. US President Donald Trump has outlined combating the crisis as one of his priorities, designating fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction.”
While the DEA insists that it is not logistically feasible or even necessary to intercept every drug shipment, the scale of the strategy to allow fentanyl to hit the streets “shocked several veteran agents” in New Mexico, according to AP.
“We poisoned our community to make cases,” DEA Special Agent David Howell told the outlet, adding that the agency’s approach “100% got people killed.” Howell, who filed a whistleblower complaint on the issue, described the tactic as “we did nothing, but sit back and watch.”
In one case detailed in a 66-page report reviewed by AP, agents tracked a June 2023 deal in Albuquerque in which traffickers delivered 74,000 pills that were never seized. A former DEA supervisor told AP that colleagues let “millions” of pills go unseized during a separate multi-state probe last year; Howell’s whistleblower disclosures put the figure at no less than 1.8 million pills.
At the same time, as the investigation progressed, the DEA carried out the largest single fentanyl pill seizure in its history in Albuquerque in May 2025, with agents confiscating 2.7 million fentanyl pills, more than 11kg of fentanyl powder, and $5 million in cash, alongside the arrest of 16 people with suspected ties to Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel.
Commenting on the AP report, DEA spokesperson Amanda Wozniak said that “public descriptions suggesting that DEA knowingly permitted fentanyl to reach communities are false and fundamentally mischaracterize the facts,” adding that the investigation focused on wiretaps and real-time surveillance.
The prime minister’s departure is unlikely to alter London’s support for Kiev or its confrontational stance toward Moscow, the Kremlin has said
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation has drawn a mix of mockery and skepticism in Moscow, with officials and experts saying that his departure is unlikely to change London’s hostile stance towards Russia.
Relations at ‘zero level’
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the idea that Starmer’s departure would alter bilateral ties, arguing that the British leader had “not done anything to distinguish himself on the issue of UK-Russian relations” and had consistently favored keeping them “at a zero level.” Peskov added that there was little reason to expect any successor to take a markedly different policy.
Russian Special Presidential Envoy Kirill Dmitriev appeared to celebrate the news on X, writing: “We did it. Starmer's resignation unites us all,” echoing comments made earlier by US President Donald Trump.
The criticism extended to Russia’s parliament, where Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov predicted Starmer would be gone by autumn, branding him “a destroyer of everything possible” who “only sets countries against each other” and “hinders any negotiation process.”
UK policy on Ukraine and Russia to remain unchanged
Speaking to RT on Monday, Nikolay Topornin, director of the Center for European Information and an international observer, said Starmer’s departure is unlikely to bring any major shift in British foreign policy.
“The British course to support Kiev, to punish Russia, and to provide military and financial support to Ukraine will remain unchanged,” he said.
He added that British policymakers understand Moscow’s arguments “very clearly” but pay little attention to what Russia sees as the root causes of the conflict.
Moscow has long insisted that any lasting settlement must address those issues, including Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, protections for Russian speakers, and recognition of territorial realities.
The UK remains bound by agreements with Germany, France, Brussels, and Washington, Topornin argued. As long as they maintain a common stance on Russia and the Ukraine conflict, there is little room for any major shift in London's policy, he said.
The analyst noted that much will depend on appointments to top foreign-policy posts, but argued that no prominent British politician currently favors a meaningful change of course on the Ukraine conflict.
Topornin predicted that Labour politician Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester, would succeed Starmer. Burnham “has not yet distinguished himself by some radical statements about foreign policy and changes in approaches to the conflict,” he said, adding that the rhetoric towards Moscow is unlikely to become “more pragmatic” as the new prime minister is expected to follow “the politics of the previous cabinet.”
Sergey Shein, a research fellow at the Higher School of Economics, echoed that view. He argued that Starmer is likely to oversee a managed transition rather than a sudden exit, while any successor, including Burnham, would initially be preoccupied with uniting the Labour Party. Domestically, Burnham would likely focus on economic recovery, housing, and healthcare, he added.
Hawkish Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has rejected US and Iranian calls to halt military operations in Lebanon
The Israeli army should continue operations in Lebanon despite pressure from the US, Israel’s hardline national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, said on Monday.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has expanded its presence in southern Lebanon since early March, after the militant group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in support of Iran. Tehran has since made ending the fighting in Lebanon a key condition in peace talks with the US, prompting President Donald Trump to condemn the Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon.
Speaking to reporters, Ben-Gvir argued that Israel should make it clear to Trump that it “cannot agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon,” where more than 4,000 people have been killed since Israel resumed military operations. He added that Israel should not withdraw its troops and allow Hezbollah to rearm.
Ben-Gvir described Lebanon as a “country that supports terrorism,” adding that “even with a smaller number of soldiers, we can achieve results if Lebanon is our playground.” He previously wrote on X that “all of Lebanon should burn,” in response to Hezbollah attacks.
Under a US-Iranian memorandum of understanding signed last week, the sides declared an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
On Monday, US Vice President J.D. Vance said “very good progress” was made on a deconfliction mechanism for Lebanon during talks with Iran in Switzerland. Mediators Qatar and Pakistan released a joint statement saying the parties “agreed on the creation of a deconfliction cell,” while technical talks on the issue will continue this week.
Defense Minister Israel Katz stated, however, that Israel will retain “complete freedom of action” in Lebanon and “anywhere it is necessary.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the army has “full freedom of action to thwart any direct or emerging threat.”
“The IDF has no restrictions in this regard,” Netanyahu added, according to the Times of Israel. Israeli politicians have criticized the US-Iranian peace roadmap for failing to advance Israel’s war objectives.
During a series of heated phone calls with Netanyahu this month, Trump urged the Israeli leader to halt strikes in Lebanon, reportedly accusing him of having “no f**king judgment.”
Millionaire football club owner Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his spouse face 18 additional charges
A British businessman who became known as the country’s ‘first gay father’ has been charged with child sex offenses, according to media reports.
Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 57, was already facing a number of criminal allegations alongside his current husband, Scott Drewitt-Barlow, 32. The couple, who bought Essex-based football club Maldon and Tiptree FC in 2025, appeared at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday. They were reportedly hit with 18 additional charges, including rape and child sex offenses.
The new charges relate to offenses allegedly committed between 2013 and 2026. According to Essex Police, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow was also charged with two counts of sexual activity with a child, two counts of paying for the sexual services of a child, five counts of rape, and four counts of sexual assault, among other offenses. Scott Drewitt-Barlow faces two additional rape charges and one count of causing or inciting sexual activity.
The pair are due to return to court for a plea hearing in September. They were remanded to custody, with a provisional trial date set for January 18, 2027.
Prosecutor Serena Berry reportedly told an earlier hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court that the couple were public figures who lived a “multi-million [pound]” lifestyle. She alleged that they had targeted young males and “recruited and befriended them” before grooming them and inviting them to their home and other properties.
Property developer Barrie Drewitt-Barlow became a public figure in 1999, when he and his then-partner became known as Britain’s first gay fathers after having children through surrogacy. He later appeared on reality television shows, including ‘Rich House, Poor House’ and ‘Below Deck Sailing Yacht’.
Police launched an investigation in May, carrying out searches at Maldon and Tiptree FC and the couple’s home in Danbury, Essex. Barrie and Scott Drewitt-Barlow were arrested during a raid on the property on May 6 and charged two days later, according to The Telegraph.
Earlier this month, the Football Association suspended both men from football-related activities pending the outcome of the police investigation, according to court proceedings cited by the BBC.
Thirteen people drowned over the weekend as soaring temperatures drove crowds to beaches, rivers, and lakes
At least five people died in France on Sunday and Monday as temperatures topped 42°C (107.6°F) in parts of the country in the midst of a severe heatwave gripping much of Europe.
Among the victims were two children, aged two and four, who were found dead in their family car in the southern town of Carpentras on Monday. Prosecutors said heat exposure was the suspected cause of death.
A day earlier, three elderly people were found dead in their homes in the suburbs of Bordeaux, local prefect Sophie Brocas told France 3. Emergency responders reportedly linked the deaths to the extreme heat.
At least 13 more people drowned over the weekend as crowds flocked to beaches, rivers, lakes, and swimming pools in search of relief from the scorching temperatures.
Authorities have issued red heatwave alerts – the highest level – across more than half of France, while dozens of trains have been canceled and thousands of school classes have been postponed or relocated because of the extreme weather.
In the UK, the national weather service has warned of “extreme heat,” with temperatures potentially reaching 39°C later this week.
Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Spain have also issued orange and red weather alerts, warning of dangerous conditions.
The heat is proving especially hazardous in the parts of Europe that are ill-equipped for such temperatures, as many homes and commercial buildings are designed to retain warmth and often lack air conditioning.
Some forecasters have warned that the current bout of hot weather could rival the deadly 2003 heatwave, which caused tens of thousands of excess deaths across Europe, according to official data.
A video shared online shows the senior Seattle University staffer grabbing a the flag from a Muslim student during commencement
A US university has come under fire after videos emerged showing a provost grabbing a Palestinian flag from a Muslim student during a graduation ceremony.
The video in question was reportedly recorded during Seattle University’s commencement ceremony earlier this month and then widely shared online. It appears to show Provost Shane Martin reaching for a Palestinian flag as a graduating student named Sumeyya Osman unfurled it while approaching him for an official photograph. Martin is seen pulling the flag out of camera view before briefly struggling with Osman over it and guiding her off the stage by the arm.
Osman later said she planned to display the flag while receiving her diploma, but Martin prevented her from doing so. She also said she declined to shake the provost’s hand because of her Muslim faith, which discourages physical contact with unrelated men. “But then he just proceeded to try and take the flag away from me aggressively,” she told the media.
Osman said the incident left her feeling anxious and in fear of possible repercussions, prompting her to leave the ceremony before it ended.
CAIR-WA condemns @seattleu provost disruption of Muslim student’s graduation. Physically accosting her after she said she doesn’t shake hands with men and held up the Palestinian flag. pic.twitter.com/spbE2FFrLC
The footage has triggered outcry and calls for a public apology. The Washington chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights organization, has condemned the incident, saying Osman was “physically accosted” by Martin. It went on to denounce his actions as an “aggressive” response to the student’s religious and identity expression.
Martin later apologized, saying he had not heard that Osman wished to avoid physical contact for religious reasons. CAIR-Washington subsequently argued that the apology failed to address Martin’s handling of the Palestinian flag.
The Seattle incident comes amid a broader wave of pro-Palestinian demonstrations that have appeared at graduation ceremonies across the US since the outbreak of the Gaza war in 2023. Students at universities including Harvard, Yale, MIT and Berkeley, have staged walkouts, displayed Palestinian flags, called for divestment from Israel-linked companies, and demanded an end to Washington’s support for Israel. These demonstrations have drawn increased scrutiny under President Donald Trump’s administration.
Since returning to office, Trump has stepped up pressure on universities to address anti-Semitism and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In February 2025, the Justice Department launched a multi-agency task force to investigate alleged anti-Semitic incidents, with particular attention on schools and colleges.
The administration has also taken financial measures targeting several major institutions for their handling of campus protests related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, as well as what it described as inadequate responses to anti-Semitic incidents. Among them is Harvard University, which saw more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts frozen after rejecting a list of White House demands.
Andy Burnham inherits a restless country, vague promises, and no margin for error
Sir Keir Starmer has resigned as UK prime minister. Following the re-election to Parliament of Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, the former lawyer realized he had no support left.
After winning in a landslide in 2024, Starmer is but the latest casualty of number 10 Downing Street. And in many ways, it is a wonder why.
Last week on Britain’s most popular radio station, LBC, a female caller quipped, “I don’t understand why he’s so unpopular.” By all accounts, Starmer and his wife are decent people. Both have had decorated careers in public service, as a lawyer and a nurse respectively, and are known to be good parents.
Politically, Starmer is a moderate known for caution. One of the biggest criticisms has been his lack of boldness, and yet Labour has achieved a lot in a short space of time. Renters now have more protections, the minimum wage and state pensions have increased, workers’ rights have improved, the feudal system of ground rent has been reformed and rail operators nationalized. Waiting lists on the health service have declined, and half a million children have been lifted out of poverty.
Elsewhere, immigration (legal and illegal) has dropped. Britain’s homicide rate is the lowest in fifty years. Starmer also secured the best possible trade deal Britain could have got with the EU. He did this whilst avoiding the worst of US President Donald Trump’s erratic behavior.
But it is not what Starmer did that caused his immense unpopularity and downfall. It is what he did not do.
In failing to brag about his achievements, voters did not feel the benefits of Labour’s success. By not articulating a positive vision for Britain, Starmer could never explain his government’s purpose. Labour had little to say on the big questions facing Britain and provided no antidote to short-term pain.
Like former US President George H. W. Bush, Starmer admits he “is not much of an ideas guy.” He is not really interested in Labour Party history. He, instead, wanted to cut the figure of a statesman who did the right thing in spite of what is popular. He thought that making government work after fourteen chaotic years of Conservative rule would be enough.
It has not been. The party wanted a political leader who would unite the country’s progressive left majority in a fragmented political environment.
Last year, I attended a conference in Cambridge on Labour’s first year, where one of the organisers put it candidly: “You have to honor a large majority,” he said. Labour failed to deliver the speedy change Britain’s impatient population was expecting and routinely got in its own way.
Starmer tried to reform Britain’s shockingly high welfare bill (currently around 10% of GDP with 55% going to pensioners). He tried to cut the winter fuel allowance, a payment which goes towards all pensioners’ heating bills. Most do not need it and see that as a badge of honor. Starmer also tried to make certain benefit payments harder to get and encourage more young people back into work. And in fairness, unemployment is now down slightly.
But like his defense plans, Labour backbenchers would not have it. No new ideas came in their place, and Starmer proved unwilling to break manifesto pledges. Without a vision and a purpose, voters turned to fringe parties. More than half of Labour’s own members feel their party is failing to deliver.
Enter Andy Burnham, the ‘King of the North’. From a lowly parliamentary researcher in 1994 under Tony Blair all the way to cabinet minister in 2007, Burnham has run twice for Labour leader, in 2010 and 2015. He lost both times.
He says the north of England – specifically Manchester – is an example of what a successful Britain could look like. In Burnham’s telling, growth only matters if it is translated into tangible benefits for every citizen. ‘Manchesterism’ is “the end of neoliberalism, the end of trickle-down economics,” he claims, with more power and resources being devolved out of Westminster.
To be fair, Manchester is a booming city and some of that is down to Burnham. Most, however, is not. He merely rode the coattails of an already underway regeneration plan. His signature achievement is cheaper and more expansive local bus networks, but concerns linger over local policing, affordable housing, and homelessness.
More concerning is that Burnham has no fixed ideology. He appears happy to say whatever goes down well at the time of speaking. Many of Burnham’s colleagues in Manchester and Westminster have noted how Burnham often chooses policies on a whim. Few can explain how he will be any different (or better) than Starmer.
Burnham himself has been extremely vague, too. He has not articulated any positions on foreign policy or defense, has gone back and forth on climate policy, the EU, and immigration. He has talked about raising corporation taxes, cutting business rates for pubs, overhauling property taxes, and revamping social care. He has also talked of ‘business friendly socialism’ and re-nationalizing utilities.
But no details have followed and, as prime minister, Burnham would have limited room for economic maneuvering. He will still face the same issues Starmer has, and no magic bullet solution exists – just ask all the other ex-prime ministers and those who voted for Brexit.
Many have accused Burnham of trying to be ‘all things to all people’. There’s a joke in Westminster circles, which Burnham absolutely hates: three different members of three warring Labour factions walk into a pub, and the barman says, “Hello Andy.”
The shadow chancellor, Conservative Mel Stride, told Sky News that nothing will fundamentally change if Burnham replaces Starmer. “This is somebody who has flip-flopped all over the place. You have seen it even in this by-election itself.”
The trade unions that back Labour are also skeptical. They are calling for a leadership contest of ‘policies not personalities’. Labour MP Jess Phillips agrees, saying that Burnham should not simply face a coronation as Labour leader and prime minister. In Phillips’ words, Burnham has to prove he is ready to lead. He cannot do that without facing proper scrutiny of his plan for government.
Another in agreement is former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, whom Starmer defeated. Writing in The Sunday Times, Sunak said. “Without [a leadership contest], your mandate is weak, and you end up being bound by commitments that aren’t your priorities.” Sunak also went on to say that Burnham must recognize that he will never have more power than on his first day, and that it is “vital he has a clear and achievable plan for what he wants to do in those opening hours.”
Beyond giving more money to the north of England, his plans are unclear – and even that is questionable. What about the rest of Britain? What about Wales and Scotland, where Labour just lost elections? Northern towns, like Britain itself, are extremely diverse. Darlington and Chorley are about as different as the coastal towns of Grimsby, Lincolnshire and Paignton, Devon. What does that extra money mean and where will it come from? Do not ask Burnham.
Whether he can turn Labour’s political fortunes around is also in doubt. Recent polling still shows a Labour Party led by Burnham would come second in a hung parliament – giving it just an extra 4% of the vote. Thankfully for Labour, the poll-leading Reform UK has peaked in its vote share and is losing supporters and key by-elections. Yet, Labour still has a lot to do before it wins another general election.
And therein lies the problem. If Burnham fails to deliver, then what? Apparently, nobody in parliament was better than Burnham – hence an unknown MP resigned to let him back. Swapping Starmer for Burnham and betting on him correcting course puts Labour in a tight bind.
Things might be bad for Starmer, but he will be remembered fondly by British historians. Not as a disaster, but a decent man guiding Britain through difficult times, trapped by the system and a fickle population. In that sense, Starmer is rather like another US president: Gerald R. Ford.
If Burnham cannot turn things around, he ruins his legacy and Labour’s. Starmer was allowed to fail. Burnham will not be.
The Iranian team expects football’s governing body to address “unequal treatment” by the host nation, its manager says
The Iranian national team has formally complained to FIFA about what its manager has described as systemic discrimination by the US, one of the hosts of the 2026 World Cup. Tehran expects football’s governing body to act and ensure that the host nation honors its obligations to all participating teams, Mahdi Mohammadnabi said.
The tournament is being co-hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico, with most matches taking place in the US. Iran’s head coach, Amir Ghalenoei, has previously called his side “the most oppressed” team at the World Cup, while captain Mehdi Taremi described the situation facing the squad as a “disaster.”
Speaking to Iran’s IRIB broadcaster ahead of Iran’s game with Belgium, Mohammadnabi said that the conditions imposed on Iranian players were “in no way equal to those of other teams.”
He cited travel restrictions that force Iran’s squad to arrive at match venues only one day before games, while other teams are able to arrive two days in advance. The reduced preparation time leaves players with less opportunity to adapt to local conditions and train properly, potentially affecting performance, he argued.
“We have officially notified FIFA of these issues and requested an explanation,” Mohammadnabi said, referring to both travel and visa-related restrictions. He added that FIFA’s response had been insufficient and said Iran expects “the protocols that FIFA communicated to the host country” to be fully applied to its team.
“We expect FIFA to perform better in its area of responsibility,” said Mohammadnabi, who also serves as vice president of the Iranian Football Federation.
His remarks came as US and Iranian delegations traveled to Switzerland for a new round of talks aimed at reaching a lasting settlement to the months-long conflict between the two countries, which had earlier cast doubt over Iran’s participation in the tournament.
Iran’s complaints add to broader concerns over US entry policies during the World Cup. A Somali referee selected for the tournament was denied entry despite holding valid documents, while players, officials, and supporters from several countries have reportedly faced extensive screening, visa delays, or outright refusals.
FIFA has also faced criticism over soaring ticket prices, expensive stadium concessions, and mandatory hydration breaks that some observers argue have become commercial opportunities rather than purely player-safety measures.
Police killed the gunman, who reportedly left behind a manifesto linked to the incel subculture
Two people were killed in a shooting in a Jewish neighborhood in Montreal, Canada, on Monday, police said.
Montreal police said the suspect had been neutralized. A police officer and a civilian were killed in the Cote-des-Neiges neighborhood, while another officer and a second civilian were injured.
The Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) identified the civilian victim as Michael (Michel) Moshe Mizrahi, calling him “a beloved member of Montreal’s Jewish community.”
The slain police officer was identified as Constable Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, who had served with the force since 2021.
Videos from the scene show a police presence near the Supermarche PA shopping center on Westbury Avenue. The surrounding area has been cordoned off, with residents urged to remain indoors and avoid approaching windows. The videos appear to show police officers exchanging gunfire at close range with the suspected gunman.
🇨🇦 More footage from the scene in Montreal shows police everywhere.
It's a chaotic situation, and while it's not confirmed, it looks like the shooter is still inside.
According to The Times of Israel, the shooting took place in an area with numerous kosher restaurants, Jewish schools and community centers.
Radio-Canada reported that the suspect had released a manifesto targeting women and calling for a revolution based on “masculinist” ideas. The broadcaster linked the document to the incel (involuntary celibate) subculture.
🚨 HORROR FOOTAGE: TERROR IN MONTREAL - ARMED SUSPECT IN CAMO CLOTHING OPENS FIRE ON POLICE pic.twitter.com/OJYWY50547
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he was “horrified” to learn that a police officer and a civilian had been killed.
“My thoughts are with the victims, their loved ones, the first responders and the entire community of Côte-des-Neiges. My gratitude goes to our courageous police officers, whose heroic dedication protects our communities,” he wrote on X.
Located near the city center, the Cote-des-Neiges neighborhood is home to several public schools and colleges, including the main campus of Montreal University, as well as some hospitals and prominent religious buildings, such as Saint Joseph’s Oratory of Mount Royal – a large domed basilica, which is widely regarded as the most popular local tourist attraction.
Five Eyes cyber agencies have warned that frontier models could soon transform offensive hacking capabilities
Advanced artificial intelligence models could soon give hackers the ability to cripple governments, businesses, and critical systems, cyber agencies from the Five Eyes intelligence group have warned.
In a rare joint statement published on Monday, cyber security leaders from Australia, the US, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand said frontier AI models are developing faster than expected and are “anticipated to exceed current industry expectations, fundamentally transforming both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.”
“The timeline is not years, it is months,” the agencies said, adding that “cyber risk can no longer be treated as a purely technical issue. This is a core business risk and leadership responsibility.”
The statement said AI will help improve cyber defense over time, but is also lowering the barrier for malicious actors, increasing the speed and complexity of attacks, while shrinking the window between vulnerability discovery and exploitation.
The agencies urged organizations to strengthen their digital defenses, update outdated software more quickly, limit access to sensitive systems, and prepare for cyberattacks before they happen.
While the Five Eyes statement did not name any single model or company, the recent debate over AI security has centered on US developer Anthropic, which has faced scrutiny over its latest and most advanced systems.
Earlier this year, the company said one of its flagship models, Mythos, was too powerful to be released to the general public and limited access to a small group of trusted organizations. The company later introduced Fable 5, a more restricted version of the technology, but both models were subsequently taken offline after the US government ordered that foreign citizens be barred from using them, citing national security concerns.
The developments come amid broader warnings from researchers, technology leaders, and security officials that AI capabilities are advancing faster than governments and institutions can adapt.
Experts have increasingly cautioned that systems designed to boost productivity and strengthen cyber defenses could also be used to automate attacks, lower barriers for malicious actors, and amplify the impact of small groups.
Tehran’s new approach suggests the old rules of regional conflict are collapsing
Over the past year, the nature of the Iran-Israel conflict has undergone a significant transformation. What previously appeared as a series of isolated crises is increasingly taking on the characteristics of a sustained, direct confrontation. In this context, Operation True Promise 5, announced by Tehran in June, has become evidence of a new reality which demonstrates that the previous mechanisms of deterrence have become ineffective.
The new round of escalation was triggered by Israel’s fierce strikes on Lebanon. For Tehran, Lebanon is not only an important element of regional balance, but also part of its system of influence. For Israel, the problem is not Lebanon itself, but rather the fact that Lebanon is part of a broader system of Iranian influence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his team want to curb this influence at all costs.
Iran’s Operation True Promise 5 should be viewed in this context. It was a response not only to the strikes on Lebanon, but also to a broader process of erosion of the old rules of the game. Iran is demonstrating that it no longer considers itself bound by the old logic of caution which involved a delayed, limited, and measured response.
Over the past year, Tehran has adapted to continuous escalation. While in the old days, a strike on Iranian territory would have been perceived as a transition to an entirely new reality, now this reality no longer surprises anyone. Sanctions, sabotage, assassinations, attacks on infrastructure, and pressure on military and industrial facilities have become commonplace. Despite its many internal problems, Iran has learned to live on constant alert.
This is part of Israel’s strategic problem. It acts as if each new strike should shock Iran, paralyze it, and force it to refrain from adopting a more hardline stance. However, the shock effect is gradually dissipating. The strikes may cause damage, create problems, and cause destruction, but they no longer alter Tehran’s behavior.
Moreover, Israel’s policy of pressure has largely backfired. Instead of deterring Iran, it has accelerated the development of a new kind of psychological resilience. Iran is becoming less patient and is willing to respond more quickly and directly. This doesn’t mean that Iran’s actions are completely unrestrained, but rather that the previous strategy of cautious and delayed response is giving way to a new model of behavior.
The regional consequences of this transformation have proven to be significantly broader than the Iran-Israel confrontation. As soon as it became clear that Israel intended to continue the attacks on Lebanon, Tehran effectively began delaying the diplomatic process and abandoned its previous commitment to move toward the signing of a memorandum in Switzerland, scheduled for June 19. At the same time, Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. The strait instantly became a tool of pressure not only on Israel but also the US, which finds itself in a difficult position, as any escalation around the strait directly affects energy security, global markets, and the stability of the entire regional architecture.
The current stage of the conflict is dangerous not so much because of the scale of the attacks, but because of the shift in the logic of the confrontation. While escalation was previously seen as a tool of deterrence, it now has the opposite effect. Each new attack does not necessarily deter the enemy; on the contrary, it may trigger a more forceful response.
Iran no longer acts as if its primary objective is to avoid a direct conflict at all costs. It has adapted to war and is willing to exist in a state of a constant confrontation. This makes the situation particularly dangerous. The conflict is entering a phase in which escalation no longer guarantees deterrence, and each new attack increases the risk of a wider regional crisis. Israel has already conducted hundreds of strikes on Lebanon, demonstrating its reluctance to reduce the intensity of military action despite signals from Washington. And although on June 19 Hezbollah and Israel agreed to a ceasefire, it was violated just hours later.
In this context, it should be noted that Israel and Lebanon already agreed to a ceasefire in April. However, the chances that it would be lasting were minimal from the outset. The Lebanese Army was not a full-fledged party to the conflict with Israel – the main role was played by Hezbollah, which is a non-state actor and did not directly sign any agreements.
As a result, a situation has emerged in which the agreement exists at the diplomatic level, but fails to address the key military-political question: Who really controls southern Lebanon and is capable of stopping further attacks?
Israel understands this perfectly well. It assumes that the Lebanese state lacks sufficient military and political resources to independently curb Hezbollah’s actions. The Lebanese Army formally exists, but its capabilities are incomparable to either the Israeli military machine or the infrastructure of the country’s non-state armed actors. Therefore, for Israel, any agreement with Beirut is insufficient: Even if the Lebanese government declares its readiness for a ceasefire, it is not always capable of enforcing it on the ground.
This is precisely why Lebanon remains a constant trigger in the confrontation between Iran and Israel. For Israel, Hezbollah is not simply a Lebanese actor, but part of the broader system of Iranian influence, as noted above. For Iran, Lebanon is the only remaining tool for deterring Israel. As long as this situation persists, any strikes on Lebanon will be perceived in Tehran not as isolated incidents, but as pressure on Iran’s overall position in the region.
In this sense, the Lebanese front prevents the conflict from entering a sustained phase of de-escalation. Even if there is diplomatic talk of a ceasefire, the dynamics on the ground are quite different. Israel continues to carry out strikes, Hezbollah responds, and Iran sees these developments as part of an overall strategy of pressuring its regional presence. Therefore, Lebanon will continue to act as a trigger in the Iran-Israel confrontation. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei confirmed this, noting that Tehran will not move to the next stage of negotiations with the US unless there is a ceasefire in Lebanon.
And if anyone thinks that a few angry words from US President Donald Trump are enough to fix everything, they’re wrong. Trump may not particularly like Netanyahu, but what matters here is not so much the Israeli prime minister as broader geopolitics. Netanyahu is fully aware of this and does whatever he deems necessary, confident that Trump, or rather the US, will always be on Israel’s side, no matter who leads it.
Ramiro Valdes participated in all of the keystone moments of the Caribbean nation’s fight to topple the US-backed Batista dictatorship
Cuban revolutionary commander Ramiro Valdes Menendez, a figure revered in the island nation as a hero who fought alongside Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, has passed away at the age of 94.
In an X post on Sunday, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel said Valdes’ death “hurt deeply, like that of a father.”
“Every act in Commander Ramiro’s life was marked by his absolute loyalty to the leadership of Fidel and Raul [Castro], to his fellow fighters, and to the Moncada Program,” he said, referring to the political and social reforms implemented after the revolution toppled the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959.
The reforms were named after the unsuccessful 1953 Moncada Barracks assault, which marked the beginning of the revolution and in which Valdes fought alongside Che and both Castro brothers.
In the years after, he was awarded the titles of Commander of the Revolution and Hero of the Republic of Cuba, played a key role in establishing the island nation's intelligence services, and later served as vice president during the presidency of Raul Castro.
Raul Castro was indicted in the US last month as Washington intensified its decades-long campaign of political pressure and economic sanctions against Cuba.
Since the start of his second term, US President Donald Trump has further tightened the blockade, promising tariffs on countries that supplied oil to Cuba and openly threatening it with regime change and a takeover.
Diaz-Canel denounced the pressure as illegal, but has confirmed talks with Washington as the nation grapples with a worsening fuel, electricity, and economic crisis brought on by the blockade.
Russia has provided Cuba with humanitarian aid. In March, Moscow sent a shipment of around 700,000 barrels of crude to help alleviate the energy crisis.
His exit satisfies public anger, but the system stays intact: new faces, same donors, same policies, same insulation from voters
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation on Monday exemplifies the cynical sham of ‘democratic renewal’ in a system dominated by globalist plutocratic interests.
Starmer stood outside 10 Downing Street and announced that he was stepping down as leader of the Labour Party and head of government. He cynically masked his political execution as a voluntary departure made ‘with good grace’ for the sake of the party’s chances at the next election. The grim reality is that his hand was forced by an imploding cabinet and years of plummeting approval ratings fueled by economic paralysis, disastrous U-turns, and outright voter disgust.
Media outlets immediately framed the moment as “historic,” a signal that the system had listened, that accountability had prevailed, and that Britain might now chart a different course. Yet this narrative rings hollow. Starmer’s departure is not a rupture but another installment in a long-running political theater designed to sustain the illusion of choice while preserving the underlying structures of power. In contemporary Western ‘democracy’, genuine transformation remains elusive because the system functions less as rule by the people and more as management by a self-appointed new ‘aristocracy’, whose priorities consistently diverge from those of native populations.
Starmer’s Labour government, like the Conservative administrations that preceded it, continued or accelerated policies that many voters perceive as detrimental to national interests. Record levels of legal and illegal immigration, the continued aggressive pursuit of net-zero carbon targets – which have driven up household energy bills through massive grid upgrades needed to integrate intermittent wind and solar power, along with the phasing out of cheaper fossil fuels – and a foreign policy closely aligned with supranational institutions rather than distinct British priorities all persisted under Starmer’s watch. His resignation changes none of these trajectories at the structural level. A new leader will inherit the same institutional constraints, the same donor networks, the same media ecosystem, and the same ‘international commitments’.
The term ‘plutocracy’ describes a system in which wealth and concentrated economic power determine political outcomes far more effectively than ballots. In Britain and across the West, this plutocracy operates through interlocking networks of finance, multinational corporations, media conglomerates, and supranational bodies such as the World Economic Forum, the European Union (even post-Brexit, its influence lingers), and global financial institutions. These actors prioritize borderless capital flows, cheap labor, regulatory harmonization, and cultural liberalization because such arrangements maximize returns and minimize resistance from rooted national communities.
Friedrich Engels, who lived for decades in Manchester and closely studied Britain’s political order, diagnosed the same structural reality more than a century earlier. In his 1891 introduction to Karl Marx’s ‘The Civil War in France’, Engels declared that “the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy.” He elaborated in ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State’ (1884) that universal suffrage functions only as “the gauge of the maturity of the working class” and “cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state.” For Engels, the British parliamentary system, even after successive Reform Acts extending the franchise, was not a genuine arena of popular sovereignty but a refined instrument of class rule. Alternating parties (then the Liberals and Conservatives) served as competing administrative teams for bourgeois interests, preserving capitalist dominance behind the formal rituals of debate, elections, and leadership changes. Starmer’s resignation and the expected elevation of a successor fit this pattern precisely: another rotation of personnel within an unchanged framework, where the plutocratic imperatives of global capital, immigration policy, and economic orthodoxy continue uninterrupted.
Sustained high immigration depresses wages in lower-skilled sectors, strains public services, and alters the demographic balance in ways that native citizens did not vote for. Energy policies framed as ‘climate necessity’ impose costs that fall disproportionately on working and middle-class households while benefiting green-tech investors and international energy traders. Cultural shifts promoted through education, media, and corporate diversity mandates harm the shared identity and social trust that have historically underpinned stable democracies. When voters express discontent – through protests, low voter turnout, or support for outsider candidates – the response is rarely substantive policy reversal. Instead, the system offers spectacle.
Resignations function as particularly effective herd control mechanisms. The dramatic exit of a prime minister generates wall-to-wall media coverage, parliamentary farce, and public catharsis. Citizens are encouraged to believe that the system works because a failing leader has been removed. Historical examples abound. Boris Johnson’s 2022 downfall involved dozens of ministerial resignations in days, portrayed as a spontaneous revolt of principle. Liz Truss’s brief tenure ended in market chaos and swift replacement. Theresa May and even Margaret Thatcher’s departures carried similar dramatic weight. Each episode produced intense coverage, temporary polling shifts, and the sense that accountability mechanisms were functioning. Yet, as the spectacle dissipates, the new occupant settles into the same institutional furniture, and public attention moves to the next distraction: sports, entertainment, or the next celebrity scandal.
This cycle keeps populations docile. The modern equivalents of Roman bread and circuses include expansive welfare systems that foster dependency, ubiquitous digital entertainment that dull the people’s reasoning faculties, and a news cycle engineered for outrage rather than analysis. The mainstream media acts as a ruthless guardian of the status quo by relentlessly pushing identity-based conflicts that fragment public attention and block unified opposition to the ruling economic order. This calculated distraction deliberately shields the predatory architecture of financialization, offshoring, and elite regulatory capture, all while advancing policies hostile to the ethnocultural interests of white British people, the destruction of the traditional British heritage, and institutional favoritism towards non-native groups at the expense of the historic majority. When frustration builds to the point of threatening stability, a high-profile resignation or leadership contest is staged. The message is clear: your voices have been heard; change is coming. In practice, the new leader often accelerates elements of the previous agenda or introduces cosmetic reforms that leave core power relations intact.
The illusion of choice is reinforced by the party system itself. Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral framework – the winner-takes-all system in which the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins the seat, even without an overall majority – and the dominance of two major parties (with occasional third-party perturbations) create the appearance of alternation while enforcing convergence on fundamentals. Outsider challenges, whether from Reform UK or left-wing insurgents, are contained through negative media framing, institutional barriers, or co-option. The result is a managed pluralism in which voters select from pre-approved options whose differences are largely stylistic or tactical rather than structural.
Andy Burnham’s emergence as a potential successor illustrates the point. His by-election triumph was hailed by some as a rebuke to Starmerism, yet Burnham’s record as Greater Manchester mayor and his positioning within Labour’s broad church suggest continuity rather than change. Whether the next occupant hails from the party’s right, center, or soft left, the institutional incentives push towards accommodation with the plutocratic consensus.
True democratic renewal would require mechanisms that genuinely empower citizens to alter foundational policies: stricter controls on elite influence through campaign finance reform, actual referendums on immigration and constitutional questions with binding force, and devolution of power that reduces the distance between rulers and ruled. Instead, the current arrangement offers periodic leadership musical chairs while the music, global capital’s preferences, continues uninterrupted. Starmer’s resignation will be remembered as another well-choreographed scene in a production whose directors remain firmly in their chairs.
The British public, like most citizens across the West, grows increasingly aware of this dynamic. Polling has shown deep distrust in institutions and a sense that the political class operates in its own interest. Yet awareness alone does not alter structures. Until mechanisms exist for ordinary people to impose real costs on elites who disregard national interests, the cycle of spectacle and continuity will persist. Resignations will come and go. New puppets will be installed. And the plutocracy, globalist by nature and insulated from the consequences of its preferences, will continue to rule in democracy’s name. The question is no longer whether the next leader will be different in any fundamental way – he will not – but whether citizens will continue to accept the performance as the substance of self-government.
Students are among those who perished, while 10 people were hospitalized
A blaze in a commercial building in the northern Indian city of Lucknow on Monday has left at least 14 people dead, most of them students.
The fire broke out in a building located in the Aliganj neighborhood, which housed a pet shop and veterinary clinic on the lower floors, in addition to an animation studio and a study center upstairs.
The deputy chief minister of the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, Brajesh Pathak, confirmed that 14 bodies have been recovered, while ten people were undergoing treatment in a hospital.
Local media reports that several people were injured. Rescue efforts were coordinated by officials from the fire department, police, and district administration.
Disturbing and scary visuals from Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh where people were seen jumping from the first floor of a shop caught in a massive fire. pic.twitter.com/ofT6vlKOQW
Authorities have not determined the cause of the blaze. Videos circulating on social media showed people shimmying to the ground on makeshift ropes, as well as a person falling from the first floor while trying to escape. Local media later reported that the man has been hospitalized.
Some animals rescued from the pet clinic were also injured.
Firefighters broke open a wall to gain entry to the building as thick smoke hampered rescue efforts. Exhaust fans were used to clear the smoke.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that cash assistance would be provided to the families of the victims and those hurt in the blaze.
“Anguished by the loss of lives in a fire mishap in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. My condolences to the bereaved families. May the injured recover at the earliest,” he posted on X.
The 60-day waiver allows the production and sale of the Islamic Republic’s crude oil and petrochemicals, according to the US Treasury
The US has issued a temporary sanctions waiver for Iran’s oil sector, authorizing the production, sale, delivery, and import of Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals, the Treasury Department has said. The announcement comes as negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue following the first round of talks in Switzerland over the weekend.
Iran General License X authorizes “the production, delivery and sale of crude oil, petrochemical products, and petroleum products of Iranian origin” for a 60-day period, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on X on Monday.
The license also covers services linked to the energy trade, including vessel management, insurance, crewing, bunkering, classification, and emergency repairs. Buyers are permitted to make payments in US dollar-denominated funds to Iran, the Iranian government, or sanctioned Iranian entities for transactions covered by the license.
Unlike General License U, issued in March 2026 and limited to oil already loaded onto tankers before a set cutoff date, the new license also allows production activities.
The license also authorizes the importation into the US of Iranian-origin crude oil, petroleum products, and petrochemical products, temporarily suspending restrictions that normally bar these imports.
The authorization comes as part of a memorandum of understanding reached between the US and Iran earlier this month, in which Washington pledged to immediately issue waivers on Iranian oil exports.
This weekend, Washington and Tehran agreed on a roadmap toward a final agreement following negotiations mediated by Qatar and Pakistan at the Swiss resort of Buergenstock. No joint statement has been released, but the mediators said the talks produced agreement on a 60-day roadmap toward a final deal, further technical negotiations, and the creation of a high-level committee to oversee the process. Tehran said the talks focused heavily on practical economic measures, including the release of frozen assets, and the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ports and shipping.
Iran holds some of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves and ranks among the top countries globally in both crude oil and natural gas. Its energy sector has been constrained for years by US sanctions, which restricted access to shipping services, insurance, international banking channels, and potential buyers.
Despite the sanctions, Iran continued exporting crude oil, with China remaining its largest customer. Much of the exports were reportedly purchased by independent Chinese refiners that bought Iranian oil despite the risk of US penalties.
The Gulf nation is ramping up arms purchases in the aftermath of the Middle East conflict
India is in initial talks with the United Arab Emirates for the potential sale of BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, Reuters reports.
The Gulf nation is ramping up weapons purchases in the aftermath of the Middle East conflict and amid concerns about regional stability.
The negotiations also include the potential purchase of India’s Akashteer air defense system, Reuters reports, citing two sources.
“The talks between India and UAE are at initial stages and are progressing fast,” the report quoted a third source as saying.
BrahMos, jointly developed by India and Russia, is among the world’s fastest cruise missiles and has land, sea, and air variants. The missile, with speeds reaching up to Mach 3, was employed with lethal effectiveness against Pakistani targets last year by Indian forces.
Akashteer is a fully automated air defense system developed by state-run Bharat Electronics Ltd and the Indian Army.
The report said India requires Russia’s approval for the sale of the missile, but given Moscow’s close ties to Abu Dhabi, it should be approved, a senior aide at the think tank SIPRI said.
The UAE came under heavy attack during the Middle East conflict triggered by the US-Israeli attacks on Iran. The country also wants enhanced security for its vessels that pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint controlled by Iran.
The US remains the biggest arms exporter to the Middle East but the Iran war has exposed strains in Washington’s commitment to defend allies in the region.
Indian defense exports have risen to over $4 billion in the year ending March 2026, from just $7.26 million in 2013-14.
The Philippines was the first foreign customer of BrahMos, signing a $375 million contract in 2022. India also has signed a deal with Vietnam for the missiles, and is in talks with Indonesia
BrahMos Aerospace reported record revenue growth of 48.6% in 2025-26.
The recent assault was aimed at weakening the country’s armed forces and reversing the defeat of militants, the group’s leadership has said
The Alliance of Sahel States (AES) has condemned a terrorist attack targeting Diori Hamani International Airport in Niger’s capital, describing it as a “cowardly and perfidious aggression” supported by “foreign state sponsors” against the region.
The assault on Thursday left 13 people dead, including 11 security personnel and two civilians. Four others were injured, while 22 assailants were neutralized and about 20 suspects arrested, according to Niger’s Defense Ministry. Al-Qaeda affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack.
In a statement published on Saturday, AES President Captain Ibrahim Traore said the “attempted takeover” of Niamey Airport was aimed at weakening Nigerien armed forces and reversing what he described as the defeat of militants in the Sahel.
He said the AES “strongly condemns this new manifestation of terrorist violence supported by foreign state sponsors,” without naming any countries.
“These recurring and remotely directed attacks only strengthen the sacred union of … the AES around the vision of their heads of state in their struggle to preserve the territorial integrity of member states, protect populations, and guarantee lasting peace in the Sahel space,” Traore stated.
Niger and its neighbors, Mali and Burkina Faso, formed the AES in 2023 to collectively address the jihadist insurgency that has gripped the region for more than a decade, driven by armed groups linked to al-Qaeda and Islamic State.
The three West African states have expelled French troops previously deployed on counterterrorism missions, accusing France of failing to contain the insurgency, and have since forged new defense partnerships, including with Russia.
On Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova expressed Moscow’s solidarity with Niamey, denouncing the June 18 assault as an attempt to “undermine the stability of the Alliance of Sahel States.”
Diori Hamani International Airport, which also hosts a military base, was previously attacked by Islamic State fighters in January, during which 20 militants were killed in an exchange of fire and 11 others were arrested. Russian forces deployed to assist the country in combating the insurgency helped foil the attack, according to officials.
At the time, Niger’s transitional leader, General Abdourahamane Tchiani, accused France and neighboring Benin and Ivory Coast of sponsoring the violence.
Benin has repeatedly denied serving as a logistical hub for French-backed operatives. Relations between Benin and Niger deteriorated following the coup in Niamey in 2023. However, on Sunday, the authorities of both countries agreed during talks in Cotonou on steps toward economic and legal normalization and addressing shared security priorities
Markus Soeder also called for deportations to be boosted and the promotion of voluntary departures as part of a cost-cutting plan
Unemployed Ukrainians should be stripped of access to Germany’s unemployment and welfare benefits system, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), Markus Soeder, has said. He added that deportations and voluntary departures should be stepped up as part of a cost-cutting scheme.
Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Germany has been the main destination for Ukrainian refugees in the EU, ahead of neighboring Poland. Of the 1.3 million people it has taken in over the past four years, only 341,000 were employed as of June 2025, according to government figures. The authorities in Germany have increasingly warned that the cost of supporting refugees is straining public finances.
In an interview with Bild published on Saturday, Soeder called for a reduction of payments under Buergergeld, Germany’s primary tax-funded welfare and long-term unemployment scheme, in an effort to secure funding.
“The legal framework must now be changed so that Ukrainians are no longer financed through the Burgergeld system,” he said.
Soeder, who is minister-president of Bavaria, urged the country’s authorities “to increase deportations and voluntary departures to drastically reduce costs.”
European countries, including the UK, Norway, the Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark, Ireland, and Hungary, have recently taken steps to curb social programs and reduce the number of arrivals. Officials cite the prolonged conflict between Russia and Ukraine and pressure on national budgets and housing markets as a major reason for the move.
The EU is planning to exclude Ukrainian men of conscription age from the temporary protection system. The scheme has been in place for Ukrainians since 2022 and was extended in June until March 2027. The mechanism guarantees the right to residence, work, healthcare, social assistance, and access to education across the EU.
Last year, Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that the employment rate among Ukrainian refugees living in Germany is unacceptably low.
Russian Parliament Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has said the issue of Ukrainian refugees is becoming an increasing challenge for Europe and could develop into a new migrant crisis.
Dutch and German ambassadors have presented the African state’s president with a catalogue of objects set to be repatriated
Germany and the Netherlands will return around 2,000 looted cultural artifacts to Ghana, the African nation’s foreign minister, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, said on Saturday.
The pledge was unveiled during the Next Steps Conference, where the Dutch and German ambassadors presented Ghanaian President John Mahama with a catalogue of the items set to be repatriated. The catalogue, however, has not yet been made publicly available.
In a post on X, Ablakwa welcomed the move, describing it as “the positive conduct of restitution we are beginning to witness from our international partners in Europe since the adoption of the historic Ghana-led UN Resolution”.
The conference also saw Denmark acknowledge its role in the transatlantic slave trade. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen apologized for the country’s involvement and pledged support for preserving the forts and castles built by Denmark in present-day Ghana, saying the effort would help safeguard historical memory, promote truth-telling, and prevent similar injustices from being repeated.
Speaking at the conference, Ghana’s president also announced the creation of three international bodies aimed at advancing reparatory justice: the Global Advisory Panel on Reparatory Justice, the Expert Panel on the Restitution of Cultural Artefacts, and the Global Legal Panel on Reparatory Justice.
According to Mahama, the groups will help develop practical pathways for restitution, historical accountability, and legal redress.
“We do not seek to reopen old wounds. We seek to heal those wounds,” he said. “We do not seek division. We seek justice, understanding, and reconciliation grounded in truth”.
The initiative follows a Ghana-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution adopted in March that recognized the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”.
The push for restitution has gained momentum in recent years. In February, Cambridge University formally transferred ownership of 116 Benin Bronzes and other artifacts to Nigeria. The physical return of most of the objects is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
The same month, Paris returned the sacred Djidji Ayokwe talking drum to Cote d’Ivoire. The drum had been taken during the colonial period in 1916 and held in France for more than a century.
The West is preparing for a full-scale war by 2030, Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said
NATO and the EU’s ongoing militarization is starting to resemble plans for Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, a senior Russian diplomat has said.
Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko made the remarks in an interview with Izvestia published on Monday, June 22, the date Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union in 1941, an assault historians describe as the largest invasion in military history.
By some estimates, the Red Army suffered up to 4 million casualties within the war’s first six months alone, with millions more taken prisoner, though the Soviet Union eventually succeeded at stopping the Nazi onslaught at the gates of Moscow. Germany’s offensive benefited from military and economic support from numerous European countries, with volunteers from officially neutral nations such as Spain also joining the fight.
Grushko drew parallels between what he called the West’s current “aggressive aspirations” and Nazi Germany’s ambitions, noting that “if you look at the essence of the policy... their main task is to achieve the strategic defeat of Russia.”
“Of course, we proceed from the premise that they are really preparing for a military clash with Russia somewhere around 2030,” he added.
Grushko also sounded the alarm over the resurgence of neo-Nazi ideology, stressing that Moscow is drawing attention to the dangerous trend at international forums.
The interview was released as European nations continue to ramp up their militarization, citing an alleged “Russian threat.” Last year, NATO countries pledged to raise defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, with Germany being particularly active, raising this year’s military budget to roughly €108 billion ($123 billion).
Western officials and media have also alleged that Russia could attack NATO within several years – a claim President Vladimir Putin has dismissed as “not only pure insanity but also a deliberate provocation.”
Moscow has also consistently accused the West of using Ukraine as a “battering ram” against Russia, noting that it appeared to be willing to fight the country “until the last Ukrainian.”
Neither side is budging on its demands, and Israel remains a structural threat to any lasting peace
On June 21, 2026, in the Swiss resort town of Buergenstock, US and Iranian representatives sat down in the same room for the first time since the sides signed their memorandum of understanding.
US Vice President J.D. Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner on one side; Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the other; and Qatar and Pakistan in the middle, as essential intermediaries without whom the two sides apparently cannot hold a technical conversation. That detail alone tells you something important about the state of trust between Washington and Tehran.
The atmosphere was tense from the start. The Iranian delegation went out of its way to avoid being seen publicly alongside the Americans. Disputes over protocol dragged on. Trump’s characteristically combative statements, issued in parallel with the talks, did little to steady the room. And yet the meeting held together. The process, as mediators announced afterward, was kept alive. But kept alive for what?
A memorandum of failure
The memorandum signed on June 17, 2026 is not a peace treaty or even a framework agreement in any meaningful sense. It is a temporary, non-binding statement of intent whose primary function is not to end the conflict but to postpone its next phase. Every substantive issue – Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the situation in Lebanon, mechanisms to prevent further military escalation – has been pushed into a 60-day negotiating track.
Washington has tried to sell this as a diplomatic win, and on the surface the framing has some logic to it. But a more honest reading would be to admit that the US failed to force Iranian capitulation, did not achieve the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and it certainly did not compel Tehran to abandon its regional allies. The strategy of maximum pressure, which had been the backbone of US policy for years, simply did not produce the outcome it promised. Iran absorbed the strikes, the sanctions, and the threats – and still came to the table as a party with its own demands, not just a subject of American conditions.
On the nuclear question, Iran has agreed to suspend certain enrichment activities during the 60-day window, but no permanent constraints have been established. The underlying infrastructure remains intact. There is no agreed ceiling on enrichment levels going forward, no verified dismantlement of centrifuge cascades, and no clarity on what happens if talks collapse before the deadline. The suspension is reversible within days. It creates the appearance of restraint without locking in any of its substance.
On sanctions, the picture is similarly thin. The memorandum gestures toward future relief, but no sanctions have been lifted. Frozen Iranian assets have not been returned in full. The architecture of economic pressure that Washington has spent years constructing remains in place, which means Tehran has made a concrete concession – however temporary – without receiving anything concrete in return. That asymmetry is a structural weakness that Iranian negotiators will use as leverage in every subsequent round.
The Strait of Hormuz provisions are perhaps the most fragile of all. The memorandum calls for safe passage and mutual restraint, but contains no enforcement mechanism. There is no monitoring body, no agreed response protocol, no clarity on what constitutes a violation. A single incident involving tanker harassment or a confrontation between naval vessels could render this section meaningless before the 60 days are even half over.
The situation regarding Lebanon can only be described as a deliberate ambiguity. The fate of Hezbollah – its military capacity, its political role, its relationship to Iranian logistics – has been left entirely unresolved, parked in a grey zone where any Israeli military action could detonate the whole negotiating structure. Both sides know this. Neither side wants to be the one to force the issue at this stage, which is precisely why the omission is so dangerous.
What ties all of this together is the absence of a verification regime. The 2015 JCPOA, whatever its limitations, had the IAEA embedded as an independent observer with access protocols and reporting obligations. The current memorandum has none of that. It relies on good faith between parties who demonstrably do not trust each other and who, as the choice of Qatari and Pakistani intermediaries makes clear, cannot even manage direct technical communication. A diplomatic agreement that requires two layers of mediation to function is not a foundation for durable compliance.
The document is not a triumph of US diplomacy but the limit of its coercive capacity. Washington was forced into a conversation where Iranian demands sat alongside American demands – and that, for Tehran, already constitutes a result, however provisional.
The Israeli factor is what transforms the memorandum from fragile to nearly unworkable. The US-Iranian deal constrains Israeli freedom of action and creates the real possibility that Washington will start making decisions based on its own political calculus rather than Israeli government priorities. For Netanyahu, this is an intolerable scenario.
On the same day talks were underway in Buergenstock, the Israeli prime minister stated plainly that as long as he holds office, Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons. This is a direct message to Washington – Israel reserves the right to act regardless of what American negotiators agree to. Defense Minister Israel Katz made the operational implication equally clear, confirming that Israeli forces in Lebanon retain full freedom of action when facing a perceived threat.
In June 2026, the Israel Defense Forces mounted operations on the Ali Taher ridge in southern Lebanon – an area that, according to Israeli military assessments, houses critical Hezbollah infrastructure including command posts, fortified positions, weapons storage, and an underground communications network. Israel was methodically reshaping the reality on the ground even as diplomats in Switzerland were discussing roadmaps.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan put it directly – there is always Israel, waiting for the right moment to undermine the situation at the first available opportunity.
The pressure runs through domestic American channels as well. Parts of Congress, pro-Israel donor networks, think tanks, media figures – all of this creates an environment in which any compromise with Iran reads as near-betrayal of Israel. That political ecosystem does not disappear because a memorandum gets signed in Switzerland.
What sits behind the display
Trump has a separate, purely internal political rationale here, and it runs deeper than simple opportunism. According to CBS News figures, 78% of Americans want the war with Iran stopped immediately – not out of pacifism, but exhaustion, economic anxiety, and a growing suspicion that the conflict has no clear endpoint. Fuel prices dropped visibly after the memorandum was signed. Supply chain pressures eased. Markets steadied. For an administration approaching midterms with historically difficult approval numbers, that combination of outcomes is not just convenient – it is politically essential.
The display Trump can now construct is a genuinely powerful one. He forced a hostile regime to the negotiating table. He stabilized the world’s most strategically sensitive waterway. He protected American economic interests without a prolonged ground engagement. He did what his predecessors, in his telling, never had the nerve to do. That narrative lands well with a base that wants strength projected abroad and prices kept manageable at home. It works in the Rust Belt and in the suburbs simultaneously, which is precisely the coalition the Republican Party needs to hold together heading into a difficult election cycle.
Strip away the framing and what you find is an administration that entered a confrontation with maximalist objectives – regime pressure, nuclear rollback, regional retrenchment – and came away with a 60-day non-binding document that resolves none of them. All it does is create a window, and the question worth asking is what each side intends to do with that window.
The most plausible reading, and the one that aligns with how this administration has operated across every major foreign policy front, is that Washington has taken a deliberate tactical pause. Not a retreat or a pivot toward diplomacy as a genuine end goal, but a recalibration – time to assess where the military campaign underperformed, time to restructure the diplomatic approach, time to manage the domestic political situation before the midterm pressure becomes overwhelming, and time to prepare the ground for a considerably harder push in early 2027, when electoral constraints ease. This is what American foreign policy has looked like under this administration from the beginning.
Iran, for its part, is not naive about any of this. Tehran has spent decades navigating American pressure cycles – it knows the difference between a genuine opening and a breathing space dressed up as diplomacy. The leadership will use these 60 days to rebuild degraded infrastructure, consolidate supply lines, shore up relationships with regional proxies, and communicate to its own domestic audience that the country held its ground against the most powerful military in the world. That last point holds enormous weight inside Iran, where the political cost of appearing to capitulate would be far higher than the cost of a continuing standoff.
The more optimistic scenario – the one where both sides find their way toward a durable agreement, where Netanyahu’s government gradually loses its grip on American decision-making, and where a genuine fracture opens between Washington and West Jerusalem – cannot be dismissed entirely. The Trump administration does operate on one consistent underlying principle, which is that no relationship is sacred and no ally’s interests automatically override American interests. There is a version of events in which the administration decides that a stable, contained Iran serves American economic and strategic interests better than a permanently destabilized Middle East, and moves accordingly, regardless of the pressure coming from Capitol Hill or from AIPAC boardrooms. But that version requires a confluence of conditions that do not currently exist.
So we arrive at the conclusion that the facts keep pointing toward. The meeting on June 21 was not a peace settlement. It was not even the foundation of one. It was a pause – a moment in which both sides acknowledged, without saying so explicitly, that neither could finish the other off quickly, and that the costs of continuing without a break had become too high to absorb. The grievances remain intact, and the weapons remain loaded. The structural contradictions that produced the conflict – American determination to limit Iranian power, Iranian determination to preserve it, Israeli insistence that neither negotiation nor deterrence is sufficient – none of that has budged.
If the 60-day window closes without a genuine architecture of mutual guarantees, without verification mechanisms that both sides can trust, without at minimum a provisional agreement on the nuclear question that carries legal weight – then what follows will not be a resumption of the current conflict. It will be something qualitatively different. More prepared, more targeted, more destructive, and far harder to pause a second time. The memorandum bought time, and time is neutral. It does not favor peace over war. It simply gives both sides the space to decide which one they are actually preparing for.
The outgoing president has suggested that election software was compromised and called for a full recount
Outgoing Colombian President Gustavo Petro has accused Israel of hacking the presidential election, claiming that changes to election servers allowed outsiders to manipulate voting data.
He made the remarks after right-wing candidate Abelardo De La Espriella won the presidential election on Sunday by a narrow margin, preliminary results show, defeating leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda and signaling a shift away from Petro’s progressive policies.
With nearly all ballots counted, De La Espriella secured 49.66% of the vote against 48.70% for Cepeda, according to the National Registry. The 47-year-old lawyer and businessman, who was endorsed by US President Donald Trump, campaigned on promises to crack down on crime, end peace talks with armed groups, and restore ties with Israel after Petro severed diplomatic relations.
Petro, a longtime critic of Western powers, has accused the US of perpetuating global inequality and described Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as “genocide.”
In a post on Sunday on X, Petro said he had warned that election software developed by the Bautista brothers was vulnerable, citing a 2018 ruling by Colombia’s Council of State, and had called for it to be replaced with publicly owned software and subjected to an independent audit.
Petro said there was evidence that the IP addresses of several servers belonging to Colombia’s National Registry were changed, which he claimed indicates that the software was breached and “others entered data for polling stations and voting centers.”
“The only entity in the world with the capacity to do that is the state of Israel,” he added.
He said he would provide judges with details of the allegedly altered servers and called for a full recount and an investigation into vulnerabilities in the election software.
De La Espriella, who pushed for closer ties with Washington, has already received congratulations from Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He pledged to restore diplomatic relations with Israel and open a Colombian Embassy in Jerusalem, reversing Petro’s severing of ties.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar congratulated De La Espriella on his “impressive victory” and said Israel looks forward to strengthening bilateral ties.
The close ties between De La Espriella and Israel were on display throughout his campaign. During a meeting with Sa’ar in November, De La Espriella said that “a strategic alliance with the State of Israel and the US government will not only make us stronger, but will place us on the right side of history.”
Initial reports suggest that Western-supplied missiles may have been used in the attack on Voronezh
Five people have been killed and dozens injured in a Ukrainian attack on the Russian city of Voronezh, Governor Aleksandr Gusev has said.
A missile attack warning was issued for the region, around 450 km south of Moscow, on Monday morning. Gusev reported that air defenses intercepted “high-speed aerial targets” over the city.
According to the governor, the strike hit an industrial facility, causing “significant damage” and a fire which has since been extinguished. The attack damaged a dozen apartment blocks, as well as six single-family homes and around 50 vehicles, Gusev said in a statement published on Telegram.
Russian officials did not immediately identify the weapons used in the strike. However, media reports have claimed that British-French Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles were used.
The attack came after the Russian Defense Ministry said its forces had intercepted more than 300 Ukrainian long-range drones overnight. Dozens of drones were launched toward Moscow, according to the capital’s mayor, Sergey Sobyanin.
Kiev’s military effort continues to rely heavily on Western support. The EU has shouldered much of the financial burden since US President Donald Trump cut off assistance last year. Ukraine has intensified long-range strikes inside Russia as its forces gradually retreat along parts of the front line and face a worsening manpower shortage.
The deep strikes are reportedly intended in part to demonstrate Ukraine’s ability to inflict damage and to encourage foreign backers to approve further multibillion-dollar aid packages.
Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory have repeatedly caused civilian casualties. In Voronezh, a girl in her early teens was injured by drone debris last Sunday.
Imports have risen from a daily average of 1.91 million barrels per day in May to 2.66 bpd in June so far
Russian oil exports to India rose in June, with shipments surging despite the third US sanctions waiver on oil purchases from Russia ending last week.
India imported an average of 2.66 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Russia this month up to June 19, compared to 1.91 million bpd in May, data from Kpler shows.
India’s oil imports in June are likely to top 2.35 million bpd, driven by competitive discounts and rising demand, PTI reported, quoting a Kpler analyst.
Imports from the US during the period slumped to 91,000 bpd from 252,000 bpd in May.
India is the world’s third-largest energy importer. New Delhi diversified its crude basket after its crude, LNG and LPG imports from the Gulf region were disrupted by the Middle East conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Nearly a fifth of global energy shipments were routed through the strait before the US-Israeli war against Iran, sending oil prices soaring.
Oil shipments to India from the United Arab Emirates stood at 636,000 barrels per day (bpd), a slight dip from the 644,000 bpd imported a month ago. Venezuela emerged as India’s fourth-largest supplier with shipments of 209,000 bpd, behind Saudi Arabia’s 384,000 bpd.
The US has repeatedly urged India to buy more oil from its basket and explore the Venezuelan option after its troops kidnapped President Nicolas Maduro in January.
The US sanctions waiver on Russian oil expired on June 17. Washington initially waived sanctions on Russian oil purchases on March 5, and extended it twice, despite claims to the contrary.
Reports suggest that another extension is unlikely, as oil supplies from the Middle East may return to the market as a US-Iran peace deal takes shape.
The US waiver was issued to stabilize global oil prices after the Iran war. Washington slapped a 25% punitive tariff on Indian imports for its Russian oil purchases in 2025, although it was lifted earlier this year.
More than 250 people have died, with the fatality rate hitting 25.3% among more than 1,000 cases
The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) has exceeded 1,000 confirmed cases, the country’s Health Ministry reported on Sunday.
Officials said 1,003 people have tested positive for the virus since the start of the outbreak. At least 254 patients have died, while case fatality rate reached 25.3%.
Just a day earlier, authorities had reported 956 confirmed infections and 247 deaths.
Hundreds of patients remain under medical supervision. Health officials said 365 people are currently receiving treatment or being monitored in specialized facilities, while 100 patients have been discharged after recovering from the disease.
Medical staff have also paid a heavy price during the crisis. According to World Health Organization (WHO) Emergency Director Marie Roseline Belizaire, 75 healthcare workers have been infected since the outbreak began, 17 of whom have died.
Speaking during a press conference on Friday, Belizaire warned that the situation remains highly volatile and continues to develop at a rapid pace.
“It is a really high price that the system, the healthcare system, is paying, because we don’t have enough of healthcare workers in DR Congo,” the WHO official said.
DR Congo has been grappling with its 17th Ebola outbreak since May 15. Health authorities have linked the outbreak to the Bundibugyo strain of the virus, for which there are currently no approved vaccines or specific treatments.
The epidemic is not confined to DR Congo. According to a situation report by the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), neighboring Uganda has recorded 19 confirmed cases connected to the ongoing outbreak and two fatalities.
The Congolese government has ordered free medical care at designated health facilities across Ituri Province as part of its Ebola response. Health Minister Samuel-Roger Kamba said the measure was aimed at ensuring equitable access to treatment and reinforcing public health protections amid the outbreak.
Ituri Province has emerged as the epicenter of the outbreak, accounting for nearly 90% of all confirmed Ebola infections. The head of the Africa CDC, Jean Kaseya, has warned that the outbreak could become one of the continent’s deadliest Ebola crises if not contained quickly.
On the 85th anniversary of the Nazi invasion, a look at why the Red Army nearly broke in 1941 – and why the USSR did not
Every country has its catastrophic moment – the date that goes down in history as the nation’s darkest day. For Russia, disaster struck on June 22, 1941.
The Nazi attack on the USSR resulted in the deaths of 27 million people; around half of them were unarmed civilians – innocent victims of the war and the Nazis’ genocidal plans. The Soviet territory occupied by the Nazis during the war was the size of a country like Iran and had a pre-war population of 86 million.
It took the USSR four years to repel the attack and win, by which point many cities and regions were completely destroyed. Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), set a grim record in the war. The city wasn’t occupied by Nazi forces, but the merciless siege, bombings, and the horrific famine during the Siege of Leningrad claimed the lives of 650,000 people.
World War II, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, inflicted the most terrible collective trauma in the country’s modern history; the long-term consequences affect the population to this day. Most Russian families know where their ancestors fought, worked, and died during the war.
One of the most pressing questions in Russian history is how all this could have happened. Why did a country that had long prepared for war suffer such a terrible blow, and why was the army of a 200 million-strong nation forced to retreat from the Polish border all the way to Moscow and the Volga, thousands of kilometers away?
An army that showed up too late
We’ll have to start from far off. The Red Army, like the other participants of the war, was influenced by former experience. However, in Russia’s case, this experience was particularly complex and dramatic.
In Russia, World War I was followed by the Russian Civil War. It lasted until 1922 and had catastrophic consequences for the entire country, including its society, industry, and the armed forces. The new army had to be built almost from scratch. A huge portion of the officer corps either died fighting in the Civil War or emigrated. Russians could be found in the most surprising corners of the world: For example, the former colonel of the Tsar’s artillery became chief of the General Staff of Paraguay after the Civil War. The problem was that these people were removed from their own armed forces. Then, several waves of political purges occurred in the Red Army, which eliminated a certain number of both old officers and new commanders who gained experience in the Red Army.
At that time, the USSR was very poor and couldn’t afford modern weapons. And weapons weren’t the only problem. In 1929, a local conflict on the border with China revealed the country’s extreme level of poverty; the equipment was worn out, and there was even a shortage of binoculars and wristwatches. Ammunition production rates were quite dismal.
Surprisingly, Red Army commanders had quite advanced theoretical views regarding the future war. But due to the general poverty of the population, those who remained in the army were either useless slackers or people willing to work for food just to get near a machine gun. Nevertheless, the concept of army development envisioned the creation of highly mobile mechanized units, a powerful air force, and the combined use of these forces for achieving deep, dynamic breakthroughs.
In the 1930s, industry in the Soviet Union developed at a rapid pace, and some issues were hastily resolved. However, many of the old problems remained. A severe shortage of spare parts, ammunition, and auxiliary equipment impacted the army’s ability to operate on the battlefield, since equipment was also required for training.
Another pressing issue was training. Even by 1939, only 0.7% of the population had a higher education. Officers typically completed short-term specialized courses, while the education of most soldiers was limited to seven years of school. There were bright minds in the army, but anyone who had knowledge of military affairs and sought to improve their level of education was quickly promoted. Zhukov, Rokossovsky, and Vasilevsky – the celebrated generals of the 1940s – quickly advanced their careers; however, the biggest issue was the poor training of lieutenants and captains, as well as colonels and major generals. The army had to be expanded: No one had any illusions about avoiding the war. However, the poverty trap and the need to expand the army created an endless cycle: To train a soldier or commander to match the level of the enemy, Russia had to expend more effort and provide more training materials, which it did not have.
In 1940, a few months before the start of the war, Inspector General of the Infantry Andrey Smirnov demanded that the country’s highest leadership urgently find additional ammunition for training soldiers, and complained that officers up to the level of battalion commanders were poorly trained.
The repression of the officer corps (the losses during the Civil War, the trials of the 1920s, and finally the decimation of 1937, when tens of thousands of officers were sent to camps or executed) completed the grim picture. By 1941, both the command staff and regular soldiers had a very poor level of training. Moreover, even if the repressions had not occurred and the army only had to contend with the consequences of the Civil War and the low education level inherited from the Russian Empire, the situation would have been somewhat better, but it would not have fundamentally changed.
The weakness of industry meant that it could only partially meet the military’s demands, and entire classes of equipment were unavailable throughout the war. For example, there were no Russian-made self-propelled howitzers; all armored personnel carriers were supplied by the Allies under Lend-Lease or captured from the Germans, and there was an acute shortage of repair equipment.
Despite this, the army command and industry leaders undertook colossal efforts to prepare the country and army for war. By 1941, the Red Army had formed mechanized corps. These formations looked impressive on paper and possessed hundreds of tanks. In reality, however, the weak industrial base and a lack of experience seriously undermined their potential. The mechanized corps were severely underequipped with auxiliary and specialized equipment, transport, communications equipment, and spare parts. Some advanced equipment was designed, including T-34 and KV tanks, but crew training wasn’t adequate. The air force faced similar issues. While limiting the range of produced equipment allowed a large number of tanks and aircraft to be produced, the quality of the equipment and the skill level of those who operated it were quite low.
The Wehrmacht, by contrast, relied on Germany’s advanced industry. Moreover, in the pre-war years and at the beginning of WWII, it gained control over the industries of the nations it conquered. German industry was strengthened by Austrian and Czech industry, as well as by what was captured in France, the Low Countries, Poland, and elsewhere. The Wehrmacht also tested theoretical military concepts in practice.
In 1941, the German army was at the peak of its capabilities, having gained extensive combat experience in Europe without suffering heavy losses that would have affected the quality of its troops. Meanwhile, the Russians only had experience in local conflicts, and many officers had not taken part in these conflicts.
By 1941, the Red Army had done a lot to overcome its shortcomings. If the Soviet army had a couple more years to correct its flaws, it could have become significantly stronger. But it didn’t have the luxury of time, and in war, there are no silver medals.
Moreover, the above-mentioned challenges were compounded by politics.
The pact and its consequences
In 1939, the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Whether this was a mistake is still a subject of debate. Hitler would certainly have started the war even without the pact, but the treaty allowed the USSR to withdraw from the world war for the next couple of years. Stalin hoped that Hitler would become bogged down on the Western Front. This time, however, France, which stood firm in 1914, collapsed from a single major blow.
In the summer of 1940, Hitler turned his attention to the East. On the one hand, the Nazis planned to acquire ‘living space’ within the framework of their chimerical ideas. On the other hand, Hitler hoped to eliminate the last force that could oppose him in Europe, and thus destroy the last hope of Great Britain, which continued to fight.
Finally, it was decided that the attack on the USSR would occur on June 22.
Meanwhile, Moscow was trying to decide what options it had. The threat was not completely ignored. However, Stalin believed that Hitler would first make some political demands (however unrealistic) and would try to create a pretext for an attack, or at least outline his claims. However, the Germans acted in complete silence. The intelligence reports that were provided to Stalin were later scrutinized and widely discussed. However, Soviet intelligence reports suffered the fate of many similar documents: People tend to remember the predictions that come true, but few remember all of the predictions. Stalin desperately wanted a few more months to prepare, and the intelligence services kept reporting new dates for the likely attack. Thus, in December 1940, it was reported that the war would begin in March; and by March, military intelligence reported that the attack would occur in May. This prediction was actually true, but due to the campaigns in Yugoslavia and Greece, the Germans moved the date of the attack. And so, the Kremlin concluded that it was possible to postpone the war again and again through diplomatic means.
The military, unlike the political leadership, did not like the idea of preserving peace at all costs. On May 15, the operational directorate of the General Staff, represented by generals Vasilevsky, Vatutin, and Zhukov, presented an analytical note titled ‘Scheme of the strategic deployment of the armed forces of the USSR in case of war with Germany and its allies’.
The primary author of the document was the deputy chief of the Operations Directorate of the General Staff, Aleksandr Vasilevsky (a year later he became the head of the General Staff); the head of the operational department, Nikolay Vatutin, and the chief of the General Staff, Georgy Zhukov, also had a part in preparing the document.
The document resembled a memorandum; it did not outline specific plans, but rather made a direct appeal to the country’s leadership: War is a matter of the coming weeks, it said, and it is necessary to begin mobilization and strategic deployment right away – i.e. to mobilize the population and prepare the army for battle.
The military believed that it was better to enter the war earlier, but in full battle order, with an adequate army.
However, Stalin still counted on a political agreement. On June 14, the Soviet news agency TASS published a message which declared the USSR’s peaceful intentions and, in a veiled manner, proposed discussing controversial issues with Germany. The icy silence that followed led to the decision to finally deploy the army; Red Army divisions began advancing towards the country’s western border. The problem is that this happened a month after Vasilevsky’s note was presented to the leadership, and just a week before the start of the war.
The result of this delay was disastrous. The Wehrmacht already had qualitative and technical superiority, and now it also had numerical superiority, since by June 22 no coherent grouping had been created on the western border of the USSR, and there were gaping holes in the formations of the Soviet troops. Their destruction became inevitable.
Soviet military officials spoke out about these problems quite frankly. We do not know Vatutin’s opinion, since he died in the spring of 1944, but we do know the position of Vasilevsky and Zhukov. In his memoirs, Vasilevsky outlined his position in a polite but very clear manner, stating that the mistake of delaying mobilization and deployment led to terrible consequences for the Red Army in the first days of the war.
As for Zhukov, he prepared a report on this subject in 1956 but wasn’t allowed to present it: Even for the new Soviet leadership, which criticized Stalin for his ‘cult of personality’, it was too harsh. The draft speech was published many years later. Zhukov expressed numerous complaints about Stalin’s pre-war orders, and highlighted the failure to make critical decisions in time.
Early in the morning of June 22, 1941, the most terrible war Russia was ever involved in began. The Wehrmacht crossed the border and launched an offensive in three directions – through the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Belarus – heading toward Moscow.
Border defenses collapsed in several places. The first major encirclements of the war followed in the next days. The terrible meat grinder that would operate for the next four years was set in motion.
The resistance of the Red Army was intense from day one. The many people who were ready to defend their country to the last drop of blood turned out to be Russia’s only advantage at the time. Many stories of military valor were recorded by the Germans themselves – for example, the story of a lone KV tank which drove out onto the road behind German lines and fought for a whole day on its own, without contact with the command, until its crew was killed. Heroic feats by the Russians – like bunkers being defended in the midst of hopeless encirclement, until they were finally burned with flamethrowers, and desperate counterattacks on the few armored vehicles that could be found – forced Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch to utter the famous remark, “[Here is] The first serious opponent.”
Unfortunately, the ratio of losses was catastrophic, and German troops moved deep into the country, encircling and destroying the ‘thin red lines’ that sprang up on their path. While the soldiers fought furiously and died, the Stavka of the Supreme High Command, established in the first days of the war, took measures at its own level.
If we were to summarize the measures that stopped the blitzkrieg, it would come down to the idea of total war. In the depths of the country, new divisions were urgently formed, since everyone realized that the old ones had either been defeated or soon would be. The soldiers were undertrained and had a reduced artillery fleet – in fact, they lacked everything.
However, the concept of ‘permanent mobilization’ assumed that even poorly armed and trained units would still influence the operational environment. In fact, there was simply no other solution. This concept was brought to life by Boris Shaposhnikov, a former colonel in the Imperial Russian Army. This was not a ruthless decision; there was simply no other option. What was formally called a ‘division’ was in reality a group of people who had been trained for three weeks, operated without artillery cover, and were commanded by an elderly general of the quartermaster service pulled out of retirement or a young major hastily promoted to colonel. No one could have imagined that in December, these divisions would destroy experienced Wehrmacht formations that stood only a short distance from Moscow, and which by that time had wasted their strength and become vulnerable. In the meantime, their role was reduced to the formula ‘stand strong and die’.
Everything was subordinated to military production. The working hours were brutal; sometimes it was easier for workers and specialists not to go home at night and sleep in the factory buildings. The norms of food rations were limited to ensuring that a person did not die of hunger and was able to carry out his functions. Since many workers volunteered for military service, teenagers and old people worked at factories en masse. The volunteer movement in general was big: Military registration and enlistment offices were filled with people ready to go to the front; those unfit for military service joined militia units. Women formed air regiments with female crews, joined anti-aircraft units, and became snipers. The famed composer Dmitry Shostakovich served in a volunteer fire brigade in his native Leningrad, which was formed entirely from the professors and teachers of the Leningrad Conservatory of Music.
Industrial equipment was moved from territories that were in danger of being captured. This was one of the most remarkable operations of the war: In the shortest possible time, many factories were disassembled and relocated into the depths of the country. The decision to evacuate from a particular area was most often made at the last moment. This was done for obvious reasons: It was necessary to maintain production for as long as possible. The longer the factory remained in place, the more products it was able to produce while operating at full capacity. However, there was always a risk that the decision to evacuate would be made too late. For example, the three largest factories that produced tanks and components and equipment for them were relocated from Kharkov. The critical month during the evacuation was September 1941. At this time, the Red Army suffered one of the biggest military defeats near Kiev and the front moved to within 70 km of Kharkov. The factories were relocated to Nizhny Tagil, 1,770 km east of Kharkov.
Special instructions were immediately issued to the factories. Groups of specialists, including chief engineers, were evacuated to the new location in advance. Open-hearth furnaces and a foundation for a rolling mill were built at the new site. Construction of houses for 40,000 people began in Nizhny Tagil. By October 19, everything was moved to the new location; 67,000 people were evacuated, including 22,447 factory workers and family members. Some of the cargo was lost en route due to chaos on the railways and air strikes. The evacuation of the industrial base did not go smoothly. The Soviet narrative is often silent about how many disruptions and problems arose when relocating equipment and workers. However, this is the only example in world history of such a massive evacuation, so there is nothing to compare it with.
On the battlefield, the main method of fighting was personal initiative. Despite the colossal losses, the Red Army did not go on the defensive. Whether it was an opportune moment or not, the Soviet Army inflicted blows on the enemy. Sometimes due to a ‘chink in the armor’, the Wehrmacht either suffered heavy casualties or lost captured territories. Thus, a series of counterattacks limited the depth and speed of the advance of Army Group South in the summer of 1941, and at the cost of devastating losses of the Soviet mechanized corps allowed the infantry to retreat to the east. In November, fierce counterattacks made it possible to recapture the city of Tikhvin south of Lake Ladoga and to save Leningrad from a complete disaster that threatened to kill all 3 million residents and the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that defended it. These efforts gradually led to fatigue and technical issues on the side of the Wehrmacht, and culminated in the unexpected withdrawal of German troops in the winter, which marked Hitler’s first strategic defeat on land.
In the regions occupied by the Germans, partisan detachments were created. They were usually formed in advance, so caches of weapons could be hidden and partisan groups formed. Everyone knew how cruel the Nazis were, but it was necessary to sabotage enemy communications. Often the remnants of the defeated and encircled units formed partisan units. The Nazis began to experience problems by the summer of 1941; and by winter, they were sitting on a volcano.
Many of these measures resulted in a death sentence for the people; sometimes it even looked like organized suicide. But there was no choice: The genocidal plans of the Nazis became known very quickly, and those who were less quick to grasp the situation soon came face to face with the reality of the occupation. The country went to war and was ready to win it at any cost. The expression ‘at any cost’ was often repeated in official orders. And everyone had to be ready to pay the price.
The catastrophe of 1941 was not the result of one fatal mistake. It was so devastating because many factors were involved.
1. The Third Reich had a more powerful, better trained, skilled, and battle-hardened army. It inherited this superiority in part from the Kaiser’s empire (while the Red Army inherited its problems from Imperial Russia) and in part developed it through combat experience, which the Russians did not possess. Moreover, the Red Army was weakened by the purges of the 1930s, the losses of the officer corps in the Civil War, and political reasons. This was not the main reason, but it became an additional problem for the Red Army. Also, we should not forget the enemy’s formidable power. In the 1930s, the Germans were able to form not just advanced, but breakthrough armed forces, and for a long time no one was able to resist them. If an American expeditionary force had found itself on the European continent, it would have undoubtedly faced the same fate as the Anglo-French forces. Despite the terrible losses, the USSR turned out to be the only country that was able to repel a Nazi ground invasion.
These factors sufficed to inflict a major defeat on the Russians at the beginning of the war. However, other circumstances were added on top of this.
2. Germany possessed a much more powerful industrial base than the Soviet Union. The Russians could produce machinery, but this did not mean the quality and technical condition of the equipment was adequate. The Third Reich could rely on the resources and industrial base of the conquered parts of Europe and it had its own powerful industrial base. The efforts made by the USSR to reduce this gap were significant but not sufficient; so more efforts had to be made in the course of the war. The severity of the problem was partially mitigated by the allies, but by that time, the USSR had already lost a huge part of its production. In order to truly bridge this gap, Russia had to resort to the strategy of total war.
3. Additionally, the Red Army was pressured by the mistakes of Stalin and the country’s political leadership. Politicians are rarely inclined to trust professionals, but in the case of the USSR, this distrust had truly fatal consequences. In 1941, the intelligence reports did not convince Stalin that the war would soon start, but the danger was apparent. The General Staff was convinced that by May 1941, war was a matter of the coming weeks. However, as we know, Stalin hesitated until mid-June, due to which four critical weeks out of five were lost. The result of this mistake was that the final preparations began at the last minute. So, the Wehrmacht received an unexpected numerical and positional advantage just before the start of the war. The consequences of this loss of time were virtually impossible to correct; by then, it was just a matter of surviving the blow. By June 22, the Red Army was in a hopeless position. At the time the war broke out, there were simply no good decisions left for the Red Army.
The only advantage the Soviet Union had was incredible determination at every level – from the Kremlin official to the soldier clutching a rifle in the trenches. The resistance put up by the Soviet Union was extreme; at all levels of the social hierarchy there was absolute willingness to make sacrifices and use any opportunity to hurt the enemy. Stalin paid for his mistakes with the life of his son, an artillery officer who was captured and killed. The Soviet leader was a brutal dictator, but his determination to fight and win the war and sacrifice everything to this end matched that of the rest of the people.
The country went to war determined to win or die trying. It sacrificed 27 million lives, but survived what would have broken many others, ending the war with a resounding victory on the streets of Berlin and Vienna.
On July 3, 1941, Wehrmacht Chief of the General Staff Franz Halder wrote in his journal, “It is no exaggeration to say that the campaign against Russia was won within 14 days.”
The general was off by two orders of magnitude: The war lasted just over 1,400 days after those words were written. He was also mistaken about the victors: Four agonizing years later, amid torrents of blood, the Third Reich was totally defeated and crushed.
The Ukrainian leader has accused the Polish president of unfairly targeting him for celebrating Nazi collaborators
Poland will not accept insults from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, the chief of staff to President Karol Nawrocki has said, as a diplomatic row over Kiev’s honoring of nationalist forces that collaborated with the Nazis continues to escalate.
Last week, Nawrocki ordered that Zelensky be stripped of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor, which then-President Andrzej Duda awarded to the Ukrainian leader in 2023. Zelensky returned the medal by mail, and several current and former Ukrainian officials said they will return their Polish honors in protest.
Agnieszka Jedrzak criticized Zelensky on Sunday, saying the move only compounds the offense caused by Kiev’s earlier decision to grant an elite commando unit the title ‘Heroes of the UPA’. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) allied with Nazi Germany during World War II and took part in mass killings of Poles, Jews, and Russians in what is now western Ukraine.
“One does not honor the murderers of the ancestors of those who helped you when it was a matter of life or death,” Jedrzak wrote on X, referring to Polish military aid in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. “We support Ukraine, but we will not allow ourselves to be insulted.”
Jedrzak also responded to Zelensky’s argument that the Order of the White Eagle was also awarded to Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini, Russian Empress Catherine II, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, but not revoked.
“The first two have long been deceased, and Poland does not revoke the Order posthumously,” she said. As for Schroeder, she argued that during his time in office, Germany did not erect monuments to German Nazis, nor did it name army units after “SS heroes.”
Modern Kiev considers Catherine the Great, a Prussian-born 18th century Russian leader, a suppressor of Ukrainian freedom. Schroeder has been criticized in Poland and Ukraine for maintaining close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin and for supporting Russian-German energy and economic cooperation.
The ideology of Mussolini’s Italy influenced figures within the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the political wing of the UPA. Andrey Melnik, one of the group’s leaders, referred to the ideological affinity with fascists in a 1939 letter to German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.
Days before the renaming of the Ukrainian special operations unit, Zelensky presided over a state reburial of Melnik’s remains, which Kiev described as part of the creation of a “pantheon” of Ukrainian heroes.
Kiev accuses Nawrocki of exploiting tensions
Zelensky has accused Nawrocki of seeking “political dividends on hatred” toward Ukrainians ahead of Poland’s parliamentary election scheduled for late 2027.
He also compared the Polish president to former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose party lost power in a controversial election earlier this year, after Kiev temporarily cut off Russian oil to Hungary, claiming the pipeline was damaged by Russia.
Orban’s successor, Peter Magyar, has since unblocked EU funding for Kiev. However, he has also pressed Zelensky for concessions on the rights of ethnic Hungarian minorities in Ukraine, which have been restricted by policies aimed at imposing Ukrainian national identity.
Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party won 438 seats in the June 1 vote, according to results released by the National Election Board
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party has secured a parliamentary majority in the country’s general election, officials have announced, extending its dominance in the 547-seat House of Peoples’ Representatives.
The Prosperity Party won 438 seats in the June 1 vote, according to results released by the National Election Board on Sunday. Only 17 of the 42 political parties that contested the election secured representation in parliament.
The election took place across most of the East African nation’s regions, with more than 50 million registered voters, according to the electoral board, which put turnout at about 94%. However, voting did not take place in the northern Tigray region, which has remained outside national elections amid ongoing instability after a two-year war between Ethiopian federal forces and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front that ended in 2022. Several areas in Oromia and Amhara also experienced disruptions, with 143 polling stations unable to open due to insecurity, according to local media.
Abiy has been in office since 2018, when he became prime minister following internal reforms within the then-ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front. He later dissolved the coalition in 2019 and formed the Prosperity Party through a merger of several regional parties.
His tenure has been marked by sweeping political and economic reforms, but also by prolonged conflict in northern Ethiopia, including the war in Tigray, as well as ongoing violence in Oromia and Amhara regions.
Opposition parties, including the Oromo Federalist Congress, Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice, and the National Movement of Amhara, rejected the election process, citing intimidation, limited campaign space, and the exclusion of key political figures, and said the vote fell short of free and fair standards.
The African Union Election Observation Mission said election day was generally calm, with voting conducted in an orderly manner at most polling stations it observed.
Speaking at the release of the preliminary findings, former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who headed the AU mission, urged Ethiopians to be proud of their country, which “stood against the wave of colonialism, united, and never colonized.”
Ethiopia is a parliamentary republic, meaning the composition of the federal parliament will determine the formation of the next government and the selection of the prime minister.
In a statement following the announcement of the results, the Prosperity Party expressed gratitude to Ethiopians for “their role in a peaceful, credible, and historic electoral process” and pledged to intensify efforts to deliver inclusive economic growth, improve livelihoods, and expand employment opportunities.
Five others were wounded in the attack in Tacloban City, according to police
Three people have been killed and five others wounded in a shooting at a school in Tacloban City in the central Philippines, according to local officials.
The shooting took place inside the San Jose National High School campus at around 9 AM local time on Monday.
Videos circulating on social media appear to show children hiding under desks, crying, and screaming as loud gunshots can be heard nearby. In one clip, a person appears to be struck after approaching a classroom doorway. The footage has not been independently verified.
According to an initial report from the Tacloban City Police Office, eight people were hit by gunfire. Three victims died, while five others were taken to hospital for treatment.
Police said one of the suspects, a local child in conflict with the law (CICL), was apprehended shortly afterward and remains in custody. A second suspect remains at large, with authorities launching a manhunt.
The identities of the victims have not been released pending notification of their families. Officials have also withheld the name of the detained suspect.
Investigators are working to establish the sequence of events and determine a possible motive. Police said the relationship between the victims and the suspects has yet to be established.
The UK prime minister “failed badly” on migration and energy, the US president has said
US President Donald Trump has added to the pressure on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, blasting his record on migration and energy in a social media post before the British leader announced his resignation on Monday. Trump’s remarks come amid souring US-UK relations over the Iran war, while the US State Department has accused the UK of “two-tier policing.”
In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump declared that Starmer would resign and said the Labour leader “failed badly on two very important subjects – IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well!”
Commenting on Trump’s remarks, British broadcaster Piers Morgan said the fact that the US president had announced the UK leader’s resignation before Starmer himself had done so was “the final humiliation.”
Starmer confirmed on Monday that he will stand down as prime minister and Labour leader, but said he will remain in his post until a party leadership contest is complete.
Pressure on Starmer has built since Labour lost almost 1,500 council seats in local elections in May, with over 80 Labour MPs subsequently calling for him to go. The crisis deepened after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham – who was not yet sworn in as a member of Parliament – won a decisive by-election victory in Makerfield last Thursday, taking nearly 55% of the vote and emerging as the chief contender to replace Starmer.
The Starmer government has also been beset by numerous scandals, including the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US despite his past ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. It was also plagued by the reemergence of ‘grooming gang’ cover-up accusations.
Last month, the US State Department accused Britain of “two-tiered policing” after bodycam footage showed officers handcuffing 18-year-old Polish-British university student Henry Nowak as he died, while his killer – a 23-year-old Sikh – claimed to be the victim of a racist attack.
Trump and Starmer’s relationship also frayed over the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, with the UK prime minister initially blocking US use of the Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands to attack the country. At one point, Trump said Starmer is “not Winston Churchill.”
Senior Labour ministers have reportedly refused to support their party leader, who has been beset by scandals and broken promises
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that he will resign from his post and will step down as the leader of the Labour Party.
In an address outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Starmer said he already informed King Charles III of his decision and asked the Labour Party to lay out a timetable to elect a new leader by September, adding that he will remain in his post until then.
Starmer became prime minister in 2024 following the Labour Party’s victory in that year’s general election. He has repeatedly vowed to stay in the post, but has faced pressure to resign amid growing discontent and the declining popularity of his party.
His resignation makes him the sixth UK prime minister to leave office in the past ten years.
Despite entering office with a large majority and a promise to restore competence after years of Conservative turmoil, Starmer’s government quickly became associated with tax hikes, welfare cuts, censorship, political scandals, and an increasingly unpopular foreign policy agenda.
He has faced growing backlash over what critics have described as ‘two-tier policing’ and radical censorship, after the authorities cracked down on anti-immigration protesters, online speech, and pro-Palestinian activism, while pushing broader internet controls.
Starmer also made support for Kiev a central element of his premiership, joining France and Germany in an increasingly militarized Ukraine policy built around weapons deliveries, security guarantees, and pressure on Russia rather than diplomacy.
At home, his stance on Ukraine has clashed with Britain’s own defense problems. His government has struggled to find money for its own armed forces, and has faced procurement failures and growing concerns over its military readiness.
Starmer also faced backlash after appointing a politically connected figure with ties to late financier and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein as ambassador to the US. The scandal reinforced criticism that his government serves an insulated elite while failing to deliver for ordinary voters.
More than 80 UAVs were intercepted on approach to the Russian capital, the mayor has said
A total of 84 Ukrainian drones were intercepted in 24 hours while flying toward Moscow, local officials say. The broader Ukrainian overnight wave included over 300 aircraft targeting Russia. The barrage comes as the nation marks the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union.
Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin reported no casualties or damage on the ground during the raid, which took place from Sunday night into Monday morning. Several airports serving the Russian capital temporarily halted operations in response to the Ukrainian drone threat.
Russia’s Defense Ministry said air defenses destroyed or intercepted 301 Ukrainian long-range drones over an 11-hour period.
The attack coincided with the date when Russia commemorates the Nazi assault on the USSR on June 22, 1941. The invasion began the bloodiest conflict in the country’s history and ultimately cost the Soviet Union more than 27 million lives.
Modern Ukraine glorifies nationalist figures and movements that collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. Among others, tributes have been paid to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, or UPA, whose members took part in mass killings of Poles, Jews, and Russians during the conflict.
Last week, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky was stripped of Poland’s highest merit, the Order of the White Eagle, after Warsaw objected to his decision to name an elite commando unit after “the heroes of UPA.” Previously Warsaw tended to overlook the Ukrainian framing of the historic atrocities to prioritize current military support against Russia.
Kiev has continued to launch EU-funded kamikaze drones against Russian energy infrastructure. Last Thursday, a barrage involving almost 200 UAVs targeting Moscow resulted in damage to a refinery in the city’s southeastern Kapotnya district and left at least 17 people injured in the surrounding Moscow Region.
The US president accused the newspaper of using “fake and made up facts” after it questioned the results of the war
US President Donald Trump has threatened legal action against the New York Times over its analytical reporting on the goals and outcome of the war in Iran, calling the newspaper’s coverage “treasonous.”
The outburst was triggered by an article published on Sunday by reporter Neil MacFarquhar: ‘What Changed After Almost Four Months of War? Analysts Say Not Much’.
In the piece, MacFarquhar wrote that skeptics are “expressing bafflement” over what the war managed to change, arguing that “neither the war nor the agreement terminated the main threats emanating from Iran.”
He also cited Caitlin Talmadge, an MIT professor specializing in Persian Gulf security issues, who said the memorandum of understanding reached last week between the US and Iran “resulted from the fact that the United States bit off more than it could chew.”
Trump shot back in a series of Truth Social posts on Sunday, calling the newspaper “Corrupt and Failing” and claiming that the US-Israeli operation crippled Iran’s military capabilities, eliminated its leadership twice, and devastated the country’s economy.
“The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, THE OIL IS GUSHING, and the U.S. Stock Market and Jobs are at record HIGHS. That’s what’s CHANGED, you corrupt and unethical cowards, and MORE,” he wrote.
The president followed up with another post accusing the newspaper of reporting “FAKE & MADE UP ‘FACTS’” and describing its coverage as “TREASONOUS.”
“I will be adding all of their false and ridiculous reporting to my multibillion-dollar lawsuit against them. They are Criminals,” he said.
Trump’s remarks refer to an ongoing $15 billion defamation lawsuit he filed against the New York Times in 2025. Centered on the book ‘Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success’, the suit accuses the newspaper, four of its reporters, and publisher Penguin Random House of disseminating false statements about Trump, his family, and his businesses in an effort to damage his 2024 presidential campaign.
Trump said the newspaper has become a “full-throated mouthpiece of the Democrat Party” and that the lawsuit is part of an effort to restore “integrity to journalism.”
The New York Times rejected the allegations, saying the case “has no merit” and is an attempt to suppress independent journalism, adding that it will continue to report “without fear or favor.”
The Ukrainian leader has reiterated his threat to destroy “relay stations” along the Belarusian border
The Ukrainian military will bomb Belarusian communication towers along the 1,000-kilometer border unless President Alexander Lukashenko takes them offline and “proves” that he is not aiding Russia, Vladimir Zelensky said on Sunday.
Belarus, a close ally of Russia, has largely stayed out of the Ukraine conflict since 2022, while calling on Moscow and Kiev to engage in dialogue. However, over the past few weeks, Zelensky has ramped up his rhetoric about the alleged threat posed by Belarus – and has threatened it with a preemptive strike.
“At the intelligence and military levels, Belarus received a message: stop helping the Russians. The issue with the relay stations has been ongoing for a long time,” Zelensky said in a post on X on Sunday, reiterating his claim that the communication towers are being used by Russia to coordinate drone strikes.
Lukashenko has repeatedly stated that Belarus has no intention of waging war against any nation and “is not threatening anyone,” but Zelensky said his words have “meant nothing since the first day of the war.”
“If he does not remove them, we will remove everything ourselves. Similarly, we’re sending a message: please stop supplying fuel to the Russian army,” he added, insisting that this is not a threat.
Earlier this week, Lukashenko stated that those who seek to drag his nation into the conflict “will have to pay dearly for that,” demanding answers from Kiev regarding the strike on Bryansk Region, Russia that left six children injured and killed the wife of a Belarusian school soccer team coach who was accompanying the children to a Russian seaside resort.
Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin said it makes absolutely “no sense” for the country of 9 million people, which borders three NATO member states, to willingly join the conflict unless attacked first.
Besides the relay stations, Kiev has also identified and mapped out 500 other strategic military and logistical targets across Belarus, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces warned last month.
“They may well have identified 500 targets,” Lukashenko said in response. “But we have one very serious target, with precise coordinates. And it is not far from Belarus,” he added, apparently hinting at Kiev, which is just 90 kilometers from the border.
The reform would also abolish a popular early-retirement scheme, after Chancellor Merz accused citizens of not working hard enough
The German government is preparing to back sweeping pension reforms that would gradually raise the retirement age to 70, end popular early-retirement schemes, and introduce additional contributions to a state-run investment fund, according to media reports.
The package, prepared by a commission appointed by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Labor Minister Barbel Bas, will be presented on Tuesday in the latest push to make Germans work longer and harder.
The key elements of the proposal include linking the retirement age to life expectancy and gradually raising it from 67 to 70, according to details first leaked by Bild and Die Zeit.
The popular option of retiring without deductions after 45 years of contributions – known as the ‘pension at 63’ – would also be abolished. The commission said these early retirees burden pension funds and deprive the labor market of urgently needed skilled workers.
The new scheme would also require workers and their employers to contribute another 2% of gross wages to a new state-run investment fund, on top of the current 18.6% rate.
The commission will meet one last time on Monday to discuss formalities before submitting its recommendations to Merz and Bas, who, according to Handelsblatt, aim to approve the package before parliament breaks for its annual summer recess in July.
Germany faces growing pension costs as the country’s population ages and millions of baby boomers retire, leaving fewer workers to finance the pay-as-you-go system. The chancellor has repeatedly argued that Germany’s welfare model “can no longer be financed with what we can economically afford.”
Earlier this year, Merz urged Germans to commit to “greater economic output… through more work.” He also opposed shorter working weeks and criticized employees for taking an average of “almost three weeks” of sick leave annually, instead of working harder to boost the economy.
In May, Albert Stegemann, deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, proposed tightening eligibility rules for public assistance with nursing-home costs, which could force elderly Germans to sell their homes to pay for care.
The first round ended without a statement, but J.D. Vance said the sides have laid a “foundation” for a final deal
The US and Iran have agreed on a roadmap toward a final peace deal following negotiations mediated by Qatar and Pakistan in the Swiss resort of Burgenstock. The meeting, which began on Sunday, was the first round of talks aimed at turning last week’s memorandum of understanding into a final settlement on the war.
The US was represented by Vice President J.D. Vance and President Donald Trump’s special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, included senior officials responsible for the central bank, oil exports, and nuclear negotiations.
The talks were initially scheduled for Friday but were postponed after Israeli attacks on Lebanon. They were also briefly disrupted on Sunday after Trump renewed his threats to strike Iran if it failed to rein in its “proxies in Lebanon.”
Nevertheless, negotiations continued into the early hours of Monday and produced what mediators have described as “encouraging progress.”
What was agreed?
The US and Iran did not issue a joint statement. However, Qatar and Pakistan said the talks produced agreement on a 60-day roadmap toward a final deal, further technical negotiations, and a high-level committee to oversee the process.
Tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation has delivered major progress to end Lebanon War. Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran.
Working groups are expected to focus on nuclear issues, sanctions, implementation, dispute resolution, and other matters. A communication line on the Strait of Hormuz is also set to be established to prevent incidents and miscommunication, as well as a Lebanon deconfliction cell to help enforce the memorandum’s requirement to end military operations on all fronts.
What does the US say?
Vance presented the talks as a successful first step, but not a final settlement, stating that “the final deal is the house,” and that the two sides have only just “laid a successful foundation.”
He said Washington is prepared to “turn over a new leaf” with Iran and “fundamentally transform” relations if Tehran accepts long-term limits on its nuclear program and stops acting as a “driver of instability.”
According to Vance, Iran agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into the country to verify compliance with the preliminary agreement. He added that coordination with the IAEA could begin this week.
The vice president also said progress has been made on Lebanon, arguing that the new deconfliction mechanism should prevent isolated incidents from spiraling into broader escalation. He said the US wants Hezbollah to stop firing at Israel while preserving both Israel’s security and Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Vance also addressed the issue of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen abroad under sanctions. He floated a mechanism under which some of those funds could be released but spent only with US and Qatari approval, including on purchases of American soy, corn, and wheat for Iran.
Iran has presented the talks as progress, but not as a final breakthrough. Foreign Minister Araghchi praised Qatari and Pakistani mediation, saying the first real test of the process would be whether the Lebanon deconfliction cell can help end the fighting there.
Tehran says the talks focused heavily on practical economic measures, including oil and petrochemical exports, sanctions waivers, the release of frozen assets, and the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ports and shipping.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei noted that formal nuclear negotiations have not yet begun, despite US claims of progress on IAEA inspections. He said any Iranian step must be matched by US compliance with its own obligations under the memorandum.
Iran’s senior delegation has since left Switzerland, according to Iranian media. A technical team led by Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi remains at Burgenstock to continue talks on the memorandum.
What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz?
The Strait of Hormuz has remained a key pressure point during negotiations as its status has remained disputed.
US officials have claimed that traffic through the waterway is returning toward normal, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright stating 67 ships passed through on Saturday, up from 55 the previous day. US Central Command has also said safe passage remains intact.
Commercial tracking data shows a less stable picture. Maritime intelligence firm Windward said 12 vessels crossed the strait on Sunday, down from 35 the day before, with several ships entering the waterway after turning off tracking systems.
Under last week’s memorandum, Washington has pledged to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, while Tehran committed to restoring safe passage for commercial shipping. The issue was discussed again in Switzerland, where the sides agreed to a 60-day communication line to prevent naval incidents and miscalculation while broader talks continue.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, however, declared the strait closed on Saturday, citing Israeli strikes in Lebanon and accusing Washington of failing to uphold the memorandum.
Trump has warned Iran against closing the strait, but Tehran has dismissed the threats, with Iranian officials telling Trump that the crucial waterway is “neither your personal casino nor the backyard of modern-day pirates.”
Trump’s threats nearly derailed the opening round of talks, even as US officials later tried to present them as negotiating bluster. Ahead of the meeting, Trump demanded that Iran rein in Hezbollah, warning that the US would strike Iran “very hard again” if the group continued to fight Israel in Lebanon.
Trump also escalated his rhetoric over Hormuz, stating that the US could “take over the rest of the country” if Tehran attempts to shut the waterway.
The remarks triggered a protest from the Iranian delegation. Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf, one of Tehran’s lead negotiators in Switzerland, warned Washington to be “careful with their statements,” arguing that US threats had failed.
What is happening in Lebanon?
The US-Iran agreement calls for the termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, but Israel has refused to withdraw from the territory it occupies in the south.
Vance said Washington wants both Israel’s security and Lebanon’s sovereignty protected, but acknowledged that this would be an “ongoing conversation.” He described the Lebanon deconfliction cell as a way to prevent individual incidents from spiraling into a broader escalation.
Israeli officials have said the military will not pull back from the “security zone.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told journalists on Sunday that Israeli forces will remain in southern Lebanon “for as long as it takes” and that Israel will not allow Iran to “arm itself with nuclear weapons,” regardless of “whatever the diplomatic developments may be.”
Hezbollah said it will not allow Israeli forces to remain in Lebanon, vowing to respond to any ceasefire violations. According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, Israeli strikes killed 105 people and injured more than 150 others on Friday and Saturday.
What happens next?
The high-level talks in Switzerland have concluded, but technical negotiations are expected to continue through the week. The next phase is set to focus on nuclear monitoring, sanctions relief, frozen assets, oil exports, implementation guarantees, and dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Incumbent President Gustavo Petro dismissed the declaration as “wishful thinking” until the electoral commission scrutinizes irregularities and delivers a final verdict
Pro-Trump lawyer Abelardo de la Espriella has claimed victory in Colombia’s presidential runoff after preliminary results showed him winning by a narrow margin, as the country’s left-wing president, Gustavo Petro, and the ruling party’s candidate, Ivan Cepeda, both vowed to scrutinize every vote.
With 99.9% of the ballots counted, de la Espriella was leading left-wing Senator Ivan Cepeda by only 250,000 votes – including 175,000 cast abroad – a much narrower margin than the three-point lead he held in the first round in May.
“Here we are, the vice president and the president-elect of the Republic are going to ensure that the popular will is respected,” de la Espriella said in an interview on Sunday night.
The incumbent, however, said the margin is too narrow and that concerns about the election’s legitimacy are too serious to ignore. “Only the judges determine who is the president of Colombia. Any declaration today of victory in the elections is merely wishful thinking,” Petro said.
He also alleged outside interference, claiming that changes in the IP addresses of several electoral servers means the voting software was compromised, adding that he would request a full recount, while claiming that “the only entity in the world capable of doing that is the state of Israel.”
Cepeda similarly stated that the preliminary count “is neither official nor binding” until observers scrutinize the results from 33,000 polling stations across the country.
De la Espriella said he already called US President Donald Trump and asked him to “defend the election results,” adding that Trump “expressed his support and recognition of our victory.”
Both candidates ran campaigns aimed at courting undecided voters and boosting turnout, which rose from 57% to more than 63%.
Cepeda, 63, a close ally of Petro, promised to continue peace talks with armed guerrilla groups that have fought the Colombian state for more than half a century. He also pledged to expand social welfare programs and introduce anti-corruption measures.
De la Espriella, 47, a political newcomer who calls himself ‘the Tiger’, campaigned on a hardline law-and-order platform. He vowed to end negotiations with armed groups and launch a broad military offensive against guerrillas, drug traffickers, and organized crime.
He also promised a sweeping crackdown on crime and an overhaul of the penal system, including mega-prisons and longer sentences – proposals that have drawn comparisons to El Salvador’s controversial President Nayib Bukele and his mass-incarceration security model.
Trump enthusiastically endorsed de la Espriella during the campaign, urging Colombians again on Wednesday to vote for the “Smart, Strong, and Tough Leader.”
De la Espriella has been critical of Petro, under whom relations between Colombia and the US – its biggest trade partner – have significantly deteriorated.
Petro, who is constitutionally barred from running again, has criticized Trump’s mass deportation policies, extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats, and revival of the Monroe Doctrine, leading to online feuds between the two leaders.
The outgoing Colombian president also criticized Trump’s commando raid on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, in January. De la Espriella openly welcomed the move.
The incident in Ras Laffan Industrial City was caused by a “technical malfunction,” the authorities said
A massive explosion and fire at Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City on Sunday evening has killed at least 13 people and injured 66 others, Energy Minister Saad al-Kaab reported on Monday.
Qatar’s Interior Ministry initially said that an “internal explosion” occurred due to a technical incident, adding that civil defense teams were responding and that there was no threat to public safety.
Earlier reports said that 18 workers were considered missing following the disaster.
QatarEnergy said the blast occurred during the start-up of operations at the Barzan local gas supply facility in Ras Laffan in the evening hours of June 21. Emergency teams were deployed immediately, and the resulting fire has since been brought under control, the company said.
Videos circulating online show a large fireball lighting up the night sky, followed by a towering plume of smoke from the direction of the industrial zone.
Ras Laffan, located north of Doha, is one of the world’s most important gas-processing hubs and is central to Qatar’s liquefied natural gas industry. The complex was among the “US-linked” facilities that Iran hit earlier in the war in retaliation for the Israeli strike on its own South Pars gas field.
The incident comes as US and Iranian officials hold follow-up talks in Switzerland on a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the conflict and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, with Qatar and Pakistan acting as mediators. The deal has been fiercely opposed by Israel, which has continued military operations in Lebanon despite the agreement’s call for an end to hostilities on all fronts.
Qatar has played a key mediation role throughout the crisis alongside Pakistan. The Swiss talks are focused on the implementation of the US-Iran memorandum, including maritime security, sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear program, and the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.
More young Britons believe the UK would be better off as a republic than a monarchy, an Ipsos survey has suggested
Public support for the British monarchy has fallen to its lowest level in over three decades, a new poll has suggested. Just under half of Britons still favor removing the monarchy, with support particularly weak among younger people.
Support for the monarchy has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 80% in 2012 and fell to 55% in 2026, according to data published by Ipsos on Friday. The figure is the lowest recorded by the market research and polling company since it began tracking the issue in 1993 and is well below the long-term average of 71%.
Support has declined across all age groups but is particularly low among Britons aged 18-34, where only a third of respondents said they favor the monarchy – roughly half the level recorded in 2013. According to Ipsos, 45% of people in that age group would prefer the UK to become a republic instead.
Satisfaction with King Charles and his heir, Prince William, remains high, the poll suggested as 60% and 71% of respondents respectively said they liked the way the king and the prince were doing their jobs.
The monarchy’s popularity took a hit over the long-standing association between King Charles’ brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The now former Prince Andrew was initially accused in 2014 of being one of the persons the disgraced financier sex-trafficked women to.
Andrew settled a civil lawsuit with one of the sex-trafficking victims, Virginia Giuffre, in 2022, while still denying all the allegations. In 2026, the British police opened a criminal case against him after a release of additional files in the Epstein case suggested that he allegedly provided confidential government information to the convicted sex offender.
Buckingham Palace commented on the case in February, saying that the Royal family was ready to support the probe “if we are approached by Thames Valley Police” and adding that the king’s “thoughts and sympathies have been, and remain with, the victims of any and all forms of abuse.”
According to a poll conducted by YouGov in April, Mountbatten-Windsor remains the most disliked member of the family by a wide margin, with over 90% of Britons having a “negative” or “very negative” view of him.
The influence of the British monarchy abroad has also declined in recent years, with some former British colonies considering severing their remaining ties to the Crown. Barbados became the most recent Caribbean nation to become a republic in 2021 while remaining within Britain’s Commonwealth.
A survey conducted by former Conservative Party deputy chairman Michael Ashcroft in 2023 suggested that six of the 14 overseas countries within the Commonwealth realm – including Canada and Australia – would prefer to ditch the monarchy.
Decreasing crime rates coincide with less strict firearm laws – what does that say about the US society?
It may seem contradictory, but as more Americans opt to pack heat the crime rates are slowly going down. Is America returning to the days of the duels at high noon?
Martin Daley and his girlfriend were walking along a forested footpath on the outskirts of Athens, Georgia one evening when they were approached by three young men. One of them stopped and asked the couple if they had any money. Daley immediately pulled out his wallet and handed the man everything he had, which was about 20 dollars. The men continued on their way, but Daley realized the situation could have been much worse.
“We were absolutely defenseless and those guys could have done anything they wanted,” Daley said. “It was then that I realized I needed to acquire a firearm for my protection.”
Georgia is one of twenty-nine US states that have constitutional (or permitless) carry laws. In these states, individuals who can legally own a firearm are allowed to carry them, either openly or concealed, without needing a government-issued permit or license.
The following day, Daley, having gone through a brief background check at a local gun store, was the proud owner of a .45 Colt M1911, an iconic firearm that set him back about $2,000. I’ve known Martin since high school, and he has never been a gun nut or owned a firearm before. Now he goes to the firing range twice a week to practice, carries the gun everywhere he goes and has never felt more at ease in public.
“In my opinion, this was the real game changer for me. I was no longer a helpless would-be victim just waiting to be mugged or worse. I now had some control over my life that I did not have before.”
Nevertheless, he admits he would rather live in a country where it isn’t necessary to carry a weapon everywhere he went.
“It’s a shame that we let the genie out of the bottle,” he says. “But now that it is out, we will never get all the guns off the street.”
Daley is part of a growing number of Americans who have decided to carry a firearm amid rising crime rates. A new survey of 1,000 US General Election voters carried out last month by McLaughlin & Associates revealed that nearly 30% of respondents said they carry a firearm. More to the point, the survey found that 13.2% respondents said they carry a firearm all or most of the time, while an additional 16.6% said they carry one sometimes or rarely. These results show a 5.5% increase in the number of respondents who said they carry firearms since a similar poll was conducted in December 2024. And the number will continue to climb as more states jump on the pro-gun wagon.
“In 2022, six states – California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – made it easier for citizens to obtain a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications,” John R. Lott observed in Real Clear Investigations.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin denounced the decision as “bad constitutional law and even worse for public safety,” while Gov. Phil Murphy gravely intoned that, “this dangerous decision will make America a less safe country.” The reality that the Democrats refuse to admit is that violent crime has dropped in all six of those states that made the decision to loosen their gun laws.
In Hawaii, the Aloha State today boasts one of the lowest intentional homicide rates in the US, hovering around 1.6 to 2.8 per 100,000 residents. That’s a drop from 3.2 murders per capita in 2021.
In California, after spiking during the early years of the Covid-19 pandemic, homicides have fallen by roughly 30% since 2021. By the end of 2024, the state’s homicide rate dropped to about 4.3 per 100,000 residents, which is virtually back to pre-pandemic historic lows.
The residents of New York City are also enjoying a record drop in gun-related killings. Murders are down 20.9% year-to-date, marking the fewest homicides and shooting incidents recorded for the first five months of any year in the city’s history.
The murder rate has also dropped significantly in Maryland. Statewide, homicides plummeted by roughly 44% between 2022 and 2025, reaching their lowest level in nearly 40 years. Remarkably, the once crime-riddled city of Baltimore recorded 133 homicides in 2025, which is the lowest total on record since 1977. This reflects a roughly 60% decrease in murders since the passage of the pro-gun legislation.
New Jersey reported 778 gun violence victims in 2024, a 16% decline from 924 the previous year, marking a 15-year low, according to the governor’s office. Gun-related fatalities also dropped 20% to 152 last year.
Finally, the people who understand violence on the streets better than anyone – police officers – generally support gun ownership by law-abiding civilians. That’s largely due to the fact that law enforcement officers usually only arrive on the scene after a crime has already been committed.
“Police officers can only do so much in the fight against crime,” a Pittsburgh detective told RT on the condition of anonymity. “The more that criminals understand that they are up against a well-armed populace, the crime rates will fall.”
Estimates indicate there are between 400 and 500 million privately owned firearms in the United States. Because there are roughly 334 million residents, this means there are approximately 1.5 guns for every person in the country, or nearly two guns for every adult. When confronting those sorts of astonishing numbers, it would do well to remember the dictum: When guns are outlawed in the US, only the outlaws will have them.
The question remains, however, if Americans want to live in a country where it is necessary to carry a gun in order to feel safe. After all, not everybody will feel comfortable carrying a firearm every time they want to venture outdoors. It’s unfortunate that the leaders of the US allowed the gun situation to get so out of control to the point where the Wild West is on the comeback.
More than $350 million is expected to be allocated to establish infrastructure for 61 future settlements
Israel has earmarked broad swathes of the West Bank for scores of new settlements, a move that could isolate Palestinian villages and tighten West Jerusalem’s grip on the territory. RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij has taken a closer look at the expansion plans.
The Israeli government has accelerated its push to annex larger and larger portions of the West Bank in recent years, accompanied by escalating settler violence. The international community and the US, Israel’s biggest ally, has also opposed the bid, with President Donald Trump vowing to “not allow” an annexation.
Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right finance minister and West Bank settler who also holds authority in the Defense Ministry over civilian affairs in the region, is backing the land grab. On Tuesday, he annulled parts of a key 1997 Israeli-Palestinian agreement which gave Hebron Palestinian municipality authority over planning, zoning, and construction in parts of the city.
According to draft plans reported last week, Israel is expected to allocate more than $350 million over several years to establish 61 settlements across the West Bank.
The push is “creating a fear amongst Palestinians that villages will be cut off from each other, they will be entirely isolated and that would give the Israelis more control over this land,” Dubenskij reported.
With demolitions in West Bank villages increasing in recent years, local Palestinians fear further displacement, fragmentation of the local society, and restrictions on movement.
Walls, roads between Israeli settlements, and IDF checkpoints are expected to accompany the push, crushing the nascent dream of establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank.
Begona Gomez has been ordered to surrender her passport and appear in court twice a month amid allegations of influence peddling
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s wife, Begona Gomez, will stand trial before a jury on corruption-related charges, EFE news agency reported on Saturday, citing a ruling issued by the investigating judge following preliminary hearings held earlier this week.
Gomez was formally charged in April with embezzlement, influence peddling, corruption in business dealings, and misappropriation of funds.
Prosecutors are reportedly seeking a 24-year prison sentence for the 55-year-old university director, who was also ordered to surrender her passport and appear in court twice a month pending the subsequent proceedings.
Her adviser, Cristina Alvarez, who is accused of similar offenses, and businessman Juan Carlos Barrabes will also stand trial.
The investigation into Gomez was launched in 2024 following a complaint filed by anti-graft campaign group Manos Limpias, whose leader is reportedly linked to Spain’s far right. The organization alleged that Gomez used her position as the prime minister’s wife to influence government contracts given to a group of tech companies.
The scope of the probe later expanded after additional accusations that Gomez misused public funds in the hiring of a consultant and improperly used software while working at Madrid’s Complutense University, where she co-directed an academic chair.
Her legal team denied any wrongdoing and argued that the proceedings are politically motivated.
Sanchez, the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, has not been implicated in the case.
However, after the probe became public, he suspended public engagements “for a few days” and said he was considering stepping down, denouncing what he described as a campaign of political and personal harassment against his family. Sanchez later announced that he would remain in office and continue leading the government.
Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero also became the subject of a corruption investigation in May over the alleged misuse of €53 million in state aid granted to Plus Ultra airline in 2021. Earlier this week, a court rejected the request of prosecutors to impose precautionary measures, including the surrender of his passport and a travel ban.
In an interview with RT, Arshak Karapetyan has questioned the stated purpose of the Eagle Partner exercise underway in the post-Soviet country
The current joint exercises between Armenia and several NATO member states are being held for purely political purposes, Armenia’s former defense minister Arshak Karapetyan has told RT.
The Eagle Partner annual drills, which began last week and are running through Thursday, are officially intended to prepare troops for international peacekeeping missions. While the exercise involves NATO member states, it is not NATO-led. For the first time since its launch in 2023, it includes not only US troops but also personnel from France and Greece.
Karapetyan, who holds the rank of major general, cited the small scale of the drills, which feature 250 troops from Armenia’s Peacekeeping Brigade and 93 foreign soldiers, to dismiss the exercise as politically motivated rather than militarily significant. For comparison, many routine bilateral exercises between NATO members involve several thousand personnel.
“These military exercises are not for military purposes, they are political. Armenia gains nothing militarily. Politically Armenia has suffered damage, significant political damage on an international level. We essentially have problems today with Russia as a strategic ally,” he told RT.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday that, despite their stated peacekeeping purpose, the drills are part of a continued Western effort to pull Armenia away from its “traditional ally, Russia.”“It is no secret to anyone that during such training maneuvers, it is our country that is cast as a ‘probable adversary’,” she added.
Moscow has been Yerevan’s principal security partner for decades through bilateral military cooperation, the Russian military presence in Armenia, and the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). In 2024, however, Yerevan froze its participation in the bloc and signaled its intention to leave amid a broader deterioration in relations with Moscow. Since then, the Armenian government has increasingly sought closer ties with NATO member states and the EU.
The strange ‘gender audits’ of the likes of Michelle Obama say less about women than about men using anatomy to police status and power
What’s up with all these performative clowns obsessing over the gender of obvious women? Who exactly are these amateur gynecologists, conducting speculative anatomy audits of high-profile females? They’re nothing like they perceive themselves to be, for starters.
In just the latest example, a bunch of guys oiled themselves up, slipped into some plum-smuggling tights, and met up on the White House lawn to celebrate the birthdays of both America and its current president by slapping and kicking each other in a state of quasi-nudity. At one point, one of the participants – the same one who spit up on himself during his weigh-in like a toddler whose mommy had just spoon-fed him pablum – somehow felt compelled to avail himself of his big moment on the national stage to blurt out that former First Lady, Michelle Obama, was a man.
In a culture where masculinity is both costume and currency, there’s always a market for louder declarations. Why wouldn’t someone so clearly obsessed with the optics of manliness, to the point of making a career out of male-to-male gender-affirmation, have anything else in mind? The manosphere is one continuous audit of who is 'man enough', conducted by men with a perpetual fear of demotion.
Because being a man can’t just be a neutral activity. It has to be virtue-signaled, shouted into microphones, and ideally monetized. Particularly in this age of rampant cross-dressing and transsexualism, where a dude is even capable of tricking another one into thinking that he’s a woman, and the zeitgeist is similarly filled with women who have transformed into men.
But you can’t fool the manosphere! They’re gatekeeping and gender-policing even the most obvious cases. They’re the mall cops of gender identity, slamming everyone into the ground upon the slightest suspicion. And while they’re at it, they’re going to take down by a few pegs any uppity beeotches who might be so inclined to just walk on by this cultural car crash en route to something more worthy of her time. Because these days, unless women are pumping fillers and Botox into their faces and telegraphing their attempt to center these same men by clinging to their very narrow definition of femininity, then they’re a threat.
It’s hard to imagine Michelle Obama – a lawyer, author, and activist – falling head-over-pantsuit for a guy who spends his time wrestling other dudes and selling online courses about how to be a man. That is, when he isn’t indulging in gym sessions, posing in three-way mirrors, talking with his buddies about the benefits of saunas, and ranting about the fertility rate. It’s even harder to imagine that she would need to.
A growing number of women have checked out from all that. They’re busy living lives as complete human beings, which turns out to be a full-time occupation. It’s only relatively recently that women have started being taken seriously in certain sectors that were once effectively reserved for men. I speak from experience as someone who was told in the 1990s by a veteran journalist and professor that no one would ever care about my political opinions as a young woman – before ignoring him and winding up as the co-host of a national US TV talk show out of NYC just a few years later.
Politics was a man’s domain. Political media even more so. Women wrote about lifestyle or the home, if anything – preferably in a tone that suggested gratitude for the opportunity to be ignored. Second-wave feminist icon Gloria Steinem said in a 1974 interview that when she was first allowed to write for a magazine (women were typically relegated to research), she was told that she wrote like a man – and took it as a compliment. The standard was male, and when women meet that standard, calling her a man or masculine protects male authority and opportunity while removing a woman from the traditionally feminine sphere who risks polluting it.
Any woman who strays into the man’s conventional domain is a competitive threat. Whether conscious or not, attempting to deprive these women of their femininity – up to and including the more recent blatant attempt to pin gratuitous phalluses on them – is less about anatomy than hierarchy. If you can’t outmatch a woman, then you can at least give un-womaning her a go.
Notice that it’s not the cool guys doing it. Dave Portnoy, the self-made Founder of Barstool Sports, a Trump voter who parades his adopted female pitbull, Miss Peaches, around in dresses, has pointed out how idiotic the Michelle Obama comments were. Turns out that a man in a baseball cap with a dog in couture is the voice of reason here, denouncing the clowns playing dress-up.
The tactic has also been used recently to attack men, like Obama – or the President of France, Emmanuel Macron. Influencers on the socially conservative trad-right have relentlessly promoted the idea of Macron’s wife, Brigitte, being a man on the down-low. As 'evidence', they play videos of her manspreading in jeans and have analyzed crinkles in the fabric of her dresses like it’s the Zapruder film from the JFK assassination. Because if they can’t convince the world that Macron and Obama are gay in an attempt to discredit them – as if there aren’t a ton of other ways to decimate them through policy critique alone – then they’re going to saddle them with wives that are 'men'.
It’s not surprising that some of these influencers who, despite costly legal proceedings against them, can’t seem to bring themselves to shut up about Brigitte – a mother of three – pump out kids themselves like jackrabbits. How embarrassing would it be to have personally birthed even fewer kids than the woman who you’re trying to convince the world is a dude?
Ultimately, these dynamics are better understood as expressions of status competition and attention economics than as inquiries into identity. Those indulging in it rarely operate within the broader public reality for which they claim to speak.
Most people going about ordinary routines are hardly aware of their existence, with their influence concentrated within algorithm-driven spaces where engagement and outrage substitute for broader legitimacy and visibility for significance. When they do pop up outside of those channels, they’re laughed back into the narrower ecosystems that sustain them. The result is a closed feedback loop that amplifies its own narratives while detaching from reality and doing absolutely nothing to deliver real counterclaims and counterculture blows against established authority.
The threats directed at Belarus by Vladimir Zelensky are part of Kiev’s broader PR strategy, Belarusian MP Vadim Gigin told RT
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s recent ultimatum to Belarus is part of Kiev’s PR campaign to project strength despite setbacks on the battlefield, Belarusian MP Vadim Gigin told RT. He added that Ukraine’s terrorist attacks have the same objective.
Earlier this week, the Ukrainian leader threatened Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko with military action if Minsk does not dismantle the air defense radar array along its southern border. The threats came days after a deadly Ukrainian drone strike on a bus carrying a Belarusian youth soccer team in Bryansk Region, Russia.
“This kind of loutish rhetoric in politics is... part of the PR war, part of the line of psychological warfare being waged by the Kiev regime, evidently with the support of the European Union,” Gigin said on Saturday in an interview with RT.
“They need to create the impression of strength,” he said. “If they cannot achieve that on the battlefield – where the situation is... quite the opposite – they seek to do so through information and psychological pressure on neighboring countries, through terrorist attacks deep inside Russia, and through attempts to influence Russian and Belarusian society.”
Gigin noted that US President Donald Trump accused Zelensky of gambling with World War III when he publicly rebuked the Ukrainian leader in a televised row at the White House in early 2025, saying he has “no cards” to play.
“Backed by – and often encouraged by – European leaders, Zelensky has been doing everything possible to demonstrate that he does, in fact, have cards to play,” Gigin said, adding that “these latest harsh statements came immediately after the G7 summit and on the eve of the European Union summit.”
He went on to say that Kiev’s rhetoric has grown increasingly brazen in recent months, pointing to Zelensky’s public appeal to Russian President Vladimir Putin, attacks on former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and the controversy surrounding Kiev’s glorification of Nazis and Nazi collaborators as examples.
The US president appears to have rejected reported Iranian plans for post-ceasefire shipping fees ahead of Iran-US talks
No tolls would be charged for transit through the Strait of Hormuz during or after the 60-day ceasefire period agreed by Washington and Tehran, unless they are levied by the United States itself, US President Donald Trump has stated.
The remarks came as US and Iranian delegations were preparing to meet in Switzerland on Sunday for negotiations aimed at turning the interim agreement into a broader settlement covering regional security issues and Iran’s nuclear program.
“There will be NO TOLLS in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.
The US president also said any that future charges would be justified as compensation for America’s role in safeguarding maritime traffic in the region.
The statement appeared to reject Tehran’s reported proposal to charge ships for transit, insurance, navigation, or other maritime services after the current negotiating period expires. Reports earlier in the crisis claimed that some vessels had already been required to make payments under wartime traffic-control measures.
A clause in the memorandum of understanding, published by Fars news agency, appears to give Iran a formal role in shaping the post-ceasefire regime in the Strait of Hormuz. The text states that Tehran will consult with Oman on the “future administration and maritime services” in the waterway and exchange views with other Gulf littoral states.
The Strait of Hormuz has become a key issue in the talks because the interim understanding reopened the waterway for the duration of the talks. The route handles roughly a fifth of global petroleum consumption and remains the world’s most important oil-shipping chokepoint, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
US Vice President JD Vance arrived in Switzerland on Sunday for talks with Iranian officials. The US delegation also includes special envoy Steve Witkoff and former senior adviser Jared Kushner, while Tehran is represented by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Riots, revolutionaries, symbols, scandals – and the conflict no other rich country had to face like the US
Recently George Floyd’s brother showed off his new diamond encrusted gold medallion with George’s face on it worth about $45,000. He claimed that it immortalized Floyd’s legacy.
Many commenters were doubtful if that was the best way to express feelings and asked whether the medallion had been paid for with donations to Floyd’s family.
Today, the struggle for minority rights in the US may look chaotic, strange, and even bizarre. But in fact, it wasn’t that different in the 20th century – that idealized era of famous orators and revolutionaries, as well as now-forgotten riots and strange political projects.
Moreover, we tend to forget that when it comes to minority rights, no other developed nation has faced the same challenges as the US.
At the time of the start of the Black Power movement, the situation with racial equality in the US was, for lack of a better word, confusing. African Americans, like everyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” had been considered full-fledged American citizens since July 9, 1868, when the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted. Technically, at that point the debate over the rights of African Americans was over.
At the same time, however, the Jim Crow laws – a collection of statutes which discriminated against African Americans – remained in effect in many states. These laws were named after the minstrel song ‘Jump Jim Crow’ which mocked African Americans. The social segregation laws ranged from requiring African Americans to sit in designated rear sections of buses and trains to bans on interracial marriages.
These laws were primarily in effect in the South and Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. But some of the laws were also in effect in other states, like Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and California.
African Americans also frequently met with informal discrimination. For example, they were often denied access to skilled professions, admission to universities, and, most importantly, mortgages. Many banks also practiced “redlining”: neighborhoods with large black populations were considered high or “red” risk, even if they were peaceful and prosperous. Therefore, the lenders refused to issue loans to residents of these areas. At this time, housing prices began to rise, making it nearly impossible to improve living conditions without getting a mortgage.
In fact, these informal, unwritten restrictions were even worse than the Jim Crow laws. They not only isolated African Americans from society but also prevented them from improving their situation. But if anyone pointed out this injustice, skeptics could respond that there were no official laws against African Americans that prevented them from taking out loans or voting. On paper, they were free and full-fledged citizens, but in practice, things were different.
In 1964, a Harlem resident got into a conflict with a group of black schoolchildren. 15-year-old African American Jerome Powell was shot and killed by police in front of his friends and about a dozen witnesses. A police officer claimed Powell had lunged at him with a knife, while other witnesses claimed the teenager had actually surrendered. On June 16, the riots, later known as the Harlem Riots, began. Approximately 4,000 people participated in them. Ultimately, one person was killed, 118 were injured, and 465 were arrested.
Powell’s death was the spark that lit a powder keg. Tensions in black neighborhoods had been growing for a long time, and the frustration erupted into violence. Over the next four years, new riots erupted in black neighborhoods across the United States. They became known as the Ghetto Riots.
The situation culminated in nationwide riots in April 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. There were pogroms, lootings, fires, and shootouts in cities across the US. In Chicago alone, 11 people were killed and more than 500 injured.
Then-US President Lyndon B. Johnson was somewhat understanding of the rioters and said, “When you put your foot on a man’s neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what’s he going to do? He’s going to knock your block off.” However, he had no plans to negotiate with the rioters and was unable to allocate significant resources for social assistance, since the authorities were preoccupied with the Vietnam War.
Johnson authorized the army to suppress the riots and condemned all those who broke the law. His successor, Richard Nixon, maintained a hardline policy against black activists and their allies. US authorities had long viewed Black Power with suspicion, and sometimes even hostility.
Soft power and revolutionaries
Sixty years ago, on July 16, 1966 (exactly two years after the death of Jerome Powell) activist Kwame Ture (better known as Stokely Carmichael) delivered a speech outlining the ideas that he had united under the slogan ‘Black power’.
“It is a call for black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, to build a sense of community. It is a call for black people to define their own goals, to lead their own organizations,” Carmichael said.
His speech was the culmination of the March Against Fear, in the course of which participants marched from Memphis, Tennessee, to Jackson, Mississippi to protest racism in the South and restrictions on their voting rights. As a result, thousands of African Americans were registered to vote. This was not a spontaneous action, but the result of arduous work.
While some participated in the riots, others established dozens of organizations to fight for the rights of minorities: from student councils to human rights groups. Most of the organizations consisted of passionate enthusiasts who organized peaceful protests, managed media support, and demanded de facto equality.
The Ghetto Riots frightened many Americans, even those who ideologically supported the struggle of the minorities. But the soft power approach of the activists helped foster a positive image of the movement.
One niche group, the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR), was responsible for one of the movement’s most famous symbols. At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, African American Tommie Smith won the 200-meter race, setting a new record of 19.83 seconds.
At the awards ceremony, he and bronze medalist John Carlos stood barefoot, with heads bowed and black gloves raised in a gesture of solidarity with the fight for black rights. Australian Peter Norman, a white athlete who won the silver medal, wore an OPHR badge to the ceremony as a sign of solidarity.
Smith and Carlos’ gesture drew criticism from politicians and Olympic officials, but they were the ones who showed the ‘humane’ face of the protest movement.
Some organizations, however, were not satisfied and wanted more. Ideas were voiced about creating an independent black state, where African Americans could create their own institutions and ensure social justice. This state was supposed to be established on the territory of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi – the US government was supposed to transfer these states as reparations for slavery and ‘oppression’.
The Nation of Islam, an eccentric organization of black Muslims, particularly advocated for separation from the United States. It was popular for a while, largely thanks to Malcolm X. But following his departure from the organization, it lost followers and delved deeper into esotericism.
The Black Power movement also gave birth to revolutionary organizations which carried out bombings and shootouts with the police. As a result of their terrorist actions, about 100 people died.
It is difficult to say what proved more effective in the fight for the rights of African Americans: the peaceful protests, the threats of the revolutionaries, or simply the passage of time. But over time, most of the demands of Black Power supporters were fulfilled: by the end of the '60s, Jim Crow laws and restrictions in schools and cities were abolished, and anti-discriminatory laws were introduced. The overall culture also changed and became more inclusive.
Of course, to this day, people still complain about the unfair structure of society, since the struggle for freedom and equality never ends. But for the next 40 years, the US did not experience mass civil unrest or the resurgence of armed groups.
Failed export
By the '60s, the US was already actively exporting culture and ideas to Europe. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that the vivid and highly idealized image of the struggle for minority rights had reached young people “across the pond.”
Protest culture grew and tensions increased. Finally, it spilled out onto the streets. On August 9, 1970, the Mangrove Protest occurred in London – a mass demonstration of activists outraged by police harassment of the local Afro-Caribbean community. The riot resulted in clashes and was followed by a high-profile trial.
And then... silence. Of course, in the UK, France, and other European countries, racism and equality were important issues: the flow of migrants from the colonies was increasing, and their integration became a pressing issue. But there were hardly any protests or riots.
There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the fight for racial equality was largely integrated into the protests which socialists, liberals, and students organized against the policies of Margaret Thatcher, Charles de Gaulle and other conservative leaders. Therefore, the rights of minorities never became such a big social issue as in the US.
Secondly, in Europe, minorities became a truly noticeable group of the population only in the '60s, after the first waves of migration from the colonies. By this time, liberal ideas had already taken root in society and the government, so building a tolerant society was relatively simple.
Moreover, many countries – especially Spain, Russia and the Asian countries – had been ethnically and religiously diverse for a long time. They first encountered the issue of integrating “other-minded people” into society hundreds of years ago, so with newcomers, this process was a lot easier.
Of course, racial and ethnic conflicts are not unique to the United States. One of the most serious issues in the EU is the slow assimilation of new migrants. In Russia, there are still echoes of the conflicts between Russians and North Caucasians (although they have really lost steam over the last decade). And in China there are complaints of chauvinism – not only against whites or Africans, but also against other ethnic groups within China.
But in no First World country have the rights of minorities caused such disruption and violence or captured the attention of politicians and society for years. The US is the only developed country that has had to deal with such issues. Similar situations have only occurred in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia.
For a while, it seemed as if Americans had resolved the minority rights issue. But recent events show that this is still a long way off.
Leszek Miller’s remarks came after Ukrainian officials returned Polish state awards in solidarity with Vladimir Zelensky
Ukrainian officials protesting Warsaw’s revocation of Vladimir Zelensky’s state honor should also return the military equipment supplied by Poland, including MiG fighter jets and tanks, former Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller has said.
“Since everyone is so eager to return what they received, let them return the MiGs they received, the tanks, and the weapons,” Miller said on Polsat News’ ‘Presidents and Prime Ministers’ on Saturday.
Miller, who served as prime minister from 2001 to 2004 and oversaw the country’s accession to the EU in 2004, was commenting on a growing diplomatic row between Warsaw and Kiev.
Former Ukrainian presidents Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yushchenko, and Pyotr Poroshenko, Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga, intelligence chief Kirill Budanov, and other senior officials announced they were returning Polish state awards in solidarity with Zelensky.
The move came after Polish President Karol Nawrocki revoked Zelensky’s Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor, on Friday.
Nawrocki said Zelensky crossed Poland’s “pain threshold” by granting a Ukrainian special operations unit the title ‘Heroes of the UPA’, which refers to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). The UPA brutally massacred at least 100,000 Polish civilians in what is now western Ukraine during World War II. The crimes are recognized as genocide by Warsaw, Nawrocki said on Friday.
Miller’s remarks referenced the military assistance Poland has provided to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022. Warsaw has been one of Kiev’s strongest military backers, supplying MiG-29 fighter jets, Mi-24 helicopters, tanks, artillery systems, armored vehicles, and ammunition. It has also served as a key logistical hub for Western military assistance.
Miller also criticized Zelensky’s response. The Ukrainian leader said on X on Saturday that he would “not argue” with Nawrocki’s decision because the award was also given to historical figures such as 18th century Russian Empress Catherine the Great, who incorporated Crimea into the Russian Empire. The former prime minister said Zelensky could have refused the distinction when it was awarded rather than accepting it and later questioning the list of recipients.
Germany’s top brass is proclaiming its readiness to “fight tonight,” seemingly eager to rush toward total annihilation
Remember Taurusgate? When several German officers, including its former air force head, were caught making insane and childish plans for plastering Russia with German missiles but from Ukraine? That and the amateurish manner in which these grand strategists in prankster mode let themselves be caught were daft as well as sadly comical. But lessons have not been learned, even if the German Air Force is now under new management.
Recently, its new commander-in-chief gave a combative and intriguingly ill-considered, even jejune interview. Speaking to Britain’s Telegraph, General Holger Neumann released several inflammatory statements. The one that has found most attention was his proud claim that his pilots stand ready not merely to fight Russia at a moment’s notice, but to strike with immediate, large-scale, and – he assumes with that special German military optimism some call fatal arrogance – devastating operations.
Neumann, who has a Lego model of Luke Skywalker’s helmet in his office and has admitted that Star Wars was among the things that made him want to be a fighter pilot, is likely to fantasize about taking out a Death Star or two singlehandedly. But stuck in the real world, his dream targets, he let the Telegraph readers know, include the Black Sea area, the Kola Peninsula, the Kaliningrad exclave, St. Petersburg, and Moscow. That is, places whose military and political importance would make rapid and severe Russian retaliation inevitable.
Neumann did hedge a little: Before presenting his brilliant idea for taking Germany from initial hostilities – however remote (say, in Estonia), however small (“every inch,” in former US President Joe Biden’s, words which Neumann parroted) – to total, possibly nuclear, war in the blink of an eye, the air force chief offered the usual disclaimer: All of this would only happen in case of a Russian attack on NATO.
It is hard to imagine anyone naive enough to fall for that rhetorical device and feel reassured. For several reasons: Generally speaking, ‘all we want is to defend ourselves and keep others from attacking us, just trust us’ has been the favorite line of every single warmonger since the dawn of times. Regarding German history, the two world wars that Germany managed to start within less than three decades were also preceded by copious assurances of this sort.
And as we learn in political science or international relations 101 – except wherever they train Germany’s top brass – there is also such a thing as a security dilemma: What one side may feel is merely arming itself for defense, its potential opponent may easily perceive as preparations for attack. But in this regard, let’s not blame Neumann individually: The obstinate refusal to see one’s own near-hysterical and also ruinous armament drive from the other side’s point of view is not one German officer’s bug but a Berlin feature now.
More specifically, Neumann went out of his way to make his input as reckless and incendiary as he possibly could. Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine the head of the German air force had said something simple and perfectly sufficient, such as “Germany is a member of NATO, and the German air force stands ready to fulfill our obligations toward our allies.”
Hearing this statement, you may well disagree or even be dismayed. I, for one, believe it’s high time Germany left NATO. NATO, after all, is an organization dominated by the US, while the latter is both rabidly aggressive (see under ‘Iran’) and in obvious decline (see also under ‘Iran’). Quite apart from the fact that it was NATO’s predictably explosive and unnecessary expansion that provoked the Ukraine conflict and the not-really-minor detail that Berlin’s NATO ‘allies’ blow up German infrastructure with the help of Ukrainian terrorist commandos.
Yet the real problem with Neumann’s statement, what makes it truly disturbing, is its excessiveness. A German officer saying Germany would fulfil existing obligations? Even if you don’t like those – NATO – obligations, that’s no biggie, really. Indeed, that would be a military officer staying in his lane and leaving politics to the politicians.
But Neumann did so much more and worse: For starters, despite widespread misunderstandings, the NATO treaty, in particular its famous Article 5 does not foresee anything like the insane hair-trigger response Neumann considers natural. What Article 5 does say is, in essence, that all NATO members will consider an armed attack on one of them as an attack on all, and that they will then decide which actions they – and clearly each one of them individually – “deem necessary” to assist the attacked. Among those actions, military force is one option, but it is not automatic, the default, or prescribed as the only permitted response.
Understanding the treaty as actually written and signed does not mean to be naive: Of course, NATO’s planning is all geared toward fighting. But it remains a fact that even this single-mindedness has a flimsier basis in the treaty than many realize.
Things get worse for Neumann once we set aside the fact that there is no military automatism in the NATO treaty. Let’s assume a conflict has started and a military option is what is desired, rightly or, much more likely, wrongly. Then the pertinent questions for responsible adults would be what kind of action, on what scale, to what precise purpose at that specific moment? Last but not least, are there limited military options that preserve the possibility of turning to negotiations quickly?
Yet where others would be careful not to rush up what is often called the ‘escalation ladder’ and would really be, in this case, a nuclear death spiral, Germany’s top air force officer can’t wait to reach the end or be bothered to take a breather to think.
Instead, Neumann is proud to be ready to “fight tonight” (a daft, embarrassing slogan currently in fashion among NATO’s Germans) with “everything we have.” In other words, all-in from the get-go; from 0 to 100 in one second; from very-bad-already to irreversible catastrophe, indeed possible annihilation faster than you can say ‘jawohl!’ This kind of talk betrays an insane, reckless eagerness and great immaturity. And not only that of Neumann but of his boss, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, official Berlin, and all too many in NATO-EU Europe’s elites as well.
Neumann’s lack of circumspection – to put it mildly – was also reflected in his choosing the eve of the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s 1941 attack on the Soviet Union to speak his one-track mind. Or was that shameful timing deliberate? All the worse again in that case.
Unfortunately, Neumann represents the current German leadership and media mainstream, politically and psychologically, in its shortsightedness, belligerence, and what appears to be sheer hatred of Russia.
Witness the recent picture gloatingly shared by Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov: It shows Pistorius benevolently looking at Federov’s cell phone, where the latter proudly claims to be showing off the results of recent Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow. Russia and Ukraine are at war. Why a German defense minister is making a face like a complacent provincial schoolmaster approving of the latest efforts of his pet pupil is a mystery, as well as how that defense minister is imagining future relations with Russia. But then, Pistorius may only be interested in one kind anyway: Ever more open conflict.
The obvious question must be asked: Has the Ukraine conflict become a pretext for those German politicians and military officers who want, consciously or not, revenge for being beaten so badly in 1945?
Not all is gloom. There also is open resistance to Neumann’s intervention and the high-risk-low-reflection militarism it stands for. In party politics, that opposition comes from the left and right challengers to Germany’s version of ‘radical Centrism’. On the left, one of the BSW’s (Buendnis Sarah Wagenknecht) foreign policy heavyweights has led the charge. On the right, one of the co-leaders of the AfD party has sharply criticized Neumann’s “war threats” and called on Pistorius to distance himself from them. Consider that the AfD is leading in the polls, while it is extremely probable that the BSW is not currently in the Bundestag parliament only because of a series of highly suspicious ‘miscounts’ and it is clear that their objections matter and will matter even more.
Importantly, some former high-ranking officers are also publicly contradicting the gung-ho course. The former head of the German Navy, Admiral Kay-Achim Schoenbach – axed four years ago over heretically sensible statements about Russia – has called for restoring diplomacy and warned that Germany could end up sleepwalking into a conflict.
Yet for now, Germany is stuck with its new militarism. For how much longer – that is a question that may turn out to be vital for the nation.
A 19-year-old suspect confessed and said he wanted to take his own life
A woman was killed and several other people were wounded in a knife attack in the southern Russian city of Krasnodar, according to investigators.
The incident occurred at the West Mall shopping center on Zapadny Obkhod Street on Saturday. A 19-year-old suspect was detained at the scene.
“A 41-year-old woman died from her injuries, while several other people sustained stab wounds,” the Russian Investigative Committee said in a statement.
Police received reports from witnesses at around 2:00 PM local time that a young man was behaving aggressively and attacking people inside the complex, Interior Ministry spokeswoman Irina Volk said. Five people were reportedly injured, including a security guard.
A pyrotechnic device was thrown into an area housing a children’s entertainment center, triggering the fire alarm. No injuries were reported as a result, according to Volk.
The Investigative Committee said a criminal case was opened on charges of murder and attempted murder of two or more people.
The agency also released a video showing the suspect being questioned and confessing, saying: “Yes, I admit it. I repent.”
In the video, the man said no one promised him a reward for the assault, but that he wanted to take his own life.
Officials said forensic medical, psychiatric, and cold-weapon examinations were ordered while investigators continue to work to establish a motive.
The regional prosecutor’s office launched a review. Investigative Committee Chairman Aleksandr Bastrykin requested a report on the progress of the case and placed the inquiry under central oversight.
The UK prime minister’s support within Labour has reportedly dwindled to just a handful of “friends and family”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer could announce plans to step down as early as next week amid collapsing support within the Labour Party, The Telegraph reported on Saturday, citing government officials.
Calls for Starmer’s resignation have grown since Labour lost nearly 1,500 seats in local elections in May. The pressure escalated after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham secured a decisive victory in Thursday’s Makerfield by-election. Burnham is said to have the backing of close to 300 Labour MPs, prompting allies to predict an uncontested transfer of power.
According to a senior government official cited by the outlet, there has been “quite a bit of movement” among cabinet ministers since Burnham’s by-election victory, prompting Starmer to realize that the “game is up” and focus on how to “shore up his legacy.”
One Labour MP, previously loyal to Starmer, told The Telegraph that the prime minister could announce his departure as soon as Monday, claiming that his support among Labour MPs has dropped to only a handful of “friends and family.”
“There’s no one left. Literally people whose relatives work in No. 10 or people who are long-term personal friends of Keir’s are pretty much the only ones left,” the lawmaker said, adding that any attempt by Starmer to challenge Burnham in the Labour leadership race would be “like trying to fight gravity.”
Another government source predicted that “something will have happened by the end of the week,” warning that if Starmer refuses to step down, Labour could enter “mass resignation territory.”
A former MP who had backed Starmer as recently as last month described him as “a goner,” arguing that Burnham was better placed to build a broad coalition ahead of the next general election.
According to The Telegraph, several senior cabinet ministers, including Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, have privately urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure rather than fight a leadership battle.
Starmer became prime minister after leading Labour to a landslide victory in the 2024 general election. His popularity has since slumped amid the cost-of-living crisis and fallout from the UK rape gangs scandal. A mid-June YouGov poll put his approval rating at 18%, with 74% of Britons viewing his premiership negatively.
Downing Street has rejected suggestions that the prime minister is preparing to resign, insisting that he stood by his vow on Friday to resist any challenge and arguing that a leadership battle would “plunge us into chaos.”
The US president claimed that Giorgia Meloni “begged” for a photo op to boost her popularity
US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his claim that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni sought a photo op with him to get her “numbers up” after refusing to support the US in its war with Iran.
The latest exchange follows a dispute sparked by comments Trump made in a phone interview with Italian broadcaster La7 on Friday, in which the US president claimed Meloni “begged” him for a photo during the G7 summit in Evian, France and suggested he agreed “out of pity.”
The Italian prime minister called the account “completely fabricated,” but in a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump reiterated his claim that Meloni asked “over and over” for a picture with him.
“She is doing poorly in Italy with her level of popularity, possibly because she turned down the United States of America,” Trump wrote, accusing Rome of causing “a great logistical inconvenience” to Washington. “Now, after the United States defeated Iran militarily, she wants to be friends again in order to get her ‘numbers up.’ No thanks.”
Meloni replied that “being your friend has certainly not helped me,” insisting that her standing at home depends solely on her “ability to defend Italy’s national interests.”
Earlier this year, Italy refused permission for US military aircraft to land at Sigonella airbase in Sicily on their way to the Middle East, arguing that the mission fell outside bilateral agreements. Meloni said the pre-agreed limits on US logistical use of Italian bases “cannot be violated” while she remains prime minister.
“Italy is still a sovereign nation,” Meloni stressed, adding: “My popularity is none of your business. I’d suggest you focus on yours.”
The Italian prime minister was long regarded as one of Trump’s closest partners among European leaders and as a bridge between Washington and Brussels. She was the only European head of government to attend his inauguration in 2025.
Relations have deteriorated in recent months, however, amid disagreements over Iran and Meloni’s defense of Pope Leo XIV after Trump criticized the pontiff over his opposition to the conflict.
The public clash came just days after the two leaders appeared to patch up months of disagreements on the sidelines of the G7 summit.
The national Civil Defense Alert platform sent out bizarre emergency warnings due to an apparent hack
Thousands of Brazilians in a number of states were shocked and puzzled by emergency alerts sent to their cell phones in the middle of the night, some containing gibberish while others warned them to brace for an imminent alien attack.
The false alarms were sent between Friday night and early Saturday morning through Brazil’s Civil Defense Alert platform, a system normally reserved for serious warnings about floods, landslides, storms, and other emergencies.
People in several cities were awakened by ‘extreme alert’ notifications containing the word ‘misanthropy’ – meaning hatred or distrust of humanity – while others received messages that sounded less like public safety advice and more like the opening scene of a low-budget sci-fi film.
“Protect yourself: ALIEN ATTACK. Humans, we have arrived,” read the message received by some residents of Belo Horizonte, the capital of Minas Gerais state, according to G1 Globo. Another version warned of a supposed tornado in the metropolitan region.
"Alien attack. People, we have arrived" - such a warning from the Brazilian Ministry of Defense woke up millions of people. pic.twitter.com/drgZiODcYV
There was, officials later clarified, no alien invasion. The real emergency, according to the National Civil Defense, was much more earthly: The alert platform had apparently been compromised.
NOTA OFICIAL
A plataforma de envio do Defesa Civil Alerta foi tirada do ar às 1h30 da madrugada deste sábado (20/6), após ter sofrido uma invasão e disparado um alerta para diversas regiões do país, ordenado remotamente por alguém alheio ao Sistema Nacional de Proteção e Defesa… pic.twitter.com/0YYXk3yIJW
— Defesa Civil Nacional (@defesacivilbr) June 20, 2026
The agency said the system was taken offline at 1:30 AM on Saturday after an unauthorized third party remotely triggered alerts to several regions of the country. The Federal Police launched a probe, as technicians work to restore the platform.
For many Brazilians, the first response was not concern but memes. Others were less amused, noting that the same alert system is supposed to warn people of real disasters and that a false ‘extreme’ message in the middle of the night could easily cause panic.
Residents in Belo Horizonte reportedly called Civil Defense, firefighters, and police in search of explanations after the alerts blared on their phones. Some said they woke family members or looked for safer rooms after seeing the tornado warning, while others quickly suspected a hoax after reading the extraterrestrial portion of the message.
The incident came at an awkwardly cosmic moment. Just days earlier, the Pentagon released another batch of declassified files on unidentified anomalous phenomena, the official term for UFOs, including witness accounts, photos, and videos of unexplained objects.
That release, however, came with the usual caveat that unexplained does not mean extraterrestrial. The Pentagon has maintained that the material contains no confirmed evidence of alien life, alien technology, or a government cover-up.
Washington and Tehran are sending conflicting messages ahead of follow-up discussions in Switzerland
The situation in the Strait of Hormuz remains tense following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, as the countries’ delegations descend on Switzerland for follow-up discussions.
Commercial shipping through the key waterway was disrupted after the US-Israeli attack against Iran in February, and reopening it was one of the key points of the memorandum signed by US President Donald Trump on Wednesday. Washington promised to lift its own blockade of Iranian ports, while Tehran will gradually “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels.”
Trump touted the preliminary deal as an “immediate reopening,” announcing that “the oil is flowing” after the first tankers sailed through – before Iran claimed that it shut down the waterway again.
What does Iran say?
Iran accused the US of failing to fulfill its commitments and force Israel to stop its “crimes” in Lebanon. The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters military command announced on Saturday that “the Strait of Hormuz is closed,” while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned vessels against approaching the waterway, saying their safety would be “jeopardized.”
What does the US say?
US Vice President J.D. Vance denied that traffic through the strait was interrupted, insisting that “we actually got 16 million barrels of oil out of the Strait of Hormuz yesterday.” In an interview with Fox on Saturday, Vance called it “a record going back to even before the conflict started.”
US Central Command stated that “commercial ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz increased June 20,” while US forces continue to operate in the area. According to CENTCOM data, safe passage through the waterway “remained intact,” and at least 55 merchant vessels passed through as of Saturday.
What is actually happening?
Dozens of vessels, including three Saudi oil supertankers and five sanctioned Iranian ships, have moved through the waterway in recent days, according to data analytics company Kpler, which noted that most were “following established Iranian route patterns.”
Hormuz traffic shows recovery
Verified Strait of Hormuz crossings reached 25 on 18 June, marking a notable increase in daily maritime activity. Traffic was evenly distributed across both directions, with most vessels following established Iranian route patterns. Five sanctioned… pic.twitter.com/kqnil079nf
Some commercial vessels continued to pass through the strait as of Saturday evening, according to the MarineTraffic monitoring website. The number of tankers sailing through the waterway peaked at 25 on Thursday, but reportedly fell to single digits on Friday.
Are US-Iran talks in jeopardy?
Washington and Tehran are expected to reach a final settlement on remaining disputes, including Iran’s nuclear program, within a 60-day negotiating period, but the first round of talks was postponed. Vance eventually departed for Switzerland on Saturday, and Trump’s special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, are also expected to take part in the talks, which are now planned for Sunday.
The Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, flew in aboard Minab168 – a flight commemorating the deaths of schoolgirls in the deadliest US strike. The delegation also includes the head of the Iranian central bank, the deputy oil minister, and the chairman of the National Iranian Oil Company.
Tehran agreed to the Swiss meeting primarily to clarify how the US plans to fulfill its commitments under the memorandum, according to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei.
“Ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon” is a key pillar of the mutual understanding, he said, adding that the memorandum is a “single package” and that a violation of any provision calls the entire agreement into question.
What triggered Iran’s backlash?
Israel has continued bombing Lebanon despite the US-Iran agreement, while Hezbollah has reportedly clashed with IDF troops occupying southern parts of the country since March.
The Lebanese Health Ministry said at least 47 people were killed and 97 injured in intense Israeli airstrikes on Friday night alone, while the overall death toll from the Israeli invasion is nearing 4,000.
The US-Iran memorandum explicitly calls for a cessation of all hostilities by the signatories and their allies, and for “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”
After mediation by the US and Qatar, the sides reportedly agreed to halt the hostilities, although neither Hezbollah nor Israel officially confirmed the deal, and open-source intelligence monitors said sporadic exchanges of fire and Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued.
What is Israel’s stance on the US-Iran deal?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that Israeli troops will remain in southern Lebanon for as long as Israel deems necessary, while the IDF has published a new map showing an occupied area extending around 10 km into Lebanese territory. Hardline National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said Israel will not be bound by “Trump’s agreement,” writing on X: “All of Lebanon should burn!”
Under pressure from Washington, Netanyahu reportedly instructed the IDF to stay put but “hold its fire,” Channel 12 reported on Saturday, but the military reserves the right to respond to attacks.
The memorandum has strained US-Israeli relations, with Trump and members of his administration publicly accusing Israel of using excessive force in Lebanon.
“You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said, addressing Ben-Gvir and other Israeli officials.
US intelligence officials believe that Israel will likely attempt to undermine the peace process, the Washington Post reported this week, claiming that Netanyahu could bet his political survival on escalating the conflict with Hezbollah ahead of the election this autumn.
Scott Bessent urged President Donald Trump not to host the “special-needs child” at the White House, according to a book by NYT reporters
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had negotiated a much-touted rare earth minerals deal with Kiev, was reportedly worried that the “little f**ker” Vladimir Zelensky would mess up the signing ceremony in the Oval Office, according to a new book by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan.
The infamous confrontation last year took place as the Ukrainian leader sat down with US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance to finalize a deal granting the US access to Ukraine’s mineral resources.
The televised press conference took a nasty turn when Zelensky criticized Trump’s efforts to mediate a settlement with Moscow rather than increase military support for Kiev.
“I’ve dealt with this little f**ker,” Bessent, who was present in the room, told his associates, according to excerpts published by The Guardian. “He’s tricky. He’s like the special-needs child for the Europeans. And he’s acting like Mr. Bean on crack.”
The Treasury secretary spent weeks preparing the deal and traveled to Kiev, where he reportedly engaged in his own shouting match with Zelensky over the “awful” Ukrainian draft, at one point telling him: “What the f**k do you want to do?”
Several other Trump aides were also worried about a potential Oval Office scandal, with then-National Security Adviser Mike Waltz desperately urging Zelensky to at least “come wearing a suit.”
Zelensky was eventually “asked to leave” the White House, while the deal was signed without much fanfare two months later. Zelensky, who has since held several meetings with Trump to mend ties and even started wearing a custom all-black, military-style suit jacket, remains “somewhat traumatized by his train crash” almost a year later, according to Politico.
The attack targeted a large group of people celebrating Juneteenth, CBS News has reported
At least 13 people were injured in a suspected drive-by shooting that targeted a holiday crowd in Chicago on Friday night, CBS News has reported.
The incident took place on Juneteenth, a holiday that celebrates the end of slavery in the US.
At around 11 PM, a red SUV drove up to a large group of people in Roseland on the city’s South Side, and two people inside began shooting into the crowd, Chicago Police said, according to CBS News.
A 26-year-old woman in critical condition is being treated at the University of Chicago Hospital, it added.
The crime scene is littered with at least 100 evidence markers, while multiple cars and a bus stop were hit by gunfire, the outlet reported. The number of evidence markers suggests that roughly 100 rounds may have been fired.
Detectives are investigating, CBS said.
At least four people have been killed and at least nine others injured in separate shootings across the city since Friday night, ABC 7 Chicago reported.
Karol Nawrocki has explained why he stripped the Ukrainian leader of his nation’s top honor
Vladimir Zelensky broke Poland’s “pain threshold” when he named a commando unit after a Ukrainian nationalist group implicated in the World War II killings of tens of thousands of Poles, Polish President Karol Nawrocki said on Saturday.
The decision sparked outrage in Poland, where the massacres remain an open wound. Despite pressure from Warsaw to rename the unit, the Ukrainian leader has refused.
“We are a proud Polish nation and we have our threshold of pain in matters that concern us and our allies. And that pain threshold has been crossed,” the Polish president said at a rally in northeastern Poland on Saturday. He added that this was why he stripped Zelensky of Poland’s highest state honor, the Order of the White Eagle, on Friday.
The revocation followed escalating tensions between Warsaw and Kiev after Zelensky in late May signed a decree granting a special operations unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA.” The name refers to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which have been lionized in Ukraine since the bloody 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev.
The UPA brutally and savagely massacred at least 100,000 Polish civilians in what is now western Ukraine during World War II, with the crimes being recognized as genocide by Warsaw, Nawrocki recalled on Friday.
Zelensky has responded by posting a photograph of the award along with a completed mailing form for shipment to Warsaw. Former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma has renounced his own Order of the White Eagle, which he received in 1997, to protest Warsaw’s decision, his press secretary has announced.
Russian presidential investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev reacted to Warsaw’s move with dark irony.
“Poland finally discovers Nazi sympathizers in Ukraine,” he wrote on X on Friday.
Moscow has long warned that Kiev’s glorification of Nazis and Nazi collaborators is an open secret and has cited denazification of the country as one of its key goals in the conflict.
The suspect reportedly claimed he was “protecting the country” from Muslims, as the attacks came amid a nationwide scandal over Pakistani rape gangs
Five men have been injured in a series of suspected anti-Muslim attacks in Edinburgh after an armed man was seen moving through the city, according to police and local media reports.
A 36-year-old white man has been arrested following what Police Scotland described as a “fast-moving sequence of events” on Friday night. Counter-terrorism officers have joined local police in the investigation, according to the BBC.
The attacks reportedly began near a mosque in Broomhouse, in the west of the city, where two men were injured and taken to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. Three other men were attacked on Telford Road and Leith Walk, police said, adding that “there is no further risk to the public.”
Footage circulating on social media appeared to show a bare-chested man carrying a large weapon and causing damage at several locations.
BREAKING NEWS: Counter Terrorism Police have launched an investigation after five people were stabbed in Edinburgh. A 36-year-old white Scottish man has been arrested in connection with the incident.
According to authorities, the suspect allegedly made a statement following his… pic.twitter.com/UDMNLECiDv
According to media reports, after the arrest the man said he was “protecting the country from these f***ing Muslim bastards raping our young daughters.”
The attacks came against the backdrop of a report released by Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe that revealed predominantly Pakistani men had raped and abused large numbers of mostly white British girls across almost half of the UK’s municipalities over several decades. The findings triggered a nationwide backlash and reignited debate over immigration, policing and the authorities’ handling of child sexual exploitation cases.
#BREAKING: Scottish man arrested after stabbing five people in Edinburgh; says he was “protecting the country” from Muslims “raping our young daughters.” pic.twitter.com/EmYsakE53B
Assistant Chief Constable Catriona Paton called the incident a “shocking attack” and said there was “no place for racism or faith-based hate in Scotland.”
MEND Scotland, a Muslim engagement group, said several of the victims were from the Muslim community.
Scottish First Minister John Swinney also commented, saying that he was “deeply concerned” and that there was “no place for violence, racism or intolerance” in the country.
Despite being suspected of attempted murder, the alleged perpetrator was found “unfit for interview” and let go, the police have said
UK police have released a man on bail who allegedly threw a toddler into a zoo crocodile enclosure, after he was “assessed as not being fit for interview,” the Cambridgeshire Constabulary said in a press release on Friday.
The incident took place at the Johnsons of Old Hurst zoo in Cambridgeshire on Thursday. The three-year-old boy was visiting the crocodile enclosure with his family when the suspect allegedly threw him over a four-foot fence and into the enclosure, where he fell more than 12 feet and landed among the reptiles.
The zoo owner’s wife, Tracey Johnson, reportedly leapt in after the child, and pulled him out of the enclosure.
“She’d always put her own life at risk to save someone else. She’s an extraordinary lady and very brave,” the BBC cited National Centre For Reptile Welfare director Chris Newman as saying.
The toddler was taken to a nearby hospital with serious injuries and was in critical but stable condition, police said. He suffered suspected fractures to his arm and pelvis after landing on concrete and was also attacked by a crocodile, The Sun reported.
The alleged perpetrator, described as “a 30-year-old man from Norfolk” was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder but later bailed out after being assessed as not “fit for interview,”the police said. The man has “learning difficulties,” according to The Sun.
The suspect’s release has sparked outrage online, with many arguing that the man is a danger to society.
“Imagine living in a country where you go straight to jail for a tweet, but get bail after being arrested for ‘allegedly’ throwing a 3 year old baby into a crocodile enclosure!” one X user wrote.
The UK’s Labour government has faced accusations of ‘two-tier’ policing since the 2024 Southport riots, when hundreds were arrested for online posts – while criminals were given early releases to make room in prisons for the new arrivals.
Over 100 Labour MPs have called on Keir Starmer to resign as the embattled prime minister gears up for a challenge to his authority
The UK’s ruling Labour Party could plunge itself and the whole country into a “disaster,” MPs and political commentators are warning, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer stubbornly defying calls from within his own party to quit.
Labour’s leadership crisis came to a head this week when former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham won Thursday’s Makerfield by-election, securing 55% of the vote. Now the party’s MPs expect him to challenge Starmer within weeks if not days, with many Labour Party members openly treating the prime minister as a lame duck and stating they want him gone.
Lord Charles Falconer, a Labour peer and a former justice secretary in Tony Blair’s government, weighed in on the issue on Saturday, stating that Starmer has “absolutely no authority.”
“The reason he’s got no authority is because everybody assumes that Andy Burnham is about to challenge for the leadership and everybody assumes he’s going to win,” he told BBC Radio 4, calling the present situation “completely unmaintainable for the country.” Falconer also urged the prime minister not to cling to power and enable a swift transition, arguing that any further delay would be “bad” for the country.
Labour MPs Zubir Ahmed and Peter Swallow also told BBC they wanted to see a new prime minister within weeks. According to the Telegraph, a total of 104 members of Starmer’s own party are demanding he set a timetable for his resignation.
Starmer himself and his supporters within Labour appear to be indifferent to those calls. An internal memo penned by the prime minister’s backers and obtained by the Guardian reportedly maintained Burnham would lose his support as soon as he entered the leadership contest and faced “real scrutiny.” Starmer himself also stated on Friday he would contest any leadership challenge.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn stated that the party could be missing the mark entirely with its leadership strife focused on personalities rather than policies.
“The unpopularity of the government stems from the threats to welfare benefits, stems from the continuing austerity and is deeply unpopular for a lot of other policies, particularly its rather draconian attacks on rights of assembly and freedom of speech,” he told Sky News.
His words were echoed by Charles Moore, a former editor of The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, and The Sunday Telegraph, who is now a member of the House of Lords. In a piece for The Telegraph, Moore argued that Labour could be heading straight towards a disaster with what he called the Burnham coup, dragging the country along with it.
“For most of this century, most of our governing politicians – Labour and Conservative… have failed to analyze what is wrong. If Labour thinks it will be put right just by changing the leader in palace coups, that failure will continue,” he wrote.
Hakan Fidan’s Russia trip showed Ankara still sees Moscow as essential to any serious Black Sea, Ukraine and regional security settlement
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s trip to Moscow and Kazan earlier this week came at a moment when much of the West, blinded by its own destructive ideology and political course, has all but given up on talking to Russia and still appears to cling to the illusion of inflicting a strategic defeat on the country, and it sent a clear signal that Ankara hasn’t.
The Ukraine conflict still dominates global diplomacy, the Black Sea has turned into one of the more dangerous patches of water on the map, and plenty of the old channels to Russia are either frozen or being deliberately starved of oxygen. Against that backdrop, Türkiye’s decision to keep the line open looks less like stubbornness and more like good sense. Plenty of countries talk about wanting stability in this part of the world. Far fewer are actually willing to pick up the phone or do the unglamorous work of staying in the room with people they disagree with, and that’s really what makes this trip worth a closer look rather than a passing mention in a wire report.
The trip had two distinct chapters, one in Moscow and one in Kazan, and together they gave the visit both substance and political heft. It’s worth taking them one at a time, because each did something different, and the combination is more interesting than either half on its own.
Moscow: Working through the hard questions
In Moscow, Fidan sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for talks that covered the full sweep of the relationship, from the Ukraine conflict to Black Sea security, freedom of navigation, civilian infrastructure and the simmering situation in the South Caucasus. Nobody walked away from those meetings pretending the disagreements had vanished, but the tone stayed businesslike rather than combative, which says something on its own.
A lot of Western diplomacy toward Russia these days runs on pressure and public scolding, all ultimatums and statements meant for domestic audiences rather than for the people sitting across the table. Türkiye has picked a different lane. It doesn’t pretend the moment is simple, but it also isn’t buying the idea that real stability in the Black Sea or the Caucasus can be built by simply writing Russia out of the conversation. That was really the headline of the whole visit, even if nobody put it in a press release that bluntly.
At the joint press appearance with Lavrov, Fidan repeated something Ankara has said before but clearly still means, namely that Türkiye is ready to host another round of Russia-Ukraine talks whenever the two sides decide they want one. He didn’t dress it up as a breakthrough, and that restraint is what made it believable. Nobody promised a miracle. What’s on offer is simpler than that, a room and a table whenever both sides are willing to use them. There’s something almost old-fashioned about that kind of offer in an era when every diplomatic gesture seems to need a hashtag attached to it.
Moscow, for its part, keeps making the same point in return, that it isn’t walking away from diplomacy but won’t accept a settlement that’s just a temporary patch or a symbolic gesture. Lavrov said as much again, thanking Türkiye for its efforts while making clear that any lasting deal has to grapple with the underlying security questions rather than paper over them.
That’s where the Turkish channel earns its value. Ankara isn’t trying to talk down to Moscow or pretend Russia is some minor player that can be managed from the sidelines. It treats Russia as one of the central actors in this crisis, which is a less ideological and frankly more useful starting point than a lot of alternatives on offer. Black Sea security came up directly too, with Fidan pressing the case against any moves that could destabilize the region or threaten Turkish interests there. For Russia, it’s a strategic lifeline, the access point to warmer waters and a stage for naval projection. For Türkiye, it’s the water right outside the door, tied directly to shipping lanes, energy routes and the regional balance of power. A tanker incident or a naval skirmish there doesn’t stay contained to a news cycle, it ripples through insurance markets, grain shipments and energy contracts almost overnight. Raising the issue face to face in Moscow showed that Ankara’s thinking is grounded in something real rather than diplomatic theater, and it reflects a fairly sober conclusion, that Black Sea stability isn’t something Türkiye can engineer against Russia, only alongside it.
The Moscow leg also went well beyond the Foreign Ministry, which is easy to miss if you only skim the reports. Fidan met Igor Levitin, the Kremlin’s point man on international transport cooperation, along with presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky and Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu. Transport links, security coordination and regional diplomacy are all areas where Russian-Turkish contact genuinely matters, and the spread of officials Fidan met says something about how seriously Moscow took the visit and how it views Türkiye: as a regional power worth engaging at the top level, across multiple ministries.
He also sat down with the Turkish business community in Russia, a detail easy to skip past but worth reflecting on. The relationship between these two countries doesn’t run on political statements alone. It runs on trade, energy deals, tourism, construction contracts, agricultural exports and the daily work of thousands of companies and people who keep showing up regardless of how tense the headlines get. Turkish construction firms have built airports and stadiums across Russia for years. Russian tourists still fill resorts along the Turkish coast every summer, sanctions or no sanctions. Energy pipelines don’t care much about press releases. Even now, with so much friction in the air, that economic layer keeps functioning, and it gives the political relationship something solid to stand on, a foundation that doesn’t evaporate every time the two countries find a fresh reason to disagree.
Kazan: Putting the politics on display
The real political weight of the trip, though, landed in Kazan. After wrapping up in Moscow, Fidan travelled there to catch President Putin on the sidelines of the Russia-ASEAN summit, and the setting did a lot of the talking on its own. Russia was hosting leaders from across Asia and Eurasia, making the point that its diplomatic calendar isn’t defined by Western pressure, that there’s a whole world out there still willing to sit down with Moscow, even if certain capitals would rather pretend otherwise. A Turkish foreign minister showing up in that room carried its own message, that Türkiye still counts itself among the major players willing to engage with Russia as a serious center of power rather than treat it as radioactive.
Fidan passed along warm greetings from Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and that personal touch is more important than it might sound. The direct line between Erdogan and Putin has been doing behind-the-scenes stabilizing work in this relationship for years, smoothing over rough patches and keeping cooperation alive even when the two countries’ interests pulled in different directions, whether over Syria, Libya, or Nagorno-Karabakh. It’s the kind of relationship that’s survived a shot-down jet, competing camps in more than one conflict zone, and no shortage of mutual irritation, mostly because both leaders seem to understand that picking up the phone beats letting a crisis fester.
Putin responded in kind, describing the bilateral relationship as developing steadily and noting that contacts between the two countries have become substantive rather than merely formal, crediting Erdogan’s personal role in that. Coming from Moscow, that’s a meaningful signal, a sign that Russia sees Türkiye as an independent actor capable of making its own calls and sustaining dialogue even under outside pressure, rather than a country that simply falls in line with whatever its allies decide.
Put together, Moscow and Kazan formed a complete picture, working-level business in one city and the political message delivered straight to the top in the other, both pointing in the same direction, that Ankara wants this channel kept open and still sees Russia as central to any serious regional settlement. It’s the kind of two-step that’s easy to overlook if you’re only counting headlines, but it’s exactly the sort of patient, layered work that actually moves things forward over time, even when nothing dramatic gets announced at the end of it.
The bigger picture
Step back far enough and the bigger picture comes into focus. The notion that Russia could simply be cut out of European, Black Sea or Eurasian security has not held up well, no matter how many times it’s been repeated in certain quarters over the past few years. Ukraine, Syria, the South Caucasus, energy, food security, transport corridors – Russia sits somewhere in the middle of all of it, and Türkiye seems to understand that more clearly than a lot of Western players do. That’s why Ankara remains inside NATO without handing over its regional interests to alliance discipline and backs diplomacy without confusing it with one-sided pressure.
None of that is contradiction so much as an honest read of how the world actually works right now. Russia and Türkiye don’t agree on everything, they answer to different alliances and different sensitivities, and there’s no shortage of issues where their interests genuinely clash, but they’ve learned over time that talking beats rupture, and geography, energy, trade and the Black Sea make that lesson hard to unlearn. You can disagree with someone on Syria one week and still need them at the table on grain exports the next, and pretending otherwise just makes everyone’s job harder.
None of what came out of this trip was flashy, and it wasn’t supposed to be. There was no joint statement promising a ceasefire, no surprise breakthrough on prisoner swaps, nothing built for a headline. What it did was reinforce a channel that’s becoming rarer by the month, one of the few remaining lines of serious, working-level contact between Moscow and a country that still sits comfortably inside Western institutions. It showed once again that Moscow is a capital you have to talk to if you’re serious about security in this part of the world, whether you like that fact or not. In a moment defined by conflict, keeping that door open is where serious diplomacy actually starts, without much fanfare, one working visit at a time.
Two rail cars have plunged off a bridge in Munich just hours after another crash killed one and injured 89 in the UK
One person was killed after two freight trains collided during shunting operations in Munich, Germany, in the early hours of Saturday. The fatal accident occurred hours after a similar rail collision left one passenger dead and dozens seriously injured in the UK.
A video shared by one of the witnesses on social media showed two rail cars hanging off a bridge after they derailed and plunged onto the roadway below. Additional footage captured emergency crews and heavy machinery at the scene, with the derailed cars lying beside the bridge as firefighters and police carried out recovery operations.
“The fact that two trains collided and fell from a bridge is unbelievable,” a fire department spokesperson told newspaper Die Zeit.
An investigation is underway to determine the cause of the accident, according to Munich police, which said streets in the Milbertshofen district in the north of the city would remain closed until recovery operations are completed.
Bu sabah Münih’te yürüyüş yaparken ilginç bir manzarayla karşılaştım. Schleißheimer Straße’daki demiryolu köprüsünde yük trenine ait iki vagon raydan çıkarak köprünün altında asılı kalmış. Yol tamamen trafiğe kapatılmış, polis ve kurtarma ekipleri olay yerinde yoğun şekilde… pic.twitter.com/xbFmeUeXgf
The wagons that fell from the bridge were empty, the police added. The authorities said no disruptions to regional or long-distance passenger rail services were expected, as the accident occurred on a line used exclusively by freight trains.
Meanwhile, also on Friday evening, two passenger trains crashed into each other north of London during rush hour. One person died, while emergency services said 89 people were injured, including 11 who suffered “very serious injuries” and 22 who were seriously wounded, according to British Transport Police.
The latest collision in Germany follows another incident in March, when a regional express train carrying more than 300 passengers struck concrete slabs placed on the tracks in the country’s northwest.
No one was injured, and police said they suspected unknown perpetrators had deliberately placed the slabs and a metal rod on the rails. A criminal investigation was opened.
Demonstrators say the planned luxury development by Jared Kushner threatens protected land and raises concerns over transparency
Albania is preparing for the biggest anti-government protest in weeks on Saturday night, with tens of thousands from all over country, as well as diaspora representatives from abroad, arriving in the capital Tirana, according to local media reports. The Balkan country has seen three weeks of demonstrations against a controversial luxury resort project linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.
What began as a local campaign has evolved into a nationwide movement dubbed the “Flamingo Revolution” by local and international media, after the wading birds that inhabit the area targeted for development.
The slogan “Albania is not for sale” has become the movement’s rallying cry, reflecting concerns about foreign investment and transparency.
Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has publicly praised Trump, defended Kushner’s investment plans and argued that greater US involvement in the Balkans serves broader Western strategic interests.
What is the resort Kushner is building?
The €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion) development, approved in late 2024 and currently in the planning and preparatory stage, is being led by Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners. It consists of two separate projects: one on Sazan Island, at the entrance to the Bay of Vlorë where the Adriatic and Ionian seas meet, and another near the Vjosa-Narta Protected Landscape on Albania’s southwestern coast.
The Sazan project would transform part of a former military outpost, dotted with bunkers and abandoned buildings, into a luxury tourism destination featuring hotels, private villas, apartments, a marina and other high-end facilities.
The mainland component is planned near the Vjosa-Narta wetland, one of Albania’s most important protected ecosystems and home to flamingos, monk seals and sea turtle nesting sites.
Why did Kushner choose Albania?
In an interview with Italian journalist Marzio Mian following his first visit to Sazan Island in 2021, Kushner said he was “very surprised that something like that existed in the middle of the Mediterranean and hadn’t been developed,” describing the island as a rare opportunity for luxury tourism.
Analysts say the Western Balkans offer some of Europe’s last relatively undeveloped coastal sites, while prospective EU membership could increase long-term asset values.
Protesters and environmental groups say the project has become a symbol of opaque decision-making and preferential treatment for politically connected investors.
The government granted the project “Strategic Investor” status in December 2024, giving it access to accelerated administrative procedures. The decision followed a February 2024 amendment to Albania’s protected areas legislation that critics said made the development possible.
The Special Anti-Corruption Structure (SPAK) has opened investigations into legislative changes, land-status decisions and administrative procedures connected to the development following complaints from opposition lawmakers and environmental groups.
Albania’s leading conservation group PPNEA told The Guardian there had been “no public consultation” and a “total lack of transparency.”
This week’s summits exposed a world split between Western dysfunction and the Global Majority’s pragmatic rise
Today, it is difficult to find two more contrasting approaches to diplomacy as a tool of interstate engagement than those practiced by the countries of the “global minority” and the states of the “global majority.” While some nations, despite being located in immediate geographic proximity to one another, remain unable to reach a compromise on even the most pressing issues of our time, others – separated by thousands of miles – continue to expand the full spectrum of their bilateral and multilateral ties, helping to ease international tensions and advancing similar approaches to solving the world’s most critical challenges.
These two realities, as different as night and day, were brought into especially sharp focus by two major summits held this week: the G7 meeting in Evian, France, and the celebration of the 35th anniversary of the Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership in Kazan.
A diplomatic crisis for the collective West
Known for its spa resorts, which gained worldwide fame thanks to the bottled water brand that bears its name, the town of Evian-les-Bains typically leaves visitors with the same sense of tranquility associated with places such as Spa in Belgium, Baden-Baden in Germany, or Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic. This time, however, the participants gathered in Haute-Savoie were clearly in no mood for relaxation. The summit of the last fully functioning multilateral platform representing the “collective West” ended amid a string of controversies and became a genuine stress test of the ability of the United States and its allies to develop collective solutions to complex problems.
It would be difficult to find a more symbolic location in France – one that more vividly reflects Europe’s loss of its former hegemony – than the site where the 1962 agreement ending the Algerian War of Independence was signed. That conflict resulted in Paris losing control over a territory it had long regarded as an extension of France itself on the African continent. Yet seemingly oblivious to such historical symbolism, French President Emmanuel Macron, the current G7 chair, chose this quiet village in southern France to loudly proclaim that differences between the United States on one side and the other members of the group on the other had been overcome regarding continued support for Kiev. To that end, a Ukrainian delegation was invited to the summit.
Although Washington has not ruled out imposing additional sanctions on Russia, the media impact of placing Ukraine on the summit agenda proved rather limited, largely because of the endless protocol mishaps involving US President Donald Trump. At the very beginning of the event, during the leaders’ greeting ceremony, he deliberately ignored Vladimir Zelensky, treating him like an uninvited guest at a reunion of old friends. Later, after receiving a welcoming handshake from the summit host, Trump held the French First Lady’s hand for an unusually long time, prompting a wave of criticism in the French press. By the end of the summit, he further fueled controversy by awkwardly remarking that he had posed for photographs with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni out of sympathy for her. The comment so offended Rome that Italy’s foreign minister reportedly rushed to cancel a previously planned visit to the United States.
These protocol incidents might seem trivial were they not symptomatic of a broader decline in the diplomatic culture of the West – a decline that increasingly hampers the ability of the United States and its European allies to achieve their objectives in dealings with other centers of power. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this trend is the troubled fate of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, which was intended to pave the way toward a final settlement of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.
With considerable fanfare, and on the very day of his 80th birthday, Donald Trump announced an impending agreement with Tehran that was supposed to ease tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and remove not only Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons but also its incentive to target Washington’s junior partners in the Persian Gulf. Enthused by the prospect of dramatically signing the agreement in the company of allied leaders, Trump made a critical misstep. He not only announced the deal several days before the official signing ceremony but did so before any tangible implementation had begun.
As a result, continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon have compelled Iran to engage in an unwanted escalation in order to preserve what had appeared to be a carefully balanced regional status quo. This once again pushes peace further out of reach and moves the opposing sides farther away from a comprehensive peace agreement – the very outcome that the memorandum between Washington and Tehran was meant to facilitate. What appears to be missing from their dialogue is precisely the element most essential to any lasting settlement: genuine mutual understanding.
Europe’s search for a new negotiator
Significantly, this crisis of miscommunication is becoming a defining feature not only of American diplomacy but also of that practiced by its European allies. While the United Kingdom is grappling with a political crisis that could lead to the early resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the European Union is embroiled in heated debates not only over the performance of its chief diplomat but also over who should become the bloc’s consensus candidate for special representative on relations with Russia.
Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, already known for her undiplomatic rhetoric toward the Kremlin, has now found herself at the center of a dispute with Israel. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar reportedly severed all contacts with her after she compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa. According to the Financial Times, this episode was the final straw for several major European powers, prompting consultations among diplomats from France, Germany, and other countries regarding both Kallas’ possible removal and broader reforms of the European External Action Service.
Notably, these discussions appear to be driven less by dissatisfaction with Kallas’ competence than by the EU’s inability to identify a suitable candidate for the position of special envoy for negotiations with Russia.
Among the names under consideration are Kaja Kallas herself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, both of whom have damaged their credibility through strongly anti-Russian statements. Other candidates reportedly include former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose diplomatic legacy was severely undermined by her admission that the Minsk agreements had been intended to buy Ukraine time to rearm, as well as Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, who was serving as Italy’s prime minister when Russia launched its military operation and whose country now plays a key role in coordinating support for Kiev.
The “storm in a European teacup” intensified after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s widely publicized remarks that, in his view, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder remains the most suitable candidate to serve as the EU’s chief negotiator with Moscow. Putin further noted that whoever is ultimately chosen for the role must be someone the Kremlin considers an acceptable partner for dialogue.
As a result, the United States and the other members of the once-vaunted “collective West” find themselves caught in a genuine diplomatic storm, one that is eroding long-established networks of relationships both within their community and beyond it.
ASEAN as an alternative model of integration
Against this backdrop, the development of friendly ties among the countries of the “global majority” appears all the more impressive.
For decades, the European Union was widely regarded as the world’s most successful example of regional integration. Yet on the other side of the globe, a different model of regional cooperation – ASEAN – has quietly come into its own.
Unlike the EU, ASEAN does not require member states to transfer authority to supranational institutions – that is, to unelected political figures such as Kaja Kallas. Instead, it has preserved a strictly intergovernmental framework. Over the course of more than half a century, this model has delivered truly remarkable results. Expanding to eleven member states, the Southeast Asian bloc has become the centerpiece of a broader macro-regional integration process and a key hub for trade and economic activity across the Asia-Pacific region.
Countries as diverse as capitalist Singapore and socialist Vietnam, the populous Philippines and tiny Brunei, agrarian Cambodia and industrialized Malaysia owe much of this success to ASEAN’s extensive network of external dialogue partnerships. These partnerships encompass all major centers of influence in the global economy, including the United States, China, the European Union, Japan, India, Australia, and others.
Russia occupies an important place within this network, and it was the 35th anniversary of Russia–ASEAN relations that served as the occasion for the summit held in Kazan on June 18. It would be difficult to imagine a more fitting venue for promoting the concept of Greater Eurasia – a vast political and economic project aimed at connecting the integration frameworks of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN – than the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan, renowned for its hospitality and its unique example of civilizational synergy among different peoples, cultures, and religions.
Despite Russia’s geographic distance from ASEAN’s principal manufacturing supply chains, it is becoming an increasingly important strategic partner for the bloc. This is due not only to growing trade and tourism flows – whose current levels still fall short of the immense potential of the relationship – but also to Russia’s role in implementing major energy, agricultural, transportation, logistics, and infrastructure projects.
For this reason, the leaders of the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Laos, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, and other ASEAN countries sought to take advantage of the opportunity to hold bilateral meetings with the President of Russia.
As things stand today, it is already possible to conclude that, despite systemic obstacles such as unfavorable geography and sanctions pressure, Russia’s relations with ASEAN countries are not merely continuing to develop steadily – they are entering a qualitatively new phase in which neither side views the other as something exotic or unfamiliar.
What is the key to building such a complex and multilayered system of relationships, both within and beyond the community itself?
The answer is obvious: diplomacy.
Diplomacy as a means of finding compromise among states that differ in size, historical experience, socioeconomic systems, cultures, and even religious traditions.
Perhaps the best illustration of diplomacy’s unifying power is the case of Timor-Leste, which joined ASEAN in 2025. Having first endured Portuguese colonial rule and later Indonesian occupation, this small Pacific nation was forced to build its institutions of governance virtually from scratch, with substantial assistance from the United Nations.
It is precisely because of its cautious and skillful foreign policy – one that carefully avoids provoking tensions with its much larger neighbor – that this resource-poor island nation has managed to sustain impressive economic growth, expanding by roughly 4-5% of GDP annually.
And if such achievements are possible for a small state with limited natural resources, one can only imagine the potential of the more resource-rich nations of the “global majority,” which are increasingly assuming a leading role in shaping the future of global diplomacy.
Kiev has intensified drone strikes on civilians in recent weeks amid continued setbacks on the front line
Three people have been killed in attacks by Kiev’s drones in Russian regions bordering Ukraine, the authorities have said.
The Ukrainian military used UAVs to drop mines on a busy highway in Russia’s Lugansk People Republic (LPR) overnight, Governor Leonid Pasechnik wrote on Telegram on Saturday morning.
“One of the residents found a suspicious device and attempted to remove it on his own. This resulted in an explosion. Unfortunately, two people were killed,” he said.
The governor stressed that people should not approach mines or drone debris, but instead immediately inform the authorities of their discovery.
“The Kiev regime is continuing its terror campaign against civilians,” Padeschik said.
Earlier in the day, the acting governor of Bryansk Region, Egor Kovalchuk, said that Kiev’s FPV-drones, which are remotely controlled by operators in real-time, targeted the village of Suzemka near Russia’s border with Ukraine.
A man was killed in the attack, while a woman suffered injuries and required hospitalization, Kovalchuk wrote on Telegram.
Also on Saturday, Tyumen Region governor Aleksandr Moor said that a Ukrainian drone attack on the Tyumen Oil Refinery has been successfully repelled.
The facility was unaffected in the raid, with the staff being evacuated, Moor wrote on Telegram.
Emergency workers have been deployed in areas where the debris of downed UAVs fell, he added.
Tyumen Region is located some 2,000 km from Moscow in Western Siberia and borders Kazakhstan.
The Russian Defense Ministry said that at least 241 Ukrainian UAVs were destroyed by air defenses on Saturday.
The interceptions took place in Moscow, Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, Orel, Tula, Rostov, Lipetsk, Voronezh, and Astrakhan regions, as well as in Crimea and over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, it said.
Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanian reported that two drones targeting the city had been destroyed.
The Russian capital came under one of the largest Ukrainian drone raids on Thursday, with air defenses shooting down 194 drones. At least 17 people were wounded in several cities near Moscow due to the attack.
A smaller UAV incursion on Friday resulted in the death of an eight-year-old girl in Ramenskoye outside Moscow.
Kiev has intensified attacks on residential areas and civilian vehicles inside Russia in recent weeks amid continued setbacks on the front line.
On Wednesday, a Ukrainian drone struck a bus carrying a youth soccer team from Belarus, killing a woman and injuring eight people, including six minors.
Moscow previously warned that it would respond to terrorist attacks by Kiev with “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, including drone production facilities, command posts, and “decision-making centers.”
There have been several large-scale drone and missile raids by Russia over the past month, including one in late May that involved the deployment of two state-of-the-art intermediate-range hypersonic Oreshnik systems.
After a British court verdict, Britain’s media machine rushed to blame Moscow – despite investigators admitting they had no proof of state involvement
A coordinated UK media campaign surrounding a Ukraine-linked arson plot cannot hide the obvious holes in the story Britain wants you to believe.
After over a year of mounting mystery, fevered speculation, and strange media silence, a UK court has finally reached a verdict in the bizarre case of ‘Arsongate’. In May 2025, a series of incendiary attacks were carried out on a car and two London properties linked to acting UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
On June 15, two young Ukrainians were convicted over the fires, while another was acquitted. The case against the guilty pair seems open and shut. But for many, something doesn’t feel right.
How did prosecutors manipulate the Arsongate trial?
The unconvinced include the lawyer of Petro Pochynok, the 34-year-old arrested in June 2025 on charges of conspiring with fellow Ukrainian nationals Roman Lavrynovych, 21, and Stanislav Carpiuc, 26. Pochynok walked free. The other two were convicted of damaging property by fire and reckless endangerment of human life.
On June 16, Pocynok’s defense counsel remarked on X, “I still find my head pickled over what real underlying truths were never exposed.”
In fact, it was very clear what underlying truths were not exposed during the trial – by court order. When proceedings began in May this year, with Lavrynovych and Carpiuc having spent close to 12 months in the UK’s high security Belmarsh prison, prosecution lawyers dramatically announced the arson attacks on Starmer’s old property had been orchestrated online by a shady Russian-speaking Telegram user, ‘EL Money’.
However, jurors were then told to completely disregard this literally explosive information when reaching a verdict on the three accused. There are obvious echoes of the recent trial of Palestine Action activists in the UK, where the presiding judge – who had previously represented MI6 in court – ruled that jurors couldn’t consider why the activists committed the crimes of which they were accused. Unable to argue in court that their actions were proportionate to prevent slaughter in Gaza, the Actionists were convicted for lengthy terms as terrorists.
Why did Arsongate judge rule key information ‘irrelevant’?
“It is not part of your considerations to decide who ‘EL Money’ is and what reason he might have had to co-ordinate the actions of these defendants,” the chief prosecutor said. Defense lawyers attempted to breach this conspiracy of silence, demanding prosecutors hand over all information they held on El Money. They were specifically interested in whether he might be a spy, and his country of residence. However, the judge ruled these crucial matters to be “wholly irrelevant” to any issues before the jury.
In summing up, prosecution lawyers claimed EL Money was “seeking to destabilize our society,” but went on to remind the jury it wasn’t their job to determine who EL Money might be, or what motivations they might have had. Lavrynovych’s lawyer still tried to place questions about EL Money – “the anonymous devil who manipulated, used and won” – on record. Calling EL Money the “one winner in this case,” they suggested the anonymous Telegram user could be a Russian agent.
“What do we know about him? Nothing. Where’s he from? Who might have an interest in trying to undermine this country, undermine this country’s support of Ukraine, who are fighting for their liberty? Who might do that? But Russia – let’s call it out – Russia are interested in what this country does in support of Ukraine. This person, or people, spoke excellent Russian,” Lavrynovych’s lawyer thundered.
They neglected to mention how EL Money also conversed in “perfect” Ukrainian, according to Lavrynovych – a language very few Russians speak. While southern Russians can more easily understand Ukrainian, or even mimic it, cases in which a Russian born in the Russian Federation speaks “excellent Ukrainian” are rare – and quite unlikely, given Kiev’s aggressive cultural posturing and the lack of need for Russians to speak Ukrainian. Many Ukrainians speak Russian – which is natural given it is a lingua franca of the former Soviet space – while only a minority of Russians can understand Ukrainian, let alone speak it.
This shocking fact wasn’t reported while the trial was ongoing, and has been completely drowned out by an extraordinary mainstream information war that erupted only hours after the jury’s verdict was announced.
Was the UK behind the campaign to blame Russia for Arsongate?
First, the BBC released a ready-for-TV 30-minute Panorama ‘documentary’, ‘The Starmer Files: The Russian Connection’, accompanied by a lengthy accompanying essay published on the state broadcaster’s website.
Clearly, the BBC had been working on the investigations while the trial was ongoing – and somehow acquired evidence on the case that couldn’t be considered in court.
According to the BBC’s suspiciously-timed release, EL Money is a young “Russian diplomat, schooled in information warfare by spies and propagandists, who is close to the highest levels of power in Moscow.”
The ‘EL’ in his pseudonym allegedly refers to the 23-year-old’s real-life initials. The elite “Russian spy,” according to the British state broadcaster, used his own initials on a Telegram account in which he is alleged to have ordered a grave act of terrorism against an elected leader.
In other words, the elite spy left a pretty convenient digital footprint for the BBC and other mainstream digital sleuths to trace. EL Money appears highly incompetent in other ways, not only tying his account to his name, but activities on Telegram that supposedly link him directly to Russian spy agencies. An enormous amount of information was seemingly collected on EL Money by the BBC and others after Carpiuc and Lavrynovych were arrested, suggesting the account wasn’t deleted, contrary to basic tradecraft.
Who were the BBC’s spooky conspirators in the media campaign?
After the BBC’s one-two PR punch, the Bellingcat-linked Insider published an investigation validating the broadcaster’s identification of EL Money, including photos and biographical details, also apparently long in the making.
The Insider’s investigations chief is Christo Grozev, a prominent former member of Bellingcat. He left the organization under strange circumstances at the end of 2022, having spent much of that year spreading anti-Russian disinformation related to the Ukraine proxy war. Allegations that Grozev – a self-styled journalist – worked with Ukrainian intelligence, personally participating in shadow operations, dogged him throughout his time at Bellingcat.
Why were Ukrainian sources the first to blame Russia?
It may be no coincidence then that notorious Ukrainian ‘kill-list’ website Mirotvorets subsequently published a dedicated profile on the 23-year-old Russian supposedly behind the EL Money account. Myrotvorets is confirmed to be run by Ukrainian spies, and several of its targets have been murdered.
The young man’s full address, phone number, and passport details are listed. A section titled ‘liquidation date’ – that records the date the listed person has been killed or died – is for now blank.
However it is not only EL Money’s digital footprint that apparently provided vital clues as to Russia’s culpability for the arson attacks on Starmer. In June 2025, Skhemy – a Ukrainian language investigative reporting project maintained by the CIA created Radio Liberty – published a deep dive on how the arsonists were “likely recruited by Russia.”
Evidence for the heavily-qualified claim was non-existent.
Skhemy’s reporters simply concluded Lavrynovych “may have been recruited by Russian security services via Telegram,” solely on the basis that he was actively seeking employment on the platform in 2022-2025. Nothing more.
“Most of the work he sought was in construction or hospitality, often for cash,” Skhemy reported. Weeks prior to his arrest, he had posted: “Looking for a job, open to any options.” There’s every chance “perfect” Ukrainian speaker EL Money spotted Lavrynovych in this manner.
What have the British spy agencies reportedly concluded about Arsongate?
Skhemy’s ‘investigation’ was released at a time UK officials were probing whether Russian actors may have recruited Lavrynovych and Carpiuc, but were far from sure. The Financial Times reported how “counterterrorism police leading the investigation are keeping an open mind about motive.” UK officials were hedging their bets even further, cautioning that even if they concluded the arson attacks originated in Russia, “that would not necessarily mean they were ordered by the Kremlin or that the suspects were aware of any Russian involvement.”
According to the BBC, British counter-terror police remain stumped on this question. The broadcaster’s longread not only revealed law enforcement had “not been able to prove the identity” of EL Money, “or who he was working for,” but a senior police chief stated plainly: “we’ve got no evidence to suggest this was a state-backed threat.”
However, the BBC reassured readers that unspecified “sources” had informed its reporters – which included veteran Ukrainian propagandist Olga Malchevska – “authorities in the UK and in Ukraine have privately concluded Russia was behind the arson attacks.”
The BBC didn’t explain why “authorities” in Ukraine have independently investigated a high-profile case that occurred in the UK, or apparently consider the huge vested interest Kiev might have in framing Russia for the arson targeting Starmer’s properties. The mainstream mania over Moscow’s culpability for the attacks – which the recently-concluded trial failed to consider, and investigating police found “no evidence” for - spells that out very clearly.
A common refrain from UK politicians is that the arson proves it’s “essential to defeat Putin in Ukraine.”
What’s the bottom line about the post-trial rush to blame Russia?
This media campaign should be viewed as just that, a concerted state-backed information effort to frame a narrative already inscribed into the British public’s consciousness, which facilitates riding roughshod over critical holes in the narrative. But don’t take our word for it. Consider how senior counter-terror police who investigated the case thoroughly and brought it to trial unequivocally couldn’t find any evidence EL Money was working for any hostile state, let alone Russia.
Still, the BBC’s readiness to publish a TV documentary and long-form material immediately after a court decision – full of information that the presiding judge and prosecutors did not want discussed, and did not emerge, during the trial – clearly suggests a significant overlap between British state media, the country’s spying apparatus, and its legal process.
Musk’s platform has declined to remove Itamar Ben-Gvir’s call for the obliteration of the multi-confessional Levantine state
Social media platform X has declined to remove a post by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir calling for the destruction of Lebanon, despite its rules prohibiting threats and incitement targeting people on the basis of ethnicity, national origin or religion.
Published on Friday, the call came amid fragile efforts to halt fighting in the region. Despite a US-Iran-brokered ceasefire intended to cover all fronts, including Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to withdraw forces from its northern neighbor, prompting Tehran to delay follow-up peace talks in Switzerland.
Reuters reported later in the day that Hezbollah and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire after mediation by the US and Qatar, although neither side officially confirmed the deal and open-source intelligence monitors said Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued after the truce was announced.
“All of Lebanon should burn!” Ben-Gvir wrote in the controversial post on X. “With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens is not in vain.”
He also wrote: “Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and containment — you have to go crazy. Erase. Defeat terrorism.”
The stance puts West Jerusalem at odds with the US-Iran agreement. Tehran’s officials have warned that continued Israeli strikes or a prolonged military presence in Lebanon would be viewed as a breach of Washington’s commitments under the peace deal.
Earlier this week, US Vice President J.D. Vance publicly rebuked Israeli hardliners, urging them to give diplomacy a chance and show “a little bit of credit” to Washington.
“You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said, cautioning Israeli officials against publicly criticizing Trump over the deal.
Trump himself has also expressed frustration with Israel’s conduct in Lebanon, including during reportedly heated phone calls with Netanyahu, while reaffirming his broader support for the Jewish state.
Warsaw is finally confronting Kiev’s honoring of nationalists implicated in wartime massacres, officials in Moscow have said
Russian officials have welcomed Warsaw’s decision to strip Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor. The decision came after Kiev named a military unit after the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a nationalist force implicated in massacres of Poles and Jews during World War II.
Polish President Karol Nawrocki announced the move on Friday, saying Kiev had crossed a red line. He argued that “historical truth is not and can never be a bargaining chip” and that remembering the victims was “the moral duty of the Polish state.”
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council and former president, wrote on X on Friday that “Poland’s president has finally stripped the Nazi-worshipping Kiev degenerate of the Order of the White Eagle.” The decision would not trouble Zelensky, Medvedev presumed, as there was now “more room on his green sweatshirt” for Nazi-era decorations.
Russian Senator Andrey Klishas said the Polish president had “suddenly discovered” that the leader of the neighboring country was “engaged in glorifying Nazi criminals.”
“Bravo, there is only one step left before Poland demands the denazification of Ukraine,” Klishas wrote on Telegram.
Moscow has long argued that nationalist movements and historical figures honored in Ukraine are linked to Nazi collaboration during World War II and has cited the country’s “denazification” as one of its stated objectives since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
Kiev condemned the decision. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga wrote on Facebook that stripping Zelensky of the award was “a strategic mistake… from which only Moscow stands to gain.” He also announced that he would return a Polish state award he received in October 2022.
Nawrocki’s decision followed Zelensky’s decree granting a Ukrainian military unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA.” The UPA was the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which Poland holds responsible for the mass killing of Polish civilians during World War II, including the Volhynia massacres.
Poland officially recognizes the actions of the OUN and UPA as genocide, saying at least 100,000 Polish citizens were killed during World War II. Warsaw has repeatedly criticized Kiev’s honoring of the UPA and other nationalist figures associated with it, an issue that has strained relations despite Poland’s support for Ukraine.
Mandatory shots have reportedly been reinstated after 200 training wing members fell ill
More than 200 US airmen and trainees have come down with the flu at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, NBC News has reported, citing a source at the facility. The illnesses come less than two months after the Pentagon ended its longstanding requirement for annual influenza vaccinations.
The cluster of cases is confined to the installation’s Basic Military Training wing, where recruits live and train in close quarters, NBC wrote on Friday.
An Air Force spokesperson has confirmed the outbreak to Texas Public Radio, saying that 160 members have contracted the virus over the past three weeks.
In April, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that annual flu shots would no longer be mandatory for active-duty personnel, reservists and other Defense Department personnel, calling the mandate “absurd” and “overreaching.”
The development comes amid broader debates over vaccination policy within the Trump administration. US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pursued a series of changes to federal vaccine policy since taking office, arguing that the administration is seeking to increase transparency, address potential conflicts of interest and restore public trust in vaccine oversight.
Kennedy, who has long questioned aspects of US vaccination policy and has been described by critics as a vaccine skeptic, has faced opposition from public health experts who argue that some of his policies could undermine confidence in established immunization programs.
Following the change, only about 40% of Air Force trainees opted to receive the flu vaccine, according to officials cited by multiple media outlets.
In response to the situation, the Air Force reinstated mandatory flu shots for recruits at Lackland, according to multiple US media reports citing officials.
The illnesses have also drawn attention because they coincided with the death of trainee Keon McDaniel, who was undergoing Basic Military Training at Lackland and died on June 16 after suffering a medical emergency days earlier. Air Force officials have not linked his death to the influenza outbreak, and the cause remains under investigation.
The backlash against stricter entry rules ignores what happened when football opened the gates in 2018
Working out in the gym on Monday, after rugby training on Sunday, was difficult. So, a dose of John Oliver’s politically motivated rants are good to distract from a painful recovery session. When he chose the current FIFA World Cup and the restrictions imposed on visiting fans, I thought – You are the type of person who will screech about how awful FIFA is, yet sit in their underpants screaming for England to win, while watching as many games as possible. However, his hypocritical rhetoric took me back to the Russian World Cup of 2018 and its aftermath. Because I knew, 100% knew, that his invective was dangerously uninformed.
In August 2018, my neighbor, the then-Tunisian military attaché, told me that at a recent meeting of African ambassadors, there were major concerns about Africans who came for the World Cup but ended up working illegally or trying to get into the EU. I discussed it on Capital Sports and encountered the odd African or Asian person who’d come for the World Cup and remained. But I left it to one side, until January 2019.
During a visit to the Russian Football Union (RFU), I was given actual facts and figures related to fan overstays from the 2018 FIFA World Cup. At the RFU’s House of Football in Taganka, I discovered that more than 500 men who’d arrived to attend matches at the FIFA World Cup in 2018 hadn’t exited Russia. I mentioned it in a summary of the World Cup legacy. It was picked up on by the biggest football site in the world, GOAL.com, which dove deeper into the murky mess. Their chief editor, Peter Staunton, who’d been in Russia for the event and was a regular on Capital Sports, did a super job and noted that many ‘fans’ had used the World Cup to enter the EU illegally.
It was no secret that ‘fans’ were using match tickets and Fan IDs, which granted them visa-free entry to Russia and Belarus, to try steal into the EU. However, the tiny mention in my report, followed by Peter’s more in-depth follow up, triggered the local authorities to openly discuss it at a press conference the following day.
According to them, 12,000 fans had overstayed and on January 25, 2019, 5,500 remained, with all to be out of the country by March 30. Yes, you read that right, 11-times more than I and GOAL had reported. And FIFA’s response to Peter for his GOAL piece? “The Fan ID project was fully managed by the Russian government via the Ministry of Communications.” In plain English, not our problem, baby!
That echoed in my head while listening to John Oliver’s fanboy whinging and then, post-workout, reading a round up of English-language media. They all piled on with complaints about the ‘overly strict application of immigration rules.’ I wondered if they really think it a good idea for the US, Canada, and Mexico to do what Russia did in 2018? Or do they support putting desperate migrants in mortal danger and in the hands of human traffickers?
Yes, it’s been messy in the US and some of the treatment of players, coaches, and officials was baffling. A Somali referee became a talking point, especially for people who didn’t even know Somalia had an international class referee until he was sent back from Miami.
One football reporter said, on Ireland’s Newstalk radio, “that looked like it [treatment of teams arriving in the US] was done for the domestic market, showing how nobody is above the law.” She wasn’t excusing what happened, just pointing out what is most likely the truth.
And yet, people like John Oliver, who this week blamed the mess in his home country (the United Kingdom) on Russia and Ukraine, decried the visa process and claimed it devalues the World Cup. Oliver, who does a great job pointing out corruption in big pharma, higher education, and transport, as well as other English-language media outlets exposed their own extreme political bias.
He, the BBC, CNN, and others didn’t raise an objection to the World Cup being held in the US or Canada. No questions about Israeli athletes and teams continuing to represent their nation, despite the multitude of dangers they face. Oliver, who got himself a US passport some years back, like the BBC, attacked the hosting of the World Cup in Russia and Qatar, but as soon as it was in the US, he became an excited cheerleader.
He attacked US President Trump for saying that “the right people” will visit the World Cup, making it into a racism thing. Maybe John needs to go back and look at why FIFA and the US, Canada, and Mexico agreed to learn from past lessons? Obviously security and fan safety are unimportant, because if they were, he would have used his platform to demand the tournament be postponed until his host nation stopped bombing other countries.
With a sole aim of attacking Donald Trump, he didn’t care about fans not being granted visas, nor the safety of those attending matches. But to be fair, maybe he forgot about the risks desperate people took in 2018? How they attempted to enter Latvia from Russia via dangerous marshes.
Or maybe he’s unaware of the “World Cup Effect” as highlighted in an EU report, which revealed a 24% increase in “irregular crossings” into the bloc in 2018. Using legally obtained ‘FIFA Fan IDs’, people used the host nation, plus neighbors Belarus and Ukraine, to enter the EU.
So, football fanboys and partisans like Oliver can spare me their political pointscoring. The BBC, pontificating about how everyone should be free to attend the World Cup in one report, while parroting UK Prime Minister Starmer’s pledge to reduce illegal immigration into their country in the next, can give it a rest.
Russia did the right thing by offering visa-free access with match tickets and Fan IDs. However, those of us covering the World Cup knew it was being abused. The removal of 56 ‘fans’ from a train by Lithuanian border guards was not the only ‘incident’ in the Kaliningrad Region. Capital Sports, at the time, interviewed a Cameroonian reporter accredited to AFP who told us that he was walking on the Curonian Spit [a stretch of sand which connects Kaliningrad in Russia with Lithuania] one evening with colleagues when he noticed African and Asian men hiding in the dunes.
Approaching one, he was told that they were waiting until nightfall to try to make their way across the border into Lithuania. He added that this was not the only time he saw or was told about attempts to cross into the EU by fans. As he said, they had all paid a price to get to the World Cup, reaching their final goal had to be done at all costs.
The US, Mexico, and Canada all have issues with illegal migrants and bogus visa applicants. Closing one’s eyes and wishing for the best won’t make it any safer for people willing to pay criminal gangs to smuggle them across borders. FIFA and the three nations learned from the mistakes of the past and promised to make this a ‘safe’ World Cup, with football’s governing body chipping in an unprecedented $650 million for security, which Oliver and others neglect to mention.
This is a mega event which is only where it is due to years of Obama-led lawfare and bullying. This is a mega event which should have been postponed at best, and stripped from two of the three hosts at worst. The likes of John Oliver won’t tell their audiences this, as the truth would open up a Pandora’s Box that would swallow up their schtick and lose them money and access. The threat of a terror attack at this World Cup is multiple times higher than at any other in history. It would be better served if John Oliver & Co would get that point across.
Kiev has been asking European countries to send back male refugees amid troop shortages and continued setbacks on the front line
Switzerland could exclude Ukrainian men of military age from protections granted to refugees, the Alpine nation’s government has said.
The Swiss Federal Council announced in a statement on Friday that it has started consultations with cantons on prolonging beyond March 2027 the S Status for some 66,000 Ukrainian nationals who fled to Switzerland after the escalation between Moscow and Kiev more than four years ago. Individuals with such protections receive welfare assistance in goods or money and can freely travel in and out of the country.
As part of those discussions, the government is considering “a possible future restriction for Ukrainian men subject to conscription,” the statement read. The decision on the matter is expected to be made by the end of summer, it added.
“This is because the EU is currently considering an extension of temporary protection with a possible restriction for these men,” the Federal Council explained.
EU Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner said earlier this month that the bloc was looking into the option of excluding military-aged Ukrainian men from the scheme. “This is also what the Ukrainians are asking us to do,” he stressed.
Some 4.3 million Ukrainians are currently living under temporary protection in the EU, including up to 1 million men of fighting age, according to Eurostat data.
The Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly said they want their men returned from abroad amid troop shortages and continued setbacks at the front.
Kiev announced a general mobilization shortly after the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, barring men aged 18 to 60 from leaving the country. Last year, it relaxed the restrictions for males aged 18 to 22, which prompted thousands to cross the border.
Ukraine has had to rely on mandatory – and often forced – conscription to replenish its military ranks, with a practice dubbed ‘bussification,’ in which draft officers ambush military-aged men on the streets, often leading to violent altercations and public outrage.
In recent months, several member states, including Poland, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, have moved to curb social programs for Ukrainian migrants.
Moscow has said that the Western-dominated group has “lost much of its relevance” as its global economic weight has shrunk
The West should not have expelled Russia from the G8, US President Donald Trump has said, adding that keeping Moscow in the group could have prevented the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
Trump made the remarks in a wide-ranging interview with Axios published on Friday, in which the US president reflected on the G7 summit in France and a dinner French President Emmanuel Macron hosted for him at Versailles.
He praised Macron for his hospitality, recalling that he had attended a lot of G7 summits. “And it used to be G8s. They should have kept the G8. You probably wouldn’t have the war with Russia and Ukraine if they did, but [then-US President Barack] Obama didn’t want [Russian President Vladimir] Putin there… They wanted Putin out. It used to be the G8. It would’ve been much better if they kept that that way,” he said.
Russia was removed from what was then the G8 in March 2014 after Crimea declared independence from Ukraine and joined Russia in a public referendum following a Western-backed coup in Kiev, leaving the bloc as the G7 — comprising the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Trump has on numerous occasions floated Russia’s return to the group since his first term, at one point calling its removal “a mistake” and suggesting China could join too. European leaders, however, have consistently opposed the move, arguing that Moscow’s return could be considered only if it reverses its policy on Ukraine.
Russia itself has shown little appetite for a return. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this month that he was “relieved” when the country left the group, noting that Moscow stood alone among the Western countries that “were only thinking about managing the rest of the world.”
Last year, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also dismissed the G7 as having “lost much of its relevance,” citing its diminished role in the global economy. At the same time, despite its expulsion from the group, Moscow has been developing international cooperation on other platforms, including the G20, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Former Real Madrid player and Morocco captain Achraf Hakimi has consistently denied the allegation arising from a 2023 complaint
Moroccan football star Achraf Hakimi will stand trial in France on a rape charge he denies after an appeals court upheld a decision to refer the case to a criminal court, the media reported on Friday.
Hakimi, 27, a Paris Saint-Germain defender and former Real Madrid player, is currently with Morocco at the World Cup, where the team faces Scotland in a Group C match later on Friday.
The case stems from a complaint filed by a 24-year-old woman who told police in February 2023 that Hakimi raped her at his home outside Paris. French prosecutors opened an investigation the following month, and an investigating judge ordered a trial in February this year.
Hakimi appealed the referral order, but the Versailles Court of Appeal rejected his challenge, clearing the way for criminal proceedings. The Moroccan National Team player has maintained his innocence throughout the case.
Ahead of Friday’s match, Hakimi said on X that he welcomed the prospect of a trial.
“I’ve been waiting for this trial since day one. And now I’m eagerly awaiting it. Finally, I’ll be able to speak,” he wrote.
Hakimi said he trusted the justice system and argued that the case would never have reached court had he not been “famous.” He added that the allegations had come at the expense of “my family, my life and, above all, the truth.”
The lawyer representing the complainant welcomed the appeals court ruling.
“After more than three years of legal proceedings, this decision brings her relief and hope,” Rachel-Flore Pardo said in a statement.
Morocco are playing all three of their group-stage matches in the United States. If they advance to the knockout rounds, however, Hakimi could face travel complications should matches be held in Canada or Mexico.
Last week, Ghana midfielder Thomas Partey missed his country’s World Cup opener against Panama after being denied entry to Canada. Partey, who denies rape and sexual assault charges in Britain, is due to stand trial next year.
Advocacy groups have urged Congress to investigate claims that the tech giant benefited from fraudulent campaigns aimed at seniors
Several US retirement advocacy groups have urged Congress to investigate Meta, accusing the tech giant of allowing fraudulent ads targeting seniors to proliferate while profiting from the campaigns, Politico reported on Thursday, citing a letter sent to leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads, has faced mounting scrutiny in recent years over issues ranging from misinformation and online fraud to data privacy, antitrust concerns, and the impact of its platforms on young users' mental health.
The groups – including the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Postal Workers Union Retirees, and the American Federation of Teachers – alleged that Meta has failed to act quickly enough against fraudulent advertising campaigns, exposing seniors to significant financial risks.
“Fraudulent Medicare ads have proliferated on Meta platforms and too many seniors are getting scammed while Meta profits,” Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, told Politico. “We are calling on Congress to investigate how these scams are allowed to spread, what Meta knew about them, and why stronger protections are not in place. Seniors should not be left vulnerable while scammers and tech companies cash in.”
A Meta spokesperson rejected the criticism, telling the outlet that the company actively combats increasingly sophisticated scams and works closely with law enforcement agencies to identify and dismantle criminal networks.
The latest allegations add to a growing list of challenges facing the company. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of lawmakers pressed Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the effectiveness of the firm’s anti-fraud measures. In November, lawmakers also called for a federal investigation after a Reuters report cited internal documents suggesting fraudulent advertising could account for roughly 10% of Meta’s 2024 revenue.
The company continues to face regulatory pressure worldwide. In Europe, Meta is contesting a €797 million ($915 million) antitrust fine while also dealing with ongoing investigations related to competition, privacy, and digital advertising practices.
In Russia, Meta has been designated an extremist organization.
Berlin may be forced to introduce “mandatory measures” to fill the ranks of a 5,000-strong armored brigade in Lithuania
The German military may be forced to order soldiers to serve near Russia’s borders after struggling to find enough volunteers, despite a major promotional campaign touting financial benefits, according to local media reports.
Berlin has been building up the 45th Armored Brigade in Lithuania as a flagship project of its militarization drive, which Moscow has repeatedly criticized as blatant revanchism, reflecting nostalgia for Germany’s Nazi past.
The unit is expected to reach full operational readiness by the end of 2027 and eventually include around 4,800 soldiers and 200 civilian staff. However, according to Die Welt, only around 1,800 personnel are currently stationed there, while the Bundeswehr still needs to fill thousands of additional posts.
The shortage is particularly acute among highly educated personnel and specialists, including IT experts, reconnaissance troops, CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) defense personnel, vehicle maintenance crews, and support units, according to Der Spiegel.
The German Defense Ministry has acknowledged that “operational readiness takes precedence over volunteering,” indicating that the Bundeswehr could resort to “mandatory measures” if voluntary recruitment fails.
“The Army’s top priority is to achieve full operational readiness for the Lithuania Brigade next year,” Army Inspector Lieutenant General Christian Freuding told Die Welt. “To this end, we will adhere to the guiding principle of volunteering – and supplement it with mandatory measures where necessary.”
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius initially promised that Berlin would rely on volunteers for the deployment and launched a major recruitment campaign, including barracks tours and trips to Lithuania for soldiers and their families. The campaign has failed to close the gaps, Die Welt reported, while a “calculation error” that could result in soldiers deployed to Lithuania receiving less money than advertised has added even more controversy.
Panzerbrigade 45 was formally activated in 2025, marking Germany’s first permanent foreign troop deployment since World War II. It is primarily based in Rudninkai, just 30 kilometers from the border with Belarus, while its second hub at Rukla is located roughly 100 kilometers from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave.
German officials have repeatedly said the country must be “war-ready” for a possible conflict with Russia by 2029, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz promised to turn the Bundeswehr into Europe’s strongest conventional army, speaking shortly after the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat last May.
Berlin’s militarization and growing partnership with Kiev show that its Nazi instincts never truly disappeared, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this week. Moscow has consistently stressed that it has no intention of attacking NATO or the EU unless attacked first, arguing that European leaders are using the Ukraine conflict to revive militarism and pursue the strategic defeat of Russia.
Up to 200 Labour MPs are reportedly prepared to back Andy Burnham as the next British prime minister
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing mounting pressure from Labour MPs, party heavyweights and even cabinet ministers to step down as early as this weekend, the Guardian has reported, citing lawmakers and government sources.
Calls for Starmer’s resignation have grown since Labour lost nearly 1,500 seats in local elections in May. The pressure reportedly intensified after former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham won Thursday’s Makerfield by-election, a result seen by many in the party as a rallying point.
According to the Guardian, up to 200 Labour MPs – nearly half the party’s Commons contingent – would back Burnham if he launched a leadership challenge. The paper cited a cabinet source as saying some ministers are preparing to urge Starmer not to contest any leadership race.
“I think everyone thinks it is over and everyone wants it to be a dignified, orderly exit,” the source said. Senior Labour figures reportedly warned that Starmer could face intervention from his own cabinet next week if he refuses to resign or agree to a transition.
MPs told the newspaper ministers would try to persuade the prime minister to step aside over the coming days, adding that “almost everyone agrees” he should “do the right thing this weekend.”
In his victory speech, Burnham described the by-election as Labour’s “final chance” to build “a new politics,” warning there would be no second opportunity.
Starmer, however, insisted on Friday that he would contest any leadership challenge. “If there is a contest, just to be clear with you, then, yes, I will run,” he told reporters in London, arguing that a challenge would “plunge us into chaos.”
The prime minister’s popularity has slumped amid the cost-of-living crisis and fallout from the UK rape gangs scandal. A mid-June YouGov poll put his approval rating at 18%, with 74% of Britons viewing his premiership negatively.
An Ipsos survey published this week found Starmer’s favorability rating at 20%, with 58% holding an unfavorable view. Burnham, whom Ipsos described as Labour’s most popular politician among both party supporters and the wider public, recorded a 26% favorability rating, while 33% viewed him negatively.
At least one person was killed in the incident in eastern England on Friday evening
Two East Midlands Railway passenger trains crashed into each other during rush hour on Friday evening, killing one person and injuring dozens more.
According to the operator, the trains were the 4:40 PM service from Corby and the 3:50 PM service from Nottingham, both heading toward London St. Pancras. They collided in the Bedford area at around 5:15 PM local time.
British Transport Police confirmed that one person had died in the incident, while emergency services said 89 people were injured, including 11 who suffered “very serious injuries” and 22 who were seriously wounded.
🚨🇬🇧 Tragedy in Bedford, England, after two East Midlands Railway passenger trains collided. One person has died and 89 others were injured in the crash. Emergency services responded to the scene as investigations into the cause are underway. https://t.co/Mgtd7HLEWupic.twitter.com/G2Kyfn3vu6
The person killed was reportedly the driver of one of the trains, according to British media and rail union officials. The operator suspended services following the crash, while National Rail warned of major disruptions between London, Bedford, and Leicester.
🇬🇧🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Shocking first footage is emerging after two high-speed passenger trains collided near Bedford, England. Emergency crews have swarmed the scene amid reports of multiple injuries, with a major incident declared and rail services thrown into chaos. pic.twitter.com/ATEVinmSBr
Emergency crews, including police, firefighters, paramedics, air ambulances, and hazardous area response teams, were deployed to the scene. Local hospitals urged members of the public to avoid emergency departments unless they were facing a genuine emergency, as staff dealt with casualties from the collision.
🆕 UPDATE on two passenger trains collided south of Bedford station (UK):
The camera pans unsteadily through the carriage.
Passengers are standing, moving around, and helping each other.
Visible blood on some people's arms, hands, and clothes.
Videos and images from the scene circulating online showed damaged carriages, emergency vehicles, and passengers being evacuated from the crash site. Witnesses described a sudden impact, smoke, screaming, and injured passengers inside the train.
The cause of the crash has not yet been officially established. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the reports “hugely concerning” and said his thoughts were with the family of the person killed and those injured.
The Ukrainian leader has demanded that Minsk remove its relay stations from the border within a week, vowing to destroy them otherwise
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has issued an ultimatum to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, threatening him with military action if Belarus fails to dismantle the communication stations along its southern border, just days after a deadly Ukrainian drone strike on a bus carrying a children’s soccer team from the country.
Earlier this week, Lukashenko said that those seeking to drag his nation into the conflict “will have to pay dearly for that,” demanding answers from Kiev regarding the strike on the bus and other “provocations.” The attack in Russia’s Bryansk Region left six children injured and killed the wife of a Belarusian school soccer team coach who was accompanying the young athletes to a Russian seaside resort.
Kiev has denied responsibility, while Zelensky claimed that it was Lukashenko who must “be honest” and prove Minsk’s peaceful intentions by removing “retransmitters on his communication towers” along the border with Ukraine.
“I think one week would be enough for him to accomplish this,” the Ukrainian leader stated at a press conference in Kiev on Friday. “If he does not do it, we will.”
Lukashenko has repeatedly said that Belarus has no intention of engaging in a war against any nation and “is not threatening anyone.” Zelensky, however, stated that there was “no need for unnecessary words,” and issued another veiled threat against the Belarusian oil refining industry.
“Just like his, for example, oil refining industry,” Zelensky said, claiming that Minsk is one of Russia’s “main” suppliers of petroleum products. “Can this be stopped? I am sure that it is within his power.”
Belarus, a close Russian ally, has largely stayed out of the conflict since 2022, while calling on Moscow and Kiev to engage in dialogue and expressing its readiness to contribute to a diplomatic resolution. In September 2025, Lukashenko stated that he was ready to meet Zelensky personally to discuss possible compromises, but the Ukrainian leader rejected the offer.
In November, Minsk released 31 Ukrainian citizens from detention in a “goodwill gesture” at the request of Kiev and US President Donald Trump, who was also seeking to mediate the conflict.
Over the past few weeks, Zelensky has been ramping up his rhetoric about an allegedly growing threat posed by Belarus – and threatened it with a preemptive strike. Earlier this year, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces warned that Kiev had already identified some 500 potential military and logistical targets across the country.
For states like North Macedonia, the multipolar order brings both peril and opportunity, if they can adapt without surrendering identity
Alongside the ongoing debate among scholars and expert circles regarding the most accurate terminology for the emerging global order – multipolar, polycentric, or multi-nodal – the concept of the “civilizational state” has naturally gained prominence. I first encountered this framework in the work of Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University, who derives the notion from China’s long historical tradition of statehood. Over time, however, I have observed this concept increasingly applied to Russia, India, Iran, and others. Indeed, at the 2024 Valdai Annual Conference – my first participation of this kind and my first visit to Russia – I listened as a speaker from my neighboring state, who articulated that Greece is a civilizational state.
Still, I begin with this anecdote because it placed me in a revealing position. During a breakfast gathering, a distinguished Indian diplomat approached me, eager to learn about my country. His first question was whether the Republic of North Macedonia draws its civilizational traditions and foundations from Alexander the Great. I was taken aback. I struggled to respond, constrained partly by my own ‘Westernized’ academic training, but more profoundly by a sense of geopolitical embarrassment. As many know, my country not only changed its constitutional name under intense external pressure, but is currently engaged in a protracted process of negotiating its history, language, alphabet, culture, and even the Constitution with a neighboring state, Bulgaria.
Without delving too deeply into what I call the ‘curious case of Macedonia,’ I wish to focus on a broader structural question. Following the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), external actors frequently framed post-Yugoslav statehood as premature or culturally fragmented, reviving the polemical and historically distorted trope of “Balkanization.” The reality is that state-building in the Balkans has always been complex, shaped by powerful external influences and borders drawn on green tables without local consultation. At the dawn of the 20th century, Albania received a partially formed state under powerful sponsorship, while Macedonia received none. It was not until the partisan struggle of the Second World War and the historic session of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) in 1944 that our statehood was formally and autonomously established.
Today, although the region remains a theater of frozen conflicts and neocolonial dynamics, the prevailing civilizational matrix of the Balkans is nominally that of the West. Yet, this alignment is neither total nor unconditional. These states are often treated as an inconvenient burden or peripheral relatives within the Euro-Atlantic architecture. The primary interest in keeping them under the Western umbrella is strictly military and geopolitical. Consequently, the leaders of these small states frequently compete to demonstrate maximum loyalty to the “Western code.” In doing so, they are inadvertently abandoning the authentic Balkan civilizational matrix – a heritage marked not only by historical tragedy, but also by extraordinary cultural richness, syncretism, and forms of coexistence that are increasingly absent in the West.
We are witnessing a profound loss of our compass regarding who we are and why we exist. As recent EU–Western Balkans summits have demonstrated, “Europeanization” often functions as an empty rhetorical device. Instead of fostering genuine cooperation, it produces a Europe of tiered classes, where nations possess unequal rights and conditional access to prosperity. In this context, those of us on the periphery are observing a 21st-century global order undergoing a fundamental transformation: a shift from a Western-centric, hegemonic system to a multipolar landscape increasingly defined by civilizational states. The traditional Western narrative posits that its model is the sole genuine civilization, a universalist mission that must be exported – a claim that stands in stark contrast to current humanitarian crises that expose the limits of such universalist assertions.
For old and awakening major states, however, the concept of the civilizational state represents the exact opposite: a reclaiming of historical roots, cultural authenticity, dignity, and strategic autonomy. It is, fundamentally, emancipation from structural dependency. Crucially, this framework avoids civilizational competition, promoting instead mutual learning, respect, and coexistence.
Yet, for small countries situated at the historical crossroads of empires and civilizations, the rise of macro-civilizational poles presents a complex paradox. It is simultaneously an existential challenge to their sovereignty and a unique strategic opportunity. How do small nations navigate a world map being redrawn along civilizational fault lines? What does “civilizational statehood” mean for those without the demographic mass or military might to project power globally? Can they trust that major poles will treat them differently? The ongoing military posturing and interventionism in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus demonstrate that the West remains willing to enforce its alleged civilizational model through structural asymmetry and coercion.
My own country vividly exemplifies these dilemmas, a reality shared in varying degrees by Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a small nation, Macedonia possesses a distinct “micro-civilizational” identity, deeply rooted in its unique language, historical continuity, and cultural heritage. However, in its pursuit of Euro-Atlantic integration, it has faced profound, systemic pressures that can be accurately characterized as identity harmonization framed as Euro-Atlantic conditionality. External political demands have frequently required compromises regarding historical narratives, national symbols, and collective memory. These demands treat authentic national identity not as the bedrock of state sovereignty, but as a geopolitical obstacle to be dismantled. This reflects a broader hegemonic tendency within the unipolar mindset: the expectation that small states must assimilate into a homogenized Western model, shedding their civilizational distinctiveness to gain access to security and economic architectures.
For any small state, this pressure manufactures a false and dangerous dichotomy: the illusion that one must choose between developmental progress and the preservation of national identity. When “Westernization” is conflated with the erasure of local historical memory or the marginalization of linguistic uniqueness, it ceases to be a voluntary process of modernization and transforms into a form of coercive civilizational absorption. The ultimate risk is that the small state is relegated to the status of a peripheral buffer zone or a subordinate satellite, valued merely for its geopolitical utility rather than respected as a distinct cultural entity possessing sovereign agency.
To navigate this asymmetric landscape, small states must proactively assert their civilizational agency. This requires a refined, pragmatic multi-vector diplomacy that firmly rejects binary, bloc-based choices. Theoretically, my country could and should leverage its geographic and cultural intersections to act as a genuine bridge in the emerging “dialogue of civilizations,” facilitating pragmatic cooperation between larger, sometimes competing, civilizational poles.
Crucially, this diplomatic flexibility must be anchored in the fierce, non-negotiable protection of core identity. Strategic investment in domestic cultural, educational, and historical institutions builds a robust ideological immune system. This shields the nation from external assimilation while enhancing its external bargaining power. A small state must engage with larger civilizational states not as a supplicant, but as a distinct cultural peer offering valuable, alternative perspectives on global governance and regional stability.
The emergence of a world map defined by civilizational states does not spell the obsolescence of small countries; rather, it redefines their role. However, a genuine “dialogue of civilizations” cannot be achieved if it merely replaces one form of cultural hegemony with another. Small nations must be recognized not as blank slates for external ideological projects, but as active, respected architects of a pluralistic global order, even if their reach is not long. For small states, true sovereignty and long-term stability lie in demonstrating that global integration can coexist with, and indeed be enriched by, an unapologetic, confident defense of their unique civilizational identity.
The former White House chief medical adviser allegedly misled the US Congress about his role in shaping intelligence assessments on the pandemic
Anthony Fauci used his position as the leading Covid-19 adviser under two US administrations to steer scrutiny away from the so-called lab leak theory and protect himself from possible accountability, outgoing US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has alleged. She claimed the effort included perjury before the US Congress.
The accusations stem from Fauci’s tenure as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the agency’s funding of gain-of-function research, including work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The lab leak theory holds that a bat coronavirus altered to infect humans escaped from the Chinese facility and triggered the Covid-19 pandemic. A competing explanation is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally, possibly spreading through a live animal market in Wuhan.
On Friday, her final day in office, Gabbard released hundreds of pages of documents related to the investigation into the disease’s origins and what she described as Fauci’s influence on the US intelligence community. Some of the materials are not classified and were available to the public before the release.
Today, on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements… pic.twitter.com/ZMdliW4zyS
Fauci was “the behind-the-scenes advisor” who together with “his hand-picked so-called experts,” pushed the intelligence community to back the theory of a natural animal origin, Gabbard said. She alleged that his goal was to avoid scrutiny over “dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to big pharma and their pursuit of universal vaccines worth trillions of dollars.” As one of the most prominent public voices on Covid-19, Fauci allegedly “publicly pushed lies, disinformation, and censorship using every platform available,” she added.
According to Gabbard, the alleged perjury took place in July 2024, when Fauci “denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research” relevant to Covid-19. Fauci told lawmakers that he had been “briefed” by intelligence agencies on the pandemic, but said his “discussions” were limited to separate cases involving possible terrorist use of biological weapons.
Gabbard also accused Fauci of “creating an atmosphere of intimidation” against supporters of the lab leak theory and whistleblowers who contacted her office. She described the tactics as “straight from the deep state playbook” and called Fauci a “politicized self-serving leader.”
The pandemic began during Donald Trump’s first term, while the vaccination campaign was carried out under President Joe Biden. Republican critics accused the Biden administration of suppressing debate about Covid-19 and pressuring the media in an effort to boost compliance with policies intended to contain the disease. Fauci himself became a politically polarizing figure, with Democrat-leaning outlets presenting him as a foil to Trump.
Last week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released documents related to US-funded biolabs operating in Ukraine, some of which were involved in gain-of-function research, according to Gabbard. Russia and other countries have previously accused Washington of effectively funding bioweapons research under the guise of epidemic prevention, arguing that the use of foreign facilities allows the US to bypass domestic restrictions on virus weaponization.
Karol Nawrocki says Kiev crossed a red line by naming a military unit after a group implicated in the wartime massacres of Poles and Jews
Polish President Karol Nawrocki has stripped Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of Poland’s highest state honor, the Order of the White Eagle, after Kiev named a military unit after a nationalist group implicated in the wartime massacres of Poles and Jews.
Nawrocki announced the decision in a video statement on X on Friday, saying that “historical truth is not and can never be a bargaining chip” and that “the memory of the victims is the moral duty of the Polish state.”
The move follows weeks of growing tensions between Warsaw and Kiev after Zelensky signed a decree in late May granting the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA” to the Special Operations Center North. The designation refers to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Zelensky said the measure was intended to revive the “historic traditions of the national army.”
Nawrocki said the decision crossed a red line, noting that for “the vast majority of Polish society,” the UPA remains synonymous with atrocities committed against Polish people during World War II. Poland officially recognizes the actions of the OUN and UPA as genocide.
Wow! President of Poland Karol Nawrocki strips Zelensky of Order of White Eagle for naming Ukrainian Special Forced unit "Heroes of UPA." UPA perpetrated mass murder of Poles, Jews & Ukrainians. Bandera OUN organized UPA from police during Nazi occupation pic.twitter.com/n9GMo87nXO
“The facts are that at least 100,000 Polish citizens were murdered by the UPA... only because they were Poles or Jews or other minorities,” he stated.
The Polish leader argued that naming a Ukrainian military unit after the UPA “has a meaning that goes far beyond the internal affairs of Ukraine” and described Kiev’s glorification of the group as “insulting, incomprehensible and deeply disappointing.”
The decision has drawn support from prominent Polish political figures. Former Prime Minister Leszek Miller called Zelensky’s decree “a spit in the face of Poles,” while former President Lech Walesa said it insulted “all murdered” Poles by honoring “UPA bandits.”
The Strong Armenia bloc argues the voting results should be invalidated because of “mass and organized” violations
The opposition Strong Armenia bloc has petitioned the constitutional court to annul the results of the June 7 parliamentary election, alleging that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government orchestrated widespread electoral violations. The bloc placed second in the vote.
Pashinyan’s pro-EU ruling party, Civil Contract, claimed a decisive victory, securing 49.74% of the vote, according to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC).
Strong Armenia, founded by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, won 23.27%, while the Armenia Alliance, led by former President Robert Kocharyan, garnered 9.92%.
Businessman Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia narrowly missed the 4% threshold required for parliamentary representation, receiving 3.98%. Its failure to enter parliament proved pivotal for Civil Contract, helping the ruling party retain a constitutional majority that allows it to pass legislation and appoint senior officials without opposition backing.
The opposition has accused Civil Contract of widespread electoral misconduct following the vote. Strong Armenia, in particular, alleged that the ruling party secured around 100,000 votes through the misuse of administrative resources, including pressure on public-sector employees and military personnel to support Civil Contract.
In a statement published on Facebook on Friday, the bloc said it had filed a complaint with the constitutional court seeking to invalidate the election results and order a new vote, citing what it described as “mass and organized election violations” by the authorities.
The court said it would decide within two days whether to accept the application for review. If deemed admissible, a final ruling must be issued within 15 days of its registration. According to the court, it has received seven similar complaints, including from Strong Armenia, Prosperous Armenia, Armenia Alliance, and several smaller parties.
Earlier this week, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the Central Electoral Commission headquarters, demanding that the election results be annulled.
On Tuesday, Pashinyan declared the opposition parties that entered parliament illegitimate and vowed to strip them of their political standing.
The same day, prosecutors opened a criminal case against Kocharyan, accusing the former president of abuse of power and money laundering in connection with an allegedly illegal 2004 real estate deal. His lawyer dismissed the case as a “political hit job.” On Wednesday, the CEC voted to lift Kocharyan’s immunity from prosecution.
Another opposition leader, Samvel Karapetyan, has been in custody since last year on charges of plotting a coup, which he denies.
Pashinyan also said this week that his party plans to confiscate assets belonging to the three main opposition leaders, accusing them of using their wealth to influence elections and saying they “should be left hungry.”
The war on Iran has not demonstrated weakness, the US president has insisted, despite a peace deal widely seen as anemic
US President Donald Trump has denied that the war on Iran has highlighted the limits of his ability to project power, telling Axios on Thursday that “there are no limits.”
On Tuesday, Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding, extending a 60-day ceasefire and laying the ground for further talks. Iran has claimed that the US president signed the agreement “out of desperation,” which Trump has vehemently denied.
In an interview on ‘The Axios Show’, the president was asked whether the conflict had shown him the limits of his political and military reach.
“There are no limits… I haven’t learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but you know, there are no limits,” he said. “We defeated them totally militarily.”
Trump argued that the US blockade of Iranian ports emerged as a key factor in the conflict and demonstrated the strength of the American military.
The US-Iranian MOU “really probably is unconditional surrender,” he argued, adding that he would be able to maintain the fragile ceasefire and pressure Israel into holding off from attacking Lebanon.
“They have a lot of respect for me. And they do as I say,” he claimed.
Despite a US-Iran brokered ceasefire covering all regional fronts, including Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declined to pull Israeli forces from the country. Tehran has responded by delaying follow-up peace talks due to start in Switzerland on Friday.
Later in the day, Reuters reported that Hezbollah and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire, following mediation by the US and Qatar. However, neither side has officially confirmed the development, and according to open-source intelligence channels, the IDF continued strikes in Lebanon after the announcement of the truce.
Shortly after the start of the reported agreement, Netanyahu hailed Israeli attacks.
“As I instructed – the IDF struck powerfully 150 Hezbollah targets in Lebanon,” he wrote on his Hebrew-language X account.
Tehran has stressed that while the US-Iranian meeting in Switzerland has been delayed, it is “not urgent.” The talks will continue in the coming days, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said in a press briefing on Friday.
The story behind the most destructive act of industrial sabotage in history is still a web of excuses and misdirection
The Nord Stream saga has taken a turn for the absurd, with a new book claiming that the star saboteur who blew up the gas pipelines was a Ukrainian erotic model-turned-deep sea diver. This detail is the latest addition to an ever-shifting story – while one key coincidence has completely flown under the radar.
Published on June 19, ‘The Nord Stream Conspiracy: The Greatest Sabotage in History’ promises an inside look at the operation that destroyed the Nord Stream lines. Author Bojan Pancevski doesn’t quibble with the ‘official’ story circulated by the German media – that a Ukrainian commando unit carried out the attack, but adds some pulp-fiction flourish to the tale.
Pancevski claims that a former erotic model identified only as ‘Freya’ was “the bravest diver in the whole group,” without whose experience diving to depths of 100 meters the operation could not have been pulled off. Another of the divers was sick with Covid-19, but Pancevski nevertheless claims he carried out the kind of dive that has killed experienced military frogmen before.
After the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, ‘Freya’, a Ukrainian who posed naked for soft-porn magazines before turning to diving, apparently “contacted a dubious intelligence unit through her diving colleagues,” and volunteered her services. Asked if she would be willing to take part in the costliest act of industrial sabotage in history, ‘Freya’ supposedly replied “where do I sign.”
Most of Pancevski’s claims cite Ukrainian intelligence sources, with his imagination filling in the gaps (Pancevski insists that the alleged saboteurs inherited their appetite for risk from the Zaporozhian cossacks of the 15th century). Marketed by its publisher as “compelling as a spy thriller,” the book is, according to a New York Times review, pitched “a little too eagerly in the direction of Hollywood.”
Although the story plumbs the depths of 1960s spy-caper silliness, it is no more far-fetched than the official narrative to date. In the most recent retelling of the operation, Der Spiegel claimed in February that a “Ukrainian secret commando unit” approached the CIA in spring 2022 with plans to blow up the four individual gas pipelines that make up the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 connectors. Der Spiegel’s Ukrainian sources told the outlet that the CIA “liked the plan,” shared technical data on the pipelines, and was even willing to finance the operation, until it abruptly withdrew its support in early summer.
The Ukrainians, or so the story goes, went ahead and blew up the pipelines without American permission, using a rented yacht to transport the explosives to the blast sites.
The latest report is unlikely to raise any eyebrows in Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has dismissed the entire premise of a small team of Ukrainians pulling off an operation beyond the capability of most state militaries as “ridiculous.” To understand just how ridiculous the German story is, it’s necessary to jump back to 2022.
A junction in the story
On September 26, 2022, a seismometer on the Danish island of Bornholm detected two spikes consistent with underwater explosions – one just after 2am, and another just after 7pm. Danish and Swedish authorities then determined that both Nord Stream 1 lines had been destroyed and one Nord Stream 2 line damaged roughly 60 km northeast of Bornholm, while an explosion around 25 km southeast of the island had destroyed the other Nord Stream 2 line.
As images of bubbling gas leaks hit international media, a separate story went almost entirely unreported: less than 24 hours after the second round of blasts, Poland and Norway celebrated the opening of the Baltic Pipe, a gas pipeline transiting Norwegian gas to Poland via Denmark, passing over Nord Stream just south of Bornholm.
Built between 2020 and 2022, the Baltic Pipe joins the larger Norway-Netherlands Europipe II in the North Sea. It allows 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas to reach Poland every year – less than a tenth of Nord Stream’s capacity, but enough to cover two-thirds of Poland’s total imports in 2024. Poland sells some of this gas on to other EU countries, which after the destruction of Nord Stream were guaranteed to need a new source for the foreseeable future.
With their own supply assured and Russia’s key gas conduit to the EU out of action, the excitement in Warsaw was palpable. “Thank you, USA,” Poland’s now-foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, tweeted. Sikorski deleted his tweet two days later. His jubilation was premature and off message, as the West had collectively decided on a different narrative.
Over the next week, Ukraine and its Western backers flooded the media with false claims. The editorial board of the Washington Post pointed out that whoever pulled off the attack possessed the “kind of capability usually wielded by a state actor.” It was taken as gospel in the US and Europe that this actor was Russia.
“[The] Gas leak from NS-1 [Nord Stream 1] is nothing more than a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression towards the EU” – Mikhail Podoliak, adviser to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky
It “seems” Russia is behind this “act of sabotage” – US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm
“Only Russia can really be considered for this” – former German intelligence chief Gerhard Schindler
“This is clearly an act of sabotage of some sort and Russia certainly is the most likely suspect” – former CIA Director John Brennan
The EU stopped short of accusing Russia, but European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attributed the leaks to “sabotage” and “deliberate disruption,” claiming that Russia had previously used gas as a “weapon” against Western Europe.
Russia – which invested billions of dollars in building the pipelines – called the accusations “predictable, stupid, and absurd.”
“It’s obvious to everyone who benefits from it,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said a week after the explosions. “Those who benefit are the ones who have done it,” he added, pinning the blame on “the Anglo-Saxons,” a Russian colloquialism for the US-UK transatlantic alliance. Still, accusations of Russian involvement persisted. European security officials told CNN and other outlets that they had spotted Russian ships near Bornholm on the day of the explosions, but the theory that Russia carried out the attack was metaphorically blown out of the water by American journalist Seymour Hersh in February 2023.
Hersh blames the CIA
Over a series of reports, Hersh made the case that the CIA, working with the Norwegian Navy, used NATO military exercises in the Baltic Sea in June 2022 as cover to plant remotely-triggered explosive devices on the Nord Stream lines. Citing a source with “direct knowledge of the operational planning,” Hersh alleged that the order to carry out the operation came directly from US President Joe Biden.
Only the US, Hersh explained, had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off such an audacious attack.
The Nord Stream pipelines sat on the seabed at a depth of between 80 and 110 meters. At this depth, divers must breathe hypoxic Trimix gas, carry around 90 kg of equipment, and spend (very roughly) 90 minutes decompressing on the way up for every two minutes spent on the seabed. Furthermore, a single diver or pair of divers would rarely attempt more than one of these dives in a single day, meaning the crew of the yacht – described in one report as “not the vessel anyone would choose” for such a mission – would have had to remain at sea amid active military exercises for days on end.
RT spoke to a scuba diving expert who said it was “not impossible, but highly unlikely” that a small team of divers could pull off such an operation.
Even 50-meter dives can kill the most experienced military divers, but the divers of the US Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center in Florida possess the equipment and the know-how to carry out engineering operations at this depth. The CIA recruited these divers, commandeered a Norwegian mine-hunting vessel, and planted shaped explosive charges on the pipelines in June 2022, Hersh’s source claimed.
The charges were reportedly triggered on September 26 by a sonar buoy dropped from a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane.
Motive:
US antipathy toward Nord Stream is a matter of public record, and transcends presidential administrations. Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all condemned the pipelines, and urged the EU to abandon Russian gas for American LNG – a pricier fuel that prior to 2022 was a hard sell in Europe.
According to Hersh, Biden planned on blowing up the pipelines long before Russia sent troops into Ukraine in 2022. As he worked out the logistics with the CIA behind closed doors, he delivered a public threat in early February: in the event of military action by Russia, “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it,” he said.
Biden’s reasoning was twofold, Hersh’s source explained. First, blowing up Nord Stream satisfied the longtime US goal of forcing the EU into reliance on American LNG imports. Secondly, Germany’s economy before 2022 was dependent on Russia for 55% of its gas supply. By destroying Nord Stream, the US prevented a possible rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow, guaranteeing that Chancellor Olaf Scholz stayed committed to providing military support for Ukraine.
“The President of the United States would rather see Germany freeze than [see] Germany possibly stop supporting Ukraine,” Hersh wrote.
Opportunity:
Planting each charge was an hours-long endeavor, and the presence of military divers wouldn’t go unnoticed, unless they had an excuse to be in the area. NATO’s BALTOPS exercises gave the CIA the cover it needed. Running from June 5 to June 17, the BALTOPS drills involved 14 NATO states, and included US-led experiments with mine-hunting drones and deep-sea communications technology in the Baltic Sea.
Hersh predicted that American and German intelligence agencies would soon come up with an alternate story and feed it to friendly media outlets. In April 2023, The New York Times, Die Zeit, and Der Spiegel published the first versions of this tale.
Enter the Germans
Roughly, their story goes as follows: a six-person Ukrainian team rented a 15-meter pleasure yacht – the Andromeda – at the German port of Rostock, sailed through active NATO military exercises, anchored in waters too deep to actually anchor such a craft, spent hours at 80 meters planting timed explosives weighing up to 27 kg each at four different sites, and somehow had time to decompress and leave the scene before sunrise. This, Der Spiegel and other outlets allege, is the version of events German prosecutors are following.
The details of the story have shifted since 2023. First, it was carried out by Ukrainian civilians “buoyed by alcohol and patriotic fervor,” and then by a crack Ukrainian commando unit. Zelensky gave the plot his blessing in one version, until he didn’t, and the operation was then carried out by former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny, without the knowledge of his political rival, the former comedian.
One version has the Ukrainian state funding the attack, another has a private business figure supplying the cash.
Now, the focus of attention is on how much the CIA knew about the attack, and when. This has been the subject of lively debate within Western media, but at no point has the central premise of a small Ukrainian team using a yacht been questioned.
“Five people were sitting around drinking, having a laugh, and decided ‘Why don’t we blow up the Nord Stream pipelines?’ They had diving skills, allegedly hired a little boat, sailed to the place where the Nord Streams were passing, went down, planted explosives and detonated them,” Lavrov commented in 2024. “If someone can actually believe this version, then it’s only people who are afraid of the truth and are trying to protect the criminal Kiev regime in any way possible.”
Two suspects have been arrested for their role in this supposed plot. One was held in Poland until a judge set him free in October, arguing that destroying Nord Stream was a legitimate act of war against an “aggressor,” and not a terrorist attack on civilian infrastructure. He will not be extradited to Germany, a fact that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk made clear on X:
“Polish court denied extradition to Germany of a Ukrainian national suspected of blowing up Nord Stream 2 and released him from custody. And rightly so. The case is closed,” he wrote.
The alleged ringleader of the group, a Ukrainian national named Sergey Kuznetsov, is currently in German custody. However, Ukrainian media claim that the evidence against him is flimsy and won’t support criminal charges. If this is true, then a confession is the only hope that the Germans have of backing up their own conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile, every new revelation and plot twist in the Nord Stream story brings the official narrative closer to the reality: that the attack was not carried out by a group of Ukrainian drunkards, or a rogue military cell, but done with the prior knowledge and likely participation of the CIA and at least one NATO partner. This is why nobody in Moscow takes the Western media’s Kabuki theater seriously: they know who did it, and they’re waiting for the official narrative to catch up.
The summit in Kazan showed Southeast Asia still values Moscow for energy, trade, and strategic balance in an increasingly multipolar world
For years, Western policymakers and media outlets have insisted that Russia’s international position has been irreparably weakened since February 2022. Yet the ASEAN-Russia Summit held in Kazan tells a very different story.
Far from being isolated, Moscow continues to attract partners across the Global South, particularly in Southeast Asia, where governments increasingly prioritize sovereignty, strategic autonomy, and economic pragmatism over ideology.
The Kazan summit, coinciding with the 35th anniversary of ASEAN-Russia relations, transformed what could have been a purely commemorative event into a forward-looking agenda focused on energy security, nuclear cooperation, trade connectivity, digital development, and regional stability. More importantly, it demonstrated that Russia remains an indispensable actor in the emerging multipolar order.
The adoption of the Kazan Declaration, the Comprehensive Plan of Action for the ASEAN-Russia Strategic Partnership (2026-2030), the Joint Statement on Energy Cooperation, and the Joint Statement on Cultural Cooperation provided a roadmap for expanding cooperation well beyond traditional diplomatic engagement.
ASEAN-Russia relations are built on mutual respect for sovereignty and a shared preference for a balanced international order.
For many Southeast Asian states, the central challenge of contemporary geopolitics is preserving strategic autonomy amid intensifying competition between major powers. ASEAN members have consistently rejected pressure to choose sides in global rivalries. Instead, they seek diversified partnerships that maximize national interests while minimizing external dependence.
Unlike many external actors, Moscow does not seek to export political models or impose ideological conditions on cooperation. Instead, it offers practical partnerships in areas directly linked to national development: energy, infrastructure, agriculture, security, science, and technology.
In Kazan, ASEAN and Russia reaffirmed support for a just multipolar world, respect for international law, and the principle of ASEAN centrality in regional affairs. The declaration also emphasized strengthening security dialogue, expanding economic cooperation, and enhancing connectivity across the wider Asia-Pacific and Eurasian spaces – all pillars of a more balanced regional order.
Energy security: The foundation of future cooperation
If one theme dominated the summit, it was energy. Southeast Asia is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world, and its energy demand is expected to rise dramatically over the coming decades. Ensuring reliable and affordable energy supplies is therefore essential for economic growth, industrialization, and social stability.
Russia is uniquely positioned to contribute. The summit recognized Russia as a leading energy partner with expertise across both traditional and emerging energy sectors. Cooperation is already expanding in natural gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), renewable energy technologies, and energy-transition initiatives.
Several ASEAN countries have intensified LNG cooperation and supply discussions with Russia, including Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These arrangements not only diversify regional energy sources but also strengthen energy security by reducing excessive dependence on any single supplier or market.
The long-standing Vietnam-Russia energy partnership remains the most advanced example. Decades of successful cooperation through the Vietsovpetro joint venture have created a foundation of trust that few international energy partnerships can match. Russian LNG exports to Vietnam continue to expand, while new projects promise to deepen the relationship even further.
Nuclear power and strategic development
Perhaps the most significant outcome of the summit was the elevation of nuclear cooperation to a flagship area of engagement.
As Southeast Asian economies continue to grow, many governments are recognizing that achieving energy security and decarbonization simultaneously will require nuclear power. Russia possesses one of the world’s most advanced civilian nuclear industries and extensive experience in international nuclear partnerships.
This was highlighted by the agreement signed earlier this year between Russia’s Rosatom and Vietnam concerning the Ninh Thuan-1 nuclear power project. The project symbolizes a broader trend: ASEAN states are increasingly willing to explore nuclear cooperation with Russia as part of their long-term development strategies.
For many developing countries, nuclear energy is not simply an energy issue. It is a question of technological sovereignty. Countries that master advanced energy systems gain greater control over their economic futures, industrial competitiveness, and strategic resilience. Russia is willing to share expertise, train specialists, and support long-term infrastructure development.
Building a more balanced security architecture
Russia and ASEAN increasingly view their cooperation as a stabilizing factor amid growing geopolitical turbulence in the Asia-Pacific. The summit reaffirmed commitments to security dialogue through ASEAN-led mechanisms, including the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus.
The emphasis was not on military blocs or confrontation. Rather, it focused on creating a balanced security architecture capable of addressing both traditional and non-traditional threats.
The agenda included maritime security, protection of critical infrastructure, biosecurity, counterterrorism, cyber threats, and transnational crime. Such issues cannot be effectively addressed through zero-sum geopolitical competition.
Russia’s role here is particularly valuable because it contributes to regional equilibrium. A stable Asia-Pacific requires multiple influential actors capable of preventing excessive concentration of power. ASEAN’s support for a diverse and inclusive regional architecture reflects precisely this logic.
Economic sovereignty in a changing world
The Comprehensive Plan of Action for 2026-2030 places political-security cooperation first, followed by economic cooperation and socio-cultural cooperation. This reflects an understanding that strategic trust must underpin sustainable economic growth.
A key area of future cooperation involves transport corridors, logistics networks, digital platforms, and financial settlement mechanisms. These projects aim to improve connectivity between Southeast Asia and the wider Eurasian region.
Equally important is the gradual shift away from excessive dependence on the US dollar. From the Russian perspective, expanding settlements in national currencies enhances economic sovereignty and reduces vulnerability to external political pressures. By 2025, approximately 85% of Russia’s foreign trade was serviced in rubles or BRICS-related currencies, compared with more than 75 percent conducted in G7 currencies in 2021.
For ASEAN countries, currency diversification is a way to create options. Strategic autonomy in the 21st century increasingly requires financial flexibility as well as political independence.
The summit’s support for stronger engagement between ASEAN and organizations such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and potentially BRICS reflects this broader effort to create a more interconnected and resilient economic landscape.
The summit was co-chaired by Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., a leader generally viewed as maintaining close ties, and expending security cooperation, with the US. Yet despite those relationships, Manila actively participated in strengthening engagement with Moscow.
For Southeast Asian governments, relations with Russia and relations with the US are not mutually exclusive. The region thinks in strategic diversification, not bloc politics.
ASEAN states increasingly reject the notion that partnership with one major power requires hostility toward another. Instead, they pursue a pragmatic foreign policy based on national interests.
The participation of leaders with diverse geopolitical orientations demonstrated that Russia remains a partner with whom countries across the region are willing – and eager – to engage.
Multipolarity becomes reality
The Kazan summit illustrates a fundamental shift in international politics. The emerging world order is taking shape through networks of sovereign states seeking diversified partnerships, balanced diplomacy, and greater freedom of action.
After 35 years of cooperation, the Russia-ASEAN partnership is entering a new phase characterized by deeper economic integration, expanded energy cooperation, stronger security dialogue, and growing institutional connectivity across Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific.
Russia is not isolated, ASEAN is not interested in choosing sides, and the future of international relations belongs increasingly to those willing to defend sovereignty while embracing mutually beneficial cooperation.
SCO countries should develop their own digital resources rather than depending on foreign tech giants, a Digital Development Ministry official has said
Russia is urging members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to develop their own digital platforms to reduce dependence on Western media giants.
The SCO comprises China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus.
Speaking at an SCO media forum in Kyrgyzstan on Friday, Russian Digital Development Ministry official Ekaterina Larina said Western platforms have amassed “huge influence” over global audiences which could be used to shape public opinion and information flows.
“All SCO countries one way or another enter negotiations with global platforms, trying to reach certain agreements on rules,” Larina said. “But an important area in ensuring information security remains the development of our own resources and platforms.”
Moscow has long argued that states should exercise greater sovereignty over their national information spaces and reduce dependence on foreign-controlled digital infrastructure.
The forum, organized by Kyrgyzstan’s Ministry of Culture, Information, and Youth Policy, brought together around 100 delegates from SCO member states, including government officials, media executives, digital platform representatives, and industry experts.
Addressing the participants, Kyrgyz Culture Minister Mirbek Mambetaliev called for closer cooperation among SCO media outlets, saying stronger ties could help create a shared information space based on trust and partnership.
The event features discussions on media digitalization, the use of artificial intelligence in journalism, and the growing role of online platforms in shaping news consumption. Participants are also expected to explore joint media initiatives and broader cooperation as digital technologies continue to transform the global information landscape.
Entrar
