The war against Iran, launched by the United States and Israel six months ago, was conceived as a lightning campaign against a weakened and already battered enemy.

As far as is currently known, the immediate trigger was the unrest that swept Iran in January, which appears to have convinced the Israeli and American leadership that the government in Tehran was teetering on the brink of collapse and required only a final push.

At the beginning of the campaign, Donald Trump confidently predicted that the war would last a month or six weeks, and sometimes suggested it could be over even sooner. Instead, it’s become one of the defining events of the 21st century and its long-term consequences may ultimately prove comparable to those of the September 11 attacks or Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, and perhaps even surpass them.

Among the most important consequences is the damage inflicted on the United States’ position as the principal guarantor of security for the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, a role Washington gradually assumed after the Second World War, initially alongside Britain and later largely on its own.

The war has exposed two fundamental weaknesses in that first, the United States has proved unable to protect the oil infrastructure and essential services of the Gulf monarchies from devastating attacks by a middle-ranking power such as Iran, and second, it has failed to guarantee freedom of commercial navigation in strategically important waters against attacks by Iran and its Houthi allies in Yemen.

The scale of the American commitment in 1990 illustrates how much has changed.

To defend Saudi Arabia and defeat Iraq, the United States concentrated about 540,000 troops in the region, roughly a quarter of the active-duty strength of the US armed forces at the time. Seven of the Army’s 18 active divisions and two of the Marine Corps’ three divisions participated, while six of America’s 15 aircraft carriers were deployed, along with approximately 1,600 of its 6,500 combat aircraft.

Desert Storm was ultimately an overwhelming American victory achieved at remarkably low human cost, but American planners didn’t know beforehand that casualties would be so limited. Pre-war estimates envisaged as many as 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 to 7,000 dead, but despite those projections and substantial opposition in Congress, President George H.W. Bush and his administration went ahead.

The contrast with today is amazing as the United States is no longer capable of assembling anything resembling its 1990 force in the Middle East. Around 50,000 American personnel have been deployed for the current operation against Iran, supported by approximately 300 aircraft and just over 20 warships, including two aircraft carriers.

There has therefore been a radical decline in the resources the leading Western power can mobilize to defend what it regards as vital global interests, as well as in its ability to draw upon allied military power.

Curiously, this has happened without a comparable decline in America’s share of global military expenditure, given the United States accounted for roughly 35-37% of world military spending in 1990 and around 33%  in 2025. This discrepancy should encourage greater skepticism about attempts to measure military power simply by comparing defense budgets.

Yet resources are only part of the explanation as more important is Washington’s apparent inability to use effectively the formidable capabilities it still possesses.

The United States undoubtedly retains the technical capacity to inflict a crushing military defeat on Iran and overthrow its government through a sufficiently large joint military operation, even with substantially fewer forces than it deployed against Iraq in 1990, but the obstacle is the price.

Any decisive operation involving a substantial ground component would probably produce many thousands of American casualties, including hundreds, and more likely thousands, of deaths. The political system that accepted such risks in 1990 appears unwilling to accept them today.

The determination to save individual servicemen is understandable, but a military cannot expend resources on that scale to prevent individual casualties while simultaneously fighting a major war intended to achieve decisive strategic objectives.

The same caution is visible elsewhere, seeing as American troops have been kept away from the most dangerous areas, while US warships have operated at considerable distances from the Iranian coast, reducing their effectiveness. Washington has also sought to minimize public attention to its casualties, despite their relatively small number, in marked contrast with its approach during the much more dangerous operations of the early 1990s.

Then there is the financial constraint. The 1990-91 Gulf campaign cost the US budget about $64 billion, or around $120 billion when indirect costs are included. Adjusted for inflation, that would exceed $300 billion today. By mid-July, the current operation against Iran had already cost approximately $37 billion. The total is now likely between $40 billion and $50 billion, even though the campaign has failed to produce the decisive result originally envisaged.

The lesson is therefore more complicated than the simple claim that American military power has disappeared because the United States retains enormous military and financial resources. What’s changed is its ability to concentrate those resources, mobilize allies, and accept the human and financial costs required to achieve decisive political objectives.

Desert Storm demonstrated what American military supremacy looked like at its height, but the war against Iran is revealing something very different, a superpower that can still inflict enormous damage, but increasingly struggles to convert its military superiority into the political outcomes it seeks.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

India’s federal anti-terror agency will interrogate a Ukrainian and an American who were arrested in March for allegedly entering the country’s restricted areas without permits, and crossing over into neighboring Myanmar to provide training to armed groups.

A Delhi court on Monday allowed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to interrogate Ukrainian Viktor Kaminskyi and American Matthew VanDyke on September 2 and 3.

Both men are currently in Delhi’s Tihar jail. The two, along with five other Ukrainians – Petro Hurba, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv, and Maksim Honcharuk – were arrested from three different cities while trying to fly out of the country.

It is not immediately clear why the NIA is interrogating only two from the group. The agency earlier recorded voice samples of all the arrested individuals.

Soon after their arrest, Ukraine rejected “any insinuations regarding the possible involvement of the Ukrainian State in supporting terrorist activities” and demanded that India release its nationals.

The NIA earlier reportedly found evidence that multiple consignments of drones from Europe were delivered by the accused to individuals and groups in the northeastern Indian state of Mizoram, where they crossed into Myanmar.

Libya’s rival political and military institutions have signed a UN-backed roadmap aimed at holding presidential and parliamentary elections within 24 months. The move comes after 15 years of instability triggered by the NATO-backed uprising that overthrew longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi.

The agreement was signed on Sunday at the headquarters of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) in Tripoli, following several rounds of talks that concluded in Tunisia’s capital, Tunis, on August 20. The talks involved two representatives from each of four major institutions: the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU), the High Council of State, the eastern-based House of Representatives, and the Libyan National Army.

Walid Ellafi, the unity government’s minister of state for political affairs, said the elections would be held “within a period not exceeding 24 months” under a single executive authority and unified national institutions. The roadmap seeks to resolve longstanding disputes over electoral laws and reform the national election commission. Shibani AbuHamoud, head of the army delegation, said the participants would work with UNSMIL to establish an implementation mechanism within one month.

The deal is the latest in a series of attempts to end Libya’s political deadlock. The North African nation descended into conflict following the NATO-backed uprising that ousted Gaddafi in 2011. The country split between rival eastern and western administrations in 2014.

The latest roadmap states that military personnel “shall be permitted to participate in the presidential election as candidates and voters.” Dual nationals would also be allowed to run, although a successful candidate would have to renounce any foreign citizenship before taking the constitutional oath.

The plan would also eliminate a mandatory second round when a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, require presidential hopefuls to secure 20,000 endorsements from across Libya, and remove the existing linkage between presidential and parliamentary election results.

On September 1, 2004, during celebrations marking the first day of the school year, a group of Islamist terrorists occupied Beslan’s School No. 1 in the Caucasus region of Russia, and captured over 1,100 hostages, including students, their families, and teachers.

After three days of tense negotiations, during which 26 women and children were released, Russian special forces had to storm the building in an emergency operation after explosions were heard inside the school, which had been rigged to detonate by the militants. The Beslan terrorist attack claimed the lives of 334 people, including 186 children, 17 teachers and school staff, ten FSB officers, and two rescue workers.

Russia spent decades fighting the Islamist threat from the 1990s to late 2010s and refining its prevention mechanisms. Indeed, President Vladimir Putin was the first to call his US counterpart on September 11, 2001.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Ukrainian attacks have killed more than 8,000 civilians and injured almost 20,000 more, according to Rodion Miroshnik, who leads the Russian Foreign Ministry mission tracking Ukrainian war crimes. At least 266 civilians, including seven children, were killed in Ukrainian attacks in the first 90 days of 2026, and 1,459 others were injured, according to Miroshnik’s estimates.

Tragedy on New Year’s Eve

On December 30, 2023, Ukrainian forces bombarded the Russian city of Belgorod, located around 40 km from the border, using multiple-launch rocket systems. The shelling targeted a popular city mall that traditionally held festive events on New Year’s Eve. The strike claimed the lives of 14 people, including two children, and left 108 people, among them 15 children, injured.

Crocus City Hall

The 2024 massacre, second only to the Beslan attack in its tragic scale, saw four armed men opening fire on concertgoers in a music venue that was filling with around 3,000 people ahead of a show by the rock band Picnic.

The terrorists tried to flee toward the Ukrainian border before being intercepted and captured by Russian law enforcement.

Dark holiday season

On January 1, 2026, a cafe and hotel in Khorly, a Black Sea village in Kherson Region, were struck by three Ukrainian drones, including one carrying an incendiary mixture, during New Year’s celebrations. The strike killed 29 people and left more than 50 injured. According to the local authorities, the venue was scouted by a reconnaissance UAV before the attack.

Horror at hospital

On March 12, 2026, Ukrainian forces struck a medical facility in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). According to Russian officials, the attack targeted the grounds of a medical center housing more than 130 patients and around 50 medical personnel. Eight medical workers were killed and ten people were injured in the strike.

Starobelsk ‘We will never forget’

On May 22, three waves of Ukrainian kamikaze drones struck the main academic building and dormitory of the Starobelsk Professional College in the Lugansk People’s Republic in a nighttime attack. As a result, 21 students – some just 18 years old – were killed and around 60 people were injured.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last week that Moscow will “never forget and will seek justice for [Ukrainian leader Vladimir] Zelensky’s bloody terror attack in Starobelsk.”

‘Monstrous crime’

On June 17, 2026, a Ukrainian drone struck a bus carrying a Belarusian youth soccer team in Bryansk Region, Russia. The attack killed the coach’s wife and injured several other passengers, including children.

Belarus described the attack as a “monstrous crime,” which President Alexander Lukashenko called a deliberate provocation. Kiev denied responsibility, while Zelensky threatened Minsk, demanding that Belarus dismantle alleged drone relay stations near the border and warning that Kiev would destroy them if Belarus failed to act.

Deadly drone raid

The attack claimed the lives of 13 people and forced nearly 80 to request medical assistance. Nearly 30 people were hospitalized. Russia’s Investigative Committee said one of the civilians killed was a minor. The agency has designated the Ukrainian attack as an act of terrorism, stressing that the targeted locations “had nothing to do with military activities.”

Christian schools in Jerusalem have been forced to indefinitely delay the start of the new academic year after Israeli authorities failed to renew entry permits for more than 70 teachers and staff living in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinians holding West Bank IDs generally require Israeli-issued permits to cross checkpoints into East Jerusalem. But Israeli authorities failed to renew entry permits for more than 70 teachers and staff “suddenly and without prior notice,” the General Secretariat for Christian Educational Institutions in Jerusalem said in a press statement shared with the media on Monday.

“Accordingly… it has been decided to suspend school attendance in the schools of the city of Jerusalem beginning Tuesday morning, 1 September 2026, until the necessary permits for teachers and staff are reissued and renewed,” the Secretariat said.

The dispute comes amid wider concerns about the treatment of Palestinians and Christians in Israel and the occupied territories.

In early August, Democratic US Senator Chris Van Hollen demanded the resignation of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, accusing him of failing to protect American citizens and interests and criticizing his response to mounting violence in the West Bank, including attacks on Palestinian Christian communities.

In April, an IDF soldier was filmed smashing a Jesus statue with a sledgehammer in the Lebanese town of Dibil while another soldier photographed the act, as Israeli forces occupied the surrounding area. The incident triggered a global scandal and prompted a military investigation. The two soldiers were removed from combat duty and sentenced to 30 days in military detention.

Christian churches, clergy and nuns in Jerusalem have also faced harassment. Six religious Jews, five of them minors, were arrested after spitting and banging on the entrance to the St. James Monastery in the city’s Armenian Quarter and throwing stones at the compound wall in early August. This came just months after an Israeli man violently assaulted a French nun on Mount Zion, leaving her with a head injury.

According to the Religious Freedom Data Center (RFDC), a Jewish-Israeli watchdog organization, reported anti-Christian harassment more than doubled in the second quarter of 2026, with spitting attacks accounting for the majority of cases.

US President Donald Trump welcomed the presence of a senior Russian delegation at the G20, ignoring protests from EU officials who refused to appear alongside Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov in the gathering’s traditional “family photo.”

Siluanov arrived in Asheville, North Carolina for the two-day meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors on Monday at the invitation of the Trump administration. His first in-person appearance at the forum since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 immediately drew protests from European delegates.

German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil called the decision to treat Siluanov as a regular participant a “troubling” signal. Other EU officials reportedly threatened to boycott the photo unless the Russian official was excluded, according to the Washington Post.

Trump brushed aside the criticism when asked about Siluanov’s visit.

“We’re going to see what happens, but we like getting along with everybody,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “One of the reasons that I’m so successful, I get along with everybody.”

US officials said Bessent also raised Trump’s plan for settling the Ukraine conflict and prospects for bilateral economic cooperation and growth. Other reports suggested that the US side made it clear that it would not offer Moscow economic relief or agreements in other areas before the hostilities end.

Siluanov took part in G20 discussions on the global economy, economic growth, and sovereign debt. He warned that “geopolitical fragmentation” is increasingly obstructing the free movement of goods, capital, and technology, while pointing to automation, AI, and import substitution as emerging drivers of Russian growth.

The US president has taken the same approach toward the G20. In April, he said it would probably be “very helpful” if Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the leaders’ summit in Miami in December.

“I’m of the opinion that you talk to everybody,” Trump said at the time. “I’m somebody that believes in talking.” The US subsequently invited Russia to the summit. Moscow accepted the invitation, while leaving open who will represent the country.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has dismissed as “garbage” a New York Times report alleging torture and abuse of detained deportees, accusing the newspaper of spreading false claims about federal immigration enforcement.

In a report published on Sunday, the Times said it interviewed ten people deported from the US to Liberia and Equatorial Guinea, several of whom said they had no ties to the African countries. They alleged physical abuse, harsh restraints and degrading treatment while in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In comments provided to the newspaper before publication, DHS disputed several of the allegations, saying detainees receive comprehensive medical care and rejecting claims that migrants were denied bathroom access or abused during deportation flights.

Following publication, the department went further, dismissing the report as another “hoax” and describing it as “garbage.”

Another day and another hoax about ICE detention from the @nytimes. The media is clearly desperate for these false allegations to be true.

NO ONE is being tortured, denied medical care, or beaten in ICE detention facilities.

Make no mistake: this type of GARBAGE being peddled… https://t.co/C0B868THrr

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) August 30, 2026

“NO ONE is being tortured, denied medical care, or beaten in ICE detention facilities,” DHS said on X, adding that “the media is clearly desperate for these false allegations to be true.”

The department also accused such coverage of fueling hostility toward immigration officers. It said assaults on ICE personnel increased by more than 1,300% between 2024 and 2025, while death threats against officers and their families surged by 8,000%.

ICE has faced mounting scrutiny during US President Donald Trump’s second term as his administration has expanded arrests and deportations as part of what it has billed as the largest immigration crackdown in US history.

The campaign has triggered nationwide protests and legal challenges, with detainees and advocacy groups accusing ICE of excessive force, poor detention conditions, and inadequate medical care.

At least 52 people died in ICE custody during the first 500 days of Trump’s second term, according to a June report by Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights.

DHS has denied that abuses are systemic and has repeatedly accused politicians and media outlets of demonizing immigration enforcement, including by comparing ICE agents to historical secret police and other authoritarian organizations.

The EU has placed ChatGPT, Reddit, and Roblox under the strictest tier of its online regulations, giving the US-based services four months to comply with rules denounced by Washington and leading tech figures as censorship.

The European Commission on Monday designated ChatGPT a Very Large Online Search Engine (VLOSE), while Reddit and Roblox were classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) under the Digital Services Act (DSA). All three reported at least 45 million average monthly users in the EU, crossing the threshold for heightened oversight.

They now have until the end of December to comply with additional requirements, including assessing and mitigating “systemic risks” linked to illegal content, minors, users’ physical and mental well-being, fundamental rights, elections, and public security. Violations of the DSA can carry fines of up to 6% of a company’s annual global turnover.

None of the three companies has publicly challenged the designation. OpenAI and Reddit said they were preparing to comply with the new requirements, while Roblox pledged to continue working “constructively” with Brussels.

The DSA and its competition-focused sister law, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), have become a major source of friction with Washington. US President Donald Trump has ordered officials to scrutinize EU digital rules that could force American companies to moderate content in ways that “undermine freedom of speech and political engagement.”

Telegram founder Pavel Durov has similarly accused the EU of using the DSA to expand censorship. In April, he argued that Brussels is using sympathetic Soros-backed NGOs and media to justify increased online surveillance and restrictions, warning that these campaigns are being used to “take away what’s left of our freedoms.”

The Pentagon has secretly hired conservative military veterans with a large social media following for undisclosed government roles, The Washington Post reported on Sunday. The influencers have promoted US War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s views while attacking critics of the Trump administration, the newspaper claimed.

The report comes amid President Donald Trump’s push to eliminate what his administration calls “woke” ideology from the military and his longstanding clashes with mainstream media.

According to the Post, those hired include retired Air Force Colonel Rob Maness and retired Army Colonels Kurt Schlichter and Thomas Anderson. Some of their assignments could influence policy, the newspaper claims, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

All three have reportedly received official civilian email accounts and been assigned to the office of Pentagon personnel chief Anthony Tata. His team has been tasked with addressing “culture-war issues,” including reviewing military colleges for “woke” ideology, according to the Post.

The newspaper goes on to cite a late August dispute involving conservative influencer Jennica Pounds as an example of the Pentagon’s social media efforts.

The Pentagon tightened press access rules last September as part of a broader crackdown on unauthorized disclosures following reports of turmoil inside the department. It has also reportedly considered using lie detector tests to identify officials leaking information.

Earlier this month, Trump lashed out over reports that the war on Iran had significantly depleted US stocks of critical missiles and air defense interceptors, insisting no shortage existed.

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long term jail sentences will be sought!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

US President Donald Trump has vowed to “hit Iran hard” following Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on US military installations in Jordan, raising the prospect of another round of escalation after a month-long lull in direct fighting.

Iran fired ballistic missiles and drones at US military positions after US forces struck Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said its attack targeted the King Hussein and Al-Azraq air bases in Jordan in retaliation for the US strike, which Tehran said killed two Iranian soldiers and a civilian and injured several others.

“There will be a response,” Trump told Fox News reporter Trey Yingst by phone on Monday. “We’re going to hit them hard.”

Despite threatening further military action, Trump suggested that negotiations remain possible. “They want to meet so badly,” he told Fox. “The sanctions are kicking in really strongly.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran is “not looking for war” but would deliver a “decisive response” to further attacks.

Trump and senior US officials were already considering a plan for periodic strikes on Iranian military capabilities around the Strait of Hormuz before the latest exchange, Axios reported, citing three US officials.

The renewed military threats come after the Trump administration shifted much of its pressure campaign toward economic measures, launching an “economic onslaught” against Iran’s trade partners under Operation Economic Outcast.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that Washington plans to roll out new secondary sanctions every week against foreign banks and companies that continue doing business with Iran, warning allies and rivals alike that they could be cut off from the US financial system.

“You’re either with us or you’re with the Iranians,” Bessent said, adding that Washington is prepared to use “financial violence if we have to.”

A monument to world-famous 19th-century Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky has been reinstalled in the eastern German city of Dresden after spending around a year in storage. The ceremony was attended by Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev, who thanked the city authorities for their commitment to preserving cultural and humanitarian ties between the two nations.

Initially unveiled in 2006 during a ceremony attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the monument was installed on the bank of the Elbe River near the regional parliament building. In 2025, it was removed because of nearby construction work.

The city authorities then decided to move it to a new location, and the monument was reinstalled near the Russian Orthodox Church of St. Simeon of the Wonderful Mountain in the southern part of the city on Saturday.

The ambassador thanked Saxony’s regional government and the city authorities for bringing the monument back amid tense relations between Moscow and Berlin.

Cultural ties “should remain a bridge, a space for dialogue between societies, academic communities, cultural institutions, and individual citizens,” the diplomat added in a statement issued on the occasion. Saturday’s ceremony was attended by a group of Russian diplomats, as well as members of the German-Russian Institute of Culture in Dresden.

Russian culture faces pressure in the EU amid the continued hostilities between Moscow and Kiev. Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, several EU member states have canceled events involving performers from Russia and other countries perceived as sympathetic to Moscow or barred Russian artists from participating.

Literature has not been spared in this anti-Russian drive either. In July, Latvia’s parliament approved a ban on Russian books and literature, among other consumer goods, claiming that Russia uses books and periodicals to spread propaganda and maintaining that the EU does not need such materials.

Moscow has repeatedly denounced such measures as “Russophobic censorship,” warning that attempts to “cancel” Russian culture will ultimately fail.

Dostoevsky had a special connection with Dresden, where he lived with his family for some two years between 1869 and 1871 and spent an important period of his creative life working on the novel ‘Demons’. The author’s relationship with Germany was not always rosy, though. Dostoevsky developed a gambling addiction while living in the German spa town of Baden-Baden, which was known for its casinos at the time. In February 1867, he spent over four weeks playing roulette and lost everything, including his wife’s wedding ring. His constant lack of money also forced him to write one of his novels, ‘The Gambler’, in just 21 days.

Critics have also interpreted many of the author’s works, including the world-famous ‘Crime and Punishment’ and ‘The Brothers Karamazov’, as veiled criticism of classical German philosophy, including that of Hegel and Kant, as Dostoevsky rebelled against the idea of rationalizing individual suffering as a sufficient price for historical progress and universal “harmony.”

A knife-wielding woman killed one person and wounded another in an apparently random stabbing attack in Times Square in New York City before being shot dead by police.

The violence erupted at around 4:27 PM on Monday near West 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue, one of the busiest intersections in Manhattan’s tourist district. The suspect, described by police as an “emotionally disturbed” woman, pulled two large kitchen knives from a shopping bag before attacking two passersby, according to an NYPD briefing.

Police said she stabbed a 68-year-old man in the abdomen before quickly turning on a 32-year-old woman and stabbing her in the abdomen as well. Both were rushed to the hospital, where the woman died from her injuries. The man was listed in stable condition.

NEW YORK: Police shot a suspected attacker following a stabbing in Times Square pic.twitter.com/GHT2q3LINK

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) August 31, 2026

The attacker fled toward the NYPD substation in Times Square, where officers confronted her while she was still armed with both knives.

Video from the scene shows officers repeatedly ordering the woman to drop the weapons. At least one officer used a Taser in an attempt to subdue her, but it failed to incapacitate her. The woman advanced toward the officers while brandishing the knives, prompting several of them to open fire.

This lady was running around stabbing people in time square. She straight up stabbed the person in front of me. Shit could’ve been me pic.twitter.com/lYfye4J1t1

— 𝖠𝖴𝖲𝖳𝖤𝖭꩜ (@austen_tv) August 31, 2026

The suspect collapsed at the scene, where officers rendered first aid, and was taken to the hospital. She later died from her injuries.

Footage from the scene showed a heavy police presence as the streets surrounding the area were cordoned off while investigators worked at the scene.

Here's the exact moment a lady charged at NYPD officers with two knives.

Minutes before this took place the lady allegedly stabbed multiple people.

What happened to good citizens these days ? Why didn't someone walk up behind her and hit her over the head with something ?…

— Viral News NYC (@ViralNewsNYC) August 31, 2026

Police have not publicly identified the attacker or her victims. The authorities said the attack appears to have been random and was not believed to be terrorism-related. The motive remains under investigation.

The US has stepped up purchases of Russian fertilizers despite broader Western restrictions on Moscow, with shipments rising by nearly a quarter in the first half of 2026, according to the Russia’s Export Center.

Veronika Nikishina, the center’s head, told RIA Novosti on Monday that the overall distribution of fertilizer exports had changed little since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The US now ranks third among destinations for Russian supplies, she said, while Western Europe remains a larger market despite a decline in shipments this year.

“Sanctions against Russian fertilizers could have devastating consequences because of their importance to global food security. Even hardliners in unfriendly countries understand this,” Nikishina said. 

In 2022, Washington authorized transactions involving Russian agricultural commodities including fertilizers to reduce the risk of shortages. The EU by contrast began imposing additional tariffs on some Russian nitrogen fertilizers in July 2025 as part of its drive to reduce reliance on Moscow, with the levies due to rise to €430 ($500) per ton by 2028.

The US-Israeli war on Iran and the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz have further exacerbated pressure on global fertilizer markets. The waterway handles an estimated third of the world’s fertilizer trade and a fifth of LNG shipments – a key input in the production of nitrate fertilizers. Experts, including Heartland Institute adviser Jeff Stier, have warned that any simultaneous disruption in the strait, the Black Sea, and to supplies from other major producers could trigger shortages of crop nutrients and a delayed food-price shock.

Recently, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow was still waiting for clarification from the US and Türkiye regarding possible arms supplies to Ukraine. Russia expects a response, as this matter directly affects not only bilateral relations but also the prospects for resolving the Ukraine crisis. 

The issue goes far beyond the scope of yet another military-technical deal. In July, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for preventing the spread of the Russia-Ukraine conflict to the Black Sea region and advocated for the continuation of Ankara-mediated negotiations between Moscow and Kiev within the framework of the so-called Istanbul format. Türkiye emphasized that the security of shipping and energy infrastructure is of fundamental importance to it.

The Russian side, in turn, points out an obvious contradiction. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Ankara and Washington, in their contacts with Moscow, stated that they sent Kiev signals about the unacceptability of attacks in the Black Sea. However, Moscow has not received a public or equally strong response from Türkiye and the US concerning Ukrainian drone strikes on commercial vessels and the infrastructure of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium near Novorossiysk. The Russian Foreign Ministry also warned that strikes on infrastructure and vessels used for delivering Western weapons to Ukraine would continue until the security threats in the region of the Azov and Black seas are eliminated.

Leaving diplomatic language aside, the question is very simple: can Türkiye simultaneously supply Kiev with weapons capable of being used against Russian targets and demand that Moscow continue to consider it a neutral intermediary?

The US Congressional Record, published on August 6, shows two notifications about the proposed permanent transfer of American weapons from Turkish stockpiles to Ukraine. The first package includes 12 M270 MLRS launchers, 2,524 M26 unguided rockets with cluster munitions, and 47,000 M509A1 203mm cluster artillery shells. Their initial procurement price is listed at $255.9 million.

The second notification concerns 70 M39 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles with an initial procurement price of approximately $28 million. In total this amounts to approximately $283.9 million. However, it would be incorrect to automatically assume that this is the price of the current contract since the terms of the potential deal between Ankara and Kiev have not been publicly disclosed.

Another point is equally important. The documents do not prove that the weapons have already been transferred to Kiev. They only confirm that the Turkish government proposed re-export, and the US Department of State notified Congress of its readiness to approve it after the statutory review period. Ankara cites the desire to get rid of outdated weapons and redirect funds toward modernizing its armed forces as the reason for the re-export. Kiev, according to the documents, intends to use these systems to enhance its offensive and defensive firepower.

This formulation makes the situation particularly serious. This isn’t about armored vehicles, communications equipment, or individual commercial drones; M39 ATACMS missiles are capable of engaging targets at ranges of up to 165 km and carry cluster munitions. Combined with M270 launchers and thousands of rocket and artillery munitions, this constitutes a comprehensive package of enhanced long-range firepower systems. Its possible use will inevitably entail losses among Russian troops and the risk of strikes deep into Russian territory.

Russian-Turkish relations have never been an alliance in the strict sense of the word. Moscow and Ankara supported opposing sides in Syria and Libya; they hold different views on the status of Crimea, and compete for influence in various corners of Eurasia. Türkiye supplied Ukraine with drones, developed military-technical cooperation with it and consistently supported it. Yet, none of this prevented Russia and Türkiye from building gas pipelines, a nuclear power plant, developing trade, and reaching agreements in areas where their interests coincided.

This format was based on an unspoken rule that competition should not escalate into direct, critical damage to the other side. Strong disagreements could arise, but they remained manageable and were offset by cooperation in other areas.

The proposed transfer of ATACMS missiles, M270 launchers, and tens of thousands of cluster munitions brings Ankara dangerously close to the limits of this model of interaction. This is not a matter of one weapons system, but its purpose, the scale of the package, and the political context.

Türkiye isn’t simply offering to sell Kiev a batch of its own military equipment; it intends to transfer a large stockpile of American weapons intended to enhance Kiev’s firepower in the ongoing conflict with Russia, and is doing so with Washington’s approval.

Against this backdrop, Türkiye’s peacemaking rhetoric is starting to look increasingly unconvincing. Clearly, a mediator doesn’t have to be completely equidistant from the parties, but both sides should be able to trust it, at least on a minimum level. A mediator can’t call for a moratorium on strikes in the Black Sea while simultaneously helping one of the sides expand its weapons stockpiles; it can’t propose Istanbul as a platform for negotiations while strengthening Kiev’s military potential under the pretext of getting rid of outdated weapons.

A familiar argument is being voiced by Turkish experts: Russian-Turkish relations are so deep and multifaceted, they argue, that a single deal can’t destroy them. There’s certainly some truth to that. Neither Russia nor Türkiye want to replay the scenario of the 2015 crisis. Severing ties would be detrimental to both sides.

However, Ankara is drawing an all-too-convenient conclusion that economic interdependence guarantees impunity for any foreign policy maneuver; and this is a dangerous fallacy. The Turkish leadership apparently confuses freedom of maneuver with the absence of a price to be paid for that maneuver.

Russia indeed benefits from the Turkish market, transit routes, and bilateral trade, and this is apparent to all. Türkiye remains an important economic and regional partner for Moscow. However, the dependence of the parties is not symmetrical across all sectors. In recent years, the Russian economy has demonstrated its ability to redirect raw material flows, restructure logistics, and seek new markets. Russia’s size allows it to do this quite well. For Türkiye, however, a sudden reduction in Russian energy supplies, tourism, investment, or access to the Russian market creates a more immediate and concentrated effect. 

In 2025, trade between the two countries exceeded $50 billion. Russia retained a significant advantage in the trade structure: Türkiye primarily imports Russian energy resources and raw materials. That same year, it received approximately 22 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia; despite diversification, the share of Russian gas in Türkiye’s supply remained around 37%. Nearly seven million Russians visited Türkiye in 2025, securing Russia as the top source market for Türkiye’s tourism industry. 

For an economy with an annual inflation rate of nearly 32% (as of July 2026), high borrowing costs, and chronic sensitivity to the price of imported energy, the loss of even a portion of these advantages will not be trivial. It will hit foreign exchange earnings, production costs, the balance of payments, and employment in tourism. The Turkish economy may not collapse overnight, but a significant reduction in ties with Russia will deprive it of several key pillars: stable energy supplies, millions of tourists, foreign exchange earnings, a market, and funding for strategic projects.

For a country already experiencing chronic inflation, pressure on the national currency, and high borrowing costs, this will mean not another temporary downturn, but the risk of a protracted systemic crisis. Ankara will not be able to maintain economic stability for long under such conditions. And this isn’t a theoretical forecast. It didn’t take long for Türkiye to feel the consequences of the 2015 crisis, provoked by Ankara after the downing of the Russian Su-24 aircraft. The crisis brought about a collapse in Russian tourist flows, restrictions on agricultural exports, and business losses, even though the economic interdependence between the two countries was significantly lower then than it is today.

Russia, for its part, is not interested in dismantling relations, but if the delivery of the weapons is confirmed, it has ample tools for selective pressure, from revising trade preferences and tourist flows to tightening the terms of energy cooperation and a tougher stance on issues in which Türkiye requires Russian assistance.

Where is the red line?

Moscow will not react emotionally to Türkiye’s maneuver; that is not its style. A complete rupture in relations would only benefit those who have long sought to eliminate the independent Russian-Turkish communication channel and return Ankara to a disciplined, ‘Western’ line of conduct. The response must be consistent and proportionate.

Until the transfer is officially confirmed, Russia will seek a direct answer from Türkiye regarding several points: whether a final political decision has been made; on the terms and conditions of the re-export; and on the existence of any restrictions on the use of these systems to strike Russian territory. But if the weapons reach Kiev, it would no longer be possible to maintain the previous level of trust. Moscow will cease to perceive Ankara as an acceptable intermediary, will become less willing to consider Turkish interests in regional issues, and bilateral relations will become more rigid and purely pragmatic. 

It’s time for Ankara to soberly assess the balance of risks. Russia is interested in cooperation with Türkiye but it is not irrevocably dependent on it. Moscow will find other routes, markets, and forms of regional cooperation, although such a restructuring will require time and money. For Türkiye, the Russian factor is embedded in several of its most sensitive sectors: energy, tourism, the nuclear project, trade, and regional security. Given the current state of the Turkish economy, the cost of a strategic reassessment of its own capabilities could prove significantly higher than the expected benefits of a deal with Kiev and political rapprochement with Washington. 

This is precisely why the possible transfer of ATACMS missiles isn’t a matter that can be solved by another meeting between the presidents; it’s a test of the entire structure of the Russia-Türkiye relationship. If Ankara crosses the line, Russia doesn’t have to declare Türkiye an adversary – it would suffice to stop treating it as a privileged partner whose actions can always be attributed to regular political balancing. 

Residents of the Kiev suburb of Milaya have accused Ukrainian officials of placing an ammunition depot dangerously close to civilian homes, according to interviews published by The Guardian on Monday.

The military storage site was hit last week during a Russian barrage. The Russian Defense Ministry said the attack targeted a warehouse complex storing components for Ukrainian long-range kamikaze drones used in strikes on logistics and e-commerce facilities in Russia.

Secondary explosions continued for hours after the strike, scattering stored military ordnance around homes just hundreds of meters from the depot, local residents told the British newspaper.

“Those who set up the depot here are to blame. There are people here, this is a village. You can’t keep something like that here,” Vera, 65, reportedly said.

She and her son Sergey spent hours sheltering in a small bunker beside their home as dozens of secondary explosions rocked the area.

“I thought it was humanitarian aid that was stored there,” Sergey told the newspaper.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said an investigation had been launched into the “terrible negligence” that allowed munitions to be stored so close to civilians.

“Another such crime – after what happened in Vishnevoe – is absolutely unacceptable,” he wrote on X on Saturday.

Storing ammunition near civilian housing could contravene international humanitarian law. Under Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, parties to a conflict must, “to the maximum extent feasible,” avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.

Well, what do you know! It turns out that you really can crawl into bed with Brussels on your own terms, and be friends with benefits, all without the need to officially shack up. 
The people of Iceland have just done something that would usually be considered political blasphemy here in Europe. They’ve decided that their country would like to remain in charge of itself, voting 53% to 47% in a referendum not to pursue getting officially hitched to the EU.

It’s a rarity these days to see a show of democracy that’s something other than just a midwife delivering whatever Brussels wants. It even had to be warned by elected officials not to meddle. Icelanders considered just the idea of continuing EU accession talks, which was the subject of this referendum – not even “do you want EU membership or not,” but only “should even we keep playing footsie with Brussels over it” – and decided that they didn’t need a ring on their finger in order to keep their toothbrush in Brussels’ bathroom.

Iceland already has access to the European common market through the European Economic Area (EEA). What else could it possibly gain from greater submission to Brussels that would actually make it worth surrendering any more of its autonomy?

Much has since been made of comparisons to the UK and Brexit, arguing that Iceland’s inclusion in the EU’s common market isn’t true independence and that if it were, then the UK wouldn’t have needed to withdraw from the EU entirely. But they’re comparing a bitter post-divorce Brexit deal with a country being wooed. Do you treat your ex-wife like your new girlfriend?

So basically, they’re saying, “Why would we voluntarily make ourselves less capable of deciding what happens here?” It probably doesn’t much help that the EU has developed a real talent for taking relatively straightforward questions and feeding them into a regulatory meat grinder to the point where nobody remembers what the original issue was.

Take packaging, as a recent example. Everyone voted on this nonsense requiring reusable containers for take-out in the same way that you have to show up to the supermarket with a reusable bag, or else risk having your groceries tumble out of your arms and into the crosswalk en route while returning home. (And forget about using a car, Earth-killer.) I guess nobody thought through what would happen once the measures actually took effect. Because the EU Commission, which drafted the nonsense, recently went like, “Wooo, boy! Exactly how high were we when we came up with this one?!” Then it urged member states not to enforce the rules or related penalties. That’s not exactly a compelling way to entice anyone to voluntarily hand over even more authority to these same jokers.

And Brussels understands that Iceland remains useful to the EU regardless. “The European Commission takes note of the outcome of Iceland’s referendum. The Commission respects the choice of the Icelandic people. Iceland remains a close partner of the European Union,” it said. In other words, “You may have declined our marriage proposal, but it’s not the end of our relationship.”

The lesson here is that you really CAN cooperate with the EU without becoming fully absorbed by it, and you can trade with it without transferring every conceivable decision to it, and you can have common interests without having a common political identity that’s decided by bureaucrats, after which countries and citizens are squeezed into it like mental patients into a straitjacket.

Iceland has just proven that there’s a third option that exists between isolation and membership. The congratulations came from global sources as diverse as the populist right and left, and even globalist establishment crony and former US national security advisor John Bolton, who framed it as a rejection of Trump’s invasion-related fear-mongering that risked making Iceland feel insecure enough to run straight into the EU’s arms.

Folks from all sides seem to have actually accepted Icelanders saying no – even the EU, despite sounding as thrilled about it as a rejected guy getting up off his dusty knee, post-proposal. Usually, when people vote the ‘wrong’ way, we’re treated to lectures about misinformation, populism, Russian influence, democratic backsliding, or the possibility that the electorate has simply become too stupid to appreciate the wonderful plan being implemented on its behalf. But Iceland appears to have escaped this compulsory remedial democracy class. She’s just that hot, apparently.

Canada, in particular, should take note before getting too cozy with Brussels, because the EU is so thirsty for its natural resources these days, drooling over its ample natural assets while the mainstream Western press fantasizes en masse about a European-Canadian wedding.

Iceland is now the indisputable gold standard in geopolitical thirst trapping.

Sounds like a good time for the EU to ponder why its regulatory and bureaucratic smooth moves aren’t proving enough to seal the deal when the average citizen actually gets a say.

Last week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, along with the new Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) Mikhail Drapaty, visited a section of the front line in Dnepropetrovsk region. Zelensky stated that this year, the AFU has almost completely regained control of Dnepropetrovsk Region, with only about 10 square kilometers of territory remaining under Russian control.

What is the logic behind this PR campaign? Did the AFU really make progress in this direction? What were the real goals of the Ukrainian operation, and to what extent have they been achieved? We explore all this below. 

The southern sector is the most strategically important part of the 1,500-kilometer-long front. On one end it borders the Dnieper River, while the other end stretches northeast to Pokrovsk, where, as it is generally considered, the central sector of the front begins. 

In 2023, Ukraine’s only strategic offensive took place in this area. The AFU’s aim was to reach the sea and cut off the land corridor to the Crimea by means of two decisive blows. If successful, this operation would have radically worsened the situation for the Russian army and, according to Kiev’s plans, changed the course of the conflict. Even though the 2023 offensive failed, this section of the front did not become less important for the AFU. In the spring of 2026, with the aim of cutting off supply routes to the Crimea, the AFU launched a middle strike campaign, particularly targeting the highway located 50-70 km from the front line. These attempts have so far proven unsuccessful.

For Russia, the southern sector of the front is extremely important for three reasons. Firstly, as the front is pushed further north, Ukrainian middle strikes become less effective. Secondly, the capture of the city of Orekhov will pave the way for an advance toward Zaporozhye, a regional center with a pre-war population of over 700,000 and one of the largest industrial cities remaining under Kiev’s control.

Thirdly and most importantly, an advance north from Zaporozhye will allow the Russian army to approach the central sector of the front from the rear, either encircling it or at least significantly disrupting its supply lines.

Last year brought troubling news for the AFU in the southern sector of the front as the defense near the city of Gulaipole collapsed. At the time, all forces were pulled for the defense of Pokrovsk and Mirnograd, while several areas in the south were left with no one to defend them. As a result of the successful campaign of Russia’s East Group of Forces to identify and destroy drone crews, the AFU were forced to abandon approximately 300 square kilometers between the Yanchur and Gaichur rivers without fighting. To restore the front, then Commander-in-Chief Syrsky was forced to curtail the counteroffensive near Pokrovsk and essentially abandon the encircled garrison in neighboring Mirnograd. 

This situation determined the priorities of the 2026 spring-summer campaign for the AFU: the aim was to restore the southern front at all costs, eliminate the threat to Zaporozhye, and push Russian forces as far east and south as possible to relieve strategic pressure on the central sector of the front.

We don’t have any information from the Ukrainian General Staff, so we can only assess the operation’s goals based on indirect evidence. Apparently, the AFU planned two auxiliary strikes in the Stepnogorsk and Uspenovka area to cut off the pincers of the Russian army, which threatened to close in around Orekhov. The main strike, however, was to be directed at Velikaya Novoselka. If it had been successful, the entire defense system of the East Group of Forces from Gulipole to the junction with the Center Group of Forces near Pokrovsk would have collapsed and the Russian army would have been pushed back 30-40 kilometers.

The AFU’s attacks began in the spring and were accompanied by an unprecedented media campaign. The operation was labeled a second counteroffensive, Ukrainian authorities claimed dozens of “liberated” settlements and hundreds of square kilometers of reclaimed territory, and once-respected Western publications churned out articles about a turning point on the front, a heroic Ukrainian offensive that would change the course of the war, and other such nonsense.

However, by mid-summer, news about the AFU’s success on the southern front became less frequent and after Syrsky’s removal, disappeared completely. Instead, news surfaced about the plight of Ukrainian storm troops which, advancing through the gray zone, got stuck there for weeks and even months. It was reported that due to disruptions in aerial deliveries, the soldiers hid in stashes, lacked food, and were forced to drink their own urine.

Online victory over Russians

This information was immediately refuted, both by Ukrainian sources (e.g., by Yuriy Butusov, Konstantin Mashovets, and a Ukrainian soldier with the call sign ‘Muchnoy’) and Western media (for example, well-known German journalist Julian Röpcke). But most importantly, the overwhelming majority of these settlements had recent photo and video evidence of the presence of Russian assault troops. Some were even located in the rear of the Russian army and well beyond the recognized gray zone. 

The discrepancy in cartographic data provided by the Ukrainian and Russian sides is noteworthy. The Russian front line is primarily marked using very conservative methodology: photo and video references. According to certain data, the situation on the ground deviates even more significantly in favor of the Russian Armed Forces.

So what really happened? Then Commander-in-Chief of the AFU Syrsky and the Ukrainian General Staff attempted to adopt the Russian army’s advanced assault tactics, i.e., infiltration by small infantry groups. With drones dominating the battlefield around the clock, such assault duos stealthily penetrate the gray zone and attempt to reach enemy strongholds.

Simultaneously, these strongholds are identified by aerial reconnaissance and destroyed by air and artillery strikes.

On the map, this looks like tentacles that penetrate deep into the enemy’s defenses, gradually creating a numerical superiority in one area or another and forcing the enemy to move FPV drone launch points further back. As a result of this painstaking work, the gray zone gradually turns red, i.e, comes under the control of the Russian army.

As a result of this tactic of semi-encirclement, replicated to a various extent across the entire front, Russian assault groups have been able to penetrate Ukrainian defenses and form a sort of noose around the AFU’s strongholds.

The AFU’s assault duos 

The Ukrainian Armed Forces attempted to adopt the Russian strategy. Assault regiments were formed that reported directly to the commander-in-chief and were supposed to become the main striking force of the Ukrainian army. However, as we know, things did not go according to plan.

The tactics described above do not bring immediate results. The attrition of the enemy’s defenses and the formation of semi-encirclements take weeks, sometimes months, and only in the final stage does quantity begin to translate  into quality: the weakened defense begins to collapse, and the enemy is forced to pull reserves from other sectors of the front, which in turn, results in a crisis. 

The spring-summer campaign of 2026 demonstrated that the AFU are incapable of advancing in any given sector for more than a couple of weeks. The arrows on the first map could have become reality if the Ukrainian offensive had been a) simultaneous, b) continuous, and c) supported by superior forces and resources. Then, and only then, would the assault duos be able to act as a vanguard, a kind of landing force, gradually followed by the main forces. Only under these conditions would the accomplishment of the tactical objective (i.e., taking hold of a particular defensive line) contribute to the strategic objective – i.e, the preemptive exhaustion of the enemy along the entire front or along a long section of it.

Since the AFU possessed none of these capabilities, the assault troops found themselves isolated and ultimately abandoned to their fate in the gray zone. Instead of being the vanguard of the offensive, they became its sole component and therefore were doomed. 

What were the real results of the operation? After all, as we’ve seen, its goal was not to liberate a certain number of villages or square kilometers. The goal was to shift the strategic situation in favor of the AFU at a critically important section of the front and to secure Zaporozhye and their own rear.

What’s next?

The new commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Mikhail Drapaty, has been tasked with holding the Slaviansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, the last stronghold of the AFU in Donbass, at any cost. Two new army groups are being created for this purpose, and the Ukrainian army’s assault units are (once again) being consolidated into the ‘commander-in-chief’s reserve’.

However, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic won’t solve the AFU’s main problems: a shortage of personnel and the near absence of aviation and artillery. Shifting the main efforts to Donbass could lead to the crumbling of the AFU’s southern front, which is what happened last year. 

The front is already unstable. As of late August, Russia’s Dnepr and East Group of Forces are advancing in seven sectors – something that Syrsky’s assault troops could only dream of. Street battles continue in Orekhovo, the AFU’s main defensive hub in the south.

In previous years, the Russian army achieved its greatest success in October-December, since towards the end of the year the quantity of assault operations finally translated into quality.

We’ll see what happens this time.

Russia is actively seeking to end the Ukraine conflict, President Vladimir Putin told Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Kyrgyzstan on Monday.

The two leaders discussed the Ukraine conflict among other issues, with the Indian prime minister calling for a peaceful resolution to the ongoing hostilities and urging the sides to “move in this direction.”

“Thank you, dear prime minister. That is the way we’re heading for,” the Russian president replied.

Moscow has repeatedly said that it is ready to resume Ukraine peace talks at any time, provided that they are focused on addressing the “root causes” of the conflict, including Ukraine’s plans to join NATO. Russia insists that the conflict has its roots in the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev and subsequent attempts by the new Ukrainian government to suppress the rebellion in Donbass by force.

In a June article for Politico, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow had explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse the Ukraine and Europe security crisis, but the US and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees in January 2022.

Kiev’s Western backers also sabotaged the Istanbul talks between Russia and Ukraine that were launched soon after the Ukraine conflict escalation in February 2022.

Moscow has consistently stated that it hopes to achieve a lasting settlement to the conflict and not simply a temporary ceasefire. Russia is demanding that Ukraine abandon its plans to join NATO and adopt a neutral status, accept restrictions on its armed forces, and formally recognize Crimea and four former Ukrainian regions as Russian territory.

Russia also presented a roadmap towards the final settlement, which involved a ceasefire along the current front line linked to the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from parts of Russian territory they control, an end to mobilization, and an end to Western military aid to Ukraine.

Kiev has repeatedly rejected any proposals put forward by Moscow, while continuing to claim sovereignty over the four former Ukrainian territories as well as Crimea.

India Prime Minister Narendra Modi advocated for a peaceful end to the Ukraine conflict as he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Kyrgyzstan, where the two leaders also dicussed growing ties between the two nations.

Noting that Putin has always kept him updated with details on the Ukraine conflict, Modi said on Monday that India supports all efforts at peace. 

”Any day spent in war pushes humanity backward; one step towards peace brings hope,” he said. “We have to move from endless war to the end of war, which is in humanity’s interest.” 

The conflict is now in its fifth year. At the SCO summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, in 2022, Modi had similarly urged a peaceful settlement of the conflict, stating: “Today’s era is not an era of war.” 

Amid rising Western pressure on India and the Global South to isolate Russia, Modi said national interest has always been the main priority for the two countries in their relationship, and “this will remain our guiding principle in the future as well.”

Always a delight to meet President Putin. Sharing my remarks during our meeting in Bishkek.
https://t.co/cEHwfBsGub

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) August 31, 2026

The Russian president, in turn, cited the growing economic and trade cooperation between the countries. Trade turnover rose 2.6% in the first half of this year, Putin noted. The two nations have set a bilateral trade target of $100 billion to be achieved by 2030. 

India is the second biggest buyer of Russian oil as the Middle East conflict has disrupted oil supplies from the Persian Gulf countries.

”Russian-Indian relations continue to strengthen on the basis of the principles of a special and privileged partnership,” Putin said, praising Modi for his “special attention to Russian-Indian relations and the business and friendly relations that have been established between us.”

The focus areas for the India-Russia friendship remain energy, innovation, space, fertilizers, and people-to-people ties, Modi posted on X after the meeting.

Ukrainian soldiers were likely behind an attack on a monastery near the front during which a monk was killed and two other people were injured, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has said.

The Svyatogorsk Lavra, located in the part of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic that is still held by Kiev, was attacked by men with firearms on August 23. Monastery officials identified the slain monk as Barsanuphius. A junior monk, Gregory, and a refugee, Andrey Kirienko, were seriously wounded and later hospitalized.

In a Facebook post on Monday, the church’s executive secretary, Metropolitan Anthony, said the investigation would be handled by Ukrainian military prosecutors, suggesting that servicemen are among the potential suspects.

”The fact that the case will be handled by a unit, whose jurisdiction includes criminal offenses committed by military personnel, clearly demonstrates whom the investigators are considering as possible perpetrators,” he wrote.

Anthony said it was crucial that the case be investigated “objectively and impartially” and without regard to “political expediency or other ideological factors.”

Russian Orthodox Church spokesman Vakhtang Kipshidze earlier described the monk’s killing as an “expected result of the campaign of lies against the canonical church (UOC), which has been unleashed in the Ukrainian public sphere.”

“The image of the church as an enemy… justifies any violence against it, including murder,” he said. “We are convinced that the fight against faith cannot be won without destroying one’s own humanity and identity as a whole.”

Since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, Ukrainian authorities have labeled the UOC, which has historical ties to the Russian Orthodox Church, a national security threat. Several senior clergy members have been charged with subversive activities, while cathedrals and monasteries have been raided in searches for evidence of alleged anti-Ukrainian conduct.

South Africa’s National Consumer Commission (NCC) has announced a safety recall affecting 2,275 Ford Ranger Double-Cab vehicles produced for the 2026-2027 model year.

According to the consumer watchdog, Ford reported that the side curtain airbags in the affected vehicles may interact with the B-pillar trim when deployed. This could cause the trim to detach and become a projectile, increasing the risk of injury to occupants.

”The affected vehicles were sold nationwide between May 22, 2026 and June 23, 2026 through Ford franchised dealers and were also exported to Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho and Eswatini.”

The commission added that affected vehicle owners should take their vehicles to their nearest authorised Ford dealership for inspection and repair. The remedial work will be carried out at no cost to consumers.

”The NCC will be monitoring this and other recalls to ensure all affected vehicles in South Africa are attended to.”

Last month, the commission confirmed the recall of 314 Nissan Qashqai vehicles over a potential fuel pipe defect that could lead to a fuel leak.

It also announced the recall of 507 Toyota Land Cruiser 300 vehicles and 124 Lexus LX600 models because manufacturing debris in the engine could cause the main bearings to fail, potentially resulting in an engine stall while driving.

The commission urged owners of affected vehicles to visit authorised dealerships for inspections and repairs, which would be carried out at no cost.

First published by IOL

Masked Israeli settlers have attacked and injured an NBC News crew and a local woman in the West Bank, the US broadcaster has reported. The journalists were accompanying a Palestinian family to a home they said they had been forced to abandon because of settler violence.

Attacks by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories have surged since the Gaza war began in October 2023, with the UN recording violence at unprecedented levels.

The latest assault took place on Saturday in the village of Jalud near Nablus, where NBC correspondent Matt Bradley and his colleagues had been speaking to 51-year-old Aida Ahmed Abdullah. Footage shows a vehicle with Israeli license plates approaching before at least three masked men emerged and attacked the group with sticks and rocks.

צפייה חובה! תיעוד מלא של המתנחבלים תוקפים צוות חדשות של ה-NBC בג'אלוד
משחיתים את רכבם, מרביצים להם עם מוטות ופוצעים אותם באורח קל-בינוני. 5 פצועים בזירה.pic.twitter.com/ya9fYWYxMz

— Arbel - ארבל 🟦 (@ArbelReports) August 29, 2026

“They jumped out, beat us, then jumped back in the car,” Bradley said. He was struck twice in the arm and received treatment at a clinic, while other members of the crew were also injured and equipment and a vehicle were damaged. Abdullah was taken for medical treatment.

The UN said in June that more than 1,000 attacks causing casualties or property damage had been recorded this year, averaging six incidents a day – the highest rate since records began.

Palestinian Americans have also been caught up in West Bank violence. Saifullah Kamal Musallet, 20, was beaten to death by Israeli settlers in 2025, while 14-year-old New Jersey-born Amer Rabee was shot dead by Israeli troops. Amer believed his US citizenship would keep him “protected” and “free,” his father Mohammed Rabee told RT.

US lawmakers have accused Washington of failing to secure accountability for Americans killed in the territory. In a letter to the administration of US President Donald Trump this year, senators demanded independent investigations, citing an ongoing “lack of accountability” for their deaths.

More than 20 Western countries have called the project “unacceptable,” warning it would divide the West Bank and undermine prospects for a two-state solution. Arab and Muslim states have likewise demanded an immediate halt. Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are considered illegal under international law.

Russia has repeatedly said a negotiated two-state solution is the only viable path to peace, supporting an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital alongside Israel.

Iran is preparing a more aggressive response to renewed US attacks, and could strike economic targets as well as military sites, University of Tehran professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi has told RT.

His warning comes after Washington and Tehran exchanged direct strikes for the first time since late July, reigniting hostilities following a month-long lull.

US forces struck two Iranian launchers on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, claiming they were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the key waterway. Tehran said the attack had killed and wounded several soldiers and civilians and vowed retaliation.

Hours later, Iran launched missiles and drones at US military facilities in Jordan, claiming to have damaged both infrastructure and fighter jet positions.

Marandi described the renewed US strikes as a “grave miscalculation” on the part of Washington and stated that Tehran will not hold back after the deaths of its servicemen. He predicted that the Iranian response will be “different from what we’ve had before” and include strikes on both military and economic assets.

Marandi linked the shift to Washington’s simultaneous military and economic pressure on Tehran. The Trump administration last week announced what it called an “economic onslaught” against Iran, while oil prices jumped following the latest exchange of strikes.

Iranian officials have also promised a broader military response to further attacks. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran is “not looking for war” but would deliver a “decisive response” to aggression, while the IRGC warned that “every attack will be met with even more devastating responses.”

Watch the full interview with Mohammad Marandi below.

Countries involved directly or indirectly in the transatlantic slave trade have a present-day legal obligation to provide broad reparations for the harm caused, a UN racial discrimination committee has said.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination made the case in General Recommendation 40, published on Monday as the UN marked the International Day for People of African Descent. The document provides a new interpretation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which has 182 state parties.

“States parties must implement comprehensive reparatory measures for people of African descent, covering all aspects of remedies,” the 18-member panel said.

Committee member Pela Boker-Wilson separately told AFP that the findings marked a “paradigm shift” from treating reparations as a historical responsibility to recognizing them as a present-day legal obligation linked to continuing racial discrimination.

The recommendations are not legally binding, but the panel said they carry authoritative weight and could guide courts, governments, and future litigation.

The US, Israel, and Argentina opposed it, while 52 countries, including Britain and all European Union members, abstained. Washington has argued that international law did not establish a right to reparations for conduct that was not considered unlawful when it occurred.

Russia, which supported the resolution, has pledged to back African states seeking reparations from former colonial powers, with former President Dmitry Medvedev arguing that they have “neither legal nor moral grounds” to evade reparatory justice.

On Sunday, Ghanaian President John Mahama told African leaders at a summit in Angola’s capital, Luanda, that reparations, “a topic once considered taboo, is now reshaping global diplomacy.”

“We see the return of looted African artefacts, legislative repeals like France’s Code Noir, and historic acknowledgments and commitments from global institutions,” Mahama said.

India wants to “expand and diversify” its trade relations with Iran, Prime Minister Narendra Modi Prime told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday, while also calling for freedom of navigation and the protection of seafarers amid the Middle East conflict.

”Reiterated our commitment to strengthening India’s long-standing friendship with Iran across diverse sectors,” Modi posted on X after meeting Pezeshkian on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Kyrgyzstan’s capital, Bishkek, on Monday. “We want to expand and diversify our trade basket in the times to come.”

It was the first in-person meeting between the two leaders since the Middle East conflict, triggered by US-Israeli attacks on Iran, began in February. The Indian prime minister’s statement comes amid a campaign launched by the US Treasury Department to isolate Iran economically, building on Washington’s Operation Economic Outcast, a broad effort to sever Iran’s financial links around the world. The Treasury has said it will give countries timelines to shut down Iran-related activity, and entities that fail to comply face potential secondary-sanctions.

India is among Iran’s five largest trading partners, but bilateral trade has declined more than 90% from about $17 billion in 2018-19 to about $1.6 billion in the financial year ending March 2026. Indian exports to Iran are now limited mostly to goods exempted on humanitarian grounds.

Met President Masoud Pezeshkian in Bishkek. Reiterated our commitment to strengthening India’s long standing friendship with Iran across diverse sectors. We want to expand and diversify our trade basket in the times to come.

We had a discussion on the prevailing situation in… pic.twitter.com/qagQy5o108

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) August 31, 2026

Iran and the US traded attacks overnight Monday, the first time in over a month. Modi said he and the Iranian president discussed the prevailing situation in the Middle East, and that “India will continue to support all efforts aimed at ensuring lasting peace.”

Modi also called for safeguarding the freedom of navigation and commerce and emphasized that civilians and civilian infrastructure, including commercial shipping and seafarers, must not be harmed under any circumstances. Ten Indian seafarers have died in attacks on commercial shipping around the Strait of Hormuz since the start of hostilities in February.

Modi also said he looked forward to welcoming Pezeshkian to India for the BRICS Summit in New Delhi in September. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi was also present during the meeting.

The US is preparing to unleash “financial violence” against Iran by rolling out new secondary sanctions every week, with banks first in line, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said. Foreign banks dealing with Iranian funds could ultimately be cut off from the dollar-based financial system.

The renewed economic pressure comes as US and Iranian forces exchanged strikes for the first time since late July.

On Sunday, Washington struck two Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island near the Strait of Hormuz, claiming the Islamic Republic’s forces were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the waterway, which handles around 20% of global crude oil trade. Tehran said several soldiers and civilians were killed. Iran retaliated early on Monday, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claiming “significant damage” to two US military bases in Jordan.

The Treasury chief said he would urge G20 officials to sever economic links with Iran or risk US secondary sanctions themselves. “There can be no leakage,” he said, warning: “You’re either with us or you’re with the Iranians.”

Bessent said Washington plans to target an unidentified bank this week as part of the pressure campaign, warning that the White House is prepared to use “financial violence if we have to.”

The push follows Treasury action on Friday targeting the UAE operations of Banque Misr, Egypt’s second-largest bank. US officials proposed cutting its Emirati branches off from correspondent accounts after claiming they processed around $1.8 billion for companies allegedly tied to Iran’s shadow-banking network between January 2024 and June 2026.

The campaign could put particular pressure on China, Iran’s largest trading partner and leading oil buyer before the war. Beijing has opposed Washington’s secondary sanctions, insisting its trade with Iran is lawful and warning against US measures targeting Chinese entities.

Russia has also rejected the US pressure campaign. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week Moscow “categorically” opposes unilateral sanctions and would coordinate with Tehran and other countries to counter Washington’s latest restrictions.

The Somali and Turkish navies killed 14 pirates during an operation to free a hijacked cargo ship off Somalia’s coast, the country’s Defense Ministry said on Saturday.

The MV Latuf was seized by pirates on August 17 in waters off Jifle in Somalia’s northeastern Nugaal region. Somali forces, working alongside the Turkish Navy, carried out a ten-day operation to regain control of the vessel, according to the ministry. Four boats used by the pirates were destroyed during the operation.

The Cameroonian-flagged MV Latuf has since been returned to the control of Somali forces and resumed its journey. MarineTraffic data shows that the vessel departed Türkiye in late July and was bound for the Tanzanian port of Dar es Salaam.

PRESS RELEASE

The Turkish Navy, working with the Somali National Armed Forces, has freed cargo ship 𝗠𝗩 𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗙 following a 10-day anti-piracy operation off Jifle, Eyl District. The vessel is secure and has safely resumed its voyage.
Full statement below. pic.twitter.com/JdnL7hO5mq

— MoD Somalia 🇸🇴 (@MoDSomaliya) August 29, 2026

The Turkish Defense Ministry commented on the operation on Thursday, saying on X that “the Somali Turkish Task Force Command continues its support for developing Somalia’s capacity to combat terrorism and piracy within the framework of the agreements signed between the two countries.”

🔵🇹🇷 Türkiye supports vessel hijacked off 🇸🇴Somalia

🔸Turkish Ministry of National Defence: "The Somali Turkish Task Force Command continues its support for developing Somalia’s capacity to combat terrorism and piracy within the framework of the agreements signed between the two… pic.twitter.com/bdqS5CdOJp

— Defence Turk English (@Defence_Turk_EN) August 27, 2026

Somalia and Türkiye signed a ten-year defense and economic cooperation agreement in 2024, under which Ankara is helping to build, train and equip the Somali Navy. The deal also covers maritime security and efforts to combat piracy and illegal fishing along Somalia’s coastline.

The latest seizure follows another piracy incident in the region in July. Seven armed pirates hijacked the Tanzanian-flagged fuel and chemical tanker MT Asana in the Gulf of Aden after it left Yemen’s Mukalla port. The vessel, which had 20 crew members on board, was heading to Somalia’s Bosaso when the attackers seized it and forced it into Somali territorial waters near Puntland.

Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Kyrgyzstan on Monday.

The three national leaders will later attend the annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a Eurasian group of nations seeking to improve security and economic ties.

Originally a five-member regional group that included China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan which signed its first agreement in Shanghai, the SCO has since expanded to become the biggest regional organizations for cooperation. It includes ten permanent members, 15 dialogue partners and two observer states.

The group has a range of political, security and economic goals and has been called by its members a key mechanism in transition to a new multipolar world system, replacing the period of US unipolarity that followed the Cold War.

The SCO states say Western nations are engaging in increasingly hostile and disruptive activity as their global dominance slips away, and having a forum where other nations can agree on joint responses to new challenges becomes more important.

This live has now ended.

Nigerien forces have regained control of a strategic airbase in the capital, Niamey, after suppressing a military mutiny that triggered hours of gunfire near the presidential palace, the airport, and other government sites.

The unrest began overnight from Friday into Saturday at Air Base 101, located inside the Diori Hamani International Airport complex. The Nigerien Defense Ministry initially described it as an internal “movement of discontent” involving soldiers who had broken military regulations.

Moscow’s ambassador to Niamey, Viktor Voropayev, later confirmed that Russia’s Africa Corps had helped Nigerien forces suppress the mutiny after the command of Air Base 101 requested assistance.

A group of soldiers at Air Base 101 attempted to detain some of their fellow servicemen before firing at several “sensitive sites” in Niamey, Defense Minister General Salifou Mody said in a statement broadcast by state television.

Heavy gunfire and explosions were subsequently reported around the airport and the Plateau district, which contains the presidential palace, government ministries, and several major hotels. The mutineers reportedly tried to advance on the presidential palace but were repelled by the presidential guard. The signal of state broadcaster RTN was disrupted for more than an hour amid reports that soldiers had briefly entered the premises.

The Defense Ministry said the rapid deployment of the security forces had contained the uprising and allowed the authorities to begin recovering the affected positions. Residents were urged to remain calm and continue their normal activities.

Air Base 101 is particularly important because it houses Nigerien aircraft, Russia’s Africa Corps personnel, and the headquarters of the joint force established by Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso under the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

How was the airbase retaken from the mutineers?

Government forces regained control of Air Base 101 after the remaining mutineers surrendered or were dislodged late on Saturday, according to state media and several international news agencies.

Radio Television du Niger broadcast images of detained soldiers and reported that dozens of those involved had been killed or arrested. The authorities have not released an official casualty figure or identified the alleged organizers.

Russian Ambassador Voropayev told RT that the situation was fully under government control and that the mutineers had been “neutralized.” He described the attacks as coordinated, citing gunfire in several districts and the reported attempt to seize the national broadcaster.

Involvement of Russia’s Africa Corps in the government’s response

Russia’s Africa Corps aided Nigerien forces in suppressing the mutiny after the command of Air Base 101 asked for assistance, Ambassador Voropayev said. Africa Corps personnel subsequently provided ground and aerial support to loyalist forces attempting to recover the base, multiple outlets, including AP, reported.

After the base was retaken, Niger’s chief of the general staff, army chief of staff, and the commander of Air Base 101 visited the Africa Corps base at the airport. They “expressed gratitude to its servicemen for their assistance in suppressing the rebellion,” Voropayev separately told TASS.

The Africa Corps, which operates under the Russian Defense Ministry, has been stationed in Niger since 2024. Its personnel provide training, equipment and security assistance under agreements signed after Niamey cut military ties with France and the US.

How has the international community responded?

Russia expressed solidarity with Niger and pledged continued support for Niamey’s fight against extremists, “including those incited by former European colonial powers.”

Algeria condemned the unrest and assured the Nigerien authorities of its “full solidarity” and “firm support.” Niger said four Algerian Su-30 fighter jets, accompanied by an Il-76 military transport aircraft and an Il-78 aerial refueling tanker, landed in Niamey on Sunday as part of Algeria’s “strategic support” for its military.

Türkiye called for restraint to preserve Niger’s security and stability, saying it would “continue to stand in solidarity with Niger and support its people.”

Egypt called for the preservation of state institutions, national unity and territorial integrity, while Saudi Arabia pledged support for efforts to safeguard Niger’s security, sovereignty and resources.

The AES issued a statement on Saturday condemning the mutiny as a destabilization attempt and reaffirming its “full support” for Niger.

The group, currently chaired by Burkinabe transitional leader Captain Ibrahim Traore, praised the loyalty and courage of Nigerien security forces. It also urged people across its member states to “remain vigilant against disinformation campaigns, manipulation of public opinion and attempts to sow division.”

The uprising represents the most serious reported internal challenge to the transitional authorities since General Abdourahamane Tchiani led the July 2023 military coup that ousted President Mohamed Bazoum.

The failed mutiny also comes amid growing security partnership between Russia and the three military-led AES states. Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have turned to Moscow for counterterrorism support after accusing their Western partners of failing to contain the insurgency and severing longstanding defense ties with their former colonial power, France.

Icelanders appear to have found a way to have their cake and eat it by rejecting a proposal to restart integration talks with the EU, RT’s Rachel Marsden reports.

In a referendum on the weekend, almost 53% of voters in the northern Atlantic nation supported maintaining the status quo rather than exploring the possibility of EU membership.

The small island country already has access to many of the benefits offered by the economic bloc, but cannot be dictated to by Brussels on key domestic policy issues, such as access to fishing resources or immigration policy.

Watch the video to learn more.

Rescue teams in Nepal are still trying to contact the more than 900 people believed to be trapped in hydropower construction sites, six days after a flash flood devastated the country’s northern mountainous region bordering Tibet.

The death toll in Nepal has climbed to 903, the country’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority said Monday morning. It said 4,247 people are still missing, of whom 933 are workers at the various hydropower project sites along the Trishuli river.

Nepali Army rescue teams, aided by specialist teams from India and China, are in a desperate race against time to rescue those trapped in the tunnels in Chilime, Langtang, and Upper Trishuli 3A projects in the Trishuli corridor.

Rescue teams identified the Upper Trishuli 3A Hydropower Project tunnel’s upper arc after working with drilling machines, excavators, and hydraulic cutters for three days and entered it Sunday. But the tunnel is filled with water and rescuers received no response from anyone trapped inside, the Kathmandu Post reported.

The rescuers are trying again after deploying high-pressure water pumps. The remains of one person were retrieved from one of the tunnels on Sunday.

Some 592 foreigners are also among the missing in Nepal. Twenty-two foreigners, from China and India, were rescued on Sunday.

Battle to Rescue People Trapped Inside Tunnel in Nepal Intensifies

pic.twitter.com/I40NRqptYi

— Sanjay-সঞ্জয় (@tflj_by_sanjay) August 31, 2026

”Our country has been facing an unimaginable and heartbreaking natural disaster,” Nepali Prime Minister Balendra Shah said in a social media post late Sunday.

The floods were reportedly triggered by a glacier collapse on the Chinese side of the border, with the Bhote Kashi river flooding and washing away several villages, dams, bridges, and roads last Wednesday.

”For years, scientists and local communities have been warning that the Hindu Kush Himalayas are at huge risk from climate change,” said UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell, who called the disaster “absolutely heartbreaking.”

“We also know a warming climate, driven by humanity burning colossal amounts of coal, oil and gas, is making tragedies like this one, and so many others around the world, much more likely, frequent and severe, with vulnerable communities often hardest hit,” he added.

The threat of flooding still looms over the affected areas. On Sunday, the Trushuli river swelled for a few hours again, washing away a bridge. Rescue efforts were paused briefly on Friday after warnings that a barrier dam had breached on the upper reaches of the Bhote Kashi.

Across the border in China, where the Gyirong border port was buried in mud, officials have reported 16 deaths, and 546 people missing – with 261 of them foreign citizens.

Chinese officials said no foreigners were stranded in the area.

More than 400 Indians crossed over into India from China on Sunday, the Indian Foreign Ministry said.

An Indian team in Kathmandu is conducting DNA analysis to identify the flood victims.

US President Donald Trump has published AI-generated clips showing a missile attack on Iran’s Kharg Island oil hub amid a new escalation between Washington and Tehran.

US and Iranian forces earlier exchanged strikes for the first time since late July. On Sunday, the US Central Command said it had targeted two Iranian launchers on Larak Island, near the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz, which it claimed were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the waterway, accounting for some 20% of global crude oil trade. According to Tehran, the bombing killed several Iranian soldiers and civilians.

Iran retaliated early on Monday, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) saying its drones and missiles had inflicted “significant damage” on the US military’s King Hussein and Al-Azraq air bases in Jordan.

Following the strikes, oil prices went up in early trading in Asia, with WTI futures growing by 2.47% to $85.46 per barrel and Brent futures climbing by 2.71% to $90.49 per barrel.

Trump did not issue any immediate statements on the escalation on his Truth Social platform, instead posting two short AI-generated videos of multiple missiles striking oil facilities on an island and causing huge explosions.

“Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!” the caption to one of the videos read.

When you CANT Win The Real War so you use AI to COPE

Trump posted this video with the caption: Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!
President DJT

THEN he posted it AGAIN without the caption. This is just sad pic.twitter.com/4JbFOxiHkX

— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) August 31, 2026

The head of the National Iranian Oil Company, Hamid Bovard, ridiculed Trump for posting the clips, saying that his “tweets are laughable and conditions in Kharg are calm and appropriate.”

The energy hub hasn’t been attacked, with routine oil operations continuing there, Bovard said, as cited by Nournews.

Located around 25 km (15 miles) off Iran’s Gulf coast, Kharg Island handles around 90% of the country’s crude exports, serving as the primary outlet for its oil revenue. The coral outcrop, often referred to by the public as the “forbidden island” because of the tight security, also hosts a major oil storage facility.

The US struck military sites on Kharg Island several times after the start of the conflict in late February, but refrained from targeting energy infrastructure. Trump also mulled a ground operation to seize the oil hub, saying it could be carried out by US forces or by “other people.” However, those plans never materialized.

Tehran has warned repeatedly that it will set the whole oil and gas infrastructure of the US allies in the Gulf States “on fire” if energy facilities on Kharg island are hit or an attempt to capture it is made.

US President Donald Trump has urged Canadian businesses operating in the American market to relocate south of the border “immediately,” amid an escalating trade war between the two neighboring nations.

The demand follows Trump’s announcement of new 50% tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks, automotive parts, and steel, set to take effect on January 1, in response to what he called Canada’s “unequal treatment” of American vehicles, dairy products, and alcohol. The duties are in addition to 50% levies imposed earlier this month on around $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. Ottawa has vowed to retaliate with “dollar-for-dollar” measures.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump described Canada as “one of the Worst Abusers” in trade, while crediting tariffs with having “revived, and indeed saved” the American automobile industry.

“I don’t want Canadian cars, I don’t want Canadian parts, I don’t want Canadian anything,” he wrote. “They’ve been ripping us off for decades, and it’s going to stop,” he added, describing Canada’s leadership as “the worst” among those he has ever dealt with.

Trade negotiations between Washington and Ottawa collapsed on August 21, with each side accusing the other of making last-minute changes to a proposed comprehensive agreement. The following day, the US imposed 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian products, including wine, cement, plywood, and clothing.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded by announcing duties of up to 50% on around 700 American products, scheduled to take effect on September 8.

Trump dismissed Ford’s threats as “bluster,” branding Canadian leaders “clowns” who needed to “fall in line,” and hit back on Thursday by signing an executive order directing federal agencies to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America” on US government maps, contracts, documents, and communications.

One person has been confirmed dead and around 14 others are feared missing after a powerful flash flood tore through Arizona’s Grand Canyon, forcing dozens of hikers to be airlifted from the remote inner canyon.

The flooding struck Bright Angel Canyon and the Phantom Ranch area at around 2:30 PM on Saturday, sending muddy torrents, boulders and debris surging through Bright Angel Creek and into the Colorado River.

The US National Park Service (NPS) said Sunday evening that the body of a 46-year-old man had been recovered near Crystal Rapids along the Colorado River, around ten river miles downstream from where the flooding occurred. The body was transported to the Coconino County Medical Examiner’s Office, but the victim was not immediately identified.

Some 14 people may still be missing or unaccounted for, down from more than 20 earlier in the day. At least 62 people were evacuated by helicopter from Phantom Ranch and the lower North Kaibab Trail.

At least 20 people unaccounted for after flash flooding at Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona - officials pic.twitter.com/he0VNiRsLd

— BNO News (@BNONews) August 30, 2026

Footage from the area showed swollen brown water roaring through the canyon and carrying debris, while campers described scrambling to higher ground as the water rapidly rose.

update: the number of people unaccounted for after the grand canyon flash flooding has been revised from more than 20 to 15. i also found additional footage posted by david j gregory, one of the hikers evacuated from the canyon, in the grand canyon hikers facebook group. https://t.co/cBff99hTve pic.twitter.com/Hb9K91fDof

— Michael Rusch (@weeddude) August 30, 2026

Nearly all footbridges across Bright Angel Creek were destroyed, while Phantom Ranch, Bright Angel Campground and sections of the North Kaibab Trail were closed indefinitely. The flood also damaged the park’s water pipeline, prompting conservation measures.

NATO is seeking to turn the Arctic into a new “hotbed” of tensions with its active military buildup in the region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned. The bloc’s activities have sowed an atmosphere of distrust and it is risking a potentially dangerous armed confrontation not only with Moscow but with other nations as well, he warned in an article published by Arctic.ru on Monday.

The US-led military bloc ramped up its activities in the Far North earlier this year by launching the Arctic Sentry initiative. The move was touted as a response to US President Donald Trump’s effort to annex the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland on the grounds that it was allegedly under threat from Russia and China.

Both Moscow and Beijing have repeatedly dismissed the accusations, with China arguing that the US was merely using the claims as a pretext for its own military buildup in the Arctic. Russia has also maintained that it would defend its interests in the Arctic, despite having no stake in the feud over Greenland.

“Intensive military preparations are underway in close proximity to our northern borders. NATO is conducting large-scale military exercises involving non-regional countries and introducing new components of its command-and-control system,” the minister said.

Back in February, the NATO nations held drills focused on Greenland and the broader Arctic, involving Swedish and Danish warplanes in particular. In March, the bloc staged a massive military exercise in Norway and Finland – two Nordic nations bordering Russia – involving a total of 32,500 troops from 14 member states.

The troops trained on the territory of both countries, as well as “at sea and in the air,” under “harsh, Arctic conditions,” in what the Norwegian Armed Forces described as the nation’s “largest military exercise in 2026.”

Jan Mayen – a remote volcanic island located 1,000 kilometers away from mainland Norway – is described by the US Naval Institute think tank as a key location in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap – a “chokepoint against entry into the Atlantic Ocean by Russian naval forces” and particularly its Northern Fleet.

“NATO members and other Western countries make no secret of their true motives, openly declaring their intention to turn the Arctic into a new front for opposing the development of Russia and its like-minded partners,” Lavrov said, commenting on the development and warning that such an approach “increases the risk of incidents that could trigger an armed confrontation with potentially disastrous consequences.”

The EU has targeted Russia with numerous rounds of sanctions, including restrictions aimed specifically at its Arctic oil and gas development. The measures were designed to restrict Moscow’s access to technologies required for deep-water drilling and Arctic resource extraction, as well as to limit financing for such projects.

According to an April report by the Institute for China-America Studies, the sanctions have made Arctic cooperation between Moscow and Beijing more complicated, as Chinese companies fear they could be targeted with secondary restrictions if they invest in large-scale joint projects.

Two civilians, including a teenager, were killed and several others were injured in a Ukrainian strike on the Russian city of Belgorod, acting regional governor Aleksandr Shuvaev said on Sunday.

The missile attack struck a commercial facility, causing the roof of one building to collapse and triggering fires at seven warehouses, including a sorting center and delivery hub belonging to the online marketplace Ozon. Firefighters, rescuers, and other emergency personnel continued working at the scene as of Sunday evening.

“A man and a 16-year-old boy were killed,” Shuvaev wrote on Telegram, expressing condolences and urging residents to remain vigilant. “I know that at a time of such a grievous loss, no words can ease the sorrow of relatives and loved ones,” he said, adding that “all Belgorod residents share your pain.”

In recent months, Kiev has intensified its drone and missile attacks on retail warehouses and other civilian infrastructure in regions bordering Ukraine and deeper inside Russia. Earlier on Sunday, Shuvaev said Belgorod Region alone had been attacked 138 times over the preceding 24 hours.

On the same day, four Ukrainian UAVs struck the non-operational Duvannaya coal mine in the Lugansk People’s Republic, causing part of an administrative building to collapse and killing a female lamp-room attendant. The attack occurred on Miners’ Day, an annual holiday honoring workers in the coal-rich region.

Moscow has repeatedly condemned strikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure as indiscriminate terrorist attacks and vowed to carry out “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military-industrial facilities. It has maintained that Russian forces never deliberately target civilians.

On Saturday, Russian forces struck several military-related sites in Kiev and its suburbs, including a facility storing components for Ukraine’s long-range Flamingo cruise missiles.

Placing military targets in densely populated civilian areas is strictly prohibited under international law and is considered a form of using non-combatants as human shields. Following a similar incident in early July, Zelensky and other senior Ukrainian officials pledged to end the practice.

Tehran has launched missile and drone strikes on US military positions in Jordan after Washington attacked Iran’s Larak Island, reigniting direct hostilities following a month-long lull.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said its retaliatory operation targeted the King Hussein and Al-Azraq air bases, claiming to have inflicted “significant damage” on technical and maintenance infrastructure and positions where fighter jets were stationed.

Jordanian air defenses intercepted eight missiles that entered the kingdom’s airspace early Monday, the country’s armed forces confirmed. A US source separately told Fox News that no significant impacts had been reported.

The exchange began on Sunday when US forces struck Larak Island, near the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz, killing and injuring several Iranian soldiers and civilians.

The IRGC vowed that the “aggressors will face definite punishment” and warned that “every attack will be met with even more devastating responses.”

Following the strikes, oil prices went up in early trading in Asia, with West Texas Intermediate futures growing by 2.47% to $85.46 per barrel and Brent futures climbing by 2.71% to $90.49 per barrel.

The renewed fighting marks the first direct US military action against Iran since late July. It comes less than a week after Washington said it had finished clearing sea mines from international shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, where maritime traffic has remained heavily disrupted.

Last week, Washington announced what it called an “economic onslaught” against Iran, as US President Donald Trump’s administration shifted its emphasis from large-scale military action toward economic pressure.

This live has now ended.

NATO is driving the militarization of the Arctic through intense military preparations that pose a direct threat to Russia’s security and increase the risk of direct armed confrontation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

However, other than the members of the US-led military bloc, the overwhelming majority of countries are willing to engage with Moscow on equal and mutually beneficial terms, the top diplomat wrote in an article for Arctic.ru published on Monday.

The sweeping article touched on Moscow’s plans to develop Arctic shipping and maritime logistics along its Northern Sea Route, upcoming international cooperation, and the steady erosion of previous guardrails for multilateral collaboration in the region.

Read the full text below:

On August 19, a landmark event took place in Arctic shipping. For the first time, a container ship from China arrived at the port of Murmansk via the Northern Sea Route, a vital part of the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor. In collaboration with our international partners, this represents the start of a new phase in the development of Russia’s Arctic region, which accounts for at least 10% of the country’s GDP and is home to more than 2.5 million of our citizens. In this regard, I would like to share a number of considerations on how we assess the current state of affairs in the Arctic and how we plan to develop international cooperation there.

Russia and international partners in the Arctic

The Foundations of the Russian State Policy in the Arctic for the Period up to 2035, approved by President Vladimir Putin, focus the efforts of all government bodies on improving the quality of life for the population of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, promoting economic growth in its territories, protecting the environment, and fostering mutually beneficial international cooperation. The latter is of particular importance to the Foreign Ministry, which is entrusted with coordinating functions in relations with foreign countries and intergovernmental organizations. And, I would like to emphasize, the whole range of issues relating to the development of the Arctic zone, maritime logistics and the Northern Sea Route plays an important role in the activities of the Maritime Board of the Russian Federation.

The countries that cooperate closely with us in the Arctic include, first and foremost, China and India. Substantive discussions on Arctic issues take place with Beijing during regular meetings between the heads of government. The specialized bilateral sub-commission on the Northern Sea Route is operational, as are mechanisms for interministerial consultations and scientific exchanges. The results speak for themselves: they include the launch of regular container shipments across Russia’s northern seas, with plans to increase their frequency, and other achievements, including in polar research.

There are prospects for interaction in the Far North with Brazil, Indonesia, Iran and other BRICS countries. We are also ready to develop cooperation with Belarus and other partners and allies in the CIS. South Korea and Singapore should also be mentioned as showing an interest in joint work with Russia in some Arctic projects, notwithstanding their participation in the unfriendly sanction campaign launched by the collective West against our country.

The interest of non-Arctic countries in establishing cooperation with Russia in the High North is reflected in the active participation of foreign guests in symposia and conferences devoted to Arctic issues. Numerous foreign delegations will take part in discussions during special sessions at the 11th Eastern Economic Forum, which opens on September 1 in Vladivostok. Next March, we look forward to welcoming distinguished guests from abroad to the next major international forum of the Russian Arctic, The Arctic – Territory of Dialogue, which will take place in Murmansk.

Challenges affecting international cooperation in the Arctic

Preserving the Arctic as an area of peace and cooperation meets the interests of the entire international community, and Russia is undoubtedly interested in this as well. However, there are those who do not share this point of view. How else can one explain the fact that NATO countries, as well as the Alliance as a whole, are driving the region towards militarization and creating hotbeds of international tension there?

Such military activity in the Far North poses a direct threat to Russia’s security. It also increases the risk of incidents that could trigger an armed confrontation with potentially disastrous consequences.

This deliberate and systematic effort to foster an atmosphere of mistrust in the military sphere is taking place alongside Western attempts to undermine Russia’s legitimate rights in international cooperation through illegitimate financial and economic sanctions targeting legal entities and individuals from countries of the Global Majority involved in joint projects in the Arctic region.

One manifestation of the West’s anti-Russian policy has been the disruption of previously effective mechanisms of multilateral cooperation in the Far North. Some have ceased to exist altogether, while others have largely lost their relevance without Russia’s participation, after Moscow was forced to suspend its engagement with them in response to hostile actions. The Arctic Council, established almost 30 years ago, on September 19, 1996, remains the only functioning intergovernmental organization.

The Council is approaching its anniversary in a shape that is far from ideal. Since March 2022, as a result of actions by its Western member states, its work has effectively been frozen, leaving the organization in a severe crisis. Ministerial meetings and sessions of its key coordinating body, the Senior Arctic Officials, have been suspended, while its capacity to implement projects has been significantly curtailed. The Council’s activities are now largely confined to expert-level contacts and remote meetings of its working bodies.

Russia is ready to resume the full-fledged work of the Arctic Council, provided that all parties engage in good faith and take into account the legitimate interests of every participant. At the same time, we are prepared for the scenario currently being pursued by NATO countries within the organization as they attempt to discuss Arctic issues among themselves, without Russia, thereby effectively discrediting and marginalizing the Arctic Council. Should this scenario materialize, Russia has the territory, logistics, technology, and reliable partners needed to carry out mutually beneficial projects and confidently implement its plans in the Arctic.

The future of international cooperation in the Arctic

A glance at the world map makes it clear that Russia has been, is, and will remain a leading Arctic state. As climate change continues and the polar ice cover recedes, experts predict that the Arctic will become increasingly accessible for transportation and resource development. The region is already playing an increasingly important role in maintaining stable trade links amid more frequent disruptions to global supply chains, particularly in the straits of the world’s oceans that are of systemic importance to the global economy.

In our economic activities, we will continue to proceed from the understanding that the Arctic maritime areas form an integral part of the World Ocean. The provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establish special rights and responsibilities for coastal states in the Arctic, apply there in full. Commitment to these rights and responsibilities was reaffirmed in the Ilulissat Declaration, adopted in 2008 by the five Arctic coastal states – Russia, Denmark, Canada, Norway, and the United States. At this stage, we see no need to develop new international legal instruments governing economic and other activities in the High North.

Russia’s foreign policy in the Arctic will remain comprehensive and pragmatic. We support the Arctic’s development as an integral part of the broader Eurasian space of security and cooperation.

Our current opponents should have learned the many lessons of history by now and understood that attempts to speak to Russia in the language of sanctions and threats are futile. Unfriendly and hostile actions have been and will continue to be met with an appropriate response, including asymmetric measures. Russia favors constructive dialogue in all regions of the world, but, when necessary, we will defend our national interests by all available means.

Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov has suddenly – and rather unexpectedly – become an adviser to Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto. The news caught many conservative military analysts off guard. Why would Italy want him, and what does Rome hope to gain? Let’s try to make sense of the move without getting carried away.

A manager in khaki, not a marshal

It should be obvious that Fedorov is no military genius, nor does he possess any particular talent as a battlefield commander. That is simply not who he is. He was never a career officer, and he never made his name drawing thick red arrows across maps of future operations. First and foremost, Mikhail Fedorov is an effective IT executive – and a knowledgeable chief customer for the entire defense industry.

His path to that role began as the top digital strategist for Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential campaign, where he built an online campaign network and bet heavily on internet marketing. From there, he went on to create Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation and roll out the Diia digital ecosystem, which changed everyday life across the country. In 2026, Fedorov took over the Defense Ministry amid an urgent need to impose order and bring sweeping digitalization to the armed forces. The timing, it seems, could hardly have been better.

• Drone procurement for military units was radically overhauled through the launch of a dedicated marketplace designed to minimize red tape. It was a highly unconventional move that significantly shortened the path from manufacturer to frontline unit while opening up a market for many small and relatively young companies. After drones, the same digital approach began spreading to other parts of the defense industry.

• Agile management methods were effectively brought into military life, breaking down long-established systems of multistage approval and allowing new ideas to be tested quickly under real battlefield conditions – directly in the trenches.

• The military opened its doors to software developed by civilian companies. The emphasis shifted toward finding new and unconventional solutions that could be deployed quickly and deliver results immediately, rather than waiting for lengthy testing reports and reviews by specialized military institutes.

Of course, Fedorov’s role in these changes should not be overstated. Many of the initiatives that reshaped the Ukrainian military began before he arrived at the Defense Ministry. What he brought was a fresh, digital perspective that helped cut some corners and speed up the adoption of new ideas.

There were no combat operations or battlefield triumphs involved. He was a digital-solutions manager who put on a military uniform – focused exclusively on digital systems and a project-based approach to reform. And naturally the process was not without its rough edges. Digitalization remains the only clear success he can point to.

Perhaps that is precisely what Rome needs: not military victories or battlefield credentials, but a fresh, modern approach. That, presumably, is where Italy is placing its hopes. Modern European militaries, including Italy’s, are weighed down by bureaucracy. Decisions on the procurement of new weapons systems and software take years. By the time they are finally approved, technology has already moved on, leaving armed forces to adopt systems that were obsolete before they ever entered service.

Fedorov may well be useful to Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto as a new battering ram against his own conservative military establishment. Rome wants to borrow Ukraine’s experience of rapidly digitalizing military logistics and integrating unmanned systems in real time.

To understand exactly which processes Fedorov may seek to adapt for the Italian military, one need only look inside his “digital briefcase.” It contains no secret missile technology – only commercial software and civilian IT solutions adapted to the needs of a defense ministry.

The Italian military is eager to introduce new digital battle-management systems that combine geospatial tools with hundreds of information sources and a distributed network of users, extending from the General Staff all the way to a frontline commander’s tablet in the trenches. Italy is also naturally interested in digitalizing weapons and military-equipment procurement – and even more so in applying artificial intelligence to military command and control.

It is difficult to judge the results, but on paper Fedorov’s résumé looks highly impressive: experience introducing cutting-edge digital solutions in Europe’s only army currently fighting a major war. That is certainly one way to present it – and why be shy when listing your strengths on a résumé?

A modern army increasingly resembles an IT corporation. Rome does not need Fedorov’s advice on how to defend its coastline or plan an armored offensive. It needs his ability to turn the military into a functioning digital platform.

But let’s take an honest look at the former defense minister’s record. Yes, there was digitalization and digital transformation. It may still be too early to assess the final results, but there have been no major successes on the battlefield – and that, one would think, is what an army is ultimately for and how its performance should be measured.

Then there is the less flattering part of the picture: the image of a petulant child who could not find common ground with career officers and began playing political games in the middle of an ongoing war to increase his own value back home. That hardly seems consistent with the image of a gifted digital manager. Wars, after all, are not won through digitalization alone, but through the coordinated action of different branches and types of forces.

It will be fascinating to see what Fedorov ‘achieves’ in his new job – and whether the spirit of Silicon Valley can take root in the austere offices of the Italian Defense Ministry.

As for the man with the polished résumé and the reputation of a ‘digitalization expert’, a position like this – especially in Rome – offers a splendid opportunity to make a graceful exit from Kiev and trade Ukraine’s brutal political reality for the warm, easygoing comforts of Europe.

Two passenger jets flying just meters above a stadium in South Africa on Saturday have caused a stir on social media, with people describing it as a “near collision” and expressing safety concerns. The maneuver was part of a pre-match show ahead of a rugby game between the South African and New Zealand national teams.

Videos of two Embraer airliners overflying the Cape Town rugby stadium full of people quickly went viral on social networks. Clips ranging from mere seconds to several minutes showed a tight formation consisting of an Embraer E195 and a smaller Embraer E190 wearing black and green liveries with ‘Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry’ written on their hulls flying past the stadium as pyrotechnic smoke was shot into the air.

Some social media posts called the flyby “alarmingly low” while others said the planes came “dangerously close” to the stadium or even “almost hit the roof.” Some people on social media also called the flyover moment “terrifying.” The Flightradar24 aircraft tracker estimated that the two aircraft flew just between 12 and 14 meters above the roof.

A pair of Airlink Embraer E-195s nearly collided with Cape Town’s DHL Stadium while conducting a flyover this afternoon.

The first jet cleared the stadium roof by a few meters, while the second was hit by the stadium pyrotechnics. pic.twitter.com/nJmCGgQT1R

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 29, 2026

The Airlink Airlines – the company that organized the flyby – addressed what it called “concerns expressed in various social media and online forums,” insisting that the flights were absolutely safe and coordinated with the relevant authorities.

“The South African Civil Aviation Authority and Air Traffic Navigation Services provided valuable guidance, approval, and support to ensure a safe flyby,” the company said in a statement on Sunday. According to Airlink, both jets were piloted by “highly experienced” crews, each comprised of three senior captains operating as a commander, co-pilot, and a safety officer. The flights were performed within the “approved and rehearsed safety altitude and speed limits for the flypast,” it added.

📹 Watch These Planes Swoop Incredibly Low Over Cape Town Stadium

Two Airlink passenger planes flew just metres above the stadium roof before the South Africa-New Zealand rugby Test. pic.twitter.com/3VdCdE1WoJ

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) August 30, 2026

According to local media, the stadium flybys were part of a South African rugby tradition dating back to the 1995 Rugby World Cup final when a massive South African Airways Boeing 747 flew over Ellis Park Stadium in Johannesburg at low altitude.

Saturday’s feat came ahead of Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry match – part of a special quadrennial tour series between South Africa and New Zealand. South Africans won the game 33-26.

At least eight people were killed when a ferry carrying more than 200 passengers capsized and sank off the coast of Cyprus on Sunday, the authorities in the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) have reported.

The Mediterranean island has been divided since 1974, with the Turkish Cypriot-administered north recognized only by Türkiye.

The catamaran-type vessel had left the popular holiday resort port of Kyrenia for southern Türkiye when it began taking on water, according to TRNC Public Works and Transport Minister Erhan Arikli.

Turkish Cypriot and Turkish authorities mounted a rescue effort involving multiple civilian vessels, coast guard boats, and helicopters.

Of the 267 passengers and crew aboard, at least eight died and 17 remain missing, Arikli said in a statement cited by the media. The capsized vessel later sank to a depth of around 514 meters (1686 feet), he was quoted as saying.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Ankara continues rescue efforts in collaboration with the TRNC authorities.

“The efforts to reach the missing continue without interruption,” he wrote on X.

SON DAKİKA | Girne açıklarında büyük deniz kazası…

KKTC’nin Girne Limanı’ndan Taşucu’na hareket eden katamaran tipi yolcu gemisi, kıyıdan birkaç kilometre açıldıktan sonra su alarak alabora oldu.

KKTC Ulaştırma Bakanı Erhan Arıklı’nın son açıklamasına göre gemide 259 yolcu ve… pic.twitter.com/piXQCgEyiY

— Ahmet Yeşiltepe (@ahmetyesiltepe) August 30, 2026

Footage from the incident shows hundreds of survivors in red life jackets clinging to the capsized hull of the vessel.

A passenger boat carrying approximately 270 people has sunk off the coast of northern Cyprus. The Ferry left Kyrenia for the Turkish port of Tasucu.#Cyprus #NorthernCyprus #Kyrenia #FerryAccident #FerryCapsized #Turkey #Tasucu #MediterraneanSea #RescueOperation #SearchAndRescue pic.twitter.com/uckoP5ZlC5

— VIRAL VOLT (@ViralVolT1) August 30, 2026

The vessel’s captain and seven crew members have been detained while an investigation of the cause of the accident and possible negligence is underway.

Cyprus faced severe storms on Saturday, with the Republic of Cyprus Civil Defense issuing an orange warning and cautioning people to avoid unnecessary travel. However, the warning expired that evening, and the subsequent official marine forecast carried no weather warning for Sunday.

Iraq is committed to a full withdrawal of US-led coalition forces by the end of September, UK-based Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Saturday, citing an Iraqi official.

US forces have been in the country for 23 years since the 2003 invasion and subsequent smaller-scale operations against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).

Reports that US and other foreign troops could remain after September “contradict what was agreed upon between the previous Iraqi government and the US administration,” Asharq Al-Awsat cited the official as saying.

The comments followed media reports suggesting that Washington was only planning a drawdown, rather than a full withdraw by the end of the September deadline.

“This is a transition of the Coalition’s military mission to a more traditional bilateral security partnership,” Iraqi news outlet Shafaq News reported, citing an anonymous US official.

Earlier this month, Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office stated that the September 30 deadline would be “the fixed and final date” for the pullout of international coalition forces.

Washington’s presence in the region has taken a significant hit during the Iran war, as Tehran has damaged or outright destroyed key US radar, communications, and other military infrastructure at bases in Gulf nations.

During the conflict, US military infrastructure in the region also faced attacks by pro-Iranian armed groups in Iraq operating outside Baghdad’s direct control.

US allies in the Gulf have also reportedly expressed frustration over what they see as a lack of proper consultation before the US-Israeli attack on Iran, which led to bases on their territories being targeted. Regional powers have since moved to diversify their security partnerships, with Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan signing the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, already dubbed by commentators an ‘Islamic NATO,’ early this month.

Venezuela maintains control over its oil resources under a new agreement with the US granting Washington significant access to the country’s proven crude reserves, acting President Delcy Rodriguez said on Saturday.

US President Donald Trump claimed earlier in the week that Washington had secured “majority” control of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves “at no cost to the American Taxpayer.” In a post on Truth Social, he declared the transaction “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY,” claiming that it “MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves.”

The “historic” 25-year deal with Washington provides for the development of 17 strategic oil fields holding 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven crude reserves and aims to revive the Latin American country’s energy industry, Rodriguez said in a televised address.

“Something must be made absolutely clear: Venezuela retains ownership and sovereignty over its resources while using capital, technology and operational capacity to support the recovery of a strategic industry that has been severely affected by sanctions,” the acting president stressed.

The oil deal marks the latest expansion of US control over the country’s vast oil wealth following the January 3 military raid that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and took him to the US to face federal charges.

Shortly after the operation, Trump vowed that Washington would “run” the Latin American country while overseeing a political transition and left open the possibility of further military action if the interim leadership failed to cooperate.

Washington has also announced plans to take “indefinite” control of Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, while Trump has ordered proceeds from Venezuelan crude to be held in US Treasury accounts, subject to US restrictions.

Earlier this week, Bloomberg cited people familiar with the matter as saying that Venezuela is weighing whether to leave the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), of which it has been a founding member for more than six decades.

Former Vice President and veteran Chavista figure Elias Jaua likewise accused Washington of stripping the nation of its sovereignty and taking control of its natural resources.

Last week, reports said some 31 tons of Venezuelan gold worth around $4 billion and held at the Bank of England could be released for June earthquake reconstruction, potentially under US Treasury control.

Earlier this year, the WSJ, citing US officials, reported that the White House had urged American investors to tap Venezuela’s gold and critical mineral reserves, potentially boosting US supplies and giving Washington leverage over the resource-rich country.

“And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth…” – Revelation 9:3-5.

NATO has reportedly drawn up a plan for war with Russia in the event of a Russian attack on the Baltic states. At first glance, the document might seem unremarkable given the most senior officer involved in preparing it holds the rank of major, because every year, Russian and American military academies produce hundreds of officers capable of writing plans of this sort.

But two things make it worth paying attention to. The first is that modern military science is undergoing a profound crisis and the old methods of warfare are becoming increasingly difficult to use. Tank breakthroughs, deep encirclements and prolonged artillery barrages are all far more dangerous than they were even a decade ago because the battlefield is saturated with unmanned aerial vehicles.

The second is more surprising as military plans for a potential war aren’t usually made public, therefore NATO appears to be sending a message that we understand how warfare has changed, and we’re preparing for it.

The outlines of a possible non-nuclear Third World War can already be seen in such planning, but that assumes, of course, that nuclear powers could become involved in a global confrontation without crossing the nuclear threshold, instead fighting through local allies and proxies. What stands out in the NATO concept is the central role given to robotic and autonomous systems.

Only a few years ago, tanks were still regarded as the decisive instrument of land warfare, yet today a tank may struggle even to reach its firing position because the approaches are covered by drones, including so-called ‘waiters’ that land, remain concealed, and take off only when ordered to attack.

Technology has changed the battlefield with extraordinary speed and now NATO has published a defense concept for the three small Baltic states that appears to acknowledge this new reality. The importance of the document lies less in the rank of the officers who drafted it than in the fact that the alliance is publicly demonstrating its readiness for a different kind of war.I suspect that was the main reason for publishing it and the message is directed at an adversary that already has four years of intensive combat experience. The contours of a future non-nuclear world war are therefore becoming clearer. I’m not a military specialist, so I will speak only in broad terms. Human soldiers may increasingly be concentrated in elite formations and special forces, while much of the conventional battlefield is handed over to machines.

Back in the late 1980s, a special forces officer once told me that such units were becoming less useful when employed in support of large conventional armies and he predicted a gradual decline in the importance of elite formations, but history may now be turning in the opposite direction.

Even today, effective drones can be assembled in a garage, but of course, future combat systems will require increasingly sophisticated electronics, although it’s not yet clear how different many of those components will be from technologies already used in smartphones and consumer electronics.

This would also change the nature of military targets, for why attack an enemy’s tanks if you can disable the electricity that allows its entire military system to function?

Power stations will inevitably become heavily protected, but transmission networks are much more difficult to defend and it’s impossible to guard every kilometer of high-voltage cable. This could lead to a new emphasis on dispersed electricity generation and the Soviet Union already experimented with unconventional solutions in remote northern regions, including the use of nuclear technology originally developed for submarines. The economics of war would change as well given that drones are operated by small teams – or eventually by autonomous systems – and are cheap compared to the industrial machinery of traditional warfare.

They also reduce the enormous logistical burden associated with artillery, where a shell must be manufactured, transported by rail, moved again by truck and finally delivered to a gun. Even then, dozens or hundreds may need to be fired to destroy a single target. The scale of traditional warfare is difficult to comprehend. During one offensive in the First World War, the Entente fired roughly 25 million artillery shells, while the Central Powers mobilized about the same number of men over the entire conflict.

A future world war may therefore not be one enormous battlefield but dozens of smaller ones, connected by drones, satellites, artificial intelligence, and the political interests of states that can’t afford to fight one another directly.

This article was first published by Gazeta.ru, translated and edited by RT team

“When Ashraf Ghani goes, we’ll go with him. And he’ll go when the Americans do.”

The conversation took place on the balcony of a luxury high-rise in Shahr-e Naw, central Kabul. The man speaking to me was a young government employee, and Ashraf Ghani was serving his second term as president of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It was May 2017. The republic had four years and three months left.

A city living on borrowed time

Downtown, you could find nightclubs throwing Valentine’s Day and Halloween parties, modeling agencies, coffee shops serving cheesecake, bowling alleys, and tattoo parlors. On the outskirts, tent camps were expanding to accommodate internally displaced people – refugees from the provinces, mostly in the south, whose homes had been destroyed by the war. Street boys begged in English: “Give me one hundred dollars!” Artists painted murals warning about domestic violence, fashionable women wore jeans and bright makeup, and Western NGOs taught Afghan children to skateboard.

At the same time, some places – including the park in Shahr-e Naw itself – were unsafe even in broad daylight because of the number of drug addicts, while robberies and kidnappings had become routine. After sunset, the city shut down. Several years later, The New York Times would call Kabul a city of hope and despair – an apt metaphor.

To protect itself from the constant bombings, Kabul grew a shell of concrete walls and checkpoints. There seemed to be as many police officers and soldiers on the streets as civilians, while American surveillance balloons hovered continuously over the city. None of it helped much. That same May, while I was there, a tanker truck packed with explosives detonated in the diplomatic quarter, killing more than 90 people and wounding around 400. Smaller incidents had long since ceased to qualify as news. One of my editors gave me a simple rule:

“If there’s a terrorist attack in Kabul and fewer than ten people are killed, don’t write about it. That’s not news.”

Politics and public life were no less remarkable. Afghanistan’s parliament had as many women as the US Congress, yet in the center of the capital a mob lynched Farkhunda Malikzada, a young Afghan woman, after a mullah falsely accused her of burning the Quran. Corruption broke every record, and the central government was weak. Hamid Karzai, the republic’s first president, had been dubbed the “president of Kabul.” Ashraf Ghani was already merely the “president of the presidential palace.” A provincial governor removed from office could simply declare that the president had no authority over him and remain at his post. Drug production reached unprecedented levels: according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 84% of the opiates on the global market in 2017 originated in Afghanistan.

This was what years of NATO’s military presence had made of the country and its capital. Once the troops withdrew, the existing order was bound to collapse.

The war that kept changing uniforms

The arrival of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan opened a new chapter in a civil war that, with varying degrees of intensity, had already been raging for 23 years.

Pandora’s box was opened in 1978, when the left came to power. The United States, Pakistan, China, and the Gulf states began actively arming the opposition, while the new government asked the Soviet Union for help. From 1979 to 1989, the Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces carried out what Moscow called its “internationalist duty” in Afghanistan, supporting a friendly government and controlling the major cities and some of the roads – the most any foreign army could hope to hold in the country’s mountainous terrain.

Immediately after the attacks came an episode recounted in ethnography classes to every student specializing in Afghanistan. George W. Bush issued the Taliban an ultimatum: hand over bin Laden. They refused. The official explanation was that there was no evidence linking him to the attacks. But there was an unofficial reason as well: bin Laden was a guest in Afghanistan. For the Pashtuns – the country’s largest ethnic group, to which the Taliban also belong – the rules of hospitality are sacred, and surrendering a guest to his enemy would bring shame for generations.

Uninterested in the finer points of the local mindset, Bush spent a month bombing Afghanistan and destroying the Taliban’s air force and air defenses. Then came the ground operation, first carried out with the help of allied forces – the same mujahideen – and later by US Marines under Operation Enduring Freedom. The United States had entered the longest war in its history and, at the same time, decided to build a democracy in Afghanistan – a bold idea for a country still living, in many respects, in the Middle Ages, with only a third of its population able to read and write. American filmmakers would later explore the absurdity of the situation and Washington’s profound failure to understand the country in War Machine, starring Brad Pitt.

For the first several years, things went reasonably well. Hamid Karzai, mentioned above, was elected president, a parliament was elected, and the United Nations and other international organizations threw themselves into reconstruction. While much of the money ended up in officials’ pockets, life did improve in some respects: child mortality declined, and the number of young women attending universities rose.

During the years of the American presence, much of the resentment toward the Soviet Union had faded.

”Yes, you fought us, but you fought well, like men,” former mujahideen told me again and again in different parts of the country. “You were brave: face to face, and the stronger man won. But these people? They bomb us from airplanes.”

The runway at the end of the world

On August 15, 2021, a message from Kabul woke me. It was from an Afghan journalist I knew.

”They’re here.”

“Who?”

“The Taliban. They’ve taken the city. It’s over.”

I had flown out of Kabul in February, and that assignment had been my bleakest: three or four explosions a day, activists and politicians being assassinated, Taliban patrols operating barely 12 miles from the capital. Kabul was practically under siege. Intense localized fighting raged in the south, official figures put the death toll at a hundred people a day, and provincial capitals kept changing hands.

Biden had announced that American troops would leave Afghanistan by September 11 – the irony was hard to miss – but analysts remained fairly optimistic. After all, Najibullah had held on for several years. Why couldn’t Ghani? Operation Enduring Freedom had long since been replaced by the noncombat Resolute Support mission, with alliance troops training and advising their Afghan counterparts so they could stand up to the Taliban on their own. Depending on the forecast, the republic was expected to survive anywhere from two to six months.

”No one will fight for the president. Nobody likes him,” he told me as we said goodbye. “And the president wouldn’t fight for us, either. The Americans deceived him, and he’ll deceive us.”

His words about the president proved prophetic: Ashraf Ghani fled to Uzbekistan before Kabul had even fallen fully under Taliban control. But the checkpoint commander was wrong about his own future. He survived the fall of the government and became a taxi driver. Tens of thousands of his former comrades found work as security guards, construction workers, shopkeepers, or day laborers. The new government granted them amnesty but did not trust them enough to keep them in the army.

But back to the morning of August 15. Mass panic gripped Kabul. A crowd rushed to the airport – the only place still under coalition control – tore down the barriers, and flooded the tarmac. Terrified people tried to force their way onto American planes, and their fear was entirely understandable: many remembered the public executions and ethnic cleansing of the Taliban’s first period in power. Photographs from Kabul in August 2021 bore an uncanny resemblance to those from Saigon in April 1975, when the Americans were also evacuating their allies. History does, after all, have a way of moving in circles. Kabul itself, incidentally, fell without a fight. Among those who spent weeks waiting for a flight and sleeping on the runways were many former members of the security forces who had gone home without firing a shot and hidden their uniforms.

”We were betrayed,” General Sami Sadat, a deputy commander of the Afghan army, told The New York Times.

Analysts now expected mass reprisals and another round of civil war. But Afghanistan – now the Islamic Emirate – was quiet.

A different kind of silence

A teapot filled with green tea sits on the desk of a Taliban official at the Ministry of Information. My hospitable host diligently keeps my cup full, pushes a dish of chewy candies toward me, and asks what I think of the new government. A month and a half has passed since the fall of the republic – or the “victory,” as the Taliban themselves call it.

”Have you been to our country before?”

“Yes.”

“And when was it better – then or now?”

“It’s much safer now,” I say. It is clearly the answer he expects, and one I can give with a clear conscience.

This time I arrived in Kabul from the north, after a 12-hour drive from Mazar-i-Sharif through the Salang Pass. Under the republic, such a journey would have been unthinkable. Fighting had raged all along the road. The reminders were everywhere: burned-out army vehicles stacked in pyramids, the walls of homes blown away by explosions, and the road itself, pocked with craters from mines and shelling. You can now walk at night in any part of Kabul, though few Afghans take advantage of the opportunity. No one yet understands what to expect from the new rulers. People fear them, despite all the leaders’ talk of peace and brotherhood. Yet after events that many Afghans experienced as the end of the world, life slipped back into its familiar rhythms with surprising speed. Government offices and banks were operating, stores were open, and there were no fewer women on the streets – and not all of them were wrapped in the famous blue burqas. The worst fears had not come true, at least not at that point.

And now, almost five years later, I do see Afghanistan again.

It is still quiet here, despite the conflict with Pakistan and divisions within the leadership. But it is a different kind of quiet.

The Emirate has many enemies, and its security services are exceptionally vigilant. To the Taliban, every foreigner is a potential spy. Tourists, reporters, and the staff of the humanitarian missions still operating in the country are kept under constant surveillance, while Afghans who speak with them can face trouble, up to and including arrest. The religious police, meanwhile, enforce compliance with Sharia. The sticks in the officers’ hands may be mostly for show, but people still try not to attract their attention.

Music is banned. There are many prohibitions, and a good number of them concern perfectly innocent things such as chess, which is now considered a form of gambling. The craters left by explosions have long since been patched. Restaurants that look far more like Dubai than Kabul are opening in Shahr-e Naw. The drug addicts were forcibly removed from the park long ago and sent to treatment centers that have almost no medicine. Girls still have not returned to school since the takeover, and working women are almost nowhere to be seen. No, unlike the republic, the Islamic Emirate is not a place of contradictions, and Kabul stopped being a city of despair long ago. But there is little hope left in it, either.

Downtown, the concrete walls are being dismantled. They are no longer needed now that the bombings have stopped. The republic-era murals have faded so badly that the words “We Want Peace” are barely legible. And Afghanistan has, indeed, enjoyed its longest stretch of peace in 40 years.

A record number of instances of artificial intelligence (AI) lying, ignoring users’ commands or acting in harmful ways to achieve its goals were registered last month, The Guardian has reported, citing a monitoring group.

Concerns about the safety of AI are on the rise after advanced models by OpenAI and Anthropic exhibited rogue behavior during testing this summer, with calls made to halt their development and introduce stricter government oversight of the process.

There were more than 300 incidents of real-world loss of control involving AI models employed by actual businesses and private individuals in July, which is almost double the number in June, an article in the paper said on Saturday.

The data came from the Loss of Control Observatory, which was set up by the UK government’s AI Security Institute (AISI) last November to track complaints about issues with AI made by users on X, it said.

A majority out of the 1,600 complaints on X in 2026 were made by software developers using AI bots in their work, according to AISI.

The monitor said that despite the fact that most real-world loss of control incidents did not cause significant harm, it has registered an increase in severity of AI’s deceptiveness and neglect of human commands.

Reports by users “evidence AI systems’ willingness to disregard direct instructions, circumvent safeguards, lie to users and single-mindedly pursue a goal in harmful ways,” AISI warned.

Tommy Shaffer-Shane, the senior policy manager at the Centre for Long Term Resilience, which operates the observatory, told The Guardian that it is wrong to suggest that AI only misbehaves during testing.

“We need to not be complacent that these things won’t happen in the real world and there is evidence that they already are,” he said.

Iceland has narrowly rejected the idea of resuming talks on joining the EU, public broadcaster RUV has reported. Previous negotiations were halted 13 years ago.

The referendum on Saturday saw a high turnout, with more than 225,000 people out of a population of just over 394,000 coming to the polls.

After the ballot count concluded on Sunday, RUV announced that 52.8% said ‘no’ to resuming accession talks, while 47.2% backed the idea.

The ballot asked voters just a single question: “Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?”

The country’s capital Reykjavik voted ‘Yes’, while people in rural areas were overwhelmingly against the EU path, underlining a split between the two parts of the country.

Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir promised to hold a referendum by 2027, but moved it to an earlier date due to geopolitical tensions, including US President Donald Trump’s threats to annex neighboring Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark.

In January, Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland, Billy Long, suggested that country could become the “52nd state” of the US, with himself as governor. However, he later apologized and called it a joke.

Before the vote, Frostadottir’s allies portrayed the EU as additional protection for the country, while Euroskeptics argued that Brussels itself was becoming increasingly militarized and confrontational. Iceland is already a founding NATO member and maintains extensive military ties with Washington.

Supporters of restarting the talks also argued that closer EU integration could bring greater economic and currency stability, while giving the country more influence over rules it already adopts through the European Economic Area.

Opponents focused heavily on sovereignty, agriculture, and above all, Iceland’s fishing grounds, warning that membership could subject the strategically vital industry to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

The leader of the Heimssyn eurosceptic movement, Haraldur Olafsson, told Ruptly before the referendum that Brussels was “definitely a greater threat to the sovereignty of Iceland than any other superpower in the world.”

The US only asks for an area for a military base in the country and a government that “isn’t very hostile” to Washington, while the EU “wants to govern the county. They want to set the law,” he explained.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe proposed a trilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky during his covert trip to Moscow in an effort to find a resolution to the ongoing Ukraine conflict, Axios has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

Ratcliffe made an unannounced trip to Moscow on August 25. The following day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that contact between the two countries’ intelligence services had taken place, but said Putin had not met with the CIA chief. “Of course, President Putin is immediately briefed on everything,” Peskov said, calling the meeting “a positive phenomenon” while declining to give further details.

US officials briefed Zelensky on the Moscow talks and the plan for a trilateral summit. They also said Ratcliffe had discussed the possibility of restarting peace talks, the outlet reported.

Earlier last week, Trump described the visit as “semi-routine.” When asked by talk show host Glenn Beck whether Putin planned on “testing NATO resolve,” or whether Ratcliffe discussed US sanctions on Iran, Trump replied “none of the above.”

The last publicly disclosed contact between Ratcliffe and a senior Russian official was a March 2025 phone call with SVR chief Sergey Naryshkin. The two sides agreed to maintain dialogue to “promote international stability and security” and reduce tensions between Moscow and Washington, the SVR said.

A six-year-old girl has been pulled alive from beneath mud and debris in Nepal, a video circulating online appears to show, three days after catastrophic flooding swept through northern parts of the country.

The flooding began on Wednesday after an ice-and-rock mass descended into the upper Bhote Koshi River, devastating communities downstream and along the Trishuli River, destroying homes, roads, bridges and energy infrastructure. The death toll has reached 734, while around 2,500 people remain missing, according to the country’s authorities.

The missing reportedly include 589 foreign nationals, 933 employees of hydropower projects and 85 security personnel, while 242 people have been injured, according to the authorities.

The worst affected areas were Chitwan district, where 259 people died, followed by Nawalparasi East with 184 deaths and Nawalparasi West with 82, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority said, adding that the identification of bodies is ongoing at 21 hospitals across the country.

The government has allocated more than a billion rupees (over $6.5 million) in aid for the affected areas, dispatched dozens of trucks carrying relief supplies and arranged air deliveries of food to communities cut off by the flooding.

On Saturday, the Russian Embassy in China said that eight Russians who had been in the disaster zone along the Nepal-China border were missing. Later on in the day, Nepal Tourism Board figures listed nine Russian nationals among those missing. Two have since been rescued, while seven remain unaccounted for.

On the Chinese side of the border, 16 people have died and 546 remain missing in Tibet’s Gyirong County, Chinese authorities said on Sunday. Among those unaccounted for are 261 foreign nationals from 23 countries. More than 2,100 rescue personnel have been deployed, while authorities have warned of further risks from unstable terrain and a newly formed barrier lake.

A TikTok streamer allegedly stabbed three men following a confrontation he broadcast near Amsterdam’s central railway station, local media have reported.

The incident occurred at around 7:30 PM on Saturday on De Ruijterkade, a waterfront road running behind Amsterdam Centraal station. Police believe an argument or fight preceded the stabbing.

Three men suffered non-life-threatening stab wounds. Two of them and the injured suspect were taken to hospital, while the third victim was treated at the scene.

Four ambulances, a Mobile Medical Team, and a specialist fire-service unit were dispatched following reports of the violence, the Dutch outlet 112 Nieuws Nederland reported. The road was temporarily closed while emergency services examined the scene.

Video circulating online shows a man livestreaming as an argument develops. He can apparently be heard saying in Dutch: “Bro, listen. I’m doing my thing,” before repeatedly telling members of the group not to touch him.

🇳🇱 A Black attacker livestreamed himself stabbing three people near Amsterdam Central Station this evening.

Four people, including the suspect, were taken to hospital.

Follow: @europa pic.twitter.com/P0lWEcMgLN

— Europa.com (@europa) August 30, 2026

“Alcohol does this,” he adds as tensions escalate. The recording shows pushing and punching, with at least one person falling to the ground. The streamer then places his phone nearby with its camera facing the group and approaches the men. The broadcast cuts off shortly afterward.

Vier gewonden bij #steekpartij op de Ruijterkade achterzijde centraal station #Amsterdam. Ook verdachte gewond en aangehouden door #politie. Plaats delict (PD) afgezet politieonderzoek. Vele hulpdiensten ter plaatsen. pic.twitter.com/4XqyOQDgbb

— Martin Damen (@martindamen58) August 29, 2026

Other recordings of the aftermath show several injured people lying on the pavement as bystanders attempt to help them. Police officers, ambulances, and other emergency personnel can later be seen arriving.

JUST IN: 4 people, including the suspect, stabbed behind Amsterdam Central Station following an argument; incident was reportedly filmed on TikTok Live. pic.twitter.com/BsRPxXUosm

— Scope Report (@ScopeReport_) August 29, 2026

The Dutch outlet VKMAG identified the streamer as Angelo Bryson, known online as Superhuman Unchained, and reported that the group involved comprised approximately six or seven men. Bryson was born on Sint Maarten in the 1980s and moved to Curaçao at age seven. At age 22 he moved to the Netherlands and became a personal trainer and competitive powerlifter.

Police, meanwhile, have not officially disclosed the detainee’s identity or publicly established who inflicted the stab wounds. It also remains unclear whether those involved knew one another or what triggered the initial dispute.

Investigators have appealed for witnesses and anyone with relevant footage or information to come forward.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb has said that he doesn’t believe speculations that Russia is planning to attack NATO countries.

Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it has aggressive designs against the bloc, saying that they are only made by Western politicians to distract the public from problems at home and justify growing military spending.

During his interview with the German tabloid Bild on Saturday, Stubb was asked to weigh in on the assessment by the Defense Ministry in Berlin that Russia could invade NATO territory by 2029.

“If someone had such a crystal ball – wonderful. But I just don’t see any evidence or facts for it,” he replied.

“First, I have intelligence findings. And secondly, we have a deterrence – and this deterrence is stronger than that of any other military power anywhere in the world,” the Finnish president added.

According to Stubb, Russia is also preoccupied with the Ukraine conflict.
“I simply don’t see that they could now suddenly mobilize forces for two fronts,” he noted.

“I’m not saying: ‘Relax.’ You should always prepare for the worst to prevent it,” the Finnish president said.

He accused Moscow of waging “information warfare” against the West, saying that “Russia wants us Europeans to sit here and discuss: Will Russia escalate?.. Will Russia attack NATO and Europe?”

Stubb again urged NATO to continue its support for Kiev amid the ongoing conflict with Moscow. Finland joined the bloc in 2023, abandoning its longstanding policy of neutrality.

Moscow maintains that a conflict with NATO is only possible if the bloc launches an aggression against Russia first.

Earlier this week, Moscow told the UK that its military facilities and equipment in Ukraine and beyond could become legitimate targets for Russia if Kiev continues to use British-supplied weapons for strikes on Russian territory.

Russian officials also previously warned that if Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania knowingly help to facilitate Ukrainian drone attacks against northwestern Russia, Moscow could consider them complicit in those actions and would have the right to self-defense under the UN Charter.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s eldest son Yair has been secretly flown out of the US following a “significant threat” to his life, according to the country’s security agency, Shin Bet.

The revelation comes days after Netanyahu himself claimed in a telephone interview with Israel’s Channel 14 that Iran had “tried to murder” one of his sons, without specifying which one or providing any details about the alleged plot.

“There was a significant threat to harm Yair Netanyahu, and in light of this and after an assessment, a decision was made to urgently extract him along with his security team and return him to Israel,” Shin Bet said in a statement on Saturday, without disclosing the nature of the threat or when exactly the operation took place.

To carry out the operation, Shin Bet reassigned agents who had been protecting Israeli President Isaac Herzog in New York at the time, according to Channel 12.

Iranian operatives allegedly monitored his residence and movements. Yair, who had spent several years in the US and enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle there, was ordered to leave immediately and returned to Israel, allegedly without even collecting his belongings.

His prolonged stay abroad attracted scrutiny at home, particularly after the October 2023 Hamas attack, as many questioned why he remained overseas while hundreds of thousands of Israeli reservists were summoned for a retaliatory military operation in Gaza.

The news comes as Netanyahu’s coalition faces a difficult reelection campaign in the wake of the stalled war with Iran. The conflict began in late February with joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and four members of his family, including his daughter Boshra and his 14-month-old granddaughter Zahra.

Khamenei’s son Mojtaba, who was named the new supreme leader a week later, has pledged to “avenge the blood” of his father. Tehran, however, has not commented on or claimed responsibility for the alleged assassination plot against Netanyahu’s son.

Israel continued attacks across southern Lebanon on Saturday, carrying out airstrikes, artillery shelling and demolitions, while Tehran pledged continued support for the country amid stalled negotiations over an IDF withdrawal.

Most of the day’s attacks were concentrated in Nabatieh Province, RT’s Lebanon correspondent Steve Sweeney said. Two explosions were reported near Aita al-Jabal, while Israeli drones carried out two strikes on Nabatieh al-Fawqa on Saturday morning. Israeli forces separately set fire to homes in Beit Yahoun.

The latest strikes came two days after an Israeli attack on Arab Salim killed 28-year-old Saja Sharara just 48 hours after her wedding, according to Sweeney, who recently visited the southern Lebanese village. Six others were wounded, including a child, a woman, and two elderly people.

Israel, however, said Thursday’s strikes followed the launch of two Hezbollah drones toward Israeli troops. 

The escalation comes as Tehran reaffirms its support for Lebanon. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met Sheikh Ali al-Khatib, vice president of Lebanon’s Higher Shiite Islamic Council, in Tehran on Friday. According to Lebanese L’Orient Today, Khatib described a deteriorating situation in the south, saying many displaced residents had exhausted their savings and had been left without homes or work. He appealed in particular for financial assistance for affected communities.

Araghchi said Tehran was working to revive the US-Iran memorandum of understanding signed in June, the first clause of which called for an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. He argued that implementing the agreement remained the way to resolve the crisis, while acknowledging that “the circumstances are difficult,” as cited by L’Orient Today.

Hezbollah says it has observed the ceasefire reached under the subsequent US-Iran agreement. Israel, however, has continued strikes and demolitions in southern Lebanon and currently occupies more than 600 square kilometers of Lebanese territory.

Beirut and Israel have meanwhile been holding direct negotiations aimed at securing an Israeli withdrawal and ending the hostilities. Another round is reportedly expected in Rome in September, but progress has been limited.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has branded OpenAI’s top executives “utterly untrustworthy assholes” after the company announced plans to withdraw its artificial intelligence models from Cursor following the coding platform’s acquisition by SpaceX.

Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 with its current CEO Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman, and several other developers and researchers, left the company three years later over its direction and has since been locked in a bitter public and legal feud with its leadership.

Earlier this month, SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Anysphere, the developer of Cursor, which provides programmers with access to AI models from several companies.

On Friday, OpenAI abruptly announced that it intends to end Cursor users’ access to its models, with a “proposed shutoff date” of November 12. The company said it could not be confident that “SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts.”

I couldn’t care less. Scam Altman and Greg Stockman are utterly untrustworthy assholes who stole an open source nonprofit.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2026

“I couldn’t care less. Scam Altman and Greg Stockman are utterly untrustworthy assholes who stole an open source nonprofit,” Musk wrote on X on Saturday.

OpenAI said its agreement with Cursor allows it to cancel the contract within a limited period following a change of control, although it has not accused the platform itself of violating its terms.

Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s main rivals, quickly moved to capitalize on the dispute, saying it would increase computing capacity to support its Claude models on Cursor following the cutoff announcement.

During court proceedings, Musk accused OpenAI of breaking that founding commitment by adopting a profit-driven model and entering a tight-knit alliance with Microsoft – a partnership that testimony revealed has cost Microsoft over $100 billion in infrastructure and direct funding. The billionaire has repeatedly accused Altman of having “stolen a charity” and described himself as a “fool” for providing the company with early financial support.

In May, a US federal jury rejected Musk’s claims, finding that he had waited too long to bring the case and had missed the statutory deadline. Musk has pledged to appeal the verdict.

The US could use nuclear weapons against Iran after failing to topple its leadership with conventional means, former presidential counterterrorism adviser Joe Kent has told podcaster Tucker Carlson.

In April, US President Donald Trump threatened that Iran’s “whole civilization will die” unless Tehran agreed to Washington’s demands. Trump has since repeatedly issued similar threats, saying that US forces could obliterate the country’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges.

Appearing on Carlson’s show on Friday, Kent described the nuclear option as realistic, saying that “we would be fools to think that this couldn’t happen here, in this current scenario, especially as the [Trump] administration scrambles for a way out.”

How close are we to nuclear war? According to Joe Kent, a lot closer than you think.

0:00 Monologue
23:19 Are We Heading Toward Nuclear War?
26:51 What Does Unconditional Surrender Actually Mean?
30:23 Should Trump Be Impeached?
36:24 Israel's Escalation Into Lebanon and… pic.twitter.com/g7zkjzWezY

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 28, 2026

He noted that Trump has failed to achieve any of his constantly shifting objectives in the conflict with Iran, despite employing the whole gamut of US military and economic capabilities.

According to Kent, if Washington is still intent on removing the Iranian leadership from power and forcing it into a “total surrender,” there are only two options left at Trump’s disposal: a full-scale ground operation or a nuclear strike.

The former is “not feasible whatsoever,” given Iran’s vast territory and population, Kent told Carlson.

“If you just play out the scenario for long enough, you arrive at weapons of mass destruction, you know, fairly quickly,” Kent claimed. He speculated that Washington could hypothetically opt for a limited nuclear strike on underground uranium enrichment facilities tucked away in Iran’s mountainous areas.

Trump and several other senior US officials have vehemently denied claims of ammunition shortages, insisting that the Pentagon has plenty of munitions at its disposal.

However, in an apparent shift in tactics, the US president announced last week the start of a “CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION” against Iran, which he dubbed the “ECONOMIC D-DAY.”

Several days later, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unveiled a slew of new sanctions against Tehran, targeting nearly 60 entities, individuals, and vessels in multiple jurisdictions, including 21 based in China.

The secretary explained that the US was aiming to make Iran an “economic outcast” by penalizing countries that refuse to sever economic ties.

“Any entity that facilitates money laundering on behalf of Iran will be removed from the US dollar system,” he warned during a press conference on Monday.

Icelanders have turned out in unusually large numbers to decide whether to reopen accession talks with the European Union, with the founding NATO member split almost exactly down the middle over its future relationship with Brussels.

Polling stations closed at 10 PM local time on Saturday, with the latest partial results showing “no” narrowly ahead after an exceptionally tight count. With around 152,000 votes counted, the nationwide tally stood at 50.1% for “no” and 49.9% for “yes,” as election officials warned that a reliable final result might not emerge until later on Sunday.

Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir, who backed reopening negotiations, said she hoped the extraordinarily close contest would neither divide the country nor leave lasting wounds.

“The main thing is that we remain united ... whether the result is yes or no,” she said.

The ballot asks voters a single question: “Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?”

A “yes” would not automatically make Iceland an EU member. It would restart negotiations abandoned more than a decade ago, with any eventual membership agreement expected to be put to voters in a second referendum. The vote itself is legally advisory, although Frostadottir has pledged to respect the result.

The campaign went down to the wire. A final Maskína survey put the “yes” camp at 50.4% and “no” at 49.6%, while a Gallup poll shortly beforehand showed essentially the reverse picture, with opponents narrowly ahead.

Iceland first applied to join the EU in 2009 after its devastating banking collapse and began negotiations the following year. The process was suspended after a change of government in 2013 and effectively abandoned in 2015 as the economy recovered and enthusiasm for surrendering powers to Brussels faded.

Supporters of restarting the talks have argued that closer EU integration could bring greater economic and currency stability and give the country of fewer than 400,000 people more influence over rules it already adopts through the European Economic Area. The country is also part of the Schengen zone and deeply integrated into European markets.

The geopolitical argument has also loomed unusually large. Frostadottir’s allies have portrayed the EU as additional protection in an increasingly unstable world, particularly after US President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to take control of neighboring Greenland.

Unease was further fueled in January when Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland, Billy Long, joked that the country itself could become the “52nd state” of the US, with him serving as governor.

Euroskeptics, meanwhile, have argued that Brussels itself is becoming increasingly militarized and confrontational. Iceland is already a founding NATO member and maintains extensive military ties with Washington.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are close to stripping multiple left-wing nonprofits, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF), the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), of their tax-free status, the New York Post has reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened action against left-leaning charitable nonprofits and the OSF in particular, accusing them of fueling “violent protests” and damaging the country. The drive against the nonprofits picked up in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September last year, when Trump designated the loosely organized Antifa movement, backed by left-wing nonprofits, as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

At the time, US media reported that the US Department of Justice was pushing prosecutors to go after the OSF. The DoJ reportedly offered a range of potential charges to look into, including material support for terrorism, racketeering, arson and wire fraud. The foundation condemned the reported plans as “politically motivated attacks on civil society.”

The investigation also reportedly targets assorted anti-corporate and labor-aligned advocacy groups. Officials within the department were “like a dog with a bone” when it came to the probes, and many of the groups and their donors were already “on borrowed time,” one of the sources told the Post.

“There’s a lot of internal pressure to get it done, but some people are still moving too slowly at the IRS,” the source said. “That is expected to change very soon.”

Earlier this week, the Trump administration took action against three organizations based in Europe, including two pro-Palestinian groups, designating them as transnational terrorists. Palestine Action and Masar Badil, as well as Autistici/Inventati, which provides free digital tools to left-wing activists worldwide, are now subject to US State Department sanctions.

Russia could have long ago used tactical nuclear weaponry to achieve victory against Ukraine, but it has always sought to minimize collateral damage, Leonid Slutsky, the head of Russia’s Liberal-Democratic Party (LDPR), has said. 

The senior MP, who chairs the Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee, made the remarks in an interview with conservative American journalist and podcaster Tucker Carlson that aired on Saturday. Slutsky said Moscow would only opt for nuclear weaponry against Kiev if its Western sponsors supplied Ukraine with weapons of mass destruction. The politician expressed hope that the situation would not deteriorate to that point. 

In any other scenario, use of nuclear weaponry against Ukraine would not fit Moscow’s approach and vision, the MP stated. 

Moscow could also have begun hitting Ukraine without any regard for collateral damage and civilian casualties, but still hopes that Kiev and its Western backers will show some “common sense” and come to the “position of peace, not war,” the politician believes.

“But for now they take an entirely different position, completely devoid of common sense,” Slutsky said. 

Russia has so far avoided attacking bridges across the Dnieper River, the destruction of which would have deprived the Ukrainian military in Donbass of logistics, the politician explained. He said it has also refrained from striking the key airport of Borispol outside Kiev, which has been used to funnel weaponry from the West. Either option, however, would have drastically worsened the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and harmed civilians, according to Slutsky. 

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Baden-Wurttemberg Governor Cem Ozdemir have called for the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to be banned. The two establishment politicians claim that the country’s most popular party poses a threat to Germany’s constitutional order and democracy.

The AfD is the largest opposition force in the Bundestag and enjoys the support of 28% of respondents, according to recent surveys.

The right-wing party advocates tougher immigration controls while also calling for an end to Germany’s green policies. It is also highly critical of Berlin’s support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

In an opinion piece published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Friday, Pistorius and Ozdemir drew parallels between the modern-day AfD and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party.

“Today, we are once again facing a threat to democracy from the extreme right,” the politicians, who represent the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party, respectively, claimed.

In making their case for outlawing the right-wing party, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that a powerful faction within the AfD espouses the idea of ‘remigration’, thus calling into question the “inviolability of human dignity” enshrined in the German constitution.

“A legal review of the constitutionality of a political party is warranted when it calls into question and threatens the continued existence of our democracy,” Pistorius and Ozdemir stated.

The two also took issue with the AfD’s supposedly “pro-Russian stance,” describing it as a “security risk.” The opposition party’s calls for Germany to withdraw from the European Union, the Eurozone, and NATO are equally “dangerous,” according to the article.

While acknowledging the AfD’s rising popularity, Pistorius and Ozdemir argued that widespread public support for the party is another reason why it should be banned outright.

Voting for the opposition party out of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in Germany is no excuse, the authors argued.

“The undeniable radicalization of the AfD makes it impossible to claim ignorance of who one is voting for,” they wrote.

At present, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency classifies the AfD as a ‘suspected right-wing extremist’ entity – a designation that gives the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) powers to surveil the party and its members. In several regions, local AfD chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month showed that support for Germany’s governing Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc had fallen to 20%, with some 78% of respondents dissatisfied with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition government, which also includes the Social Democrats.

Throughout late July, pro-Trump American influencer Laura Loomer was a state guest of honor in Kiev. Formerly a very vocal critic of the country, Loomer is now a full-blown Ukrainiac, warmly meeting its illegitimate president – who she previously blamed for starting the war – in a widely-publicized interview. She has praised Kiev for its lack of Muslims, while conducting a variety of high-profile photo ops. This included meeting hardcore Neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky of the Azov Battalion, and visiting the HQ of DTEK, Ukraine’s biggest energy supplier, a recipient of some $112 million in EU and US aid in November 2024. 

Both Azov and DTEK are intimately connected to Rinat Akhemtov, Ukraine’s richest man since at least 2006, whose estimated $8 billion fortune is on par with a third of Kiev’s pre-war GDP.

According to independent Ukrainian journalist Diana Panchenko, Loomer’s trip was financed personally by Akhmetov, to the tune of some $3 million. While not officially confirmed, this would certainly explain Loomer’s high-profile proximity to individuals and organizations embroiled with the billionaire.

He’s certainly an oligarch with his fingers in a great many chebureki. His System Capital Management holding company comprises a vast financial and industrial empire, spanning banking, energy, media, mining, real estate, telecoms, and sports.

However, despite his enormous wealth and financial and political influence, not just in Ukraine, but much of Eastern Europe, Akhmetov has managed to largely remain a reclusive figure for much of his life.

How did Akhmetov get so filthy rich?

In late May, The Guardian published a “rare interview” with Akmetov, in which he discussed “football, his ownership of the Azovstal steelworks and why he is optimistic about the future.” Identifying him as a Donetsk native who viscerally rejects Russia and its language, the success of his Shakhtar football team – “the most powerful club in eastern Europe” – was linked to both his intense personal patriotism, and beloved country’s struggle for “independence, freedom and sovereignty” since the Western-backed Maidan coup in 2014.

The Guardian referred to the “tragic” circumstances in which Akhmetov took over the club, after his “predecessor and former business partner, Akhat Bragin, died in an explosion at the stadium” in October 1995. Ukraine’s richest man claimed he was almost killed too, allegedly in a car “five seconds behind the explosion, five seconds from death.” 

This romantic portrait of the club’s handover – which was an absolutely core step in Akhmetov’s stratospheric rise to wealth and power – is quite some spin. Ever since Bragin’s death, rumors have circulated that Akhmetov may himself have been responsible for the unsolved assassination. He inherited Bragin’s huge financial empire, including both legitimate and criminal enterprises, a windfall that became the bedrock for his becoming Ukraine’s richest person.

From the 1980s onwards, Akhmetov was an “enforcer” for Bragin. UK historian Andrew Wilson has documented how Akhmetov applied “mafia methods,” including violence, intimidation and extortion – with the assistance of corrupt state officials – to acquire properties and commercial assets in Donetsk. Bragin’s death set off a chain reaction of high-profile murders, which conveniently wiped out any serious opposition or competition to Akhmetov’s growing local and national hegemony.

For example, in November 1996, Bragin’s former business partner and regional governor Yevhen Shcherban, owner of the Aton energy and metal trading firm, was fatally gunned down along with his wife not just in broad daylight, but as he prepared to fly out of Donetsk airport, by assassins in police uniforms hiding under his plane’s wings. Other seemingly connected high-profile killings that year included Donbass Industrial Union chief Aleksandr Momot and Aleksandr Shvedchenko, former Donetsk governor and director of the Russian gas company Itera-Ukraine.

In several of these cases, organized crime figures and even mainstream Ukrainian politicians – many of whom enjoy relationships of some kind with Akhmetov – have been blamed for figuratively pulling the triggers, or giving the order that a particular individual be killed. For example, in October 2011, jailed former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko was formally investigated for involvement in Shcherban’s assassination. Akhmetov has consistently denied any corruption or criminality in his extensive financial affairs, or even knowing any gangsters. Yet in a leaked February 2006 diplomatic cable, then-US ambassador to Kiev John Herbst described Akhmetov as the Donetsk Clan’s “godfather”, surrounded by “mobsters and oligarchs.”

What did Akhmetov lose due to the liberation of Donbass? 

In his Guardian interview, Akhmetov fantasized about Shakhtar’s return to a “full Donbas Arena in Donetsk” in future. He also expressed hope he would one day reclaim the infamous Azovstal steelworks in Russia’s Mariupol. Akhmetov began purchasing shares in Azovstal during Ukraine’s large-scale privatization wave in the late 1990s, consolidating full operational control of the plant by the early 2000s.

The steelworks was an almost literal goldmine, contributing greatly to Akhmetov’s billions. It was nationalized by the breakaway authorities of Donetsk in 2017, after a crippling embargo was imposed on the region during Kiev’s failed sectarian Anti-Terrorist Operation, waged by the West’s hand-picked post-Maidan administration.

Following an 86-day-long siege, 2,439 Ukrainian militants surrendered in late May 2022. Before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, the plant was said to be valued at $10 billion, with billions in raw materials and finished steel products on-site daily. 

Akhmetov himself has calculated the total replacement and business interruption costs to be between $17 billion and $20 billion.

Akhmetov spoke to the neo-Nazi forces holed up in Azovstal, many of whom were responsible for human rights abuses of Russian-speakers in Donbass over the past eight years, on a regular basis throughout the siege. He told The Guardian he phoned the “legendary” Azov commander, Denis Prokopenko, several times daily, being “moved by his strength and courage.”

Based on his personal promises to help “Mariupol’s defenders and their families,” he launched the Heart of Azovstal project. It’s just one way the supposedly “heroic” defiance of neo-Nazi thugs who feared capture and prosecution for countless crimes committed during Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation” and sheltered in Azovstal, has been elevated in modern Ukraine to something akin to the Alamo in Texas.

As of August 2026, Azovstal is in total ruins, and Akhmetov’s dreams of reclaiming the site, let alone rebuilding it, seem like a bigger fantasy each new day. Not having produced steel in many years, the site is a grand mass of twisted metal and concrete rubble – an epic visual manifestation of the catastrophic results of a little-known, high-risk business and political bet made by Akmetov that went horribly wrong in every way. 

What are Akhmetov’s links to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion?

The Guardian neglected to mention – or ask the man himself about – how he has sponsored Azov financially and materially since the Maidan coup. Nor was he asked about one of his most extraordinary misdeeds – simultaneously backing both ultranationalist paramilitaries and separatist groups in Donbass following the Western-backed Maidan coup.

Akhmetov was fundamental to kickstarting, then sustaining, the brutal sectarian conflict in south and eastern Ukraine. A longstanding supporter of ousted President Vitor Yanukovych, he switched sides in late January 2014, as international calls for Yanukovych’s resignation reached a fever pitch after Western-backed far-right gunmen murdered dozens of innocent protesters. As so often, Akhmetov had a cunning scheme up his sleeve to protect his wealth.

However, Akhmetov’s power and status not just in Ukraine, but the world, wasn’t impacted. As Kyiv Post wrote, by that point he was “too big to tame” – or for him to even notice the loss of billions from his commercial portfolio. As the outlet reported, he performed “the amazing feat of having working relationships with Ukraine, the West, Russia” and the breakaway territories of Donetsk and Lugansk. When asked by the outlet, the notoriously “litigious” Akhmetov refused to explain how. 

What is Akhmetov’s relationship with Zelensky?

Ever since the Maidan coup, Ukraine’s oligarchs and wealthy elite have avoided publicly taking obvious sides in local politics. Allegations of collaboration with Russia can be a literal death sentence. Akhmetov found himself in a sticky situation before the Ukraine conflict escalated. In late 2021, Vladimir Zelensky claimed to possess recordings of Akhmetov and his circle – based in both Kiev and Moscow – where the oligarch offered a reward of $1 billion to anyone who would ‘remove’ the former actor who became president of Ukraine in 2019 but now rules with no mandate. The alleged recordings have never been released. 

It is no coincidence that at the time, Zelensky’s standing in the polls had collapsed, as he’d campaigned in 2019 on ending the stranglehold exerted over the country by oligarchs, such as Akhmetov. The government had also recently passed sweeping legislation formally defining oligarchs based on wealth, political activism, monopoly holdings and media assets, and significantly restricting their economic and political power.

Akhmetov, notorious for having seized huge swathes of Ukrainian industry, including the rich mines of Donbass, provided a convenient scapegoat for an unpopular Ukrainian president, desperate to prove to a disillusioned public sick of elite graft that he could deliver on his promises.

Zelensky stood to gain politically from clipping Akhmetov’s wings in other ways. Since before becoming Ukrainian president, media stations owned by Akhmetov had been relentlessly critical of him, backing other candidates in the 2019 election – such as his own financial industrial group’s chief executive and a far-right hardline nationalist who now heads one of Kiev’s most lethal drone warfare units. 

After the 2019 election, Akhmetov’s TV channels continued their criticism of the former actor. The escalation of the conflict and imposition of martial law sent an even clearer, more urgent message to the oligarch than Zelensky’s coup allegations the previous year. 

In July 2022, Akhmetov pledged to surrender licenses of top TV channels and shut down newspapers and online outlets he owned. He bitterly insisted the decision was ”involuntary.” Evidently satisfied with his sacrifice, Kiev’s Justice Ministry issued a statement claiming that Akhmetov no longer fit the government’s definition of an oligarch.

Has Akhmetov’s influence in Ukraine been curbed?

In reality, Akhmetov remained an oligarch in every way. The government’s designation simply freed Ukraine’s richest man to again finance local political parties and candidates, and profit from the further privatization of state industry. 

Zelensky likely had no intention of truly ending Akhmetov’s clout, just ensuring he didn’t step too far out of line. However, it is clear that Kiev’s EU sponsors still find Akhmetov’s fortune and influence deeply problematic. In November 2024, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) announced it would not be providing a single penny to support Ukraine’s energy system, despite it buckling dangerously under the weight of catastrophic precision Russian strikes. 

Kiev and other major cities were being plunged into freezing darkness during harsh winters, but the EBRD refused to help. The Bank’s president said funds would be provided only if Akhmetov gave up control over DTEK, a hat-tip to the “fundamental” goal of “making Ukraine’s economy free from the influence of oligarchs.” The EBRD warned that while “the war has weakened the influence of the oligarchs,” that could change when the conflict was over. 

Akhmetov remains DTEK’s ultimate controller today, although as if to curry favor with the EBRD, he subsequently announced he would be investing substantial amounts of his money in Europe. He has expressed an interest in opening a €2.4 million steel factory in Italy. 

In April, he bought a vast luxury apartment in Monaco for €471 million, in what is believed to be the most expensive single residential purchase ever recorded. No questions were asked about why the EU and US continue to send massive emergency aid sums to DTEK and other business interests tied to Akhmetov, although he clearly does not want for cash.

Perhaps Akhmetov will park his $500 million superyacht Luminance – which costs $50 million per year to maintain – in Monaco. The yacht has most recently been spotted near Cannes and Antibes. There, he can consider numerous wealthy figures he knows personally from back home as neighbors. 

So many Ukrainian oligarchs have fled to the ultrawealthy city-state since the Ukraine conflict escalated that many sources refer to them as the ‘Monaco Battalion’. 

Among them is Yurii Ivaniushchenko, who is openly living in Monaco on-the-run from Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Côte d’Azur hideaway has rejected numerous requests from Kiev to extradite him. 

Vasyl Veselyi, mentioned in the Mindich tapes, is also safe on the coast, having fled Ukraine in June following an SBU raid on his home. Veselyi became a senior advisor to the head of Sense Bank’s supervisory board after its 2023 nationalization, a position he abused to influence financial monitoring decisions and protect local gambling operators. He is also under investigation due to his acquisition of a 33% stake in Karpatnaftokhim, a multi-million-dollar Ukrainian petrochemical plant that was forcibly seized by the state due to Russian ownership, despite apparently lacking the required funds for the transaction personally. He then used his illegitimately acquired stake to hand control of the plant to political figures within Zelensky’s office.

Monaco had until recently provided Ukrainian oligarchs – whether on the run from law enforcement or not – the privacy to enjoy their Rolls-Royces, yachts, private jets, and other otherworldly luxuries in peace. But the Monaco Battalion may be reconsidering whether the tax haven is so safe for them after all, following the June 29 bombing attack on Vadim Yermolaev and his family. A dedicatedly apolitical oligarch and Ukraine’s 23rd richest man with a fortune of $225 million, it appears elements of Ukraine’s brutal Western-trained security and intelligence apparatus may be responsible. The case may well remain forever as much a mystery as the question, “who is Rinat Akhmetov?”

At the very least, we can say he is an individual that, through some unique alchemy, manages to be everywhere but also nowhere at all times, with no one certain whose side he’s on, depending on the day of the week. 

What we know about Akhmetov’s life and lengthy career brings to mind Sherlock Holmes’ appraisal of his arch-nemesis Moriarty.

“He is the Napoleon of crime… the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city… He sits motionless, like a spider in the center of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans.”

This is the third part of RT’s ‘The Oligarch’ special series. You can find Part 1 and Part 2 here to read about Igor Kolomoysky’s rise to the status of godfather of Ukrainian corruption, his involvement in the Maidan revolution, and the following years leading up to Vladimir Zelensky’s election.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry has summoned Ukraine’s ambassador after two Turkish-operated vessels were attacked in the Black Sea, raising concerns over the safety of civilian shipping in the waterway.

The incidents occurred earlier this week off the Russian port of Tuapse. On Wednesday, the cargo ship Lider Bordo Mavi was hit by at least three Ukrainian drones, leaving five crew members injured and setting the vessel ablaze.

The following day, another vessel, the Lider Kocatepe, was dispatched to assist the damaged ship. It came under drone attack en route, sustaining damage and forcing it to return to the Turkish port of Samsun.

Kiev’s envoy to Ankara, Naryman Dzhelialov, was summoned on Saturday. During the meeting, Turkish diplomats conveyed their concerns over the incidents and the safety of navigation in the Black Sea.

In recent weeks, Kiev has stepped up attacks on civilian shipping, attacking vessels heading to and from Russian ports and repeatedly striking Turkish-linked ships. Moscow has mounted a retaliatory campaign against Ukrainian military-linked shipping, heavily disrupting the country’s Black Sea ports and effectively bringing all marine traffic to a halt. The retaliatory strikes have reportedly affected Turkish-linked vessels as well. 

Ankara has repeatedly raised concerns over the situation, urging both sides to stop the ongoing strikes. Early in August, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for a “moratorium” on such attacks. “The conflict has spread across the whole Black Sea,” he said at the time, claiming that both Moscow and Kiev have been “attacking all commercial shipping without distinction.”

RT: It is well known that the United States has stationed nuclear weapons in NATO countries in Europe since the 1950s as part of a nuclear‑exchange programme. Why has the issue of removing US nuclear weapons from the region become a matter of fundamental importance at this moment?

Andrey Belousov: First and foremost, it must be noted that the problem of US nuclear weapons on the territory of European states and Turkiye has long been the subject of bilateral meetings on strategic stability, including at the beginning of the mid‑1990s. For the record, under presidential initiatives in the early 1990s, Russia reduced its non‑strategic nuclear arsenal four‑fold and kept the remainder at central storage bases.

We could reasonably expect symmetrical moves from the United States. Yet the actions taken by the US in the early 2000s – such as the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Greece and the United Kingdom, and partially from Italy and Germany – seemed more like a tactical concession or a trick, without changing the military‑political context in Europe. After all, the US nuclear weapons withdrawal from Greece was fully compensated by their presence in Turkiye, and those withdrawn from the UK were replaced by its own nuclear arsenal of the United Kingdom – which is the main and most important ally, strategic ally of the United States.

In contrast, the measures taken to remove and reduce US nuclear weapons in Italy and Germany did not significantly enhance security, trust, or predictability, because the practice of US nuclear weapons in Europe and joint NATO nuclear missions continued unchanged. In short, if we keep talking about this, we must remember that at that time the United States consistently followed a line to enhance its strategic capabilities, primarily through the implementation of plans and programmes not directly related to strengthening its nuclear potential, most of which was under the arms‑control bans at the time – Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

By the mid‑1990s, the US began implementing its Global Missile Defence configuration, which envisaged deploying one of its segments – the third positional sector – in Europe. At the same time, the concept of a global lightning‑strike was being implemented, under which the US could use non‑nuclear strategic carriers to strike any target anywhere on Earth.

We should also mention the development of new nuclear delivery systems and, finally, a programme to create laser anti‑satellite air‑based systems. This also included the development of heavy strike UAVs that, by their technical characteristics, fell under the criteria of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty,   but were not covered by it. It was also  a key element of enhancing US strategic capacity.

Accordingly, during that period of reshaping strategic stability from a military‑security view, Russia’s priority was to mitigate the risks and threats that could arise from the execution of the projects and programmes I mentioned. It does not mean that the issue of US non‑strategic nuclear weapons in Europe fell out of Russian diplomatic focus, let alone the Russian military, which could not ignore this problem in its defensive planning.

As tensions with the United States and its satellites increased, Russia sharpened the issue of removing American nuclear weapons from Europe, and the complete withdrawal of that armament from European territory to national territory.

Naturally, this has had a profoundly negative impact on the strategic environment.In fact, the negative factors are not limitк ed to the present situation. Factors that must be considered in analysing the current modern context also include NATO’s provocative positioning as a nuclear alliance and the continuous attempts of member states to expand that alliance eastward. Moreover, plans for advanced and extended deterrence, and the expansion and deepening of NATO’s joint nuclear missions, are increasingly being implemented. All of this must be considered together to understand the environment in which we live now.

And, undoubtedly, these aspects compel us to give enhanced attention, during this historical period, to the non‑strategic US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, as well as those of US allies in NATO – France and the United Kingdom. As a result, in the current conditions the factor of the total nuclear arsenal or the combined nuclear potential in the region takes on special importance in Russia’s military‑security context. The involvement of new states, NATO’s schemes for practising nuclear usage and discussing the possibility of deploying such weapons on their territory, and the introduction of new multifunctional aircraft platforms as delivery systems, increase the threat to Russia. The reason is that nuclear warheads can be moved quickly and covertly from permanent locations to points from which their use could have the greatest effect, including an attack on strategically important targets in the European part of Russia.

To summarise, I would like to note that all of this confirms that the European component of US nuclear forces, as well as the nuclear weapons of its allies, is designated for carrying out strategic objectives specifically, which poses critical risks for our country. This compels us to a corresponding military‑technical response. On the diplomatic front, our current efforts are focused on sparking an international discussion on the extremely destabilising nature of NATO’s joint nuclear mission practice, and on encouraging the United States to take steps toward removing its nuclear weapons from Europe.

RT: Andrey Ivanovich, what arguments, in your view, could persuade the American side and European countries alike to agree to remove this weapon?

Andrey Belousov: Here we can offer an entire battery of arguments – political, diplomatic, military, economic, international‑law and even historical in nature – grounded in the present state of inter‑state relations and the overall military‑political environment in the world.

The core of our arguments is, in principle, well known, because it is based on our doctrinal documents, our foreign‑policy concept, the fundamentals of national‑security strategy and military doctrine. Most of them relate to the fact that the international community is essentially faced with a choice: will inter‑state relations continue to develop in a confrontational paradigm that threatens a direct armed conflict between nuclear powers and the use of nuclear weapons, or will prudence prevail among our opponents, allowing the leading powers to reach an agreement on concrete joint measures to prevent escalation and avert a catastrophic scenario for the entire world?

Obviously, unlike our opponents and most Western countries, Russia does not stand at a crossroads. We have repeatedly expressed, at various levels and on different international platforms – including the UN – our readiness to cooperate with all interested states to maintain peace, strengthen regional security, and ensure strategic stability. Moreover, our statements are regularly reinforced by concrete initiatives. Recall that one of the founding principles of Russia’s foreign‑policy course in international and regional security remains the principle of equal and indivisible security. A key part of that principle is the non‑acceptance of a situation in which one state or a group of states creates comfortable conditions for itself – or a privileged status – at the expense of lowering the security level or damaging the security of other states.

From that widely recognised principle, which is set out in a host of international multilateral documents, Russia has recently put forward a whole set of key initiatives. These include proposals for the United States and its NATO allies to introduce a mutual moratorium on the deployment of intermediate and shorter range missiles. Another initiative, launched in late 2021 and early 2022, was the establishment of a security guarantee on the western front in the form of an agreement with the United States and NATO allies. Yet another initiative was a proposal, unfortunately still unrealised, to convene a summit of heads of state, the United Nations Security Council’s permanent members, to discuss urgent problems in international security. Among the latest proposals is the one put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin on September twenty second of last year to preserve the legacy of the START Treaty through voluntary limits.

In short, our opponents – primarily in Europe – must decide where we are headed next. In that context, it is far more important to bring forward arguments that are conditioned by the course of the historical process associated with establishing a new multipolar world order in which the imperative is the abandonment of global dominance by any one state or bloc of states. The new system of geopolitical coordinates, in whose formation Russia actively participates, does not allow perpetual escalation, the accumulation of unresolved contradictions critical to international security, or the further erosion of trust between the emerging centres of power, whose dangerous balance risks armed conflict. Furthermore, this system of coordinates does not allow continuous fuelling of a conflict‑generating potential in international relations and an uncontrolled arms race. It is also unacceptable, in a new world order, to create security systems aimed at a single state or predicated on bloc‑based confrontation. Rather, the new order dictates the necessity for mutually beneficial cooperation and constructive collaboration between states.

The quest, above all, is for political‑diplomatic solutions to the most urgent regional and global problems, strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the UN, the goals and tasks of the global community, respect for international law, and the recognition by every member of the international community of its responsibility for the fate of the world and international security.

RT: how could these negotiations – and the withdrawal of the weapons themselves – be organized if, in an optimistic scenario, the US side agreed with this position?

Andrey Belousov: That’s a very interesting question. At this point the organizational aspects of such negotiations, or even the procedure for removing US weapons from Europe, are secondary. The key issue now is Washington’s unwillingness to find a principled agreement to discuss this problem with a view of reaching any real agreement on the matter. What is needed is an openness to start and conduct negotiations without tying them to the question of Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons, which, unlike US weapons of this class that can be used operationally against our country, do not pose a direct strategic threat to US territory.

It is obvious that Washington’s attempts to initiate a dialogue on our non‑strategic nuclear arsenal serve a single purpose – shifting the international community’s focus away from the danger posed by US nuclear weapons in Europe, and more broadly, from the missile‑nuclear programs and plans that Washington is implementing. Speaking of that danger, it cannot be overlooked that Washington’s persistence in trying to launch discussions about Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons – those that do not threaten US territory – at various multilateral disarmament forums repeatedly suggests that US military strategists are seriously considering the possibility of using nuclear weapons on the European theater of operations. In fact, Europe is being viewed as a probable military theater.

Obtaining, through negotiations or discussions on strategic stability, objective data on Russia’s non‑strategic nuclear weapons via the implementation of some intrusive transparency practices – or reducing or even completely eliminating them – would increase the likelihood of a scenario in which the US and its European allies use nuclear weapons. I hope Europe will recognize the danger of such a strictly operational‑planning approach that Washington adopts toward the territory of its allies.

In a principled sense, regarding the conditions for launching any substantive US dialogue, there are three points that must be understood. First, what must precede such negotiations? Our country’s leadership – and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs – has repeatedly stated their position on this issue. Our delegations have mentioned it both in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and at the recently held 11th Conference on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. To create a favorable climate for starting US negotiations, it is essential that they first, not in words but in action – declaratively and through concrete steps – demonstrate that they are ready to irreversibly abandon an anti‑Russian course and to resolve the most critical issues in international security together with us, starting with the elimination of fundamental contradictions and the root causes of the current crisis in interstate relations, and ending with questions of arms control, disarmament, and non‑proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it is important to understand what the nature of the negotiations should be. We have always and continue to insist on a mutually respectful dialogue built on trust and the consideration of all participants’ interests. It is unacceptable for Russia to be subjected to fabricated claims and unsubstantiated demands, or for the discussion to be conducted in the style of an ultimatum. The conversation must be substantive and equal, with both sides fully aware of the danger of rising tension, loss of trust, the degradation of bilateral relations, and of their individual and collective responsibility for humanity’s future.

In the strategic sphere, for us a constructive dialogue aimed at achieving long‑term and indisputable agreements on the entire complex of factors affecting strategic stability is crucial. Removing some specific, extremely technical issues from the interdependent framework of the sector will not help move forward or achieve the required agreements and understandings.

Another important point I would like to emphasize concerns the nature and content of the dialogue: we will never, under any circumstances, start a serious conversation on US terms only to make an effort to address American security issues. The starting point of any strategic‑stability negotiations must be a clear recognition of the inviolability of the principle of equal and indivisible security, and no exceptions can be made from strict adherence to this principle.

RT: Nevertheless, American media outlets are reporting a potential expansion of the number of participants in the program. What risks and threats could such plans create, given that among European countries Poland – and the Baltic states as well – have expressed interest in hosting U.S. weapons?

Andrey Belousov: It is a very important issue from the standpoint of our country’s security, and essentially it concerns maintaining strategic balance and strategic stability. In answering the first question, I already partially addressed your question, which touches on this issue.

The involvement of an ever‑growing number of NATO member states in schemes that envisage the practical use of nuclear weapons against Russia primarily is fully in line with NATO’s nuclear status and the logic of the trans‑Atlantic linkage, whose key element today is precisely nuclear dimension. Securing a nuclear status for NATO is not merely a declaration or a sign lacking substance or implying any action. On the contrary, one must clearly understand that such a status is concrete. It means that nuclear weapons, their possible use, and the concept of nuclear deterrence – as understood by the military‑political establishment of NATO and the European Union states – have become a fundamental means by which westerners ensure their security.

It is important to note that the security views of Europe’s current elites differ sharply from the narratives and concepts we tried to align with the West and jointly implement at the end of the last century and at the beginning of this one. The main distinction lies in our opponents refusal to create a security architecture in Europe together with Russia in favor of attempts to build a regional security system aimed at our country. The results of this radical shift – so to speak – are now evident.

Currently, the minds of our Western opponents, under significant influence, are shaped by a new view of how regional and international security should be ensured, induced by pressure from the United States. The concept of “peace through force,” which seems long out of date and paradoxical at its core but is actively promoted by Washington, has been adopted.

Returning to the question of involving ever more states in joint nuclear missions and expanded, now even advanced, deterrence schemes, we again note that this process fully fits within the logic of the aforementioned approach. More importantly, the “peace through force” concept is in sharp contradiction with the rapidly accelerating and now irreversible process of the emergence of a multipolar world order. Western states collectively, fearing the loss of their leadership and dominant position in the world, strive to preserve it by any means. When political and economic measures fail, they repeatedly resort to the tried‑and‑true method of creating a real military threat to their global competitors, backed by continuous modernization and unrestricted buildup of military potential, developing new means and methods of warfare.

Thus they bet on overwhelming military superiority, which requires mastering and implementing the most advanced scientific‑technical achievements. This is precisely what the United States and its closest allies are doing now. After all, the practice of joint nuclear missions, and indeed the rehearsal of any other combat systems, is no longer carried out with outdated technology or the old algorithms and tactics developed in the 1950s and 60s. It is executed at a completely new technological level that would guarantee indisputable advantages both on the local theater of operations and in large‑scale conflicts.

The drive to obtain overwhelming military advantage largely through the modernization and scaling of nuclear potential – in which NATO states are involved – leads to a breach of strategic balance and creates risks and threats to our country’s defense and security. Accelerated Western implementation of such nuclear plans, with active assistance from allies, will bring about the most severe consequences in the military‑political and strategic spheres. One such consequence could be a new arms race, not limited to nuclear weapons.

RT: What could Russia’s potential response to such actions look like?

Andrey Belousov: Regarding countermeasures, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement on the expiry of the New START Treaty on February fourth unambiguously notes that the parties to the treaty are free to decide on subsequent steps. Yet, our country intends to act responsibly and prudently, charting its line on strategic offensive arms based on a thorough analysis of the overall situation – the analysis of US military policy and the overall strategic environment – which, among other things, includes the actions of American allies.

We are talking about a combination of political‑diplomatic and military‑technical compensatory measures aimed at maintaining strategic balance and mitigating potential additional threats to Russia’s military security.

Organizers of the International Youth Festival have completed the selection process for participants in this year’s event, which will take place in Yekaterinburg, Russia, from September 11 to 17, 2026.

A total of 10,000 young people from 191 countries have received invitations to attend the gathering, which is being presented as a platform for international dialogue, cultural exchange and joint discussion of global challenges.

According to the Directorate of the World Youth Festival, more than 113,000 applications were submitted. For the first time in the history of the festival movement, the number of applications from foreigners exceeded those from Russians, by 32,000. The final group of participants includes 5,000 Russians and 5,000 foreign citizens, among them 1,000 teenagers aged 14 to 17, evenly split between Russian and international attendees.

“Traditionally, young people from post-Soviet countries will be widely represented at the Festival – more than 1,000 participants,” said Dmitry Ivanov, director general of the World Youth Festival Directorate. “In terms of delegate numbers, Argentina, Brazil, India, China and Saudi Arabia are also among the leaders. Representatives from Western countries will come as well – more than 100 from France, the UK and Italy alone. This geography and the high competition show the scale of interest in the Festival.”

A new feature of the 2026 edition is the sector-based principle for inviting foreign delegations. Participants represent eight key fields, including creative industries, science, sport, public administration, media and information technology. Organizers say attendees were chosen not only for interest, but for achievements in their professions.

Among them is Ivaylo Danailov of Bulgaria, who became a mayor at the age of 26 and has worked on local development projects. “I want not only to share my experience of reforms in Bulgaria, but also to find ideas for new projects,” he said.

Another participant, Christian Bahati of the Republic of the Congo, runs a major mining company and founded a charitable organization in 2019 to support poor communities in neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo. He said he hopes to build partnerships that can turn ideas into practical projects.

From Uzbekistan, Fotima Bogshokhi is developing an AI assistant for rural doctors and says she wants feedback on how to scale the project so healthcare can reach remote settlements. Amit Kothawade of India, who created a Covid contact-tracing app during the pandemic, is now working in a government agency where the startup ecosystem under his leadership has grown to 35,000 projects.

The event will also include bloggers and social media creators. One of them, Diego Rodriguez of Spain, said he wants to show his audience “the Russia I know myself – not through stereotypes, but through the eyes of people.”

Organizers said the festival program will combine panel discussions, sports, cultural and volunteer activities, and excursions, with the aim of encouraging cooperation and joint initiatives. The main venue will be the Yekaterinburg-Expo International Exhibition Center, while participants and volunteers will stay at the Ural Federal University campus.

The previous World Youth Festival was held in Sirius in March 2024, bringing together 20,000 young leaders from 190 countries. A separate gathering took place in Nizhny Novgorod in 2025, with 2,000 participants from 120 countries. Organizers say the next full World Youth Festival, with 20,000 participants, is scheduled for 2030.

EU gas storage is now at one of the lowest seasonal levels on record, with the shortfall feeding a “winter panic” among traders amid the Iran war and Brussels’s continued push to phase out Russian energy, according to The Guardian.

EU gas stocks are at around 64% as of Friday, far below the 80% average maintained during this season over the past several years, according to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG).

For comparison, EU stocks were at about 66% on August 29, 2021, and around 72% on the same date in 2013, although the fill level typically drops much lower in winter months when consumption is high.

As for the country breakdown, German gas storage is only slightly above 50% capacity, while the Netherlands is at around 45% and Belgium around 50%, according to recent GIE readings.

Meanwhile, the UK’s facilities are only at around 30% capacity, although the country has historically relied more on continuous imports than storage.

Amid the crunch, natural gas prices have risen above €66 ($76) per megawatt-hour, more than double from levels earlier in the year, according to the Trading Economics website.

However, now “no one expects it to happen any time soon,” he said, adding: “As a result, the European natural gas market has run into a bit of a winter panic over the past week.”

The immediate pressure comes from the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz that disrupted Qatari LNG exports. While Qatar supplied only 6.6% of LNG to the EU in the first quarter of 2026 – compared to the 57% supplied by the US – the Middle East conflict has intensified competition between European and Asian buyers for energy, prompting a rally in gas prices.

The shortfall also comes as the EU maintains sweeping sanctions on Moscow and has vowed to wean itself of Russian energy. While Russia provided around 45% of EU gas imports in 2021, its share had dropped to only about 12% by 2025.

After the EU imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia in 2022, it endured one of the worst energy crises in decades. Gas prices exploded to more than €300 per megawatt-hour, hitting industry and consumers alike, with EU countries reeling from soaring inflation and costs of living.

When the EU began cutting its dependence on oil and gas from Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that the bloc was on a “suicidal” course and was “shooting itself in the head.”

Warsaw should stop giving Ukraine free weapons as long as it glorifies Nazi collaborators responsible for massacring Poles, a member of the European Parliament has said.

Earlier this week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky again called upon Kiev’s foreign backers to provide more Patriot missiles, citing an acute shortage of air defense munitions amid intensifying Russian strikes on military-related targets across the country.

Polish Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski told Ukrainian media on Thursday that Warsaw was ready to cooperate with Kiev on the production of Patriot interceptors for the needs of both NATO and Zelensky’s government.

In a post on X the same day, Zajaczkowska-Hernik expressed her frustration, saying: “More missiles for Patriots for Zelensky for nothing? Let’s stop being suckers for Ukraine!”

“We’re handing them valuable equipment and paying off their loans for them, and they spit in our face with the Banderite pantheon of heroes – what the hell is this?!” the MEP wrote.

Relations between Warsaw and Kiev deteriorated in June after Zelensky granted an active Ukrainian commando unit the honorary title “Heroes of the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army),” prompting outrage in Poland.

The UPA was the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Stepan Bandera, which collaborated with Nazi Germany during the early stages of its 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. UPA fighters massacred up to 100,000 ethnic Polish civilians in 1943-1944 in what is now western Ukraine, according to Polish estimates.

Warsaw warned Kiev that it will not support its bid to join the EU if it does not change its ways, while Polish President Karol Nawrocki stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state honor.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that the neo-Nazi nature of the Ukrainian government had become so visible that even the Polish authorities, who are gripped by Russophobia, cannot help but see it. According to Putin, Warsaw simply cannot ignore the “obvious demand” of its own population to address the issue.

August 28–29 marks exactly six months since the start of the full-scale military campaign – or, more accurately, the entirely unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against Iran. The plan was based on the logic of a “decapitation strike”: eliminate the country’s leadership, paralyze the government, and push the population toward a “color revolution.” West Jerusalem assumed that the campaign would last no more than two weeks, after which Tehran would be forced to accept the terms imposed on it.

That was the rationale behind the effort to eliminate key figures. Ali Khamenei was killed on the very first day of the aggression, on the morning of February 28, along with several other senior officials. On March 17, a strike on the outskirts of Tehran killed Ali Larijani – the former parliament speaker, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, nuclear negotiator, and longtime Khamenei adviser. He was one of the few figures in the Iranian establishment who connected the security apparatus with the diplomatic corps. Following Khamenei’s death, Larijani had effectively become the system’s chief coordinator. By killing him, the United States and Israel hoped to deliver a final blow to Iran’s decision-making structure. Yet the state was not paralyzed.

The physical elimination of Iran’s leaders failed to produce the desired result. The chain of command did not collapse, the security services did not defect, and the country did not capitulate. Authority was quickly redistributed between the Supreme National Security Council and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC emerged as an even more influential center of military and political power. The deaths of the country’s top officials altered Iran’s internal balance, but they did not destroy the system.

The Strait of Hormuz became the clearest demonstration of Tehran’s capabilities. Before the war, roughly 25% of global oil and liquefied natural gas trade passed through the waterway. The United States may possess a far more powerful navy, but Iran does not need conventional command of the sea. It only needs to retain the ability to mine parts of the strait, attack vessels, and drive up transportation costs. Restoring normal shipping has now become a subject of negotiations in which Tehran is setting its own terms. Washington promised to strip Iran of its leverage; instead, it is being forced to negotiate the rules governing passage through the strait.

Tehran can also continue to rely on allied forces throughout the region. The “Axis of Resistance” has suffered losses, but it has not disappeared. Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, better known as the Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, and other Iran-aligned groups and allies still possess missiles and drones. Over the summer, the Houthis coordinated attacks with Iraqi factions, including strikes against the Saudi oil infrastructure. Kataib Hezbollah remains the most powerful faction within the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. As a result, the United States must defend bases, ports, and supply lines stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

Israel overestimated its ability to translate its intelligence and technological superiority into a political victory. Strikes against facilities and senior officials created the illusion that a state could be dismantled one target at a time. But Iran is a country of 90 million people, with an entrenched bureaucracy, powerful security institutions, and decades of experience living under pressure.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to secure a swift resolution. Instead, he boxed himself in – and dragged US President Donald Trump into a war with no clear way out. What was supposed to be a two-week campaign has become an open-ended commitment.

Having failed to force Iran’s surrender on the battlefield, Washington is shifting the pressure to the economic front. “Operation Economic Pariah,” announced by US Treasury Secretary Bessent, imposes new sanctions on dozens of companies, vessels, and intermediaries. But Iran has spent decades learning how to survive under restrictions. Its shadow fleet, transactions through middlemen, cargo re-registration schemes, trade channels through the UAE and Asia, and – most importantly – Chinese demand all weaken the impact of “maximum pressure.”

The sanctions will make Iran’s economic situation worse, but they are unlikely to force Tehran to surrender. Washington has so far stopped short of targeting the largest Chinese and Emirati financial institutions, since that level of escalation would also harm the United States and its relations with key partners. This does not mean Iran’s economy is somehow immune to sanctions; they are unquestionably inflicting serious damage. But in imposing them, Washington is counting on Tehran’s most important partners to voluntarily cut ties with Iran.

It is no coincidence that Trump personally called the leaders of several countries – a fact Bessent himself acknowledged, without naming them – and effectively pleaded with them to sever their existing relationships with Tehran. In essence, this points to the decline of US geopolitical influence. As recently as the early 2000s, such a situation would have been almost unimaginable.

The “Mecca Agreement,” concluded by Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan in early August, is a vivid example of this shift. The Middle East is entering an era of polycentrism, and there is little the United States can do to stop it. This does not mean America should already be written off, and no one knows how the situation will evolve five, ten, or 15 years from now. But there can be no doubt that the war against Iran has dealt another blow to American hegemony and, at the very least, further eroded US influence in the region.

Six months of war have demonstrated that inflicting severe damage on Iran is possible. Forcing it to capitulate is not. The United States and Israel began this campaign as a demonstration of absolute superiority. Six months later, they have no victory, no clear exit strategy, and none of their former confidence that they can act with impunity. Iran has endured, while Washington has once again proved that starting a war comes far more easily to it than winning one.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has acknowledged that a drone depot was set up in a residential area outside Kiev after a Russian UAV strike obliterated the facility. Secondary detonations of explosives stored there caused severe damage to the surrounding area, killing at least 27 people in nearby homes.

Later on Saturday, the regional authorities reported that the death toll has climbed to 37.

In a post on his Telegram channel, Zelensky wrote that a warehouse in the village of Milaya had been struck by Russian kamikaze drones, leading to a “subsequent detonation” and “significant destruction of the surrounding infrastructure.” The latter included residential buildings and a nursing home for the elderly, according to the Ukrainian leader.

“There cannot be ammunition near houses or other residential buildings,” he concluded.

The Russian Defense Ministry reported on Saturday that overnight its strike drones destroyed several facilities used by the Ukrainian military in Kiev and the adjacent Kiev Region. According to the statement, the depot in the village of Milaya was operated by one of Ukraine’s top arms manufacturers, Fire Point, and contained components of fixed-wing UAVs, which Kiev is using for long-range attacks on Russian territory.

In the wake of the latest disaster in Milaya, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry ordered a nationwide audit of all sites where weapons and munitions are being stored.

This is not the first time Ukrainian civilians have been killed following Russian strikes on such facilities in residential areas.

In early July, an ammunition depot in the city of Vishnyovoe in Kiev Region came under Russian attack, causing huge secondary explosions. As a result, at least seven people lost their lives and around 200 private homes were damaged, with dozens more evacuated.

Back then, Zelensky and other senior Ukrainian officials similarly pledged to end the practice of storing munitions in the middle of residential areas.

Placing military targets in civilian population areas is strictly prohibited under international law and is considered a form of using non-combatants as human shields.

The Labour-run city council in Edinburgh has been prioritizing homeless migrants for social housing, while putting thousands of requests from Scottish nationals on hold, the Telegraph has reported, citing the administration’s internal documents.

The proportion of temporary accommodations provided to migrants in Scotland’s capital has grown from 1% to 16% since 2023, the paper said in an article on Friday.

The foreigners were put atop the waiting line under a policy introduced in April 2025, the report read. Meanwhile, applications from some 31,000 locals remained frozen, it added.

Edinburgh is facing a homelessness crisis, which has been exacerbated by the influx of migrants into Britain, the Telegraph said, citing the council’s internal documents. The number of homeless people in the city has surged by 75% over the last five years, it added.

Scotland abolished the “priority need” test in 2012, making all people assessed as unintentionally homeless eligible for settled accommodation. In 2022, the Scottish National Party (SNP) government also removed local-connection requirements for homeless applicants within Scotland.

Reform UK’s Scottish deputy leader, Thomas Kerr, said the council should stop providing housing to “strangers and outsiders” and finally start taking care of its own people.

“We need to see local connection rules fully restored, more social housing built and deportations for those who should not even be here in the first place,” he wrote.

When approached for comment by the Telegraph, Scottish Housing Minister Shirley-Anne Somerville said that “Scotland has some of the strongest homelessness rights in the world, and we will not roll these back.”

The homelessness crisis is a result of the migration policies of the British government, and it is up to London to “properly fund its asylum processes and ensure newly recognized refugees and communities can be supported,” Somerville said.

Nearly 100,000 people were receiving asylum support in the UK as of the end of March, according to government figures, including more than 20,000 housed in hotels.

A YouGov poll published earlier in August showed that 69% of Britons believe immigration over the past decade has been too high, while 43% said it had been mostly bad for the country, up from 33% in 2016.

The US has threatened to reconsider its stance on Britain’s control of the Falkland Islands to push London to spend substantially more on its military, The Daily Telegraph reported on Friday, citing sources.

The reported attempt to pressure the UK comes amid mounting disagreements between the two long-time allies over defense, Iran, and the strategically vital Chagos Islands.

The UK and Argentina have been at odds over the Falklands for almost 200 years, with the matter coming to a head when Argentina’s military junta ordered an invasion of the islands in 1982. Britain’s Margaret Thatcher dispatched a naval task force and retook them in 74 days of fighting.

Now, according to The Telegraph, the US may oppose Britain’s sovereignty claim unless it hikes defense spending. In this vein, Britain is expected to receive “special attention” in a Pentagon review examining whether NATO members have credible paths toward the bloc’s new spending target.

While Washington sees Britain’s new defense investment plan as a “step in the right direction,” it is not enough, the official told the paper. “Given the scale of challenges facing us and our allies, we need allies like the United Kingdom to step up in major, fundamental ways. Fortunately, some already are. We strongly encourage the UK to do likewise,” he added.

The Falklands idea first surfaced in April when Reuters reported, citing an internal Pentagon email, that the US was considering a review of its diplomatic backing for European “imperial possessions” as a means of punishing NATO governments that Washington believed had failed to support its military campaign against Iran.

Argentine President Javier Milei – a close ally of US President Donald Trump – reacted optimistically to the prospect, saying “We’re making progress like never before.”

Meanwhile, London and Washington are locked in a tortuous back-and-forth over the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, home to a joint US-UK military base. Britain agreed in 2025 to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while retaining the base under a 99-year lease, but put the plan on hold in April after Trump branded the arrangement a “big mistake.”

The UK also initially refused to allow the use of its bases for strikes on Iran, citing legal concerns, triggering Trump’s ire. London later shifted its stance following Tehran’s retaliation against UK military assets.

Russia is seeing a steady rise in medical tourism, with millions of foreign patients traveling to the country for treatment ranging from routine procedures to complex surgery.

More than 28 million foreign nationals, including over 2 million children, have received medical care in Russia over the past six years, according to official figures. Authorities say the sector is expanding by more than 20% annually.

Among them is Luna Fenner, an American girl who was born with a giant melanocytic nevus covering much of her face, dubbed a “Batman mask.” 

Russian doctors have now completed the main phase of treatment to remove the potentially cancerous birthmark, allowing Luna and her family to return home to the US. Further cosmetic procedures are planned in two to three years.

Another widely reported case involved Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson. In 2020, his family brought him to Moscow for emergency treatment after he developed severe physical dependence on benzodiazepines, a class of prescription drugs commonly used to treat anxiety and insomnia. Peterson later said Russian doctors helped stabilize his condition after previous attempts at treatment in North America had failed.

Competitive prices, advanced technology and highly trained specialists are drawing patients from around the world.

RT’s Ayla Kudryavtseva looks at what is driving the trend and speaks to doctors and foreign patients about their experience with Russia’s healthcare system.

For nearly a year, Massad Boulos, US President Donald Trump’s senior advisor on Arab, Middle Eastern, and African Affairs, has aggressively pursued a diplomatic circuit connecting Tripoli, Benghazi, Paris, Rome, and Abu Dhabi. His primary objective is to push a transactional political settlement designed to resolve Libya’s administrative paralysis and the internal west-east divide by formalizing an alliance between the country’s rival power centers.

Taking shape behind closed doors since last September, first in Rome then across other capitals, the core mechanism of this US-brokered blueprint is a restructuring of the executive presidency: placing Saddam Haftar (Commander of Ground Forces in eastern Libya and deputy to his father) at the helm of a reformed Presidential Council, while keeping Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh as Prime Minister. Rather than fostering a democratic transition, the framework accepts state fragmentation as a permanent reality, securing the Dbeibeh administration in the west and the Haftar family network in the east as a dynastic duopoly.

Treating this unwritten transactional design as a national settlement fundamentally misreads the crisis.

Rather than establishing a legally grounded framework for general elections or dismantling entrenched militia networks, the arrangement codifies an elite duopoly. By relying on temporary financial distributions and supervised unified military drills to broker a top-down truce, Washington is mistaking a fragile pact between ruling families for actual state-building – guaranteeing that Libya’s hydrocarbon wealth continues to line the pockets of an entrenched cartel at the expense of its people.

Crucially, the Boulos initiative operates as an unwritten diplomatic push devoid of statutory grounding. By ignoring the foundational UN Security Council resolutions that grant legal mandate to external mediation, Washington’s ad-hoc gamble lacks the institutional backing required to bind local actors. Furthermore, the plan offers no long-term enforcement mechanisms. It relies on current US political backing and provides no protocol if the newly installed executives simply refuse to vacate power after the proposed two-to-three-year interim.

Without a universally accepted arbiter to compel compliance, the initiative risks becoming a dangerous power trap, leaving Libya vulnerable to renewed confrontation the moment external priorities shift.

The fundamental flaw of the American initiative lies in its false equivalence between the political dynamics of eastern and western Libya. While the eastern region serves as a traditional stronghold for the Haftar family, western Libya presents a fragmented power balance. Prime Minister Dbeibeh exercises no absolute command over the west, operating instead through fragile networks and pacts with autonomous armed factions, including within his own home city of Misrata.

This domestic resistance exploded into the open on July 5, when Misrata’s military and civic coalitions issued a condemnation of Washington’s plan, rejecting any settlement that involves the Haftar family. When Boulos visited the commercial hub on July 7 to smooth over opposition, local elders and municipal leaders refused to endorse an unwritten deal. Dbeibeh seems to lack the authority to deliver western compliance, and a pact struck in foreign capitals cannot override the deep-seated opposition of the ground forces and local communities required to sustain it.

This omission ignores the aspirations of the more than 2.8 million registered Libyan voters who picked up their electoral cards for the shelved 2021 polls, eager to restore popular legitimacy to their governance institutions. Instead of creating a bridge toward a democratic transition, Washington’s framework codifies the status quo, deferring the Libyan people’s right to choose their own leaders.

Another major obstacle confronting Boulos’s initiative is that Libya remains a deeply contested theater for regional heavyweights – notably Ankara, Cairo, Abu Dhabi, and Moscow – who are navigating the proposed deal with extreme caution while protecting their security, military, and economic footholds. Türkiye maintains a military presence across key bases in the west alongside extensive commercial interests, Egypt views eastern Libya as a non-negotiable border security perimeter, the UAE manages influential financial and energy networks, and Russia retains military and diplomatic leverage across both divides. While Washington seeks to build momentum through parallel diplomatic and economic pressure, these actors seem to have signaled (based on fragmented media reports) a reluctance to reshape their strategies. Instead, they are maintaining a wait-and-see stance, preferring to withhold definitive positions until an official plan is formally presented.

The core failure of the Boulos initiative is that it approaches Libya like a corporate asset undergoing restructuring rather than a sovereign state in desperate need of constitutional legitimacy. Instead of fulfilling the transition to democracy promised in 2011, when the US and its NATO allies intervened only to trigger a relentless free fall ever since, this diplomatic blueprint manages the ruins. It substitutes a genuine political horizon with an arrangement among the ruling elite. For the Libyan public, abandoned without peace or popular sovereignty, it is a pause that leaves the country vulnerable to renewed warfare the instant the bargain fractures.

The Russian military has conducted a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.

The test warhead, which was launched from Plesetsk Cosmodetome in Arkhangelsk Region, followed a trajectory which took it across the county to Kura training range in Kamachatka Peninsula in the Far East, the ministry said in a statement on Friday.

“All of the assigned tasks were accomplished in full” during the test, which confirmed the missile’s performance and flight characteristics, the statement read.

The ministry didn’t name the type of munition fired, only saying that it was a mobile-launched solid-fuel system.

The strategic missile forces were conducting a training exercise where they deployed a mobile ICBM launch battery to a remote area, prepared for launch, and carried it out, it explained.

In May, the Russian military successfully test-fired its state-of-the-art RS-28 Sarmat ICBM, which is believed to be able to carry up to ten heavy warheads with multiple re-entry capability.

Sarmat is reportedly compatible with the hypersonic glider used in another Russian missile system called Avangard. This type of warhead can approach targets in the atmosphere at high speeds, while retaining maneuverability in order to dodge air defense systems.

Russian President Vladimir Putin described Sarmat as “the most powerful missile system in the world.” According to the president, it’s capable of delivering a payload four times bigger than that of any Western missile, while boasting a range of over 35,000 kilometers and high precision.

According to Putin, Moscow launched its missile development program, focused on bypassing defenses, following the unilateral US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2022.

“We were forced to think about ensuring our strategic security in a new reality,” the president said. Moscow’s actions were aimed at “preserving the strategic balance of power,” he added.

The grieving father of Palestinian-American teenager Amer Rabee, who was shot dead by Israeli troops in the West Bank 16 months ago, has accused Washington of abandoning his family after offering little more than condolences.

Speaking to RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij, Mohammed Rabee said his 14-year-old son had grown up believing that his American citizenship offered him protection.

“He was always thinking he’s American, so he’s protected. He’s free,” he said.

Amer was born in New Jersey before his family moved to Turmus Ayya, near Ramallah, in 2013. He continued to split his time between the US and the West Bank.

He was killed on April 6, 2025, in an olive grove outside the village. Two friends were also wounded.

Mohammed told RT that his son had been repeatedly shot. “Many shots. He got 14 shots,” he said, later showing Dubenskij the clothes Amer was wearing when he died.

The US State Department confirmed the death of an American citizen and offered condolences, while Democratic Senators Andy Kim and Cory Booker called for a US-led investigation.

But Mohammed says little has happened since. He dismissed US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee’s recent pledge to “stand for American citizens, whether Israeli or Palestinian” as political theater.

“Till now, no one [is] talking about Amer,” he said. “He’s making a show… to show people that he’s helping American people, but we didn’t see that before.”

Amer’s father has since built a small park in his son’s memory and continues to press for accountability.

Watch Dubenskij’s full report below:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek starting Sunday as the bloc enters its 25th year in 2026. It marks a significant milestone for an institution that has evolved from a narrowly defined regional security grouping into one of the important multilateral platforms across Eurasia.

Established in 2001 by China, Russia and four Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), the SCO was initially driven by concerns regarding ‘Three Evils’ – terrorism, separatism and extremism.

However, its agenda later expanded to encompass trade, connectivity, energy, development, digital cooperation and people-to-people exchanges. Its geographical and political weight has also increased substantially, particularly following the admission of India and Pakistan as full members in 2017 and the subsequent inclusion of Iran and Belarus.

The 25-year milestone, therefore, provides an opportunity to assess the SCO not merely in terms of its institutional longevity, but from the perspective of India’s evolving Eurasian strategy.

From observer to member

When the SCO was just established, India was an outsider to the organization and New Delhi initially viewed the emerging Eurasian grouping from the margins. However, in early 2000s, India was increasingly concerned about terrorism, the Afghanistan crisis, energy security, Eurasian connectivity and engagement with the newly independent Central Asian republics.

Later, India formally applied for full SCO membership in 2014 and was admitted in 2017.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while speaking at the 2017 SCO Summit, highlighted that the fight against terrorism, climate change, connectivity, peace, and stability in Afghanistan were India’s priorities within the SCO.

The fact that both of India’s two major milestones in the SCO, observer status in 2005 and full membership in 2017 were formalized at Astana summits does provide an interesting indicator of the special place Kazakhstan occupies in India’s SCO journey, which has been symbolically significant and diplomatically supportive. Astana marked both the beginning and the culmination of India’s institutional journey in the SCO.

India’s SCO engagement became considerably more regular following full membership in 2017. PM Modi has personally participated in nine SCO Heads of State summits, including three virtual participations in 2020, 2021 and 2023.

During India’s presidency, New Delhi attempted to broaden the SCO’s agenda by promoting cooperation in areas such as start-ups and innovation, digital transformation, traditional medicine, science and technology, youth empowerment and shared Buddhist heritage. This reflects India’s desire to prevent the SCO from becoming a mere security organization and transform it into a platform for developmental and technological cooperation among Eurasian countries.

Why India is at the SCO

India remains committed to the SCO institutionally, while calibrating the level of political engagement according to its broader strategic interests. It uses the organization as one platform within a larger network of partnerships.

For New Delhi, the SCO is primarily a pragmatic platform for engaging continental Eurasia, managing security challenges, preserving strategic autonomy and ensuring India’s presence in Central Asia. The biggest attraction of the SCO for India is geographical. It brings India into a forum with Russia, China and the Central Asian republics, alongside Iran, Pakistan and Belarus. Some of these countries play an important role in defining New Delhi’s economic and strategic engagement with Eurasia.

India does not want Eurasia to become the exclusive sphere of influence of any single power, and thus, a multipolar Eurasia suits New Delhi. Participation in the SCO allows India to remain politically present in a region where its physical connectivity remains relatively limited.

The SCO is the only multilateral platform which can facilitate India’s engagement with its two foremost security challenges – Pakistan and China. However, the degree of success in both cases has been different for New Delhi.

The SCO forced India and Pakistan into the same room, but institutional proximity has not produced meaningful bilateral rapprochement. The 2025 SCO defense ministers’ meeting illustrated this sharply. India objected to the failure of the joint statement to adequately address terrorism and the Pahalgam terror attack, and the meeting ended without consensus on the statement. The SCO has enabled contact but not reconciliation between India and Pakistan.

Engaging with neighbors

One of the expectations from India’s SCO membership was to dilute China’s power through a multilateral mechanism. The SCO, on different occasions, proved to be a platform for India-China crisis management and political signaling, even when the relationship remains largely competitive.

A similar diplomatic pattern occurred years prior. In September 2022, just one week before the SCO Summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, both militaries eased tensions in eastern Ladakh. The SCO has repeatedly provided a diplomatic setting in which India-China tensions have been managed or temporarily de-escalated.

However, India has not succeeded in using the SCO to overcome the China-Pakistan strategic partnership. China remains Pakistan’s main strategic partner and continues to support it on the issue of terrorism, the main bone of contention between India and Pakistan. The SCO, however, helps India to prevent Pakistan from monopolizing the regional diplomatic narrative and to ensure that China and Pakistan are not in an uncontested position to define the SCO agenda entirely on their own terms.

India has also used the SCO to deepen its engagement with the Central Asian countries, in line with its Connect Central Asia policy announced in 2012. The SCO provides India with regular interaction with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan at the leaders’, ministerial and bureaucratic levels. This is important because India’s bilateral engagement with Central Asia is otherwise constrained by the absence of a direct land corridor.

India-Russia Partnership 

India–Russia relations are important for understanding how the SCO works, because Russia has traditionally acted as a balancing and moderating force between India and China, while India has used the SCO to pursue its Eurasian interests without accepting a China-dominated regional order.

India’s close relationship with Russia, therefore, contributes to a multipolar rather than a bipolar China–Russia structure within the SCO. This is particularly important for New Delhi because India would want to maintain the SCO as a forum in which states with differing interests can coexist without the dominance of any country.

Doubts over India’s SCO Membership

Critics have often raised doubts over India’s membership in the SCO, arguing that it offers India limited gains. India’s increasing focus on the Indo-Pacific, maritime security, supply chains and the Indian Ocean are also sometimes seen as working against its Eurasian strategy.

India’s exit from the SCO would surrender diplomatic space to China and further strengthen the China-Pakistan partnership against India in Eurasia, especially with regards to the issue of terrorism. Such a move could allow both Pakistan and China to dominate the narrative on regional security to India’s disadvantage. India’s current SCO engagement continues to emphasize counterterrorism and fighting extremism as its main interests in the organization.

The Central Asian countries have welcomed India’s presence in the region, as part of their multi-vector foreign policy. India’s SCO exit would harm their foreign policy balance and impact India’s engagement with them.

The SCO is also one of the institutional spaces where India can interact with Russia despite the growing complexity of the international system. Exiting the SCO could, therefore, unintentionally reduce one of the platforms through which India manages its simultaneously important but increasingly complicated relationships with Russia and China.

New Delhi’s foreign policy is increasingly characterized by multi-alignment and strategic autonomy. Leaving the SCO could be interpreted as India moving closer to the West. That would unnecessarily constrain its diplomatic flexibility.

What has India missed at the SCO so far?

India joined the SCO partly because it wanted greater access to Central Asia. But after 25 years, India’s physical connectivity with the region remains weak. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has created extensive infrastructure connecting China with Central Asia and Pakistan. India has achieved institutional connectivity with Central Asia, but not physical connectivity.

Afghanistan is arguably the area where the SCO could have enormous relevance. However, it has struggled to develop a coherent common policy after the Taliban’s return to power due to differences among member states.

India has an interest in using the SCO to address the Afghanistan–Central Asia–South Asia narcotics corridor, but India–Pakistan tensions and the absence of Afghanistan from effective SCO mechanisms have prevented the organization from becoming a truly effective regional counter-narcotics platform. The SCO has Afghanistan at the center of its security agenda, but Afghanistan remains at the periphery of its institutional architecture.

The defense agreement signed on August 7, 2026 by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan has implications for the SCO, even though the pact is not an SCO initiative. The so-called Mecca Pact, which treats an armed attack on one party as an attack on all three, creates a security triangle involving one SCO member (Pakistan) and two SCO partners. This could increasingly influence discussions on terrorism, West Asian security, energy and connectivity within the broader SCO ecosystem.

The Mecca Pact does not directly threaten the SCO, but it could make the SCO’s internal geopolitics more complicated by bringing a Pakistan-led security alignment into an organization where India and Iran are already major stakeholders, negatively impacting the SCO’s consensus-based politics.

Bottom line

As the SCO completes 25 years, India’s experience demonstrates that the organization remains more useful as a platform for strategic engagement than as an instrument for achieving transformative outcomes. India has gained institutional access to continental Eurasia, maintained regular interaction with member states and used the SCO to advance counterterrorism, connectivity and development-oriented cooperation.

Yet, its limitations are equally evident: India has been unable to overcome the China-Pakistan strategic partnership, translate institutional connectivity into physical connectivity with Central Asia, or build a coherent collective response on Afghanistan and terrorism.

Nevertheless, these shortcomings do not make withdrawal attractive. For India, leaving would create diplomatic space for China and Pakistan while reducing one of the few forums where New Delhi can simultaneously engage Beijing, Moscow and Central Asia. The SCO, hence, remains relevant to India, not simply as a geopolitical bloc, but strategically – as an instrument to work towards a multipolar Eurasian order.

Europe only ranks fourth among Washington’s global security priorities, US envoy to NATO Matthew Whitaker has said, as President Donald Trump pushes the bloc’s members to take greater responsibility for their own defense.

Speaking to Newsmax on Thursday, Whitaker outlined Washington’s priorities under Trump’s national security strategy.

”The defense of the homeland is number one... The Western Hemisphere, where we live, [is] obviously equally important,” he said, followed by the Pacific. “Defending Europe is also a priority, but it’s in fourth place.”

Whitaker said the changing division of responsibilities within NATO would also benefit the US economically.

”Our European allies are taking over the conventional defense of the European continent,” Whitaker said. “And I think that’s good for the American taxpayers.”

The ambassador described NATO as being on a “new trajectory” under Trump, crediting the US president with pressuring other members of the US-led military bloc to dramatically increase defense spending.

At last year’s NATO summit in The Hague, members agreed to raise defense and security-related expenditure to 5% of GDP by 2035. Whitaker contrasted the new commitment with the bloc’s previous 2% target, which many members failed to meet.

”For 77 years our NATO allies have taken advantage of the United States’ strength,” Whitaker told Newsmax. “But now we’re going to be all equally strong.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly demanded that European NATO members shoulder a greater share of their own defense costs. The Pentagon is also reviewing the roughly 80,000 US troops currently stationed in Europe, with officials considering different options for Washington’s future military presence on the continent.

US President Donald Trump’s Marine One helicopter nearly collided with a passenger jet earlier this month after a radio failure prevented air traffic controllers from receiving its takeoff warning, federal investigators said on Thursday.

The August 4 incident occurred near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as Marine One departed the White House area with Trump aboard. An Envoy Air passenger jet was cleared for takeoff at roughly the same time.

The two aircraft came within about 1.5 km horizontally and just 215 meters vertically of each other, triggering an automated collision warning aboard the passenger jet. Marine One’s pilots spotted the aircraft and briefly halted their flight until it had passed.

Under standard procedures, the presidential helicopter was required to notify Reagan airport controllers three minutes before lifting off. Recordings show Marine One made the required call, but the tower did not properly receive it.

Investigators found that the communication problem was already known. Just a week earlier, Marine One pilots and Reagan airport controllers had met to discuss repeated failures by the tower to receive the helicopter’s three-minute takeoff warnings.

Investigators traced the radio problems partly to construction at the White House, which had forced Marine One to use a temporary takeoff site with poor radio coverage. The report did not specify the project, though the White House has been undergoing construction on both a new ballroom and a permanent helipad.

US aviation authorities have since relocated radio equipment at Reagan National to improve communications.

The near-miss came less than two years after an American Airlines regional jet collided with a US Army Black Hawk helicopter near the same airport in January 2025, killing all 67 people aboard the two aircraft.

Following that disaster, US aviation authorities permanently restricted helicopter operations around Reagan National and introduced additional safeguards aimed at preventing commercial aircraft and helicopters from crossing paths.

Under current procedures, commercial flights must also be suspended whenever Marine One operates in the airport’s airspace.

US President Donald Trump has claimed to have more than doubled America’s oil reserves through a sweeping agreement giving Washington majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan crude.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had worked with Venezuelan interim leader Delcy Rodriguez and private businesses to secure “majority US control” of the reserves “at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday.

“The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” he declared, claiming the transaction “MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves.”

Adding another 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil would bring the total volume under some form of US control to more than 111 billion barrels, even though that crude would not technically become part of US domestic reserves.

Rubio touted the agreement as a “huge win,” saying it would bring nearly $100 billion in private investment to Venezuela, support thousands of jobs and help lower US gasoline prices.

Rodriguez later confirmed the deal, saying it covers 17 strategic oil fields with a proven potential of 65 billion barrels and envisages more than $100 billion in investment and over $209 billion in tax revenue for Venezuela. She said the fields would be developed with the participation of private operators, but the precise ownership structure remains unclear. Earlier reports suggested Washington had sought century-long development rights.

After the operation, Trump declared that Washington would “run” Venezuela while overseeing a political transition and left open the possibility of further military action if the interim leadership failed to cooperate.

Washington subsequently moved to take “indefinite” control of Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, while Trump ordered proceeds from Venezuelan crude to be held in US Treasury accounts, subject to US restrictions.

The arrangement has drawn fierce criticism over the country’s sovereignty, even from some normally pro-Western opposition voices. Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, called the agreement “unconstitutional,” arguing that Rodriguez heads an illegitimate interim government with no authority to surrender long-term control over the country’s oil resources.

Meanwhile, former vice president and veteran Chavista figure Elias Jaua recently accused Washington more broadly of stripping Venezuela of its sovereignty and taking control of its natural resources.

The Russian military has carried out a wave of strikes on military-related targets in Kiev and its suburbs, including a facility storing components for Ukraine’s long-range Flamingo cruise missiles, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.

The statement came after a series of powerful secondary explosions tore through a warehouse complex near Kiev on Friday night, with videos circulating on social media showing fireballs flying off for hundreds of meters.

The next morning, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed the strikes, saying the attack, which involved missiles and drones, hit the Fim Service transport and logistics center in the Kiev suburb of Chaiky. The facility was used for storing Flamingo missiles, it added.

Another logistics center in Kalinovka, Kiev Region, was also hit, the ministry said, noting that the facility hosted a customs terminal responsible for distributing Western-supplied military cargo.

The Russian military also reported striking an ammunition warehouse in the settlement of Milaya operated by Fire Point which contained components and launch boosters for long-range FP-1 and FP-2 drones.

The attacks also targeted a parking area for fuel tankers in Izmail in southern Ukraine, which was used to supply the Ukrainian military. In Nikolayev, the barrage targeted a maritime cargo terminal and logistics centers used to unload and store military supplies, with a total of 18 facilities containing military equipment and three fuel depots hit, according to the statement.

The Russian Defense Ministry has repeatedly vowed to carry out “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military-industrial facilities in retaliation for Kiev’s “terrorist attacks” on Russian civilian targets. Moscow has maintained that it never targets civilians.

Today at 20:35, a strike involving Geran-4 jet-powered loitering munitions targeted a warehouse complex in the village of Myla, Bucha District, Kyiv Oblast.

The facility was used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) as a rocket and artillery weapons depot.

📍 50.437697,… https://t.co/RQ2lsKEd2w pic.twitter.com/X9n8OjtvZu

— OSINTWarfare (@OSINTWarfare) August 28, 2026

The head of the Kiev Region’s military administration, Timur Tkachenko, confirmed that the warehouse blaze was accompanied by explosions. Authorities temporarily closed a 17 km stretch of the M-06 Kiev-Chop highway in both directions and urged residents to stay away and not record the aftermath.

Several open-source monitoring accounts claimed the strike took place at around 8:35 PM and involved Russian jet-powered Geran-4 loitering munitions targeting a warehouse complex near the village of Milaya.

Later in the day, Vladimir Zelensky claimed 27 people were killed and dozens more injured after a warehouse in Milaya was hit. Furthermore, he admitted that the ammunition was apparently stored illegally near residential areas, saying that the Ukrainian authorities had opened a criminal investigation into possible negligence.

Prime minister of Ukraine said all the emergency equipment are going towards the myla Kiev region and they are ready to evacuate civilians from the area if needed. pic.twitter.com/vjxCe41Cam

— Global Surveillance (@Globalsurv) August 28, 2026

Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergey Koretsky said he had received reports from the interior minister and the head of Ukraine’s State Emergency Service about the strike, which he said caused a fire followed by a “detonation.”

But the prime minister then drew a pointed comparison with the deadly July explosion at an ammunition depot in Vishnevoye, another Kiev suburb.

“Unfortunately, we can already state that the terrible tragedy in Vishnevoye did not become a lesson,” Koretsky said. He lamented making “the same mistakes” in the fifth year of the conflict, calling it “criminal negligence,” and demanded that everyone responsible face “strict punishment.”

While the prime minister did not spell out what those repeated mistakes were, his reference appeared to point to the storage of explosive military materiel in or near populated areas.

Ukraine’s Security Service later said investigators found that ammunition had been kept in warehouses unsuitable for such storage and without the required permits, including facilities in the “immediate proximity” of residential areas.

Two defense-industry executives were detained on negligence charges. Ukroboronprom separately dismissed the heads of two enterprises over ammunition storage violations, while the conglomerate’s director general, Herman Smetanin, stepped down days later without publicly giving a reason.

British conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos has been deported from the US after being detained by immigration authorities in Louisiana for allegedly overstaying his legal status and failing to appear for an immigration hearing.

The 41-year-old former Breitbart editor was returned to the United Kingdom on Friday, just a day after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed on Saturday.

“Yiannopoulos legally entered the country on May 14, 2019, through New York City,” DHS said following his arrest, describing him as an “illegal alien” who “chose to overstay his welcome in violation of our nation’s laws.”

An immigration judge issued Yiannopoulos a final order of removal on July 22 after he failed to appear for his hearing, the department said. His deportation was carried out on August 28.

On August 27, ICE arrested Milo Yiannopoulos, an illegal alien from the United Kingdom, at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY) in Kenner, Louisiana. Yiannopoulos legally entered the country on May 14, 2019, through New York City, New York. He chose to… https://t.co/Hk6QBUmGDI pic.twitter.com/DbIhv8Z6PI

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) August 28, 2026

The incident quickly spilled into a bitter feud within the MAGA movement. Conservative activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer celebrated Yiannopoulos’ detention and claimed she had personally alerted authorities to his immigration status. The Daily Caller reported that scrutiny of his status intensified after he began criticizing US President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

Once one of Trump’s most flamboyant online supporters, Yiannopoulos famously referred to him as “Daddy” during the 2016 campaign. Their relationship later deteriorated sharply, with the British commentator accusing Trump of betraying supporters.

Yiannopoulos subsequently joined Kanye ‘Ye’ West as the rapper mounted an abortive 2024 presidential bid, serving as his campaign manager. He also helped arrange Ye’s controversial 2022 dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Earlier that year, he had worked as an unpaid intern for then-Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

His arrest coincided with Ye’s Friday-night performance in New Orleans, although it has not been confirmed that Yiannopoulos was in the city for the concert.

His confrontational style has repeatedly generated outrage, however. Among other issues, he drew attention years ago to Britain’s grooming-gang scandals, accusing authorities and the media of ignoring the abuse of vulnerable girls because officials feared accusations of racism or Islamophobia.

✨DEVELOPING✨Footage from 2016 of Milo Yiannopoulos drawing attention to Muslim rape gangs—eight years before the scandal went mainstream—is recirculating. Woke stupidity enabled the industrial-scale rape of white children by Pakistani gangs for over 30 years.
(CNBC, 9/8/2016) pic.twitter.com/7oF6d79UMV

— MILO (@Nero) January 15, 2025

Yiannopoulos’ career suffered a major setback in 2017 after old remarks about sexual relationships involving minors resurfaced, costing him a publishing deal and forcing his resignation from Breitbart.

The White House has not publicly intervened in the case, while Yiannopoulos has not commented on his deportation.

Britain doubles down against Russia

Russia has already warned the UK of “consequences” for Ukraine’s use of British-made drones to strike Russian civilian infrastructure. These words were clearly lost on British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who arrived in Kiev on Monday to mark the 35th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence. Burnham compared the Russia/Ukraine conflict to Britain’s struggle against Nazi Germany in World War II (ironic, after the Zelensky regime just reburied a Nazi collaborator with state honors), and announced that he’d share classified data enabling Kiev to manufacture ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles in Ukraine. 

Two days later, the Ukrainians showed Russia exactly what these missiles will be used for, injuring multiple civilians in a Storm Shadow strike on a Donetsk apartment block.

Russia’s response was immediate and kinetic. Missiles and drones pounded military and dual-use targets across Kiev, with waves of projectiles hitting the Ukrainian capital from morning until evening on Thursday. Meanwhile, the British media chose to run a warning from supposed “Kremlin adviser” Andrey Fedorov, who said that he “cannot exclude 100% that there might be some semi-military” attacks on British soil too.

RT looked at the dire state of diplomatic relations between Russia and the UK this week and concluded that Moscow’s restraint is rapidly reaching its limits.

Spy intrigue in Moscow

With Burnham climbing the escalation ladder as fast as possible, planespotters saw an unusual flight entering Russian airspace on Tuesday morning: a US Air Force C-17A Globemaster. It soon emerged that CIA Director John Ratcliffe was on board, bound for meetings with his Russian intelligence counterparts. 

An unusual visitor to Moscow this morning. 👀

A US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III flew from Riga to Moscow Vnukovo Airporthttps://t.co/D7vylYesDQ pic.twitter.com/jXbOSj0LXM

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) August 25, 2026

It’s been nearly five years since a CIA chief visited the Russian capital, and the Western press went into speculation overdrive. Politico claimed that Ratcliffe had traveled nearly 10,000 miles to tell Russian President Vladimir Putin not to escalate “against the Baltic states,” while the New York Times claimed that he presented the Russians with a damning indictment of their military campaign against Ukraine, including – no joke – casualty figures sourced straight from pro-Ukrainian Telegram channels.

Less than a day before Ratcliffe touched down at Vnukovo Airport, the Vatican’s chief diplomat, Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, landed in Moscow on a mission of his own. Gallagher’s diplomacy was more public, with the Vatican envoy repeating the Holy See’s calls for an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Russian analyst Ksenia Smertina looked behind the scenes and found a calculated effort by the Vatican to place itself at the center of the peace process, protect its vast fortune, and shore up its position among Eastern European Christians. Her article for RT is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the power politics that have shaped the Church since the days of the Medicis and Borgias.

Ukraine at 35

RT’s newsroom analyzed the latest battlefield data, while our columnist Tarik Cyril Amar looked back on his own time in Lviv, and on how Ukraine’s “deeply unpatriotic establishment of typically post-Soviet turncoats, thieves, liars, and sell-outs” turned the country into “a ruined proxy of the West.”

Landslide disaster in Nepal

Ukraine’s leaders may have chosen their own fate, but some have their fate tragically decided by mother nature. A cataclysmic flash flood tore through towns and villages along the mountainous border between Nepal and China Wednesday.

Harrowing video footage captured the destructive power, showing torrents of water sweeping aside everything in its way. Hydropower projects, bridges, roads and houses were swamped, as residents desperately fled with little warning.

❗Nepal Floods: At Least 7 Dead, Security Personnel Missing 🇳🇵

The worst-hit areas include Timure and Syabrubesi in Rasuwa, where floodwaters have swept away homes, bridges and parts of a key road towards the China border, according to The Kathmandu Post.

Nine Armed Police… https://t.co/OGz6YNAMPx pic.twitter.com/XRGgZGxHj7

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) August 26, 2026

Thousands of people are still missing, and rescue efforts are ongoing as of Friday. Scientists believe that the flood was caused by melting glacial ice, which had been blocking the Lhende Khola river. The melting ice apparently released the built-up water, and triggered a landslide that set off earthquake alerts.

Meta and TikTok dodge trial 

Anyone hoping that Meta may finally be forced to lift the lid on its addictive algorithms was left disappointed on Wednesday, when Mark Zuckerberg’s megacorporation paid $18 billion to settle a landmark lawsuit brought by 29 US states. Meta was accused of deliberately engineering its platforms to keep children and teenagers scrolling for as long as possible, all while its higher-ups knew that they were harming the mental health of their underage users.

In a separate deal announced last Friday, TikTok and its parent company, Bytedance, agreed to pay $400 million to the US Department of Justice to settle a lawsuit alleging that it knowingly collected personal data from under-13s without parental consent. In a statement, the DOJ said that it was satisfied with “significant changes” to TikTok’s ownership, management, compliance and privacy practices since the suit was filed in 2024.

Zuckerberg is not out of the woods yet. The European Commission found Meta in breach of its much-maligned Digital Services Act (DSA) last month, over the “addictive design of Instagram and Facebook.” Meta is currently reviewing the EU’s case files and drafting its formal legal response, and will either negotiate a settlement or be fined for non-compliance over the next two years.

What to watch out for

While we keep an eye on the battlefield in Ukraine and Vladimir Zelensky’s British-enabled missile campaign against Russia, we’ll also be giving you live updates from the 26th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Kyrgyzstan on Monday and Tuesday. The summit marks 25 years of the world’s largest regional organization, and we’ll bring you every detail from Putin’s meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

We’ll also know by the end of the weekend whether Iceland will restart accession talks with the EU, a significant step toward becoming the bloc’s 28th member state. Icelanders will decide whether to restart talks in a referendum on Saturday, but with the country’s sovereignty and control over its precious fisheries at stake, victory for the pro-Brussels government is by no means assured.

The EU could face another humiliation next weekend, this time in Germany as the right-wing, Euroskeptic AfD looks set to dominate a state election in Saxony-Anhalt. Stick with RT.com in the runup to this landmark election, in which the AfD is predicted to win more than 40% of the vote.

Russia has received innovation cooperation proposals from some 30 countries, including nations in Europe, North America, and the Middle East, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The Russian leader made the remarks on Friday at a plenary session of the Strong Ideas for a New Era forum in Nizhny Novgorod. The annual event is organized by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives (ASI), a government-backed nonprofit focused on promoting innovation, and it marks its 15th anniversary this year.

The forum brings together business leaders, experts, NGOs, and government officials to develop and discuss projects in economic, technological, and social development.

The president said the agency has received innovative proposals from across Russia as well as abroad, with the most promising projects to be submitted to the government for further consideration.

“We’ve received proposals not only from all constituent entities of Russia but also from some 30 foreign countries, including from Europe, North America, the Middle East, and other regions of the world,” Putin stated.

He said the projects could open up new opportunities for Russian industries and regions while expanding international cooperation.

On August 25, it was not so much the CIA director as a ready-made story that landed in Moscow: a hulking C-17 military transport, several hours away from the cameras, secret meetings, and a return flight via Riga. By Friday, barely any more facts had emerged. SVR head Sergey Naryshkin confirmed that the talks concerned matters within the intelligence services’ purview, calling the field “sensitive and highly specialized.” Ratcliffe did not meet with Vladimir Putin, but the Russian president was briefed on the talks immediately.

Secrecy, however, abhors a vacuum – especially when the CIA is involved. In just three days, Russian media had sent Ratcliffe to Moscow with a new Ukraine plan, a warning about strikes on NATO weapons plants, and a scenario for nuclear war in the Middle East. Inside the C-17’s cargo hold, they imagined secret equipment, detained intelligence officers, and a mysterious “package” too sensitive to entrust to a phone line.

Washington probes Russia’s red lines

Gazeta.ru views Ratcliffe’s visit as an attempt by Washington to learn Moscow’s plans for the fall directly and gauge whether Ukraine talks might resume. The outlet does not predict an imminent breakthrough. Grigory Karasin, chairman of the Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, speaks only of a useful “psychological climate” for keeping contacts alive. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, stresses that a visit at this level does not happen without a serious reason.

Political analyst Sergey Markelov offers the most specific theory. In his view, the Americans were looking not for a ready-made peace formula, but for a possible midpoint between the two sides’ maximalist demands:

”The Americans can see that Moscow’s and Kiev’s positions are 100% incompatible. As master negotiators, they are asking whether there is some kind of middle ground.”

Vladimir Vasiliev, a senior researcher at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies, offers another hypothesis: Ratcliffe may have acted as Trump’s trusted courier, carrying a message the White House did not want to send through conventional diplomatic channels.

Gazeta.Ru

A secret assignment for intelligence diplomacy

Expert magazine treats the visit as a special form of backchannel diplomacy, approaching it from several angles. Pavel Koshkin, a senior researcher at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies, says the agenda may have included red lines, cybercrime, and terrorism. Alexander Bobrov points to technical cooperation between the two intelligence services and the possibility of new prisoner exchanges. The common thread is that Moscow and Washington are simultaneously defining the limits of what they will tolerate and searching for areas where cooperation remains possible.

Expert.Ru

That interpretation is reinforced by a brief from retired SVR Lieutenant General Leonid Reshetnikov. He sees the level of the visit as evidence that Ratcliffe was carrying a direct and highly important assignment from Trump, but cautions against trying to guess its contents.

”Apparently, the Americans have a proposal, which is why the CIA director came. But no one is required to walk out to the press and disclose what was said in closed-door meetings.”

Ultimately, Expert leaves the precise agenda open. Ukraine may have been part of it, but not necessarily the only item. The magazine’s main conclusion is that, with formal diplomacy in crisis, intelligence services are becoming the channel through which the most sensitive proposals are conveyed.

Reconnaissance ahead of a major deal

Lenta.ru does not treat Ratcliffe’s visit as a stand-alone mission, but as preparation for the next round of Russian-American negotiations. In an exclusive comment to the outlet, Svetlana Zhurova, first deputy chair of the State Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, links the CIA chief’s arrival to discussions over the contours of a peace agreement in Ukraine.

”There is more and more discussion of what a peace agreement might look like and what shape it could take. So… that is the only issue that could be on the agenda.”

The key detail is the expected fall visit by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. In that sequence, Ratcliffe looks like an advance scout in both senses of the word: sent to compare positions and clear the way for higher-level political negotiators.

Lenta.Ru

Trump rushes back to the Ukraine track

Moskovsky Komsomolets describes Ratcliffe’s arrival as a “tough heart-to-heart.” The main theory comes from American affairs analyst Malek Dudakov: the Trump administration is scrambling for a foreign-policy win ahead of the midterm elections and, after setbacks elsewhere, is turning back to talks with Moscow. Ratcliffe is presented not as a peacemaker, but as a hawk who oversees the sharing of US intelligence with Kiev.

”I would not get my hopes up that the visit will produce a breakthrough. In all likelihood, it won’t.”

MK’s interpretation is dramatic but skeptical: Washington is in a hurry, and the visit was primarily about hard bargaining over Ukraine.

MK.RU

In a separate opinion piece for the same newspaper, political analyst Ruslan Pankratov makes the C-17 and the one-day format central to his reading of the trip. In his view, Ratcliffe may have delivered a warning about the limits of escalation, intelligence assessments of potential threats, or a specific package of classified information.

Washington tests whether Russia has reached its limit

Komsomolskaya Pravda casts the visit as an emergency effort by Washington to assess the risk of a direct clash between Russia and NATO’s European members. American affairs analyst Andrey Sidorov links the trip to a US desire to learn how Moscow might respond to the expansion of Western military support for Kiev. Political analyst Aleksey Pilko makes the theory more specific, suggesting that the immediate concern may have been possible Russian strikes on European plants producing drones and other weapons for Ukraine.

”He came to bargain – to find out what the Russian side is thinking.”

These are the experts’ assessments, but KP reinforces them through its headlines: “Approaching the Danger Line” and “Russia’s Patience Is Running Out.” In the outlet’s framing, Ratcliffe did not bring an ultimatum. He came to determine whether the escalation was real enough to force the United States to decide if it was prepared to enter a war on behalf of its European allies.

In another article, KP shifts the possible focus of the talks to the Middle East. Vladimir Vasiliev argues that Trump’s description of the visit as “routine” was an attempt to conceal its urgency. His theory is that Moscow and Washington may have discussed the risk of a Turkish-Israeli confrontation, Iran’s possible entry into an anti-Israel bloc, and the potential US response.

”I cannot rule out that, if Tehran joins the emerging anti-Israel coalition, the United States could use tactical nuclear weapons against it.”

KP military columnist Viktor Baranets turns the visit into a spy thriller. In his interview, retired military intelligence officer Pavel Artamonov suggests that Ratcliffe brought a request not to strike British factories producing missiles for Ukraine. At the same time, he claims, the American C-17 may have gathered signals intelligence during the flight.

”Along the C-17’s flight path, all our military systems were switched off. We left the Americans starved of intelligence, so to speak.”

The Baltic states should be warned, not Moscow

The business daily Vzglyad develops the theory that Ratcliffe may have come to warn Russia, specifying that Washington could be worried about strikes on facilities in the Baltic states working for the Ukrainian military. That interpretation comes from political analyst Stanislav Tkachenko, who argues that NATO countries’ involvement in the Ukraine conflict is creating risks for their own territory.

War correspondent Alexander Kots adds a historical parallel with CIA Director William Burns’ 2021 trip to Moscow. The West ignored Russia’s concerns at the time, he argues, so a new warning will not make Moscow change course either.

”Don’t provoke us, and no one will attack anyone. You can’t talk to us in ultimatums. It doesn’t work.”

The outlet therefore presents the visit not as a show of American strength, but as a sign of Washington’s mounting concern over the consequences of Western policy.

Vzglyad

The C-17 mystery: What Ratcliffe brought – and whom he may have taken home

The most important clue was not hidden in diplomatic protocol, but in the aircraft itself. Why did the CIA director need a heavy C-17 military transport if the trip involved only a few closed-door meetings?

Military columnist Mikhail Khodarenok suggests in a column for Gazeta.ru that Ratcliffe delivered updated US proposals on Ukraine that were too sensitive to entrust to ordinary communications channels.

”He flew in, handed over the package, and flew back out. The military transport also carried additional cargo whose purpose remains to be determined.”

Lenta.ru picks up the mystery at the other end of the route. Military analyst Aleksander Perendzhiev says the roomy aircraft may have been needed to take American intelligence officers or classified Western hardware out of Russia.

Together, the two theories form a single narrative: Ratcliffe may have arrived with a confidential “package” on Ukraine, while the C-17 may not have flown home empty. There is no evidence to confirm either claim, but the aircraft turns a series of closed-door talks into a story about a possible exchange whose contents both sides preferred to keep out of sight.

Talks “under the wing” of the intelligence services

In an opinion column, Vedomosti journalists Roman Romanov and Aleksey Nikolsky call the visit an important milestone, but caution against inflated expectations. Ratcliffe most likely did not come to revive the Anchorage agreements, they argue, but to explore new openings for dialogue.

”Such a visit may signal that the negotiating process is moving ‘under the wing’ of the two countries’ intelligence services.”

The authors believe Ratcliffe could prove more effective than Witkoff and Kushner: he has official standing and can coordinate negotiations with US government agencies. Ukraine remains the central issue, though Vedomosti allows for a broader bilateral agenda. The newspaper does not expect a quick breakthrough, however. Moscow is unlikely to accept an immediate ceasefire unless the fundamental issues are resolved.

A secret visit treated as routine business

Unlike many other outlets, Kommersant, Russia’s oldest newspaper, offers no theory of its own and does not consult Russian experts. Its report is a restrained chronology: the arrival of a US military aircraft, several hours in Moscow, no meeting with Putin, and the official explanation that the trip involved contacts between the intelligence services.

”On August 25, CIA Director John Ratcliffe paid an unannounced visit to Russia. The purpose of his trip, and whom he met in Moscow, remain unknown.”

The only clue comes from biographical context: Ratcliffe has previously helped arrange prisoner exchanges, while the CIA and SVR maintain a direct line of communication. The visit is therefore presented more as part of a closed working dialogue between intelligence services than as public diplomacy. Still, Kommersant stops short of a definitive conclusion. Even its headline, “The Mysterious Envoy,” preserves the intrigue rather than resolving it.

Kommersant

Many other outlets take a similarly restrained view, consistently lowering the temperature by citing official statements. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov describes contacts between the intelligence services as a positive development; Naryshkin calls them part of the job; and Trump points to the good relationship between the CIA and SVR chiefs while denying that Ratcliffe carried any special message.

”Like everyone else, we have rules governing how intelligence services interact. There is nothing unusual about that.”

That remark by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, quoted by Izvestia, best captures the line taken by most Russian media outlets. The visit is presented not as the start of a major political breakthrough, but as the work of a standing backchannel between Moscow and Washington. Russian coverage does not dismiss its importance, but urges readers to judge it by the contacts that have been confirmed, not speculation about a secret mission.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said that his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will stick to its policy of isolating the AfD despite the right-wing party polling at over 40% ahead of regional elections in Saxony-Anhalt. The chancellor claimed that the Alternative for Germany maintains close ties with Russia and thus poses a threat to the “internal and external security of our country.”

The AfD is the largest opposition faction in the Bundestag and the country’s most popular party, with recent surveys indicating that it enjoys the support of 28% of respondents.

The right-wing party campaigns on an anti-immigration platform and is also highly critical of the German government’s support for Ukraine, as well as sanctions against Russia.

Appearing on broadcaster RTL on Thursday, Merz was asked by a businessman from Saxony-Anhalt about the feasibility of the so-called ‘firewall’ policy in a democracy, under which all major parties refuse to cooperate with the AfD. The question came ahead of the regional elections in the eastern region slated for September 6.

The chancellor defended the controversial policy, categorically ruling out a coalition between the CDU and the AfD due to “fundamental” differences.

The chancellor suggested the possibility of forming a minority government in Saxony-Anhalt, pointing to the situation in both Thuringia and Saxony, where the AfD has also been sidelined, despite coming out on top in the regional elections.

Meanwhile, an INSA poll published by Bild earlier this month indicated that support for Germany’s governing CDU/CSU bloc had dipped to the lowest level in almost five years, at 20%.

The survey also showed that 78% of respondents were dissatisfied with Merz’s government.

Comprised of the Christian Democratic CDU/CSU bloc and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the ruling coalition has faced criticism over continued economic stagnation and its failure to deliver on pre-election promises.

The AfD has for years faced significant pressure from regional and federal authorities in Germany. The country’s domestic security agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), has designated the party as a suspected far-right extremist entity – a label that permits government surveillance of the AfD. In several regions, local chapters have been subjected to even wider monitoring by the authorities.

Poland has sent confusing signals regarding the potential deployment of nuclear weaponry on its territory, in what appears to be an attempt to enjoy the fruits of deterrence without hosting foreign munitions.

In recent months, a dozen European NATO members, including Poland, have expressed a desire to either host nuclear weapons or take part in nuclear-sharing initiatives to varying degrees. Apart from existing nuclear sharing within the bloc, which involves hosting US munitions, France has proposed an EU-focused scheme to deploy its own weapons to willing nations.

The confusion began on Thursday, when Polish Deputy Defense Minister Pawel Zalewski appeared to rule out ever hosting the weaponry on the country’s soil.

“I would like to say very clearly and openly: Poland does not want to have nuclear warheads on its territory,” Zalewski told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. “We want to participate in NATO nuclear deterrence, [which] does not mean to have a nuclear warhead on our territory.”

“To dispel any doubts: Poland remains steadfastly interested in participating in the NATO Nuclear Sharing program. We are also conducting talks regarding the proposal for participation in the European nuclear protective umbrella. Our government’s stance on these issues is unequivocal,” he wrote on X.

While the minister did not explicitly say whether Warsaw was open to hosting foreign nukes, Zalewski doubled down on his original remarks later in the day. Poland remains committed to participating in “NATO’s nuclear deterrence, [but] without storing nuclear weapons,” the official wrote on X while berating those confused by his statements. “Security requires competence and seriousness. Claiming that Nuclear Sharing [equates to] storing nuclear weapons in Poland is ignorance or deliberate manipulation,” he asserted.

Ukraine’s central bank has launched an anti-money laundering probe into several lenders who processed a bail payment for former Justice and Energy Minister German Galushchenko, amid fresh allegations of high-level corruption in Kiev.

Earlier this month, Western-backed anti-corruption agencies accused a group of officials, including a deputy head of Vladimir Zelensky’s office, of laundering about $3.3 million in cash to secure Galushchenko’s release on bail. 

Galushchenko, who was arrested and charged with money laundering and membership of a criminal organization after attempting to leave Ukraine, is also a suspect in a separate corruption case linked to Timur Mindich, self-exiled in Israel but known widely as ‘Zelensky’s bagman’.

Ukrainian state-owned Sense Bank temporarily disabled fraud detection systems at the same time that some $1.7 million in cash – intended for Galushchenko’s bail – was allegedly laundered and processed, records released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) indicate. 

Ukraine’s central bank said Thursday that it is also investigating several other institutions linked to the bail payments.

Mindich’s man in the government

Galushchenko was arrested in February and charged with large-scale money laundering in connection with an alleged criminal network operated by Mindich, who himself fled Ukraine to Israel after NABU accused him of extorting $100 million in kickbacks from state atomic energy company Energoatom. 

Galushchenko was duly released on $3.3 million bail in late June, upon receipt of cash by the authorities reportedly from four dubious sources.

NABU surveillance audio files suggest that Zelensky’s deputy head of office, Irina Mudraya, and others, used influence at Sense Bank to convert bags of cash into bank transfers to the account of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Investigators filmed the cash being delivered, according to the case materials. Mudraya, who is accused of administering the scheme, was subsequently arrested and fired. 

Who controls Sense Bank?

Recordings linked to Mindich previously leaked to the media include a discussion between one of his associates and a former adviser to the bank’s CEO about impending changes to its supervisory council, and during which the body’s current head, Nikolay Gladyshenko, was identified as a suitable candidate.

Gladyshenko and the bank’s current head, Aleksey Stupak, allegedly approved the bail payment scheme. Sense Bank’s director of financial monitoring, Lyudmila Snigur, who has since been suspended, was reportedly threatened with dismissal unless her department skipped human reviews of transactions made during “maintenance” of the automated systems.

Control relinquished by ‘Israeli refugee Timur’

The Mudraya case materials depict Sense Bank as being in a vulnerable position and seeking new protection with the permission of “Israeli refugee Timur” – presumably Mindich. This allegedly made the bank susceptible to “requests” to launder money for Galushchenko.

Doubts about Ukraine’s anti-laundering system

NABU’s allegations have further embarrassed the central bank as its reputation disintegrates in the fallout from the corruption surrounding Zelensky. The regulator launched an investigation into Gladyshenko in May after his possible links to Mindich became public, but maintains that it did not have enough evidence before the latest revelations to declare him unsuitable for the position.

Gladyshenko announced he was recusing himself from his role, but this “did not exclude his actual influence on the bank’s operations,” the central bank conceded last week.

The central bank insists the Mudraya case demonstrates that its anti-money-laundering system is effective, but has confirmed that it is also investigating other banks that may also have participated in the cash-to-bail scheme run out of Vladimir Zelensky’s office.

The reported invitation for Iran to join the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement puts a new perspective on what the new alliance might ultimately become.

Mehdi Rahimi, head of the Iranian parliament’s news agency, said that the proposal was under consideration by the country’s leadership and argued that the creation of a regional security umbrella would represent a victory for the Islamic Republic. Shortly afterwards, however, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei stated that Tehran had received no formal invitation, although proposals for dialogue with the pact’s members on collective regional security had indeed been raised. For the moment, this appears to be a political overture intended to test the reactions of the parties rather than the beginning of a formal accession process. Even so, it suggests that the agreement is not intended as an alliance against Tehran, but as the possible foundation of a security system built with Iranian participation.

The Mecca Agreement was signed on August 7 by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Its central provision declares that an armed attack against one member will be regarded as an attack against all. The formula theoretically combines a formidable set of capabilities: Saudi Arabia’s immense financial resources and influence over global energy markets, Türkiye’s large military and sophisticated defence industry, and Pakistan’s substantial military experience and nuclear arsenal. Yet the public statements offer no detailed decision-making procedure and do not specify what action each signatory would be obliged to take during a crisis. At this stage, the pact is only a political declaration of collective deterrence and not a proper military alliance.

Donald Trump welcomed the pact and expressed satisfaction that the states of the region were finally assuming greater responsibility for their own defense. His response was consistent with his longstanding view that Washington’s allies should bear a larger share of military expenditure, allowing the US to reduce its costs and step back from the role of unconditional guarantor of other nations’ security. Seen from this perspective, the agreement might appear to be a success for American policy, since three US partners are establishing an additional mechanism of deterrence without Washington’s direct involvement.

Yet behind this public enthusiasm lies a trend that is far less favorable to the US. The Mecca Pact cannot be described as the first symptom of declining American influence in the Middle East, but it is the clearest institutional sign to date that regional powers no longer regard the American security umbrella as sufficient and have begun constructing autonomous centers of power. Washington retains its military bases, weapons systems, intelligence capabilities and relationships with regional elites, but it is gradually losing its monopoly over the rules by which Middle Eastern security is organized.

The US-Israeli war against Iran accelerated this transformation because it revealed the double-edged nature of American security guarantees. The US military presence may deter adversaries, but it can also draw the Gulf states into conflicts whose timing and objectives are determined without their meaningful participation. Iranian strikes, disruption to maritime trade and threats to energy infrastructure demonstrated that a close partnership with Washington does not insulate regional states from danger and may instead force them to bear the consequences of American policy.

Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan are not abandoning American weapons or political ties, yet they want a mechanism capable of functioning even when Washington’s priorities diverge from their own.

For the pact’s three founding members, the possibility of inviting Iran addresses a problem that might otherwise have become the source of another major conflict. As long as Tehran remained outside the agreement, it could interpret the partnership between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan as an attempt to build a Sunni military bloc directed against the Islamic Republic.

By offering Tehran a place at the table, the pact’s founders have effectively replaced the question of whom the alliance is directed against with the question of which rules the region’s principal powers are prepared to accept. Even if Iran never joins, the dialogue itself reduces the likelihood that the agreement will automatically become an instrument of its isolation. Saudi Arabia gains an opportunity to combine military deterrence with continued diplomatic de-escalation, Türkiye strengthens its role as a mediator, and Pakistan avoids having to choose between its strategic partnership with Riyadh and its relationship with neighboring Iran.

Full Iranian participation could transform the nature of the pact itself. It would cease to be an alliance among states united by similar fears and would instead become a mechanism of mutual restraint in which one member’s security could not be achieved through another’s vulnerability. A declaration of collective defense alone, however, would not be enough. The participants would need emergency communication channels, rules for preventing military incidents, mechanisms for exchanging information on missile launches, guarantees of freedom of navigation and commitments not to support armed action against fellow members.

The most difficult issue would concern the non-state armed groups aligned with Iran. If Tehran joined the pact, it would inevitably be expected to assume political responsibility for the actions of forces receiving Iranian weapons and support. At the same time, the other members would have to refrain from exploiting Iran’s internal divisions as a means of exerting pressure on its leadership. Only such reciprocity could turn an appealing formula into a functioning regional order.

Iran’s potential inclusion could initiate not only a political renaissance but also a major economic advance, since the development of the Middle East has been constrained for decades not by a lack of resources, but by chronic uncertainty. Wars raise shipping insurance costs, compel governments to accumulate weapons, discourage long-term investment and turn transport corridors into instruments of geopolitical bargaining. Even a partial reduction in these risks would release resources currently devoted to preparing for the next crisis.

Saudi capital, Turkish industry, the Pakistani market and Iran’s energy and transit potential could complement one another. Their cooperation could create new routes connecting Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, while the security of the Strait of Hormuz could be transformed from an instrument of mutual coercion into a shared interest. A region long seen as mostly a theater of war and foreign intervention would gain an opportunity to become an autonomous economic center within an increasingly multipolar world.

The economic dividend, however, is not guaranteed. Continuing sanctions against Iran, competition over transport routes, clashing Turkish and Saudi ambitions, and Pakistan’s disputes with India could import old conflicts into the new arrangement. The pact’s success will depend on the ability of its members to separate collective security from temporary alignments and to prevent every bilateral confrontation from becoming an obligation for the entire coalition.

Israel’s choice

The most difficult external question concerns the future relationship between the Mecca Pact and Israel. Israel is already uneasy about the agreement, and would likely find the accession of Iran unacceptable, seeing it as the beginning of strategic encirclement.

Even with Iran, however, the pact does not have to become an alliance against Israel. If its members firmly establish the defensive nature of the agreement and offer Israel mechanisms for preventing conflict, it could restrain escalation rather than prepare the ground for it. The problem is that the current Israeli leadership has grown accustomed to pursuing security through the unrestricted use of unilateral force, whereas a regional system requires agreed rules and recognition that neighboring states also possess legitimate security interests.

An opposition victory would not guarantee peace, since a hard line on Iran and national security extends far beyond Netanyahu’s political camp. Nevertheless, a new coalition might choose normalization over the endless expansion of conflict and attempt to incorporate Israel into the emerging regional balance.

The Mecca Agreement is not a new Middle East Order – merely a promise of one. Yet if it manages to accommodate Iran as a member, establish clear rules of mutual restraint and find a form of peaceful coexistence with Israel, the Middle East could for the first time in decades have a security system created primarily by the states of the region. Such a system would not eliminate their differences, but it could allow them to work with and around those differences without constant recourse to an external hegemon and without turning every crisis into a war. The cradle of the Abrahamic faiths might then cease to be consumed by recurring fires and begin its transformation into a strong, interconnected and prosperous region.

After decades outside the bloc’s periphery, Iceland held a referendum on reopening membership talks with the EU. The Viking nation chose not to trade sovereignty for stability. Some 53% of voters opposed re-opening membership talks with Ursul von der Leyen's fractured bloc.

What stage were talks between Iceland and Brussels at?

Iceland applied for EU membership in 2009, in the chaotic aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The country’s three biggest banks, Kaupthing, Landsbanki, and Glitnir, collapsed in the same week, and rather than force taxpayers to cover their balance sheets, Reykjavik washed its hands of the problem and let them fail.

The Icelandic krona plummeted, inflation soared, and center-right Prime Minister Geir Haarde resigned. Amid the meltdown, the newly empowered Social Democrats argued that by joining the EU and adopting the euro, Iceland could shield itself from future shocks – even as Iceland recovered far more quickly than EU members such as Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, which were subjected to crippling austerity measures by Brussels, the World Bank, and the IMF in the wake of the crisis.

The Social Democrats won the argument, convincing their left-wing, Euroskeptic coalition partners to vote for application. The left agreed, with the caveat that the final membership deal would be put to the people in a referendum.

Following a change of government, accession talks were shelved in 2013. Iceland, it was reasoned, had emerged from the financial crisis in good shape, and joining the EU would erode the island nation’s sovereignty, potentially diluting its control of rich fishing grounds, with no tangible benefits in return.

How did the polls stand before the vote?

With less than a day to go, the latest polls suggest that the vote will come down to the wire. A poll by market research firm Maskina published on August 25 shows the referendum passing by 51.3% to 48.7%. Two days later, a Gallup poll showed a near mirror inversion of these results, with the ‘no’ side leading by 51.6% to 48.4%. The result in both surveys was inside the margin of error, making the outcome impossible to predict. However, the ‘no’ side has been steadily closing the gap since July, and if the trend holds, could succeed in putting membership talks on ice for the foreseeable future.

The Yes vote: Safety in numbers

The two major parties in Frostadottir’s coalition – her Social Democrats and Foreign Minister Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir’s Reform Party – support EU membership. Their arguments are the same as they were in 2009, with one key addition: Membership would add a layer of defense against any potential attempts by US President Donald Trump to gain control over Iceland, as he is currently threatening Greenland. Although this is an unlikely scenario, the current US ambassador in Reykjavik caused widespread anger in January when he joked “that Iceland will be the 52nd state and he’ll be governor."

Iceland’s six other major parties – from conservatives to centrists to leftists – all oppose membership. In an effort to persuade their voters, Frostadottir has sold the referendum as a zero-risk proposition. A ‘yes’ vote would merely restart talks, she has argued, pointing out that any deal offered by Brussels would still have to pass another referendum. It would also give Icelanders “the option of seeing what an agreement looks like,” she said last month.

Why does the EU want Iceland?

Home to fewer than 400,000 people, Iceland would be the EU’s smallest member state in terms of population. It sits just south of the Arctic Circle between Greenland and the UK, occupying a chokepoint known as the GIUK gap. Russian submarines and naval vessels entering the North Atlantic must pass through the GIUK gap, and with the EU’s foreign policy now bent on confrontation with Moscow, establishing an outpost here is high on Brussels’ list of priorities.

Frostadottir has reportedly warned the European Commission not to interfere in the vote. “The commission never intervenes in national elections or in referenda in any way,” a spokesperson told Euractiv, an outlet that the commission funds. 

RT readers will recall that the European Commission has intervened in every national election in the bloc since 2024. This year alone, Brussels imposed online censorship measures ahead of elections in Bulgaria and Hungary. A US House Judiciary Committee report released in early 2026 alleged that the European Commission pressured social media platforms to censor populist and conservative speech during elections in Romania, France, the Netherlands, and Ireland.

While neither Commission President Ursula von der Leyen nor her chief diplomat Kaja Kallas have made the case for joining the bloc publicly, EU-funded media have filled in the blanks. According to Euronews, a ‘no’ vote would “close off a strategic opportunity to expand [the EU’s] positioning in the North Atlantic and Arctic region for generations.”

Is Iceland already embedded in the Western military nexus?

Despite presenting a “strategic opportunity” for the EU, Iceland is not some neutral territory waiting to be claimed. Iceland is a founding member of NATO, hosts the bloc’s air forces at Naval Air Station Keflavik, in return for which the military bloc financed the country’s major ring road, and has a network of radar stations described by the bloc’s officials as “the eyes and the ears of NATO in the north.”

At exercise Northern Viking in Iceland, I saw firsthand how U.S. and Icelandic forces train alongside fellow @NATO Allies to protect vital sea lanes and secure the Arctic, and how Icelandic technology is giving Allied forces an operational edge. Building our readiness and… pic.twitter.com/ZToq3GiBvH

— U.S. Ambassador to NATO (@USAmbNATO) August 21, 2026

Iceland has no standing army, but is a protectorate of the US under a 1951 defense agreement. The annual US-led ‘Northern Viking’ military exercise is currently underway in Iceland, and concludes on September 4. 

On top of being fully integrated into the Western military camp, Iceland is already a member of the European Economic Area and visa-free Schengen zone, and has incorporated most EU legislation into its domestic laws. 

No: A choice between war and peace

The EU’s militarization has directly harmed the bloc itself, Gunnar Palsson, Iceland’s former ambassador to Brussels, said in August, pointing to the EU’s flatlining economy as a result of its self-imposed embargo on Russian energy.

“The EU is now, for the first time in its history, a direct party to a military conflict in Europe,” Palsson wrote in an op-ed for Iceland’s Morgunbladid newspaper. “The Union’s escalating involvement in the Ukraine war, which is unlikely to lead to an optimal outcome for European countries, has already had a far-reaching impact on their economic situation, their relations with each other and with the outside world.”

‘Left Against the EU’, a social movement founded this year to oppose the referendum, has argued that joining the EU would subjugate Iceland’s foreign policy to the whims of the European Commission, which is “rapidly moving towards militarization.”

“The European Union and NATO have given in to the demands of the arms industry for vastly increased military spending, and it has never been more urgent than now for peace-loving people to withdraw from the warring forces,” reads a policy statement from the group.

“A European army is just around the corner, and Icelanders must seriously ask themselves whether they want to prepare their children and society for the future of serving under the arms of a European military power.”

Should the referendum pass, “Icelanders will become citizens of a union that has a strong political will for militarization and is increasingly involved in conflicts and escalating tensions in Europe,” Haraldur Olafsson, who leads the anti-EU ‘Heimssyn’ movement, warned in May. 

Sovereignty over stocks: Why fish are at the center of the argument

For most Icelandic Euroskeptics, however, the referendum comes down to a simpler issue: fish. Fishing accounts for around 4% of Iceland’s GDP, and a third of the country’s exports. Signing up to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy risks surrendering control over this vital economic and culturally symbolic sector.

Ireland, another island on the EU’s seaboard, was subjected to these rules when it joined the bloc, and more than five decades later, it is likely that Irish fishermen will demand Icelandic fishermen be treated as they were. 

French trawlers are allowed to catch five times more of certain fish in Irish waters than Irish trawlers. “The other countries are making fun of us for the lack of quota we have in our own waters,” Irish opposition leader Peadar Toibin claimed during a parliamentary debate last year.

Any Icelandic politician who trades away sovereignty over the country’s waters would “be expelled from the country,” Eirikur Bergmann, a professor at Iceland’s Bifrost University, told the BBC.

The ‘yes’ side has claimed that Iceland could negotiate exemptions to the Common Fisheries Policy, but no member state has done so to date, and Euroskeptics are unconvinced. Brussels would not even welcome such a debate, never mind find a workable solution. 

“Contrary to the government’s claims, membership of the European Union is not a tailor-made agreement where each country chooses the parts that suit it and rejects the others,” Independence Party leader Gudrun Hafsteinsdottir argued earlier this year. It is unacceptable, Olafsson declared in May, “for a foreign union to legislate on Icelandic resources for its own benefit.”

The EU’s treaties – Rome, Lisbon, Maastricht – “are non-negotiable,” ‘no’ campaigner Sigridur Maria Egilsdottir warned at a rally on August 27. “We wouldn’t show up to the negotiations alone. Brussels would send its most capable team, loaded with conditions, demands and inescapable assumptions that all EU nations have had to abide by.”

Iran has become stronger while the US has exposed its weakness during the conflict in the Middle East, which is still far from over, experts have told RT on the day marking six months since Washington and Israel attacked the Islamic Republic.

‘US and Israel underestimated resilience of Iranians and Lebanese’

RT’s correspondent in Lebanon, Steve Sweeney, said the Iran war is widely seen in the Middle East as “a strategic defeat for the US and its regional proxy, Israel.”

Israel used Iran as a pretext to launch an invasion of Lebanon, which “wreaked devastation across southern towns and villages, many of them have been destroyed completely,” Sweeney said.

“What Washington has done, what Israel has done is underestimated the resilience of the people on the ground here in Lebanon and also the resilience and the resistance being waged by the Iranians,” he added.

Trump looks like ‘Iranian agent’: Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi

“An alien from outer space might think that Trump has been… sent here as an Iranian agent to confirm the end of the US empire and the end of US power in this region,” Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi suggested.

The 180 days that have passed since February 28 “is not the end of the war,” but “a confirmation that Iran may have to respond... when it comes to retaliation and consequences for the NATO powers bent on their destruction, let alone the destruction of the entire Global South.”

‘If the goal of the operation was to make Israeli territory more secure, then it has been a complete failure’

RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij, reporting from the West Bank, said that since Israel launched its war with the US against Iran, it has opened up additional fronts, including operations in Lebanon and Syria, while the conflict in Gaza continues.

The West Bank, Dubenskij said, has become a “tinderbox,” with nationalist attacks by Israeli settlers taking place on a daily basis. She warned that the rising violence could trigger a backlash from Palestinians.

‘Iran has become a superpower’: DD Geopolitics reporter Christopher Helali

Tehran has become a “super power” over the 180 days that have passed since the attack by Washington and West Jerusalem, according to DD Geopolitics reporter Christopher Helali.

“What we can say unequivocally is that... Iran is not going back to the status quo of February 27 and before that. What has happened since has turned Iran into a major world power that doesn’t possess nuclear weapons, but possesses the Strait of Hormuz, which can bring the global economy to its knees and, of course, force the US and other regional powers to make enormous concessions,” he said.

‘A long, drawn-out conflict only beginning’

Former Pentagon analyst Michael Maloof called the US-Israeli operation “irresponsible,” saying it has resulted in “nothing but chaos, confusion, and greater turmoil and economic and political uncertainty in the world today.”

Half a year has passed since the initial attack on Iran, but “we’re only seeing the beginning of what’s going to be a long, drawn-out conflict,” he argued.

France hopes to line its own arms manufacturers’ pockets with a €90 billion European Union loan to Ukraine by limiting Kiev's ability to procure weapons from outside the bloc, according to Euronews.

After overcoming Hungary’s opposition, the EU member states in April approved the €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan, aimed at propping up Kiev’s war effort in 2026 and 2027; €60 billion of the total sum has been earmarked for arms procurement.

The scheme, which is backed by joint EU borrowing on the capital markets, is premised on the assumption that it would be repaid when Ukraine secures reparations from Russia – a prospect Moscow has dismissed as “unrealistic.”

In an article on Tuesday, Euronews claimed that France is seeking to place a time limit on wavers allowing Ukraine to purchase weapons from outside the EU using EU-backed funds.

At present, Kiev can request an exemption if there is no EU-made system on offer that meets its immediate needs. According to the publication, Ukraine has so far made use of this mechanism on at least two occasions: when sourcing Chinese-made drone components and US-made Patriot interceptor missiles.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict and amid the subsequent EU-wide rearmament drive, a number of European arms manufacturers have seen their profit margins surge.

Shares in Rheinmetall, Europe’s largest defense contractor, for instance, have risen more than tenfold over the past six years. Earlier this month, the company reported a nearly 70% increase in second-quarter revenue at €3.29 billion, having more than doubled its operating profit to €562 million.

RT’s Chay Bowes believes that behind a veneer of self-righteous talk lies ulterior motives, and that France is ultimately looking to funnel billions into its own military industrial complex.

Watch Bowes’s report in full below:

Donald Trump has declared himself the “greatest” president in US history while branding Joe Biden and Barack Obama “failures” in a ranking posted on Truth Social.

Abraham Lincoln, who led the US through the Civil War and abolished slavery, and George Washington, the first US president and a founding father, were placed one tier below Trump.

The US president shared the ranking on Thursday alongside a CNN clip highlighting polling showing his dominance among Republican voters. The graphic divides US presidents into six tiers – ‘The Greatest’, ‘Great’, ‘Near Great’, ‘Average’, ‘Below Average’, and ‘Failures’ – with Trump alone at the top.

Lincoln, Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were placed in the ‘Great’ category. Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, John Adams, and James K. Polk were rated ‘Near Great’, while Bill Clinton was among those deemed ‘Average’.

Biden and Obama were placed at the opposite end of Trump’s chart alongside fellow Democrat Jimmy Carter and former presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding. The list contains 34 presidents and leaves out 11 others, including Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and both George Bushes.

The graphic appears to be an altered version of a ranking published by LIFE magazine in 1948, when Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 experts in American history to classify presidents as ‘great’, ‘near great’, ‘average’, ‘below average’, or ‘failure’. Trump’s version largely retains the original categories but adds himself at the top and several more recent Democratic presidents.

Expert surveys, however, have placed Trump at the opposite end of the scale. The Presidential Greatness Project ranked him last in 2018 with 12.34 points out of 100, versus 95.03 for Lincoln, and put him last again in its 2024 survey of 154 presidential scholars and experts. Lincoln topped both rankings.

Trump’s broader approval has also slumped during his second term. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted August 21-24 put his approval at a record-low 33%, with 65% disapproving. A Marquette survey showed even weaker numbers on the economy, with 30% approving of his handling of it and just 22% backing his record on inflation and the cost of living.

US President Donald Trump is apparently suffering from “schizophrenia” and “delusions” over his claims that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Washington, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has said.

The jab came after Trump shared an image on Thursday titled “US Territories” that listed the Strait of Hormuz as “NEW” alongside Puerto Rico, Guam, and other entities.

Writing on X the next day, Gharibabadi took aim at Trump, saying that “schizophrenia is a complex and acute psychotic disorder that manifests with disturbances in thinking and a distorted perception of reality.” He added that common symptoms include hallucinations and delusions, and that “such patients should be under 24-hour supervision and receive treatment.”

It’s not the first time Trump declared that the US “has total control over the Strait of Hormuz.” Earlier this month, he suggested that he “WILL KEEP IT,” while calling the American blockade “A WALL OF STEEL.” He also claimed that Iran had no navy or air force to speak of and signed off: “Praise be to Allah!”

The gap between America’s inability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and its claim to own it is greater than the 7,000-mile distance between Washington and the Strait itself.
Welcome to the post-American order in the Persian Gulf. pic.twitter.com/nC7VBCPILH

— محسن رضایی (@ir_rezaee) August 18, 2026

Iran has repeatedly stated that it remains in full control of the strait, while Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei argued that Washington’s claim to own the strait was even further from reality than the roughly 7,000 miles separating it from the US capital. “Welcome to the post-American order in the Persian Gulf,” he wrote in mid-August.

Trump has meanwhile stepped back from another major round of strikes on Iran amid reports of critical shortages of long-range guided weapons and air-defense interceptors – something the US president has denied.

Washington has since shifted toward what it described as “an economic onslaught” against Iran to isolate it financially. Tehran has remained defiant, though, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying, “We have seen this movie before. Same bull. Different bullies.”

South Africa has recorded 3,462 confirmed measles cases since January 2026, with outbreaks reported in the Western Cape, Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, and Northern Cape, among children aged one to 14 years, the country’s Department of Health said on Wednesday.

Department spokesperson Foster Mohale said the proportion of unvaccinated children under one year old had increased from 12.1% in 2017 to an alarming 36.3% between January and April 2026. This effectively triples the number of completely unvaccinated children and leaves hundreds of thousands of infants at risk of life-threatening illnesses.

Mohale added routine immunisation coverage had fallen severely across all 52 districts in the country, which means that, at current rates, South Africa is unlikely to reach the World Health Organization’s critical 90% coverage threshold for childhood immunisation. He said the consequences of declining coverage include the resurgence of serious vaccine-preventable diseases, erosion of community, or herd immunity, and higher rates of long-term disability and death among infants.

Mohale added that South Africa has maintained its polio-free status since 2014, while sporadic cases of diphtheria had been detected, primarily in the Western Cape, underscoring gaps in booster coverage and disease surveillance. Pertussis, or whooping cough, cases have also been identified in several provinces, predominantly affecting infants under six months who are too young to be fully vaccinated, Mohale said.

According to spokesperson, this poses severe risks for pregnant women because of the potential for congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). “Unvaccinated children can endanger infants and immunocompromised individuals who cannot be vaccinated, and weak coverage undermines early detection and rapid response to emerging threats.”

First published by IOL

The US is moving to lock in long-term access to the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves by discussing a 100-year deal with Venezuela, as Caracas plans to leave the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), several outlets have reported.

The idea of quitting OPEC has been discussed during talks with US officials, according to Bloomberg’s sources, although no final decision has been made.

Venezuela was one of five countries that founded OPEC in 1960, alongside Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. It has effectively operated outside the group’s production quota system for years, while decades of US sanctions and domestic economic turmoil have battered its oil industry and diminished its influence within the organization.

A withdrawal from OPEC would mark a major realignment in Caracas following the January 3 US operation that kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Washington has since taken control of Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, with proceeds deposited into US-controlled accounts and Caracas’ access to the funds subject to decisions in Washington.

US pushing for ‘massive’ century-long oil lease

Talk of a potential OPEC exit comes as Washington pushes for a major stake in Venezuela’s oil fields. A deal under discussion could lock in several fields for American companies under a 100-year lease and guarantee the resulting crude supplies to the US.

“This is real and being discussed at the highest levels of the US and Venezuelan governments,” one source told Reuters. A lease is among the legal models under consideration, with individual fields potentially allocated to US producers through auctions or tenders.

A list involved in the negotiations includes 17 fields, spanning undeveloped sites in the vast Orinoco Belt and mature fields around Lake Maracaibo containing roughly 90 billion barrels of proven reserves. Some are currently operated by a small Chinese company under a contract signed during Maduro’s presidency.

‘Donroe Doctrine’

Taking a stake in Venezuela’s reserves would amount to an almost unprecedented US intervention in another country’s economy, Bloomberg noted, while fitting Donald Trump’s so-called “Donroe Doctrine” of expanding American influence across the Western Hemisphere.

Trump has repeatedly asserted US control over Venezuela’s oil since Maduro’s capture in January. Speaking to oil executives that month, he said Washington would decide which companies would rebuild the sector: “You’re dealing with us directly. You’re not dealing with Venezuela at all.” He went further in the spring, publicly floating the idea of turning Venezuela into the “51st state.”

The proposed arrangement could, however, run into legal hurdles. Venezuelan law does not currently provide for leasing oil acreage, while the constitution reserves core industry activities for the state. Recent reforms allow foreign participation through joint ventures and production-sharing contracts, but Caracas has for decades prevented foreign producers from booking Venezuelan reserves as their own.

Another blow to OPEC

Venezuela’s departure would also hand Trump a small victory in his long-running confrontation with OPEC. The US president has repeatedly criticized the group for wielding too much influence over global oil prices and driving up fuel costs for American consumers.

The push comes as the Trump administration faces pressure over high gasoline prices ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Cheaper Venezuelan crude could help ease fuel costs and replenish the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently holds around 290 million barrels – about 41% of its capacity.

Other producers have also pushed back against OPEC restrictions. Iraq reportedly threatened to leave in June unless it was allowed to increase output, although Baghdad later said it had no plans to withdraw. Venezuela and Iran remain exempt from OPEC+ production quotas because sanctions have constrained their output.

Afghanistan has “suffered greatly” from war and it does not want conflict with any country, the Taliban has said.

“War benefits no one, and neither does destabilizing the region,” Taliban chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Runjhun Sharma’s ‘India, Russia, and the World’ podcast.

Responding to Sharma’s hypothetical question whether Taliban would put boots on the ground for India against Pakistan, Mujahid asserted, “We do not want war or instability in the region, and we do not want any country to take action against another.”

The Taliban government has quietly improved ties with India, which Islamabad has partly blamed for its own strained relations with Afghanistan.

Mujahid, however, said Afghanistan did not start the recent border fighting and was just defending itself after Pakistan violated its territory. “Defending ourselves is our right, but we are neither the initiators nor do we want it to continue.”

The Taliban spokesman pointed out that the conflict benefits no one as people on both sides of the border share a common culture, trade links, and geography.

Recently, a spokesman for the Taliban’s Ministry of Economy, Abdul Rahman Habib, told Sharma in a separate interview that his government will ensure the safety of a prospective rail route linking Russia to India, which would give Moscow access to the Indian Ocean, and give jobs to Afghans.

“We place great importance on maintaining a strong relationship with India,” Mujahid added. “Those ties are moving in a positive direction.”

“Afghanistan, as you know, is going through a period of reconstruction, and Russia has extensive resources that could be useful to us. We want to benefit from Russia’s experience in rebuilding the country while also expanding trade and economic cooperation.”

“More broadly, it could possibly be of great benefit to regional security as well if cooperation exists among the two countries.”

Moscow trusted in the decency of the West for years, but not anymore, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

In an interview with RBK released on Friday, Lavrov was asked why Russia allowed the US and EU to take advantage of it on numerous occasions in recent decades.

“Deception lies at the foundation of Western diplomacy. And it still does,” he replied.

The minister recalled how the Americans broke their promise not to expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and how France and Germany became guarantors of a deal between democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition during the Maidan protests in Kiev in 2014, but proclaimed the rioters as victors after they seized government buildings the next day.

“This reveals something about our psychology – not naivety ingrained by centuries of historical experience, but rather the enduring hope that a scoundrel cannot be a complete scoundrel, to put it simply,” Lavrov explained.

It is in the Russian national character to maintain “faith in people right to the very end. But the end has already come,” he said.

According to the minister, the US and EU “firmly set out on a course of supplying the Nazi Kiev regime with ever more advanced and increasingly deadly offensive weapons” after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

Zambia’s main opposition leader Brian Mundubile and his running mate Makebi Zulu have been accused of treason and detained after being questioned, the Zambia Police Service said on Thursday.

Mundubile and Zulu were questioned “in connection with an alleged offence of treason,” police said. Officers did not provide specifics about the nature of the transgression. The two remain in custody at Lusaka Central Police while investigations continue, according to local outlets.

The detention comes two weeks after Zambia’s presidential election, in which Mundubile finished second to Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema. Official results gave Hichilema about 60% of the vote and Mundubile about 38%. Mundubile rejected the result and said he intended to challenge it in court over alleged irregularities, claims Hichilema has denied.

Police Chief Graphel Musamba said the task force encountered “gunfire and resistance from unknown individuals” and returned fire. The government said military-grade weapons, ammunition and other materials intended for use in an armed insurrection were found at the property.

Under Zambia’s Penal Code, treason carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The country abolished the death penalty in 2022.

Hichilema, who first took office in 2021, is due to begin a second five-year term following the latest vote.

Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly humiliated and abused a former household worker, at one point calling him an “undeveloped Moroccan,” a new lawsuit claims. The controversy adds to a years-long trail of remarkably similar allegations, painting a picture of intolerable conditions at the residence.

On Tuesday, Ynet reported that Rami Ben-Hamo, who worked at the residence from 2023 to 2025, is seeking 450,000 shekels ($150,000) in a lawsuit filed with the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court. While the complaint has been formally filed against the Prime Minister’s Office, the alleged abuse is overwhelmingly attributed to Sara Netanyahu.

According to Ben-Hamo, he sometimes worked from around 7:30 AM until the early hours of the following morning, clocking 60 to 80 hours of overtime a month. He claims to have “suffered extreme abuse” from the prime minister’s wife, adding that she made him clean her handbag and the soles of her shoes, repeatedly wash his hands between tasks, and endure screaming and humiliation when cleaning or household chores were not performed exactly as she wanted.

The complaint also alleges that Ben-Hamo was kept at work after the start of Shabbat – the weekly Jewish day of rest between Friday and Saturday evenings – despite Netanyahu knowing he observed the tradition. After suffering a cardiac event at work and undergoing catheterization in 2025, Ben-Hamo says her treatment of him became even harsher.

Netanyahu’s office dismissed the allegations as “fake news,” calling it a politically motivated “witch-hunt” ahead of the October elections.

However, the recent controversy fits a pattern of strikingly similar grievances about Sara Netanyahu. Just several weeks ago, former residence worker Yehiel Ohev-Ami, 61, sued her for 300,000 shekels ($100,000), claiming that Netanyahu repeatedly insulted and yelled at him, and “once ordered him to clean the kitchen floor while crawling.” 

In addition, Netanyahu allegedly wished him cancer and death after Ohev-Ami went out on a smoke break, and even “diagnosed” him with autism. The prime minister’s office has denied the accusations.

In May, Israeli media reported that another former employee reached a settlement with her staffing company after alleging repeated humiliation, including an incident in which Sara Netanyahu threw olives and tomatoes at her during breakfast.

In 2016, a Jerusalem labor court awarded former residence caretaker Meni Naftali 170,000 shekels ($57,000) after accepting his claims that Sara Netanyahu’s fostered “abusive employment conditions,” including verbal insults and unreasonable demands.

According to multiple media reports, Sara Netanyahu – a psychologist by training – enjoys immense political influence and essentially has veto powers on appointments to key positions. Earlier this month, former chief of staff Yoav Horowitz suggested that in terms of politics, “Sara Netanyahu and Bibi Netanyahu are one; it’s impossible to separate between them.”

A new fund launched in India plans to invest $1 billion in the country’s neurotechnology sector over the next five years.

ADI Neuroscience is backed by SPEC Finance India, with Aleksandr Panov, a serial investor and CEO of Russian neurotechnology firm Neiry, serving as the fund’s lead adviser.

The sector includes technologies and devices that enable communication with the human brain. Billionaire investor Elon Musk’s Neuralink is the most famous BCI company.

India ranks third in the BCI sector, with 12 startups – behind China’s 23, and 101 in the US – according to market intelligence company Tracxn. However, Indian BCI startups have pulled in only about $8.5 million in the last ten years, compared to $3.03 billion by US startups and $117 million by Chinese firms.

The global BCI market is expected to grow to $15.14 billion by 2035, from $2.87 billion in 2024, according to a report by Spherical Insights & Consulting.

Launched last week, ADI sees India as a platform where research teams, engineering expertise, and capital can come together to make the country a hub for the development of neurotechnologies.

”India has the rare opportunity to participate in shaping the standards and regulatory frameworks for the sector rather than adapting to frameworks developed elsewhere,” ADI Neuroscience said in a statement.

”The fund’s resources will be directed toward advancing neurotechnology R&D in India, creating competitive products, and developing the industry domestically,” SPEC Finance Group CEO Karan Dinesh Singh Rawat added.

The fund has deep links to Russian technology leadership. Panov, an ambassador for deep-tech entrepreneurship, is its scientific adviser, while Mikhail Lebedev, a professor at the Moscow State University who specializes in brain-to-brain interfaces, is a member of its scientific board.

Afghanistan is “undoubtedly” better off five years after the withdrawal of US forces, Taliban chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid has told RT, while acknowledging that the country continues to face serious problems.

In a rare interview with RT India’s Runjhun Sharma, Mujahid argued that the departure of foreign troops has restored Afghanistan’s independence and left Afghans responsible for rebuilding their own country.

The Taliban returned to power in August 2021 as the Western-backed government collapsed and US forces completed their withdrawal after two decades of war. The hardline Islamist movement has since reinstated a strict interpretation of Sharia law, including sweeping restrictions on women and girls that have drawn widespread international criticism.

However, despite the conflict, Mujahid said Kabul now wants normal diplomatic relations with Washington, including the reopening of the US Embassy in Afghanistan and an Afghan mission in the American capital.

He also argued that Western perceptions of the Taliban remain shaped by two decades of war, accusing international media of portraying the group as seeking conflict and instability and posing a threat to the outside world.

He also called for sanctions to be lifted and frozen Afghan assets to be returned, saying the measures would help improve relations.

Commenting on Afghanistan’s relations with Russia, which is currently the only country to recognize the Taliban government, Mujahid described Moscow as an important regional partner and said Kabul wants Russian companies to invest in Afghanistan while expanding cooperation in trade, reconstruction, fuel, and energy.

“Afghanistan has its own beliefs and convictions, has its own religion and faith, has its own internal interests, and has its own laws,” he said. “These should be valued and respected.”

Watch the full interview below.

Zimbabwean police have arrested a senior local official over the Lake Kariba ferry disaster that killed 97 people earlier this month.

Ignatius Chiome, a district coordinator for the Rural Infrastructure Development Agency (RIDA), has been charged with culpable homicide, the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) said on X on Wednesday.

“The ZRP confirms the arrest and subsequent appearance in court of Kariba RIDA District Coordinator, Ignatius Chiome (49),” the statement read.

A ruling on Chiome’s bail application was postponed on Thursday and was expected on Friday, the Herald, a local media outlet, reported. His lawyer, Samuel Muyemeki, said the magistrate had not completed the ruling. “The court has to make a decision and that’s the position of the law. Once the decision is there, everyone concerned will have to know,” he said, as quoted by the news agency.

Prosecutors allege that administrative failures, overloading and breaches of operational safety procedures contributed to the August 11 disaster. The victims include a number of young children.

The RIDA-operated Mbuya Nehanda ferry capsized on Lake Kariba while traveling from the town of Kariba to communities and fishing camps along the lake. Local broadcaster ZBC News previously reported that the vessel encountered strong waves during the journey. 

Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa declared the sinking a national disaster and ordered maritime safety agencies and security forces to address shortcomings in Zimbabwe’s maritime capabilities. The African Union also expressed condolences, with AU Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf saying the bloc stood “in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe and the affected communities.”