Spain has become the latest European nation to call for the EU to build its own army as opposed to relying on the NATO framework, citing a growing rift with the US. The idea itself, however, has split European NATO members, with many still viewing the US-led military bloc as a preferable defense mechanism.

Whatever the outcome of those debates, most NATO nations are engaged in an accelerated militarization campaign costing hundreds of billions of dollars in the long run, citing an alleged Russian “threat.”

EU army: origins story

The idea of a joint European army harks back to the early days of the Cold War, when in the early 1950s, France pushed for the European Defense Community, which would have brought France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg into a common 100,000-strong European force. The plan received US backing.

However, France later balked, fearful of a potential loss of sovereignty and West Germany gaining an oversized role while memories of World War II were still fresh.

Still, under Charles de Gaulle, France was highly skeptical of NATO, seeing it as a tool for US dominance in Europe. In 1966, de Gaulle pulled France – which was struggling to cling to the remnants of its colonial empire and superpower status – out of the NATO command structure.

The idea of an EU army has since resurfaced several times, most notably during the Balkan wars and illegal bombing of the former Yugoslavia. While European leaders mostly backed the US-led strikes, the internal dissent was significant, and the campaign showed a humiliating reality for the EU: a security crisis in its own backyard was being handled mostly by the US.

During the 2011 Libya intervention, it was much worse. Not only were EU powers dependent on the US doing all the heavy lifting, but the campaign also led to a European fracture. Only France and the UK coordinated the strikes with the US, while Italy was initially opposed to the intervention. Later, France and Italy worked at cross purposes, supporting different sides in the Libyan Civil War.

The EU army debate once again took center stage following the start of the Ukraine crisis in 2014. Amid tensions with Russia, bloc members ramped up military spending and drew joint procurement plans. In 2022, plans were announced to establish a EU Rapid Deployment Capacity – a force of up to 5,000 comprised of personnel from European states with a mandate for missions abroad.

Some EU nations, however, have called for a standalone European army with wider authority, citing Washington’s growing unreliability and the need for strategic autonomy.

Who is in favor?

Spain has become the most recent proponent of the EU army idea. On Monday, Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares made the case in an interview with Politico, saying, “We cannot be waking up every morning wondering what the US will do next … our citizens deserve better.”

He added: “This is the moment of the sovereignty and independence of Europe. The Americans are inviting us to that.” 

In a thinly veiled allusion to US President Donald Trump, Albares stressed that the EU has to be “free of dependence,” as well as “free of coercion, whether it comes to tariffs or the use of military threat, [or] the consequences of someone else’s decisions.”

While his comments came amid a stark rift with the US over the Iran war, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez called for “a real European army” already in February, stressing that the bloc needs it “not in ten years’ time, but now” and pledged Madrid would contribute all necessary resources.

In France, an EU army has long been a personal project for President Emmanuel Macron, who began calling for a “true European army” as early as 2018, arguing the continent could not rely solely on the US. One year later, he famously proclaimed NATO “brain dead,” also citing failure to coordinate efforts with the US. In April, Macron also stressed that the EU’s “objective is not to be the vassals” of the US and China.

In Italy, Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, who leads the center-right Forza Italia party, has stressed that “if we want to be a peacekeeping force in the world, we need a European army,” describing it as a premise for “an effective European foreign policy.”

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, however, has been more cautious, stating that the issue is not on the agenda, adding that the bloc’s defense should be based on the cooperation of national armies.

Who is against?

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has been among the most vocal critics of the concept. In February, she described the idea of a European army as “extremely dangerous,” saying that its proponents “maybe haven’t really thought this through practically.”

“If you are already part of NATO, then you can’t create a separate army. And if you have, like the European army, and then you have the NATO one, then, you know, the ball just falls between the chairs.”

In Poland, the bloc’s most aggressive defense spender at 4.7% of GDP in 2025, Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called the idea “unrealistic because national armies will not merge.” However, he was more sympathetic to a brigade-sized “European legion” comprised of EU citizens or even candidate states, which could be involved in foreign operations short of a confrontation with a near-peer adversary.

In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pledged to build “Europe’s strongest conventional army,” but has been skeptical of a bloc-wide force due to legal hurdles, arguing that the EU should “focus on the tasks that we need to accomplish now.”

The Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have historically been among the most skeptical of EU defense autonomy, fearing it could dilute US commitments. In this vein, outgoing Latvian Defense Minister Andris Spruds has called NATO “irreplaceable.” 

As for the US, in 2018, Trump strongly opposed the idea of an EU army, dismissing it as “very insulting.” “Perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the US subsidizes greatly!” he said at the time.

What’s Spain’s beef with NATO?

Spain’s problem is not necessarily with NATO itself, but rather with the current US administration. Madrid has vehemently opposed the US-Israeli war on Iran, and refused to allow its bases to be used for attacks. Trump subsequently called Spain “a terrible ally” and threatened to cut off all trade.

The US president encountered similar problems with the rest of NATO members, slamming the bloc as a “paper tiger” and accusing it of “turning their backs on the American people.” Another point of friction was Greenland, which Trump threatened to annex, meeting strong pushback from the EU.

Militarization on the menu – regardless of the form

While European leaders could be debating whether the EU actually needs its own army as a counterbalance – or replacement – for NATO, most of them have embraced the militarization drive. In 2025, the EU unveiled the “ReArm Europe Plan — Readiness 2030” to mobilize over €800 billion ($936 billion) in defense investment despite the bloc’s sluggish economy.

European NATO members – except Spain – have also committed to increasing their defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. As it is, Europe is rearming faster than at any point since the Cold War. According to a SIPRI report in April, the entire continent increased military expenditure by 14% in 2025, with European NATO members spending $559 billion for defense.

View from Moscow

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has scorned the idea of the EU army, suggesting that before undertaking such an endeavor, the bloc should tackle a litany of internal problems, including refugees, energy dependence, and lagging NATO contributions.

Moscow has meanwhile condemned the EU’s record militarization, saying that the bloc is “using ostentatious Russophobia” as a pretense. It has also accused European “propaganda” of seeking to turn Russia into a “model external enemy” to divert attention from internal crises.

In addition, Russian officials have consistently rejected speculation that Moscow could attack European states as “nonsense.”

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has been sworn in for a seventh consecutive term, extending his rule of more than four decades as one of Africa’s longest serving leaders.

The 81-year-old took the oath of office Tuesday at Kololo Ceremonial Grounds in Kampala after securing more than 70% of the vote in the election in January.

The ceremony was attended by diplomats and several African leaders, including Ethiopian President Taye Atske Selassie, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Felix Tshisekedi, South Sudan’s Salva Kiir, and Tanzania’s Samia Suluhu Hassan.

In his inauguration speech, Museveni declared a new era of “no more sleep” for the nation, focusing on wealth creation, job generation, and the elimination of corruption and complacency. He urged citizens to “wake up” and embrace economic transformation by engaging in commercial agriculture, manufacturing, services, and ICT, warning that the country “can no longer afford complacency.”

Museveni showcased a long list of achievements under his administration since 1986, backing his claims with photos as evidence, including major infrastructure projects, the restoration of peace and stability, and sustained economic growth.

“In 2013, only 32% of the homesteads in Uganda were in the money economy. At Independence in 1962, only 9.4% were in the money economy. On account of the work of OWC [Operation Wealth Creation] and PDM [Parish Development Model], the homesteads in the money economy are now 67%,” he said.

Museveni became president in 1986 following the overthrow of Milton Obote’s government. He won Uganda’s first multiparty elections in 2006 and has remained in power through subsequent elections and constitutional amendments that removed presidential term limits. He is currently the world’s third-longest consecutively serving non-royal head of state, after Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema and Cameroon’s Paul Biya.

Museveni’s government has drawn criticism from Western countries for allegedly suppressing opposition and enacting some of the world’s harshest anti-LGBTQ laws. He has dismissed these criticisms as foreign interference.

His main rival, Robert Kyagulanyi – popularly known as Bobi Wine – who secured 24.72% of the vote, rejected the results, alleging massive ballot stuffing. However, election observers, including those from the African Union and Russia, said the election was conducted in an orderly and transparent manner.

Following his victory, Museveni said he would have “embarrassed” the opposition “badly” if 10 million more of his supporters had taken part. His new term will run until 2031.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that “we might see more cases” of the deadly Andes strain of hantavirus emerge in the coming days, after an 11th case was recorded.

The virus has killed three people who left Argentina on a cruise ship last month, and infected eight others. The most recent case was confirmed by the Spanish Health Ministry on Tuesday, and involves a passenger who had been quarantined in a military hospital in Madrid after traveling on the ship.

“At the moment, there is no sign that we are seeing the start of a larger outbreak, but of course the situation could change and, given the long incubation period of the virus, it’s possible we might see more cases in the coming weeks,” Ghebreyesus said at a press conference in Madrid on Tuesday.

Ghebreyesus thanked Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez for showing “compassion and solidarity” by allowing the ship, the Dutch-flagged MV Hondius, to dock at Spain’s Canary Islands on Monday. From the Canaries, passengers were evacuated to their home countries, where authorities were urged by Tedros to keep them quarantined for 42 days.

Hantaviruses are a family of viruses carried by rodents, and spread to humans through contact with their droppings, urine, or saliva. The Andes strain is the only variant known to spread from human to human, and causes hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome (HPS) in those it infects.

After a long incubation period of between six and eight weeks, patients typically experience flu-like symptoms that can develop into heart problems, hypertension, and buildup of fluid in the lungs and chest cavity. The Andes strain of hantavirus has a fatality rate of around 38%.

On Saturday, Tedros stressed that “the current public health risk from hantavirus remains low,” and that the outbreak would not become “another Covid.”

The MV Hondius left Argentina carrying 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries. So far, every confirmed case has involved someone who traveled on the ship. Twenty British nationals are in isolation in the UK, 14 Spaniards are quarantined at the military hospital in Madrid, and five French citizens are being monitored in Paris. One of them, a 65-year-old woman, developed serious symptoms and was placed on a ventilator on Tuesday, French authorities said. Twelve Dutch health workers have also been quarantined after incorrectly handling the bodily fluids of a hantavirus patient.

Out of 17 Americans evacuated from the ship, one who tested positive for the virus will be quarantined, while the others will be permitted to go home after a brief checkup. Tedros has warned that this approach “may have risks.”

For decades, the Elysee Palace viewed Africa through the narrow lens of its former colonies – a cozy, if often toxic, arrangement known as ‘Francafrique’ in which language was a colonialist tool rather than a neutral medium of expression and knowledge. But as French flags are lowered and troops are ushered out of the Sahel, President Emmanuel Macron touched down in Nairobi with a different script.

Leading the Africa Forward Summit in Kenya this week, Macron brought a strategic pivot toward the Anglophone world – a cultural, and no less colonial, space usually reserved for a competitor colonialist, the UK. By courting 30 nations in a region where France has no colonial history, Paris is attempting a high-stakes rebranding. It is a move that seems to be born of necessity. As the traditional sphere of influence crumbles under the weight of anti-colonial resentment and shifting global alliances, France is betting that its future on the continent lies in the English-speaking East.

However, as colonial habits die hard, a visibly angry Macron stormed the stage while proceedings were in progress at Nairobi University, telling the audience to either be quiet or leave as he complained about the side noise and private discussions. It was a moment of pure theater in which the actor’s mask slipped to reveal his true face – a lapse that the French press seized upon to express skepticism about this ‘new’ approach.

Le Figaro described the presidential outburst as a “total lack of respect.” Far-left French MP Daniele Obono characterized it as yet another instance of the “behavior of a colonialist” who cannot help himself the moment he “sets foot on the African continent.”

Even as Le Monde analyzes the pivot as a pragmatic economic necessity, the domestic narrative suggests that while the geography has changed, the ‘schoolteacher’ temperament of French diplomacy remains firmly intact. Kicked out of the front door in the Sahel, Paris is now trying to climb back through the back window, clutching the same old lecture notes.

Beyond the theatrical scolding at the podium, the summit’s primary engine was a massive financial pivot: A €23 billion ($27 billion) investment package aimed at strategic sectors such as energy, AI, and agriculture. However, the optics of this ‘new partnership’ remain contested.

While Macron spoke of an era “free of hang-ups,” Kenyan President William Ruto pointedly used the word ‘sovereignty’ eight times in his speech, insisting that the days of European dependency are over.

For Paris, this is clearly an attempt to find a new economic ‘back window’ as the front door slams shut elsewhere. With €14 billion of the funds coming from French giants such as TotalEnergies, Orange, and the shipping titan CMA CGM – which alone committed $823 million to modernize the Mombasa port – the strategy is transparent. Having lost its grip on the Sahel region and its traditional mineral extractions, France is now trying to entrench its corporations in the ‘Silicon Savannah’ and the booming English-speaking markets. It is a high-stakes gamble: Using billions in capital to buy the relevance it can no longer command through military presence or colonial-era linguistic ties.

This pivot is a strategic relocation of French capital into the traditional geopolitical ‘backyard’ of the UK. By aggressively courting Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, Macron is attempting to leapfrog over the ruins of his West African policy and land in territories where French colonial baggage carries less weight.

However, this Anglophone charm offensive has already ruffled feathers in London, where the British press has characterized the new French promised billions splurge as an attempt to buy influence within the commonwealth.

The irony is sharp. While Macron uses Nairobi to preach a new era of equal partnership, he is simultaneously engaging in a modernized scramble for the continent’s most prosperous markets, effectively replacing the military boots of the Sahel with the corporate suits of the CAC 40.

For the nations of East Africa, the spectacle is clear: They are no longer just the subjects of a new Great Game, but the prize in a high-stakes competition between a rebranded France and a stagnant Britain, both of which are desperate to remain relevant in a multipolar Africa that is increasingly looking toward the East, where the influence of China and Russia continues to grow.

While Paris offers billions to counter the entrenched influence of Beijing and the security allure of Moscow, leaders such as William Ruto are making it clear that they are no longer interested in choosing between ‘competitor colonialists’ or aging empires. They are choosing themselves, leveraging their ‘sovereign equality’ to ensure that if France wants to stay in the game, it must finally trade its lecture notes for a seat at an equal table. If the actor’s mask continues to slip, this multi-billion-dollar pivot will be remembered not as a new beginning, but as the expensive final act of a power that refused to truly decolonize its mindset – leaving France once again standing outside looking in.

For Africans, the true measure of this French ‘return’ lies not in the headline-grabbing promises of capital, but in the fine print of the contracts. While the Elysee touts a ‘shared future’, the local reality is one of deep skepticism toward a model that remains fundamentally extractivist. In Mombasa, the shipping titan CMA CGM’s massive commitment to port modernization is viewed by many local labor unions and commentators as a Trojan horse for automated, French-managed logistics that could sideline Kenyan workers in favor of digital efficiency.

Similarly, the Talent Afrique-France scheme (a pilot visa program) is being criticized as a brain-drain mechanism, designed to siphon off Africa’s brightest AI and tech innovators to serve French firms rather than building local capacity. The ghost of the failed Vinci SA highway deal still haunts the relationship; Nairobi famously scrapped the lopsided project due to sovereign debt concerns, only to see the contract eventually handed to a Chinese corporate rival. For the burgeoning tech hubs of Lagos and Nairobi, Macron’s ‘equal partnership’ looks suspiciously like a rebranding of trickle-down economics: The profits are repatriated to Paris, while the continent is left to shoulder the environmental and financial debt of a corporate-led scramble.

Ultimately, the mounting resistance across the continent is not a rejection of French investment for its own sake, but a rejection of the terms under which it has historically arrived.

African nations are not chasing away France out of a reflexive anti-Western bias; rather, they are opening their doors to partners who offer tangible, shared benefits over empty geopolitical rhetoric. They welcome the capital and the technology, but they demand that these tools serve people as much as they serve the shareholders of the CAC 40.

For Macron, the message from the Africa Forward summit is clear: The era of unilateral lecturing is over. If France wishes to remain a relevant player in this multipolar landscape, it must finally discard the ‘back window’ tactics and the ‘schoolteacher’ temperament, proving that it can exist as a partner in progress rather than a ‘competitor colonialist’ desperately clinging to a disappearing past.

India has doubled its import tariffs on gold and silver to cushion the impact of the Middle East conflict on its foreign exchange reserves.

New Delhi has imposed a 10% basic customs duty and a 5% Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess on gold and silver imports, raising the effective import tax from 6% to 15%.

The move is aimed at curtailing overseas purchases and easing the pressure on its foreign exchange reserves.

This comes days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi advocated steps including refraining from gold purchases and reducing the use of fuel as part of an effort to minimize the economic shocks arising from the Middle East conflict.

The government is reportedly considering a host of measures including a fuel price hike and restrictions on non-essential spending to shield its foreign exchange reserves.

Foreign exchange reserves as of May 1 stood at $690 billion, a significant decline from $728 billion in February. The dollar outflows have also impacted the rupee, Asia’s worst-performing major currency, which is down 5.6% this year.

Gold demand in India, the world’s second-largest buyer, has risen amid a recent rally in prices and as returns from equities plunged over the past year.

The nation’s imports of gold totaled $72 billion in the 2026 fiscal year ending March 31, a 24% surge from a year ago. Higher imports of gold widen India’s current account deficit because India pays in foreign currency for gold.

The move reflects growing concern among policymakers over the rising import bill and shrinking forex reserves, driven mainly by energy supply disruptions as hopes for an end to the Middle East conflict fade.

India’s overall trade deficit widened to $119 billion in 2025-26, compared to $94 billion in 2024-25, mostly as a result of higher energy and fertilizer prices and rising bullion imports.

Former Ukrainian presidential chief of staff Andrey Yermak, who was charged this week in a money laundering investigation, consulted a mystic while considering candidates for senior government posts, according to evidence presented by prosecutors.

Yermak – a close associate of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky – stepped down last year amid mounting scrutiny over his alleged ties to businessman Timur Mindich, who fled to Israel shortly before being accused of masterminding a large-scale embezzlement scheme at a state-owned energy company.

During a court hearing on Tuesday, prosecutors revealed details of Yermak’s reported interest in occult practices, claiming that it may have influenced staffing decisions at the highest levels of government.

According to investigators, one of his contacts appeared in messaging records under the name “Veronika Fengshui Office.” Prosecutors allege Yermak sent the birth dates of potential appointees – without naming them directly – to ask whether they were suitable for office.

Feng shui is a traditional Chinese practice focused on arranging spaces and objects to promote harmony and the flow of qi, or life energy. While widely used as inspiration for interior design, it has also become associated in some circles with fortune telling, spiritism, and other mystical practices.

According to the prosecution, Yermak sought Veronika’s opinion on candidates for the posts of prime minister, prosecutor general, health minister, and even his own deputy responsible for overseeing law enforcement agencies. Prosecutors cited the communications while arguing that Yermak should remain in pre-trial detention because of his alleged ability to influence witnesses and interfere with the investigation.

Additional details emerged during continuation of the hearings on Wednesday, when the prosecutor identified the spiritual advisor by full name and quoted some of the text messages she and Yermak allegedly exchanged. Records indicate she urged him to cling to power at any cost, which he pledged to do.

Maybe they should just get a peaceful “fortune teller.” Peace is the best magic. 🕊️ https://t.co/VePuRjaAOF

— Kirill Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) May 13, 2026

Reacting to the revelations, Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev mocked the Ukrainian leadership on social media, saying the Zelensky administration “should just get a peaceful ‘fortune teller,’” adding that “peace is the best magic.”

Claims of occult practices in Zelensky’s circle

Allegations of mystical beliefs within Ukraine’s leadership were previously raised by former Zelensky press secretary Yulia Mendel, who has since emerged as a vocal critic of the administration.

In January, Mendel claimed that Yermak had relied on occult rituals for years and allegedly invited practitioners from abroad to perform ceremonies involving so-called “corpse water.” She suggested that other people close to Zelensky also shared an interest in mystical practices, though she did not identify them publicly.

The corruption case against Yermak centers on a luxury suburban real estate development that investigators say was financed with illicit funds. Part of the case referenced an alleged scheme involving the illegal extraction of sand from a cemetery site for use in construction.

Opposition MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak pointed to the accusations as evidence that senior officials connected to the project lacked ethical standards and should not be entrusted with governing the country. Zelensky is reportedly among the four co-owners of the upscale property development that Western-backed anti-corruption agencies are investigating.

From mystics to political scandal

Close relationships between political leaders and spiritual advisers have historically sparked controversy and, in some cases, major political crises.

In Russia, the influence of mystic healer Grigory Rasputin over the royal family in the early 20th century became a symbol of imperial decline and contributed to the eventual toppling of the monarchy.

More recently, the 2016 impeachment of former South Korean President Park Geun-hye was linked to her relationship with longtime confidante Choi Soon-sil. Choi, whose father was a controversial cult leader often dubbed the “Korean Rasputin,” was accused of exploiting her access to the presidency for personal gain.

Although she denied wrongdoing, Choi Soon-sil was later sentenced to prison on corruption charges. The scandal reignited debate in South Korea over the influence of shamans, spiritual advisers, and fortune tellers in political life.

A broad majority in the Dutch parliament has backed a motion urging the government to deny entry to American rapper Kanye West ahead of his planned concerts in early June, local broadcaster NOS reported on Tuesday. The step comes as more European countries are turning their backs on the controversial artist over his past anti-Semitic comments.

The 24-time Grammy Award winner has a history of anti-Semitic controversies. Last year, he publicly praised Nazism and Adolf Hitler and marketed t-shirts featuring a swastika. Although West, also known as Ye, apologized for his actions earlier this year, his behavior has sparked widespread criticism and triggered government investigations into whether he can be barred from performing internationally.

West is scheduled to perform on June 6 and June 8 in the Dutch city of Arnhem.

In April, Arnhem mayor Ahmed Marcouch said there was no legal basis to ban him from entering or performing in the Netherlands, while Justice Minister David van Weel said the government was exploring possible legal grounds to do so, but that it would be difficult.

“In the Netherlands, we have a fairly high threshold before we can deny someone entry. There must be a threat of serious disruption to public order or security,” van Weel said at the time, adding that it was unclear whether that applies in West’s case.

The Dutch parliament’s latest motion follows similar actions elsewhere in Europe. Last month, UK authorities refused West entry, leading to the cancellation of his planned Wireless Festival appearance. He also postponed a June 11 show in Marseille shortly after. In Poland, a June 19 concert at the Silesian Stadium in Chorzow has been cancelled by venue representatives. FC Basel, which manages events at St. Jakob-Park, has confirmed a similar step.

The only remaining stops in West’s announced European tour are now Turkey, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

Throughout his career, West has repeatedly described his struggles with mental health and revealed that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2016. In February, however, he claimed that he had been misdiagnosed and had stopped taking medication after finding out that he actually had “a case of autism.”

Kuwait has accused Iran of attempting to infiltrate the strategic Bubiyan Island after authorities arrested four men suspected of belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Bubiyan, Kuwait’s largest island, lies at the northern edge of the Gulf near the Iraqi border and is considered strategically important because of its proximity to shipping routes and northern oilfields. The island also hosts a US military base.

Kuwait’s Interior Ministry said on Tuesday that four men were arrested after attempting to enter the country by sea and allegedly clashing with security forces, wounding a Kuwaiti soldier.

The incident took place on May 1, the ministry said, adding that the suspects were detained aboard what it described as a fishing boat chartered for “hostile actions” against Kuwait.

“During interrogation, the infiltrators admitted that they belong to Iran’s IRGC,” state news agency KUNA quoted the ministry as saying.

Kuwait’s Foreign Ministry called the alleged incursion a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty, demanded Iran cease “unlawful hostile acts,” and added that it had summoned Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Totoonji to deliver a formal protest note.

Iran dismissed the allegations as baseless. In a statement carried by ISNA news agency, Tehran said the Kuwaiti authorities had acted improperly against four Iranian sailors aboard the vessel Meroj Keshtezri Darya, which it said entered Kuwaiti territorial waters accidentally because of a navigational system failure during a routine patrol. Iran also accused Kuwait of exploiting the incident for political purposes and demanded consular access and the sailors’ release.

The accusation came just hours before US President Donald Trump was due to depart for China for talks focused on the Iran conflict, and was seen by some commentators as an attempt to increase pressure on Tehran as the island is also home to a port project backed by Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Last month, Iran said it had struck a US helicopter training center in Kuwait, along with warehouses storing helicopter equipment, and reported strikes on US HIMARS systems stationed on Bubiyan Island.

Tensions in the Gulf have surged since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran in February, prompting retaliatory attacks by Tehran against Israel and US allies hosting American military bases in the region, while disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Russia is one of Ethiopia’s key long-term strategic partners and Moscow has consistently supported the African country during some of its most difficult periods, Ethiopian Air Force chief Lieutenant General Yilma Merdassa has said. 

Speaking to RT, Merdassa said he had trained in Russia and flown Soviet and Russian-made aircraft, including the Su-27. He noted that Russian and Soviet cooperation had significantly shaped the Ethiopian Air Force through pilot training, maintenance systems, and combat tactics, adding that ties weakened after the collapse of the Soviet Union but were later restored and continue to expand.   

“Russians are our strategic partners and I always used to say Russians are a very principled nation, principled government, always. They have been with us during difficult times,” Merdassa said. 

Merdassa added that cooperation between Moscow and Addis Ababa in military aviation would become “stronger and stronger” in the future, describing Russia’s aviation expertise as highly influential for Ethiopian pilots, engineers, and instructors.

“Russian instructors have a great role in shaping and training and making experienced pilots and technicians in Ethiopia,” he stressed. 

Beyond military cooperation, Russia and Ethiopia have been expanding ties in numerous areas. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening relations between the countries during a phone call in March, according to the Kremlin. The two leaders also agreed to intensify contacts at various levels.

Bilateral trade nearly tripled year-on-year in 2025 to more than $435 million, Russian Ambassador to Ethiopia Evgeny Terekhin told TASS in February, citing growth in Russian exports of fertilizers and machinery as well as rising Ethiopian coffee supplies to Russia.

Russia and Ethiopia established diplomatic relations in 1943 and both countries maintain embassies in Addis Ababa and Moscow.

It is apposite that ‘After Nations, The Making and Unmaking of a World Order’ – written by English novelist turned historian Rana Dasgupta – should be published as Donald Trump is desperately seeking to extract America from an ill-judged and calamitous war in Iran.

‘After Nations’ is an analysis of the rise and fall of the modern nation state – which Dasgupta sees as a uniquely powerful, secular political entity that first emerged in Western Europe some 300 years ago. The nation state’s theological foundation was reformation Christianity, its political philosophy was enlightenment liberalism, and its economic base was the then emerging capitalist economy.

For Dasgupta, the modern Western nation state is an intrinsically exploitative and aggressive political organization, which derived its unprecedented power from capitalist exploitation of its own citizens, and an even more brutal domination of its colonial possessions.

He views Britain and America as having been the most powerful modern nation states. Britain was the first modern nation state, and was the dominant global power from the 18th century until World War I. Thereafter, America supplanted a declining Britain, becoming the domineering global hegemon after World War II – by means of establishing a new global economic and political world order.

That American-controlled world order is now collapsing, and contemporary America and other Western nation states find themselves beset by acute internal crises that, because of their intrinsically exploitative and aggressive nature, they are incapable of resolving.

In the concluding chapter of his book, Dasgupta suggests that the nation state as a generic political entity may itself be doomed to disappear, and be replaced by more ecologically friendly, less exploitative political structures.

He sees this coming about as a result of an ideological transformation engendered by digital technology and the big tech companies. This radical change will involve mankind embracing “a new universal faith” based upon a “planetary godhead”; creating “a universal digital citizenship”; adopting a “digital currency”; adopting “a new digitally based planetary law”; and radically “reforming our relationship with nature.”

The final chapter the book reads like an eco-technological fable, and Dasgupta’s belief in the eventual disappearance of the nation state reveals itself to be a frankly utopian philosophical assumption, rather than a reasoned conclusion that arises from his own otherwise acute historical analysis.

The notion that the nation state as a generic political entity might disappear is, in fact, inconsistent with the historical analysis at the heart of ‘After Nations’. As that analysis makes clear, the crisis of the nation state described in the book is confined to Western liberal democratic nation states and cannot be applied to powerful contemporary illiberal nation states like China and Russia.

In fact, Dasgupta himself characterizes contemporary China and Russia as unique “transnational political entities” that possess a greater degree of political stability and resilience than Western nation states. If his analysis of the irreversible decline of America and the West is correct, then surely China and Russia are destined to become even more powerful, even if only comparatively, in the future.

And if America and other liberal democratic nation states are becoming less liberal and less democratic, might not these states also survive indefinitely, albeit in a more authoritarian, illiberal and populist form?

It must also be said the tech giants – who Dasgupta views as successors to earlier rapacious capitalist corporations like the British East India company – make very strange agents for bringing about progressive revolutionary change.

Leaving aside the book’s flawed final chapter, ‘After Nations’ contains a comprehensive and acute analysis of the rise and decline Britain and America as global hegemonic states.

The last historian to produce a compelling analysis of world-wide political developments over the past 300 years was Barrington Moore Jr. in his ‘Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy’, published in 1966 – coincidentally as America was embroiled in yet another disastrous war in Vietnam.  Barrington Moore Jr. viewed social democracies as being the product of unique social causes that could not be replicated – and for him, they were, therefore, political anomalies within a global world order made up of powerful illiberal nation states.

Barrington Moore Jr.’s book was written before America and the West’s decline had commenced, and ‘After Nations’ – written six decades later from a global economic perspective – is a worthy successor to it.

What, then, are the broad outlines of Dasgupta’s historical analysis, and what does the book tell us about America’s contemporary decline as a global power?  

Britain, for Dasgupta, was the first modern nation state, and he shows that it was an authoritarian, elitist, capitalist enterprise from the very beginning – ruthlessly exploiting its own displaced peasants by transforming them into a much-needed industrial proletariat, whilst at the same time plundering its vast colonial empire.

Dasgupta argues that Britain’s industrial revolution was made possible by the immense wealth that the British nation state had brutally extracted from its foreign possessions – most notably by the British East India Company in India – over the previous two centuries.

The British working class was incorporated into the autocratic British nation state as a matter of economic necessity, and the benefits grudgingly conferred on workers by the late 19th century – compulsory education, public health measures, a degree of economic prosperity, and a limited form of democracy – were also paid for by Britain’s ongoing economic exploitation of its colonial empire. This process reached its apogee in the Atlee government’s creation of the modern welfare state after World War II.

Since the 1970s, however, when manufacturing industries in Britain, America, and the West began to be relocated to the Third World – and factory workers were no longer needed, except as docile consumers – the incorporation of the working class has been reversed, and the benefits previously conferred on workers have been systematically withdrawn. Dasgupta terms this process the “downsizing of social bargains.”

Full employment has been abandoned, jobs have been casualized, union membership has declined, and worker’s wages have remained stagnant for decades. And, amidst widespread corruption, vast disparities in wealth have emerged between the elites that control and benefit from the new technologically driven global economy and those ordinary citizens who have been pauperized by it.

Conservative politicians – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – initially presided over this elite-controlled process, but it intensified apace under elite-beholden Labour and Democrat politicians – most notably Tony Blair and Barack Obama.

This has led to mass economic displacement, intensifying cost of living pressures, widespread political disenchantment, and the rise of populist parties – all indicia of the internal crisis that has engulfed both Britain and America, and Western nation states generally, in recent decades. Western nation states, according to Dasgupta, are now “unable to deliver the … rights, freedoms and security” that they previously provided to their citizens.

Dasgupta sees both Britain and America as having recently become increasingly authoritarian and exploitative polities – controlled by large global economic organizations, most notably the tech giants – that have much in common with the frankly autocratic and undemocratic emerging nation states of the 18th and 19th centuries.

America became the world hegemonic power in the aftermath of World War II – by creating a new global economic system at Bretton Woods, and a new global political order based upon the United Nations and military alliances, the most important of which was NATO.

This new American world empire, unlike its British predecessor, was ideological rather than territorial, and it compelled weaker nation states to submit to its economic hegemony by means of military interventions – that replaced uncooperative political regimes with governments, for the most part dictatorial, that favored American economic interests.

Guatemala in 1954 was the first of these interventions – resulting in a left-wing president being deposed and replaced by a brutal pro-American dictator. America repeated this process of regime change dozens of times in the following decades – often with success, as in Chile in 1973, and sometimes unsuccessfully, as with the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

Alongside these targeted interventions, America also became involved in ‘forever wars’ in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan – all of which ended in embarrassing American defeats.

American hegemony reached its zenith after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s – but, according to Dasgupta, the American empire entered a period of decline thereafter, as China and Russia began to re-emerge as powerful nation states at the beginning of the 21st century.

It was China, in particular, that posed the greatest threat to American hegemony – as the Chinese empire expanded across the globe. The Chinese empire was neither territorial nor ideological – rather it expanded by way of “focusing on infrastructure and resources” in those nation stares that signed up to its Belt and Road program. This led to the creation of new political models – like BRICS – that are not aligned with America.

And as America’s foreign policy disasters piled up globally, its internal economic and political crisis intensified – in part because American imperialism had “contaminated its own political soul” – culminating in Donald Trump’s election as president in 2016.

Dasgupta sees Trump’s rule as a more brutally aggressive and irrational version of America’s post-World War II global empire, now based upon “sheer gangsterism”. Gone is even the pretense of bringing freedom and democracy to those countries that it invades – and America’s foreign aggression now openly justifies itself in explicitly brutal and apocalyptic terms.

This was already apparent from Trump’s support for Israel’s war of destruction on Gaza – and Trump’s recent bellicose threat to “bomb Iran back to the stone age” simply confirms this change. Dasgupta reminds us that this phrase was first used by General Curtis LeMay in relation to Vietnam – but Le May was an extremist right-wing Cold War warrior, and President Lyndon Johnson would never have contemplated justifying America’s war in Vietnam in such explicitly violent and irrational terms.

Nor did previous presidents attempt to lay the Middle East to waste, dismantle NATO, destroy the global economic order that America itself had created, or threaten to invade Mexico and annex Canada and Greenland. Nor did Trump’s predecessors seek to systematically debauch and destroy liberal democratic institutions within America itself.

Dasgupta’s analysis of America’s decline is not only insightful – it is compelling.

‘After Nations’ was written before the current war in Iran commenced – and Trump’s attack on Iran was yet another archetypal American military intervention designed to bring about regime change in a country that refused to acknowledge American global hegemony.

It is now clear, however, that Trump’s attack on Iran has failed disastrously.

The resulting stalemate – which threatens to turn into another ‘forever war’ that a weakened America is militarily and politically incapable of waging – has intensified America’s internal crisis; created serious and ongoing global economic disruption; and generated tensions that threaten to break apart NATO.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently stated the obvious, namely that the war in Iran had become as “embarrassment” for America – and Trump responded by withdrawing 5,000 American troops from Germany, thereby further weakening the NATO alliance.

The war in Iran is also the first war that an American president has waged at the behest of another nation – namely Israel, which Dasgupta views as one of the most aggressive of modern nation states – in the face of near unanimous opposition from the CIA, the American military elite, and the president’s own cabinet. Not only does this highlight Trump’s irrationality, it also suggests that America no longer controls own its own foreign policy. In short, Donald Trump’s foolhardy war in Iran has made apparent America’s decline as world hegemonic power.

Anti-war activists have disrupted a Politico security forum sponsored by Lockheed Martin in Washington, DC, protesting the company’s role in supplying weapons for wars in the Middle East.

The ‘Security Summit’ held on Tuesday brought together US officials, lawmakers, defense executives, and foreign figures to discuss military priorities, Iran, cybersecurity, and AI warfare.

Politico said it aimed to “dissect the administration’s changing posture” on defense and future weapons. Critics mocked it as a war-planning shop dressed up as a security event.

Members of the anti-war group Code Pink staged a series of protests during live panels, interrupting speakers and accusing Lockheed Martin and government officials of profiting from and fueling the Middle East wars.

They blasted the forum as war profiteering wrapped in policy, saying the defense and tech companies have “blood on [their] hands,” and confronted officials over their support for US-Israeli actions against Iran.

The protesters also called for an end to the war in Gaza and the “genocide in Palestine,” with one person holding a sign reading “Lockheed Loves War.”

"THIS IS NOT ABOUT SECURITY! THIS IS ABOUT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION! THIS IS ABOUT PROFIT!"

At the Lockheed Martin-sponsored Politico "Security" Summit, CODEPINK activist Olivia DiNucci just disrupted Adam Smith, ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. pic.twitter.com/3W2Pl4KgIe

— CODEPINK (@codepink) May 12, 2026

“How dare you use the massacre of my people as a golden opportunity? How dare you, all of you war criminals in here!” one protester shouted during a panel.

“This is not about security. This is about death and destruction. They even said that the war in Iran is a golden opportunity,” another yelled as US Representative Adam Smith, a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, was speaking.

"Where were you when our people were pulling their children out from under the rubble of the bombs you invited into our country?"

This morning, an Iranian-American activist confronted Reza Pahlavi for supporting for the US-Israeli war on Iran a "security" summit in D.C. pic.twitter.com/a7LvTlsjQK

— CODEPINK (@codepink) May 12, 2026

An Iranian-American activist confronted Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, over his support for the US-Israeli war against Iran. “Where were you when our people were pulling their children out from under the rubble of the bombs you invited into our country? Shame on you!”

Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the US, has called for protests to topple the Iranian government.

At least four protesters were removed, according to videos shared online by Code Pink.

Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, receives more than $60 billion annually in Pentagon contracts and is a frequent target of anti-war protests.

Critics accuse the company of supplying weapons that cause heavy civilian casualties, including F-15 and F-35 jets, Hellfire missiles, and bunker-buster bombs used by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon.

Lockheed Martin has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, funneling weapons through Pentagon contracts and US aid programs. The conflict has sent the company’s production lines into overdrive, as Kiev’s Western backers empty their arsenals to keep the war machine running and then rush to refill them.

Among the Lockheed Martin systems supplied to Ukraine are Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS launchers, ATACMS long-range missiles, F-16 fighter jets, and Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Africa can no longer be excluded from permanent representation on the UN Security Council (UNSC), African Union Commission (AUC) Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has said.

Speaking at a ministerial meeting on UNSC reform on the sidelines of the Africa-France Summit in Kenyan capital Nairobi on Monday, Youssouf said the continent’s demand is not a request for special treatment but a response to a long-standing imbalance in global governance.

“Africa is not asking for a favor; Africa is demanding the correction of a historical injustice,” he said, according to an AU statement. He added that the Security Council’s “credibility and legitimacy” depend on whether it reflects the realities of the present world rather than “the geopolitical order of 1945.” 

The AU’s position is based on the 2005 Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration. It calls for at least two permanent African seats with all the powers held by existing permanent members, including veto rights while the veto remains, as well as five additional non-permanent seats.

The Security Council currently has five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US – and ten elected members serving two-year terms. Africa, despite having 54 UN member states, has no permanent seat on the body.

Several African leaders have renewed calls for reform in recent months. Republic of the Congo President Denis Sassou Nguesso said last year that the council no longer reflects the world’s geopolitical balance, while Kenyan President William Ruto urged at least two permanent African seats with veto power.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has repeatedly called for Africa to be given a permanent voice on the council, saying the institution has failed to keep pace with global changes since 1945.

Russia has also backed expanding the Security Council to include more African, Asian, and Latin American states. Moscow’s deputy envoy to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, told an African Union Committee of Ten summit in New York in September that the council should reflect the “multipolar nature of the world” rather than “the global colonial past.” Polyansky said Russia supports Africa’s push for greater representation, while warning against increasing Western representation on the council.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has described Russia-India ties as “impossible to destroy.” In a wide-ranging interview with RT India’s Runjhun Sharma as part of the India, Russia and the World show, Lavrov said the complementary nature of the two countries’ economies and the decades of cooperation in the areas of defense, technology, space, culture, and now energy and manufacturing make the ties strong.

“Those who are trying to worry about the future of Russian-Indian friendship, I think they should not be worried,” Lavrov said, adding that some global powers are trying to “undermine” relations between Russia and India, but “these attempts do not achieve results.”

Lavrov was speaking to RT ahead of his trip to New Delhi for the meeting of BRICS foreign ministers which begins on Wednesday.

Regarding Russia-India ties in the energy and defense sectors, the foreign minister said that “for a long time after India gained independence, no Western country wanted to help India to develop its military,” while Russia sold India weaponry and shared technology for many kinds of weaponry to be manufactured in India.

“We started with Brahmos missiles, then Kalashnikov machine guns, and now it is also T-90 tanks being produced in India,” he said, adding that during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India last year, the countries agreed to a long-term plan for economic cooperation which includes military technical cooperation.

Lavrov also praised India’s leadership for advancing a development agenda and policies that allow the country of 1.4 billion people to grow despite the pressures and restrictions Western powers try to place on this process.

“Prime Minister Modi is one of the most vibrant leaders the world has ever seen. He not only has vibrant energy, he focuses it on very important goals and achievements – achieving absolute sovereignty in all spheres, be it the economy, military defense, culture, and naturally, maintaining the civilizational heritage that India has like no other,” Lavrov said.

Anti-immigration protesters set an emergency refugee shelter on fire in the Dutch town of Loosdrecht on Tuesday evening, following weeks of demonstrations against the arrival of asylum seekers.

According to NOS, an angry crowd threw firecrackers at a town hall building that the authorities said would temporarily house refugees. The incident occurred after the first group of 15 asylum seekers arrived earlier that day.

The crowd also threw objects at police officers and attempted to block firefighters from accessing the site. The fire was eventually extinguished, and several people were detained, NOS reported.

🇳🇱 More footage of Dutch protesters setting fire to a new asylum centre in Loosdrecht while blocking firefighters from reaching the area.pic.twitter.com/3diZ5cArz9 https://t.co/rW4AAjeMF7

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 13, 2026

Previous protests in Loosdrecht, a town of 8,600 people, forced the authorities to scale back plans to house 110 asylum seekers to 70.

Last month, a petition opposing the opening of the shelter, signed by 3,000 people, was submitted to the authorities. Despite protests from local residents and business owners, a court ruled in favor of allowing the vacant town hall to be used to house refugees.

Several right-wing politicians joined the rallies, with Gidi Markuszower, the leader of the Dutch Alliance (DNA), telling the crowd that refugees should “go back to their own country.”

Pro-immigration politicians condemned the violence, with some claiming that many of the protesters were not from Loosdrecht. Justice Minister David van Weel suggested that “groups with bad intentions” may have exploited the protests to incite violence, according to Dutch News.

Austria has said it scrambled Eurofighter Typhoons to intercept US Air Force spy planes that entered its airspace without authorization on Sunday and Monday.

According to Austrian Defense Ministry spokesman Michael Bauer, a pair of PC-12 turboprop aircraft flew over the Totes Gebirge mountains in Upper Austria on two occasions. He added that the planes turned back toward Germany after being intercepted by the Eurofighters. Bauer said the incident will be “resolved through diplomatic channels.”

Austria’s response was criticized and mocked on social media, with some commenters arguing that “nobody takes our airspace seriously.”

Bauer responded to critics on X: “Should we shoot down the plane? Is that what you’re suggesting?” Replying to another post, he wrote: “If you’re driving too fast on the highway, do you expect the police to shoot you, or just give you a fine?”

Last month, Austria denied US requests for overflight rights during the war against Iran, citing its longstanding neutrality.

“We are not part of Trump’s chaotic policy and must not yield an inch here,” Austrian Vice Chancellor Andrea Babler said at the time, according to Anadolu.

US President Donald Trump is set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who he described on Tuesday as “a friend” and “somebody that we get along with.” Trump added that he plans to discuss the war with Iran, which the US and Israel have accused China of supporting.

The Chinese Embassy in the US, meanwhile, outlined four red lines in relations that “must not be challenged”: Taiwan, democracy and human rights, “development paths and political systems,” and “China’s development right.” Beijing has insisted that the US must not interfere in its domestic affairs or support what it calls the “separatist” government in Taipei.

The four red lines in #China-#US relations must not be challenged. #ChinaUSRelations #ChinaDiplomacy pic.twitter.com/4kmNeEWLGH

— Chinese Embassy in US (@ChineseEmbinUS) May 12, 2026

The US-Israeli war against Iran further strained relations with China after the US Treasury sanctioned a Chinese refinery for allegedly purchasing Iranian oil. Beijing responded by barring its private refineries from complying with the sanctions, which Chinese officials denounced as illegal.

🇺🇸🇨🇳🇮🇷 Reporter: What is your message to President Xi as it relates to the Iran war?

Trump: I think number one, we're going to have a long talk about it. I think he's been relatively good, to be honest with you. We've had no problem. And he's been a friend of mine.

I think… pic.twitter.com/GJGheF3Oh7

— RusWar (@ruswar) May 12, 2026

China has denied that it provides military aid to Iran and condemned the US for blacklisting Chinese satellite companies accused of supplying data to Tehran. “The Chinese government always asks Chinese companies to operate in accordance with laws and regulations. We will firmly protect Chinese businesses’ legitimate rights and interests,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Monday.

Guo added that China is ready to work with the US and “manage differences in the spirit of equality, respect, and mutual benefit.”

Iran has retained most of its missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing a classified intelligence assessment from earlier this month.

The report follows a series of publications in the US media contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims that Iran’s military was largely destroyed during the US-Israeli bombing campaign from February 28 until the ceasefire on April 8.

According to the NYT, Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, which are capable of targeting US warships and tankers passing through the narrow waterway that normally handles around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas trade.

Iran closed the route to what it described as “enemy ships” in response to US and Israeli airstrikes and has since insisted on the right to control all maritime traffic and collect tolls.

The intelligence assessments cited by the NYT reaffirmed earlier reports that Iran has retained around 70% of its mobile launchers and 70% of its prewar missile stockpile.

Negotiations remain stalled after the US and Iran once again rejected each other’s proposals over the weekend as unacceptable. Trump has intensified threats to resume the military campaign, with media reports saying he has been briefed on additional strike options.

The US has demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which Tehran has rejected, insisting that its uranium enrichment activities are solely for civilian purposes.

Iran’s peace terms include an end to Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the lifting of sanctions, reparations, and recognition of what Tehran calls its “sovereignty” over the Strait of Hormuz.

Nearly 12,000 complaints have been filed against draft officials in Ukraine since the conflict with Russia began in early 2022, Ukrainskaya Pravda (UP) reported on Monday, citing data provided by the parliamentary human rights commissioner.

Ukraine has been suffering from chronic manpower shortages due to its heavy battlefield losses, widespread draft dodging, and desertion. The nationwide ‘bussification’ campaign, in which draft officers ambush military-age men on the streets, at workplaces, and outside their homes, has often led to violent altercations and outrage on social media.

According to UP, the number of complaints against draft officials jumped from 514 in 2023 to 6,127 in 2025. A total of 1,657 complaints were filed in the first quarter of 2026.

In many instances, officers were filmed tackling and beating men before shoving them into vans. Several draftees have reportedly died shortly after arriving at the draft offices. In videos posted online, bystanders and family members are often seen attacking the officers to prevent unwilling recruits from being sent to the front line.

The Ukrainian government lowered the draft age from 27 to 25 and has introduced harsher penalties for draft dodging.

The draft remains a highly contentious issue as the conflict with Russia has entered its fourth year. Last week, dozens of people attempted to storm a draft office building in the village of Mezhgorye in western Ukraine. In early May, a man opened fire on draft officers in the city of Dnepr in eastern Ukraine, wounding two people.

Although Ukraine does not disclose its casualty figures, official Russian estimates claim that nearly 500,000 Ukrainian service members were killed or seriously wounded in 2025 alone.

The US and Israeli attack on Iran in February and their subsequent failure to achieve their objectives has already changed the strategic calculations of every major power. In some respects, it has also opened new opportunities for political dialogue. Seizing those opportunities would benefit international politics as a whole.

The Middle East has always been one of the most unstable regions in the world. Rivalries there rarely disappear; they merely evolve. States that are bitter enemies one year often find themselves entering temporary pragmatic arrangements the next. But these understandings are tactical rather than lasting. The region remains trapped in a cycle of recurring crises.

For decades, however, the instability of the Middle East was viewed as manageable. The conflicts were bloody, but they didn’t threaten the foundations of the international system itself. Even at the height of the Cold War, the region was seen by the great powers as an arena for competition rather than a place where they would risk everything.

There were two reasons for this. First, the Middle East never directly touched the vital survival interests of the major powers. The US and the USSR competed there intensely, and today the US, Russia and China all maintain important interests in the region, but none considered it worth a confrontation that could spiral into a global catastrophe. Second, no regional state possessed the capacity to impose a revolutionary political project on the wider world.

In this sense, Middle Eastern conflicts resembled a permanent wound in international politics: painful, dangerous, but ultimately containable.

Now, however, the situation has changed.

The most immediate consequence of the US-Israeli assault on Iran has been economic. Tehran’s response, particularly the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on American facilities in the Gulf, sent shockwaves through global markets. Energy supplies were disrupted almost overnight, affecting not only the West but also powers such as China and India. Fears of a broader recession spread rapidly.

What until recently seemed unthinkable has now become reality: a regional conflict has demonstrated its capacity to undermine the foundations of global economic interdependence.

The political consequences may prove even more significant.

For decades, the United States was viewed as a power capable of imposing its will militarily almost anywhere in the world. Even after failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, many still assumed that no regional state could seriously resist overwhelming American military superiority.

That perception has now suffered another severe blow.

The overthrow of the Venezuelan government earlier this year reinforced the image of an America still capable of reshaping weaker states at will. It was against that backdrop that many observers expected Iran’s political system to collapse rapidly under pressure. Instead, the opposite occurred.

Despite devastating strikes against senior figures and constant aerial attacks, the Iranian state endured. No mass uprising materialized. The armed forces continued functioning. The country’s governing structures proved far more resilient than Washington and West Jerusalem appear to have anticipated.

This doesn’t mean Iran has emerged victorious. The long-term consequences of the conflict remain unclear, but it does mean that the old assumption of automatic American military supremacy no longer looks convincing.

The reasons are not difficult to identify. Iran’s leadership and society proved capable of absorbing punishment without immediate political collapse. The attackers underestimated the cohesion of the state they were confronting. That miscalculation has implications far beyond the Middle East itself.

For the United States, this was a war of choice rather than necessity because Iran posed no existential threat to American survival. Israel, certainly, views Tehran as a strategic danger, but Israeli and American interests are not identical, regardless of how close their alliance may be.

That distinction matters because it explains why Washington, despite all its rhetoric, has shown no willingness to escalate toward the most extreme military options. America itself understands the limits of what it is prepared to risk.

Whatever the eventual outcome of the conflict, the Iranian episode is likely to provoke reflection in Washington. At the very least, it should force a reassessment of whether American ambitions still match American capabilities.

Yet such reflection will not come easily. The US political class has spent decades operating from a position of extraordinary global dominance. This has narrowed its worldview as American elites increasingly interpret international politics primarily through the prism of domestic political assumptions and ideological preferences.

At the same time, Washington has accumulated an enormous network of commitments across the globe. Maintaining them often creates pressure for exactly the sort of risky intervention that produced the current crisis.

China, meanwhile, also faces important strategic questions. Beijing has tried to maintain stable and pragmatic relations with the current American administration. But the attack on Iran, widely viewed outside the West as a blatant violation of international law, narrows China’s room for maneuver. It becomes harder for Beijing to treat relations with Washington as merely another economic negotiation.

The conflict has also exposed China’s vulnerability to instability in distant regions on which it nevertheless depends heavily for energy supplies and trade. Chinese firms have invested massively across the Middle East, including in Iran itself. The disruption caused by the war is likely to intensify debates within China about economic security and over-dependence on vulnerable maritime routes.

In time, Beijing may begin reconsidering the balance between global economic integration and strategic self-sufficiency.

For Russia, the consequences are more complex than many assume. In the short term, Moscow has benefited economically from higher commodity prices. The conflict has also shifted some international attention away from Eastern Europe. But Russia is not necessarily interested in a complete collapse of American influence in the Middle East.

Paradoxically, a limited and constrained American presence can contribute to the broader balance of international politics. Total chaos or the destruction of all diplomatic frameworks in the region would not serve Russian interests either.

This is why the Iranian crisis matters so profoundly. It is not simply another Middle Eastern war, but rather a moment that has forced all the major powers to confront uncomfortable questions about military force, economic vulnerability, strategic overreach and the changing structure of the international system itself.

The attack on Iran was intended to demonstrate strength. Instead, it has exposed uncertainty. And in doing so, it may yet create opportunities for a more realistic and restrained dialogue between the world’s major powers.

This article was first published by the Valdai Club and edited by the RT team.

US President Donald Trump has not ruled the possibility of traveling to Russia this year to help facilitate a settlement to the Ukraine conflict.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday, prior to departing for an upcoming summit in China, the US president was asked if he could visit Russia in 2026.

“I could… I will do whatever is necessary. That war… I’ve settled eight wars,” Trump said.

“That war is getting closer. Believe it or not, it’s getting closer. And we think we’re going to end up getting a settlement between Russia and Ukraine.”

A day earlier, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reiterated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to host Trump. Putin initially extended the invitation after the historic bilateral US-Russia summit in Alaska last August.

However, the subsequent Washington-backed direct talks between Moscow and Kiev have stalled.

The negotiations will remain at a standstill until Kiev pulls its troops out of Donbass, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov said on Sunday. “Until [Ukraine] makes the step, one can hold some more rounds, dozens of rounds [of talks] but we will remain in the same spot,” he said.

Washington is currently “more preoccupied with the Middle East crisis,” Ushakov added. The US war on Iran has settled into an uneasy standoff centered around the Strait of Hormuz and blockade of Iranian ports, with neither side accepting the other’s demands.

Nevertheless, Washington is “not abandoning the Ukraine issue,” and is in regular contact with Moscow over the phone, Ushakov said.

Russia has maintained that any peaceful settlement is predicated on Kiev withdrawing from the remaining areas of the Donbass that are still under Ukrainian control.

Kiev exerts control over around 15-17% of Donetsk People’s Republic, Putin said in March. The Russian Defense Ministry reported fully liberating the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic last month.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was booed and mocked during a speech on Tuesday to one of the country’s biggest trade union groups as he tried to sell his welfare cut plans.

Merz has a history of blaming Germany’s economic troubles on its people. Last August, he said that the “welfare state as we have it today can no longer be financed.” In January, he urged Germans to work more, arguing that the “productivity of our economy is not high enough.”

He told a gathering of some 400 delegates from the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) that people must pull together because “we simply failed to modernize our country.”

Boos and whistles first erupted as he spoke about the health insurance reform approved by his cabinet in April. The changes, which Merz described as “historic,” are expected to save the government €16 billion ($18.7 billion), while forcing people to pay more for drugs previously covered by insurance even as their contributions continue to rise.

The chancellor then claimed that the upcoming pension reform – expected to be unveiled this summer – was driven by “demographics and mathematics” rather than “malice on my part or on the part of the federal government.” The remarks were also met with hissing and laughter, particularly when he claimed that the reform plans were “not a threat” but a “big chance.”

Germany’s economy saw two years of recession in 2023 and 2024, and a period of near-stagnation in 2025 as its industry has been hit by rising energy and labor costs alongside weak demand. Berlin’s decision to abandon cheap Russian energy imports in 2022 as part of the EU sanctions policy in the wake of the Ukraine conflict escalation also played a major role in this development.

Last year, Germany’s central bank warned about a looming record budget deficit, attributing the threat to higher defense spending and continued financial support for Kiev.

Merz and his cabinet continue to pursue the chancellor’s goal of turning the German army into the strongest conventional force in Europe, citing a supposed ‘Russian threat.’ Moscow has repeatedly dismissed such allegations as “nonsense.”

The Russian economy remains fundamentally strong despite contracting in the first quarter of 2026, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak has said, citing low unemployment, rising household incomes and improving business activity as evidence that the slowdown may be temporary. 

Russia’s GDP shrank by 0.3% year-on-year in the first quarter, marking the country’s first quarterly contraction since early 2023. The slowdown followed years of rapid expansion, with the economy having grown by over 4% in 2023 and 2024 before easing to around 1% last year. 

Novak told business daily Vedomosti on Tuesday that the downturn was part of a normal economic cycle. “After a period of high growth, there is always a correction,” he said, describing the current phase as being accompanied by “structural transformation” under “unprecedented pressure from sanctions.” 

Russia has retained its position as the world’s fourth-largest economy by purchasing power parity (PPP) – which adjusts for cost-of-living differences across countries – since 2021, Novak said. Manufacturing output has risen nearly 23% since 2022, he added, driven by import substitution and increased domestic production after many Western companies exited the Russian market. 

The deputy prime minister also cited historically low unemployment and rising household incomes as signs of economic stability. Real disposable incomes had increased by 26.1% over the past three years, driven by wage growth, social payments, business income and property income, he stated. 

“Poverty has declined to a record low of 6.7%,” Novak said, referring to the 2025 data. He said unemployment was expected to remain at around 2.3-2.4%, among the lowest levels in the country’s modern history. 

Novak attributed the slowdown partly to labor shortages and tight monetary policy aimed at curbing inflation, but said growth was expected to return this year as price pressures ease and financial conditions gradually improve.   

Novak’s views were echoed by Economic Development Minister Maksim Reshetnikov, who told President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday that the economy had “held up well” despite sanctions and external pressure. The ministry expects GDP growth to reach 0.4% this year before accelerating to 1.4% in 2027, Reshetnikov said.

The looming energy crisis will inevitably force Kiev’s European backers to negotiate with Russia, Kremlin investment envoy and senior Ukraine conflict negotiator Kirill Dmitriev said on Tuesday.

The EU and UK have largely frozen contacts with Moscow after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. While the Kremlin has confirmed that a visit by envoys sent by French President Emmanuel Macron took place in February, the talks went nowhere.

“Finnish President Stubb believes that… ‘it’s time to start talking to Russia,’” Dmitriev wrote on X. “The upcoming energy crisis tsunami starting to overwhelm the EU and UK will make it inevitable.”

He was replying to a statement Stubb made in an interview with Italian daily Corriere della Sera published on Monday.

“Yes, it’s time to start talking to Russia,” the Finnish president said. “If American policy toward Russia and Ukraine isn’t in Europe’s interests, as seems to be the case, then we must engage directly.”

Kiev’s European backers have increasingly made public statements about the need to reengage Moscow in dialogue, expressing concern about being sidelined in US-backed Russia-Ukraine talks.

However, any speculation about resuming talks is premature, until a concerted “political decision to resume dialogue” is made, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

Russia has long warned that the EU and UK have systematically worked to sabotage US efforts to settle the Ukraine conflict, while emboldening Kiev with continued military support. Moscow has stressed that it views a diplomatic settlement as preferable, but will push towards its goals by military means while Kiev refuses to compromise.

Vladimir Zelensky’s former spokesperson, Yulia Mendel, has been added to a Ukrainian state-linked ‘kill list’ for telling American journalist Tucker Carlson of rampant cocaine abuse in the corridors of power in Kiev and the desire of a corrupt elite to prolong the conflict with Russia. 

Mendel worked with Zelensky for two years during which time she says she witnessed him change from peacemaker to propagator of war. 

The list is run by the Mirotvorets website, which has been linked to Ukrainian security services and is notorious for publishing the addresses and personal details of anyone remotely deemed an enemy of the Ukrainian state, including Russian journalists, some of whom were subsequently assassinated. 

The website has accused Mendel of “humanitarian aggression against Ukraine,” spreading “narratives of Russian propaganda,” calling for Ukraine’s “capitulation,” and “indirectly taking part in information‑psychological special operations” allegedly run by Russia. 

Mirotvorets cited Mendel telling Carlson that the Ukrainian delegation at talks in Istanbul in 2022 was ready to agree to “all of Russia’s demands” in order to stop the fighting, but that Kiev was pressured by the US and UK to continue the conflict and that Zelensky is now “one of the main obstacles to peace.” It also cited Mendel’s comments that Ukraine is “on the verge of disappearing,” and showing signs of “unhealthy nationalism.” 

Mendel, who served as Zelensky’s press secretary from 2019 to 2021, has in recent months become an outspoken critic of her former boss. In the interview she leveled a series of allegations of corruption and drug use, calling Zelensky a “dictator” who has grown “detached from reality.” She also described Zelensky and his former chief of staff Andrey Yermak as “malicious and extremely paranoid narcissists,” saying their relationship had turned into a “symbiosis.”  

Launched in 2014 as a nominally independent project, Mirotvorets has targeted a wide range of international figures, including Tucker Carlson, Hollywood director Woody Allen, Russian hockey star Alexander Ovechkin, and US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. 

Russian officials have condemned the site as extremist. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has described it as a hit list targeting individuals Kiev allegedly wants to “eliminate.”

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has confirmed that her team is investigating more than 40 US-funded pathogen laboratories in Ukraine. Here’s what you need to know about the story that was written off as “Kremlin propaganda” in 2022.

In a statement to the New York Post on Tuesday, Gabbard said that her department had identified more than 120 biological laboratories in 30 countries that had been funded by the US taxpayer for decades. More than a third of these labs are located in Ukraine.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is going “to identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain and what ‘research’ is being conducted to end dangerous gain-of-function research that threatens the health and wellbeing of the American people and the world,” Gabbard said.

Gain of function research refers to the modification of animal viruses to increase their transmissibility in order to study their effect on humans. The ODNI is currently investigating the origins of the Covid-19 coronavirus, which Gabbard and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. maintain was created in a US-funded biolab in Wuhan, China.

Gabbard’s confirmation of US-funded biolabs in Ukraine vindicates claims made by the Russian military in the early days of the Ukraine conflict – claims that were dismissed by then-President Joe Biden’s administration as “outright lies.”

What did Russia say about biolabs in Ukraine?

As the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022, Vladimir Zelensky’s government in Kiev ordered the “emergency destruction” of dangerous pathogens at multiple US-funded laboratories in Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement on March 6 of that year.

The ministry claimed that Kiev ordered the destruction of the samples in order to hide its role in an American biological warfare program. Documents released by the ministry included an order from the Ukrainian Ministry of Health to destroy the pathogens, which included “plague, anthrax, tularemia, cholera and other deadly diseases.”

Many of these laboratories were set up following the US-orchestrated ‘Maidan’ coup in 2014, and were run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) – the largest biomedical research facility administered by the US military, according to the ministry.

After reviewing thousands of pages of documents seized from labs in Donetsk, Lugansk and Kherson, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov of the Russian Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces concluded in 2023 that “the US, under the guise of ensuring global biosecurity, conducted dual-use research, including the creation of biological weapons components, in close proximity to Russian borders.” Kirillov led Russia’s investigation into the labs until he was assassinated in 2024, allegedly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).

How did the US respond?

Former US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a notorious Russia hawk, admitted under oath on March 8 that “Ukraine has biological research facilities,” which the US was helping to secure. Nuland, a driving force behind the Maidan coup, did not mention that the labs were American-run and funded.

“The United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine, it is in full compliance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention, and it does not develop or possess such weapons anywhere”

Washington went into full biolab denial mode the following day. “This is preposterous,” then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki wrote on social media on March 9 (she hosts one of MSNow’s most popular shows). “It’s the kind of disinformation operation we’ve seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years in Ukraine.”

In a statement that same day, the US State Department said that “the Kremlin is intentionally spreading outright lies that the United States and Ukraine are conducting chemical and biological weapons activities in Ukraine.”

However, another partial admission came from then-Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines on March 10. Whereas Nuland claimed that the US was not involved in running any Ukrainian biolabs, Haines told lawmakers that “the US government provides assistance, or at least has in the past provided assistance, really in the context of biosafety, which is something that we’ve done globally with a variety of different countries.”

Nevertheless, the official policy from the White House remained one of denial. “There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories supported by the United States,” Biden’s ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the UN Security Council on March 11.

In a press conference on March 21, Biden claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “back is against the wall,” and Moscow’s claims that “we, in America, have biological as well as chemical weapons in Europe” are “simply not true.”

The US media largely toed this line. In the weeks following these statements, the New York Times described Russia’s story as a “baseless theory,” NPR referred to it as “a lurid and difficult to believe claim,” and The Guardian, CBS News, Bloomberg, and others all called it a “conspiracy theory.” Even on March 14, days after Nuland and Haines confirmed the labs’ existence, MSNBC ran a story on how “Ukraine’s non-existent biolabs” were a creation of “Russian propaganda.”

Were the labs making bioweapons?

Nuland and Haines admitted that the labs existed, but insisted that they carried out legitimate research. However, the line between legitimate gain-of-function research and the creation of bioweapons is blurred. Enhancing the transmissibility and lethality of viruses allows vaccines to be created, but also leaves scientists with potent pathogens that can easily be weaponized.

The Pentagon said in late 2022 that its biological research in Ukraine “focused on improving public health and agricultural safety.”

One year later, Kennedy Jr. told US journalist Tucker Carlson that this was merely a cover story, and that “we have biolabs in Ukraine because we’re developing bioweapons.”

Kennedy claimed that these facilities were creating “frightening stuff,” including genetically-engineered pathogens created with CRISPR DNA sequencing technology. This research used to be carried out in the US, but was moved abroad after some “bugs” escaped from American labs in 2014. “A lot of them went to Ukraine,” he added.

The DTRA’s biological research in Ukraine was paused in 2022, but resumed in 2023, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. The program, which was previously known as ‘Joint Biological Research’, was rebranded as ‘Biological Control Research’ for the relaunch, according to documents released by the ministry.

Where are the rest of the US’ biolabs located?

After the collapse of the USSR, the US moved to install biolabs in former Soviet states including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Set up under the auspices of preventing bioterrorism and the proliferation of biological and chemical weapon technologies, little is known about this network of laboratories surrounding Russia.

As RT reported, whistleblowers in Georgia have alleged that the laboratories in that country worked on plague, tularemia, brucellosis, and various hemorrhagic fevers, and people living near one lab in Tbilisi have claimed that some of these bugs have escaped and infected locals.

In the wake of the Ukraine conflict, the US has transferred much of its biological research to Africa, the Russian Defense Ministry has alleged. According to documents published by the ministry in 2024, laboratories have been set up in 18 countries, with some Pentagon-funded facilities studying deadly pathogens such as Ebola, and carrying out pharmaceutical trials on locals.

India will host the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi on May 14-15. The gathering, to be chaired by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, is expected to focus on key geopolitical issues, including the conflict in the Middle East.

The meeting will also help lay the groundwork for the BRICS leaders’ summit scheduled for September. The ministers will outline key elements of final documents for the September summit, which India will host under its 2026 BRICS presidency.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will travel to New Delhi for the talks, Moscow confirmed earlier. In addition to the BRICS gathering, he will hold bilateral talks with Jaishankar and other Indian officials. Preparations for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India for the September summit are also likely to be discussed.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi will not attend the meeting in New Delhi due to scheduling conflicts, Beijing said earlier this week. The meeting coincides with US President Donald Trump’s expected state visit to China May 13 to 15 – his first in nearly nine years.

Iran’s Abbas Araghchi is expected to attend the New Delhi meeting, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has confirmed.

The Middle East conflict is expected to be a key issue at the meeting, with tensions between BRICS members Iran and the UAE remaining high, the Hindustan Times reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

After the US and Israel launched the war against Iran in late February, Tehran has repeatedly targeted energy infrastructure and oil facilities in the UAE, accusing Abu Dhabi of acting as a “hostile base” over its ties with the US and Israel. The situation in Palestine is also expected to be on the agenda, with the HT reporting that most BRICS members are against toning down the bloc’s language on Gaza.

India has long sought to maintain balanced relations within BRICS while resisting Western pressure on issues such as Russian energy imports and the Ukraine conflict.

The previous BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting was held on the sidelines of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2025. India chaired it as the incoming BRICS chair for 2026.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov compared Western pressure on countries of the Global South, including India – the world’s second largest oil importer – over their trade with Russia to “neocolonial methods.”

Speaking exclusively to Runjhun Sharma, host of the show India, Russia and the World, Lavrov said on Tuesday that the ongoing Middle East crisis highlights Washington’s desire to control global energy trade flows.

“They put pressure on everyone, demanding that they should not purchase Russian oil, and this is unfair play. These are colonial, or neocolonial, methods. ‘You shouldn’t purchase cheap Russian oil. You should purchase my expensive oil, and buy expensive LNG from the US. We will rule the world by controlling global energy,” the Russian foreign minister said. He added that not all countries “cave in to such pressure.”

Lavrov noted that Moscow respects New Delhi’s position, repeatedly outlined by Indian officials – that its energy imports are dictated by national interests as well as market terms, and that New Delhi will decide from whom to buy energy and at what price.

India is the third largest producer and consumer of electricity globally, after China and the US. New Delhi imports over 85% of its crude oil requirements to meet rising domestic demand and refinery consumption. Since 2022, New Delhi has ramped up imports of Russian oil significantly and continues relying on Russian crude to meet its ⁠demand, despite continuous pressure from its Western partners.

Washington imposed sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil in October, causing a temporary decrease in oil imports by India. However, the Trump administration has since extended a sanctions waiver, until May 16, after the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz wreaked havoc on global energy markets.

The Indian government has stressed that it will do everything it can to ensure uninterrupted energy supply to 1.4 billion people and industries.  At the same time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called on Indians to rethink their energy use, including cutting fuel consumption by using more public transport and working from home, amid continuing uncertainty over a ceasefire in the US–Israeli campaign against Iran.

Speaking to RT India ahead of his trip to New Delhi for the meeting of BRICS foreign ministers, Lavrov said that the grouping can play a significant role in shaping efforts to end hostilities in the Middle East.

The full interview will be aired on RT on Wednesday.

Days before Europe marked the 81st anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat in World War II, Berlin unveiled something unprecedented in the history of the modern Federal Republic: Its first-ever military strategy, titled ‘Responsibility for Europe.’ A country that spent decades defining itself through restraint and repentance now openly declares its ambition to build “the strongest conventional army in Europe.”

Germany insists that this transformation is merely defensive. The declared threat is Russia, the declared mission deterrence. But history teaches Europeans to pay close attention whenever Berlin starts talking about military necessity, strategic leadership, and continental responsibility.

The new doctrine is the ideological burial of postwar Germany.

Germany’s strategic revolution

For decades, German society was built upon an anti-militarist consensus. Military force was viewed with suspicion, and pacifism became a civic religion. The very idea of German military leadership in Europe was politically toxic. But in only a few years, much has changed. A growing part of German society has accepted the narrative of an imminent Russian threat and abandoned the pacifism that had been carefully cultivated since 1945.

Germany’s political and military establishment now speaks openly about ‘war readiness’ and ‘combat capability’. General Carsten Breuer, one of the central figures behind Germany’s military transformation, argues that previous conflicts such as Afghanistan were optional wars, while a future confrontation with Russia will be a ‘war of necessity’ from which Europe cannot withdraw. According to this worldview, European countries must integrate militarily in preparation for a continental war.

The problem is not simply militarization. Europe indeed requires stronger armies, restored industrial capacity, and societies capable of defending themselves. The illusion of eternal peace after the Cold War has clearly collapsed. Europe became strategically complacent while the world grew harder and more dangerous.

But Europe’s current military revival is unfolding under deeply ideological liberal elites obsessed with confrontation with Russia. And this obsession is leading the continent into a dangerous spiral.

In Berlin and other European capitals, political circles have fallen into the increasingly widespread belief that Russia could attack NATO and the EU around 2029. Whether sincerely believed or politically instrumentalized, these narratives have enormous consequences. Russia has shown no interest in invading Europe. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates how strategic paranoia and worst-case assumptions can become self-fulfilling prophecies. This is precisely what is happening in Germany.

The return of the German soldier

The most symbolic example is Lithuania. Germany’s Panzerbrigade 45, expected to reach full operational capability by 2027, represents the first permanent deployment of a German combat brigade abroad since the Bundeswehr was founded in the 1950s. Around 4,800 soldiers and civilian personnel are expected to be stationed near the Belarusian border. The brigade is explicitly designed as a permanent component of NATO’s eastern flank. Eight decades after German troops marched eastward, German armored units are once again permanently stationed in the Baltic region facing Russia.

Germany is also debating the return of compulsory military service, which was abolished in 2011. The assumption that a professional volunteer army alone can defend the country is increasingly viewed in Berlin as outdated.

Since January, 18-year-olds in Germany have begun receiving questionnaires asking if they want to serve in the military. For men, the questionnaire is mandatory. The authorities are already discussing penalties for those who refuse to complete it. Beginning in 2027, all 18-year-old men could also face mandatory medical examinations to assess fitness for military service.

Earlier this year, Germany even introduced regulations requiring men to request permission before undertaking long-term travel abroad – which was eventually suspended after public controversy erupted, as military service remains voluntary.

The direction, however, is obvious. The liberal-democratic state is psychologically preparing society for mass mobilization.

A new military axis

Germany’s transformation is not occurring in isolation. At the same time Berlin rearms, Poland is building what may soon become the largest land army in the EU. Warsaw has embarked on one of the most aggressive military expansion programs in Europe, purchasing tanks, artillery systems, fighter aircraft, and missile defenses on a massive scale.

If current trajectories continue, Central Europe will soon be home to two massive armies – German and Polish – numbering close to 1 million troops combined.

Add France’s nuclear arsenal to the equation – which is increasingly discussed as a potential umbrella for broader European defense – and an entirely new continental security architecture begins to emerge. The contours of a Paris-Berlin-Warsaw axis can already be discerned, potentially complemented by Ukraine’s battle-hardened military.

For Russia, this would inevitably appear threatening, regardless of Europe’s rhetoric about its defensive intentions. An EU dominated militarily by Germany, Poland, and France, aligned with an anti-Russian Ukraine, would make a pan-European security settlement extraordinarily difficult.

Instead of building a durable European security order that includes Russia, the EU is building one increasingly defined against Russia. This is the tragedy of the current moment.

Europe can’t exist against Russia

There is no lasting European security without Russia. This is the fundamental reality today’s European elites refuse to understand. European security is inseparable from Russian security. Geography alone guarantees it. Any attempt to isolate, contain, or permanently weaken Russia will ultimately destabilize the entire continent.

Yet the current leaders in Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw increasingly speak the language of civilizational confrontation. They behave as though Europe can achieve stability through military superiority over Russia. This is a dangerous illusion.

Europe genuinely needs renewal. It needs stronger armies, fighting spirit, and civilizational confidence. It also needs a strong, prosperous, and ambitious Germany. But strength without wisdom becomes dangerous.

The problem is not German rearmament itself, but the ideological framework guiding it. Europe’s declining liberal elites have fused military revival with an almost messianic anti-Russian worldview. Under these conditions, militarization ceases to be a stabilizing force and becomes an accelerant.

The continent is entering a new age of blocs, fear, and escalation. And once these dynamics harden, reversing them becomes extraordinarily difficult.

Eighty-one years after the fall of Hitler’s Germany, Europe once again hears German politicians speaking about military leadership and preparing for war.

This time, they insist history is on their side. Europe has heard this before.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Netflix, accusing the streaming company of illegally spying and collecting data from users and their children without their knowledge or consent.

In a statement published on Monday, Paxton characterized Netflix as “a logging company” that records and monetizes customers’ behavioral data “and occasionally streams movies.”

The lawsuit, filed in Collin County, Texas on Monday, cited past promises by Netflix executives not to exploit users’ personal data for advertising purposes.

However, despite promising privacy, the company allegedly mined information spanning customers’ viewing habits, preferences, devices, household networks, and application usage, according to the complaint. After building its customer base, Netflix allegedly began to sell user data to commercial data brokers, raking in billions of dollars annually, it said.

The lawsuit also focused on children’s accounts, which Netflix encouraged customers to make. The complaint alleged that the company kept users addicted using features such as autoplay and other “dark patterns” – design features that push users into actions they may not have intended, such as staying on a platform longer than intended, or agreeing to things they do not understand.

“Netflix is not the ad-free and kid-friendly platform it claims to be. Instead, it has misled consumers while exploiting their private data to make billions,” Paxton said.

The streaming giant has denied the allegations. The suit is “based on inaccurate and distorted information,” it told CBS News in a statement.

Netflix has steadily declined in market value and share price since peaking in 2025. The company has also increasingly faced accusations of pandering and ‘woke’ bias, including from public figures such as SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.

Last October, the billionaire called for users to “cancel Netflix for the health of your kids” in response to an animated show aimed at children seven or older featuring a trans character.

British officials should seek medical help over the latest sanctions, which target a Russian psychiatric hospital and children’s camps, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

On Monday, London added 85 individuals and entities to its Russia sanctions list, including Clinical Psychiatric Hospital No. 5 in Crimea, along with several orphanages, children’s health camps, boarding houses, a resort, and a youth center on the peninsula.

“When the [British PM Keir] Starmer government imposes sanctions on a psychiatric hospital, it is time for London to call in the medics,” Zakharova told the newspaper Izvestia.

The UK Foreign Office has claimed that the institutions are involved in activities deemed to destabilize Ukraine by alleged facilitation of “the forced deportation, indoctrination and militarization of Ukrainian children.”

Moscow has insisted that since the start of the Ukraine conflict, it has evacuated children from the combat zone and relocated them to safety until they could be reunited with their families.

UK sanctions on the institutions are mainly legal and financial measures, including asset freezes, transaction bans, and limits on professional cooperation. In practice, they are often seen as largely symbolic, as such institutions typically have little or no direct financial or operational ties with the UK.

Moscow has repeatedly stated that the West is running out of things to sanction.

“It is clear that they [Western nations] are experiencing a certain shortage of targets,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in 2023, highlighting “the illogical inclusion of various individuals and legal entities on the lists in an absurd manner.”

The targeting of medical institutions with sanctions has repeatedly drawn criticism from humanitarian organizations over unintended consequences.

In Syria, several state-run healthcare institutions were subject to US and EU sanctions over alleged links to the country’s government during the civil war, a policy approach that has also been criticized for complicating the delivery of essential medical services. In Iran, Western sanctions indirectly affecting the Tehran University of Medical Sciences Cancer Institute have been linked to shortages of essential drugs and medical equipment, while financial restrictions further limit imports of medical supplies.

The US has launched a probe into more than 120 American-funded biological labs abroad, including in Ukraine, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told the New York Post on Monday.

Russia has consistently raised concerns about Pentagon-backed biological labs worldwide, particularly near its borders and in Ukraine, alleging that they are involved in bioweapons research.

Gabbard said that the move aims to halt risky virus experiments and follows President Donald Trump’s order restricting federal funding for “gain-of-function” research – studies that examine how viruses replicate and interact with human cells to increase their transmissibility.

“The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the catastrophic global impact research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have,” Gabbard said. “Yet despite these obvious dangers, politicians, so-called health professionals, like Dr. Fauci, and entities within the [former President Joe] Biden administration’s national security team lied to the American people about the existence of these US-funded and supported biolabs and threatened those who attempted to expose the truth.”

She was referring to former White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci, whom critics accuse of downplaying the theory that COVID-19 originated from a leak in a Chinese lab that had received US funding.

Gabbard said that her team will “identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain and what ‘research’ is being conducted” to end “dangerous gain-of-function research.” Officials from her office confirmed that the labs are in over 30 countries, including Ukraine, which allegedly hosts in excess of 40, with several funded through Pentagon programs.

The Pentagon, and other US agencies, previously backed labs worldwide via the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). While the Biden administration denied running “chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine,” then-Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland acknowledged in 2022 that “biological research facilities” exist there. Washington has since confirmed supporting biological research facilities in Ukraine and elsewhere, but maintained that the work was aimed at preventing disease outbreaks and developing vaccines, not for military purposes. Russia and China, however, have repeatedly warned that the work may have a military dimension.

Moscow has long accused Ukraine of hosting Western-backed biolabs tied to weapons research, citing documents it alleges were obtained from Kiev. Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, Russia’s late top WMD official, stated in 2023 that the US was conducting dual-use research “including the creation of biological weapons components” near Russian borders. He was killed in 2024, in an attack believed to have been ordered by Kiev. In March 2025, Vladimir Tarabrin, who is Russia’s Permanent Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), said that the US still operated biolabs in Ukraine.

Gabbard had raised concerns about biolabs in Ukraine even before becoming intelligence chief. In 2022, she was accused of spreading “treasonous lies” and being a Russian asset after warning that dozens of US-funded labs in Ukraine could release dangerous pathogens if they were compromised.

A surge in global oil prices linked to energy supply disruptions caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, amid the US-Israel war on Iran, has nearly doubled diesel costs for Indonesian fishermen. The spike has forced much of the country’s fishing fleet to remain docked according to a report by RT’s Indra Mapong.

The impact of the war in Iran is now being felt thousands of kilometers away in Indonesia, where soaring fuel prices have left much of the country’s fishing fleet stranded in port. Fishermen in Jakarta told RT, on Tuesday, that many larger vessels can no longer afford to operate. Boats, that would normally spend weeks at sea, now remain docked for months while crews lose their main source of income.

“Mostly it is disrupted, sir, from the income, which usually comes every three months or four months,” one fisherman told RT. Fishermen said they now need to catch at least 700 million rupiah ($40,000) worth of squid just to break even on operating costs. Crews added that even subsidized diesel for smaller boats had become scarce, while prices had nearly doubled.

Hundreds of fishermen protested in Central Java earlier this month demanding lower diesel prices, according to media reports. Governor Ahmad Luthfi warned that rising fuel costs could disrupt fish supplies and push up inflation.

In response to the fuel crisis, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto traveled to Moscow last month for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, securing a deal for up to 150 million barrels of discounted Russian oil. Energy Minister Bahlil Lahadalia said on Monday that the first shipments could arrive within one to two weeks with contracts already signed.

Watch RT’s full report below:

The indictment of Vladimir Zelensky’s closest political and personal associate, Andrey Yermak, for alleged money laundering involving a luxury housing complex is broadly viewed as a final warning from the West before potential charges against the Ukrainian leader himself.

Monday’s bombshell announcement by the Western-backed Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) is part of the agency’s ongoing investigation of businessman Timur Mindich, a fugitive nicknamed “Zelensky’s wallet” in the press, who fled to Israel last November shortly before being charged with running a $100 million embezzlement and extortion scheme at the atomic energy giant Energoatom.

Zelensky’s grip on power was weakened in the months following the initial revelations, as prosecutions and leaks to the media implicated members of his inner circle in rampant corruption.

Who is Andrey Yermak?

Yermak is a lawyer by background who entered politics in the mid-2010s as a staffer for a Ukrainian lawmaker from the Party of Regions – once led by Viktor Yanukovich, the former president ousted in the 2014 Maidan coup. Yermak was elevated to the top levels of Ukrainian power in 2019, when the newly elected President Zelensky appointed him as an adviser and later as head of his administration. 

The chief of staff became a dominant figure in Ukrainian politics. Foreign media identified Yermak as a major irritant for Western governments, as he sought to intervene in top-level negotiations and refused to ask for an interpreter despite his abysmal English.

Viewed as the brains behind Zelensky, Yermak was forced to resign after being embroiled in the Mindich scandal, but reportedly retains significant informal influence in the country.

What is Yermak suspected of?

Yermak stands accused of large-scale money laundering through a multimillion-dollar construction project to build four elite villas in one of Kiev’s most expensive suburbs. NABU’s allegations focus on a luxury property complex in Kozin – a riverside settlement of enormous mansions and summer houses.

Reportedly to accommodate Zelensky and three others, the development is being overwhelmingly funded through a criminal financial mechanism linked to Mindich’s ring, the agency has claimed. A total of six suspects have been charged.

The Dinastia (Dynasty) luxury villa project reportedly had four principal owners, identified as R1, R2, R3, and R4 in communications intercepted by NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Records released by the agency point to Yermak, Mindich, and former Unity Minister Aleksey Chernyshov – who is also a leading suspect in the Energoatom investigation – as beneficiaries R2 to R4. Previous media reports have identified Zelensky as the fourth partner.

According to NABU, Dynasty was launched in late 2019 with the purchase of a 10-acre parcel of land by a company co-founded by Chernyshov, who used his wife Svetlana – who is reportedly a close personal friend of Zelensky’s wife Elena – to hide his involvement.

Since then the plot size has doubled and the equivalent of around $10 million in today’s money spent on four mansions and a common area for the partners, NABU has claimed. (Ukrainian currency has significantly depreciated against the dollar over the past several years, so the value of investment is higher.) About 10% of the funding allegedly went through regular banking channels, while the rest was dark money poured via the suspected ‘laundromat’ also used to legalize Energoatom profits. Chernyshov is suspected of giving protection to the operation.

NABU records say investor R2 issued instructions on his own future residence and was called ‘Andrey’ by an architect who was employed by both him and Mindich. Notably that portion of the report was previously published by the outlet Ukrainskaya Pravda, challenging a recent claim by a Zelensky aide that transcripts had been fabricated.

Why did NABU sit on the evidence?

The six-month delay between the indictments of Mindich and Yermak may be the result of procedural constraints, but Ukrainian politicians and media believe NABU and SAPO to be involved in a pressure campaign targeting Zelensky.

An attempt to take control of the agencies failed last summer, triggering mass protests against Zelensky for the first time and a revolt among his foreign donors, while prompting a slew of critical articles in the Western press. Zelensky blamed lawmakers, straining his relationship with the parliamentary faction of his Servant of the People party.

What are NABU and SAPO and who backs them?

NABU and SAPO were created after the 2014 coup under Western pressure to serve as checks on top-level government corruption in Kiev. There are two primary hypotheses in Ukraine on their assumed political goals.

One is that NABU and SAPO are basically a branch of the FBI and are used by US President Donald Trump to overcome Zelensky’s resistance to a compromise peace deal with Russia. Supporters of the theory suggest that Trump needs a political win ahead of the midterm elections in the US after failing to achieve a quick and easy victory in the war on Iran.

The American leader reportedly dislikes Zelensky personally despite his semi-complimentary description of him as the world’s best salesman. Trump also had every opportunity to be briefed on Zelensky’s involvement with Mindich ahead of the infamous shouting match in the Oval Office that shocked many Ukraine supporters in late February 2025.

The second popular explanation is that NABU and SAPO are acting on behalf of EU sponsors of Ukraine, who purportedly seek to strip real power from a corrupt and unreasonable Zelensky while maintaining Ukraine’s general anti-Russian course.

Opposition MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak quipped that the charges against Yermak are a “Ukrainian interpretation” of anti-corruption recommendations attributed to Singapore reformist dictator Lee Kuan Yew, who said winning public support requires a leader to send three of his close friends to jail for graft.

Is the noose tightening around Zelensky’s corrupt schemes?

MP Maks Buzhinsky, viewed as a Zelensky loyalist, claimed that Ukrainian elites now “rightfully believe that we are being pushed towards not peace but rather full and unconditional capitulation.” He cited the fact that the charges coincided with a highly critical interview by Zelensky’s former press secretary Yulia Mendel.

Speaking recently to American talk show host Tucker Carlson, Mendel described her former boss as a suspected cocaine addict, a war profiteer, and a leader who demanded Goebels-level propaganda from his media team to disguise lack of accomplishments. She voiced similar accusations in other interviews she gave in the past several months.

Does Zelensky have immunity from prosecution?

Zelensky’s term as president has long expired, and he retains his powers instead of transferring them to the speaker of the parliament as required by the constitution under martial law. His rule is enforced by what amounts to a semi-criminal secret police and an ever-present threat of mandatory conscription for fighting-age men.

As president, he technically can claim immunity, and the Ukrainian Constitution requires an impeachment procedure to try him for crimes. However, the basic law is more what you call guidelines than actual rules in present realities.

In other words, without mandate nor oversight, Zelensky’s leadership rests domestically on the loyalty of partisan agencies and armed thugs, and internationally on the highly selective blindness of donors who spent years pumping his ego with comparisons to Winston Churchill. Neither foundation is solid.

South African Minister of Correctional Services Pieter Groenewald has said that 2,388 correctional officials were subjected to disciplinary action during the 2025/26 financial year, including cases involving corruption and the smuggling of contraband such as cellphones and drugs.

This comes after EFF Member of Parliament (MP) Nontando Nolutshungu asked Groenewald to provide details on the progress of the department’s gang management strategy since a Portfolio Committee briefing on 4 March 2026, the funding allocated to the strategy, and measurable outcomes achieved.

She also sought information on disciplinary action against officials and plans to address perimeter security vulnerabilities at correctional facilities. In response, Groenewald said 289 officials had been suspended and 118 dismissed during the period under review.

”The officials who were subjected to disciplinary action, suspension and dismissal in the 2025/26 FY for involvement in the following: 2388 officials were involved in misconducts, 25 officials were involved in corruption, 137 officials were involved in aiding the smuggling of contraband such as cell-phones and drugs,” Groenewald said in his parliamentary reply.

He said progress made in implementing the gang combating strategy had contributed to declining security incidents across correctional facilities. ”The progress that has been made in the implementation of Gang Combatting Strategy in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) has resulted in declining of security incidents including gang-related violence amongst others,” Groenewald said.

Groenewald said the department had allocated R24.362 million for goods and services linked to operational matters and implementation of strategies, although no funding had been specifically allocated for the gang combating strategy itself.

The minister also presented departmental performance data showing improvements in security operations between the 2023/24 and 2025/26 financial years.

According to the data, the percentage of inmates who escaped from correctional facilities declined from 0.030% in 2023/24 to 0.029% in 2024/25 and 0.012% in 2025/26, with recorded cases dropping from 20 to 4 and remaining at 4.

The percentage of inmates injured as a result of reported assaults also declined from 4.50% in 2023/24 to 2.28% in 2025/26, while confirmed unnatural deaths in correctional facilities remained relatively stable over the same period.

Addressing infrastructure challenges, Groenewald said the department had developed a multi-year plan to strengthen perimeter security across correctional facilities.

”The DCS multi-year plan is to repair or replace damaged sections of the perimeter fence, where necessary the entire perimeter will be replaced with stronger fence, access control, surveillance, scanning technology, patrols and tighter operational discipline,” he said.

He added that infrastructure funding would be prioritised in areas requiring major fencing upgrades, with a perimeter fencing programme to be aligned with available budgets over a five-year period.

Groenewald said funded perimeter fencing and security projects would be implemented during the 2026/27 financial year at St Albans Management Area in the Eastern Cape and Durban Westville Correctional Centre in KwaZulu-Natal.

First published by IOL

France is attempting to restore its influence in Africa after governments in several Sahel states pushed out French troops and scaled back ties with Paris, Kenyan lawyer and activist, professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba, has told RT. 

Commenting on French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Kenya and the Africa Forward summit in Nairobi, the chairman and founder of the PLO Lumumba Foundation argued that Paris is presenting itself as a changed partner while, in reality, seeking to preserve its geopolitical and economic leverage on the continent.

“The reality is they [France] want to dominate African continents… the sooner Africa realizes that, the safer Africa is,” Lumumba said. 

Speaking to RT, he suggested that France’s recent diplomatic and military initiatives in East Africa were aimed at offsetting setbacks suffered in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Senegal.

Lumumba said many African leaders deliberately stayed away from the summit because they did not want “to be lectured to” by former colonial powers. 

The professor also dismissed Macron’s self-description as a pan-Africanist, arguing that the French president was using the language of Pan-Africanism to appeal to African audiences while continuing policies that undermine the continent’s sovereignty.

He maintained that genuine Pan-Africanism could not coexist with military pacts or economic arrangements that preserved dependence on former colonial powers.

“He’s not a pan-Africanist of any shade, but he is trying to wear the garb of Pan-Africanism as a way of confusing gullible African leaders,” Lumumba said. 

The Africa Forward summit is taking place on May 11-12 in Nairobi. The event is focused on what organizers describe as an “Africa-France partnership” and is jointly organized by Paris and Nairobi. The summit is being held for the first time in a non-Francophone African country.

In a separate interview with RT, Nigerian presidential spokesperson Daniel Bwala said all foreign partnerships “must reflect strategic national interests.”

“Every relationship, if it is not symbiotic, if it is not mutually beneficial, ... it is not healthy and it is not good,” Bwala added.

The Russian military has successfully test-fired the advanced RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, the commander of the Strategic Missile Troops, General Sergey Karakaev, has reported to President Vladimir Putin. The development would allow the military to equip the first missile regiment with the new weapon systems by the end of the year, Karakaev said.

The liquid-fueled heavy RS-28 Sarmat is designed to replace the world’s most powerful silo-based missile, the RS-20V Voevoda (SS-18 Satan according to NATO classification). It is believed to be to be able to carry up to ten heavy warheads with multiple re-entry capability.

According to Karakaev, the new missile system demonstrated capabilities exceeding those of its predecessor, primarily in terms of its range and payload. Its onboard systems also allow it to “securely penetrate the existing and emerging missile defense systems,” the general said.

Putin congratulated the military on the successful test, calling Sarmat “the most powerful missile system in the world.” According to the president, it is capable of delivering a payload four times bigger than that of any Western missile. It also has a range of over 35,000 kilometers and is twice as precise as its predecessor, he added.

The missile 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 to dodge anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems. The Russian military have previously stated that the Sarmat’s range allows it to be fired from Russia at targets in the US via the South Pole, avoiding the American ABM site in Alaska.

According to Putin, Moscow launched its missile development program focused on bypassing and missile defenses following the US unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2022 under George W. Bush.

“We were forced to think about ensuring our strategic security in a new reality,” the president said, adding that Moscow’s actions were aimed at “preserving the strategic balance of power.”

Two other advanced weapon systems are also in the final development stages: the unlimited-range cruise missile Burevestnik and the underwater Poseidon drone, both powered by miniaturized nuclear reactors, Putin stated.

The US and Iran remain miles apart on a potential peace deal, with a tentative month-old ceasefire teetering on the brink amid recurring naval skirmishes and President Donald Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports.

The continued standoff has triggered fears that Washington and Tehran could return to full-blown hostilities, exacerbating the oil shock and pressure on the global economy.

Ceasefire on ‘life support’

On Monday, Trump provided a glimpse into the dire state of diplomacy between the US and Iran, saying that “the ceasefire is on massive life support” while dismissing the recent peace proposal from Tehran as a “piece of garbage” that he said he “didn’t even finish reading.” 

Meanwhile, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing sources, that Trump has grown “increasingly frustrated” with Iran’s handling of negotiations, while several US officials are questioning whether Tehran is willing to engage at all.

Subsequently, Trump is “now more seriously considering a resumption of major combat operations,” the report says, adding the stance is shared by some of the Pentagon officials who believe the continued strikes could soften Iran’s position.

A strait too far

The Strait of Hormuz, the strategic chokepoint at the heart of the crisis, remains effectively closed. Before the war, around 3,000 vessels crossed the strait every month, carrying an estimated 20% of the world’s seaborne oil supply and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas. However, in the entire month of April, just 191 vessels made the crossing, Kpler data showed.

The situation continued in May, with Marine Traffic data from last weekend indicating that not a single major commercial ship passed through the strait. As things stand, an estimated 1,600 ships remain stranded in the Gulf.

Naval skirmishes

Trump had promised to break the standoff with what he called ‘Project Freedom’ – a major military operation to escort stranded vessels out of the Gulf. The effort, however, lasted less than 48 hours before Trump paused it on May 5, citing “progress” in peace talks.

The development also came after Iran claimed to have hit a US warship attempting to sail through the Strait of Hormuz – an allegation Washington has denied. A New York Times report also claimed that the operation was suspended after Saudi Arabia refused to provide logistical support, as it had not been consulted on the effort.

On May 8, the US military reported Iranian strikes as three of its destroyers were transiting the Strait of Hormuz, stating that no damage had been inflicted, and that the vessels attacked Iranian military facilities in retaliation. Earlier, it claimed to have destroyed six Iranian small boats in the area.

Tehran previously warned that any vessels attempting to go through the strait without authorization would be targeted.

But what about the talks?

The US has reportedly proposed a 14-point memorandum of understanding, which would require Iran to impose a moratorium on uranium enrichment, surrender its estimated 440kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, and renounce any future nuclear weapons ambitions – something Tehran claimed to have never had. In exchange, the US would gradually lift sanctions, unfreeze billions in Iranian assets, and both sides would reopen Hormuz within 30 days.

Iran, however, has reportedly countered with an offer of its own, which includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the US blockade and economic sanctions, and a ceasefire in Lebanon. Tehran has also insisted that talks on its nuclear program be postponed. While Iranian officials described the offer as “reasonable and generous,” Trump has dismissed it as “unacceptable.”

Ready for round two?

While before launching the attacks, the US and Israel anticipated the Iranian retaliation and had formidable countermeasures in place, the fighting showed that their defense was not impermeable.

The Washington Post reported, citing satellite imagery, that the Iranian strikes had damaged or destroyed at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at 15 US military sites, including hangars, barracks, fuel depots, aircraft, radar, communications, and air-defense systems – far more than Washington had publicly acknowledged. Some of the strikes did visible damage at the US Fifth Fleet naval base in Bahrain.

The hostilities put a significant strain on the US and allied arsenal of anti-air missiles. According to the US-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the American military has used up nearly half of its stockpile of Patriot interceptors and has heavily expended six other key missile stockpiles, which will take years to replenish. On top of this, in some cases, expensive interceptors were used to shoot down cheap Iranian drones.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported, citing an intelligence assessment, that Tehran retained about 75% of its mobile launchers and 70% of its missile stockpiles, contrary to the Trump administration’s claims that the Iranian military had been completely decimated.

As for Israel, already in mid-March, Semafor reported that Israel had warned Washington it was critically low on ballistic-missile interceptors, though Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar denied any shortage.

India is considering a series of measures, including a fuel price hike and restrictions on non-essential spending, to shield its foreign exchange reserves from soaring oil prices linked to the Iran war, Bloomberg reports.

Top officials in the Prime Minister’s Office and Finance Ministry held discussions with the Reserve Bank of India on steps to cushion the damage from soaring oil prices, unnamed officials told the agency.

A fuel price hike, one of the options reportedly being considered, would be the first to be implemented since the US-Israeli war against Iran began.

The suggested measures could also include curbs on the import of gold and consumer electronics, seen as non-essential items. The authorities are also mulling temporary restrictions on non-essential overseas spending, and other steps to support the rupee.

A final decision on the measures to be adopted has not been made, according to the agency’s sources.

Earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi suggested steps including work-from-home and carpooling to save fuel, and urged Indians to shun foreign travel and gold purchases.

India is facing growing strain from rising oil import costs linked to the protracted war against Iran, with a mounting import bill weakening the rupee as dollar outflows intensify. The rupee is the worst performer among major Asian currencies, down 5.6% against the dollar this year.

In a big boost for the country’s Upstream Sector, rationalization of royalty under the ORD Act marks a new era for our Oil & Gas regimes by eliminating inconsistencies and driving growth in the upstream sector under the leadership of PM Sh @narendramodi Ji.

This landmark… pic.twitter.com/xb60UNyalH

— Hardeep Singh Puri (@HardeepSPuri) May 11, 2026

India has revised its oil and gas regime by slashing the royalty burden on producers and offering new incentives for offshore and difficult-field exploration, Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Hardeep Singh Puri said on Monday.

The move is aimed at boosting domestic energy output by reducing costs for companies exploring difficult and capital-intensive oil and gas fields. New Delhi has cut the effective royalty rate on onshore crude production from 16.66% to 10%, while offshore royalties have been reduced from 9.09% to 8%. Royalties on natural gas have been lowered from 10% to 8%, Mint reported.

India, the world’s third-largest oil buyer, relies on imports for around 85% of its oil needs, making it vulnerable to rising energy prices and disruptions to supplies through the Strait of Hormuz.

Puri dismissed concerns on Tuesday about a shortage of fuel, but did not rule out a hike.

Speaking at a public event on Monday, Puri stated that India has sufficient energy reserves to manage short-term disruptions, with 60 days of oil, 60 days of LNG, and 45 days of LPG. He cautioned people not to misread the government’s message regarding energy conservation – however, he did not rule out a price hike if the disruptions related to the Iran war continue.

Israel has intensified its “brutal bombardment” of southern Lebanon, expanding evacuation orders to more villages, RT correspondent Steve Sweeney has reported from Beirut. Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 87 people in the neighboring country since Friday, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry.

Local authorities said 39 people were killed on Saturday alone after strikes hit 22 towns and villages in southern Lebanon. On Monday, Israel issued evacuation orders for several more villages, bringing the total to 84 since a US-brokered ceasefire took effect in mid-April.

Fighting has continued despite the truce, with both sides accusing each other of violations. Israel says its operations target alleged Hezbollah positions and infrastructure, while the Lebanon-based group says it will continue to resist Israeli military action.

More than 2,800 people, including over 100 health workers, have been killed since March 2, when Israel launched its latest military operation against Hezbollah, according to Lebanese authorities.

RT’s Sweeney reported that ambulance workers Ali Rida al-Basuli and Sharif Ahmad Krika were killed in separate strikes on their vehicles on Sunday.

In the southern Lebanese town of Saksakia, an Israeli strike killed eight members of the same family spanning three generations, including a mother, her children, and a six-month-old baby girl, according to local authorities. Lebanese media also reported that a 12-year-old girl was killed in a drone strike while trying to flee after her father had been killed.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam told Al-Arabiya on Sunday that 86 villages in southern Lebanon remain under Israeli occupation, adding that the border city of Bint Jbeil had become “a copy of Gaza.”

Further US-mediated talks between Israeli and Lebanese officials are expected in Washington later this week.

Watch RT’s full report below:

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has declared that he will not resign after the country’s top court revived impeachment proceedings linked to a long-running cash scandal at his private farm.

In a televised address on Monday, Ramaphosa said stepping down would “pre-empt a process defined by the constitution” and give credence to what he called a flawed parliamentary panel report. He also said he would seek a judicial review of the report “on an expeditious basis.” 

“Nothing in the Constitutional Court judgment compels me to resign my office,” Ramaphosa said, adding that the court had made no finding on whether he committed misconduct.

The case stems from the alleged theft of $580,000 in foreign currency from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala wildlife farm in Limpopo in February 2020. Former State Security Agency chief Arthur Fraser, who made the scandal public in 2022, claimed the theft involved more than $4 million and accused Ramaphosa of covering it up. Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing, saying the money came from the sale of buffaloes.

An independent panel appointed by parliament found in 2022 that there may have been grounds for impeachment, including questions over whether Ramaphosa had violated the constitution or acted inconsistently with his office. The National Assembly later voted not to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.

Last Friday, the Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly’s move was unconstitutional. It directed lawmakers to review the decision.

Ramaphosa has since faced calls from opposition parties, including the left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Transformation Movement, to step down and face impeachment proceedings.

On Monday, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza said parliament would begin the process of establishing an impeachment committee in line with the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

Ramaphosa first came to power in 2018, promising to tackle corruption. His party, the African National Congress (ANC), lost its parliamentary majority in 2024 and now shares power through a Government of National Unity.

The president said on Monday that he respects the court’s ruling and “will continue to cooperate with all institutions that are mandated to deal with all these matters.”

“I have consistently maintained that I have not stolen public money, committed any crime, nor violated my oath of office,” he insisted.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has carried out covert strikes on Iran in retaliation for attacks on its infrastructure, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing sources.

The strikes suggest Abu Dhabi is increasingly willing to act on its own rather than rely solely on US deterrence amid growing frustration with Washington, analysts say.

According to the report, the unacknowledged strikes included an attack on a refinery on Iran’s Lavan Island in early April, just before US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the US-Israeli campaign against Tehran. Iran said the site was hit in an enemy attack and responded with missile and drone strikes on the UAE and Kuwait – both hosting major US bases.

The WSJ did not give dates for other alleged strikes. The UAE’s Foreign Ministry declined to comment but pointed to earlier statements asserting its right to respond – including militarily – to “unprovoked Iranian aggression.”

Since the war began, Iran has directed much of its fire at the UAE, launching more than 2,800 missiles and drones and slamming Abu Dhabi as a “hostile base” over its ties with Washington and Israel. While officials claim a roughly 95% interception rate, strikes and debris have still caused damage, casualties, and economic disruption.

Speculation about direct UAE involvement has circulated since mid-March, when unidentified jets and drones were reportedly filmed over Iran. Researchers said they resembled French Mirage fighters and Chinese Wing Loong drones – both used by the UAE.

“They are very strong in terms of precision strike, air defense, airborne surveillance, refueling, and logistics,” retired US Air Force Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula told the WSJ. “If you have that capable of an air force, why would you sit back and absorb attacks from Iran without responding?”

Some analysts say the covert action reflects growing frustration with Washington, as Gulf states feel increasingly abandoned by what they see as US failure to respond to Iranian attacks. Despite the fragile ceasefire, the UAE last week accused Iran of striking its territory, setting an oil facility in Fujairah ablaze and wounding three people – an attack Trump neither condemned nor answered.

“From the perspective of the Gulf states, it looks like the US is not prioritizing their security and basically threw the Gulf states under the bus,” Dania Thafer, director of the Gulf International Forum, told the outlet.

“If you thought you were buying American loyalty, now you’re going to think that all that an American base does is make me a target, while the US is just as likely to sell me down the river,” said retired Air Marshal Edward Stringer, former head of operations at the British Ministry of Defense.

Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a former adviser to UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed, last month called for US bases to be closed, arguing they are “a burden” rather than a “strategic asset.”

The UAE has also signaled a broader break from traditional alignments beyond security. Its recent move to leave the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), citing an intention to pursue a more “sovereign” economic and strategic course, suggests Abu Dhabi is increasingly willing to act independently.

Speculation over who should serve as the EU’s representative in potential negotiations with Russia is meaningless as long as the bloc has not committed to diplomacy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Debates over resuming talks were reignited last week when Russian President Vladimir Putin said former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder would be a suitable EU envoy.

Brussels has rejected the idea. Media reports later named outgoing German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier as a potential candidate. Speaking to RIA Novosti on Tuesday, Peskov called the discussions premature.

“One could read the tea leaves and list every famous name,” Peskov said. “Anyone could [take on that task]. What matters is a political decision to resume dialogue.”

Kallas rejects ‘lobbyist’ Schroeder

Western nations have sought to isolate Russia since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. While the US has abandoned the policy under the administration of President Donald Trump, Brussels maintains its position of not engaging Moscow diplomatically – though fears have grown in the EU that its concerns will be sidelined if a peace deal is reached.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas on Monday rejected the idea of Schroeder acting on behalf of the bloc, calling the former German leader a Russian “lobbyist.”

“Before we discuss with Russia, we should discuss among ourselves what exactly we want to discuss with them,” Kallas said, adding that EU leaders are seeking security guarantees from Moscow. Kallas is a vocal opponent of normalizing relations with Moscow.

Putin said European governments are free to nominate any representative they want, provided that the individual has not publicly slandered Russia in the past. “We were not the ones who refused talks – they were,” he added.

SPD calls for pragmatic approach

According to Der Spiegel, the German government considers Putin’s remarks about Schroeder a “sham proposal.”

However, Adis Ahmetovic, the foreign policy spokesman for the Social Democratic Party (SPD), argued that the possibility should not be dismissed.

“The goal must be for Europe to have a seat at the negotiating table,” Ahmetovic told the outlet, adding that Schroeder should be “carefully considered together with our European partners rather than ruled out categorically from the outset.”

Schroeder, 82, led the SPD and served as German chancellor from 1998 to 2005 before being succeeded by Christian Democratic leader Angela Merkel. Since 2022, he has been ostracized by his own party over his support for Russian-German energy cooperation.

Steinmeier, a fellow member of the SPD, is expected to step down from his largely ceremonial role as German president in early 2027. He was among the architects of the controversial Minsk II agreement – the 2015 roadmap for settling the Donbass conflict negotiated by Kiev, Berlin, Paris, and Moscow – which former Ukrainian and Western officials later admitted helped buy time for Ukraine’s military buildup.

Other names floated by the Western media as potential EU envoys for talks with Russia include Finnish President Alexander Stubb, whose country abandoned decades of military neutrality to join NATO in 2023, and Kallas, who has repeatedly ruled out negotiations as long as Putin remains in power.

The Royal Navy has allocated up to £200,000 (nearly $270,000) to redesign female officers’ ceremonial uniforms amid concerns that the buttons on the jackets were “inappropriately placed,” according to an internal document cited by The Times.

The current jacket, which is worn by women officers at ceremonial events, features four rows of two buttons, with the top row positioned at nipple level, which has repeatedly been the subject of jokes within the service. Under the redesign, all eight buttons will reportedly be moved lower on the jacket.

More than 950 female officers are expected to receive the updated uniforms in phases beginning later this year. The change has been described as a “positive step for women,” according to the document.

Some personnel, however, have questioned the decision to spend taxpayer money on what critics described as a minor cosmetic adjustment at a time when the Navy is under pressure to improve combat readiness and modernize capabilities.

“The button placement on the jacket has always been a bit of a joke within the service,” a Royal Navy source told the newspaper, calling the measure “clearly absurd” and adding that “the obvious answer would have been to simply cut off the offensive nipple buttons on the existing uniforms.” 

The document seen by The Times states that the majority of the planned cost, £185,000, would eventually be offset through reducing the number of uniforms issued in future.

The plan comes as Britain’s armed forces face mounting financial pressure and are being urged to cut spending amid a projected £28 billion ($37 billion) defense budget shortfall over the next four years. Despite the constraints, London continues to expand its military commitments abroad, particularly in support of Ukraine.

London has pledged to deploy troops on the ground in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, and has announced plans to provide 120,000 drones to Kiev. The drone package, described by the Ministry of Defense as the largest delivery of its kind, is backed by the UK’s wider £3 billion (about $3.8 billion) in military support for Ukraine this year.

This comes as part of the UK’s broader commitment of around £21.8 billion ($29 billion) in total support to Kiev, covering military, financial, and humanitarian assistance since the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022.

South Africa has declared a national disaster after days of extreme weather battered several provinces, leaving at least ten people dead.

On Sunday, the country’s National Disaster Management Center (NDMC) said severe weather conditions that began on May 4 triggered widespread flooding, heavy rainfall, thunderstorms, strong winds, and snowfall across the Western Cape, North West, Free State, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, and Mpumalanga provinces. 

The South African Weather Service had earlier issued an Orange Level 6 and Yellow Level 4 warning for damaging winds and rough waves affecting the Western and Northern Cape between May 10 and May 12.

Authorities say the disaster has already caused major infrastructure damage, disrupted essential services, and displaced residents in several areas.

@iolnews Rosmead Avenue in Kenilworth is underwater as the South African Weather Service issues a Level 8 warning for disruptive rainfall across Cape Town. 📷: Supplied #RosmeadAvenue #CapeTown #rainfall #SouthAfricanWeatherService ♬ оригинальный звук IOL NEWS

“As winter sets in, we are vulnerable to events which we may be able to forecast but whose actual intensity in specific locations we may not be able to predict,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said, adding that the government was relying on scientific forecasting to prepare for further severe weather events and coordinate responses.

@iolnews Heavy rainfall in the Western Cape caused tree branches to fall across Hout Bay on Monday morning. 📷: Supplied #heavy #rainfall #WesternCape #tree #branches ♬ original sound - IOL NEWS

In the Western Cape, provincial authorities ordered all schools to close on Tuesday due to what officials described as “disruptive rainfall and flooding,” citing concerns for the safety of learners and staff. Schools are expected to reopen on Wednesday if conditions improve.

South Africa’s main winter season spans May to August, with snow typically falling from June to August as temperatures drop below 0C (32F). 

Pretoria has already been hit by extreme weather this year. In January, Kruger National Park, one of the continent’s largest wildlife reserves, was partially closed after heavy flooding cut off access roads and campsites, with more than 600 tourists and staff were evacuated.

Heavy rains have also hit other African countries in recent weeks. In early May, at least 18 people were killed by floods and landslides in Kenya, with mudslides displacing families and damaging homes and infrastructure across central and eastern regions of the country.

The body of one of two US soldiers who went missing during the African Lion military exercise in Morocco has been recovered from the Atlantic Ocean, military officials said on Sunday.

The soldier was identified as 1st Lieutenant Kendrick Lamont Key Jr., 27, an Air Defense Artillery officer from Richmond, Virginia. A Moroccan military search team found his remains along the shoreline at around 8:55 AM local time on May 9, roughly one mile from where the two soldiers were believed to have entered the water, according to the army.

According to the US Army, Key was a platoon leader assigned to Charlie Battery, 5th Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command.

Key and another US soldier were reported missing on May 2 near the Cap Draa Training Area outside Tan-Tan, a rugged coastal zone of cliffs, desert, and semidesert plains. The two had taken part in African Lion 26 earlier in the day, but officials said they were off duty during a recreational hike when they fell from a cliff.

The second soldier remains missing, with search efforts continuing.

“Our Moroccan hosts have provided every asset we’ve requested… We’re incredibly grateful for the efforts they, along with our teammates from across the services, continue to pour in as we search for our remaining soldier,” Gen. Christopher Donahue, commander of US Army Europe and Africa, said.

The operation has involved more than 600 personnel from the US, Morocco, and partner forces, using frigates, vessels, helicopters, drones, divers, and ground teams. US Africa Command (AFRICOM) earlier said US, Moroccan, and other African Lion assets had immediately launched coordinated search-and-rescue efforts.

African Lion is AFRICOM’s largest annual joint exercise and is designed to strengthen interoperability among US forces, NATO allies, and African partner nations. This year’s drills ran from April 20 to May 8 across Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, and Tunisia, involving more than 5,600 civilian and military personnel from over 40 nations.

Fatal incidents have occurred during the exercise before. In 2012, an MV-22 Osprey crashed in a Moroccan training area during African Lion drills, killing two US marines and severely injuring two others.

Two Israeli soldiers were sentenced to several weeks in military prison for desecrating a statue of the Virgin Mary in southern Lebanon, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has said.

Last week, a photo surfaced showing a service member hugging the statue in the predominantly Christian village of Debel, near the Israeli border, and placing a cigarette in the statue’s mouth. The image sparked outrage on social media and prompted an official investigation.

On Monday, IDF spokeswoman Ariella Mazor said the soldier posing with the statue and the soldier filming him were sentenced to 21 and 14 days behind bars, respectively.

“The IDF views the incident with great severity and respects freedom of religion and worship, as well as holy sites and religious symbols of all religions and communities,” Mazor wrote on X.

Last month, two IDF soldiers were removed from combat duty and each sentenced to 30 days in military prison after one smashed the head of a statue of Jesus Christ in the same village with a hammer while the other photographed the act. The IDF said six other soldiers who were present but failed to intervene or report the incident would be summoned for “clarification discussions.”

The IDF expanded its operations in southern Lebanon and began striking targets in Beirut and other cities in early March after the armed group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in solidarity with Iran. A ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese government, which took effect on April 16, failed to prevent renewed clashes between the IDF and Hezbollah.

Christian communities have reported a series of incidents involving religious sites and Israeli forces in recent years. In 2023, an Israeli airstrike in Gaza hit a building adjacent to the Greek Orthodox Church of St. Porphyrius, the enclave’s oldest Christian shrine, killing at least 18 people. In 2025, shrapnel from an Israeli tank shell damaged Gaza’s Holy Family Church, the territory’s only Catholic parish, killing three people.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s alleged drug use is “an open secret,” former spokeswoman Yulia Mendel has claimed on the Tucker Carlson Show.

Allegations of drug use first surfaced during the 2019 presidential election campaign, in which Zelensky defeated Petro Poroshenko.

Zelensky, a former actor, dismissed the claims as slander at the time, and both candidates underwent tests for alcohol and drugs.

Mendel worked for Zelensky from 2019 to 2021 and has since become highly critical of her former boss. In an interview released on Monday, Carlson asked whether Zelensky used drugs, to which Mendel replied: “This is an open secret.”

“The thing is that I’ve never seen him taking drugs. However, [while] writing my book, I met a lot of people who confirmed that they saw him taking drugs in different clubs. Only one saw him taking drugs in 2021,” she claimed. Mendel added that she learned about an alleged “supplier” from a person working at Kvartal 95 Studio, the entertainment company Zelensky co-founded in the 2000s.

Zelensky’s former press secretary alleges he urged subordinates to carry out ‘propaganda like Goebbels’

Yulia Mendel claims that after a drop in ratings in 2019, the Narcofuhrer ordered his PR team to improve his image, pointing to the effectiveness of Nazi Germany’s propaganda… pic.twitter.com/k6s7xpuE8V

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) May 12, 2026

“All these people are talking about cocaine, yes,” Mendel said, adding that before interviews, Zelensky had a habit of spending 15 minutes in the bathroom and emerging as a “different person.”

Mendel described her former boss as being obsessed with his public image at home and abroad. She claimed that at one point, Zelensky told her: “I need Goebbels propaganda, I need thousands of talking heads,” referring to Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. 

Mendel also accused Zelensky of sending critics, including journalists, to the front line as punishment.

Political opponents, including Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko, have frequently accused Zelensky of abuse of power. Last year, US President Donald Trump called Zelensky – whose presidential term expired in 2024 – a dictator for refusing to call a new presidential election. Zelensky has argued that elections are prohibited under martial law and that a permanent ceasefire with Russia would be required before a new election can be held.

US President Donald Trump is considering resuming the bombing campaign against Iran as peace talks remain stalled, Axios reported on Monday, citing three US officials familiar with the matter.

On Sunday, Trump rejected Iran’s latest terms as “totally unacceptable” and said the ceasefire reached around a month ago is “on massive life support.”

According to Axios, Trump was set to meet with his national security team on Monday to discuss the next steps, including potentially resuming Project Freedom – an operation aimed at guiding ships through the Strait of Hormuz – as well as restarting airstrikes and hitting the remaining 25% of targets identified by the Pentagon but not yet struck.

The Washington Post, citing a CIA assessment, reported last week that Iran retained around 75% of its pre-war mobile launchers and 70% of its missiles, and could withstand a US naval blockade for at least three to four months.

Trump suspended Project Freedom within 24 hours of announcing it last week, following a request from Pakistan, which has acted as a mediator in the conflict. NBC later reported that the president shelved the initiative after Saudi Arabia refused to allow the US to use its bases and airspace to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Sunday that the US has “no alternative” but to accept Tehran’s terms.

“The longer they drag their feet, the more American taxpayers will pay for it,” he wrote on X. Iranian state media described Trump’s demand to shut down the country’s nuclear sites as “a non-starter that Iran has rejected for decades.”

According to Press TV, Iran’s conditions include lifting the sanctions, reparations, and a new framework governing the Strait of Hormuz that recognizes “Iran’s sovereign control over this vital waterway.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is prolonging his country's conflict with Russia in order to enrich himself and his associates in his cabinet, former spokeswoman Yulia Mendel has claimed in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Mendel, Zelensky’s press secretary from 2019 to 2021, launched a series of stinging allegations of corruption and drug use as Andrey Yermak, Zelensky’s former influential chief of staff, was named a suspect in a money laundering case. Zelensky’s longtime former business partner, Timur Mindich, fled the country last year to avoid arrest in connection with another major corruption scandal involving energy-sector kickbacks that has seen several other close associates of the Ukrainian leader placed under suspicion.

In an episode of the Tucker Carlson Show released on Monday, Mendel described her former boss as a “dictator” who has grown “detached from reality” and employed “thousands of talking heads” to craft a favorable image both at home and abroad.

“He is one of the biggest obstacles to peace today,” Mendel said, accusing Zelensky of being “behind many schemes of money laundering” that have rocked Ukraine in recent years.

“There are a lot of people in his government who want peace. [Zelensky] is going to come up with any condition, he is going to change his positions all the time just to prolong this war and to get more money,” Mendel said, arguing that ending the conflict would be “political suicide” for Zelensky.

When Carlson suggested that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia in a war of attrition, Mendel replied: “I think it’s obvious to Zelensky, too. But he thrives on this war. Why would he end it?”

Mendel claimed that Ukraine came close to reaching a deal with Russia twice in 2022, but was pressured by the US and UK to continue the conflict. The Kremlin accused the West of helping derail peace talks in Istanbul four years ago, which Zelensky denied.

Zelensky, whose presidential term expired in 2024, has refused to hold new elections, citing martial law. The move has been criticized by both US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mendel, citing an unnamed insider, claimed that secret polls commissioned by the Ukrainian government show Zelensky is “unelectable” if he runs again.

Denmark’s government has collapsed after a record poor election showing for Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. King Frederik X has now asked Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen to form a right-wing government, but little will change: every major Danish party is preparing for war with Russia.

In a statement on Friday night, Denmark’s monarch announced that he had tasked Poulsen with forming a government “that does not involve the participation” of Frederiksen’s center-left Social Democrats or Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s Moderates. The announcement came after Frederiksen tried and failed to build a government after winning a plurality – but not a majority – in general elections in March.

Frederiksen’s party won just under 22% of the vote in March, the worst result for the Social Democrats since 1903.

The election was dominated by two issues: the rising cost of living, and immigration. Poulsen’s center-right Venstre party, Frederiksen’s Social Democrats, and Rasmussen’s Moderates are all in favor of restricting inward migration, but the right-wing Danish People’s Party wants citizenships revoked, migrants deported, and “measures that will lead to Muslim net emigration from Denmark.”

Two issues that went undiscussed in the runup to the vote were Denmark’s support for Ukraine, and its historic rearmament program. Unlike in recent elections in Hungary and Bulgaria, where the frontrunners had dramatically different views on relations with Kiev and Moscow, blind support for Ukraine is apparently baked into the Danish system.

Denmark’s uniparty

During Denmark’s last general elections in 2022, Frederiksen focused her entire campaign around defense and security issues. On these, her views were indistinguishable from those of her rivals. Six months before the election, Denmark’s five main parties had signed a ‘National Compromise on Danish Security Policy’ in which they agreed to hike defense budgets, inject an additional 7 billion DKK ($1.1 billion) in emergency funding into the country’s armed forces, and end Russian energy imports.

Frederiksen went on to form a government with Venstre and the Moderates, both of which supported these policies. Together, the PM and her traditional rivals on the right have announced planned increases in military spending from 2.4% to 3.5% of GDP, purchased hundreds of new armored cars and dozens of fighter jets, given Ukrainian arms manufacturers grants to produce weapons components on Danish soil, and in an historic first, introduced compulsory military service for women.

Frederiksen and Poulsen both explicitly blamed Russia for a series of drone sightings at Danish airports and military sites in late 2025, despite months of investigation concluding that there was no credible evidence the drones ever existed. Frederiksen used the drone panic to push her rearmament program, telling the public in September that “there is primarily one country that poses a threat to Europe's security – and that is Russia… and that is why we are embarking on a historic buildup here in Denmark.”

Under Frederiksen, Denmark has given Ukraine just over €11 billion in bilateral military and economic aid. At 3.27% of its GDP, Denmark has proportionately handed Ukraine more money than any other Western country. After meeting Frederiksen in Cyprus in April, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “noted the cross-party consensus on supporting Ukraine” in Denmark, according to a Ukrainian government statement.

More of the same

A government led by Poulsen will in all likelihood deliver more of the same. Poulsen warned in 2024 that Russia could attack NATO territory “within a three- to five-year period.” To prepare for this eventuality – which Russia has outright dismissed as “ridiculous” and a ploy by European leaders to extract more tax money from their citizenry – Poulsen has called for Denmark to increase military spending yet again, to 4% of GDP. Such an increase would put the country’s per-capita defense expenditure higher than that of the US. 

Spoke with Denmark’s Minister of Defence Troels Lund Poulsen. Strengthening cooperation on F-16 ammunition, Patriot systems, joint defence production, and support for Ukrainian brigades. Denmark is a reliable partner delivering real results for Ukraine’s defence. Thank you for… pic.twitter.com/h8uRZfB0oX

— Mykhailo Fedorov (@FedorovMykhailo) February 6, 2026

Poulsen’s potential coalition partners include the Danish People’s Party, Liberal Alliance, and Conservatives. Of these, the Danish People’s Party is the only voice of moderation on Ukraine. Party leader Morten Messerschmidt has called for an end date to military aid to Kiev, has urged Ukraine to make territorial concessions for peace, and opposes its accession to NATO.

“Every time we spend a billion in Ukraine, that money goes from Denmark, from welfare, from whatever it is we want here,” he told Danish state broadcaster DR in 2024. Messerschmidt added that he intends to pressure whoever is in power in Copenhagen to “conduct a Ukraine policy that is based on the world of reality and not on a fantasy world.”

However, despite the party tripling its vote share to 9% in March, its leadership has told King Frederik that their only demand from Poulsen is that he enact policies that will reduce Denmark’s Muslim population.

Will Russia’s relations with Denmark change?

It is highly unlikely that the transfer of power from Frederiksen to Poulsen will alter Moscow’s sub-zero relations with Copenhagen. Denmark currently has no ambassador to Russia, and is considered an “unfriendly” nation by the Kremlin.

“If anyone wishes to talk, we will never refuse dialogue, even though we fully realize… that reaching an agreement with the current generation of European leaders will most likely be impossible,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in January. “They have entrenched themselves too deeply in a posture of hatred towards Russia.”

At least 70 Labour MPs are demanding that Prime Minister Keir Starmer resign, Sky News reported on Monday. This comes after last week’s local elections in which the party came out as the biggest loser, relinquishing more than 1,300 council seats across the country.

In addition to dozens of lawmakers calling for Starmer to go, at least three junior members of his government have resigned from their positions, Sky News reports.

Under Labour rules, a formal leadership challenge would require backing by at least 81 party MPs, a fifth of the party’s total roster in the House of Commons. Former Foreign Secretary and Labour MP Catherine West announced that she’s gathering support to kickstart the process and elect a new leader by September.

“The results last Thursday show that the PM has failed to inspire hope,” she wrote on X. “What is best for the party and country now is for an orderly transition.”

In a speech earlier on Monday, Starmer said there is “no sugarcoating” the scale of the defeat, but vowed to stay in office and claw back support. He promised to rebuild the UK’s relationship with the EU and to make Britain “fairer.”

Starmer has sunk in the approval polls since his party’s landslide victory in the 2024 general election. The decline followed deeply unpopular austerity measures, the resurfacing of the historical Pakistani rape gang scandal, and the government response to the 2024 anti-immigration protests and riots – which sparked allegations of two-tier justice after hundreds of citizens were arrested for social media posts.

The Labour government has also lost left-wing voters by designating the pro-Palestinian protest group ‘Palestine Action’ a terrorist organization.

Half of Britons want Starmer to step down, while only 29% want him to remain in office, according to a YouGov poll published on Monday that surveyed 4,904 UK adults.

Euroskeptic, anti-immigrant Reform UK has emerged as the biggest winner in the local elections, taking more than 1,200 local council seats across the country. “Betrayed voters have left Labour for good,” party leader Nigel Farage said on X on Monday.

Germany and Ukraine will jointly develop long-range drones, German Defense Minister Boris Pistiorius has said during an unannounced visit to Kiev. The Ukrainian military has routinely used unmanned aerial vehicles for attacks deep inside Russia that target civilians and critical infrastructure.

Moscow has accused Kiev of “terrorism” over the strikes. Last week, one attack killed five civilians in Crimea.

Berlin has emerged as Kiev’s largest single military donor after the US switched from donating weapons directly to Ukraine to selling it to Kiev’s other NATO backers which hand them over. Germany spent around €20 billion ($23.5 billion) on weapons for Ukraine from January 2022 to February 2026, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

On Monday, Pistorius claimed that further military cooperation with Kiev would be advantageous for Berlin since it has also launched its own military buildup, citing the alleged ‘Russian threat’.

“Germany and Ukraine are strategic partners who both benefit from the cooperation. This gives rise to numerous new projects,” the minister told dpa news agency. “The focus is on the joint development of advanced unmanned systems of all ranges, especially in the area of deep strike.”

According to Pistiorius, the ‘Brave Germany’ program he signed off on, along with Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Federov, on Monday will focus on supporting startups capable of demonstrating “promising innovations.”

Ukraine’s most prominent drone manufacturer, Fire Point, recently found itself at the center of a corruption scandal when leaks exposed its close ties to Timur Mindich, a former business partner and longtime associate of Vladimir Zelensky. Mindich stands accused of orchestrating a $100 million graft scheme. One of the company’s top figures and its co-owner were also reportedly recorded saying that peace is “bad for business.” Prior to the scandal, the company was touted globally by Zelensky himself.

Moscow has stated that it harbors no aggressive intent toward any NATO nation and dismissed the speculation as “nonsense.” It also warned that the current German and EU leadership is transforming the bloc into “a Fourth Reich.”

Andrey Yermak, a former influential chief of staff to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, has been named a suspect in a new criminal case, according to a statement posted on Telegram by the country’s Western-backed anti-corruption agencies.

The former official is accused of being part of a criminal group that laundered 460 million hryvnias ($10 million) through an elite residential construction project.

Often described as the grey cardinal behind Zelensky, Yermak was forced out in November 2025 after the anti-corruption agencies raided his properties as part of a high-profile corruption probe. The investigation was focused on a $100 million graft scheme linked to Zelensky’s inner circle and his former business partner and close associate, Timur Mindich.

Yermak himself denied ties to corruption at the time and claimed he stepped down to avoid “creating problems” for Zelensky.

The former chief of staff now stands accused of violating Article 209 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code, which covers “money laundering and legalization of ill-gotten gains.” Earlier on Monday, the Ukrainian media reported that Yermak was subjected to some “investigative procedures” by the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

According to a video published by the anti-corruption agencies on YouTube, the criminal group might have also involved the former national unity minister, Aleksey Chernyshov, who headed the community and territorial development ministry at the time the group was active. Chernyshov’s wife was allegedly a co-owner of the construction company used in the scheme.

In December, the Ukrainian media reported that Yermak had retained influence following his resignation and was talking to Zelensky daily by phone and meeting him most evenings at his residence despite holding no formal government position.

The news comes amid another corruption scandal. Last month, Ukrainskaya Pravda released what it called leaked transcripts from surveillance recordings of Mindich and his business partners, as well as Ukrainian government officials. The files that have since become known as ‘Mindich tapes’ included a conversation Mindich had with a woman identified as Natalia, who reportedly oversaw a luxury construction project for him and Yermak. The leaks are yet to be officially verified.

In a brief statement to journalists on Monday evening, Yermak denied any involvement in the Dinastia (Dynasty) development project outside Kiev. He also denied being featured in conversations involving Mindich that were recorded by law enforcement.

Read RT's curated coverage of the ongoing investigations into allegations of corruption and graft by Zelensky's inner circle here.

A right-wing Austrian politician has demanded that the country’s Finance Ministry explain how nearly $22 billion in cash and gold was shipped to Ukraine from Austria since 2022 without triggering concerns about money laundering or regulatory oversight.

In a statement published on Sunday, Austrian Freedom Party (FPO) Secretary General Christian Hafenecker called out what he described as Vienna’s “two-class justice system” for overlooking massive payments to Kiev, while keeping a tight hold on taxpayers’ purse strings.

“We’re not talking about play money here: 1,030 registered cash and gold shipments, around €12 billion ($14 billion) plus $7.75 billion, physically transported over 1,300 kilometers into the war zone,” Hafenecker said.

“And the responsible finance minister simply tells me… ‘We know nothing, we’re not investigating anything, we haven’t collected any information.’ That’s not an answer, that’s dereliction of duty,” he added.

By comparison, Austrian money laundering rules require a private citizen withdrawing as little as €12,000 from an inherited account to prove the origin of the funds, and any person crossing the EU’s external border with more than €10,000 in cash must declare it, Hafenecker said. “This is a two-class justice system in finance.”

The politician demanded full disclosure on all cash shipments from Austria to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict, a full audit by the country’s Financial Market Supervisory Authority, and a report by the Austrian Money Laundering Reporting Office in parliament.

Earlier this year, the Euroskeptic FPO party demanded that Vienna cut all financial aid to Ukraine, denouncing the country as a corrupt “bottomless pit,” following a wave of high-level embezzlement scandals in Kiev.

Major probes by Ukraine’s Western-backed anti-graft agencies have implicated senior officials in Vladimir Zelensky’s government since last year. Two ministers and the Ukrainian leader’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, stepped down following the massive scandal.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has slammed the current leadership in Kiev, calling it a “criminal gang” sitting on “golden potties,” and interested far more in personal enrichment than in the fate of ordinary Ukrainians.

The EU could be on the verge of a new migrant crisis, with more than half a million people waiting in Libya alone to cross into Europe, Greek Migration Minister Thanos Plevris has said.

The bloc was first inundated by asylum seekers from the Middle East and Northern Africa during the 2015 refugee crisis, when a million migrants entered Europe, straining welfare systems and prompting tens of millions of European voters to turn to far-right political parties.

Greece remains one of the bloc’s main entry points, registering 48,771 arrivals in 2025, according to UNHCR data. According to the UN refugee agency, 7,589 migrants and asylum seekers have arrived in the Mediterranean country this year as of May 3, including 5,615 by sea.

Athens has introduced a number of strict measures to stem the flow over the past years, including detention for those denied asylum. Commenting on the situation on Sunday, Plevris said Greece is “the first country to criminalize illegal residence” and will not allow those denied protection to just roam free.

“Those who are not entitled to asylum will be detained,” the minister told a local broadcaster, adding that Athens will “operate within the law but will go to its limits to protect the borders.” 

He also described the situation in Libya as the biggest problem faced by his country and the EU. According to Plevris, around 550,000 people have gathered there and are now seeking to enter Europe.

In February, Plevris announced that it was working with Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Denmark to create “return hubs” for rejected asylum seekers outside of the EU’s borders, with Africa being the preferred destination.

Libya became a key transit point for human trafficking and migration to Europe via the Mediterranean following a NATO-backed uprising in 2011 that led to the overthrow and assassination of longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi. The EU has struggled to manage the migration crisis since 2015, with Greece, Italy, and Spain receiving the highest number of arrivals across the Mediterranean.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged his countrymen to adopt austerity measures in the wake of the Middle East conflict.

Apart from utilizing public transport, work-from-home, and carpooling in an apparent bid to save fuel, he has suggested that Indians put one of their most treasured fascinations on hold: their overwhelming fixation on gold.
Not buying the precious metal, he hinted, could cut India’s dollar outflows substantially.

Curbing gold purchases is seen as one of the key steps that would invariably have an impact on the economy of the nation of 1.4 billion people. The bet on slashing gold purchases has a sounder rationale than other steps outlined by Indian prime minister, as it is seen as a step that individuals can control directly.

The economics

India’s foreign exchange reserves as of May 1, 2026, totaled $690.7 billion, according to data released by the Reserve Bank of India. The forex reserve position has seen a steady decline recently from the $728 billion recorded in February.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has estimated that India’s current account deficit (CAD) could widen to $84.5 billion this year. It cited a major reason for this as India’s gold imports.

The CAD is the gap that occurs when a country spends more foreign currency on imports, income payments, and transfers than it earns from exports and overseas receipts. Higher imports of gold widen India’s current account deficit because India pays in foreign currency for the precious metal, raising the import bill without directly boosting export earnings.

The South Asian nation’s imports of gold totaled $72 billion in FY26, a 24% surge from a year ago. A widening current account deficit will put pressure on the rupee, raise external borrowing needs, and make the economy more vulnerable to global capital outflows.

Ballooning import bill

India is the world’s second-largest gold buyer. For every ounce of imported gold, the payment is made in dollars. Of the total import bill of $775 billion, four commodities stand out for their weight. Crude, gold, vegetable oils, and fertilizers together accounted for more than a third of the country’s massive import bill.

Crude oil is the obvious leader, accounting for $134.7 billion.

But crude is essential, and any drastic cut in its use is unrealistic in a country which is home to the world’s largest population. The same is true of vegetable oils ($19.5 billion) and fertilizers ($14.5 billion), which are critical for food security.

That leaves Indians’ famous appetite for gold as the most obvious target for restraint. With a gold import bill of about $72 billion – nearly double the combined value of vegetable oil and fertilizer imports – curbing demand offers a clear way to bring some discipline to India’s external accounts.

It is also one of the most debated options, because gold in India is as much an emotional purchase as a financial one, with weddings driving a large share of domestic buying. Gold as an investment option has not yet sunk in for a majority of Indians.

Would curbs really matter?

Assuming a dip in gold purchases happens, how would that affect the country’s economy? If the country curtails its importing of gold by 30% to 40%, that can lead to savings of $25 billion, according to NDTV projections.

If the figure can be raised to 50%, the savings would further jump to $36 billion. In a scenario where the CAD is projected to be $84.5 billion, it would be nearly cut that figure in half. The savings can be routed to energy purchases, which in turn are essential for vital activity, including farming.

How war shapes outcomes

When a conflict like the present one in the Middle East happens, oil prices soar. This is a direct result of transit hazards to shipping, which block the oil trade. A fifth of the world’s energy commodities pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which is mostly controlled by Iran.

There is no respite, as developments indicate that seamless navigation through the Strait is likely to remain off limits for a prolonged period. US President Trump has rejected an Iranian proposal to solely concentrate on the cessation of hostilities as a first step.

Many refining and production facilities across the Gulf have already suffered extensive damage. The world’s oil inventories are shrinking at the fastest pace on record, Bloomberg reported. Even if the current predicament ends, a return to the $70 per barrel price range is unlikely.

For India, that means paying more for oil imports for a much longer period, implying higher dollar outflows. Stronger demand for dollars would weaken the rupee, and a weaker rupee would, in turn, make all imports more expensive, creating a cascading effect across the economy.

Glitter of gold

A pause in gold buying seems like a sensible option for a nation which, as a whole, can adapt while it curbs the demand for dollars. A dip in dollar demand would mean less pressure on the rupee and on the cost of imports.

India’s domestic gold consumption remains large but increasingly price-sensitive. According to the World Gold Council, India’s total gold demand rose 10% year-on-year to 151 tons in Q1 2026. But in value terms, the surge is 99%, as record prices have lifted spending.

Last year’s figure has some solace on offer for policy planners. For the full year 2025, India’s overall gold purchases fell 11% to 710.9 tons, and jewelry consumption dropped 24% to 430.5 tons. This means that while Indian households have a strong affinity for buying gold, they tend to cut back when prices rise.

Public broadcasters in Spain, Ireland and Slovenia have said they would not air the 70th anniversary Eurovision Song Contest, which begins on Tuesday in Austria and will culminate in Saturday’s grand finale, citing opposition to Israel’s participation.

The three countries, along with the Netherlands and Iceland, withdrew on Monday from this year’s event in Vienna, leaving the contest facing the biggest boycott in its 70-year history.

Vienna police have said they expect disruptive protests and possible attempts to block the event, particularly on the last day. Authorities said a pro-Palestinian demonstration involving around 3,000 people has been registered for May 16.

The lead-up

Earlier this year, the broadcasters urged contest organizers at the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) to bar Israel over alleged vote-rigging and the war in Gaza. The EBU said Israel met the contest’s eligibility requirements and would remain in this year’s competition.

Israel has rejected accusations of genocide since launching its operation targeting Hamas in Gaza after the militant group made its deadly incursion into southern Israel in October 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 250 others hostage. The enclave’s authorities say Israel’s response has left nearly 70,000 Palestinians dead.

In December 2025, Swiss singer Nemo announced that he is returning his 2024 Eurovision Song Contest trophy in protest over Israel’s continued participation in the competition.

During the competitions in Malmö, Sweden, in 2024 and Basel, Switzerland, in 2025, large anti-Israel protests took place outside the venues, while the country’s participants were placed under heavy security protection.

Vote-rigging accusations

In last year’s contest, Israeli singer Yuval Raphael got second place and won the popular audience vote, leading multiple countries to raise concerns about outside interference in the voting process.

Following the pushback, Eurovision changed the rules, lowering the maximum number of votes each fan could cast from 20 to 10, and banned “disproportionate” promotion campaigns. However, the contest stressed that no rules were broken.

In the contest’s two-part voting process, the jury’s ranking is added to an audience score, with each viewer able to vote multiple times. Each vote costs a fee.

Israeli soft power

According to a new investigation by the New York Times, Raphael won the popular vote in several countries where the public is highly critical of Israel.

The Israeli government funded a concerted internet campaign, buying advertisements in multiple languages urging viewers to vote for their contestant up to the then-maximum 20 times, the NYT reported. En masse, it would have taken only a few thousand viewers dropping 20 votes each to secure second place, the newspaper said.

In 2024, West Jerusalem spent more than $800,000 on Eurovision-related advertising, with the bulk of the money coming from the Foreign Ministry, the NYT wrote, citing Israeli Government Advertising Agency data.

Geopolitics off stage?

The Eurovision Song Contest, organized annually by the EBU, has long faced accusations of political bias, with critics saying voting patterns often reflect political alliances, cultural ties or historical relationships rather than musical merit.

The contest has faced accusations of double standards after banning Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Moscow in turn accused organizers of favoring Western participants and promoting anti-Russian sentiment.

French presidential hopeful Florian Philippot has called for lifting sanctions against Russia and restoring Russian energy imports. In an interview with RT, the politician claimed that Brussels-driven EU policies run counter to France’s national interests. 

A former vice president of the National Front (now National Rally) and ex-member of the European Parliament, Philippot announced on Saturday that he will run in the 2027 election. He leads the sovereigntist movement ‘Les Patriotes’ and is a longtime critic of the EU, the euro, and NATO. He advocates restoring French sovereignty, reducing dependence on supranational institutions, and ending French military and financial aid to Ukraine. 

“I want, and it is in my program, for France to regain its independence by leaving all the supranational globalist structures: the EU, the euro, NATO,” Florian Philippot told RT France on Sunday. “And I want a policy of dialogue and friendship with Russia, and not, as today, one of mistrust, war, and insults. All of this is absurd for our national interests.” 

The politician said Paris should “take back control” by withdrawing from free trade agreements such as Mercosur, which he said “condemn French farmers to death.” He added that sanctions on Russia imposed by Brussels should be ended in order to restore the flow of Russian gas and oil. 

Philippot also called for France to regain control over immigration and migration flows while pursuing a broader reindustrialization strategy. He said the country’s industrial base had been weakened under the euro and advocated restoring a national currency better suited to the French economy. 

In addition, the politician pledged to expand the use of referendums, including citizen-initiated votes, as part of strengthening popular sovereignty. He also called for reducing France’s dependence on the EU, which he said is largely shaped in Berlin and Washington rather than in Paris. Philippot stressed that leaving the EU would allow France to lower energy and electricity costs. 

France is heading toward a highly fragmented presidential race, with around 30 people already expressing interest in being on the 2027 ballot. These include Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of ‘La France Insoumise’, Bruno Retailleau, president of ‘Les Republicains’, Xavier Bertrand, a senior center-right politician, David Lisnard, mayor of Cannes, Laurent Wauquiez, a prominent conservative figure, and Edouard Philippe, France’s former prime minister.

Donald Trump is set to touch down in Beijing, China, on Wednesday for a two-day state visit – the first by a US president in eight years – as relations between the world’s two largest economies teeter at a crossroads defined by the Iran war, trade friction, and technological rivalry.

The visit is expected to feature a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping on Thursday morning, to be followed by a visit to the Temple of Heaven and a state banquet, as well as a working lunch on Friday before Trump departs for home.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly described the trip as “a visit of tremendous symbolic significance” while teasing “more good deals on behalf of our country.” 

The high-stakes talks will likely revolve around the US-Israeli war on Iran – which was the reason for postponing the visit, originally scheduled for late March – as well as Taiwan, artificial intelligence, and critical minerals.

Iran and oil

The Iran war and the Hormuz crisis are expected to loom large over the agenda, with an unnamed US official telling reporters during a briefing that Trump would likely “apply pressure” on China on the purchase of Iranian oil and on the alleged supply of dual-use components to Tehran.

The hallmarks of this approach became evident last week when the US sanctioned Chinese refineries buying Iranian crude, as well as what Washington described as “China-based entities providing satellite imagery to enable Iran’s military strikes against US forces.” 

In response, China ordered its firms to ignore US sanctions, a move Max Meizlish, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described as an “unprecedented… measure of defiance by Beijing.” 

Trump is also expected to call on Xi to leverage Beijing’s unique clout over Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway accounting for around 20% of pre-war seaborne oil trade. China, itself the world’s largest buyer of Gulf oil, has been sympathetic to the cause, urging Tehran to remove obstacles to maritime traffic.

The ‘Five Bs’ of trade

The two leaders are poised to discuss what observers have labeled the ‘Five Bs’: Chinese purchase of Boeing aircraft, American beef and soybeans, and the creation of a Board of Trade and a Board of Investments.

On Boeing, the leaders could greenlight the purchase of as many as five hundred 737 MAX aircraft and about 100 widebody jets for several Chinese flight operators. The deal would be valued at tens of billions of dollars, and Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg is reportedly a member of the US delegation.

As the world’s largest importer of soybeans, China has historically purchased half of US exports of the crop and has been a primary market for American agricultural produce. The soybean trade has not been problem-free, however, as US beans currently face a total duty of 13% from China, while Brazilian beans are subject to only 3%. In addition, while China fulfilled its pledge to purchase 12 million metric tons of beans in 2025, it is unclear whether Beijing will meet the larger target of 25 million tons annually for 2026-2028.

Taiwan hotspot

Taiwan, which China regards as part of its sovereign territory, has long been a sore point in relations between Washington and Beijing. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has described the self-governed island as “the biggest point of risk” in the bilateral relationship and urged Washington to “honor its commitments and make the right choice, to open up new space for China-US cooperation.”

Several media reports have indicated that China wants Trump to say the US “opposes” Taiwanese independence, rather than the current language, with officials in Taipei nervous that the US president could oblige.

An unnamed American official told the Financial Times, though, that “we don’t expect to see any changes in US policy [on Taiwan] going forward.” 

While the Trump administration has continued to supply Taiwan with weapons, the US president has previously expressed skepticism about defending the island and accused it of stealing the US semiconductor manufacturing industry.

Rare earths and tariffs

China holds a powerful card in its near-total grip on rare earth mineral supply chains, with analysts cited by the Guardian suggesting Beijing may dangle a long-term commercial arrangement to grant US access to the commodities, on condition they are not used for military ends.

The issue has been a flashpoint in relations for years, with China’s decision to introduce export restrictions on rare earth elements in 2025 sending the US high-tech industry into turmoil. While in late 2025, Washington and Beijing reached a tentative “trade truce” – which expires this November – US industry leaders have complained of delays in export licenses and overall volatility in supply chains.

As for the wider trade war, both sides are also locked in a “ceasefire” that puts Trump’s effective tariffs at between 19% and 24% after peaking at 145% during intense tit-for-tat escalations. The US and China are reportedly debating a one-year extension in exchange for guaranteed rare earths flows.

The digital battleground

Trump’s visit comes as the White House has accused China of “stealing” AI technologies, including running “deliberate, industrial-scale campaigns” to extract capabilities from America-based AI models to train cheaper rivals.

In response, the Chinese Embassy in Washington said Beijing “opposes the unjustified suppression of Chinese companies by the US,” adding that it “attaches great importance to the protection of intellectual property rights.” 

Beijing has long protested what it views as a US crackdown on its tech companies, including restrictions on Huawei and a push to replace China-linked technology in American-connected cars, a policy widely seen as a blow to Chinese EV manufacturers.

The Lebanese Health Ministry has accused the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of deliberately targeting medics during airstrikes on the country.

Israeli attacks on Lebanon continue to intensify despite a US-brokered ceasefire between the sides, which took effect in mid-April.

The latest wave of IDF strikes on Lebanon left 51 people dead, including two medics, the country’s health ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

“The Israeli enemy continues to violate international laws and humanitarian norms, adding more crimes against paramedics, as it directly targeted two points of the Health Authority in Qalawiya and Tibnin, Bint Jbeil district, in two raids,” the statement read.

According to the ministry’s data, 2,846 people were killed when Israel launched its military operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon on March 2, just days after attacking Iran together with the US. More than 550 of those deaths occurred after the truce had been introduced.

The UN said earlier that at least 103 Lebanese medical workers have been killed and 230 injured in more than 130 IDF strikes during the current escalation.

Israel already faces accusations of deliberately hitting ambulances and hospitals during the conflict in Gaza, with West Jerusalem saying they were targeted due to being used by Palestinian armed group Hamas.

War surgeon Tahir Mohammed, who worked in both the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, told Al Jazeera that “we used to see our colleagues in Gaza come through the door all the time. I’ve had colleagues, nurses, medical students killed by Israeli weapons, and so to see the same policy of targeting healthcare workers in Lebanon… it’s consistent.”

The IDF said on Sunday that it targeted more than 20 facilities of Hezbollah in several areas of southern Lebanon, including weapons depots, command centers and other “buildings used for military purposes.”

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam told Al-Arabiya the same day that a total of 86 villages in the south of the country remain under Israeli occupation. The Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil has become “a copy of Gaza” due to the vast scale of destruction, he said.

According to Salam, Beirut is open to a peace deal with West Jerusalem once its key terms, including the withdrawal of IDF troops, are met.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has confirmed that US President Donald Trump will pay a state visit to Beijing from May 13 to 15, the first such trip in nearly nine years.

The summit had initially been planned for late March but was postponed due to the US-Israeli war on Iran, which disrupted global energy markets following the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Principal deputy White House press secretary Anna Kelly described the trip as one of “tremendous symbolic significance” that would focus on “rebalancing the relationship with China and prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.”

The US president will hold bilateral talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, and the two leaders are expected to meet again on Friday for a tea session and working lunch.

Last month, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Washington was seeking to preserve stability in bilateral ties while securing continued access to Chinese rare earth minerals essential for American industry.

A senior US official told reporters on Sunday that Washington may also try to pressure Beijing over purchases of Iranian oil and Tehran’s acquisition of potential dual-use goods.

China, which has rejected Washington’s “unilateral” sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector, has repeatedly called for the war to end. Trump’s visit comes just a week after Beijing hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

The path to the summit was paved by a temporary trade truce reached in South Korea last October after Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods climbed as high as 145%. Beijing responded by restricting exports of rare earths critical to US industry and military production, forcing several American factories to suspend operations.

After crying wolf over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program for decades, Washington has finally pushed the Islamic Republic over the brink, with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei proclaiming last month that Tehran will protect its nuclear and missile technology “as national assets.”  

Tehran had long maintained that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes only, a fact endorsed by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Decades of crippling sanctions and a punitive war, however, have compelled it to change track.

In a message on the occasion of National Persian Gulf Day (when Persia liberated the waterway from 115 years of Portuguese control in 1622), Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei asserted that Washington has suffered a “humiliating defeat,” which opens a “new chapter” in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

He said Iran shares a “common destiny” with its neighbors in the region, which will not be dominated by “outsiders who come from thousands of kilometers away.” He promised that new legal regulations and management systems in the Strait will benefit all of the nations of the region while yielding economic dividends for Iran.

This significant announcement was accompanied by an invitation to the Gulf States to accept Iranian protection for their safety as the era of American protectionism is over. The same day, a spokesman for the Iranian Armed Forces warned that if the US attacks again, the region’s oil and gas infrastructure will be destroyed.  

On May 2, 2026, Iran declared that no Israeli ships henceforth will ever be allowed to pass though the Strait unless Israel pays war reparations. Mohammad Mokhber, a top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, said that the Strait of Hormuz has become one of Tehran’s main bargaining chips, after Iran shut the waterway early in the war, stranding hundreds of vessels and roiling energy markets. “The Strait of Hormuz is a capability equivalent to an atomic bomb,” he asserted. 

Last week, after US President Donald Trump made a U-turn on ‘Project Freedom,’ Iran reportedly launched a new mechanism for overseeing maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.  There has been a constant churn in the regional chessboard since the US-Israel attack on Iran and decapitation of its top spiritual and military leadership on February 28. Most notable is the United Arab Emirates’ decision to exit the Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) that decides the oil extraction quotas of member states, and the price at which oil will be sold in the international market. 

In the short term, Abu Dhabi’s defection from the oil cartel could lead to its expulsion from the Arab League, with consequences for its identity as a safe luxury destination with unique architecture (Burj Khalifa, Dubai Frame), high-end leisure (Palm Jumeirah, indoor skiing), and as a magnet for affluent professionals in its tax-free, centrally located business hub (Dubai). 

However, the UAE’s exit could provoke other members to weigh the value of remaining in OPEC, given the current political instability, inability to trust the US, and the grim reality of falling oil revenues. More countries could decide upon their own production, adding to volatility in the oil markets. Increased supplies could soften prices over time and benefit oil refining and marketing companies in countries such as India. Some introspection has already begun with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud asserting that, “the era of relying on the United States has ended. If Trump could not protect his own country, how can he protect ours?” 

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, soon after US President Donald Trump cancelled the proposed trip by US officials to Pakistan to negotiate peace with Iran, will also impact the region. Araghchi was reportedly seeking an extension of the ceasefire. Putin assured, “we will do everything that serves your interests, the interests of all the people of the region, so that peace can be achieved as soon as possible.” 

Araghchi told the media that the US was responsible for the failure of the first round of negotiations in Pakistan in mid-April with its “excessive demands,” adding that “safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is an important global issue.” As a mark of respect to the negotiators, Araghchi met Pakistani military and civilian leader as well as Omani leaders before travelling to Russia. Both Pakistan and Oman continue to be involved in backchannel efforts to prevent a return to an open US-Israel war on Iran.

The key role, however, will be played by Moscow, as evidenced by the 90-minute telephone call between Presidents Putin and Trump, which covered a range of events, including the Iran war, the Ukraine conflict and the attempted attack on Trump during a high-profile dinner in Washington. 

Araghchi later met his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, highlighting the potential role Beijing could play in shaping the course of the conflict. The visit came just a week before Trump’s planned meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. 

The latest reports suggest that the exchange or proposals to end the war between Tehran and Washington, conducted through Pakistani mediators, is not yielding results. According to AP, Iran’s response to Washington’s counter-proposal submitted last week calls for a wider end to hostilities on multiple fronts, including Lebanon, before reopening the Strait of Hormuz and moving ahead with further nuclear talks. Iran’s earlier demands included guarantees against military aggression, the withdrawal of US military forces from near Iran, a lifting of the naval blockade, the release of Iran’s frozen assets, compensation payments, a lifting of sanctions, and end to the war on all fronts including Lebanon, and the recognition a new mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz.  

Trump, however, on Sunday called Iran’s response “totally unacceptable.”  Trump has repeatedly extended the ceasefire, arguing that Iran’s leadership is divided and unable to formulate a unified position. Iranian officials, for their part, have publicly rejected Washington’s terms as an ultimatum, accusing the US of trying to turn negotiations into a surrender process after failing to achieve its stated goals on the battlefield. With diplomacy currently at a deadlock, the US finds itself isolated from many of its traditional allies on the matter. 

The US decision not to quarantine passengers of the hantavirus-stricken cruise ship, the MV Hondius, could be dangerous, the chief of the World Health Organization has said.

Since April 11, three people aboard the Dutch-flagged Atlantic liner have died from the rare pathogen, which is typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings, urine or saliva, while several others have contracted the disease. The vessel was carrying 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries.

On Sunday, 17 Americans and one UK national residing in the US disembarked the vessel, which docked at the Spanish island of Tenerife, and are currently on their way back home.

The passengers will be flown to the National Quarantine Unit in Nebraska for what US health officials have described as a brief visit to check their health, not quarantine.

One American, the only to have tested positive for the disease, will be placed in a biocontainment unit, according to the US Department of Health.

However, the passengers with no symptoms of hantavirus and no known contacts with anyone symptomatic will be deemed low risk and allowed to return to their places of residence, Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, told CNN.

During a press conference in Tenerife on Sunday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the UN health body’s advice for dealing with MV Hondius passengers “is clear: starting from May 10, 42 days of quarantine, but it could be in a facility or at home.”

When asked about the approach taken by the US, he warned that it “may have risks.”

However, Ghebreyesus stressed that the WHO doesn’t impose anything on countries; it only proposes to them what it considers the most appropriate way to deal with the situation.

The UK and France announced earlier that they would require their passengers to quarantine at a staffed facility or in isolation at home for 42 and 45 days, respectively.

Ghebreyesus said last week that, despite being “serious,” the hantavirus “is not another COVID” due to its limited human-to-human transition.

The US officially withdrew from the WHO in January, accusing the organization of mishandling the coronavirus pandemic and being unable to carry out the necessary reforms or withstand political pressure from member states.

In the past months, numerous reports have emerged that Somali pirate groups have acquired modern weapons and technology from the Houthis.

Ties between the Yemeni Zaydi Shiite movement Ansar Allah (better known as the Houthis), Somali pirates, and two terrorist organizations in Somalia, Al-Shabaab and the Islamic State – Somalia Province (IS–SP), continue to strengthen. This has been confirmed by both officials in Somalia and various UN reports.

In January 2026, Mohamed Musa Abulle, deputy director of intelligence for the Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF), said that some Somali pirate groups had received GPS devices from the Houthis, enabling them to “accurately track the routes of commercial vessels.” He noted that the security forces believe some members of these groups have undergone military training in Yemen. 

“This new technology has significantly simplified their planning of attacks far from the Somali coast,” the official stated.

A month earlier, on December 12, 2025, the PMPF intercepted a boat off the coast of Eyl carrying explosives and chemicals used for making explosive devices. At the time of the interception, there were seven people on board, two Yemeni nationals and five Somalis. The operation was part of Puntland’s counterterrorism efforts, in the course of which local security forces destroyed over 100 Islamic State facilities in the Cal Miskaad mountains, where militants were based.

‘Transactional, not ideological’

The 2025 report by the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team also mentioned deals between the Houthis and terrorist groups in Somalia, characterizing their relationships as “transactional or opportunistic, and not ideological.” According to UN experts, Al-Shabaab militants met with Houthi representatives in Somalia at least twice, in July and September, to request modern weapons and training.

“In return, Al-Shabaab was to increase piracy activities within the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia, targeting cargo ships and disrupting vessel movement as well as collecting ransom from the captured vessels. During this period, Al-Shabaab was reported to have received some small arms and light weapons and technical expertise from the Houthis,” the report stated.

The same report noted that the Houthis maintain an agreement with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) which has been in place for over three years and involves mutual non-aggression, prisoner exchanges, and arms transfers. While AQAP primarily attacks local targets in Yemen, it seeks to expand operations beyond its borders, including in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Somali pirates, who also collaborate with the Houthis, operate as a criminal organization separate from the terrorist groups. The ties between them are transactional and situational rather than ideological. Primarily motivated by economic gain, pirates seek large hauls or ransom payments, while groups like Al-Shabaab and ISIS are driven by ideology.

Occasionally, pirates partner with the Islamists to ensure their own safety or obtain logistical support in areas under their control. For instance, in March 2024, Al-Shabaab militants in the Sanaag region of northern Somalia struck a deal to provide protection for pirates in exchange for 30% of all ransoms and a share of any loot.

How much do pirates earn?

Since the early 2000s, piracy has thrived in the port city of Eyl in Puntland, which has earned the nickname ‘Harunta Burcadda’ (Pirate Capital). Small bands of pirates boldly attacked massive container ships and oil tankers, forcing shipping companies to steer clear of the Horn of Africa.

From 2005 to 2012, Somali pirate groups reportedly made between $339 million and $413 million, according to World Bank data. Between 2013 and 2019, the European Union’s counterpiracy mission, Operation Atalanta, launched in December 2008 to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia, recorded 26 attacks by Somali groups. In 2020-2022 there was a temporary lull in pirate activity, with no recorded attacks. However, in the following years piracy resumed – six attacks were recorded in 2023, and as many as 22 attacks in 2024. 

This prompted international naval forces to bolster patrols in Somali waters. The Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF) in collaboration with Operation Atalanta, evolved into a well-trained and experienced counter-terrorism unit. However, they were compelled to redirect a significant portion of their troops inland to support Puntland security forces against IS–SP in the Cal Miskaad mountains. Pirates took advantage of this, and the situation was further exacerbated by ongoing maritime instability due to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.

On December 14, 2023, Somali pirates seized the Bulgarian bulk carrier MV Ruen, which had 18 crew members on board and was sailing under the Maltese flag. This marked the first successful hijacking of a commercial vessel off the Somali coast since 2017. The pirates subsequently used the ship to launch further attacks in the Indian Ocean from their base near Eyl. Indian Navy Commandos only managed to rescue the ship in March 2024. 

Throughout 2024 and 2025, pirates continued to target commercial vessels, executing at least six hijackings. These attacks occurred as far as 2,270 miles from the Somali coast in the Indian Ocean. In April 2026 alone, they successfully detained at least three ships, including a tanker and a fishing trawler.

The recent success of pirates off the coast of Somalia can largely be attributed to the war initiated by the US and Israel against Iran. This conflict has shifted the region’s focus toward the Persian Gulf, prompting forces that once ensured security in the Red Sea to redirect their efforts toward escorting vessels attempting to navigate the blocked Strait of Hormuz.

Puntland and Somaliland, Israel and the US

The main source of pirate activity in Somali waters is Puntland, which positions itself as an autonomous state within Somalia. Since 2024, it has functioned independently of the federal government. Located in the tip of the Horn of Africa, Puntland does not claim full independence from Somalia, unlike Somaliland to the north, which actively seeks international recognition for its sovereignty.

Somaliland has made significant strides in this regard. On December 26, 2025, Israel became the first (and currently the only) country to officially recognize the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Somaliland. It later emerged that Israel, in collaboration with the US and the UAE, has begun constructing a military base in the port city of Berbera in northern Somaliland. This base is intended to serve as a launchpad for intelligence-gathering and operations against the Houthis, who regularly target Israeli territory.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unexpected recognition of Somaliland at the end of 2025 likely aimed to establish a strategic Israeli foothold in the Gulf of Aden, close to Yemen’s coastline, where the Houthis operate. The Houthis renewed their conflict with Israel on March 28, threatening to disrupt shipping traffic in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. Satellite images obtained by Le Monde indicate that the Berbera airport has been expanded since October 2025. 

Interestingly, this airport was originally built in the 1970s by Soviet specialists, who established a naval base around the Bab-el-Mandeb strait during the Cold War to control maritime routes and counter American influence while maintaining a presence in the Indian Ocean.

Somali pirates conduct maritime attacks from Puntland, where terrorist groups like Al-Shabaab and IS–SP operate; however, these groups are not present in Somaliland. Thus, from a strategic perspective, for foreign states Berbera holds greater significance than the port of Bosaso in Puntland, as it allows them to exert influence in the region without having to aid local authorities in their fight against terrorism and piracy.

Two axes of international influence

Following Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, experts began discussing the formation of two competing ‘axes’ defining foreign interests in the Horn of Africa. The emerging Berbera Axis (Israel – UAE – Ethiopia – Somaliland) is aimed at securing access to ports and monitoring capabilities in the Red Sea, as well as countering the dominant influence of Türkiye and Iran in the region.

Somaliland boasts 850 kilometers of coastline along the Gulf of Aden, directly opposite Yemen across the narrow Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. This geographical advantage allows Israel to gather real-time intelligence, conduct drone surveillance, and swiftly respond to missile and UAV attacks from the Houthis. Tel Aviv’s strategic partners in the region include the UAE, which normalized relations with Israel in 2020. Since 2018, through its largest port operator, DP World, the UAE has been working on expanding and modernizing the port of Berbera.

Ethiopia, which maintains friendly ties with both Tel Aviv and Somaliland’s capital, Hargeisa, also benefits from Israel’s recognition of the self-proclaimed republic. The December agreement grants Addis Ababa greater leverage for potential access to the Red Sea. According to a Memorandum of Understanding signed between Ethiopia and Somaliland in January 2024, Somaliland agreed to lease a part of its coastline to Ethiopia for 50 years. However, following negotiations facilitated by Türkiye, Addis Ababa has been discussing this issue with the federal authorities in Somalia. Both processes are still in the development phase.

Furthermore, Israel’s acknowledgment of Somaliland supports Ethiopia’s search for alternative strategic partners amid rising tensions with Egypt over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).

The second axis, known as the Mogadishu Axis (Somalia-Türkiye-Egypt-Saudi Arabia), aims to protect Somalia’s sovereignty against external intervention. Türkiye plays a crucial role here, having become Somalia’s primary foreign partner since the 2010s. In 2017, Ankara opened its largest military base abroad, TURKSOM, in Mogadishu. Türkiye has trained thousands of Somali soldiers, many of whom serve in the elite Gorgor unit, deployed against al-Shabaab. On February 9, 2026, the Turkish parliament extended the mandate of its naval forces operating in Somali waters, the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea for another year. Türkiye has also deployed F-16 fighter jets and helicopters to Mogadishu.

On February 9, 2026, Saudi Arabia signed a military agreement with Somalia aimed at ensuring “regional stability and security in the Red Sea.” Discussions included the establishment of a naval base in the port town of Las Qoray. Additionally, Riyadh is mediating and possibly sponsoring a potential deal for Somalia to acquire 24 JF-17 Thunder Block III fighters from Pakistan for $900 million.

Clearly, Egypt could also be part of the Mogadishu Axis, since it views the Israel-Somaliland-Ethiopia alliance as a possible strategic blockade. For Cairo, the Suez Canal is not just a matter of revenue but of national survival.

On February 8, 2026, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi met with his Somali counterpart, reaffirming that “Egypt will always remain a sincere partner and unwavering supporter of Somalia.” Following the meeting, Cairo deployed over 1,000 troops to Mogadishu as part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

The role of Iran

Iran is not part of any of the aforementioned axes, but it actively participates in the anti-Israeli Axis of Resistance which includes various groups across the Middle East. In fact, the Berbera Axis emerged in response to threats from Iran and its proxy forces, particularly the Houthis. 

Tehran’s relationship with Mogadishu has been strained. In 2016, Somalia severed diplomatic ties with Iran (acting in solidarity with Saudi Arabia), accusing it of meddling in its internal affairs and promoting Shiism. While relations were restored in 2024, tensions persist to this day.

Mogadishu has strongly condemned Iran’s recent attacks on critical energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, which have disrupted maritime shipping routes and exacerbated Somalia’s humanitarian crisis. 

Moreover, Iran is indirectly complicit in deals between the Houthis, Somali pirates, and the militant group Al-Shabaab, as it is the primary arms supplier for the Ansar Allah movement. Tehran uses Somalia’s coastline as a key transit point for weapons shipments to the Houthis. Incidents involving the interception of such shipments have been documented in the report by the Panel of Experts on Yemen, submitted to the UN Security Council on October 11, 2024. In recent years, this cooperation has evolved into a full-fledged regional network encompassing Al-Shabaab and local piracy groups.

Consequently, the rise of piracy off the coast of Somalia complicates an already volatile situation in the Horn of Africa. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland on December 26, 2025 marked a shift from episodic rivalries to a structured competitive struggle for the security architecture of the Red Sea.

In addition to established players like Türkiye and the UAE, long-time rivals Israel and Iran are a influencing the region’s political landscape. Amid the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, their confrontation in the Red Sea is growing, and this is vividly demonstrated by the Iranian proxy forces’ support for Somali pirates.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged the public to cut their fuel usage by returning to public transport and remote office work amid the energy supply disruptions caused by the US-Israel war on Iran.

International conflicts, especially the current Middle East conflict, have put pressure on oil prices and depleted India’s foreign exchange reserves, Modi said on Sunday.

“During the Corona period, we developed many systems of work from home, online meetings and video conferences, and we even became accustomed to them,” he said, adding, “If we restart these systems, it will be in the national interest.”

ICYMI: PM Modi Calls for ‘Collective National Effort’ to Ease Global Economic Pressures Brought on by West Asia War

PM Modi advocated for Indian citizens to use public transport and EVs where possible and called for a revival of ‘Covid-era’ efficiency measures, such as WFH and… pic.twitter.com/6L7PXweWUl

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) May 11, 2026

The prime minister urged citizens and institutions to prioritize remote work and digital interactions as steps to slash fuel consumption and ease pressure on the economy.

“We must prioritize work from home, online conferences, and virtual meetings again. We must also place a strong emphasis on saving foreign exchange, as petrol and diesel have become so expensive globally,” Modi said.

He also advocated for the wider use of public transport, including metro and railways, as well as electric vehicles for the movement of goods to reduce dependence on fuel imports.

India is the world’s third-largest energy consumer, and a rise in crude prices impacts its foreign exchange reserves and adds inflationary pressures to its economy through fuel, transport, and input costs. New Delhi is heavily dependent on crude oil imports, as it relies on foreign nations for 85% of its requirements. Close to 60% of India’s natural gas consumption is met with imports, most of which pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Modi positioned the appeal as a broader national effort to minimize the shocks of oil supply disruptions triggered by the Middle East conflict. Modi’s statement came on the day when US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s response to a proposal for ending the war.

India’s central bank has said a 10% rise in crude prices cuts economic growth by 15 basis points and lifts inflation by 30 basis points. Though the federal government has forecast economic growth for the current fiscal year at 6.8%-7.2%, economic agencies, including Goldman Sachs, have put forth estimates in the 5.9%-6.2% range.

In nature, nearly everything obeys the law of the pendulum. Motion begins with an impulse, accelerates under the pressure of kinetic energy, reaches an extreme point, and then, sooner or later, is pulled back toward balance. This balance is never absolute and never eternal.

It is only a temporary state of stability, a pause before the next shock, the next pressure, the next external force that sets the mechanism in motion again. Political history has often moved with the same rhythm. Empires expand and contract, revolutions radicalize and institutionalize, wars erupt and then search for a language of exhaustion. The current war of the United States and Israel against Iran is no exception.

An uneasy balance

The active phase of aggression against Iran, which began on February 28 with large scale US and Israeli strikes, lasted almost two months in its most intense form. The conflict opened with coordinated attacks on Iranian military, infrastructure, and leadership targets, after which Iran’s response transformed the initial strike into a wider regional confrontation. In the pendulum analogy, Iran’s retaliation became an additional impulse of kinetic energy. It did not stop the mechanism. It gave it another swing. It widened the arc of the war, pulled the Strait of Hormuz into the center of the crisis, disrupted energy flows, and forced Washington to confront the fact that military pressure alone was no longer producing political control.

Now the pendulum appears to be moving back toward its point of equilibrium. Not toward peace in the full moral sense of the word, and not toward reconciliation, but toward temporary stabilization. In politics, equilibrium is often less a triumph of wisdom than a recognition of limits. The US has discovered the limits of coercion, Iran has discovered the limits of escalation, and Israel has discovered that even military superiority cannot easily enforce a durable regional order. The region itself has once again discovered that no war around Iran remains confined to Iran.

The first round of negotiations in Islamabad failed, but it did show that diplomacy was still working beneath the surface. In early April, Iran and the US received a plan for ending hostilities, described as a two-stage framework that would begin with a ceasefire and move later toward a broader final agreement involving nuclear restrictions and sanctions relief. Later reporting described a one-page memorandum that would declare an end to the war and open a 30-day negotiation window on the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, and US sanctions.

It is clear that after destructive military action, diplomacy cannot immediately produce trust. It must first produce channels of communication and establish that the other side is capable of delivering on limited commitments. Even a bad trust, a thin trust, a distrust wrapped in procedure, may be better than no communication at all. Wars often end not because the parties suddenly believe each other, but because they begin to fear what the absence of any understanding might produce.

The first track of the reported two-track structure is a peace arrangement, or more precisely, an arrangement for stopping the war. The second track is a nuclear settlement, which would require more time, more legal formality, and probably a Security Council framework. According to reports, the emerging plan would first use a memorandum of understanding to announce an end to hostilities across several fronts, including Lebanon, while both sides would commit to respecting each other’s territorial sovereignty. After that, the parties would receive roughly 30 days to negotiate sanctions relief, compensation, the release of frozen assets, nuclear limits, and the reopening of maritime routes.

Such a formula reflects the real balance of pressure. Washington wants a nuclear agreement, but it needs the Strait of Hormuz reopened and the war politically closed. Tehran wants sanctions relief and security guarantees, but it also needs time to repair damage, restore internal economic confidence, and convert battlefield endurance into diplomatic leverage. The US reportedly offered partial sanctions relief and the release of some Iranian frozen funds as part of the emerging framework, while Iran would accept limits or a moratorium connected to uranium enrichment and maritime restrictions.

How the US played itself into a corner

The American position is weakened by a central contradiction: Washington entered the confrontation with overwhelming force, but it did not receive overwhelming political support. NATO allies praised certain objectives, but repeatedly avoided direct participation in the US campaign. Later, they refused to join Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports, proposing instead to help only after fighting ended. That was a sign that American power, while still enormous, no longer automatically produces allied obedience in wars that others consider optional, risky, or politically toxic.

Washington’s regional partners were also cautious. Gulf states may fear Iran, but they also fear becoming the battlefield on which American and Iranian escalation is settled. The Strait of Hormuz crisis demonstrated that the geography of this war gives Iran a lever that cannot be bombed away without consequences for everyone. Iran’s military response inflicted costs on American positions and assets in the region, while its control over the maritime choke point turned a war against Iran into a global economic problem.

For Washington, this is political defeat, even if the military balance remains in its favor. A great power can win battles and still lose the narrative, wreak destruction but fail to force the opponent to surrender. It can announce success and still be forced back into negotiations with the same state it intended to break. The Trump administration tried to rehabilitate its position through pressure, blockade, and the announcement of Project Freedom, an operation intended to secure or reopen passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump later paused the operation while pointing to progress in talks with Iran.

First came force. Then came the blockade. Then came an operation to overcome the consequences of the blockade and a counter-blockade. Then came a pause in that operation because diplomacy again became necessary. In chess this is called zugzwang, a state where every available move worsens the player’s position. Escalation risks a larger regional war. De-escalation looks like retreat. Maintaining the blockade hurts global trade and alienates partners. Lifting it without concessions looks like failure. Demanding total Iranian capitulation makes agreement impossible. Accepting partial compromise undermines the original rhetoric of maximum pressure.

A shaky foundation

The new de-escalation plan recognizes that Iran cannot be wished out of the regional order, that American military power cannot secure Hormuz without political arrangements, and that Israel’s preference for permanent strategic pressure cannot by itself produce a stable Middle East. If the plan is real and if the parties accept its core logic, it could become a temporary bridge from war to managed confrontation.

Yet the risks remain enormous, and the first of those risks is Israel. Any agreement that reduces pressure on Iran will be viewed by Israeli hardliners as a strategic defeat. Israel may fear that even a limited peace memorandum gives Iran time to rebuild, rearm, and restore deterrence. If Israeli leaders conclude that diplomacy is freezing the conflict on terms favorable to Tehran, they may attempt to sabotage the process through new strikes, intelligence operations, or pressure on Washington. The broader war has already included multiple fronts, and reports on the emerging state of affairs explicitly mention hostilities beyond Iran, including in Lebanon. Any front left unresolved can become the spark that pushes the pendulum outward again.

The second risk is American domestic politics. A pragmatic agreement before the midterm elections may serve Trump as a way to reduce pressure from voters tired of another war in the Middle East. But the same agreement could also be used as a pause for regrouping. Washington may accept temporary stabilization now, and after the elections return to a more coercive scenario, claiming that Iran violated the spirit of the deal. This is why Tehran must negotiate earnestly, but not dismantle its deterrence in exchange for promises that can be reversed by the next American political calculation.

The third risk is the nuclear issue itself. A peace memorandum can be short because silence often helps diplomacy. But a nuclear agreement cannot be built on silence. It must answer hard questions about enrichment, stockpiles, verification, sanctions sequencing, compensation, and the legal durability of commitments. The earlier JCPOA experience remains the shadow over any new arrangement. Iran will be justified to ask why it should accept restrictions if a future US administration can abandon the agreement. Washington, in turn will want some guarantees that it can trust Iran’s nuclear restraint after war. Resolving these mattes will take specific mechanisms, not mere rhetoric.

Still, the possibility of a new agreement is real if viewed pragmatically. The pendulum is settling toward equilibrium, if slowly, because the previous level of kinetic energy has become unsustainable. The forces that pushed the system into motion are still present, but the system seeks rest because continued motion threatens to break the mechanism.

The coming weeks will show whether the new two-stage plan is a genuine bridge or only another tactical pause. If the memorandum is signed, it may pull the pendulum into temporary balance. If Israel rejects stabilization, or if Washington treats the agreement as a pause before renewed pressure, the pendulum will again receive an impulse. And if that happens, the next swing may be wider, faster, and more destructive than the last.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that he plans to “wean” his country off US financial aid within the next decade, while blaming social media “manipulation” for declining public support for his country among Americans.

Israel is the largest recipient of aggregate US foreign aid since World War II, having received more than $300 billion in economic and military assistance from Washington since 1948.

Under a ten-year agreement signed in 2016, the US committed $38 billion in military aid to Israel through 2028, including $5 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system. Overall, American assistance accounts for roughly 16% of the country’s military budget.

In an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes aired on Sunday, Netanyahu was asked whether it was time for the Jewish state to “reexamine and possibly reset” its financial relationship with Washington.

“Absolutely. I’ve said this to President Trump. I’ve said it to our own people. Their jaws drop,” he replied.

“I want to draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have,” the prime minister said, stating that the process should “start now” and be completed “over the next ten years.”

Netanyahu noted that he is well aware of declining support for Israel in the US. A recent Pew poll indicated that six in ten Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of Israel, up seven percentage points since last year and nearly 20 points since 2022.

The Israeli leader outright dismissed the notion that the war in Gaza might have “contributed to this negative impression of Israel,” blaming the shift almost entirely on social media.

“Israel is besieged on the media front, on the propaganda front, and we’ve not done well on the propaganda war,” he said.

“We have several countries that basically manipulated social media with bot farms with fake addresses, to break the American sympathy to Israel.”

More than 71,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli war in Gaza, which was triggered by the deadly October 7, 2023 Hamas raid. Israeli military operations in Lebanon and Iran have also resulted in a large civilian death toll, fueling criticism among the American public and prominent commentators, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Candace Owens.

In March, US Senator Bernie Sanders filed three resolutions seeking to block nearly $660 million in arms sales to Israel, arguing that three-quarters of Democrats and two-thirds of independents oppose Washington sending weapons to the country.

The Ukrainian military has violated the Victory Day ceasefire more than 16,000 times since it took effect on Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.

In a statement on Sunday, the ministry said Ukrainian forces had carried out drone and artillery strikes on civilian sites in Crimea, Belgorod Region, Kursk Region, Kaluga Region, Rostov Region, and Krasnodar Region. In Belgorod alone, five civilians, including a teenager, were injured in Ukrainian drone attacks, according to regional governor Vyacheslav Gladkov.

Ukrainian troops also carried out 676 strikes against Russian positions using artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems, mortars, and tanks. Kiev’s forces launched 6,331 drone attacks and attempted eight assaults on Russian positions.

In total, the Russian MOD has recorded 16,071 ceasefire violations by Kiev’s forces since Friday, the statement said. Under those circumstances, Russian troops responded “symmetrically” by targeting firing positions, drone launch sites, and command centers. 

Russian forces “continue to strictly observe the ceasefire regime and remain at previously occupied lines and positions,” the ministry stated.

The Victory Day truce announced by Russia last week to mark the 81st anniversary of the end of World War II was initially set to expire on Sunday, but following a proposal from US President Donald Trump, Moscow agreed to extend it for two more days.

Throughout the conflict, Moscow has repeatedly declared temporary truces during major religious and national holidays. Last month, Russia announced an Easter ceasefire, which the Defense Ministry said was violated by Ukrainian forces more than 6,500 times within 32 hours.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky issued several veiled threats ahead of the Victory Day celebrations, prompting Moscow to warn its foreign partners about the possible consequences. The Russian Defense Ministry warned that a retaliatory strike on central Kiev would be carried out if attempts were made to disrupt Victory Day events in Moscow, and urged residents and diplomats to leave the Ukrainian capital in advance.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the warning apparently reached Washington and contributed to Trump’s extended ceasefire initiative. He also said that while the globalist faction of Western elites is still effectively waging war against Russia, using Ukrainians as proxies, the conflict is heading towards its end.

The British Army has airdropped a team of medics accompanied by paratroopers to treat a suspected hantavirus case on the remote island of Tristan da Cunha. The patient was among the passengers who left the Dutch-flagged cruise vessel MV Hondius before the deadly outbreak was confirmed.

The cruise liner, now dubbed the “plague ship” by some media, initially carried 175 guests and crew from 23 countries when it suffered an outbreak of a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings. The outbreak was caused by the Andes strain of hantavirus – the only one known to be capable of human-to-human transmission through close contact.

One of the passengers left the vessel on his home island of Tristan da Cunha, located in the southern Atlantic, on April 14 – three days after the first death – and reported his first symptoms two weeks later. The man is said to be in stable condition.

9,788km from the UK across the South Atlantic, one operation 🪂@BritishArmy and @RoyalAirForce joined forces to deliver urgent medical supplies to one of the world’s most remote communities, Tristan da Cunha. pic.twitter.com/uOQJP6pmcy

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026

On Saturday, a British Royal Air Force A400M aircraft dropped two medics and six paratroopers on the island, along with oxygen and medical supplies to aid in the treatment of the case. The small island, with a population of fewer than 300, has no airstrip and is reachable only by sea.

UK specialist paratroopers and military clinicians have carried out a daring parachute operation to deliver critical medical support to Tristan da Cunha – Britain’s most remote inhabited Overseas Territory – after a suspected case of Hantavirus was identified on the island. pic.twitter.com/w0xPU8fvcw

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) May 10, 2026

The World Health Organization has so far reported eight hantavirus cases linked to the MV Hondius, including six confirmed cases and two still considered suspected. Three people have died from the infection. Authorities are also trying to trace the contacts of some two dozen people who disembarked at St. Helena on April 24, along with the body of the first victim.

The distressed vessel anchored at the industrial port of Granadilla in the Spanish Canary Islands, where the passengers were medically checked and ferried ashore over the weekend. Most were then repatriated to their home countries and placed in quarantine. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who personally oversaw the operation, reassured the public that hantavirus, while “serious,” is “not another COVID.”

Patient zero is believed to be a 70-year-old Dutch man, who was the first to die from the disease. According to the New York Post, he was an ornithologist who visited a landfill near the Argentinian city of Ushuaia for birdwatching shortly before boarding the ship. There, he and his wife, who also died, could have inhaled particles from the feces of local rats known to carry the disease.

US President Donald Trump has called Iran’s response to Washington’s latest proposal for ending the war “totally unacceptable,” after Tehran insisted it would not surrender its strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz without concessions.

The details of Iran’s response have not been made public, but according to US media reports, Tehran’s counterproposal focused on ending the war and securing guarantees that hostilities would not resume, while offering none of the nuclear concessions sought by Washington.

“I have just read the response from Iran’s so-called ‘Representatives.’ I don’t like it — TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. He previously told Axios that the Iranian reply was “inappropriate,” but did not elaborate.

Iran’s response allegedly called for a broader end to hostilities across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, before the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and further nuclear talks, according to AP. Trump, however, has continued to demand immediate restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and has repeatedly threatened to resume large-scale military action if Tehran refuses to accept US terms.

Trump has repeatedly extended the ceasefire, arguing that Iran’s leadership is divided and unable to produce a unified response. Iranian officials, however, have publicly rejected Washington’s terms as an ultimatum, accusing the US of trying to turn negotiations into surrender talks after failing to achieve its stated goals on the battlefield.

Tehran has also made clear that it views control over the Strait of Hormuz as a central bargaining chip, with Mohammad Mokhber, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, comparing the waterway’s strategic value to an “atomic bomb” and vowing that Iran would not “forfeit the gains of this war.”

The latest exchange comes after weeks of fragile diplomacy and intermittent clashes around the Strait of Hormuz, where the US has enforced a naval blockade and Iran has sought to assert control over the strategic waterway.

US officials had hoped Iran’s long-awaited response would show progress after a 10-day delay, Axios reported. An Iranian source, however, dismissed Trump’s dissatisfaction, telling Tasnim that Tehran’s proposal was aimed at protecting Iranian rights rather than pleasing the American president.

The diplomatic setback also comes as tensions rise over possible European involvement in the Gulf. France and Britain had been discussing a multinational mission to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, while Tehran has warned that any such deployment would draw an immediate response. 

US President Donald Trump has said his country will get hold of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium “at some point,” repeating one of his key demands in peace talks.

In an interview aired on Sunday, journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked Trump what stage the war with the Islamic Republic had reached, considering that the US has yet to secure Iran’s fissile material.

“Well, we’ll get that at some point, whatever we want,” he said. “We have it surveilled, you know, I did a thing called Space Force… If anybody got near the place, we will know about it. And we’ll blow them up.”

The US and Israel launched their attack on Iran in late February, framing the war as a way to preempt Tehran’s development of a nuclear weapon.

In its latest proposal, Washington doubled down on its demand that Iran promise never to develop such a weapon, stop all enrichment activities and give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Russia has repeatedly offered to aid in the peace process and help remove the material.

“Not only did we make such an offer; we already implemented it once before, back in 2015. Iran has complete trust in us, and not without reason,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told journalists during Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on Saturday. Russia has never violated its agreements and continues to cooperate with Iran on its peaceful nuclear energy programs, he added.

Iran retains more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, according to International Atomic Energy Agency estimates. Weapons-grade levels typically require 90% enrichment and higher.

While Iran has not published a response to the latest US offer, it has consistently refused to hand over its uranium stockpile or halt its civilian nuclear program, while demanding that Washington provide guarantees of non-aggression and remove its forces from the region. Tehran has also long denied plans to build a nuclear bomb.

Russia expects Armenia to explain its lack of reaction to the “anti-Russian” statements made by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky during a recent summit in Yerevan, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Providing a venue for such rhetoric goes against the spirit of partnership between the two nations, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday.

Zelensky was in Yerevan earlier this week for a two-day summit of the European Political Community (EPC), an EU-led intergovernmental group launched in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. He asked for more military and financial assistance from the West while claiming that Moscow was scared that Ukrainian “drones may buzz over Red Square” ahead of Victory Day celebrations in Russia.

The Russian Defense Ministry then warned that if Ukraine attempted to disrupt the festivities with attacks, a major retaliatory strike would follow.

“We would surely expect some explanations” from Armenia, Peskov said, pointing to what he called a lack of any attempt to “balance” Zelensky’s rhetoric on the part of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who was hosting the summit. Moscow does not understand “why anti-Russian statements are coming” from Armenian soil, he added.

On Thursday, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the Armenian ambassador in Moscow to protest “opening the floor” for Zelensky’s “terrorist threats against Russia.”

Peskov maintained that Yerevan has a “sovereign right” to define its foreign policy and host any summits it wants, adding that Moscow only wants it not to take an anti-Russian position.

Relations between Russia and Armenia started to cool after Pashinyan came to power in 2018. During his time in office, Armenia lost a proxy war with neighboring Azerbaijan over the latter’s region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Pashinyan then attempted to fault Moscow for not providing military assistance at the time.

The headlines are filled with reports of growing discord inside NATO. Donald Trump openly questions the value of allies who, in his view, fail to carry their share of the burden. Western Europe complains about the unreliability of its American patron while simultaneously pledging loyalty to the Atlantic alliance. Beneath the daily noise, however, something far more significant is taking place: the gradual transformation of Europe’s political and military order.

For decades, the United States guaranteed Western Europe’s security while those Europeans concentrated on prosperity and welfare. That arrangement now appears increasingly unstable. Washington’s strategic priorities have shifted toward Asia and the confrontation with China. Europe remains important as a logistical and political platform for American power, but it is no longer the unquestioned center of US grand strategy.

Trump didn’t create this process, though he has accelerated it dramatically. His irritation with NATO is not simply personal caprice. It reflects a deeper American conclusion that the era of underwriting Western European security indefinitely has become too expensive and strategically distracting.

The alliance itself was built for another age and another purpose. NATO was designed to contain the Soviet Union and anchor American influence in Europe. It was never intended to become a global instrument for confronting China. Yet this is precisely the direction in which many in Washington would like to push it.

These Europeans, however, do not share America’s sense of urgency regarding Beijing. For most of them, China is an economic competitor, not an existential threat. Russia, by contrast, remains the central security obsession of much of the bloc, especially in Northern and Eastern members. 

This divergence is beginning to reshape NATO from within.

France has emerged as the loudest advocate of greater Western European strategic independence. Paris retains a long tradition of military autonomy and still possesses something few other European powers can claim: a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. France cannot realistically replace the American nuclear umbrella over Western Europe, but it increasingly seeks to position itself as the ideological leader of a more self-reliant bloc.

Britain, meanwhile, continues its traditional balancing act between the EU and the United States. London insists on its independence from Brussels while simultaneously searching for external support from Washington. Northern and Eastern states remain intensely hawkish and committed to confrontation with Russia, regardless of whether the Americans remain fully engaged. Southern Europe appears far less enthusiastic, distracted instead by migration, economic stagnation and domestic instability.

As so often in European history, however, the decisive factor will likely be Germany.

Much of post-war Europe was built around one central idea: Germany must never again become an independent geopolitical force. After 1945 the country was divided, militarily constrained and tightly integrated into Western structures under American supervision.

Even German reunification in 1990 was accepted partly because Germany remained embedded inside NATO. At the time, many believed that anchoring a unified Germany within the Atlantic alliance was the safest possible arrangement for Europe.

Ironically, that very decision became one of the starting points of today’s geopolitical crisis. NATO expansion eastward created a security architecture that Moscow increasingly viewed as hostile and destabilizing.

Now, three and a half decades later, Europe may again face the prospect of a Germany becoming strategically autonomous, though this time under entirely different circumstances.

Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a “new era” in 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. For some time the slogan appeared largely symbolic. Under Germany’s current leadership, however, concrete changes are beginning to emerge.

Berlin is discussing accelerated rearmament, expanded military infrastructure and legislative changes aimed at increasing recruitment for the Bundeswehr. The debate over compulsory military service, once politically unthinkable, has returned to the mainstream.

Recent comments by Franz-Josef Overbeck, the Catholic military bishop of the Bundeswehr, are revealing. Overbeck openly called for Germany to send forces to the Strait of Hormuz and argued that compulsory military service should be restored not only for men but also for women.

His reasoning was blunt. Germany, he argued, can no longer remain on the sidelines in an increasingly dangerous world.

Many within Germany’s political establishment likely agree with him privately. Politicians, however, remain cautious because German society is still deeply uncomfortable with militarism and foreign deployments. Decades of post-war political culture have created a pacifist instinct that remains powerful among voters.

The bishop, unlike elected officials, can speak more freely.

At the same time, Germany faces mounting economic difficulties. This is not merely a temporary downturn. The old German economic model rested heavily on cheap Russian energy and export-driven industrial growth, not to mention stable globalization. Much of that foundation has eroded.

As a result, discussions that would once have been politically toxic are now occurring openly. Militarization is increasingly presented not simply as a security necessity, but also as a potential engine of economic renewal.

Only a few years ago such arguments would have sounded extraordinary in Germany. Today they are becoming part of mainstream debate.

This is where the historical dimension becomes impossible to ignore.

German political culture has long been characterized by discipline and a tendency to follow strategic paths with remarkable determination once a consensus forms. In calmer periods this can be an enormous strength. In moments of geopolitical confrontation, however, it can become dangerous.

The path on which Russia once again serves as Germany’s principal antagonist is deeply familiar from European history.

For decades after the Second World War, many believed that lesson had finally been learned. Economic interdependence between Russia and Germany was supposed to make large-scale confrontation irrational. The collapse of that assumption has shocked much of Europe.

Trump’s pressure on NATO is therefore acting as a catalyst for changes that were already underway. Western Europe is being pushed, reluctantly and unevenly, toward greater military independence. Whether this ultimately strengthens NATO or gradually hollows it out remains unclear.

The alliance is unlikely to collapse outright. Institutions of this scale rarely disappear suddenly. More likely is a gradual transformation into something narrower and more fragmented.

A core bloc focused primarily on containing Russia may emerge within NATO, while the United States shifts more of its attention toward Asia.

Whether such a bloc becomes effective will depend above all on Germany. If Berlin fully embraces rearmament and strategic emancipation from American oversight, Europe’s political landscape could change profoundly and by the end of Trump’s presidency, this process may already be far advanced.

Thus, once again, Europe may discover that history is not something safely confined to textbooks. The old rivalries and anxieties that shaped the continent for centuries have an unsettling habit of returning precisely when people convince themselves they are gone forever.

This article was first published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and was translated and edited by the RT team 

The EU plan to phase out Russia as an energy supplier will end in the US reselling Russian oil and gas to Europe at far higher prices, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned.

Speaking in Bratislava on Sunday, Fico said Washington has “a huge interest in buying all transit infrastructures” across the European continent.

“So the Russians will supply the Americans with gas and oil at standard prices, and the Americans will sell it to us with an American high-margin surcharge. Are we such idiots already?” he said.

Already, “the share of Russian liquefied gas in Europe is increasing,” Fico added, pointing out the hypocrisy of Brussels singling out countries like Slovakia to pressure over Russian fuel supplies. “So we can’t, but France can buy liquefied gas from Russia.”

Contrary to the EU, Bratislava’s position is to “diversify the supply options for all fuels,” he said.

In February, the European Commission doubled down on long-standing plans to phase out Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027.

While the US-Israeli war on Iran and the subsequent fuel crisis have pushed Brussels to prepare for “the worst-case scenarios,” the EU will not abandon its pivot away from Russian liquefied natural gas, the bloc’s energy chief, Dan Jorgensen, told the Financial Times last month. Brussels will instead rely on more expensive supplies from the US and other partners, he said.

Just last week, Washington launched a multi-billion dollar push to invest in and build a major US pipeline project in Central and Eastern Europe, which still imports Russian gas via the TurkStream pipeline and its extension – Balkan Stream.

According to Moscow, such US projects, as well as sanctions against Russian oil companies, are part of a sweeping strategy to capture the energy market.

Washington is aiming to monopolize all international energy supply routes in an attempt to attain global economic dominance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told TV BRICS earlier this year.

Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silina has dismissed Defense Minister Andris Spruds after Ukrainian drones hit oil storage facilities on the Baltic state’s territory.

“The drone incident this week clearly showed that the leadership of the defense sector failed to deliver on its promise of a safe sky over our country,” Silina wrote on X.

She added that Spruds had lost both her trust and the trust of the public.

Spruds, however, stated that he had already decided to resign himself. He accused the prime minister of rushing to announce his dismissal for political reasons and lying about informing him and his party, the Progressives, in advance.

The incident highlights growing tensions and security concerns in the Baltic states amid the ongoing Ukraine conflict.

Several NATO countries bordering Russia have recently reported cases of Ukrainian unmanned aircraft entering their airspace and crashing instead of striking targets inside Russia. Earlier this week, Latvian officials said two drones – which the Russian military identified as Ukrainian Lyuty-type fixed-wing aircraft – crossed into the country overnight. One remains unaccounted for, while another sparked a fire near the town of Rezekne, roughly 40 km from the Russian border.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga commented on the scandal on Friday, claiming he had addressed the issue with Riga and apologized to the three Baltic states and Finland. The top diplomat also attempted to shift the blame to Russia.

The Ukrainian military needs to pull back from Donbass for the peace process to move forward, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said. Talks between Moscow and Kiev will remain stalled until then, he told journalist Pavel Zarubin, adding that the Ukrainian government knows this.

Russia and Ukraine have held several rounds of talks, including with US mediation, since early 2025, when President Donald Trump returned to the White House. The process has slowed down following the latest US-mediated meeting in Geneva in February.

According to Ushakov, any new meetings will not change the situation unless Ukrainian troops are withdrawn. “Until [Ukraine] makes the step, one can hold some more rounds, dozens of rounds [of talks] but we will remain in the same spot,” he said.

“They know in Ukraine that it must be done and they will do it sooner or later,” the presidential aide stated. Ushakov also said that Moscow maintains close contacts with Washington when it comes to the peace process, adding that Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, could visit Russia “soon.”

“The US is now more preoccupied with the Middle East crisis but they are not abandoning the Ukraine issue,” he told Zaurbin, while saying that Moscow and Washington “actively communicate by phone.”

Earlier this week, Ushakov called a potential Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbass “one serious step” that would greatly advance the settlement process. Military action would cease after that, he stated on Thursday.

The two Donbass republics voted to join Russia together with two other former Ukrainian territories – Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – in autumn 2022. In March, President Vladimir Putin stated that only between 15% and 17% of the Donetsk People’s Republic remains under Kiev’s control. In April, the Russian military reported fully liberating the neighboring Lugansk People’s Republic.

The Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly refused to both recognize the status of the new Russian regions or to cede any territory to Moscow. It also maintains that recapturing the regions incorporated into Russia is one of its ultimate goals.

Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov has accused France of hypocrisy after prosecutors expanded a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X. Durov said French authorities were violating citizens’ privacy while accusing the social media platform of similar conduct.

The entrepreneur made the remarks on Sunday, just days after the Paris prosecutor’s office announced that it would seek new charges against X over alleged illegal sexual deepfakes made by the platform’s Grok AI, as well as unlawful data extraction and other crimes.

“The French government is accusing X of the very things the French government itself is doing,” Durov tweeted.

The French government is panicking. They know a major political shift in 2027 will expose their misdeeds – so they’re trying to silence free speech platforms under whatever pretext they think they can get away with.

He called on the international community to back X against what he called the French state’s “immoral assault” on the social media app.

French investigators initially launched their investigation of X and Grok in January, alleging that the platforms’ algorithms were biased and accusing the company of illegal data gathering and of possessing and spreading sexualized deepfakes created by its AI, including images involving minors.

The tech mogul has denied any wrongdoing and dismissed the legal action as a “political attack.”

Last month, the US Department of Justice reportedly denied a request from French prosecutors to cooperate in the investigation. US President Donald Trump’s administration has long been critical of what it has called attacks on free speech and political opposition in the EU and UK.

Durov’s Telegram has also faced legal troubles in France. The entrepreneur was arrested at a Paris airport in 2024 and indicted on a dozen charges after French prosecutors accused him of being complicit in crimes committed using his social media platform. Durov has since been allowed to leave France, despite the ongoing investigation.

The entrepreneur has repeatedly called the arrest absurd and condemned crackdowns on social media networks as a concerted attack on free speech.

Long before the D-Day landings came to symbolize the decisive turning point of the Second World War in many Western narratives, the Soviet Union had already spent years bearing the brunt of the war against Nazi Germany, suffering massive losses while repeatedly urging Britain and the US to open a second front.

By June 1944, when Allied troops landed in Normandy, the Soviet Union had already spent almost three years bearing the brunt of the war, grinding down Hitler’s forces on the Eastern Front after suffering devastating losses and the brutal occupation of much of its territory.

Not only did 27 million Soviet citizens died during the war – a toll unmatched by any other Allied nation – approximately 70% to over 80% of all German military deaths in WWII occurred on the Eastern Front, fighting the USSR. Yet in much of today’s Western discourse, the Soviet role in defeating Hitler is often overshadowed.

The issue resurfaced recently after US President Donald Trump delivered a Victory in Europe Day statement praising the US and Britain for defeating Nazi Germany without mentioning the Soviet Union.

RT’s Caleb Maupin argued that many Western countries that later formed NATO remain uncomfortable acknowledging the scale of the Soviet sacrifice in World War Two, saying it conflicts with the anti-Russia narrative that has dominated in recent decades.

Ukraine should not be using Estonian airspace for drone attacks on Russia, the Baltic nation’s defense minister, Hanno Pevkur, has said.

Over the past few weeks, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland have reported several cases of Ukrainian UAVs crashing in their territory. Moscow previously accused NATO members of quietly permitting Ukraine to target Russian territory, particularly energy facilities in northwestern Leningrad Region.

Earlier this week, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said that he told Vladimir Zelensky that Helsinki deems Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace “unacceptable.”

Speaking about incursions by Kiev’s UAVs on Sunday, Pevkur said that the Estonian authorities “will start dealing with this very quickly now.” Kiev would have to explain “what exactly it means and what they themselves had in mind by it,” he added.

“Certainly, the easiest way for the Ukrainians to keep their drones away from our territory is to control their activities better,” the defense minister said, as cited by ERR website.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna said earlier this week that Kiev has every right to carry out attacks inside Russia, but added that Tallinn is concerned about the possibility of more serious incidents involving UAVs.

“Russia could take control of Ukrainian drones and send them toward us,” Tsahkna claimed.

Latvian Defense Minister Andris Spruds previously declined to criticize Ukraine, insisting that it “has every right to defend itself.” Breaches of Riga’s airspace by foreign aircraft will continue as long as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine remains unresolved, Spruds claimed, blaming Moscow for the incursions.

Kiev is considering sending Ukrainian expert teams “to help directly strengthen the airspace” of the four countries, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga wrote on X on Friday.

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu said in April that either Western air defenses are proving ineffective against Ukrainian UAVs or the Baltic States and Finland “deliberately provide their airspace, thereby becoming open accomplices in aggression against Russia.”

In the latter case, Moscow has the right to self-defense in response to an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Shoigu warned.

US President Donald Trump has indicated that moving American troops from Germany to Poland is on the table. The statement comes as the Pentagon prepares to withdraw around 5,000 soldiers from the Western European nation over the next year.

Trump first announced plans to withdraw the troops from the country earlier this month. The announcement came shortly after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Washington “obviously has no strategy” in the Iran war and that the US “is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”

Trump has since gone on to warn that the Pentagon would be “cutting a lot further than 5,000” of the roughly 36,000 active-duty service members from Germany.

“Well Poland would like that,” Trump told journalists on Friday when asked about the prospect. “We have a great relationship with Poland. I have a great relationship with the president. ... I like him a lot, so that’s possible.”

Polish President Karol Nawrocki said on Wednesday that Poland is prepared to host US troops withdrawn from Germany and that he would personally lobby Trump to redeploy them eastward. However, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned on Monday that Warsaw should not “poach” troops from its allies.

Trump has also threatened more members of the US-led military bloc with troop withdrawals. Last week, the US president claimed he would consider removing some American soldiers stationed in Italy and Spain, stating that the former hadn’t been “of any help” to the US as the latter had been “absolutely horrible.”

Spain has denied the use of a naval base near Cadiz for strikes on Iran and closed its airspace to US aircraft involved in the campaign, with officials and Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez condemning the war as illegal and unjust.

Italy has also denied access to its air base in Sicily, citing the need for prior authorization. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said the conflict has worsened regional instability and driven up energy prices, and called Trump’s attacks on Pope Leo XIV over his opposition to the war “unacceptable.”

The US president has repeatedly called NATO a “paper tiger” after allies refused to join the US-Israeli bombing campaign in the Middle East, and has accused the bloc of failing to properly support US efforts in Ukraine.

Global oil inventories are shrinking at the fastest pace on record amid continuing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, Bloomberg has reported.

The outlet cited data from Morgan Stanley on Saturday showing that global oil stockpiles fell by about 4.8 million barrels per day between March 1 and April 25. The figure surpasses previous inventory drawdown records tracked by the International Energy Agency, it added.

The Strait of Hormuz off Iran’s coast normally carries about one-fifth of the global oil and LNG trade. Tanker traffic through the waterway has remained heavily disrupted following the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran and repeated accusations by both sides of violating a fragile ceasefire.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump warned that Washington may revive and expand “Project Freedom,” a naval operation in the Strait of Hormuz, if a peace deal is not reached with Iran. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that military options remain on the table if diplomacy fails.

If disruptions continue, commercial oil inventories could fall to “operational stress levels” by June and reach “operational floor” levels by September – meaning stockpiles would approach the minimum volumes needed to keep pipelines, export terminals, and refineries functioning efficiently, Bloomberg wrote.

The US, which has increased crude and fuel exports to offset global supply disruptions, has also been drawing down its domestic inventories, Bloomberg noted. According to Energy Information Administration data, US fuel stockpiles recently fell to 11% below the five-year seasonal average. Despite President Trump’s claims that the US “doesn’t need” the Strait of Hormuz, the country still imports some crude oil from Persian Gulf producers.

The disruption of Gulf oil flows has reinforced the importance of Russian energy supplies despite a push by the EU to phase out imports of fossil fuels from the sanctioned country. According to media reports, Brussels has delayed plans for a permanent ban on Russian oil amid concerns that removing more crude from the market could tighten fuel supplies and push energy prices higher across the bloc.

Scuffles broke out in several European cities as Ukrainian nationals and pro-Kiev activists tried to disrupt Victory Day celebrations across the continent on May 9.

Russian expats in Europe and members of local civic organizations marked the 81st anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany by laying flowers at memorials to Soviet troops and participating in ‘Immortal Regiment’ marches, carrying portraits of their relatives who fought in the Great Patriotic War. The commemorative events went on despite provocations by supporters of Ukraine.

The ‘Immortal Regiment’ march in the Spanish city of Barcelona was peaceful until participants were approached by a group of protesters, who also carried an anti-fascist banner, but began chanting anti-Russian slogans. The tensions escalated into a brief physical altercation between the sides, with the provocateurs retreating before the police could intervene.

In the Polish capital, Warsaw, pro-Kiev activists attempted to disrupt the flower laying ceremony at a Soviet memorial cemetery. They set up banners with nationalist slogans and used loudspeakers to play obscene songs. Footage captured a woman being pushed after attempting to snatch the Russian flag from one of the activists. Major clashes were avoided due to a large police presence in the area.

Minor scuffles occurred outside a Soviet memorial in Berlin’s Treptower Park after protesters carrying Ukrainian flags arrived on the scene, with at least two people being arrested. The German police also detained a number of people across the city for violating a ban on displaying Russian and Soviet symbols.

Members of the Ukrainian community wrapped in national flags also attempted to interfere with Victory Day celebrations in the Swiss city of Geneva, shouting nationalist slogans and singing Ukrainian songs.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said earlier this week that “there were, there are and there will be provocations” during commemorative events, but that Moscow was ready for them. In a separate interview with RIA Novosti, Zakharova suggested that in Europe “many are being paid” to display hatred towards Russia.

Around 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives during the Second World War, with Moscow repeatedly accusing the US and EU of distorting historical truth and trying to belittle the key role of the USSR in the victory against Nazi Germany.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has pushed back against what he described as a “new Iron Curtain” between the EU and Russia, calling for the restoration of pragmatic dialogue with Moscow instead of continuing “hatred.”

Fico, who has described himself as one of the EU’s “black sheep” over his stance on Russia, was the only sitting EU leader to travel to Moscow for Victory Day celebrations on May 9 and to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, drawing harsh criticism from Brussels and several member states.

In a video statement posted on Facebook on Saturday, Fico accused the EU of downplaying the Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany. Speaking aboard the Slovak government jet while returning from Moscow, he warned that Brussels’ Russia policy was damaging the bloc’s competitiveness and energy security.

He also shared footage of his visit.

“I reject a new Iron Curtain between the European Union and Russia. We are interested in standard, friendly, and mutually beneficial relations with this world power,” Fico said.

He argued that the EU was making a “huge mistake” by relying on sanctions and military support for Ukraine instead of direct political dialogue with Moscow.

He said his talks in the Kremlin focused heavily on energy cooperation, accusing the EU of pursuing an “ideological” policy of cutting off Russian energy supplies at the expense of European competitiveness.

“We cannot, just out of hatred for Russia, replace one energy dependence with another – this time American,” he argued. According to energy data, the US supplied more than half of the bloc’s liquefied natural gas imports in 2025.

The European Commission has reportedly removed a proposal to fully phase out Russian oil imports from its near-term agenda amid concerns that the Iran war and continuing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could further raise fuel prices and destabilize European energy supplies.

Ukrainian enlistment officers have reportedly opened fire at members of the Roma community who were attempting to storm a recruitment center in Transcarpathia, western Ukraine.

The incident occurred in the village of Mezhgorye on Saturday after a press gang seized a local man, according to Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Glagola. Around 30 people reportedly gathered outside the enlistment office and tried to force their way inside by hurling objects and breaking down doors.

The journalist claimed that several shots were fired using a pistol and a Kalashnikov rifle. He added that officials initially denied the shooting, saying that only two blank rounds had been fired, which contradicted footage in which “at least four shots” could be heard.

“Now even the testimony of the TCC employees themselves does not match,” Glagola wrote on Telegram.

The confrontation was later confirmed by the Regional Territorial Recruitment Center and Social Support office, which acknowledged that a group had attempted to storm the military facility, “ignoring the lawful demands of military personnel.”

The “threat was localized, and the attack was repelled,” the office added in a statement on social media.

Faced with mounting losses, widespread desertion, and a shortage of willing recruits in the conflict with Russia, Ukrainian recruitment squads have increasingly resorted to coercion and brute force to fill the ranks.

The practice, commonly known as “busification,” involves military-age men being seized on the streets, at workplaces, and in residential areas before being taken to enlistment centers against their will and reportedly dispatched to the front after only cursory training.

A Frontier Airlines flight from Denver International Airport had to be aborted after the jet struck and killed an unknown person on the runway during takeoff, local officials have said.

The trespasser was hit by the plane two minutes after jumping the perimeter fence late on Friday, according to the airport. Videos from the scene captured the damaged engine blades, suggesting that the trespasser had been sucked into the turbine.

”We’re stopping on the runway,” the pilot told the control tower. “We just hit somebody. We have an engine fire… An individual was walking across the runway.”

An air traffic controller was heard warning his colleagues that the runway was closed after the incident, saying: “I do have limbs on the runway… I’ve got what appears to be a deceased person on the runway.” One of the first responders was also heard telling control that “there does appear to be human remains on the runway.”

The collision resulted in an engine fire and forced an evacuation of passengers via slides as smoke filled the cabin of the narrow-body Airbus A321 aircraft. Twelve of the 224 passengers on board suffered minor injuries in the incident, with five of them requiring hospitalization.

INCRÍVEL::::
IMAGENS FORTES::::
Pra você entender o que aconteceu com o voo da Frontier Airlines em Denver ontem à noite.

Um homem pulou a cerca do aeroporto às 23h17.

Às 23h19 — apenas 2 minutos depois — ele foi atingido por um Airbus A321 totalmente carregado, em velocidade… pic.twitter.com/oX8VzUAihr

— The Clown (@TheClownNow) May 9, 2026

The passengers were able to film the exact moment of the collision and the evacuation process. One of the witnesses told KUSA-TV that the jet lifted off the ground for a split second, but landed again after hitting something.

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy confirmed the incident, warning in a post on X on Saturday that “no one should EVER trespass on an airport.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has hit back at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz after he criticized Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico for attending Victory Day celebrations in Moscow.

Merz said he “deeply regretted” Fico’s trip and claimed it did not reflect the EU’s “common view,” speaking at a press conference in Stockholm on Saturday.

“We will talk with him about this day in Moscow today,” he said. “We are celebrating Europe Day here in Stockholm today. And this is something completely different.”

When asked to comment on Merz’s remarks, Zakharova argued that modern Europe would not exist without the Soviet sacrifice that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.

“There would be no Europe Day without the victory of the Soviet people. There would only be one vast concentration camp with gas chambers,” she said in an interview with RIA Novosti later the same day.

The spokeswoman added that despite numerous attempts “to save them,” EU nations “always reorganize themselves into a concentration camp.”

Fico, who has long opposed Brussels’ stance toward Moscow, including military aid to Kiev and anti-Russian sanctions, was the only EU leader to attend the Victory Day commemorations in person this year.

Despite Lithuania and Latvia refusing his aircraft access to their airspace, the Slovak leader insisted he would still travel to Russia, saying the Baltic states would not prevent him from paying tribute to those who liberated Slovakia from Nazi occupation.

After the official part of the event, Fico held talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and several senior officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak, and presidential aide Yury Ushakov.

Putin praised Fico’s “unwavering stance on preserving the historical truth about the events of the Second World War and the Red Army’s role in liberating Europe from Nazism,” and highlighted the contribution of Slovak resistance fighters to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

The Russian president also thanked Slovakia for preserving Soviet war memorials and burial sites, noting that the official opening of a Red Army military cemetery in Michalovce is expected soon.

Clashes broke out in the Spanish city of Barcelona after several protesters attempted to disrupt a Victory Day commemoration marking the 81st anniversary of Nazi Germany’s defeat.

Victory Day is celebrated annually in Russia and most former Soviet republics on May 9 with military parades and Immortal Regiment marches, during which participants carry photographs of relatives who fought in World War II.

Footage filmed in Barcelona on Saturday showed people carrying Russian and Soviet flags as they peacefully gathered for the event before a counter-protester carrying a black-and-white banner approached the crowd, shouting derogatory slogans.

The provocation escalated into a physical altercation, after which the protesters fled before police intervened. The procession later continued through the city, with patriotic songs playing in the background.

“It is a very important day for our people. It is a day of remembrance for our grandparents who died during World War II,” one participant said.

“This day means a lot – survival for us Slavs, Russians, Ukrainians, and most people of the world,” another added.

The Immortal Regiment was first held in the Siberian city of Tomsk in 2012 and quickly spread across Russia and other countries. The initiative has since become popular among Russian-speaking communities living abroad.

This year, commemorative events took place in several countries, including India, Bangladesh, Kuwait, China, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, the US, and multiple cities across the EU.

In Geneva, members of the Ukrainian community wrapped in national flags attempted to interfere with the celebration by shouting nationalist slogans and singing Ukrainian songs near the closing stages of the event.

A similar incident took place in Amsterdam during an Immortal Regiment march on May 2, when several Ukrainian nationals attempted to disrupt the procession by shouting anti-Russian slogans while carrying placards splashed with red paint.

Around 27 million Soviet citizens died during World War II, one of the highest death tolls suffered by any nation in the conflict. Moscow has repeatedly accused the US and EU member states of distorting historical truth and belittling the crucial role of the USSR.

Israel secretly built a military outpost in the Iraqi desert to support its air campaign against Iran and even launched strikes on Iraqi troops who nearly discovered it, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing US officials familiar with the matter.

The clandestine base was set up shortly before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran in late February, according to the report.

The US was reportedly aware of the installation, which housed Israeli special forces, served as a logistics hub for the Israeli Air Force, and hosted search-and-rescue teams in case Israeli pilots were shot down.

The outpost was nearly exposed in early March after a local shepherd noticed “unusual military activity,” including helicopter flights, and alerted authorities. Iraqi soldiers then moved to investigate the site but came under heavy fire. The attack left one Iraqi soldier dead and two others wounded.

Baghdad initially blamed Washington after security forces found evidence that foreign military personnel had been operating in the area.

“It appears there was a certain force on the ground before the strike, supported from the air, operating beyond the capabilities of our units,” Lt. Gen. Qais Al-Muhammadawi, deputy commander of Iraq’s Joint Operations Command, told Iraqi state media after the March attack. “This reckless operation was carried out without coordination or approval.”

The base reportedly helped Israel fight a long-range air war against Iran, whose territory lies over 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) from Israel.

Israeli aircraft carried out thousands of strikes during the five-week campaign, while the Iraqi desert outpost gave Israeli teams a forward position closer to the battlefield.

The IDF did not comment on the latest report, which adds to growing scrutiny of how Israel’s confrontation with Iran has expanded into a broader regional conflict, pulling the US deeper into hostilities.

Former US counterterrorism chief Joe Kent, who resigned in protest in March, has accused Israel of driving Washington into a war despite US intelligence assessments that Tehran was not actively building a nuclear weapon.

Kent claimed that US agencies had warned Iran would retaliate by targeting American bases and attempting to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if attacked. He argued that the Israeli narrative about the Iranian threat ultimately “won the argument” in Washington, forcing the US into the conflict.

Trump administration officials have denied that Israel dragged Washington into the war. US War Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this week that President Donald Trump acted based on “American interests” and his “America First” policy, dismissing the idea that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had pulled the US into the conflict as a “false premise.”

The arrival of the hantavirus-stricken MV Hondius cruise ship off Spain’s Tenerife poses little risk of contagion to local residents, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said.

The Dutch-flagged Atlantic liner, carrying 147 passengers and crew from 23 countries, suffered an outbreak of the Andes strain of hantavirus, a rare pathogen typically spread through contact with infected rodent droppings, urine, or saliva.

The distressed vessel, dubbed the “plague ship” by some media, departed from Argentina for Cape Verde on April 1. The first victim, a 70-year-old Dutch man, began showing signs of illness on April 6 and died on April 11. His 69-year-old wife accompanied his body to South Africa, where she later also succumbed to the disease in a Johannesburg hospital on April 26. A third passenger, a German woman, died from the illness on May 2.

Unlike most hantaviruses, the Andes strain is known to be capable of limited human-to-human transmission through close contact with an infected person. There is no known cure for the disease caused by the virus, with symptomatic treatment being the only recourse.

However, Ghebreyesus assured Tenerife residents that hantavirus, while “serious,... is not another COVID.”

“The risk to you, living your daily life in Tenerife, is low. This is the WHO’s assessment, and we do not make it lightly,” he wrote in a letter on Saturday.

There are “no symptomatic passengers on board” the MV Hondius at present, according to Ghebreyesus, with a WHO expert monitoring the situation on the ship. The WHO has reported eight cases linked to the vessel, including three deaths, with six confirmed as hantavirus and two still considered suspected. Authorities are also trying to trace more than two dozen people who disembarked before the outbreak was confirmed.

The WHO director-general added that the passengers “will be ferried ashore at the industrial port of Granadilla, far from residential areas, in sealed, guarded vehicles, through a completely cordoned-off corridor, and repatriated directly to their home countries.”

Ghebreyesus arrived on the Spanish island to personally oversee the operation and again reassured residents that the risk was low during a short briefing alongside Spanish Health Minister Monica Garcia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that a meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky could take place “anywhere,” including in a third country, but only after a final long-term peace agreement is fully prepared and ready for signing.

“The Ukrainian side and Mr. Zelensky, they are ready to have a personal meeting... We have never refused,” Putin said during a press conference after Victory Day celebrations on May 9. “We can meet in the third country as well, but only after there is an ultimate agreement regarding a peace deal that must be a long-term deal.” 

He stressed that the meeting should be the “final thing,” the signing ceremony, and not turn into negotiations. Recalling the Minsk Accords experience, Putin noted: “We can speak hours, day and night and it would yield no results. We need specialists to take care of that... then we can meet, we can sign.” 

During the same May 9 briefing, Putin declared that the Ukraine conflict “is heading towards the end.” 

These remarks came one day after US President Donald Trump expressed hope that the ceasefire declared by Moscow on May 8 could lead to the fighting wrapping up soon.

Last December, Putin reiterated that Russia seeks a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict provided its root causes are eliminated.

Crowds of people gathered in the Estonian city of Narva to watch the Victory Day concert and fireworks display held in Russia’s Ivangorod, situated just across the border.

The Estonian authorities banned Victory Day celebrations on May 9, penalizing anyone seen with Soviet or Russian-themed symbols, such as the Ribbon of Saint George.

One of the spectators on the Estonian side of the Narva river told RT on Sunday that compared to previous years, even more people had come to the embankment to see the event. The person said that Victory Day “has always been the most important holiday for us, no matter what.”

Victory Day celebrations across Russia and the world: As it happened (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)

The person added that his boss at work had objected to him going to watch the Victory Day concert, but he went anyway. He explained to RT that his own relatives had fought against Nazi Germany, adding that the “desire to pay homage to our heroes beats fear of any potential punishment” from the Estonian authorities.

As the celebrations unfolded across the river, some Narva residents lit lanterns in greeting to their neighbors in Ivangorod, according to footage sent to RT by a subscriber. She said the gesture has become a local tradition dating back to the coronavirus pandemic, when border crossings became difficult.

The municipal authorities in Ivangorod told TASS that people across the border were able to watch the event, named ‘The Riverbanks of Victory’ thanks to a large screen mounted on the Russian side of the river. Similar concerts have been held in Ivangorod since 2023.

According to the news agency, citing Ivangorod and Narva residents, many people in Estonia spent several hours in lines at the border just to watch the celebrations on the Russian side.

Aleksandr Drozdenko, the governor of Leningrad Region, where Ivangorod is located, previously told TASS that it was particularly important to the regional authorities that the “concert is also being heard on the other side of the Narva River.”

“We know that there are people there, to whom Victory Day is just as important, and they are waiting for this day,” the Russian official said. According to Drozdenko, “on both riverbanks, people are singing our common songs familiar from childhood,” in what he described as “people’s karaoke.”

The celebration culminated in a bright fireworks display over Ivangorod, watched from both banks of the river.

Meanwhile, the Estonian police reported that at least 20 administrative cases related to Victory Day celebrations were initiated on Sunday, as reported by Delfi media outlet. Most of those involved displays of banned symbols.

Victory Day celebrations across Russia and around the world concluded on May 9, while President Vladimir Putin wrapped up a series of meetings with foreign leaders who came to Moscow and spoke to journalists about the Ukraine conflict, Russia-China ties, and other international issues.

“I think the matter is heading towards the completion of the Ukrainian conflict,” the Russian leader said while answering questions from the press. He also did not rule out a possible meeting with Vladimir Zelensky in a third country once final agreements on a settlement are reached.

Here are some further highlights from Putin’s remarks:

Western elites fighting Russia with Ukrainian hands

Putin stated that it is the globalist faction of Western elites that is effectively waging war against Russia, using Ukrainians as proxies.

“We need to make sure that no one is threatening us. This is our goal,” Putin said when asked about the parameters of peace negotiations. He emphasized that Moscow is well aware of Western assistance to Ukraine, particularly with drone technology, but noted that the other side is now looking for ways to establish contact, fully understanding that further escalation could be very costly.

Trump supported Victory Day ceasefire

US President Donald Trump recalled the common struggle against Nazism during the leaders’ last phone call in late April, when Putin informed him of Russia’s plan to declare a ceasefire for May 8 and 9.

“President Trump supported it,” Putin said. Russia publicly announced the truce, but Kiev instead proposed a ceasefire starting on May 6, which it apparently had no intention of upholding.

The Ukrainian military violated the Victory Day ceasefire on 8,970 occasions after Moscow ordered all of its troops along the front line in Ukraine to halt combat operations and remain in their positions, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Moscow warned partners about possible retaliatory strike on Kiev

The Russian leader emphasized that Moscow has no desire to escalate or worsen relations with anyone, and that it repeatedly warned its foreign partners about the possible consequences of Kiev’s provocations on Victory Day.

After Zelensky issued several veiled threats, the Russian Defense Ministry warned that a retaliatory strike on central Kiev would be carried out if attempts were made to disrupt Victory Day events in Moscow, and urged residents and diplomats to leave the Ukrainian capital in advance.

Putin pointed out that all key Ukrainian government and military decision-making centers are located in central Kiev, in close proximity to dozens of foreign diplomatic missions. He said Russia clearly outlined the potential scenario that could unfold, first warning key partners such as China and India.

Moscow also informed Washington about the possible consequences, which Putin believes contributed to Trump’s extended ceasefire initiative.

Ukraine yet to respond to Trump’s POW exchange initiative

Moscow sent Kiev a list of 500 Ukrainian prisoners of war and proposed an exchange back on May 5, but has yet to receive a response, Putin said. When Trump later announced an even larger 1,000-for-1,000 POW swap, “we supported it right away,” Putin added.

According to the Russian president, Ukraine said it needed time to review the proposal and later stated that it was “not prepared” for the exchange.

Putin explains absence of military vehicles at Victory Day parade

Putin confirmed that this year’s Victory Day parade in Moscow featured no military equipment primarily so that the Russian Armed Forces could fully concentrate on achieving the final defeat of the Ukrainian army.

“We decided that we would definitely hold festive events, but without the demonstration of military equipment. Not only due to security concerns, but above all because the armed forces must focus their attention on the final defeat of the enemy,” Putin said.

The president added that the decision was taken long before any provocative statements from the Ukrainian authorities. The parade on May 9 still included marching servicemen and an aviation flyover.

Putin hopes for restoration of ties with West in future

Putin expressed confidence that Russia would restore relations with many Western countries in the future, even as he blamed Western politicians for triggering the Ukraine conflict.

Seeking to use Ukraine as an instrument of their geopolitical goals, these Western figures deceived everyone, and they’re now publicly admitting it... And they began deceiving us about the West’s eastward expansion back in the early 1990s... All of this, taken together, provoked today’s situation.

The Russian leader stressed that Moscow had never closed the door to negotiations with the EU or Ukraine and mentioned former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as a preferred intermediary for dialogue.

Russia offered help on Iran nuclear issue

Moscow had proposed assisting in resolving the Iranian nuclear program issue, including through the export of enriched uranium, as it had successfully done before. Putin noted that this earlier effort played a positive role in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the now-defunct 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran.

According to the president, the United States, Iran, and Israel initially agreed to the idea. However, both Washington and Tehran later hardened their positions: the US demanded that the uranium be sent only to its territory, while Iran proposed creating a joint Russian-Iranian enterprise on its own soil to dilute the uranium. As a result, the situation has reached a complete deadlock.

Europe has become Russia’s “principal adversary” for the first time since the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), Dmitri Trenin, has told Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.

In the latest episode of Going Underground, the renowned international affairs expert said that “today, Russia is at war again, and this is not simply a war between Russia and Ukraine” but rather a proxy war against Moscow that is being waged by the West.

According to Trenin, while the US under President Donald Trump has increasingly distanced itself from the Ukraine conflict, European involvement has become progressively more prominent of late. He told Rattansi that elites in European capitals are using a perceived Russian threat in an apparent effort to consolidate the “crumbling” European Union and to “relaunch their economies through militarization.”

“They’re trying, above all, to keep themselves in power” by pushing alarmist narratives regarding Russia, he added.

Trenin went on to describe Ukrainians as a “part of the bigger Russian nation” that is being “misguided” and “used by the West in [its]… very long war against Russia,” which dates as far back as the 16th century.

The international affairs expert expressed confidence that Russia would eventually accomplish its goals in the conflict, though it would take a long time. He defined Russia’s vision of victory as the vanquishing of neo-Nazi elements within Ukraine, as well as “those forces in Europe, primarily among the elites, that have built Russia into a bogeyman again.”

Commenting on Trump’s attempts at mediation, Trenin claimed that the US president is “essentially powerless to insist on something that is of central importance to ending this conflict,” and so his role is rather limited in defining its course. According to the RIAC president, Trump has apparently been unable to get EU warmongers and the Ukrainian leadership to act on the understanding reached by him and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, last August.

At 6:00 PM on May 8, 2026, the plane carrying Robert Fico, the Slovak Prime Minister and leader of the Direction – Social Democracy party (SMER-SD), landed in Moscow. This fact was covered in great detail by both Russian and European media, and for good reason.

A week earlier, Lithuania and Poland had officially stated that they would not allow Fico’s plane to pass through their airspace on its way to the Russian capital. In order to avoid taking a long detour, Slovakia’s air route was reluctantly provided by Germany, Sweden, and Finland.

For Robert Fico, who has served as Slovakia’s prime minister since 2023 (and previously in 2006-2010 and 2012-2018), this was his third trip to the Russian capital for Victory Day celebrations. The first was back in 2015, when Fico marked the 70th anniversary of victory alongside then-Czech Prime Minister Miloš Zeman. The context of that parade was dramatic: despite the milestone anniversary, the 2015 parade cemented a shift in the list of high-ranking guests, in which Western leaders came to make up the smallest possible share.

At that time, a new participation format was introduced: leaders did not attend the stands on Red Square to watch the parade of Russian elite troops and equipment, but instead appeared only for the laying of flowers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier near the Kremlin walls. Thus, during the 2015 parade itself, Fico and Zeman held a working meeting and joined later for the Minute of Remembrance.

Fico’s second visit, on May 9, 2025, cost him dearly in terms of electoral support. The 80th anniversary of victory, along with the relatively strong personal ratings of Fico and his party, encouraged the prime minister to attend the parade. The consequences were swift: SMER-SD’s rating fell from 24% to 18%, its lowest level in the preceding three years of Fico’s time in office. Protests took place in Bratislava, and were attended by up to 60,000 people. It would seem that a tough lesson should have been learned – and yet the charismatic Fico is in Moscow once again.

Motives and context

To understand the Slovak leader’s motives, one has to look closely at Slovakia’s domestic political landscape and the foreign policy meetings Fico has held in recent months. At the beginning of February, the country declared a state of emergency in the oil sector in connection with the cutoff of Russian oil transit through Ukraine.

Officially, the issue was said to be pipeline damage in Ukraine. However, the leaders of Slovakia and Hungary (which also was not receiving Russian oil) stated that the problem was rooted in Kiev’s political decisions. Interruptions in energy supplies for Slovakia threaten disruptions to key industrial sectors concentrated in automobile manufacturing, which accounts for about 13% of the country’s GDP and nearly half of the republic’s total exports.

These include plants such as Jaguar Land Rover in Nitra and KIA in Žilina. Because of their production needs, they are critically dependent on deliveries of industrial diesel products and plastics (petrochemical products) from Slovakia’s only oil refinery, Slovnaft. In terms of direct employment, about 9,000 families work at the plants in Nitra and Žilina. Further along the chain, one job on the assembly line creates up to four jobs among suppliers (logistics, seating, plastics, catering). Thus, the real dependency rises to 35,000-40,000 people. Beyond them, other key players in the market – Volkswagen Bratislava, Volvo in Košice, and others – would also begin to stall because of energy shortages. Altogether, another 230,000 or so people are employed in this broader sector.

At the same time, for Fico, who has crossed the midpoint of his current term as prime minister, it is extremely important to prepare for the next electoral campaign, which will culminate in September 2027 – both to avoid alienating the party’s core voter base and to expand its support beyond it. That can be achieved only by preventing serious political and economic crises like the oil sector emergency that occurred in February of this year.

A second important factor is Fico’s recent foreign-policy meetings. Among the most resonant was the European Political Community summit in Yerevan on May 4, 2026. During the event, the attention of the Russian audience was focused on the Slovak leader’s closed-door meeting with Zelensky, where support for Ukraine’s accession to the EU was discussed. After the meeting, Fico said he would convey Ukrainian proposals to the Russian leader during talks following the Victory Day celebrations on May 9. We can assume that a “package of proposals,” or ultimatum, on transit issues will be transmitted via the Slovak leader. Yet precisely such an approach legitimizes Fico’s trip to Russia for the Victory Day celebrations, with Brussels’ silent consent.

Glitch-art diplomacy and Europe’s binary code

It is customary to think that the relatively good relations which exist between Slovakia and Russia are grounded in pragmatism and cheap energy prices. But today’s reality is deeper. Slovaks are warmer and more rational than their neighbors in the Visegrád region. Having always played second fiddle in the history of great empires and middle states – Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia – they learned clearly that ideology is expensive, while survival requires intelligence and flexibility. This understanding enables Slovakia to find ways to make lemonade out of lemons. It should be noted that this brings results: a country which, because of its geographic position, historical circumstances, and energy problems, could be considered an outsider in European politics, is becoming its cyberpunk.

In cyberpunk, life unfolds simultaneously in two incompatible realities according to the principle of “Low Life, High Tech,” using system errors that ultimately form of glitch art – the art of digital interference. Its expressive means are bugs, noise, and wave distortions of the image. Thus, glitch-art diplomacy can be described as the foreign policy of a state that is consciously or forcibly built on protocol violations, unpredictability, and the use of systemic errors. In other words, if classical diplomacy is the polished skill of negotiations and playing by the rules, then “glitch diplomacy” is the aesthetics of apparent chaos, behind which stands a thoughtful, if simple, system.

It is precisely in this way that the foreign policy of modern Slovakia should be viewed. In the eyes of the nation, Robert Fico is a hero who breaks the binary European logic of ‘friend/enemy’ by building a bridge between West and East. In Russian discourse, it is emphasized that most European countries have ‘lost their agency’ by adhering to the shared algorithms of Brussels and Washington. Slovakia, by contrast, is capable of acting outside these algorithms, which is regarded as constructive pragmatism.

In the EU’s binary coordinate system, Slovakia is viewed more as its own systemic error. Since it is one of ‘theirs’, it can be corrected and managed. This is precisely the message Fico will voice in Moscow – and no matter how ultimatum-like or harsh it may be – this makes the Slovak leader’s policy acceptable to Brussels. In this way, Slovakia remains a small but critically important node through which East and West continue to exchange signals.

As Russia marks the 81st anniversary of its victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, the ensuing global conflicts are a grim reminder of the lessons learned (or lost) over the last century. While the Indian Republic joins its strategic partner in celebrating the defeat of fascism, it is worth retracing the common thread of civilizational history that the two giants share.

During the World War II, both Soviet and Indian troops (under British command) contributed decisively towards the defeat of the Axis forces. During the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Indian and Soviet divisions coordinated their operations to secure the Persian corridor linking the Allies to the USSR. Elsewhere, while the Soviet forces fought the bulk of the German armies in the Eastern European theater, Indian contingents fought the Axis in the South-East Asian, North African, West Asian theaters, as well as playing a critical, often under-recognized role in the Allied invasion of Italy.

Simultaneously, Indian leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose sought to secure external support in their fight for independence. In his efforts to secure cooperation, his first port of call in 1941 was to the Soviet Union. Being unsuccessful he made his appeal to the Germans and the Japanese. Nevertheless, he was appalled at the German invasion of the USSR and in June 1941, declared that Indians had come to regard the ‘Third Reich’ as an aggressor. He believed that the USSR would ultimately become Britain’s adversary in the future and died in 1945 in pursuit of greater collaboration with Moscow.

Subhas Chandra Bose was not the only leader aspiring to closer ties with the USSR. Russia had long been part of a utopian hope, and when Indians thought about progress and development, they looked to Russia for inspiration.

Jawaharlal Nehru had first visited Moscow in 1927, and the poet-polymath Rabindranath Tagore had also been an admirer. The gigantic achievements undertaken by a semi-industrialized, agrarian state into a transformed great power with improved living conditions captured Indian imaginations.

During that period myriad factors contributed to the Indian and Soviet lack of understanding of each other’s positions. Post-October Revolution, the British Raj took comprehensive measures to prevent the entry of Soviet personnel and citizens into British India. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks abandoned the extensive Tsarist intelligence networks deployed within the sub-continent and relied on information communicated by the Communist Party of India (CPI) who themselves were at odds with the dominant Indian National Congress (INC).

After attaining independence, these relations transformed into a peculiar multi-bilateral process where the Soviet government engaged with both the newly independent Indian government and the CPI. During the formative years the preference was given to the latter with support being provided in collaboration with the Communist Party of Yugoslavia for the CPI to undertake an armed proletarian struggle in 1948. However, Indian refusal to acquiesce to all Western positions in the international arena and its efforts in securing a settlement towards the Korean conflict led to changes in perceptions within the Soviet leadership. Stalin in conversation with Indian Ambassador to the USSR K. P. S. Menon expressed his view of a world divided into black and white with a lonely grey India occupying the middle ground. 

A decisive change in relations ushered in with the ascendancy of Nikita Khrushchev and the subsequent process of destalinization. Simultaneously, two trends came into being: firstly, the acceleration of the rivalry between the US and the USSR and subsequently the systems of capitalism and communism, and secondly, the trend of decolonization. Indian foreign policy under the leadership of its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, gravitated towards the concepts of non-alignment and ‘Panchsheel’ (or Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence).

The USSR itself shifted from a policy of ‘those who are not with us, are against us’ to ‘those who are not with the West, are possibly with us’. Under this new policy, encapsulated within the concept of Peaceful Coexistence propounded at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Moscow essentially saw the non-aligned movement with its anti-colonial stance as an ally.

Nehru’s visit to the USSR in 1955 and the subsequent visit by Khrushchev and Bulganin to India in the same year, the combined Indo-Soviet opposition to Anglo-French aggression during the 1956 Suez Crisis and India’s refusal to diplomatically condemn the USSR during the 1956 Hungarian Crisis deepened Indo-Soviet relations. Matters came to a head in 1962 with the simultaneous eruption of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Sino-Indian conflict. The USSR was stuck between a “brother” and a “friend” while simultaneously facing the possibility of a global conflagration against the capitalist West.

Until the 1960s, the Indian armed forces had been largely equipped with British-origin weaponry. Post-1962, India embarked on a military modernization spree aided by the Soviets. The primary driver was the deterioration of both Indian and Soviet relations with China. Soviet economic aid to India was forthcoming, establishing steel plants such as the Bhilai Steel Plant, which to date remains a flagship unit of the country. The ushering in of détente brought American embargoes on weapons supplies to both Pakistan and India during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War. Taking an alternative approach, the Soviets sought reconciliation and succeeded with the 1966 Tashkent Agreement.

The integrity test of the Indian-Soviet relations occurred during the 1971 Bangladesh crisis. Having achieved rapprochement towards China with Islamabad’s assistance, the US did not want to constrain continued Pakistani atrocities in East Pakistan. New Delhi and Moscow finalized the 1971 Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, thus setting the stage against a Pakistan-US-China grouping.

The Indian economy took a distinctly socialist turn during Indira Gandhi’s tenure, noticeably due to internal crisis of leadership rather than external factors. However, the slowdown in Western economies, the 1973 US-USSR Grain Deal, and the combined Oil Shocks due to the Arab-Israel war and the Iranian Revolution gravely affected Indian economic indices. The Soviet Union, itself facing a stagnating economy, wasn’t able to extend economic aid. New Delhi had to instead rely on US supplies while resisting American attempts to arm-twist changes to the Indian domestic economy. However, in terms of arms supplies, the USSR remained the dominant partner for India for the entirety of the Cold War.

The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 sent Indian foreign policy into a tailspin. At that point, with the End of History argument reaching its zenith, many foresaw the death knell of Indian-Russian relations. As the Soviet Union vanished from the imaginations of the people – being instead relegated to bittersweet reminisces of nostalgia – academic engagements with Russia and Indian-Russian relations practically disappeared.

During the Unipolar Moment, India sought to turn around its relationship with the US, the sole hegemon. With the ascendancy of Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2000, relations with India were upgraded to a Strategic Partnership the same year. India was at that time under sanctions from the US for its 1998 nuclear tests, and the relationship would not be reset until the 2006 Indo-US Nuclear Agreement. Two trends dominated during this time period: firstly the September 9/11 attacks and the subsequent Global War on Terror, and secondly the normative principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) arising out of the 1993 Rwandan Genocide. Moscow’s disillusionment with Western promises to accommodate Russian interests – epitomized in the 2007 Munich Speech – coincided with New Delhi’s rapprochement with the US.

However, Moscow and New Delhi soon found themselves advocating similar positions when the R2P reached its crescendo during the 2011 Libyan intervention. India, Russia, and China abstained and later opposed the increasingly blurred distinction between protecting civilians and regime change operations. The RIC grouping evolved into BRICS as a major non-Western institution with the joining of South Africa in 2010. At the same time, Indian-Russian relations were further upgraded to a Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.

As opposition to a selectively imposed Western-dominated liberal international order increased along with calls to reform the anachronistic United Nations to better represent the non-Western states and the Global South, concepts such as polycentricity and multipolarity gained ground. Rather than being a smooth transition, the world has lurched violently towards multipolar disorder.

The issue of a common European security architecture has disintegrated into a proxy conflict involving Ukraine, and the Israeli-US assault on Iran has effectively ended the liberal-international order. In these times, Indian-Russian relations have shown adaptability and resilience by concluding the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS). The agreement allows the stationing of foreign troops on Indian soil (a first in the state’s history), which the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) signed with the US does not cover. While debates for and against it are far from being settled, it allows a near permanent Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean (where the US operates the Diego Garcia base) and conversely Indian presence in the Arctic and the Pacific. In effect, the RELOS exemplifies deeper military integration between the two states than the 1971 Treaty ever envisioned.

Ultimately, for most of their existing histories, the trajectories of the two civilizational giants have been in harmony. Similar to the World War II, the RELOS signals commitment from both states’ leadership to proactively respond to international challenges by building on each other’s strengths.

In times beleaguered by strife and paralysis of institutional organs of intervention, bilateralism is rarely a better response to a polycentric disordered world. But when on rare occasions it does show adaptability and strength – as in Indian-Russian relations – it has the capacity to propel both states to unimaginable heights.

Andrei Starikov, director of the documentary film ‘Victory Day in the Baltics: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’, spoke with RT about how Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are shaping the historical memory politics of the Western world. He also discussed how it has been turned into a political instrument by the supporters of Hitler and their descendants, who returned to the Baltic nations after the Cold War, and why the Baltic region could become a serious flashpoint. 

A region caught between East and West

RT: Andrei, your film addresses the revision of the outcomes of the Second World War, a topic that the Western audience knows little about. Do you think this is a coincidence or the result of a deliberate information strategy?

Andrei Starikov: I wouldn’t exaggerate and say that it’s some kind of centralized effort to suppress information. It’s not a conspiracy or a particular strategy. We are, rather, talking about a certain perception: every country or society has its own pain points that it focuses on. 

However, it’s crucial to understand that even if a topic seems to be of regional importance, its implications can be global. History provides examples of this; the First World War was sparked by a local event – the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. At first glance, it seemed like a minor incident, but it triggered a massive conflict.

The situation in the Baltic states follows a similar logic. This is a small region but it lies at the intersection of major powers’ interests.

Looking at the bigger picture, we observe a broader geopolitical landscape composed of the United States, China, and Russia. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia ceased to be the superpower it once was, and a ‘belt’ of new states (the former Soviet republics) formed around it.

The Baltic countries – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – are part of this belt. These countries are Russia’s neighbors but they are also part of Western structures like the EU and NATO. And today, they find themselves in a challenging position. 

RT: Why is it challenging? 

Andrei Starikov: Primarily because of their historical and demographic structure. After 1991, a Russian-speaking population remained in these countries. In Latvia, nearly half of the population is Russian-speaking; in Estonia, it’s about 35-40%; Lithuania has a lower percentage of Russian speakers, but still a considerable number. 

It’s important to note that Russians didn’t appear there by chance. And it didn’t occur instantly. Some residents are descendants of migrants from the days of the Russian Empire – as far back as the 18th and 19th centuries. There were also religious migrations, such as Old Believers who fled church reforms.

In the 20th century, more migrants came during the Soviet era. When these territories joined the USSR, specialists such as engineers, workers, and builders migrated there actively. They established enterprises, infrastructure, and cultural institutions in the new republics.

This was internal migration. People didn’t move to ‘another country’ but relocated to another region within their own country to build, develop, and modernize it.

During Soviet times, the Baltic nations found themselves in a unique position. These republics were sort of the ‘showcase of the USSR’ – a region that demonstrated the level of development, quality of life, and efficiency of the system. Thus, the Russian-speaking population appeared in the Baltics as a result of a lengthy historical process. 

From ‘bridge’ to frontline

RT: Today, the Baltic states refer to the Soviet era as “occupation” and Russians are seen not as settlers but as “occupiers.”

Andrei Starikov: When speaking of this, we must consider the historical context of the early 20th century. During that time, both Western and Eastern Europe demonstrated a strong interest in leftist ideas. Communist parties enjoyed significant support due to widespread disillusionment with capitalism, dire social conditions, and a lack of basic rights for workers.

The Soviet Union was viewed as a project that offered an alternative: social guarantees, education, healthcare, and labor rights protection.

Thus, the incorporation of the Baltics into the USSR in 1940 was part of a broader historical process supported by a segment of society. It wasn’t forced; it didn’t stem from Moscow’s ultimatum. It was a natural process that many welcomed.

Later, during the Soviet period, active modernization began in the region, involving the construction of industries, infrastructure, and cultural institutions. This further integrated the Russian-speaking population that had moved to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

RT: Why did the authorities’ stance change drastically after the collapse of the USSR?

Andrei Starikov: A new identity was formed at that time. When countries emerge from a large political entity, they need to redefine who they are. This is often done through a rejection of their past.

For the Baltics, distancing themselves from the Soviet legacy symbolized a break from Russia. Geopolitics plays a role here: when you push away from one center of power, you inevitably gravitate toward another.

Small nations caught between major powers can rarely maintain neutrality. It’s like in physics – larger bodies attract smaller ones. The Baltic nations faced a choice: to serve as a ‘bridge’ between the East and the West or to become a dividing line. Unfortunately, political elites chose the latter path, and this led to heightened tensions both externally and internally. 

Within these countries, there are different visions regarding the future. Some groups advocate for dialogue and economic cooperation, aspiring to be that sort of ‘bridge’. However, those in power today are focused on confrontation and establishing a hardline anti-Russia stance. They instill fear of war with Russia, and condition their populations for war.  

The people resist, many pack their bags and leave. When society operates under a constant state of opposition, people seek more stable conditions – they emigrate, postpone starting families, and birth rates decline.

All the challenges that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are currently facing stem from their leaders’ decision to play an active role in the confrontation between Russia and the West.  

This is an awful course that affects both those who identify themselves as ethnic Lithuanians, Estonians, and Latvians, and the remaining Russian population.

Naturally, this creates tension within these countries and outlines a potential civil conflict. I repeat: there are those who lean towards Russia and wish to facilitate dialogue, and then there are those who desire war. The latter include nationalists whose stance has been shaped by those who fought alongside Nazi Germany and those who fled to Latin America and other countries after the war.

Victory Day and the battle over historical memory

RT: What role does Victory Day play in this conflict?

Andrei Starikov: Victory Day is the cornerstone of historical memory. The anti-Hitler coalition emerged victorious in WWII, and the Soviet Union was  part of it. The USSR suffered the heaviest losses, as most battles occurred on its soil. Moreover, the Nazi occupation was exceptionally brutal and terror-driven in Soviet territories. It was true genocide.

For Russia and many post-Soviet countries, victory over Nazism is more than just a date; it’s woven into their identity and collective memory – a vital element that resonates powerfully even with today’s generations, the descendants of the victors. For the people of Russia and neighboring countries, Victory Day remains a deeply significant, emotional, and truly national holiday.

Any attempts to challenge or reinterpret this holiday cause deep pain. The memory of WWII victory in Russia is codified not only socially but also legally – it’s enshrined in the constitution. Yet, it transcends mere legal norms; it forms an organic foundation upon which modern Russian identity and foreign policy thinking largely rest.

Any actions taken against the symbols of this holiday – especially in the post-Soviet space – are perceived in Russia as personal affronts and insults. Naturally, such steps provoke strong reactions, both socially and politically.

In some ways, this can be likened to how the legacy of the Civil War continues to shape the national consciousness in the United States. Much time has passed, yet the topic remains part of the national consciousness and evokes strong responses.

Today, in the Baltic states – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – public celebrations of Victory Day are prohibited.

Related events, concerts, fireworks, and WWII victory symbols are banned. Those who attempt to publicly commemorate the day face administrative and sometimes criminal charges. People may be fined, persecuted, sometimes even stripped of their status or deported.

Russia perceives any actions regarding May 9th acutely – especially when they are prohibitive or demonstrative in nature. For Russia, this is a day of remembrance and at the same time a celebration of victory, and such [prohibitive] measures are seen as an assault on [historical] memory. 

This is particularly painful for those for whom this day holds personal significance – the descendants of the veterans and their families, for whom the memory of the war is alive. When people are forbidden from honoring that memory and denied the opportunity to pay their respects, it generates a lot of tension.

This creates additional strain and raises the risk of a broader conflict, as for Russia, this issue extends beyond politics and encompasses values, historical memory, and cultural identity.

RT: Can we say that the leadership of the Baltic states, which has banned Victory Day, aims to provoke Russia?

Andrei Starikov: Their actions are mostly symbolic but [for Russia, it’s a] deeply sensitive matter. Such actions are perceived as attempts to offend, provoke, and humiliate. 

This is particularly hard for the older generation living in the Baltic states, including those who experienced the war or grew up in its aftermath. For these individuals, Victory Day isn’t just a date on the calendar – it’s part of their life. 

When these people are denied the chance to commemorate Victory Day, when their rights are restricted, their access to healthcare or social services is limited, and when they are pushed out of public life, it feels like an assault on the very memory of Victory. 

Today, one of the main threats is that in the political elites of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, there are strong forces that advocate for revanchism and seek to reinterpret the outcomes of WWII. They prioritize rigid ideological positions over pragmatism, economic development, or constructive dialogue.

Such an approach creates points of tension that could escalate into larger conflicts. History shows that major wars often stem from local crises. Today, the Baltic Sea region – Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – has become one of those sensitive flashpoints.

The tail wagging the dog

RT: How significantly do perspectives on WWII differ in Eastern and Western Europe? Can we say that the Baltic states influence how the wider Western world interprets history?

Andrei Starikov: Since joining the European Union and NATO, the Baltic countries have positioned themselves as sort of ‘experts on Russia.’ They say, ‘We know Russia better than anyone else; our historical experience and Russian language skills give us unique insights because we lived in the Soviet Union.’ 

Despite their small size – these nations collectively have only a few million inhabitants – they have actively engaged in shaping EU policy in Eastern Europe. Through participation in EU institutions, through resolutions, memoranda, and committee work, they have managed to set a tougher and more confrontational tone towards Russia.

Additionally, there’s the factor of emigration. After WWII, people from these countries emigrated to the West – particularly to the US, Latin America, and Australia. Over time, they integrated into political and social structures there, forming lobbying networks. Today, these connections continue to function, amplifying their agenda.

As a result, despite their relatively small size, the Baltic countries exert a noticeable influence on the broader course of the West. This situation is often described as ‘the tail wagging the dog.’

RT: Did the Baltic states’ accession to the EU mark a turning point after which Russia and the West began to view 20th-century historical events differently?

Andrei Starikov:  It was a significant milestone, but not the starting point. Small states positioned between major power centers can’t exist in a vacuum or remain entirely neutral.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Baltic nations chose to distance themselves from their Soviet past – and consequently, from Russia. In doing so, they inevitably began to construct their identities in opposition to Russia.

This process began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Joining the EU and NATO solidified this choice and gave them added confidence, partly due to the NATO ‘security umbrella’. 

From that point on, they were able to adopt a firmer stance, often disregarding Russia’s position.

Can the truth about WWII still be defended?

RT: Your film addresses not only the past but also the future. How do you assess our capabilities: can we defend the truth about WWII? 

Andrei Starikov: I believe we can. Some aspects are open to interpretation, but there are also fundamental truths. WWII victory is one of these truths. It’s not merely a historical fact; it serves as a critical reference point.

No matter how hard people try to reinterpret, distort, or rewrite it, this victory remains relevant. It represents a triumph over an ideology that denied the value of human life.

For Europe and the West, this moment is just as significant as the Civil War is for the US. It was a dialogue about values, albeit in a deeply tragic context. The victory in WWII set a trajectory toward progress, human rights, and equal opportunities. For Russia, it’s even more pivotal. It’s not just a part of history – it’s foundational to its identity.

That’s why this memory cannot be erased. It still prevents the world from descending into full-scale conflict. It shows that even in times of intense opposition, dialogue, alliances, and shared victories are possible. In this sense, it serves not only as a remembrance of the past but also as a guide for the future. 

Understanding and remembering history is crucial. It can be complex and contradictory. Yet, the goal of politicians and leaders should be to avoid igniting new conflicts based on old wounds and to create space for coexistence.

Conversely, when tensions arise and forces that are interested in escalating the conflict come to power, this creates global risks. These ‘marginal’ groups seize power, create flashpoints and put all of us at risk of nuclear catastrophe. We must stop them, apply pressure, and unite our efforts to defeat them early on, preventing them from spreading their influence.

The Baltic states and other such regions require special attention, since local crises can lead to much more serious consequences. Without addressing the Baltic issue, it will be challenging to engage in dialogue and develop further. 

The US has triumphantly announced that it has removed highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Venezuela in what the US Department of Energy (DOE) hailed as a victory for America and “the world.”

In a statement on Friday, the DOE said it had completed the “removal of all remaining enriched uranium from a legacy research reactor” in the South American nation and transferred it to the US for processing and reuse. The quantity removed was 13.5 kg (30 pounds).

The move “sends another signal to the world of a restored and renewed Venezuela,” the statement reads. It also hails “[US] President [Donald] Trump’s decisive leadership” on the issue.

Washington rebooted relations with Caracas after US forces abducted and imprisoned Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January over narcoterrorism allegations. The uranium removal was coordinated with the Venezuelan Ministry of Science and Technology, the DOE statement said.

Despite the dramatic language surrounding the operation, the material had not been publicly linked to any imminent proliferation threat. The uranium originated from a Cold War-era civilian reactor near Caracas established under the “Atoms for Peace” program that ran from the mid-1950s through the 1970s.

US nonproliferation officials argue that any civilian HEU stockpile, regardless of size, presents a long-term threat of theft, diversion, or trafficking and should eventually be removed from circulation. The Venezuela transfer closely resembles dozens of similar HEU-removal operations carried out over the past three decades as part of routine US- and IAEA-backed nonproliferation programs targeting civilian research reactors.

Even at the height of Washington’s hostility toward Maduro, US accusations against Caracas centered on drugs trafficking and corruption, not on any Venezuelan nuclear threat to the American homeland.

The announcement of the removal comes as the US has reached an impasse with Iran over its far larger stockpile of enriched uranium, estimated at roughly 440 kg, which Trump has repeatedly described as a major threat to US security.

Washington has demanded Iran surrender, export, or dilute its highly enriched uranium stockpile, pushing for a long-term suspension of enrichment along with strict verification measures. Iranian officials have rejected these demands as “maximalist,” insisting enrichment is a sovereign right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Ukrainian military has violated the Victory Day ceasefire on 8,970 occasions since it took effect at midnight on Friday, including drone and artillery strikes, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Moscow said on Friday that it had ordered all of its troops along the Ukraine front line to halt combat operations and stay at their positions.

In a statement on Saturday, the Russian Defense Ministry stressed that its forces were continuing to abide by the ceasefire. By contrast, the Ukrainian military had conducted “strikes on our forces’ positions involving unmanned aerial vehicles and artillery,” military officials in Moscow reported. On top of that, a number of Russian regions, including Crimea, Bryansk Region, Belgorod Region, Kursk Region, and Moscow Region, have come under Ukrainian attacks.

According to the ministry, of the 8,970 ceasefire violations on Kiev’s part, 1,173 attacks were conducted by Ukrainian artillery, multiple launch rocket systems, mortars and tanks. The Russian military has additionally recorded a total of 7,151 enemy drone strikes.

“Ukrainian forces have carried out twelve attacks on Russian positions,” according to the statement.

Russian troops have responded in kind, launching retaliatory strikes against Ukrainian firing positions, command posts, and UAV launch sites, the Defense Ministry stated.

Earlier this week, the MOD announced a unilateral two-day ceasefire on May 8-9 to mark the 81st anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany and the end of World War II in Europe.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that he had directly asked Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to cease hostilities for three days, May 9-11, with both agreeing to the proposal. Trump added that Moscow and Kiev would swap 1,000 POWs each during the period.

“Hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought War,” the US president wrote, expressing hope for a “big extension.”

Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov later confirmed that Moscow agreed to extend the ceasefire it had originally announced for May 8-9 for the period mentioned by Trump, as well as to a major prisoner exchange.

Iran’s only operating nuclear power plant in Bushehr continues to function normally despite reports of renewed US-Iran military exchanges, Aleksey Likhachev, CEO of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, has said.

Russian personnel have not observed any attacks near the plant in recent days, and the situation there remains “generally calm,” Likhachev said in an interview with the Strana Rosatom corporate newspaper published on Friday. Unit 1, currently the plant’s only operational reactor, continues to run at full capacity, he added.

The Russian-built plant, a critical piece of Iran’s energy infrastructure, contains substantial nuclear fuel stockpiles. Likhachev previously warned that any strike on the site could trigger a catastrophe of at least “regional” proportions.

Earlier this week, the US military launched a wave of strikes on Iranian targets near the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran accused Washington of violating a ceasefire agreed last month and retaliated against American warships in the area. The Bushehr plant is located roughly 250 km (155 miles) northwest of the strategic waterway.

Following the start of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran in late February, Rosatom reduced its on-site presence from roughly 700 specialists to just 20 people after strikes and explosions were reported near the plant in March and April. In one incident, a projectile struck near the site’s perimeter, killing a security guard.

The Rosatom chief said the company is prepared to rapidly redeploy its full workforce to Iran once it is convinced there is no renewed risk of military escalation threatening personnel safety.

Bushehr Unit 1 entered commercial operation in 2013. Units 2 and 3, two additional Russian-designed reactors intended to expand the plant’s electricity-generating capacity, have been under construction since 2016.

Likhachev said work at the site is gradually resuming, with around 2,200 Iranian contractors returning to focus mainly on reinforcement and concrete work at the under-construction Unit 2 reactor.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant produces electricity for Iran’s national power grid. The project was started in the mid-1970s by a West German company but was suspended in the wake of the Islamic Revolution in 1980, to be revived by Rosatom in the 1990s.

The US military has attacked two more Iranian-flagged oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman as Washington presses ahead with its “freedom of navigation” blockade, while Tehran has compared control of the Strait of Hormuz to possessing an “atomic bomb.”

US Central Command said on Friday that American forces had struck two “unladen” Iranian tankers, the M/T Sea Star III and the M/T Sevda, which it claimed were attempting to “violate” the US blockade by entering an Iranian port.

Iranian armed forces allegedly responded to “the violation of the ceasefire and to American terrorism with strikes,” a military official told local media, but the US military did not report any damage.

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of Tehran’s main bargaining chips, after Iran shut the waterway early in the war, stranding hundreds of vessels and roiling energy markets.

“The Strait of Hormuz is a capability equivalent to an atomic bomb,” Mohammad Mokhber, a top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, said on Friday, as cited by Press TV.

He vowed that Iran would not “forfeit the gains of this war” and said Tehran would seek to change the legal regime of the strait, through international law if possible and unilaterally if necessary.

The US has rejected Iranian ambitions as “unacceptable,” with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying on Friday that Washington will never allow Tehran to “normalize” its grip on Hormuz.

The US insists that its own naval blockade is intended to restore freedom of navigation and pressure Tehran into a deal, while Iran has accused Washington of violating the April ceasefire by targeting commercial shipping.

The latest incident in the narrow maritime chokepoint, through which a large share of the world’s oil and gas shipments passes, came a day after US and Iranian forces exchanged fire. The US Department of War claimed three American guided-missile destroyers had encountered “unprovoked” missile, drone, and small-boat attacks, and that US forces retaliated against Iranian launch sites, command-and-control locations, and surveillance nodes.

Tehran, however, accused Washington of attacking first, claiming US forces had targeted an Iranian oil tanker in its territorial waters and struck civilian areas along Iran’s southern coast.

Trump downplayed the exchange as a “love tap” after Tehran “trifled” with the US, but warned that if the truce really collapsed, “you’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran,” urging Tehran to sign an agreement “fast.”