West Jerusalem will cut “all contact” with EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas over her reported comparison of the country to apartheid-era South Africa, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has announced.

Relations between the bloc and Israel’s far-right government have steadily deteriorated in the past few years over the war in Gaza, accelerating illegal settlement building, and the invasion of Lebanon. The EU has for years been accused of double standards over its failure to prosecute Israel for possible genocide, while imposing 21 rounds of sanctions against Russia. The gaffe-prone Kallas recently tried to compensate for Brussels’ weak position with statements more critical of Israel.

On Thursday, Sa’ar referenced recent media reports that Kallas had compared modern Israel to apartheid-era South Africa during a private meeting. The minister accused the EU top diplomat of “acting obsessively and with blatant unfairness” and vowed to sever contact with her. 

“As the Foreign Minister of the State of Israel, I have no choice but to sever all contact with Ms. Kallas until she retracts the blood libel she directed at the world’s only Jewish state, which is also the only democracy in the Middle East,” Sa’ar wrote on X.

The response landed poorly with Sa’ar, who reiterated the demand for Kallas to explicitly comment on the reported apartheid comparison. 

“With all due respect, even in your remarks here you refrain from denying or condemning what has been attributed to you and published publicly,” responded Sa’ar. “If you did indeed make these vile and defamatory statements, stand behind them. If you did not make them, deny it.”

EU-Israeli ties were also damaged recently over the Global Sumud Flotilla incident. The fleet, organized by international activists and humanitarian groups, attempted to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza late in May. The flotilla was intercepted, with its participants allegedly subjected to widespread physical and sexual abuse and mocked personally by far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. The incident prompted multiple EU nations to impose a travel ban on Ben-Gvir, while Italy and France launched independent probes.

Wednesday’s vote in the European Parliament on toughening migration rules in the EU has highlighted a major rift between right-wing and left-wing MEPs.

The new measures, which include speeding up the deportation of rejected asylum seekers, were originally proposed by the European Commission last year amid growing public discontent with a continued influx of illegal migrants. The issue has dominated the bloc’s political landscape since 2015 when roughly a million people entered the EU.

By 2025, the EU migrant population had reached a record 64.2 million, including around 46.7 million people born outside the bloc, according to a recent Berlin-based study using Eurostat and UN data.

Against this backdrop, right-wing parties advocating tougher policies on migration have been steadily gaining ground in multiple member states, including Germany. The mainstream Christian-Democrats and center-right have had to co-opt some of the rhetoric they had previously eschewed.

The new EU law was passed by 418 votes to 218, with 30 abstentions.

The center-right European People’s Party (EPP) joined forces with the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN).

By contrast, Alessandro Zan from the Socialists and Democrats group (S&D) described the toughening of immigration laws as a “dark chapter for Europe.”

S&D Vice-President Ana Catarina Mendes similarly lamented that “this regulation risks normalizing legally questionable practices that would have been unthinkable in the EU only a few years ago.”

If given final approval by member states, the new legislation would grant national authorities more powers to search the homes of illegal migrants and to seize their personal belongings. It also raises the maximum detention period for foreign nationals awaiting deportation from six months to two years, with the possibility of a six-month extension, and an unlimited duration for individuals deemed to pose a security risk.

Moreover, member states would be allowed to open “return hubs” in non-EU countries, where rejected asylum seekers would be transferred if they cannot be returned to their countries of origin.

A number of EU nations, including Denmark, Austria, Greece, Germany and the Netherlands, have been mulling this option for some time.

Even Germany and Sweden, which had previously endorsed open-door migrant policies, have made a U-turn, tightening asylum rules at the national level in recent years.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent visit to Moscow highlighted both the depth and durability of cooperation between Turkey and Russia. The structure of the trip itself spoke volumes.

Over the course of two days, Fidan held talks not only on foreign policy issues but also on security and energy matters, underscoring the fact that Moscow and Ankara continue to engage across the full spectrum of their bilateral relationship.

The timing of the visit is particularly noteworthy. It comes at a moment when many European countries and NATO members remain firmly committed to a hardline anti-Russian policy. Against this backdrop, Türkiye stands out as perhaps the only major influential NATO member to have maintained an independent, pragmatic, and broadly constructive approach toward Russia over the past four years. Ankara has kept communication channels open, resisted reducing its foreign policy to automatic alignment with Western positions, and continued to expand cooperation with Moscow in line with its own national interests.

Economics and energy

The unique nature of Russian-Turkish ties is perhaps most evident in the economic sphere. Although bilateral trade declined by roughly 7% in 2025 due to intense Western pressure on Ankara, total trade still exceeded $50 billion. By comparison, Türkiye’s trade volume with the United States stands at approximately $36 billion. The broader picture remains unchanged: Russia continues to be one of Türkiye’s most important economic partners, particularly in the energy sector.

For the Turkish economy – which has been grappling with inflation, currency volatility, and the high cost of external financing – Russian energy supplies serve not only a commercial function but also a stabilizing one. Imports of Russian oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum products help Ankara maintain energy security while reducing costs for both industry and consumers.

Ukraine is not the only issue

While Ukraine featured prominently on the agenda during Fidan’s visit, it was far from the only issue under discussion.

Türkiye continues to position itself as the leading intermediary between Moscow and Kiev. Several factors explain this ambition. First, Ankara maintains working relationships with both sides – a rare diplomatic asset under current circumstances. Second, Türkiye has previously hosted negotiations and understands both the opportunities and the political costs associated with mediation. To be sure, Ankara’s efforts have not always been successful, due in part to an overly optimistic assessment of Kiev’s willingness to compromise. Third, the conflict directly affects Turkish interests in the Black Sea region, including maritime security, food supply routes, and energy infrastructure.

For Ankara, mediation is not merely a humanitarian or diplomatic undertaking. It is also a vehicle for enhancing Türkiye’s international standing. Turkish leaders are eager to demonstrate that Ankara – not Europe’s major players – is capable of engaging simultaneously with Moscow, Kiev, and Western power centers. In this sense, the Ukraine file has become a means of reinforcing Türkiye’s image as an independent Eurasian power capable not only of responding to crises but also of shaping pathways toward their resolution.

Equally important – arguably even more important from Ankara’s perspective – was the Middle East component of the talks.

Türkiye remains deeply concerned about the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, despite the optimism recently expressed by US President Donald Trump. Ankara would like to see Moscow take a more active role in addressing the crisis. Russia maintains close ties with Iran while also preserving channels of communication with Israel – something Türkiye itself cannot currently claim. This places Moscow among the very few actors capable of engaging multiple sides of the regional conflict simultaneously.

Such a role is particularly valuable to Ankara. Turkish-Israeli relations have deteriorated significantly in recent years, while Türkiye’s regional strategy has become increasingly focused on preventing instability along its southern flank. As a result, Fidan likely sought not only to exchange assessments with Russian officials but also to encourage Moscow to play a more active role in preventing further escalation across the Middle East. For Ankara, Russian-Iranian relations represent a potentially important mechanism for diplomatic restraint and crisis management.

Strategic coordination at the highest level

One of the most significant aspects of the visit was Fidan’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. For a foreign minister, being received by the head of state is a clear indication of the political importance attached to the visit.

Fidan’s talks with Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu were equally significant in their own right. They demonstrated that Türkiye views engagement with Russia not solely through a diplomatic lens but also as an important component of regional security management.

Another noteworthy meeting was Fidan’s discussion with Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin. While the details of the talks were not disclosed publicly, the choice of interlocutor speaks for itself. Rosneft remains a central pillar of Russia’s energy policy, and energy continues to serve as the foundation of Russian-Turkish economic relations.

At a time when Türkiye must ensure stable resource supplies, contain domestic energy costs, and support industrial growth, expanding purchases of Russian energy resources remains a highly rational policy option. For Moscow, meanwhile, the Turkish market continues to represent one of its most important channels for maintaining an energy presence in the broader southern region.

A relationship built on pragmatism

Taken together, Hakan Fidan’s visit demonstrated that Russian-Turkish relations rest on a deep institutional and strategic foundation. While Moscow and Ankara continue to disagree on a number of issues, both sides have learned how to manage those differences while extracting mutual benefits from pragmatic cooperation.

Türkiye remains a NATO member, but it has consistently refused to allow the alliance to dictate every aspect of its foreign policy. Russia, for its part, sees Türkiye as an important partner capable of maintaining strategic autonomy amid growing tensions between the West and the non-Western world.

Ultimately, Fidan’s visit illustrates a broader reality: in an era of global turbulence, Moscow and Ankara continue to build their relationship not on ideological affinity but on converging practical interests. In today’s international system, that kind of pragmatism often proves more durable than even the most loudly proclaimed alliances.

The US-Iran war appears to have ended after 108 days, costing American taxpayers over $100 billion, according to estimates gathered by the independent Iran War Cost Tracker.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran, with Tehran also confirming the electronic signing of the document. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the agreement has gone into effect.

What is in the US-Iran memorandum?

The memorandum is meant to extend the ceasefire, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and launch a 60-day negotiating window on a broader settlement, including sanctions relief and nuclear-related commitments.

The deal marks a possible end to a war that has killed thousands of people, displaced millions, depleted US military stockpiles, and driven up energy prices despite Trump’s repeated claims that the conflict would be swift.

How much did the US-Israel war on Iran cost American taxpayers?

Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, when the US and Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran. The Iran War Cost Tracker counted a total 108 days of war, ending on June 16.

The figure, however, is believed to be much higher as it may not fully include things like prewar buildup costs, munitions replacement, interest on debt, and classified programs.

What were US military losses during the war on Iran?

At least 42 US military aircraft were reportedly lost or damaged during the course of the war, costing between $2.3 billion and $2.8 billion, according to a Congressional Research Service tally published last month.

The losses included dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones, several F-15E Strike Eagles, one F-35A fighter jet, an A-10 ground attack aircraft, seven KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft, and an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter that went down near the Strait of Hormuz earlier this month.

Six US airmen were also confirmed killed in a KC-135 crash over western Iraq. Casualty trackers have put total US military deaths during the conflict at 13 to 15. Other public estimates report over 500 servicemen were injured during the conflict.

How many people were killed during the US-Israeli war on Iran?

More than 7,000 people are estimated to have been killed across the region throughout the war. Iranian officials have reported more than 3,400 of their citizens killed and over 26,000 wounded. Lebanon’s health authorities reported more than 3,500 killed in Israeli strikes after the conflict spilled into that country.

Israel also reported fatalities from Iranian missile and drone strikes, while several Gulf states recorded casualties from attacks on US bases and energy infrastructure.

What was the worst atrocity during the US-Israeli war on Iran?

The war’s most symbolic civilian tragedy came on its opening day, when a strike hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, southern Iran. The building was located near a naval base but separated from military facilities by a fence visible in satellite imagery.

Rights groups have demanded accountability from Washington for the strike, accusing it of war crimes. The US has not released a final public finding on responsibility, while Trump has said that “mistakes are made” and that “nobody did that on purpose.”

Trump’s repeated promises

Throughout the conflict, Trump repeatedly suggested the war would end in a matter of weeks. In early March, he described the operation as a short-term “excursion” that would be finished “pretty quickly.”

What economic impact did the US-Israeli war on Iran have?

The war also hit consumers far from the battlefield, dealing a heavy blow to the global economy. The effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane, sent oil and shipping costs skyrocketing.

What happens next?

The memorandum gives Washington and Tehran 60 days to negotiate a broader settlement. Iran is expected to reopen shipping routes and make nuclear-related concessions under international supervision, while the US has offered sanctions relief and economic incentives.

The deal remains fragile. Trump has warned that the US could resume strikes if Iran fails to comply, while critics say the war ended with many of Washington’s original objectives still unfulfilled.

The Rotherham rape gang scandal exposed a profound civilizational betrayal at the heart of modern Britain: a once-cohesive nation, shaped by centuries of shared history and identity, is now undermined by universalist delusions and forced to confront harsh tribal realities, incompatible loyalties, and rapid demographic transformation.

Between the late 1980s and 2013, approximately 1,400 White British girls – many as young as 11, from working-class families or care homes – were systematically groomed, gang-raped, trafficked, and subjected to unimaginable brutality in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

The perpetrators were overwhelmingly men of Pakistani Muslim heritage operating in tightly organized grooming gangs. They preyed on vulnerable native girls, using alcohol, drugs, and false promises of affection to lure them in, before passing them around for repeated sexual violence that frequently involved extreme physical cruelty. The victims suffered pregnancies, forced abortions, miscarriages, and lifelong STDs. To the abusers, these girls were nothing more than “easy meat.”

This was not an isolated outbreak of crime, but a damning case of institutional complicity. The 2014 Jay Report, concluding an independent inquiry bled by Professor Alexis Jay, made clear that police and social services possessed extensive evidence of ethnic patterns and widespread abuse, yet they repeatedly refused to intervene. Officers dismissed traumatized schoolgirls as “prostitutes” exercising “bad lifestyle choices,” while senior officials prioritized “community relations” and suppressed reports that highlighted organized South Asian grooming networks, all to avoid accusations of racism. Whistleblowers were intimidated, marginalized, or silenced. In the end, political correctness and bureaucratic self-preservation mattered more than the safety of native children.

A legitimate state has a primary duty: to protect its own people – its native population, its culture, and above all its children – not to appease imported interests or offer up its daughters on the altar of diversity. By consciously abandoning British girls to their fate, the British state forfeited its moral authority and democratic legitimacy.

Rotherham stands as a damning indictment of Britain’s postwar multicultural experiment. For decades, elites imposed mass immigration from culturally incompatible societies, championed aggressive pluralism, and treated traditional British identity with open hostility. The result has been the transformation of a historic nation into a rootless administrative zone, struggling to manage fractious ethnic enclaves where the concerns of the indigenous majority are routinely subordinated to minority demands and a globalist ideology. This same corrosive process is now visible across much of Western Europe.

This failure brings to mind the grave warnings of several key thinkers. Carl Schmitt, the German jurist and political theorist, argued in The Concept of the Political (1932) that politics fundamentally concerns the distinction between “friend” and “enemy.” A sovereign community must recognize existential threats to its way of life and act decisively to protect its own people through clear distinctions based on loyalty and survival. Oswald Spengler, in his monumental The Decline of the West (1918–1922), described how civilizations slide into irreversible decay once their elites become deracinated and cosmopolitan, severing their organic ties to their own traditions, culture, and people.

In Rotherham, British officials failed Schmitt’s essential test. Blinded by liberal universalism, which holds that all groups are interchangeable and that acknowledging ethnic patterns amounts to bigotry, they refused to draw the necessary friend-enemy line. They chose appeasement over protection, desperate to avoid “Islamophobia” labels. A treasonous ruling class, steeped in colonial guilt, leftist indoctrination, and multicultural zeal, overruled those on the ground who sought to act. Spengler’s dark prophecy had come to pass: these elites had lost the vital instinct to defend their own progeny and civilization.

The 14th-century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun provided a complementary insight with his concept of asabiyyah: the powerful bond of group solidarity, cohesion, and shared purpose that gives a people strength and identity. In prosperous, cosmopolitan societies, this vital force naturally weakens as elites grow soft, individualistic, and detached from their roots.

Rotherham illustrated this tragedy: native British asabiyyah had withered among the ruling class, while the grooming gangs displayed a raw, tribal version of it – tight-knit loyalty that enabled coordinated predation with little restraint. Britain’s institutions, hollowed out and lacking the will to defend their own, proved no match for this imported solidarity.

Rotherham provides grim confirmation: when a declining West imports substantial numbers from a confident, non-assimilating civilization without the resolve to uphold its own ethnic and cultural boundaries, the outcome is not enrichment but systematic abuse and institutional paralysis.

Even today, with belated convictions under Operation Stovewood, the most fundamental questions remain unresolved: What does the state truly owe its native citizens above all others? Can any democracy claim legitimacy after repeated ideological betrayals of its working-class children? Will Britain ever allow honest public discussion of ethnicity and crime without resorting to censorship?

As Enoch Powell warned in his 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, ignoring the hard realities of mass immigration would one day bring tragedy. Powell was viciously denounced for voicing what many already understood instinctively. Yet Rotherham, and the hundreds of other towns scarred by identical horrors, have shown that those rivers have already begun to flow: not only with the blood of innocents, but with the growing rage of a long-betrayed people. The final verdict on Britain’s future will not be dictated by its elites or international opinion, but by whether the British people awaken from their slumber and resolve, with iron determination, to defend their homeland before it is lost forever.

Elon Musk has backed Nuremberg-style trials and executions for the Pakistani rape gangs that abused white British girls. At least 250,000 girls were raped by the gangs, according to a report published on Wednesday.

Released by Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe, the ‘Rape Gangs Report’ revealed that predominantly Pakistani gangs operated in almost half of the UK’s municipalities for decades, subjecting mostly white British girls as young as 11 to depraved sexual abuse, including rape by hundreds of men, rape by dogs, and torture with knives.

The British right responded with outrage. “We need to make the Nuremberg Trials look like a picnic,” ‘Zoomer Historian’, a popular X account, tweeted. “No one involved must escape the death penalty.”

In a one-word response, X owner Musk wrote “yes.”

Yes

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 16, 2026

Lowe’s report – examined here in full by RT – accuses British politicians, local authorities, police, and social workers of covering up, or in some cases participating in, the abuse. According to testimony from survivors, police sometimes handed runaway girls back to the gangs, in one case telling them to “have fun with her.

“The politicians who turned a blind eye to the Rape of Britain must go to prison,” Musk wrote in a separate tweet on Wednesday. Lowe has also called for the prosecution of politicians and officials who enabled the gangs, and vowed that if his party ever forms a government, he would hold a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty so the rapists could be executed.

Lowe has described the probe as “a containment exercise,” criticizing its focus on gang activity in only a handful of locations, and its omission of any analysis of the ethnic and religious factors behind the abuse.

Starmer is named in Lowe’s report as an enabler of abuse, with the document citing his decision as director of public prosecutions to let 13,000 pedophiles off with warning letters instead of prosecuting them.

Musk and Starmer have publicly clashed on multiple occasions, with the tech entrepreneur branding the prime minister “two-tier Keir” over his 2024 decision to free more than 1,000 hardened criminals to clear prison space for people prosecuted over offensive tweets.

The US-Iran War is officially over. After months of back-and-forth negotiations, a finalized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed by US President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, the fighting stopped, and shipping will resume at Iranian ports and through the Strait of Hormuz.

It is this last part that deserves more attention, because the entire focus of the American effort during the negotiation period boiled down to getting oil flowing freely once again through this choke point. As James Carvelle famously noted during former US President Bill Clinton’s 1992 election, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The minutia of foreign policy can drive those elites in power, but to remain in power they need the support of the people on election day, and to get that support they need to attend to affairs of the wallet. It’s the economy, stupid.

The Israeli-driven military misadventure has ended in a strategic defeat for the United States. The inescapable irony is that the principle negotiating position of the US – the opening of the Strait of Hormuz – existed only because of this war. Before the US and Israel committed their combined act of perfidy back in February of this year, the Strait of Hormuz was open to all shipping, and there were no income-generating transit fees.

The US blockade is likewise dissipating. The MOU calls for it to be totally lifted in 30 days, along with the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Because Trump needs the oil to flow. Now.

Because it’s the economy, stupid.

This is the ‘Hormuz Effect’, the reality attached to the fact that Iran’s control of this strategic waterway has empowered it like no nuclear weapon ever could. Iran will forever be positioned to squeeze the economic life out of the world. And there is nothing the US military can do about it.

While the rest of the world ponders the geopolitical consequences of American (and Israeli) imperial overreach, the resumption of the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf is being touted as a masterstroke of US diplomacy, the epitome of presidential leadership, and the result of American grit, determination and military prowess.

Of course, all this is being done to get the American economy (and that of the world, since everything is interconnected these days) back on track, so that by September some impressive economic growth and prosperity statistics can be generated for an American audience unable and/or unwilling to ask the obvious questions, such as how is the return to an economic ‘normal’ that existed before Trump ordered the US military to attack Iran considered good policy?

And the lives lost – those of American servicemembers (a relatively small number), and those of the Iranian people (thousands, including the 165 children murdered while attending school in Minab).

There is no time for morality and common sense amongst the American people. They have money to spend – gas prices are down, and there is a consumer-driven life that must be led. Because it’s the economy, stupid.

This is the ‘Hormuz Effect’: the deliberate dumbing-down of a society driven more by the need to sustain an artificial cocoon of comfort than the necessity of building a foundation of moral and legal responsibility.

Because with responsibility comes the need for accountability, and no American will be called to account for the embarrassing defeat the US has suffered because of this war.

The world will now wrestle with the questions of how the US fits into a changing world order, and any President worth his salt would do the same. But this would require the ability to engage in constructive self-criticism.

The ‘Hormuz Effect’ is the ultimate bribe for a people who have lost all self-respect. A people willing to sweep the crimes committed in their names under a carpet of illusory economic well-being.

The ‘Hormuz Effect’ is the ultimate symbol of the decline of the American dream.

Because it’s the economy, stupid.

The US will set up a permanent stockpile of battle-ready arms for its Marine Corps in Australia, AFP has reported after reviewing tender documents and receiving confirmation from officials.

China has repeatedly denounced military cooperation between the US and Australia, accusing the two nations of undermining security in the Asia-Pacific Region and having a “Cold War mentality.”

The tender documents published by the US Navy earlier in June suggest that it has allocated $30 million to construct warehouses and offices at an Australian military base at Bandiana in the southwestern state of Victoria, AFP reported on Tuesday.

The American stockpile, which is expected to reach full capacity by 2028, will initially be stored in Melbourne before being moved to Victoria, according to the papers.

The US Navy is planning to hire around 110 engineers, mechanics, and safety experts via a global defense contractor to manage the arms depot, the agency said.

A spokesman for the US Marine Corps told AFP that its activities in Australia “support integrated global sustainment by maintaining ready-for-issue equipment and supplies for operations and exercises across the Indo-Pacific.”

The Pentagon has asked the US Congress for $500 million in 2027 to position equipment and fuel across the Asia-Pacific to deter China. The first American stockpile in the region is expected to open in the Philippines later this year.

On Monday, the Lowy Institute think tank warned that Beijing now has the capability to strike northern Australia from its outposts in the South China Sea. AFP pointed out in its article that the American stockpile in Victoria is being set up outside of the range of Chinese ballistic missiles.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian rejected the report by the Lowy Institute, urging Canberra to stop hyping up the “China threat.” Beijing is developing its military capabilities for defensive purposes and has no plans of targeting other countries, Lin stressed.

The EU’s latest Russia sanctions package proposal includes counter-productive measures that could backfire on its own member states, Bulgarian Foreign Minister Velislava Petrova has said.

The government of Ukraine-skeptic Prime Minister Rumen Radev, who assumed office in May, are reportedly “digging their heels in” against European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal.

Sofia has concerns about a number of measures being pushed by Brussels, though the country’s government does not oppose sanctions that could help bring Moscow and Kiev closer to peace talks, Petrova said on Wednesday.

“We support sanctions that have a real economic effect, but do not lead to greater damage for the member states than [Russia],” she said.

Bulgaria depends on Russian energy supplies and is wary of measures targeting Russia’s energy sector. The minister said the government “prioritizes national energy stability” and has red lines similar to other EU members.

Bulgaria opposes EU on military aid for Ukraine

Earlier this month, Sofia announced that it was suspending military assistance to Kiev. Radev has argued that Ukraine’s main problem is a shortage of manpower rather than weapons, and said the EU cannot realistically present itself as a mediator while openly taking Ukraine’s side.

Sanctions on Russian church leader called ‘pinnacle of absurdity’

Sofia also objects to “sanctions that are primarily symbolic,” Petrova added, claiming Brussels’ proposal to sanction Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which Kiev and Brussels claim is a Russian state actor, could be viewed as religious persecution.

Kiev has cracked down on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, an autonomous denomination with spiritual ties to Moscow, through prosecution of senior clerics on charges of associating with Russia, as well as forced evictions from key churches and monasteries.

The ROC has denounced the proposal as the “pinnacle of absurdity.”

Bans on social media for teenagers might seem like a protective measure, but without trust, family accountability, and overall digital literacy, they often backfire. Instead of disappearing from the internet, kids gravitate toward less visible and secure internet spaces, resorting to VPNs, anonymous accounts, and the use of less monitored platforms.

Pavel Durov recently made a similar statement, criticizing the British government’s decision to restrict social media access for users under 16. He argued that such restrictions would push teens into a digital environment with a higher risk of encountering illegal and harmful content, as it doesn’t undergo the standard moderation that social media platforms typically enforce.

Not all children might immediately turn to VPNs, but many are already familiar with these services. According to research by Childnet, 38% of children aged 8-17 in the UK have used a VPN service; among them, 16% did so to bypass parental controls, while another 16% sought to evade school restrictions. In Russia, Durov claims that 95% of teenagers use a VPN for Telegram.

The tension between governments and social media platforms is also evident in the US. Florida has sued TikTok for violating child safety laws. The Attorney General stated that users under the age of 14 cannot have a TikTok account, and those aged 15-16 need parental consent. According to the authorities, TikTok misleads adults by claiming there’s no “adult” content on the platform, such as nudity, drugs, alcohol, or explicit language.

Regardless of the global and domestic context, discussions about children’s online safety must begin at home. Everything starts with healthy relationships, trust, and responsibility within the family. This is where children should learn how to navigate the internet safely, avoiding scams, manipulation, pedophilia, dangerous communities, and misguided advice from AI.

Overreaching bans and the absence of alternatives lead to rule circumvention; moreover, they create distance and restrict communication. Restrictions serve as psychological anesthesia: they provide adults with a false sense of security, as if the problem has been solved. However, with a strong shift toward taboos, Generations Alpha and Beta risk becoming not only the ‘gadget generation’, but ‘generation VPN’, making it a lot harder to track their online activities.

Ultimately, the responsibility for online safety lies with adults, not teens. The internet remains a tool for growth and development. For future success, it is crucial for children to have at least a basic understanding of how to use neural networks, comprehend social media algorithms, promote products and services, create chatbots, and analyze large data sets. These skills are becoming essential for the employability of the younger generation. A failure to cultivate digital maturity, trust, and responsibility will only trigger fresh waves of panic as new internet services and opportunities are introduced. 

What the internet and AI cannot replace is human contact and emotional closeness. These should be the family’s primary assets. The fear of losing control should not outweigh the fear of losing connection with your child. Instead of resorting to yelling, shaming, or taking away devices, adults need to learn to listen and create a space where kids feel safe sharing their secrets, and the absurd and dangerous messages they might receive – like requests for shirtless photos or their dad’s credit card number.

Finland has lifted a long-standing ban on nuclear weapons, allowing them to be transported through or held on its territory. The Finnish parliament claims the move will “strengthen the security” of the country, but opponents say it makes Finland “a target for nuclear strikes.”

Finland’s parliament voted on Wednesday to amend the country’s Nuclear Energy Act and Criminal Code to allow the import, transit, supply, and storage of nuclear weapons on its soil. The measure passed by 125 votes to 61.

Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen celebrated the result, declaring on social media that “this historic reform strengthens the security of Finland and of NATO as a whole.”

The removal of the ban comes three years after Helsinki renounced its decades-long policy of military neutrality and joined NATO. Finland’s accession into the US-led military bloc cratered its relations with Russia, with which it shares a 1,340 km border.

Earlier this year, Moscow cautioned Helsinki against repealing the nuclear ban, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov telling reporters that it could “lead to an escalation of tensions on the European continent.” He added that “by deploying nuclear weapons on its territory, Finland is beginning to threaten us. And if Finland threatens us, we take appropriate measures.”

However, Finland is interested in participating in a French scheme that would potentially see French fighter jets armed with nuclear weapons stationed at its airbases, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said earlier this month. France has around 290 nuclear warheads, and President Emmanuel Macron has said he intends to increase that number, and position them at airbases in friendly countries, in a strategy of “advanced nuclear deterrence” against Russia.

In Helsinki, European Parliament candidate Armando Mema described the lifting of the ban as “a big historical mistake for Finland.”

“This is a highly regrettable decision that undermines the security of Finland,” he wrote on X, adding that it “is not going to make Finland safer, [it] is going to make Finland a target for nuclear strikes. Russia’s posture is going to change drastically after this irresponsible decision.”

The newly signed memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran is a diplomatic victory for Tehran secured through strength and is evidence that Washington failed to achieve any of its military objectives, Iranian officials have said. 

The 14-point document was signed remotely by President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, late on Wednesday and immediately entered force, according to Pakistani mediators.

The US side has been unusually muted in its public response. The White House has also yet to publish the final text of the memorandum, although an unnamed senior US official read out the 14-point document to journalists after days of criticism over the secrecy surrounding the deal.

Meanwhile, Iran’s parliament speaker and chief negotiator in the talks, Mohammad Ghalibaf, described the memorandum as proof of US surrender.

“The agreement is a record of US failure,” Ghalibaf said in a televised interview on Wednesday. “People will see it and judge.”

In response, Iran “will make arrangements” to restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz – something that had not been an issue before the US-Israeli attack. However, Tehran has signaled that the key waterway will not simply return to prewar conditions.

“I emphasize again that the Strait of Hormuz will never return to the previous conditions,” Ghalibaf said. “Iran has the right to sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, we will receive a fee for services.”

Tehran has also highlighted the memorandum’s language on Lebanon. “If the Israeli regime’s attacks on Lebanon continue, it will be considered a violation of the other party’s commitments under the memorandum of understanding,” Baghaei said.

The memorandum is not a final peace agreement, but launches a 60-day negotiation period during which Washington and Tehran are expected to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, frozen assets, the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz, and a final settlement to be endorsed by the UN Security Council.

Trump made multiple unrelated posts on Truth Social hours after signing but said nothing about the deal. Earlier in the day, he defended the memorandum, threatening to “bomb the hell out of” Iran if it failed to comply.

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt has opened a new hybrid warfare center amid the broader militarization of the country in response to a supposed “Russian threat.” Previous media reports have, however, suggested that Germany and other NATO member states are plotting offensive cyber operations against Russia.

The military bloc’s members have routinely accused Russia of hacking government servers, jamming aircraft GPS signals, and redirecting Ukrainian drones into their airspace, with little to no evidence. Moscow has dismissed the allegations as warmongering designed to justify the “rabid militarization” of Europe.

Speaking at the opening ceremony for the center in Berlin on Tuesday, Dobrindt claimed that “Germany is not at war, but we are a daily target of hybrid warfare.”

Dobrindt said Germany is not merely “waiting for something to happen,” with the center set to be involved from day one in what he described as “active cyber defense.”

The minister also announced an imminent cabinet decision to grant greater powers to the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), with the aim of turning them into true “intelligence agencies.”

The Bundeswehr now considers hybrid measures such as cyberattacks and so-called disinformation campaigns to be preparatory stages leading up to a military conflict, Politico reported last year, citing the classified Operational Plan for Germany (OPLAN).

“It’s not enough that we are just defending… We also have to have offensive capacity,” she said at the time.

In late 2024, the US-led military bloc unveiled plans to establish a new integrated cyber defense center at its headquarters in Belgium, which is expected to become operational by 2028. Last November, Politico reported that NATO’s European members were considering conducting offensive cyber operations against Russia.

Israeli police have clashed with Haredi Jews who blocked a major highway near Tel Aviv in protest over the arrest of a draft dodger from the ultra-Orthodox community.

Dozens of protesters blocked traffic in both directions on Route 4 east of Tel Aviv early on Wednesday, sitting on the road and crawling under vehicles as law enforcement attempted to dislodge them. Police deployed stun grenades and used batons against the demonstrators, footage from the scene shows.

Law enforcement officers were seen dragging ultra-Orthodox protesters off the road by their clothing, with several people having their pants ripped in the process. At least five were detained at the scene, while around eight demonstrators suffered minor injuries during the altercation.

הפגנה בכביש 4: עימותים קשים בין המפגינים למשטרה pic.twitter.com/gzFBST7SFa

— כאן חדשות (@kann_news) June 17, 2026

The Jerusalem Faction, one of the groups behind the protest, strongly condemned the actions of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s police, accusing them of “selective enforcement” and “humiliating and unrestrained violence” against the Haredi community. The group pledged to bring the issue to the High Court of Justice should “this unacceptable conduct” continue.

הפרגוד: מפקד תחנת ב"ב/רמת גן סנ"צ יובל שביט קורע מכנסים לאברך בהפגנת הפלג בכביש גהה pic.twitter.com/pgySWsAVjc

— הפרגוד (@moshepargod) June 17, 2026

Ben-Gvir, who has previously openly cheered heavy-handed policing practices, issued a restrained statement on the incident, saying he had held an “urgent meeting” over it to ensure that police use stun grenades only in “exceptional cases.”

While military service is mandatory for most Israeli citizens, both men and women, members of the Haredi community have historically enjoyed an exemption. The arrangement ended in 2014, resulting in repeated arrests of draft dodgers by the authorities and ensuing mass protests. The situation further deteriorated amid the Gaza war, with the Supreme Court ruling in 2024 that thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews must be conscripted. However, the mass draft of members of the community has so far been delayed.

US President Donald Trump has personally signed a copy of the memorandum of understanding with Tehran, with a photo of the document sent to the Iranian side and the mediators.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed on Wednesday that the text of the memorandum had been officially finalized and “signed by both sides.” Trump signed the document while attending a dinner alongside French President Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the G7 summit.

“It’s signed. I signed it in Versailles,” Trump said as he left the palace on Wednesday night.

The White House has yet to publish the final text of the memorandum, but a senior US official read out the 14-point document to journalists earlier on Wednesday, following days of criticism over the secrecy.

🚨 President Donald J. Trump has SIGNED the Iran Memorandum of Understanding at Versailles in France. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/JQ6qlbvFAF

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 17, 2026

The readout largely tracked the leaked text, but included more detailed language on Lebanon’s sovereignty, the phasing out of the US naval blockade, the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz, and the handling of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile under IAEA supervision.

“We do not separate the United States and the Israeli regime, but their differences in approach and methods are clearly evident,” Baghaei said, according to Press TV. “If the Israeli regime’s attacks on Lebanon continue, it will be considered a violation of the other party’s commitments under the memorandum of understanding.”

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the talks, announced that the “Islamabad MoU shall enter into force with immediate effect” and that, as a first step, “the Islamic Republic of Iran will instantly reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States of America will immediately lift the naval blockade.”

Below is the official text in full, as narrated by a senior US official who has not been publicly named. Substantive changes from the previously leaked draft are marked in bold.

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly agreed in good faith on [date] on the following:

1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and to ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

3. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal within a maximum of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.

4. Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the prewar traffic levels being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.

6. The United States of America undertakes, with regional partners, to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least 300 billion USD for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.

7. The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, on an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the above-mentioned sanctions termination issue and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework to be agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the above-mentioned nuclear issues and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

10. The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, the US Department of the Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurance, transportation, etc.

11. The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.

12. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and future compliance with the final deal.

13. After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles.

14. The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

Russia has updated its Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf, one of the most sensitive regions in global politics.

The update comes at a moment when tensions around Iran and resulting threats to maritime navigation and energy infrastructure, as well as the general deficit of trust among key Middle Eastern actors have once again exposed how fragile the balance in the Persian Gulf remains.

Russia recognizes that the region is going through an acute crisis phase and therefore needs collective political and diplomatic work. Moscow is calling for long-term compromise solutions that could reduce tensions and create conditions for turning the Persian Gulf into a space of cooperation, sustainable development and predictability.

Rather than being a reaction to one specific regional crisis, Russia’s proposals for Persian Gulf security form part of a long-standing policy line that has been developing since the late 1990s. Even then, Moscow proposed looking for a more balanced regional model in which the Arab Gulf states, Iran, Iraq and external actors could discuss security issues not through the language of threats, but through diplomatic mechanisms. Later, this idea was refined in the 2004 and 2007 versions, received a more detailed form in 2019 and was updated again in 2021. Each new version changes in the regional environment and responded to the challenges of its time.

However, if the earlier versions focused more on the contours of a future architecture, the 2026 document focuses on steps that can be discussed and launched now: prevention of incidents, protection of navigation, security of energy infrastructure, arms control, the fight against transnational threats and the prevention of one state’s territory being used to strike another.

The first key block of the updated concept concerns international law. Stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible without respect for the UN Charter and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of individual states – a crucial principle for a region where many crises have developed under external pressure. It sets the limits of acceptable behavior and confirms the right of states to determine their own domestic and foreign policy.

The next important element concerns non-interference in internal affairs. Russia insists that domestic problems of states must be resolved within the legal framework and through national dialogue. The experience of Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya has shown how destructive attempts to forcibly reshape political reality can be.

Multilateralism occupies a special place. Moscow proposes discussing security not in narrow closed formats, but with due regard for the interests of all participants. Contradictions between Iran and several Arab monarchies remain, the role of outside powers is strong, and the memory of wars, sanctions and attacks on infrastructure continues to shape political reality. If one side is excluded from the conversation in advance, there can be no sustainable solution.

Another central principle of the updated concept is the indivisibility of security. It is impossible to strengthen the security of one side in a way that makes another side feel directly threatened. The Gulf region is dense with military infrastructure, energy facilities, ports, narrow maritime corridors and sensitive communications. One misstep or incident can quickly grow into an international crisis. That is why Moscow proposes looking at security more broadly, linking military, political, economic, energy, transport and environmental dimensions.

A key feature of the Russian initiative remains its gradual approach. Moscow is not calling for the immediate creation of a new organization and is not proposing a universal treaty that would solve all contradictions at once. Such an approach might sound attractive, but it would hardly be realistic. Russia wants to solve the most urgent issues first. These include freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear non-proliferation and the fight against international terrorism. Only after that can the region move toward more complex formats of trust and cooperation.

The Strait of Hormuz occupies a special place in the updated concept. A significant share of global energy trade passes through this corridor, and any threat to navigation immediately affects global markets. For the countries of the region, this is a matter of revenue and security, but for external partners, including Russia, it is an element of global economic stability.

The practical nature of the new version is especially evident in the clause on preventing the territory of Gulf states from being used by third parties for attacks against neighbors. This is one of the most sensitive issues of the current stage, and the Russian concept postulates that the territory of one state must not become a launching pad for a strike against another – in the name of both confidence-building and sovereignty preservation.

Arms control is also an important issue. Moscow proposes discussing the creation of demilitarized zones, the prevention of destabilizing accumulations of conventional weapons and the possibility of balanced reductions in military capabilities. For the Persian Gulf, this is a difficult but long overdue topic. The region remains one of the world’s largest arms markets, where modern air defense systems, aircraft, missiles, drones and naval assets both strengthen national defense and increase mutual anxiety – easily an arms race in the making.

Nuclear non-proliferation remains one of the central questions as well. The Russian initiative supports the prospect of creating a zone in the Middle East and North Africa free of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The crisis around Iran’s supposed nuclear weapon ambitions and Israel’s undeclared arsenal has clearly shown that selective approaches do not work. The region needs universal rules that do not create exceptions and do not provoke new suspicions.

The economic dimension has received a significant update in the latest version of Russia’s strategy. Beyond the prevention of war, it frames security as the ability to trade, invest, develop transport projects, maintain humanitarian ties, cooperate on environmental issues and build infrastructure. Not only does this approach help build individual local states’ resilience through mutual interest in development, it serves Russia as well. Gulf countries are some of its most important and reliable partners in both political and trade-economic spheres.

A practical approach

Russia’s updated concept offers an alternative to endless crisis management. Today, the Gulf often lives in a mode of reaction to the next threat. An incident occurs, and emergency diplomacy begins. Tensions around Iran rise, and military preparations intensify. A threat to navigation appears, and the parties again look for temporary solutions. Russia’s approach suggests not waiting for the next fire, but creating mechanisms in advance that can help prevent it.

Of course, the path toward such a system will be difficult. Mutual distrust remains strong in the region. External players pursue their own interests. Military infrastructure has long been built into the security systems of many countries. The Russian concept does not promise an instant solution to all problems. It combines principles vital for long-term stability with tools that can be discussed right now.

For Russia, this initiative is a matter of both strategy and diplomacy. Moscow is showing that it is not leaving Middle Eastern politics and is not limiting its regional presence to a set of bilateral relations. It is offering a broader agenda in which Persian Gulf security is treated as a common task, relying on its experience of interaction with all sides and on its own interest in the region’s stability.

Russia understands that fair regional security cannot be built on the dominance of one center of power while turning small and medium-sized states into instruments of someone else’s strategy. It recognizes the autonomy of regional actors and their right to participate in shaping the rules. Too often in the Persian Gulf has external competition replaced regional dialogue.

The choice before the Gulf

The countries of the region now face a choice. The Gulf can remain a space of permanent threats, military pressure, sanctions, and dangerous incidents. Or it can gradually become a region where states agree on rules, respect each other’s sovereignty, protect maritime communications, prevent attacks on civilian infrastructure, and do not allow external contradictions to destroy their own development.

Moscow is proposing the second scenario. Russia understands the complexity of the region and the depth of its contradictions. Yet endless crises cannot become the norm for a region on which a significant share of global energy, trade and political stability depends. The alternative must be built through dialogue, mutual guarantees, small practical steps and recognition of a simple fact: security in the Persian Gulf can only be common.

The Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal has given the local office of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency the green light to continue surveilling the state chapter of Alternative for Germany (AfD). The right-wing opposition party has consistently polled ahead of its mainstream rivals nationwide, despite facing pressure on both the federal and regional levels.

Founded in 2013, the AfD advocates tougher immigration laws and also opposes Germany’s support for Ukraine, including sanctions against Russia. In the federal elections last February, it came in second at 20%, winning 152 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag. However, the party was excluded from coalition talks and government formation as part of a policy known as the ‘firewall’ in German politics.

On Wednesday, the court rejected the AfD’s appeal against monitoring by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).

The party’s regional chapter was placed under state surveillance in 2022, and lower courts had already dismissed its challenges. Bavaria’s highest administrative court has now ruled that the verdict is final, determining that the AfD’s objections are “unfounded.”

The latest ruling says earlier court decisions already sufficiently addressed the legal basis for surveillance, with the Federal Administrative Court deeming some AfD-linked statements on ‘remigration’, Muslims, and alleged calls for the overthrow of “Germany’s free democratic order” as going beyond constitutionally permissible criticism.

In February, an administrative court in Cologne considering the appeal granted a temporary injunction in favor of the AfD pending a final decision.

Should the BfV secure the “confirmed right-wing extremist” label, it would gain wider powers to surveil the AfD and its members, including through wiretaps and informants. The party is already subject to a lower-level designation that permits monitoring, though under tighter judicial controls. At the same time, several regional authorities have moved ahead by treating local AfD chapters as surveillance priorities.

Earlier this year, the state of Lower Saxony imposed the confirmed right-wing extremist status on the regional branch of the AfD, alleging that it “holds our state and our democratic institutions in contempt,” and views people with a migrant background as “second-class citizens.” In four other German states – Brandenburg, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia – the local AfD branches are likewise deemed a confirmed right-wing extremist entity, while in Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland, the party has been declared a suspected case.

Meanwhile, an INSA opinion poll earlier this month indicated that the AfD was Germany’s most popular party at 29%. At the same time, 77% of respondents said they were dissatisfied with Chancellor Merz’s performance – the worst rating of his tenure, according to Bild, which published the survey’s findings.

Israel has moved to reduce the powers of Palestinian authorities in Hebron, one of the most volatile cities in the occupied West Bank, in a step Palestinians say violates a decades-old agreement and advances annexation.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced on Tuesday that Israel has “abolished” parts of the 1997 Hebron Agreement, which gave the Palestinian municipality authority over planning, zoning, and construction in parts of the city under Israeli security control.

“For many years, one of the most absurd clauses of the Oslo Accords remained in place,” Smotrich said, claiming that authority over the Jewish settlement in Hebron and holy sites had depended on what he called the “terrorist municipality of Hebron.”

The Israeli Foreign Ministry later sought to contain the fallout, insisting that the Hebron Agreement had not been canceled entirely and that only specific planning and construction powers related to the Jewish community in Hebron had been transferred, citing alleged non-cooperation by the Palestinian municipality. 

The very next day after Smotrich’s announcement, Israeli planning authorities approved construction of a new Jewish religious school building in Hebron without consulting the Palestinian municipality.

Palestinian activist Issa Amro, who lives in Hebron, told RT that the step is “another proof that the Israeli government is the main obstacle for peace,” warning that the move would increase violence, instability, and settler attacks on Palestinians.

According to the UN office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs, Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians have risen sharply in the West Bank, from around 852 in 2022, to over 1,820 in 2025. Settlers have already killed 13 Palestinians in the region so far this year, according to UN data, in addition to others killed by the Israeli military.

Amro said life in Hebron is already shaped by Israeli checkpoints, settler violence, army restrictions and shortages of basic services like water and electricity. He added that the annulment of the Hebron Agreement fits Israel’s broader policy of making Palestinian life unbearable in order to push residents out. “It’s a kind of ethnic cleansing policy from the Israeli government,” Amro said.

Smotrich, a far-right minister and West Bank settler who also holds authority in the Defense Ministry over civilian affairs in the region, has repeatedly said his goal is to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state and deepen Israeli sovereignty over the territory.

More than 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Most of the international community considers the Israeli settlements illegal under international law, a position Israel rejects.

At least 250,000 British girls suffered sickening sexual abuse by Pakistani gangs, who were enabled by police, social workers, and even Prime Minister Keir Starmer, to commit “child rape on an industrial scale,” British MP Rupert Lowe’s ‘Rape Gang Report’ has detailed. 

Published on Tuesday, the 218-page report makes for sobering reading. It details the decades-long abuse of hundreds of thousands of white British girls – and smaller numbers of white boys and Sikh girls – by organized Pakistani ‘grooming gangs’ in 149 districts of the UK. 

Put together in just over a year, the report cost £600,000 ($803,000), drew on interviews with hundreds of victims and thousands of Freedom of Information requests, and yet has received zero mainstream coverage. Amid the UK media blackout, here’s what you need to know:

How is the rape gangs report different?

The British government has held several probes into child sexual abuse by so-called ‘grooming gangs’ in northern England before, most notably the Jay Inquiry and Telford Inquiry. However, both of these investigations were narrowly-focused on specific locations, and did not conclude that the gangs were a nationwide phenomenon.

Unlike the Telford and Jay reports, Lowe’s report was not funded by taxpayer money, and focused on the entire UK, rather than just northern England. The investigation was crowdfunded, and the report draws on previous studies, court records, and interviews with survivors to conclude that predominantly Pakistani rape gangs operated in 149 local authority districts in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – almost half of the UK’s 317 municipalities.

Lowe’s report explicitly frames the abuse as racially- and religiously-motivated, describing it as “evil that has been, and continues to be, perpetrated by chiefly Pakistani Muslim men against vulnerable young white women and girls.”

How many girls were abused?

Previous reports suggested that around 250,000 women and girls had been raped by grooming gangs since the year 2000, based on extrapolated data from towns like Rotherham and Telford. Lowe’s report describes this number as “a bare minimum,” pointing out the problem of under-reporting encountered by other studies, and the fact that “sexual abuse of all kinds tends to be under-reported.”

Given that Britain’s first instance of gang-rape by Pakistani men was reported in 1955, “victims must number in the hundreds of thousands,” the report states. 

What kind of abuse did the gangs commit against girls?

Witness testimony makes up the bulk of the report. With a few exceptions, including a boy who was raped by a gang of white British men, the cases followed a similar pattern: a working class white girl suffering trauma or abuse at home is groomed by older Muslim men, who provide her with alcohol, drugs, and gifts. Once her trust is gained, the girl is repeatedly raped and physically abused, often by hundreds of men. 

Lowe read some of the most harrowing testimony aloud in a parliamentary session earlier this month, and the report goes into further, explicit detail.

In Parliament, reading the testimonies of rape gang survivors provided to our inquiry.

Please watch, listen and understand. pic.twitter.com/C7dyIL46ga

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) June 17, 2026

Girls as young as 11 were targeted by men in their 40s and 50s, some of whom invited their relatives to join in the gang rape. The following testimony is drawn straight from the report:

• “Michelle claims she was raped by between six and seven hundred different men over the course of three years”

• “She was… raped by a dog as the men placed bets on whether it would penetrate her vagina or her anus”

• “She was subjected to penetration with objects. She was urinated on. Her legs were held open. She was bitten on the back, cut on the leg and strangled”

• “I was intimidated with guns, and threatened with body parts being cut off with knives”

• “I was beaten, black and blue, raped. Not only sexually raped with their body parts themselves, but with objects as well. I was taken to A&E [Accident and Emergency] because my vagina was split open from a glass bottle.”

Multiple victims described being transported across the UK from one group of abusers to another, with some spending months on end being passed around between rapists.

“It was all of the white girls in every home that I went to. And I mean, I’ve seen girls locked... I remember a man opening the back of a van and I saw maybe 15, 20 girls locked in dog cages. Looked like they’re on drugs.”

Were all the perpetrators Pakistani?

Multiple victims claimed that almost all of their rapists were Muslims of Pakistani descent, with one saying that “98% of them were Pakistani Muslim. If not, they were Iraqi Muslim or Kurdish.”

In cases that resulted in prosecution, “approximately 87% of those convicted bore distinctively Muslim names,” the report states, citing earlier research. Additional research by Dr. Taj Hargey, an imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation, estimated that 95% of suspects in grooming gang cases “are of Muslim faith.”

Lowe explicitly links rape with immigration, pointing out that 8,593 rape cases were reported in the year 2000, a number that rose to over 70,000 “when the era of large-scale mass immigration into the country commenced under [former Prime Minister Tony] Blair.”

Were the British police involved?

The 2022 Jay Report criticized police and local authorities for failing to intervene for “fear of being thought racist.” Some of the testimony in Lowe’s report goes further, accusing healthcare staff at care homes of pimping girls out to abusers and allowing Pakistani men to sign girls out of facilities at will, and social welfare workers of returning children to live with gangs of rapists in government-provided housing.

Girls who arrived at police stations after being raped were often treated as child prostitutes who had consented to sex with their adult abusers. One girl was raped by a police sergeant, while another was ordered to drop her case by a Muslim officer who was later convicted of child sex abuse. 

Parents who attempted to intervene were stonewalled. One mother who told police that her daughter had been abused by “Asian men” was supposedly told “You can’t describe them as Asian men because that’s racist. You should just be glad your child is being taught a different culture” (In the UK, ‘Asian’ typically refers to people of South Asian descent, such as those of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Sri Lankan heritage). 

Was Keir Starmer involved?

Lowe’s report describes this probe as “a containment exercise,” focusing on only a few narrow areas and omitting any analysis of the demographic and religious factors behind the abuse. Starmer’s Labour Party, the report claims, was directly involved in covering up the scandal.

At least four Labour councillors and MPs have been convicted of child abuse, while others “either failed to crack down on rape gangs or obstructed efforts to do so.” Among them were:

• Labour councillor Shaun Wright, who remained in charge of children’s services in Rotherham despite knowing about the activities of rape gangs in the city

• London Mayor Sadiq Khan, of Pakistani descent, who denied the existence of grooming gangs in the British capital, despite having evidence proving otherwise

• Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who as director of public prosecutions between 2008 and 2013, let 13,000 pedophiles off with warning letters instead of prosecuting them

What role did Islam play in the abuse?

Lowe’s report claims that the abuse was fueled by the “clannish” culture of British Pakistanis, which ensured that families and relatives stayed silent and protected rapists within their communities. This element of Pakistani society was noted in previous investigations too, with the Telford Report concluding that the “lack of engagement from the Asian community” made establishing the true extent of the abuse impossible.

The document also blames the “racially supremacist attitudes” and “us-and-them mindset” of Muslims, stating that the Quran instructs believers to treat “non-Muslims with contempt,” permits sex slavery of non-Muslims, and discourages Muslims from speaking up, lest they “damage the image of the Muslim community or bring discredit to Islam.”

Victim testimony suggests that many abusers attempted to provide Quranic justification for their crimes. Some were called “white slags,” “white trash,” or “kuffar bitches” who deserved punishment, and one was told that “her God had abandoned her.”

“I was told that Muslim girls are good and pure, and stay virgins until marriage, but all white girls are slags, and they all sleep with hundreds of people,” one victim recalled. “They are lower than shit under your shoe. They don’t obey Allah, so they deserve to be punished.”

What happens next?

The report recommends “mandatory annual training on group-based child sexual exploitation” for all emergency and social workers, and the prosecution of those who enabled the abuse. Every foreign national convicted of child sexual abuse should “at the very least be deported,” the report states, although Lowe has promised that if his Restore Britain party ever takes power, he would “with the British people’s approval, put them to death.”

However, Lowe is Restore Britain’s only MP, and the party is still a fringe movement. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK dominates the right-wing vote in the UK, and is currently polling at 26%, with Restore Britain languishing at 3%. 

The Rape Gang Inquiry - what happens next.

I intend to use my parliamentary privilege to name perpetrators and their enablers in the chamber.

This will be done incredibly carefully with our legal team involved every step of the way to ensure that no future prosecutions are…

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) June 17, 2026

Lowe’s report has not been acknowledged by Labour, the Conservatives, or Reform, and its publication has been met with a near-total media blackout. However, Lowe’s reach on social media – particularly on X, where he is regularly retweeted by Elon Musk – is growing rapidly. According to the Financial Times, Lowe’s posts on the platform regularly garner ten times the engagement of Farage’s, despite him having half as many followers as the Reform UK leader.

Lowe has vowed to turn this attention into action. On Wednesday, he announced that he intends to “name perpetrators and their enablers” in parliament, with the aim of “put[ting] people in prison.” Lowe said that he is also providing law enforcement authorities with evidence needed to reopen old cases, and encouraging victims to file civil lawsuits against their abusers.

The bottom line

The report points to a wholesale failure in the British government’s duty of care to its children, and thoroughly delegitimizes the institutions of the British state, as well as its leaders.

Previous reports have been swept under the rug by Labour and Tory governments alike, and with the country’s mainstream parties ignoring Lowe’s hearings, there is little to suggest that the reaction to this report will be any different. However, while the government and mainstream media can ignore the report, or write Lowe off as a racist crank, the rape gangs scandal has permanently tarred the British public’s faith in the state.

Just 43% of the public trust the Labour government’s official inquiry into the scandal, with 42% trusting the justice system, 29% trusting social services, and 22% trusting Starmer to handle the issue, according to a 2025 YouGov poll. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s main trait is his mercifulness, RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan has said.

Simonyan was asked to expand on the Russian leader’s personality during an extensive interview with Zhang Weiwei, a professor of international relations at Fudan University and host of ‘China Now’ on Shanghai’s Dragon TV, which aired on Wednesday.

The RT Editor-in-Chief replied by saying that she “could go on about that for a very long time,” but, instead, decided to focus on a single trait that she considers “the most important in a person.”

Putin “is a man in whom this trait... is incredibly well developed, and it’s at a level, I think, close to the high standards bequeathed to us by Jesus Christ. This trait is called mercifulness,” she said.

Because of Putin’s compassionate and merciful nature, she is proud to consider herself “a part of his team,” she added.

Simonyan and Zhang touched upon many other issues during their conversation, including the clampdown on RT in the West, China’s technological developments, the dangers presented by AI, Russia’s rocky history in the 1990s and the lessons the RT Editor-in-Chief learned while studying in the US.

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser has described a reported European Parliament inquiry into his contacts with Russian officials as “surreal,” arguing that the EU is targeting dialogue with Moscow while seeking a role in future Ukraine peace efforts.

The local news outlet Luxemburger Wort reported on Monday that European Parliament President Roberta Metsola had asked the legislature’s ethics watchdog to examine whether Kartheiser’s visit to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) earlier this month created the impression that he was representing the European Parliament, given its suspension of formal ties with Russia’s State Duma.

Kartheiser noted that EU leaders meeting on June 18–19 are expected to discuss the bloc’s role in future peace efforts, despite Europe’s lack of direct involvement in contacts between Moscow and Kiev and its continued pledge of “unwavering support” for Ukraine.

Draft conclusions for this week’s European Council summit state that the EU is ready to “step up” its diplomatic role. European officials have repeatedly argued that the bloc should be represented in any eventual settlement, although no formal peace negotiations are currently underway and no envoy has been agreed upon.

The EU meanwhile is preparing a 21st package of sanctions against Russia, and G7 leaders on Tuesday pledged additional military aid to Ukraine.

Watch the full exclusive interview with Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser below.

Police in Berlin forcibly broke up a demonstration by Polish activists seeking to place a wooden cross at a memorial to their country’s victims of Nazi Germany on Tuesday, according to organizers and footage circulating online.

The organizers, the Polish Border Defense Movement, have argued that the memorial, currently marked by a large commemorative boulder near the Reichstag, does not adequately reflect the scale of Poland’s suffering during World War II and lacks both a cross and explicit national symbols.

Footage from the scene appeared to show police officers pushing and shoving participants as they attempted to approach the memorial. Several activists were seen being physically restrained, while video also showed officers struggling with demonstrators over the wooden cross. Six people were temporarily detained during the operation, according to police.

⚠️🔴 German Police Brutality Against Members of Poland's Border Defence Movement

The group travelled to Berlin to place a cross near a memorial dedicated to Poles who died during World War II. German authorities reportedly would not allow the cross or any historical banners to… pic.twitter.com/wJUjDJIpph

— Aɴᴛ (@AntSpeaks) June 17, 2026

“The German police brutally attacked us. The officers began to thrash us and tried to wrest the cross from our hands. We refused to allow this desecration,” Robert Bakiewicz, the movement’s founder, wrote on X.

The movement has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of EU migration policy, particularly migrant returns from Germany to Poland, a dispute that has fueled tensions between Warsaw and Berlin in recent years.

Berlin police said officers intervened after participants ignored instructions to either hold a stationary protest or visit the memorial individually.

“Since resistance occurred… our operational forces applied coercive measures,” Berlin Police said on X.

GermaNazi Gestapo’s methods still surface within German policing?@TheSun @thesun @thetimes @nytimesworld @Telegraph @TelegraphWorld @DailyMail @dailymail @GBNEWS
On 1st anniversary of temporary memorial to Polish victims of Nazism in Berlin, a peaceful prayer gathering turned… pic.twitter.com/f3oLQ0QwVj

— Prem 🇵🇱🤝🏻🕊 (@Prem_reborn) June 17, 2026

Berlin police said officers intervened after participants ignored instructions to either hold a stationary protest or visit the memorial individually.

“Since resistance occurred… our operational forces applied coercive measures,” Berlin Police said on X.

Some users argued that the images carried particular historical resonance given Germany’s wartime occupation of Poland. Between 1939 and 1945, Nazi Germany carried out a campaign of terror that resulted in the deaths of approximately six million Polish citizens, including around three million Polish Jews.

The UK will divert money from other government departments to increase the defense budget, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said.

He made the remarks at the G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains, France, on Tuesday – days after Defense Secretary John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns resigned over the government’s military spending plans.

”I have taken the decision to reallocate money from other departments,” Starmer told reporters, adding that discussions were under way with the new defense secretary on how the money would be spent and which capabilities would be prioritized.

Every government department has been tasked with finding cuts to fund the military, with Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy confirming on Sunday that cabinet ministers have been told to look for further reductions. The move has drawn criticism from some MPs, who question why military funding is treated as a priority while departments covering health, housing, and social care face cuts.

However, fact-checking organization Full Fact said the figure referred to the Defense Ministry’s projected overall spending rather than additional new funding.

Military officials have warned that operational activity may have to be scaled back without additional funding, while continuing to cite an alleged threat from Russia, which they claim is “probing, challenging, and testing our defenses.” Chief of the Defense Staff Richard Knighton told lawmakers that exercises and deployments would need to be “dialed back” if resources did not increase.

In his resignation letter, Healey complained that Starmer had been “unable, and the Treasury unwilling, to commit the resources” needed for sweeping military reforms and to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 in line with Britain’s NATO obligations.

The funding row has coincided with fresh problems for the Royal Navy. Critics say years of underfunding have left Britain’s armed forces overstretched despite London’s ambitions to project military power overseas.

Earlier this month, HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy’s co-flagship, was unable to join a NATO exercise after a technical fault was discovered. Its sister ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth, was also forced to withdraw from NATO maneuvers in 2024.

Media reports also said all of Britain’s Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines were stuck in port awaiting maintenance or repairs, leaving the Royal Navy without a deployable hunter-killer submarine.

Israel has accused Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko of anti-Semitism after he compared its actions in Gaza to the horrors of the Holocaust.

In a recent interview with Al Arabiya, Lukashenko condemned Israel’s destruction of Gaza and said West Jerusalem should be more careful, given the level of global outrage over its military campaign in the Palestinian enclave.

“They have already received such a rating in the world community that it could hardly get any worse after bombing Gaza,” he said. “Many have even looked back into history: ‘What Holocaust? What Holocaust can the Israelis talk about when they have killed so many people, first of all women and children?’”

He claimed that Gaza had been “wiped off the face of the Earth” and condemned what he described as plans to build “some kind of resort” on the bones of the Palestinian people.

Lukashenko was apparently referring to proposals to empty Gaza of Palestinians and turn the devastated enclave into a luxury waterfront project, an idea first floated by US President Donald Trump and praised as “revolutionary” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Any comparison between the Holocaust of the Jewish people and Israel’s just war against terrorism must be unequivocally rejected,” the ministry said on X, accusing Lukashenko of reviving “vile, outdated anti-Semitic conspiracies.”

Minsk has yet to respond to Israel’s comments, but Lukashenko has repeatedly denied being an anti-Semite in the past, while continuing to portray Israel’s war in Gaza as an atrocity.

The exchange comes as Israel faces mounting international accusations of genocide over its military campaign in Gaza. The war began after a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023 left approximately 1,200 people dead.

Israel’s response has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities, with women and children making up around half of the fatalities.

The International Court of Justice has also been hearing a genocide case against Israel, while a growing number of governments, UN experts and human rights groups have accused West Jerusalem of pursuing policies intended to make Palestinian life in Gaza impossible.

Israel has repeatedly dismissed such accusations as anti-Semitic or as political attacks on its right to self-defense.

The war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran deserves a place in contemporary international relations textbooks. Not because it overturns everything we know about power, but because it shows how the use of power is changing.

Classical approaches to relations between states still matter and the balance of power hasn’t disappeared. Military superiority still counts, but the consequences of using force have become less predictable than before because coercion no longer produces linear outcomes. This applies not only to direct military intervention, as in the case of Iran, but also to sanctions and other forms of pressure.

If one strips away the rhetoric, which all sides require for domestic reasons, the picture is straightforward. A coalition that was clearly stronger, consisting of the US, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states, failed to achieve the objectives it set for itself when it launched a military campaign against a clearly weaker adversary: Iran and its allied groups in the region, with likely limited support from Russia and China.

The aim was to deliver a swift, crushing blow to a regime considered weakened by external pressure and internal divisions. Donald Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender” captured the mood perfectly as the assumption was that Tehran would buckle under the pressure.

This is where one of the defining features of the new era came into view as asymmetrical counter-action. Iran couldn’t match the US and Israel in conventional strength, but it didn’t need to because it used the tools available to it in ways that offset many of the enemy’s advantages.

First, it moved to close the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, something it had long threatened but never before dared to do. Second, it struck not only American targets in the region, but also the assets of key US partners. Third, it relied on large weapons stockpiles which, although inferior to those of the US and Israel, were sufficient to inflict serious damage on countries unused to absorbing such blows. Fourth, Iran demonstrated a tolerance for damage substantially higher than that of its enemies.

The current outcome speaks for itself as none of the issues over which the US and Israel went to war has been resolved. Everything has once again been deferred to future negotiations and everyone understands that negotiations in the tradition of Persian diplomacy mean tenacity and patience.

In essence, after an intense armed conflict that threw the whole world into turmoil, the status quo that had been destroyed at the beginning of the war has simply been restored. The Strait of Hormuz is to be reopened to shipping, although even the conditions for that remain unclear as both sides interpret them differently.

The broader political consequence is the relative weakening of the dominant power in the shape of the US. Trump has shown that he is deeply reluctant to become embroiled in another full-scale military confrontation, having failed to achieve his objectives in a war he himself began.

On one level, this is common sense because he understands that another round would likely end as the first did, in stalemate. But on another level, it sends a signal to everyone else that the US is no longer willing to take unnecessary risks simply to preserve prestige and maintain dominance. Its partners must still account for American power, but they can no longer assume that Washington will always carry the ultimate burden for them.

This is a global phenomenon, not merely a Middle Eastern one. It’s especially visible in the region, but the same logic applies elsewhere.

It is too early to say what this will mean in the medium term, but the entire Middle Eastern framework, the construction of which began during Trump’s first term, has been shaken. That framework was based on the gradual reconciliation of Israel with its Arab neighbors, especially the wealthy Gulf states and it rested on financial interdependence, technological cooperation and the marginalization of Iran and its allied groups.

The war against Iran was meant to settle the matter more decisively and it was intended to reshape the region permanently under Israeli military supremacy, creating a new balance of power under US patronage. But the failure to remove Iran from the equation has thrown a spanner in the works.

The current phase of the conflict has resolved nothing which means further attempts to settle these questions by force are likely. But they will take place under less favorable conditions for Israel and the US. The relative failure of Washington and the relative success of Tehran, though the damage inflicted on Iran should not be underestimated, are shifting the balance in Iran’s favor.

Much now depends on how Iran’s renewed and younger leadership, brought to the fore in part by Israel’s own actions, chooses to capitalize on this moment. The risk of further upheaval remains as no settlement has been reached and no stable regional order has emerged.

But one conclusion is already clear. The age in which superior force could reliably produce the desired political outcome is passing and wars are becoming more complex, their consequences less controllable, and their results less linear. The US and Israel may still possess overwhelming military power, but Iran has shown is that this no longer guarantees victory.

Spy agencies in the EU and the US are spending millions of taxpayers’ money to access commercially available personal data, according to findings published on Tuesday by Interface, a European think tank that gathered evidence from 11 intelligence watchdogs.

The practice, known as advertising-based intelligence, or AdInt, involves using personal data collected by the advertising industry for intelligence and surveillance purposes. The report said commercially available personal data has become a primary surveillance tool for the agencies as they increasingly obtain information from technology companies and data brokers.

The data can reveal a person’s location, age, gender, political preferences, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and communication patterns. It is often collected through online advertising auctions, software embedded in mobile apps, social media platforms and internet-connected devices, then aggregated and sold by data brokers.

Built for advertising, the datasets have become a valuable commodity and an increasingly attractive target for intelligence and security agencies, which acquire them through a range of procurement channels.

“These practices are gaining momentum, not just in the United States where this has been reported more widely, but also across Europe,” Wetzling said.

The report cited growing evidence that intelligence agencies are active in the commercial data market, including cases where data purchases have been publicly disclosed.

In Europe, Austria’s Interior Ministry procured the surveillance tool Tangles, which includes a plug-in capable of analyzing ad-derived location data, though officials have not confirmed its operational use. In France, the foreign intelligence service sought authority to purchase internet browsing records.

China has an important role to play in ensuring that artificial intelligence serves humanity rather than replacing it, RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan has said.

She made the remarks during a lengthy interview with Zhang Weiwei, a professor of international relations at Fudan University who hosts ‘China Now’ on Shanghai’s Dragon TV, which aired on Wednesday.

RT’s editor-in-chief expressed concern that rapidly developing artificial intelligence “is already changing people, and I fear that it will change and then replace humanity” at some point in the future.

“But I still have hope that a country as sensible as we are [Russia], yet far more advanced in terms of technological sovereignty than we are, a high-tech country like China... might invent some way, some antidote... to prevent artificial intelligence from getting out of control,” she said.

In its current state, AI already poses a threat to the sovereignty of Russia and China, according to Simonyan.

“Small children interact more closely with their [AI] assistants... And this artificial intelligence is learning, using Western platforms... and therefore Western narratives. And very soon, all of us will have a completely different history of the world in our heads,” she said.

Zhang replied by pointing out that DeepSeek, the best-known Chinese large language model, is also learning from both local and Western sources, but operates “within the logic of the Chinese language” and in line with country’s values and cultural heritage.

Beijing’s whole approach to AI is different from the American one, where its controlled by a handful of big tech companies and only serves the rich, he argued.

Around 900,000 illegal migrants have applied to regularize their status in Spain as part of an amnesty, almost doubling the expected number of requests, the country’s Migration Ministry has said.

Before the program’s April launch, Spanish authorities expected around half a million people to apply, but non-profit refugee organization CEAR said on Monday that that number would exceed 1 million by the time the amnesty ends in two weeks.

The leader of the opposition People’s Party (PP), Alberto Nunez Feijoo, earlier this year called the initiative “unfair, unsafe, and unsustainable,” warning that it only “encourages organized crime” by human traffickers who smuggle people into the country. The PP said separately that giving documents to foreigners made no sense when “Spaniards see how their public services are impoverished day by day.”

Opponents of the measure have argued that large-scale regularization programs act as a “pull factor,” encouraging further illegal immigration by creating expectations of future amnesties. Critics have also linked the initiative to mounting pressure on housing, healthcare, and other public services.

The Migration Ministry said it has so far approved 40% of applications, granting some 360,000 temporary work permits.

The Spanish government has the capacity to process up to 1 million applications between April and June, but the permits will not be granted to everyone, Secretary of State for Migration Pilar Cancela Rodriguez told Reuters.

Chronic delays in the Spanish immigration system have seen hundreds of thousands of migrants from Colombia, Senegal, and other countries waiting for asylum for years while working in the country off the books, according to think tank Funcas.

Spain’s amnesty comes against the backdrop of rising migrant numbers across the EU. A report by the Center for Research and Analysis on Migration at RFBerlin in April singled out Spain as the country with the fastest-growing migrant population in the bloc. It increased by 700,000, or 8%, in 2024 to reach 9.5 million, the paper said, citing Eurostat and UN Refugee Agency data.

The initiative also contrasts with a broader political shift in parts of Europe, where several governments have tightened immigration and asylum policies amid growing public concern over migration.

Australian police have begun inquiries into claims that Israeli forces raped, tortured, and abused activists detained during last month’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) confirmed the move after four women from the Global Sumud Flotilla met Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Multicultural Minister Anne Aly, and senior police officials in Canberra on Monday.

The activists were among 11 Australians detained in May when Israeli forces intercepted the flotilla, which was attempting to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid to the Palestinian enclave.

One of the activists, Juliet Lamont, said the officials had taken the allegations seriously, including claims that detainees were kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned, and raped. The AFP said it was handling the matter using a “victim centric, trauma-informed approach.”

Israel has rejected the allegations. Its embassy in Australia said there was “no credible evidence” to support the claims, described the activists as “professional provocateurs,” and said that the accusations had “already been proven to be false.”

The Australian inquiry comes amid growing international scrutiny of Israel’s treatment of flotilla detainees. More than 400 activists from around 40 countries were detained when Israeli forces intercepted the vessels in international waters off Cyprus. Former detainees from several countries have alleged beatings, sexual assault, humiliation, and denial of legal access.

The incident drew wider outrage after Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir filmed himself taunting activists as they knelt with their hands tied behind their backs.

Australia has condemned Ben-Gvir’s conduct and sanctioned him. France and Italy have also opened legal proceedings over alleged abuse of flotilla detainees, while Canada has called for an independent investigation.

Israel has repeatedly denied mistreating detainees and says that the flotilla missions are political provocations designed to aid Hamas.

A purported draft of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding circulating online suggests that Washington could grant Tehran sweeping sanctions relief and access to frozen assets while leaving key nuclear issues to future negotiations.

The 14-point list emerged on Tuesday as the administration of US President Donald Trump faced mounting pressure from Israel and skeptical Republicans in Congress to release the terms of the secretive agreement.

Trump has said the memorandum was signed electronically but will be made public only after the formal signing in Switzerland on Friday.

Israel, which has voiced concern over the arrangement, has reportedly asked Washington to see the final text but was refused.

Below is the full text of the alleged agreement between Washington and Tehran as circulated by Al Arabiya and Israeli media. A summary of the same 14 points was published by Bloomberg. The White House has not confirmed the authenticity of the leaked text, and RT could not independently verify the claims in the list.

1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare, upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this article and the remaining articles.

2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.

5. Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the prewar volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran.

6. The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days.

7. The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral US sanctions, both primary and secondary.

9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region.

10. The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.

11. The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations toward a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. These funds, whether held in the master account or transferred, will be used for any final-beneficiary payment determined by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will be fully available for use. The United States undertakes to issue all necessary permits and licenses on this basis.

13. Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, as well as the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a final agreement solely with respect to the remaining articles.

14. The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.

US President Donald Trump has signaled that Washington will refocus on efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict after peace talks were put on hold by the crisis in the Middle East. The prospect of renewed US engagement has reportedly unsettled EU officials, who fear the bloc could once again be sidelined if Washington resumes direct negotiations with Moscow.

Here is RT’s breakdown of where the peace process stands and what could come next.

Ukraine back on agenda

At the G7 summit in France on Tuesday, Trump said Washington would turn back to trying end the Russia-Ukraine conflict once the Iran war is formally concluded.

“Now that this [Iran war] is finished, we are gonna be focusing on that [Ukraine conflict] and see if we can get that one done,” he told reporters, referring to a memorandum of understanding he is expected to sign with Tehran on Friday.

European reaction

The prospect of renewed US diplomacy has reportedly unsettled EU officials, who fear Europe could again be sidelined if Washington pursues direct talks with Moscow.

“Having Trump be distracted was not necessarily a bad thing,” one EU diplomat told Politico.

French President Emmanuel Macron insisted Europe must be involved in any settlement talks, arguing that it now bears much of the burden of supporting Kiev.

“The right kind of negotiation is one with Ukraine and Russia sitting around the table, and the Europeans and Americans by their side,” he told TF1.

Where do the talks stand?

After Washington resumed direct contacts with Moscow following years of diplomatic freeze under Joe Biden, Russia, Ukraine and the US held three rounds of talks aimed at reaching a settlement.

A fourth round of talks, expected in March, was postponed after Washington shifted its focus to the Iran war. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has since described the process as being in a “situational pause” pending renewed US engagement.

What settlements have been proposed?

Following the Alaska summit, where Moscow and Washington stressed the need for a lasting settlement rather than the ceasefire sought by Kiev and its European backers, Trump unveiled a 28-point peace roadmap. According to leaked drafts, it called for Ukraine to abandon its NATO ambitions, drop territorial claims, and cap its military at 600,000 personnel.

Moscow welcomed the proposal as a potential basis for peace. However, under pressure from the EU and UK, several key provisions were later removed or revised.

The updated 20-point plan reportedly included demilitarized zones, Western security guarantees for Kiev, an 800,000-strong peacetime Ukrainian military, a reconstruction fund for Ukraine, and a path toward EU membership.

What are the next steps?

On Tuesday, Trump discussed Ukraine with Zelensky and other leaders during a closed-door G7 session and later held a separate meeting with the Ukrainian leader. While details were not disclosed, Zelensky said afterward that it was important to “coordinate positions.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to resume contacts with Moscow after shifting their focus to the Iran war. Putin aide Yury Ushakov said preparations are under way following Sunday’s call between the Russian and US presidents.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov later said no dates have been set and that the issue will likely be revisited after Washington signs its memorandum with Tehran.

Europeans split

European countries remain divided between those favoring engagement with Moscow and those seeking to maintain pressure on Russia.

Hungary and Slovakia have urged direct dialogue with Moscow and criticized policies they say prolong the conflict.

Those seeking to maintain pressure, which includes Poland, the Baltic states and much of the EU leadership, argues that political, economic and military pressure must continue. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated that stance on Monday, calling support for Ukraine a top G7 priority.

France and Germany occupy a middle ground, backing continued aid to Kiev while acknowledging that any lasting settlement will require negotiations with Russia. That approach was tested last week when French, British, and German envoys met Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin in Moscow. According to Russia, however, they merely repeated calls for a ceasefire and security guarantees for Ukraine, prompting Moscow to argue that the countries arming Kiev cannot act as neutral mediators.

Trump’s position

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed he could end the Ukraine conflict within 24 hours through direct diplomacy, though he later acknowledged that a settlement would be harder to achieve.

Since returning to office, he has criticized both Moscow and Kiev at various times, accusing each side of hindering peace efforts, while consistently arguing that the conflict should be resolved through negotiations rather than prolonged fighting.

Speaking at the G7, Trump said he would “look” at what could be done regarding Ukraine, while suggesting the conflict was of limited importance to the US, adding that “it has no impact on us other than we sell weapons.”

Zelensky’s demands

Amid mounting battlefield pressure, Zelensky has insisted on securing a temporary ceasefire and continued Western support, while maintaining that Ukraine will not formally recognize Moscow’s sovereignty over territories that joined Russia through referendums.

He has also opposed any settlement negotiated directly between Moscow and Washington without Kiev’s participation, insisting that Ukraine’s European backers be included in the process.

Russia’s stance

Moscow has consistently opposed freezing the conflict, arguing that a temporary ceasefire would only give Kiev time to rearm. It insists that any settlement must address the root causes of the conflict, including Ukrainian troop withdrawals from Russian territories, protections for Russian speakers, and Ukraine’s neutrality and non-nuclear status.

Amid reports that Zelensky had invited Putin to meet on the sidelines of the G7 summit, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said no official channel existed to convey such a proposal. He added that if Zelensky is ready for “serious” talks, he remains welcome in Moscow.

Zelensky reiterated that he was not prepared to meet in Russia, suggesting Türkiye, Switzerland, or the Middle East as alternative venues.

Elon Musk’s Grok AI has become an integral part of America’s war machine, and its data centers must be treated like munitions production plants in future conflicts, according to a sworn declaration by the Pentagon’s artificial intelligence chief.

The statement about Grok was submitted as part of an effort by US President Donald Trump’s administration to intervene in a lawsuit seeking to restrict the operation of xAI’s Colossus data centers in Memphis, Tennessee, over environmental concerns.

Cameron Stanley, the chief digital and artificial intelligence officer at the US Department of War, compared xAI’s computing capacity to weapons manufacturing, saying the company’s ability to operate data facilities “at massive scale” is “as foundational to our modern defense posture as traditional munitions production.”

Stanley revealed that Grok is a crucial part of Palantir-developed Maven Smart Systems (MSS), a platform that supports “targeting, intelligence, readiness, and recruitment,” as well as military planning and logistics.

The reference to the Pentagon’s Project Maven places Grok inside a broader and increasingly controversial AI targeting ecosystem. It began as an algorithmic warfare initiative to help process battlefield data, while Palantir – one of Washington’s most entrenched surveillance and defense contractors – has marketed its software as an “AI-powered kill chain” promising “decision dominance from space to mud.”

Palantir executives have openly embraced the company’s military mission. CEO Alex Karp said last year that Palantir’s purpose was “to scare enemies, and on occasion, kill them,” while the company’s recent manifesto declared that “hard power in this century will be built on software” and that a new era of deterrence “built on AI” is beginning.

The NAACP lawsuit alleges that xAI is violating the Clean Air Act by operating dozens of gas-burning turbines without proper permits or pollution controls. Environmental groups have accused the Trump administration of trying to override citizen lawsuits used to enforce pollution laws.

What a difference a year makes! Last June, in the wake of the first joint Israeli-US attack on Iran, a joke was making the rounds in the Middle East. It described a bartender welcoming an American, an Israeli, and an Iranian into his bar, offering them beers and saying: “Congratulations, gentlemen; you have all won.” Not so this time. There’s no question that there is only one winner in the second war against Iran: Iran. There are also multiple losers, including America and Israel.

Make no mistake. A truce doesn’t equal peace. Key issues are left for future talks, and there is no certainty that these will yield results, or that any agreements will hold. What we are dealing with here and now is not just another Middle East conflict. Rather, this is part of an ongoing struggle in which the global hegemon seeks to reverse the trends reshaping the global order. The Middle East is a theater in what amounts to a world war, alongside Eastern Europe, where the West is seeking to defeat Russia, and East Asia, where the US and its allies are trying to contain China.

This fight will continue. A new equilibrium is a long way off, and new battles are inevitable down the road. However, the consequences of even a provisional ceasefire between the US and Iran are monumental and far-reaching.

Above all, Iran has emerged from this war as a formidable regional power. That Washington, unable to crush it, has had to seek a reprieve only confirms Iran’s enhanced status and there’s no talk anymore of regime change in Tehran, or of any limitations on its ballistic missile arsenal, or the elimination of the country’s nuclear program, not to speak of abandoning Iran’s regional allies. These were all the original goals of America and Israel and on all those fronts, the attackers suffered a resounding defeat.

As for the nuclear program, Tehran will definitely continue it under any future comprehensive agreement with Washington, if an agreement is indeed reached. A failure to agree would leave Tehran free to pursue the program as before because the Iranians won’t surrender their nuclear materials to anyone. Regarding nuclear deterrence, however, the lessons from the recent war are mixed. On the one hand, America and Israel would probably not have attacked a nuclear-armed Iran. Look at North Korea. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Israel, even under Iranian ballistic missile strikes, did not use nuclear weapons against Iran. Neither did the US. The option was reportedly discussed, but rejected. Thus, for Iran, being able to close Hormuz may be more effective.

Unfreezing Iranian assets held by the US and lifting sanctions on Iran will probably become tools for America to influence ‘Tehran’s behavior’. Having lost the war, the US won’t leave Iran alone. It may have reason to hope that peacetime conditions will gradually mellow Iranian society, reveal the intra-elite fractures temporarily closed by the war, and allow America room for manipulation. Setting up a fund to develop Iran’s energy and logistical infrastructure looks like a further enticement for Iranians to move back into the Western financial system. For Iran, victory in war must be safeguarded by domestic policies that strengthen the country’s stability and improve the economy’s performance.

Indeed, Israel is the main loser from the war. Its new strategy of forcefully eliminating threats along all seven fronts, from Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen to the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and above all, Iran, promises ‘forever wars’ rather than stability and security. Its unstated nuclear deterrence has failed to prevent Iran from lobbing missiles and drones at Israeli targets. In the foreseeable future, Israel faces an election in which dissatisfaction with Netanyahu will run against wide support for his radical policies.

The Arab states of the Persian Gulf have not fared well either. Their reliance on US military bases as a security guarantee turned out to be a disastrous bargain. Instead of protecting the host countries, these bases acted like magnets, attracting Iranian retaliatory strikes. The image of the Gulf nations as safe and comfortable places to do business has taken a big hit. If these nations are to recover, they will need to come up with a better security policy than aligning themselves with their failed protector.

Be that as it may, the US-Israel war on Iran is a landmark event in the global power transition. The declining global hegemon and its ally, the region’s foremost military power, have tried hard and failed to reverse the tide of the times. They lost an important battle, but this isn’t the end of the world crisis.

Syria would do a “better job” fighting the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah than Israel, without “killing everyone else,” US President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday, in a rare public criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Israel sent its troops into southern Lebanon to fight Hezbollah in the wake of the US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite a supposed ceasefire, and with Tehran making an end to the war in Lebanon one of its key demands in negotiations with the US, the Israeli onslaught in the country continues and has even gained momentum in recent weeks.

Trump lamented Israel’s  approach to the conflict, including its routine aerial attacks on densely populated areas, suggesting that neighboring Syria could do a “better job” against the group.

I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah. Because to be honest with you, I think they’d do a better job of doing it.

Trump proceeded to shower praise on the former leader of the Al-Qaeda offshoot Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, calling him a “very capable” leader who “protected everything that I’ve asked for.”

Hezbollah backed Syria’s former president, Bashar al-Assad, during the decade-long civil war, fighting the assorted jihadist groups that now comprise the core of the country’s military and security forces.

During the conflict, Israel repeatedly bombed Syria, attacking almost exclusively pro-Assad forces and citing the Iranian presence as justification.

After the Assad government fell in December 2024, West Jerusalem subjected the country to an extensive bombing campaign targeting assets left behind by the collapsed military in an effort to prevent the victorious jihadists from seizing its entire inventory. Its forces also occupied part of the country, including the strategic high-altitude summit of Mount Hermon.

Jeffrey Epstein attempted suicide at least three times before his death in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019, according to the New York Times. Investigators reportedly found multiple nooses in his cell after his death, a report detailing the convicted sex offender’s final days in federal custody has revealed.

Days before his first reported suicide attempt, Epstein asked his cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione how to make a noose after a judge denied his bail request, the outlet reported. The investigation, published on Tuesday, drew on court documents, previously released Epstein files and more than 50 new interviews with inmates, jail staff and others.

Tartaglione, a former New York police officer serving four life sentences for a quadruple murder, told the outlet the question came roughly two weeks into Epstein’s detention at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where he was awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

Epstein’s cellmate claims he reported both incidents to correctional officers, but they laughed off his warnings. His account was corroborated by another inmate, Peter Bright, who told the NYT that Tartaglione had described the earlier suicide attempts to him shortly after Epstein’s death.

On July 22, less than three weeks before Epstein’s death, Tartaglione reportedly found him motionless on the floor of their cell with an orange fabric noose around his neck.

The report comes amid renewed scrutiny of Epstein’s death and his ties to some of the world’s most influential figures. Millions of pages of records have been released since US President Donald Trump signed legislation last year requiring the Justice Department to disclose files related to Epstein investigations, reigniting interest in the financier’s connections to figures such as Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Bill Gates.

The FBI foiled a plot to attack a UFC event attended by US President Donald Trump over the weekend, agency director Kash Patel confirmed on Tuesday.

The title fight, staged on the White House grounds as part of the America 250 celebrations and Trump’s 80th birthday festivities, sparked controversy over the use of a national landmark for a sporting spectacle and prompted a failed legal bid to halt the event. It also reportedly became the target of a large-scale terrorist plot.

According to multiple US media reports citing FBI officials, the agency uncovered the alleged plot last week and arrested at least five suspects. The group is accused of planning to use explosive-laden drones to attack the event, trigger mass panic, and then target fleeing spectators with sniper fire. Investigators say the suspects also intended to storm the White House gates and breach the compound.

“Thanks to the rapid action of the FBI, our partners, and the Department of Justice in a multi-state operation, multiple individuals are now in custody, and allegedly planned attacks were stopped cold,” Patel wrote on X.

The FBI director revealed that the agency had identified 23 people involved in discussing “pre-operational activity” in chats on the messaging app Signal. Patel did not elaborate on how many suspects ended up in custody or provide any further details, promising to brief the public on the investigation later on.

The high-profile combat sports event was attended by more than 4,000 people, including some 1,200 active-duty military personnel. Up to 85,000 more people attended a ticketed watch party at the Ellipse park just to the south of the White House, where giant screens were erected to broadcast the fights.

France’s domestic spy agency will swap software from US defense tech giant Palantir for a French-made alternative, Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu has said. Palantir, however, has said that the change won’t happen for years.

In a video statement released on Tuesday, Lecornu said that the General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI) had hired French firm ChapsVision to “replace the American giant Palantir.”

Lecornu did not say when the switchover would take place. The DGSI has used Palantir software since 2016, and renewed its contract with the Silicon Valley defense firm last year. The current contract is set to expire in 2028, and Palantir insists that it will remain “fully in force” until then.

In a statement, Palantir said that its cooperation with the DGSI “continues under the existing contractual commitments and in full compliance with the highest standards of security, data protection, regulatory compliance and transparency.”

“Our enemy has a face,” he told a crowd on Saturday. “And he has a name. His name is Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Zhang Yiming,” he said, referring to the CEOs of SpaceX, OpenAI and ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company.

Nigel Farage’s recent Substack post lays bare the reality of Britain’s “two-tier” system, where native white Britons face systemic disadvantages in policing, housing, employment, and justice while ethnic minorities receive preferential treatment under the guise of “equality.”

This is not an aberration or a policy glitch. It is the predictable outcome of attempting to impose liberal democracy on a multiracial society. Different ethnic groups possess distinct collective interests rooted in both biology and culture. Where those interests diverge, genuine democracy, meaning rule by the people for the common good, becomes impossible. Only one outcome prevails: the slow disenfranchisement of the historical white majority.

Human beings are not blank slates. Evolution and genetic similarity theory demonstrate that people favor their own ethnic group. This is not “racism”; it is kin selection, an adaptive strategy honed over millennia. Studies of in-group preference, crime statistics, voting patterns, and nepotistic networks across the globe confirm it: most non-white groups operate tribally as a matter of course. Middle Eastern clans, African kinship networks, South Asian extended families, East Asian ethnic solidarity, and Latin American mestizo patronage systems all prioritize “our people” first. This is normal human behavior.

Whites are the glaring exception. Through Christianity’s universalism, Enlightenment individualism, and post-World War II indoctrination via education, media, and elite institutions, Europeans have been brainwashed into viewing themselves solely as atomized individuals. “Race doesn’t matter,” “we’re all the same,” and “diversity is our strength” are articles of faith, not empirical observations. Whites extended this universalism outward – abolishing slavery, spreading human rights, and building institutions based on merit and fair play – only to then have it weaponized against them. Other groups never adopted it; they simply exploited white openness. The result is asymmetric competition: cohesive ethnic blocs practice nepotism, bloc voting, and resource extraction, while whites compete as isolated individuals, handicapped by their own self-imposed scruples.

The West invented the highest expressions of universalism: rule of law applied equally, individual rights, and merit-based advancement. These are noble achievements responsible for unparalleled prosperity and innovation. Yet in a world of group differences, they function as unilateral disarmament. Non-whites import their tribal strategies into open societies while whites cling to universal rules that prevent collective self-defense. Elites, often insulated by wealth, celebrate this as ‘moral progress.’ The autochthonous population pays the price: suppressed wages, strained welfare systems, skyrocketing crime in ‘diverse’ areas, cultural displacement, and two-tier justice.

Even under a purely meritocratic system, outcomes would not remain neutral. Ethnic genetic interests drive networking, lobbying, and subtle favoritism. Groups with higher average ethnocentrism outcompete those who suppress it. Data on group disparities in IQ, impulsivity, and social trust (from psychometric research and international comparisons) compound this. When whites become a minority – as projected in Britain, the US, and much of Europe within decades – the system turns overtly anti-white. South Africa and Zimbabwe offer clear warnings: once whites are reduced to a powerless minority under majority rule, the result is land expropriation, targeted violence, and the systematic dismantling of institutions built by the founding stock. Appeals to “democracy” ring hollow when the new leaders rewrite the rules.

By the height of the Empire, the city of Rome itself had undergone profound demographic transformation. Estimates suggest that native ethnic Romans comprised only a minority of the population, around 20% or less, due to massive influxes of slaves, freedmen, and immigrants from the provinces, with significant numbers from the Eastern Mediterranean, Asia Minor, Syria, and North Africa. This transformation can easily be compared to the mass immigration and differential birth rates that are reshaping Western cities today.

There was no harmonious multiculturalism in the Roman Empire but the prelude to dissolution. Universal citizenship culminated in Emperor Caracalla’s edict of 212 AD, granting rights to nearly all free inhabitants, further blurring the distinction between conqueror and conquered. While Rome achieved temporary stability through military might and cultural imposition, the underlying tribal realities persisted. Provincial groups retained their interests; loyalty fragmented along ethnic lines as the Empire weakened. Barbarian migrations, internal decay, economic strain, and loss of cohesion among the original Roman people accelerated collapse. The once-mighty Republic of hardy farmer-warriors had become a polyglot empire ruled by emperors from distant provinces, its capital a shadow of its former self.

The lesson is clear: universalist abstractions cannot override ethnic genetic interests and kinship preferences indefinitely. Rome’s experiment in expansive citizenship and demographic openness sowed the seeds of its own irreversible alteration and eventual fall in the West. Today’s West, preaching the same gospel of abstract humanity while importing tribal majorities, repeats the error on a faster timeline.

The only viable long-term alternative is to abandon the illusion of a single, civic nation-state with a multi-ethnic population. Instead, we should move towards ethnopluralism: the recognition and institutional accommodation of distinct peoples within larger frameworks. This could take the form of an ethnopluralist empire or confederation: autonomous homelands or regions for major ethnic/cultural groups, each governing itself according to its own norms, with voluntary association and separation where desired. Power could be devolved to the organic units of kinship, rather than top-down imposition of a deracinated “equality.” Historical empires managed this better than modern liberal states, allowing peoples to coexist without forced integration or domination.

Whites must rediscover their own ethnic consciousness, not out of supremacy but survival and reciprocity. Rejecting universalist suicide does not require hating others; it requires realism. Other groups pursue their interests unapologetically. Only when whites do the same can stable, high-trust arrangements emerge. Farage’s critique of a two-tier Britain is a starting point. The deeper truth is that without halting demographic replacement and rethinking governance along lines of peoplehood, democracy itself becomes a fiction masking tribal conquest.

This is the hard reality many conservative thinkers have warned about for decades. Pretending otherwise accelerates decline.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that under-16s will be banned from social media, and adults will have to verify their identity to use major platforms. Critics say it’s an opportunity for Starmer to fulfil his long-term goal of introducing digital ID by the back door.

Starmer announced the ban on Monday, declaring that he is “simply not prepared to be a bystander when the safety and happiness of our children are at stake.” According to information released by his office, children under 16 will be banned from “user to user” apps like X, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, and will also be forbidden from livestreaming and messaging strangers on gaming apps.

So-called “romantic companion” AI chatbots will be banned, and 16- and 17-year-olds will face nightly social media curfews. The ban will come into force next year.

Is the proposed UK social media ban popular?

On the surface, the ban is an easy win for Starmer. Nine out of ten parents told the Guardian that they would support such a ban, while 76% of all Britons – parents or not – back the measure, according to a YouGov poll. With Starmer facing a leadership challenge from within his own party, and with his approval rating languishing at a miserable 16%, the timing of the ban was convenient for the prime minister.

Things get messier, however, when it comes to the ban’s enforcement.

Will adults have to prove their age to use social media?

Details of the ban’s enforcement mechanisms remain vague, but over-16s will need to prove their identity in order to use apps restricted for children. Starmer’s office said that age verification will “use the same model for a social media ban as Australia,” and the PM said that it will build on “our experience with the Online Safety Act.”

In Australia, where a social media ban has been in place since December, users are required to prove that they are over 16 by allowing their faces to be scanned, or submitting government-issued ID, with platforms in charge of conducting these checks. The UK’s Online Safety Act already requires users to prove their age in order to access pornographic websites, with facial scanning, open banking information, credit card checks, photo ID, and digital ID all considered acceptable forms of proof by the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom.

Is the ban an excuse to push digital ID?

Starmer tried and failed to introduce mandatory digital ID last year, claiming that it would allow the government to better keep track of illegal migrants. The plan was fiercely opposed by all opposition parties, with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage saying it would “make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalize the rest of us.”

I said NO to Digital ID then, and I am saying NO to Digital ID now! pic.twitter.com/q9qzVPeARx

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) May 13, 2026

Dozens of Starmer’s fellow Labour Party MPs condemned the scheme, a public petition against digital ID gained more than 1.5 million signatures, and Starmer backed down in January. As of now, digital ID remains optional in the UK.

According to Ofcom figures, 89% of adult internet users in the UK use at least one social media platform. By making these users prove their identity before accessing social media, Starmer’s ban is essentially forcing a form of digital ID onto a population that roundly rejected it last year. At least that’s how some tech executives see the ban: X owner Elon Musk described the law as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” claiming that “the real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.”

The verification “is the point,” Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke wrote on X. “’Won’t someone think of the children’ is usually not about the children.”

This is the point. Same will happen in all countries that will make social media age restrictions. “Won’t someone think of the children” is usually not about the children https://t.co/PKN8mDcliv

— tobi lutke (@tobi) June 15, 2026

Who could the UK social media ban affect? 

The law could affect all smartphone users – not just those who use social media. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has argued that verification should be carried out by Apple and Google when smartphone users set up iOS or Android devices, rather than by individual social media platforms. While this would allow Meta to avoid the legal responsibility of carrying out these checks itself, it would also tie every iOS or Android account to a real person, and every British smartphone user to their device.

How could Starmer’s social media ban be abused?

Linking every social media account to an identifiable person would effectively spell the end of online anonymity in the UK, and tying every smartphone to a person would give the government unprecedented power to track the movements of criminals, political dissidents, and ordinary citizens alike.

“Thousands in the UK are already arrested for political posts every year,” Telegram CEO Pavel Durov wrote on X. “Is this really about protecting children – or identifying more people to arrest?”

All social media users in the UK will have to “prove” they’re over 16 — with an ID, face scan or bank card.

Thousands in the UK are already arrested for political posts every year.

Is this really about protecting children — or identifying more people to arrest?

— Pavel Durov (@durov) June 15, 2026

The UK arrests around 30 people every day, or 12,000 per year, for offensive online posts or messages, according to data obtained by The Times last April. While this figure already dwarfs similar counts from China, Germany, and Russia combined, not all British police departments contacted by the newspaper agreed to disclose their data, meaning that the true figure is likely significantly higher. Meanwhile, only 11% of violent and sexual offense cases in England and Wales end with a suspect being caught or charged, per 2024 figures.

Hundreds of people were arrested in 2024 for making social media posts in support of anti-immigration riots, with one man jailed for three years for retweeting an anti-immigration post. Musk, who branded Starmer “two-tier Keir” after he released more than 1,000 serious criminals early to clear prison space for speech offenders, declared the UK “a police state” after Starmer announced the social media ban.

Has Keir Starmer built a police state?

Last week, Ofcom ordered social media companies to put a “crisis protocol” in place to stop the spread of content “inciting racial or religious hatred, making threats, or inciting violence” during a “crisis event.” The EU has already used a similar mechanism – the so-called ‘Rapid Response System’ – to censor legitimate political speech deemed “misinformation” during elections, and Ofcom said that its order is a direct response to the “misinformation” that fueled the 2024 anti-immigration riots.

As a result, videos of migrant crime – such as the recent attempted beheading in Belfast – or other incidents likely to cause unrest – including the arrest and death of Henry Nowak over bogus ‘racism’ claims last year – may never see the light of day, and the British government may avoid the kind of difficult questions that have triggered violent riots and tanked Starmer’s popularity.

Whether this scenario is an inevitable consequence of the ban, or Starmer’s goal all along, the end result is the same. “We will become one of the first democracies in the world to require IDs to access the internet,” Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo said on Monday. “We have seen the growth of surveillance in this country…and we are sleepwalking towards a total surveillance state.”

Iranian players and coaching staff have accused World Cup organizers of forcing them to compete under unfair conditions, as US visa problems and travel restrictions continue to disrupt the team’s campaign.

The 2026 World Cup is being co-hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico, with most matches taking place in the US. The Iranian team, however, has had to base itself in Tijuana, Mexico after abandoning plans for a training camp in Arizona amid visa and security concerns.

Iran drew 2-2 with New Zealand in Los Angeles on Monday, but the result was overshadowed by complaints over travel, immigration delays and recovery time. Winger Mehdi Torabi’s US visa also reportedly expired after the match because he was only issued a single-entry document for the tournament.

Team сaptain Mehdi Taremi said the Iranian team had wanted to arrive in Los Angeles two days before the game and remain overnight afterward to recover, but was not allowed to do so.

Instead, he said, the squad had to spend five hours travelling from Tijuana, undergo lengthy immigration checks, train while fatigued, play the match, and leave immediately afterward.

“Everything is like a disaster, actually, for us,” Taremi said.

Head coach Amir Ghalenoei also called Iran “the most oppressed” team at the tournament.

The remarks follow earlier complaints from Tehran that World Cup organizers had withdrawn Iran’s official ticket allocation days before the tournament, leaving the federation unable to provide seats to fans who had already made travel plans. A number of Iranian support staff and media representatives have also been denied US visas.

The disputes come as Washington and Tehran are preparing to formalize a peace roadmap after months of conflict, which had already cast uncertainty over Iran’s participation in the tournament. Earlier this year, Iranian officials raised the possibility of skipping the World Cup.

Iran are scheduled to face Belgium in Los Angeles on June 21 before playing Egypt in Seattle on June 26.

Iran’s World Cup visa issues add to a growing list of controversies linked to US entry rules. A Somali referee selected for the tournament was also denied entry despite reportedly holding valid paperwork, while players, staff, and supporters from several countries have faced lengthy checks, visa delays or outright refusals.

FIFA has also faced broader anger over the tournament itself, including soaring ticket prices, costly stadium concessions, and mandatory hydration breaks that critics say look more like advertising windows than player-safety measures.

The Israeli government has reportedly outlined a plan to issue state funding to members of the extremist settler group Hilltop Youth, allocating some 5.5 million shekels ($1.9 million) for monthly stipends for its members.

Founded in the late 1990s, the group has been operating in the West Bank and maintaining a network of illegal outposts in the occupied Palestinian territories. Over the years, the Hilltop Youth has been involved in numerous violent incidents against Palestinians, including arson and murder, with almost complete impunity. The group, which is believed to have fewer than 1,000 active members, was recognized as an extremist entity and sanctioned by the EU and the US Office of Foreign Assets Control back in 2024.

The Israeli government is now seeking to provide stipends to the members of the group to cover food, clothes, and other basic necessities, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported on Monday, citing a document issued by far-right Settlement and National Missions Minister Orit Strock. The ministry has identified more than 650 youths living in hilltop outposts across the West Bank who are eligible for the program.

The funds are a part of a broader program worth some 120 million shekels ($41.3 million), which is supposed to address the violence against Palestinians perpetrated by settlers, the daily noted. The program combines educational means with social work, including fielding mediators between the Hilltop Youth and local authorities, as well as encouraging military conscription.

The movement, which takes its roots in religious Zionism, is largely composed of Israeli settlers aged between 16 and 26. The group’s members opt to leave their homes, abandoning their education or work, to live in hilltop outposts overlooking Palestinian communities while harassing locals. The settler violence has been on the rise in the West Bank since the surprise attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023, which triggered a major conflict in Gaza.

A Russian vessel fired warning shots near a British yacht sailing on a dangerous trajectory in the English Channel, the Russian Defense Ministry has said, adding that the shots were fired when all other options had been exhausted.

The Admiral Grigorovich was sailing in international waters between the Isle of Wight and Normandy shortly before midday on Tuesday when its crew spotted the civilian yacht, the ‘Bright Future’ sailing “on a dangerous course that would bring it into close proximity with the warship,” the ministry said.

The Russian crew tried and failed to reach the yacht by radio, before firing signal flares and sounding a siren, neither of which succeeded in changing its course. When the yacht came within 150 meters, the commander of the Admiral Grigorovich decided to fire warning shots across its bow with small arms.

“Following this, the British-flagged yacht immediately altered course and moved away from the Russian warship,” the ministry said, adding that the Russian crew “acted in strict compliance with international navigation rules and took all necessary measures to prevent an incident.”

The Admiral Grigorovich – a 3,600-ton warship equipped to carry Kalibr cruise missiles – was being followed by a Royal Navy patrol ship – the HMS Mersey – at the time of the incident, the BBC reported. It is unclear how close the HMS Mersey was to the Admiral Grigorovich at the time.

The incident took place two days after British commandos boarded and seized a Cameroon-flagged tanker supposedly carrying sanctioned Russian oil. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the tanker as belonging to Russia’s “shadow fleet,” a euphemism for tankers that carry Russian oil without coverage from Western insurers. The vessel, the ‘Smyrtos’, was boarded in the English Channel.

US-based tech mogul Elon Musk has said he is taking legal action against German state broadcaster ZDF over claims that he incited anti-migrant violence in Northern Ireland.

Anti-immigration unrest erupted in Belfast last week after a Sudanese asylum seeker allegedly carried out a stabbing attack that left a local resident blind in his left eye. After the video of the incident went viral, rioters attacked homes, torched vehicles, and clashed with police in the city.

In a post on his X platform on Monday, Musk wrote that “legal action is being taken against ZDF for their outrageous lies.”

“During the lawsuit against them, we will find out exactly which cretin wrote this terrible lie,” he added in a subsequent post.

The world’s first trillionaire and a vocal critic of migration policies in multiple Western countries, including the UK, took issue with the ZDF Heute live broadcast last Friday devoted to the events in Northern Ireland. In it, the presenter claimed that a “racist mob then hunts down migrants. A British far-right extremist [Tommy Robinson] and tech billionaire Elon Musk called for it.”

ZDF has since admitted that the anchor’s wording was “imprecise and therefore misleading.”

“Tommy Robinson called for protests after the knife attack in Belfast. The post was shared by Elon Musk,” the media outlet clarified.

Nevertheless, Musk’s lawyer, Joachim Steinhofel sent a cease-and-desist letter to the German broadcaster on Tuesday, describing the statement in question as a “defamatory and slanderous allegation,” according to Die Welt.

Shortly before the unrest broke out in Belfast, Musk posted a message on X, saying that “only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!”

He also shared a post from Robinson listing dozens of protest locations across the UK.

This quickly drew the ire of the ruling Labour Party, with its chair Anna Turley accusing Musk of exploiting the stabbing attack and stoking tensions in Northern Ireland.

The incident involving the 30-year-old Sudanese man came shortly after another similar high-profile case triggered anti-immigration protests across the UK. Earlier this month, a police body-cam video was released depicting the last minutes of 18-year-old university student Henry Nowak, who was fatally stabbed by a Sikh man last December.

The assailant, Vickrum Singh Digwa, who has since been sentenced to life in prison, falsely claimed to arriving police officers that he had been the victim of a racist attack. The officials believed him and handcuffed dying Nowak, ignoring his repeated statements that he had been stabbed.

Musk posted profusely about the case as well, suggesting that the British police were biased against white people.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in turn, slammed the Tesla and SpaceX CEO for “interfering in our politics in the last few days, trying to whip up division.”

Musk previously took swipes at Starmer personally, accusing him of failing to prosecute grooming gangs largely made up of South Asian men who sexually abused girls. The UK prime minister previously served as chief public prosecutor from 2008 to 2013.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has published a lengthy personal manifesto on his Substack this week.

Farage is not noted for making detailed policy pronouncements, and his long-winded writeup provides an interesting insight into Reform’s policy agenda – revealing, as it does, both its intellectual and political shortcomings.

Farage’s manifesto is titled “Britain is a two-tier state – against white people” and it was clearly triggered by the recent Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie cases, in which white British citizens were brutally attacked (and in Nowak’s case, killed) by a Sikh and a Sudanese respectively, neither of whom were illegal immigrants. Farage sets out in detail the circumstances surrounding the Nowak case, and his strident criticisms of the police are entirely valid.

Farage’s central contention is that white people in Britain are treated much less fairly than other ethnic groups, and that the mainstream political parties – he calls them “the establishment parties” – are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that “anti-White racism is embedded into the heart of the state” – because they created this state of affairs and are ideologically committed to maintaining it.

Farage sees the “ideology of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)” and the Equality Act, passed by Labour in 2010 and subsequently strengthened by the Conservatives, as being the main culprits here, and argues that “every section of the state… has been ideologically compromised” by these “toxic ideologies.” According to Farage, this has created a less harmonious and less fair Britain.

Notwithstanding this bleak state of affairs, Farage nevertheless maintains that “there is reason for hope” because Reform “has the will and the ability to ensure that no young White person ever has to grow up feeling ashamed of who they are again.”

How precisely does Reform propose to bring about this miraculous social transformation?

Farage sets out a number of specific policy proposals that Reform proposes to implement if the party wins government, including the following:

• abolish the Equality Act and prohibit national and local government bodies from implementing DEI policies;
• prevent foreign nationals from having access to welfare benefits;
• ensure that students receive a “balanced and patriotic education” and compel every school to “fly the Union flag” and prominently display a picture of the King;
• restore pride to Britain’s armed forces.

The flimsiness of these policies is obvious, and even if they were implemented, they would do little or nothing to alleviate the serious and longstanding problems that bedevil contemporary Britain – including a declining economy, the cost-of-living crisis, a ballooning public debt, and rising crime rates.

Liberal commentators have long been critical of the Equality Act and illiberal ideologies like DEI – and Farage is correct to condemn them and point out how destructive they are of social cohesion. But, even here, Farage underestimates how difficult it will be to abolish them. Britain is still bound by the EU Human Rights Act and a raft of other EU laws, and the UK Supreme Court will fight tooth and nail to retain the status quo.

Farage also underestimates how near impossible it is in a Western democracy to take away privileges from specific groups that they have enjoyed for decades – and any attempt to do so on the scale proposed by Farage would provoke unprecedented protests and civil unrest.

How Farage intends to restore the pride of Britain’s armed forces in circumstances where the country cannot afford to properly fund its military or meet its escalating NATO commitments is not clear.

In fact, the shortcomings of Farage’s policy proposals are readily apparent – and they derive from the crude biologism at the heart of his intellectual worldview.

Farage is essentially a nostalgic conservative whose analysis of society is based upon crude biological categories – in his case ill-defined ethnic groups.  The fundamental distinction he draws between “White Brits” and all other ethnic groups is, for example, simply absurd. Many non-British ethnic groups are in fact just as white as Farage’s Brits. And if Farage is really complaining about cultural differences – as he sometimes insists – why mention skin color at all?

Farage wants to explain all the ills that he sees as afflicting modern Britain as having been caused by ethnic groups that do not fall within the “White Brits” category. For example, he makes the extraordinary statement that “Britain was not an unequal society in 2009” – apparently inequality only appeared after the passage of the Equality Act in 2010 and with subsequent mass immigration.

This, of course, is simply a species of magical thinking based upon crude ethnic prejudice. Farage, for example, correctly makes much of knife crime – but do “White Brits” never commit knife crimes, or indeed, any crimes at all?

In fact, Farage shares his crude biologism with the woke elites that he so vociferously criticizes and condemns – paradoxically they too utilize the same vague biological categories that he does, although for precisely the opposite purpose.

Whereas the woke elites wish to destroy the old liberal Britain (which they, like Farage, define as white) and confer privileges on elites from ethnic communities, Farage wants to restore that lost white Britain, abolish ethnic privileges and redistribute them to “White Brits.”

Neither side of this debate is explicitly ‘racist’ in the genuine sense of that term – although both parties regularly level this charge at the other.

Farage’s crude biologism has another strange consequence – it leads him to cast his “White Brits” in the role of victims of racial prejudice, in precisely the same way that his woke elite opponents cast ethnic groups when they first developed the illiberal and divisive ideologies that Farage now condemns.

It is unlikely that Reform’s political prospects will be damaged by Farage’s flawed manifesto. Most Reform supporters will eagerly lap up Farage’s crude biological analysis, placing their faith in his utopian promise to restore a Britain where “White Brits” felt innately superior to their ethnic neighbors, were proud of their army and navy, and ruled an empire upon which the sun never set.

The main problem for Farage and Reform at present is that the party’s poll figures have stalled at around 30% nationally for the past few months – a figure insufficient to win enough seats for the party to form government. Also troubling is the recent emergence of the Restore Party on Reform’s right flank.

In fact, Farage’s manifesto may well have been published in order to lure the more extreme Restore voters back into the Reform fold.

Things will become clearer after Friday’s Makerfield by-election – a seat that, if Andy Burnham were not the candidate, Reform would be expected to win easily. The situation in Makerfield is further complicated by the fact that the Reform candidate lacks charisma as well as political judgment, and in the latest polls Restore is polling around 8% – to Burnham’s 45% and Reform’s 40%.

Nigel Farage will no doubt be hoping for a win in Makerfield – which would, unlike his manifesto – give Reform a much-needed boost in the polls.

Sweden’s parliament has passed one of the country’s most definitive migration laws in years, approving the so-called “snitch law” by a razor-thin margin. The legislation came through as the EU nation, which used to be one of the most welcoming for refugees, adopted a stricter policy after the unprecedented 2015 migration crisis.

The parliament approved the legislation formally titled Strengthened Return Operations on Monday, by 174 votes to 172.

It was based on a government proposal to oblige employees of six public agencies – the Tax Agency, Employment Service, Social Insurance Agency, Pensions Agency, Enforcement Authority, and Prison and Probation Service – to proactively inform police if they have reason to believe a person lacks the right to reside in Sweden.

Authorities will also be permitted to seize and search a suspect’s mobile phone if it may contain identity information, and to expand the use of fingerprints and photographs.

The legislation was supported by the right-wing Sweden Democrats, the center-right Moderate Party, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Center Party voted against.

Critics, however, have warned that the law could erode public trust in the government and discourage vulnerable social groups from coming into contact with authorities.

“If the bill passes, we risk a whistleblower society with reduced trust in Swedish authorities. It would be extremely harmful to Swedish democracy,” John Stauffer, chief legal officer at Civil Rights Defenders, warned.

The initial version of the bill was even more sweeping, mandating schools, healthcare providers, and social services to report on suspected aliens, but it was amended after fierce pushback. The medical community was concerned, pointing out that the legislation violates doctor-patient ethics.

There are concerns that the law could still push undocumented people away from seeking medical aid, as information registered by healthcare workers is often shared with the Tax Agency or Social Insurance Agency and can still be used to track them.

Sweden’s migration policy has undergone a major shift since the 2015 refugee crisis, moving from a generous asylum system to a much more restrictive approach. In 2015 alone, Sweden, a country with around 10 million inhabitants, received around 163,000 asylum seekers – the highest per capita figure in Europe – though in recent years the numbers drastically decreased.

The reversal in migration policies culminated in the so-called 2022 Tido Agreement, when the mainstream ruling parties abandoned their traditional reluctance to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats, as the authorities prioritized expanded detention, accelerated returns, and deterrence measures.

The news, which pushed oil prices down by 4%, appeared at first glance like a triumph of diplomacy. The US and Iran have agreed to end the latest phase of their confrontation and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump, never one to miss a dramatic flourish, immediately declared on Truth Social: “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”

But anyone looking beyond the market reaction can see that the barrels of black gold still have to pass through a minefield.

Yes, this is the most significant diplomatic breakthrough since joint US and Israeli strikes on Iran in February triggered a conflict that killed thousands and shook global energy markets. Yes, the Strait of Hormuz, blocked by Iran for months, is expected to reopen on Friday. But this agreement is not a final peace deal. 

The central problem remains Iran’s nuclear program. Its future has been deferred for a 60-day period of “further negotiations.” While Tehran has already accumulated more than 400kg of uranium close to weapons-grade, Trump, having abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under Barack Obama, is now being forced back to the table under worse conditions.

That creates an obvious political trap because Republican hawks have already warned that any nuclear agreement will have to be put before Congress. Trump therefore risks either being accused of weakness or seeing the whole arrangement collapse before November’s mid-term elections.

Iran, meanwhile, has made a complete ceasefire in Lebanon one of its core demands, and that turns Lebanon into a powder keg capable of exploding regardless of any grand bargain between Washington and Tehran.

Markets may also have moved too fast. ITC Markets analyst Sean Callow was right to warn that the lack of detail, especially on freedom of navigation, is worrying. Investors rushed to sell oil, but what happens if tankers again encounter Iranian patrol boats next week? A sudden price fall can be as destabilizing as a surge.

Still, the deal has a foundation because Trump needs lower gas prices before the mid-terms. Iran needs sanctions relief and the unfreezing of $25 billion in assets. Western European states, led by Brussels, London, Berlin, Paris and Rome, are already promising sanctions relief in exchange for “verifiable steps” on the nuclear file.

The real question is whether this fragile structure can last 60 days because in the Middle East silence in the Strait could turn out to be just the calm before a new storm.

This article was first published by Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Countries seeking to join the EU could face major limits on their ability to dissent against Brussels’ decisions after accession, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos has warned.

The EU is looking to speed up the admission of new states amid concerns that growing economic problems and global political shifts could reduce the bloc to irrelevance. However, the push has been complicated by fears that enlargement could harm the interests of existing members and alter the balance of power inside an organization already known for sluggish bureaucracy and political infighting.

Speaking to reporters ahead of a foreign policy meeting in Luxembourg on Monday, Kos said the EU will negotiate “a new generation of accession treaties” designed to ensure that newly admitted members remain “onboard” with the bloc’s priorities for up to 15 years after ratification. She did not disclose the precise mechanisms under discussion.

Some Brussels-connected media outlets interpreted the comments as support for proposals backed by countries including France and Germany to introduce temporary limits on voting rights in areas such as the joint budget, security, and foreign policy. “The safeguards will bite hard” for states that break ranks, Kos told Politico, adding that Montenegro could become the first candidate to face the proposed arrangement.

Why does the EU want new members?

After the EU’s wave of gobbling up former Eastern bloc countries, the enlargement process slowed down in the 2010s to prevent integrational indigestion.

Brussels now says the situation has changed. Confronting Russia, EU officials say, has made faster expansion a “moral, political and geostrategic imperative,” as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated in her 2024 political guidelines.

What is holding expansion back?

Although EU leaders have claimed ad nauseam that the Ukraine conflict has made the bloc more united than ever, the open-ended financial burden of the conflict, combined with the lack of a clear military endgame, has strengthened the EU’s centrifugal tendencies.

Former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was long depicted in the press as a bete noir for using Hungary’s veto power to seek exemptions from the sanctions on Russia.

Orban made criticism of the EU’s Ukraine policy a major part of his broader argument that von der Leyen and EU bureaucrats adopted a dictatorial attitude. Similar reasoning has been used by leaders in other Eastern European member states when resisting Brussels’ decisions on open-door migration, pro-LGBT policies, and unrestricted access for Ukrainian agricultural goods to the common market, to name a few.

Are there suitable candidates?

The enlargement “imperative” sits uneasily with the EU’s stated commitment to strictly merit-based accession, under which candidates that fail to meet the required standards should not be admitted for political reasons.

Reports of successful Ukrainian reforms have stood in contrast with corruption scandals in Kiev involving members of Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle. Ukrainian lawmakers have repeatedly avoided voting on difficult legislative changes demanded by Brussels, reportedly with the quiet approval of the government. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s heavily militarized society, in which some nationalist figures openly call for a fascist dictatorship, is not predisposed for democratic governance.

Avoiding public criticism of Kiev is one thing; admitting a country with so much political baggage is another. Peter Magyar, Hungary’s new prime minister, recently said Ukraine’s accession path will likely be as long as Montenegro’s, which formally began in 2012. Budapest may have a new leader, but Hungary’s national interests remain unchanged.

What about candidates not at war?

Moldova was granted candidate status in 2023 alongside Ukraine and Georgia as part of Brussels’ challenge to Moscow.

The EU has since helped the government in Chisinau remain in power, using online media censorship tools and financial grants to influence voters while overlooking the crackdown on opposition forces, which President Maia Sandu has defended as necessary to prevent Russian interference.

What is the proposed solution?

European states have increasingly promoted the idea of multi-tier membership, with different levels of obligations and privileges. This model could lock candidate countries into political alignment with Brussels while avoiding some of the complications caused by full accession.

As Kos put it, the EU has “many, many options” for “gradual integration,” while insisting that there will be “no half membership or quarter membership” for candidate states.

The family of a Brazilian woman who died after waiting several days for an intensive-care bed has blamed a new AI-powered state system for downgrading the severity of her condition and delaying her transfer.

Rebeca Cardoso Tenente Molina, a 32-year-old psychologist from Minas Gerais, sought treatment earlier this month for what was believed to be gallstones. Her condition quickly deteriorated, and doctors soon concluded she needed urgent transfer to an intensive-care unit.

However, the new state-run Core-MG bed-regulation platform reportedly failed to treat her case as critical enough, despite Molina’s relatives going to court to try to force a faster transfer.

A bed was found only about five days later, around 300 km away. Molina was flown there by private plane but died hours later. Her death certificate lists septic shock as the cause of death, but doctors are still trying to determine what triggered her rapid deterioration.

“Doctors lost the autonomy to decide if a patient is very seriously ill,” Molina’s twin sister and lawyer, Samela Cardoso Tenente Furtado, told the media.

She said the AI system gave Molina a severity score of 6.8, despite her family’s belief that she should have been treated as a 10. “A patient at 8, a patient at 6.9 would jump ahead of her,” Furtado said, adding that the AI-powered platform would not accept a higher level despite worsening test results.

The Core-MG system was introduced last month, with state officials stating it would make bed allocation faster and more transparent while helping classify patients by severity.

The Minas Gerais Health Department has denied that the system harmed Molina, saying she was registered immediately and that transfers depend on bed availability and clinical needs. It also said regulation remains overseen by doctors and that Core-MG did not change clinical criteria or the method for finding beds.

The rollout has nevertheless drawn criticism and legal challenges from local authorities, who argue it has disrupted patient transfers.

Molina’s case comes amid broader concerns about AI integration in healthcare. In the US, insurers have recently faced lawsuits over alleged algorithmic claim denials, while nurses in New York have warned about hospitals rushing to deploy AI tools without sufficient input or oversight from healthcare workers.

Jordan Bardella, the leader of France’s largest opposition party, the National Rally (RN), has ruled out seeking an endorsement from US President Donald Trump for the 2027 presidential election, describing him as unpredictable and increasingly hard to read.

The 30-year-old Euroskeptic and anti-immigration politician is widely seen as the favorite to replace Marine Le Pen if she is barred from running. The longtime RN leader was convicted last year of misusing EU funds and banned from holding public office for five years. She denies wrongdoing, and a court is due to rule on her appeal in July.

In an interview with Politico released on Monday, Bardella described Trump’s behavior as “not only erratic but also extremely unsteady and constantly shifting.” Asked how he views the US president, Bardella described him as inconsistent, quipping: “There’s [his] Monday attitude, a Tuesday attitude, a Wednesday attitude.”

Bardella dismissed any suggestion that he might seek Trump’s backing, despite Trump’s history of supporting like-minded politicians abroad, including Poland’s Karol Nawrocki and Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

“The only support Marine Le Pen and I seek is that of the French people and French voters,” he said, adding that he has “no need for outside backing” and no intention of opening the door to “any form of foreign interference.”

The remarks mark a shift from Bardella’s earlier praise of Trump, whom he publicly admired for his energy and political success. According to the French politician, Trump’s second term has departed sharply from the first in no longer prioritizing domestic interests but rather being shaped by a vision of the US as “an empire with a dominant influence over the Western Hemisphere.”

That makes Trump “more dangerous” and creates uncertainty across Europe, which can no longer rely on Washington unreservedly. Bardella pointed to Trump’s tariff threats, which led to last year’s US-EU trade deal – an arrangement he described as “economic, financial and industrial vassalage.”

Relations between Washington and its European allies have been strained since Trump returned to office in 2025, with recurring disputes over trade, defense spending, digital regulation and Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly accused European NATO members of free-riding on US security guarantees while threatening new tariffs on the bloc. On Monday, he told the New York Post he would impose 100% tariffs on French wine unless Paris scrapped its digital services tax targeting revenues generated by US tech giants.

Trump’s 2026 National Security Strategy, describing the EU as strategically unreliable, also widened the rift, as did his push to acquire Greenland from Denmark. The US-Israeli war on Iran added to the friction after Washington announced the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany and threatened further cuts in Spain and Italy following criticism of the conflict. Even some of Trump’s traditional allies in Europe, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, have increasingly distanced themselves from his foreign policy and territorial ambitions.

Moscow has condemned a Dutch military test involving a mock prisoner-of-war camp for Russian soldiers, warning European “hotheads” that the facilities would be of no use if a real conflict broke out.

Dutch media reported last week that the Netherlands Army was test-running a new POW camp design at the Marnehuizen training facility in Groningen, preparing to hold up to 2,000 Russian captives in the event of a large-scale conflict.

The facility reportedly features barracks housing groups of roughly 20 detainees, and seeks to replace traditional watchtowers with guards by camera-equipped poles, with monitoring also being carried out by drones.

Russian diplomats also recalled the Soviet Union’s role in World War II, noting that “Russia has a historical experience of liberating camps in Europe and rescuing their prisoners from the atrocities of Nazi henchmen.” It is “regrettable” that similar ideas “still arise in the 21st century,” it added.

“The ‘hotheads’ should understand: if Europe unleashes a war against Russia, prisoner-of-war camps will certainly be of no use there.”

The test follows hysteria triggered last year when numerous reported drone sightings over the Netherlands and Belgium disrupted civilian air traffic in the region. While some EU officials pointed to suspected Russian involvement, they subsequently failed to provide any evidence, with analysts later suggesting that sightings may not have involved drones at all. Russia has denied any involvement.

After the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, numerous Western officials speculated that Russia could attack NATO within several years – a claim that President Vladimir Putin has dismissed as “not only pure insanity but also a deliberate provocation.”

The UK will supply enriched uranium to Ukraine’s state nuclear energy company, Energoatom, under a £210 million ($280 million) deal aimed at supporting Ukraine’s power grid, the British government has announced.

The arrangement, backed by UK Export Finance, will enable British-based Urenco to supply enriched uranium to Energoatom for the next two years, London said on Monday. The deal was agreed to by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky at Downing Street last week.

According to the British government, the agreement is intended to “power Ukraine’s nuclear plants” and strengthen the country’s energy security.

The deal also comes amid repeated warnings from Moscow over nuclear safety in Ukraine. Russia has accused Kiev of conducting attacks on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which has been under Russian control since March 2022.

Earlier this month, a Ukrainian drone struck the machine hall of the plant’s sixth power unit. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the damage while stopping short of assigning blame.

Earlier this year, Zelensky said he would accept nuclear weapons from Britain or France “with pleasure,” while insisting that an offer has not been made. Moscow has accused London and Paris of considering ways to provide Ukraine with components or technologies that would allow it to develop a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb, which France and the UK deny.

A Hague-based arbitration tribunal has rejected Ukrainian maritime claims against Russia, including attempts to challenge Moscow’s sovereignty over Crimea and surrounding waters.

Ukraine launched the case in 2016 before the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Kiev argued that Crimea remained Ukrainian territory and claimed that the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait should be treated as international waters subject to UNCLOS rules. Crimea joined Russia following a 2014 referendum held after the Western-backed Maidan coup in Kiev.

In a statement on Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry described the tribunal’s final ruling, adopted unanimously by a panel of five arbitrators, as a “convincing victory” for Moscow. It said the tribunal rejected Ukraine’s demands for compensation and reparations related to natural resources around Crimea.

According to the ministry, the tribunal also dismissed Kiev’s attempt to classify the Kerch Strait as an international waterway open to vessels of all states, including warships. Moscow said the ruling formally recognized the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov as Russia’s historic domestic waters.

The tribunal likewise rejected claims that Russia violated international law by asserting sovereignty over the Sea of Azov following the accession of the Donbass republics and the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye.

The ruling also dismissed Ukraine’s demand that the Crimean Bridge be dismantled. Kiev had argued that the crossing, built between 2016 and 2018 to link Crimea with mainland Russia, was illegal and hindered navigation through the Kerch Strait. Moscow called the claim “absurd,” while the tribunal found Ukraine’s arguments unsubstantiated, according to the ministry.

The bridge has repeatedly been targeted by Kiev using naval drones, explosives and Western-supplied long-range missiles, causing damage and civilian casualties.

The ruling represents a significant “defeat” for Ukraine and its Western backers in the decade-long “legal war” against Russia, according to the ministry.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has taken to Substack to accuse the British government of infecting the UK with “deep anti-white racism.” He also published damning racism and crime statistics in an essay, much of which would have been previously unspeakable.

Farage announced his migration to the platform on Saturday, saying that the move to Substack would allow him to speak directly to the British public without “the mainstream media constantly distort[ing] what I say.” One day later, Farage used this new platform to unleash a 7,000-word tirade against the British state, which, he argued, has become “a two tier state against white people.”

What did Farage say?

The mainstream media constantly distorts what I say. You can no longer rely on them to report the truth.

That’s why I’ve decided to speak to you directly and launch my essays to Britain. ✍️

Read my first post out tomorrow at 8am. Click below or in my bio to subscribe. pic.twitter.com/Pyj0JduVi1

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) June 13, 2026

Farage took aim at decades of British policy that he says have unfairly benefited minorities and discriminated against white Britons. He highlighted Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies in healthcare, education, policing, and the military that he insists have been implemented to disadvantage white patients, students, and applicants, and promised to repeal the 2010 Equality Act which, in his words, ensures that “anti-Whiteness is institutionalised into every aspect of public life.”

In healthcare, the NHS prioritizes “ethnic minority communities” and “vulnerable migrants” for accelerated diagnosis and treatment, despite white Britons having the highest mortality rate of all the UK’s ethnic groups. In education, the poorest white Britons have the lowest outcomes of any demographic, yet are lectured about their “white privilege” and their “responsibility” to reduce racism, and sidelined when applying for university in favor of black students with lower exam scores, Farage said. In policing, he claimed, agencies across the country have adopted “race action plans” and done away with stop-and-frisk policies that seemingly target black men – even though at 13% of London’s population, this demographic is responsible for 61% of knife murder in the British capital.

How Henry Nowak changed the conversation

None of these arguments are new, and the right has leveled accusations of ‘two-tier’ policing at Starmer’s government since the 2024 Southport riots – when Starmer cleared prisons to make way for hundreds of people arrested for social media posts supporting the rioters. However, Henry Nowak’s death made these accusations impossible to ignore. 

The Nowak case triggered violent protests in his native Southampton, and condemnation from the US government, with Vice President J.D. Vance blaming his death on Britain’s “politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants.” Three weeks later, an attempted beheading in Belfast by a Sudanese migrant reinforced Vance’s claim.

“Make no mistake: if there is no urgent action taken to remove discriminatory and dangerous anti-White policies, we will see another Belfast,” Farage wrote. “Thanks to the mass migration policies of Conservative and Labour governments, White Brits will become a minority in this country before the end of the century. Without a voice to speak up for them, the future will be manifestly unjust.”

Is Farage warning of “rivers of blood”?

Farage’s warning – that anti-white violence will increase as the white share of the population decreases – has been made before. In his 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Conservative MP Enoch Powell predicted that mass immigration would force natives out of jobs and housing, that white Britons would be “made strangers in their own country,” and that as he looked to the future, he, “like the Roman,” seemed “to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’”

Whereas Powell warned of bloodshed in the future, Farage has argued that it is happening right now. Whites are being displaced in London, Farage claimed, providing statistics from where the district of Barking, which has been transformed from a 91% white community in 1991, to less than 31% today, and Westminster, which has gone from 73% white to 28% in the same time frame. In Westminster, 43% of social housing is occupied by people born outside the UK and Ireland. 

Black men and mental health in the UK

Combined with DEI policies at every level of the British state, this displacement has “lethal” consequences, Farage warned. In the healthcare system, black men are 3.5 times more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act than their white counterparts, yet are more than ten times more likely to screen positive for psychotic disorders. With healthcare staff under pressure to reduce the former disparity, dangerous mental patients are being released. Among them is Valdo Calocane, a paranoid schizophrenic who stabbed three people to death and rammed a van into a crowd in Nottingham in 2023.

Meanwhile, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) hires two times the number of foreign-trained and ethnic minority doctors, despite these doctors being “significantly more likely to be hauled in front of fitness to practise hearings.” 

A long-time proponent of the kind of “color-blind meritocracy” advocated by American Republicans, Farage previously stopped short of portraying immigration as an existential threat to “white” Britain. Questioned by reporters in 2014, he would only admit that “the basic principle” of Powell’s argument was correct. However, his rhetoric on “anti-white racism” has hardened in recent months, and his Substack essay explicitly promises a brighter future for whites.

“We’re long past empty platitudes about change: only Reform has the will and the ability to ensure that no young White person ever has to grow up feeling ashamed of who they are again,” he wrote.

Is Farage riding a political wave and will he survive?

This new hardline stance seems partly opportunistic. Farage’s Reform UK capitalized on widespread dissatisfaction with Starmer’s migration policies to pick up more than 1,400 seats in local elections in England last month, as Starmer’s Labour Party lost the same amount. While these results seemed to vindicate Farage’s claim that Reform, and not the Conservative Party, is “now the main opposition party to this government,” the Belfast stabbing shone an unwelcome light on Reform’s immigration policies.

In the days after the attempted beheading, it emerged that the Sudanese attacker had his asylum application to the UK fast-tracked by a Conservative government in which Suella Braverman was home secretary and Robert Jenrick was minister for immigration. Braverman and Jenrick are now members of Reform, and although both have claimed that they split with the Tories on immigration, Farage has faced a new challenge on the right from Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe, who has argued that Reform represents “change, but only the kind the establishment will allow.” 

If a Somalian family is living in British social housing, claiming benefits, refusing to work, not even able to speak English?

A Restore Britain Government will deport that family.

No apologies, no compromises, no payments.

Deported.

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) June 15, 2026

Whereas Farage has proposed kicking migrants out of social housing, Lowe has promised mass deportations. Farage has promised to hold black and white criminals equally accountable; Lowe has advocated for the reintroduction of the death penalty for migrant murderers. Against this kind of challenge, Farage’s essay can be seen as an attempt to reassert Reform as the voice of the British right. 

Amid public outrage over the stabbing of Nowak and the brutal attack in Belfast, and with Starmer’s approval rating sitting at a miserable 16% in the latest Ipsos poll, Farage is likely betting that Reform can replicate its local wins in next year’s general election. As it stands, his message is resonating: according to a polling aggregate compiled by Politico, Reform is the UK’s most popular party, polling at 26%, with Labour and the Conservatives both trailing at 18%.

After more than three and a half months of fighting and intense back-and-forth negotiations, US President Donald Trump announced that Washington and Tehran, under Pakistani mediation, have reached a final agreement to end hostilities between them.

The deal is expected to be signed in Geneva on June 19.

According to reports, the memorandum of understanding stipulates that upon signing, both sides will declare an immediate, complete, and permanent end to all hostilities across the region, including in Lebanon. The blockade on Iran would be lifted, Washington would commit not to interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs, refrain from increasing troop levels in the region, and release half of Iran’s frozen assets, an amount totaling approximately $12 billion.

Israel has not taken the news lightly. Opposition leader Yair Lapid said that the emerging agreement achieves “none of Israel’s goals.”

“The regime survives, the missile program remains intact, and Iran retains the ability to rebuild its nuclear program. This is a complete failure by Netanyahu, and in the process he is turning Israel into a client state that takes orders on matters of its own national security.”

Another opposition figure, Yair Golan, was equally blunt, describing the policy as a failure.

”Trump is signing an agreement that funnels billions of dollars to the Ayatollahs’ regime, leaves the nuclear infrastructure intact, preserves the ballistic threat as it is, and throws a lifeline to the murderous regime in Tehran.”

But the frustration is not limited to politicians.

Frustrated and disappointed 

Conversations with ordinary Israelis paint a picture of disappointment, anxiety, and a growing sense that a historic opportunity may have been squandered.

Mor Cohen, a 37-year-old resident of Tel Aviv, believes the agreement has missed a chance “to finish the job.”

“This deal essentially guarantees another war in the future because everything that mattered to Israel was left unaddressed, and the issues that concern us most remain unresolved.”

Her concerns are not without basis. According to estimates, before the war Iran possessed roughly 3,000 missiles, including long-range systems capable of traveling up to 2,000 kilometers. Although the conflict reportedly cut that arsenal in half, the remaining 1,500 missiles still represent a serious threat to Israel.

Nor have Israel’s nuclear concerns been fully addressed. While Washington repeatedly insisted that Iran would “never have nuclear weapons,” it offered no concrete guarantees to Israel. Nor did American officials directly address the issue of Iran’s regional proxies, namely Hezbollah in the north and the Houthis in the south, both of which continue to challenge Israel through sporadic rocket and drone attacks.

“The general feeling on the street is that Trump has sold us out,”

said Maor Attias, a 56-year-old resident of Haifa. “Americans simply don’t understand the Middle East. Iran fed them a narrative, and they bought it, either because they genuinely believed it or because they were tired of dealing with the conflict. Midterm elections are coming up, and politicians need the support of their voters. In this equation, Israel sits at the bottom of the priority list.”

Mor shares that assessment, arguing that American foreign policy is ultimately driven by interests rather than alliances.

For many Israelis, such fears are reinforced by past examples.

In 2021, thousands of Afghans who worked alongside US forces, as interpreters, guides, and government partners, were left behind during America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many later faced retaliation from the Taliban, prompting criticism from veterans, lawmakers, and policy analysts.

Two years earlier, in 2019, Trump ordered US troops to pull back from parts of northern Syria, paving the way for Turkish military operations against Kurdish forces that had served as Washington’s primary ground partner in the fight against ISIS.

Not easy prey

That sense of abandonment came at a heavy cost for both the Kurds and the Afghans. Yet Mor and Maor believe Israel, unlike those allies, would not be easy prey.

”We are well-equipped, highly trained and determined to survive,” Maor said. “With or without American support, we will remain resilient and do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves.”

Mor agrees.

“The reality is that Israel may ultimately have to finish the job on its own, whether in Lebanon or Iran. Our security must remain the top priority, regardless of whether Trump approves.”

Those sentiments come as, earlier today, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a written statement signaling that western Jerusalem is prepared to respond forcefully if Iran intervenes in any future confrontation involving Hezbollah.

“We will not compromise on Israel’s supreme security interests or the protection of our citizens, and we will not withdraw from the security zones,” the statement said. “If Iran attacks Israel because of events in Lebanon, we will strike it with full force and clearly demonstrate the disparity in power between us,” it concluded.

Whether Israel would have the freedom to act independently, however, remains an open question.

Israel is the largest recipient of American military assistance, and any serious rift with Washington could carry significant consequences. During the Gaza war, President Joe Biden temporarily paused shipments of certain heavy munitions, including 2,000-pound bombs, over concerns regarding civilian casualties in densely populated areas.

Trump could choose a similar course if Israel acts against Washington’s wishes.

For some Israelis, the prospect of avoiding another large-scale conflict outweighs the concerns surrounding the deal.

Simply unsustainable 

Lilach Kalderon, a 40-year-old mother of three, says that the war with Iran has taken a severe emotional toll on ordinary families.

”The war with Iran was deeply traumatic, especially for families like mine. My husband serves in the reserves, and worrying about his safety kept me awake night after night. When we heard about the agreement, our family felt genuine relief because it means lives may be spared and soldiers will not be forced to spend fifty or more consecutive days serving across multiple fronts.”

She paused before adding:

”For a small country of ten million people, that kind of burden is simply unsustainable.”

Some experts are equally unconvinced that Israel could sustain a prolonged military campaign even if it chose to act independently.

Amir Oren, one of Israel’s veteran military and security analysts, argues that the country’s ability to wage a long war against either Iran or Hezbollah is constrained by both strategic and political realities.

“In the case of Iran, obviously regime change is not achievable, as assassinations did not have the desired effect and no revolution ensued. Destroying nuclear targets proved to have some effect but not for long. Ditto, ballistic missile infrastructure.

At the same time, Israel will be struck, its interception arsenal would dwindle and American support is no longer assured.

Therefore, short of an emergency surgical operation against an existential peril, such as a nuclear-tipped missile ready to be launched, a campaign would not be sustainable, with domestic support quickly denied the government, if headed by the untrustworthy Netanyahu.”

“The IDF, if deployed properly and on alert, having learned the terrible lessons of October 7, will always be able to defend Israel proper, but as for offensive operations, attrition wars or casualty-ridden campaigns – there is little to suggest that they would be sustainable.”

As diplomats prepare to gather in Geneva, the agreement may have succeeded in stopping a war. Whether it has secured a lasting peace, or merely postponed the next conflict, remains a question that hangs heavily over Israel.

One thing is certain: while the guns may be falling silent, the battle over what this deal means for Israel’s future has only just begun.

The UK’s move to ban social media for under-16s is a ruse to implement digital surveillance of all internet users, X owner Elon Musk has declared, accusing the British government of building a “police state.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the ban on Monday, promising that the measure would protect “the safety and happiness of our children.”

Children under 16 will be barred from “user-to-user” platforms such as X, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, according to a statement from Starmer’s office. They will also be prohibited from livestreaming, messaging strangers through gaming apps, and using AI “romantic companion” chatbots. Meanwhile, 16- and 17-year-olds will be subject to nightly online curfews.

Messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal will be exempt from the ban, the statement added. The ban is expected to come into force next year.

Shortly after Starmer’s announcement, Musk warned that “this censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” In a post on X, the billionaire claimed that its “real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.” In another post, Musk declared that “the UK is a police state.”

This censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone. https://t.co/aZKpGDdPmX

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 15, 2026

In order to ban under-16s, the government must ensure that adults can verify their age before using social media platforms. Starmer’s office did not say how this would be implemented, instead stating that the government is exploring “different options for effective forms of age assurance.”

The ban has been heavily criticized by digital rights activists. “Over 16s in the UK will have to hand over identity documents or biometric data to unregulated age verification companies,” the Open Rights Group warned, adding that “the government has completely failed to acknowledge the harms that could come from that.”

“We will become one of the first democracies in the world to require IDs to access the internet,” Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo told Talk TV on Monday. “We are sleepwalking towards a total surveillance state.”

Starmer has lobbied for the introduction of a mandatory digital ID system since last year, but was forced to drop the plan amid public backlash this January. His government, however, has plowed ahead with other digital surveillance and censorship measures, including the rollout of facial recognition cameras by multiple police departments at demonstrations, a request to tech companies to require adults to submit ID to use mobile phones, and legislation that will enable the government to remove content from social media “during times of crisis.”

A US Air Force strategic nuclear-capable B-52 Stratofortress bomber has crashed at Edwards Air Force Base in California, the base has said.

The crash occurred on Monday shortly before noon, with the aircraft going down shortly after takeoff. The bomber was carrying eight people on a routine test mission, according to a news release from the 412th Test Wing’s Office of Public Affairs.

“Initial indications are that the crash was not survivable,” the release said.

“Emergency crews immediately responded to the scene and the situation is ongoing. More information will be provided as it becomes available,” the base said in an earlier statement.

The airfield has been put on lockdown following the incident and all inbound aircraft have been diverted, the base said in a follow-up statement. “All non-commercial visitor passes have been suspended until further notice to allow the installation to focus entirely on emergency response operations.”

The plane caught fire upon impact. Footage circulating online shows a large plume of smoke rising into the sky. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the crash and ensuing blaze.

BREAKING: A U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber crashed shortly after takeoff at Edwards Air Force Base, triggering an emergency response.

Emergency crews rushed to the scene as thick black smoke billowed from the wreckage scattered across the desert airfield.

More details, including… pic.twitter.com/JRx3R4ElJW

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 15, 2026

Introduced in 1955 as a carrier of free-fall nuclear bombs, and having undergone numerous upgrades over the decades, the B-52 remains one of the longest-serving aircraft in the US fleet. The US military is believed to have more than 70 upgraded B-52H planes in service, including nearly 60 in active-duty units. The planes have been used in a number of conflicts, including the recent US-Israeli attack on Iran.

Earlier on Monday, a Russian Tu-22M3 supersonic nuclear-capable aircraft crashed in Irkutsk Region in southeast Siberia during a training flight. The bomber crashed in an open area with no material damage or casualties inflicted on the ground, while its crew managed to eject safely, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.

The US and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement to end the hostilities in the Middle East, following weeks of direct and indirect negotiations mediated by Pakistan.

A formal ceremony to sign the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will take place in Geneva on Friday. According to Washington, the deal was signed digitally over the weekend. The text of the agreement has not yet been released to the public, while Tehran and Washington have been making contradicting statements on the contents.

According to media reports, the MoU includes 14 points, including a permanent end to the hostilities across all fronts, including in Lebanon, sanctions relief, the unfreezing of Iranian assets, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a US commitment not to interfere in Iran’s affairs, and other clauses.

The agreement appears to extend the shaky ceasefire for another 60 days to facilitate further negotiations. Both sides “declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Tehran has long insisted that any agreement must include an end to the hostilities in Lebanon, where Israel has been waging a campaign against Hezbollah.

Israel, which is not a party to the agreement, said its forces are not withdrawing from the country. Its military activities have repeatedly put the negotiations between the US and Tehran on the brink, prompting renewed exchanges in long-range strikes, including a major flare-up last weekend. US President Donald Trump, who has reportedly clashed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on several occasions over West Jerusalem’s actions, said he wanted to “see if we can straighten out the Lebanon thing,” suggesting that ending the hostilities there “should not be tough.” 

The Strait of Hormuz has remained disrupted for weeks due to the hostilities, which heavily impacted global energy supply and maritime commodity freight.

Trump has announced the major waterway would be reopened “permanently toll free,” stating he has ordered the end of the US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Multiple Iranian media reports, however, have suggested that the toll-free transit pertains only to the 60-day negotiation period and that Tehran intends to impose fees on transiting vessels later on. Iran has introduced a new system to regulate the strait amid the conflict, charging vessels transiting through it, and has repeatedly said there is no returning to the situation in the waterway that existed before the war.

Iran’s nuclear program

Both the US and Iran have made assurances that Tehran will never be able to procure nuclear weapons. While the US and Israel have repeatedly claimed that Iran is seeking to do so, Tehran has long maintained its nuclear program only serves peaceful civilian purposes.

Media reports indicate that the MoU pushes the issue down the road, with a final settlement on nuclear issues envisaged within 60 days. According to Trump, the final agreement with Iran will guarantee that the country is restricted to enriching uranium to levels that “could never be used by the military.”

Financial issues

Sanctions relief and financial issues have emerged as the most contradictory parts of the upcoming deal. According to Iranian media reports, the US has agreed to unfreeze $24 billion in Iranian assets, with half of the sum set to be handed back to the country before a final agreement is reached. Washington also reportedly promised to suspend sanctions on Iranian oil, petrochemical products, and related exports, as well as presenting a reconstruction plan worth at least $300 billion for Iran.

US Vice President J.D. Vance, however, has denied that the deal envisions any unfreezing of Iranian assets. He also said Tehran can have access to the reconstruction fund “so long as they honor their end of the obligation.” The fund is set to be bankrolled by the “Gulf coast coalition,” Vance told CBS News without naming any nations involved.

Israel’s stance

Top Israeli officials have met the announced deal with belligerent statements, with Defense Minister Israel Katz providing the first official reaction to it. On Monday, he said Israel will not withdraw from the vast swathe of territory seized in southern Lebanon during the campaign. Later in the day, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stated that Israel is not bound by the agreement.

“We are not party to this agreement. It does not safeguard our security,” he said. “We must not settle for anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah. We must not withdraw from a single inch of territory that our soldiers have captured and cleared of terrorist infrastructure.”

International reaction

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has expressed hope that the deal will actually come to fruition.

“We hope that the encouraging statements that were made this morning in Washington, Tehran, and Pakistan as a country mediating the negotiations will materialize,” he said on Monday.

A similar message was communicated by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which said Beijing hopes “all parties to stick to the path of peace and solve issues through dialogue.”

Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping for their mediating roles in settling the conflict.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s two-day trip to Pyongyang earlier this month was his first foreign visit of the year, his third trip to North Korea overall, and his first since June 2019. More importantly, it took place at a moment when the global geopolitical landscape is undergoing profound changes.

Official statements framed the summit as part of the effort to strengthen what both sides describe as a relationship of the highest strategic importance. Yet beyond the formal language, the visit highlighted the growing convergence of Chinese and North Korean interests, demonstrated the durability of their partnership, and reflected an evolving regional environment in which old assumptions are increasingly being reconsidered.

Ditching the old preconditions

One of the most notable aspects of the meeting was not what was discussed publicly, but what apparently was not. For years, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula occupied a central place in regional diplomacy. Yet recent developments suggest that the issue no longer dominates the agenda as it once did.

Chinese statements in recent years have noticeably reduced their emphasis on denuclearization, and references to the subject have become increasingly infrequent in official exchanges with Pyongyang. The summit continued that trend. Instead, both sides focused on broader strategic and political questions.

Reports indicated that Beijing and Pyongyang reached what was described as a satisfactory common understanding regarding the international political situation. This language is significant because it is not automatically included in summit readouts. Its appearance suggests a meaningful degree of agreement on major global developments and shared concerns about the evolving security environment.

In summary, the summit was focused on coordinating Chinese and North Korean responses to a changing world – not on changing North Korea’s behavior. This reflects a reality increasingly acknowledged across the region: Near-term denuclearization is no longer viewed as a realistic objective.

Economic reconnection

If security issues formed the backdrop to the summit, practical cooperation provided its main substance.

The discussions focused on expanding economic ties and restoring exchanges that were disrupted in recent years. Areas highlighted included trade, agriculture, construction, science and technology, healthcare, education, infrastructure development, border management, transportation, and people-to-people contact.

This reconnection is already underway. Cross-border rail services have resumed, and Chinese airlines have restarted regular weekly flights to North Korea. These may appear to be modest measures, but they represent important steps toward rebuilding normal channels of communication and commerce.

Trade between the two countries has historically represented the overwhelming majority of North Korea’s external commerce. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, bilateral trade volumes reached several billion dollars annually, making China by far North Korea’s most important economic partner.

For Beijing, economic engagement offers a means of reinforcing long-term influence. By deepening practical cooperation, China can help ensure that North Korea remains closely connected to its economic orbit even as Pyongyang simultaneously develops ties with other partners, particularly Russia.

If linked effectively to emerging Arctic shipping routes and the Northern Sea Route, these border regions could gain increasing strategic relevance over the coming decades. These ambitions remain long-term and face considerable challenges, but the renewed emphasis on connectivity suggests that economic geography is once again becoming a major factor in regional planning.

Kim Jong-un’s diplomatic moment

The summit also represented a significant success for Kim Jong-un personally.

Over the past several years, North Korea has expanded its diplomatic profile through closer engagement with Russia while simultaneously preserving and revitalizing relations with China and reaching out to the US. That balancing act has elevated Pyongyang’s international standing in ways that would have seemed unlikely only a decade ago.

Coming after Kim’s prominent appearances at major international commemorations in Beijing, where he was positioned alongside both Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the summit underscored North Korea’s growing role within a broader network of strategic partnerships.

Perhaps most importantly from Pyongyang’s perspective, the visit focused on issues that promise tangible benefits for economic development and public welfare rather than on sanctions or nuclear negotiations. This allowed North Korea to project an image of a country engaged in normal state-to-state diplomacy rather than one defined exclusively by security disputes.

Pyongyang seeks recognition as an active participant in regional affairs, rather than a security challenge to be contained.

To that end, North Korea has been showing increasing flexibility in its foreign policy. While maintaining alliance-based ties with both China and Russia, it also seeks to demonstrate that it retains independent decision-making authority. The image being cultivated is one of a state capable of navigating relationships among major powers rather than serving as a subordinate actor to any of them.

Beijing seeks to simultaneously manage its relationships with Washington, Moscow, and Pyongyang while safeguarding its own interests across Northeast Asia.

Strengthening ties with North Korea serves several objectives. It helps maintain stability along China’s northeastern border, preserves influence over developments on the Korean Peninsula, and reinforces Beijing’s role as a central diplomatic actor in regional affairs.

Chinese analysts have also increasingly emphasized North Korea as an important partner against what they view as ‘Japan’s new militarism’. Likewise, Beijing and Pyongyang share reservations regarding South Korean plans to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines with US assistance.

At the same time, Beijing has long encouraged North Korea to study aspects of China’s own development experience. The basic idea is to maintain political continuity while expanding market activity, attracting investment, increasing trade, and pursuing gradual economic modernization. While North Korea will undoubtedly follow its own path, economic cooperation with China provides opportunities to incorporate selected elements of this model.

A partnership adapting to new realities

The Xi-Kim summit was not a dramatic breakthrough, nor was it intended to be. It was part of the long-term process of steady consolidation of a relationship that both sides view as strategically indispensable.

The visit demonstrated growing political coordination, expanding economic engagement, and a shared desire to adapt to an international environment very different from only a few years ago. It also suggested that regional diplomacy is entering a new phase in which practical cooperation, infrastructure connectivity, and geopolitical balancing may matter more than longstanding debates that have produced few tangible results.

In a region shaped by strategic competition, the steady strengthening of China-North Korea relations is a development that neither supporters nor critics can afford to ignore.

FIFA is reportedly looking into a US World Cup official who appeared to make an ‘OK’ hand gesture before Germany’s 7-1 win over Curacao, reviving one of the internet’s more absurd culture-war panics.

Australian referee Shaun Evans, who was working as a Video Assistant Referee (VAR) supervisor for Sunday’s match, appeared on the official broadcast before kick-off as the video review team was shown, looking into the camera and making an upside-down OK sign.

The anti-discrimination group Fare, a long-time FIFA partner, called for Evans to be removed from the tournament, saying the gesture “clearly resembles” a symbol used as a white-power sign in far-right circles.

“Why is a VAR supervisor using this symbol at a global football event at the very moment he knows the cameras are on him?” Fare said. The group described the gesture as “neo-Nazi” and said Evans should have no further role at the World Cup.

🚨 FIFA are investigating assistant VAR Shaun Evans after a hand gesture he made before Germany vs Curaçao was interpreted by some as having links to far-right extremist groups.

How times are changing... years ago, if you saw someone making that sign, it usually meant you were… pic.twitter.com/N8hVzGHMYD

— Football Away Days Club (@AwayDaysClub_) June 15, 2026

FIFA has said it is investigating the incident and is seeking an explanation from Evans.

The supposed racist meaning was popularized in 2017 by 4chan users, who launched a trolling campaign to convince left-wing journalists and activists that the ordinary hand gesture was secretly a white-power symbol.

Much of the media and rights groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, took the bait, adding the OK sign to their lists of ‘hateful’ symbols alongside the swastika and Ku Klux Klan robes.

While FIFA has not yet announced any action against Evans, doing so would likely draw further backlash from fans who are already outraged with the organization over the high ticket prices, expensive stadium concessions, and widespread transportation issues. The issues with the latest World Cup have also fed into wider grievances with FIFA’s history of corruption, politicized host selections, and increasing commercialization of the game.

Last night, verified reports emerged of a forthcoming agreement between the US and Iran. This development, though long-awaited, has surprised not only the Middle East but the entire world. The deal extends far beyond the bilateral US-Iran relationship, as it addresses the security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, Lebanon’s security, Israel’s position, energy, the role of regional mediators, and the entire security architecture in the Middle East. 

The main goal of the deal, which is set to be concluded on June 19, is not so much to resolve the issue of the Iranian nuclear program for good, as to quell the most dangerous flashpoints of the crisis. Judging by the stated parameters of the deal, Washington is opting for de-escalation through mutual concessions: Tehran would receive economic relief, the unfreezing of some of its assets, and the restoration of maritime trade routes in exchange for formally limiting its nuclear ambitions and refraining from direct threats to regional stability.

The decision to lift the naval blockade and restore shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is particularly significant. The markets instantly reacted to the news. As soon as US President Donald Trump confirmed his intention to sign the agreement with Iran, the price of Brent crude oil fell to $84 per barrel (for the first time since March 10). This reflects not only cautious optimism among investors but also an expectation that the threat of a major energy shock related to tensions around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz has at least temporarily receded. 

However, if the deal is signed in its current form, we will witness not so much a triumph of American diplomacy as a glaring political paradox. Speaking on behalf of the White House, US Vice President JD Vance is already trying to frame the deal as a victory for the US, but the actual balance of concessions suggests that Tehran is the main beneficiary of these agreements.

This is precisely why any talk about 'Washington’s victory' appears ambiguous. Formally, Trump may present the agreement as the result of pressure and proof of his foreign policy effectiveness. However, in essence, the situation is quite different. If the deal goes through, Iran will emerge from the crisis not as a capitulating party, but as a nation that has achieved several important goals: the unfreezing of its assets, the lifting of the blockade, the limitation of US military presence at its borders, and a temporary moratorium on new sanctions. 

The historical context makes the situation particularly ironic. In 2018, Trump withdrew from the Iran ‘nuclear deal’, which was significantly more advantageous for Washington in terms of control over Iran’s nuclear program, and stated that he would sign a deal more favorable to US interests. Eight years later, the Trump administration has been forced to return to negotiations with Tehran, but on less favorable terms. It turns out that Trump first sabotaged the previous deal, then escalated the situation to the level of a military conflict, and is now trying to present the conclusion of this conflict as his personal diplomatic triumph.

If we look at the balance of concessions, the main winner so far is Iran. Tehran will get sanctions relief, space for economic maneuver, and the international recognition of the new rules of the game. For the Trump administration, the agreement with Iran is a major foreign policy asset. The White House can present it as proof of the effectiveness of coercive pressure, when military deterrence is combined with a subsequent diplomatic deal. This is why JD Vance called the agreement a major victory for Washington and linked it to the possibility of a long-term transformation of the Middle East. This may be an attempt to transition the region from chronic military turbulence to controlled predictability. Moreover, Washington can use the deal as a tactical stabilization tool and a way to reduce risks to energy markets. For Iran, it represents an opportunity to emerge from the crisis with its political face intact and with real economic benefits. 

At the same time, we should note the weakness of this agreement, which lies in its framework nature. It creates a political pause but does not resolve fundamental contradictions. Iran’s nuclear program remains a central issue: according to the stated terms, Tehran must renounce the development, acquisition, or attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, but further parameters for verification, inspections, uranium enrichment, and the fate of the nuclear infrastructure still require a separate agreement. Therefore, the deal freezes the crisis rather than definitively resolves it. 

The deal comes as an unpleasant shock for Israel, which reacted to it quite painfully. For the Israeli political establishment, the agreement appears to signify America’s strategic retreat from its policy of exerting maximum pressure on Iran. Criticism from the opposition, which is rapidly gaining popularity among the population, demonstrates that Israel fears that Iran will retain its missile program, the current political regime, and a significant portion of its regional tools of influence. Israel’s main fear is that the easing of economic sanctions will strengthen Tehran’s ability to support its allies in the region, primarily Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Additionally, the Iran-US deal also extends to Lebanon, which is unacceptable for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has already informed Trump that Israeli troops will not withdraw from Lebanon and that Israel does not consider itself bound by the Lebanon provision in the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding.

However, it’s too early to speak of this as the dawn of a ‘new era’. The Middle East has repeatedly demonstrated that ceasefires and memoranda can quickly collapse under pressure from domestic adversaries, the actions of allies, or incidents on the periphery of the conflict. Israeli strikes on Lebanon, domestic political discontent in Iran, resistance from American ‘hawks’, and the question of trust in the monitoring mechanisms could seriously complicate the implementation of the deal. Therefore, the US-Iran agreement should be viewed as a major diplomatic breakthrough, but not a final settlement. Its primary function is to halt the dangerous escalation, restore predictability to energy markets, and create a negotiating window on the nuclear issue. If the implementation mechanism works, the deal could truly usher in a new regional configuration, where the security of maritime communications and economic rationality gradually supplant the logic of military confrontation. Although, if the parties use the pause solely to regroup, the Middle East will revert to the familiar crisis model in which any agreement serves only as a temporary respite before the next round of tensions.

The son of Norwegian Crown Princess Mette-Marit has been sentenced to four years in prison for rape. The verdict comes as the country’s monarchy has been caught up in an ongoing scandal over the princess’ links to late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Marius Borg Hoiby, 29, was found guilty on Monday by the Oslo District Court of two counts of rape, domestic violence, and several other offenses. He was acquitted of two other rape charges.

Hoiby is Mette-Marit’s son from a relationship before she married Crown Prince Haakon, heir to the Norwegian throne, in 2001. According to Norwegian media, Hoiby’s father, Morten Borg, also has a criminal past and was convicted on drug-related offenses in the 1990s and was reportedly in prison around the time of Marius’ birth.

Although Hoiby holds no royal title and performs no official duties, he grew up inside the royal household alongside his half-siblings, and this proximity to the royal family has brought international attention to the case.

The trial has exposed allegations of drug abuse, violent relationships, and sexual misconduct, contradicting the polished image of one of Europe’s more low-key monarchies.

Prosecutors said Hoiby sexually assaulted women who were asleep or otherwise unable to resist between 2018 and 2024. One of the rapes for which he was convicted reportedly took place in the basement of Skaugum, the official residence of Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit.

The court also convicted him of abusing his former girlfriend, assaulting another partner, drug offenses, and traffic violations. He denied the rape charges while admitting to cocaine use and assault.

Crown Prince Haakon has tried to distance the royal house from the case, saying Hoiby is not a member of the royal family and is accountable like any other Norwegian citizen.

According to the Epstein files, the crown princess exchanged hundreds of emails with the sex offender between 2011 and 2014 and had even stayed at his Florida home for four days. The exchanges took place years after Epstein had admitted to soliciting a minor for prostitution.

The correspondence, personal and at times flirtatious, showed that their relationship lasted much longer than the palace had publicly claimed. Mette-Marit has since apologized for what she has called poor judgment, saying she should have investigated Epstein’s background more thoroughly.

Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to cap the population as concerns over economic damage trumped immigration fears in what some called the country’s Brexit moment. 

The proposal, put to a referendum on Sunday, aimed to limit Switzerland’s population to 10 million by 2050. According to government figures, 55% of those taking part rejected the initiative, with 45% voting in favor.  

The right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a longtime critic of mass immigration and close ties with the EU, launched the referendum. If passed, the government would have guaranteed that permanent residency – now about 9.1 million – stays below the threshold. Approaching the limit would have forced Bern to scrap its free-movement pact with the EU. Although not a member of the EU, Switzerland has maintained a free-movement agreement with the bloc since 2002.   

“Switzerland is a small country — it doesn’t stretch,” SVP lawmaker Yvan Pahud argued before the vote. “We don’t want to take in all of Europe or all the world’s troubles.”  

According to Avenir Suisse data, foreigners now account for more about 27% of Switzerland’s population, which surpassed 9 million two years ago, driven by immigration that outpaced declining birth rates.   

The development comes as the EU moves forward with its biggest migration overhaul in years, introducing mandatory border screening, accelerated asylum procedures, expanded biometric registration, and faster returns of rejected asylum seekers. A recent study shows the bloc’s migrant population reached a record 64.2 million in 2025, including 46.7 million people born outside the EU.

Riot police in Geneva clashed with protesters on Sunday ahead of a Group of Seven summit in neighboring France. The violence disrupted a No-G7 demonstration which drew thousands.

Geneva lies around 30 km from Evian-les-Bains, a French resort town on the shores of Lake Geneva where the 2026 G7 summit is scheduled to take place Monday to Wednesday. The Swiss authorities closed 25 of the 35 border crossings with France from Thursday afternoon, citing security concerns.

Around 60 organizations representing a range of causes, including feminist groups, trade unions, and supporters of Palestinian and Kurdish statehood, took part in the Geneva march. Organizers said around 20,000 people attended; police estimated the crowd at 7,000 at the start of the demonstration.

Police used water cannons and tear gas against rioters, who hurled projectiles at the officers.

🔴Genève : la police utilise un canon à eau !#Genève #Suisse #NOG7 #manif14juin #G7 #manifestation pic.twitter.com/c5AtiN1HE4

— Bismuth Back (@Bismuthback) June 14, 2026

Footage from the scene also shows the windows of a bank being smashed during the unrest.

A Tesla car was burned out after catching fire amid the turmoil, although it was not clear whether the vehicle was deliberately targeted.

Manifestation anti #G7 à Genève Suisse. Des heurts en cours de nombreuses vitrines brisées une voiture (Tesla) en feu. pic.twitter.com/lxUITKcr2a

— Line Press (@LinePress_Off) June 14, 2026

American entrepreneur Elon Musk, the co-owner and CEO of Tesla, became the world’s first trillionaire last week after his other company, SpaceX, raised $75 billion in an IPO.

Apart from the clashes, the five-kilometer march along the shores of Lake Geneva, which passed near the United Nations quarter, was described by the media as loud and colorful but largely contained. Demonstrators chanted slogans against fascism, imperialism, and capitalism. One banner depicted US President Donald Trump as a dinosaur devouring the Earth.

🔴Genève#Genève #Suisse #NOG7 #manif14juin #G7 #manifestation pic.twitter.com/47OxDx6yuj

— Bismuth Back (@Bismuthback) June 14, 2026

The G7 was formed in 1973 as a club of the world’s largest economies, but its influence has declined as non-Western powers, especially China, gain greater weight in the global economy. Critics argue that the format is outdated and far less relevant than the more inclusive G20.

US President Donald Trump has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping for their roles in bringing about a peace settlement with Iran. Moscow has repeatedly offered its mediation services and urged all sides to de-escalate.

Trump made the remarks on Sunday in an interview with the New York Times, hours after he announced that Washington and Tehran have reached a Pakistani- and Qatari-mediated deal to end the conflict.

According to several media reports, a 14-point memorandum of understanding includes provisions on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz without tolls, easing of US sanctions, and unfreezing of Iranian assets, with a formal signing ceremony to take place in Geneva on Friday. Iran is also expected to reaffirm its pledge to abstain from nuclear weapons, with final nuclear talks to conclude within 60 days.

Since the start of hostilities in late February, Putin and Trump have spoken by phone at least three times – in March, in late April when Trump said Putin had offered to help end the war, and again on Sunday, when the two discussed the near-finalized memorandum, according to Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov.

Moscow also put forward a nuclear compromise, offering to transport and store Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile on Russian soil. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed the proposal had been discussed, but said Tehran was not yet ready to put it on the agenda while thanking “Russian friends for their offer and for their intention to help resolve this problem.”

Amid a hike in oil prices caused by disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, Putin earlier this month pushed back against what he called “speculation” that Russia had emerged as a sole financial winner from the conflict. “The oil rally is taking place, but it is temporary and short-term. Meanwhile, we would like to build relationships with our partners on a long-term basis… In this case, we are interested in the end of the conflict, and as soon as possible,” he said.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki has given Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a few more days” to renounce the honoring of nationalist militias that massacred Poles during World War II, officials said.

The diplomatic feud between the neighboring countries erupted last month when Zelensky renamed an elite commando unit after “the heroes of the UPA,” referring to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the military wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

The OUN sought to create an ethnically homogeneous Ukrainian state, and in its documents, labeled Poles, Russians, Jews, and other minorities as enemies. The group collaborated with Nazi Germany during the initial stage of its invasion of the Soviet Union. The UPA, created in October 1942 following a split with the Germans, killed up to 100,000 Polish civilians in what is now western Ukraine. Poland recognizes the massacres as genocide.

Nawrocki backed an initiative by Polish MP Grzegorz Placzek to revoke Zelensky’s Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest state distinction, which was awarded to the Ukrainian leader by then-President Andrzej Duda in 2023.

“The ball is in Ukraine’s court. If there is no positive response, the procedure will conclude with a decision by the president,” Marcin Przydacz, the head of the presidential International Policy Office, said at a press conference on Thursday.

Speaking to TV Republika on Friday, presidential spokesman Rafal Leskiewicz said Nawrocki expects Zelensky to reverse the “shameful act.”

“We will wait a few more days. Let’s not give in to pressure,” he added.

Poland is one of Ukraine’s most vocal supporters in the conflict with Russia. The country serves as a hub for the training of Ukrainian troops and the delivery of weapons to Kiev.

The UPA and other World War II-era nationalist groups are officially celebrated as freedom fighters in Ukraine. Streets and buildings are named after them, while a torchlit procession is held in Kiev every January 1 to mark the birthday of Stepan Bandera, one of the OUN leaders.

Russia has long protested against the glorification of Nazi collaborators in Ukraine and has listed ‘denazification’ as one of its goals in the conflict.

US President Donald Trump has said that a memorandum of understanding with Iran is “all signed,” with the official ceremony expected on Friday.

Vice President J.D. Vance, meanwhile, who previously told ABC News that the peace roadmap had been signed “digitally” over the weekend, will be attending the event, according to Trump.

Reuters, citing unnamed US officials, reported on Monday that the roadmap had been signed on Iran’s behalf by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf.

The US president also expressed confidence that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen soon after the memorandum is officially inked.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei warned that Lebanon’s territorial integrity is an “inseparable part” of the memorandum. His remark followed Israeli airstrikes on the Middle Eastern country.

The talks were repeatedly stalled and delayed, with both sides accusing each other of making unacceptable demands and citing a lack of trust.

Most recently, Iran threatened to suspend the negotiations over Israel’s continuing strikes in Lebanon. In an effort to prevent the talks from collapsing, Trump reportedly demanded that Israel halt the attacks during several heated phone calls with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Here are the latest developments:

• Iran will reportedly reopen the Strait of Hormuz, halt uranium enrichment, and renounce nuclear weapons in exchange for the release of $25 billion in frozen assets, sanctions relief, an end to the US naval blockade, and a $300 billion reconstruction package.

• Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has said the IDF will not withdraw from southern Lebanon despite the reported terms of the agreement, warning that it will respond “with full force” if Iran attacks over its operations against Hezbollah.

• The EU has welcomed the reported deal, with foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas saying it could create “much-needed space.”

• Oil prices fell sharply on the news, with US WTI crude dropping 4.7% to $80.83 a barrel and Brent crude falling around 4% to $83.77, the lowest levels since March 4, shortly after the US-Israeli operation against Iran began.

This live feed has now ended.

US President Donald Trump has announced that the peace deal with Iran is “now complete,” signaling the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the negotiations, said both sides “have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”

Sharif added that the agreement would be formally signed on Friday in Switzerland.

The US and Iran previously stated that a memorandum of understanding was largely finalized. According to Tehran, the document would focus on ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran’s nuclear program would be addressed in separate negotiations within 60 days of its signing.

Trump had several heated phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent weeks, during which he demanded that Israel stop its airstrikes in Lebanon. Iran previously threatened to suspend the talks unless the Israeli operation came to an end.

Slovakia will demand compensation from the EU for weapons it donated to Ukraine, Prime Minister Robert Fico has announced. The previous government lied about the aid deal, he said in a video address published on Facebook on Sunday.

Fico halted all state-sponsored military aid and weapons transfers to Kiev after coming to power in 2023. He has argued that the government of his predecessor, Eduard Heger, left Slovakia “completely naked” by donating fighter jets and air-defense systems to Ukraine.

In the year following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Heger’s cabinet approved deliveries of dozens of Soviet-era tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. The donated equipment also included Soviet MiG-29 jets and S-300 missile systems. Bratislava handed over equipment worth around €700 million ($809.8 million) to Kiev between 2022 and 2023, according to the German Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Under the deal struck by Heger’s government, the donated equipment was to be replaced by Western-made hardware, delivered by Germany in particular. The Slovak Defense Ministry argued at the time that the agreement was insufficient as Berlin pledged to replace only around half of the equipment sent to Ukraine.

He has also repeatedly argued that the bloc’s policies and refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue with Moscow were hurting the EU itself, forcing member states to cope with high energy prices after Russian oil and gas imports were blocked under sanctions.

On Sunday, he described his recent talks with European Council President Antonio Costa as “frustrating,” adding that the EU is determined to “wage a war” against Russia “to the last Ukrainian soldier and to the last euro” despite the bloc’s “declining competitiveness” and “extremely high energy prices.”

Russia has said it has “never refused dialogue,” accusing Ukraine’s Western backers of pursuing a “destructive policy” aimed at pushing Kiev to keep fighting and undermining any peace efforts.

The US and Israel’s “good cop, bad cop” strategy for diplomacy while allowing continued Israeli attacks is outdated, Iran’s chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on Sunday, shortly after a deadly strike on Lebanon.

At least three people were killed in the Israeli attack on southern Beirut earlier in the day, just ahead of an anticipated US-Iran agreement, which Tehran has long insisted should include an end to hostilities in Lebanon. The proposed agreement has reportedly been viewed by many Israeli officials as a capitulation to Iran.

“The Zionists’ invasion of Dahiyeh has once again shown that America either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so,” Ghalibaf said on X.

By giving the green light to the regime, you cannot gain concessions. The game of good cop and bad cop is outdated. If you do not have the will and ability to fulfill your obligations, it is not possible to talk about moving forward. 

According to Lebanese state news agency NNA, the Israeli strike killed at least three people and injured 15 others. The IDF claimed to have been targeting a Hezbollah command center.

“We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down,” he wrote.

Hours later, the Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the attack as a violation of both Lebanese sovereignty and the April 8 “ceasefire understanding” between Tehran and Washington. It argued that the US bears “direct responsibility” for Israel’s actions and warned that the strike could have serious consequences for regional peace and security.

Just a day earlier, Trump announced that the US and Iran would ink a deal on Sunday that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and decide the fate of Tehran’s enriched uranium stockpile.

Earlier in June, Iran and Israel exchanged tit-for-tat strikes for the first time since the ceasefire was reached. The escalation followed an Israeli strike on southern Beirut.

Russian President Vladimir Putin wished his US counterpart, Donald Trump, a happy 80th birthday during a phone call, presidential aide Yury Ushakov has told journalists. Trump was “touched” by the greeting, and the two leaders spoke for about an hour in a “friendly and open” manner, the official added.

Trump was particularly appreciative of the gesture, Ushakov said, noting that Putin was the first foreign leader to call and give his best wishes on Sunday.

Putin also thanked Trump for his Russia Day greeting earlier this week, adding that the American president’s message conveyed a “feeling of respect for the Russian people.”

The two presidents discussed a wide range of pressing international issues, including the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, as well as the Ukraine conflict, Ushakov said.

Trump said that he expected the results of the talks with Tehran to be made public later on Sunday and thanked Moscow for its engagement in the negotiating process and assistance in finding “constructive solutions” to the conflict between the US and Iran, Ushakov pointed out.

Trump called for a speedy cessation of hostilities in the Ukraine conflict and said that he was ready to “influence” Kiev and its European backers, including during the upcoming G7 summit later this month, the Kremlin aide said.

Putin responded by saying that continued Ukrainian strikes on Russian civilian infrastructure impede efforts to reach a settlement. He maintained that attacks targeting civilians would not change the Ukrainian military’s dire situation on the front line. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and his European backers only suggest options that would “prolong the conflict and extend the hostilities,” he explained.

Putin and Trump also agreed that the US president’s special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who are currently involved in talks with Iran, would visit Moscow “in the near future,” according to Ushakov.

The last phone call between the two presidents took place in late April, when they also discussed the Ukraine conflict and the situation in the Middle East. In May, Ushakov told journalists that Putin and Trump could meet in person on the sidelines of the APEC summit in China this November.

Trump also hinted at a possible trip to Russia earlier this year, telling journalists he would “do whatever is necessary” to help settle the Ukraine conflict. The Kremlin said at the time that Putin was ready to host the American president.

Israeli officials feel sidelined by the emerging US-Iran peace deal and are furious with what they believe amounts to a “catastrophe” that fails the objectives set prior to the war, according to a report by the Israeli outlet Ynet.

According to the reported terms, the agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz without a toll regime, lift the American naval blockade on Iranian ports, ease sanctions on Tehran, and defer nuclear talks to later. While US President Donald Trump said the agreement would be signed on Sunday, Iranian officials said it would happen later.

Tehran has also insisted that the deal end the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Israeli forces have occupied a significant chunk of territory. At the same time, whereas US officials seek an agreement that underlines “broad regional peace” – including in Lebanon – they insist that Israel reserves its right to self-defense.

“Trump screwed us,” one Israeli official told Ynet. A second official called the deal “very bad.” “From our perspective, it is a catastrophe, because it does not meet any of the principles we spoke about when the war began,” he said.

Publicly, however, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “expressed his appreciation” for President Trump’s commitment that the deal would “include the removal of enriched material” from Iran while stressing that his country is not a party to the agreement.

Behind the scenes, however, a different picture emerges, with Trump yelling at Netanyahu in early June and calling him “f**king crazy” over Israelʼs strikes in Lebanon, according to Axios. The outlet also claimed that Trump threatened to withdraw support for Israel if it restarts the war with Iran. Publicly, Trump also stressed that Netanyahu has no other choice but to accept a US-Iran deal.

The reported tensions between the two leaders come as Trump has received flak for what his critics describe as a successful Israeli ploy to draw the US into war with Iran. The military campaign drew the ire of some of Trump’s staunchest supporters, including conservative journalist Tucker Carlson, who called it the “single biggest mistake” of Trump’s presidency.

US President Donald Trump has not scheduled an official bilateral meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the upcoming G7 summit in France, Bloomberg reported on Saturday, citing senior US administration officials.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has held several formal and informal meetings with Zelensky in an effort to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Zelensky has reportedly sought to use the encounters to finalize pre-negotiated agreements on Ukraine’s post-conflict economic recovery and “security guarantees.” However, repeated contacts between the two leaders have so far failed to produce an agreement.

Trump will hold bilateral meetings with the leaders of France, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, and India during the summit, which will be held from Monday through Wednesday in the town of Evian-les-Bains, officials familiar with the plans told the news agency.

One official said the Ukrainian leader would take part in a working session with G7 leaders. Earlier this week, Western media, citing US administration sources, reported that Trump and Zelensky “may meet on the sidelines” of the summit.

As part of his stated effort to end the Ukraine conflict, the US president met with the Ukrainian leader in the Oval Office in February 2025. The televised talks descended into a heated clash after Zelensky criticized Trump’s neutral approach to settling the conflict. He was accused of showing insufficient respect and gratitude to Washington as Kiev’s top benefactor, as well as resisting peace and “gambling with World War III.”

Zelensky has repeatedly called for a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, he has ruled out traveling to Moscow and rejected the idea of withdrawing Ukrainian troops from the Donbass region, which Putin has said would be sufficient for Russia to declare a ceasefire.

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum earlier this month, Putin said Russia remains committed to a peaceful settlement based on compromises reached with Trump in Alaska last year. He said the main obstacle is persuading Kiev to accept the terms, particularly withdrawing from Donbass, not joining NATO, and carrying out demilitarization and denazification.

Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev has accused UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer of using the seizure of a supposed Russian-linked vessel to distract from domestic problems.

In a post on X on Sunday, Starmer announced that UK forces intercepted a tanker involved in ‘shadow fleet’ operations, which allegedly help Russia bypass Western sanctions on oil exports.

The Smyrtos was reportedly transiting the English Channel before it was boarded by UK marines. The UK Defense Ministry said it will be held and monitored off the south coast while its operations are investigated.

Starmer boasted that he personally directed the interception, calling it a “successful operation” that delivered “yet another blow to Russia.” He later posted footage purportedly showing armed marines boarding the vessel.

Despite Putin’s best efforts to evade sanctions, we will not let him get away with it. pic.twitter.com/IIW3Cv2ENQ

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 14, 2026

Dmitriev suggested that the operation was not about security or enforcing sanctions, but to manufacture a confrontation and distract the public from immigration problems and crime.

“Desperate Starmer, instead of intercepting HIS immigrants who rape, mutilate and behead British people, attempts to DISTRACT the UK with an escalation,” he wrote on X.

Desperate Starmer, instead of intercepting HIS immigrants who rape, mutilate and behead British people, attempts to DISTRACT the UK with an escalation. https://t.co/3xjHIrXA39

— Kirill Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) June 14, 2026

The UK faces tensions over immigration following a number of attacks and high-profile murder and rape cases involving migrants in recent years. This week, a 17-year-old girl was stabbed in the neck in northwest England by a 30-year-old man of Pakistani heritage. The most persistent issue remains migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats from France, with successive governments repeatedly promising and failing to reduce the arrivals.

The UK has been among the loudest advocates of tougher action against ships carrying Russian oil, while previously avoiding direct involvement. In March, however, London claimed that a legal review cleared UK troops to board the vessels. The Russian Embassy in London called it a “deeply hostile step,” accusing the UK of preparing “acts of piracy.”

Russia has long considered Britain a key force behind the Ukraine conflict, accusing it of directly assisting Ukrainian long-range strikes on Russian territory with UK-supplied weapons. Moscow has also accused Western governments of demonizing Russia to justify increased defense spending and to distract the public’s attention from domestic problems.

Thousands of anti-migration protesters marched in Rome on Saturday in support of a citizens’ initiative calling for stricter migration controls.

The demonstration was organized by the Remigration and Reconquest Committee, which promotes a popular bill offering financial incentives for foreigners to leave Italy and encouraging descendants of Italians living abroad to return to the country.

A petition by the committee has collected more than 130,000 signatures, well above the 50,000 required for a citizens’ initiative to be formally submitted to parliament.

Roma today: "Let's take back our neighborhoods! Everyone out!" The EU that has flooded our cities with parasites and criminals will soon implode. https://t.co/h9wucL43sT pic.twitter.com/5NmJ9JByP6

— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) June 13, 2026

Italian patriots gathered en masse in Rome to demand mass deportations. Many pro Mussolini chants. pic.twitter.com/nVUsDOXIHv

— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) June 13, 2026

Italy has been one of the main destinations for migrants crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa, with hundreds of thousands arriving by sea since the 2015 migration crisis. Italy received more than 150,000 sea arrivals in 2023 and about 66,000 in both 2024 and 2025, according to Interior Ministry figures.

A rival pro-migrant demonstration was also held in Rome, drawing left-wing groups, trade unions, and activists who accused the anti-migration campaign of targeting foreigners and undermining rights protections. Police were deployed to keep the opposing rallies apart.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni faces competing pressures on migration policy. Her government has moved to curb irregular arrivals while simultaneously expanding legal migration.

Italy has the oldest population in the EU and one of the bloc’s lowest birth and fertility rates, making foreign labor increasingly important to the economy.

The Rome rallies came after the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact entered into force on Friday. The bloc’s biggest migration overhaul in years introduces mandatory border screening, accelerated asylum procedures for some applicants, expanded biometric registration, and measures intended to speed up the return of rejected asylum seekers.

James Boyard, the chief of staff of the Haitian Defense Ministry, has been kidnapped along with his family amid escalating gang violence, media reports claimed on Saturday.

Boyard, a respected security expert and author, serves as chief of staff to Haiti’s newly appointed defense minister, Mario Andresol, and as inspector general of the national police.

Local media reported that unidentified armed men snatched Boyard on Thursday in Bourdon, one of the few areas of the capital, Port-au-Prince, still considered relatively safe, though most of the city is controlled by gangs. A person familiar with the situation confirmed the kidnapping to AP.

Police sources told the New York Times that Boyard was abducted along with his wife and six-year-old daughter, a US citizen, and that a ransom was demanded. While it remains unclear who carried out the kidnapping, investigators reportedly suspect Christ-Roi Chery, known as Chrisla, the leader of the Ti Bwa gang, a major armed group. A spokesman for the Haitian police declined to comment on the case.

Groups controlling major highways, ports, and entire communities have prevented the authorities from holding elections while carrying out kidnappings, killings, and attacks on state institutions. Officials say elections scheduled for later this summer are unlikely to take place due to the continuing violence.

A Kenyan-led, UN-backed mission known as the Multinational Security Support (MSS), deployed to Haiti in 2024 to help curb the violence, was able to secure the presidential palace and reopen several key roads, but struggled to make further gains.

According to UN figures released earlier this month, nearly 1.5 million people have been displaced by violence in Haiti since 2022, and more than 16,000 have been killed. Local rights groups put the death toll closer to 20,000.

Kidnappings remain widespread in Haiti. At least 647 people, including women and children, were abducted last year, according to the UN, with ransom demands often higher for foreigners and dual nationals. While recent high-profile cases have targeted journalists and foreign missionaries, Boyard is the highest-ranking official kidnapped in the country in years.

US President Donald Trump’s looming Iran peace deal looks like a “surrender document” and fails to deliver anything America did not have before the war, Democratic congressman Seth Moulton has said.

The comments come after Trump announced on Saturday that a peace framework would be signed the next day and would include reopening the Strait of Hormuz. In an apparent reference to Iran’s enriched uranium, he said, “at the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust” and destroy it.

Media reports also claimed that the deal includes sanctions relief and the dismantling of the US blockade of Iran, while the strait will be operated without a toll regime. Iranian officials said, however, that the signing “will not be tomorrow,” and that talks on the nuclear program are expected to start later.

“I mean, $100 billion of taxpayer money already put into this war, 14 Americans dead, and we get a deal that just reopens the strait that was already open before he started the war? How is that a win?” Moulton said.

While he acknowledged that ending the war is the best option for the US, in terms of accomplishing goals, it has been “just lose, lose, lose across the board for Trump and the United States of America.”

Media reports suggest that despite the devastating US-Israeli strikes, Iran’s military remains a potent fighting force, and Tehran could obtain a nuclear weapon within months, though it denies that it seeks to do so.

California Senator Adam Schiff, a critic of the war, also expressed reservations about the deal, saying the talks could end with a “face-saving announcement to agree at a later date by the president. That would be a terrible strategic loss for the country.”

The US State Department has announced a global crackdown on what it describes as illegal “birth tourism” schemes.

The effort involves revoking hundreds of visas and dismantling networks in Africa and Europe that allegedly helped foreign nationals travel to the US to give birth and obtain citizenship for their children.

“No foreigner is permitted to obtain a visitor visa for the primary purpose of acquiring US citizenship for a child by giving birth in the US,” the State Department wrote on X on Wednesday, announcing the crackdown.

While it is not illegal for foreigners to give birth in the US, the authorities say the crackdown targets visa fraud, including applicants who misrepresent their travel purpose or use organized networks to enter under false pretenses.

“Illicit ‘birth tourism’ networks charge tens of thousands of dollars and coach individuals to commit visa fraud by lying to our consular officers,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott wrote on X on Saturday.

During President Donald Trump’s first term, the State Department introduced rules aimed at curbing birth tourism. The measures allow consular officers to deny visitor visas if they determine an applicant’s primary purpose is to obtain US citizenship for a child through birth in the country, while requiring those seeking medical treatment to document their treatment plans and ability to pay. The rules remain in force today.

Investigations have identified Chinese and Russian nationals as a major source of birth-tourism clients.

The renewed enforcement effort comes as the Trump administration pursues stricter visa screening and broader measures to combat immigration-related fraud and strengthen border security.

Ukraine must respect the rights of its ethnic Hungarian minority if it wants to join the EU, Hungary’s new prime minister, Peter Magyar, has said.

An estimated 80,000 Hungarians live in Ukraine, mostly in the western Zakarpattia Region. Their status has long been a point of contention between the neighboring countries, especially during the premiership of Magyar’s predecessor, Viktor Orban, who repeatedly blocked Kiev’s efforts to move closer to the EU.

On Friday, the two countries signed what Magyar described as a historic agreement on the education, linguistic, cultural, and political rights of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine. He said Kiev committed to incorporating the deal into its EU Minority Action Plan. In return, Budapest lifted its veto on Ukraine’s EU accession process.

In a video message posted on social media, Magyar said Ukraine’s integration into the bloc will be “a long and complex process,” comparing it to Montenegro’s accession path, which began in 2012.

“Until Ukraine fulfills its obligations regarding the rights of the Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia, it will not be able to move forward with the accession process.”

Under Orban, Hungary refused to send weapons to Kiev and protested the forced mobilization of ethnic Hungarians, some of whom hold Hungarian passports, into the Ukrainian military to fight Russia.

“Our people cannot be used as cannon fodder,” Orban said in February.

Ukrainian conscription officers have been accused of ambushing military-age men on the streets, at workplaces, and outside their homes, and of using force against those who resist or attempt to flee. Families of conscripts have also accused draft officials of ignoring chronic health conditions and other grounds for exemption.

Several ethnic Hungarian recruits died before reaching the front line, prompting outrage in Budapest. In January, Zsolt Reban, 46, died at a training center. According to Hungarian officials, he was drafted despite previously being declared unfit for military service due to a lifelong heart condition.

Last year, Jozsef Sebestyen, 45, died after allegedly being beaten at a military training center, according to his family. The Ukrainian authorities denied any wrongdoing, claiming that he died of a pulmonary embolism.

The peace agreement being finalized between the US and Iran is bad for Israel, Yair Lapid, the leader of the Israeli opposition and former prime minister, said on Saturday.

US President Donald Trump announced that a deal will be signed on Sunday, while Iran said a memorandum of understanding will be signed in the coming days.

“The emerging agreement achieves none of Israel’s war objectives. The regime survives, its missile program remains intact, and Iran can rebuild its nuclear program,” Lapid wrote on X. He argued that the deal represents “a complete failure” by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The US and Israel launched a joint military operation against Iran on February 28, prompting retaliatory strikes across the Middle East and leading Tehran to close the Strait of Hormuz to nearly all shipping, triggering a surge in global energy prices. The exchange of strikes largely ceased after a truce was reached in April.

Although the exact details of the agreement have not been made public, Trump said Iran will pledge to not seek nuclear weapons, and the US will dilute and destroy the Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile.

The US and Israel previously demanded that Iran completely dismantle its nuclear program and surrender its entire stockpile of enriched uranium. Netanyahu also repeatedly called on Iranians to topple their government.

“As long as I am prime minister of Israel, Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons. There is complete agreement between President Trump and me on this issue,” Netanyahu said on Friday.

According to Axios and CNN, however, the news that a deal is close to being reached caught Netanyahu by surprise. Trump said Israel will have no choice but to accept the agreement and acknowledged that he pressured Netanyahu to halt Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon during several heated phone calls.

Both Democrats and dissident Republicans have accused Trump of going to war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. Trump has rejected the claim, insisting that he was acting in the interests of the US.

The use of AI in the US strike on a girls’ elementary school in Iran that killed nearly 160 people, mostly children, did not violate Anthropic’s ‘red lines,’ CEO Dario Amodei has said.

US forces struck the school in Minab with a Tomahawk missile on the first day of the war on Iran in February. The institution was reportedly targeted based on outdated data used by Palantir’s analysis and surveillance software, which incorporates Anthropic’s Claude AI.

In an interview with Bloomberg published on Wednesday, Amodei was asked whether his firm’s AI had played a role in the deadly attack.

“We don’t know exactly how these models were used… and what you’re talking about is a use case that doesn’t even violate our red lines,” he said.

While AI assists the military, “a human made that final call,” he added, stressing that Anthropic opposes entirely autonomous weapons and decision-making systems.

Last month, the Pentagon announced that it had inked deals with top US AI companies, including Google, Amazon Web Services, SpaceX, OpenAI, NVIDIA and Microsoft. Just weeks earlier, Palantir CEO Alex Karp proclaimed a “new era” of AI-enabled US military supremacy.

According to Google whistleblower and Palantir insider Zach Vorhies, AI giants’ defense of surveillance and the use of AI in warfare is a “catch-22.”

“The way that they’re framing this in that if they don’t have good information, they’re just going to have collateral damage,” Vorhies said, warning that US AI giants are pushing to be increasingly deregulated in pursuit of a military advantage.

Anti-immigration and anti-racism protesters scuffled with police during rival demonstrations in Glasgow, Scotland, amid tensions fueled by a stabbing attack allegedly involving a Sudanese asylum seeker.

On Saturday, the NGO Stand Up to Racism held a rally in downtown Glasgow, with organizers calling on supporters to “reclaim the streets from the far right.” Participants carried Scottish and Palestinian flags and chanted, “Refugees are welcome here,” according to The Herald.

Around 70 counterprotesters arrived at the event, many dressed in black and wearing balaclavas.

THE STREET ARE OURS: THOUSANDS OF ANTIRACISTS RECLAIM THE STREETS IN GLASGOW AND HUMILIATE FAR RIGHT THUGS

Glasgow reclaimed the streets from the far right today! pic.twitter.com/X942Y0ex8s

— Stand Up to Racism - Scotland (@SUTRScotland) June 13, 2026

As police sought to keep the rival groups apart, some anti-immigration demonstrators pushed against barriers and shoved officers. Some of their opponents also pushed police while attempting to break through the separation line.

NEW🚨: Chaos on the streets of Glasgow, Scotland!

Police clash with young patriots protesting against mass migration.

Meanwhile, pro-migrant and woke groups are also holding demonstrations in Glasgow today. pic.twitter.com/W7smAavlu1

— The Reformed Media (@ReformedMedia_) June 13, 2026

#Scotland — Neo-nazis carrying Israeli flags are trying to attack anti-racist demonstrators in Glasgow.

Yes, you heard that right: neo-nazis are now carrying Israeli flags. pic.twitter.com/wSd3e44PeU

— Antifa_Ultras (@ultras_antifaa) June 13, 2026

Police Scotland said one man was arrested for threatening an officer, while another officer was struck by an egg thrown during the unrest.

“A number of reported hate crimes will now be investigated,” a police spokesperson said.

Another high-profile incident occurred on Friday in Brierfield, England, where a man stabbed a 17-year-old girl in the middle of a street, causing non-life-threatening injuries. Police described the suspect as a British man of Pakistani descent.

The recent attacks have reignited debates about migration and what right-wing politicians and activists describe as two-tier policing. They argue that the incidents highlight the government’s inability to adequately address crimes committed by foreigners and other offenders.

Prominent anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson said he was detained for several hours at Heathrow Airport on Saturday under anti-terrorism legislation and had his phone seized by police.

According to Sky News, Robinson is scheduled to take part in a debate at the Oxford Union next week on whether the West is “right to be suspicious of Islam.”

A peace deal between the US and Iran will be signed on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said in a post on Truth Social. Tehran earlier denied that an agreement can be reached by Sunday, though it did not rule out a deal “in the coming days.”

The two nations have been engaged in talks mediated by Pakistan for more than two months following a truce reached in early April. The negotiations came after the US and Israel launched a military operation against Iran in late February.

Iran responded with strikes against Gulf states that host US bases and by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which normally handles around a quarter of global seaborne oil and LNG trade.

“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Trump wrote on Saturday.

He added that the agreement will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons “either through purchase, development, or any other form of procurement.” Tehran has denied that it seeks nuclear weapons, insisting that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on Saturday that an agreement is “likely expected in the next 24 hours.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said earlier on Saturday that it “will not happen tomorrow.”

Baghaei previously said the memorandum will give the two sides 60 days to negotiate the future of Iran’s nuclear program, and that the agreement will include an end to Israeli operations in Lebanon.

He also accused Israel of seeking to derail the deal. “We are not dealing with parties that are fully committed to their obligations. They take advantage of every opportunity to break their promises.”

Exactly one year ago, on June 13, 2025, the world entered a new reality.

A new chapter was opened in the history of the Middle East, in the history of Iran, and in the long-running confrontation between Iran and Israel. What had spent decades unfolding as a covert, hybrid, and indirect struggle suddenly took the form of a direct military confrontation.

Until that moment, the conflict between Iran and Israel had followed a different pattern. It was largely a shadow war – a contest fought through intelligence operations, cyberattacks, strikes on strategic assets and allied forces, proxy networks, diplomatic pressure, sanctions, mutual threats, and occasional missile exchanges. For years, both sides had avoided crossing the threshold into full-scale open warfare, preferring limited operations, regional partners, and carefully calibrated actions.

That balance was shattered on June 13, 2025. Israel effectively moved the conflict into a new phase. From that point forward, this was no longer another episode in a cycle of regional tensions. It became a direct attack on Iran as a state. That is why the June 2025 war marked a historic turning point: for the first time, a confrontation that had largely existed in a covert and limited form evolved into an open military conflict between two of the Middle East’s most influential powers.

The Iran-Israel rivalry did not emerge overnight. Its roots stretch back decades, shaped by political, ideological, and strategic antagonism.

For Israel, Iran had long been viewed as its most significant regional adversary – one capable of altering the balance of power across the Middle East. For Iran, meanwhile, Israel was not merely an opponent but part of a broader system of pressure linked to the United States, Western sanctions, and efforts to constrain Tehran’s strategic autonomy.

At the center of this rivalry stood Iran’s nuclear program.

For years, it served as a focal point for suspicion, threats, and diplomatic crises. Israel and Western governments argued that Iran could eventually move toward developing nuclear weapons. Tehran consistently maintained that its program was peaceful and intended for energy production, scientific research, and technological development. Between these competing narratives emerged a permanent zone of political pressure, where every report, inspection, and public statement became not only a technical matter but also a political weapon.

When Israel experienced the trauma of October 6–7, 2023, and responsibility was placed on Hamas, it became clear that the region was entering a new phase of instability.

Some Israeli politicians and analysts described Hamas as an Iranian proxy. Yet such a characterization oversimplifies – and fundamentally misrepresents – the nature of the Palestinian movement. Hamas has never been a direct instrument of Tehran. It possesses its own political logic, social base, objectives, and historical trajectory. While Iran and Hamas maintained contacts, support networks, and elements of military-political cooperation, that did not make Hamas a fully controlled Iranian entity.

Nevertheless, after October 2023, one reality became increasingly difficult to ignore: a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel was becoming not merely possible, but increasingly likely.

The question was no longer whether such a war would occur. The real questions were when it would begin, what form it would take, and how far each side would be willing to go.

Israel increasingly viewed Iran as the primary source of regional instability, while Tehran saw developments across the region as part of a broader campaign aimed at weakening both Iran and its allies. In this sense, the events of October 2023 became not only a turning point for Israel and Palestine but also a critical milestone on the path toward an open Iran-Israel confrontation.

Israel sought to demonstrate that it was no longer willing to wait for diplomatic processes to run their course. Iran, for its part, viewed the mounting pressure as an attempt to force capitulation and dismantle its strategic capabilities. The region found itself on the edge of an event that many had long considered possible but few were willing to acknowledge as inevitable.

The IAEA factor: Reports, distrust, and the political justification for war

One of the most significant elements of the prewar environment was the role played by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The agency’s reports and public statements became embedded within the broader framework of pressure on Iran. Officially, the discussion centered on nuclear safeguards, transparency requirements, and inspector access. In practice, however, these documents became part of a wider political campaign that helped shape the environment in which Israel later acted.

A troubling narrative emerged first: Iran was allegedly concealing aspects of its nuclear activities, failing to provide adequate explanations, and undermining transparency requirements. This narrative intensified diplomatic pressure and helped portray Tehran as the party responsible for driving the crisis.

After the war began, however, the conversation changed.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi later acknowledged that the agency possessed no evidence that Iran was systematically pursuing a nuclear weapon. For Tehran and its supporters, this became a central argument. If no direct evidence existed, why had this issue become one of the principal justifications for military action?

This raises a broader political question: was the IAEA report a neutral technical assessment, or was it ultimately used to legitimize a course of action that had already been decided upon?

Supporters of Iran viewed the episode as an example of how international institutions can become part of a larger political process – not necessarily through direct participation in any conspiracy, but because cautious language, ambiguity, and incomplete conclusions can be leveraged by powerful actors to advance their own agendas.

The war unfolds: From initial strike to open confrontation

The June war moved quickly.

Israel launched its campaign with strikes against facilities associated with Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. The objective was clear: deliver a rapid, painful, and symbolically powerful blow that would expose Iran’s vulnerabilities and shake confidence within its leadership.

But expectations of paralysis proved misplaced.

Iran did not disappear from the political landscape. It did not abandon resistance. Nor did it accept the logic of defeat imposed upon it.

Tehran’s response demonstrated that the country was prepared not only to absorb pressure but also to answer it. That is why June 2025 became more than a military episode – it became a test.

The war tested more than missiles, air-defense systems, intelligence capabilities, and alliances. It tested state resilience, social cohesion, and Iran’s ability to function under direct attack.

The conflict also revealed how outdated many assumptions about the region had become.

Israel demonstrated its willingness to embrace a direct military option. The United States, even while presenting itself as a mediator, remained part of the broader architecture of pressure directed at Iran. And Iran showed that it could no longer be viewed merely as an object of sanctions, threats, and diplomatic ultimatums. It proved capable of making strategic decisions, absorbing blows, and altering its adversaries’ calculations.

The ceasefire announced with the involvement of Donald Trump appeared, on the surface, to be an effort to put the conflict behind all parties. In reality, however, it resolved none of the underlying issues.

It is also worth remembering that only hours before the war began, Trump publicly announced a new round of US-Iran talks scheduled to take place in Oman on June 15. Only later did it become apparent that he had already been informed of the impending strikes and had, in effect, given Israel a green light – at least according to his own public statements. It remains equally possible that the outbreak of war caught him by surprise and that his subsequent support for Israel was an attempt to preserve political credibility after the fact.

A reconnaissance in force: Why June 2025 was not the end

The central lesson of the June war is that it was not an end point – it was a reconnaissance in force.

For Iran’s adversaries, the conflict was an opportunity to test how deeply the Iranian system could be struck and how far a strategy of pressure could be pushed. The expectation was that Iran would emerge weakened, disoriented, and forced to retreat under a new set of rules.

The outcome proved more complicated.

Iran undoubtedly suffered significant political, military, and infrastructural costs. Yet it was neither destroyed nor broken, nor did it lose its ability to respond.

If anything, the very fact of a direct attack reinforced a growing perception within Iranian society that the issue was no longer a dispute over specific facilities or agreements. Instead, it was increasingly viewed as a struggle over Iran’s right to exist as an independent center of power.

For that reason, June 2025 can be understood as a rehearsal for a larger conflict.

Reports emerged at the time suggesting that Israel had even considered targeting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, allegedly refraining only at Trump’s request. Whether true or not, such reports underscored the scale of thinking already underway.

Subsequent escalation – including the renewed tensions that emerged after February 28 of this year – became part of the same chain of events. First came the strike, then a pause, then renewed pressure. Together, these developments formed a coherent strategy aimed not merely at constraining Iran but at placing it in a position where it would be forced to continually justify itself, retreat, and defend its right to security.

Yet it was precisely at this point that the strategy encountered its limits.

Iran demonstrated that it was prepared to go further – not because it seeks war for its own sake, but because its leadership views retreat as an invitation to even greater pressure. From Tehran’s perspective, concessions made under attack do not produce peace; they simply convince opponents that coercion works.

A new chapter for Iran and the region

The June war changed many things.

It redefined the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in Middle Eastern politics. It demonstrated that the era of covert confrontation between Iran and Israel had come to an end. It forced regional governments to reassess risk calculations and compelled major powers to recognize that traditional deterrence mechanisms no longer function as they once did.

For Iranians, the war became a national test.

It underscored that the country had entered an era in which pressure would no longer be limited to sanctions and diplomacy but could take the form of direct military action. At the same time, it reinforced Iran’s image as a state unwilling to surrender or disappear from regional politics.

For Israel, June 2025 represented a watershed moment as well.

It demonstrated a willingness to act preemptively, but it also exposed a new level of risk. Direct military action against Iran did not eliminate the threat. Instead, it pushed the confrontation onto a more dangerous trajectory.

For the wider world, the conflict served as a warning.

The international system proved unprepared for a crisis of this magnitude. Some actors called for de-escalation. Others sought to use the crisis as leverage. Still others watched from the sidelines, uncertain where the line between a localized war and a regional catastrophe truly lay.

That is why June 13, 2025, cannot be viewed as just another date in the history of the Middle East.

It was the day the old logic of the conflict came to an end, while a new one had yet to acquire clear rules. The world still does not know how this new era will unfold. Iran, however, has already made one thing clear: it has no intention of living according to a script written by others.

The June war was a reconnaissance in force. It exposed vulnerabilities, tested limits, and revealed intentions. But it did not bring the story to a close.

On the contrary, it marked the beginning of a new chapter – harsher, more dangerous, and more unpredictable than the one before.

The central question is no longer whether that war is over.

The real question is what the next one will look like.

Newly released evidence from US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard suggests that Russia could have been the ultimate target of a US-funded network of biological laboratories around the world, including in Ukraine, Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and CEO of BERG Associates, has told RT.

Gabbard published a trove of declassified documents on Friday revealing that Washington had funded 120 biological facilities in over 30 nations. A third of them were located in a single country: Ukraine. According to the documents, laboratories that collaborated with the US Army and other agencies worked with “especially dangerous pathogens,” including anthrax, avian flu, Ebola, plague, and tuberculosis.

Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev of aiding the US in its biological weapons program.

Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces, who led an investigation into the laboratories, was assassinated in 2024, allegedly by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU). A year earlier, he stated that the US had “conducted dual-use research, including the creation of biological weapons components, in close proximity to Russian borders.”

According to Johnson, all the US-funded laboratories were established “at the initiative” of Washington. The research conducted in those laboratories “has no role in the defense of a country,” he believes. “It is [for] offensive [purposes].”

Watch the full interview here:

A US federal judge has rejected a last-minute attempt to block President Donald Trump from hosting a UFC event at the White House this weekend.

Trump announced plans in 2025 for a UFC title event at the White House as part of the America 250 celebrations and his 80th birthday, which falls on Sunday, calling it “a birthday party the likes of which you have never seen.” Ahead of the event, the South Lawn has been transformed into a mini-coliseum, featuring an octagon surrounded by thousands of seats and dominated by a 28-meter-tall, 600-ton steel structure dubbed ‘The Claw’.

The plans, however, sparked public debate, with critics accusing the administration of commercializing national landmarks for private gain. Political activist Susan Douglas and Vietnam War veteran Paul Romano, represented by the anti-corruption nonprofit Public Integrity Project, filed a lawsuit last week seeking to stop the show.

An inside look at the UFC Claw set up at the White House.

Ready to rock for Sunday: pic.twitter.com/kmyDLoRf4Q

— Daniel Baldwin (@baldwin_daniel_) June 11, 2026

The plaintiffs claimed that officials were improperly relying on a federal rule exempting events tied to the nation’s 250th anniversary from certain permitting requirements. They also argued that the event is being run by private entities rather than the government and could financially benefit Trump, who holds stock in UFC parent company TKO Holdings.

US District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled on Friday that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge the event. While he did not address whether the UFC show itself is lawful, the judge noted that halting it at the last minute would have significant consequences, citing nearly a year of planning and the $60 million spent by the UFC and affiliated organizations on preparations.

In filings defending the event, Justice Department lawyers rejected claims that officials had bypassed federal permitting requirements and argued that temporary structures on the South Lawn were common for special events.

“Temporary structures are ubiquitous on the White House grounds, erected for nearly every special event, yet nobody has ever before suggested that Congress somehow needs to pass legislation for every concert tent or Easter egg roll kiosk,” they wrote, as cited by the media.

The White House welcomed the ruling, with spokesman Davis Ingle telling the New York Times that the court “rightly rejected an untimely and frivolous effort to halt the historic UFC event.”

You can’t argue with a man observing the obvious: We are living in unusually perilous times. In the Middle East, for instance, the Israeli-American infernal duo have been on a rampage of war, state terror, all-purpose devastation, and genocide that, as a bonus, has also brought the world economy to the verge of cardiac arrest by clogging one of its vital fossil fuel arteries. Indeed, that particular risk is so obvious that even Germany’s less than brilliant Friedrich Merz has long spotted it.

In the Far East, Taiwan is currently ruled by a government so hell-bent on antagonizing their fellow Chinese on the mainland that Taipei’s political reflexes seem almost as perverse as those of Berlin. In the West, you have the German elite which can’t find enough billions to fork over to Ukraine when Kiev and friends blow up Germany’s vital pipelines and lethally cripple its already ailing economy. In the East, there is Taipei, getting really, really angry when the Philippines and Japan start negotiating away Taiwan’s maritime Exclusive Economic Zone. Angry, that is, at Beijing.

And in the EU, that “garden” of “values” that really is a swampy jungle of eternal confusion and corruption, the catastrophe that in its foreign policy is now obvious enough for several European bigwigs to gang up on the abysmally, ragingly incompetent Kaja Kallas. Her tenure as de facto EU foreign minister has been so breathtakingly blundering that her employers aren’t merely itching to kick her out but thinking about, in essence, abolishing her job.

Being so horrible at something that you won’t just get fired yourself but take it down with you – perhaps only the Baltic Girl Boss Wonder could pull that one off. But then, maybe it’s really all just another power grab by EU’s German queen (of the absolute kind) and US viceroy (of the submissive kind) Ursula von der Leyen. Either way, frightful insanity abides.

Granted, from a hapless NATO-EU European perspective, Russia may look a little unsettling: after all, once you have waged years of proxy war, sanctions, and propaganda war against it, who knows what the mood is really like in Moscow? As a good NATO-EU apparatchik, you certainly would not, because you have displayed the foresight of a gnat by proudly not talking – or listening – to the Russians. So, when you feel a little insecure, that might really be your bad conscience calling (in a merely professional, not moral sense, which you are likely to lack).

But, generally speaking, the worse the stupidities and mistakes you have produced but keep repressing, the higher the price. Old Sigmund Freud called it “affective debility.” In essence, it means that lying to yourself makes you dim. And once you are BS'ing yourself for years as if there’s no tomorrow, you’ll turn positively imbecilic.

That’s the only way to explain a fresh wave of transparently hysterical scare mongering about Russia in the West, in particular, this time, in Britain. Thus, on the occasion of the recent St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), centrist mainstream flagship The Independent came out with a fascinating piece of fiction masquerading as analysis. Under the clickbait title “‘Puffy-looking’ Putin is acting weirder than ever – and that should chill us to the bone,” readers were treated to a highly imaginative horror tale about, in essence, a terrible loose cannon in the Kremlin pondering staged incidents and nuclear terrorism and ready to blow up the world or at least Europe or perhaps just Britain because Russia is losing the war. Also, he looks “puffy”!

All of this backed up (not really) by yet another statement from a high British military officer that things are dire as never before in (his) living memory. He and his comrades in arms – plus a few tweedy spy gents and dames – produce these Cassandra screams at least twice a month; it seems to be a standing order.

Generally speaking, The West has a rich tradition of declaring Russia vanquished, its president, Vladimir Putin, at death’s door or on the verge of being regime-changed away, and, of course, Ukraine (and, really, the West) on the cusp of winning the war. And, at the same time, of predicting that Russia will attack all of Europe, likely tomorrow. Notwithstanding occasional and intriguing anomalies, when a NATO commander (from Trump’s US, of course) lets slip a fragment of truth, such as that actually Moscow is not looking for conflict.

In short, we are speaking about the severe and very sad but also funny mental condition already well known as Russophrenia: The afflicted live with an imaginary Schroedinger’s Russia occupying their suffering minds, a Russia that is always simultaneously half-dead and yet so alive and kicking, it’s about to roll into their living room on a tank.

In that sense, the silly Independent piece is merely an almost comically perfect specimen of an absurd genre: Its whole argument boils down to “Russia is finished and that’s why it’s coming for all of us as never before.” Yet there is something special about this particular emanation of Russophrenia: it’s so easy to debunk you must wonder if its author has any relationship to or respect for empirical reality left.

Don’t believe it? See for yourself. The address and panel Q&A featuring Putin at the SPIEF are easily available online because that’s what the Office of the Russian Presidency habitually does: Publish full video records of major events in which Putin takes part, with good English dubbing too (I know because I know both Russian and English).

More importantly, you will also hear Putin give a speech that is, if anything, determinedly factual, even a touch dry, crammed with statistics and clearly carefully worked-out, balanced language. Whether you love or hate, like or dislike the man, the cornered loose cannon The Independent pretends to have spotted is pure, shameless fiction.

Likewise, Putin’s Q&A response to a disingenuous public letter by Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky was certainly not friendly (that, indeed, would be disturbingly inadequate) and, in part, deservedly caustic. But it was also calm and serious, pointing out the Kiev regime’s primitive behind-the-scenes maneuvering (never mentioned in the West, of course) and its blatant dishonesty, as well as their deadening effect on any prospects of genuinely worthwhile negotiations.

What we should really be afraid of in the West with respect to Russia is that our own so-called elites, in politics, the media, and the world of academia and expertise suffer from an apparently incurable epidemic of Russophrenia. They are cynical propagandists constantly trying to brainwash us, which is bad enough. But what is even worse is that all too many among them seem to be unable to stop believing their own nonsense, even when it’s obviously absurd. That is the only possible explanation for a major mainstream newspaper not only printing a fantasy but one so easily to see through. The West has waged information war for so long and so fiercely it has managed to defeat itself.

A 17-year-old girl has been stabbed in the neck in northwest England, just days after a brutal knife attack in Belfast sparked national outrage and anti-immigration riots.

A 30-year-old British-born man of Pakistani heritage was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder following the incident in the town of Brierfield, Lancashire Police said on Saturday. The victim is also of Pakistani heritage, according to the BBC.

Police said officers were called after receiving reports that a teenager had been stabbed on Friday afternoon.

Video footage circulating on social media purports to show the attacker walking up behind the unsuspecting girl, who had was wearing a hood, and stabbing her twice in the neck.

Lancashire Police have confirmed that a 30 year old British born man of Pakistani heritage has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a 17 year old girl was stabbed in the neck in Brierfield.

Thankfully, the victim’s injuries are not believed to be life… pic.twitter.com/IInxRbvlvt

— Claire Adams (@claire_adams694) June 13, 2026

Oliver Ryan, the MP representing Brierfield, called on people not to “exploit” the incident for clickbait.

“First and foremost, my thoughts are with the young victim of yesterday’s horrific stabbing,” he said in a statement on X on Saturday.

The attack comes at a time of heightened tensions across Britain and Northern Ireland.

The attack sparked several nights of anti-immigration riots across Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland, with multiple residential buildings, shops, and vehicles set ablaze.

The violence came amid long-running tensions over immigration and asylum policy in the UK, following multiple high-profile murder and rape cases involving migrants in recent years.

The major nuclear danger facing the Middle East originates not from Iran but from Israel, Professor Theodore Postol, a former Science and Policy Adviser on Strategic Nuclear Issues to the Chief of Naval Operations, has told RT. The expert warned that the leadership in West Jerusalem had placed the Jewish state on an increasingly perilous course.

Israel is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal, although authorities in West Jerusalem have consistently refused to either confirm or deny the allegations. The issue of Iran’s nuclear program has served as the justification for launching strikes against Iran earlier this year.

“Do not think Iran is the big nuclear threat, is the big nuclear instability in the Middle East, Israel is,” the prominent MIT physicist said during an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi, which aired on Friday.

Citing reports, the former strategic adviser to Pentagon said that Israeli military leaders have told PM Benjamin Netanyahu that they “cannot do any more,” adding that the country is suffering heavy troop losses.

Postol said he found Trump’s apparent fear of nuclear weapons somewhat reassuring, describing it as a positive trait. The expert said that Trump is “extremely horrified and afraid of nuclear weapons, which is good,” adding that he believes the head of state would be warned that any decision to use such capabilities would “open a box that none of us want to see opened.”

See the full interview below

A Russia-NATO conflict could kick off “in the relatively near future,” a report by Sweden’s Defense Committee claims. Moscow has repeatedly dismissed speculation that it could attack the US-led military bloc as “nonsense.”

The security paper, released on Friday and endorsed by the Swedish government and all parliamentary parties, brands Russia a “long-term threat” and claims that Moscow could seek to “test NATO’s cohesion and the credibility of Article 5” if it sees “favorable” political conditions. The report does not spell out what those conditions would be.

The document also claims that Moscow could engage in hostilities “even if the military balance of power does not meet traditional requirements for an attack.”

Sweden’s support for Ukraine remains a “central” pillar of its security policy, the document says. Stockholm joined NATO in 2024 after the Ukraine conflict escalated and has been one of Kiev’s most active backers. Last month, it announced plans to donate up to 16 JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets and sell Ukraine 20 more.

Like many other European NATO members, Sweden has been on a militarization spree in recent years. In 2026, the government increased the defense budget to 175 billion SEK (approximately $18.4 billion), up 18% from the previous year, pushing the expenditure to 2.8% of GDP.

Sweden has also, for more than a decade, been militarizing the island of Gotland – widely referred to as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the middle of the Baltic Sea – under the pretext of an alleged “Russia threat.” The island is located less than 300km from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave.

Russia has repeatedly dismissed speculation by Western countries that it could attack NATO as “not just nonsense, but also provocation and disinformation,” suggesting that EU countries are seeking to portray Moscow as a “model external enemy” to distract attention from internal crises.

Meanwhile, earlier this week, General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said that available intelligence suggests that “Russia is not looking for a conflict.”

A German court has ruled that Google can be held directly liable for incorrect answers generated by its AI Overview feature, potentially setting a precedent for how AI-generated content is treated under the law. Google said on Friday that it planned to appeal.

Traditionally, platforms such as Google, Facebook, and X argue they merely host or display third-party content rather than publish it, limiting their liability. They have also maintained that warnings about potential inaccuracies should shield them from responsibility for errors in AI-generated outputs.

However, this spring, judges at the Munich Regional Court were asked to rule on two lawsuits filed against the internet giant by local publishers. The companies, whose identities have not been disclosed, alleged that Google’s AI Overview feature – an AI-generated summary introduced last year that appears above traditional search results – falsely linked them to scams, subscription traps, and illegal business practices. According to the lawsuits, the AI mixed information from unrelated companies and created misleading associations that did not appear in the underlying sources.

According to a ruling published by The Decoder this week, the 26th Civil Chamber of the Munich Regional Court, which specializes in press and defamation law, issued a preliminary injunction on May 28 holding Google liable for claims generated by its AI Overviews in the cases. The judges said that, unlike a traditional search engine that displays links to third-party content, Google’s AI produces “independent, new, and substantive statements,” making the content attributable to the company itself.

The judges also dismissed Google’s claim that users understand that AI can be inaccurate and can verify information themselves, describing AI Overviews as “a self-contained statement with independently comprehensible content.”

The court ruled that as Google alone controls the algorithms behind AI Overviews, the company “must be held accountable” for false and defamatory outputs. It ordered Google to stop spreading the claims and bear 80% of the legal costs, with the plaintiffs each responsible for 10%.

Google said it disagreed with the ruling.

“We invest deeply in the quality of AI Overviews to ensure that the overwhelming majority of responses provide accurate information, and they are designed to reflect the information that exists on the web,” a company spokesperson said in a statement to the media.

On Friday, the company told Reuters it planned to appeal, arguing that the case involved “specific and narrow errors” rather than the fundamental operation of AI Overviews.

Legal experts say the decision could have implications beyond Google. If upheld, it could set a precedent by treating AI-generated summaries as publisher-like content, which would make technology companies directly liable for any harms caused by AI, analysts warn.

The EU has repeatedly targeted US tech giants such as Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft with lawsuits and regulatory actions it says are aimed at curbing monopolistic practices and enforcing privacy rules. CNBC reported in April that Meta, Google, and Apple have faced roughly $7 billion in EU fines for antitrust and privacy violations since the start of 2024.

US military forces have downed Iranian drones that were allegedly targeting commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in the early hours of Saturday. The claim comes as Tehran and Washington are seeking to finalize a deal aimed at ending months of tensions and hostilities.

The parties have been engaged in negotiations over a potential peace deal for the past two months, in an effort to end the conflict that began on February 28 with the joint US-Israeli bombing of Iran and the assassination of senior officials, including the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

“Iran launched multiple one-way attack drones in an attempt to strike commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” CENTCOM said in a post on X. “US forces have downed all of them in recent hours as traffic flow through the strait continues unimpeded.”

The US military added that the corridor remains open for transit.

The waterway, which normally carries around a quarter of the global seaborne oil and LNG trade, has largely remained closed throughout the conflict, although Tehran has allowed ships not aligned with the US or its allies safe passage. US President Donald Trump, however, has claimed that the US military has helped escort over 200 ships through the strait.

On Saturday, Reuters cited a Western source as saying that a deal could be signed by US Vice President J.D. Vance and Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, in Geneva as soon as on Sunday.

The proposed memorandum of understanding calls for reopening the strait and lifting the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, according to sources on all sides of the talks, as cited by the news agency. Negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program – cited by Trump as the justification for the war – would follow.

For the first time, the chances of the US and Iran reaching an agreement are greater than 50%, despite Iran’s lingering distrust of Washington, Tehran-based Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi told RT.

The comments come after Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said on Friday: “the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer.” In a post on X, Araghchi wrote that the framework awaits finalization, while urging the media not to speculate about the contents.

The memorandum is the working name for a proposed US-Iran framework agreement that emerged from negotiations mediated by Pakistan following talks in Islamabad in April. It reportedly includes provisions to end the war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and eventually start detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump also said he called off planned strikes on Iran after two consecutive days of bombardment, which marked the most serious escalation since a truce was announced in April.

Marandi said the prospects for an agreement are now better than ever, but added that he “wouldn’t bet on it” because the US has repeatedly proven itself untrustworthy.

Watch the full interview below.

North Korea has condemned Washington’s approval of advanced air-to-air missile sales to South Korea as “war exports,” warning the move would deepen tensions on the Korean peninsula.

In a statement carried by KCNA, a senior North Korean Foreign Ministry official accused Washington and Seoul of “systematically tightening their military collusion and nexus to drive tensions in the Korean peninsula and its vicinity to an extreme,” despite growing international concern over regional instability.

“US arms exports are war exports, and importing American weapons means accumulating tension and confrontation,” the official said, condemning what Pyongyang described as US and South Korean efforts to expand military capabilities at the expense of regional stability.

The statement followed US State Department approval of a nearly $300 million package including 70 AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles and related equipment. Washington pitched the sale as advancing US foreign policy and security objectives, though the deal remains subject to congressional review.

“In light of the provocative efforts of the US and its allies to build up their armed forces, the DPRK’s clear position is to eliminate new threats by continuously improving and strengthening its self-defense deterrent,” the official declared, warning Pyongyang will “intensify” efforts to maintain regional military parity and preserve stability on the Korean Peninsula.

The US maintains nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea, extends a nuclear umbrella over its ally, and regularly conducts joint military exercises with Seoul. Washington and Seoul describe these measures as necessary for security and deterrence.

Pyongyang views the US military presence, joint drills, and regional deployments as hostile acts and has long argued that US-South Korean military cooperation amounts to preparation for war. North Korea routinely tests and unveils new weapons, portraying its military buildup as a response to pressure from Washington and its regional allies. It describes its nuclear and missile programs as essential deterrents against foreign interference, insisting they are purely defensive and intended to safeguard sovereignty and preserve peace through strength.

The Pentagon released the third batch of declassified files on unidentified flying objects on Friday. The disclosure adds 72 reports, witness accounts, photos, and videos to an ongoing transparency effort launched under a presidential order earlier this year.

The latest release is part of what officials called a “historic transparency effort” aimed at making public government records related to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), the military’s preferred term for UFOs.

Among the newly released materials are reports describing a “potato-shaped” object observed by military personnel, recurring sightings of glowing orbs, and a CIA account of a rotating disc-like object reportedly seen above Harare International Airport in Zimbabwe in 2008.

The disclosure initiative began in May with the release of around 160 previously classified documents, photographs, and videos from agencies including the Pentagon, FBI, NASA, and the State Department. The second batch followed on May 22, containing additional footage and witness testimony.

In February, US President Donald Trump directed the Department of War to disclose “any and all information” related to UAPs. The order came amid renewed public interest in the subject, which included comments by former President Barack Obama on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Obama later said on Instagram that he did not see any evidence during his presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with Earth. Trump subsequently accused Obama of disclosing classified information and said he “made a big mistake.”

Despite the growing volume of released material, Pentagon officials maintain that the files contain no confirmed evidence of extraterrestrial life, alien technology, or a government cover-up.

The US has said it killed a notorious gang leader in a strike on his compound in Venezuela.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the operation targeting Tren de Aragua leader Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, known as Nino Guerrero, was carried out earlier this week in full coordination with the Venezuelan authorities.

Hegseth said the operation “underscores the shared US and Venezuelan commitment to take the fight to narco-terrorists and deny them any safe haven in our hemisphere.”

“Guerrero was a wanted fugitive charged by the US Department of Justice with ordering, directing, and facilitating acts of terrorism and violence in the United States,” US Southern Command chief General Francis Donovan said.

US President Donald Trump hailed the operation as part of his effort to combat violent crime in the US.

“This action was coordinated closely with our friends in Venezuela, with whom we are working very well,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Guerrero was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2018 on charges including murder, drug trafficking, identity theft, and possession of military-grade weapons, but escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 2023.

Earlier this year, the US carried out a commando raid in Caracas, abducting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were indicted by a Manhattan court on drug and firearms charges. Both pleaded not guilty, and the Venezuelan government condemned the operation as an act of aggression.

Since September 2025, US strikes on alleged cartel boats in the Caribbean have killed more than 200 people. Venezuelan and Colombian officials called the operations illegal, saying some of the victims were innocent fishermen.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz will not return to its pre-war status.

Araghchi made the remarks as the US and Iran finalize a deal to end the conflict, which began on February 28 with joint US-Israeli bombardments of Iranian territory and the assassination of senior officials, including the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

The waterway, which normally handles around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG trade, has largely remained closed throughout the war, although President Donald Trump said the US military has helped guide more than 200 ships through the strait.

“The Strait of Hormuz lies under the sovereignty of Iran and Oman. The administration of the waterway will not return to its pre-war arrangement. Iran and Oman will soon issue a joint statement outlining a new framework for the administration of the Strait of Hormuz,” Araghchi said on Friday, according to Iranian media.

Araghchi said that, under the memorandum of understanding awaiting final approval, the US would, “for the first time in 47 years,” commit to respecting Iran’s sovereignty and non-interference in its domestic affairs. The agreement would also declare an end to the conflict on all fronts, including Lebanon, he said.

He added that the memorandum would give the two sides 60 days to negotiate the fate of Iran’s nuclear program once it is signed.

Iran declared the strait closed to all ships in response to US strikes on Tuesday and Wednesday. Trump later said he called off the attack in an effort to advance peace talks, expressing confidence that an agreement could be signed as early as this weekend.

Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, was illuminated in the white, blue, and red colors of the Russian flag on Thursday in honor of Russia Day.

The public holiday commemorates the Declaration of State Sovereignty adopted by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, then part of the Soviet Union, on June 12, 1990. The Soviet Union was formally dissolved the following year in December. The current version of Russia’s tricolor flag was adopted in 1993.

People across Russia celebrate the holiday by displaying the national flag and setting off fireworks. Concerts, festivals, and exhibitions are held in cities across the country.

The United States also marked the occasion with a message published on the State Department’s website. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the country remains committed to advancing a settlement to the Ukraine conflict and hopes that “a durable peace will pave the way toward a more prosperous future for the Russian people and a more constructive relationship between our two countries.”

At least one person has been killed and 11 others wounded after a gunman went on a shooting spree in Midland, Texas, Mayor Lori Blong said in a press briefing on Friday.

“We do have 11 known victims at this time,” she said. “There’s at least one victim that is dead on the scene.”

The police have confirmed that the gunman is also dead.

Officers initially responded to reports of an active shooter in the southwestern part of the city on Friday morning, according to the Midland Police Department.

“Officers heard gunfire coming from the building and worked quickly to secure and clear the area. Armored units were deployed, and partner agencies assisted in the response,” Midland Police Chief Greg Snow said in a statement, adding that attempts had been made to resolve the “standoff with the shooter” safely.

The police department later reported that “the suspect is confirmed deceased” and that the incident was over.

A video circulating on social media purportedly shows several officers taking cover behind a police cruiser, with one leaning out to fire an assault rifle.

🚨#Breaking Ector County Sheriff Mike Griffis has confirmed an active shooter in #Midland Texas; the suspect is reportedly barricaded in a building in downtown Midland near the Tall City Vet Clinic and All American Collision and Victorian Inn in the area of Business 20 and…

— CodeThreeNews (@CodeThreeNews) June 12, 2026

Nine victims were taken to Midland Memorial Hospital, CNN reported, citing a statement from the hospital’s spokesperson.

Four Palestine Action activists convicted of causing criminal damage to an Israeli arms plant in the UK have been sentenced as terrorists due to the blacklisting of their organization. Dozens of the group’s supporters were arrested outside the courthouse as the verdicts were read out.

The defendants took part in a raid on an Elbit Systems factory near Bristol in 2024. After ramming the gate with a decommissioned prison van, they destroyed computers, drones, and other equipment inside, causing around £1.2 million ($1.6 million) in damage.

Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani, 21, were found guilty of criminal damage last month, with Corner also convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a police officer with a sledgehammer.

Handing down the sentences on Friday, Mr. Justice Johnson said that due to the “terrorist connection” of the offenses, all four would receive harsh punishment. None of the four were charged with terror-related offenses, and by sentencing them as terrorists, Johnson set a new precedent in British law.

Head and Kamio were jailed for six years, Rajwani for five years and eight months, and Corner for eight years and eight months.

Palestine Action, a protest group whose members have vandalized British military equipment and Israeli-linked sites, was declared a proscribed organization by the British government last July. The decision placed Palestine Action in the same category as Al Qaeda and the IRA, and criminalized public displays of support for the organization.

As the sentences were handed down, several hundred Palestine Action supporters protested outside Woolwich Crown Court in London. Police arrested more than 100 demonstrators for holding signs and placards endorsing the group.

There’s been 107 arrests of Palestine Action supporters outside Woolwich Crown Court here today as protesters await the sentencing of four of the Filton 25 who took direct action against Elbit Systems. Judge today said there was a “terrorist connection”. pic.twitter.com/PiyVlKgOeA

— Asa Winstanley (@AsaWinstanley) June 12, 2026

The proscription was ruled unlawful by London’s High Court in February, although the designation remains in force pending a final judgment.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is using “crude lies” to justify Washington’s continued pressure on Cuba, the island nation’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, has said following the latest round of American sanctions.

The US Department of State announced restrictions against the Cuban state oil and gas company, CUPET, on Thursday. Washington has stepped up its pressure campaign against the island nation in a bid to force a regime change, while US President Donald Trump called it a “question of time.” 

Cuba, which has been under a US embargo since 1960, also endured daily blackouts and severe fuel deficits in recent months after Venezuela – its main oil supplier – stopped crude shipments under pressure from Washington.

On Thursday, the State Department added CUPET to the sanctions list, arguing that the company’s “key assets” were “unlawfully expropriated from American owners years ago.” Rubio also said in a statement that the Cuban government had “weaponized” the energy by allegedly “hoarding” it for the military while rationing it for the general population.

Rubio – himself a descendant of Cuban immigrants who left the island several years before the revolution led by Fidel Castro – is acting on “vengeful sentiments of the elitist clique that propelled his political career,” Parrilla stated.

On Wednesday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk warned that the US sanctions on Cuba had already led to acute shortages of essential medical supplies that were causing deaths among children.

The UN official described the plight of ordinary Cubans as “unacceptable” as his office reported that infant mortality on the island had doubled after the US imposed its fuel blockage.

Russia, China, Mexico, and several other countries have been supplying Cuba with humanitarian aid. Moscow sent a shipment of around 700,000 barrels of crude oil in late March.